Principles of Structural Linguistics 9783110814316, 9789027916587

Table of contents :
Foreword
Foreword To The English Edition
Table Of Contents
Part One. Structural Linguistics: Its Object Of Study And Methods
1. The Subject Matter Of Structural Linguistics
2. The Hypothetico-Deductive Method As The Logical Basis Of Structural Linguistics
Part Two. Generative Grammars And Phonological Coding
3. The Semiotic And Linguistic Foundations Of Generative Grammars And Phonology
4. The Phrase Structure And Transformational Models
5. The Applicational Model
Results Of Investigation
Literature
Name Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

JANUA

LINGUARUM

STUDIA

MEMORIAE

N I C O L A I VAN W I J K

DEDICATA

edenda curat C. H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana

University

Series Maior,

45

PRINCIPLES OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

by

S. K. S A U M J A N

Translated from the Russian

1971

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1971 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, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

Original title: CmpyKmypna.H Jlumeucmma (Moskva, Izdatel'stvo Nauka, 1965) Translated by James Miller

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 77-134552

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

microfilm,

FOREWORD

This book systematically describes a fundamentally new theory of structural linguistics, which I call dynamic, to distinguish it from existing theories of structural linguistics, which may be called static. My suggested division of the concept 'synchrony' into the static and the dynamic serves as the basis of this dynamic theory of structural linguistics. Up till now synchrony has usually been identified with 'statics', and 'static' linguistics with structural linguistics. With this conception of synchrony and structural linguistics the latter cannot rise above the level of a classificatory, taxonomic discipline. In order to turn structural linguistics into a genuinely abstract theoretical science, capable of explaining and predicting observable linguistic facts and phenomena, its subject matter must be redefined. Structural linguistics must be considered as dealing with the dynamic aspect of synchrony. In this book the following definition of structural linguistics is proposed: structural linguistics is the science of the dynamic aspect of synchrony. Structural linguistics is opposed to taxonomic linguistics, which I define as the science of the static aspect of synchrony. As the reader will see, this new definition inevitably entails fundamentally important consequences as regards reinterpreting the tasks of structural linguistics. In the light of this definition structural linguistics must be treated as a special, abstract linguistic discipline whose basic content is the theory of generative grammars. As for phonology, it is included in structural linguistics as an auxiliary discipline in relation to the theory of generative grammars. In this book phonological concepts are considered from the viewpoint of general semiotics, and then only in connection with the theory of generative grammars. A systematic exposition of phonology does not come within the scope of this book. The reader who wishes to acquaint himself with a systematic description of my two-level theory of phonology may turn to my book, Problems of Theoretical Phonology (Moscow, 1962), of which the English translation appeared in 1968 (The Hague, Mouton). Corresponding with the programme mapped out, this book consists of two parts. The subject matter and methods of structural linguistics, interpreted here as a dynamic

6

FOREWORD

theory, are examined in the first part. The second is devoted to generative grammars and phonological coding. The second part of the book deals mainly with a detailed description of the applicational generative model, since this model seems the most adequate for a dynamic theory of structural linguistics. The applicational generative model was first proposed in my article, "A generative linguistic model based on the two-level theory" (Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 1963, No. 2). This book gives a new description of the applicational generative model which represents a development and extension of the ideas set out in my last publication, "Transformational grammar and the applicational generative model" (in The Transformational Method in Structural Linguistics, Moscow, 1964.) While considering the present book the summation of many years' work in structural linguistics, I do not, of course, claim to have solved once for all the basic problems of this scientific discipline. The decisive test of this theory's worth must be its systematic application in abstract linguistic studies, in actual structural-typological description of the world's languages, and finally in the construction of machine languages for automatic translation, information retrieval, and solving the other linguistic problems of cybernetics. In the preparation of this book I was greatly helped by P. A. Soboleva, to whom I express my deepest gratitude. I would also thank I. V. Al'tman, V. A. Vinogradov, E. L. Ginzburg, and all others who took part in preparing the manuscript for publication and compiling the indexes.

FOREWORD TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

This English edition is partly a translation of my book Structural Linguistics which was published in Russian by the Nauka Publishing House, Moscow in 1965. However, Chapter 5, which deals with the applicational generative model and constitutes more than half the book, has been almost completely rewritten and enlarged specially for the English edition. It now includes the latest results of my investigations concerned with further development of the formal apparatus of the applicational generative model. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to P. A. Soboleva for her valuable assistance in the writing both of the earlier and the new versions of my book. I also wish to thank James Miller, who has coped with the difficult task of translating the work. I am grateful to Professor John Lyons, who read the English typescript, and to Dr. E. Mateson, Bernard Comrie and Nicholas Brown, who read the proofs, for useful suggestions which have improved the text.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

5

Foreword to the English Edition

7 PART O N E

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS: ITS OBJECT OF S T U D Y A N D M E T H O D S

1. The Subject Matter of Structural Linguistics 1.1 The Concept of Linguistic Structure 1.2 The Need for Redefining the Subject Matter of Structural Linguistics: Structural Linguistics as the Science of the Dynamic Aspect of Synchrony 1.3 Structural and Taxonomic Linguistics 1.4 Structural Linguistics and the Typology of Languages 1.5 Structural and Historical Linguistics 1.6 Structural Linguistics and the Theory of Machine Translation . . . . 1.7 The Theoretical and Practical Importance of Structural Linguistics . .

13 13 15 18 24 28 30 35

2. The Hypothetico-Deductive Method as the Logical Basis of Structural Linguistics 2.1 The Logical Characterization of the Hypothetico-Deductive Method . 2.2 Theory and Model 2.3 The Concept 'Model' in Linguistics

39 39 52 64

PART T W O GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL C O D I N G

3. The Semiotic and Linguistic Foundations of Generative Grammars and Phonology 3.1 The Semiotic Two-Stratum Structure of Natural Languages and the System of Fundamental Phonological Concepts 3.2 The Consequences of the Two-Stratum Semiotic Structure of Natural

69 69

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Languages and the Two-Level Principle for the Construction of Generative Grammars The Two-Level Theory of Generative Grammars Phonological Coding The Concept of a Grammatical Phrase Syntactic and Semantic Definitions of Grammatical Concepts . . . . The Theory of Generative Grammars and Operational Research . . . On the Verifiability of Theoretical Propositions The Role of Mathematics

4. The Phrase Structure and Transformational Models 4.1 Introductory Remarks 4.2 The Basic Concepts 4.3 The Formal Characteristics of the Phrase Structure Model 4.4 Some Limitations of the Phrase Structure Model 4.5 The Transformational Model 4.6 The Phrase Structure and Transformational Models as Types of Concatenative Generative Grammars

74 78 81 85 96 106 110 114 118 118 119 124 126 129 133

5. The Applicational Model 5.1 Preliminary Remarks 5.2 The Logical Characteristics of Abstract Derivational Systems 5.3 Virtual and Actual Calculus of Semions 5.4 Relator Grammar and the Relator Language 5.5 Interpretation of the Relator Language and Some Processes of Phrase Generation 5.6 Derivation of Phrases by Replacement of Variables 5.7 The Transformational-Field Generator 5.8 On the Empirical Interpretation of the T-Generator 5.9 The Formalization of Grammatical Synonymy 5.10 The Applicational Model and the Problem of Correlations Between Language and Thought 5.11 The Applicational Model as a Possible Meta-language in Structural Typology 5.12 Foundations of Phenotype Grammar 5.13 Concluding Remarks

143 143 144 155 158 170 189 201 252 273

Results of Investigation

337

Literature

343

Name Index

348

Subject Index

350

301 306 310 323

PART ONE

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS: ITS OBJECT OF STUDY AND METHODS

1

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

1.1 THE CONCEPT O F LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE

Having in mind the decisive role of relations in language, de Saussure wrote "in a language-state everything depends on relations". 1 Considering that the essential feature of language is the network of relations between sounds and meanings which gives structure to the phonetic and semantic substance, he proposed the following definition: "langue is a form and not a substance". 2 Later on, instead of the term 'form' which de Saussure employed, the term 'structure' became widely used; it is to this term that structural linguistics owes its name. Finally, the terms 'structure' and 'structural linguistics' established themselves in linguistics after the appearance of Brandal's article "Structural Linguistics". 3 In Hjelmslev's writings we find a clear definition of the term 'structure' corresponding to de Saussure's understanding of ' f o r m ' : "Structure is an independent entity with inner relations." The term 'structure' denotes not simply a set of elements but a whole, formed from elements interconnected in such a way that each depends on the other and can be what it is only because of its relations with other elements. The so-called 'theory of forms' is based on this interpretation. The theory of form (or of forms) considers phenomena not simply as the sum of elements which must be isolated, analyzed, split up, but as connected sets which form independent units, characterized by inner relations and obeying their own laws. From this it follows that the properties of each element depend on the structure of the whole and on the laws governing that whole. Without the whole an element does not exist either psychologically or physiologically. An element is neither more immediate nor earlier than the whole. Knowledge of the whole and its laws cannot be deduced from knowledge about the separate parts forming that whole.4 1 F. de Saussure, "Course in General Linguistics", translated by Wade Baskin (New York, McGrawHill, 1966). 2 Ibid., p. 122. 3 V. Brandal, "Linguistique structurale", Acta Linguistica, I, Fase. I (1939). 4 Louis Hjelmslev, "Dans quelle mesure les significations des mots peuvent-elles etre considérées comme formant une structure?", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1958).

14

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

Following on from this definition of structure, Hjelmslev characterizes structural linguistics thus: By 'structural linguistics' should be understood a set of investigations which start from the hypothesis that the description of language as a structure is scientifically true (the term 'structure' has the meaning given above). Let us emphasize once again the hypothetical nature of structural linguistics.6 It is clear from Hjelmslev's definition just cited that he understands structure, as far as the investigation of language is concerned, as a definite, hypothetical construct, a network of inner dependencies and relations characterizing the essence of language. Such an interpretation of structure agrees with that found in contemporary logic of science, where we meet, for example, the following characterization of structure : ... how can we even suppose the existence of things which are in principle unobservable? The answer is that in these hypotheses we suppose only the existence of a set of things having a certain structure which can be expressed in the language of mathematics. The sense in which the word 'structure' is used here can best be understood from an example. A tune which is heard and a musical score which is seen may be said to have the same logical structure although they are sensibly very different. That structure might conceivably be expounded to a person who had neither hearing nor sight but only touch.... How can hypotheses of this kind explain laws about observable things? If the hypotheses contained no reference to the world of common sense it would, of course, be impossible to explain laws about observables by their help. The hypotheses are, however, doubly general propositions (universal and existential) of such forms as : 'Wherever light of such and such a colour (i.e. a perceptual object) occurs, there is a wave process of such-and-such a wave-length, and vice-versa.' They are introduced for the purpose of explaining laws, and, however abstruse they may become in the course of development, they must always remain attached in this way to the world of perceptual objects if they are to achieve their purpose.® Contemporary logic of science demands that in each theoretical discipline two levels of abstraction be strictly distinguished: the level of observation and the level of constructs. On the level of observation we deal with directly observable objects, properties, and relations, which are usually called elementary. Constructs are objects, properties, and relations which are not directly observable. Constructs are linked with the level of observation by means of so-called rules of correspondence. 7 5 Ibid. ' W. Kneale, "Probability and Induction" (Oxford, 1949), reproduced in: H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (eds.) Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953), pp. 93, 94. ' The following must be said concerning the term 'level of observation'. 'Level of observation' must not be understood in a psychological but in a logical sense, i.e., as the body of initial facts of a science which are being theoretically explained. The question as to what is observed by us and what is not will always cause argument if it is approached from a psychological standpoint. But on the logical plane the concept 'level of observation' is absolutely unambiguous. What is referred to is those facts which within the framework of a given scientific discipline are defined as observed and serve by definition as the empirical basis of the science. Therefore, along with the term 'level of observation' it is possible to use such terms as 'protocol basis of a science' or 'empirical basis of a science'.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

15

I n c o n t e m p o r a r y logic of science t h e c o n c e p t of s t r u c t u r e is a c o n s t r u c t . In spite of t h e v a r i o u s d i r e c t i o n s in w h i c h m o d e r n s t r u c t u r a l linguistics h a s d e v e l o p e d , it s e e m s t h a t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e as a c o n s t r u c t m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d as g e n e r a l l y accepted.

E v e n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of linguistic s c h o o l s w h o s e m e t h o d o l o g i e s differ

s h a r p l y agree in i n t e r p r e t i n g s t r u c t u r e as a c o n s t r u c t . As a n e x a m p l e w e c a n i n d i c a t e h o w H j e l m s l e v ' s a n d H a r r i s ' p o i n t s of view c o i n c i d e .

T h e following statement by

H a r r i s , in w h i c h h e cites C a r n a p , is typical : In defining elements for each language, the linguist relates them to the physiological activities or sound waves of speech, not by describing these in detail or by reproducing them instrumentally, but by uniquely identifying the elements with them. A n d in a f o o t n o t e : It is widely recognized that forbidding complexities would attend any attempt to construct in one science a detailed description and investigation of all the regularities of a language. Cf. Rudolf Carnap, Logical Syntax of Language 8 : "Direct analysis of (languages) must fail just as a physicist would be frustrated were he f r o m the outset to attempt to relate his laws to natural things — trees, etc. (He) relates his laws to the simplest of constructed forms — thin straight levers, punctiform mass, etc." Linguists meet this problem differently than d o C a r n a p and his school. Whereas the logicians have avoided the analysis of existing languages, linguists study them; but, instead of taking parts of the actual speech occurrences as their elements, they set u p very simple elements which are merely associated with features of speech occurrences. 8 W e c a n m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y of s t r u c t u r a l linguists u n d e r s t a n d , explicitly o r implicitly, t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e of l a n g u a g e is a h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t b e l o n g i n g t o t h e level of c o n s t r u c t s .

1.2 THE NEED FOR REDEFINING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS: STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS AS THE SCIENCE OF THE DYNAMIC ASPECT OF SYNCHRONY T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t r u c t u r e of l a n g u a g e as a h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t , a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e general m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e in c o n t e m p o r a r y logic of science, is very f r u i t f u l , since it g u a r a n t e e s s t r u c t u r a l linguistics t h e s t a t u s of a scientific discipline w h i c h is n o t c o n f i n e d t o d e s c r i b i n g linguistic f a c t s g a t h e r e d by direct o b s e r v a t i o n b u t w h i c h e x p l a i n s these facts b y revealing t h e i n n e r l i n k s a n d d e p e n d e n c i e s h i d d e n f r o m direct o b s e r v a t i o n .

M e a n w h i l e , in spite of its g r e a t a c h i e v e m e n t s , t h e

p r e s e n t s t a t e of s t r u c t u r a l linguistics c a n n o t b e r e g a r d e d as s a t i s f a c t o r y w i t h respect t o t h e d e m a n d s m a d e o n a t h e o r e t i c a l discipline w h i c h h a s set itself t h e t a s k n o t o n l y of d e s c r i b i n g b u t a l s o of e x p l a i n i n g t h e f a c t s u n d e r investigation.

I n spite of its g r e a t

a c h i e v e m e n t s , s t r u c t u r a l linguistics so f a r h a s n o t risen a b o v e t h e level of a descriptive 8

Z. Harris, Structural Linguistics (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 16.

16

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

science. Not for nothing is 'descriptive linguistics' the synonym of 'structural linguistics' in America. What has gone wrong? Why has the correct interpretation of structure, which forms the basis of most schools and tendencies in contemporary structural linguistics, failed to turn structural linguistics into a genuinely explanatory linguistic discipline as one might have expected? Before answering this question, it is perhaps useful to remember de Saussure's words : "It is often easier to discover a truth, than to assign to it its proper place" 9 . The interpretation of structure as a hypothesis concerning the inner dependencies of language has so far not turned structural linguistics into an explanatory science, apparently because the following fundamental contradiction has escaped the scholars' attention : on one hand the structure of language is considered as a hypothesis about the inner dependencies of language; and on the other, structural linguistics is identified with 'static' linguistics. 'Structural linguistics', 'static linguistics', 'synchronic linguistics', 'descriptive linguistics' have all been considered up till now as synonyms (in particular, the identification of 'synchronic linguistics' and 'static linguistics' goes back to de Saussure). 10 The question arises: how can one speak about studying the inner dependencies of language if one identifies structural linguistics with static linguistics? Obviously, in order that the theory of structure accepted in contemporary structural linguistics may become really fruitful, the problem of the subject matter of structural linguistics must be re-examined. In contemporary linguistic science the opinion that the study of processes in language belongs only to historical linguistics has been widely accepted, and therefore the explanatory science is considered none other than historical linguistics, i.e., diachronic linguistics, which is opposed to structural linguistics, the descriptive science. However, linguistic processes are not only diachronic but synchronic. It is not usual to speak of synchronic linguistic processes, because they are hidden from direct observation, in contradistinction to diachronic linguistic processes. But it is just those synchronic linguistic processes which form the inner structure of language, the investigation of which should turn structural linguistics into a genuinely explanatory science. Until now synchronic studies have been identified with statics — and diachronic with dynamics — in language. But synchronic study itself must include both statics and dynamics. Synchronic statics and dynamics form, so to speak, two levels in language: statics includes the network of taxonomic relations in language (by 'taxonomic' I mean the relations between the elements of language which can be investigated by taxonomic, i.e., classificatory, methods); and dynamics — the network of inner relations in language, connected with the laws for generating linguistic units of all ranks from the simplest primitive element of language. * 10

F. de Saussure, op. cit., p. 68. F. de Saussure, op. cit., p. 81.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

17

De Saussure proposed the following schema of linguistic planes: 1 1

{

[Synchrony

Speaking In accordance with the present approach we will change the schema thus : [Synchrony { S t a t i c s (Human) Speech | s pe i^ki^i^ i ^ ' a c ' i r o n y t

^nam'cs

In connection with the given schema, now that the concept of synchrony has been split into statics and dynamics, it is expedient to split the concept of structure, too, into structure proper and quasi-structure. I shall call linguistic structure the network of linguistic relations relating to the dynamics of synchrony, and quasi-structure the network of linguistic relations relating to the statics of synchrony.12 After splitting up these concepts, we must redefine the subject matter of structural linguistics. The subject matter of structural linguistics is the dynamic aspect of synchrony. Structural linguistics is the science of the dynamic aspect of synchrony. I oppose structural linguistics to taxonomic linguistics, which I define thus: taxonomic linguistics is the science of the static aspect of synchrony. As synonyms of 'taxonomic linguistics' suitable terms would be 'static linguistics' and 'descriptive linguistics'. I should like to conclude this section with some remarks about the term 'the subject matter of a science'. From what has just been said it is clear that structural and taxonomic linguistics are different linguistic disciplines inasmuch as they investigate different things. The former deals with the dynamic aspect of synchrony, the latter with the static aspect. In connection with this we must remember that the term 'subject matter of a science' has two different meanings, which must be strictly distinguished and not confused with each other. Firstly, it denotes the empirical object of study. Secondly, it denotes the specific object of study. If we take the term in its first meaning, 11

F. de Saussure, op. cit., p. 98. The prefix 'Quasi-' in the term 'Quasi structure' is used by analogy with the use of this prefix in mathematical terms, for example in 'quasi order', 'quasi group', etc. In such cases the prefix 'quasi' denotes a relaxing of the requirements made of the concept. Thus, if it is required of the concept 'structure' that it be the network of precisely the deep relations in language, then the depth requirement is removed from the concept of quasi structure, which is considered as a simple network of relations in language. It is interesting to compare the above definition of the concept of structure with the interpretation of form in Humboldt's linguistic theory. Of course, one must guard against modernizing Humboldt's ideas, which are not directly and logically connected with the dynamic theory of structural linguistics developed in this book. Nonetheless, the dynamic theory of structural linguistics is in some degree akin in spirit to Humboldt's conception of language as activity — ε ν ε ρ γ ε ί α , and not a thing — έ ρ γ ο ν . In connection with Humboldt's linguistic theory I refer the reader to Ramisvili's interesting dissertation. (G. V. RamiSvili, "Nekotorye voprosy lingvisticeskoj teorii V. Gumbol'dta", Avtoreferat kandidatskoj dissertacii (Tbilisi, I960)). 14

18

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

then, of course, all linguistic sciences have one object of study — language, taken as an undivided, global, empirical given. When we said above that structural and taxonomic linguistics have different objects of study, we had in mind the second meaning of the term, i.e., as denoting the specific object of study. It must also be emphasized that in all the theoretical sciences the differentiation of scientific disciplines is always linked with the second meaning of the term.

1.3 STRUCTURAL A N D TAXONOMIC LINGUISTICS

A comparison of structural and taxonomic linguistics will allow us to explain by examples the essential character of both scientific disciplines. In order to study the dynamic aspect of synchrony a grammar must be represented as a hypothetical generative device. For describing the static aspect of synchrony we must construct a taxonomic, i.e., a classificatory system. For this reason structural linguistics deals with generative grammars, while taxonomic linguistics deals with classificatory systems. There is no need to pay particular attention to the construction of classificatory systems, but the following explanations may be given concerning a generative device. In each generative device the following three components must be distinguished: (1) A set of elementary grammatical objects from which complex grammatical objects are generated (2) A set of operations which apply to the elementary grammatical objects and serve to generate the complex grammatical objects (3) A set of structural specifications which are given to each complex grammatical object generated (in this way a hierarchy of generated, complex, grammatical objects is set up). One can give a more concrete description of a generative device by comparing it to a Meccano set. Three components may be distinguished in a Meccano set: (1) the set of initial parts from which definite objects are constructed; (2) instructions showing which operations are used in constructing objects from the initial parts; (3) diagrams, i.e., structural specifications of the constructed objects. In order to characterize generative devices from the standpoint of the logic of constructing scientific systems it would be useful to examine the concept of a generative device in the light of two contrasting methods in mathematics — the genetic (or constructive) and the axiomatic. Here is what Kleene writes about these methods: Systems of objects are introduced in mathematics under two contrasting methods or points of view.... The genetic or constructive method is illustrated by the inductive definition of the natural numbers.... There we conceived of the natural numbers as being generated or constructed in a certain orderly manner. (This did not prevent our treating them abstractly.) In the axiomatic or postulational method, on the other hand, some propositions, called axioms or postulates, are put down at the outset as assumptions or conditions on a system

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

19

S of objects. The consequences of the axioms are then developed as a theory about any existing system S of objects which satisfies the axioms.13 To Kleene's statement just cited we shall add the following description of the contrast between the genetic and axiomatic methods : With the axiomatic method the set of objects in relation to which the theory is constructed is not taken as given. What is taken as given is a certain system of statements describing a certain set of objects and a system of logical operations on the statements of the theory. The genetic approach takes as its starting point certain given objects and a certain system of permissible operations on the objects. In the genetic theory the process of reasoning is represented as mental experimentation with objects which are taken as actually given.14 Connected with the application of the genetic or constructive method is the specific situation in logic which is characterized as follows by Sanin: Mathematical investigations of constructively defined objects are sometimes carried out using the concepts and methods of set theory, consequently, on the basis of abstractions characteristic of set-theory as applied in mathematics. In connection with this we must point out that using the system of abstractions characteristic of the set-theory approach to examine constructively defined objects, we lose sight of the objects' basic feature, which is that they are not all given at once in a set (we exclude these cases when the results of applying given rules produce constructively some complete finite set of objects) but are only potentially realized one after the other as some or other construction processes are revealed. Consideration of these features leads to a peculiar logical situation which demands a special constructive interpretation of the logical links used for forming judgments about constructively defined objects.15 Keeping in mind the description just cited of the genetic method as opposed to the axiomatic method, we can add the following logical definition to our previous linguistic description of a generative device: "a generative device is a mathematical system based on the genetic method." Each generative device can be transformed into a so-called recognition device. By recognition devices we mean generative devices used for analyzing actual utterances. A recognition device assigns each actual utterance its generative formula. Thus the analysis of a clause becomes an indication of how it was synthesized. Therefore a description of recognition devices contains nothing fundamentally new on the theoretical level in comparison with a description of generative devices, and when examining theoretical problems it is sufficient to concentrate on the investigation of generative devices as such, without being sidetracked to a description of how generating devices are used as recognition devices. As far as that is concerned, in this book we are going to investigate only various types of generative devices. Such, in general outline, is the logical characterization of generative devices. 13

S. C. Kleene, Introduction to Metamathemotics (Amsterdam and Groningen, 1952), p. 26. V. A. Smirnov, "GenetiCeskij metod postroenija naucnoj teorii", in: Fitosofskie voprosy sovremennoj formaVnoj logiki (Moscow, 1962), p. 269. 16 N . A. Santn, "O nekotoryx logiceskix problemax arifmetiki", Trudy matematiceskogo Instituía imeni V. A. Steklova (Moscow, "Nauka", 1955), p. 4. 14

20

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

Further on we shall examine certain important aspects of generative devices from the point of view of methodology. Let us consider for a moment the place of phonology in structural linguistics, understood as the science of the dynamic aspect of synchrony. In relation to generative grammar, phonology should be considered an auxiliary discipline whose task is to work out methods of coding the global signs with which generative grammar operates. What is important for generative grammar in itself is linguistic units taken independently of their phonological structure. However, since signs in natural languages are divided into phonological components, structural linguistics should deal with the phonological components of signs in order to be an adequate theory of natural languages. On the phonological, as on the grammatical, level taxonomic and structural linguistics are faced with different tasks. For taxonomic linguistics the problem is to describe the phonological system in itself, while structural linguistics must examine the phonological system as a means of coding the units used in generative grammar. If we consider structural linguistics within the system of modern sciences, it may be treated as the linguistic branch of cybernetics. In order to justify the statement, let us take a look at the subject matter of cybernetics, the essential features of which are the following. There are three main types of machines: (1) machines which transform one form of energy into another (e.g., steam engines, gas turbines); (2) machines which change the properties and positions of objects on which work is being performed (e.g., looms, lathes, vehicles); (3) machines which transform information from one form into another (machines which can be used for working up the results of scientific and technological experiments, for the automatic data processing of scientific literature, for automatic translation from one language to another, and for other purposes). The last type of machine also comes into the sphere of cybernetics, though it must be emphasized that cybernetics does not deal with the concrete form of such machines but with highly general abstract systems. "Cybernetics", writes Kolmogorov, "deals with any kind of systems capable of recognizing, retaining, and processing information and using it for control and regulation purposes." 16 Starting from this general notion of abstract cybernetic machines, we may consider the sign-system of any language as a variety of cybernetic machine, changing one type of linguistic information into another. From this it is clear that structural linguistics must be considered the linguistic branch of cybernetics. Generative devices have as their input information about a finite number of linguistic objects (morphemes) and information about the rules for generating new linguistic objects (words and phrases) from these initial objects. After a finite num16

A. N. Kolmogorov, foreword to Ashby, Introduction to cybernetics, 1959), p. 8.

Russian translation (Moscow

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

21

ber of steps a generative device produces as its output grammatically correct words and phrases and provides them with structural descriptions. The input of recognition models (which, as has already been said, are simply generative devices used for analyzing utterances) consists of information about a finite number of permissible utterances in a language. After a finite number of steps the recognition model produces as its output information about the method of generating each utterance from the primitive, elementary components. In the interests of terminological clarity the present section can well be concluded by contrasting some terms which I use for denoting certain fundamental concepts with analogous terms found in the writings of other linguists. Jakobson speaks about the statics and dynamics of synchrony. But his distinction between statics and dynamics is different from that in the dynamic theory of structural linguistics. Let us consider the following statement by Jakobson: We have avoided the current label, 'synchronic typology'. If for the modern physicist the 'peculiar interplay of quasi-permanent identity and random temporal change appears to be a most fundamental feature of nature', likewise in language 'statics' and 'sychrony' do not coincide. Any change originally belongs to linguistic synchrony: both the old and new variety co-occur at the same time in the same speech community as more archaic and more fashionable respectively, one pertaining to the more explicit and the other to the more elliptic style, to two subcodes of the same convertible code. Each subcode in itself is for the given moment a stationary system governed by rigid structural laws, while the interplay of these partial systems exhibits the flexible dynamic laws of transition from one such system to another. 17 From this statement it is clear that the terms 'statics' and 'dynamics' are required by Jakobson to emphasize that each linguistic change relates primarily to synchrony. Statics is characteristic of separate subcodes (styles of language) taken in isolation, whereas dynamics is the interaction of subcodes which causes linguistic evolution. Such an approach to the evolution of language is important, and investigating the interaction of subcodes is one of the basic tasks of linguistic science to which the concepts 'statics and dynamics of linguistic synchrony' examined above are unrelated. For Jakobson the contrast between statics and dynamics is connected with the contrast between the investigation of separate subcodes of languages and of the interaction of subcodes, whereas in the present book the contrast between statics and dynamics is connected with the contrast between grammars which are fundamentally different from each other: taxonomic and generative grammars. Chomsky uses the term 'taxonomic'. However, he uses this term not for contrasting the study of two levels of synchrony — static and dynamic, nor for contrasting descriptive and generative grammars, but for contrasting non-transformational and transformational grammars. For example, this is clear from the following statement by Chomsky : 17 R. Jakobson, "Typological Studies and Their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1958), pp. 22-23.

22

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

In the background of the discussion below there will be two conflicting models of generative grammar. The first — which I will call the taxonomic model—is a direct outgrowth of modern structural linguistics. The second — which I will call the transformational model — is much closer to traditional grammar. 18 With this contrast Chomsky links the lesser and greater explanatory power of both types of model. However, it is essential to distinguish two problems: (1) the problem of the fundamental distinction between the two levels of synchrony — the static and dynamic — and the related distinction between two types of grammars — nongenerative (descriptive, classificatory, taxonomic) and generative; (2) the problem of choosing the most adequate types of generative grammar. These problems are not kept apart by Chomsky who uses 'taxonomic' only for types of generative grammar less adequate than the transformational, which blurs the fundamental difference between the static level of synchrony (the level of nongenerative grammars) and the dynamic level (the level of generative grammars). One also objects to Chomsky's considering the transformational type of generative grammar as outside the bounds of structural linguistics. Of course, if one identifies structural with descriptive linguistics the transformational type of generative grammar (just like other types of generative grammar), certainly has no relation to structural linguistics, but if one means by structural linguistics the study of the dynamic aspect of synchrony then structural linguistics must deal only with generative grammars, including the transformational type. In the first section of this chapter it was mentioned that the overwhelming majority of structural linguists either explicitly or implicitly accept the need for separating the level of constructs and the level of observation. In this connection the term 'twolevel' theory applied to my phonological theory 19 may seem trivial, since once the need for distinguishing the levels of constructs and observation has been recognized, it follows that each phonological theory must be two-level. However, in reality it turns out that it is one thing to recognize two levels of abstraction as a theoretical principle and another thing to deduce from this theoretical principle the necessary consequences which ensure that the two levels of abstraction actually are kept apart in linguistic research. I use the term 'two-level theory of phonology' to emphasize that in this theory the two levels of abstraction are consistently distinguished in the actual investigation of language. To make clear the difference between actual and purely terminological differentiation of the two levels of abstraction, let us compare the two-level theory of phonology with Pike's phonological theory. In Pike's phonological theory two levels of abstraction are also distinguished, called by Pike the etic and emic levels. From this it would appear that there is no essential difference between the two theories of phonology. However, let us ask one question : how is the invariance principle treated in each theory? 18

N. Chomsky, "The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (The Hague, Mouton and Co., 1964), p. 916. " S. K. Saumjan, Problemy teoreticeskoj fonologii (Moscow, 1962).

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

23

This question is vital. After all, the central problem of each science is that of invariance. One can maintain that progress in any field of science is essentially linked with a deepening of our knowledge about invariants. Explaining the relation of sounds and phonemes, Pike writes: "Topologically — same sounds are members of the same phoneme in spite of etic distortion." 20 From this it follows that a phoneme is the invariant of a class of sounds, which are its variants. Since a phoneme is the invariant of a class of sounds, it is possible for Pike to speak of various ways of pronouncing one or other phoneme. Thus he writes: "The phoneme /b/, for instance, differs slightly before /o/ (note lips already pursed for the vowel) from what it does before /i/ (note the high tongue position for the vowel formed while the /b/ is being pronounced)." 21 Thus, the phoneme as an invariant relates to the emic level, but sounds as its variants relate to the etic level. But in principle phoneme and sound are phenomena of one order. It is exactly because of this that Pike can talk of various ways of pronouncing one and the same phoneme. In reality sound and phoneme are heterogeneous objects. Therefore a phoneme can be neither an invariant nor the name of a class of sounds, and sounds can be neither the variants of phonemes nor members of a class called a phoneme. The variants of a phoneme are not sounds but also phonemes. The variants of a phoneme are not sounds but individual phonemes. Phonemes are constructs, and as constructs they cannot be pronounced. It is not phonemes that are pronounced but their physical substrata, i.e., phonemoids. Starting from the interpretation of phoneme and sound as heterogeneous objects, the invariance problem is posed separately for the two levels of abstraction in the two-level theory of phonology. To show how the invariance problem must be posed separately for the level of observation and the level of constructs let us take an example from Ancient Greek. In Ancient Greek two concrete phonemes can be distinguished : Si (before consonants, in clusters like spr, sp, sm) and s2 (after plosives and before vowels in the clusters ps, ks). The phoneme i , was realised in the phonemoid s>, and the phoneme s2 in the phonemoid (the diacritics > and < denote implosive and explosive pronunciation). If on the level of constructs must be considered the phoneme-invariant on functional criteria, and s2 a variant of the phoneme slt then on the level of observation the invariant should be considered not the phonemoid s* but the phonemoid s b e c a u s e from the physical point of view the position of explosive pronunciation must be considered more independent. We see that in the two-level theory of phonology there is no mutual one-one correspondence between phonemeinvariants and phoneme-variants on the one hand, and phonemoid-invariants and phoneme-variants on the other. In actual fact the phonemoid-invariant sK is the sub20

K. L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, 2nd Revised Edition (The Hague, Mouton and Co., 1967), p. 312. 81 Ibid.

24

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

stratum of the phoneme-variant s2, while phonemoid-variant s> is the substratum of phoneme-invariant J!. On the level of constructs, classes of identical concrete phonemes are formed by the operation of generating variants from the invariants of the given phoneme. In order to make clearer the co-relation the phoneme-invariant and phoneme-variants, let us use the logical concept of inheritance. In symbolic logic the concept of inheritance is defined by the formula : Inheritable (A, R) = DefXxVy [(A(x) · R{x,y)) -> A(y)]. This formula is read thus: for any χ and any y, if χ has the property A, and χ is in the relation R to y, then y inherits the property A from x. Let us substitute s¡ for χ and s2 for y, and let A be the set of distinctive features characterizing su and R the relation "is the ancestor of" (i.e., is the object from which another object is generated). Then this formula will show that the given set of distinctive features is inherited by phoneme s2 from phoneme Sj. In this way the phoneme-invariant and phoneme-variants make up a genealogical class formed by definite rules of generation. The requirement that heterogeneous invariants be distinguished on the level of observation and the level of constructs is the corner stone of the two-level theory of phonology. I call this requirement the principle of hetero-invariance. To distinguish the two-level theory of phonology from other phonological theories in which the differentiation of two levels of abstraction is purely terminological and does not change the relational-physical character of these phonological theories, it is expedient to call the two-level theory the hetero-invariance theory of phonology.

1.4 STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS A N D THE TYPOLOGY OF LANGUAGES

In the preceding sections it has been shown that at the present stage in the development of structural linguistics it has become necessary to reformulate the aims of structural linguistics and redefine its subject matter. It was proposed that structural linguistics be treated as the science of the dynamic aspect of synchrony. Corresponding to this, structural linguistics was opposed to taxonomic linguistics, defined as the science of the static aspect of synchrony. The proposed definition of the subject matter of structural linguistics introduces radical changes in the content of structural linguistics as a scientific discipline. In connection with this there may be doubts as to whether it is valid to reformulate the goals of a scientific discipline in such a radical way. To these doubts it may be replied that, as shown by the history of science, at a definite stage in the development of one or another science the need always arises for radically reformulating the aim of the given science. For example, here is what Toulmin writes about physics : One is at first inclined to suppose that the physical sciences have a definite goal, the same for

25

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

Aristotle, Newton, Laplace, Maxwell, and Einstein, but a closer look at the history of the subject will show the mistakenness of this idea. Rather there is at any given stage a standard of what sorts of things require explaining: this is something with which Scientists grow familiar in the course of their training, but which is hardly ever stated. The standard accepted at any time determines the horizon of physicists' ambitions at that time, the goal which for them would have been reached if 'everything' — i.e. everything thought of as requiring explanation — had been found a place in the theories of physics. In physics, as in travelling, the horizon shifts as we go along. With the development of new theories new problems are thrown into prominence, ways are seen of fitting into physical theory things which before had hardly been regarded as matters requiring a place at all: the horizon accordingly expands. Classical physics, for instance, was thought of as potentially exhaustive. Yet, looking back at it, we must feel that nineteenth-century standards of exhaustiveness were strangely unexacting. The existence of ninety-two elementary kinds of matter, their relative abundance, and the colour of the light emitted by each element: these things, to mention only a few, were hardly even asked about. They were not things to be explained but things to which, in a phrase of Dr. Waismann's, 'one had to take off one's hat'. Perhaps this is why the claim of some classical physicists, that they had the explanations of everything in principle in their grasp, was peculiarly distasteful. For what was repugnant was not just the fact that the theories advanced were so bare a n d mechanical but, quite as much, the fact that their idea of what it would be to have explained everything was so much smaller than life. On the whole, then, the horizon of physics expands. F r o m time to time, however, the ideal changes in a way which cannot be described so simply, and these are occasions when disputes of a philosophical kind frequently arise. In the change-over f r o m Aristotelion to Newtonion dynamics, for example, certain phenomena which were previously regarded as 'natural' and taken for granted, such as carts stopping when the horses ceased to pull and heavy bodies falling to the ground, came to be thought of as complex phenomena needing explanation: in these respects the horizon expanded. But at the same time certain other phenomena, which had until then been regarded as complex and in need of explanation, were reclassified as simple, natural and to be taken for granted; notably, the continued flight of an arrow after it had left the bow, and the unfaltering motion of the planets along their tracks. 2 2 A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the relation of s t r u c t u r a l to t a x o n o m i c linguistics in the p r e c e d i n g section, let us deal with its r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r linguistic disciplines. In this section we will e x a m i n e its r e l a t i o n t o l a n g u a g e - t y p o l o g y .

Language-

t y p o l o g y deals with universal linguistic categories. A t t e m p t s h a v e been m a d e a n d a r e still b e i n g m a d e , t o find universal linguistic categories inductively, i.e., b y generalizing f r o m the observed e m p i r i c a l facts in a c t u a l l a n g u a g e s . T h e s e a t t e m p t s a t inductively c o n s t r u c t i n g a t y p o l o g y of l a n g u a g e s h a v e been criticized b y a n u m b e r of scholars. H e r e , f o r e x a m p l e , is w h a t H j e l m s l e v w r i t e s : In its typical form this linguistics ascends, in its formation of concepts, f r o m the individual sounds to the phonemes (classes of sounds), f r o m the individual phonemes to the categories of phonemes, f r o m the various individual meanings to the general or basic meanings, and f r o m these to the categories of meanings. In linguistics we usually call this method of procedure inductive. It may be defined briefly as a progression f r o m segment to class, not "

S. Toulmin, Philosophy of Science (London, 1967), p. 105.

26

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

from class to segment. It is a synthetic, not an analytic, movement, a generalizing, not a specifying, method. Experience alone is sufficient to demonstrate the obvious shortcomings of this method. It inevitably leads to the abstraction of concepts which are then hypostatized as real. This realism (in the mediaeval sense) of the word fails to yield a useful basis of comparison, since the concepts thus obtained are not general and are therefore not generalizable beyond a single language in an individual stage. All our inherited terminology suffers from this unsuccessful realism. The inductively obtained class concepts of grammar, such as "genitive", "perfect", "subjunctive", "passive", afford striking examples of this fact. None of them, as used till now, is susceptible of general definition : genitive, perfect, subjunctive, and passive are quite different things in one language, Latin for example, from what they are in another, say Greek. The same is true, without any exception, of the remaining concepts of conventional linguistics. In this field, therefore, induction leads from fluctuation, not to constant but to accident.23 It is interesting to compare the following statement by Bar-Hillel concerning the problem of searching for universal linguistic categories with Hjelmslev's words just quoted : I regard this problem as one that is not to be settled completely by empirical observation· I do not think that the question "Are there universal syntactic categories?" is similar to the question "Are there dogs with tails longer than two yards?" I would consider it as being rather of the kind: "Is our universe Euclidean?" Whereas the second question should be answerable, in principle and waiving certain methodological complications, by a simple "yes" or "no," it is different with the third question. Here we have a curious mixture of a question of a purely empirical nature with one of worthwhileness. There is always an undertone of "Is it worthwhile to apply Euclidean geometry in physics and what would be the price to be paid for using this convenient geometry?" in such a question, at least for sophisticated physicists. Similarly, there is for me in the question of the existence of universal syntactic categories the very noticeable undertone, "Is it worthwhile to impose certain syntactic categories upon all languages and what would be the price to be paid for this?" That it would be an advantage, for many purposes, to have a common set of linguistic categories need hardly be stressed. But would not this advantage be counterbalanced by the disadvantages which might enter as a consequence of the establishment of a universal category-system?24 Since the inductive search for universal linguistic categories is proving unsuccessful, certain scholars have been led to reject in theory the possibility of constructing systems of such categories. For these scholars, whose number includes Hjelmslev, typological studies become simply an explanation of the general principles underlying the structure of any language. The result of such an approach is that the difference between structural linguistics and language typology becomes blurred. However, structural linguistics and language typology are different linguistic disciplines. If inductive methods prove unsuccessful in constructing a typology of languages this is no reason for rejecting language typology as a separate linguistic discipline. 23 L. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (= Memoir of the International Journal of American Linguistics). Translated by Francis J. Whitfield (Baltimore, Naverley Press Inc., 1953), pp. 6-7. 21 Y. Bar-Hillel, "Some Linguistic Problems Connected with Machine Translation", Philosophy of Science, XX., No. 3 (1953), p. 224.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF S T R U C T U R A L LINGUISTICS

27

The problem is finding really effective methods of constructing such a typology. The logical basis of these methods should be the hypothetico-deductive method, about which more will be said in Chapter Two. Just now I will confine myself to indicating the fundamental linguistic concept which should be the the basis of language typology as a separate linguistic discipline. To carry out an effective typological comparison of the world's languages, we must have a unit of measurement for such a comparison. This unit of measurement should be the abstract standard-language created by structural linguistics. 25 As an ideal standard-language we could use some form of generative grammar. Acceptance of one or another system of generative grammar as a standard-language will make it possible to define various types of linguistic structure by characterizing the transformations needed for passing from the standard-language to concrete languages. On this plane the standard-language should be treated as the hypothetical invariant of the world's languages. It is understood that, insofar as any standard-language can be considered no more than a hypothesis about the invariant basis of the world's languages, it is necessary in the interests of typological research to use as far as possible the most varied hypotheses in order to choose the most effective. It would therefore be most useful to pursue a broad range of typological research based on different standard-languages. It follows from what has just been said that the boundaries between structural linguistics and language typology may be defined as follows. Structural linguistics is an abstract discipline which investigates the general principles of linguistic structure and constructs various types of generative grammars as abstract linguistic mechanisms. Language typology is a discipline which aims at systematizing the structural types among the actual languages of the world. Language typology can do this by using as standard-languages generative grammars constructed by structural linguistics. 26 Structural linguistics and language typology are different linguistic disciplines which at the same time are closely related: Structural linguistics, which provides language typology with generative grammars as standard-languages, serves as its theoretical ,δ On the concept of a standard language see: B. A. Uspenskij, Principy strukturnoj tipologii (Moscow, 1962); S. K. Saumjan and P. A. Soboleva, Applikativnajaporozdajuscaja model'i iscislenie transformad] ν russkom jazyke. 28 In suggesting generative grammars as standard-languages I am taking as my starting point the above interpretation of what structura! linguistics investigates. Other points of view concerning the type of standard-language are quite possible, and there are correspondingly other approaches to defining the goals of language-typology. Among the most interesting treatments, in which the reader will find various explanations of the fundamental problems of language typology at its present stage of development, the following may be indicated: R. Jakobson, "Typological Studies and Their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics", in Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1958); V. V. Ivanov, "Tipologija i sravnitel'no-istoriceskoe jazykoznanie", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, No. 5 (1959); B. A. Uspenskij, Principy strukturnoj tipologii (Moscow, 1962); J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language (Cambridge, Mass, 1963); M. I. Burlakova, T. M. Nikolaeva, D. M. Segal, V. N. Toporov, "Strukturnaja tipologija i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie", in Strukturno-tipologiceskie issledovanija (Moscow, 1962).

28

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

basis. Language typology, using standard-languages as units for a systematic comparison of the world's actual languages, serves as a field in which the effectiveness of these generative grammars may be tested by experiment. Thus language typology is one of the most important areas in which the results of structural linguistics may be experimentally tested. Guided by structural linguistics, language typology, in Jakobson's words, discloses laws of implication which underlie the phonological and apparently the morphological structure of languages: the presence of A implies the presence (or on the contrary the absence) of B. In this way we detect in the languages of the world uniformities or nearuniformities, as the anthropologists used to say.27 To these words by Jakobson it may be added that as more and more successful generative grammars are developed, syntax will occupy an important place in language typology along with phonology and morphology, and in time will obviously be of the utmost importance in typological studies.

1.5 STRUCTURAL AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS

Structural linguistics is a synchronic discipline. However, the methods of structural linguistics can be applied to the history of a language by means of so-called internal reconstruction, inasmuch as this involves stratifying the system of a language into several systems, one of which is taken as the oldest and the others as transformations of the oldest system, i.e., as systems generated from the oldest system by applying the necessary operations to it. V. V. Ivanov writes: To transformational analysis in synchronic linguistics corresponds internal reconstruction in diachronic linguistics. Internal reconstruction involves splitting a system into fragments, some of which are recognised as older than others. The latter may be considered the result of a transformation of the old fragment. Thus reduplicated words in Japanese may be divided into two classes: words with pure reduplication (like yamayama (mountains), cf. yama (mountain)) and reduplicated words which are phonetically more complex (like hitobito (people), cf. hito (person)). Assuming for simplicity of description that the class of words with pure reduplication is more archaic we can use this assumption as the basis for a series of hypotheses concerning phonetic transformations which took place in the history of Japanese (in particular about the development of h from an initial labial plosive). It turns out that the similarity of the operations used by synchronic and diachronic linguistics extends to the sequence in which these operations are applied. Internal reconstruction carried out within the framework of a given system should precede the comparison of the most ancient fragments of this system with the most ancient fragments of another related system (thus, in the example quoted the Japanese words with pure reduplication can be correlated with analogous Indonesian words). In just the same way the analysis of transformations within particular languages should precede the analysis of transformations embracing several languages. Consequently, in both synchronic and diachronic linguistics 27

R. Jakobson, op. cit., p. 20.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

29

the comparison of various systems is preceded by a comparison of the fragments of one system.28 It should be emphasized that it is on the results of structural study of the synchronic facts of a language that internal reconstruction is based. Thus, in his article on the methods of internal reconstruction, Kurytowicz says that the term 'internal reconstruction' serves "to denote the diachronic conclusions that may be drawn from a synchronic analysis of linguistic data without or before having recourse to comparison, linguistic geography and 'areal linguistics', and glottochronology". 2 9 For diachronic linguistics the concept of 'transformation' is very promising. V. N. Toporov writes: Perhaps the question concerning the possibility and usefulness of applying the concept of linguistic transformation in diachronic linguistics is especially vital. In particular, it has still to be decided what right we have to make deductions about chronological order from the existence of transforms (cf. Bergson on the compatibility of logical and chronological sequence in hypotheses about transformism in the evolution of science). Nevertheless, it is obvious how fruitful the application of this concept is in historical linguistics. It is probably especially successful in the study of a series of related languages which have sprung from one initial language. In such a case, the appearance (or disappearance) of each new transform may be regarded as a "step" in the development of each language (in other words, as a unit of time.) With certain restrictions, the same holds for other studies (for example, the study of language unions). Therefore in historical linguistics the difference between periods may be specifically defined by the difference in the transformational possibilities of one and the same unit. On the other hand, the history of each linguistic unit may be represented as a series of changing sets of transformations. The problem of transformations takes on an essentially new look if attention is paid to the moments of transition from one état de langue to another (in diachronic linguistics, unfortunately, everything is often reduced to a succession of synchronic strata with no account taken of the transition periods). In such a case it becomes possible to talk about the transformations of one or another linguistic element, or system of elements, in time. Since the choice of possible transformations for each given system is rather limited, divergences in this respect among related languages must be recognized as very revealing. Consideration of such transformations in time, and their classification, cannot fail to influence the construction of typological systems now being developed. 30 Language changes not only in time but in space. According to the classification proposed by R. I. Avanesov four types of system may be distinguished in connection with linguistic change in time and space: (1) linguistic system with time and space excluded ('monochronic, monotopic linguistic system'); (2) linguistic system with time excluded and space included ('monochronic, polytopic'); (3) linguistic system 28 V. V. Ivanov, "Lingvistika kak tcorija otnosenij mezdu jazykovymi sistemami i ee sovremennye prakticeskie prilozenija", in Lingvistiieskie issledovanija po maiinnomu perevodu, 2nd issue (Moscow, 1961), pp. 12-13. ía J. Kurylowicz, "On the methods of internal reconstruction", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (The Hague, Mouton and Co., 1964), p. 9. 39 V. N . Toporov, "O granicax primenenija transformacionnogo metoda", Tezisy dokladov na konferencii po strukturnoj lingvistike, posvjaüíennoj problemam transformacionnogo metoda (Moscow, 1961), pp. 5-6.

30

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

with time included and space excluded ('polychronic, monotopic'); (4) linguistic system with both time and space included ('polychronic, polytopic'). The last two linguistic systems relate to linguistic history, i.e., the 'polychronic, monotopic' and 'polychronic, polytopic'. From this it follows that diachronic dialectology should be included in historical linguistics. Structural diachronic dialectology should be guided by structural synchronic dialectology. In structural synchronic dialectology topological invariants are revealed, called by Avanesov 'linguistic macrosystems'. The task of structural diachronic dialectology is to study the changes in time undergone by linguistic macrosystems. O n the structural plane this means none other than a systematic study of 'chronotopological' linguistic invariants. 31 1.6 S T R U C T U R A L L I N G U I S T I C S A N D T H E T H E O R Y O F M A C H I N E T R A N S L A T I O N

Machine-translation theory is a new branch of applied linguistics which is developing at a furious pace. The aim of machine translation is to describe linguistic facts in the form of rules, with the help of which a text in one language can be converted into an equivalent text in another language. The language which is being translated is called the input language, and the language into which the translation is being made is called the target language. Corresponding to this distinction people talk about input and output texts. In the translation process two stages are distinguished : analysis and synthesis. All the grammatical and lexical data which express clearly and unambiguously the meaning of a text in the source language are extracted when the latter is analyzed. On the basis of the grammatical and lexical data obtained by analysis, a text equivalent in meaning to the initial text may be put together in the target language. The compiling of a text according to analysis data is called synthesis. The set of ordered rules for analyzing the input text is called the analysis algorithm, and the set of ordered rules for synthesizing the output text is called the synthesis algorithm. 32 The theory of machine translation is a branch of applied studies which is important not only for solving the problem of automatic translation from one language to another, but for opening up wider horizons. Mel'cuk writes: M.T. is not considered an end in itself, but the first stage in solving a more general problem — that of 'teaching' electronic machines a whole series of operations using speech, including editing, reviewing, looking up bibliographical and other references from a text, etc.83 31

See R. I. Avanesov, "Opisatel'naja dialektologija jazyka", V Mezdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov. Doklady soretskoj delegacii ( M o s c o w , 1963). 32 A good explanation of the basic problems of machine translation theory can be found in I. A. Mel'cuk's article "Maäinnyj perevod i lingvistika". See in: O. S. Akhmanova, I. A. Mel'öuk, E. V. Paduceva, R. M. Frumkina, O tocnyx metodax issledovanija jazyka (Moscow, 1961) and the literature cited there. See also: 1.1. Revzin, V. Ju. Rozencvejg, Osnovy obscego i masinnogoperevoda (Moscow, 1964); P. Garvin (ed.), Natural Language and the Computer (New York, 1963). 33 I. A. Mel'cuk, op. cit., p. 43.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

31

With the development of machine-translation theory a theoretical basis for this applied branch of linguistics has become necessary. Since only a formal theory of language can serve as the theoretical basis for machine-translation theory, structural linguistics has naturally turned out to be this basis. The situation has arisen in which structural linguistics and machine-translation theory have begun to be considered as connected theoretical and applied branches of linguistics. In this connection we must examine certain questions concerning the mutual relationship of structural linguistics and machine-translation theory. Before doing this let us take a look at the concept of synthesis in structural linguistics and in machine translation theory. In structural linguistics by synthesis or generation is meant, not the generation of an actual text according to given meanings, but the generation of complex grammatical objects from primitive (initial) grammatical objects by applying the necessary operations to the latter. In structural linguistics the term 'generate' is applied in a special sense, borrowed from mathematical logic, and must be strictly distinguished from the term 'produce'. Here is what Lees writes about the term 'generate' as used in structural linguistics: Here, as in other work on linguistics, the term 'generate' is used. This special concept is often confused with the term 'produce', with unfortunate results. The notion of generation is used here in its mathematical sense, as a synonym of enumeration, choice by means of a certain rule. For example, we can assert that the function y =2x defined on the set of natural numbers generates the set of even numbers. Note, however, that we cannot assert that the function produces these numbers. Moreover, we cannot say with certainty that such an assertion has meaning. The function reflects the rule, the effective procedure for computing or enumerating the members of the set of even numbers, which is : "choose a number, multiply it by two, and give the answer as a result". It is obvious that the process is eifective since multiplication is a purely mechanical, phased process which is defined for all natural numbers. Finally, any even number is the result of one such computation. When it is said that the minimal requirement made of the grammar of a language is that it should at least generate all the sentences of that language, what is meant is only that an adequate grammar should in every case indicate a method of mechanically computing all the sentences of the language without recourse to intuition or further considerations. It is in this way that linguistics replaces the speaker's intuition of grammatical form with an explanatory theory of the sentence which can be reproduced. It is important to emphasize that the grammar in no way produces the sentences generated by it. In order to produce sentences exactly as speakers do, the grammar would have to be supplemented not only with an output device for synthesizing sounds but also with some input-device which would transmit signals allowing it to generate and pronounce the sentences of a language in a certain predetermined or desired order. The problem is that a human being speaking a given language not only generates sentences (to be more exact, the grammar generates sentences and not the speaker himself), i.e. the speaker not only knows which sequences are sentences of his language but can also choose individual sentences from the total set, and it is exactly these individual sentences which express what he wants to say. A grammar generating the total set of sentences simultaneously does not order these sentences in any known way. So that it could choose sentences one after the other in a definite order, say according to the meaning of these sentences, a grammar would have to be supple-

32

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

merited with a device which would complement it externally and would certainly be more complex than any grammar. Thus we see that a human being who produces and chooses sentences in a desired order seemingly retains in his memory not only the grammar of his language but some very important and independent device which transmits starting signals to the grammar, using in some unknown way the meanings of the sentences which will be produced. Let us note in passing (although it is not directly connected with the subject of this article) that the study of language and grammars in no measure implies that the hearer of a sentence uses a grammar in any way different from the speaker's. The production and understanding of sentences are certainly very different actions. However, there are no grounds for supposing that these sentences have not one but several grammars. We do not know how the hearer and speaker use this grammar for doing these things. In any case the form of the grammar itself in no way depends on the specific features of the system of denotation and recognition. A grammar is a function which is used in special conditions for generating a set of sentences.34 Thus in structural linguistics the term 'generate' is a synonym of the term 'enumerate by means of some rule'. In machine-translation theory, generation means the generation of an actual text according to a given meaning, which is obtained beforehand from the initial analyzed text. Thus in machine-translation theory the term 'generate' is none other than a synonym of the term 'produce', and it is this which is the reason for strictly distinguishing structural linguistics and machine-translation theory as fundamentally different areas of research, although they are at the same time related. Structural linguistics is to machine-translation theory as mathematical logic is to computational mathematics. As is well known, the latter are also fundamentally different, although closely connected. In connection with de Saussure's distinction of langue and parole, it may be asserted that structural linguistics deals with langue as such, and machine-translation theory with the realization of langue in parole. Structural linguistics puts at the disposal of machine-translation theory an abstract calculus of all possible grammatical objects, arranged in hierarchical order from simple to complex. Using a given abstract calculus for generating all possible grammatical objects, machine-translation theory can construct algorithms for synthesizing actual texts according to given meanings. Inasmuch as analysis is the reverse of synthesis, the given calculus, correspondingly reformulated, may also be used by machine-translation theory to construct algorithms for analyzing texts in the input language. Synthesis as applied in structural linguistics and synthesis as applied in machinetranslation theory are processes relating to different levels of abstraction. At the same time these levels of abstraction are closely linked. Therefore machine-translation theory can use the results obtained by structural linguistics to construct algorithms for analysis and synthesis, and structural linguistics in turn can profit by the experience of machine-translation theory to perfect its generative devices. If structural linguistics is the theoretical basis for machine-translation theory, then the latter may in a certain sense be considered the experimental basis for structural linguistics. Mel'cuk writes: 31

R. B. Lees, "O vozmoznostjax proverki lingvisticeskix polozenij", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, (1962), p. 54.

N. 4,

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

33

If the task of linguistics is to describe language as a device which generates speech, then MT is striving to embody this description in algorithms, which are realized on existing electronic machines. It is in this way that MT provides linguistics with the experimental basis it so badly needs. As MT proceeds, the description of linguistic facts is verified and made exact, and at the same time the very method of linguistic description is perfected. In this lies the value of MT for linguistics. MT specialists must in their turn use the linguistic descriptions provided by linguistics. Thus, linguistics and MT cannot develop successfully without one another, without a constant exchange of results and pooling of experience.86 When noting the close, mutual link between structural linguistics and machinetranslation theory, we must at the same time emphasize that structural linguistics can be of real use to machine translation only if it does not get involved with the narrowly utilitarian problems of machine translation but follows the only possible path for any theoretical science, the development of which should be determined by the inner logic of the facts being investigated. The experience of the history of science teaches us that theoretical investigations were of most help to practical research when they did not become involved with narrowly utilitarian aims. In this connection it is interesting to quote Timirjazev's words : In spite of the absence of a narrowly utilitarian tendency in modern science, the latter, simply because it is developing freely, without heeding the precepts of practical-minded know-alls and moralists, is more than ever a source of practical, common-sense applications. The astonishing development of technology which dazzles superficial observers, who are ready to consider it the most outstanding feature of the nineteenth century, is only a result — which is not realized by everybody — of the obvious, unprecedented development of science itself, free of any utilitarian chains. Striking proof of this is the development of chemistry, which used to be alchemy and iatrochemistry, at the service of mining industry and pharmacy. It was not until the nineteenth century, the "century of science", that it became simply chemistry, i.e. a pure science, and appeared as the source of innumerable applications in medicine, in technology, in mineralogy, and threw light on physics and even astronomy which stood higher in the hierarchy of sciences, and on younger branches of knowledge, for instance physiology, which may be said to have arisen only in this century.3' In another place Timirjazev writes : The question is not whether scientists and science should serve their society and mankind. Such a question cannot be. The question is this: which is the shortest and surest path to this goal. Should a scientist follow the precepts of practical-minded know-alls and of shortsighted moralists, or should he remain unperturbed by their orders and cries and follow the only possible path, determined by the inner logic of facts and controlled by the development of science? Should he obstinately but uselessly rack his brains over a complex phenomenon which, although of great practical importance, has not yet been analyzed by science, or should he concentrate his powers on a phenomenon, seemingly far removed from the needs of science, but the explanation of which provides the key to a whole series of pracxical problems? Nobody will deny that even science has its trifles, its at times empty amusements, on which idle people exercise their virtuosity. Far from it — like any power it has its flatterers who swarm round it and its parasites which fasten on to it. Of course, neither common 36

"

I. A. Mel'iuk, op. cit., p. 41. K. A. Timirjazev, Soéinenija, VIII (Moscow, 1939), p. 17.

34

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

sense know-alls nor short-sighted moralists are fit to understand this. In any case, the criterion of a genuine science is not the exterior of immediate, limited usefulness behind which the agents of pseudo-science hide most successfully, without labor having their parodies recognized as of practical and even of State importance.37 With these extracts from Timirjazev it is interesting to compare the following words of de Broglie : Great discoveries, even those made by scientists who did not have any practical application in mind and dealt exclusively with the theoretical solutions of problems, soon found an application in technology. When Planck was discovering the quantum nature of light and emission, and writing for the first time the formula which now bears his name, he was naturally not thinking at all of lighting technology. But he did not doubt that the immense mental effort he expended would allow us to understand and foresee a large number of phenomena, which would speedily and in ever growing number be used by lighting technology. I had a similar experience. In 1923, when I arrived rather unexpectedly at the basic ideas of wave mechanics, I was simply trying to penetrate the mysterious duality of the corpuscular and wave character of light and matter. I was extremely astonished when I saw that the ideas I had developed very quickly found concrete applications in the technique of electron diffraction and electron microscopy.38 It follows from what has just been said that there can be no direct parallelism between the development of a theoretical science and the development of an applied science. Very often time is needed for the practical realization of some or other important discoveries of a theoretical science; and on the other hand, not all the practical achievements of applied science mean a deepening of our ideas about the nature of the facts being investigated and the phenomena of reality. In connection with this it is essential strictly to distinguish and not to confuse with each other the theoretical and applied problems of scientific research. We must have a clear idea of the fundamental difference between the theoretical and applied levels of scientific research, in spite of the fact that, as was said above, these two levels are closely linked. Concerning the necessity for having a clear idea of the fundamental difference between the theoretical investigations of structural linguistics and the applied investigations of machine-translation, Halle has written the following: MT is fundamentally an engineering problem. Since important laws of natural science have often been discovered in the solution of engineering problems, linguists are well advised to follow developments in MT. Yet progress in MT does not necessarily imply progress in linguistics. From the fact that an engineering design works one cannot conclude that nature works in the same way. A functioning device cannot even be taken as conclusive evidence that its designer had a sound understanding of the nature of the phenomena he was manipulating, for lack of such understanding has not always been a hindrance to the construction of highly practical and successful devices.39 As a summary of what has been written, the following may be asserted: structural "

K. A. Timirjazev, Socinenija, V (Moscow, 1939), pp. 223-224. L. de Broglie, Sur les sentiers de la science (Paris, 1960), pp. 84-85. 39 M. Halle, Review of Materialy po masinnomu perevodu, 1, ed. by Ν. Andreev (Leningrad, 1958). In Language, XXXVI, No. 1 (1960), p. 113. 38

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

35

linguistics and machine translation theory are different, although closely related, scientific disciplines. The connection between these scientific disciplines can be really fruitful only if the fundamental difference between the theoretical and applied problems of scientific research is clearly understood, and correspondingly, if the specific problems of structural linguistics and machine-translation theory are clearly differentiated. 1.7 THE THEORETICAL A N D PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

In the preceding sections we have examined the relationship of structural linguistics to taxonomic linguistics, linguistic typology, historical linguistics, machine-translation theory, and have shown that structural linguistics is of great importance for these branches of modern linguistics. But structural linguistics is not important for these particular branches alone. There is still a whole series of other theoretical and applied branches of scientific research for which contact with structural linguistics is vital. In connection with this we could well take a general look at the theoretical and practical importance of structural linguistics, taking into account what was said in previous sections about its importance. The theoretical and practical importance of structural linguistics may be understood in the light of the fact that the generating devices with which structural linguistics deals are basic abstract codes with which the codes of all the other sciences can be correlated. Thus the results obtained by structural linguistics should be the basis of research into the linguistic problems of cybernetics in all other branches of science. Let us examine more closely the contacts of structural linguistics with the other sciences from the point of view of the linguistic problems in cybernetics. First of all it must be noted that, thanks to the concept of an abstract code, structural linguistics comes within the scope of a more general science — semiotics. The concept of a code throws a bridge between structural linguistics and information theory. As has already been said in the previous section, structural linguistics is the theoretical basis for the development of automatic translation. The central problem of machine-translation theory is the creation of an intermediary language, which is none other than a universal code used for translating from one language to another. The experience of structural linguistics in creating abstract codes is very important for the creation of an intermediary language. A translating machine cannot understand the meanings of the words and grammatical categories in the text being translated. Therefore, to make it possible to carry out translation from one language to another, the meanings must be coded as purely formal symbols and instructions about purely formal operations on these symbols. Thus a translating machine can work only on the basis of a completely formalized version of the text to be translated. The problem of building translating machines involves the problem of writing

36

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

manuals on the translation of scientific texts from an unknown language into one's native language. The theoretical possibility of writing such manuals has been proved by the successes of machine-translation. By a corresponding formalization of the dictionary and grammatical elements the stage can be reached where the reader will translate purely mechanically from an unknown language into his own, without any distortion of meaning. The first such experiment has already been done. In Hungary the Hungarian linguist Gabor has published a book, The International Key to Translationi.40 This translation key has been designed for six European languages: English, German, French, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. The problems connected with such manuals are discussed in Mel'óuk's article, "On the question of manuals for translating scientific texts from an unknown or little-known language into one's own". 41 The problems arising in the theory of information-retrieval machines are analogous to the problems of structural linguistics, inasmuch as the basis of information retrieval is the coding of all information by means of a small number of basic concepts — a type of distinctive features by which all other concepts are defined. In this way, all concepts are expressed as various combinations of the basic concepts, analogous to the bundles of distinctive features in structural linguistics. From this it follows that the experience of structural linguistics is important for developing the theory of information-retrieval machines. 42 Structural linguistics is the theoretical basis for work on the problem of automatically recording human speech (the building of automatic stenographers), on the problem of building automatic reading machines, on the problem of controlling industrial and military machines by voice. Phonology should play a decisive role in working out these problems. The contact of structural linguistics with neurology is important. Thanks to the use it is making of the results obtained by structural linguistics, progress should be expected in research on the mechanism of aphasia. It is interesting to see the contact of structural linguistics and so-called games theory, which, as is well known, is a mathematical communication theory. It is finding ever wider application in research on the structure of military operations and economic processes (on the basis of games theory several models of machines have already been constructed, which may be considered the first step on the road to creating machines capable of appraising a military situation and determining the best tactics; communicative models unite games theory and structural linguistics). Let us also point out the connection between the problems of structural linguistics and cryptography and cryptoanalysis, i.e., with the problems of encoding and decoding secret codes. Comparison of the methods of solving problems in each of these 40

See M. Gabor, Nemzetközi forditókules (Budapest, 1957). I. A. Mel'cuk, "K voprosu o posobii po perevodu naucno-texniceskix tekstov s nerzakomogo ili maloznakomogo jazyka na rodnoj" in Tetrodi perevodcika I, M.G.P.I.I.Ja., No. 3 (1960). 42 See V. V. Ivanov, "Lingvisticeskie voprosy sozdanija maSinnogo jazyka dlja informacionnoj masiny", Materialy po malinnomu perevodu, I (Leningrad, 1958). 41

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

37

disciplines shows that there exist definite principles which are identical for both. 43 We have examined the subject matter of structural linguistics and the link between structural linguistics and other areas of knowledge. Let us now compare structural linguistics with traditional linguistics and show what the rise of structural linguistics means for linguistics in general. From the standpoint of the inner logic of the development of science the rise of structural linguistics denotes a revolution which has transformed linguistics from an empirical, descriptive science into an exact science. In the form of structural linguistics general linguistics joins the family of exact sciences, which includes, for example, physics, chemistry, biology. These latter also experienced a similar revolution before turning from empirical and descriptive into exact sciences. Like the other exact sciences, structural linguistics uses mathematical methods of research. The application of mathematical methods of research to the study of language by no means does away with the problems of studying language as a social phenomenon. On the contrary, it is just the application of mathematical methods which offers good prospects of deepening our knowledge about language as a social phenomenon. The crux of the problem is that deeper knowledge about language as a social phenomenon is impossible unless various levels of abstraction have first been demarcated. Only after investigating the formal framework of language can we obtain the necessary basis for analyzing the essence of language as a social phenomenon by interpreting the formal framework through the corresponding data of history, archaeology, and anthropology. Study of the formal framework of language also creates the necessary basis for explaining how language and thought are correlated. Language and thought are continuously connected, but not identical. In order explicitly to study the mutual relations holding between language and thought, we must first clearly demarcate language and thought as two qualitatively different planes, and only then proceed to explain their mutual relations. Structural linguistics clearly distinguishes linguistic and logical aspects in the grammatical mechanism of language, concentrates on the linguistic aspects, and in this way reveals the specific nature of language. Thanks to the fact that structural linguistics is revealing the specific nature of language, it is becoming possible to study the relations between language and thought. When we say that the rise of structural linguistics was a revolution in linguistics this in no way means that structural linguistics rejects the positive results obtained by traditional linguistics. On the contrary, all the factual material amassed by the latter remains valid today. What we are doing is reinterpreting this material from a new, structural point of view. Moreover, the synchronic and diachronic descriptive studies of languages which traditional linguistics carried out and is still carrying out should be continued within the framework of taxonomic linguistics. All we are trying " Of the literature on the application of structural methods to the decoding of ancient texts, the following may be indicated: V. V. âevoroskin, Issledovanijapo desifrovke karijskix nadpisej (Moscow, "Nauka", 1966); Ju. V. Knorozov, Pis'mennost' indejcev majja (Moscow-Leningrad, 1963), and by the same, Predvaritel'nye soobscenija o desifrovke kidarískoj pis'mennosti (Moscow, 1964).

38

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

to do is replace empirical notions of language by a strictly scientific theory which allows us to understand the essence of language and opens up new horizons for both theoretical and practical studies : The development of linguistics is a new confirmation of the generally accepted principle, that revolution in a science does not exclude continuity in the development of that science. Structural linguistics stands at the very beginning of its journey. Its future undoubtedly contains unexpected possibilities of development, which are difficult to foresee at present and may in their importance exceed our boldest expectations.

2

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD AS THE LOGICAL BASIS OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

2.1 THE LOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION O F THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE M E T H O D

According to their subject matter all sciences are divided into two classes: (1) the empirical sciences, and (2) the mathematical sciences. Each empirical science has as its object of study some sphere of reality. As far as the mathematical sciences are concerned, their object of study is not some sphere of reality but definite types of relations which relate to the whole of reality (for example, mathematics studies numbers, sets, curves, planes, figures, etc.).1 The contrast drawn between the empirical and mathematical sciences is linked with a contrast in the methods used in these sciences. The logical basis of the mathematical sciences is the deductive method (the application of induction in the mathematical sciences is of only auxiliary, heuristic importance). As for the empirical sciences, the method used depends on how far a science has developed. If an empirical science has developed only to the descriptive, classificatory stage it uses the inductive method, but if it has developed from the descriptive to the explanatory, i.e., theoretical stage it uses the so-called hypothetico-deductive method. The hypothetico-deductive method is the logical basis of all the modern, theoretical empirical sciences, including, for example, physics, biology, chemistry. 2 Just like the latter, structural linguistics is a 1

The interpretation of the mathematical sciences as having their objects of study is called ontological. Along with the ontological exists the so-called methodological interpretation of the mathematical sciences. In this interpretation the mathematical sciences do not have special objects of study but are simply various methodological disciplines, each of which is devoted to the development of one or another group of mathematical methods. Cf. T. Kotarbiñski, Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnoj imetodologii nauk, Wyd. II (Wroclaw, Warszawa, Kraków, 1961), pp. 370-380. The contrast of empirical and mathematical sciences still holds with the methodological interpretation of the latter. 2 The term 'theoretical empirical science' is completely valid if, as is accepted in modern methodology of science, 'empirical' is understood as contrasted with 'mathematical'. From this point of view all non-mathematical sciences are empirical sciences. But since empirical sciences can be at various stages of development then, naturally, empirical sciences are divided into descriptive empirical sciences and theoretical empirical sciences. This use of 'empirical' must not be confused with its use as a word derived from 'empiricism'. The latter denotes a school of philosophy which accepts experience as the only source of knowledge and denies the value of scientific abstractions.

40

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

theoretical empirical science. Therefore, the hypothetico-deductive method should be the logical basis of structural linguistics as well. However, up until now other points of view concerning method in structural linguistics have been widespread. Some consider the deductive method basic in structural linguistics, and thus, without any good reason, assign structural linguistics to the mathematical disciplines. Others, on the contrary, consider that structural linguistics should use the inductive method, and thus lower structural linguistics to the level of the descriptive, classificatory, empirical sciences. If we want structural linguistics to develop as a genuinely theoretical empirical science we must insist that structural linguistics make systematic use of the hypotheticodeductive method. 3 Since the hypothetico-deductive method is of fundamental importance for structural linguistics, it would be useful to consider its essential features in detail, paying special attention to those aspects of the method which are most interesting in connection with the problems studied by structural linguistics. The hypothetico-deductive method consists of constructing and using for cognitive purposes a deductive system of hypotheses, from which assertions about empirical facts may be deduced. A deductive system of hypotheses has a hierarchic structure. In this system are distinguished various levels on which hypotheses are placed. On the highest level are hypotheses which serve only as premises for all the other hypotheses of the deductive system. On the lowest level are hypotheses which serve only as consequences in the deductive system. On the levels in between are hypotheses which serve as the consequences of higher-level hypotheses and as the premises of lower-level hypotheses. As an example let us consider the three-level deductive system of hypotheses given by Braithwaite. 4 On the upper level the given deductive system has only one hypothesis : I. Every-body near the earth, freely falling towards the Earth, falls with an acceleration of 32 feet per second. From this hypothesis follows the hypothesis: II. Every-body starting from rest and freely falling towards the Earth falls 16 t2 feet in t seconds, whatever number t may be. From [the second-level hypothesis] follows the infinite set of [third-level] hypothesis : Ilia. Every-body starting from rest and freely falling for 1 second towards the Earth falls a distance of 16 feet. Illb. Every-body starting from rest and freely falling for 2 seconds towards the Earth falls a distance of 64 feet. And so on. Here we have a three-level deductive system of hypotheses arranged in descending or* As far as I know, the hypothetico-deductive method has up until now not been proposed anywhere as the logical basis of structural linguistics. The proposal that the hypothetico-deductive method be regarded as the logical basis of structural linguistics was first announced in my book Problems of Theoretical Phonology (Moscow, 1962). 1 Cf. R. B. Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation (New York, 1960), pp. 12-21.

THE H Y P O T H E T I C O - D E D U C T I V E METHOD

41

der of generality. On the first level is the most general hypothesis. T o the second level belongs a more specific hypothesis which follows logically from the first-level hypothesis. Finally, to the third level belong the least general hypotheses, following from the second-level hypothesis. On all the levels the hypotheses have an empirical nature. The third-level hypothesis I l i a is verified by applying it to a particular case. A body is allowed to fall freely from a given height and the distance it falls in one second is measured. If it turns out that the distance fallen equals 16 feet, the hypothesis is confirmed, but if it turns out that the distance fallen is less or more than 16 feet, the hypothesis is refuted. T w o logical stages must be distinguished in the given procedure for verifying the hypothesis. First of all, by observation or experiment the particular case described by the following assertion e u is established: this body freely falls for one second towards the Earth starting from rest. Further, hypothesis Ilia is applied as follows to each particular case. Firstly, from hypothesis Ilia is deduced hypothesis Ilia, which says: this body freely falls towards the Earth for one second only if it falls 16 feet. 5 Then from hypothesis Ilia, in conjunction with assertion eu the consequence is deduced : f y . This body falls 16 feet. Thus, verifying a scientific hypothesis consists of deducing from it an assertion of the following form: only if/V'. Then, conjoining assertion ei and the given assertion, we deduce from the conjunction of both these assertions a third assertion fu whose truth or falsity is established by observation. If observation establishes the truth of assertion fu which is a logical consequence of assertion e 1 and Ilia, then hypothesis Ilia is considered confirmed. The conjunction of assertions fl and e¡ is called an instance of the hypothesis. T o establish the truth of a hypothesis it is not enough to establish the truth of one instance: The truth of all its instances must be verified, i.e., the truth of the conjunction of assertions f2 and e 2 , / 3 and e 3 , / 4 and e 4 , and so on. But this is impossible because each hypothesis has an infinite number of instances. N o matter how many instances we verified, there would always remain unchecked instances. Therefore, if the whole body of observed facts is in favor of a given hypothesis, this should not be considered a proof but only an establishment of the hypothesis. In relation to a hypothesis the term 'proof' is inapplicable. We must use the term 'establishment', understanding by this a situation in which all the observed empirical facts are in favor of the hypothesis and not one contradicts it. Here is what Pap writes in connection with this : Inference from the truth of the consequences to the truth of the hypothesis is not deductively conclusive, since we cannot assume in general that the fact described by the hypothesis is a necessary condition for the facts described by the consequences. A true proposition may be 6

T h e words 'only i f ' in this hypothesis should not be understood in a causal sense but as indicating

a fact connected with another fact.

42

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

entailed by false propositions (e.g. by the rule of the substitutability of equals, "2 = 2" follows from "2 = 1"), hence we cannot say that the conclusion cannot be true unless the premisses are true. Several causes may lead to the same effect or, logically speaking, one and the same conclusion may be derived from different sets of premisses. To avoid the so-called "fallacy of affirming the consequent" (ρ implies q, and q, therefore p), the argument would have to contain an exhaustive enumeration of alternative sufficient conditions and elimination of all but the one alternative which we wish to assert. For example, if I argue "an increase of atmospheric pressure implies a rise of the mercury, the mercury has risen, hence the atmospheric pressure must have increased," my inference is but probable since the same effect may be brought about by other changes, such as a rise in temperature. It is indeed true that if I could enumerate all the alternative sufficient conditions for the observed effect, and moreover eliminate them all by independent arguments, my inference would become necessary. Yet, exhaustive knowledge of all the alternative causes is practically unattainable.6 The situation is different if the falsity of assertion f t is established. If any number of true instances of a hypothesis, no matter how great, is not sufficient to prove the truth of that hypothesis, it is sufficient to establish the falsity of only one instance of a hypothesis in order to prove the falsity of the hypothesis, i.e., to refute it, since non-/j is logically incompatible with ex . The falsity of the hypothesis is the logical consequence of the conjunction of non-/, and e,. This conjunction is called a contrary instance of the hypothesis. Thus, one contrary instance is sufficient to refute the hypothesis. This asymmetry in proving the truth or falsity of a hypothesis is explained by the fact that each hypothesis is a general proposition of the form "Every A is B". It is interesting that existential propositions ("There is at least one A which is B"), which are the contradictories of general propositions, have the reverse asymmetry: one instance is sufficient to prove their truth, whereas no number of contrary instances, however great, is sufficient to refute them. Thus, there is a fundamental difference between refuting and establishing a hypothesis. Refuting a hypothesis is a matter for deductive logic, whereas the establishment of a hypothesis requires a definite system of empirical criteria forjudging the plausibility of that hypothesis. When saying the refutation of a hypothesis is a matter for deductive logic, it should at the same time be noted that this assertion holds for simple, deductive systems like the three-level deductive system just examined, which was constructed by Galileo. In Galileo's system there is only one top-level hypothesis. But in the majority of deductive systems there are several top-level hypotheses. For example, Newton included Galileo's system in a broader deductive system, in which the initial hypothesis in Galileo's system became the consequence of a higher-level hypothesis in the new deductive system — the laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation. Braithwaite writes: The fact that most scientific deductive systems employ more than one highest-level hypothesis has an important bearing upon the empirical testing of these hypotheses. As has been shown, one contrary instance is sufficient to refute a generalization, and the refutation of this 6

A. Pap, Elements of Analytic Philosophy (New York, 1949), pp. 168-169.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

43

generalization (a lowest-level hypothesis) will be sufficient to refute a higher-level hypothesis from which it logically follows. But suppose, as is frequently the case, that we are considering a deductive system in which there is no one higher-level hypothesis from which this lowestlevel hypothesis follows, but instead the system is such that this follows from two or more higher-level hypotheses. Then what will be refuted by the refutation of the lowest-level hypothesis will be the conjunction of these two or more higher-level hypotheses; what will be a logical consequence of the falsity of the lowest-level hypothesis will be that at least one of the higher-level hypotheses is false. Thus in the case of almost all scientific hypotheses, except the straightforward generalizations of observable facts which serve as the lowest-level hypotheses in the deductive system, complete refutation is no more possible than is complete proof. What experience can tell us is that there is something wrong somewhere in the system; but we can make our choice as to which part of the system we consider to be at fault. In almost every system it is possible to maintain any one hypothesis in the face of apparently contrary evidence at the expense of modifying the others. Ptolemy was able to save the the geocentric hypothesis by supposing that the planets moved in complicated orbits round the earth. But at some time a point is reached at which the modifications in a system required to save a hypothesis become more unplausible than the rejection of the hypothesis; and then the hypothesis is rejected.' Thus, in deductive systems of hypotheses not only is complete proof of top-level and intermediate-level hypotheses impossible, but also complete refutation, as a rule. We should talk, not about proof or refutation of hypotheses, but about choice between alternative hypotheses based on empirical criteria which determine the degree to which the hypotheses are plausible. In modern methodology of science the following basic criteria are proposed for choosing between alternative hypotheses. (1) Criterion of productivity. — Of two hypotheses equally in accord with the observed data the more preferable is that which is applicable to a broader circle of facts and phenomena. (2) Criterion of simplicity. — Of two hypotheses applicable to the same circle of facts and phenomena the simpler hypothesis is preferable. In connection with the question of choosing between alternative hypotheses particular attention should be paid to the case of two alternative hypotheses which are equivalent by definition and should therefore be considered of equal value from the point of view of cognition. The essential feature of equivalent descriptions has been skilfully revealed by Reichenbach in connection with a study of the logical structure of Einstein's theory of relativity. Here is what Reichenbach says : The logical basis of the theory of relativity is the discovery that many statements, which were regarded as capable of demonstrable truth or falsity, are mere definitions. This formulation sounds like the statement of an insignificant technical discovery and does not reveal the far-reaching implications which make up the philosophical significance of the theory. Nonetheless it is a complete formulation of the logical part of the theory. Consider, for instance, the problem of geometry. That the unit of measurement is a matter of definition is a familiar fact; everybody knows that it does not make any difference whether 7

R. B. Braithwaite, ibid., pp. 19-20.

44

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

we measure distances in feet or meters or light years. However, that the comparison of distances is also a matter of definition is known only to the expert of relativity. This result can also be formulated as the definitional character of congruence. That a certain distance is congruent to another distance situated at a different place can never be proved to be true; it can only be maintained in the sense of a definition. More precisely speaking, it can be maintained as true only after a definition of congruence is given; it therefore depends on an original comparison of distances which is a matter of definition. A comparison of distances by means of the transport of solid bodies is but one definition of congruence. Another definition would result if we regarded a rod, once it had been transported to another location, as twice as long, thrice transported as three times as long, and so on. A further illustration refers to time: that the simultaneity of events occurring at distant places is a matter of definition was not known before Einstein based his special theory of relativity on this logical discovery .... ... Definitions are arbitrary; and it is a consequence of the definitional character of fundamental concepts that with the change of the definitions various descriptional systems arise. But these systems are equivalent to each other, and it is possible to go from each system to another one by a suitable transformation. Thus the definitional character of fundamental concepts leads to a plurality of equivalent descriptions. A familiar illustration is given by the various descriptions of motion resulting when the system regarded as being at rest is varied. Another illustration is presented by the various geometries resulting, for the same physical space, through changes in the definition of congruence. All these descriptions represent different languages saying the same thing; equivalent descriptions, therefore, express the same physical content.8 The use of a deductive system of hypotheses for cognition is connected with the concepts of explanation and prediction. According to Hempel and Oppenheim scientific explanation is characterized by the following basic features. 9 An explanation has two constituent parts: the explanandum and the explanans. The explanandum is an assertion concerning the fact or phenomenon which is being explained. The explanans is the set of assertions from which the explanandum is deduced. The explanans is divided into two subsets: one includes the assertions C1} C2, ..., Ck concerning the actual conditions in which appears the fact or phenomenon which is being explained. The other subset includes assertions Llt L2, Lr, which are general laws (laws in the deductive system of hypotheses are none other than highest- and lowest-level hypotheses). For adequacy each explanation should satisfy definite logical and empirical conditions. Logical conditions of adequacy for an explanation can be reduced to the following three points. (1) The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans. (2) The explanans must contain general laws required for the derivation of the explanandum. 8

H. Reichenbach, "The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity", in H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York, 1953), pp. 198-200. 9 Cf. C. G. Hempel and P. Oppenheim, "The logic of explanation", in H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science.

THE HYPOTHETICO- DEDUCTIVE METHOD

45

(3) The explanans must have empirical content, so that it is capable, at least in principle, of verification by experiment or observation. The empirical condition of adequacy on the explanation is that the explanans must be true. The logical structure of explanations may be represented in the following diagram :

logical deduction

jclt c2,.... ckj IL1, L2, ..., L,J

Explanans

} Explanandum Prediction does not differ in logical structure from explanation. The difference between prediction and explanation is as follows : if E describes an existing fact or phenomenon, we have an explanation; but if E describes a fact or phenomenon, about which it is not known whether it exists at the given moment, but which could in principle exist, we have a prediction. In every deductive system of hypotheses the calculus and the interpretation of the calculus must be distinguished. A calculus is a deductive system taken in abstraction from the meaning of its symbols. Thus the deductive system becomes a system of empty objects analogous to pieces in chess. These empty objects are subject to mechanical manipulations, analogous to moves in chess. The interpretation of a calculus is the deductive system taken in relation to the meanings assigned to its symbols. Two kinds of interpretation of a calculus must be distinguished: (1) non-empirical interpretation, i.e., the meanings of the symbols taken on the level of the deductive system itself, and (2) empirical interpretation, i.e., the meanings of the symbols connecting the deductive system with the empirical phenomena which are being studied. The empirical interpretation of a calculus is usually called 'rules of correspondence'. In order to make clear the fundamental difference between non-empirical and empirical interpretations, let us take as an example the following formula from classical mechanics : s V—t If we take the given formula in abstraction from the meanings of its symbols, it represents a certain fragment of a calculus. If we assign the meaning 'velocity' to the symbol v, the meaning 'distance' to the symbol s, and the meaning 'time' to the symbol t, we have a non-empirical interpretation of the given fragment of a calculus. In order to gain an empirical interpretation of the fragment under consideration we must assign to s as its meaning a means of measuring distance, to / a means of

46

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

measuring time (since ν is defined by its relation to s and t it does not require an empirical interpretation). Only in this way can the fragment we are examining be directly linked with the sphere of reality under investigation. The following important question arises concerning the empirical interpretation of the terms belonging to a deductive system of hypotheses : in what ways can the terms of a deductive system be interpreted empirically? First of all we must distinguish direct and indirect empirical interpretation of terms. Let us turn to the formula we have just examined and take the symbol v. We can link this symbol with the readings on a speedometer, which gives us an operational definition of v, based on the principle that the electromagnetic braking of a moving metal component on the magnet is proportional to its speed. This will be a direct empirical interpretation of v. But in the formula we are considering ν is defined by s and t. If in this situation we give a direct empirical interpretation to s and t, then we get an indirect empirical interpretation of v, since this symbol is defined by s and t. The symbol ν we have just examined is an example of a term which can have both direct and indirect empirical interpretation. But there are terms which can have only indirect empirical interpretation. F o r example, one such term is 'velocity of a molecule' used in physics. It is impossible to describe operations of measurement which allow us to determine the velocity of a molecule. We can give the term 'velocity of a molecule' an empirical interpretation only by linking it with other terms which can be given a direct empirical interpretation — with the terms 'pressure of a gas' and 'density of a gas'. Apart from distinguishing direct and indirect empirical interpretation of terms, it is essential to distinguish complete and partial interpretation of the terms in a deductive system. Both these differentiations are independent of the other and may intersect. As a rule it is the elementary terms belonging to the lowest level of the deductive system of hypotheses which have a complete empirical interpretation. By the complete empirical interpretation of a term is meant a one-one correspondence between its non-empirical and empirical meanings. The essential nature of partial empirical interpretation may be demonstrated using the formula considered above as an example. We have already said that the nonempirical interpretation of ν is 'velocity'. As a direct empirical interpretation it was proposed that the given symbol be made to correspond to the readings on a speedometer. It is not difficult to see that the readings on a speedometer cannot be a complete empirical interpretation of v. After all, speed can be measured not only by a speedometer but by many other, fundamentally different methods. It should be emphasized that the empirical interpretation of ν should change most markedly during transition from investigation of the macro-world to investigation of the micro-world. Thus, the empirical interpretation of υ obtained from readings on a speedometer is only a partial empirical interpretation of the given symbol. Besides

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

47

this partial empirical interpretation of ν there is a multitude of other partial interpretations of the symbol. The question arises : if the partial empirical interpretations of one or another term in a deductive system can differ sharply from each other, having hardly anything in common, on what grounds can we correlate all these meanings with one and the same term? Should we not speak about the homonymy of terms if their partial interpretations differ sharply? To this question we can answer that we have no right to talk about the homonymy of terms until they belong to one and the same deductive system and are defined in it by means of identical postulates. N o matter how sharp the difference between various partial empirical interpretations of one and the same term, all these interpretations are conjoined into one and the same class because the use of the given term in the deductive system is governed in all cases by the same postulates. Here is what Pap writes in connection with this question : We are also in a position now to justify the scientist's assumption that he means the same, numerically determinable property by the term "mass" when he speaks of the mass of the earth or the mass of a rifle bullet or the mass of an electron — an assumption which is incompatible with strict operationism. It is justified to the extent that the use of the term is regulated by the same postulational definition in these diverse contexts. Thus the revolving motion of an electron is supposed to be governed by the same laws as the revolving motion of the planets according to Bohr's theory of the atom as a microcosmic solar system. On the other hand, to the extent that the dynamic laws of quantum mechanics are radically unlike the laws of classical particle dynamics, subatomic particles are "particles" in a different sense, and the masses ascribed to them are a different, though analogous, sort of property. 10 In connection with the concept of partial empirical interpretation we come across a property of abstract scientific terms which Pap calls 'openness'. 1 1 What is meant is that in principle each abstract term can have an infinite set of partial empirical interpretations. The openness of terms is linked with the productivity of each hypotheticodeductive system. As was said above, a hypothetico-deductive system can serve the purpose of cognition only if it is capable of predicting facts lying outside the boundaries of the circle of facts for the explanation of which it was constructed. Terms are closed (i.e., have a severely limited, closed number of partial empirical interpretations) only in hypothetico-deductive systems created ad hoc. The differentiation of non-empirical and empirical interpretations, of direct and indirect empirical interpretations, of complete and partial empirical interpretations — all these aspects of analyzing the meanings of scientific terms are, in contemporary methodology of science, brought under the general concept: 'relativization of the meanings of scientific terms'. In relativizing the meanings of scientific terms the central position is occupied by the problem of partial empirical interpretation, since it is in partial empirical interpretation that the specific peculiarity of this relativization crops up. This fact is 10 11

A. Pap, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (New York, 1962), p. 52. Cf. A. Pap, op. cit., p. 39ff.

48

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

emphasized by Pap, who writes that the specific peculiarity of relativizing the meanings of terms "is not the admission of terms that are but indirectly interpreted, but the admission of terms that are but partially interpreted". 12 Such an evaluation of partial empirical interpretation is fully understandable in the light of what was said above about what an important role the openness of scientific terms plays in the use of a hypothetico-deductive system for cognition. To conclude this section we must consider a special problem which in contemporary methodology of science is called the problem of hypothesis-verifiability. We have already discussed the establishment and refutation of hypotheses and the criteria for choosing between alternative hypotheses. But it is possible to establish and refute hypotheses, and to choose between alternative hypotheses only if we are dealing with hypotheses which satisfy the condition of verifiability. What is the condition of verifiability? As was shown above, every hypothesis is advanced to explain and predict facts and phenomena which are established by direct experience. It follows from this that the verification of a hypothesis should be carried out by deducing consequences from it and comparing them with the facts and phenomena of reality. The consequences deduced from the hypothesis should be observable — this is the hypothesis-verifiability condition. If the consequence deduced from the hypothesis are unobservable, the hypothesis cannot be verified, and can therefore be neither accepted nor rejected. The question of establishing or refuting such a hypothesis is meaningless. The non-observability of consequences deduced from a hypothesis may be of two types. 13 First, the consequences of a hypothesis may be unobservable simply because limitations in man's experimental techniques and technological potential at a given stage in the development of science make it impossible to observe them. Along with this there is the non-observability conditioned by the logical mechanism of the hypothesis put forward to explain the facts under investigation. In both cases the hypotheses are unverifiable. Corresponding to these cases let us introduce the terms 'technological non-verifiability of a hypothesis' and 'theoretical non-verifiability of a hypothesis'. An example of technological non-verifiability is Lobaòevskij's hypothesis about the non-Euclidean nature of space on a cosmic scale. Normal experience supports Euclidean geometry. But Lobacevskij put forward the hypothesis that the properties of the geometrical system he constructed held for the enormous spatial distances of the cosmos. In Lobacevskij's time this hypothesis could not be verified because of the imperfection of measuring instruments. This was a temporary technological nonverifiability of the hypothesis. Later technological means were found for verifying the hypothesis about the non-Euclidean nature of space on a cosmic scale, and today this hypothesis may be considered established. 12 13

A. Pap, op. cit., p. 53. Cf. L. B. Baienov, Osnovnye voprosy teorii gipotezy (Moscow, 1961).

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

49

Technological non-verifiability in itself is not an obstacle to proposing a hypothesis, but, of course, until actual means are found for verifying the hypothesis it can be neither accepted nor rejected. An example of theoretical non-verifiability is the hypothesis advanced by Ritz to explain Michelson's experiment. Michelson's experiment consisted in measuring the speed of light in two directions — in the direction of the Earth's movement and in a direction perpendicular to the Earth's movement. According to Galileo's principle of relativity different values should be obtained for the speed in these two directions perpendicular to each other. In the first direction the speed of light in a vacuum should have been added to the speed of the Earth. In the second direction the speed of light should have remained the same. As a result of this both a difference and a mutual interference should have appeared in the movement of light rays travelling in the given directions. However, Michelson's experiment showed that there is no interference with either set of light rays. To explain the negative result of Michelson's experiment Ritz advanced the hypothesis that the speed of light depends on the movement of its source, increasing or decreasing by the speed of its source. Ritz's hypothesis is theoretically non-verifiable because it was specially devised to explain a given empirical fact and does not lead to any other observable consequences. The given hypothesis is unverifiable because of its logical mechanism : An unverifiable hypothesis is just that which is specially chosen to explain directly observable facts obtained by experiment and cannot explain any thing except them. Such a hypothesis is exclusively restricted to those phenomena for which it was chosen. 14

Hypotheses like that of Ritz are called ad hoc hypotheses, i.e., hypotheses for a particular case. An interesting example of an ad hoc hypothesis is Ewald's hypothesis about the structure of the receptory mechanism of hearing. Here is what Cossa writes about this hypothesis: It is not sufficient that a machine should do the same work as a living creature for us to have the right to consider that it does the work in the same way. A sewing machine joins materials just as well as a seamstress, but the stitch done by the machine is not like the familiar stitch done by a seamstress. In the history of biology many imitations of some or other living apparatus have been created, seemingly based on the working principle of that apparatus. Such imitations worked very well, but at the same time the development of physiology later showed that in fact the living apparatus which people wanted to copy worked on a completely different principle. Here is an excellent such example. The receptory organ of hearing has a vibrating plate, a basic membrane. Earlier people thought that this plate vibrated as a whole, like the plate in a telephone. Ewald in this time built an artificial vibrating membrane of the same dimensions as the basic membrane. He set it up in an "acoustic chamber". He could photograph the stationary waves produced by this membrane as it vibrated, and determined exactly that the wave length changed from 16 mm for the lowest sound to 1/1000 mm for the highest sounds. It seemed that Ewald had done a good analysis of, and reproduced, the phenomenon of the basic membrane's vibration. In any case, it seemed that his artificial 11

L. B. Bazenov, op. cit., p. 18.

50

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

basic membrane carried out well the function ascribed to the latter. Unfortunately, the fact that a plate vibrates like this does not mean that the same thing happens in the actual living ear. Ewald's theory required that the auditory nerve be able to transmit impulses from the vibrating membrane with a frequency of 32,000 vibrations per second. But this is physiologically impossible. On the contrary, it is now known that the analysis of sounds is not a function of the centers, as Ewald thought, but of the peripheral organ of hearing — the cochlea, just as Helmholtz had supposed. And if the membrane vibrates it does not produce any stationary waves at all, like Ewald's model, but a range of progressional waves (Vlechter, Von Bekesi). This classical example is a good demonstration of how a model can reproduce the actions of its original even when it does not work the same way.15 The mechanical device constructed by Ewald reproduced the actions of its original. However, the reproduced actions of the original cannot be considered as the observed consequences of Ewald's hypothesis, since this hypothesis was specially devised to explain those same given actions of the original. Because of its logical mechanism (embodied by Ewald in a corresponding mechanical device) Ewald's hypothesis must be considered theoretically unverifiable. F o r us to be able to consider this hypothesis as verifiable, it would have to give rise to observable consequences relating to facts lying outside the circle of facts for the explanation of which it was devised. Every ad hoc hypothesis is theoretically unverifiable because it creates a vicious circle in the explanation. It turns out that the necessary condition for the facts being explained is a hypothesis, the necessary condition for which is the very facts being explained. The problem of the verifiability of scientific hypotheses is of fundamental importance in each theoretical science and, in particular, in structural linguistics. In connection with this let us consider the question of verifying the adequacy of generative grammars put forward as hypotheses about the inner mechanism of language hidden f r o m observation. To clear u p this question let us discuss Mel'cuk's clearly and accurately expressed thoughts on verifying the adequacy of generative grammars, Mel'cuk writes ; To avoid occupying ourselves with the complex theoretical question of the existence of a scientific description, we can stipulate that the construction of working models is a highly effective technique for creating and verifying a description of any system whatsoever. We shall explain just what this means. Let us assume that we are considering a group of arbitrary objects generated by a mechanism unknown to us. This mechanism is not available for immediate observation, and we can draw conclusions about it only from the results of its activity, i.e., from the properties of the set of objects that it has generated. Here we are interested in the particular mechanism only in a strictly defined sense : It is important for us to known just those aspects of its functioning that cause it to generate the particular set. None of the concrete properties of the mechanism or of its functioning are relevant to us. By analyzing the totality of objects available to us from the mechanism, we can create a hypothetical description of it. To verify this description, we can construct a model of the mechanism based on it. This would be only a model and not a copy of the mechanism, since very many concrete properties of the mechanism will not have been studied, and in some respects the model will not resemble the mechanism itself at all. But if this model in 15

P. Cossa, La Cybernétique:

du cerveau humain aux cerveaux artificiels (Paris, 1955), pp. 33-34.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

51

function can generate exactly the same objects as the mechanism studied, then we can conclude that our model is adequate in the relevant respects and consequently that our description is accurate, [italics mine - S. S.]16 Thus, for verifying a hypothetical description of a generative mechanism hidden from observation, it is necessary only that the model corresponding to this description generate exactly the same objects as the mechanism under investigation. No other observable consequences need be deduced from this hypothetical description. Such an approach to investigating the generative mechanism of language creates a situation analogous to that examined above in connection with Ewald's model. If nothing is required of a generative linguistic model except that it generate correct objects for a given language then the corresponding hypothesis concerning the inner generative mechanism of the language must be considered non-verifiable. Experiments on electronic computers will not help here. Indeed, even in the ideal case where the generative model is realized on an electronic computer so that the computer generates all and only the correct objects for the given language — even in this ideal case we will not be able to verify if the inner generative mechanism of the language works on the same principle as the model we have constructed. Effective realization of our model on an electronic computer will verify the consistency and completeness of the model's mathematical apparatus, but we must not confuse verifying the mathematical apparatus of the hypothesis with verifying the hypothesis as such. For a hypothetical description of the generative mechanism of a language to be verifiable, it is essential that other observable consequences be deducible from this hypothetical description, apart from the consequence that the model corresponding to the hypothetical description must generate correct objects for the given language. A hypothesis concerning the inner generative mechanism of a language may be considered verifiable when the description of how to generate correct objects for the given language allows us to deduce observable consequences not only about the correct objects present in the given language but also observable consequences about the hierarchy of these objects, about grammatical synonymity and homonymity, about the mutual correlations of structure on various levels in the language, and a whole series of other observable consequences which will be discussed in the second part of the book. 1 7 To consider that a generative device from which it is impossible to deduce any other observable consequences except about the correct objects present in the given language — to consider that such a generative device is a theoretically unverifiable hypothesis, does not mean denying the value of this generative device. It all depends on the angle from which one looks at a generative device. Cossa's words were quoted above to the effect that a sewing machine joins materials just as well as a seamstress, but the 15

O. S. Akhmanova, I. A. Mel'cuk, R. M. Frumkina, and E. V. Paduceva, Exact Methods in Linguistic Research (University of California Press, 1963), pp. 44-45. 17 I shall leave aside for now the question as to whether a hypothetical generative device should generate the complete set of correct objects for a given language; 1 shall consider this question later in the book.

52

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

stitch made by a machine is not like the stitch made by a seamstress, i.e., the work done by a sewing machine does not model the work done by a seamstress, though in both cases the end-products are identical. But to state that the work done by a sewing machine does not model the work done by a seamstress does not mean denying the usefulness of sewing machines. Sewing machines do nothing for us to model the mechanism of the work done by the seamstress, but sewing machines are necessary for sewing clothes. A generative device, from the description of which it is impossible to deduce any other consequences except about the correct objects present in the given language, cannot be used for finding out about the inner generative mechanism of the language, but it is none the less very useful for machine translation or other practical purposes. Discussing the problems of verifying hypotheses in structural linguistics shows how important it is strictly to distinguish and not to confuse theoretical and pragmatic approaches to generative grammar.

2.2 THEORY A N D MODEL

In the preceding section the basic features of the hypothetico-deductive method were described. In connection with this the structure of a hypothetico-deductive system was investigated and also its use for cognition. After that we naturally pass on to the concepts of theory and model in the empirical sciences. In contemporary methodology of science the generally accepted interpretation of 'a theory in the empirical sciences' is reflected in the following definition of the concept : A scientific theory is a deductive system in which observable consequences logically follow from the conjunction of observed facts with the set of the fundamental hypotheses of the system. A study of the nature of a scientific theory is thus a study of the nature of the deductive system used in the theory ....'18 From the given definition of a theory it is clear that the term 'theory in the empirical sciences' is essentially a synonym of the term 'hypothetico-deductive system'. Indeed, a hypothetico-deductive system is exactly that deductive system in which the observable consequences logically follow from the conjunction of the data about the observable facts with the set of the fundamental hypotheses of the system. Some writers attempt to draw the following distinction between the concepts 'hypothetico-deductive system' and 'theory in the empirical sciences' : a hypotheticodeductive system is a system which has not yet been proved and a theory is a hypothetico-deductive system which has been proved. But as was shown in the preceding section the concept of proof is in general inapplicable to a hypothetico-deductive system. We may speak only about more or less justification for a hypothetico-deduc18

R. B. Braithwaite, op. cit., p. 22.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

53

tive system, i.e., about the greater or lesser plausibility of such a system. From this point of view it would be possible to say, as some writers do, that a theory in the empirical sciences is a well established hypothetico-deductive system. Unfortunately it is far from being always clear where we are dealing simply with a plausible hypothetico-deductive system and where with a well-established one. It is also a well-known fact that hypothetico-deductive systems which seem well-established at a given stage in the development of science are often refuted later on or radically changed with the appearance of new empirical data or essentially new points of view. In any case, all writers agree that hypothetico-deductive systems and theories in the empirical sciences do not differ in logical structure, and it is from this point of view that we may consider the terms 'hypothetico-deductive system' and 'theory in the empirical sciences' synonymous. From now on for the sake of conciseness simply the term 'theory' will be used instead of 'theory in the empirical sciences', but the reader should never lose sight of the essential difference between the concepts 'theory in the empirical sciences' and 'theory in the mathematical sciences'. For the mathematical sciences a theory is a deductive system, whereas for the empirical sciences a theory is a hypotheticodeductive system. If there are no essential differences in contemporary methodology of science between the various uses of the term 'theory in the empirical sciences', this cannot be said about the term 'model'. Before examining the various uses of the term 'model' as applied to the empirical sciences, we must explain how this term is used in the mathematical sciences. Just as it was necessary strictly to distinguish the use of the term 'theory' in the mathematical and empirical sciences, so is it also essential not to confuse the use of the term 'model' in these sciences. In the mathematical sciences the term 'model' is used in two senses: syntactic and semantic. 19 In the syntactic sense a model is the interpretation of one mathematical theory in another mathematical theory, for example the interpretation of Lobaöevskij's geometry in Euclidean geometry. There is a good example of how such an interpretation is carried out in Poincaré's work : Let us imagine some plane which I shall call the basic plane, and let us construct something like a dictionary, in which, corresponding one to the other, we set down two rows of units, arranged in two columns just as the words of any two languages with the same meaning are arranged in an ordinary dictionary. Space The part of space extending downward from the basic plane Plane Spherical surface interesecting the basic plane at right angles Straight line Circle, intersecting the basic plane at right angles Spherical surface Spherical surface Circle Circle Angle Angle "

Cf. Κ. Berka and M. Mleziva, Co je logika (Prague, 1962), p. 98.

54

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

Distance between two points.

Logarithm of the anharmonic relation of these two points and the intersections of the basic plane with the circle passing across these two points and intersection with the plane at right angles Etc Etc. Let us take Lobachevskij's theorems and translate them with the help of this dictionary just as if we were translating a German text using a German-French dictionary. This will yield the theorems of ordinary geometry. Thus, for example the following theorem of Lobachevskij's: "The sum of the angles of a triangle is less than the sum of two right angles" is translated: "If the sides of a curvilinear triangle are the arcs of a circle which, if extended, would necessarily cut the basic plane at right angles, then the sum of the angles of such a curvilinear triangle will be less than the sum of two right angles." Thus, no matter how far we take the consequences following from Lobachevskij's hypotheses, we never come to a contradiction. In fact, if two of Lobachevskij's theorems contradicted each other the contradiction would exist between the "translations" of these theorems made by means of our dictionary, But these translations represent the theorems of ordinary geometry, and after all nobody doubts that ordinary geometry is free of all contradiction. 20 If a model is taken in the syntactic sense, then when one mathematical theory is called the model of another mathematical theory what is meant is the formal, syntactic identity, the isomorphism of both theories. In the semantic sense a model is the interpretation of a formalized theory based on the semantic notions of satisfiability and truth. To explain the use of the term 'model' in the semantic sense I will take an example from the work by Berka and Mleziva already referred to. 21 Let us examine a miniature theory, which we shall call the theory of the relation E. In this theory the following are distinguished: I. The language of the theory of the relation E. 1. Basic symbols. (a) constants. (1) logical constants: -+, —, (x); (2) special constants : E (symbol of binary relation between individuals). (b) variables. (1) individuals: x, y, z, .... 2. The concept 'formula'. (a) if a, b are individual variables, then E (a,b) is a formula. (b) if A ( χ ) is a formula which includes a free variable x, then (x) A (x) is a formula. (c) if A and Β are formulae, then A Β and Ά are formulae. II. The logical consequences of the theory of the relation E. (a) quantifier theory (including only individual variables). 20

"

H. Poincaré, La Science et l'hypothèse (Paris, Flammarion, 1923). Cf. Κ. Berka and M. Mleziva, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

55

III. The axioms of the theory of the relation E\ El (jc)E(x,x) E2 (x) Ο ) Ε (χ, y) -> E (y, χ) £ 3 (χ) (y) (ζ) {Ε (χ,y) [Ε (y,ζ) - Ε (χ,ζ)]} The given formulae should be read thus: E\ For all χ, χ is in the relation E to x. E2 For all χ and all y, if (x is in the relation E to y) then (y is in the relation E to x). £ 3 For all x, all y, and all z, if χ is in the relation E to y, then [if (y is in the relation E to z) then (x is in the relation E to z)]. The given miniature theory is formalized. By a formalized theory is meant a mathematical theory containing symbols whose only meaning is that given to them by the rules for manipulating them within the framework of the given theory. A formalized theory can be compared to chess : the only meaning of chess pieces is that defined by rules of chess. The formulae of a formalized theory are analogous to the positions on a chess-board: just as positions on a chess-board are transformed into other positions, so are formulae transformed into other formulae. The meaning of the symbols in a formalized theory which is determined only by the rules for manipulating the symbols within the framework of a given theory may be called the syntactic meaning of the symbols, and the interpretation of one formalized theory in another formalized theory may be called a syntactic interpretation of the theory. In distinction from the syntactic meaning, determined only by the rules for manipulating the symbols within the framework of a given formalized theory, the semantic meaning of the symbols is that which does not follow from the rules for manipulating them but is introduced into the formalized theory from outside, so to speak. In order to ascribe semantic meanings to the symbols of a formalized theory the latter must be correlated with a definite domain of denotations. To show how this is done, let us correlate the miniature, formalized theory under consideration with the following four domains of denotations: 1. 2. 3. 4.

U U U U

= = = =

set set set set

of of of of

goods. people. numbers. straight lines.

Κ Κ Κ Κ

= = = =

relation relation relation relation

'have the same value as'. 'is the father o f . 'is less than or equal to'. 'is parallel to'.

U denotes the domain of denotations, and Κ denotes the actual relations defined on the domain of denotations with the help of which we interpret the abstract symbol E. It is not hard to see that the given semantic interpretations of the formalized theory of the relation E cannot be considered equally valid from the point of view of the abstract meaning of the axioms and the formulae in this theory deducible from

56

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

them. Thus, the first axiom asserts that the relation E is reflexive, i.e., that this is a relation in which an object stands to itself. The second axiom says that the relation E is symmetrical : if one object stands in a given relation to a second object, then the second object stands in that same relation to the first object. The third axiom asserts that the relation E is transitive : for any three objects in a given set, if E holds between the first and second objects and between the second and third objects it also holds between the first and third objects. If we examine the denotation domains with which the formalized theory of the relation E is correlated, these domains must be divided into two groups from the point of view of the axioms in the theory: the domains in which the given formalized theory is realized and the domains in which it is not. The domain of denotations in which the given formalized theory is realized is called a model of the theory. Let us take a look at the first domain of denotations with which the formalized theory of the relation E is correlated. The set of goods for which the relation 'has the same value as' is given must be considered a model of this theory because all the latter's axioms are satisfied in this domain. If item A has the same value as item B, the reverse can be asserted: item Β has the same value as item A. If item A has the same value as item B, and item Β has the same value as item C, then item A has the same value as item C. The nature of logical processes is such, that if in a given denotation domain an axiom of a formalized theory is satisfied then the consequences of these axioms must be satisfied. Therefore, when we have verified that the axioms of the formalized theory of the relation E are satisfiable in the domain of denotations just examined, we may assert that in the latter the whole formalized theory is satisfied ; consequently the given domain of denotations must be considered a model of the given theory. Let us consider the second domain of denotations. The set of people for which is given the relation 'be the father o f cannot be a model of our formalized theory, since the given relation is irreflexive (nobody can be his own father), asymmetrical (there cannot be two people, each of which is the other's father), and intransitive (if A is the father of B, and Β is the father of C, then A cannot be the father of C). The third domain of denotations also cannot be a model of our formalized theory, since only the first two axioms are satisfied, the third remaining unsatisfied. The relation 'is less than or equal to', given for the set of numbers, is reflexive (every number equals itself),22 transitive (if A is less than or equal to B, and Β is less than or equal to C, then A is less than or equal to C), but not symmetrical (for example '2 is less than 3' but '3 is not less than 2'. The fourth domain of denotations, like the first, is a model of the formalized theory, since the relation 'is parallel to', given for the set of straight lines, is reflexive (every straight line is parallel to itself), symmetrical (if straight line A is parallel to straight line B, then straight line Β is parallel to straight line A), transitive (if straight line A is " For the axiom of reflexivity to be fulfilled it is sufficient that one of the alternatives of the disjunctive relation hold — in this case the relation 'is equal to'.

57

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

parallel to straight line B , and straight line Β is parallel to straight line C, then straight line A is parallel to straight line C). Having explained what is meant by 'model' in the semantic sense, let us compare it with what is meant by 'model' in the syntactic sense.

The essential fact in both

cases is that the term 'model o f a theory' acts as a synonym of the term 'interpretation o f a theory'. It would therefore be useful to consider both interpretations of the term 'model of a theory' as varieties of one, single concept. In mathematics a model is one of the tools of deductive investigation, which deals with a corresponding deductive theory. T h e deductive theory which is being investigated with the help of the model may be called the original of the model. The term 'original' applied to the deductive theory, emphasizes that deductive theory and model are correlated as object and representation o f object, the latter serving as a tool for investigating the object. T o show how a model is used as a tool for investigating the properties of the corresponding deductive theory I shall use an example from Tarski. 2 3 Tarski constructs the following miniature deductive theory.

In it the variables

χ, y, ζ denote segments. As primitive terms he takes S and = . The first is an abbreviation for the term 'set of all segments' and the second denotes the relation of congruency. T h e axioms o f the theory are : AXIOM I. F o r any element χ of the set S, x^

χ (i.e., every segment is congruent to

itself). AXIOM II. F o r any elements x, y, and ζ of the set S, if χ ^ ζ and y ^ z, then χ % y (i.e., two segments which are congruent to the same segment are congruent to each other). Various theorems can be devived from the given axioms, for example: THEOREM I. F o r any elements y and ζ of the set 5, if y ^ z, then

z%y.

THEOREM II. F o r any element x, y and ζ of the set S, if x~ y and y ~ z, then T h e following model can be constructed for the given miniature theory.

x~z. Let us

denote by Ν the set of all numbers or any other set of numbers. Two numbers χ and y will be considered equivalent, i.e., in symbolic notation if their difference x-y

is an integer. F o r example, it is the case that

ξ 5 ¿ whereas

it is not the case that 3 Ξ I f we replace the primitive symbols of the miniature theory by Ν and Ξ we get a model o f the theory. In this model theorems I and II are true arithmetical laws. With the help o f the model obtained it is possible to investigate the properties of its original, i.e., the miniature deductive theory. Tarski illustrates such an investigation with the following example. The task is set o f using the given model to prove that some assertions cannot be deduced from the theory's system of axioms. Tarski writes : Cf. A. Tarski, Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences (New York, 1946), p. 125. 23

58

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

Let us consider the following sentence A (formulated in logical terms and in the primitive terms of our theory only) : A: There exist two elements χ and y of the set S for which it is not the case that χ = y (in other words : there exist two segments which are not congruent). This sentence seems to be undoubtedly true. Nevertheless, no attempts to prove it on the basis of Axioms I and II give a positive result. Thus the conjecture arises that Sentence A cannot be deduced at all from our axioms. In order to confirm this conjecture, we argue in the following way. If Sentence A could be proved on the basis of our axiom system, then, as we know, every model of this system would satisfy that sentence; if, therefore, we succeed in indicating such a model of the axiom system which will not satisfy Sentence A, we shall prove thereby that this sentence cannot be deduced from Axioms I and II. Now, it turns out that producing such a model does not present any difficulties. Let us consider, for instance, the set of all integers I (or any other set of integers, e.g. the set consisting of the numbers 0 and 1 only) and the relation of equivalence Ξ between numbers which was discussed above. We already know from the preceding remarks that the set / and the relation Ξ constitute a model of our axiom system; sentence A however is not satisfied by this model, for there are no two integers χ and y which are not equivalent, that is, whose difference is not an integer. Another model appropriate to this purpose is formed by an arbitrary class of individuals and by the universal relation V holding between any two individuals. The type of reasoning just applied is known as the METHOD OF PROOF BY EXHIBITING A MODEL OR BY INTERPRETATION. 24

Let us transfer our attention to the concept of a model in the empirical sciences. In distinction from mathematics, where the term 'model' has the generally accepted, strictly defined meaning 'interpretation of a theory' considered above, in the empirical sciences the term 'model' does not yet have a stable, simple definition which could be generally accepted. Many writers simply use 'model' as a synonym of 'theory'. Here is what Braithwaite writes about this : In psychology and the social sciences the word 'model' is frequently used merely as a synonym for a formalized or semi-formalized theory. For example, Richard Stone's Three Models of Economic Growth, which he has presented in Section VIII of this Congress, are in fact three alternative theories for explaining the phenomena of economic growth expressed in mathematical forms so that mathematical techniques can be used in the deductions. As another example, R. R. Bush and F. Mosteller's book expounding their statistical learning theory is entitled Stochastic Models for Learning. There are, I think, three reasons why social scientists tend to use the word 'model' to describe what is in fact a formalized or semiformalized theory: 1. The theory may seem such a small one, comprising so few deductive steps or covering such a limited topic in the field, that the word 'theory' may seem too grand to apply to it. 2. Theories that are even semi-formalized are so rare in the social sciences (except in economics) that a special term may seem to be appropriate to emphasize that the deductive system of the theory is being, at least in part, explicitly presented. 3. The word 'model' may be used instead of 'theory' to indicate that the theory is only expected to hold as an approximation, or that employing it depends upon various simplifying assumptions. In particular, a system in which the hypotheses and the conclusions deduced from them are all thought to hold ceteris paribus may be called a model to show ignorance of the conditions which would make this qualification unnecessary. 21

A. Tarski, op. cit., p. 125.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

59

None of these seems to me a good reason for refusing to call a scientific system a theory, even if it holds only for an 'isolated' field and is only a little theory. It would be better to call it a theoruncula or (affectionately) a theorita, using a Latin or a Spanish diminutive than to call it a model. In any case, to use the word 'model' instead of 'theory' presents no problems specific to the notion of model. 25 In order to decide the question in what sense it is appropriate to use the term 'model' in the empirical sciences, it seems advisable to me, instead of comparing the various, at times unclear and confusing, definitions of the term 'model' occurring in works on the methodology of the empirical sciences, to take as the starting point of the discussion the definition of the term 'model' in the methodology of the mathematical sciences. Just as the essence of the concepts 'hypothetico-deductive method' and 'theory in the empirical sciences' was explained only by contrasting them with the concepts 'deductive method' and 'theory in the mathematical sciences', so the essence of the concept 'model in the empirical sciences' must by explained by contrasting it with the notion 'model in the mathematical sciences'. Let us begin discussing the concept of a model in the empirical sciences with the following assumption. Let us imagine that in the empirical sciences we have decided to use the definition of a model accepted in the mathematical sciences. We ask: if we accept for the empirical sciences the definitions of a model in the mathematical sciences, can we consider the cognitive function of the model to be the same in the empirical sciences as it is in the mathematical sciences? This question can have only a negative answer. In the mathematical sciences a model is a tool for investigating a theory. The theory under investigation is the original, of which the model is a representation. The situation, however, must change radically if we transfer a deductive theory and its model from the mathematical sciences to the empirical. Here the deductive theory is no longer the object which is being investigated with the help of the model; here theory and model are no longer correlated as the original and its representation but become a tool for the cognition of empirical reality. Now the original of the model is no longer a deductive theory but the corresponding sphere of empirical reality. As for the deductive theory, as a tool for the cognition of empirical reality it must be considered a hypothetico-deductive system which requires rules of correspondence connecting it with the corresponding sphere of empirical reality. With the transfer of deductive theory and model from the mathematical sciences to the empirical, the model should acquire the following new features : I. In the mathematical sciences a model is more concrete in comparison with its original, whereas in the empirical sciences a model is more abstract in comparison with its original. This is understandable, since in the first case the original of the model is a deductive theory, and in the second — the corresponding sphere of empirical reality. Since a model in the empirical sciences is more abstract in comparison with 25

R. B. Braithwaite, "Models in the Empirical Sciences", in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (Stanford, California, 1962), pp. 224-225.

60

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

its original — the sphere of empirical reality under investigation, a model in this case should be considered a simplified schema of its original. On the level of the empirical sciences the construction of a model should be connected with a special method of abstraction which schematizes empirical reality to investigate it successfully. I have in mind the method of idealization. Idealization is a method of abstraction which considers the objects dealt with by science as being formed by abstraction, since it is theoretically impossible to create them experimentally. Such objects are called idealized objects. They include, for example, an incompressible liquid, an absolute solid, inertia. In mathematics idealized objects are, for example, a point, a straight line, etc. Lobaöevskij describes as follows the process of forming a point as an idealized object : A body is called a point, when one considers its contact with another body at a point, which allows one to discard the parts of the first body which are not in contact with the second. In this way one can reach the minuteness of a grain of sand or a dot made on paper by the point of a quill... In a point there is no extent. 26 When we idealize we make some conditions progressively diminishing until they are reduced to zero. For example, from the above description of forming a point by using the relation of contact it is clear that if the degrees of contact become less and less, it is possible to imagine such a tiny degree of contact that it cannot have any extent. Gorskij defines idealization as follows: Idealization is a mental process consisting of the following stages : 1) By changing certain conditions in which the object we are studying is situated, we make their effect progressively diminishing. 2) After this it turns out that some properties of the object also change progressively. 3) Assuming that the effect of the conditions on the object is reduced to zero, we complete a conceptual transfer, a transfer to a certain idealized object (since in reality the object being analyzed cannot exist outside the given conditions). By idealization we make it possible to talk about idealized objects as existing in reality, although in the latter only their prototypes exist.27 II. Since cognition of empirical reality involves dealing with both observable and unobservable objects, it becomes necessary to make wide use of specific analogies. In fact, we can only guess what the unobservable objects under investigation are actually like by setting u p analogies with objects known to us whose properties are in a certain respect similar to the properties of the objects hidden from observation. In the empirical sciences a model is a construct which serves as the analogue of objects hidden from observation. As an analogue of unobservable objects a model is a metaphorical image of reality. Such images include, for example, the model of the atom as a planetary system. The representation of a grammar as a generative device is also a metaphorical image which serves as a hypothesis about the inner, unobservable 2,1 27

N. 1. Lobacevskij, "O nacalax geometrii", in Ob osnovanijax geometrii (Moscow, 1946), p. 30. D. P. Gorskij, Voprosy abstrakcii i obrazovanie ponjatij (Moscow, 1961), p. 280.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

61

functioning of language. T h e concept of a generative device belongs to the type of models which Turing called 'machines on paper'. 2 8 Machines on paper are widely used as models in psychology a n d biology. III. Since the aim of each empirical science is to find out a b o u t the unobservable objects of reality and the links between them, this inevitably restricts the possibilities of model-building in the empirical sciences. By building models we correlate, on the basis of analogies, unobservable objects with objects which are either observed or are such that they can be represented visually. But the more abstract a science grows, the harder it becomes to give a visual representation of the unobservable objects. This situation is met with especially in the most abstract of the modern, empirical sciences — in physics. As is well known, there are theories in modern physics which are in general not capable of visual interpretation, i.e., for which models can not be built. The question arises: how does the impossibility of giving a visual interpretation to theories, i.e., of building models of them, affect the cognitive function of these theories in the empirical sciences? F r o m the point of view of the hypothetico-deductive method the possibility or impossibility of building a model of a given theory is of no importance. H e r e the following methodological principle may be f o r m u l a t e d : if two hypotheticodeductive systems have identical consequences, their cognitive functions are equivalent. In the empirical sciences theory and model are just two such hypotheticodeductive systems f r o m which follow identical consequences, and therefore must be considered equivalent with respect to cognition. The equivalence of cognitive function of both hypothetico-deductive systems is guaranteed by the identity of the rules for manipulating the symbols in these systems. Identical rules for manipulating the symbols lead to identical consequences f r o m both hypothetico-deductive systems. Whether the hypothetico-deductive system is visual or non-visual is of no importance for the rules for manipulating the symbols. It is these very rules for manipulating the symbols which determine the cognitive function of the hypothetico-deductive system. In this connection it is interesting to adduce the logical analysis of Schrödinger's wave-function concept given by Braithwaite. F r o m this analysis it is evident that the lack of a visual interpretation for Schrödinger's wave function has not the slightest effect on the use of this concept for cognition. Here is what Braithwaite writes : It is instructive to notice that one of the most important theoretical terms used in contemporary physics — Schrödinger's wave-function — is frequently called the V - f u n c t ' o n ' > being referred to merely by means of the symbol ψ which it is customary to use in the calculus of wave-mechanics. I suspect that no physicist would wish directly to answer questions like: What is the concept denoted by the symbol ψΊ Does Schrödinger's ^-function really exist? The physicist will almost certainly prefer to give the indirect answer of explaining how the symbol ψ is used in his calculus .... For a physicist, to think about ^-functions is to use the symbol ψ in an appropriate way in his calculus. When he has explained this appropriate way, there is nothing further to say upon what the propositions expressed by the formulae S8 Cf. F. H. George, The Brain as a Computer (Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1961).

62

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

containing ψ are about. Once the status within a calculus of a theoretical term has been expounded, there is no further question as to the ontological status of the theoretical concept.29 If the process of cognition is considered from a purely logical point of view, a model does not add to our knowledge in comparison with a theory. As a tool for cognition, a model has not logical but psychological and heuristic importance. Visual images help us to think, make the ideas embodied in the symbols more tangible. Since definite analogues are connected with visual images, these analogues facilitate the investigator's search for new ideas and facts. However, we must note that it is essential to treat models with care: visual images and analogues not only help to find new ideas and facts — at the same time they can cause the investigator to transfer properties to the objects under investigation which are not in reality inherent in them. Thus, in the empirical sciences theory and model have equivalent cognitive functions. It follows from this that in the empirical sciences there is no reason to contrast theory with model as different things. The contrast of theory and model is appropriate in the mathematical sciences, where theory and model really are different. Here the theory is the original of the model, i.e., the object of which the model is a representation, used as a tool for investigating this object. As for the empirical sciences, here theory and model should be subsumed under one concept as hypothetico-deductive systems with equivalent cognitive function. In the empirical sciences the term 'theory' is appropriate for any hypothetico-deductive system, with or without a visual representation of its constructs. From this the following definition may be given to the term 'model' for the empirical sciences : a model is a theory with visual content in the form of images which serve as analogues of observed objects. Thus, two types of theory exist in the empirical sciences: theories with visual content in the form of images, which serve as analogues of the unobservable objects, and theories without such visual content. The definition just quoted of the concept 'model in the empirical sciences' is the result of considering the cognitive processes in the mathematical and empirical sciences from a uniform point of view. In this case the point of view consists in not forgetting that a model has the same cognitive function in both the mathematical and empirical sciences. If the definition of a model changes when we transfer this concept from the mathematical to the empirical sciences, this denotes a change, not in the cognitive function of the model, but in the place of the theory in the process of cognition; in the mathematical sciences the original of the model is the theory, but in the empirical sciences the original of the model is not the theory but the corresponding area of empirical reality. Lack of the uniform point of view just indicated concerning the cognitive processes in the mathematical and empirical sciences leads to treating the terms 'model in the mathematical sciences' and 'model in the empirical sciences' as denoting directly opposed concepts. For example, here is what Klaus writes: 2S

R. B. Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation. A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability and Law in Science (Cambridge, England, 1953), pp. 81-82.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

63

The mathematical concept of a model, just like the logical one, denotes something completely opposed to what is denoted by this concept in the other sciences. In mathematics and logic, a model of a system of axioms means a concrete interpretation of that system. The system of axioms is therefore general : the model of that system is particular. But in the other sciences a model is that general system which embraces many individual cases, which generalizes. Here a model is an abstraction, as opposed to the application of this concept in logic and mathematics. 30 Opposing the concept of a 'model in the mathematical sciences' and 'model in the empirical sciences' the author of this statement is taking into consideration only one aspect of the situation, namely the presence in these concepts of the polar features of concreteness and abstractness. He is forgetting the other aspect of the situation, that these polar features are necessary consequences of the identity of cognitive function of both types of models. However, it is this second aspect of the situation which is of decisive importance for explaining the essential nature of both types of models. The definition I have proposed of a model in the empirical sciences not only bridges the gap between this concept and that of a model in the mathematical sciences but at the same time removes what seems to me the invalid opposition, put forward by some writers, of theory and model in the empirical sciences as various levels in our cognition of reality. One meets the opinion that a model is an intermediate link between theory and reality, since a model is nearer to reality than a theory. These writers think that any theory can be satisfactory only if a model of it can be built. If it is impossible to build a model of a given theory these writers seem to conclude that without a model it is impossible to explain the empirical facts under investigation, that we can only predict them through the theory. But in reality every theory both explains and predicts the empirical facts under investigation; the model adds nothing to the theory in the way of increasing its potential powers of explaining and predicting facts. Thus, in structural linguistics, for example, we may consider the inner functioning of language as a generative device, but what is of decisive importance for explaining and predicting linguistic facts is not this metaphorical image which likens the inner functioning of language to the functioning of an abstract machine but the formal apparatus of the linguistic theory. Exactly the same situation is found in the other empirical sciences. That is why it is necessary to treat the concept of a model in the empirical sciences simply as a variety of theory. In conclusion the following remarks may be made concerning the correlation of the concepts of model and theory in the empirical sciences. The concept 'model' will completely cover the concept 'theory' if we broaden our notion of visuality and extend it to mathematical symbolism. Bogoljubov, in his article "Image or Abstraction?" writes about the possibility of such an approach to mathematical symbolism: At first glance it seems that theoretical physics is saturated with mathematics as much as it can be. The pages of any manual or monograph look ominous to the uninitiated : a forest of 30

G. Klaus, Kybernetik in philosophischer Sicht (Berlin, 1961), p. 245.

64

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS

formulae, long calculations, masses of symbols. All this turns physics into something mysterious. Why then do we say that mathematics is penetrating more deeply into physics? Why do we talk about a new era in the application of mathematics to the explanation of physical laws? The point is that all the mysteriousness of mathematical calculations in physics is easily dispelled when they are followed by concrete, physical images. Many people genuinely think that physical laws, even if extraordinarily complicated mathematically, can be expressed by means of some images, which are easily enough represented. But is this the case in fact? Yes, mathematical images have recently begun to penetrate physics qualitatively, so to speak. Many purely physical concepts can be easily formulated as mathematical images, but are impossible to express visually. For modern theoretical physics the reverse is typical: it is making the transition from normal imagery to mathematical imagery. For instance : for me the psi-function which we use in quantum mechanics to describe the behavior of a particle is a completely concrete image, just like the concept of an electron as a ball which is used in the early stages of school physics. It is true that it is difficult to define the image of the psi-function of an electron. But we think with these functions, manipulate them : they are understandable for us, like completely concrete physical objects. Here there is nothing surprising: after all, we are talking about the representation of 'objective reality' — of an electron. I think it is now understandable why 'pure' mathematicians have recently begun to work with such success in the sphere of theoretical physics. 31 2.3 THE CONCEPT 'MODEL' IN LINGUISTICS

In the light of the definition of a model in the empirical sciences proposed in the preceding section let us examine the application of this concept in linguistic studies. In contemporary linguistic literature there is no generally accepted interpretation of the term 'model', which is used with the most varied meanings. Yuen Ren C h a o has compiled a list of the various uses of the term ' m o d e l ' in contemporary linguistic literature (adding several uses of the term by non-linguists). In this list we find the following thirty uses of the term 'model' with various meanings: M E A N I N G OF THE TERM 'MODEL'

AUTHOR

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Hockett Hockett Hockett Hockett Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky Voegelin Voegelin Voegelin Stevens Stevens

31

A f r a m e of reference Archetypical f r a m e s of reference A description A way of handling language A conception of linguistic structure A grammar A theory An impersonal plan A Standpunkt (Model or) style Analogue A proposed m e t h o d of research N. Bogoljubov, "Obraz ili abstiakcija?", in Texnika Molodezi, No. 1 (1965), p. 11.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

65

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

A miniature representation of a thing Oettinger A representation Oettinger An abstraction Oettinger A grammar and mechanism Yngve (Four) programmes for separate aspects of behavior Carroll A framework in respect to which language is described Harris A picture of how the linguistic system works Harris A particular style of grammar Harris A particular uninterpreted or partially interpreted system of marks, which becomes Harris 22. A theory of the structure of something (when interpreted) Harris 23. A formalized or semi-formalized theory Braithwaite 24. Theoruncula, theorita Braithwaite 25. A psychological crutch Putnam 26. A possible realization of a theory Suppes 27. A scheme of a system Diliberto 28. An abstraction Kapp 29. A set of constraints Pask 30. A formulation of strategy in optimizing profit Karp Yuen Ren Chao himself calls a model a thing which can serve as the analogue of another thing. 32 From the above list of meanings of the term 'model' it is evident that this term has no hard and fast links with one or another meaning in contemporary linguistic literature. Therefore we cannot reproach any writer with having chosen one meaning for the term and not another. After all, each writer has the right to ascribe to any term the meaning which seems to him most appropriate for his purpose. For the problems of theoretical research, as formulated above, most of the uses of the term 'model' indicated in the list just adduced are uninteresting. The crucial fact here is that linguists working in the field of generative grammars — such as Chomsky and Yngve — use the term 'model' as equivalent to the term 'theory'. These writers do not give a definition or logical analysis of the term 'model', but it is used by them in the spirit of the definition proposed in the preceding section. Zinov'ev and Revzin's treatement of this concept is also near to the given definition of a model. 33 In concluding the present section I think it is essential to emphasize that if we have in mind the problems of theoretical research in linguistics, the only interpretation of a linguistic model which can be recognized as fruitful is that which allows us to subsume that concept under the concept of a linguistic theory. ,a

Cf. Yuen Ren Chao, "Models in Linguistics and Models in General", in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (Stanford, California, 1962), pp. 558-566. 3S Cf. A. A. Zinov'ev, I. I. Revzin, "Logiöeskaja model' kak sredstvo nauënogo issledovanija", in Voprosy Filosofii, No. 1, (1960).

PART TWO

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

3

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS OF GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGY

3.1 THE SEMIOTIC TWO-STRATUM STRUCTURE OF NATURAL LANGUAGES AND THE SYSTEM OF FUNDAMENTAL PHONOLOGICAL CONCEPTS

Natural languages differ from other semiotic systems in having two semiotic strata. In natural languages the primitive semiotic system of signs is overlaid by a secondary semiotic system of diacritic linguistic elements. In distinction from natural languages, the artificial languages of mathematics, physics, chemistry and the other abstract sciences make do with only systems of signs. The necessity of a secondary semiotic system in natural languages is explained by the limited capacity of the human memory. Natural languages are so richly endowed with a large number of various signs that without diacritic elements it would be impossible to remember all the signs. The memorizing and use of signs in natural languages is possible only because any sign can be represented as a sequence of diacritic elements, whose number is strictly limited and compassable. As for artificial languages, since they do not possess a large number of signs they do not need a system of diacritic elements. Of course, artificial languages with two semiotic strata are possible in principle, but such artificial languages must be considered analogues of natural languages. Let us begin analyzing the concept of a sign in natural languages. Let us introduce the concept of a sign situation. I call a sign situation a binary relation, expressed by the formula sRd, where s is a sign or designator, R is the relation of designation, and d is the designatum, i.e., the object of the designation. Designation is a complex relation which splits up into two simpler relations — meaning and reference in the terminology of Quine and other scholars. Corresponding to this the designatum is also a complex object which splits up into two simpler objects — the significatum and the referent. What is s, i.e., a sign, in natural languages? In natural languages a sign is always any acoustic element which is in the relation of designation to a designatum. In addition to the semiotic two-level structure, the acoustic nature of sounds is a specific feature of natural languages. Corresponding to the two semiotic strata of natural languages let us now introduce

70

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

the concept of a diacritic situation. I call a diacritic situation a binary relation, expressed by the formula fDs where / is a phoneme, D the relation of differentiation, and s a sign, i.e., the object of the differentiation on the level of the diacritic situation. Like signs, diacritic elements in natural languages, i.e., phonemes, are always acoustic elements. Let us take a closer look at the relations of designation and differentiation. What is vital for the relation of designation is not the acoustic nature of signs, but the possibility of using them to denote designata without confusing them. What is vital for the relation of differentiation is not the acoustic nature of phonemes, but the possibility of using them to differentiate and not to confuse signs. If we accept these statements, it follows that both signs and phonemes can be transposed from acoustic substance to any other forms of physical substance — graphic, color, tactile, etc. But, as was said above, one of the specific peculiarities of natural languages is that signs and phonemes are precisely acoustic elements. From this it follows that signs and phonemes cannot be transposed from acoustic substance to other forms of physical substance. A contradiction appears : on the one hand, as a necessary consequence of the semiotic nature of the relations of designation and differentiation, signs and phonemes can be transposed from acoustic substance to other forms of semiotic substance: but on the other hand, as a necessary consequence of the acoustic nature of signs and phonemes in natural languages, signs and phonemes cannot be transferred from acoustic substance to other forms of physical substance. It turns out that signs and phonemes can and cannot be transposed from acoustic substance to other forms of physical substance. This contradiction I call the fundamental semiotic antinomy in natural languages, or the antinomy of transposition. 1 The question arises : how can we deal with the antinomy of transposition we have just examined? Two ways of dealing with the antinomy of transposition can be tested. (1) First of all we can try generalizing the concept of a sign, and correspondingly of a phoneme, by raising it to the general semiotic level. Thus, a sign can be defined as an element of any physical nature standing in the relation of designation to a designatum. Correspondingly, a phoneme should also be defined as a diacritic element of any physical nature standing in the relation of differentiation to a sign. In principle it is possible to extend the concepts of sign and phoneme in this way, but this will contradict the assertion about the acoustic nature specific to natural languages. The latter property must on no account be ignored if we do not want to break with reality. The acoustic nature of signs and phonemes in 1

There are more particular semiotic antinomies, which are examined in relation to phonology in my book, Problemy teoreticeskoj fonologii (Moscow, 1962).

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

71

natural languages must be mentioned when these concepts are being defined, since it is precisely natural languages that we are studying. (2) Instead of extending the concepts of sign and phoneme, it is possible, on the contrary, to narrow the concepts 'relation of designation' and 'relation of differentiation'. We can consider that the relations of designation and differentiation in natural languages are such that they can hold only if acoustic elements serve as signs and phonemes. Interpreting thus the relations of designation and differentiation overcomes the antinomy of transposition by prohibiting the transposition of signs and phonemes from acoustic substance to other forms of physical substance, since the latter would mean infringing the newly made convention that the relations of designation and differentiation hold only when signs and phonemes are acoustic elements. Narrowing thus the concepts 'relation of designation' and 'relation of differentiation' cannot be considered justified, because designation and differentiation are not particular but general semiotic concepts. The relation of designation has as its essential feature the requirement that signs serve to differentiate designata independently of their physical nature. Correspondingly, the relation of differentiation has as its essential feature the requirement that diacritic elements distinguish signs independently of their physical nature. If we deprive the relations of designation and differentiation of this essential feature, we will destroy their semiotic nature and they will generally cease to be semiotic concepts. It is obvious that the two ways we have examined cannot lead to overcoming the antinomy of transposition. Therefore a third way suggests itself — applying the method of idealization to the concepts of sign and phoneme. For solving our problem it is necessary to combine the idealization method with an approach which is usually called the splitting of concepts. Let us split the concept 'sign in a natural language' into two concepts : an idealized sign, in which the acoustic substance is reduced to zero, and the acoustic substratum of the idealized sign. Correspondingly, let us divide the concept 'phoneme' into two concepts : the concept of an idealized phoneme, in which the acoustic substance is reduced to zero, and the concept of the acoustic substratum of the phoneme. I call a phoneme's acoustic substratum a 'phonemoid' ; by convention we shall call an idealized phoneme simply a phoneme. I postulate a relation of representation between sign and phoneme on one hand, and their acoustic substrata on the other: the acoustic substrata represent signs and phonemes. This splitting of concepts allows us to overcome the antinomy of transposition, since now, on the one hand, the concept of the acoustic substrata of signs and phonemes determines the acoustic nature specific to natural languages, and on the other, it has now been made logically possible to transfer these substrata to other forms of physical substance. As is well known, phonemes are not phonological units incapable of further division.

72

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

In modern phonology phonemes are considered as bundles of distinctive features. In connection with our splitting the concepts of sign and phoneme the position of distinctive features becomes a problem. To distinctive features the same considerations are applicable as to phonemes. In fact, distinctive features, like phonemes, stand in the relation of differentiation to signs, and therefore are also affected by the antinomy of transposition. Since distinctive features stand in the relation of differentiation to signs, what is vital for them is not a definite physical substance, but the requirement that they should not be confused with each other. On this basis they can be transferred from acoustic substance to other forms of physical substance; but, as elements of an acoustic language, distinctive features are acoustic by definition and cannot be transferred from acoustic substance to other forms of physical substance. This antinomy can be overcome only by splitting the concept 'distinctive feature' into two concepts: the concept of a 'differentor', an idealized distinctive feature free from any physical substance, and the concept of a 'differentoid', the acoustic substratum of a differentor. Phonemoids and differentoids must not be confused with sounds and the acoustic properties of sounds. Sounds and the acoustic properties of sounds are purely physical notions, whereas phonemoids and differentoids are relational-physical concepts, since they stand in the relation of representation to phonemes and differentors as the latter's substrata. As for phonemes and differentors: since they are idealized elements free of any physical substance they must be considered purely relational concepts. Thus, three types of concepts must be strictly distinguished and not confused: (1) purely physical concepts — sounds and the acoustic properties of sounds; (2) relational-physical concepts — phonemoids and differentoids ; (3) purely relational concepts or constructs — phonemes and differentors. This system of concepts can be summarized in the following table :

Semiotic level

Physical level

Idealized phonological elements

Concrete differentor

Abstract differentor

Concrete phoneme

Abstract phoneme

Relationalphysical elements

Concrete differentoid

Abstract differentoid

Concrete phonemoid

Abstract phonemoid

Purely physical elements

Concrete acoustic property

Abstract acoustic property

Concrete sound

Abstract sound (sound type)

In this table the division of phonological elements into abstract and concrete needs to be explained. The terms 'abstract' and 'concrete' correspond to the terms 'invariant' and 'variant'. It follows from this that each separate level of abstraction has its own invariance problem to decide. Each level of abstraction has its own invariants and variants to differentiate. The methods of determining the invariants and variants of

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

73

phonological units for each level of abstraction have been examined in detail in my book already referred to : Problems of Theoretical Phonology. On the basis of the foregoing discussion the following principle of two-level structure may be formulated for the primary and secondary semiotic systems of natural languages. Two main levels of abstraction must be distinguished: the physical and semiotic levels. On the semiotic level are idealized semiotic elements free of any physical substance, and on the physical level are the acoustic substrata of these idealized semiotic elements. We cannot fully investigate how the primary and secondary semiotic systems of natural languages correlate if we omit the concept of accent or stress. In modern phonology accent or stress is the emphasizing of a particular syllable in a duosyllabic or polysyllabic word. The basic function of stress is the so-called culminative function: the stress signals how many independent words there are in a given stream of speech. It must be mentioned, however, that not every language has word stress. For instance, French has no word stress. Speaking about the absence of word stress in French Söerba says : There [in French] it is not words which are supplied with stress but groups of words expressing a single conceptual whole in the flow of speech: In the system the stress falls on the last syllable of the last word in the group, unless it contains a so-called le muet (the only exception is the pronoun le which can stand at the end of such a group and in this position receives the stress: donne-lel) All the other words of the group never have their own stress.2 Thus, in French stress signals only how many separate word-groups there are in a given stretch of speech. If there are languages in which stress is correlated with bigger units than separate words, there are also languages in which stress is correlated with smaller units than words. Let us take, for example, the German word: Wachsfigurenkabinett. In this word there are three stresses: the main one on the first syllable, and two secondary stresses are on the syllable nett, and the other on the syllable gur. Concerning this point Martinet writes: In such languages as German the situation is clear : each element of a compound word keeps the stress which it had as an independent word. The second syllable of the word Figur is always stressed, no matter whether Figur is being used as an independent unit of the expression, or as constituent element in a compound word.3 Thus, in German stress signals not only the number of separate words in a given flow of speech but also of how many parts the individual words consist. The question arises: if this culminative function is not necessarily linked with the individual word but can relate to bigger and smaller units than the word, is it not possible to generalize this function by linking it with any phonological unit? 2 3

L. V. Scerba, Fonetika francuzskogo jazyka, 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1948), p. 82. A. Martinet, Éléments de linguistique générale (Paris, 1960), p. 89.

74

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

For example, it is well known that the number of vowels in a given flow of speech signals the number of syllables present. Is it not possible to ascribe culminative function to vocality? From the point of view of the two level principle the answer to this question is positive. In fact, both stress and vocalism can be treated as the acoustic substrata of one and the same idealized phonological unit — the culminator, whose function is to conjoin phonemes into various types of syntagmatic phonological units : phonological syllables, phonological words, phonological groups of words, etc. Not only stress and vocality can be substrata of the culminator but also, for example, synharmony, as a special property of the word. Furthermore, so-called juncture signals can be an acoustic substratum of the culminator. The acoustic substrata of culminators can be simple and complex : thus, in one case only stress or juncture-signals may serve as the acoustic substratum of the culminator, and in another case stress and juncture signals combined. A special term should be introduced for the acoustic substrata of culminators. I call these acoustic substrata 'culminatoids'. It must be emphasized that culminators should be treated as special phonological units whose function is to combine phonemes on the syntagmatic axis of language into a whole hierarchy of syntagmatic units of various ranks. The following conclusion may be drawn from the above: based on the concept of the culminator, the two-level principle allows us to unify various phonological theories which up until now have been studied independently of each other: the theory of the word, the theory of the syllable, the theory of stress, the theory of juncture signals, the theory of synharmony. This single, synthetic theory may be called the culminator theory.

3.2 THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TWO-STRATA SEMIOTIC STRUCTURE OF NATURAL LANGUAGES AND THE TWO-LEVEL PRINCIPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENERATIVE GRAMMARS

In the preceding section it was shown that linguistic units in natural languages have two semiotic strata : the stratum of signs and the stratum of diacritic elements. On each of these strata two levels must be distinguished: (1) the semiotic level itself, i.e., the level of idealized, semiotic objects : (2) the physical level, i.e., the level of the physical substrata of the idealized semiotic objects. Both these features — the two-strata semiotic nature of natural languages and the two-strata structure of each semiotic plane — are vitally important for deciding the question of how to construct generative grammars. Corresponding to the two semiotic strata, two levels must be distinguished in each generative grammar: (1) the level of global symbols, and (2) the level on which the global symbols are phonologically coded. These two levels are not of equal importance. All that is essential for the inner structure of language is included in the first level.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

75

As for the second level, it is of auxiliary importance for generative grammars. In fact, let us take as an example the difference between cases. For the inner structure of, say, Russian the very fact that definite cases exist is vital, but not the phonological means by which each case is expressed. In Russian the genitive case can be noted by -a, -i, -ej, etc. ; the dative by -i, -e, -am, etc. But we can denote these cases simply by the global symbols G and D, and this is sufficient for investigating the inner structure of Russian, although a complete description of Russian would of course require investigation of how the global symbols G and D must be coded on the phonological level. The question now arises as to which units we must deal with on the level of global symbols. On this level the global symbols themselves are units. Depending on the type of generative grammar these symbols can be interpreted as words or as smaller units. We must always remember that, no matter how we interpret the global symbols, this interpretation must not be confused with analogous concepts in actual languages. For example, in real languages a word is a unit embodied in a combination of phonological elements : in generative grammar a word is the idealized image of a real word, freed from its phonological trappings. For the purposes of generative grammar it is sufficient to define a language as a finite or infinite set of combinations of symbols (which serve as the analogues of word-combinations and sentences), built using a finite alphabet of symbols (the analogue of a dictionary). A generative grammar is a set of rules which recursively enumerate the combinations of symbols belonging to the language. The term 'generation' must be understood as a synonym of the term 'recursive enumeration'. Global symbols are the invariants of concrete symbols embodied in chains of phonemes. The aim of each science is to discover deeper and deeper invariants. Like any other science structural linguistics has set itself this goal. Therefore it cannot stop at abstracting global symbols from phoneme chains, but on the level of global symbols must abstract the inner structure of the symbol-combinations from its linear representation. Here is an example of what we are trying to do. Let us take the sentence The boy reads the book. In English it is impossible to rearrange the words if we want to preserve the meaning of the sentence. If we transpose the words we get exactly the opposite: The book reads the boy. Although in an English sentence word order distinguishes grammatical relations, it is possible in English, on the level of global symbols, to treat grammatical links in a sentence as abstract, independent of word order. Such an approach is also important when describing languages such as Russian, where a change in word order does not alter the grammatical relations. The thing is that, although in these languages change in word order does not involve change in the meaning of the grammatical relations, not every word order is normal in these languages. For example, MaVcik citaet knigu 'the boy reads the book' is a sentence with normal word order, but citaet maPcik knigu 'reads the boy the book' is a deviation from the norm. For gaining knowledge of the inner structure of a sentence it is not important which word order is normal and which is a deviation

76

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

from the norm. Therefore, on the level of global symbols the inner structure of a sentence must be considered as the invariant of any word order — both normal and deviant. Abstracting the inner structure of a sentence from linearly arranged global symbols does not mean that structural linguistics should set aside investigation of word order. On the contrary, distinguishing non-linear and linear stages on the level of global symbols should make investigation of word order more revealing since many laws of word order will be revealed by the contrast of word order with the inner grammatical relations in the sentence. In the following chapters it will be shown that distinguishing the inner structure of a sentence from its linear representation is of decisive importance for overcoming the basic difficulties encountered by types of generative grammar which do not make this distinction. Thus, in a generative grammar two processes must be distinguished on the level of global symbols : (1) the generation of non-linear combinations of symbols, and (2) the transformation of non-linear into linear combinations of symbols. The necessity for this distinction is a direct consequence of the two-level principle examined in the preceding section. In fact, if the signs of an actual natural language are elements which need to be split into two kinds — into idealized semiotic elements freed from their physical trappings, and the physical substrata of these idealized semiotic elements, it follows that in an abstract investigation of signs as idealized semiotic elements we must set aside everything which does not relate to the inner structure of these elements but to their physical embodiment. But linearity is just such a phonomenon, directly related to the acoustic nature of the physical substrata of signs in natural languages. De Saussure wrote : The signifier, being auditory, is unfolded solely in time from which it gets the following characteristics : (a) it represents a span, and (b) the span is measurable in a single dimension; it is a line. While [this principle] is obvious, apparently linguists have always neglected to state it, doubtless because they found it too simple; nevertheless, it is fundamental, and its consequences are incalculable ... the whole mechanism of language depends upon it .... In contrast to visual signifiers (nautical signals, etc.) which can offer simultaneous groupings in several dimensions, auditory signifiers have at their command only the dimension of time. Their elements are presented in succession ; they form a chain. This feature becomes readily apparent when they are represented in writing and the spatial line of graphic marks is substituted for succession in time. Sometimes the linear nature of the signifier is not obvious. When I accent a syllable, for instance, it seems that I am concentrating more than one significant element on the same point. But this is an illusion; the syllable and its accent constitute only one phonational act. There is no duality within the act but only different oppositions to what precedes and what follows ,... 4 4 F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, translated by Wade Baskin (New York, McGrawHill Book Company, 1966), p. 70.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

77

De Saussure's ideas on the linearity of the signifiant need to be revised. Contrary to his view the following idea must be proposed : since the signs of natural languages are split into idealized semiotic elements and the acoustic substrata of these elements, the links between signs are also split into idealized relations between idealized semiotic elements shorn of all spatial characteristics, and the embodiment of these idealized relations in linear links between the acoustic substrata of the idealized semiotic elements. It is interesting to note that an analogous problem concerning the linearity and non-linearity of the links between signs has recently come up in mathematical logic. When constructing formal systems Curry also considers it essential to distinguish two levels of links between signs : linear and non-linear. Corresponding to this Curry distinguishes two types of formal systems: (1) ob systems 5 and (2) syntactical or conc a t e n a t e systems. In ob systems the links between symbols are shorn of spatial characteristics, whereas in syntactical systems the symbols are joined by the linear operarion of concatenation. Concerning the correlation of ob systems and syntactical systems Curry writes : From a certain point of view an ob system is a more rigorous concept than a concatenative system. In the latter the associativity of the concatenation operation has to be taken for granted. Thus a proof in a concatenative system is like a proof of a geometric theorem by drawing a figure. It is perhaps true that one cannot banish such intuitive evidence entirely (since one needs some of it in checking a construction), but there is less of it in an ob system. Again, the notion of ob system puts less emphasis on linguistic accidents. For example, suppose one were to take Example 6 with an autonomous representation; one would then have a concatenative system whose alphabet consisted of the letters a, b, (,),

=>

If one were to replace these by other letters, say, α, β, [, ], ~ , > , anyone would agree that we had merely another representation of the same concatenative system. But if one were to pass to the standard Lukasiewicz representation, the resulting concatenative system would be so different as to be a distinct system, whereas from the standpoint of ob systems, it is still only another representation of the same system. Thus an ob system is invariant of a wider class of changes in representation than is a concatenative system. Consequently it agrees with the tendency in mathematics to seek intrinsic, invariant formulations, such as vectors, projective geometries, topological spaces, etc.6 In connection with the necessity of applying the two-level principle in generative grammar, I introduced the terms 'phenotype' and 'genotype' 7 into structural linguistics. I borrowed these terms from biology where 'phenotype' is the outward appearance of an organism, but 'genotype' is the genetic constitution of the organism. Organisms can have similar phenotypes but different genotypes, and, vice versa, similar genotypes but different phenotypes. Corresponding to the distinction of 6

The term 'ob' which Curry uses to denote abstract objects is an abbreviation of 'object'. Η. B. Curry, Foundations of Mathematical Logic (New York, 1963), pp. 60-61. 7 See S. K. Saumjan, "Preobrazovanie informacii ν processe poznanija i dvuxstupencataja teorija strukturnoj lingvistiki", in Tezisy dokladov na konferenciipo obrabotke informacii, masinnomu perevodu, i avtomatileskomu (teniju teksta (Moscow, 1961), pp. 111-115. '

78

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

phenotypes and genotypes, I distinguish phenotype and genotype levels in generative grammar.

3.3 THE TWO-LEVEL THEORY OF GENERATIVE GRAMMARS

In the light of what was said in the preceding sections about the two-level principle we can now characterize in general the structure and problems of generative grammars. We must distinguish generative grammar as a theory (or model) of linguistic structure from the theory of generative grammars as a metatheory in relation to generative grammars. As a metatheory in relation to generative grammars, the theory of generative grammars deals with the problem of choosing generative grammars for actual languages. According to Chomsky a theory of generative grammars should contain : (a) a class of possible grammars Gt, G2, (b) a class of possible sentences slt s2, ... ; (c) a function / : f(i,j) is the set of structural descriptions of sentence st given by grammar G( ; (d) a function m(i) which evaluates Gt ; (e) a function g\ g(i,n) is the description of a finite automaton which has as its input sentences satisfying condition (b) and produces as its output the structural descriptions guaranteed for these sentences by grammar G1 — this includes some, and perhaps all, members of f(i,j). In the formula g{i,n), η denotes a parameter which determines the memory limitations of the automaton. Chomsky explains these conditions thus : Condition (a) means that the theory of generative grammars should give a schema and symbolic apparatus for grammatical description, and also an exact definition of the concept 'rule of grammar'. Condition (b) can be guaranteed by adopting any alphabet, say an alphabet based on Jakobson's distinctive feature theory, which must be regarded as an integral part of the theory of generative grammars. Condition (c) ensures several structural descriptions only if sentence sf is homonymous. Condition (d) reduces to the requirement that the choice of one or another grammar be justified. In other words, m is a measure of complexity by which one chooses between alternative grammars compatible with the data. Condition (e) has the following meaning. Grammars Gt and Gz are devices which generate sentences and provide each sentence with a structural description (the term 'generation' must be understood as a synonym of the term 'recursive enumeration'). These devices must not be considered as modelling the linguistic behavior of speaker or hearer. These devices can neither synthesize sentences, like a speaker, nor analyze

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

79

the structure of a sentence, like a hearer. They are neutral with respect to speaker and hearer. In order to create devices which model the linguistic performance of speakers and hearers, function g is introduced, such that g(i,n) may be considered an adequate model of the linguistic performance of speakers and hearers who have assimilated grammar Gt and have the memory capacity determined by the value of n. The difference between grammar G, and automata which model the linguistic performance of speaker and hearer is analogous to the difference between the system of arithmetical rules and automata which model the computational operations done by humans. The following dependency must be mentioned: just as automata which model the computational operations done by humans must be based on the system of arithmetical rules, so automata which model the linguistic performance of speaker and hearer must be based on the system of rules of grammar G¡. This is what Chomsky understands by the concept 'theory of generative grammar'. 8 It is evident that this conception of the theory of generative grammars must be revised as follows. First of all it must be noted that this conception of the theory of generative grammars is based on the interpretation of a grammar as a device which generates only sentences. Words are assumed to be given. Of course, in principle such an interpretation of a grammar is permissible, but it seriously cramps our notions concerning the essence of the generative process, since the generation of sentences is one aspect of the process, the other aspect being the generation of words — no less objective a fact than the generation of sentences. In reality it is possible to show that the generation of sentences and the generation of words are two parts of a single linguistic generative process; one cannot therefore neglect one of these parts. Thus, when defining the theory of generative grammars one must add a new condition, that the class of possible words Wj, w2, ... be given in the theory. Corresponding to this condition a new function (denoted by e) should be introduced along with function / : e(i,j) is the set of structural descriptions of the class of words K, which grammar Gj can generate. Further, in accordance with condition (e), function g describes a finite automaton which has sentences as its input and produces as its output the structural descriptions guaranteed for these sentences by G¡. The explanation of this condition is that the given finite automaton models the linguistic performance of both speakers and hearers. But in reality this function needs to be split into two functions: function gi, which models the linguistic performance of the speaker (a synthesizing automaton), and function g2, which models the linguistic performance of the hearer (an analyzing automaton). Finally, in accordance with condition (b), sentences s2,... are taken as phonologically realized, i.e., on the phenotype level. If it is accepted that it is necessary strictly to distinguish the phenotype and genotype levels of abstraction, condition (b) must be split into two conditions which require that phenotype and genotype sentences be 8

See N. Chomsky, "On the Notion 'Rule of Grammar"', in Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, XII: Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects (1961), pp. 6-24.

80

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

distinguished. The classes of words must be correspondingly split. Genotype and phenotype words must be distinguished. On the basis of what has been said, a theory of generative grammars should contain : a class of possible grammars G1} G2, ...; possible classes of genotype words Wu W2, ... ; possible classes of phenotype words Wif W2) ... J possible classes of genotype sentences S i , S 2 , ...; possible classes of phenotype sentences s1} s2, ... ; a function el : e^ij) is the set of structural descriptions of genotype word Wt provided by grammar Gt ; (g) a function e2: e2(i,j) is the set of structural descriptions of phenotype word wt provided by grammar G¡ ; (h) a function f x : f x ( i , j ) is the set of structural descriptions of genotype sentence S , provided by grammar Gt ; (i) a function f 2 : f 2 ( i , j ) is the set of structural descriptions of phenotype sentence st provided by grammar Gt ; (j) a function m(i) which evaluates G{ ; (k) a function g1: gi(i,n) is the description of a synthesizing automaton based on grammar Gt ; (1) a function g2 : g2(i, ri) is the description of an analytical automaton based on grammar Gt. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

The theory of generative grammars which satisfies these conditions we will call the two-level theory of generative grammars. Corresponding to the two-level principle the task of each generative grammar must be, not directly to generate the linguistic objects of an actual language, as provided for in Chomsky's one-level theory of generative grammars discussed above, but to generate objects in two phases. In the first phase idealized linguistic objects are generated — genotype words and sentences together forming an idealized language which I call a genotype language. In the second phase the idealized objects of the genotype language must be transformed by correspondence rules into phenotype words and sentences of actual languages, which I call phenotype languages to distinguish them from the genotype language. The genotype language can be used as a standard-language for the structural-typological comparison of actual languages. The following remarks must be made concerning the structure of the two-level theory of generative grammars. The following three terms must be strictly distinguished and not confused: 'to generate sentences', 'to synthesize sentences', 'to analyze sentences'. The term 'to generate sentences' is a synonym of the term 'to recursively enumerate sentences'. The term 'to synthesize sentences' means 'to produce sentences according to a given meaning'. The term 'to analyze sentences' means 'to determine how the given sentences were produced'. A generative grammar in itself neither synthesizes nor analyzes

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

81

sentences: it is neutral with respect to speaker and hearer. We must distinguish generative grammar as a theory of linguistic structure, and the use of this theory for constructing synthesizing and analyzing automata. The essential point is that one and the same generative grammar is used, depending on the problems facing the investigator, for describing both how speakers produce sentences of an actual language and how hearers recognize these sentences. A description of synthesizing and analyzing linguistic automata should be included in the theory of generative grammars, since generative grammar is the basic component of both types of linguistic automata. At the same time we should distinguish the theory of generative grammars in the broad sense and the theory of generative grammars as such, i.e., without the description of synthesizing and analyzing automata, since this description really relates to the application of the theory of generative grammars. In this book the theory of generative grammars as such will be discussed. 3.4 PHONOLOGICAL CODING

From the existence of two semiotic strata in natural languages it follows that each generative grammar can in principle do without a phonological description, since the diacritic system of phonological elements is a secondary semiotic system overlying the primary semiotic system of linguistic signs. However, for the complete description of a language it is essential to show how the global symbols of generative grammar can be recoded into phonological elements. Like a generative grammar a phonological code can be universal. However, there is no continuity between a universal generative grammar and a universal phonological code. In other words, there is no need to recode the global symbols of a universal generative grammar into phonological elements before interpreting a universal generative grammar in the terms of a concrete generative grammar of some natural language. It does not follow at all from the universality of a given phonological code that it exists for recoding the global symbols of a universal generative grammar. Phonological recoding is of interest only on a more concrete level, i.e., when the global symbols of a universal generative grammar have been split up into concrete global symbols for describing some concrete natural language or groups of such languages. Thus it turns out that a universal phonological code is applied only when a universal generative grammar ceases to be universal and is transformed into a more concrete model. It is understood that a universal phonological code changes correspondingly with respect to a concrete grammatical model of a language. From this it follows that continuity exists not between a universal generative grammar and the universal phonological code but between a concrete grammatical model of a language and the universal phonological code, which changes with respect to the concrete grammatical model. It is this situation we shall have in mind from now on when discussing phonological coding. The phonological coding process can be represented thus: there is a phonological

82

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

coding device which has global symbols as its input and produces as its output a phonological representation of these symbols. As a universal phonological code we can use the system developed by Jakobson. My version of this universal phonological code contains two systems: a system of differentors and a system of culminators. The system of differentors includes fourteen binary oppositions: (1) c o m p a c t 2 non-compact 2 ; (2) diffuse 2 - non-diffuse 2 ; (3) grave 2 - acute 2 ; (4) flat2 - plain 2 ; (5) nasalized 2 - non-nasalized 2 ; (6) discontinuous 2 - continuant; (7) checked 2 - unchecked 2 ; (8) strident 2 - mellow 2 ; (9) voiced 2 - voiceless2 ; (10) sharp 2 - plain 2 ; (11) tense 2 - lax 2 ; (12) liquid 2 - non-linquid 2 ; (13) glide2 - non-glide 2 ; (14) long 2 short 2 . The system of culminators is as follows: (1) vocalic 2 (as opposed to consonantaJ 2 ) i.e., the syllable culminator; (2) the word culminator; (3) the word-group culminator; (4) the sentence culminator. The index 2 serves to distinguish differentors and culminators from differentoids and culminatoids which are indexed for example: voiced 2 and voiced!· 9 What is the phonological representation of global symbols? If phonemes are regarded as bundles of differentors, a phonological representation can be shown as a matrix whose columns are phonemes and whose rows are differentors. The matrix element (/,;') shows whether phoneme j contains differentor /. A phonological coding device has as its input lexical and grammatical morphemes in the form of strings or complexes of global symbols. Of course, this matrix form of phonological representation is meaningful only if we use the concept 'phoneme', but, as I tried to show in my book which I have already mentioned, Problems of Theoretical Phonology, the concept 'phoneme' is not at all essential. In this book the idea was put forward that there can be several equivalent, wellestablished phonological representations. This theory found practical support in research done by Lekomceva, who proposed four equivalent algorithms for phonological description. These algorithms differ firstly in their sets of initial elements (their alphabet) and secondly in the sequence of operations. The alphabet of the first algorithm consists of phonemes, but the alphabets of the following three algorithms use differentors. 10 A phonological representation can have three levels: (1) morphophonological; (2) purely phonological; (3) relational-physical. * For the justification of this form of universal code see S. K. Saumjan, Problemy teoreticeskoj fonologii (Moscow, 1962), p. 116-159. A description of this universal code in its original form can be found in R. Jakobson, M. Halle, Fundamentals of Language ('s Gravenhage, 1956). See also V. V. Ivanov, "O primenimosti fonologiceskix modelej", in Trudy Instituto toénoj mexaniki i vyéislitel'noj texniki AN SSSR, II (Moscow, 1961); R. G. Piotrovskij, "E§ce raz o differencial'nyx priznakax fonemy", in Voprosy Jazykoznanija, No. 6, (1960). 10 See M. I. Lekomceva, Fonologiéeskaja sistema jazyka s tocki zrenija algoritmov sinteza, Kandidatskaja dissertacija (Moscow, 1964).

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

83

O n the morphophonological level we deal with morphodifferentors, morphoculminators, morphophonemes. O n the purely phonological level we deal with differentors, culminators, phonemes. O n the relational-physical level we deal with differentoids, culminatoids, phonemoids. The third level is called relational-physical and not simply physical because differentoids, culminatoids, and phonemoids are not simply physical objects but physical objects standing in the relation of representation to the corresponding purely phonological objects. Chomsky, Halle and certain other linguists have recently put forward the idea that in a phonological representation it is sufficient to distinguish two levels — the morphophonological and relational-physical. As for the purely phonological level — as an intermediate level it is superfluous. It is entirely possible to establish direct relations between the morphophonological and relational-physical levels (Chomsky and Halle use a different terminology for these levels but I will not go into explanations of terminological differences because this will not affect the essential facts). Here, for instance, is what Chomsky and Miller write concerning this: What we, following Sapir, call phonemic representation is generally called morphophonemic today. It is generally assumed that there is a level of representation intermediate between phonetic and morphophonemic, this new intermediate level usually being called phonemic. However, there seems to us good reason to reject the hypothesis that there exists an intermediate level of this sort and to reject, as well, many of the assumptions concerning sound structure that are closely interwoven with this hypothesis in many contemporary formulations of linguistic theory. 11 Can the morphophonological level of representation be directly linked with the relational-physical level? Yes, it can. But from this fact Chomsky, Halle, and certain other linguists draw far-reaching conclusions which lead to their abolishing that essential section of the problems studied by modern phonology which is not related to the use of phonological means for grammatical purposes. The truth of the matter is that in their work these writers replace phonology by morphophonology, to which they attach the term 'phonology'. The classical problems of phonology are declared trivial by these writers. In reality, the situation is as follows. Phonological means must, above all, be studied in themselves, i.e., independently of how they are used for grammatical purposes. From this standpoint phonology is a more abstract discipline than morphophonology. In fact, if we take phonological means only from the standpoint of their diacritic (differentiating) function, independently of their inclusion in morphemes, we attain a higher level of abstraction than if we take phonological means in relation to how they function in morpheme composition. The aim of morphophono11 N. Chomsky, G. Miller, "Introduction to the Formal Analysis of Natural Languages", in R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, IL (New York, 1963), p. 309. See M. Halle, The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investigation (The Hague, 1959).

84

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

logy is to investigate how the diacritic potentialities of phonological means are realized for grammatical purposes. Thus, the question of levels in phonological representation is more complicated than it seems at first sight. If we approach phonological means from the standpoint of their use in generative grammar, then, of course, the phonological level as such must be considered intermediate between the morphophonological and relational-physical levels, and it is possible to abstract from this intermediate level by directly linking the morphophonological and relational-physical levels. But if we approach phonological means from the standpoint of their diacritic potentialities, the morphophonological level turns out to be intermediate. Indeed, we can first of all recode every global symbol on the level of pure phonological representation, and then see how this abstract level is realized on the morphophonological level. Therefore, the interaction of these three levels must be represented not vertically (from top to bottom) but as the triangle drawn in Figure 1. Morphophonological level

Abstract-phonological level

Relational-physical level Fig. ι

This triangle shows that each of the three levels of phonological representation is directly linked with any other level. We can go directly from the morphophonological to the relational-physical level, and we can go to it via the abstract phonological level. We can go directly from the abstract-phonological to the relational-physical level, and we can go to it via the morphophonological level. On the basis of these remarks, the following definition of phonology may be advanced at the present stage in its development : in relation to generative grammar phonology is an auxiliary discipline which deals with three aspects of the acoustic side of language: (1) the diacritic potentialities of phonological units; (2) the realization of these diacritic potentialities in generative grammar; (3) the embodiment of these phonological means in the physical substance of language. With such a definition of phonology what was formerly morphophonology can now be considered that special part of phonology which deals with the second of the above aspects. As for the third aspect, the following may be said. For the goals of phonology a general characterization of the relational-physical elements is enough. But this does not suffice for complete cognition of a language. Apart from studying a language's

THE SEMIOTIC A N D LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

85

phonological system it is essential that we systematically investigate the latter's empirical correlates (on the physical, physiological, a n d psychological planes). Such research has long since been in progress. However, this research has not been m a d e into a separate discipline but is included either in phonetics or phonology. But in reality three separate, though at the same time closely related, disciplines should be distinguished: (1) theoretical phonology, which deals with the phonological system of a language; (2) experimental phonology, which deals with the empirical correlates of the abstract phonological system; (3) phonetics, which deals with the acoustic substance of language as a purely physical p h e n o m e n o n . It must be emphasized that in actual fact intensive research is being undertaken o n all three branches. However, it is i m p o r t a n t that the research which I p u t under the heading of 'experimental phonology' be m a d e into a separate linguistic discipline. We are not, of course, talking a b o u t simply attaching a new label to research already in progress. T h e i m p o r t a n t thing is to find an adequate system for these investigations which would cement t h e m into a separate scientific discipline. F o r an analogy one can refer t o the development of cybernetics as an independent science. I t m u s t be mentioned that a b r o a d range of cybernetic research was going on in various countries long before the word 'cybernetics' was used as a name f o r this field of research. However, the word 'cybernetics' was not simply a label f o r a well-known field of research, but helped to cement these investigations into a separate branch of knowledge, into a separate science.

3.5 THE CONCEPT OF A GRAMMATICAL PHRASE

By 'phrase' I shall mean, in accordance with the accepted usage in the field of generative g r a m m a r , any ordered sequence of words, be it a sentence or a separate g r o u p of words included in a sentence. A phrase can be constructed according to the g r a m m a r rules of a given language or in contradiction to the rules. In the first case the phrase is called grammatical, and in the second — ungrammatical. C h o m s k y writes : The fundamental aim in the linguistic analysis of a language L is to separate the grammatical sequences which are the sentences of L from the ungrammatical sequences which are not sentences of L and to study the structure of the grammatical sequences. The grammar of L will thus be a device that generates all of the grammatical sequences of L and none of the ungrammatical ones. One way to test the adequacy of a grammar proposed for L is to determine whether or not the sequences that it generates are actually grammatical, i.e., acceptable to a native speaker, etc. 12 T h e concept of grammaticality is vital in m o d e r n structural linguistics and must therefore be carefully examined. Before looking at positive definitions of grammaticality, we could well explain 12

N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1957), p. 13.

86

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

with what this concept must not be identified. Chomsky writes that there are three notions with which this concept must not be identified. Firstly, the set of grammatical sentences must not be identified with the set of sentences collected by linguist in the field. Says Chomsky : Any grammar of a language will project the finite and somewhat accidental corpus of observed utterances to a set (presumably infinite) of grammatical utterances. In this respect, a grammar mirrors the behavior of the speaker who, on the basis of a finite and accidental experience with language, can produce or understand an indefinite number of new sentences. Indeed, any explication of the notion "grammatical in L" (i.e., any characterization of "grammatical in L" in terms of "observed utterance in L") can be thought of as offering an explanation for this fundamental aspect of linguistic behavior.18 Secondly, the notion of grammaticality must not be identified with the notion 'meaningful'. Sentences can be meaningless but grammatical, and vice-versa, they can be meaningful but ungrammatical. Chomsky uses the following examples: (1) "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." (2) "Furiously sleep ideas green colorless." Both sentences are equally meaningless but only the first is grammatically correct. (3) "Have you a book on modern music?" (4) "The book seems interesting." (5) "Read you a book on modern music?" (6) "The child seems sleeping." These sentences are equally understandable but only (3) and (4) can be considered grammatical. Thirdly, the concept of grammaticality must not be identified with the notion 'high order of statistical approximation'. This is obvious from the examples. If we consider sentences (1) and (2) from a statistical standpoint they must both be rejected, because neither the one nor the other can occur in English. Nonetheless, the first sentence is grammatical, and the second is ungrammatical. Let us take another example. In a Russian speaker's past linguistic experience the words dom 'house' and k 'to' can have occurred with equal frequency in the context ja vypil Ί drank', yet insertion of the first word gives the grammatical (although meaningless) sentence ja vypil dom Ί drank the house', and the insertion of the second word gives the ungrammatical sentence ja vypil k Ί drank to'. Chomsky writes : Evidently, one's ability to produce and recognize grammatical utterances is not based on notions of statistical approximation and the like. The custom of calling grammatical sentences those that 'can occur', or those that 'are possible', has been responsible for some confusion here. It is natural to understand 'possible' as meaning 'high probable' and to assume that the linguist's sharp distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical is motivated by a feeling that since the 'reality' of language is too complex to be described completely, 18

N. Chomsky, op. cit., p. 15.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

87

he must content himself with a schematized version replacing "zero probability, and all extremely low probabilities, by impossible, and all higher probabilities by possible." We see, however, that this idea is quite incorrect, and that a structural analysis cannot be understood as a schematic summary developed by sharpening the blurred edges in the full statistical picture. If we rank the sequences of a given length in order of statistical approximation to English, we will find both grammatical and ungrammatical sequences scattered throughout the list; there appears to be no particular relation between order of approximation and grammaticalness.14 Thus, the concept of a grammatical sentence cannot be identified with the set of sentences recorded by the linguist in the field, or with the concept of a meaningful sentence, or with the concept of a highly probable sentence. It is generally considered sufficient to rely on the informant's response in order to distinguish grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. However, as Hill has recently shown, the informant's response can not be a reliable basis for defining the concept 'grammaticality'. 1 5 An experiment which Hill did with a group of informants showed that sentences which Chomsky adduces as obviously ungrammatical may be interpreted as belonging to poetical language. Thus, one of the informants said of the sentence "Furiously sleep ideas green colorless" (which Chomsky considers obviously ungrammatical) that it "sounded like modern poetry". Another informant said of this sentence that "it not only sounded like modern poetry but like good modern poetry". Another sentence cited by Chomsky as obviously ungrammatical, "I saw a fragile o f " was interpreted by some informants as grammatical, not in the sense that it was, poetical language, but that the preposition ' o f was fulfilling the role of a noun. Interpreting this sentence as grammatically correct, the informants asked : " W h a t is an ' o f ? ' " Since the informant's response cannot be a basis for defining the concept of a grammatical phrase, Revzin has recently proposed a formal procedure for defining this concept. 16 This formal procedure is as follows. We take as given not only a set of phrases which have actually occurred but a set of forbidden phrases, i.e., sentences whch are obviously constructed incorrectly. Both the actual and forbidden phrases are considered as an objective given. Starting with the concepts of a set of actual phrases and a set of forbidden phrases, Revzin introduces the notion 'grammatical phrase' as follows (instead of 'grammatical phrase' Revzin uses the term 'marked phrase') : Let there be given a dictionary Ξ = {λ}. On the dictionary Ξ is given the set of sentences : 31 ={A1,A2,...,A

}

In this set are two non-null and non-intersecting subsets: 14

N . Chomsky, op. cit., pp. 16-17. A. Hill, " O grammaticeskoj otmecennosti predlozenij", in Voprosy Jazykoznanija, No. 4 (1962). " See I. I. Revzin, Modeli jazyka i ix ispoVzovanie ν strukturnoj tipologii slavjanskix jazykov, Doktorskaja dissertacija (Moscow, 1963), pp. 71-84, 119-124. See also I. I. Revzin, "Nekotorye voprosy teorii modelej jazyka", in Naucno-texniceskaja informacija, No. 8 (1964). 16

88

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

a=

{Bu

B2, ..., Bm} — actual sentences.

β— {Ci, C2, •••, Ck} — forbidden sentences. Each word of Ξ is included in at least one actual sentence. A word χ is in the relation of substitutivity to a word y (in symbolic notation xRy) if the following two conditions are fulfilled. (1) There exist sentences A¡ and Aj such that AtxAj

and AtyAj are actual sentences.

(2) There do not exist an At and Aj such that of the sentences AtxAj

one belongs to

the set of actual sentences and the other to the set of forbidden sentences. The relation R is reflexive and symmetrical but not transitive. Based on the relation R a new transitive relation Q is introduced, which is defined thus: xQy, if there is a string of words zu z2, ..., zn such that x = z1,y = z„ and for a n y i:

z¡Rzi+l.

'The segment expanding the word x ' is the name of that part of the sentence Y which consists exactly of two adjacent words both having the property that (1) there exist sentences A¡ and A¡ such that ALxA} and A¡yAi are actual sentences, and (2) there are A ¡ and A j such that the sentence A t x A j is an actual sentence, and the sentence A,yAj is a forbidden sentence. N o w the following definition of grammaticality is proposed: (a) every actually occurring sentence is grammatical; ( b ) sentence A is grammatical if it is obtained from a grammatical sentence by replacing some word χ with the word y, such that xQy. (c) sentence A is grammatical if it is obtained from a grammatical sentence by replacing some word χ by its expanding segment. ( d ) there are no other grammatical sentences. Concerning the intransitivity of the relation R, Revzin says: We deliberately did not make the expansion relation transitive just as was done for words. This was connected with the fact that we would then have had to introduce an equivalence relation between words and segments (for example, considering a segment a group of one or two words) and this could have led to a situation where, in obtaining marked sentences, we would go from longer to shorter sentences (replacing a segment by a word). In this case the set of marked sentences could have been undecidable in the following sense: it would have been impossible to construct an algorithm for recognizing whether a sentence was marked or not. At the same time, as Putnam demonstrates,17 a method of generating marked sentences without obtaining shorter sentences guarantees the decidability of the set of marked sentences (although such questions go beyond the scope of a linguistic theory of models, the linguist is obviously bound to take account of such intuitively completely justified requirements).18 The proposed formal procedure for grammatical sentences is illustrated with the following example. H. Putnam, "Some issues in the theory of grammar", in Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, XII : Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects (1961). p. 42. 18 I. I. Revzin, Modeli jazyka i ix ispol'zovanije ν strukturnoj tipologii slavjanskix jazykov, pp. 7778. 17

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

89

Let us take the actual phrases : (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Devocka spokojno spit 'the girl is sleeping peacefully'. MaVcik ravnodusno skazal 'the boy said indifferently'. MaVcik spokojno skazal 'the boy said calmly'. Ravnodusno vzgljanut' 'to glance indifferently'. Jarostno vzgljanut' 'to glance furiously'. Scastlivaja ideja 'a good idea'. Scastlivaja devocka 'a happy girl'. Devocka spit 'the girl is sleeping'. Krasivaja devocka spokojno spit 'the pretty girl is sleeping peacefully'. Ocen' krasivaja devocka spokojno spit 'the very pretty girl is sleeping peacefully'.

Let there be forbidden all phrases composed of these words in such a way that the agreement of verb with noun in number and gender is broken (e.g. maVcik spokojno skazala — the verb has a feminine ending — or maVcik spokojno skazali — the verb has a plural ending) or the agreement of adjective with noun (e.g., krasivaja maVcik — the adjective has a feminine ending). Then the following substitutions are possible : ravnodusno is replaceable by spokojno (cf. phrases (2) and (3)). ravnodusno is replaceable by jarostno (cf. phrases (4) and (5)). ideja is replaceable by devocka (cf. phrases (6) and (7)). krasivaja devocka expands devocka (cf. phrases (1) and (9)). ocen krasivaja expands krasivaja (cf. phrases (9) and (10)). It is now easy to show that the phrase Ideja jarostno spit 'the idea sleep furiously' is marked. Since the following relations hold: spokojno Q jarostno and ideja Q devocka, we obtain the phrases : Devocka jarostno spit 'the girl sleeps furiously'. Ideja jarostno spit 'the idea sleeps furiously'. By introducing the concept of a forbidden phrase we ensure that such phrases as scastlivaja maVcik are non-marked. At the same time such phrases as Kamysinskoj vetkoj citaes (Pasternak) and Ja vsej bessonnicej tebja Ijublju — literally, Ί love you with all my sleeplessness' (Cvetaeva) are considered marked, by analogy with phrases like Zimoj citajes' 'you read in winter' and Ja vsej dusoj tebja Ijublju Ί love you with all my soul'. Such is the procedure which allows us to obtain an infinite set of marked phrases from a finite set of given phrases. Revzin demonstrates that this procedure has two rather unexpected formal peculiarities : (1) there are phrases that are neither forbidden nor marked, and (2) a marked phrase can coincide with a forbidden one. This is evident from the following hypothetical example :

90

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Let there be given a language, in which there are : a dictionary Ξ= {x, y, z}; actual sentences: a — {xyz, xz, yz}; forbidden sentences: ß= {yxz, zy). The relation R holds between χ and y. The marked phrases will be all phrases of the form: U

"' where u = χ or u = y and there are no other marked phrases. k times In particular, the forbidden phrase yxz is marked, and the phrase xy is neither forbidden nor marked. Revzin explains these peculiarities as follows. The first peculiarity is that the development of a language requires a certain store of phrases which, although not forbidden, cannot at the same time be obtained by analogy with existing phrases. To explain the second peculiarity Revzin refers to the assumption advanced by Uspenskij that one of the specific features of natural languages is that in them marked and forbidden phrases cannot coincide, in distinction from abstract languages where marked and forbidden sentences can coincide. However, it is possible that at some stage in the development of natural languages marked and forbidden phrases can coincide, but that the operation of some definite diachronic principle causes a redistribution of forbidden and marked phrases in order to eliminate such a coincidence. In addition to the above procedure, Revzin goes on to describe another procedure for obtaining marked phrases, using the concept of category. 19 I shall not go into details about this procedure since it does not differ in principle from the first one but is essentially a variant of it. For us it is important to note that, like the first procedure, the second is based on the notion of occurring and forbidden phrases. Using the second procedure a marked phrase is determined thus: (1) Every sentence which actually occurs is marked. (2) A phrase A is marked if it is obtained from a marked phrase by substitution of a word y for a word χ both of which belong to the same primitive categories. 20 The procedures suggested by Revzin for determining marked phrases represent an important step forward in comparison with existing notions of marked phrases. Of decisive importance is the fact that, instead of a hard and fast division into marked and nonmarked phrases, a new approach is suggested which opens the way for constructing a whole scale of intermediate degrees between markedness and nonmarkedness. 19 m

See 1.1. Revzin, op. cit., pp. 115-124. Ibid., p. 120.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

91

Using the hypothetico-deductive method as a basis we can suggest an alternative method, with which we shall not use the concept 'forbidden phrase', but shall split the concept 'marked sentence' into two concepts: 'observed marked phrase' and 'a predicted marked phrase'. We shall start with the concept of the hypothetico-deductive method as a cyclical procedure in which four phases are distinguished: (1) determination of the facts which require explanation, (2) suggestion of hypotheses to explain the given facts, (3) deduction from the hypotheses of predictions about facts lying outside the circle of facts for the explanation of which the hypotheses were advanced, (4) vérification of the facts predicted by the hypotheses, and determination of the plausibility of the hypotheses. (1) Corresponding to the first phase of the hypothetico-deductive method we determine the 'universe of discourse', i.e., the set of observed phrases. We shall consider every observed phrase marked. We shall set ourselves the goal of explaining the observed sentences as the end product of a hypothetical grammatical mechanism, hidden from direct observation but forming the basis of speech communication. (2) Corresponding to the second phase of the hypothetico-deductive method we advance a hypothesis concerning the functioning of the grammatical mechanism hidden from direct observation, i.e., we build a linguistic model. (3) Corresponding to the third phase of the hypothetico-deductive method we use the proposed hypothesis to deduce predictions about facts of speech, i.e., we use the model we have built to generate a set of sentences which is conditioned by the structural features of the model. By definition the linguistic model we have built generates only marked sentences. (4) Corresponding to the fourth phase of the hypothetico-deductive method we compare the sentences generated by the model with the observed sentences, and on the basis of this comparison we experimentally generate sentences whose markedness is a logical consequence of the principles governing the functioning of the generative model. Let us examine the concept of experimental generation, approaching it by considering the following points. Between the level of constructs, i.e., the level of the model, and the level of observation there is no deductive link. This fact is sometimes forgotten during discussions of problems connected with applying the hypotheticodeductive method. Concerning the stratification of physical theories, Toulmin writes: It is suggested that the relation between statements at one level and those at the next is a deductive one, and the resulting hierarchy is accordingly spoken of as a 'deductive system'. One is given the idea that physical theories form a logical pyramid, with the straightforward reports on our experimental observations at ground level, and above them layer upon layer of progressively more general generalisations. One can illustrate the sort of thing envisaged by supposing it to be discovered that rodents consume milk-products: this would be two layers up, since from it we can deduce both 'Mice eat cheese' and 'Rats drink milk', and from these again we can deduce, e.g., that a mouse which we now have under observation will eat the cheese we are about to offer it.

92

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

As here presented, the picture is open to several objections. To begin with, the role of deduction in physics is not to take us from the more abstract levels of theory to the more concrete: as we have seen, these cannot, as Mach supposed, be thought of as deductively related to one another. Where we make strict, rule-guided inferences in physics is in working out, for instance, where a planet will be next week from a knowledge of its present position, velocity and so on: this inference is not deduced from the laws of motion, but drawn in accordance with them, that is as an application of them. Nor are statements in terms of 'refractive index' deduced from Snell's Law. There is a logical connexion between them, certainly; but this is because the lerm 'refractive index' is introduced by reference to Snell's Law, and not because the two classes of sentences can be deduced from one another. It is the terms appearing in the statements at one level, not the statements themselves, which are logically linked to the statements in the level below.21 Thus, assertions on the level of constructs, i.e., on the level of the model, and assertions on the level of observation are not connected by any deductive link. There is a logical link between these assertions, but this link does not involve deducing assertions on the level of observation from assertions on the level of constructs but placing the terms of the former assertions in correspondence with the terms of the latter. The logical link established between both classes of assertions I shall call representation. Terms included in assertions on the level of observation I shall call representatives of the terms included in assertions on the level of constructs. Starting with the distinction of two levels of abstraction — the level of constructs and the level of observation — and the concept of representation, let us introduce the concept of experimental generation. O n the level of constructs (i.e., in the model) let there be given : A dictionary: Voc= {x} the set of all phrases: A = {Au A2, ..., An ...} laws for combining words into phrases: L = {Lu L2, ..., Ln}. O n the level of observation (i.e., in the actual language) let there be given: a dictionary: VocE={xE} the set of observed phrases: AE= {A\, A\, ..., Af}. (The index E is used to distinguish observed, empirical phrases from abstract phrase-constructs). Let us place empirical words occurring in observed phrases in correspondence with abstract words occurring in phrase-constructs. We shall consider empirical words as representing abstract word-constructs. Further, corresponding to the laws for combining abstract word-constructs into abstract phrase-constructs let us carry out the following experiment: let us join empirical words in every permissible way. This will give us actual phrases which will not always coincide with the observed phrases but which must be considered marked, because they are obtained according to the law for combining abstract word-constructs in the model, in other words because they are predicted by these laws. This experiment we shall call experimental 21

S. Toulmin, The Philosophy of Science (London, 1967), pp. 75-76.

THE SEMIOTIC A N D LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

93

generation. Two types of generation must be distinguished: (1) the generation of abstract phrase-constructs in the model (theoretical generation), and (2) the generation of empirical phrases according to the laws for generating phrase-constructs in the model (experimental generation). Corresponding to this two types of markedness must be distinguished in empirical sentences: (a) markedness, following from the fact that the given set of empirical sentences has actually occurred in speech communication, and (b) markedness, following from the fact that the given set of empirical sentences has been generated according to the laws for combining abstract wordconstructs in the phrase-constructs of the model, i.e., markedness which is predicted by the given laws. Let us consider the following situation as a concrete illustration of the concept 'experimental generation'. Let there be given a fragment of an abstract model in which abstract words are combined according to the basic law set out in the matrix (Table I). The symbols in the matrix have the following meanings: TV - noun, F - f i n i t e form of the verb, A - adjective, D - adverb: + denotes that words are linked, — that they are not linked. TABLE I

Ν Ν V A D

—

+ + —

V

A

D

+

-L

—

—

—

—

—

+

-j-

+ —

Besides the given, basic law, the following laws are allowed: (1) Adjectives agree with nouns in case, gender, and number. (2) Finite forms of the verb agree with nouns in person and number. (The corresponding categories are assumed to be given). Now let us take actual Russian phrases. For the sake of simplicity we shall confine ourselves to the following phrases: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Devocka spokojno spit 'the girl is sleeping peacefully'. Mal'cik ravnodusno govorit 'the boy says indifferently'. MaVciki spokojno govorjat 'the boys are speaking calmly'. ravnodusno smotrit 'looks indifferently'. jarostno smotrit 'looks furiously'. scastlivaja ideja 'good idea'. scastlivaja devocka 'happy girl'. Devocki spjat 'The girls are sleeping'. Krasivaja devoéka spokojno spit 'the pretty girl is sleeping peacefully'. Malen'kaja devoéka spit 'the little girl is sleeping'.

94

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Here we have deliberately chosen for comparison almost the same phrases as Revzin gave. Considering the words in the given observed Russian phrases as representing the abstract words of the model, let us establish the following correspondences: Ν

A

masc. maVcik 'boy' spit 'sleeps' fern. devocka 'girl' govorit 'speaks/says' smotrit 'looks' ideja 'idea'

D

scastlivaja 'happy' spokojno 'peacefully/calmly' krasivaja 'pretty' malerìkaja 'little'

ravnodusno 'indifferently' jarostno 'furiously'

Now, following the laws for combining abstract words in the model, we can start experimentally generating empirical phrases. This will give us two groups of empirical phrases: (1) phrases which are easy to find in speech communication and (2) phrases which do not actually occur in speech communication but which in principle must be considered marked phrases of Russian. I shall list both groups of phrases. I Devocka MaVcik Devocka MaVciki

smotrit 'the girl looks' spit 'the boy sleeps' govorit 'the girl speaks' spjat 'the boys sleep'

II Ideja spit 'the idea sleeps' Ideja jarostno spit 'the idea sleeps furiously' Ideja ravnodusno spit 'the idea sleeps indifferently' Ideja smotrit 'the idea looks' Ideja govorit 'the idea speaks' etc.

The following phrases will be unmarked: krasivaja maVcik 1 Feminine form of adjective scastlivaja maVcik I with masculine noun devocka spjat singular nouns with maVcik spjat 3rd person plural form of verb ideja spjat

malerCkaja spit (adjective + verb). 1 Singular noun ideja govorjat MaVcik govorjat\ with plural verb spokojno devocka\ Adverb jarostno ide~a j with noun

These phrases must be considered unmarked because they contradict the laws for combining abstract words in the model. Contradicting the laws must not be confused with being empirically forbidden. Being empirically forbidden follows from a generalization about phrases which speakers and hearers consider incorrectly constructed. But contradicting the laws of the model is conditioned by two factors: the empirical data and the mechanism of the model. If the model is successful, then of course phrases which contradict its laws will at the same time be empirically forbidden, but if the model is not completely successful there can be cases when perfectly correct phrases will contradict its laws. In such cases the model has to be reconstructed or corrected. The reverse is also possible, when phrases like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which some speakers and hearers consider empirically forbidden,

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

95

not only do not contradict the laws of the model but, on the contrary, are generated according to these laws. Corresponding to this notion of two types of marked phrases — observed and predicted — the concept of a marked phrase can now be defined as follows: (a) each observed phrase is marked. (b) a phrase is marked if it is predicted by a model which corresponds with experience. Let us consider the second condition. There can be two types of non-correspondence between model and experience: (1) a given fact is observed but the model does not predict it ; (2) the model predicts a fact but it is not observed. Within the first type of non-correspondence two cases must in turn be distinguished: (a) the given fact is observed but is not explicable within the framework of the given model (incompleteness of the model); (b) the given fact is observed but the theory predicts not it but a contradictory fact (model contradicts the empirical data). A model is an idealization of actual reality. Therefore no one model can fully explain the observed data. At the same time a model may contradict the empirical data in several particular cases. Thus a model is not harmed if it is to some extent incomplete and contradicts the empirical data in non-essential cases. But if these contradictions and incompletenesses reach a high level, the validity of the model may be questioned. As for the second type of non-correspondence between model and experience, it cannot be considered as indicating that the model is invalid. On the contrary, a good model should not only be complete and not contradict the observed data, but should also predict facts which have not yet been observed. If the model is not capable of predicting facts which have not yet been observed, this means it is incapable of revealing the inner dependencies of actual reality. The object of experimentally generating empirical phrases is to verify the correspondence between model and experience. This verification consists of the following three stages. 1. The experimental generation of empirical phrases reveals to what extent the model covers the data, in other words, shows how complete the model is. 2. After it has been shown how complete the model is, the empirical phrases produced by experimental generation are compared with observed empirical phrases in accord with the requirement that the model does not contradict the empirical data. 3. Finally, we investigate how capable the model is of predicting facts which are hidden from observation. The first two stages are of decisive importance for verifying the validity of the model. If a model turns out to be invalid during the first or second stage of verification, it must be rejected. If it stands up to the first two stages of verification, the third stage has the following significance: the model must be capable of predicting facts which are hidden from observation. Only if this is the case can the model be considered an effective tool of cognition which allows us to reveal the deep invariants of reality.

96

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

A model which is incapable of predicting facts hidden from observation does not rise above the level of a simple summation of empirical data.

3.6 SYNTACTIC A N D SEMANTIC DEFINITIONS O F GRAMMATICAL CONCEPTS

Among the central problems of generative grammar is the following: can the basic grammatical concepts be defined in non-semantic terms? This problem cannot be considered solved once for all. In order to understand it, let us begin by explaining the difference between semantic and syntactic definitions. In a recent book on the logical investigation of definitions Gorski has given a good demonstration of how the terms 'semantic definition' and 'syntactic definition' are understood in modern logic. Concerning semantic definitions Gorski writes: Definitions in which the definiendum is some expression and the definiens some object are called semantic. In these definitions the meaning of the expression is established by explicitly mentioning the denoted object. Such, for example, are these definitions: "The word 'pentagon' denotes a polygon with five sides"; "The expression 'fading oscillations' is used for oscillations whose amplitude (and correspondingly energy) decreases as time passes", or "the sign h is used for denoting a quantum of action." These definitions are nominal in the sense that through them the meanings of certain terms are introduced. But they cannot be considered really nominal (as simple abbreviations) precisely because the definiendum and definiens are in a certain sense objects of different levels.22 Concerning syntactic definitions Gorski writes : Syntactic definitions are those in which an object is distinguished from other objects not by its properties or relations to other objects, but by the rules for manipulating it, by the methods and object of using it. Syntactic definitions enable us to identify objects which differ widely both qualitatively and quantitatively as soon as we can apply to them the same rules of manipulation, which at the same time serve the same purpose, the solution of one and the same problem. One and the same practical problem can be solved by using the most varied objects, if only they enable us to apply a definite set of operations leading to a definite goal. Thus we define a set of objects as some abstract object, all the elements of which become identical from the standpoint of the operations they enable us to carry out. In the process of definition a set of definite operations and objects (the definiens) is replaced by the set of objects with respect to which these operations can be carried out. If we are dealing with abstract objects (for example, numbers), we cannot carry out any direct, material operations with them (numbers do not have weight or volume, they do not eat, burn, or fall ill). We carry out operations with them by means of the signs denoting them. Such abstractions are defined by indicating corresponding signs with which such-and-such 22 D. P. Gorskij, "O vidax opredelenij i ix znacenii ν nauke", in Problemy iogiki (Moscow, 1964), pp. 314-315.

naucnogopoznanija

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

97

operations can be carried out in a definite scientific language. In such cases we identify signs and objects. 23 The following are examples of syntactic definitions : the definition of a vessel as that into which a liquid may be p o u r e d in order to store it, boil it, etc; the definition of f o o d as that which can be eaten to satisfy hunger and support life; the definition of a chair as an object designed for sitting on, etc. In the cases where signs and objects are identified it is impossible to do without syntactic definitions. An example of signs and objects being identified is the identification of figure a n d number. Goodstein gives a good description of this identification a n d the related application of syntactic definitions. Examining in his b o o k on mathematical logic the definition of n u m b e r given by Frege a n d Russell, Goodstein writes: A seemingly entirely different approach to the problem of defining number focuses attention, not upon numbers themselves but upon numerals. It is of course evident that numbers are not the same things as numerals, since they have different properties ; numbers are even or odd, prime or composite, and numerals are Roman or Arabic, written in ink or cast in iron. The numerals are in fact not numbers but number signs. We say number-signs rather that signs for number to stress the important point that we do not need to know anything about numbers to be able to give an account of the numerals. Numerals are simply signs of a certain category, like money-signs, £ and $ or music signs J J J and More exactly the numerals are words spelt in a very primitive alphabet. To illustrate this more readily we shall introduce a notation for numerals which has proved very convenient in studies on the foundations of arithmetic ; in this notation the numerals are O, SO, SSO, SSSO, and so on, so that we may say that the numerals are spelt with S's and a final O. The more familiar numerals 1,2, 3, 4, and so on, are abbreviations, Ί ' standing for 'SO', '2' standing for 'SSO', '3'for SSSO, '4' for SSSSO, and so on. We shall see that it is quite easy to give an account of arithmetic in terms of numerals in a far more economical logic than is needed to formulate the Frege-Russell numbers. In this account of arithmetic we shall find that the concept of a number is entirely dispensable, though dispensable only at the cost of considerable inconvenience and lengthy circumlocutions. Does it then follow that the numerals are themselves the subject of arithmetic and not the natural numbers? Whether the answer to this question is in the affirmative or noi depends upon what one means by 'the subject of arithmetic'. It is often helpful in seeking to answer a question of this kind to change the setting in which the question is posed, and we shall turn, as one so often does in logical enquiries, to the game of chess. Let us ask, instead of our question about numbers and arithmetic, the exactly parallel question: 'Are the pieces on the chess-board the subject of the rules of chess?' For instance, is the rule that the king moves only one square at a time, except in castling, a rule about the king of chess or about a piece of wood of particular design? A preliminary answer is that the rule cannot be about a particular piece of wood because we might lose it and yet play chess with a lump of sugar in its place. So too the rule that 6 is an even number cannot be a rule about this particular mark in ink, since we could express the rule just as well by writing that 3 + 3 is an even number. None the less, given a chess board and pieces we can teach someone to play chess, using the familiar terms king, queen, pawn, etc., simply as object names (or not using them at all). But if the king of chess is not a particular piece on a particular chess board, what is he? If the number two is not the numeral '2' what is it? To put the question 23

D. P. Gorskij, op. cit., p. 316.

98

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

another way, what is it that makes a particular piece in a particular game of chess, the king piece? It is not the shape of the piece (for we might interchange the king and queen), nor the position of the piece in the game (which may be anywhere on the board). No, what constitutes a piece king are the moves which it makes. Thus we may say that the king of chess is one of the rôles which a piece plays in a game of chess — the part which the piece plays, not the piece itself. And so too the numbers are the several parts which the numerals play in language. The rules of arithmetic, like the rules of chess, are formulated in terms of the permitted transformations of the number signs. For instance, the rule that the sum of two and three is five is a formulation in terms of rôles of the fact that the formula '2 + 3 = 5' is provable in arithmetic. And if we exchange the parts which the numerals 2 and 5 play, so that each plays the other's part, then the formula '5 + 3 = 2' is provable, and is still an expression of the rule that the sum of two and three is five; the formulation in terms of rôles reveals the invariant factors which are otherwise concealed beneath the changing notation.24 Syntactic definitions can be applied in descriptions of a language. Since in such descriptions the objects being investigated are signs, new signs — called metasigns — are devised for denoting the signs of the language under investigation. If we identify the metasigns with the signs of the language under investigation and then define the latter signs by indicating definite operations on the metasigns, we obtain a syntactic definition of the signs of the language being investigated. To show by concrete example how syntactic definitions are applied in languagedescriptions I shall use the miniature language constructed by Curry. 25 In this miniature language there are three symbols : α, β, γ. Linear combinations of these symbols form various types of expressions, for example, a, aß, αββ, αβββ, αγα, αβγαβ, αβγα, αβββγαβ, γα, etc. For describing the language the metasymbols a, b, c, are introduced. The following correspondence is established between the symbols and the metasymbols: a—a, β—b, γ—c. The metasymbols, a, b, c form the alphabet of the semiotic system S, which is used to describe the miniature language we are examining. We shall call the latter the object-language. The object-language is described in the following way. We identify the metasymbols of the semiotic system and the symbols of the object language, and then concentrate, not on the symbols of the object-language but on the metasymbols of the semiotic system S . A syntactic definition of the classes of expressions of the object-language will consist in indicating the rules for generating classes of expressions from the metasymbols using the operation of concatenation 26 in the semiotic system S . In the semiotic system Θ there are three classes of expressions, for which are used the terms 'sams', 'tettles' and 'tantets'. Curry deliberately thought up these, in themselves meaningless, words, so that no semantic notions would be connected with the classes denoted by these words. These words were adopted from Hungarian, where sám (szam) means 'number', tettle (tétel) means 'sentence', and tantét (tantet) means 'theorem'. 24 25 28

R. L. Goodstein, Mathematical Logic (Leicester, England, 1957), pp. 8-10. Η. B. Curry, Foundations of Mathematical Logic (New York, 1963), pp. 51-55. Concatenation denotes the combining of symbols in linear order.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

99

The class of expressions called sams is defined thus: (1) α is a member of the class of sams; (2) if b is combined with any member of the class of sams, the resulting expression is also a sam. Applying these rules, we obtain an infinite number of sams: a, ab, abb, abbb, abbbb, abbbbb, etc. The class of expressions called tettles is defined thus: if Z a n d Y are sams, XcY is a tettle. Applying this rule, we obtain an infinite number of tettles: aca, abcab, abcabb, abbbcab, abbbbcab, abbbcabbb, etc. The class of expressions called tantets is defined thus: (1) aca is a member of the class of tantets; (2) if Xc Γ is a tantet, XbcYb is also a tantet. Applying these rules, we obtain an infinite of tantets : aca, abcab, abbcabb, abbbcabbb, abbbbcabbbb etc. It is not difficult to see that tantets are tettles which include identical sams, i.e., a tantet is a tettle of the form XcX, where Ζ is a sam. Thus we have syntactic definitions for three classes of expressions: sams, tettles, and tantets. We shall call the semiotic system which contains these syntactic definitions a syntactic system with reference to the object-language under examination. We must note carefully that when describing the object-language we are dealing the whole time not with the object-language but with the metasymbols included in the semiotic system 5. Concerning this point, Curry writes : Again, even though we say we are talking about an O language, it is not necessary to trot such a language out explicitly. One can make remarks about the President of the United States without having that dignitary actually present. If one does exhibit the O language, it is for illustrative purposes only. Not only that, but the precise nature of the O letters is entirely irrelevant. Thus, I have said above that the O letters for the system of sams consisted of the Greek letters a and b (i.e. 'a' and 'β'), but actually, it is irrelevant whether a and b are Greek letters, Egyption hieroglyphs, two distinguishable and reproducible kinds of bricks, or two kinds of noises. All we need to exhibit are the A names of those letters [i.e. their names in the semiotic system. S. K. Saumjan] ; all that we need to know about these letters is that they act like links of different kinds which can be forged into chains. In what follows, the O language is not exhibited; the symbols which appear when we are talking about O letters are the A nouns which name them.®7 This semiotic system S can be turned from a syntactic into a semantic system by the introduction of semantic information. The semantic information we introduce is distributed over three levels.28 On the first level, which Curry calls the level of grammatics, the word 'tettle' is ascribed the meaning 'sentence', the word 'sam' the meaning 'noun', the symbol c the meaning 'binary verb' (i.e., a verb accompanied by two nouns, one in the nominative and one in the accusative case; in other words, to use normal grammatical terminology, a transitive verb), the symbol b the meaning 'suffix forming nouns from nouns'. "

,e

H. B. Curry, op. cit., pp. 53-54. Ibid., pp. 91-92.

100

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

On the second leve), which Curry calls the level of aletheutics, the word 'tantet' is ascribed the meaning 'true sentence'. In this case the symbol c is given the meaning 'equivalence relation' (the meaning of the sign = in ordinary mathematics). On the third level, which Curry calls the level of onomatics, the word 'sam' is given the meaning 'number': a denotes 0, ab—1, abb—2, abbb—3, etc. This semantic information forms the set of semantic definitions of the expressions in the semiotic system S . The essential features of semantic definitions in a semiotic system, as shown by the example above, are as follows: (1) First of all the syntactic definitions are overlaid with semantic definitions, the latter being logically external, secondary information ('secondary' should be understood only in the logical sense; for studying the communicative function of language it is precisely semantic information which is most important); (2) in distinction from syntactic definitions, which are rules for applying operations to expressions in order to generate new expressions, semantic definitions establish correspondences between the expressions of a semiotic system and expressions relating to some area of empirical reality. Having explained how syntactic definitions are applied in language descriptions and how they differ from semantic definitions, let us return to the question we posed at the beginning of this section: can the basic grammatical concepts be defined in non-semantic terms? This is the same as asking: is it possible to describe the grammatical system of one or another natural language using a syntactic semiotic system specially constructed for this purpose? Ever since structural linguistics came into existence its leading exponents have answered this question in the affirmative. Let us look at some of their pronouncements on this question. The founder of structural linguistics, de Saussure, compared the system of a language to a game of chess : But of all comparisons that might be imagined, the most fruitful is the one that might be drawn between the functioning of language and a game of chess. In both instances we are confronted with a system of values and their observable modifications. A game of chess is like an artificial realization of what language offers in a natural form.29 This same game of chess is used by de Saussure to illustrate the concept of valeurs, the keystone of his theory : Finally, not every idea touched upon in this chapter differs basically from what we have elsewhere called values. A new comparison with the set of chessmen will bring out this point .... Take a knight, for instance. By itself is it an element in the game? Certainly not, for by its material make-up — outside its square and the other conditions of the game — it means nothing to the player; it becomes a real, concrete element only when endowed with value and wedded to it. Suppose that the piece happens to be destroyed or lost during a game. Can it be replaced by an equivalent piece? Certainly. Not only another knight but even 2

*

F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966),

p. 88.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

101

a figure shorn of any resemblance to a knight can be declared identical providing the same value is attributed to it. We see then that in semiological systems like language, where elements hold each other in equilibrium in accordance with fixed rules, the notion of identity blends with that of value and vice-versa.30 Starting with the concept of valeurs, de Saussure put forward the principle of differentiation : Applied to units, the principle of differentiation can be stated in this way: the characteristics of the unit blend with the unit itself. In language, as in any semiological system, whatever distinguishes one sign from the others constitutes it. Difference makes character, just as it makes value and the unit.81 And later: Language, in a manner of speaking, is a type of algebra consisting solely of complex terms. Some of its oppositions are more significant than others; but units and grammatical facts are only different names for designating diverse aspects of the same general fact: the functioning of linguistic oppositions. This statement is so true that we might very well approach the problem of units by starting from grammatical facts. Taking an opposition like NachtNächte, we might ask what are the units involved in it. Are they only the two words, the whole series of similar words, a and ä, or all singulars and plurals, etc.? Units and grammatical facts would not be confused if linguistic signs were made up of something besides differences. But language being what it is, we shall find nothing simple in it regardless of our approach; everywhere and always there is the same complex equilibrium of terms that mutually condition each other. Putting it another way, language is a form and not a substance .... This truth could not be overstressed, for all the mistakes in our terminology, all our incorrect ways of naming things that pertain to language, stem from the involuntary supposition that the linguistic phenomenon must have substance.32 De Saussure wrote at a time when there was not yet any logical syntax and logical semantics and therefore his writings lack the necessary exactitude and definiteness of formulation. However, his comparison of linguistic systems and chess, the concept of valeurs, the principle of differentiation according to which language consists only of differences, the idea that language is form and not substance — all these together show that de Saussure interpreted linguistic systems in the syntactic sense, i.e., as a system of syntactic definitions of grammatical elements. De Saussure's statements are in accord with Goodstein's ideas cited above concerning the constructing of arithmetic as a system of operations on figures. Hjelmslev, one of de Saussure's most consistent followers, shows how de Saussure's ideas coincide with the views of modern logicians on the possibility of describing language using a syntactic semiotic system : In judging the structure of games, in comparison with semiotic structures that are not games, it is not uninteresting to compare the way in which game structures have been considered up to now from the linguistic and from the logical side, independently of each other. From 30

31 32

F. de Saussure, op. cit., p. 110.

ibid., p. 121. Ibid., p. 122.

102

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

the logical side, importance has been attached to the fact that a game, chess for example, is a transformation system of essentially the same structure as a semiotic (e.g., a mathematical semiotic), and the tendency has been to consider the game as the simple model case, as normative for the concept of a semiotic. From the linguistic side, the analogy has been seen in the fact that a game is a system of values, analogous to economic values ; and language and other value systems have been considered as normative for the concept of a game The two ways of thinking have historical bases. The logistic theory of signs finds its startingpoint in the metamathematics of Hilbert, whose idea was to consider the system of mathematical symbols as a system of expression-figurae with complete disregard of their content, and to describe its transformation rules in the same way as one can describe the rules of a game, without considering possible interpretations. This method is carried over by the Polish logicians into their 'metalogic' and is brought to its conclusion by Carnap in a sign-theory where, in principle, any semiotic is considered as a mere expression-system without regard for the content. From this point of view it should be possible, in any metasemiotic, i.e. in any description of a semiotic, for an inhaltliche Redeweise to be replaced by a formale Redeweise. The sign-theory of linguistics, on the other hand, has deep roots in the tradition according to which a sign is defined by its meaning. It is within this tradition that Saussure struggles with the problem. He makes it precise and justifies it by introducing the concept of value, .... 8S In another place Hjelmslev says a b o u t de Saussure's views : De Saussure required that the sounds of spoken language or the letters of written language be defined not purely phonetically or graphologically but by recording their mutual correlations, and that units of linguistic meanings (of linguistic content) be defined not purely semantically but by the same recording of mutual correlations. His view was that it was wrong to regard linguistics simply as a series of physical, physiological and acoustic definitions of the sound of the spoken language or as definitions of the meaning of individual words and — let us add — the possible psychological interpretations of these sounds and meanings. On the contrary, real linguistic units are not at all sounds or graphic marks and their meanings : the real linguistic units are the correlated elements which are represented by sounds or marks and their meanings. What is essential is not the sounds or marks and meanings as such but the mutual correlations between them in the chain of speech and in the paradigms of grammar. It is these very correlations which form the system of a language, and it is this inner system which is characteristic of a given language in distinction from other languages, whereas meanings and the manifestation of language in sounds or graphic marks are of no importance for the system itself and can change without adversely affecting the system. It can moreover be pointed out that these views held by de Saussure, which brought about a real revolution in traditional linguistics, interested only in studying sounds and meanings, nonetheless correspond entirely with the popular understanding of language and completely include the layman's ideas of language. It would be banal to say that Danish, whether oral, or written, or telegraphed in Morse Code, or transmitted by means of international marine flag signals, remains the same Danish language and is not four different languages. It is true that its constituent units change in all four cases, but the framework of correlations itself remains the same, and it is this fact which enables us to recognize a language. Consequently, the framework of correlations should be the subject matter of linguistics, while the manifestation of the framework of correlations is of no importance for defining language, in the strict sense of that word. It should not, however, be forgotten that de Saussure did not want to do without phonetics and semantics altogether. He wanted to replace sounds and meanings by linguistic values determined by the relative positions of "

L. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a theory of language (Baltimore, 1953). pp. 70-71.

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

103

units in the system. He compared these values to monetary values: just as a coin, a paper banknote, and a cheque can be various concrete manifestations of monetary values, while the value itself — sovereign or rouble — remains the same independently of the various manifestations, so the units of linguistic expression remain the same independently of the sounds which represent them, and the units of linguistic content remain the same independently of the meanings which represent them. De Saussure's favorite comparison was between linguistic systems and chess. A chess piece is defined exclusively by its correlations with the other pieces and by its relative positions on the chess board. The external form of chess pieces, on the other hand, and the material they are made of (wood, bone or other material) is of no importance for the game. Any chess piece, for instance a knight, usually shaped like a horse's head, can be replaced by any object which by convention fulfils the same purpose. If during the game a knight accidentally falls to the floor and breaks, we can take any other object of suitable size and give it the value of a knight. In exactly the same way a sound can be replaced by another sound or letter or agreed sign : the system remains the same. I think that as a result of de Saussure's ideas we can maintain that the historical development of a language includes two types of sound changes — those which affect the system of the language and those which do not. Thus we shall be forced to make a fundamental distinction between changes in the linguistic structure and pure sound changes which do not touch the system. A pure sound change which does not touch the system can be compared to the case in chess when a pawn, having reached the other end of the board, acquires by the rules of chess the value of a queen and begins to carry out the functions of a queen: in this case the value of queen is taken over by an object with a completely different value, but the queen, completely independently of this outward change, continues to be a queen in the system.84 Chomsky writes: A great deal of effort has been expended in attempting to answer the question. "How can you construct a grammar with no appeal to meaning?" The question itself, however, is wrongly put, since the implication that obviously one can construct a grammar with appeal to meaning is totally insupported. One might with equal justification ask: "How can you construct a grammar with no knowledge of the haircolor of speakers?" The question that should be raised is : "How can you construct a grammar?" I am not acquainted with any detailed attempt to develop the theory of grammatical structure in partially semantic terms or any specific and rigorous proposal for the use of semantic information in constructing or evaluating grammars. It is undeniable that "intuition about linguistic form" is very useful to the investigator of linguistic form (i.e., grammar). It is also quite clear that the major goal of grammatical theory is to replace this obscure reliance on intuition by some rigorous and objective approach. There is, however, little evidence that "intuition about meaning" is at all useful in the actual investigation of linguistic form. I believe that the inadequacy of suggestions about the use of meaning in grammatical analysis fails to be apparent only because of their vagueness and because of an unfortunate tendency to confuse "intuition about linguistic form" with "intuition about meaning," two terms that have in common only their vagueness and their undesirability in linguistic theory.35 Thus, leading structural linguists give an affirmative answer to the question of whether it is possible to describe linguistic structure via non-semantic terms, i.e., by applying only syntactic definitions. " L. Hjelmslev, "Metod strukturnogo analiza ν lingvistike", Acta linguistica, Vol. VI., fase. 2-3, (Copenhagen, 1950-1951), p. 33. " N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1957), pp. 93-94.

104

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Evidently there is a real possibility of describing grammatical structure in purely syntactic terms. Does it follow from this that structural linguistics should despise investigation of grammatical meanings? Not at all. The important thing is that description of a grammatical system in non-semantic terms presupposes a preliminary investigation of meanings on the level of intuition. The task is to reveal those unobservable syntactic mechanisms which control the functioning of language on the semantic level. The problem of describing the object language by means of a syntactic semiotic system must not be confused with the search for heuristic methods of locating linguistic units in texts written in an unknown language. In the first case the meaning of the linguistic units is known by the investigator, whose task is to transpose semantic information into syntactic information. In the second case the meaning of the linguistic units is not known by the investigator, who, deprived of semantic information, must find just such heuristic procedures which will allow him to locate the linguistic units in spite of the lack of semantic information. Although it is perfectly possible to describe a natural language in non-semantic terms, each natural language exists, nevertheless, for the purposes of communication, and the question arises : using the syntactic level of description as a formal basis of investigation, is it not possible to combine syntactic and semantic information about a language into one picture? To answer this question let us consider the structure of semiotics as a science. We know that three sections are distinguished in modern semiotics: (1) syntactics, i.e., investigation of the conditions which determine the structure of expressions as symbol-sequences; (2) semantics, i.e., investigation of the conditions which determine the communicative function of language; (3) pragmatics, i.e., investigation of the links between language and its users (investigation of phychological and physiological factors). Morris and Carnap treat these sections of semiotics as clearly delimited disciplines.36 However, there are in fact serious disagreements among investigators as to how one should understand the boundaries between these disciplines. For example, here is what Curry writes about semantics : There is some diversity of usage in regard to this term. Some authors seem to use it in the sense of 'onomatics'. This appears to have been the intention of Carnap in his Introduction to Semantics. He distinguished between rules of formation (the present grammatics), rules of truth (the present aletheutics), and rules of designation (the present onomatics). But the strictly onomatical considerations played only a secondary role, and could be dispensed with altogether; practically all the theorems proved in that book can be considered as purely 36

C. W. Morris, "Foundations of the Theory of Signs", in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. I, No. 2 (Chicago, 1938); C. W. Morris, Signs, Language and Behavior (New York, 1946). R. Carnap, Logische Syntax der Sprache (Vienna, 1934); English Translation, The Logical Syntax of Language (London, New York, 1937). R. Carnap, Introduction to Semantics (Cambridge, Mass, 1942).

THE SEMIOTIC AND LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS

105

aletheutical. Likewise the work of Tarski appears to identify semantics with onomatics; the notion of truth is defined in terms of a notion of satisfaction which is onomatical. There is also a widespread feeling that the notion of truth is semantical while the notion of sentence is not. But when I once asked a friend, who was stoutly maintaining this thesis, how he told what sentences were, he replied that in the last analysis it depended on the judgement of native speakers ; if that is so, then a communicative (and perhaps also pragmatical) element is involved, and the notion is semantical according to the definition adopted here.87 In the above description of the miniature language which Curry constructed using the semiotic system , VT, #] This system meets the following conditions : 1. Κ is a finite set of symbols called the vocabulary. The strings of this vocabulary are generated by concatenation. The symbol η denotes concatenation, i.e., an associative, noncommutative binary operation on strings formed from vocabulary V. The symbol η can be omitted where this does not lead to confusion. 2. VTeV. VT is called terminal vocabulary. The relative complement of VT (with respect to V) is called the nonterminal vocabulary and denoted by VN. 3. The symbol denotes a finite, binary, irreflexive and asymmetric relation defined on strings formed from V. This symbol is read 'is rewritten as'. The pairs (φ,ψ), such that φ-+ψ, are called the rules of G. 4. Where AeV, AeVN, if and only if there are strings φ, ψ, ω such that φΑψ-+ φωψ. # e VT ; Se VN ; ee VT ; where # is the boundary symbol, S is the initial symbol which can be read 'sentence', and e is the identity element with the property that for each string eψ. The symbol => denotes a reflexive, transitive relation. 6. A ^-derivation D of ψ is terminated if ψ is a string of VT and D is not the proper initial subsequence of any derivation (both these conditions are independent of each other). 7. ψ is a terminal string of G if there is a terminated # S # -derivation of # ψ #, i.e., if the terminal string is the last line of a terminated derivation beginning with the initial string Φ S#. 8. The terminal language generated by G is the set of terminal strings of G. 9. Two grammars G and G* are weakly equivalent if they generate the same terminal language. Two grammars G and G* are strongly equivalent if they generate not only the same terminal language but the same set of structural descriptions. The boundary symbol must satisfy the condition that if (jpit ..., φ Α ψ. A condition must now be introduced guaranteeing that a phrase-marker for a terminal string can be recovered uniquely. For example, let us take a grammar with the following rules : S-+AB;

AB-*cde

With such rules it is impossible to determine the dependencies in the string cde, to determine if the segment cd is a phrase of the type A (dominated by A in the phrase marker) or whether de is a phrase of the type Β (dominated by Β in the phrase marker). To enable these dependencies to be determined, a condition is introduced which permits only one symbol to be rewritten in each rule. Thus grammatical rules should have one of the following forms : (1) Α-*ω (2) Φ Α ψ-*φωψ (i.e., A->OJ in the context φ-* ψ) Grammars containing only rules of the second type are called context-sensitive grammars. Those containing only rules of the first type are called context-free grammars. The function of rules of the second type is to impose restrictions on the choice of elements. For example, there are cases in a language when the grammaticality of a sentence depends on the choice of subject, verb and object. The sentences my brother values sincerity, this boy plays the violin are marked but the sentences sincerity values my brother, the violin plays the boy are unmarked. It is precisely for distinguishing marked and unmarked sentences in such cases that we need rules of the second type. In this particular case they ensure the correct choice of subject, verb, and object.

126

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING 4.4 SOME LIMITATIONS OF THE PHRASE-STRUCTURE MODEL

In the preceding section the formal characteristics of the phrase-structure model were examined in outline. We must ask how successfully this model can be applied to the investigation of natural languages. As Chomsky has shown, the application of this model meets with fundamental difficulties which the linguist must take into account. The most serious difficulty is that the phrase-structure model is not powerful enough to decide the problem of invariance in linguistic investigations. To make this clear, let us look at two examples. Compare the following sentences: Peter speaks English. Does Peter speak English? Who speaks English? It is obvious to every speaker of English that Peter speaks English is a declarative sentence and that Does Peter speak English? and Who speaks English? are interrogative sentences. This intuitive judgment must be formally justified. It turns out that the phrase-structure method does not provide formal criteria for distinguishing declarative and interrogative sentences. In fact, if we take word order as a formal criterion, we shall be forced to assign the first and third sentences to one class. If intonation patterns are considered a formal criterion, then the interrogative intonation which is an integral part of the second sentence is lacking in the third. Thus we cannot find the invariants on which are based interrogative and declarative sentences as two contrasting classes. Now compare the following phrases. 1. The singing of the birds 2. The playing of the violin 3. The shooting of the hunters The first two phrases have a completely definite meaning, although they express contrasting relations between nominative and genitive cases. From the phrase the singing of the birds it follows that the singing is being done by the birds and from the playing of the violin that the object being played is the violin. But the third phrase is ambiguous. It can mean that someone is shooting the hunters or, vice-versa, that the hunters themselves are shooting something. We are dealing with the contrast of subjective and objective genitive well known from traditional grammar. The first phrase contains an objective genitive, the second a subjective genitive. But phrasestructure grammar does not provide formal criteria on which to base the difference between the first and second phrases and for explaining the ambiguity of the third phrase. Using phrase-structure grammar it is impossible for us to reveal the grammatical invariants which enable us to identify the third with the first phrase in one case and the third with the second phrase in the other case. We might try to find a way out of the difficulties met in the analysis of the above examples by introducing into the grammar special indices to indicate formal sub-

T H E PHRASE S T R U C T U R E A N D TRANSFORMATIONAL MODELS

127

categories. F o r example, along with the symbols G (genitive case) and Ν (nominative case) we could introduce into a formal g r a m m a r the symbols (subject genitive), G2 (object genitive), Ν, (nominative cooccurring with a subject genitive), N2 (nominative cooccurring with an object genitive). In this case, with the string N + G, we could introduce the following rules in accordance with the phrase-structure model : 1.

Ν

-

2.

G

->

N J N

2

GJG2

3.

Ni

the shooting

4.

N2 2

the

5

.

o

6.

f

i

shooting2 the

hunters^

of the

hunters2

We could deal in a similar way with all cases of grammatical hononymy. Indexing formal subcategories allows us to use the phrase-structure model in such cases. But a new difficulty crops u p in that grammatical description is greatly complicated by a multiplicity of rules, which, specially devised to eliminate grammatical homonymy, lead to minute grammatical categories and subcategories unrelated to the inner structural regularities of the language. With this method, grammar, f r o m being a theory about the investigation of linguistic laws, inevitably turns into an empirical collection of ad hoc rules. Finally, many essential generative processes require rules which go beyond the scope of the phrase-structure model. Let us examine one of these processes, the generation of sentences with constituents of the same kind. Such sentences are generated as follows: given sentence S1 in the form of a string Ζ — X — Wand sentence S2 in the form of a string Ζ — Y— W, from sentences 5 , and S2 we can f o r m a sentence S3 with constituents of identical type in the f o r m of the string Ζ — X + a n d + W. The generation of the sentence involves taking X f r o m sentence S1 and Y from sentence S2, joining them with the link word 'and', and substituting X + and + Y for X in sentence S 1 . Let us take, for example, the following two Russian sentences: S, :

'the letters are lying here'

Pis'ma-lezat-zdes'

'the parcels are lying here'

52 '• Pakety-lezat-zdes'

After combining pis'ma

+ i + pakety

53 :

pis'ma

and pakety by i 'and' we substitute the resulting string for pis'mo in sentence S u which produces the sentence: pis'ma

+ i + pakety

lezat

zdes'

'the letters and parcels are lying here'.

Sentence S3 can be formed f r o m sentences S1 and S2 only if Τ and Y are constituents identical in type of S¡ and S2. If X and Y are constituents of different types, sentence S 3 cannot be generated. For example: 51 : Pis'ma-otca-lezat 52 : Pisma-kotorye

zdes'. ja

videl-lezat

zdes'

'the letters which I saw are lying here'.

128

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Since otea and kotorye ja videi are constituents of different types, an impermissible sentence is generated: S3 : Pis''ma - otea i kotorye ja videi - lezat zdes' 'the letters - of the father and which I saw - are lying here'. Meeting the requirement that constituents X and Y should be identical in type brings us against a serious difficulty within the framework of the phrase-structure model. The problem is that, using only this model, we can prove that X and Y are formally identical or non-identical in type only by turning to the derivational history of Sy and S2. When S1 and S2 have identical derivational histories, Zand Y are identical in type, but when SL and S2 have different derivational histories X and Y are different in type. Thus, the above constituents otea and kotorye ja videi can be freely substituted the one for the other as modifiers of pis'ma and are therefore externally of the same type. That they really differ in type can be revealed only by reconstructing the derivational history of the sentences in which they occur. Compare the diagrams in Figures 6 and 7.

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

These diagrams show the different derivational histories of S1 and S2 and therefore prove the difference in type between the constituents otea ( X ) and kotorye ja videi (F). Thus, in order to meet the requirement that constituents X and Y be of identical type in the generation of sentence S3, we are forced to refer to the derivational history of S ι and S2. But this means contravening the condition placed on the application of the phrase-structure model which prohibits any reference to a string's derivational history, since the phrase-structure model when manipulating a string of symbols can deal only with one state at a time without looking back over the derivation. The above rule for generating sentences with constituents of identical type also exceeds the capabilities of the phrase-structure model in that it requires reference to two strings of symbols simultaneously, whereas the phrase-structure model can deal with only one string at a time.

THE PHRASE STRUCTURE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL MODELS

129

4.5 THE TRANSFORMATIONAL MODEL

In the preceding section we considered the fundamental difficulties which the phrasestructure model comes up against. Such difficulties led Chomsky to include a new type of formation rule in the grammar — the transformational rules. Transformational rules are a natural extension of the phrase-structure rules of generation. Transformational rules enable sentences, generated in the normal way in accordance with the phrase-structure rules, to be transformed into new sentences. The essential feature of transformational rules is that the restrictions placed on the phrase-structure model are removed : for example, if it is impossible for the phrasestructure rules to rewrite more than one symbol at a time, the transformational model can rewrite several symbols simultaneously; if the phrase-structure model cannot refer to the derivational history of strings, the transformational model, on the contrary, requires reference to the derivational history of strings. It must be emphasized that this last condition — the necessity of referring to the derivational history of strings — is especially crucial for transformational rules. The function of transformational rules is not only to generate one sentence from another but, more exactly, to derive some types of phrase markers from other types by permuting symbols and changing them in other ways. In each transformational rule we must distinguish three fundamental features which are directly related to each other: (1) the initial phrase-tree; (2) the string to which the transformation is directly applied; (3) the set of elementary transformations. To make clear how transformational rules work let us return to the example concerning the generation of a sentence containing constituents of identical type — pis'ma i pakety lezat ides' — from the sentences: Pis'ma lezat zdes' and pakety lezat zdes\ We saw that the generation of sentences with constituents of identical type went beyond the phrase-structure model because this meant manipulating two strings simultaneously and referring to the derivational history of these strings. Thus the rule for generating sentences with constituents of identical type must be treated not as a phrase structure rule but as a transformational rule. In order to generate the above sentences we start with an initial phrase marker based on the phrase structure model (Figure 8). S

G

Ν V

Adv.

Fig. 8

Further we have two strings to which the transformational rule is applied:

130

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Ν + V+Adv. N'+V+Adv. Finally, we have a set of elementary transformations: (1) the transformation linking pis'ma and pakety by /: pis'ma + i+pakety; (2) the transformation substituting pis'ma -\-i-\-pakety for pis'ma in the first sentence. This produces a new string, N + N' + V+ Adv., on which is based a new phrase marker which is developed according to the phrase-structure rules. We can see that transformational rules do not eliminate the phrase structure model but include it within a broader grammatical system which Chomsky calls transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is a system containing three types of rules: (1) phrasestructure rules; (2) transformational rules; and (3) morphophonemic rules. In transformational grammar sentences are generated as follows. Transformational grammar, a definite type of generative device, has as its input the symbol S, which denotes a sentence as an undivided, global element. In a series of consecutive steps this symbol is developed, in accordance with the constituent structure rules, into a C-terminal string. The set of such C-terminal strings forms the kernel of a language. To the kernel of a language belong simple, declarative, active sentences — the socalled kernel sentences. By applying transformational rules to kernel sentences we generate new strings which are in turn developed by the constituent-structure rules. The strings produced by the consituent structure and transformational rules are recorded during output into strings of morphophonemes in accordance with special morphophonemic rules. Now that we have examined the transformational model in general let us deal with its formal characteristics. It has already been noted that each grammatical rule must have the form :

where each φ1, ..., φ„, ψ is some structure or other and the symbol -> means that if the structures φ1, ..., φ„ are generated, then the structure ψ is also generated. In the constituent-structure model the following restrictions are imposed on this general form of grammatical rules: (1) « = 1, (2) each φγ, ψ is a string of symbols as such, considered separately from the phrase marker. In the transformational model these restrictions are removed: here η can be more than 1 and each φλ, ..., φ„, and ψ are strings of symbols considered in conjunction with their phrase marker. The set of rules in a transformational grammar meets the following conditions: (1) The constituent-structure component of a transformational grammar has rules of the form φΑψ-+ φωψ, where A is a single symbol, ω is a nonnull string, and φ and ψ are strings which may be null. These rules generate a finite number of C-terminal strings. 3 To these strings are assigned phrase markers, i.e., trees revealing their * 'C-terminal strings' are the terminal strings resulting from application of constituent structure rules only.

THE PHRASE STRUCTURE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL MODELS

131

constituent structure. (2) Each grammatical transformation maps a set of η phrase markers (n ^ 1) into a new phrase marker. Some transformations are obligatory, i.e., they must be applied in each derivation. There are also transformations which are obligatory only relative to others, i.e., they must be applied only if definite other transformations are applied. A string derived by the application of all obligatory and some optional transformations is called a 7-terminal string. A T-terminal string derived only by the use of obligatory transformations is called a kernel string. For the definition of a transformation let us introduce the notion of the analyzability of a terminal string t with respect to phrase marker Q. Let Λ„) is the structure index of T. To complete the specification of the transformation Τ we must indicate which operations it carries out on the elements of the string to which it is applied — we mean possible permutations, deletions, substitutions, or expansion of these elements. Suppose that we associate with transformation Τ an elementary transformation Tel such that Tel (/; ty, ..., tn) = σ„ where (t¡, ..., í„) is the analysis of Γ with respect to Q, T. Then the string resulting from the application of the transformation Τ to the string t with phrase marker Q is T(t, β ) = ¡_A Da # e) aD->Da b)

III. CDFa -» aCDF IV. a)

b)

A, A-+a B,B^b CDF # -> CDc # CDc -* Ccc Cc-fcc

where Α, Β range over {A, B, F}. It can now be determined that the only # S # -derivations of G that terminate in strings of VT are produced in the following manner : (1) the rules of (I) are applied as follows: a) once, b) (m - 1) times for some m > 1, c) m times, d) η - 1 times for some η ^ 1, and e) η times, giving #

CDa...an+mF#,

where g¡ = A for i ^ n, at = B for i > η. (2) the rules of (II) are applied as follows: a) once and b) once, giving . an+mF#

;

c) η + m times and d) once, giving #älCa2...an+mFDa1

#;

e) η I- m times, giving # äiCDa1...anFal

#.

(3) the rules of (II) are applied, as in (2), η -f m — 1 more times, giving #ä1...ä„+mCDFa1...an

+ m#

140

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

(4) the rule (III) is applied η #

m times, giving ...ä„+ma,

-a„

mCDF#

+

(5) the rules of (IV) are applied, a) 2 (n + m) times, b) once, giving # a"bma"bmccc

#

Any other sequence of rules will fail to produce a derivation terminating in a string of VT. The form of the terminal string is completely determined by step (1), where η and m are selected. Rules (II) and (III) are a copying device which carries any string of the form # CDXF# (where X is any string of A's and 2?'s) to the corresponding string # XXCDF#, which is converted by (IV) into terminal form. N o w we can return to the above theorem : There are type 1 languages which are not type 2 languages. Chomsky adduces the following proof : We have seen that the language L consisting of all and only the strings # a"bmanbmccc # is a type 1 language. Suppose that G is a type 2 grammar of L. We can assume for each A in the vocabulary of G that there are infinitely many χ's such that A=>*~* (otherwise A can be eliminated from G in favor of a finite number of rules of the form Β—> φ{Ζ φ2 whenever G contains the rule B-* φιΑφ2 and A=>2). L contains infinitely many sentences, but G contains only finitely many symbols. Therefore we can find an A such that for infinitely many sentences of L there is an # 5 #-derivation the next-to-last line of which is of the form xAy (i.e., A is its only nonterminal symbol). From among these, select a sentence s = # a"bmanb"'ccc # such that m + n>r, where ai ... ar is the longest string ζ such that A-> ζ (note that there must be a ζ such that A z, since A appears in the next-to-last line of a derivation of a terminal string; and, by Axiom 4, there are only finitely many such ζ's). But now it is immediately clear that if (ç>u ... φ,+1) is a # S#-derivation of s for which φ, = # xAy#, then no matter what x and y may be, ( and if Ζ = X or is a functional component of X, the applicators will be omitted and we shall write: UVlV2...V„ By this convention we shall write, for example, CR20R20 instead of \\CRzORzO R50R30R20 instead of \\RsOR30R2O R^ORiOWRsORiOR^ instead of WR^OR^WRsORiORiO

(6)

168

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

If we equate Ζ with X, we can consider the form UV1V2...Vnasa normal scheme of generating each semion X. In order to show that this is the formula for generating the semion X, we shall write it thus : υ ν ^ . , . ν ^ χ Let semion X be generated by the normal scheme υν,ν2...νηγ-χ where we shall call U the main operator in semion X, and Vl the first operand, V2 the second operand, and V„ the nth operand of this operator. The main operator in semion X and its operands will be called its main components or its first-link components. Semion X itself will be called a component of itself or a null-link component. If the main components of X are phrases they can in turn be semions consisting of the main operator and its operands. They will be first-link components of the first-link components of semion X. They will be called secondlink components of semion X. In general, first-link components of the «""-link components of semion X are called (n + l)-link components of semion X. Thus, each fc-link component of semion X is either the main operator in any (/c — I)-link component, or the itk operand of the main operator in the (Λ: — l)-link component. When k —1^0, this (k — l)-link component serves either as the main operator in the (k — 2)-link component or as its /"'-operand. We shall call the relation between the first-link components of any semion and the semion itself a direct functional relation. A direct functional relation holds both between the main operand included in any semion and the semion itself, and also between the operands of the main operator of any semion and the semion itself. Since every fc-link component of a complex semion (if, and only if, k Φ 0) is either the main operator in the (k — l)-link component or the ith operand of the main operator in the (k — l)-link component, it follows that every fc-link component of semion X (if k φ 0) is in a direct functional relation to any (k — ] )-Iink component of that semion. Every ¿-link component of semion X is either identical to semion X (if k ~ 0) or is related to semion Ζ by a chain of direct functional relations. The chain of direct functional relations connecting component Y of semion X with that semion will be called the derivational position of Y in X. Let us return to the normal formula of generation for semion X: UF^...KI-Χ In this formula we shall call the data U, V1, V2, ••·, V„ the basis of derivation of semion X. We can prove the following statement about the correlation between the structure of semion X and the structure of its derivation : Let the application of the main operator U to its operands Vu V2, ..., V„ produce a derivation of semion X, representing episemion e ;

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

169

eX

(7)

Then there exist semions Xu ..., X„, and episemions eu ..., e2, suchthat Xu ..., Χπ is a normal derivational sequence in the derivation of semion eX, and to each Xk is assigned an episemion ek: e¡Xu ..., erXr. If Xk does not belong to the basis of derivation of semion X and Xk = | X¡Xj then e¡ = Aesek. This statement is proved thus : since there is a derivation of semion X from U Vx V2 ..., V„, it follows from the general analysis of derivation in section 1 that there must be a normal derivational sequence Xlt..., Xr, and from the Δ-formula for generating semions it follows that an ek must be assigned to each Xk : ekXk. Further, if Xk does not belong to the basis of derivation of semion X and if Xk = XtXj, then Xk must be generated from X and X j by the Δ-formula, which gives us : ΔpqXj

pXj

(8)

q\XiXj Since episemion e< has been assigned to semion X¡, episemion e¡ to semion Xj, and episemion ek to semion Xk (= | XtXj), it follows from this formula that e¡ = Aejek Q.E.D.

(9)

We shall call this statement the Δ-derivation statement for short. On the basis of the Δ-derivation statement we can give an abstract representation of the generation of semions, abstracting from the concrete episemions which they represent. For example, let semion X be generated from semions Xu X2, X3 as follows: 1. X,

2. X2

3. \XJ2

4. X3

5. \\ΧχΧΛΧ3 In this tree the nodes are numbered like members of a normal derivational sequence. Looking at this tree, we do not need to explain which concrete episemions are represented by each member of the given derivational sequence. It is sufficient for us to know that, corresponding to the number of members of the derivational sequence, there must be five episemions: e1, e2, e3, eA, e5. Now, starting with the Δ-derivation statement we can write the following equations : e3 = Ae^s et = Ae2e3 = Ae2Ae4.es If we substitute for the undefined e, the values of the corresponding concrete episemions we can obtain derivational trees of the concrete semions. For example, let

170

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING e5 = ß e4= a

Then: e3 =

Aaß

e1 =

Ae2Aaß

In the formula e¡ = Ae2Aaß there is no need, although it is possible, to replace e2 by a concrete episemion, because it can be considered as a functional characteristic of the corresponding relator. Since the symbol ρ is used in the functional characteristics of relators, we can write ρ instead of e2 in this case. Now we can obtain, for example, the following tree: 1. AApAaßR^

2.

AaaR30

3. AaßRyR^O

4~aR20

ß\R,R30R20

(10)

Now let e¡ = a

e4 = a Then e3 = Δαα et —

Ae2Aaa

If we accept, for example, that e2 =

Aaa

then the set of concrete episemions we have obtained can be represented in the following tree : 1. AAaaAaaRsO

2. AaaR30

3. Aaa\R50R30

4.

(11) aR20

a\\R50R30R20

All the phrases representing one and the same episemion, except a and β can be alternately an operator or an operand. The root and the phrases representing the epissemions a and β can be only operands. The relators, the propositor, the adnector and the connector can be only operators. As an example let us consider the Tree (11). Here phrases 2. AaaR30 and 3. Aaa\R50R30 represent one and the same episemion: Aaa. However, the first is an operand and the second is an operator. 5.5 INTERPRETATION OF THE RELATOR LANGUAGE AND SOME PROCESSES OF PHRASE GENERATION

We can best begin interpreting the relator language by considering words of the first

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

171

degree of derivation, i.e., elementary words. As was shown in the preceding section there are the following five elementary words : AaßRyO aR20 AaaR30 AAaßAaßR^O AAaaAaaR¡0 If we interpret the episemions a and β and the elementary word R20, the interpretation of the other episemions and semions will follow from the interpretation of these objects by the rules of phrase generation. The word R20 will be interpreted as a noun and the episemion α as a noun-type. Then aR20 must be read thus: a noun R20 represents the noun-type a or belongs to the noun-type a. The episemion β will be interpreted as a sentence-type. For the interpretation of the other elementary words and the episemions they represent let us examine how more complex words are generated from these elementary words which are elementary phrases. We shall begin with the following tree: AaaR30

aR20

(1)

aR30R20 (in the formula shown in the tree the applicators have been dropped in accordance with the convention introduced in the previous section). Since we have been given the interpretation of the formula aR20 and since it is known that episemions are semiotic types which are represented by semions, the following conclusion can be drawn from Tree (1) : R30 is a word which, when applied to the word R20, i.e. to a noun, generates the phrase R30R20 which represents a, i.e. the noun-type. From this it is clear that R30 must be interpreted as an adjective and the episemion Aaa as an adjective-type. And in fact, the application of an adjective to a noun generates a phrase which is equivalent to a noun, i.e. belongs to the same type as a noun. If, for example, to the word sobaka 'dog' we apply the word zlaja 'ill-tempered' we obtain the phrase zlaja sobaka 'ill-tempered dog', which is grammatically equivalent to the word sobaka, i.e., belongs to the same type as the word sobaka. Similarly the interpretation of the other words and episemions can be deduced. Let us take the tree AaßRiO

aR20

(2)

ßRi0R20 From Tree (2) it follows that R¡0 is a word which, when applied to the word R20, i.e. to a noun, generates the phrase Rl0R20 representing β, i.e. the sentence-type. It is clear that R f î must be interpreted as a finite form of a verb, and the episemion Ααβ as the verb-type (finite form). If, for example, we apply the word letaet 'flies'

172

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

to the noun ptica 'bird' we obtain a phrase grammatically equivalent to a sentence. Having deduced from the given interpretations of α, β and R20 the interpretation of R30, Aaa and i ^ O , Ααβ we can now deduce from the latter the interpretation of R4O, ΑΑαβΑαβ and RsO, AAaaAaa. Let us consider the following trees. AAaßAaßR^O

AaßR.O

(3)

AaaR30

(4)

AaßRAOR^O AAaaAaaRsO AaaRs0R30 It follows from Tree (3) that R40 is a word which, when applied to the word RXO, i.e. to a verb, generates the phrase R ^ O R ß representing Ααβ, i.e. the verb-type. From Tree (4) it follows that R50 is a word which, when applied to R30, i.e. to an adjective, generates the phrase R50R30 representing Aaa, i.e. the adjective type. It is clear that RAO must be interpreted as an adverb modifying a verb, and RSO as an adverb modifying an adjective. Correspondingly, ΑΑαβΑαβ must be interpreted as the type 'adverb modifying verb' and AAaaAaa as the type 'adverb modifying adjective'. For example, if we apply the word tarn 'there' to the verb letaet 'is flying' we obtain the phrase tam letaet 'is flying there', which is grammatically equivalent to letaet. If we apply the word ocerí 'very' to the adjective ζ laja 'ill-tempered' we obtain the phrase ocen' zlaja 'very ill-tempered', which is grammatically equivalent to the adjective zlaja. Starting with the interpretation of the words R¡0, R20, R30, RAO, RS0, we can now interpret the relators thus : R1 R2 R3 i?4 Rs -

verb affix (finite form) noun affix adjective affix 'adverb modifying verb' affix 'adverb modifying adjective' affix

As for the root O, a hint as to its interpretation is contained in this semion's name: it is an abstract root without any definite meaning which serves as a sort of prop for the relators. In order to understand correctly the terms in which the abstract objects of the applicational model are interpreted the reader must keep in mind the following general methodological law concerning the terminology of the abstract sciences: "the adoption of a new theory involves a language-shift."n Let us take, for example, the relator R3, which I call the adjective affix. In reality the formula R30 can be interpreted as denoting adjectives of the type veselyj 'merry', belyj 'white'. But from the point of view of the applicative generative model R3R20 must be interpreted as denoting not only adjectives of the above type but also adjectives 11

S. Toulmin, The Philosophy of Science, (London, 1967), p. 13.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

173

derived from nouns such as otcovskij 'fatherly', and even the genitive case of nouns, for instance dòma 'of the house'. The important point is that in the applicational model a change has occurred in the meaning of the general term 'adjective'. Here 'adjective' is used firstly for adjectives as modifiers of a noun as such, and secondly for any word which modifies a noun. Thus, keeping in mind that generally accepted terms have undergone changes of meaning in the applicational model we must explain the following points concerning the terms in which the abstract objects of the applicational model were interpreted above. By 'verb' is meant: 1) non-derived finite forms of a verb; 2) finite forms of a verb derived from other parts of speech; 3) any expressions which serve as compound predicates (for example, by I skol'nikom 'was schoolboy', by! veselyj 'was merry'), since compound predicates fulfil the role of a finite verbal form. By 'noun' is meant: 1) non-derived nouns in the nominative case; 2) nouns, derived from other parts of speech, in the nominative case; 3) infinitives. By 'adjective' is meant: 1) adjectives as modifiers of a noun; 2) other expressions modifying nouns — nouns in oblique cases or adjectives derived from other parts of speech. By 'adverb modifying a verb' is meant: 1) adverbs as such modifying verbs (for example, vcera 'yesterday', ζdes" 'here', i.e. adverbs serving as modifiers of a verb); 2) any expressions modifying verbs (nouns in oblique cases, adverbs derived from adjectives, etc.). By 'adverb modifying an adjective' is meant adverbs used specially as the modifiers of adjectives, and also any words which fulfil that role. The changes of meaning in the above terms are considered only with reference to Russian and languages similar in structure. We must remember that there are languages without infinitives, and that in relation to them the corresponding formula will lose its interpretation as an infinitive. We must keep in mind that different relations hold between cases in languages with an ergati ve system and that for such languages the corresponding formulae will necessarily be given another interpretation. Even for Russian the above explanations of the terms do not exhaust all the possible interpretations. The question concerning this or that interpretation of terms should not really be included in a description of the model. What is important in the present description is not allowing for all possible explanations but showing that in theory the model is capable of effectively describing actual languages. It is with this aim in mind that examples of interpretations of abstract formulae are adduced in this and in other sections of the book. Let us consider various interpretations of the abstract formulae representing words of the first and succeeding degrees of derivation. RiO - finite forms of verbs (e.g., ucit 'teaches', bezit 'runs', vidit 'sees'); R20 - nouns in nominative case (e.g., dom 'house', karta 'map', koska 'cat', lieo 'face');

174

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

R30 - adjectives (e.g., belyj 'white', veselyj 'merry', krasivyj 'beautiful', gor'kij 'bitter'); R4O - adverbs modifying verbs (e.g., zdes' 'here', tam 'there', ν cera 'yesterday', zavtra 'tomorrow'); RsO - adverbs modifying adjectives (e.g., ocerí, ves'ma 'very'); Words of the second and third degrees of derivation :

R2RIO - (ucenie 'teaching', ucif 'to teach', uciteV 'teacher', beg 'running', bezat' 'to run', beglec 'fugitive', etc.); i î ^ ^ i O - (est' ucenie 'is teaching', est' uciteV 'is a teacher', uciteVstvuet 'works as a teacher', est' beg 'is running', etc.);12 (The forms in -ing are nouns). R3R20 - nouns in the genitive case (doma 'of the house', karty 'of the map', koski 'of the cat', lied 'of the face') or an adjective derived from a noun (domasnij 'domestic', kosacij 'feline', licevoj 'facial') ; R4R2O - noun in an oblique case modifying a verb (e.g., kartu, karte, kartoj, o karte — the accusative, dative, instrumental and prepositional cases (singular of karta) or an adverb derived from a noun (e.g., noc'ju 'at night', sverxu 'on top'); R2R3O - noun derived from an adjective (e.g., belizna 'whiteness', veselost' 'merriment', krasota 'beauty', etc.) ; RA R3 0 - adverb, derived from an adjective, modifying a verb (e.g., veselo 'merrily', bystro 'quickly', krasivo 'beautifully', etc.); R2R40 - adjective derived from an adverb modifying a verb (e.g., vcerasnij 'yesterday's', zavtrasnij 'tomorrow's'). Theoretically an infinite number of words can be generated, since the generative process, based on an inductive definition, is infinite. However, for each concrete language we can determine the final cycle of the word generator with which generation stops. Typological studies will obviously be able to find universal restrictions on the number of cycles for which generation continues, these restrictions being part of the specific nature of human language. The search for these restrictions is one of the most important problems connected with the future development of the applicational generative model. A systematic interpretation of the formulae produced by the word generator for one or another concrete language presupposes an exhaustive interpretation of Tables 9 and 10. An interpretation of Table 9 presupposes a description of with which morphological resources and on which cycles words are generated from verbs, from nouns, from adjectives, from adverbs modifying verbs and from adverbs modifying adjectives. 12 Words with copulas, e.g., est' ucenie, bylo ucenie, 'is a teaching' 'was teaching' est' ucitel', byl uciteV 'is a teacher' 'was a teacher' are considered as one unit where the copulas est', byl, etc. are treated as affixes.

175

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

An interpretation of Table 10 presupposes a description of with which morphological resources, on which cycles, and from what word classes verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs modifying verbs and adverbs modifying adjectives are generated in a given language. (The terms 'verb', 'noun', etc. are understood as explained above.) Tree-graphs are a convenient means of interpreting the work of the class-generator. The nodes of the tree denote a cycle in the work of the generator. The direction taken by the lines indicates which relator is added on the given cycle. We introduce the following correspondence between the direction of a line and the number of the relator (Figure 13). •

*

Rs

Fig. 13 We shall consider the null semion — the root O — the root of the tree, which will be denoted by a black dot. The other nodes will be denoted by white circles. The arrows are omitted, since generation proceeds in the direction away from the black dot. Let us give examples. The generation of belizna (R2R3O) is shown in Figure 14.

Fig. 14 The generation of zimnij 'wintry' (adj.) R2R20

is shown in Figure 15.

zimnij Fig. 15 The generation of the word solit '(he) salts'

solit Fig. 16

is shown in Figure 16.

176

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

The generation of zimovocnyj (R3R2R1R20)

is given in Figure 17.

J ) zima zimuetÇj zimovka CI X) zimovoënyj Fig. 17

For interpreting the formulae in Table 9 we set up graphs like those in Figures 18 and 19.

zima, soV ... (R20) zimuet, solit ... {R1R20) perezimuet, zasolit ... zasolka zasol zasoVscik ...

Ò

Ό zimovocnyj ... Ozasolocnyj ...

zasol'scica ...

(R^R20)

zimnij, solevoj ... (R3R20) Ó zimuska, soVca ... (R2R20) Qzimovka, solka, solenie ... (R2RtR20)

(R1R1R20)

(R2RlR1R20)

O o zime, soVju ...

(R^R^R^O) (R^R^R^Ö)

{ R ^ R ^ ^ ^ O Fig. 18

begaet, citaet ...

(RiO) beglyj, beguscij, citavsij (R3RxO)

beg, begotnja, begun, Ltenie, citateV ...

Obegom

(R2RIO)

begun'ja, citateVnica ...Q (R^^O)

(R^R^O)

Öbeglost\ citaemost' ...

(R2R3RÍ0)

begovoj, citateVskij ...

{R3R2RyO)

Fig. 19

Similar graphs are set up for the interpretation of the formulae in Table 10. Suppose we are given words of the type R2R™0 : valka 'the felling', varka 'the cooking', citka 'the reading', golovka 'little head', dorozka 'little road', resnicka 'cilium' (the last three nouns are diminutives), nezenka 'a molly-coddle'.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

177

We can reconstruct the derivational history of these words by setting it out in graph form (Figure 20).

varka citka

dorozka resniika Fig. 20

This graph shows that the class of words ending in -ka falls into three subclasses according to the derivational history of the words included in it. Suppose we are given the words: spaVnja 'bedroom', citaVnja 'reading room', pariVnja 'steam room', graniVnja 'diamond curring factory', beliFnja 'bleach works', susiVnja 'drying room', opocivaVnja 'sleeping chamber'. We shall reconstruct the derivational history of these words in Figure 21.

pariVnja

susiVnja Fig. 21

The class of words ending in -Vnja also falls into three subclasses according to the derivational history of the words included in it. The two graphs differ in that in the first graph only the lines of the last cycle run in the same direction, whereas in the second graph the lines in both the last and second — last cycles run in the same direction.

178

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

The derivational history of words of the first type indicates that the suffix -ka has at least three different meanings, and the derivational history of words of the second type indicates identity of meaning for the suffix -Frija.13 If we remember that the base for any degree of derivation can be represented as X, a generalized dictionary of the relator language includes the following five fixed word-classes : R^X R2X R3X R4X RSX -

verbs nouns adjectives adverbs modifying verbs adverbs modifying adjectives

The relator language with these five word-classes is only one variant of the relator languages generated by the applicational model which are suitable for investigating the many languages of the world. We should remember that other variants of the applicational model, with a greater or lesser number of word-classes, are possible. For example, we could make it a condition in the applicational model that only the relators Ri and R2 are applied to the root O. In this case we shall have only two initial word-classes; RvO and R20. With this condition we shall have to give R¡0 a broader interpretation. It will be not simply a verb but a predicator, i.e., a word which embraces both verb and adjective. In this case, one and the same formula R10R20 can correspond to two such different phrases as Roza cvetet 'The rose is blooming' and Roza—krasnaja 'The rose is red'. As for the other relators R3, R¿, R¡, with this condition in force they will serve only to denote complementary syntactic rules taken over by the basic words R¡0 and R20, i.e. the predicator and noun. All the imaginable variants of the applicational model and the relator languages are on a par from a logical point of view, and therefore none of them can be considered more fundamental or penetrating than the others. It must be emphasized that our choice of one or another variant of the applicational model and of the corresponding variant of the relator language can be influenced only by empirical considerations, i.e., the need to choose the most adequate tool for describing the type of natural languages under investigation. The episemion calculus must be considered the basis of the applicational model, on which we can construct various calculi of semions. A comparative description of the different variants of the applicational model and the relator languages does not come within the scope of this study and could form the subject of a separate book. I shall call the variant of the applicational model examined in this book ÂGM-1, and the variant of the relator language generated by it RL-1. Let us consider the interpretations of the adnector, connector, and propositor. The adnector A is a semion which we can interpret as a modal operator of the interrogative or negative type, etc. Of course there is no point in placing any restric13

For generation of Russian lexicon in terms of the above giaphs see S. K. Saumjan, P. A. Soboleva Osnovanija porozdajuszej grammatiki russkogo jazyka (Moscow, 1968).

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

179

tions on the application of the adnector on the abstract level. To be interpreted in natural languages the adnector will first of all have to be split into different types of modal operators (thus, the interrogative and negative operators are different operators) and in addition the concrete restrictions on the use of these operators must be determined. The connector C is interpreted as a connecting unit, e.g. the conjunction i 'and' in Russian. CR20R20 can correspond to such phrases as stol i stul 'table and chair', otee i mat' 'father and mother', etc. C\Ri0R20\Ri0R20 can correspond to such phrases as Otee spit a mat' citaet 'Father is sleeping but mother is reading', etc. The propositor Ρ is interpreted as a means of converting any phrase into a determiner of a clause. For example, to the phrase Po slovam brata, komedija byla interesnaja 'According to my brother the comedy was interesting' will correspond the formula P\R3R20R20\RlR30R20. In this instance the propositor is interpreted as the preposition po 'according to' which transforms the phrase slow brata (lit.) 'the words of (my) brother' \R3R20R20 into the determiner of the sentence Komedija byla interesnaja RiR30R20. If the propositor is applied immediately to a sentence it transforms the latter into a subordinate clause in a complex sentence with conjunctions like esli ' i f , kogda 'when', etc. For example, to the complex sentence Esli ty poprosif, ja priedu 'If you ask me, I shall come' will correspond the formula Ρ | R10R20\R10R20. Here the propositor is interpreted as the conjunction esli which subordinate to makes an independent clause Ty poprosif 'You will ask' \Ry0R20 another clause Ja priedu Ί shall come' \Ri0R20. Let us now consider concrete processes of phrase generation in the applicational model. First of all we shall introduce two kinds of operators — the identificator and mutator — and make clear the difference between them. Identificators are operators whose operands and images represent the same episemion. Mutators are operators whose operands and image represent different episemions. We shall now deal with typical processes of phrase generation. Four main processes can be distinguished : (a) the iterative process ; (b) the reductive process ; (c) the conversion process; (d) the connectorial process. (a) T H E ITERATIVE PROCESS. — In the iterative process of generation an operatoridentificator is applied to a given operand ; to the result is applied the same operatoridentificator : to this new result of the operation of application is applied the same operator-identificator, and so on. To each result of the operation of application is applied one and the same operator-identificator, so that this process of generation is infinite in principle. Let us examine concrete examples of iterative generation. If to the phrase R2X, representing the episemion a, we apply the phrase R3 Y, representing the episemion Δαα, we obtain the phrase | R 3 Y R2X, representing the episemion a. Since both R2X and | R3 Y R2X represent one and the same episemion a, it is evident that to

180

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

I î^l R 2 X R3 Y can again be applied producing |i? 3 y|Ä 3 F R2X. To this phrase R3Y can again be applied, producing the phrase | J R 3 y|i?3y|i? 3 yi? 2 A', representing a. This procedure can be repeated ad infinitum. Another example: to the phrase R\X, representing Aaß, we can apply the phrase R4Y, thereby obtaining the phrase R4YRIX, representing Aaß. To this phrase RAY can again be applied producing \RAY\RAYRiX, also representing Aaß. With this new phrase the same procedure can be repeated, and so on. In theory, generation can continue ad infinitum. Our notion of iteration can be extended as follows. We can weaken the conditions on the application of operator-identificators to allow the application of different operator-identificators which still represent the same episemion. This type of iteration must be understood as taking place on the level of episemions. With this conception of iteration the above formulae will have the form: |i? 3 y 3 |i? 3 7 2 and R4Y2\RAYlR1X. Thus we must distinguish between iteration which takes place simultaneously on the semion and episemion levels and iteration only on the episemion level. We shall call the first 'concrete iteration' and the second 'abstract iteration'. When it is not essential to distinguish the two kinds of iteration we shall use the general term 'iteration' without specifying whether it is concrete or abstract. (b) THE REDUCTIVE PROCESS. — In the reductive process we take as the initial operator any identificator, which is then applied to the corresponding operand, which is also an identificator. The resulting phrase is applied to a new operand, which is also an identificator. The same procedure is repeated with succeeding identificators until we come to an operand which cannot act as an identificator in relation to another phrase. This operand may be called the nucleus of the reduction structure, and the term 'reductive process' is explained by the fact that each preceding operator is reduced to the succeeding one until we reach the nucleus. Let us consider some concrete examples of generation by reduction. Take the phrase R5X, representing the episemion AAaaAaa. If we apply this phrase to the phrase R3Y, representing Aaa, we obtain the phrase j RsXRÎ Y, representing Aaa. This can in turn be applied to the phrase R2Z, representing a, which produces the phrase \\RSXR3YR2Z, representing a. The phrase R2Z is the nucleus of the generated reductive structure. (c) THE CONVERSION PROCESS. — The essential feature of the conversion process is that the application of an operator to an operand produces an image which represents a different episemion from the one represented by the operand. As an example of generation by conversion we can take the application of the phrase RtX to R2Y, which generates R1XR2 Y representing the episemion β, whereas the operand R2 Y represents the episemion a. In particular the conversion process includes the method of generation according to Rule 3 of the phrase generator, i.e., by applying a relator R to a phrase X, with the condition that in the formula representing this rule const φ p. The following example shows the importance of this type of generation. Take the two sentences : Vkusnaja kasa stoit na stole 'The tasty porridge is on the

181

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

table' and MaVcik est vkusnuiu kasu 'The boy is eating the tasty porridge'. The formal analogue of the noun phrase in the first sentence can be obtained by applying the adjective R30 to the noun R20. But to obtain the formal analogue of the noun phrase included in the verb phrase of the second sentence we cannot join R30 to R4R20, which is the formal analogue of an oblique case, in this instance the accusative, since the word R^R20, from the formal point of view, is an adverb, to which an adjective cannot be joined. To overcome this difficulty we must take the phrase | R30R20 and apply to it the which can be applied to the verb relator Ä 4 , giving us the phrase \R^\R30R20, RiO. We apply the resulting phrase | | / ? 4 \ R 3 0 R 2 0 R 1 0 to the noun R20, which produces the formal analogue of the above sentence: ¡ W R ^ l R j O R ^ R i O R ^ MaVcik est vkusnuju kasu. We shall call phrases like RA \ R3OR20 complex units. A complex unit is defined thus : if X is a phrase generated from the phrases Y and Ζ according to Rule 1 of the phrase generator, then | RtX is a complex unit on condition that I RtX and X represent different episemions. If R¡X and X represent the same episemion we shall call l-fyA' a quasi-complex unit. Here are some examples of genuinely complex and quasi-complex units. The complex phrase R¿ \Ri,R3ORlO, interpreted as a gerund construction, e.g., razgovarivaja tixo 'talking quietly', is a genuinely complex unit because it represents the episemion ΔΑαβΔαβ, but the phrase to which the relator R 4 was applied, R^R^ORjO, represents the episemion Ααβ. The phrase R2 \ R30R20 is a quasi-complex unit because it represents the episemion a, and the phrase R30R20 to which the relator R2 was applied also represents the episemion a. Complex units also solve the problem of generating complex sentences. Suppose we have two sentences Brat skazal '(My) brother said' and Otee priexal '(My) father has arrived'. Both sentences are expressed by the same formula \R10R20. In order to make these two sentences into one complex sentence we must apply the relator i? 4 to the formula | Ri0R20, giving us the complex-unit | RA\Rx0R20. We can now form the phrase I W R ^ l R f l R ^ l R f l R f l , which is the analogue of complex sentences like Brat skazal, cto otee priexal 'My brother said that father had arrived'. In such cases the relator i? 4 is interpreted not as an inflectional ending or an inflection ending and a preposition (as shown above) but as the conjunction cto 'that'. (d) THE CONNECTORIAL PROCESS. — In the connectorial process phrases are generated using connectors. Simple examples of phrase generation using the connectorsystem were given above. More complicated examples of such phrase generation will be given later in the section on the generation of sentences. The connectorial link obeys the commutative law, which can be expressed by the following formula: CXY=

CYX

(5)

For example, the formula CWRíRÍORÍRLO

IR30R20

= C\\R30R201

R3R2OR2RxO

(6)

182

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

and can correspond to the phrases: penie ptic i veselaja muzyka 'the singing of the birds and merry music' and veselaja muzyka i penie ptic. The commutative law which the connectorial link obeys recalls the corresponding commutative law in algebra which binary operations obey. If we interpret a binary operation as 'multiplication', for example, the commutative law in algebra can be expressed by the following formula : ab = ba

(7)

The connector is a two-argument function whose arguments can exchange places. It is interesting to note that the relators R¡, R3 and the propositor Ρ are also two argument functions, but their arguments cannot exchange places, i.e., these links are noncommutative. Take, for example, the formula R3R2OR2R,0, which can correspond to a Russian phrase such as uciteV brata '(my) brother's teacher'. In this formula the first argument of the relator R3 is R20 and the second argument is R2RiO. If these arguments exchange places, the result of the transposition, R3R2Rl0R20, will correspond to a new phrase with the opposite meaning: brat ucitelja '(my) teacher's brother'. It is clear from this that the arguments of the relator R3 can not exchange places : R3R20R2R¡0

Φ R3R2R10R20

(8)

If, however, we replace the relator R3 in this formula by the connector, we obtain the formula CR 2 OR 2 RiO, which must be interpreted as, say, brat i uciteV '(my) brother and the teacher'. If we transpose the arguments of this formula the meaning of the phrase will not change: CR2Rx0R20 will be interpreted as uciteV i brat 'the teacher and (my) brother'. This gives us the equation : CR20R2R10=-CR2R10R20

(9)

We can now proceed to a more detailed examination of phrase generation. If we form phrases in which each of the phrases R¡X, RZX, R3X, R4X, R5X (we shall call these 'elementary') occurs once, we obtain the following fifteen phrases: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

RiX R2X R3X RtX R5X RsXR3X R3XR2X RtXR 2 X

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

R4XR,X R5XR3XR2X R^lRsXRiX RiXRíXR2X RiXWRsXRsXR^ R^XR1X\R3XR2X RtXR^WRsXR^R^

We shall introduce the following convention concerning the use of X: if there are several Xs in one and the same formula, X can be replaced by both identical and different constants. For example, in the formula R¡X\R3XR2X all the Xs can be replaced by the same constant, say RyO, giving us RlRlO\R3RiOR2RlO. But these Xs can

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

183

also be replaced by different constants, say R20 for the first X, R¡0 for the second and R30 for the third X, giving us R1R20\R3Ri0R2R30. We shall call the relator language into which this convention has been introduced a simplified relator language. The generation of a sentence in which each elementary phrase occurs once can be represented as the following tree: R,X R4X

R-l X

RiX

I

IRJCRJ

\\R5XR3XR2X WR^XR.XWRsXRiXRiX

Each elementary phrase occurring in the sentence, except R5X and R^X, can be considered as the nucleus of an iterative block, i.e., as a subphrase with an iterative structure (a subphrase is a part of a phrase which can itself be a phrase. Each phrase is considered a subphrase of itself). Thus, R3X is the nucleus of the iteration block [ R$X... \ R$X\

R$XR3X

The elementary phrase R2X is the nucleus of the iteration block \R3X\R3XR2X The elementary phrase R^X is the nucleus of the iteration block [ R^X... I R^X [ R^XR ι X In the AGM-1 the elementary phrases ÄjA'and R A X cannot be the nuclei of iteration blocks, since there are no iterative operators corresponding to these elementary phrases. Let us look more closely at the generation of iteration structures. Suppose we are given the binary phrase RjXRtX where RtX is the operand and RjX the operator. How can we obtain an iteration structure from this binary phrase? Consider structures with the iterative operator RjX. If to the operand R¡X, representing episemion p, we apply the operator RtX, representing episemion Apq, where q=p, we obtain the binary phrase RjXRtX, representing the episemion q(q=p), to which RjXcan again be applied. This generative process can be represented as the following formula: I R j X . . . j RjX IRjXR- t X The importance of this formula for language is that it represents various kinds of nested constructions: e.g., pisal pis'mo drugu vcera '(I) wrote a letter to (my) friend yesterday'; krasivyj novyjfarforovyj cajnik 'a beautiful new china teapot'. Closely related to the iterative process is the connectorial process of phrase generation which uses the connector C. If to the phrase Z l 5 representing episemion p, we apply the connector C as operator, we obtain a new operator CZi which represents the episemion App. This operator can be joined to the phrase Z 2 , representing

184

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

the episemion p, giving us the phrase | CZ^Z2, representing the episemion p. This generative process can be represented as the formula: II c . . .

\\C\\CZlZ2Z3...Z„

This formula is important for language because it represents constructions containing constituents of identical type, e.g., brat i sestra 'brother and sister' ; brat, sestra i otee, 'brother, sister and father' ; brat, sestra, otee i mat' 'brother, sister, father and mother' ; prostornoe i svetloe 'spacious and light'; prostornoe, svetloe i teploe 'spacious, light and warm'; prostornoe, svetloe, teploe i udobnoe 'spacious, light, warm and comfortable'; MaFcik citaet i devocka spit 'The boy is reading and the girl is sleeping'; MaVcik citaet, devocka spit, i mat' ,fet 'The boy is reading, the girl is sleeping and the mother is sewing'. The main consitutents of a sentence or phrase can be increased in number only if the connectorial process is used. Therefore, if in some phrase or sentence there is more than one main constituent, the latter must be identical in type. Celovek i lesij brodit 'The man and the wood-goblin are roaming' ; zelenye derev'ja i kusty 'green trees and bushes'. It can be stated as a general principle that if there are structures containing more than one operand or one operator identical in type, they will be of the form shown in Table 11. In the first example operands of identical type are combined using the connectorial process, and also operators of identical type. In the second example operands of identical type are combined using the connectorial process, and operators of identical type are joined using the iterative process. Formulae (1) and (2) reflect the linguistic fact that if in a sentence or any phrase there is more than one main constituent and more than one subordinate constituent, the former must be identical in type but the latter can be identical (1) or non-identical (2) in type, e.g. : (1) xolodnyj i mokryj ot dozdja i snega 'cold and damp from the rain and snow'. (2) novye farforovye cajnik i caska 'new china teapot and cup', serstjanye jubka i pidzak ν kletku 'woollen skirt and woollen checked jacket'. (The plural ending of serstjanye shows that it modifies both jubka and pidzak). In the third example the actual word order does not correspond with the inner structure of the corresponding phrase in the applicational model, which is set out thus: IR3R4R201R3R20IICR20R20 i.e. * ν kletky, serstjanye : ijubka pidzak ' | checked | woolen ¡¡and skirt jacket'. or

\R3R20\R3RAR20\\CR20R20

* I serstjanye | ν kletku\\i jubka pidzak ' | woollen | checked || and skirt jacket'.

185

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

Let us consider the calculus of iterative and connectorial structures and their linguistic interpretation. Iteration and connectorial structures are computed according to Formulae (1) and (2). When we assign values to i and j we must remember that the subject group, R2X, and the predicate group, RxX, are formed separately and are combined in the form of blocks in the notation. Therefore in Formula (1), which reflects the connectorial method of combining operators of identical type and operands of identical type, i and j will assume the values 3 and 5, 2 and 3, 2 and 1, 1 and 4. In Formula (2), which reflects the iterative method of combining operators identical in type, i and j will assume only the values 3 and 5, 2 and 3, 1 and 4; i.e., Formula (1) is realized in four ways, Formula (2) in three. The latter law expresses the linguistic fact that dependent constituents in phrases and sentences can be identical or non-identical in type, except for predicates, which can only be identical in type. The formulae for computing iteration and connector structures are shown in Table 12. We shall interpret particular instances of these formulae (a) for two operators with one operand; (b) for two operands with one operator. T A B L E 11

! l | c . . . \\C\\C RjXRjXRjX

...RjX\C... 1 C | CRiXRiXRiX...

RiX

..\RjX\RjX\\C...\\C\\CRlXRiXRiX...RiX

(2)

TABLE

U l u - \\C\\CR5XR5XR5X...

m e - WCWCRiXRyXRiX... l i l e . . . j¡ CII CRtXRtXRtX... .. 1 RSX\R5X\\C...

12

RSX\\C. ..\\C\\CR3XR3XR3X..

l i l e . . . \\C\\CR3XR3XR3X...R3X\\C.

..

• R*X

\\C\\CR2XR2XR2X.. ,R2X

R.XWC. .. ¡j C||

CR2XR2XR2X.. . R2X

R¿X\\C...WCWCRtXRiXRiX.. II C|| CR3XR3XR3X..

. R3X

..\R3X\R3X\\C...\\C\\CR2XR2XR2X...R2X I R¿X. ..

(1)

\RIX\RTXWC..:\\C\\CR1XR1XRLX...R1X

.RÍX

(1.1) (1.2) (1.3) (1.4) (2.1) (2.2) (2.3)

The application of two operators combined into one operand using the connectorial process.

186

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

l.i !||Ci?5A7?5A7?3;¡r cernyj ot pyli i kopoti 'black with dust and soot' uzkij ν plecax i talli 'narrow in the shoulders and hips' starse menja i sestry 'older than me and my sister' 1.2. I \ \ C R 3 X R 3 X R 2 X staryj i vernyj drug 'old and faithful friend' veseloe i igrivoe nastroenie 'merry and playful mood' 1.3. l l l C Ä j Z Ä ^ ^ Z Deti igrajut i pojut 'The children are playing and singing' Nebo bylo tuskloe i seroe 'The sky was dull and grey' 1.4. \\\CRAXRAXR{X sel dnem i noc'ju 'walked day and night' xotjat xleba i zrelisc 'they want food and entertainment' Two operators applied iteratively to one operand. 2.1. \R5X\R5XR3X raspredeljaemyjporovnu mezdu vsemi 'divided equally among everyone' postroennyj synom dlja otea 'built by the son for (his) father' 2.2. 1 R 3 X R 2 X selkovyj galstuk babockoj 'silk bow-tie' novyj derevjannyj dom 'new wooden house' 2.3. I Λ^ΑΊ R^XRi X obnjal ego za pieci (lit.) 'embraced him by the shoulders' selpo ulice vecerom 'was walking along the street in the evening' Application of an operator to two operands connectorially combined. 1.1. and 2.1. I ^ Z H C ^ Z ^ Z xolodnyj i mokryj ot dozdja 'cold and damp from the rain' izmucennyj i boVnoj ot goloda 'exhausted and ill from hunger' 1.2. and 2.1. \R3X\\CR2XR2X starye muzciny i zensciny 'old men and woman' zelenye derev'ja i kusty 'green trees and bushes' 1.3. \R1X\\CR2XR2X celovek i lesij brodit 'The man and the wood-goblin are roaming' Volny i veter xlescut 'The waves and wind are raging' 1.4. and 2.4. ^ X ^ C R i X R i X . igrajut i pojut na ulice 'are playing and singing in the street' citajut i pisut ν klasse 'are reading and writing in class'

187

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

We shall conclude this section by examining some of the connector properties. Application and connectorial combination are related by the distributive law, but this relation is asymmetric; i.e., application is distributive over connectorial combination but connectorial combination is not distributive over application. The law that application is distributive over connectorial combination can be represented by the following two equivalences between trees: I ApAppC

pX

ApqZ

App\CX pqZ

ρY

=

ApAppC

pWCXY

pX q\ZX

ApqZ

Aqq\C\ZX

q\Z\\CXY

ρY q\ZY

q\\C\ZX\ZY II

ApAppC

ArqX

ArqX

AArqArq \ CX

ArqY

ArqWCY

=

ApAppC

7Ζ

r Ζ q\X Ζ

ArqY

AqqCX Ζ

q\\\CYZ

q\Y

rZ Ζ

q\\C\XZ\YZ

We shall call the first equivalence the left law of distribution and the second equivalence the right law of distribution. In these equivalences it should be noted that on the first step in the application of C we substitute for the variable in the functional characteristic of the connector C not concrete episemions but variables which serve as a generalized representation of the functional characteristics assigned to the phrases to which C is applied. The left and right laws concerning the distribution of application over connectorial combination recall the left and right laws of the distribution of multiplication over addition in algebra, which have the form : a(b + c) = ab + ac (b + c)a = ba ca As for application and connector combination the relation of distributiveness between multiplication and addition is asymmetric; i.e., multiplication is distributive over addition but addition is not distributive over multiplication. Here are some concrete examples of the left and right laws of distributiveness in the applicational model. The following equivalence is an example of the left distributive law. CLR2X[

ApAppC Aaa\CR2X> AaßRjX1"

aR2X

a\\CR2X'R2X"

ß\R1X",,\\CR2X'R2X"

AaßRLX'" 11

= ApAppC

U[

ß\RlX R2X'

Aßß^R.X^'R2XU ß\\C\RYXIUR2X'

aR2X> aR2X1

AaßRiX"'

ß\RlXuiR2Xi Ι^-Υ'"/^-^1

188

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

We introduce the following replacement rules: 1. X' - gusi 'geese' 2. X" - utki 'ducks' 3. X 1 " - plavat' 'swim' Plavat' (lit.) 'to swim' should be understood not as an infinitive but as a general denotation for the corresponding concrete verbal root. If we carry out these replacements in the above equivalence we obtain the following final derivates: R, plavat'1 CR2 gusi R2 utki = CR{ plavat' R2 gusi R, plavat R2 utki' This equivalence contains phrases which may be conventionally called Russianrelator phrases. These Russian-relator phrases are transformed into the following actual Russian sentences: Gusi i utki plavajut = Gusi plavajut i utki plavajut 'Geese and ducks swim' 'Geese swim and ducks swim' The following equivalence is an example of the right distributive law : ApAppC

AaßR,X'

~ÄKäßKäß[CR^r

AaßR,X' AaßRiX"

AaßWCRiX'RiX'1

=

aR2X

aR2X

\RtR?X.

RtRΤ \RtR"X R.R? Fig. 25

3

>
gluboko nescastnyj 'deep unhappiness' 'deeply unhappy'. 2. R30-R20

->

R3R30-RsR20

This transformation represents the conversion of substantival syntagmata into adjectival ones, during which process the governed word in the initial syntagma becomes the governing word in the derived syntagma. E.g., sirokie pieci -» sirokij ν piecax 'broad shoulders' -> 'broad in the shoulder' ; slaboe zdoroVe -> slabyj zdorov'em 'weak health' -> 'weak in health'. 3. R30-R20

->

R3R30-R2R20

This is an identity transformation. 4. R30-R20

R2R30-R3R20

Transformation 4 represents the conversion of a nominal syntagma of one kind into a nominal syntagma of another kind : vysokaja gora -* vysota gory 'the high mountain' -> 'the height of the mountain'.

This transformation can be interpreted as the conversion of a nominal syntagma into a predicative syntagma, in which the attribute of the initial syntagma becomes the subject of the derived one, and the modified noun becomes the predicate. E.g., vysokaja gora -* vysota by la goroju 'a high mountain' —• (lit.) 'the height was a mountain'. 6. R30-R20 -> RjR30-R2R20 This transformation represents the conversion of an attributive adjective into a predicative one, or into a verb derived from an adjective. E.g., vysokaja gora gora byla vysokaja; vysitsja gora 'the high mountain' -> 'the mountain was high; the mountain towers high'. 7. R30~R20

->

RiRsO-RtRiO

This transformation represents the conversion of a nominal syntagma into a predicative one, in which the initial modified noun becomes an adverbial modifier. E.g., vysokaja

220

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

gora -> vysitsja goroju 'a high mountain' -> 'towers up like a mountain' ; sirokie pieci -* (byI) sirok ν plecax 'broad shoulders' -> '(was) broad in the shoulder'. 8. R i c i n o -» R ^ O - R ^ O This transformation can be interpreted as the conversion of a nominal syntagma into a predicative one in which the initial modified noun becomes the predicate of the derived syntagma, and the initial modifier becomes an adverb. E.g., xorosij obed -> xoroso poobedal 'a good lunch' -» '(he) lunched well'. It follows from what has been said that the transformations computed in the way described above are of great linguistic importance. In this case they give an exhaustive representation of the conversion of nominal syntagmata of the 'adjective + noun' type (vysokaja gora) into nominal syntagmata of another type, in particular into a 'noun + noun' (vysokaja gora -» vysota gory), into an adjectival syntagma 'adjective + (preposition) + noun' (Sirokie pieci ->• sirok ν plecax), into an adjectival syntagma 'adjective + adverb' {glubokoe nescast 'e glubokonescastnyj), into verbal syntagmata of various types (vysokaja gora Gora byla vysokoj, Gora vysitsja, -> Vysota byla goroju·, xorosij obed -> xoroso poobedal, etc.), and into complex adjectives (golubye glaza goluboglazyj). We turn now to the T-base R20R¡0, which is the formula for simple unexpanded sentences like sobaka laet 'the dog barks' and maVcik piset 'the boy writes', and compute its first-degree transforms. Applying Procedure 4 for generating a Γ-field, we obtain the following eight transforms on the first cycle: RiRiO-RiRß R^O-R^O R^RiO-RiRj.0 R5R!0-R3R20

RiRiO-R^RiO R^O-RiR.O R5R20-R3Rl0

We shall now interpret these transforms. To do this we shall group them according to the structure of the second component. III 5. R2R20-RiRl0 6. R ^ O - R i R i O

I 1. R1R20-R2R10 2. R i R i O - R i R i O II 3. R2R20-RiRi0 4. R^O-R^O

7. 8.

IV RíR20-R^R10 R^O-RsRiO

The first group of transforms are the formulae for transforming verbal syntagmata by converting the verb into a noun derived from a verb. 1. Here the subject becomes the predicate, and the predicate becomes the subject;

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

e.g., MaVcik citai -> Citate!' byl maVcikom

221

Ά boy was reading' -> 'The reader was a

boy'. 2.

R20-R10-^R3R20-R2Rl0

Here a verbal syntagma is transformed into a nominal one; e.g., MaVcik citaet -* ctenie maViika 'the boy is reading' 'the boy's reading'. The second group of transformations are the formulae for transforming a verbal syntagma by converting the verb into a participle. 3. R20~Rl0

-+

R2R20-R3R10

Here there is an active participle agreeing with the noun; e.g., MaVcik citaet ->- citajuscij mal'iik 'The boy is reading' -* 'the boy reading [(is my son)]'. 4. R20-R^0

^

R^O-RiR^O

Here a passive participle governs the noun; e.g., MaVcik citaet -» procitannyj maVëikom 'The boy is reading' -> 'read by the boy'. The third group of transformations are formulae for the conversion of a verbal syntagma involving an identity transformation on the verb. 5.

RzO-RfiR2R20-RiR10

Here both components of the Γ-base undergo an identity transformation. 6.

RiO-RiORtRiO-R^iO

Here a nominative case becomes oblique, while the verb remains a verb; e.g., Matros sluzit -* Sluzit matrosom 'The sailor serves' -> ' H e serves as a sailor' ; Golova trescit —• V golove trescit ' M y head is aching' -* (lit.) 'In my head it is aching'. The fourth group of transformations are the formulae for the transformation of a verbal syntagma which converts a noun into a gerund. 7. R 2 0 - R x 0 - + R ^ O - R ^ O This formula can be interpreted as PredsedateV obvinjaet -> Predsedatel'stvuet, obvinjaja 'The chairman accuses' -> ' H e acts as chairman, accusing [(him of negligence)]'. 8. R20-R10-^R3R10-RsRí0 N o interpretation has been found in Russian for this formula. We shall now explain the linguistic meaning of these fourteen transformations of the three-unit operand R 2 0 R i 0 R n . R 2 0 . This Γ-base is the formula for verbal syntagmata consisting of a noun in the nominative case, a finite verbal form, and object or adverbial phrase consisting of a noun in an oblique case (with or without a preposition) and also of an adverb formed from a noun. This group includes verbal syntagmata of the type Brat piset pis'mo 'My brother writes a letter'; Ivanov rukovodit predprijatiem 'Ivanov runs the business';

222

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

On igraet na skripke 'He plays the violin'; Sestra priexala iz Kazani 'My sister has come from Kazan' ; Professor uedet na sever 'The professor will go off to the North' ; Doroga svoracivaet vlevo 'The road turns to the left'. To facilitate interpretation we shall group the transforms according to the type of operation on the verb as a constituent of the sentence.16 In this way we obtain four groups of transforms. I 1. 2. 3. 4.

II

R^O-R^O-R^R^O R2R20-RlR10~RA.R4.R20 R^O-R^O-RiR^O R^O-R^O-RiRiRiO

5. R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ ^ O 6. R^O-R^O-R^R^O 7. R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ ^ O 8. R3R20-R2R10-R3RAR20

III

IV

9. R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R i O 10. R ^ O - R ^ O - R s R ^ O 11.

13. R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R ^ 14. R i R ^ - R s R ^ - R i R ^ O

RsRiO-R^O-R^RiO

12. R ^ O - R ^ O - R s R ^ O We shall arrange the first group of transforms as follows : — •

RzO-RiO-R^RiO

1.

R^O-RiRyO-RiR^O

C

I. R^O-R^O-R^RiO 3. R i R j O - R i R t O - R i R i R i O — • 4. R4.R20-RxRl0-R4.RAR20

The first group includes transformations in which the verb undergoes an identity transformation. Transformation 1 is the formula for converting the object or modifier of the verb into the subject; e.g., Otee razgovarivaet (sporit, ssoritsja, poet, tancuet) s mater]ju Otee i mat' razgovarivajut (sporjat, ssorjatsja, pojut, tancujut) 'Father talks (argues, quarrels, sings, dances) with mother' -* 'Father and mother talk (argue, quarrel, sing, dance)'. Transformation 2 is an identity transformation. Identity transformations are important because they guarantee the essential degree of generality in the formulation of the transformation rules. If there were no identity transforms we should have to introduce various kinds of unproductive restrictions into the formulation of the transformation rules. Transformation 3 is the formula for converting the subject into the object or modifier of the verb and the object or modifier of the verb into the subject, e.g., Rosa pokryvaet travu -> Tra va pokryvaetsja rosoj 'The dew covers the grass' 'The grass is being covered by the dew'; Fabrika proizvodit obuv' -> Obuv' proizvoditsja fabrikoj 'The factory produces footwear' -> 'footwear is produced by the factory'; Rana bolit na 19 A similar description of the transformations of the three component Γ-base see in S. K. Saumjan, P. A Soboleva, op. cit., pp. 77-84.

223

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

noge -> Noga bolit ot rany 'The wound hurts on the leg'

'The leg hurts from the

wound'. Transformation 4 is the formula for converting the subject into the object or modifier of the verb, e.g., Rosa pokryvaet grass'

travu -> Tra vu pokryìo

rosoj 'The dew covers the

(lit.) 'it covered the grass with dew'.

The second group of transformations is arranged as follows. 5.

R^O-RiRtO-RiRtRiO

8. R ^ O - R j R y O - R ^ R ^ O The second group of transformations involves the conversion of the verb into an infinitive or into a noun derived from a verb ( R ^ - R i R i O ) . Transformation 5 is the formula for converting the subject and the object or modifier of the verb into predicates by transforming the verb into a noun derived from a verb, e.g., Otee s mater'ju prepodajut

Prepodavateli-otec

s mater ju 'Father and Mother

teach' -> 'The teachers are Father and Mother' ; Komarovputesestvuet Putesestvennik-Komarov

s Gromovym

-*

'Komarov is travelling with G r o m o v ' -> 'The

s Gromovym

travellers are Komarov and Gromov'. Transformation 6 is the formula for converting the subject into a predicate and the object or modifier of the verb into modifier of the subject, which becomes a noun formed from a verb, e.g., Ivanov diriziruet

orkestrom

-» Dirizer

orkestra-Ivanov

'Ivanov conducts the orchestra' - * 'The conductor of the orchestra is Ivanov'. Transformation 7 is the formula for converting the object or modifier of the verb into a predicate and the subject into a modifier of a noun formed from a verb, e.g., Otee kupil masinu -> Pokupka

otca-masina

'Father bought a car' -> (lit.) 'Father's

purchase is a car'. Transformation 8 is the formula for transforming a verbal syntagma so that both the subject and the object or modifier of the verb become modifiers of a noun formed from a verb, e.g., Fabrika proizvodit

obuv' -> proizvodstvo

obuvi fabrikoj

or fabrienoe

proizvodstvo obuvi 'The factory produces footwear' ->· 'the production of footwear by the factory' or 'the factory production of footwear'. The third group of transformations is arranged as follows : 9.

R2R20-R3R10-R2R4.R20

12.

R5R20-R3Rl0-R5RAR20

The third group of transformations involves the conversion of the verb into a participle. Transformation 9 is the formula for those transformations of a verbal syntagma in which a participle is directly related with two constituents of the same type —

224

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

nouns, for example; MaVcik i devocka igrajut -* igrajuscie mal'cik i devocka 'The boy and the girl are playing' -> 'the boy and girl playing [(cards did not look up)]'. Transformation 10 is the formula for converting a verbal syntagma into a nominal one, the verb becoming a participle but still governing the same constituent, e.g., Sportsmen polucil priz -» sportsmen, polucivsij priz 'The athlete received a prize' -> 'The athlete who received a prize'. Transformation 11 is the formula for the conversion of a verbal syntagma into a nominal one in which the verb becomes a participle modifying the original object or modifier of the verb, e.g., Sportsmen polucil priz -> priz, polucennyj sportsmenom 'The athlete received the prize' -» 'the prize received by the athlete'. Transformation 12 is the formula for the transformation of a verbal syntagma into a nominal one in which the verb is converted into a participle which governs the initial subject and the object or modifier of the verb, e.g., Petja risuet s Kolej -+ narisovannoe Petejs Kolej 'Petja draws with Kolja' -> 'drawn by Petya and Kolja' ; Ree vdoxnovlaet napodvigi -* vdoxnovlennyj rec'ju napodvigi 'The speech inspires (one) to great deeds' 'inspired to great deeds by the speech'. No interpretation has been found in Russian for the fourth group of transformations, i.e., Transformations 13 and 14. As shown by the transformation rules and the set of concrete examples of the transformation calculus, the T-base is the invariant of all transformations. Thus, setting the Γ-base means setting the invariant of the transformations. If we convert the constitutive-link notation of the above fourteen transforms of the T-base R20-Rl0-R^R20 into block-link notation, we obtain (corresponding to the above four groups of transforms): I 1. 2. 3. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3.

R1R10\\CR2R2OR2RiR20 Ä 4 Ä 4 i? 2 0Ä 1 Ä 1 0Ä 2 i? 2 0 R^RiOR^ORiR^O CR^OR^RiOR^O R4,R^R20\RiR20R1R10 R^OlR^R^ORiRiO

II 5. 6. 7. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3.

IV

III 9. 10. 11. 12.1. 12.2. 12.3.

R3R10\\CR2R20R2R4.R20 RsR^ORsRiOR^O RsR20R3Ri0R2RaR20 CR^ORsR^ORsRiO RsR^lRsR^OR^O RsRtRiOlRsRiORsRiO

CR1R20R1R4R20R2R10 RiR20\R3R4.R20R2R10 RiRAR20\R3R2LR2Rl0 CR3R^OR3R2OR2R10 R3RA,R20\R3R2OR2RlO R3R20\R3RA.R20R2Rl0

13. 14.

R^OWCR^ORiR^O RsRyOWCR^ORiR^O

In the first group of transforms (1-4) the verb undergoes an identity transformation: RiO -* RiRxO. In the second group (5-8) the verb is transformed into a noun formed

225

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

from a verb (or into an infinitive): R t O -> R 2 R i O . In the third group (9-12) the verb is transformed into an adjective, i.e., is converted into a participle (or into an adjective derived from a verb): i^-RiO. In the fourth group (13-14) the verb is transformed into an adverb modifying a verb (a gerund or an adverb derived from a verb) or into an adverb modifying an adjective: i ^ O -» R^RtO and R ß R5RtO. Each group, consisting of four transforms, corresponds to a cross on the graph (cf. Figure 22). Lower cross - Transforms 1-4 Middle cross - Transforms 5-8 Upper cross - Transforms 9-12 Groups consisting of single transforms correspond to semi-crosses on the graph. Lower semi-cross - Transform 13 Upper semi-cross - Transform 14 The following regularity stands out. The subject and the object or modifier of the verb in the T-base in each group of transforms behave the same way. They : a) move to the 'left' of the transformed verb (Transforms 1, 8, 12, 13) b) move to the 'right' of the transformed verb (Transforms 4, 5, 9, 14) c) remain in the same position relative to the transformed verb (Transforms 2, 7 , 1 1 ) d) exchange positions relative to the transformed verb (Transforms 3, 6, 10) R.O

RtR20

RsR?RtR20

RjRTRtRiO

R2R¡"Ü4R20

R¡RTRtRtO

Fig. 30

226

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING SECOND-DEGREE TRANSFORMS

When computing the above transformations of two- and three-component Γ-base we considered the particular case when m = 0 and confined ourselves to the first cycle of derivation (using the relators RSR°, R3R°, R2Rf, R¡R°, R4R?, i.e. for all intents and purposes Rs, R3, R2 Ri and RA). In theory, however, more than one relator can be applied to each component of the initial phrase, the relators being identical or different. Let us examine another particular case. As the Γ-base we shall take the same three-component phrase R20-R10-R^R20 (Figure 30) and shall compute its transforms with m ! = 0 ,m2 = l.and m 3 = 0. We shall apply the first two rules of Procedure^ The transforms computed using this graph we call second-degree transforms — according to the highest index for Rt. Let us consider the linguistic meaning of the transformations computed using the subgraph marked off by the thick line on the graph. First of all we shall write them out according to Rule 3 of Procedure 4 :

R^O-R^R^O-R^RiO R^O-RiRiRiO-R^RiO

R^O-R^R^O-R^R^O R4.R20-R1RiR10-RAR4R20

We shall give a value to J?, and compute all possible combinations. We shall continue numbering the transforms of the three-component T-base from where we finished in the previous section. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

R^O-RiRiRiO-R^^O R^O-R^R^O-R^Rß RiRiO-R^RiO-RiR^O R^O-RiR^RiO-R^RiO R^O-R^sRß-R^Rß R^O-RiRiRfi-RtR^O RiRiO-RiR^O-RtR^O R 2 R 2 0-R l R 3 R 1 0-R A R4R 2 0 R^O-R^R^O-R^R^O R^O-RiRsRiO-R^RiO

25.

R^O-R^iRiO-RiR^O

26. R 4 R 2 0-RÍR 2 RÍ0-R 2 R4R 2 0 27. R t R ß - R y R i R i O - R ^ R i O 28. R ^ R i O - R i R ^ O - R i R ^ O

29. RírR20-RlR5Rí0-R2R4R20 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

R^O-R^yRyO-R^RiO R4R2O-RiR2RiO-R4.R4.R2O R^O-RiRiRiO-RtR^O R4.R2O-RiR4RiO-R4R4.R2O R4R2.O-RiRiRiO-R4R4.R2O

Transformations 15-34 represent the possible transformations of a verbal syntagma in which the verb becomes a noun derived from a verb and preceded by a copula or an infinitive, a participle preceded by a copula, or a gerund preceded by a copula. Transformations 15-19 represent all cases of the object or modifier of the verb becoming a second subject when the verb is transformed. The derived syntagma is a sentence with two subjects of the same type.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

R20-R¡0-R4R20

227

—>- 15. R2R20-R1R1R10-R2R4.R20 —• 16. R2R20-R1R2R10-R2R^R20 - > 17. R2R20-R1R3R10-R2RAR20 —• 18. R2R20-R1RI1R10-R2R4.R20 —• 19. R 2 R 2 0 - R 1 R 5 R 1 0 - R 2 R ^ R 2 0

Transformation 15 is interpreted in the same way as transformation 1 : Brat sporit (tancuet, deretsja) s sestroj —• Brat i sestra sporjat (tancujut, derutsja) 'The brother argues (dances, fights) with his sister' -» 'The brother and sister argue (dance, fight)'. Transformation 16 is interpreted thus : Brat sporit s sestroj -+ Brat i sestra-sporsciki 'The brother argues with his sister' 'The brother and sister are arguers'. Brat ssoritsja s sestroj —• Brat i sestra ν ssore 'The brother is quarrelling with his sister' —• (lit.) 'The brother and sister are in quarrel' (cf. Transformation 5 : Brat sporit s sestroj Sporsciki byli bratom i sestroj 'The brother argues with his sister' -> 'The people arguing were the brother and sister'). Transformation 17 is interpreted thus: Brat razgovarivaet (deretsja) s sestroj -* Brat i sestra razgovorcivy (draclivy) 'The brother talks (fights) with his sister' -» 'The brother and sister are talkative'. In this case the initial verb has turned into an adjective preceded by a (null) copula. But the verb can also become a participle preceded by a (null) copula: Andreev sluzit s Nikolaevym -> Andreev i Nikolaev sluzascie 'Andreev works with Nikolaev' 'Andreev and Nikolaev are workers' (sluzascie = present participle active). In such sentences the participle has an obvious substantival character. Active, nonsubstantival participles do not normally occur in the predicate in Russian : X vrazdoval s Y -> X i Y byli vrazdujuscimi ' Ζ quarrelled with F' -> (lit.) 'X and Y were quarrelling'. No interpretations have been found for Transformations 18 and 19. We shall now go on to the interpretation of Transformations 20-24.

R20-R10-R 21. R2R20-R1R2RÍ0-RÍRÍR20 22. R ^ O - R i R i R ^ - R t R ^ O -> 23. R2R20-R1RAR10-RARliR20 -> 24. R2R20-R1R5R10-RAR^R20

Transformation 20 is interpreted in the same way as transformation 2, i.e., as an identity transformation. Transformations 21-24 are interpreted as the transformation of a verbal syntagma determined by the conversion of the verb into a predicative noun, and infinitive, a participle, a gerund and an adjective. The initial subject and the object or modifier of the verb remain unchanged. Transformation 21 is interpreted thus: Kniga pecataetsja god -> Kniga ν pecati god 'The book has been being printed for a year' -* 'The book has been in press for a year'; Ona rabotaet ν pole -* Ona na rabote ν pole 'She is working in the field' -* 'She is at work in the field'.

228

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Transformation 21 can be interpreted as introducing a modal: Mypomozem vam -> My mozem pomoc' vam 'We shall help you' -> 'We can help you' ; On procel knigu -» On dolzen procès t' knigu 'He read the book' -» 'He ought to read the book'. Transformation 22 is interpreted as follows: Rebenok cuvstvuet muzyku -» Rebenok cuvstvitelen k muzyke (lit.) 'The child feels music' -> 'the child is sensitive to music'. In this example the unchanging feature of the object or modifier of the verb is that it stays in the class represented by the formula R¿R20. In both the initial and the derived syntagma the noun — muzyku, k muzyke — is in an oblique case, i.e., remains in the class RAR20. Transformations 23 and 24 represent very rare cases when gerunds occur after a copula : On stojal ν uglu On ostavalsja stoja ν uglu 'He stood in the corner' —* 'He remained standing in the corner'. Let us examine Transformations 25-29.

R20-R10-R4R20

25. R4.R20-R1R1Ri0-R2R4.R20 26. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ - R i R ^ O 27. RAR20-R1R3R10~R2RAR20 ->· 28. R ^ O - R i R ^ O - R i R ^ O 29. R ^ O - R i R s R x O - R i R ^ O

Transformation 25 is interpreted like Transformation 3, i.e., as the transformation of an active verb into a passive verb : Sud rassmatrival délo -> Délo rassmatrivalos' na sude 'The court was examining the case' 'The case was being examined at the court'. Transformations 26-29 represent the conversion of a verb into a copula followed by noun derived from a verb, an infinitive, a participle, an adjective derived from a verb and a gerund, during which process the subject and the object or modifier of the verb exchange syntactic roles. Transformation 26 is interpreted thus : Sud rassmatrival delo -> De lo by lo na rassmotrenii ν sude 'The court was examining the case' -» 'The case was under examination in the court' ; Fol'ga ukrasaet elku ->· Elka ν ukrasenijax iz foVgi 'Foil decorates the Christmas tree' ->· (lit.) 'The tree was in decorations (i.e. was covered in decorations) made of foil'. Transformation 27 is interpreted as the transformation of an active construction into a passive one. It differs from Transformation 3 in that the transform contains a compound nominal predicate: Gost' razbil tarelku Tarelka by la razbita gostem 'The guest broke the plate' -> 'The plate was broken by the guest': Sem'ja vospitala maVcika MaVcik byl vospitan ν sem'e 'The family brought up the boy' -> 'The boy was brought up in the family'. Transformations 28 and 29 are interpreted as follows : Brat rasstaetsja s sestroj -> Sestra dolina rasstat'sja s bratom 'The brother parts from his sister' -> 'The sister must part from her brother'. Finally, let us consider transformations 30-34 :

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

R20-Rl0-R^R20

229

30. R ^ O - R ^ R y O - R t R ^ O -> 31. R ^ O - R i R j R ^ - R ^ R i O ->- 32. R ^ O - R i R s R i O - R ^ R ^ O -> 33. RAR20-RlRAR10~RARiR20 -> 34. RiR20-RíR5Rí0-RARAR20

Transformation 30 is interpreted in the same way as Transformation 4, i.e. as the transformation of a verbal construction into an impersonal one : Sneg zanes dorn -> Zaneslo dorn snegom 'Snow blocked off the house' (lit.) 'It blocked the house off with snow'. Transformations 31-34 represent the conversion of the verb into a (null) copula followed by a noun derived from a verb, an infinitive, an adjective, a participle, and a gerund, during which process the initial subject becomes the object or modifier of the verb. In other words, Transformations 30-34 represent the generation of impersonal sentences. Transformation 31 represents the conversion of a sentence with a verbal predicate into an impresonal sentence in which the main constituent is an infinitive or a noun derived from a verb: On vystupaet vecerom ->· Emu (nado) vystupat' vecerom 'He is speaking in the evening' 'He must speak in the evening'; Vy ne uvidite ètogo -> Vam ne uvidet' ètogo 'You will not see it' -> 'To you (it will not be given) to see it'; Rajon otstal ot plana -* V rajone otstavanie ot plana 'The region has fallen behind with the plan' -> 'In the region there is a falling behind with the plan'. Transformation 32 represents the conversion of a sentence into an impersonal construction in which the main constituent is the short form of a passive participle (with or without a copula), e.g., Sud rassmotrit délo -» Na sude budet rassmotreno delo 'The court will examine the case' -* 'The case will be examined in court' ; Fil'm rasskazet o vojne -> VfiVme budet rasskazano o vojne 'The film will tell about the war' -» (lit.) 'In the film it will be told about war'. Transformations 33 and 34 can be interpreted if R^R^O and R s R i O are treated as infinitives. In this case Transformations 33 and 34 are interpreted in the same manner as Transformation 31. Not all transforms of the bound T-generator can be interpreted in one or other actual language. But it is the theoretical aspect which is essentially important : each model idealizes an actual situation and what is important is not that an interpretation be found for each formula but that each formula be a link in a unified network of relations. TRANSFORMS IN THE SEMI-BOUND ^-GENERATOR

We shall now consider transformations of the three-component Γ-base R20-R¡0R¿R20 in the semi-bound T-generator (Figure 31). Since the bound Γ-generator is a particular case of the semi-bound Γ-generator, it stands to reason that if we apply Rules 1-3 of Procedure 3 (with m — 0) the transforms generated will include the

230

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

above thirty-four transforms belonging to the connected generator. In addition, we shall obtain twenty-eight other transforms : 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

R ^ O - R s R ^ O - R i R ß R

3

R

1

0 - R

5

R

2

0 - R

3

R

0

2

R i R ^ - R ^ R ^ - R s R i O R s R t O - R ^ O - R s R ß R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R ^ R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O R s R i O ^ R f l - R s R ^ O R ^ O - R i R ^ O - R i R ß R ^ O - R ^ R ^ - R ^ O R ^ O - R ^ O - R i R ^ O R ^ O - R ^ R ß - R ^ O R j R ^ - R ^ O - R i R ^ O R4 R2 0-R>

R

R

i

2

0 - R

4

. R

l

0

R ^ R y O - R ^ O - R ^ O R-.0

R^R2

0 - R

R

a

R

4

O - R l R χ 0

2

R ^ ^ - R ^ O - R i R i O R ^ O ^ R ^ O - R i R x O R ^ R ^ - R ^ O - R ^ O RA R2 0-R¡

R

a

R

2

0 - R

2

R

0

1

R^Ra R2 0-R1 R2 0-R2 R1 0 R ^ O - R ^ R ^ - R i R X O R i R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ O R ^ O - R i R ^ O - R s R t O R ^ R i O - R ^ O - R s R i O R2 R2 0-R1 R^R2 0-RiSr Ri 0 R

2

R

4

. R

z

0 - R

l

R

2

0 - R

4

R

l

0

R±R2 0—R2 R4 R2 0-~R3 RI0

Rt R2 0

R,O

Fig. 31

Interpretation: 1.

R

2

0 - R

l

0 - R

A

, R

2

0

R ^ O - R s R ^ O - R ^ O

2. R i R i O - R s R i O ^ R i O - > 3. R

4.

s

R

2

0 - R

3

R

l l

R

2

0 - R s R

1

0

R^O-R^O-R^O

The group of transforms 1-4 represents various conversions of a verbal syntagma into an attributive-nominal one (cf. Transformations 9-12 in the bound ^-generator).

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

231

Transformation 1 is the formula for converting the subject and predicate into attributives of the same type, one of which governs the original object or modifier of the verb: e.g., Solnce svetit utrom —• svetlyj i solnecnyj po utram 'The sun shines in the morning' -* 'Light and sunny in the mornings'. Transformation 2 is the formula for converting the verb and the object or modifier of the verb into attributes of the same type, one of which governs the former subject: e.g., Solnce svetit utrom Utrennij i svetlyj ot solnca 'The sun shines in the morning' -> (lit.) 'Morning-like and light with the sun'. No satisfactory interpretations have been found in Russian for Transformations 3 and 4.

R20-RÍ0-RA,R20

> > > *

5. R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O 6. R2R20-R3R4R20-R2Rl0 7. RiRi0-R2R20-R3R^R20 8. R ^ O - R ^ R i O - R i R y O

The group of transforms 5-8 represents various conversions of a verbal syntagma into a nominal one (cf. Transformations 8-11 in the bound T-generator). Transformation 5 is the formula for converting the subject into the attribute of the nominalized verb and the object or modifier of the verb: e.g., Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -> zvezdnye svet i noe' 'The stars shine at night' (lit.) 'Starry light and night' ; Solnce svetit utrom -> solnecnye svet i utro 'The sun shines in the morning' -> (lit.) 'Sunny light and morning'. Transformation 6 is the formula for converting the object or modifier of the verb into the attribute of the nominalized verb and the subject: e.g., Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -> nocnye svet i zvezdy 'The stars shine at night' 'Nocturnal light and stars' ; Solnce svetit utrom -> utrennie svet i solnce 'The sun shines in the morning' ->• 'Morning light and sun'. Transformation 7 is the formula for converting the verb and the object or modifier of the verb into attributes of the subject: e.g., Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -> Svetlaja nocnaja zvezda 'The stars shine at night' -> Ά bright night star' ; Solnce svetit utrom svetloe utrennee solnce 'The sun shines in the morning' 'The bright morning sun'. Transformation 8 is the formula for converting the subject and the verb into attributes of the object or modifier of the verb: e.g., Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -*• Svetlaja zvezdnaja noe' 'The stars shine at night' Ά bright starry night'; Solnce svetit dnem Svetlyj solnecnyj den' 'The sun shines during the day' Ά bright sunny day'; Skola peresmotrela programmu -> Peresmotrennaja skoVnaja programma 'The school has revised its programme' -* 'The revised school programme'.

RiO-RiO-R^O

9. R1R20-R2R4R20-R1R10 > 10. R i R ^ ^ R i O - R i R ^ O >11. i?2Ä20-Ä1«4Ä20-i?2Ä10 > 12. R2Rí0-R1R20-R2RaR20

232

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

The transforms in the group 9-12 represent different transformations of a sentence with a simple verbal predicate into a sentence with a nominal predicate (cf. Transformations 5-7 in the bound jT-generator). The interpretations we are about to suggest are partly hypothetical: 9. Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -> Noe' svetilas' i byli zvezdy 'The stars shine at night' 'The night was bright and there were stars'. 10. Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -> Svetilis'' zvezdy, i byla noe' 'The stars shine at night' 'The stars were bright and it was night'. 11. Luna (lit.) 'Light and svetit noc'ju -» Svet i noe'' — èto luna 'The moon shines at night' night — that is the moon'. 12. Luna svetit nocju Luna i svet — èto noe' 'The moon shines at night' ->· (lit.) 'The moon and light — that is night' ; Solnce svetit utrom -+ Solnce i svet — èto utro 'The sun shines in the morning' -* (lit.) 'The sun and light — that is morning'.

R20-Ri0-R4R20

•> * > >

13. i? 4 i? 2 0- J R 1 Ä 4 Ä 2 0-J? 4 i? 1 0 14. R4R10~R1R20-R^R20 15. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O 16. R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ O

The group of transformations 13-16 represents the conversion of simple sentences into compound sentences (cf. Transformation 4 in the bound Γ-generator). The verb either remains the verb or becomes the object or modifier of the verb. No interpretations have been found for the second alternative — Transformations 13 and 14. In the first alternative either the subject or the object or modifier of the verb becomes the main constituent: 15. Proxlada veet noc'ju —• By la proxlada i véjalo noc'ju (lit.) 'The coolness smells of night' -»• 'It was cool and there was a smell of night'. 16. Proxlada veet noc'ju -> By la noe' i véjalo proxladoj (lit.) 'The coolness smells of night' -* 'It was night and there was a smell of coolness'. Of the remaining transformations, only 21 and 22 have been interpreted. Transformation 21, R20-R10~RírR20 R^O-R^R^-R^O is the formula for converting an active verb to a passive one, during which process the object or modifier of the verb of the initial sentence becomes the subject of the derived one, and the subject of the initial sentence becomes the attribute of the new subject: e.g., Voda napolnjaet bassejn -+ Vodnyj bassejn napolnjaetsja 'The water fills the pool' —• (lit.) 'The water pool is being filled' (cf. Transformation 3: Bassejn napolnjaetsja vodoj 'The pool is being filled with water' ; Zavod vypuskaet produkciju -* Zavodskaja produkcija vypuskaetsja 'The factory turns out goods' -> 'The factory goods are turned out' (cf. Transformation 3: Produkcija vypuskaetsja zavodom 'The goods are turned out by the factory'). Transformation 22, Rß-R^O-R^O -» R3R4,R20~R2R20-R1R10 is the formula for converting the object or modifier of the verb (an adverbial modifier) into an attribute of the subject: e.g., Poezd pribyl iz Moskvy —> Moskovskij poezd pribyl •The train has arrived from Moscow' -> 'The Moscow train has arrived' ; Konferencija

233

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

sostojalas' ν Bandunge -> Bandungskaja konferencija sostojalas' 'The conference took place in Bandung' -*• 'The Bandung conference took place'. Let us examine some other transformations in the semi-bound Γ-generator, taking first the graph shown in Figure 32. R3 O

R2 0

RT O

Fig. 32

The broken lines of the graph represent the transformation of an attribute into an adverb: e.g., Jarkoe solnce svetit -»· Solnce svetit jarko 'The bright sun shines' 'The sun shines brightly' ; Veselaja devocka smeetsja -> Devocka smeetsja veselo 'The x¡O

R2O

Fig. 33

R^O

234

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

merry girl laughs' -> 'The girl laughs merrily'. Such a transformation obviously affects only qualitative adjectives correlated with qualitative adverbs. Let us now consider the graph shown in Figure 33. The transform shown by dots represents the formation of a participial construction, and the transform shown by broken lines represents the formation of a gerund construction.

r

Ulybajuscajasja devocka tancuet 'The smiling girl dances'

L

Devocka tancuet, ulybajas' 'The girl dances, smiling'

E.g., Devocka ulybaetsja i tancuet 'The girl smiles and dances'

Zabolevsij mal'cik ne prisel 'The boy who had fallen ill did not come' {zabolevsij=past participle active) Mal'cik zabolel i ne prisel 'The boy fell ill and did not come'

L

Zabolev, mal'cik ne prisel 'Having fallen ill, the boy did not come'

TRANSFORMS IN THE FREE Γ-GENERATOR

Simple

Transformations

In the free Γ-generator we shall begin by considering cases where words which are

Fig. 34

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

235

not affiliated to each other nonetheless serve as components of Γ-base. We shall take the words R30 and R¡0. The set consisting of these words R30, RtO is the Γ-base shown in Figure 34. It must be noted that these abstract words are interpreted as several actual words in Russian (R 3 0-pustoj 'empty', bystryj 'quick', zelenyj 'green'; RxO-zijaet 'yawns', begaet 'runs', rastet 'grows'). This is because one and the same lexical content cannot be given to all grammatical constructions. R^O-R^O R3R30-R2RL0 R2R3O-R3R,O

RiR^-RiRß RiRiO-RiRß R^RíO-R^O RiRiO-R^O

bystro beguscij 'quickly running' bystryj beg 'quick run' zijajuscaja pustota 'yawning emptiness' Pustota zijaet (lit.) 'The emptiness yawns' Beg bystr 'The run is quick' Bystro bezit 'quickly runs' zeleneet proizrastaja (lit.) 'shows green as it grows up' (of plant)

R3R30-R5R10:

RsRIO-R^O: Let us now consider those cases when the Γ-base consists of two unconnected phrases R,0 and R20-R l0-R4,R20. These unconnected phrases can be treated as the component of the Γ-base (RtO, R20-R10-R4R20). The components of this Γ-base can be interpreted as two completely unconnected phrases: e.g., Padaet 'falls' or Soobscaet 'informs' and Sneg zanes dorogu 'The snow blocked the road'. Let us carry out transformations on each of these components as shown in the graph in Figure 35. R¡0

R,

RiCR^RiORfRiO)

R5RLO

R^RiORßR&O) R¡(R20R,0RLR20)

RI(R20R10RLR20)

RTR¡0

Fig. 35

1. RsRiO-R^O-RiO-R^O) — 2. R3R10-Rs(R20-R10-R1íR20) Soobscajuscij, cto sneg zanes dorogu 'reporting that snow blocked the road' 3. RiRi0-R2{R20-Rl0-R^R20) Padajuscij sneg zanes dorogu 'The falling snow has blocked the road'

236

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING 4.

RIRTO-RSIRIO-R^-RTRZO)

soobscenie, cto sneg zanes dorogu 'the report that snow had blocked the road' 5.

R2RI0-R1(R20-RL0-R4R20)

Soobsëenie takovo : sneg zanes dorogu 'The report is this : snow has blocked the road' 6.

R1R10~R2(R20-R10-R4.R20)

(To), cto sneg zanes dorogu, soobscili 'They reported the fact that snow had blocked the road' 7. R ^ O - R ^ O - R . O - R ^ O ) Soobscajut, cto sneg zanes dorogu 'They report that snow has blocked the road' 8. ä 4 Ä 1 0- j R 1 (Ä 2 0- j R 1 0-Ä 4 Ä 2 0) — The following must be noted concerning these formulae. If no interpretation has been found for a particular formula a dash is placed opposite it. Various words and phrases are used for the interpretation since the same lexical items cannot occur in all gram matical constructions. However, what is crucial for the transformations is not realiza tion in lexical items as such but the theoretical possibility of transforming some structures into others. TRANSFORMATIONS OF CONTRACTED Γ-FIELDS

We shall now go on to consider a more complicated case of transformations in the free ^-generator. We shall take the same sentences RLO and R20-RI0-RAR20, but before effecting transformations on them we shall form a Γ-field F of fourteen transforms from the sentence R20-R, 0-RAR20. Then, treating this Γ-field as a single abstract object F (R20~RL0-R4R20), i.e. as a contracted Γ-field, we derive transformations from the two-component unconnected Γ-base (RIO, F (R20-RT0RAR20)) (Figure 36). This results in the following eight transforms: 1. R5RVO-R3

[FIR^-RIO-R^O)]

2. R^O-RS

[F(R20-R10-R4.R20)]

3. R3R10-R2

[F{R20-RL0-RA.R20)\

4. R 2 R^O-R 3 [F(i? 2 0-i? 1 0-i? 4 R 2 0)] 5. R ^ O - R ,

[F{R20-R,0~RAR20)}

6.

[F(R20-RI0-R4.R20)]

7. R^O-RT

[F(R20-RI0-R4R20)]

8. R^O-RI

[F(R20-RI0-R4.R20)]

If we expand the Γ-field F ( / ? 2 0 - ä 1 0 - ä 4 . ä 2 0 ) in each of these eight transforms, we obtain 8 x 1 4 = 112 transforms. We shall now interpret these transforms. 1.1-1.14 _

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

237

2.1. R s R ß - R s i R i R i O - R ^ O - R i R i R i O ) Zabyl; Tanja ssoritsja s Ninoj -> zabyvsij, cto Tanja i Nina possorilis' '(He) forgot; Tanya is quarrelling with Nina' -> 'The person who forgot that Tanya and Nina had quarrelled' (zabyvsij = past participle active) ; Soobscil : Lodka vstretilas' s korablem -* Soobscivsij, cío lodka i korabV vstretilis' '(He) reported: the boat has met the ship' 'The person who reported that the boat and ship had met' (soobscivsij = past participle active) 2.2. ÄjÄJO

Rs(R2R20-R1R10-Ra.RaR20)

Soobscaju: Sneg zanes dorogu Soobscajuscij, cto sneg zanes dorogu Ί report: snow has blocked the road' -*• 'The person reporting that snow has blocked the road' {soobscajuscij = present participle)·, Napominaju: Seans nacinaetsja ν pjaf -* napominajuscij, cto seans nacinaetsja ν pjat' Ί remind : the performance begins at five' 'The person reminding (us) that the performance begins at five' 2.3. R i R ß - R s i R t R i O - R i R t O - R i R i R z O ) Zamecaet: Syrost' isportila pianino ->• Zamecajuscij, cto pianino isportilos' ot syrosti '(He) notices: dampness has spoiled the piano' -> 'The person noticing that the piano has been spoiled because of the dampness' 2.4. R s R ^ - R n i R ^ O - R ^ O - R t R i R i O ) Soobscaet : Grad pobil urozaj ->• Soobscajuscij, cto gradom pobilo urozaj '(He) reports : hail has flattened the harvest' -+ (lit.) 'The person reporting that it has flattened the harvest with hail' 2.5.

R3R10-R5(R1R20-R2Ri0-R1RAR20)

Zapisyvaet: Kolja deretsja s Petej Zapisyvajuscij, cto dracuny — Kolja s Petej '(He) notes down : Kolja is fighting with Petja' 'The person noting down that the people fighting are Kolja and Petja' (dracuny = plural noun)

238

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

2.6.

R3Rì0-R5(R1R20-R2R10-R3RìR20)

Uznal: Fleming izobrel penicillin —• Uznavsij, cío izobretateV penicillina — Fleming '(He) found out; Fleming invented penicillin' -* 'The person who found out that the inventor of penicillin was Fleming' (uznavsij = past participle active) 2.7. Ä 3 Ä 1 0-Ä 5 (Ä 3 Ä 2 0- J R 2 Ä 1 0-i? lJ R 4J R 2 0) Uznal: Fleming izobrel penicillin -* Uznavsij, cío izobretenie Fleminga — penicillin '(He) found out: Fleming invented penicillin' -* 'The person who found out that Fleming's invention was penicillin' 2.8. R ^ O - R s i R ^ O - R i R i O - R i R ^ R i O ) Soobscaet: Sneg zanes dorogu -+ Soobscajuscij o zanosax snega na doroge '(He) reports: snow has blocked the road' -» 'The person reporting about the drifts of snow on the road' 2.9.

R3R10-R5{R2R20-R3R10'R2R^R20)

Informiruet: KorabV vstretil lodku -* Informirujuscij o vstretivsixsja lodke i korable '(He) informs : the ship has met the boat' -> 'The person informing (us) about the ship and the boat which have met' (vstretivsixsja = past participle active, plural); Piset: Muz ssorilsja s zenojPisuscij o ssorivsixsja muze i zene '(He) writes: the husband and wife have quarrelled' -* 'The person writing about the husband and wife who have quarrelled' 2.10.

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^R^)

Rasskazyvaef. Celovek pobedil strax -> Rasskazyvajuscij o celoveke, pobedivsem strax '(He) tells: the man overcame his fear' -> 'The person telling about the man who overcame his fear' (pobedivsem = past participle active); Govorit: Gosf razbil tarelku -> Govorjascij o goste, razbivsem tarelku '(He) talks : the guest broke a plate' -» 'The person talking about the guest who broke a plate' 2.11. R ^ O - R s i R s R i O - R s R i O - R i R i R z O ) Govorit: Gost' razbil tarelku -> Govorjascij o tarelke, razbitoj gostem '(He) talks: the guest broke a plate' ->· 'The person talking about the guest who broke a plate' (razbitoj = past participle passive) 2.12. R3R10-Rs(RsR20-R3Rl0-R5R4.R20)

—

2.13. R s R i O - R s i R i . R i O - R i R ^ - R & R i O ) — 2.14. R ^ O - R s i R ^ O - R s R i O - R i R ^ O ) — 3.1. R ^ O - R ^ R i R i O - R t R ^ - R i R ^ O ) Ulybajutsja : Pareri1 tancuet s devuskoj -> Ulybajusciesja pareri i devuska tancujut

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

239

'(They) are smiling ; the boy is dancing with the girl' -»• (lit.) 'The smiling boy and girl are dancing' 3.2. R ^ O - ^ i R i R i O - R i ^ O - R J U R i O ) Padaet : Sneg zanes dorogu -> Padajuscij sneg zanes dorogu '(It) falls : the snow blocked the road' 'The falling snow blocked the road'; Pokinul: ¿enscina vospitala synaPokinutaja zenscina vospitala syna '(He) deserted (someone): the woman brought up her son' -> (lit.) 'The deserted woman brought up her son' (pokinutaja = past participle passive) 3.3.

R3R!0-R2(RAR20-R!Rj0-R2R4R20)

Padajut: Veter raznes list'ja -> Padajuscie list'ja razneslis' po vetru '(They) fall: the wind scattered the leaves' -> 'The falling leaves scattered themselves in the wind' (,razneslis' = reflexive verb) 3.4. R s R ^ - R ^ R ^ O - R i R i O - R t R + R ß ) Pribyvaet: Voda zatopila dolinu -> Pribyvajuscej vodoj zatopilo dolinu '(It) rises: the water flooded the valley' -> (lit.) 'It flooded the valley with the rising water' 3.5. Spletnicaef.Nina

RiR10-R2(R1R20-R2Ri0-R1RtR20) boltaet s Tonej — Spletnicajuscie boltuski -> Nina s Tonej '(She)

gossips: Nina is chatting with Tonja'

'The people gossiping and chatting are

Nina and Tonja' (Spletnicajuscie = present participle; boltuski = noun)

Ustal: Artist glotaet spagi -> Ustavsij spagoglotateV — artist '(He) is tired :the artist swallows swords' -» 'The tired sword-swallower is an artist' 3.7. R 3 R 1 0 - R 2 ( R 3 R 2 0 - R 2 R 1 0 - R 1 R a R 2 0 ) Propala: MaVcik nasel monetu ->• Propavsaja naxodka maVcika — moneta '(It) has got lost: the boy found a coin' (lit.) 'The boy's lost find was a coin' 3.8. R ^ O - R i i R s R i O - R i R t O - R i R t R i O ) Uvelicivaetsja: Sneg zanes dorogu-* Uvelicivajusciesja zanosy snega na doroge '(It) grows bigger : The snow blocked the road' 'The growing drifts of snow on the road' 3.9.

R3RtO-R^R^O-RiRi0-R2RtR20)

O tstali: Lodka perestrelivaetsja s kor able m —• otst αν sie i perestrelivajusciesja lodka i korabl '(They) have fallen behind: the boat exchanges shots with the ship' 'The boat and the ship which have fallen behind and are exchanging shots' (otstavsie = past participle; perestrelivajusciesja = present participle); Zadumalis': Brat ne razgovarival s sestroj -> zadumcivye i nerazgovorcivye brat i sestra '(They) have

240

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

become lost in thought: the brother was not talking with his sister' -»· 'The brother and sister, thoughtful and not talkative' 3.10. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R s R ^ O ) Padaef. Sneg zanes dorogu -* padajuscij sneg zanessij dorogu '(It) falls: the snow has blocked the road' 'The falling snow which has blocked the road' (zanessij = past participle); Svistit: Veter rassypal list'ja ->• svistjascij veter, rassypavsij list'ja '(It) whistles: the wind scattered the leaves' -» 'The whistling wind which scattered the leaves' {rassypavsij = past participle) 3.11. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ ^ O ) Priblizaetsja: Svet zalivaet gorod -*• priblizajuscijsja gorod, zalityj svetom '(It) approaches rlight floods the town' 'The approaching town flooded with light' 3.12. R3Ri0-R2(R5R20-R3R10-R5R4.R20)

—

3.13. Ä 3 « 1 0-R 2 (R 1 J R 2 0-R 4 i? 1 0-Ä 1 Ä 4 « 2 0) — 3.14. R3R10-R2(R3R20-R5R10-R3R^R20)

—

4.1. Ä 2 Ä 1 0-Ä 3 (Ä 2 Ä 2 0-i? 1 Ä 1 0-Ä 2 i? 4 /? 2 0) Dones: Lodka vstretilas' s korablem -> Donesenie, cto lodka i korabV vstretilis' '(He) reported : the boat met the ship' -* 'The report that the boat and the ship had met' 4.2.

R2R10-R3(R2R20-R1R10-R4R^R20)

Izvescajut : Sud slusaet delo -»· Izvescenie, cto sud slusaet delo '(They) announce : the court is hearing the case' -> 'The announcement, that the court is hearing the case' ; Izvescajut : Direkcija rassmatrivala vopros -* izvestie, cto direkcija rassmatrivala vopros '(They) announce: the management was considering the question' 'The news that the management was considering the question' 4.3.

R2Rl0-R3(RAR20-R1Ri0-R2R4R20)

Izvescajut: Sud slusaet delo ->• izvescenie, cto delo slusaetsja sudom '(They) announce: the court is hearing the case' -* 'The announcement that the case is being heard by the court' 4.4.

R2R10-R3(RilR20-R1Ri0-R4R4R20)

Soobscajuf. Grad pobil psenicu -> Soobscenie, cto gradom pobilo psenicu '(They) report: hail has flattened the wheat' -* (lit.) 'The report that "it" has flattened the wheat with hail' ; Soobscajut : Gorod ukrasilsja flagami Soobscenie, cto gorod ukrasili flagami '(They) report: the town has been decorated with flags' -» 'The report that "they" have decorated the town with flags' (ukrasilsja — reflexive verb) 4.5. R i R ß - R i i ß . ^ O - R i R i O - R i . R i R i O )

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

241

Zamecajut : Nina boltaet s Tonej —• zamecanie, cto boltuski— Nina s Tonej '(They) remark: Nina is chatting with Tonja' -» 'The remark that the people chatting are Nina and Tonja' (boltuski = noun) 4.6.

R2R10-R3(R1R20-R2R10-R3R4R20)

Dokazyvajut: Fleming izobrelpenicillin DokazateVstvo, cto izobretateV penicillina— Fleming '(They) prove: Fleming invented penicillin' -> 'The proof that the inventor of penicillin was Fleming' 4.7.

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^Rß)

Dokazyvajut : Fleming izobrel penicillin -> DokazateVstvo, cto izobretenie Fleminga — penicillin '(They) prove: Fleming invented penicillin' -> 'The proof that Fleming's invention was penicillin' 4.8.

R2R10-R3(R3R20-R2Ri0-R3RllR20)

Donosjat : Lodka vstretilas' s korablem -> Donesenie o vstrece lodki i korablja '(They) report: the boat met the ship' 'The report about the meeting of the boat and the ship' ; Soobscajut: Sneg zanes dorogu -> Soobscenie o zanosax snega na doroge '(They) report: snow has blocked the road' -» 'The report about the drifts of snow on the road' 4.9.

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^R^)

Piset: Muz pomirilsja s zenoj -> Pis'mo o pomirivsixsja muze i iene '(He) writes: the husband has made it up with his wife' -* 'The letter about the husband and wife who have made up' (pomirivsixsja — past participle) 4.10. R ^ O - R i i R i R i O - R i R ß - R s R ^ O ) Izvescajut: Syn popal ν píen izvestie o syne, popavsem ν plen '(They) announce: the son had been taken prisoner' -* 'The announcement about the son who had been taken prisoner' {popavsem = past participle); Soobscajut: Sneg zanes dorogu ->• soobscenie o snege, zanessem dorogu '(They) report : snow has blocked the road' -*• 'The report about the snow which has blocked the road' (zanessem = past participle) 4.11.

R^O-R^RsR^-R^O-R^RiO)

Soobscajut: Grad pobil psenicu -> Soobscenie o psenice, pobitoj gradom '(They) report: hail flattened the wheat' 'The report about the wheat flattened by the hail' 4.12.

R^O-R^RsRiO-R^O-RsR^O)

Poet : Brat poet s sestroj -> Pesnja, spetaja bratom i sestroj '(He) sings : the brother sings with his sister' -* 'The song sung by the brother and sister' 4.13. R ^ O - R i i R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R ^ )

—

4.14. R2R10-R3(R3R20-R5R10-R3RiR20)

—

242

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

5.1.

R2Ri0-Rl(R2R20-R1Rl0-R2RAR20)

Izvescajuf. Lodka razminulas' s korablem Izvestie sostojalo ν torn, cto îodka i korabV razminulis' '(They) announce: the boat missed the ship' -> 'The news was that the boat and the ship had missed each other' 5.2. R ^ i O - R i i R ^ O - R i R i O - R ^ R ^ O ) Proscaet: Celovek zabyvaet obidu -» Proscenie, èto kogda celovek zabyvaet obidu '(He) forgives: a person forgets an insult' -» 'Forgiving is when a person forgets an insult' 5.3.

R2R10-R1(RiR20-R1Rl0-R2RAR20)

Proscaet: Celovek zabyvaet obidu -> Proscenie — èto kogda obida zabyvaetsja celovekom '(He) forgives; a person forgets an insult' -+ 'Forgiveness is when an insult is forgotten by a person' 5.4. R i R i O - R ^ R ^ O - R i R i O - R ^ R ^ O ) Prazdnujuf. Gorod vyvesivaet flagi —> Prazdnik — èto kogda ν gorode vyvesivajut flagi '(They) are celebrating :the town hangs out flags' ~> Ά celebration is when "they" hang out flags in the town' 5.5. J R 2 i? 1 0-i? 1 (i? l J R 2 0- J R 2 R 1 0-i? 1 Ä 4 Ä 2 0) — 5.6.

R2R10-R1(RiR20-R2R10-R3R4R20)

Podozrevajut : Sosedpoxitil velosiped -+ Podozrenie zakljucaetsja ν torn, cto poxititeF velosipeda — sosed '(They) suspect: the neighbor stole the bicycle' —> 'The suspicion is that the person who stole the bicycle is the neighbor' 5.7.

R2Rl0-R1(R3R20-R2R10~RlRAR20)

Pisut: MaVcik nasel monetu Pis'mo bylo o torn, cto naxodka maVcika — moneta '(They) write: the boy found a coin' 'The letter was about the fact that the boy's find is a coin' 5.8.

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^R^)

Proscaet : Celovek zabyi obidu -> Proscenie — èto zabvenie obidy celovekom '(He) forgives: a person forgot the insult' 'Forgiveness is the forgetting of an insult by a person' 5.9. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R i O )

—

5.10. R ^ i O - R ^ R ^ O - R s R i O - R s R t R ^ ) Piset: Celovek piset knigi PisateV— èto celovek, pisuscij knigi '(He) writes: a person writes books' Ά writer is a person who writes books' (pisuscij = present participle)

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

5.11.

243

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^^O)

Nasleduet: Deti nasledujut imuscestvo -» Nasledstvo — èto imuscestvo, nasleduemoe det'mi '(He) inherits : the children inherit the property' -> 'An inheritance is the property inherited by the children' 5.12.

R2R10-R1(R5R20-R3R10-R5R4R20)

Pojut : Brat poet s sestroju -» Pesnja byla speta bratom i sestroju '(They) sing : the brother sings with his sister' -» 'The song was sung by the brother and sister'. 5.13. R2R10-R1(R1R20-R4R10-RlR^R20)

—

5.14. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R s R ^ - R i R t R j O ) — 6.1.

R^iO-RiiRiRzO-R^O-RiR^O)

Soobscili: KorabV vstretilsja s lodkoj -> To, cto korabV i lodka vstretilis, soobscili '(They) report: the ship met the boat' -> 'They reported the fact that the ship and the boat had met' 6.2.

R^O-Ri^RiO-RiRiO-RiRtRiO)

Soobscili: Sneg zanes dorogu —• To, cto sneg zanes dorogu, soobscili '(They) reported: the snow had blocked the road' 'They reported the fact that the snow had blocked the road'; Soobscili·. KorabV vstretilsja s lodkoj —• To, cto korabV vstretilsja s lodkoj, soobscili '(They) reported : the ship had met the boat' -> 'They reported the fact,that the ship had met the boat' 6.3.

R1Rl0-R2(RiR20-R1R10-R2R^R20)

Ob'javili: Sud slusaet de lo ->• To, cto délo slusaetsja ν sude, oVjavili '(They) announced : the court is hearing the case' -» 'They announced the fact that the case was being heard in (the) court' 6.4.

R^R10-R2(R4R20-R^^-R^R^O)

Zapisali: Grad pobil grecixu To, cto gradom pobilo grecixu, zapisali '(They) noted down: hail flattened the buckwheat' (lit.) 'They noted down the fact that "it" had flattened the buckwheat with hail' 6.5.

RlRl0-R2(R1iR20-R1Ri0-RlRARi0)

Zapisali: Kolja deretsja s Petej -> To, cto dracuny Kolja s Petej, zapisali '(They) noted down : Kolja is fighting with Petja' -»· 'They noted down the fact that the people fighting were Kolja and Petja' 6.6. J? 1 Ä 1 0-/? 2 (Ä 1 7? 2 0-i? 2 Ä 1 0-Ä 3 Ä 4 Ä 2 0) Osparivali:

Kolumb

otkryl

Ameriku —• To, cto otkryvateV

Ameriki

—

Kolumb,

244

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

osparivali '(They) disputed (something): Columbus discovered America' -> 'They disputed the fact that the discoverer of America was Columbus' 6.7.

R^^-R^R^O-R^O-R^R^)

Porazaet: Ν priobrel dacu —>• To, cto priobretenie Ν — daca, porazaet '(It) is astounding: Ν acquired a daca' 'The fact that N's acquisition is a da£a is astounding'.

Rastut: sneg zanes dorogu —> Zanosy snega na doroge rastut '(They) are growing: the snow has blocked the road' -> 'The drifts of snow on the road are growing'; Prodolzaetsja·. KorabV obstrelivaet bereg Obstrel berega s korablja prodolzaetsja '(It) is continuing : the ship is shelling the shore' -» 'The shelling of the shore from the ship is continuing' 6.9. i? 1 Ä 1 0-Ä 2 (i? 2 Ä 2 0-Ä 3 /? 1 0-.R 2 i? 4 .R 2 C>) Porazajut: Parerí tancuet s devuskoj -+ Tancujuscie parerí i devuska porazajut '(They) cause astonishment : the boy dances with the girl' -* 'The boy and girl dancing cause astonishment' 6.10.

RXRY0-R2(R2R20-R3R10-RSRÍ>.R20)

Smuscaetsja: Gost razbil tarelku Gost\ razbivsij tarelku, smuscaetsja '(He) is embarrassed : the guest who broke a plate is embarrassed' (razbivsij = past participle) 6 . 1 1 . J? ! RI 0-R2(RS

R20-R3R

!

0-R2RAR20)

Padaet: Gosf razbil tarelku -> Tarelka, razbitaja gostem, padaet '(It) is falling: the guest has broken a plate' 'The plate broken by the guest is falling' 6.12. R ^ O - R z i R s R i O - R ^ O - R s R ^ O ) Zapominaetsja: Brat poet s sestroj Spetoe bratom i sestroj zapominaetsja '(It) remains in my memory: the brother sings with his sister' 'What was sung by the brother and sister remains in my memory' 6.13. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R i O )

—

6.14. Ä 1 i? 1 0-i? 2 (jR 3 Ä 2 0-Ä 5 Ä 1 0-Ä 3 i? 4 J R 2 0) — 7.1. i? 1 Ä 1 0- J R 4 (Ä 2 /? 2 0-Ä 1 Ä 1 0-Ä 2 Ä 4 Ä 2 0) Dokladyvajuf. KorabV vstretilsja s lodkoj -* Dokladyvajut, cto korabV ilodka vstretilis'' '(They) report : the ship met the boat' 'They report that the ship and boat met' 7.2.

R,RX0^R4(R2R20^R1R,0-RARAR20)

Dokladyvajut: KorabV vstretilsja s lodkoj Dokladyvajut, cto korabV vstretilsja s lodkoj '(They) report : the ship met the boat' -*• 'They report that the ship met the boat'

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

245

7.3. R ^ i O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R i R ^ R i O ) Vizu: Luna osvescaet dorogu -> Vizu, cto doroga osvescaetsja lunoju '(I) see: the moon lights the road' -> Ί see that the road is lit by the moon' (osvescaetsja = reflexive verb) 7.4. R ^ O - R i i R t R z O - R ^ O - R i R ^ O ) Vizu: Luna osvescaet dorogu -» Vizu, cto dorogu osvetilo lunoju '(I) see: the moon lights the road' (lit.) Ί see that "it" lit the road by the moon' 7.5. R ^ O - R t i R t R i O - R ^ O - R i R t R z O ) Znaju : Kolja deretsja s Petej — Znaju, cto dracuny -* Kolja s Petej '(I) know : Kolja is fighting with Petja' Ί know that the people fighting are Kolja and Petja' 7.6. i? 1 Ä 1 0-Ä 4 (i? 1 Ä 2 0-/? 2 Ä 1 0-Ä 3 Ä 4 Ä 2 0) Znaju: Fleming izobrel penicillin -* Znaju, cto izobretateV penicillina — Fleming '(I) know:Fleming invented penicillin' -> Ί know that the inventor of penicillin was Fleming' 7.7.

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^^O)

Znaju : Fleming izobrel penicillin -»• Znaju, cto izobretenie Fleminga — penicillin '(I) know: Fleming invented penicillin' -> Ί know that Fleming's invention was penicillin' 7.8.

R^O-R^R^O-R^O-R^^O)

Znaju: Popov izobrel radio Znaju ob izobretenii radio Popovym '(I) know: Popov invented radio' —• Ί know about the invention of radio by Popov; Znaju: Professor citaet lekcii -> Znaju o ctenii lekcijprofessorom '(I) know: the professor lectures' ->• Ί know about the lecturing done by the professor' 7.9. i? 1 Ä 1 0-Ä 4 (Ä 2 i? 2 0-i? 3 K 1 0-i? 2 i? 4 Ä 2 0) Vizu : Lodka vstrecaetsja s korablem -> Vizu vstrecajusciesja lodku i korabV '(I) see: the boat meets the ship' -» Ί see the boat and the ship meeting' 7.10.

R1R10-Ra(R2R20-R3R10-R5R4R20)

Slysali: Reka zatopila berega -> Slysali o reke, zatopivsej berega '(They) heard: the river flooded its banks' 'They heard about the river which flooded its banks' {zatopivsej — past participle) 7.11.

R1R10~R4(R5R20'R3R10~R2RíI.R20)

Slysali: Reka zatopila berega —>• Slysali o beregax, zatoplennyx rekoju '(They) heard: the river flooded its banks' -»· 'They heard about the banks flooded by the river' 7.12. J? 1 Ä 1 0- J R 4 (Ä S Ä 2 0-Ä3Ä 1 0-Ä 5 Ä4Ä 2 0) —

246

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

7.13. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ ^ O ) — 7.14. R ^ O - R ^ R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ ^ O ) — 8.1.-8.14 — TRANSFORMATIONS OF PHRASES WITH BROKEN CONNECTIONS

We have just examined various types of free transformations. Free transformations play such a great role that they are often essential even for cases of connected phrases. Quite often situations occur in which we can obtain crucial transformations only by breaking the connections in a connected phrase and treating the separated parts as two unconnected phrases constituting an unconnected 7-base. We shall now consider several such cases. Let us take the three-component Γ-base R20-R10-RAR20 which has already been used quite often.17 It turns out that many crucial transformations can be obtained from this sentence only if we deliberately break it up into (a) ( R 2 0 - R 1 0 ) - R A R 2 0 or (b) R20-{RL0-R4.R20). We shall consider both cases of broken connections as twocomponent unconnected Γ-bases and shall derive transformations from them as shown in the graph (for simplicity we consider m = 0) in Figure 37 :

Fig. 37

We write out the transforms for (a) and (b) in accordance with Rule of Procedure 4. For (a) : Rs(R20-R

For (b) : 10)-R3R4R20

Rs

RzO-RsiRiO-R^O)

RiiR^-RtOyRsRtRzO

Ä 3 Ä 2 0- J R 5 (Ä 1 0-Ä 4 Ä 2 0)

i? 3 (i? 2 0-i? 1 0)-i? 2 Ä 4 Ä 2 0 i? 2 (Ä 2 0-J? 1 0)-i? 3 Ä 4 Ä 2 0, etc.

R2R20-R3(R10-R^R20),

RiRiO-R^RiO-R^O)

etc.

17 Cf. transformations with so-called complex terms in S. K. Saumjan, P. A. Soboleva, Applikativnaja porozdajuszaja model i iscislenie transformacii ν russkom jazyke (Moscow, 1963), pp. 54-59, 85-89, 95-102.

247

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

W e shall consider derived transforms containing complex units as first-degree transforms of the r - b a s e

R20-RY0-RAR20.

It is obvious that the list o f (m + l) t h -degree transforms derived thus from this T-base will be as follows:

RsRTiRiO-RiOyRiRTR^RiO R.R^O-R.OyR.RTR^O,

etc.

R5RTR20-R3RT(R10-R4R20) R^R^-RsRTiRiO-R^O),

etc.

In the following section we shall not interpret all the transforms we obtain because complete interpretation o f all transformations is possible only in a larger work.

We

shall show how individual graphs, and in some cases subgraphs, are interpreted linguistically only in order to demonstrate how productive this approach to the transformation calculus can be. In the given example we shall consider the linguistic sense o f the right sub-graph. Let us write out the transforms computed on it: 1. R y R ^ - R ^ R y O - R ^ O )

5.

2. R ^ O - R t i R y O - R ^ R j O )

6.

R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ O ) R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ O )

3. R ^ O - R ^ R y O - R ^ O )

7.

R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ O )

4. R ^ O - R i i R i O - R ^ O )

8.

R ^ O - R ^ O - R ^ O )

W e shall now consider the interpretation o f Transformations 1-8. Transformation 1 represents the conversion of the subject o f the initial syntagma into the predicate o f the derived one. In the derived syntagma the role of subject is given to a noun derived from a verb together with the initial object or modifier o f the verb which becomes its attribute: e.g., Putesestvennik

Oxotnik za zmejami — putesestvennik

(putesestvujet)

oxotitsja

za

snakes' -» 'The snake hunter is a traveller (travels)'; Soldat bezal izplena plena

byl soldatom

zmejami

Ά traveller is hunting for -* Beglec iz

'The soldier fled from captivity' -> ' T h e fugitive from captivity

was the soldier'; Pisateli sobralis'

vecerom —• Sobranie

vecerom bylo u pisatelej

' T h e writers met in the evening' -> ' T h e meeting in the evening was at the writers' place'. This transformation differs from Transformation 6 (223) Petrov tiem

RukovoditeV

predprijatija—Petrov

'Petrov manages the

rukovodit firm'

predprija-

'Themanager

o f the firm is Petrov' in that in the transform the noun derived from the verb still governs the same constituent as the initial verb: oxotitsja

zmejami 'hunts snakes' 'snake hunter'; bezaf iz plena captivity' 'a fugitive from captivity'; sobrat'sja vecerom

za zmejami

oxotnik

za

beglec iz plena 'flee from sobranie vecerom 'meet

in the evening' -»· 'a meeting in the evening'. F r o m these examples it is evident that there is sufficient linguistic justification for effecting transformations on sentences with broken connections.

In this case the

248

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

procedure represents the essential linguistic fact that the base of derived words can maintain its original relations in the sentence. Transformation 2 represents the transformation of a verbal syntagma caused by conversion of the verb into a gerund. The initial subject becomes the predicate of the derived syntagma: e.g., Rybak mectaet ob ulove —• Rybacit, mectaja ob ulove 'The fisherman dreams of his catch' -> '(He) fishes, dreaming of his catch' ; BezdeVnik veselitsja s druzjami Bezdel'nicaet, veseljas' s druz'jami 'The idler amuses himself with his friends' '(He) idles, amusing himself with his friends'. Transformation 2 reflects the fact that a gerund governs the same constituents as a verb. Transformation 3 is interpreted in the same way as Transformation 2 (p. 222), i.e., as an identity transformation on the initial syntagma. Transformation 4 is interpreted in the same way as Transformation 10 (p. 224), i.e. as in the case of Devocka razbila casku —• devocka, razbivsaja casku 'The girl broke a cup' -> 'The girl who broke a cup' ; Master obnaruzil iz"jan -» master, obnaruzivsij iz"jan 'The craftsman discovered a fault' -> 'The craftsman who discovered a fault'. (razbivsaja, obnaruzivsij = past participles). The complex unit in the transform turns out to be quasi complex: R2R20-R3R10-R5R20. Transformation 5 represents the nominalization of a verbal syntagma in which the noun derived from the verb still governs the same constituent as the verb : Celovek mectaet o scast'e -> Celoveceskaja mecta o scast'e 'Man dreams of happiness' 'Man's dream of happiness' ; Kolesa stucat ν dali -> stuk koles ν dali 'Wheels rumble in the distance' 'The rumble of wheels in the distance' ; Golova kruzitsja ot uspexov -*• golovokruzenie ot uspexov '(My) head is dizzy with success' -* 'Dizziness with success'. This transformation differs from Transformation 8 (p. 223) (Kolesa stucat vdali -> DaFnij stuk koles 'Wheels rumble in the distance' -* 'The distant rumble of wheels') in that the derived noun must govern the same constituent as the original verb. No interpretation has been found in Russian for Transformation 6. Transformation 7 is interpreted in the same way as Transformation 4 on p. 223 : Sneg zanes dorn -* Zaneslo dorn snegom 'The snow cut off the house' —• (lit.) ' "It" cut off the house with snow'. Transformation 8 is interpreted in the same way as Transformation 12, p. 224: Fedotov pisal maslom -> Napisannyj Fedotovym maslom 'Fedotov painted in oils' —• 'Painted in oils by Fedotov', since the complex unit is not really complex: RsR20R3Rt0-R5R20. Thus we see that operations on sentences with broken connections increase the number of first-degree transforms. We shall now examine more complicated derivations of transformations from sentences with broken connections. Let us take the same sentence with broken connections : 1. {R20-Ri0yRAR10.2, R20~{Rl0-RAR20). We can obtain transformation fields individually from R20-Rt0 and Ri0-RAR20 and then consider these transformation fields as single abstract objects F(R20-Ry0) and F(R10-RAR20),

249

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

i.e. as contracted Γ-fields after which we shall obtain new transformations from the r-base F(R20-R10)R4R20 and from the Γ-base R20, F(Ri0-R4R20). The results of these transformations are shown in graphs (Figures 38, 39).

R20 I—

r5r2o·

RtR20

rlO 1

'R¡R,O^R

RsRtR20

R2RIO

r2r2o R,R20 L.W2O Fig. 38

R¡0

X,0 RsR20

R¿R20

r-RjRjO«.

R3 R3R20

R3R,O*^

Ri R1R2O

~^>R,RtR20 ^y,R2R4R20 1


Noe' byla so svetloj lunoj 'The moon shines at night' -» (lit.) 'The night was with a bright moon'; Toska rassejalas\ kak turnan —• Turnan kak rasseivajuscajasja toska 'Sadness dispersed like mist' 'The mist is like dispersing sadness'. Transformation 13. R20-Ri0-R^R20 ->· R1(R3R20-R2Ri0}-R2RAR20 represents another transformation of a sentence with a verbal predicate into one with a nominal predicate. As in Transformation 12 the object or modifier of the verb in the initial sentence becomes the subject of the derived one. However, in this transformation the nominalized predicate of the initial sentence becomes the predicate, and the original subject becomes the attribute of the predicate. The relator Rx applies to the class R 2 RIO. The transformation is interpreted as: Popov izobrel radio -> Radio — izobretenie Popova 'Popov invented radio' - • 'Radio was Popov's invention' ; Sud'ba baluet ego -> On baloven' sud'by 'Fate spoils him' -> 'He is the spoiled creature of Fate'; Kolxoz proizvodit moloko -> Moloko (bylo) kolxoznogo proizvodstva 'The kolkhoz produces milk' -» (lit.) 'The milk was of kolkhoz production (i.e. was kolkhoz-produced)'. It is interesting to compare Transformation 13 with Transformation 7 (p. 223): Popov izobrel radio Izobretenie Popova — radio 'Popov invented radio' —• 'Popov's invention was radio'. The transformations differ from each other in that the subject and predicate of the transform exchange syntactic roles. Transformation 21. R20-Rì0-RiR20 ^ Ri(R3R20-R2R10)-R4RiR20 represents the conversion of a verbal clause into a nominalized impersonal clause in which the main constituent is the noun derived from the verb: Vse smejutsja ν zale -> Vseobscij smex ν zale 'Everybody in the hall is laughing' -> 'There is general laughter in the hall'; SpektakV nacinaetsja ν pjaf Ν acalo spektaklja ν pjaf 'The performance begins at five' -> 'The beginning of the performance is at five'. It is interesting to compare this transformation with Transformation 5 (p. 223). R20-Rl0-R4.R20-^R3R20-R2(R10-R^R20). Celovek mectaet o seas f e celov-

THE APPUCATIONAL MODEL

251

eceskaja mecía o scasfe 'Man dreams of happiness' -»'Man's dream of happiness'. The difference is that Transformation 5 represents the formation of a nominal compound phrase whereas Transformation 21 represents the formation of a nominal phrase of one constituent. Outwardly it seems that there is no difference between (5) Celovek mectaet o scast'e —> Celoveceskaja mecía o scast'e and (21) Vse smejutsja ν zale -> Vseobscij smex ν zale. Between transforms 5 and 21, however, there is a crucial, deep structural difference revealed by the formulae R3R20-R2(Ri0-RiR20) (5) and R1(R3R20-R2R10)-R4R4,R20 (21). (21) has the status of a sentence since it contains the class RÎX as an independent unit, and (5) does not have the status of a sentence since the class R^X, although it occurs in (5), is a dependent unit. Transformation 28, R^-R^O-R^O -> R2R20-R1(R2R10-R3R^R20), represents the transformation of a verbal predicate into a nominal one. The nominalized verb becomes the predicate, and the object or modifier of the verb becomes its attribute: On rabotaet na zavode -> On zavodskoj rabocij 'He works at the factory' -> 'He is a factory worker'; Oni ubirajut seno -> Orti na senouborke 'They are gathering in the hay' -> 'They are at the haymaking'; On vodit avtobus -> On voditeV avtobusa 'He drives a bus' 'He is a bus-driver'. If we compare Transformation 28 with Transformation 6 (p. 223) R ß - R ^ O -> RÌR20-R2RÌ0' R3R4R2 0 Petrov rukovodit predprijatiem -> RukovoditeV predprijatija — Petrov 'Petrov manages the business' -> 'The manager of the business is Petrov', we shall see that the difference between them is the same as that between Transformations 13 and 7 (pp. 250, 223) — the subject and the predicate exchange roles. RA R2 0

Transformation 29, R^-R^-R^O -> R2R20-R1(RiRl0-R2R4.R20), represents another transformation of a verbal predicate into a nominal one. The object or modifier of the verb in the initial sentence becomes the predicate of the derived one. As in Transformation 12 the verb becomes a participle or an adjective modifying the noun in the predicate. On rycit Γνοηι -» On kak rycascij lev 'He is roaring like a lion' -* 'He is like a roaring lion'; ¿izrí kipit kljucom -* Zizn — èto kipjascij kljuc 'Life bubbles like a spring' -*• 'Life is a bubbling spring'. Transformation 36, R i O - R ^ - R ^ O ->· as 21, represents a reduction in the immediate constituents during which the subject becomes the modifier of the main constituent: Oni sovescalis' vecerom -> U nix (bylo) vecernee sovescanie 'They met in the evening' -> 'There was an evening meeting at their place'; Oni veseljatsja, kak sumassedsie —• U nix sumassedsee vesel'e 'They are making merry like mad things' 'At their place there is mad merriment'. We shall not interpret the remaining transformations in the list. Just let us note that most of them can be interpreted in Russian. A special case of free transformations, shown in the graph in Figure 40, would be an interesting conclusion for this section. Figure 40 shows a Γ-field formed from the Γ-field of the verb added to the Γ-field formed from the sum of two Γ-fields of the noun and of the adverb. In this Γ-field

252

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL CODING

relations are set up between the derivata of the noun and adverb, and the relations between the noun and verb of the T-base are broken. E.g., the transform R2RIO-R3 (R 3 R 2 0-R 2 R4.R 2 0), indicated by the broad line and included in the sub-T-field R2Ri0-Ri,F[(R20, RAR20)] is interpreted as: Kolxoz rastit pogolov'e -* rost kolxoznogo pogolov'ja 'The kolkhoz raises livestock' —• 'The increase on the kolkhoz livestock': Skola peresmatrivaet programmu —• Peresmotr skoVnoj programmy 'The school is revising its programme' -*• 'The revision of the school programme' ; Sosed poterjal sobaku -> Poterja sosedskoj sobaki O u r neighbor lost his dog' -» 'The loss of our neighbor's dog'.

5.8 ON THE EMPIRICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE Γ-GENERATOR

GENERAL RULES

In order to pass from the abstract model to actual language, the model must be interpreted in terms of a concrete language. Interpretation assumes that a correspondence is established between the symbols in the model and the grammatical objects of a language. The rules for interpreting the model for languages A and Β differ to the extent to which the grammatical objects of these languages differ, i.e. the rules for interpreting the model are determined by the specific nature of the language or languages for the description of which they are set up. Let us consider a concrete example. If we set up rules of interpretation for describing the grammar of English the symbol R2RXO of our model must be interpreted as a noun formed from a verb, an infinitive or a gerund. For Russian this symbol has only two interpretations. In Russian the symbol R3R20 can be interpreted as an adjective formed from a noun, as a noun in an oblique case, and as a noun base helping to form compound words (of the type rabotorgovlja 'slave-trade', paroobrazovanie 'vaporization').

253

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

In English this symbol has an additional interpretation — as a noun used as an attribute, e.g. stone wall, snake bite. If the investigator is undertaking a typological study of languages the rules of interpretation must take account of all the ways of expressing a given grammatical meaning in the languages being compared. The rules of interpretation can be more or less detailed depending on the aim of the investigator. Thus, the symbol R¿R20, for example, can be interpreted in Russian as a noun in an oblique case and as an adverb formed from a noun. RAR20 Ν(obi) A more detailed interpretation can set up correspondences between this symbol and separate oblique cases — a noun in the genitive case, a noun in the dative case, etc. R4R20

Ngen.

Νdal.

^acc.

Νinst.

Νprep.

Adv. „

A still more detailed interpretation can take into account the various prepositions which occur with oblique cases. RaR20

N,gen. izN,

ot Ν„,

poNät Ν,,

Na, k Ν

a,

ν' 1Ν* a, Ν.,

za Νι nad Nlnst, na N,oc_ pod Ninst. Νloc.

A more detailed interpretation would deal with the morphemic structure of the units being interpreted. The symbol R1R1RiO can be interpreted as a copula + noun derived from a verb or as a copula + infinitive. RlR2RlO I . Cop. jVl,

Cop. Inf.

A more detailed interpretation will take into account the various types of copula, such as: byf ucitelem 'to be a teacher', sluzif ucitelem 'to serve as a teacher' (Cop. 1): byf ν otcajanii 'to be in despair' naxodit'sja pod ugrozoj 'To be under a threat' (Cop.

254

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

2): delat' povorot 'to do a turn' okazyvat' vlijanie 'to exercise influence' (Cop. 3): dolzen znat' 'ought to know' mogu pomoc' Ί can help' (Cop. 4): pustilsja bezat' 'set off running' koncil zvonif 'finished ringing' (Cop. 5). In addition it can take account of null copulas like On uciteV 'He (is) a teacher' (Cop. 6), and of non-verbal copulas like ¿izrí — èto bor'ba 'Life is a struggle' (lit.) 'Life — that is a struggle' (Cop. 7). The symbol R1R2R10 would then be interpreted as: R^RiO

Cop.nNc

Cop.6Nv

Cop.Jnf.

Cop.1Nv

Cop.2Nv

Cop.3Nv

Cop.Jnf.

Cop.5Inf.

A still more detailed classification of the copulas can be carried out, leading to a still more detailed interpretation of R1R2RlO. We shall show how taking account of the morpheme structure of a word makes an interpretation more detailed. For example, the symbol R2R¡0 can be interpreted both as a noun formed from a verb and as an infinitive. R2RiO 1

I Nv

1 Inf.

However, if we take into account the morpheme structure of nouns derived from verbs, we can set up correspondences between R2R¡0 and not just two objects but a whole series of objects. r2R^O

Nv-nie penie

Νυ- tel' myslitel'

penie 'singing' myslitel' 'thinker' paxar' 'ploughman'

Nv-ar' paxar'

Νν-αΓ vrai'

Nv-ys vyigrys

Nv-ez platez

Nv-scik postavscik

vraV 'fibber' vyigrys 'win' (i.e. that which is won, prize) platez 'payment' postavscik 'supplier'

When interpreting transformations in Russian we shall not use a very detailed list of grammatical terms, since we are aiming at a very general interpretation of the model. We shall set out a list of the terms we use for interpreting transformations. This list will include the grammatical objects we used when explaining the linguistic meaning of the formal apparatus of the model. We shall establish correspondences between these grammatical terms and the Λ-symbols being interpreted. Since we are considering first degree, and some second degree, transformations, we shall interpret J?-symbols of the first and second degree.

255

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

Term

Abbreviation

Noun

Ν

N o u n in nominative case N o u n in genitive case without preposition N o u n in any other oblique case with or without a preposition (including genitive case after a preposition)

11 Ν

N o u n used as the base of a c o m p o u n d word N o u n derived f r o m an adjective N o u n derived f r o m a verb N o u n derived f r o m an adverb Participle used as n o u n C o p u l a (verbal, non-verbal, null) Finite f o r m of verb Verb derived f r o m noun Verb derived f r o m adjective Verb in infinitive Verb in f o r m of gerund

nom.

iΝ

' gen.

Κ M. Nb. Nadj. Nv. Naiv. ly Νpari. Cop. V Κ. Vadj. Inf.

Verb in form of participle Adjective Adjective derived f r o m a verb Adjective derived f r o m a n o u n Adjective derived f r o m an adverb Adjective used as the base of a c o m p o u n d word Adverb Adverb formed f r o m adjective Adverb formed f r o m n o u n Adverb used as the base of a c o m p o u n d word

Ger. Part. Adj. Adj-v.

Adj.n. ^dj-Adv.

Adj.b. Adv. Adv.AdJ, Adv.n. Adv.b_

N.B. If indices are combined, one is written above the other: E.g. Adv. £dJWhen interpreting Λ-symbols, we shall keep the following in m i n d : R^R^X R2R2X R^R-sX R4R4X R5R5X

= R^X R2X - R$X ' R^X ~ R$X

=

T h e result of setting up correspondences the Ä-symbols is shown in the graphs of Analysis of the graphs shows that one correspondences are established between

between the above grammatical objects and Figure 41. — many, m a n y — one, and many — m a n y the Ä-symbols and the grammatical objects,

256

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

i.e. correspondences can hold between one Λ-symbol and several grammatical objects or between one grammatical object and several Ä-symbols. These rules of interpretation guarantee transition to only the grammatical level of Russian. R¡R20 R¡R20 ! R2R20 ! RtR20

N„

Κ

Cop. Ν Nngm R^O

R2R40

Cop. Adv. R¡R30

Cop. Adj. KJJ, R2RtO R,0 i R3R¡0

V

Ν,

Inf.

RtRsO

Cop. Adv.

R*RARIO RSR20 R2R4R20 Ì R¡R4R20 ! R3R4R20 i R¡R4R20

Ntn.

Nm.

R3R4O R4R40

NaJVt Adj.Adv. R2R30

j.

Adj.,

Adj.'n

RsR4O

Adv.

R3R30R4R30RsR30

Adv.4il,Adv.b0lJ.

Adj.

R4R¡0 \ R,RjO

Part.

Adv.,

Adj.,

R,R,0 !

Cer.

R^R^O

Cop. Ν,

JJ.RjRtO

R^RjO

!

¡

R ^ R ß

Cop. Cop. Cop. Cop. Inf. Part. Adj., Cer

R2R3RiO

Npù„.

R2R,OR3R,OR4R,OR¡RSO

N„lv,Adj.,lpAdv.

Adv.

Fig. 41

Therefore, while recognizing the close connection between the grammatical structure and the lexicon of a language, we shall at this stage in our investigations concern ourselves only with the grammatical aspect of transformations. From this standpoint the lexical content of the sentences used in the following section must be considered of secondary importance. When reformulating the Γ-bases and the corresponding transforms in terms of the rules of interpretation, we have to replace one Λ-symbol be the terms for one or more grammatical objects which corresponds to these symbols. Thus we can talk about the splitting of Λ-symbols during the transition from the model to the grammatical level of a concrete language.

257

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

In this sense we can also talk about the splitting of Γ-bases and their transforms during the transition from the model to a concrete language. Splitting in this case should be understood as setting up a correspondence between one transformation on the R-level, i.e. in the model, and a series of transformations in an actual language. The number of transformations in an actual language which correspond to one transformation in the model, or the degree to which the transformations in the model are split is directly proportional to the detailedness of the interpretation. The splitting of each transformation is achieved by computing all possible combinations of grammatical objects corresponding to the given Ä-symbols. If we compute all the combinations of grammatical objects corresponding to the Λ-symbols, we shall obtain a large number of transforms which are not realized in Russian; for example, such syntagmas as Adjl + Inf + NQ€„ or iV¿ 4- Inf + Ni,

and

syntagmas which, although they are realized, cannot under any conditions be core.g. Nl„ûm. +V + N20bl^V

related with the initial T- base Nnom, + V+

+

2

+ Adv.I + Adv.i or < m . + V + Adv.I. - N nom, + V + Adv.I This is explained by the fact that in Russian there is not the same productive wordbuilding relation between nouns and adverbs derived from nouns as holds between verbs and nouns derived from verbs or between nouns and verbs derived from nouns. (Correlations like: Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -* Noe' svetitsja zvezdami 'Stars shine at night' 'The night shines with stars' are quite rare). A

GENERAL INTERPRETATION OF FIRST A N D SECOND DEGREE TRANSFORMS OF THE

T-BASE

R J O - R I O - R ^ O .

To illustrate the interpretation of transforms on the empirical level by the splitting of abstract transformations we shall consider how first and second degree transforms from the Γ-base R20-R10-RAR20 can be given a general interpretation in Russian. We shall not deal with a systematic interpretation of these transforms but only with examples of interpretation to show how we can pass from theory to the linguistic investigation of concrete languages. In order to reduce the number of 'empty squares' in the tables of split transformations the following grammatical objects are written as variants of each other: NobiJAdv.n, Cop. N/V„, and in some cases Inf. ¡Part, and Ν J Inf. We illustrate one, sometimes both variants, with examples. Although only the formulae of the transforms are given in the tables (the formula for the T-base is always the same: Nj,om-~* V + NlblJAdv.\, both the transforms and the corresponding T-bases are illustrated. NUMBER

1.

TRANSFORM

N¡,om + V + N^om

ILLUSTRATION

Brat sporit s sestroj Brat isestra sporjat 'The brother quarrels with his sister' 'The brother and sister quarrel'

258

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

NUMBER

TRANSFORM

ILLUSTRATION

3.

N l J A d v . i + V + Nl,,.

4.

NljAdv.l

5.

6.1.

N2blJAdv.2

+ 7 +

CopN1IV1n+NJInf.+ Cop2Ν 2V„

Cop.NlIVln

+ Ν J Inf. + N2en,

2

6.2.

Cop.N'jVl

+ NJInf.

+N

6.3.

Cop.N'jVl

+ NJInf.

+ Adj.2

6.4.

Cop.N'jVl

+ NJInf.

+ N¡

7.1.

Ngen, + NJInf.

+ Cop.N2IV2„

7.2.

NlhL + NJInf.

+

7.3.

Adj.I + NJInf

+ Cop.N2jV2n

abL

CoV.N2\V2n

Voda zalivaet luga -» Luga zalivajutsja vodoj 'The water floods the meadows' -> 'The meadows are flooded by the water' Kniga imeet opecatki V knige imejutsja opecatki 'The book has misprints' —• 'In the book there are misprints' Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -» Noe' svetitsja zvezdami 'The stars shine at night' 'The night shines with stars' Sneg zanes dorn -> Zaneslo dorn snegom 'Snow cut off the house' (lit.) '"it" cut off the house with snow' Utro veet proxladoj -> Utrom veet proxladoj 'The morning smells of coolness' -* 'In the morning it smells of coolness' Tom boretsja s Dikom -> Borcy — Tom s Dikom 'Tom wrestles with Dick' -> 'The wrestlers are Tom and Dick' Fleming izobrel penicillin -» IzobretateV penicillina — Fleming 'Fleming invented penicillin' -» 'The inventor of penicillin was Fleming' Putesestvennik oxotitsja za zmejami -* Oxotnik za zmejami — putesestvennik 'The traveller hunts snakes' 'The snake hunter is a traveller' Starik storozit les -> Lesnoj storoz — starik 'The old man guards the forest' 'The forest guard is an old man' Monax pisal ikony —• Ikonopisec byl monaxom 'The monk painted icons' -> 'The icon painter was the monk' Popov izobrel radio —• Izobretenie Popova — radio 'Popov invented radio' -> 'The invention of Popov was radio' Ukraincy tancujut gopak U ukraincev tanec gopak 'The Ukrainians dance the gopak' -> 'Among the Ukrainians the dance is the gopak' On vyigral 10 rublej -> Ego vyigrys — 10

259

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL NUMBER

7.4.

TRANSFORM

Nl + NJInf.

+

Cop.N2/V2

2

·!·

N'+NJInf

.2.

Adj.I + NJInf. + N2

•3·

NlbL + NJInf.

:.4.

Nl + NJInf

i.S.

Ngert + NJInf

.6.

N1 + NJInf

+ Ngen.

+ Ngen.

+ N2

+ Adj.n

+ Adj.2

8.7.

Adj.I + NJInf.

8.8.

N¡ + NJInf

8.9.

N*

+ Adj.2

+ Adj.2

+ NJInf.

8.10.

Nlobl. + NJInf

8.11.

Adj.n +NJInf.+

+ TV,obi.

+ N2obL

N2bl,

ILLUSTRATION

rublej 'He won 10 rubles' -> (lit.) 'His win was 10 rubles' Xleb postavljaetsja Sibir'ju -* Xlebopostavscik — Sib ir' 'Bread is supplied by Siberia' 'The bread supplier is Siberia' Brat sporit s sestroj -> Spor brata i sestry 'The brother quarrels with the sister' -> 'The quarrel of the brother and the sister' Taskent proizvodit kovry —• Taskentskoe proizvodstvo kovrov 'Tashkent produces carpets' -* 'The Tashkent production of carpets' Samolet dostavil poctu -> Dostavka pocty na samolete Ά plane delivered the mail' -»• 'the delivery of the mail by plane' Parovozy strojatsja ν Luganske -> parovozostroenie Luganska 'Locomotives are built in Lugansk' -» 'the locomotive building at Lugansk' Kolesa stucat vdali daVnij stuk koles 'Wheels rumble in the distance' -» 'the distant rumble of wheels' Ukraina postavljaet xleb -» xlebnye postavki Ukrainy 'The Ukraine supplies bread' 'the bread supplies of the Ukraine' Moskva proizvodit moloko -> moskovskoe molocnoe proizvodstvo 'Moscow produces milk' 'the Moscow milk-production' Golova kruzitsja utrom -> utrennee golovokruzenie 'My head is dizzy in the morning' 'my morning dizziness' Otee piset bratu —>• pis'mo otea k bratu 'Father writes to his brother' -> 'Father's letter to his brother' Skaf pocarapalstenu-*carapina ot skafa na stene 'The cupboard scratched the wall' 'the scratch on the wall from the cupboard' Krest'jane vosstali protiv pomeseikov krest'janskoe vosstanie protiv pomeseikov 'The peasants rose against the landown-

260

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

NUMBER

8.12.

.13.

TRANSFORM

ΝI + Ν J Inf. + TV,obi.

Ν»

+ Ν J Inf. + Ν

3.14.

N¡bL + Ν J Inf + N2b

$.15.

Adj.I + NJInf.

8.16. 9.1.

N¡+NJInf.+ N2b KuJAdv.l + Part. + N2oblJ Adv.l

9.2.

N^JAdv.l Adv.2

10.1.

Nlom + Part. + N,nom.

10.2.

2 Nlmm. + Adj.p + N,nom.

11.1.

Nlb¡JAdv.l

+ Part. + N2nom,

11.2.

NlhJAdv.l

+ Adj.v + N2om,

12.1.

Nlom, + Part. + N2oblJAdv2

+ N¡

+ Adj.v + N2blJ

2

ILLUSTRATION

ers' -> 'the peasant rising against the landowners' Zvuki zapisyvajutsja magnitofonom zvukozapis' na magnitofone 'The sounds are recorded by the taperecorder' 'the sound-recording on the taperecorder' BoVnoj pomesalsja umom-+umopomesaterstvo boPnogo 'The patient went mad' -* 'the patient's madness' Uspexi kruzat golovu -* golovokruzenie ot uspexov 'Success makes one dizzy' -» 'dizziness from success' Portugalija torgovala rabami -»· portugaVskaja rabotorgovlja 'Portugal traded in slaves' -> 'the Portuguese slave trade' Fedotov pisal maslom napisannyj Fedotovym maslom 'Fedotov painted in oils' -* 'painted in oils by Fedotov' Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -* svetloj ot zvezd noc'ju 'Stars shine at night' -> 'on a night shiny with stars' A sovpadaet s Β -* Sovpadajuscie A i Β 'A coincides with 5 ' -» 'Coincident^ and B' Sestra poxodit na brata -> poxozie brat i sestra 'The sister is like her brother' -* 'the brother and sister (who are) alike' Veter rassypal lisfja^lisVja, rassypannye vetrom 'The wind scattered the leaves' -* 'the leaves scattered by the wind' Luna svetit nad lesom -> les, svetlyj ot luny 'The moon shines above the wood' 'the wood bright from the moon' List'ja opadajut s derev'ev —• lisfja, opadajuscie s derev'ev 'The leaves are falling from the trees' -> 'the leaves falling from the trees' Vecerom duet veter veter, dujuscij vecerom 'The wind blows in the evening' 'the wind blowing in the evening'

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL NUMBER

TRANSFORM

ILLUSTRATION

12.2.

Nlnom+Adj.v

16. Í.

Nlnom+Cop.Nv

+ N2nom.

16.2.

Nlnom+Cop.lnf.

+ N2nom,

17.1.

^lom. + Cop. Part. + N2om_

17.2.

Nlnom, + Cop.Adj.v + N2nom_

21.1.

< m . + Cop. Nv +

21.2.

N2MJAdv2 DetaV obrabatyvaetsja cas -* DetaV dolina obrabatyvat'sja cas 'The component is machined for an hour' -» 'The component must be machined for an hour' Vy stolte sleva -> Vy mozete stojat' sleva 'You are standing on the left' -v 'You can stand on the left' + Cop. Part. + N2bl ¡ On zaveduet skladom -> on zavedujuscij skladom 'He manages the warehouse' Adv.2 'He is the manager of the warehouse' On napadaet sprava —• on napadajuscij sprava 'He attacks from the right' -*• 'He is the attacker from the right' MaVcik cuvstvuet muzyku —• MaVcik cuvNlm.+ Cop.Adj.v + N2MJ stvitelen k muzyke 'The boy feels music' ->· Adv.2 'The boy is sensitive to music'

22.1.

22.2.

N2blJAdv2

261

+

N l . + Cop. Jn/. +

N2blJAdv.2

Zvezdy svetjat noc'ju —>· zvezdy, svetlye noc'ju 'The stars shine at night' ->· 'the stars, bright at night' Celovek cuvstvuet obidu ~> cuvstviteVnyj k obide celovek 'The man feels the insult' -> 'the man sensitive to insults' Kol ja druzit s Petej —• Kolja i Petja — druz'ja 'Kolja is friendly with Petja' 'Kolja and Petja are friends' Otee rasstaetsja s docerju -* Otee i doc' dolzny rasstafsja 'The father parts from his daughter' -> 'The father and daughter must part' Rimljane vrazovali s grekami Rimljane i greki byli vrazdujuscimi 'The Romans warred against the Greeks' -> 'The Romans and Greeks were warring (against each other)' Nina razgovarivaet s Tanej -> Nina i Tanja — razgovorcivy 'Nina talks with Tanja' 'Nina and Tanja are talkative' Ona rabotaet dnem Ona dnem na rabote 'She works during the day' -* 'During the day she is at work'

262

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

NUMBER

23.

26.1.

26.2.

27.1.

27.2.

28.

31.1.

31.2.

32.1.

TRANSFORM

Nlom + Cop.Inf .¡Cop. Gerund + NgblJAdj.%

ILLUSTRATION

On ne vyspalsja posle koncerta -» On byI ne vyspavsis' posle koncerta 'He did not sleep well after the concert' -» (lit.) 'He was without good sleep after the concert' NlblJAdv.l + Cop.N„ + S u d rassmatrival delo-> Delo by lo na rassmotrenii ν sude 'The court was examining the case' -> 'The case was under examination in court' NlnJAdv.l + Cop. Inf. + Nlom Skola vospityvaet detej Deti dolzny vospityvafsja ν skole 'The school educates children' -* 'Children should be educated in school' NlbiJAdv.l + Cop. Part. + Rabocij vytocil de tal' -> DetaV vy focena N%omi rabocim 'The worker has turned the component' ->• 'The component has been turned by the worker' Zvezdy svetili noc'ju -> Noe' byla osvescena zvezdami 'The stars shone at night' -> 'The night was lit by the stars' NlblJAdv.l + Cop. Adv.„+ Solnce zarilo utrom -* Utro bylo zarkim ot solnca 'The sun was hot in the morning' -*• 'The morning was hot from the sun' NlblJAdv}n+ Cop. Inf .¡Cop. Brat rasstaetsja s sestroj -> Sestra dolzna Ger. + N^om rasstat'sja s bratom 'The brother parts from his sister' 'The sister must part from her brother' Nlbl]Adv.l + Cop.Nv + N„blJ Oni sorevnujutsja s nami -* U nix s nami Adv.l sorevnovanie 'They are competing with us' 'There is a competition between us and them' Oni zavtra repetirujut —> U nix zavtra repeticija 'They are rehearsing tomorrow' -» 'They have a rehearsal tomorrow' On edet na jug —> Emu nuzno exat' na jug 'He has to go to the South' NlblJAdv.l + Cop. Inf. 4On podaet mjac Emu podavaV mjac 'He Nl bl JAdv.l serves the ball' 'It is him to serve' (lit. 'to him to serve the ball') NrfJAdv.l + Cop. Part. + Fil'm rasskazet o gerojax VfiVme budet Ν %Μ J Adv.* rasskazano o gerojax 'The film will tell

263

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

NUMBER

TRANSFORM

ILLUSTRATION

about the heroes' (lit.) 'In the film "it" will be told about the heroes' 32.2.

NlblJAdv.j,

+ Cop. Adj.c

+

Noc'ju

svetila

luna -> Noc'ju

bylo

svetlo

ot

'The moon shone at night' -> 'At night it was bright from the moon'

N%blJAdv.%

luny

A SYSTEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF A FRAGMENT OF A Γ-FIELD

The interpretation of the above transforms is more in the nature of an illustration to show the actual possibility of interpreting the abstract formulae in the model as the facts of a concrete language. A planned, systematic interpretation of the model presupposes an exhaustive description of all the syntactic, morphological, and lexical conditions governing the realization of the abstract formulae in one or another concrete language. By interpreting the group of Transformations 1-4 (the lower cross in the graph of the three-component Γ-field) we shall show how such a description can be achieved. The interpretation given below is not exhaustive and does not claim to be exact. The grammatical constructions used for interpreting the transformations are taken from a series of Russian studies which will be mentioned as we proceed. As each abstract transformation in the model is realized in the actual syntactic, morphological and lexical conditions of Russian it splits into a series of concrete transformations. Each concrete transformation automatically marks out the semantic categories of Russian nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. 18 When describing transformations we shall indicate the grammatical constructions in which they are realized as well as the semantic categories marked out by the realization. Transformation

1: R20-R10~RiR20

R2R20-R1RÍ0-R2R4,R20

In terms of the grammatical objects of Russian, Transformation 1 is written thus : N L . + V + SNL,

-> (Nlm.

+ i + N2ndm.) + V

(/ = and) 1 9

Transformation 1, T.l for short, represents the formation of a sentence with two subjects identical in type. The formation involves a change in the number of the verb. The realization of this transformation in Russian requires that the nouns in the T-base be either both animate or both inanimate. Brat sporit s sestroj -> Brat i sestra sporjat 'The brother quarrels with his sister' -> 18

See S.K. Saumjan, P. A. Soboleva "Applikativnaja porozdajuscaja model i avtomaticeskoe polu2enie semanticeskix klassov i podklassov", in Tezisy dokladov na konferencii "Problemy formalizacii semantiki jazyka" (Moscow, 1964). 19 Above we distinguished only between N„om. and N o M . In this section N o M . is subdivided into concrete oblique cases and prepositional phrases. Prepositions and conjunctions are included in the formulae in their natural form.

264

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

The brother and sister quarrel' ; A peresekaetsja s Β A i Β peresekajutsja Ά intersects with Β' -> Ά and Β intersect'. It is also necessary that the verb of the Γ-base belong to the subclass of verbs denoting reciprocal or joint action. Verbs of reciprocal action are usually defined as those whose lexical meaning denotes an action which requires the participation of several people. 20 These verbs can be reflexive or non-reflexive: sporti' 'quarrel'; vrazdovat' 'be at war with'; razgovarivat' 'converse'; ssorit'sja 'to quarrel': drat'sja 'to fight'; celovafsja 'to kiss': borofsja 'to wrestle'; zdorovafsja 'to greet'; soglasat'sja 'to agree'; prepirafsja 'to squabble'; perepisyvat' sja 'to correspond'; peresekafsja 'to intersect'; etc. The very lexical nature of these verbs demands the use of the instrumental case and the preposition s: X sporit, razgovarivaet, spletnicaet, druzit... s Y-omX i Ysporjat, razgovarivajut, spletnicajut, druzat 'X argues, talks, gossips, is friendly with Y' -> ' X and Y argue, talk, gossip, are friendly'. Apart from verbs of reciprocal action whose lexical character requires the preposition s and the instrumental case, Transformation 1 also marks out verbs whose lexical character does not require 's + instrumental case'. These are verbs denoting actions which may involve several people: bezat 'run'; vernufsja 'return'; guljat' 'walk'; dvigat'sja 'move'; otpravifsja 'set o f f ' ; p i t ' 'drink'; sidef 'sit'; rabotai' 'work'; tancevaf 'dance', s kem-libo 'with some-one'. X bezal, vernulsja, otpravilsja s Y-om -» X i Y bezali, vernulis' otpravilis' 'X ran, returned, set off with 7 ' -» 'X and Y ran, returned, set off'. If we use the terms 'strong' and 'weak' government, the verbs of reciprocal action sporit' 'quarrel' and razgovarivat' 'talk' represent strong government, and verbs of joint action, bezaf 'run', vernufsja 'return', tancevat' 'dance' represent weak government of the instrumental case with the preposition s. Combining verbs of reciprocal and joint action into one general subclass is justified by the fact that in both cases the object or modifier of the verb behaves in the same way during Transformation 1 — i.e. becomes a noun in the nominative case, forming a sentence with two subjects of identical type : X sporit, bezit, zanimaetsja s Y-om -* X i Y sporjat, begut, zanimajutsja 'X argues, runs, works with 7 ' -» 'X and Y argue, run, work'. There are thus syntactic grounds for setting up such a subclass of verbs. NOTE. We may formally divide verbs of reciprocal and mutual action into two semantic subclasses — the subclass of reciprocal actions: sporit 'argues', ssoritsja 'quarrels', rasstajetsja 'parts', vojuet 'fights', etc. with strong government of the instrumental case, and the subclass of mutual actions: xodit 'walks', rabotaet 'works', guljaet 'takes walks', tancuet 'dances', etc. with weak government of the instrumental case. 20 On reciprocal verbs in greater detail see: N . A. Janko-Trinickaja, Vozvratnye glagoly ν sovremen ' nom russkom jazyke (Moscow, 1962), pp. 189-190.

265

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

The means of this subdivision is Transformation 8 (nominalization). The first class can be nominalized with the preposition mezdu 'between': sporit 'argues' druzit 'is friendly' s sestroj 'with his sister' Brat 'the brother' beseduet 'talks' ssoritsja 'quarrels' spor 'the argument' mezdu bratom i sestroj druzba 'the friendship' beseda 'the conversation' 'between the brother and sister' ssora 'the quarrel' xozdenie 'the walking' mezdu bratom i sestroj rabota 'the working' But not guljanie 'the walking' 'between the brother and sister' tanec 'the dancing' Transformation 2 for the first-cycle Γ-field is an identity operation on the Γ-base. On the level of interpretation this means that the transform coincides with the Γ-base. Transformation 3, R20Rl0R^R20 RiR^O R^O R^O is written thus — in terms of the grammatical objects of Russian : N'+V

+ N,obi.

•

N;2

+V +

NU21

This transformation represents various cases when the subject and post-verbal constituent exchange syntactic roles. Two basic realizations of this transformation are distinguished depending on the actual form of N^bl T.3.1. T.3.2.

2 • N2nom+V-sja + Ni, Nl + V+ Ν,acc. obi. 2 1 χΝ nom_ + V+ sN¿ + sNl inst. >Nlm+V 'm

Transformation 3.1 fragments in turn into a series of transformations differing in the actual form of T.3.1.1. T.3.1.2. T.3.1.3. T.3.1.4. T.3.1.5. T.3.1.6.

2 N 1m + V + N,acc. '•Ni^+V-sja + NL. 2 1 11 Ν non. (ot = preposition) m + V + N, acc. '•N2nom.+ V-sja + otNlgen. 2 1 11 Ν ηοη,+V V-sja + Nl, m + N.acc. ' •N^.+ 2 11 Ν1„ο (u = préposition) • + m m.+ V + N,acc. ' nom. V-sja + u Nlm 2 2 1 + V + N, •N (ν = preposition) 1Ν 1 Π + V-sja+ vN¡0C. < nom. acc. 2 Ν 1 + V + N,acc. • N^om. + y-sja + na N¡oc. et al. (na = preposition)

All the instances of the group of transforms 3.1 require a transitive verb in the Γ-base. 11

Grammatical constructions used to interpret Transformation 3 are taken from the following books: V. V. Vinogradov, Russkij jazyk (Moscow, 1947), p. 634; Grammatika russkogo jazyka, I (Moscow, 1960), p. 421 ; N. A. Janko-Trinickaja, op. cit., pp. 99-102, 111-113.

266

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Transformation 3.2 is realized when the verb in the Γ-base denotes a reciprocal joint action. Transformation 3.1.1. N¡,om + V + N2acc ~* N2om + V-sja + Nj„st represents the formation of passive constructions with nouns denoting the agent in the instrumental case. Rabocie strojat dorn -> Dom stroitsja rabocimi 'Workers build the house' -» 'The house is built by workers' ; Vrac osmatrivaet boVnogo ->• Bol'noj osmatrivaetsja vracom 'The doctor examines the patient' -> 'The patient is examined by the doctor'. Transformation 3.1.1 marks out the subclass of nouns denoting the active subject (in the operand) and the passive subject of the action (in the transform). Transformation 3.1.2 Nlnom_ + V +2Nacc.-+2Nnomi + V-sja + otlNgen_ represents the formation of passive constructions containing a genitive of cause. Znoj rastopil led -> Led rastopilsja ot znoja 'The heat melted the ice' ~> 'The ice melted with the heat' ; Bol' sognula celoveka -> Celovek sognulsja ot boli 'The pain doubled the man up' 'The man doubled up with the pain'. This transformation marks out the subclass of inanimate nouns denoting some natural phenomenon (znoj 'heat' ; boV 'pain' ; veter 'wind', etc.), the subclass of verbs denoting an action which changes the object (rastopif 'melt'; sognuf 'double up'; rassypaf 'scatter'), and the subclass ot + genitive case of the noun denoting the cause (ot znoja 'with the heat' ; ot boli 'with the pain', etc.). Transformation 3.1.3 N^om + V+ Nlcc_ ->• N2om + V-sja + N¿at represents passive constructions with the noun denoting the subject of the action in the dative case. Ona vspomnilaprosloe -* Ej vspomnilos' prosloe 'She remembered the past' ->• (lit.) 'to her remembered itself the past' ; MaVcik slysit obidu -+ MaVciku slysitsja obida 'The boy hears an insult' -* (lit.) 'To the boy is heard an insult'. This transformation marks out the subclass of animate nouns, since only animate nouns can assume the form of the dative case with a verb which is converted from an active to a passive form. In addition T. 3.1.3 isolates the subclass of verbs denoting a passive action or an act of perception which can occur independently of the subject's will: e.g., videt' 'see'; slysat' 'hear'; vspomnif 'remember'; vstrecat' 'meet'; voobrazat' 'imagine'. 22 Transformation 3.1.4 Nj;om. + V + -+ N^om +V + u jV¿en. represents a passive construction with a genitive of place. Sosedi zarjat pirogi -> U sosedej zarjatsja pirogi 'The neighbors are baking pies' -> 'At the neighbors' place pies are being baked' ; Vengry tancujut cardas -*• U vengrov tancuetsja cardas 'The Hungarians dance the czardas' 'Among the Hungarians the czardas is danced'. This transformation, like the preceding one, marks out the subclass of animate nouns (the subject of the operand) and also locative constructions with u + genitive case. Transformation 3.1.5 + V+ ->• + V-sja + vN0 represents passive 22

These verbs are discussed in detail in N. A. Janko-Trinickaja, op. cit., p. 100. Also see russkogo jazyka, I, p. 421.

Grammatika

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

267

constructions containing a locative expression with a preposition: e.g., Papka soderzit material -* Vpapke soderzitsja material 'The file contains the documents' -> 'The documents are contained in the file' ; Prijut vospital rebenka -> Rebenok vospityvalsja ν prijute 'The orphanage brought up the child' -> 'The child was brought up in the orphanage' ; Institut gotovit reformu V institute gotovitsja reforma 'The institute is preparing a reform' -> Ά reform is being prepared in the institute'. Transformation 3.1.5 marks out the subclass of inanimate nouns denoting in which objects are contained or activities take place: papka -* ν papke 'the file' -> 'in the file' ; institut -> ν institute 'the institute' -» 'in the institute'. Transformation 3.1.6 Nj,om + V + N*ec.-v Nn2om. + V + na N1 prep, differs from T. 3.1.5 only in the preposition preceding the transformed subject. So vet obsuzdal dissertaciju -> Dissertacija obsuzdalas' na sovete 'The council was discussing the dissertation' -> 'The dissertation was being discussed at the council'. Sever zdalpomose' -> Na severe ozidalas' pomose' 'The North was waiting for help' 'Help was expected in the North'. This transformation marks out a subclass of inanimate nouns (not denoting things which contain objects or activities). Both these transformations also mark out the use of the prepositional case in locative constructions. Transformation 3.2 Nj,om + V + sNfnsl.-> N^om + V + s N¡nst represents cases where the subject and post-verbal constituent exchange syntactic roles, though the form of the verb remains the same. Brat sporit s sestroj Sestra sporit s bratom 'The brother argues with his sister' -> 'The sister argues with her brother' ; A peresekaetsja s Β -» Β peresekaetsja s Α Ά intersects with Β' 'Β intersects with A\ T. 3

268

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Transformation 3.2 marks out the same subclasses of verbs and nouns as Transformation 1. The fragmentation of Transformation 3 is shown in Figure 42. Transformation 4 R^R^R^O -»· R^R20R1R10RAR20 can be written three ways in 'block' notation: T.4.A. R ^ O R i O R i O -> R ^ R ^ O l R ^ O R ^ O T.4.B. R^R20R10R20 Λ 4 Λ 2 0|Λ 4 Λ 4 Λ 2 0Λ 1 Λ 1 0 T.4.C. RAR20R10R20

-+·

CR^OR^R^OR^O

Transformation 4 represents the formation of sentences with impersonal verbs. We shall discuss the interpretation of the first two variants: T. 4. A and T. 4. B. The two variants differ in that in the first the verb and the transformed subject are more closely connected: R4.RAR20\R4R20R1R10; e.g., Svet pronikal ν komnatu -» (Sveta ne pronikalo) ν komnatu 'Light penetrated into the room' (lit.) '(It penetrated no light) into the room'. In the second variant the verb and the object or modifier of the verb are more closely connected than the verb and the transformed subject : R4R20 \ R4.RAR20R1R10 : e.g., Sneg zanes dorn -* Snegom (zane sio dorn) 'Snow cut off the house' -* (lit.) 'With snow (it cut off the house)'. Transformation 4.A represents the formation of constructions containing impersonal indefinite verbs, and is realized if the original finite verb in the operand can a) form a derived impersonal reflexive verb in -sja: b) assume an impersonal form (V,mpers.); c) assume an indefinite form (V,„de/.). There are three corresponding basic realizations of Transformation 4.A: T.4.A.I. T.4.A.2. T.4.A.3.

N1 + V + N20bl-> (V-sja

+ Nldat)

+ N2obL

Nl í

N

+ V + N2bl^

(Vimpers.

+ Nlobl)

+ N2ob,

+ V +

(Vindef,

+

+ N2obl,

Transformation 4.A.2. can in turn fragment further depending on the form of the transformed subject: T.4.A.2.I. T.4.A.2.2.

+ V + N20bl.-+ (Vimpers, + Ej verilos' ν scast'e 'She believed in happiness' -> (lit.) 'To her it believed in happiness'. Transformation 4.A.1 marks out the subclass of intransitive verbs such as verW 'believe', spat' 'sleep', toskovat' 'pine', letet' 'fly', dumaf 'think', mectat' 'dream', grustW 'be sad' from which can be formed impersonal verbs with the suffix -sja: veri f sja, dum at'sja,23

etc.

23 On such verbs see V. V. Vinogradov, op. cit., p. 468; E. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, Bezliinye predlozenija ν sovremennom russkom jazyke (Moscow, 1958), p. 168; N. A. Janko-Trinickaja op. cit., p. 214.

269

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

These are intransitive verbs whose meaning requires that the subject be animate. We can therefore say that transformation 4.A.1 marks out the subclass of animate nouns which can occur in the dative case as the subject. Transformation 4.A.2.1 represents the formation of negative impersonal constructions, such as Svet pronikal ν komnatu -* Sveta ne pronikalo ν komnatu 'Light penetrated into the room' -» 'There did not penetrate any light into the room' ; Ot zavtraka ostalos' moloko Ot zavtraka ne ostalos' moloka 'Milk was left from breakfast' -> 'There was not any milk left from breakfast'. Verbs which can occur in an impersonal form with negation constitute a lexicallyrestricted group of intransitive verbs denoting "the existence, establishment, appearance or manifestation of a feature". 24 Gvozdev gives the following list of such verbs: byt' 'be', okazat'sja 'turn out to be', pojavit'sja 'appear', ostat'sja 'remain', soxranit'sja 'be preserved', prixodif 'arrive' (of a letter, reply), etc.25 Transformation 4.A.2.2 represents the formation of an impersonal construction from a personal one. The nominative case becomes the prepositional case : Golova trescit ot ustalosti -> V golove trescit ot ustalosti 'My head is aching from weariness' (lit.) 'In my head it is aching from weariness'. Uxo bolit s utra V uxe bolit s ut ra 'My ear has been hurting since the morning' (lit.) 'In my ear it has been hurting since the morning'. Transformation 4.A.2.2 isolatss a small group of intrasitive verbs denoting sensations felt by the body trescit 'ache' ; zudit 'itches' ; bolit 'hurts' and a small group of nouns denoting parts of the body. Transformation 4.A.3 NlMm_ + V + N2obl ^ (VMef_ + N'acc) + N2bl. represents the formation of indefinite constructions with a causative meaning. T.4.A.3 is possible only when the verbs in the operand and the transform form a pair of correlated verbs like: sideC 'sit' sazaf 'seat'; lezat' 'lie' klasf 'place'; kipet' 'boil'-» kipjatit"bringto the boil'; visef 'hang' (intrans). -> vesaC 'hang' (trans.); etc. E.g., Cost ' sidit ν kresle -> Gostja usazivajut ν kreslo 'The guest is sitting in the armchair' -> ' "They" seat the guest in the armchair' ; Cajnik kipit na plite -* Cajnik kipjatjat na plite 'The kettle is boiling on the stove' -» ' "They" are boiling the kettle on the stove' ; Kartina visit na stene -> Kartinu vesajut na stenu 'The picture hangs on the wall' ' "They" hang the picture on the wall' ; etc. We can say that Transformation 4. A.3 marks out the subclass of causative verbs in Russian. Transformation 4.B is realized in Russian if the initial verb in the operand assumes: (a) an impersonal form ( Vtmpers.) ; (b) an indefinite form (K (ndc/ ). Two realizations of Transformation 4.B are possible, depending on the form of the transformed verb. T4B1 i.-t.u.i.

21 25

l 2 N nn0m.~ +Vr + r 'iN acc.

-*(V \r

impers.

N. A. Janko-Trinickaja, op. cit., p. 218. A. P. Gvozdev, Sovremennyj russkij literaturnyj jazyk,

Τ+

Ν2acc.J) +' N-inst.

part II (Moscow, 1961), p. 93.

270

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

T.4.B.2.

+ V + N2M. ^(VMef.

+ N20bl) + N20bL

Realization 4.B.2 can be further fragmented depending on the case of the transformed subject. T.4.B.2.I. T.4.B.2.2. T.4.B.2.3.

< m . + V + N2obL-+ (Vinief. + N20bl) + Ν ¡nst Nlm. + V + N20bl^ ( VMef, + N2obL) + u N¡en. Nlm, + V + N20bU-+ (Vindef_ + N2obl) + na, ν N¡bl,

Realization 4.B.1 Nlom +V + N2acc_ -> (Vimpers_ + N^cc) + N¡nst represents the formation of impersonal constructions in which the conversion of the finite form of the verb into an impersonal form is accompanied by the conversion of the nominative case into the instrumental case : Luna osvetiia dorogu —>• Lunoj osvetilo dorogu 'The moon lit up the road' (lit.) '"!t" lit up the road with the moon'; Solnce vijzglo step' Solncem vyzglo step' 'The sun scorched the steppe' (lit.) ' " I t " scorched the steppe with the sun' ; Dozd' zatjanul daV —>• Dozdem zatjanulo daV 'Rain blotted out the distant view'-*(lit.) ' " I t " blotted out the distant view with rain'. Veter rassypal list'ja-* Vetrom rassypolo list ja 'The wind scattered the leaves' (lit.) ' "It" scattered the leaves with the wind', etc. Transformation 4.B.1 marks out a subclass of nouns which can be defined as the names of objects connected with the action of the elements : veter 'wind' ; grad 'hail' ; grom 'thunder'; dozd' 'rain'; sneg 'snow'; luna 'moon'; solnce 'sun', etc., and also some other nouns: snarjady 'shells'; pulja 'bullet'; golod 'hunger'; bur'jan 'steppe grass', etc. Bur'jan zaglusil sad -> Bufjanom zaglusilo sad 'Steppe grass overran the garden' -» (lit.) ' " I t " overran the garden with steppe grass'. Any inanimate noun can become the instrument of an impersonal action. Mectoju zatumanilo vzor -> (lit.) ' "It" blurred his vision with a dream'. The semantically restricted nature of this subclass of nouns becomes especially clear if we apply T.4.B. 1. to operands with animate subjects. Cf. Gradskosil grecixu Gradom skosilo grecixu 'The hail beat down the buckwheat' -*• (lit.) ' "It" beat down the buckwheat with hail'. But: Kto-to skosil grecixu *Kemto skosilo grecixu 'Someone mowed down the buckwheat' -> (lit.) ' * "It" mowed down the buckwheat with someone'. Snarjady izrylipole Snarjadami izrylopole 'Shells dug up the field' (lit.) '"It" dug up the field with shells'. But: Svin'i izryli pole-* *Svin'jami izrylo pole 'Pigs dug up the field' -> (lit.) ' * "It" dug up the field with pigs'. The second noun in the Γ-base can be characterized as denoting objects which can undergo changes : derevo 'tree' ; stena 'wall' ; doroga 'road' ; les 'wood' ; sad 'garden' ; ptica 'bird', etc., (but not vozdejstvie 'influence'; golubizna 'blueness'). The subclass of verbs marked out by Transformation 4.B.1 can be characterized as verbs denoting actions which affect or change an object: izryt' 'dig up'; ubit'

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

271

'kill'; domai' 'break'; pocarapaf 'scatch'; rastopit' 'melt'; isportif 'spoil'; vyzec' 'scorch', etc. Verbs with a different semantic meaning do not participate in Transformation 4.B. 1 ; cf., for example, verbs used with a subject and object which do participate in this transformation. Pulja ulozila boja -» Pulej ulozilo bojea 'The bullet killed the warrior' -» (lit.) ' "It" killed the warrior with the bullet'. But: Pulja vstretila bojea * Pulej vstretilo bojea Ά bullet met the warrior' -> (lit.) l * " I t " met the warrior with a bullet'. Masina zadavila celoveka -> Masinoj zadavilo celoveka 'The car ran the man down' (lit.) ' "It" ran the man down with a car'. But: Masina zdala celoveka -* * Masinoj zdalo celoveka Ά car was waiting for the man' -> (lit.) ' * " l t " was waiting for the man with a car'. The various realizations of Transformation 4.B.2 represent the formation of indefinite constructions. Transformation 4.B.2.1 Nlom + V + NlobL (Vindef, + N2M) + Ninst, represents the formation of indefinite constructions in which the nominative case becomes an instrumental case. PulivstretUi konnieu -* Konnicuvstretili puljami 'Bullets met the cavalry' '"They" met the cavalry with bullets'. Dym otgonjaet komarov -* Komarov otgonjajut dymom 'The smoke drives away the mosquitoes' -* '"They" drive the mosquitoes away with smoke'. Samolet dostavljaet poctu -* Poctu dostavljajut samoletom 'The plane delivers the mail' -> '"They" deliver the mail by plane'. In the transform the transformed subject standing in the instrumental case denotes the instrument or means carrying out the action. This presupposes that the subject of the operand is an inanimate noun (an animate noun cannot denote an instrument). Cf. the following instances: Parovoz sdvinul vagony -* Parovozom sdvinuli vagony 'The locomotive pulled the coaches' -> (lit.) ' " I t " pulled the coaches with the locomotive'. But: Íerebec sdvinul sanki —• *¿erebcom sdvinulo sanki 'The stallion pulled the sleigh' ->· (lit.) ' * "It" pulled the sleigh with the stallion'. Poklonenie izbalovalo devusku —• Pokloneniem izbalovali devusku 'Admiration spoiled the girl' '"They" spoiled the girl with admiration'. But: Roditeli izbalovali devusku -> *Roditeljami izbalovali devusku 'The parents spoiled the girl' -* ' * " T h e y " spoiled the girl with her parents'. Transformation 4.B.2.1 marks out a definite subclass of verbs which can be characterized as verbs of action, as opposed to verbs of motion or stative verbs, for example. Cf.: Tank i udarilipo vragu —• Tankami udarili po vragu 'The tanks struck at the enemy' -* '"They" struck at the enemy with tanks'. But: Tanki perepolzli bolotee * Tankami perepolzli bolotee 'The tanks crossed the marsh' ' * "They" crossed the marsh with tanks'.

272

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Gir ja razbila steklo -* Girej razbili steklo 'The dumb-bell broke the window' -* '"They" broke the window with the dumb-bell'. But: Girja vesit kilogramm -> *Girej vesjat kilogramm 'The dumb-bell weighs a kilo' -»· ' * "They" weigh a kilo with the dumb-bell'. Noè rezet xleb -*• Nozom rezut xleb 'The knife cuts the bread' ' "They" cut the bread with the knife'. But: Noz stoit pjaf rublej -* *Nozom stojat pjaf rublej 'The knife costs five roubles' -» '*"They" cost five roubles with the knife'. Transformation 4.B.2.2 represents the formation of indefinite constructions in which the subject of the operand assumes the form of the genitive case, preceded by the preposition u: Oni Ijubjat vesel'e -> U nix ljubjat vesel'e 'They like merriment' -> 'Among them "they" like merriment'; Sosedkapecetpirogi -> Usosedkipekutpirogi 'Our neighbor is baking pies' -» 'At our neighbor's "they" are baking pies' ; Gorcy zivut do sta let -* U gorcev zivut do sta let 'The mountain people live to be a hundred' -> 'Among the mountain people "they" live to be a hundred' ; Vengry tancujut cardas -> U vengrov tancujut cardas 'The Hungarians dance the czardas' 'Among the Hungarians "they" dance the czardas'. Transformation 4.B.2.2 marks out the subclass of animate nouns and personal pronouns: my 'we'; oni 'they'; russkie 'Russians'; gorcy 'mountain people'; sosedi 'neighbors'; marsiane 'Martians', etc. This transformation characterizes in a definite way the verbs which participate in it. Thus, if the meaning of a verb precludes its use with an animate noun it cannot participate in Transformation 4.B.2.2. Cf., for example, such verbs as: proisxodit' (vesnoj) 'happen (in spring)' ; predsestvovaf (sobytijam) 'precede (the events)' ; sootvetstvovat' (pravilam) 'correspond (to the rules)'; sovpadat' (i opisaniem) 'coincide (with the description)', etc. Verbs which participate in transformation 4.B.2.2 can be characterized as the subclass of verbs denoting the action of an animate subject. Transformation 4.B.2.3 represents the formation of indefinite constructions in which the subject of the operand assumes the form of the prepositional case preceded by the preposition ν or na: e.g., Sem'ja ljubit otea -> Vsem'e ljubjat otea 'The family loves their father' 'In the family "they" love their father'; Zavod izgotovljaet lit'e -> Ν a zavode izgotovljajut life 'The factory produces castings' -> 'At the factory "they" produce castings'; Gorod nasmotrelsja uzasov -* V gorode nasmotrelis'' uzasov 'The town has seen enough horrors' -* 'In the town "they" have seen enough horrors'; Sever zdalpomosci -> Na severe zdalipomosci 'The North was waiting for help' 'In the North "they" were waiting for help'. Transformation 4.B.2.3 marks out the subclass of collective nouns: sem'ja 'family'; brigada 'brigade'; klass 'class'; auditorija 'auditorium', or in personifications: Afrika 'Africa'; rajon 'region'; zavod 'factory'; korabV 'ship', etc. The possible occurrence of transformation 4.B.2.3 is conditioned by the nature of

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

273

the subject. Cf. Trauler lovit rybu -> Na traulere lovjat rybu 'The trawler catches fish' O n the trawler "they" catch fish'. But: Rybak lovit rybu -* *lNa rybake lovjat rybu 'The fisherman catches fish' -> *'On the fisherman "they" catch fish'. Strana ispytyvaet trevogu -> V strane ispytyvajut trevogu 'The country feels anxious' -» 'In the country "they" feel anxious'. But: Komandir ispytyvaet trevogu -»• *Na komandire ... 'The commander feels anxious' -> *'On the commander ...'. N.B. It must be emphasized that Transformation 4.B.2.3, in dividing nouns into collective and non-collective, concerns itself with the meanings of words and not with the words as a whole. I.e., if a word has more than one meaning, it is the collective meaning which is marked out and contrasted with the other meanings. Cf. Zal podpeval artistu V zale podpevali artistu 'The hall sang along with the singer' -* 'In the hall "they" sang along with the singer'. But: Zalprinadlezit klubu -> *V zale ... 'The hall belongs to the club' *'In the hall ...'. Gorod ispytyvaet trevogu V gorode ispytyvajut trevogu 'The town is anxious' 'In the town "they" are anxious'. But: Gorod raspolozen na gore *V gorode ... 'The town is situated *'In the town ...'. on a hill' Transformation 4.B.2.3 isolates the meaning of 'hall' -* 'people sitting in a hall' and contrasts it with the meaning of 'hall' : 'a large room'. In the same way the transformation marks out the meaning of 'town' -» 'people living in a town' and contrasts it with the meaning of'town' -* 'a large number of inhabited buildings set together'. 26 This transformation marks out the subclass of verbs of action and stative verbs which can be used with animate collective nouns. Verbs of motion, for example, block Transformation 4.B.2.3. Cf. the following examples where the subject allows this transformation. Sem'ja zdet syna -» V sem'e zdut syna 'The family is waiting for the son' -» 'In the family "they" are waiting for the son'. But: Sem'ja pereexala ν novyj dorn -+ *V seni1 je ... 'The family has moved to a new house' -> *'In the family ...'. Otrjad uvazaet komandira —• V otrjade uvazajut komandira 'The detachment respects the commander' -* 'In the detachment "they" respect the commander'. But : Otrjad vystupil iz kreposti -* * V otrjade ... 'The detachment left the fortress' ->· *'In the detachment ...'. The splitting of Transformation 4 is shown in the diagram in Figure 43.

5.9 THE FORMALIZATION OF GRAMMATICAL SYNONYMY

Grammatical synonymy is one of the central concepts of modern linguistics. If it is correct that the main task of linguistics is to discover linguistic invariants, the investigation of grammatical synonymy must be given priority, since the problem of grammatical synonymy is nothing other than the problem of grammatical invariants. *· The four-volume Russian language dictionary edited by D. N. Uäakov distinguished this meaning in the word gorod 'town' but it does not distinguish this meaning in the word zal 'hall'.

274

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Fig. 43

In various works on linguistics the problem of grammatical synonymy has been and is being given much attention. Interest in this problem grew specially quickly with the development of the transformational method. This is understandable: after all, transformations are definite linguistic formations based on an underlying grammatical invariant which remains unchanged as these formations take place. In spite of the attention which is being given to the problem of grammatical synonymy, the latter cannot be considered as solved. For the concept of grammatical synonymy to be considered satisfactory, at least two conditions must be observed. First, the formalized concept must have adequate explanatory power. By explanatory power is meant the possibility not only of substantiating the similarities between grammatical constructions of which the native speaker is intuitively aware, but also of discovering inner invariant relations between grammatical constructions which the native speaker does not feel intuitively. How can observation of the first condition be guaranteed? This can be done only by developing a formal calculus of synonymous grammatical constructions. Since such a calculus reduces to a calculus of transformations, the solution of our problem must be essentially based on the construction of a transformation calculus. Till now the transformational method has been to empirically select transformations which are given in a list. From this it is understandable why a satisfactory solution has not yet been found for the problem of grammatical synonymy. Until now the necessary basis for

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

275

solving this problem has not been available — i.e. a definite system for computing transformations. In this section an attempt will be made to show how grammatical synonymy may be formalized using the calculus of transformations in the applicational model. 27 The concept of a Γ-field in the applicational generative model enables us to formalize such a linguistic category as the invariant of transforms. The invariant of transforms in this model is the Γ-base of a Γ-field. Giving a Γ-field means giving its Γ-base. Let there be given an «-member Γ-field of the k'h cycle (or part of an «-member Γ-field of the k'h cycle). Then, removing k relators from all the «-members of each transform, we obtain the Γ-base of the given Γ-field which is the invariant of the transforms. For example, suppose we are given part of a three-member Γ-field of the first cycle, consisting of four transforms: R3R20R2Rl0R3R4R20 RA.R20R1RÍ0R4R4R20 R2R20R3R10RSR4R20

Zanosy snega na doroge 'There are snowdrifts on the road'. Zaneslo dorogu snegom 'The road has been blocked by the snow', (lit. 'It has blocked the road with snow'.) Sneg, zanessij dorogu 'the snow which has blocked the road'. (zanessij = past participle active).

Doroga, zanesennaja snegom 'the road blocked by the snow'. Removing the end relator from all the members of each transform we obtain the sentence R20R10R4R20 Sneg zanes dorogu 'Snow blocked the road', which is the Γ-base of the given Γ-field and the invariant of all the transforms contained in it. R5R20RIR¡0R2RAR20

Let us examine the structure of the Γ-field of the Γ-base R ^ R x O R ^ R ^ . (cf. Figure 44) for similarities and differences between its transforms. The degree of similarity and difference between transforms can be measured by the number of coincident and non-coincident relators and can be interpreted as the distance between grammatical synonyms. For a three-member Γ-field the distance between grammatical synonyms can be measured by one, two or three non-coincident relators. Three corresponding possible degrees of remoteness between grammatical synonyms can be established. The first degree of remoteness between grammatical structures within the Γ-field corresponds to the coincidence of two out of three possible points in the transforms, i.e. is measured as being one relator distant. On the graph of the Γ-field one-relator distance is represented by the figures 'fork', 'angle', and 'rhombus'. First-degree synonymy of the 'fork' type holds between impersonal and passive constructions (cf. Figure 45). The lower branch of the fork represents the formation of impersonal sentences and the upper branch represents the formation of passive constructions from the Γ-base of the given Γ-field : 27

A similar description of grammatical synonyms is given in S. K. Saumjan, P. A. Soboleva, "Applikativnaja porozdajuscaja model' i formalizacija grammaticeskoj synonymii", Voprosy jazykoznanija, No. 5 (1965). Cf. also S. K. Saumjan, P. A. Soboleva, "Transformation Calculus as a Tool of Semantic Study of Natural Languages", Foundations of Language, No. 1 (1965), pp. 290-336.

276

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL CODING R20

RFI

R,R20

R,Rß

R4R¡0

RIRTR20

R3R,O

RTR20

R2R2O

:2RTR20

R¡R2O

R4R2

R4R20

Κ

RIR*R2O

R4R2O

R2RTR20

RTR20

F i g . 45

R20RT0RAR20 2

1

4

2

R4R20—R, Γ" L-> R^R20—

R I

0—RAR¿R20

R^TO— R2RAR20

What is common to both transforms is that the subject of the Γ-base becomes a postverbal constituent (a genotype adverb), and the verb undergoes an identity transformation. The transforms differ in the behavior of the post-verbal constituent, which in the first case does not change its function and in the second becomes the subject of the transform.

277

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

Vodoj zalivaet luga (lit.) 'It floods the meadows with water' VfiVme pokazyvajut vojnu >• (lit.) 'In the film they show the war' Ν a sude rassmatrivajut delo 'In court they consider the case' Iz skoly iskljucajut ucenika 'They expel the pupil from the school' Voda zalivajet luga 'The water floods the meadows' Firm pokazyvajet vojnu 'The film shows the war' Sud rassmatrivajet delo 'The court considers the case' Skola iskljucajet ucenika 'The school expels the pupil' Vodoj zalivajutsja luga 'The meadows are flooded by the water' »- V fir me pokazyvaetsja vojna Na sude rassmatrivaetsja delo Iz skoly iskljucaetsja ucenik (passive constructions corresponding to above impersonal constructions). First-degree synonymy of the 'angle' type holds between two types of active verbal constructions which differ in the behavior of the post-verbal constituent (cf. the rightfacing 'angle' Figure 46). R20

R,0

Fig. 46

R,R20

278

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL CODING

2

1

4 2

R2R20—RlR10~R^RAR20

In both transforms the subject and verb of the Γ-base undergo identity transformations. The transforms differ in that the post-verbal constituent becomes an adjective in the first case and keeps its original function in the second case. Leningradskij poezd pribyl > 'The Leningrad train has arrived' Moskovskaja konferencija sostojalas' 'The Moscow conference took place' Poezd pribyl iz Leningrada 'The train arrived from Leningrad' V Moskve sostojalas' konferencija 'The conference took place in Moscow' Poezd pribyl iz Leningrada 'The train arrived from Leningrad' > V Moskve sostojalas' konferencija 'The conference took place in Moscow' Symmetrical to the right-facing 'angle' the left-facing 'angle' represents the synonymy between two types of passive verbal constructions which differ in the behavior of the subject of the Γ-base. ρ η

Ώη

Β Β η Γ*

RÌ^O—R^R^—R^O

In the first transform the subject of the Γ-base becomes an adjective; in the second it becomes a post-verbal constituent. Zavodskaja produkcija vypuskaetsja > 'Factory goods are turned out' Skolnaja programma peresmatrivaetsja 'The school programme is revised' Zavod vypuskaet produkciju 'The factory turns out goods' Skola peresmatrivaet programma 'The school revises its programme' Produkcija vypuskajetsja zavodom 'Goods are turned out by the factory' > Programma peresmatrivaetsja skoloj 'The programme is revised by the school' The two symmetrical 'angles' in the upper part of the field represent synonymy between participial constructions (cf. Figure 47). The right-facing 'angle' represents the synonymy between active participial

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

279

constructions which differ in the behavior of the post-verbal constituent of the Γ-base. K20

R,0

RsR¡0

R4R20 RsRtRiO KtRiO

R.R.O

Fig. 47

RiO—RiO—R^O

R2R20—R3R10—R5R4R20 RiRi0—R2R20—R3R^R20

In the first transform the post-verbal constituent becomes an adverb modifying an adjective i?5/?4./?20. In the second it becomes an adjective R3R4R20. poezd, pribyvsij iz Leningrado 'The train which has arrived from Leningrad' > konferencija, sostojavsajasja ν Moskve 'the conference which took place in Moscow' (The second constituent of each transform is a past participle active) Poezd pribyl iz Leningrado 'The train arrived from Leningrad' V Moskve sostojalas' konferencija 'The conference took place in Moscow' pribyvsij Leningradskij poezd 'the Leningrad train which has arrived' • sostojavsajasja moskovskaja konferencija 'the Moscow conference which took place' The left-facing 'angle' represents synonymy between passive participial constructions which differ in the way the subject of the Γ-base behaves. R

R3R20—R2RAR20—R3R10 RiR^—R^Rß

280

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

napolnennyj vodnyj bassejn 'the pool filled with water' > vypuskaemaja zavodskaja produkcija 'the factory goods being turned out' peresmatrivaemaja skolnaja programma 'the school programme being revised' Voda napolnila bassejn 'Water filled the pool' Zavod vypuskaet produkciju 'The factory turns out goods' Skola peresmatrivaet programma 'The school revises its programme' bassejn, napolnennyj vodoj 'the pool filled with water' produkcija, vypuskaemaja zavodom »- 'the goods being turned out by the factory' programma, peresmatrivaemaja skoloj 'the programme being revised by the school' Synonymy of the 'angle' type is possible if the subject or post-verbal constituent of the T-base can form adjectives derived from nouns. First-degree synonymy of the 'rhombus' type holds between two types of transformation — participial and verbal — which can substitute for each other (cf. Figure 48). In both transforms the subject and the post-verbal constituent of the T-base behave alike, both acquiring the function denoted by R2\ R2R20 and R2R¿R20. R20

R¡0

Fig. 48

XíR¡0

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

281

In one case, however, the verb becomes a participle and in the other remains a verb. r η R η R R n r R^-R.O-R^O L^

Ri^O-R^O-R^^O

R2R20-RlRl0-R2RAR20

Both transformations are possible only if both the subject and the post-verbal constituent in the Γ-base are animate or inanimate nouns and if the verb belongs to a semantic subclass of verbs denoting a reciprocal or joint action: ssorit'sja 'quarrel', drat'sja 'fight', celovat'sja 'kiss', mirit'sja 'make peace with', voevat' 'wage war', sporit' 'argue', rasstavafsja 'part', perepisyvafsja 'correspond' etc., and also rabotad 'work', tancevaV 'dance', begat' 'run', vyezzat' 'leave', guljaf 'go for a walk', etc. ssorjasciesje, sporjascie, rasstajusciesja, rabotajuscie, guljajuscie maVcik i devocka 'the boy and girl who are quarrelling, arguing, parting, > working, going for a walk' sovpadauscie, slivajusciesja A i Β Ά and Β which coincide, merge' (The Russian construction is literally 'the arguing boy and girl', etc.) MaVcik ssoritsja, sporit, rasstaetsja, perepisyvaetsja, rabotaet, guljaet s devockoj 'The boy quarrels, argues, parts, corresponds, works, goes for a walk with the girl' A sovpadaet, slivaetsja s Β Ά coincides, merges with Β' MaVcik i devocka ssorjatsja, sporjat, perepisyvajutsja; rabotajut, guljajut 'The boy and girl quarrel, argue, correspond, work, go for a walk' A i Β sovpadajut, slivajutsja 'A and Β coincide, merge' In this case, between a sentence and a non-sentence there is synonymy which becomes obvious in a wider context, as for example in the generation and interpretation of complex constituents. iR^O-R^O-R.R^Oi 1 4 [R^O-R^O-RiR^O] sporjascix brata i sestru viíu (I see) (that) 'the brother and sister who are quarrelling' (cto) brat i sestra sporjat 'the brother and sister are quarrelling' Synonymy of second-degree remoteness between grammatical structures within a three-member Γ-field corresponds to the coincidence of one out of the three possible points, i.e. is measured as being two relators distant. On the graph of the Γ-field

282

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL CODING

2-relator distances are represented by the figures 'cross', 'horizontal V', 'trapezoid', 'star', and others. Let us interpret certain of them. Second degree synonymy of the 'cross' type relates different sentences in which the subject and the post-verbal constituent of the Γ-base exchange their syntactic roles. (Cf. Figure 49.) R20

RFI

RSR20

R,R,0

J54R20

R,R*RIO

R,R2O

RtRiO

R2R20

,R4R20

R¡R2O

R*RIO

RTR¡0

Fig 4 9

Let us examine the upper 'cross' of the Γ-field : R20-R10-R4R20

r—> !->•

RsRjO-RsRß-RiR^O R2R20-R3R10-RsR4R20

In both transforms the verb in the Γ-base becomes a participle. The transforms differ in that in the first case the subject and post-verbal constituent exchange syntactic roles, but do not do so in the second case. caska, razbitaja gostem ——> 'the cup broken by the guest' kartina, pokupaemaja inzenerom 'the picture being bought by the engineer' gost' razbil casku 'The guest broke the cup' Inzener pokupaet kartinu 'The engineer buys a picture' gost', razbivsij casku 'the guest who broke the cup' ——> inzener, pokupajuscij kartinu 'the engineer buying the picture' {razbivsij = past participle active)

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

283

The middle cross of the Γ-field represents another type of synonymy relations involving an exchange of syntactic functions. R20-R,0-RAR20

I—^

R^O-RiRiO-RiR^O

RlR20-R2Rl0-R3RtR20

In both transforms the verb in the Γ-base becomes a noun derived from a verb. The difference between the transforms is that the word classes R20 and R4R20 in the operand exchange syntactic roles in the transforms. Otkrytie Fleminga — penicillin > 'Fleming's discovery was penicillin' Pokupka inzenera — kartina (lit.) 'The engineer's purchase is a picture' Fleming otkrylpenicillin 'Fleming discovered penicillin' Inzener pokupaet kartinu 'The engineer buys a picture' Otkryvater penicillina — Fleming 'The discoverer of penicillin was Fleming' >• PokupateV kartiny — inzener (lit.) 'The purchaser of the picture is the engineer' Synonyms of the 'middle cross' type are possible only if it is possible to form nouns simultaneously denoting the object (or result) of the action and the agent (e.g., otkrytie — otkryvatel' 'discovery — discoverer'). The lower 'cross' of the Γ-field represents synonymy between active and passive verbal constructions. 2

1

I—R^O-R^O-R^Rß

The verb in the Γ-base behaves the same way in both transforms. The difference between the transforms, as in the upper and middle 'crosses', concerns the subject and the post-verbal constituent, which exchange syntactic roles in the transforms. > Inzener pokupaet kartinu 'The engineer buys the picture' Inzener pokupaet kartinu 'The engineer buys the picture' Kartina pokupaetsja inzenerom > 'The picture is bought by the engineer' Second-degree synonymy of the 'horizontal V type correlates verbal with correspond-

284

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

ing participial constructions : for example, the right-facing and left-facing 'horizontal Vs' represented in Figure 50. R¡0

KjO

RsRIO

R4RjO R,R4RiO

Fig 50

The right-facing 'horizontal V is formed by two transforms representing synonymy between active participial and verbal constructions. In both these transforms the subject of the Γ-base is transformed into itself. dd/IH· R.O-R.O-R^O

RiRiO-RiRiO-RsRtRzO

R2R2o_RIRIO_R^RAR2O

sneg, pokryvajuscij zemlju >- 'the snow covering the ground' maVcik, citajuscij knigu 'the boy reading a book' Sneg pokryvaet zemlju 'The snow covers the ground' MaVcik citaet knigu 'The boy reads a book' Sneg pokryvaet zemlju. y MaVcik citaet knigu. The left-facing 'horizontal V is formed by transforms which represent synonymy between participial and verbal constructions. What is common to both transforms is that the post-verbal constituent in the Γ-base is converted to the class R2R^R20. R2O-R,O-R,R2O

j—>

R5R20-R3R10-R2RAR20 R4R20_RIRI0_RZR^R20

285

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

zemlja, pokrytaja

snegom

> 'the ground covered with snow' kniga, citaemaja

marcikom

'the book being read by the boy' Sneg pokryvaet

zemlju

'The snow covers the ground' MaVâik

citaet

knigu

'The boy reads the book' Zemlja

pokryvaetsja

snegom

'The ground is being covered by snow' > Kniga citaetsja

maVcikom

'The book is being read by the boy' Second-degree synonymy of the 'trapezoid' type correlates verbal and participial constructions containing the same type of constituents. RzO

Rfi

(Cf. Figures 51, 52) RtR20

Fig 51

R Ω

Ri)

R

R Ω Ì

R Ω

R (1 R

R Π I

Λ,Ο-Λ,Ο-Λ,Λ,Ο

L^

^ O - R ^ O - R ^ R i O

WiO-RiRrO-RsRtRiO

0-RiRl0-R2RAR20

R2R2

The 'trapezoid' shown in Figure 51 contains a participial construction with constituents of the same type, and the 'trapezoid' shown in Figure 52 contains a similar verbal construction.

286

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

Fig 52

ssorjasciesja, sporjascie, rabotajuscie, igrajuscie brat i -> sestra 'the brother and sister who are quarrelling, arguing, working, playing' (The verbal forms are present active participles.) Brat ssoritsja, sporit, rabotaet, igraet s sestroj 'The brother quarrels, argues, works, plays with his sister' ' »• Brat ssoritsja, sporit, rabotajet, igraet s sestroj brat, ssorjascijsja, sporjascij, rabotajuscij, igrajuscij s ——sestroj 'the brother quarrelling, arguing, working, playing with his sister' Brat ssoritsja, sporit, rabotaet, igraet s sestroj Brat i sestra ssorjatsja, sporjat, rabotajut, igrajut »• 'The brother and sister quarrel, argue, work, play' Synonymy of third-degree remoteness of sentences within a Γ-field occurs when none of the three points in the transforms coincides, i.e. is measured as being three relators distant. In the graph of a Γ-field three-relator distance is represented by the figures 'butterfly', 'parallel lines', 'scissors', 'intersecting angles', 'parallel angles', etc. All these figures have not a single point in common. Let us interpret certain of them. Third-degree synonymy of the 'butterfly' type holds between nominalization and impersonal constructions (cf. Figure 53). R.O-R.O-R^O

L^

R a R 2 0

_

R í R í 0

^

r

^

R 2

0

287

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

Only the initial sentence in the Γ-field — the invariant R20-R10-RAR20 forms — is common to these transforms. R20

Rfi

of the trans-

RtR20

Fig 53

sneznye zanosy na doroge 'the snowdrifts on the road' > kolxoznoe proizvodstvo moloka 'the kolxoz production of milk' molocnoe proizvodstvo ν kolxoze 'milk production on the kolxoz' Sneg zanes dorogu 'The snow has blocked the road' Kolxoz proizvodit moloko 'The kolchoz produces milk' Snegom zaneslo dorogu (lit.) 'It has blocked the road with snow' > V kolxoze proizvodjat moloko (lit.) 'On the kolkhoz they (indef.) produce milk' Third degree synonymy of the 'crossed lines' type holds between the different nominal and predicative sentences examined above. Let us analyze as an example the group of transforms consisting of two symmetrical subclasses of 'parallel lines' (cf. Figure 54). In the sub-class of transforms represented by whole lines R20-Rl0-RiR20

288

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING R20

R¡0

R¿R20

R¡R2O

R,RJI¡0

R3R,0

R3RTR20

R2R2O

2R,R20

R^R2O

LR4R20

R+R4R2O

RTR20

Fig 54

the first transform represents the formation of active participial constructions, the second represents the formation of predicative constructions with agentive nominalization and the third represents the formation of passive verbal constructions.

Popov izobrel radio 'Popov invented radio'

Popov, izobretsij (iizobretsij = past Izobretatel' radio Popov' Radio izobreteno Popov*

radio 'Popov, who discovered radio' participle active) — Popov 'The inventor of radio was Popovym

'Radio was invented by

In the subclass of transforms represented by the dotted lines:

RZO-R^O-RTRZO

RSR20-R3R10-R2R4R20 R3R20-R2Rl0-R1R^R20 R2R20-R1R10-RAR4R20

The first represents the formation of active participial constructions, the second represents the formation of predicative constructions with a nominalization as the subject and the third represents the formation of active verbal constructions. —> radio, izobretennoe Popovym 'radio, invented by Popov' Popov izobrel radio —> Izobretenie Popova—radio 'Popov's invention was radio' 'Popov invented radio' —> Popov izobrel radio

289

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

Third-degree synonymy of the 'scissors' type exists between active participial constructions and predicative constructions with nominalized forms (right-diverging 'scissors') and also between passive participial constructions and predicative constructions with agentive nominalization (left-diverging 'scissors') (cf. Figure 55). R20

R¡0

R5R20

RtR20

R;RtR20

Fig. 55

Right-diverging 'scissors' : r20-Ri0-R>R20

2

r τ L-».

Λ

Λ η R1R20-R2R10-RÍRÍÍR20

Fleming, otkryvsij penicillin 'Fleming, who discovered penicillin' ——ν Inzener, pokupajuscij kartinu 'the engineer buying the picture' (iotkryvsij = past participle active) Fleming otkryl penicillin 'Fleming discovered penicillin' Iniener pokupaet kartinu 'The engineer buys the picture' otkrytie Fleminga — penicillin 'Fleming's discovery was penicillin' > pokupka inzenera — kartina (lit.) 'The engineer's purchase is a picture' Left-diverging 'scissors' : RiO-R^O-R^O

C

RsR20-RiRi0-R2R4.R20

290

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

penicillin, otkrytyj Flemingom >• 'penicillin, discovered by Fleming' kartina, pokupaemaja inzenerom 'the picture being bought by the engineer' Fleming otkryl penicillin 'Fleming discovered penicillin' Inzener pokupaet kartinu 'The engineer buys the picture' OtkryvateV penicillina — Fleming 'The discoverer of penicillin was Fleming' > PokupateV kartiny — inzener 'The buyer of the picture is the engineer' Third-degree synonymy of the 'intersecting angles' type holds between two nominal sentences with the same constituents (cf. Figure 56).

R,0

Rfi

R¡R20

Fig. 56

R

20-RÍO-R4R2O

I—R^O-RiRiO-R^R^O R2R2O-R3RI0-R2R,R2O

As in the other cases of third-degree synonymy not one pair of points coincides in either transform. The only thing common to both structures is the initial sentence — R20-R10-R4R20 — the operand of the Γ-fìeld :

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

291

> spor, ssora, rasstavanie muza i zeny 'the argument, quarrel, parting of the husband and wife' Muz sporit, ssoritsja, rasstaetsja s zenoj 'The husband quarrels, argues (with) parts (from) his wife' sporjascie, ssorjasciesja, rasstajusciesja muz i zena 'The husband and wife who are arguing, quarrelling, > parting' {sporjascie, etc. = present active participles) We shall not go into the interpretation of other cases of third-degree synonymy between sentences. It must be pointed out that no matter how 'distant' phrases may be from each other within the T-field, there is always some wider context in which they can be substituted for each other (cf. Figures 57, 58). For example :

Fig. 57

o sneznyx zanosax na doroge 'They report about the snow drifts on the road' Soobscajut (cto) snegom zaneslo dorogu 'They report that the road is blocked with snow' o ssore muza i zeny . . . , 'about the quarrel of the husband and wife' pis mo the letter „ o ssorjascixsja muze ι zene 'about the husband and wife who are quarrelling' When describing the structure of Γ-fields we did not give special attention to the case

292

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING R20

RFI

R

R4R20-R1RiR¡0-R2R4.R20 RAR20-RlR2Ri0-R2RAR20 R4R20^RiR3Rí0'R2RAR20

->

R^O-RiRsRiO^R^O

R20-R10-RAR20

As in the lower 'semi-cross' all the outer relators coincide. The difference is in the middle relators. This group of transforms represents different types of passive constructions, correlated with active constructions which act as the T-base of this group of transforms. -> 1. Delo rassmatrivaetsja sudom 'The case is examined by the court' Vopros obsuzdaetsja sovetom 'The question is discussed by the council' Sud rassmatrivaet delo 2. Delo naxoditsja na rassmotrenii ν sude 'The 'The court is examining case is under examination in court' the case' Vopros naxoditsja na obsuzdenii ν sovete 'The Sovet obsuzdaet vopros question is under discussion in the council' 3. Delo rassmotreno sudom 'The case has been 'The council is discussing the question' examined by the court' Vopros obsuzden sovetom 'The question has been discussed by the council' 4. 5. In all these transforms the subject and post-verbal constituents exchange syntactic roles in relation to the T-base. The difference lies in the structure of the predicate: in the first case the predicate is expressed by a reflexive verb; in the second by the modifier of a verb containing a noun formed from a verb ; in the third case by a passive participle. The least degree of remoteness also exists between the grammatical structures formed by the second 'cross-beam' of the lower 'cross' (cf. Figure 62). With m = 0 for the outer units and m = 1 for the middle unit the given subgraph generates the following five sentences.

THE APPLICATIONS. MODEL

R20

R,0

295

R4R20

Fig. 61 r2o

Rfl

R R

i i°

R2R7R2o

RaRTR^RÌO Fig. 62

R20-RÌ0-R4R20

R2R20-R1R1R10-RaR^R20 R2R20-R1R2R10-R^RiR20 RzR20-R1R3Rl0-RiR4.R20 R^O-RtRtRß-RtR^O R2R20-R1RsR10-RtRíiR20

All the outer relators in this group of transforms coincide with the outer relators in the word-classes of the operand. The only structural difference is in the middle unit RlR1R10.

296

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

On vlijaet na kritikov On ljubit zizrí

> 1 .On vlijaet na kritikov 'He influences the critics' On ljubit zizrí 'He loves life' > 2. On okazyvaet vlijanie na kritikov 'He has influence over the critics' On ispytyvaet ljubov' k zizni 'He feels a love for life' —*• 3. On vlijatelen sredi kritikov 'He is influential among the critics' On vljublen ν zizrí 'He is in love with life' * 4. — •> 5. —

In every case identical relations hold between the subjects and the post-verbal constituents in the transforms and in the Γ-base. The difference, as in the preceding group, lies in the structure of the predicate. This interpretation of separate transforms from a Γ-field of the n'h cycle shows how investigating synonymous structures by correlating them with Γ-fields higher in degree of derivation than the first degree, can lead to interesting results. In describing the three-component Γ-field we have by no means exhausted all the possible combinations of sub-graphs, nor did we describe exhaustively all the concrete realizations of these figures. For example, only one of twelve possible combinations of the 'fork' type was examined. We went into only two out of eight possible combinations of the 'trapezoid' type. Only two out of four combinations of the 'scissors' type were considered, and so on. An exhaustive description of all symmetrical groups of transforms can be the subject of a separate book. Our task here has been to show by a random selection from a three-component Γ-field that the degree of remoteness between phrases and sentences is determined by the structure of the Γ-field. Thus, for a three-component Γ-field there are three degrees of remoteness between sentences (plus the null degree) ; for a four-unit Γ-field there are, quite naturally, four degrees (plus the null one); For each ^-component Γ-fìeld there are k degrees (plus the null one) of remoteness between grammatical structures. Subsuming the concept of grammatical synonymy under the concept of a Γ-field makes it possible to construct a hierarchy of grammatical synonyms based on their distance from the dominating (basic) syntagma of a group, i.e. the phrase which is the realization of the Γ-base. In each Γ-field with a connected Γ-base (semi-bound and bound Γ-field) there must be a transform identical with the Γ-base. An identity transformation on the Tbase is considered to be one in which the outer relators of the Γ-base and the transform coincide. (Identity in this case is understood as meaning that the words of the Γ-base and the transform belongs to the same i?-classes: For example, the words R^O, RxRiO and RlR1R10 belong to the same class R^X.) For the above three-component

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

297

Γ-field of the first cycle, such a transform of the 7-base R20-Rl0-R4tR20 is R2R20RlR10-RiRiR20. For a three-component Γ-field of the n'h cycle such a transform is R2R"R20~R1R1'R10^R4R'['RiR20. The sub-graph of the Γ-field which represents the identity transformation on the Γ-base can be considered as a 'reference line' for the remoteness of phrases from the dominating phrase. Distance from the 'reference line' is also measured in terms of non-coincident relators. In a three-component Tfield one, two or three relators may be non-coincident. Correspondingly there may be three degrees of remoteness of structures from the dominating phrase. It is reasonable to talk about null degree of remoteness from the dominating phrase (i.e., about actual coincidence with it) when a group of synonyms is being correlated with a Γ-field whose degree of derivation is greater than one: On vlijaet na nas 'He influences us' On okazyvaet vlijanie na nas 'He exercises an influence on us'; Oni rabotajut ν pole 'They are working in the field' -+ Oni na rabote ν pole 'They are at work in the field'. The first degree of remoteness from the 'reference line' characterizes two transforms which have one branch in common. Thus the first degree of remoteness from the dominating phrase is characteristic of constructions without a subject. Voda zalivaet luga 'The water floods the meadows' -> Vodoj zalivaet luga (lit.) '"It" floods the meadows with water'; Sud rassmatrivaet delo 'The court examines the case' Νa sude rassmatrivajut delo (lit.) ' "They" consider the case in court' ; Rajon otstal ot plana 'The region has fallen behind with the plan' -> V rajone otstavanie ot plana (lit.) 'In the region there is a falling behind with the plan'. In addition, the first degree of remoteness from the dominating phrase is characteristic of constructions with two subjects: A peresekaetsja s Β 'A intersects with 5 ' -* A i Β peresekajutsja Ά and Β intersect' ; Brat ne ladit s sestroj 'The brother does not get on with his sister' -> Brat i sestra ne ν ladax 'The brother and sister do not get on'; Ivanov poznakomilsja s Petrovym 'Ivanov made the acquaitance of Petrov' Ivanov i Petrov znakomy 'Ivanov and Petrov are acquainted'. The second degree of remoteness from the dominating phrase characterizes corresponding passive constructions. Transforms representing passive constructions have one point in common with the 'reference line'; Rabocie strojat dom 'The workers are building a house' Dom stroitsja rabocimi Ά house is being built by the workers'; Ja podozrevaju ego Ί suspect him' -* On na podozrenii u menja 'He is suspected by me' ; Zavod vypuskaet produkciju 'The factory turns out goods' -* Zavodskajaprodukcija vypuskaetsja 'Factory goods are turned out'. The second degree of remoteness from the dominating phrase also characterizes an active participial construction or one containing an adjective derived from a verb. The corresponding transform has one point in common with the 'reference line'. Celovek preziraet opasnost' 'Man scorns danger' celovek, prezirajuscij opasnost' 'man, scorning danger'; MaVcik pocitaet starsix 'The boy respects his elders' -> maVcik, poctiteVnyj k starsim 'the boy, respectful towards his elders'. The remaining structures in the Γ-field have no point in common with the 'reference

298

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

line' i.e. are at the greatest distance from the Γ-base. For a three-component Γfield the greatest distance a phrase can be from the Γ-base is three-relators. Since we cannot go into more details about the hierarchy of grammatical synonyms, let us simply note that not all lexical invariants can occur on all three degrees of the hierarchy (including the null one), and that as the distance from the dominating phrase increases, the number of synonymous structures usually increases as well. As we have tried to show, the hierarchy of grammatical synonyms within a Γ-field is determined by the latter's structure. Thus, for each ¿-component Γ-field a hierarchy is set up with fc-degrees of remoteness from the dominating phrase in the group of synonyms.

GENERAL STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF TRANSFORMS AND SYMMETRICAL GROUPS OF SYNONYMS.

Having analyzed the structure of a Γ-field with respect to similarities and differences between transforms, we can make certain general conclusions about the general structural properties of transforms. What attracts our attention is the fact that transforms which are 'symmetrical' in relation to each other in the graph of the Γ-field have symmetrical linguistic structure. For example, each of the synonyms included in the 'rhombus' structure (cf. Figure 48) has constituents of the same type — nouns. In the pair of 'intersecting angles' synonyms (cf. Figure 47) one of the transforms represents a noun construction with heads of the same type and one general modifier; the other represents a noun construction with two modifiers of the same type and one general head. In the pair of 'butterfly' synonyms (cf. Figure 53) each transform has two dependent constituents of different types belonging to identical Λ-classes of words, and so on. If a pair of synonyms are mirror images of each other they represent opposite constructions. Thus, for example, the 'crossbeams' of the 'upper cross' represent synonymy between active and passive participial constructions. The 'crossbeams' of the 'middle cross' represent various types of nominalization. The 'crossbeams' of the 'lower cross' represent synonymy between active and passive verbal constructions (cf. Figure 49). One can also speak about groups of synonyms which are symmetrical in relation to each other. Such groups are represented by symmetrical 'horizontal V (cf. Figure 50), 'crosses' (cf. Figure 49), 'parallel lines' (cf. Figure 54), 'scissors' (cf. Figure 55), 'trapezoids' (cf. Figures 51, 52) and so on. Symmetry between two 'horizontal V is realized linguistically in that each of them represents synonymy between verbal and participial constructions. Symmetry between two trapezoids is realized in the fact that each contains a verbal and a corresponding participial construction ; in one 'trapezoid' the constituents of identical type are verbs, in the other participles. Symmetry between 'parallel lines' is realized in the fact that each group contains a participial construction, a verbal construction, and a construc-

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

299

tion with a nominalized subject. Symmetry between 'crosses' is realized in the fact that in each the subject and the post-verbal constituent of the operand exchange syntactic roles. An interesting point is that groups of symmetrical synonyms which are mirrorimages of each other contain directly opposed constructions. Thus, all right-diverging figures ('angles', 'horizontal V\ 'scissors') contain active verbal or participial constructions. Their left-diverging mirror-images contain passive constructions with verbs or participles. In this way the application of Γ-field to the analysis of grammatical structures reveals correlations which would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

GRAMMATICAL A N D LEXICAL SYNONYMY : M O D E L L I N G SITUATIONS

There is a valid relation between semantic sets of words and the figures in the Γ-field which organize them into synonymous groups. For example, figures of the 'rhombus', 'trapezoid','intersecting angles'type (cf. Figures 48, 51, 52, 47) are characteristic of synonymous construction based on intrasitive verbs denoting reciprocal or joint action (sporit' 'argue'; voevat' 'wage war'; rugat'sja 'swear'; ssorWsja 'quarrel'; celovat 'sja 'kiss' ; obnimat 'sja 'embrace each other' ; peresekat 'sja 'intersect' ; sovpadat ' 'coincide'; vstrecat'sja 'meet') and of pairs of nouns, either both animate or both inanimate. Figures of the 'middle cross', 'parallel lines', 'scissors' type (cf. Figures 49, 54, 55) are characteristic of transitive verbs denoting the action of acquiring or inventing (lovit' 'catch'; kupit' 'buy'; priobresti 'acquire'; otkryt' 'discover'; izobresti 'invent'; zavoevat' 'conquer, win') which can at the same time form nouns denoting the actor and the object of the action: lovec 'fisherman' ulov 'catch of fish, etc.'; pokupateV 'purchaser' -> pokupka'purchase';priobretateV'acquirer' —• priobretenie 'acquisition'. Figures of the 'lower fork', 'lower cross' type (cf. Figures 45, 50) are characteristic in particular of phrases containing verbs denoting actions which bring about a change in the object (ubit' 'kill'; isportit' 'spoil'; stomal' 'break' ; snesti 'raze' ; razmyt' 'erode' ; zalit' 'flood') and are used with inanimate nouns denoting the elements or things capable of causing some elemental upheaval (tuca 'storm cloud'; molnija 'lightning'; grom 'thunder'; veter 'wind'; liven'' 'downpour'; grad 'hail'; vojna 'war'; snarjad 'shell'; uragan 'hurricane'; potop 'flood', etc.). In other words, the structure of a group of grammatical synonyms represented by the corresponding degeneration of the Γ-field, is determined by semantic sets of words. The correlation holding between sets of words and the figures in the Γ-field which organize them into groups of synonyms allows us to consider one or other set of figures as a set of grammatical distinctive features which serve as the invariant of the corresponding semantic sets of words. Thus, the Γ-field in the applicational generative model serves as the necessary formal apparatus for investigating both grammatical synonymy and semantic sets

300

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

of words, i.e. lexical synonymy in the broadest sense. Grammatical and lexical synonyms differ in what is considered invariant and what variant. In an investigation of grammatical synonyms lexical items are considered invariant and grammatical items variant; in an investigation of lexical synonyms the opposite is true : grammatical items are considered invariant and lexical items variant. If invariability is denoted by + and variability by —, the contrast of grammatical and lexical synonyms (in the broadest sense) can be represented as follows. Lexical items

Grammatical items Grammatical synonymy Lexical synonymy

+

—

+

—

The figures in the Γ-field which are the invariants of definite word-classes and are interpreted in definite groups of synonyms represent semantic microsystems, each of which corresponds to a definite degeneration of the Γ-field. Each such semantic microsystem corresponds to a certain situation which is also represented by a corresponding degeneration of the Γ-field in the sense that it remains identical for any figure from the given degeneration of the Γ-field. It follows from this that if to a Γ-base describing some situation we apply transformations from the corresponding degeneration of the Γ-field, we automatically obtain phrases describing the same situation. T w o LEVELS OF GRAMMATICAL SYNONYMY

The structure of the Γ-field examined above and the hierarchy of grammatical structures on the one hand broaden our idea of grammatical synonymy, and on the other hand narrow it by limiting all the above types of grammatical synonyms to the Γ-field of some Γ-base. Our investigation has not taken in very common cases which are usually considered syntactic synonyms. These are cases like mirnaja politika and politika mira 'peaceful policy' 'policy of peace' ; Ne priSel po bolezni Ne prise! iz-za bolezni 'Did not come because of his illness' -» 'Did not come on account of his illness'. We have not discussed types of morphological synonymy such as pokupscik — pokupateV 'buyer' ; bolturíja — boltuska 'chatterbox'. Syntagmas like politika mira — mirnaja politika·, Sel lesom — sel cerez les 'went by way of the wood' — 'went through the wood' have not been included in our analysis because in the model they are not considered transforms. They are not contrasted with different (invariant) phrases but with one and the same phrase, as equally valid interpretations of it. I mirnaja politika

R3R20-R20

, politika mira

I sel lesom

R10-R^R20

1 sel cerez les

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

301

Cases such as pokupscik — pokupateV are given an analogous interpretation, i.e., are considered equally valid realizations of the one-component phrase i

Ri O

pokupscik

J

pokupateV

In this way the applicational generative model succeeds in revealing the heterogeneous nature of such linguistic categories as grammatical synonymy, and in separating genotype synonymy, inherent in the inner structure of language, from phenotype synonymy which appears when the model is interpreted. Investigating grammatical synonymy via the properties of Γ-fields enables us to order grammatical structures by creating a hierarchy of such structures, and also broadens our conception of this linguistic category, extending it to take in cases which earlier remained unnoticed by scholars. The explanation also shows that distance between linguistic structures can be measured not by statistical but by purely structural methods. The basis of structural linguistics is the principle of hierarchy, and a hierarchy, being deterministic, is opposed to statistical methods. All that has been said supports the well-known argument that structural linguistics must use deterministic methods and not probability theory.

CONCLUSIONS

The formal apparatus of the applicational generative model can be used for investigating both grammatical and lexical synonymy. Correlating a group of grammatical synonyms with a transformational field of the applicational generative model enables us (a) to compute synonymous phrases; (b) to formalize the notions 'invariant of grammatical synonyms' and 'dominating phrase' in a group of grammatical synonyms; (c) to study the structure of groups of grammatical synonyms; and (d) to set up a hierarchy of grammatical synonyms based on their distance from the dominating phrase.

5.10 THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL AND THE PROBLEM OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LANGUAGE A N D THOUGHT

Miller, Galanter, and Pribram devote a special chapter in their book Plans and Structure of Behavior to investigating analogies between the structure of language and the structure of human behavior and thought. 28 Noting the presence of crucial analogies between the structure of language and the structure of human behavior and thought, the authors say: 28

G. Miller, E. Galanter, Κ. Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior (New York, 1960).

302

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

A study of grammatical systems is a particularly interesting way to approach the study of human plans. The material is plentiful and relatively limited in type, it is easily described in writing, several alternative theories (that is, grammars) can be compared, reasonable intuitive agreement can be reached about acceptable and unacceptable sequences of responses, etc. With all these advantages, the scientific description of verbal behaviour (by linguists, of course, not by psychologists) is far advanced over any other area of behavioral description and so provides a glimpse of what other behavioral theories may look like eventually. Karl Lashley once remarked: "I have devoted so much time to discussion of the problem of syntax not only because language is one of the most important products of human cerebral action, but also because the problems raised by the organization of language seem to me to be characteristic of almost all other cerebral activity. There is a series of hierarchies of organization ; the order of vocal movements in pronouncing the word, the order of words in the sentence, the order of sentences in the paragraph, the rational order of paragraphs in a discourse. Not only speech, but all skilled acts seem to involve the same problem of serial ordering, even down to the temporal coordination of muscular contractions in such a movement as reaching and grasping. Analysis of the nervous mechanisms underlying order in the more primitive acts may contribute ultimately to the solution of even the physiology of logic".29 "This raises the question of whether Lashley, or the present authors, would endorse the ancient argument that the laws of grammar are the laws of thought, and whether they would support the more modern version advanced by Benjamin Lee Whorf, who wrote that "... the forms of a person's thoughts are controlled by inexorable laws of pattern of which he is unconscious. These patterns are the unperceived intricate systematizations of his own language — shown readily enough by a candid comparison and contrast with other languages, especially those of a different linguistic family". 30 The question raises issues that extend far beyond the proper bounds of this discussion, but perhaps it is possible to clarify the situation somewhat by saying that the position advocated here does not commit the authors one way or the other with respect to the Whorfian hypothesis. It is not only English grammar that is built around hierarchical plans and their various transformations — the grammar of every language is constructed in that way, so a speaker's thought processes cannot be in any way unique on that account. Moreover, if the speculations of the present authors are correct, nearly all of man's behavior is similarly organized. We might speak metaphorically of a general grammar of behavior, meaning that the grammar of a language was only one example of a general pattern of control that could be exemplified in many other realms of behavior. But to say that the formal structure of the laws of grammar is similar to the structure of the laws of thought is very different from saying that the laws of grammar are the laws of thought ; or that your thought must remain forever shackled to the conjugations and declensions of your native tongue." 31 What stands out in this statement is the assertion that it is possible to talk metaphorically about a 'general grammar of behavior' and that grammatical laws are similar in formal structure to the laws of thought. To this assertion we may add that thought is essentially a 'black box' (as understood in cybernetics), which cannot be directly investigated but whose mechanism can be made known through knowledge of the 29

Karl S. Lashley: "The Problem of Serial Order in Behavior", in Lloyd A. Jeffress (ed.) Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior, The Hixon Symposium (New York, Wiley, 1951), pp. 121-122. 30 B. L. Whorf, in Language, Thought and Reality, ed. by J. B. Carroll (New York, Wiley and the Technology Press, 1956), p. 252. 31 G. Miller, E. Galanter, Κ. Pribram, op. cit.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

laws of language, since t h e laws of g r a m m a r are similar t o the laws of t h o u g h t .

303 From

this p o i n t of view it is possible t o say t h a t in modelling linguistic processes we a r e in a certain sense modelling t h o u g h t processes. Of course, it is i m p o r t a n t t o r e m e m b e r that, although t h e laws of g r a m m a r a n d the laws of t h o u g h t are similar, they are n o t identical. An essential f e a t u r e of language, as of all h u m a n behavior, is the hierarchic organization of its elements. T h e a u t h o r s of the a b o v e b o o k use the term ' p l a n ' in t h e sense 'hierarchical organization of behavior'.

"A plan is any hierarchically constructed

process in an organism which is capable of controlling the order in which any sequence of operations is t o be carried out". 3 2 W h e n talking a b o u t a plan, i.e., a b o u t hierarchical organization, in connection with linguistic p h e n o m e n a , t h e a u t h o r s consider three models of generative g r a m m a r : the finite state, constituent-structure a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l models, basing their a p p r o a c h on C h o m s k y ' s own w o r k , a n d o n his articles written in collaboration with G . Miller. In their examination of the finite state model, the a u t h o r s d r a w attention to the fact that if we accept this m o d e l as an a d e q u a t e hypothesis a b o u t the f u n c t i o n i n g of language, we shall have t o allow the existence of psychological processes which must be considered u n n a t u r a l when c o m p a r e d with the possibilities of the h u m a n brain. H e r e is w h a t they write concerning this p o i n t : Suppose that we would like to learn how to generate and recognize all grammatical sentences up to some fixed length, say, twenty words. Information theorists tell us that English sentences carry about five bits per word on the average, 33 so we can guess that there must be 2100 d i f f e r e n t strings twenty words long that we should learn how to cope with. It seems reasonable to assume that each of these 2 1 0 0 different sequences would leave the system in a different internal state. In order to incorporate the ability to generate a particular one of these strings of words into our planner — to create one of the 2 1 0 0 different internal states that would be required — the planner would have to hear the string at least once. That is t o say, our left-to-right generator has no grammatical rules other than the rules that say, "Having produced the words X up to this point; you must choose your continuation from the set Y. In order for a child to learn all the rules of this left-to-right variety that could be required for the generation of perfectly acceptable sentences of twenty words or less, he would have to hear the rule, or hear instances of it from which the rule could be derived. Thus there seems to be no alternative but to insist that a child must hear 2 1 0 0 sentences before he can speak and understand English. That is about IO 3 0 sentences. In order to appreciate how ridiculous this condition is, recall the fact that there are about 3.15 x l O 9 seconds per century: In short, the child would have to hear about 3 x l O 2 0 sentences per second in order to be exposed to all the information necessary for the planner to produce sentences according to these left-to-right rules of grammar, and that is on the assumption of a childhood 100 years long with no interruption for sleeping, eating, etc., and perfect reten32

Ibid. This is an established evaluation based on data which Shannon collected on letters. Cf. C. E. Shannon, "Prediction and Entropy of Printed English", Bell System Technical Journal, N o . 30 (1951), pp. 50-64. Reproduced in N . G. Burton, T. C. R. Licklider: "Long range constraints in the statistical structure of printed English", American Journal of Psychology, N o . 68 (1955), pp. 650-653. 38

304

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

tion of every string of 20 words after one presentation! Just a little calculation will convince anyone that the number of internal states needed in a left-to-right system explodes before the system is capable of dealing with anything as complicated as a natural language, and that some other kind of sentence generator must be used.34 Another reason for not accepting the hypothesis of the finite state model is that the latter, working 'from left to right' can generate constructions with nested dependencies only if it has an infinitely large memory, i.e. an infinitely large number of internal states. But it is impossible to allow that such a biological system as the human brain has an infinitely large memory. From this point of view, therefore, the constituentstructure model is in practice incapable of generating certain types of sentence. Since the constituent structure model generates sentences 'from the inside out', so to speak, it has no difficulties with nested dependencies, and therefore does not need an infinitely large memory. Following Chomsky, the authors assume that the constituent structure model must be supplemented by a transformational model, and that both these models must be parts of the single model which Chomsky calls transformational grammar. Yngve's hypothesis is noteworthy for its investigation of the constituent structure model in relation to the capacity of the human memory. We shall not discuss it here.35 It is interesting to continue the line of thought begun by these scholars and see what the applicational model has to offer in the way of modelling the structure of thought. It goes without saying that at present one can make only the most general, preliminary, speculative statements concerning this. However, it is useful to examine them as a sort of guideline for future investigations. It is possible to assert that the applicational model models two essential laws of the structure of thought. The first may be called the conversion law : It may be formulated thus : the forms of the conceptual apparatus of thought can be transformed into each other according to the conversion scheme of generation in such a way that each object of reality may be mirrored by several equivalent forms. The facts touched on by the conversion law have been mentioned time after time in writings on linguistics or logic. These facts are directly related to the use of language as a tool for the cognition of reality. In this connection the following remarks by Reichenbach are interesting. Explaining the logical treatment of individuals, he writes : Apart from space-time points and areas, the individuals so far considered are all of the thingtype·, they are, like the human body, aggregates of matter keeping together for a certain time. In the theory of relativity modern physics has introduced individuals of another kind, which 34

G. Miller, E. Galanter, Κ. Pribram, op. cit. " Cf. V. Yngve, "A Model and Hypothesis for Language Structure" Proceedings of American Philosophical Society, CIV, No. 5 (1960), Cf. the criticisms of Yngve's hypothesis in G. Miller, N. Chomsky, "Finitary Models of Language Users", in Luce, Bush, Galanter (eds.): Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, II (New York, 1963).

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

305

are of the event type, i.e., which are space-time coincidences and do not endure. A thing is then considered a class of events. For physics, events are more fundamental units than things. An analysis shows that the distinction between these two types of individuals is also made in conversational language, and that language has developed forms of speech for both kinds of arguments. The reason is that sometimes events are important units also for the purposes of daily life. A coronation, an assassination, and earthquake, an automobile accident, are events, not things; but language contains designations of such events and uses them as arguments of sentences. Such designations are mostly individual-descriptions, not proper names. Thus we say: 'the coronation of George VI took place at Westminster Abbey', or 'the earthquake was followed by the explosion of the factory'. The latter sentence formulates a two-term relation between two events; the former, a two-term relation between an event and a thing. Now it is frequently possible to eliminate event arguments. Our first sentence, for instance, can be stated in the equivalent form: 'George VI was crowned at Westminster Abbey'. Similarly, the second sentence can be transformed into: 'the earth shook at a time t1 and the factory exploded at a time t2, and t2 > t¡\ We see that only in the first example eventarguments have disappeared; in the second, although the original event arguments are eliminated, we have new event arguments in the symbols 't2' and since time points are events (or rather, classes of simultaneous events). There are some relations which can be formulated only as relations between events, such as time sequence; therefore event designations cannot be entirely eliminated in such sentences. Another important example of a relation between events is causality. We have used the term situation to designate the object corresponding to a proposition. By describing a situation in a proposition composed of function and argument we split the situation into argument-object and predicate-object (or property). Our preceding discussion shows that there are two ways of splitting a situation; we distinguish these ways as thingsplitting and event-splitting. Between the corresponding propositions we then have a tautological equivalence .... 36 Although the facts of equivalent transformations in language have long been known and have been described from various standpoints in works on linguistics and logic, there is not a single linguistic model in which these facts have been reduced to a law controlling the functioning of that model. In the applicational model the above conversion law is embodied in the conversion schema of generation which is the nervecenter of the model. The functioning of the conversion schema of generation is guaranteed by the application of different relators, which occur in all four generators in the most varied combinations. The second law may be called the law of cycles. It can be formulated thus: the forms of the conceptual apparatus of thought constitute a hierarchic system which is generated from the primitive forms by successive cycles of transformations, converting one form into another. For example, let us consider the noun as a class of words. This class of words cannot be considered homogeneous. O n the one hand, it includes such words as table, house, river, which are nouns in the proper sense of the word, i.e. are nouns generated on the first cycle of the word generator. But the words whiteness or singing are contradictory in morphemic content: the "

H. Reichenbach, Elements of Symbolic Logic (New York, 1947), pp. 267-268.

306

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

grammatical morphemes in them indicate the class of nouns, but their lexical morphemes indicate that the first word belongs to the class of adjectives and the second to the class of verbs. But these are syncretic words which should be considered as nouns generated on the second cycle of the word generator. Let us take the example examined in the above passage from Reichenbach. 1. The coronation of George VI took place at Westminster Abbey. 2. George VI was crowned at Westminster Abbey. Reichenbach determines an equivalence between the propositions. But this is not enough: the hierarchic correlation of the propositions must be explained as well. Reichenbach considers the second clause a transform of the first, but from the standpoint of the applicational model the reverse holds. After all, the word coronation is the result of three cycles of the word-generator. The first cycle produces crown, the second — was crowned, and not until the third does coronation appear. It must be emphasized that these facts in themselves are not new — but it is one thing to take note of some facts and phenomena of reality and quite another to deduce the essential consequences from these empirical observations and organize them into a system. What is fundamentally new in the applicational model is that the above laws are at the heart of its structure. 5.11 THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL AS A POSSIBLE META-LANGUAGE IN STRUCTURAL TYPOLOGY

The applicational model can be used as a possible meta-language for structural typology. First of all we may study how interpretations of the abstract model differ quantitatively and qualitatively in different languages. In different languages a different number of grammatical objects may correspond to one and the same Λ-symbol. For example, five grammatical objects correspond to the symbol RAR20 in Russian — the dative, accusative, instrumental, and prepositional cases, and adverbs formed from nouns: whereas in English, in an equally detailed interpretation, only two grammatical objects correspond to this symbol — the general case of the noun and adverbs formed from nouns. The opposite is true of R2RyO in English, where more grammatical objects correspond to it than in Russian. The qualitative peculiarities of interpretation are obvious from the uniqueness of grammatical objects in different languages. In addition, these qualitative peculiarities may be conditioned not only by a difference in the grammatical objects corresponding to the i?-symbols but also by the interpretation of each Ä-formula as a whole. For example, the formula R20-Ri0-RAR20 may be interpreted as voda zalivaet luga 'the water floods the meadows' or luga zalivajutsja vodoj 'the meadows are flooded by the water', since the difference between active and passive mood is eliminated on the abstract level. Therefore the transformation R20-R10-R^R20

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

307

R4R20 — RxRiO — R2R¿R20 can equally well model a change in construction from active to passive, and from passive to active. Which member of the pair is derived depends on the structure of the actual language. Thus, in Russian, English, and other Indo-European languages the initial construction is active, i.e. corresponds to the formula R20-Rl0-R^R20, but in other languages, Indonesian for example, the initial construction is passive, and the active construction corresponds to the formula RArR20-RlR10-R2RAR20. The transformations computed in this model are realized in one or more languages. For example, the nominalization transformation: R20-R10-RiR20 RzR20~ R2{R\0~R4R20) 'he came h o m e ' - > ' h i s coming home'; on prise! domoj -* ego prixod domoj (Russ.); (On) przyszedl do domu -» jego przyjscie do domu (Pol.). Or the transformation, R^-R^-R^O -» R2RiR20-Ri(R2R10-R3R20): 'He won 10 pounds' '10 pounds is his win'; On vyigral 10 rublej -> ego vyigrys 10 rublej (Russ); On wygral 10 zlotych -> 10 zlotych jego wygrana (Pol.). Or the transformation R20-R10-R^R20 -»· / ? 2 Ä 2 0 - / ? 1 ( Ä 2 Ä 1 0 - Ä 3 Ä 4 Ä 2 0 ) : 'he works at the office' 'he is a worker at the office' ; on rabotaet ν bjuro -> on rabotnik bjuro (Russ); onpracuje w biurze on jest pracownikiem biura (Pol.). However, in different languages each abstract transformation is split in a different number of different ways. Cf., on prise1 domoj -* ego prixod domoj and 'He came home'

'his coming home' J 'his homecoming'

or : on rabot aet ν bjuro -> on rabotnik bjuro, but 'He works in the office'

'He is a worker at the office' 'He is an office worker'

Moreover, each abstract transformation is not equally realized in different languages, i.e. the degree of deviation from the abstract norm is different in different languages. This is reflected in the fact that in different languages each Ä-level transformation subdivides the word classes corresponding to it in different ways. For example, in Russian the nominalization transformation R20-R,0-R4R20 -> R3R20-R2Rl0R3R4.R2O marks off such verbs as imef 'have', brat' 'take', pit' 'drink', kusat' 'eat', etc. which do not undergo this transformation : koska p^ët moloko 'the cat drinks the milk' ++ *pWë koskoj moloka 'the drinking of the milk by the cat'. The transformation RiO-RiO-R+RiO Ä 2 i? 2 0-Ä 1 (7? 2 Ä 1 0-Ä 3 Ä 4 Ä 2 0) marks off such verbs as :dat' 'wait', upovat' 'hope', nadejafsja 'hope', imet' 'have', brat' 'take', etc., which are not affected by it. But in Estonian, Polish and Czech, where actor-action nominalizing suffixes combine freely with any verb, 37 such subdivisions do not occur. It is possible to give a quantitative evaluation of the degree to which one or other "

1.1. Revzin. Modeli jazyka (Moscow, 1962).

308

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

language deviates from the abstract model. Thus, if we calculate how many out of a reasonable selection of words correspond to one or other abstract formula, and how many do not, the relation between the two totals determines the coefficient of deviation. The coefficient can have a value ranging from zero to one. Thus, for Estonian the degree of derivation from the last two abstract formulae is close to zero. If we compare English and Russian according to the scope of the passive transformation, the coefficient of deviation will be higher for Russian than for English, since in the latter the passive form extends to the indirect object. If not one of the selected words corresponds to one or other abstract formula, the degree of deivation for the given language is the greatest — i.e. the coefficient is equal to one. Thus, for English and Russian the coefficient of deviation from the abstract formula of the impersonal transformation is equal to one: veter razognal tuci 'the wind scattered the clouds' -» tuci razognalo vetrom (lit.) 'the clouds it scattered by wind'; Wiatr rozpçdzil chmury — chmury rozpçdzilo wiatrem (Pol.). From now on we can accept the applicational model as one of the possible metalanguages for systematically investigating the structural typology of languages. Such investigations will be interesting in that typological studies will be carried out on the basis of deductive systematization and not of empirical generalization of facts common to the world's languages. Especially interesting will be the typological study of transformations. The calculus of transformations, as presented in the applicational generative model, seems at first glance too abstract and therefore too far removed from the linguistic reality of actual languages. However paradoxical this may seem, it is in this high degree of abstractness that the strength of the transformation calculus lies. Thus the applicational generative model guarantees a formal criterion for combining transforms into invariant groups. For example, the transforms noe', osvescennaja zvezdami 'night, lit by stars' and noe', svetlaja ot zvezd 'night, bright with stars' from the operand zvezdy svetjat noc'ju 'the stars shine at night' are variants of each other, since they correspond to one and the same /^-formula, R2RAR20-R3Ri0-R4R20. The same thing holds for the transforms which correspond to another Ä-formula, 0-R3R¿R20 — nocnoj svet zvezd 'the nocturnal light of the stars', svet zvezd noc'ju 'the light of the stars at night', zvezdnyj svet noci 'the starry light of the night' noc'ju svet ot zvezd 'at night there is light from the stars'. Let us take the transformation : 1. R20-R10-R4R20

->

R4R20-RlR10-R2R4,R20

This formula models such apparently different transformations as: Voda zalivaet luga -* luga zalivajutsja vodoj 'the water floods the meadows' -> 'the meadows are flooded by the water'; rabota imeet nedostatki —• ν rabote imejutsja nedostatki 'the work contains faults' 'faults are contained in the work'; veter rassypal list''ja list'ja rassypalis' ot vetra 'the wind scattered the leaves' -> 'the leaves were scattered by the wind'; zvezdy svetjat noc'ju -> noe' svetitsja zvezdami 'stars shine at night' -*

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

309

'the night shines with stars' ; brat ssoritsja s sestroj -» sestra ssoritsja s bratom 'the brother quarrels with his sister' 'the sister quarrels with her brother'; utro veet proxladoj -* proxlada veet utrom 'the morning smells of coolness' -> 'the coolness smells of morning'. However, this very fact reveals the deep invariant relations between the constructions. In actual fact, although these constructions are outwardly different, they have something in common — the fact that the subject and the post-verbal constituent change roles syntactically. It is this fact which is crucial for these constructions. Let us proceed further. The structure of such transformations as: 2. R20-R10-R4R20

R^O-RyRjRß-RjR^O

sud rassmotrel delo -> deìo bylo na rassmotrenii ν sude 'the court examined the case' -* 'the case was under examination in the court' and 3. R z O - R ß - R t R i O -*• J ? 4 Ä 2 0 - Ä 1 Ä 3 i ? 1 0 - Ä 2 Ä 4 Ä 2 0 sud rassmotrel delo -> delo bylo rassmotreno ν sude 'the court examined the case' 'the case was examined in the court' shows that these transformations are very close to the ones described above : in all three transformations a still more abstract invariant can be found — the subject and the post-verbal constituent change roles syntactically. The second and third differ from the first in that their predicates also undergo definite transformations. Existing grammars of Russian mention that the first and third transformations are related but do not recognize the relation between these and transformations of the second type. It must be emphasized that these invariant relations were not discovered empirically but by constructing calculi of transformations. The applicational generative model further allows us to arrange transformations in a hierarchy containing transforms of the first, second, ... nth degree. For example, the transforms nocnoj svet zvezd 'noctural light of the stars', hoc' svetitsja zvezdami 'the night shines with stars', zvezdy, svetjascie noc'ju 'stars shining at night', noe' svetlaja ot zvezd 'night bright with stars', noc\ osvescennaja zvezdami 'night lit by stars' are first degree transforms from the Γ-base zvezdy svetjat noc'ju 'the stars shine at night'. The transforms noe' byla svetloj ot zvezd 'the night was bright with stars', zvezdy èto svet ν noci 'the stars are (our) light during the night', noe' vysvecena zvezdami 'the night is sprinkled with stars', zvezdy—nocnoj svet 'stars are nocturnal light', etc. are second-degree transforms from the same Γ-base. In this way the abstract calculus leads one on, pointing to facts which would have gone unnoticed without its help. Examples of the heuristic power of the abstract calculus were seen in the preceding sections where unexpected relations were established between syntactic constructions, and a hierarchy of constructions was set up. It must be pointed out that although we begin investigating the structure of language on a very abstract level in the applicational generative model, it is fully possible to come down to concrete levels in successive steps by splitting the abstract symbols.

310

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS A N D PHONOLOGICAL CODING

For example, in the section devoted to the general empirical interpretation of the calculus of transformations, the symbol R4R20 is split into only two grammatical objects — a noun in an oblique case and an adverb formed from a noun. However, in the following section, devoted to a systematic interpretation of the calculus of transformations, this symbol is put in correspondence with the meanings of all the individual oblique cases and even with individual sequences of preposition and oblique case. In conclusion we shall say a few words about the directionality of transformations. The directionality of transformations is conditioned by the order in which the Rimages of classes are generated. If we consider that R2R30 belizna 'whiteness' is derived from R30 belyj 'white' ,and R3R20 snèga 'snow' (gen. case) is derived from R20 (sneg 'snow'), then we must consider belizna snega 'the whiteness of the snow' as derived from belyj sneg 'the white snow'. A transformation is simply an operation which projects complexes of classes onto complexes of i?-images of these classes. Several difficulties crop up in connection with the directionality of transformations. Why, for example, should brat ssoritsja s sestroj 'the brother quarrels with his sister' be considered a transform of sestra ssoritsja s bratom 'the sister quarrels with her brother', and not vice-versa? We should notice concerning such cases that what is important is not what is primary or secondary but the polarity of the constructions. Starting from the general principle of system which requires that transformations be regarded as directed, we can agree to take any of these constructions as the initial one. Such cases cannot undermine the general principle of directionality underlying the generation of transforms. Typological investigations involve the task of finding universal restrictions on the functioning of the word and phrase generations. Although the word generator has an infinite number of cycles on the mathematical plane, and although the phrase generator can generate sentences of infinite length, the number of cycles is limited to three or four in actual languages, and sentences are finite in length. These restrictions should be considered linguistic universals. Our task is to look for these universale in a systematic way. Such are some of the ways in which the applicational generative model may possibly be used as a standard model in the field of structural typology. 5.12 FOUNDATIONS OF PHENOTYPE GRAMMAR

In the preceding sections the relator language was described in detail, and also its use in the description of natural languages, of which Russian served as an example. The relator language is an abstract language and from now on it will be called the genotype language. The genotype language is related to natural languages by rules of correspondence. To distinguish them from the genotype language generated by the applicational model natural languages can be called phenotype languages.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

311

The rules of correspondence examined in Section 7 of this chapter may be explained thus : they are not generative rules but rules for classifying the phrases of a concrete phenotype language in relation to the genotype language. We can use these rules to reveal the inner relations between the elements of natural languages and study them from the typological point of view, using the genotype language as a standard-language. Such rules of correspondence do not in themselves contribute to the generation of sentences but are simply a tool for the comparative-typological study of languages in which the objects of comparison are the relator genotype language on one hand and natural phenotype languages on the other. The above classification of the phrases of natural languages by the rules of correspondence can be called the genotype grammar of natural languages. Using the rules of correspondence in this way we can apply definite restrictions to the generation of objects belonging to the genotype language. These restrictions will, of course, differ from language to language. By applying these restrictions we shall obtain variants of the genotype language which will be called genotype images of Russian, English, Estonian, Japanese, etc. The rules for constructing genotype images of natural languages can be called genotype grammars of Russian, English, Estonian, Japanese, etc. Genotype grammars are generative in that they generate genotype languages and genotype images of natural languages. The rules of correspondence, which are part of these genotype grammars, are used only to classify the phrases of natural languages in relation to the genotype language and cannot be considered generative rules in the proper sense of the term. Along with such classificatory rules of correspondence there must also be rules of correspondence which are generative rules, in the proper sense of that term. We shall call the first type classificatory rules of correspondence and the second type generative rules of correspondence. The latter are rules for deriving the objects of natural languages, called phenotypes, from the objects of the genotype language, called genotypes. This system of derivation rules will be called phenotype grammar. Since each natural language possesses its own set of phenotypes, there will naturally be as many phenotype grammars as there are languages. It is possible, however, to find a certain general form which each phenotype grammar must adhere to. This general form will be a linguistic universal, just as a generative grammar of the genotype language, and the genotype language itself, are linguistic universals. We must keep in mind that linguistic phenotypes such as gender, number and case may have a greater or lesser degree of universality. We can therefore construct a hierarchy of linguistic phenotypes according to the universality of the latter. Later on we shall present the basic features of the general form possessed by phenotype grammars. To illustrate the generation of phenotypes from genotypes we shall give concrete examples of how phrases are generated in Russian. Before we examine the general principles underlying the construction of phenotype grammars, two points

312

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

must be noted. Firstly, since these principles are being formulated for the first time we can give only a preliminary sketch. They will undoubtedly need to be made more precise and comprehensive in the light of future research. Secondly, it must be noted that when giving examples of generative rules taken from a generative grammar of Russian we shall sometimes have to fall back on ad hoc rules since it is not practical to explain the whole system of rules for a few particular examples. It must be emphasized that these ad hoc rules can be replaced by systematic generative rules which follow naturally from the inner structure of the grammar. However, this is possible only if the whole phenotype grammar is presented and not just a fraction of it. Ad hoc rules should be considered only a means of making the explanation simpler and more comprehensible. In any case, when reading the explanation we must separate the theory from the peculiarities specific to the exposition, since the examples of phenotype generation are necessarily given in isolation from the whole system of phenotype generative grammar. The development of a systematic phenotype grammar for each natural language is a subject for separate books. We shall begin by demonstrating the standard notation for generative rules in phenotype grammar. They are of the following form :

n¡: A'l,...,

A'„-*A,

(Ol)

(1)

where n ¡ is a rule (/ its number); A'l,..., A'„, Λ are objects of the phenotype grammar; the arrow is interpreted as the correlative conjunctions 'if ..., then', or as 'entails', or as 'generates'. A string of objects in which each object is either an initial object or an object deduced from the preceding objects by one of the rules n ¡ is called a derivation in phenotype grammar. The left-hand part of Formula (1) will be called the antecedent, and the right-hand part the succedent. This standard notation for generative rules covers first and foremost the derivation of semions by application. Instead of representing the basic rule of this derivation as the formula Apq X pY q\XY

(2)

we can represent it as the formula ApqX,pY

-> q\XY

(3)

In phenotype grammar we also have replacement rules : X(Y)^X(Z)

(4)

Formula (4) is read: if we have an object X(Y) of which the object Γ is a component, we can derive the object X(Z) from the object X(Y) by replacing the object Y by the object Z.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

313

If Y= X, formula (4) will have the form (5) Convention 1 : We may use Formula (5) as an abbreviation of Formula (4). Using this abbreviation, we must not forget that in this case Y and Ζ are components of the object X. Convention 2: If Type (4) rules contain an antecedent which has various succeedents, the formulae for these rules can be reduced to a single formula as follows: Let there be the set of formulae y-> z1 r-z11 (6)

This set of formulae can be reduced to the following single formula: Z1' Z" (7) (Note that in the above procedure we used the abbreviated notation for type (4) rules. It will not be difficult for the reader to make up similar examples in which sets of non-abbreviated formulae are reduced to one formula.) The replacement rules represented by Formula (4) can be made more general if we allow not just one component Y to be replaced by one object Ζ in object X but several components Υ χ,..., to be replaced simultaneously by several objects Zu..., Zk. We shall obtain Formula (4a), which is a generalized form of (4): (4a)

X(Y],...,Yk)^X(Z„...,Zk) If ( Y ¡ ..., Yk) = X, we have Formula (5a): (Yu...,

Yk)-+(Zu...,Zk)

(5a)

In Formula (5a) the parentheses are kept to show that the symbols within them do not denote various objects but the components of one and the same complete object. Convention 3 : Formula (5a) may be used as an abbreviation of Formula (5). Convention 4 : If type (4) rules have various succeedents derived from identical antecedents, the formulae for these rules can be reduced to one formula as follows. Let there be the set of formulae: σι,-,η) σ ι , - , η)

(Z[,...,Z'k) (Ζ".-,Zi')

(^....,Ή-ίζ;

zi)

(6a)

314

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

This set o f rules can be reduced to the following single f o r m u l a :

(ζί',.,.,ζη

(7a)

(Z],...,Z¡) W e must strictly distinguish two different cases where replacement rules are used: 1) on the content plane, and 2) on the expression plane. O n the content plane the application of replacement rules does not destroy the structure o f the transformed phenotype objects which are characterized by the relation 'operator-operand'. O n the expression plane replacement rules are used for two purposes: 1) for assigning linear order to phenotype objects, and 2) for assigning a phonological representation to phenotype objects. In both cases the structure o f the object o f the expression plane, characterized by the 'operator-operand relation', may be destroyed by the application o f replacement rules. W e shall now consider a fragment of a phenotype g r a m m a r o f Russian. W e take the following as initial objects : 1. T h e root O is assigned the null episemion. 2. Five groups o f phenotype relators together with the episemions and indices assigned to them. Their role will be explained presently. sypat' 'pour', mjat' 'rumple', rvaf 'tear' gnuf 'bend'

CL 2.2.

0N -> veter 'wind', sneg 'snow', buran 'tempest', uragan 'storm', derevo 'tree', list 'leaf', kust 'bush', krysa ' r o o f

In C L 2 . 1 words in inverted commas are not infinitives but serve as conventional designations of certain semantic objects of the content plane; that is they are verbs as pure semantic notions. Similarly in CL 2.2. words in inverted commas are not the nominative cases singular of the corresponding nouns but they serve as conventional designations of certain semantic objects, that is they are nouns as pure semantic notions. The rules given above are applied in a strictly definite order according to which the generation of the objects of the content plane consists of three phases: During the first phase only rules CG 2.1 - C G 2.7 are applied. During the second phase rule CG 1 is applied. During the third phase rules CL 1 - CL 2.2 are applied. It follows from the above order of rules that the application of relators becomes possible only after the variables in their indices are replaced by constants. We shall now turn to the rules for the expression plane.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

EG 1.1.

R

EG 1.2.

Äff" R

EG 1.3.

The symbols R R Aff a AfP" Flex" Flex 6 Pref Suff Part Prep -

319

|Aff 0 R [Äff» R Pref Suff Part

R R R

R -> {Flex e R [Flex "R

which occur in rules E G 1.1 - EG 1.3 are explained as follows: any expanding relator any blocking relator continuous word-forming affix discontinuous word-forming affix continuous flexion discontinuous flexion prefix suffix particle preposition

The following rules assign linear order to the word components. E G 2.1. Flex "R S u f f „ R ... Suff iRO - Prep O Suff ,R ... Suff „R Flex "R E G 2.2. Flex °R Suff „R ... Suff -» 0 Sufi ,R ... Suff „R Flex 0 R Here 0 denotes any root. In order to formulate rule EG 2.3 we shall introduce the following convention: by means of the f o r m u l a Flex "R Pref „R ... Suff „R ... Pref jR ... Suff jRO we shall denote a complex containing suffixes and prefixes distributed alternately, then we shall have EG 2.3 Flex °R Pref „R ... Suff „R ... Pref jR Suff ,RO -» Pref „R ... Pref Suff XR ... Suff „R Flex "R In order to formulate rule EG 2.4 we introduce the convention that the formula Flex "R ... Part R ... is an expression containing a particle, a flexion, η suffixes and η prefixes (η > 1 ) . Now we have EG 2.4 Flex" R ... Part ... -» ... Flex" R Part R. Let us consider the lexical rules of the expression plane. E.L. 1.1. sypat' 'pour' — v 1 · 4 sypat' gnut' 'bend' — v 2 · 3 · 6 gnuf

320

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

rvaf 'tear' — ν12·4 rvaf mjaf 'rumple' — v 5 · 3 mjaf E.L. 1.2. list 'leaf' — n 1 list derevo 'tree' — n1 derevo kust 'bush' — n2 kust uragan 'storm' — n2 uragan veter 'wind' — n2 veter krysa 'roof — n3 krysa buran 'tempest' — n3 buran stieg 'snow' — w4 sneg The new symbols are explained as follows: The symbols v1, v2, v3, v4, v 5 , v6 denote the morphological classes of verbal roots, and symbols n 1 , n 2 , n 3 , w4 denote the morphological classes of noun roots. If different classes are united, the corresponding symbols have indices with several figures, e.g. ν 1 · 4 denotes the union of the classes v1 and v4, and the symbol v 2 · 3 · 6 denotes the union of the classes v2, v3 and v 6 . The purpose of rules EL 1.1 and EL 1.2 is to assign morphological class membership to the lexical objects of the content plane. It is obvious that within the fragment of the phenotype grammar considered here these rules cannot be presented systematically but they are merely ad hoc rules which are necessary for the generation of the illustrative examples. It is essential, however, to stress the fundamental necessity of determining the morphological classes of lexical objects before assigning them any phonological shape. It must be borne in mind that rules EL 1.1 - EL 1.2 are similar to rules EG 1.1 - EG 1.3, the purport of which is to assign morphological classes to relators, i.e. to the grammatical objects of the content plane. It is now possible to introduce rules which assign phonological (or graphic) shape to the grammatical and lexical objects of the expression plane. These rules will be denoted by the symbol EP with figures denoting the number of the rule. Our next rule will be formulated with the view of assigning graphic shapes. It must be pointed out that within this fragment of phenotype grammar these rules are not systematic but are also ad hoc rules which are necessary to generate the illustrative phrases. EP EP EP EP EP EP

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6.

EP 1.8. EP 1.9.

Suff N0 . Suff DN -> . Flex" ν past. Flex" ν past. Flex" ν past. Flex" ν past.

m. 3 / f. 3 -» l a neut. 3 ->• / o pi. 3 li

Flex" Ν f. 3 -> a Flex" D acc. f. 3

u

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

321

EP110 {FleX" ^ n e U t 3 ' [Flex" D acc. neut. 3 EP 1.11. Flex" R -* Flex" R EP 1.12. ~ . EP 2.1. Pref. V perf. #

ras in the context v 1 * so in the context v2x pri in the context v3x -

EP 2.2. Suff. V0 imperf.

a in the context v4 ja in the context v5x in the context v6x -

fFlex" D acc. pi. 3 I Flex" Ν pl. 3

ja y i α

in the context η1 χ in the context n2x in the context η 3 χ in the context nAx -

EP3.1. ν 1,4 sypat' -» syp v 2 · 3 · 6 gnuf -y gnu rv ν2· 4 rvat' ν5· 3 mjat' -• m -* list n1 list H1 derevo -> derev n2 kust -> kust n2 uragan -* uragan veter n2 veter n3 krysa -»• krys n3 buran —• buran n* sneg —• sneg In EP2.1 - EP 2.3 the symbol χ designates any element of a given morphological class, for instance, v4x denotes any element of the morphological class v4, and nlx denotes any element of the morphological class n1. If the succeedent is a blank followed by a dot, it means that the antecedent must be cancelled, for instance, EP 1.7 means that Flex" Ν m. 3 must be cancelled. The symbol ~ in EP 1.11 and EP 1.12 denotes boundaries between words. EP 1.11 is applied only after EG 2.1 - EG 2.4. The following rule of episemion cancellation also belongs to EP: E P 4 e . EP 4 is applied simultaneously with EP 1.12. Both EP 4 and EP 1.12 must be applied only after all the other above mentioned rules have been applied. The final rules are the word-order rules (designated by EW). Our fragment of a phenotype grammar has the following word-order rules : EW 1 EW 2

ι XY *.

YX

322

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

EW 1 means that the direct components of the antecedent must be permutated in the succeedent. EW 2 means that the asterisks must be cancelled. The conditions for the application of EW 1 - EW 2 are the following: 1) the given rules are applied after all the other rules given above; 2) first, WP 1 is applied to the largest direct components of the phrase, then to smaller direct components from left to right until no applicator is left unmarked by an asterisk ; after that WP 2 is applied. Such are the rules of our fragment of the generative grammar. As a result of the application of these rules the following grammatical phrases can be generated : Veter rassypal list'ja 'The wind has scattered the leaves' Buran sognul derev'ja 'The tempest has bent the trees' Sneg primjal kusty 'The snow has crushed the bushes' Uragan sorval krysy 'The storm has torn off the roofs' Veter sognul derev'ja 'The wind has bent the trees' Buran sognul derev'ja 'The tempest has bent the trees' Uragan sognul derev'ja 'The storm has bent the trees' Ve ter primjal kusty 'The wind has crushed the bushes' Buran primjal kusty 'The tempest has crushed the bushes' Uragan primjal kusty 'The storm has crushed the bushes' Veter sorval krysy 'The wind has torn off the roofs' Sneg prignul kusty 'The snow has bowed down the bushes' Buran primjal list'ja 'The tempest has crushed the leaves' Veter sorval kusty 'The wind has torn off the bushes' Uragan sorval kusty 'The storm has torn off the bushes' Sneg primjal derev'ja 'The snow has bowed down the trees' Sneg sorval krysy 'The snow has torn off the roofs' Buran sorval krysy 'The tempest has torn off the roofs' Sneg primjal list'ja 'The snow has crushed the leaves' Uragan rassypal list'ja 'The storm has scattered the leaves' Buran rassypal list'ja 'The tempest has scattered the leaves' Veter primjal list'ja 'The wind has flattened the leaves' Uragan rassypal derev'ja 'The storm has scattered the trees' Uragan primjal list'ja 'The storm has flattened the leaves' Krysa sognula derevo 'The roof has bent the tree' Derevo primjalo kust 'The tree has crushed the bush' Krysa prignula kusty 'The roof has bent the bushes' Snega primjali kusty 'The snows have flattened the bushes' Uragany rassypali list'ja 'The tempests have scattered the leaves' Uragan sorval krysu 'The tempest has torn off the r o o f Veter prignul derevo 'The wind has bowed down the tree' Buran sorval list'ja 'The tempest has torn off the leaves'

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

323

Sneg sognul derevo 'The snow has bent the tree' and a great many other phrases. The phrases given above are not merely grammatical phrases, but they are meaningful from the point of view of their real purport. Besides grammatical and meaningful phrases other grammatical phrases can be generated which cannot be considered meaningful as to their purport, e.g. Derevo sognulo snega 'The tree has bent the snows' Kust primjal burany 'The bush has crushed the tempests' Krysa sorvola uragany 'The roof has torn off the storm' Derevo sognulo burany 'The tree has bent the tempest' Derevo primjalo uragany 'The tree has crushed the storms' Kust sorval vetry 'The bush has torn off the winds' Kust sognul sneg 'The bush has bent the snow' Krysa sorvala veter 'The roof has torn off the wind' Krysa prignula sneg 'The roof has bowed down the snow' Kust sognul list 'The bush has bent the leaf List'ja sorvoli kusty 'The leaves have torn off the bushes' List rassypal krysy 'The leaf has scattered the roofs' Derev'ja rassypali uragan 'The trees have scattered the storm' Buran primjal krysu 'The tempest has flattened the roof' and a lot of other phrases. The possibility of generating not only meaningful but also meaningless phrases does not compromise the model at all because meaningfulness and meaninglessness is not a linguistic but rather an extralinguistic fact. Linguistically essential is the fact that the model generates only grammatical phrases. As an example of the generative process we shall give the tree generating the phrase Veter rassypal list'ja 'The wind has scattered the leaves' (see Figure 63) The process of derivation shown on the tree (Figure 63) may be described with the help of Table 13. Table 13 consists of three columns. The numbers in the first column are the object numbers. The second column indicates the derivation rules by which the corresponding objects were obtained. The third column lists the objects to which the derivation rules contained in column two were applied. Datum objects in column one are naturally followed by dashes in columns two and three. 5.13 C O N C L U D I N G REMARKS

The essential nature of the applicational model can be better understood if we examine the differences between some concepts in the applicational model and analogous concepts occurring in the work of other writers.

324

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING TABLE 13

Oject number

Rules of derivation

Objects from which given objects were derived

1 2

C G 2 . 1 ; C G 2.2

1

O

J

4

CG 1

2; 3

5

—

—

6

CG 1

5; 4 7

η

/

8

C G 2 . 1 ; C G 2 . 2 ; C G 2.7

9

CG 1

8; 6

10

—

—

11

C G 2.6

10

12

—

—

13

CG 1

14

—

15

C G 2 . 5 ; C G 2.6

14

16

CG 1

15; 13

17

—

18

C G 2 . 1 ; C G 2 . 2 ; C G 2.3

11; 12 —

—

17

19

CG 1

18; 16

20

CG 1

9 ; 19

21

—

—

22

C G 2 . 1 ; C G 2.2

21 —

23

—

24

CG 1

2 2 ; 23

25

—

—

26

C G 2 . 1 ; C G 2.2

25

27

CG 1

26; 24

28

CG 1

2 0 ; 27

29

CL 1

28

30

C L 2.1 ; C L 2.2

29

31

E G 1.1; E G 1.3; E L 1.1 ; E L 1.2

30

32

E G 1.2

31

33

E G 2 . 2 ; E G 2.3

32

34

E P 1.11

33

35

E P 1.1; E P 1.2; E P 1.3; E P 1.7

34

36

E P 2 . 1 ; E P 2 . 2 ; E P 2.3

35

37

E P 1.12

36

38

EW 1

37

39

EW 1

38

40

EW2

39

1.

Αοα"'ρΝgp.

2. Aoocpl3Npl3 7. ΑΑΑα.βΑαβΑΑαβΑ(ίβΡοβρ_ 8. AAAccßAaßAAxßAaßPacc.pL3

3. oO pL3

5. ΔαΔΔαßAaßD* 4. a 6. ΔΔαßAxßD" N°pL30

N°pL30

AAxßAa9pßVt.g.p. AAaßA*m-3ßVpast.m.3

17. 18.

9. AAccßAccßDaccpL3DNNpl30

19. Aam-3ßVpa 20. AS|| w1 list S u m ° p r 3 l β y η1 list F\ex"aDcc β II η1 list ja ~ ras ν ¡I list'ja rassypal veti II veter list'ja rassy¡ *|« veter rassy pal lis veter rassy pal list'ja Fig. 63

10. 14. AAzßActßVgSpvoice _

15. AAoLßAaLßV;erI

iu3 "•3ßVPas,m.3VPVerf*V°n>fP

ΑοΑαβν^ρ.

11. AoAxßV^,, 13. AaßV°mprfO

#

16. AccßVperf

12. oO

#

Vjmprf.O

21.

Aoa^Nl

25. Δ*·'·• napolnennyj vodnyj bassejn 'a full water pool'. In this case the identity of situation is not broken because the semantic link between the components of the T-base which are not linked constitutively (zavod -> produkciju 'factory -* goods') is syntactically expressed in the transform zavodskaja produkcija;

THE A P P L I C A T I O N S MODEL

329

vodnyj bassejn 'factory goods: water pool'. And, vice-versa, there are cases when bound transformations are realized in non-identical situations, e.g. mal'cik poetpesnju 'the boy sings a song' -* maïciku pojut pesnju 'they are singing the boy a song'. In this case the identity of situation is broken because the semantic link 'subjectobject', formalized by the syntactic relations in the T-base, is broken and replaced by the semantic link 'action-object' which is formalized by the syntactic relations in the transform. In connection with the interpretation of Γ-fields it should also be noted that not one 7"-field of k members is realizable in one and the same synonymous series, but must be realizable in more than one synonymous series. This involves a correspondence between definite synonymous series and definite degeneration of a Γ-field. In conclusion, it would be useful to consider some remarks which Chomsky makes in his latest book concerning the applicational model. 44 Considering an early variant of the model, as explained by Soboleva and myself 45 Chomsky discusses our position as follows : They propose, in essence, that in place of such rules as (69), the categorical component should contain the corresponding rules (70), where the element on the right is a set rather than a string: (69) S-> NP^ VP VP-> KJVP (70) S-> {NP, VP} VP->{V,NP} In (70), no order is assigned to the elements on the righthand side of the rule; thus {NP, VP} = {VP, NP}, although ΝΡ^,νΡφ VP^NP. The rules (70) can be used to define grammatical relations in exactly the way indicated for the rules (69). The rules (69) convey more information than the corresponding rules (70), since they not only define an abstract system of grammatical relations but also assign an abstract underlying order to the elements. The Phrase-marker generated by such rules as (69) will be representable as a tree-diagram with labeled nodes and labeled lines; the Phrasemarker generated by such rules as (70) will be representable as a tree-diagram with labeled nodes and unlabeled lines. Proponents of set-systems such as (70) have argued that such systems are more 'abstract' than concatenation-systems such as (69), and can lead to a study of grammatical relations that is independent of order, this being a phenomenon that belongs only to surface structure. The greater abstractness of set-systems, so far as grammatical relations are concerned, is a myth. Thus the grammatical relations defined by (70) are neither more nor less 'abstract' or 'order-independent' than those defined by (69); in fact, the systems of grammatical relations defined in the two cases are identical. A priori, there is no way of determining which theory is correct; it is an entirely empirical question, and the evidence presently available is overwhelmingly in favor of concatenation-systems over set-systems, for the theory of the categorial component. In fact, no proponent of a set-system has given any indication of how the abstract underlying unordered structures are converted into actual strings with surface structures. Hence, the problem of giving empirical support to this theory has not yet been faced.46 44

N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass., 1965). S.K. Saumjan, P.A. Soboleva: Applikativnaja porozdajuscej model' i iscislenie transformacij ν russkom jazyke (Moscow, 1963). 41 N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), pp. 124-125. 46

330

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

First of all let us define our terms. Chomsky assigns the applicational model to the class of abstract set-systems. This is simply incorrect. The example (70) used by Chomsky has nothing to do with generation in the applicational model. In the latter NP and VP are not some unordered set o f elements which can be written down in the formula {NP,

VP} as in set theory, but are elements hierarchically related to

each other as constituent parts o f a single whole: VP is the operator for NP.

In

the same way VP does not split up into an unordered set of elements { V , NP}

as

Chomsky says but consists of the operator V and its operand NP.

In general, all

the objects in the applicational model form a hierarchical system whose elements are connected by the hierarchical relation 'operator-operand'. As was shown in the first section of this chapter, the applicational model belongs not to the class of abstract set-systems but to the non-linear abstract type o f constructive systems which Curry calls ob-systems. Mistakenly identifying the applicational model as an abstract set-system, Chomsky maintains that the rules of the transformational model, a concatenation-system, contain more information than the rules of the applicational model, since the former convey information as to how the constituent elements o f the generated objects are ordered (he means the linear ordering o f these elements), but the latter supposedly do not. This assertion is incorrect: in actual fact both the rules of the transformational model and the rules of the applicational model contain information about the ordering of these elements, but not the same information. The former are concerned with the linear concatenative ordering of elements, the latter with the hierarchical ordering of elements connected by the relation 'operator-operand'. Thus, the applicational model is an ob-system and the transformational model is a concatenation-system.

Hence we must reformulate Chomsky's arguments quoted

above since we are not comparing an abstract set-system with a concatenationsystem but an ob-system with a concatenation-system. Now that we have defined our terms we can return to the question posed by Chomsky and reformulate it thus: which system should be considered more abstract, an obsystem or a concatenation-system? Leaving aside a discussion of this question from a logical point of view and taking only purely linguistic criteria into consideration, we must agree with Chomsky that this question is completely empirical and therefore cannot be decided a priori. What are the empirical data relating to this question? It seems to me that when discussing this question we must take into account the following : 1. In each sentence there are two planes: the expression-plane and the contentplane, or, which comes to the same thing, the signifiant and the signifié. 2. The linear order of morphemes belongs to the expression-plane. F r o m this it is obvious that differences in the order of morphemes in some languages correspond to differences in the phonological composition o f morphemes in other languages. Take, for example, the sentences

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

331

(1) Tom beats Dick. (2) Dick beats Tom. and the corresponding Russian sentences (3) Tom Vet Dika. (4) Dik b'et Toma. Sentence (3) is equivalent in meaning to sentence (1), and sentence (4) is equivalent in meaning to sentence (2). Comparing (1) and (2) we see that the difference in meaning is connected only with a difference in the order of the morphemes in (1) and (2). As for the similar difference in meaning between (3) and (4), it is connected not with the order of the morphemes but with their phonological shape. If the difference in meaning between (1) and (2) is equivalent to the difference in meaning between (3) and (4), the difference in the order of morphemes between (1) and (2) is equivalent to the difference in phonological shape between (3) and (4). 3. Grammatical relations are invariant in relation to the means by which they are expressed. This is evident from a comparison of the above sentences. One and the same subject-object relation (1) and (3) is expressed in the former by a definite order of morphemes and in the latter by a definite phonological composition of morpheme. The same holds for (2) and (4). Morpheme-order in one and phonological composition of morphemes in the other express the same subject-object relation. If these empirical assertions are accepted as correct, it follows that, from an empirical point of view, the more abstract model is the one which abstracts from the expressionplane and deals directly with invariant grammatical, and in the broadest sense semantic, relations. It is clear that invariants are more abstract than the realization of invariants. We have already noted that the rules of the applicational model contain information about a hierarchic system of elements connected by the relation 'operator-operand', whereas the rules of the transformational model contain information about the linear ordering of morphemes based on concatenation. From this it is clear that the transformational model is concerned with the realization of the content-plane on the expression-plane, whereas the applicational model isolates the pure invariant 'operatoroperand' relation. Because of this empirical fact the applicational model must be considered more abstract than the transformational model. It goes without saying that a complete description of a language must include a full description of both the content and expression planes. The question as to whether a generative model should or should not include a description of the expression plane is not worth discussion because it is clear to every linguist that there cannot be a complete description of a language without a description of the expression plane. What is worth discussing is this : what is an adequate method of describing the correlations between the content and expression planes? Two solutions are available: either 1) we describe the content and expression planes jumbling the two together; or 2) we describe first the content plane as such and then

332

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

study how the linguistic invariants we have revealed are realized by various means on the expression-plane. The transformational model follows the first course, the applicational model the second. If it is true that linguistics, like any science, must first and foremost set itself the goal of discovering invariants, then it is the second way of describing language which is productive. In fact it is difficult to see how it is possible to discover linguistic invariants if the content-plane is not clearly distinguished from the expression-plane. In the latest variant of the transformational model concepts of deep structure and surface structure are introduced. Chomsky defines the concepts of deep and surface structure as follows : Still taking a language to be a set of sentences, let us consider each abstract 'sentence' to be a specific pairing of a phonetic representation with an abstract structure of some sort (let us call it a deep structure) that incorporates information relevant to semantic interpretation. We can then study the system of rules that determines this pairing, in a particular language, and the general characteristics of such rules. This enterprise will be significant to the extent that these underlying deep structures do actually provide a way to meet the empirical conditions on semantic interpretation. Semantic theory, as it progresses, will· then provide means for enriching deep structures and associating semantic interpretations with them. The empirical significance of a full theory of grammar, comprising a universal phonetics, semantics, and syntax, will depend in part on the extent to which conditions on semantic interpretation can be satisfied by systematic use of the devices and principles that this theory supplies. Summarizing these remarks, let us establish the following framework for the study of linguistic structure. The grammar of a language is a system of rules that determine a certain pairing of sound and meaning. It consists of a syntactic component, a semantic component, and a phonological component. The syntactic component defines a certain (infinite) class of abstract objects (D, S), where D is a deep structure and S a surface structure. The deep structure contains all information relevant to semantic interpretation : the surface structure, all information relevant to phonetic interpretation. The semantic and phonological components are purely interpretive. The former assigns semantic interpretations to deep structures; the latter assigns phonetic interpretations to surface structures. Thus the grammar as a whole relates semantic and phonetic interpretations, the association being mediated by the rules of the syntactic component that define paired deep and surface structures. 4 ' As an example of deep surface structure we can use the following illustration taken from Chomsky: ... consider the sentences (6) I persuaded John to leave (7) I expected John to leave The first impression of the hearer may be that these sentences receive the same structural analysis. Even fairly careful thought may fail to show him that his internalized grammar assigns very different syntactic descriptions to these sentences. In fact, so far as I have been able to discover, no English grammar has pointed out the fundamental distinction between 47

N . Chomsky, "The formal nature of language", in Eric H . Lenneberg, Biological Foundations Language (New York, 1967), pp. 406-407.

of

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

333

these two constructions (in particular, my own sketches of English grammar ... failed to note this). However, it is clear that the sentences (6) and (7) are not parallel in structure. The difference can be brought out by consideration of the sentences. (8) (i) I persuaded a specialist to examine John (ii) I persuaded John to be examined by a specialist (9) (i) I expected a specialist to examine John (ii) I expected John to be examined by a specialist The sentences (9i) and (9ii) are "cognitively synonymous" : one is true if and only if the other is true. But no variety of even weak paraphrase holds between (8i) and (8ii). This (8i) can be true or false quite independently of the truth or falsity of (8ii). Whatever difference of connotation or 'topic' or emphasis one may find between (9i) and (9ii) is just the difference that exists between the active sentence "a specialist will examine John" and its passive counterpart "John will be examined by a specialist". This is not at all the case with respect to (8), however. In fact, the underlying deep structure for (6) and (8ii) must show that 'John' is the Direct-Object of the Verb Phrase as well as the grammatical Subject of the embedded sentence. Furthermore, in (8ii) 'John' is the logical Direct-Object of the embedded sentence, whereas in (8i) the phrase 'a specialist' is the Direct-Object of the Verb Phrase and the logical Subject of the embedded sentence. In (7), (9i), and (9ii), however, the Noun Phrases 'John', 'a specialist', and 'John', respectively, have no grammatical functions other than those that are internal to the embedded sentence; in particular, 'John' is the logical Direct-Object and 'a specialist' the logical Subject in the embedded sentences of (9). Thus the underlying deep structures for (8i), (8ii), (9i), and (9ii) are, respectively, the following: (10) (i) Noun Phrase — Verb — Noun Phrase — Sentence (/ — persuaded — a specialist will examine John) (10) (i) Noun Phrase — Verb — Noun Phrase — Sentence (/ — persuaded — a specialist — a specialist will examine John) (ii) Noun Phrase — Verb — Noun Phrase — Sentence (/ — persuaded — John — a specialist will examine John) (11) (i) Noun Phrase — Verb — Sentence (/ — expected — a specialist will examine John) (ii) Noun Phrase — Verb — Sentence (/ — expected — a specialist will examine John) In the case of (10 ii) and (11 ii), the passive transformation will apply to the embedded sentence, and in all four cases other operations will give the final surface forms of (8) and (9). The important point in the present connection is that (8i) differs from (8ii) in underlying structure, although (9i) and (9ii) are essentially the same in underlying structure. This accounts for the difference in meaning. Notice, in support of this difference in analysis, that we can have "I persuaded John that (of the fact that) Sentence" but not "I expected John that (of the fact that) Sentence." The example (6)-(7) serves to illustrate two important points. First, it shows how unrevealing surface structure may be as to underlying deep structure. Thus (6) and (7) are the same in surface structure, but very different in the deep structure that underlies them and determines their semantic interpretations. Second, it illustrates the elusiveness of the speaker's tacit knowledge. Until such examples as (8) and (9) are adduced, it may not be in the least clear to a speaker of English that the grammar that he has internalized in fact assigns very different syntactic analyses to the superficially analogous sentences (6) and (7).48 A whole series of new difficulties arises concerning the concepts of deep and surface structure. 48

N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge Mass., 1965), pp. 22-24.

334

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

First of all, the formation of an abstract sentence as a specific pairing of a phonetic representation and a deep structure is incomprehensible. Each phonetic representation is essentially a directly observed linguistic fact, whereas a deep structure is abstract, a linguistic construct. How can heterogeneous concepts be combined into a single whole? The situation is actually as follows. A stream of speech contains directly observable facts of the expression plane. Using the necessary experimental procedures — to be found in literature on the subject (such as commutation tests, etc.) — we isolate sentences each of which consists of two segments : the expression plane and the content plane segments. This is how sentences appear on the level of heuristic experimental procedures. But when we proceed from experimental procedures to the construction of a linguistic theory we must abstract from the expression plane and consider sentences only from the standpoint of the content plane. It is in this sense that we can say that a linguistic theory should study first and foremost the content plane as such, as purely abstract. It goes without saying that such an approach must on no account be considered as replacing a linguistic view of language by a logical view of language. It is one thing to ignore the expression plane but quite another to abstract from it. In this view linguistic theory by no means ignores the expression plane but must abstract from it, implicitly using the results of experimental investigation of the correlations between the expression and content planes in the stream of speech. It follows from the above definitions of deep and surface structure that Chomsky does not assign surface structure to the sphere of semantics, since he says that all the information necessary for the semantic interpretation of a sentence is contained in the deep structure, whereas the surface structure contains only the information needed for the phonetic representation of a sentence. This is confirmed by the schema of a grammar given by Chomsky: The general structure of a grammar would, then, be as depicted in diagram (13): " semantic representation Β-»Deep structure/ j Surface structure Phonetic representation. The mapping J; is carried out by the semantic component; by the transformational component; and £> by the phonological component. Generation of deep structures by the base system (by the operation £>) is determined by the categorical system and the lexicon.4* If we accept Chomsky's proposed differentiation of deep and surface structure, can we say that semantics is not concerned with surface structure? We can answer this question by turning to the above sentences used by Chomsky to illustrate the difference between deep and surface structure. Let us compare the sentences (8i) and (9i) : 49

N . Chomsky, The formal nature of language, p. 420.

THE APPLICATIONAL MODEL

335

(8i) I persuaded a specialist to examine John. (9i) I expected a specialist to examine John. These sentences have identical surface structures but different deep structures. The deep structure of (8i) is of the f o r m : I persuaded a specialist of it that the specialist examine John ; and the deep structure of (9i) is : I expected it that a specialist examines John. Should only differences in meaning be assigned to semantics? Should the nondifferentiation of meanings not be considered a fact of semantics just as much as the differentiation of meanings? Both difference and identity of meaning should be considered cognitive facts which belong to semantics. Semantics should, in fact, be concerned with revealing both difference and identity of meaning and their interaction. Given the differentiation of deep and surface structure as understood by Chomsky it is difficult to understand the role he at present assigns to transformations, considering them as a tool for mapping deep structure into surface structure. Consider the passive transformation, for example. If we regard transformations as carrying out such mappings, it follows that active constructions are part of the deep structure and passive constructions part of the surface structure. Why should only active constructions be studied by semantics? D o not passive constructions also have a cognitive character? or perhaps the correlation between active and passive sentences is now given a new interpretation? Perhaps both active and passive constructions should now be considered surface structures into which some third deep-structure is mapped? If this is the case, however, both active and passive constructions must be considered cognitive variants of a corresponding deep structure and semantics must study how a meaning invariant is realized in meaning variants. It follows from the above that Chomsky's notions of deep and surface structure are rather vague and of doubtful value. The two-level theory of generative grammars presented in this book insists on a strict separation of the expression and content planes. Linguistic theory is directly concerned with the content-plane as such. O n the content-plane syntax and semantics should not be taken in isolation from each other but should be considered as two aspects of a single syntactico-semantic structure. The syntactico-semantic structure of the content-plane has two levels: the genotype and phenotype levels. In the applicational model the genotype level is represented by the relator language. The phenotype level consists of more concrete syntactico-semantic categories some of which may be universal and others of which may be specific to a group of languages. Only when the genotype and phenotype levels of the content plane have been studied can we investigate how the phenotype level of the content-plane is realized in the expressionplane. This realization has two aspects: the elements of the phenotype level are assigned (1) linear order; (2) phonological shape. Within the framework of this type of generative grammar we can solve the problems

336

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

posed by Chomsky when he formulated the notions of deep and surface structure. Thus, we can take the sentences (8i) and (9i) as belonging to the phenotype level of the content-plane and represent them as relator formulae on the genotype level of the content plane (8i) (9i)

R4\\RAR20Rl0R20 [\\RiR20 ]Ri0R10 RA\\RAR20Rl0R20\R10R20

(1)

(2)

To the formula (1) corresponds the sentence: " I persuaded a specialist (of it) that the specialist examines John". To the formula (2) corresponds the sentence: " I expected (it) that a specialist examines John". By carrying out transformations we can obtain from the genotype formulae (1) and (2) the corresponding phenotype formulae, and from these the final sentences: (8i) " I persuaded a specialist to examine J o h n " (9i) "I expected a specialist to examine J o h n " in phenotype notation. In the course of further transformations the components of (8i) and (9i), in phenotype notation, will be assigned linear order and a definite phonological representation. In conclusion we must consider yet another aspect of the situation. Chomsky, confusing the expression and content planes and not differentiating the genotype and phenotype levels on the content plane, treats all rules of generative grammar as purely recursive constructive rules. In actual fact, however, recursive rules can only be applied to idealized objects whose elements are well defined. But natural languages, when treated, as Chomsky treats them, as directly observable empirical objects, cannot be fully described by recursive rules because they are a mixture of rational and irrational elements which cannot be strictly defined in the mathematical sense. Recursive rules can be successfully applied only if the method of idealization is used to construct genotype languages on the basis of natural languages. Recursive rules can be applied first and foremost to genotype languages, but for the transition from genotype to phenotype languages recursive rules are applicable only some of the time, and we more often use another type of rules which I call rules of correspondence. A systematic development of these rules has yet to be attempted.

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

1. At the present stage in the development of structural linguistics its subject-matter must be redefined. Since structural linguistics is identified with the synchronic study of language, 'synchronic linguistics', 'static linguistics' and 'descriptive linguistics' are used as synonyms for the term 'structural linguistics'. However, we must distinguish between the static and dynamic aspects of synchrony, and correspondingly between the networks of static relations and dynamic relations. 'Linguistic structure' is what I call the network of dynamic relations in synchrony, i.e. the network of relations in grammar understood as a generative device. The network of static relations in synchrony I call 'quasi-structure'. Following the differentiation of concepts, I propose defining structural linguistics as the science which studies the dynamic aspect of synchrony. Investigation of the static aspect of synchrony may be called 'taxonomic linguistics'. Structural linguistics should be basically concerned with generative grammar, and phonology should be included as an auxiliary discipline in relation to generative grammar. The essential fact connected with the differentiation of structure and quasi-structure must not be lost in terminological arguments. Of course, the term 'structure' may be used in the broadest sense of the word to denote a network of any relations, but if this were so 'linguistics' would not need to be accompanied by the adjective 'structural', since any linguistics, in the broadest sense of the word, would be, indeed could not help being, structural. 'Structural linguistics' is meaningful only as a conventional term for that area of linguistic study which correlates in theory with de Saussure's ideas of language. At the present time generative grammar must be considered as such a type of linguistic study. The history of science shows that terms frequently turn into conventional names for one or another sphere of scientific knowledge. Take the term 'geometry', for instance. There was a time when this term, corresponding to its etymology, was connected with mathematical studies of the forms of terrestrial space, whereas 'geometry' is used in modern mathematics as a purely conventional term. 2. Structural linguistics is one of the abstract empirical sciences. The logical basis of structural linguistics, as of all the abstract empirical sciences, must be the hypo-

338

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

thetico-deductive method. Some linguists think that the logical basis of structural linguistics should be the deductive method, others think the inductive method, but their arguments are not convincing. In the abstract empirical science a theory is a hypothetico-deductive system of assertions of a particular science. A linguistic theory is a hypothetico-deductive system of assertions about language. In the abstract empirical sciences a model is a symbolic representation of a hypothetico-deductive system and is considered a semiotic analogue of the object under investigation. A model in structural linguistics must be a symbolic representation of a generative grammar and must be considered a semiotic analogue of the objective grammatical mechanism inherent in natural language. A theory can be the object of another theory, the latter being known as the metatheory in relation to the former. Each generative grammar is a theory of language. The theory of generative grammars is a metatheory in relation to generative grammars. We must strictly distinguish between generative grammar as a theory of language and algorithms for the automatic synthesis and analysis of speech. Generative grammar and algorithms for the automatic synthesis and analysis of speech differ in the same way as mathematical logic and computational mathematics. Of course, just as computational mathematics depends on mathematical logic so algorithms for the automatic synthesis and analysis of speech depend on generative grammar. 3. The two-level theory of generative grammars presented in this book is diametrically opposed to the one-level theory of generative grammar developed by Chomsky and his adherents. The latter consider that each generative grammar should be concerned with directly generating the actual sentences of a natural language. According to the former theory, generation should take place in two stages : in the first stage abstract linguistic objects are generated which, taken together, form an abstract language, called the genotype language. In the second stage the generative grammar transforms the objects of the genotype language into the objects of some actual natural language which is called a phenotype language to distinguish it from the genotype language. The genotype language can be used as a standard-language in structural-typological studies. Actual natural languages are complex systems containing rational and irrational elements mixed up. Because of this the direct generation of actual natural languages, without an intermediate abstract language, must meet with serious difficulties. In any case, the construction of models capable of directly generating actual natural languages is at present a theoretical problem which has not been solved in practice. The works of Chomsky and other linguists on generative grammars do not contain description of generative models proper, but only theories of generative grammars. These theories do not generate anything but only formulate general conditions which generative models must satisfy. The important point is that such generative models have not yet been built and their construction has still to be tackled.

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

339

Keeping in mind the great complexity of natural languages and the fact that rational and irrational elements are jumbled together in them, we cannot say with complete certainty that it is possible to build theoretically interesting models which are capable of directly generating natural languages. Of course, if we allow a model to contain a huge number of long lists giving every kind of category and subcategory, and long list of all deviations from the norm, then the construction of such generative models is quite possible. However, no matter how useful such models would be for utilitarian purposes like machine translation, it is not certain how interesting they would be from the theoretical point of view. In any case it is interesting to see how much we can learn about natural languages by using models which generate abstract languages. The two-level theory of generative grammar is the theory of just such models. The applicational model examined in this book derives directly from the basic principles of the two-level theory of generative grammar. Investigation of the possibilities of the applicational model shows that this theory produces interesting results. There is no doubt about the theoretical interest of abstract studies within the framework of generative grammar. It may well be, however, that these abstract studies will in time turn out to be more useful for practical purposes than studies which serve the immediate aims of machine translation and other branches of applied linguistics. The history of science teaches us that those theories which turn away from the concrete aspects of a particular study and concentrate on abstract spheres seemingly far removed from direct experience turn out in the long run to be more important for the solution of practical problems. 4. From the standpoint of the two-level theory of generative grammars the transformational model proposed by Chomsky cannot be adequate for the cognition of natural languages since it confuses elements of two fundamentally different levels of abstraction in language — the genotype and the phenotype. The applicational model is an attempt to construct a generative model free from this confusion of genotype and phenotype levels of abstraction. In contrast to the finite-state, immediate-constituent and transformational models, which belong because of their logical structure to the class of concatenative systems, the applicational model belongs to the class of non-linear systems of abstract objects. The applicational model generates two kinds of objects, which I call semions and episemions. Semions are elementary semiotic objects which serve as abstract analogues of grammatical categories and their combinations. Episemions are semiotic types to which semions belong. Each semion represents a definite episemion. The applicational model carries out generation in two phases. In the first phase episemions are generated. In the second phase semions are generated. An important role is played in generation by the semions which are constant operators. I call these 'relators'. Four types of generation can be distinguished: (1) the iterative process, (2) the reductive process, (3) the conversion process, (4) the connectorial process.

340

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

The notion of multiple derivation is of fundamental importance for the applicational model. The system of rules for multiple derivation is called the Γ-generator, and multiple derivation is called Γ-derivation. The Γ-generator determines the generation of a set of phrases, called a Γ-field, from one or several initial phrases, called a Γ-base. When the required restrictions are introduced the Γ-generator becomes a semantic Γ-generator of synonymous structures called a bound Γ-generator. As its input a semantic Γ-generator has a certain meaning-invariant represented in the form of a semantic tree. The initial semantic tree undergoes multiple transformations and the semantic generator has as its output a set of synonymous structures whose invariant is the input semantic tree. A Γ-field is represented by a schema called a graph of the Γ-field. Each string taken from the graph of a Γ-field, and correspondingly each sentence into which each string is transformed, is called a transform of the T-base and a correspondence between the Γ-base and a transform is called a transformation of the Γ-base. The notion of transformation in the applicational model is fundamentally different from the notion of 'transformation' in the transformational model. To make this difference more tangible I shall use an analogy from the history of phonology. Two basic stages can be distinguished in the history of phonology: in the first stage the phoneme was interpreted as the primary initial unit of a phonological system. This was the situation until Trubeckoj and Jakobson published their work. In the second stage the phoneme ceased to be a primitive concept, its place as a primitive being taken by the concept of phonological opposition. The phoneme came to be thought of as an elementary unit of a phonological opposition. The concept of phonological opposition brought about a radical change in the basis of phonology. From the theory of phonemes phonology has turned into the theory of phonological oppositions. The system of distinctive features which has been so successfully developed by Jakobson and his colleagues is simply a system of binary phonological oppositions considered as primitives in relation to the phoneme. The same holds for the concept of transformation. In existing descriptions of transformational grammar, 'transformation' is taken as a primitive concept. Because of this, transformations are considered in isolation from each other, atomistically. They are set out in a list and do not form a genuine system which could be represented as a calculus of transformations. The primitive concept in the applicational model is not 'transformation' but 'Γderivation'. 'Transformation' is no longer a primitive concept but only the simplest element in a Γ-derivation, i.e. a concept derived from the notion of ' Γ-derivation'. Just as the introduction of the notion of phonological opposition turned phonology from the theory of phonemes into the theory of phonological oppositions, so the introduction of the notion of Γ-derivation has turned transformational grammar from the theory of transformations into the theory of Γ-derivations. Since transformations are taken in the applicational model as elementary units of a Γ-derivation, it has become possible to rectify the atomistic approach to transforma-

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

341

tions prevalent in existing published work on transformation grammar which led to transformations being set out in a list. In the applicational model we deal not with a list of isolated transformations but with a calculus of transformations within a Tderivation. The calculus of transformations allows us to obtain all the types of transformations for any type of phrase. The calculus of transformations within the framework of Γ-fields is an effective aid to semantic studies. In the applicational model the strict differentiation of the content and expression planes is vitally important. The content-plane is split into a genotype grammar of the content plane and a phenotype grammar of the content plane. The phenotype grammar of the content plane is represented in the expression plane: this gives us the phenotype grammar of the content plane realized in the expression plane. The realization of the phenotype grammar of the content plane in the plane of expression has two main aspects: the assignment of linear order to the objects in the phenotype grammar of the content plane and the assignment of a phonological form, consisting of phonological distinctive features. The two-level theory of generative grammar and the applicational model based on it have opened up a new field of linguistic study which is already providing important results, although its development is just beginning. 5. In conclusion it would be interesting to take a look at the philosophical importance of generative grammar. There are three points of interest. (1) The problem of constructing generative grammars is directly related to the basic problem of cybernetics — correlations between the potentiality of human thought and machines which process information. This problem concerns the extent to which we can model human thought in a universal computer. Since language is directly connected with thought, the following question must be posed concerning the grammar of natural languages : to what extent can we model natural languages, i.e. what possibilities are there of representing natural languages as formal grammatical systems? On the level of mathematics this problem is formulated as the problem of the decidability of formal grammatical systems. One very interesting discussion of this point is Bar-Hillel's recent article in which he asserts that evidently no decision procedure can be found for formal grammatical systems which would be adequate models of natural languages, though no strict mathematical proof has been found for this. Let us note that the problem of the decidability of formal grammatical systems is of practical as well as philosophical importance since it is connected with the problem of how far we can formalize the operations used in automatic machine translation. (2) The construction of generative grammars helps us to reformulate on a new plane the traditional problem of the relation between language and thought. It has now become possible to model this relationship on a machine by systematically investigating the correlation between models of the grammars of natural languages and abstract logico-information languages. We may suppose that such research will attain significant results which will throw light on one of the most profound and acute philosophical problems.

342

GENERATIVE GRAMMARS AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING

(3) The construction of generative grammars is directly connected with the general philosophical problem concerning the formation of concepts and the construction of theories in the empirical sciences. At the heart of these philosophical problems stands the problem of correlating the main levels of abstraction — the level of observation and the level of constructs. Since structural linguistics is an empirical science, a general investigation of the relations between models, belonging to the level of constructs, and their originals, belonging to the level of observation, plays an important rule, just as in physics and the other empirical sciences. To be effective, models of grammar must be connected with their originals — natural languages — by rules of correspondence. The systematic development of rules of correspondence is one of the most important aspects of structural linguistics, of great interest for philosophy.

LITERATURE

Ajdukiewicz.K., "Die syntaktische Konnexität", Studia Philosophica I (1935). Akhmanova, O. S., I.A.Mel'cuk, R.M.Frumkina, and E. V. Paduceva, Exact Methods in Linguistic Research (University of California Press, 1963). Akhmanova, O. S., I. A. Mel'cuk, E. V. Paduceva, and R. M. Frumkina, O toânyx metodax issledovanija jazyka (Moscow, 1961). Apresjan, Ju.D., "O ponjatijax i metodax strukturnoj leksikologii", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1962). Avanesov, R.I., "Opisatelj'naja dialektologija jazyka", V. Mezdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii (Moscow, 1963). Bach,E., An Introduction to Transformational Grammars (New York, 1964). Bar-Hillel,Y., "A Quasi-Arithmetical Notation for Syntactic Description", Language XXIX (1953). , "Decision procedure in natural languages", in: Logique et analyse, Nouvelle série, 2 an., Ν 5 (Janvier, 1955). , Four Lectures on Algebraic Linguistics and Machine Translation (Jerusalem, 1963). , "Some Linguistic Problems Connected with Machine Translation", Philosophy of Science XX, No. 3 (1953). Bazenov,L.B., Osnovnye voprosy teoriigipotezy (Moscow, 1961). Berka, K. and M.Mleziva, Co je logika (Prague, 1962). Bogoljubov.N., "Obraz ili abstracija?", Texnika Molodezi, No. 1 (1965). Bogoraz,L.I., "O nejtralizacii i arxifoneme ν svjazi s soglasnymi arxifonemami russkogo jazyka", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). Braithwaite,R.B., "Models in the Empirical Sciences", in: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (Stanford, California, 1962). , Scientific Explanation. A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability and Law in Science (Cambridge, England, 1953). Broglie, L. de, Sur les sentiers de la science (Paris, 1960). Brandal, V., "Linguistique structurale", Acta Linguistica I, Fase. 1 (1939). Burlakova,M.L, T.M.Nikolaeva, D.M.Segal, and V.N.Toporov, "Strukturnaja tipologija i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie", in: Strukturno-tipologiceskie issledovanija (Moscow, 1962). Burton, Ν. I. and T. C. R. Licklider, "Long range constraints in the statistical structure of printed English", American Journal of Psychology, Ν 68 (1955). Carnap, R., Introduction to Semantics (Cambridge, Mass., 1942). , Logische Syntax der Sprache (Vienna, 1934); English translation, The Logical Syntax of Language (London, New York, 1937). Chomsky,N., Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass., 1965). , Categories and Relations in Syntactic Theory (M.I.T., 1964). , Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (The Hague, 1964). , "The Formal nature of language", in: Eric H. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language (New York, 1967). , "Formal Properties of Grammars", in: Handbook of Mathematical Psychology II (New York, 1963).

344

LITERATURE

, "The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (The Hague, Mouton and Co., 1964). , "On certain formal properties of grammars", in: Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, II (New York - London, 1963). , "On Certain Formal Properties of Grammars", in: Information and Control II (1959). , "On the Notion 'Rule of Grammar' ", in : Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics ΧΠ : Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects (1961). , Review of J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Essays in Linguistics (Chicago, 1957), in: Word, Vol. XV, Ν 1 (1959). , Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1957). , "Three Models for the Description of Language", I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory (1956). and G. A. Miller, Finite State Languages, in : Information and Control I, Ν 2 (1958). and G.A.Miller, "Introduction to the Formal Analysis of Natural Languages", in: Handbook of Mathematical Psychology II (New York - London, 1963). and M.P.Schiitzenberger, "The Algebraic Theory of Context-Free Languages", in: P. Braffort and O. Hirschberg (eds.), Computer Programming and Formal Systems (Amsterdam, 1963). Cossa,P., La Cybernétique: du cerveau humain aux cervaux artificiels (Paris, 1955). Curry, H. B., "Calculuses and Formai Systems", Dialéctica XII (1958). , Foundations of Mathematical Logic (New York, 1963). , "Some logical aspects of grammatical structure", in R. Jakobson (ed.), Twelfth Symposium Mathematics XII (Providence, Rhode Island, 1961). and R.Feys, Combinatory Logic (Amsterdam, 1958). Davis, M., Computability and Unsolvability (New York, 1958). Dolgopol'sky, A.B., "Kategorija vida ν russkom jazyke i verojatnostnyj xarakter svjazi oznaöaemogo s ozancajuscim", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). Fitialov,S.Ja., "O modelirovanii sintaksisa ν strukturnoj lingvistike", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki, ed. by S.K.Saumjan (Moscow, 1962). ——, "Transformacii ν aksiomaticeskix grammatikax", in: Transformacionnyj metod ν strukturnoj lingvistike (Moscow, 1964). Gabor, M., Nemzetkozi forditókules (Budapest, 1957). Gaifman,Haim, Dependency Systems and Phrase Structure Systems (Santa Monica, California, The RAND Corporation, 1961). Galkina-Fedoruk.E.M., Bezlicnye predlozenija ν sovremennom russkom jazyke (Moscow, 1958). Garvin, P. (ed.), Natural Language and the Computer (New York, 1963). George,F.H., The Brain as a Computer (Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1961). Ginzburg,E.L., "Nekotorye slucai neodnosostavnosti prosodemoidov", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). Goodstein, R. L., Mathematical Logic (Leicester, England, 1957). Gorskíj.D.P., "O vidax opredelenij i ix znacenii ν nauke", in: Problemy logiki naucnogo poznanija (Moscow, 1964). , Voprosy abstrakcii i obrazovanie ponjatij (Moscow, 1961). Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Language (Cambridge, Mass., 1963). Gvozdev, A.P., Sovremennyj russkij literaturnyi jazyk, Part II (Moscow, 1961). Hall, M., The Theory of Groups (New York, 1959). Halle, M., Review of Materialy po masinnomu perevodu l, ed. by N. Andreev (Leningrad, 1958), in: Language XXXVI, Ν 1 (1960). , The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Accoustical Investigation (The Hague, 1959). Harper,K.E. and D.G.Hays, "The Use of Machines in the Construction of a Grammar and Computer Programme for Structural Analysis", in: Information Processing (Paris, UNESCO, 1960). Harris, Z., Structural Linguistics (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961). , Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951). Harris,Z.S., "Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure", Language XXXIII, Ν 3 (1957). , "Discourse Analysis", Language XXVIII, Ν 1 (1952).

LITERATURE

345

Hays,D.G., "Grouping and Dependency Theories", in: H.P.Edmundson (ed.), Proceedings of the National Symposium on Machine Translation (Englewood Cliffs, New York, Prentice Hall, 1961). Hempel,C.G. and P.Oppenheim, "The logic of explanation", in: H.Feigl and M.Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York, 1953). Hill, Α., "O grammaticeskoj otmecennosti predlozenij", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, Ν 4 (1962). Hjelmslev, L., "Dans quelle mesure les significations des mots peuvent-elles être considérées comme formant une structure?", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1958). , "Metod strukturnogo analiza ν lingvistike", Acta linguistica, Vol. VI, fase. 2-3 (Copenhagen, 1950-1951). , Prolegomena to a Theory of Language ( = Memoir of the International Journal of American Linguistics), translated by Francis J.Whitfield (Baltimore, Naverly Press, Inc., 1953). Husserl, E., Logische Untersuchungen, Band II, Τ. I. Zweite umgearbeitete Auflage (Halle Saale, 1913). Ivanov.V.V., "Lingvisticeskie voprosy sozdanija maSinnogo jazyka dlja informacionnoj masiny", Materialy po masinnomu perevodu I (Leningrad, 1958). , "Lingvistika kak teorija otnosenij mezdu jazykovymi sistemami i ee sovremennye prakticeskie prilozenija", in: Lingvisticeskie issledovanija po masinnomu perevodu, 2nd issue (Moscow, 1961). , "O primenimosti fonologiceskix modelej", Trudy Instituto toenoj mexaniki i vycislitelmoj texniki AN SSSR II (Moscow, 1961). , "Tipologija i sravnitel'no-istoriceskoe jazykoznanie", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, No. 5 (1959). Jakobson, R., "Typological Studies and Their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1958). and M. Halle, Fundamentals of Language ('s-Gravenhage, 1956). Janko-Trinickaja.N.A., Vozvratnye glagoly ν sovremennom ritsskom jazyke (Moscow, 1962). Klaus,G., Kybernetik in philosophischer Sicht (Berlin, 1961). Kleene.S.C., Introduction to Metamathematics (Amsterdam and Groningen, 1952). Kneale,W., "Probability and Induction" (Oxford, 1949), reproduced in: H.Feigl and M.Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953). Knorozov, Ju. V., Pis'mennost' indejeev majja (Moscow - Leningrad, 1963). , Predvaritel'nye soobscenija o desifrovke kidan'skoj pis'mennosti (Moscow, 1964). Kolmogorov,A.N., Foreword to Ashby, Introduction to cybernetics, Russian translation (Moscow, 1959). Kotarbmski,T., Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnoj i metodologii nauk, Wyd. II (Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, 1961). Kurylowicz, J., "On the methods of internal reconstruction", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (The Hague, Mouton and Co., 1964). Lambeck.J., "The Mathematics of Sentence Structure", American Mathematical Monthly LXV (1958). , "On the Calculus of Syntactic Types", in: R.Jakobson (ed.), Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics (Providence, Rhode Island, 1961). Lashley.Karl S., "The Problem of Serial Order in Behaviour", in: Lloyd A. Jeffress (ed.), Cerebral Mechanisms in Behaviour, The Hixon Symposium (New York, Wiley, 1951). Lecerf,Y., "Programmes des conflicts. Model des conflicts", La Traduction Automatique I, Nos. 4-5 (1960). Lees, R. Β., "O vozmoznostjax proverki lingvisticeskix polozenij", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, Ν 4 (1962). Lekomcev, Ju.K., Struktura v'etnamskogo prostogo predìozenija (Moscow, 1964). Lekomceva,M.I., Fonologiceskaja sistema jazyka s tocki zrenija algoritmov sinteza, Kandidatskaja dissertacija (Moscow, 1964). Lesniewski,S., "Grundzüge eines neuen Systems der Grundlagen der Matematik", Fundamenta Mathematica, t. XIV (Warsaw, 1929). Lobacevskij.N.I., "O nacalax geometrii", in: Ob osnovanijax geometrii (Moscow, 1946). Lorenzen, P., Einführung in die operative Logik und Matematik (Berlin - Göttingen - Heidelberg, 1955). , Formal Logic (Dordrecht, Holland, 1965). Marcus,S., Gramatici fi automate finite (Bucharest, 1964). Martinet, Α., Éléments de linguistique générale (Paris, 1960).

346

LITERATURE

Mel'cuk, I.A., " Κ voprosu o posobii po perevodu naucnotexniceskix tekstov s nerzakomogo ili maloznakomogo jazyka na rodnoj", in: Tetradi perevodcika I, M.G.P.I.I.Ja., No. 3 (1960). Miller, G. A. and N.Chomsky, "Finitary Models of Language Users", in: Handbook of Mathematical Psychology II (New York, 1963). Miller, G., E. Galanter and K.Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behaviour (New York, 1960). Molosnaja,T.N., "Grammaticeskie transformacii anglijskogo jazyka", in: Transformacionnyj metod ν strukturnoj lingvistike (Moscow, 1964). Morris,C.W., "Foundations of the Theory of Signs", in: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. I, Ν 2 (Chicago, 1938). , Signs, Language and Behaviour (New York, 1946). Pap, Α., An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (New York, 1962). , Elements of Analytic Philosophy (New York, 1949). Perebejnos,V.I., " K voprosu ob ispol'zovanii strukturnyx metodov ν leksikologii", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). Pike,K. L., Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour, 2nd Revised Edition (The Hague, Mouton and Co., 1967). Piotrovskij,R.G., "Esce raz o differencial'nyx priznakax fonemy", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, No. 6 (1960). Poincaré, H., La Science et l'hypothèse (Paris, Flammarion, 1923). Porte, J., "Systèmes de Post, algorithmes de Markov", Cybernetica, Ν 2 (1958). Post, E. L., "Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society L (1944). Putnam, H., "Some issues in the theory of grammar", in: Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics X I I : Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects (1961). Reichenbach, H., Elements of Symbolic Logic (New York, 1947). , Experience and Prediction (Chicago, 1938). , "The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity", in : H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York, 1953). Revzin.I.I., Modeli jazyka i ix ispoVzovanie ν strukturnoj tipologii slavjanskix jazykov, Doktorskaja dissertacija (Moscow, 1963). , "Nekotorye voprosy teorii modelej jazyka", Naucno-texniceskaja informacija, Ν 8 (1964). and V. Ju. Rozencvejg, Osnovy obscego i masinnogo perevoda (Moscow, 1964). Rosenbloom.P., The Elements of Symbolic Logic (New York, 1950). Sanin,N.A., "O nekotoryx logiceskix problemax arifmetiki", Trudy matematiceskogo Instituto imeni V.A.Steklova (Moscow, Nauka, 1955). Saumjan,S.K., "Preobrazovanie informacii ν processe poznanija i dvuxstupencataja teorija strukturnoj lingvistiki", in : Tezisy dokladov na konferenciipo obrabotke informacii, masinnomuperevodu i avtomaticeskomu cteniju teksta (Moscow, 1961). , Problemy teoreticeskoj fonologii (Moscow, 1962); English translation : Saumjan, S. K., Problems of Theoretical Phonology (The Hague - Paris, Mouton, 1968). and P. A.Soboleva., "Applikativnaja porozdajusiaja model' i avtomaticeskoe polucenie semanticeskix klassov i podklassov", in : Tezicy dokladov na konferencii "Problemy formalizacii semantiki jazyka" (Moscow, 1964). , "Applikativnaja porozdajuäcaja model' i formalizacija grammaticeskoj synonymii", Voprosy jazykoznanija, Ν 5 (1965). , Applikativnaja porozdajuscaja model' i iscislenie transformacij ν russkom jazyke (Moscow, 1963). , Osnovanija porozdajuscej grammatiki russkogo jazyka (Moscow, Nauka, 1968). , "Transformation Calculus as a Tool of Semantic Study of Natural Languages", Foundations of Language, Ν 1 (1965). Saussure, F. de, Course in General Linguistics (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966). Scerba, L. V., Fonetika francuzskogo jazyka, 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1948). Severoskin, V. V., Issledovanija po desifrovke karijskix nadpisej (Moscow, Nauka, 1966). , "O strukture zvukovyx cepej", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). Shannon, E. C., "Prediction and Entropy of Printed English", Bell System Technical Journal, Ν 30 (1951).

LITERATURE

347

Smirnov,V. Α., "Geneticeskij metod postroenija naucnoj teorii", in: Filosofskie voprosy sovremennoj formal'noj logiki (Moscow, 1962). Soboleva.P. Α., "Komponentnyj analiz znacenij glagola na osnove slovoobrazovatel'nogo priznaka", in : Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). , " O transformacionnom analize slovoobrazovatel'nyx otnosenij", in: Transformacionnij metod ν strukturnoj lingvistike (Moscow, 1964). Suxotin.B.V., "Algoritmy lingvistiieskoj desifrovki", in: Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). , "Eksperimental'noe vydelenie klassov bukv s pomoäi'ju elektronno-vycislitel'noj masiny", in : Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moscow, 1963). Tarski, Α., Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences (New York, 1946). Tesnière,L., Éléments de syntaxe structurale (Paris, 1959). Timirjazev, Κ. Α., Socinenija V (Moscow, 1939). , Soöinenija VIII (Moscow, 1939). Toporov, V.N., "O granicax primenenija transformacionnogo metoda", Tezisy dokladov na konferenciipo strukturnoj lingvistike, posvjascennoj problemam transformacionnogo metoda (Moscow, 1961). Toulmin, S., The Philosophy of Science (London, 1967). Uspenskij.B.A., Principy strukturnoj tipologii (Moscow, 1962). Vinogradov, V. V., Grammatika russkogo jazyka I (Moscow, 1960). , Russkij jazyk (Moscow, 1947). Wells, R., "Immediate Constituents", Language XXIII (1947). Whorf,B.L., Language, Thought and Reality, ed. by L.B.Carroll (New York, Wiley and the Technology Press, 1956). W o r t h , D . S . , "Transform analysis of Russian instrumental constructions", Word XIV (1958). Xolodovic, Α. Α., "Opyt teorii podklassov slov", in: Voprosy Jazykoznanija, Ν 1 (1960). Yngve, V., "A Model and Hypothesis for Language Structure", Proceedings of American Philosophical Society CIV, Ν 5 (1960). Yuen Ren Chao, "Models in Linguistics and Models in General", in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (Stanford, California, 1962). Zinov'ev,A.A. and I.I.Revzin, "Logiöeskaja model' kak sredstvo naucnogo issledovanija", Voprosy Filosofti, N o . 1 (1960).

NAME INDEX

In the name index straight-type figures indicate the page where the author's name is mentioned, semi-bold type — quotations from the author, and italicized figures — reference to the author's works. Ajdukiewicz K. 325, 325 Akhmanova O.S. 30, 51 Apresjan Ju.D. 109 Aristotle 25 Avanesov R.I. 29, 30, 30 Bach E. 133 Bar-Hillel Y. 26,116, 325, 341 Bazenov L.B. 49 Bekesi, Von 50 Bergson H. 29 Berka Κ. 53, 54, 54 Bogoljubov N.N. 63, 64 Bogoraz L. I. 109 Braithwaite R.B. 40, 40, 42, 43, 52, 58, 59, 61, 62, 115 Brodbeck M. 44 Broglie de 34 Burlakova M.I. 27 Burton N.G. 31 Bush R.R. 58,83, 133 Carnap R. 15, 102, 104,104, 154 Carrol Y.B. 302 Chomsky N. 21, 22, 65, 78,79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 87,103, 106,106, 107,108, 108,109, 110,110, 116,117,118,119,119,126,129,130,133,134, 135,136,136,137,138,140,141, 143,303, 304, 304, 328,329, 329, 330,332,333,334, 335, 338, 339 Cossa P. 49, 50, 51 Curry H.B. 77, 98, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 144, 146, 151, 154, 325, 325 Davis M. 136

Dolgopolskij A.B. 109 Edmundson H.P. 205 Einstein A. 25, 43 Ewald 49, 50, 51 Feigl H. 44 Feys R. 325 Fitialov S.Ya. 141, 142, 205 Frege G. 97 Frumkina R. M. 30, 51 Gabor M. 36, 36 Gaifman Haim 205 Galanter E. 83, 133, 301, 302, 304 Galileo 42, 49 Galkina-Fedoruk E. M. 268 Ginzburg E. L. 109 Goodstein R.L. 97, 98, 101 Gorski D.P. 60, 96 Greenberg J.H. 27 Gvozdev A. P. 269 Hall M. 134 Halle M. 34, 82, 83, 83 Harper K.E. 205 Harris Z. 15, 107,107, 118, 325, 326, 327, 327 HaysD.G. 205 Helmholtz H. 50 Hempel C.G. 44 Hilbert D. 102 Hill A. 87 Hirschberg O. 117 Hjelmslev L. 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 101, 102 Humboldt W. von 17

NAME INDEX

349

Husserl E. 325, 325

Quine W.V.O. 69

Ivanov V.V. 27, 28, 29, 36, 82

Ramisvili G. V. 17, 17 Reichenbach H. 43, 44, 110, 110, 304, 305, 306 Revzin I.I. 30, 65, 65, 87, 87, 88, 89, 90, 90, 94, 117 Ritz 49 Rozenbloom P. 151 Rozencvejg V. Ju. 30 Rüssel B. 97

Jakobson R. 21, 27, 28, 78, 82, 325, 340 Janko-Trinickaja N. A. 264, 265, 268, 269 Klaus G. 62, 63 KleeneS.C. 18,19, 135 Kneale W. 14 Knorozov Ju. V. 37 Kolmogorov A.N. 20 Kotarbinski 39 Kurylowicz J. 29 Lambeck J. 325, 325 Laplace P. 25 Lashley Karl S. 302 LecerfY. 205 LeesR.B. 31, 32, 114 Lekomcev Ju.K. 205 Lekomceva M.I. 82, 82 Lesniewski S. 325, 325 Licklider T. C. R. 303 Lobacevskij N.I. 48, 53, 59 Lorenzen P. 142 Luce R. D. 81,131 Lukasiewicz 146, 147, 149 Mach E. 90 Marcus S. 115, 135, 139 Martinet A. 71 Maxwell J. C. 24 Mel'cuk I.A. 29, 31, 32, 35, 35, 49, 50 Miller G.A. 81, 117, 134,134, 301, 302, 303, 304 Mleziva M. 52, 53, 53 Molosnaja T. N. 107 Morris C.W. 104, 104 Mosteller F. 58 Newton I. 25, 42 Nikolaeva T. M. 27 Oppenheim P. 44 Paduceva E. V. 30, 51 Pap A. 41, 42, 47, 48, 48, 111 Perebejnos V. I. 109 Pike K.L. 22, 23 Piotrovskij R.G. 82 Planck M. 34 Poincaré H. 53, 54 Porte J. 144 Post E. L. 116 Pribram Κ. 301, 302, 304

Sanin N.A. 19 Sapir 83 Saumjan S.K. 22, 27, 77, 82, 111, 143, 205, 217, 222, 263, 275, 329, 329 Saussure F de 13, 16, 17, 76, 100,101, 102, 331, 337 Söerba L. V. 73 Schrödinger E. 61 Schützenberger M. P. 117 Segal D. M. 27 Sevoroskin V.V. 37, 109 Shannon C.E. 303 Smirnov V.A. 19 Snell J.L. 92 Soboleva P.A. 27, 109, 111, 217, 222, 263, 275, 329, 329 Stone R. 58 Suxotin B.V. 109 Tarski A. 57, 57, 105 Tesnière L. 205 Timirjazev K. A. 33, 34 Toporov V.N. 27, 29 Toulmin S. 24, 25, 91, 172 Trubeckoj N.S. 340 Turing A. 61, 135 Usakov D . N . 273 Uspenski B.A. 27 Uspenskij V.A. 90 Vinogradov V.V. 265, 268 Vlechter 50 Waismann F. 25 Wells R. 118 W h o r f B . L . 302 Xolodovic A.A. 109 Yngve V. 65, 304, 304 Yuen Ren Chao 65, 65 Zinov'ev A.A. 65, 65

SUBJECT INDEX

Abstraction, emic level of 22, 23 etic level of 22, 23 genotype level of 77, 143, 335 method of 60 phenotype level of 77, 143, 335 two-levels of 22 Accusative case 218 Acoustic substratum of the phoneme 71 Adjectival syntagma 219 Adjective 174, 175, 178, 218, 225, 227, 228, 229, 263 Adjective-forming affix 172 Adjective-type episemion 155, 156, 161, 171 Adnector 159, 160, 161, 170, 178 Adverb 174, 175, 218, 221, 225, 233, 263 modifying adjective 172, 173, 178 modifying verb 172, 173, 178 Affiliated phrases 210, 213 relator 208 Affiliation of relators 208 Affix 172, 174 adjective-forming 172 continuous 319 discontinuous 319 word-forming 315 Algorithm, analysis 30 synthesis 30 in machine-translation theory 32 in structural linguistics 31, 32 Algorithms, theory of 116 Analysis algorithm 30 Analysis, immediate constituent 118 of speech, automatic 338 Analysing automaton 79, 80, 81 Antinomy of transposition 70, 71 Application 144,151,152,153,154,155, 156,158, 160, 161, 168 Applicator 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 171 Applied linguistics 30, 339 Asymmetric relation 187

Attribute 233, 247 Automata theory 116 Automatic analysis of speech 338 reading machines 36 stenographer 36 synthesis of speech 338 translation 30 Automaton, analyzing 79, 80, 81 finite 135 synthesizing 79, 80, 81 Axiomatic method in mathematics 18, 19 Β Base of the T-field 207 Basis of calculus 145 of derivation 169 Black box 302 Block link 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 Block-link notation 214, 224, 268 Binary function 157 operation 151, 182 oppositions 82 phonological 340 phrase 215 Bound T-field 209, 210 T-generator 229 C Calculus as a deductive system 45 basis of 145 empirical interpretation of 45, 46 of connectorial structures 185 of episemion 178 of grammatical objects 32 of iterative structures 185 of semions 178 of synonyms 274 of transformations 224, 247, 309, 326, 327, 328, 341

SUBJECT INDEX

Case accusative 218 genetive 218, 272 instrumental 218, 264, 266, 270, 271 nominative 191, 218, 221, 269, 270, 271 oblique 192, 218, 221, 228 prepositional 218, 267, 269 Categorial grammar 325 system 325 Causative verbs 269 Class, derivational 145, 146 inductive 154 monotectonic 146 polytectonic 146 Classificatory grammar 22 Clause, modifying 196 Commutative law 181, 182 Complex 143 constituent 281 object 196 sentence 179, 181 unit 181, 247 Complexes, generation rules for 144 transformation rules for 144 Computation of synonyms 301 of transformations 275, 325 Concatenation 124, 133, 134, 154 Concatenation-system 77, 329, 330, 331, 339 Conjunction 179 subordinating 191, 196 Connected graph 207, 209 Connector 159, 160, 161, 170, 178, 179, 187 Connectorial process 339 structures, calculus of 185 Constituent, complex 281 main 184 subordinate 184 structure rules 130 Constituents, immediate 123 Constitutive link 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210 Constitutive link notation 214, 224 Construct 14, 15, 334 as a purely relational concept 72 hypothetical 15 Construction, impersonal 229 locative 266, 267 nested 183 Constructive methods in mathematics 18 Constructs, level of 14, 22, 23, 91, 92, 341 Content-plane 314, 316, 318, 330, 334, 335, 336, 341 of grammatical rules 316 of lexical rules 316 Context-free phrase-structure grammar 135, 141 Context-sensitive phrase-structure grammar 135 Contractor 166, 188, 205 Conversion law 304

351

process 179, 339 scheme of generation 304, 305 Co-occurrence (of morphemes )326 Copula 174, 226, 227, 228, 229, 253 Correspondence between grammatical objects and R-symbols 255 Correspondence, rules of 45, 326 Criterion of productivity 43 of simplicity 43 Culminative function 73, 74 Culminatoid 74, 82, 83 Culminator 74, 82, 83 Cybernetics 85, 341 linguistic problems of 35 Cycles of transformations 305 D Datum of derivation 146,148,150, 202, 203, 206 Decision procedure 107, 341 Decidable set of strings 137, 138 Deductive method 39, 40 system 45 of hypotheses 44 theory 59 Deep structure 332, 333, 335, 336 Degree of derivation 162, 211, 212 Dependency link 204, 205 Derivation, basis of 169 by replacement 197 datum of 146, 148, 150, 202, 203, 206 degree of 162, 211,212 in phenotype grammar 312 linear description of 148 relation of 155, 156 of semion by application 312 simple 206, 328 step 144 Derivational class 145, 146 monotectonic 146 polytectonic 146 formal system 144 Derivational history of sentence 128 history of strings 129 history of words 177, 178 ob-system 155 rule 145, 147 sequence 112, 147, 148 normal 148, 149, 150, 154, 169 system, abstract 154 syntactic 154 Derivator 155, 156 Derivatum, intermediate 146, 148, 150, 153 terminal 146 Derived syntagma 228, 247 Descriptive empirical sciences 39 grammar 22

352

SUBJECT INDEX

linguistics 16, 17, 337 Designation rules 104 Diachronic linguistics 16 Diacritic elements 74 situation 70 Differentor 72, 82, 83 Differentoid 72, 82, 83 Diminutive 176 Direct components of a phrase 201, 202 Discovery procedure 106, 107 Distribution, the left law of 187 the right law of 187 Distributive law 187 Distinctive feature theory 78 features 36, 340 Dynamic aspect of synchrony 17, 20, 21, 337 E Element, left-recursive 123, 125 recursive 123 right-recursive 123, 125 self-embedding recursive 123 Elementary episemion 155, 156, 161, 171 phrase 183 semion 156, 157, 158 transformation 129, 131 word 171 Elements, diacritic 69, 74 permutation of 143 Ellipsis 188 Emic level of abstraction 22, 23 Empirical interpretation of a calculus 45, 46 sciences, descriptive 39 theoretical 39 Episemion 155, 156, 161, 171 adjective-type 171 elementary 155, 158 noun-type 171 null 159 sentence-type 191 Episemion, calculus of 178 level of 180 Equivalent transformations 305 Etic level of abstraction 22, 23 Evaluation procedure 107, 108 Expression-plane 314, 316, 330, 332, 334, 335, 336, 341 of grammatical rules 316 of lexical rules 316 F Finite automaton 135 state grammar 135, 136, 137, 140, 141 Flexion 315 continuous 319

discontinuous 319 Formation rules 104, 120, 121, 122 Formalized theory 55, 56 Free T-field 209, 210, 212 T-generator 213 Function 157 binary 157 culminative 73, 74 two-argument 182 G Games theory 36 Genetic methods in mathematics 18, 19 Generation as recursive enumeration 75, 78, 120 by cycles of transformations 305 by reduction 180 connectorial process of 181, 183, 184 conversion scheme of 304, 305 experimental 92, 93 Generation in machine-translation theory 32 in structural linguistics 32 of phrases 179, 201, 310 of sentences 79 of T-field 209 of words 79 rules for complexes 144 rules, grammatical 316 rules, lexical 316 Generative device 18, 19, 20, 21, 52, 60, 63, 118, 130 Generative grammar 21, 22, 27, 75, 81, 111, 122 concrete 81 universal 81 as a theory of language 338 phonological component of 122 phonology in 84 Generative grammars, theory of 81 one-level theory of 338 two-level theory of 80 Generative linguistic model 51 process 127, 174 universal restrictions on 174 Generator phrase-generator 159, 160, 161, 162, 166, 204 semantic 207 T-generator 213 bound 229 free 213 semi-bound 213, 229 Genetive case 218, 272 objective 126, 127, 132 of cause 266 subjective 126, 127, 132 Genotype 143, 311 grammar 311 language 308, 311

SUBJECT INDEX

as a standard-language 80 level of abstraction 77, 141, 335 sentence 80 word 80 Gerund 226, 227, 228, 229 Government, strong 264 weak 264 Grammar, categorial 325 classiffcatory 22 context-free 125, 135, 141 context-sensitive 125, 135 descriptive 22 finite state 135, 136, 137, 140, 141 generative 21, 22, 27, 75, 81, 111, 122 concrete 81 universal 81 genotype 311 phenotype 312 relator 159 taxonomic 21, 22 Grammars, weakly equivalent 124 strongly equivalent 124 Grammatical homonymity 51 Grammatical objects 32 calculus of 32 correspondence between grammatical objects and R-symbols 255 Grammatical phrase 323 Grammatical rules 316 content-plane of 316 expression-plane of 316 Grammatical sentence 86, 87, 88 Grammatical synonymity 51, 274 synonyms 275, 296, 298 distance between 275 hierarchy of 296, 298 Grammaticality 85, 86, 88, 108, 125 Graph, connected 207, 209 unconnected 207, 209 H Hierarchy, of grammatical synonyms 296, 298 the principle of 301 Historical linguistics 16 Homonymity 127 grammatical 51 Hypothesis, ad hoc 49, 50 alternative 43 highest level 44 Hypothesis, initial 42 lowest level 44 non-verifiability of 48, 49, 50 top-level 42 verifiability of 48, 50, 51 Whorfian 302 Hypothetical construct 15

353

Hypothetico-deductive method 109, 111, 118, 263, 337 as the logical basis of structural linguistics 40 as cyclical procedure 91 Hypothetico-deductive system 53, 61, 62, 115, 116, 338 I Idealisation method 60, 71, 328 Identical lexical morphemes 326 Identificator 179, 180 Identity transformation 222, 224, 248 Immediate constituent analysis 118 model 201 Immediate constituents 123 Inductive class, monotectonic 146, 154 poly tectonic 146 Inductive method 39, 40 Infinitive 173, 223, 226, 228, 229, 253 Information theory 35 Information-retrieval machines 36 Initial symbol 120, 121, 122 Input language 30 text 30 Instance of an object 145 Instrumental case 218, 264, 266, 270, 271 Internal reconstruction 28 Interpretation complete 46 Interpretation empiric, direct 46 indirect 46, 48 Interpretation of a theory 57 of relator language 166 partial 46, 47, 48, 111, 113 Invariance of meaning 328 problem 126, 133 relations 144, 201 Invariant 72 grammatical 126, 274 linguistic 273 of transforms 275 relations 274 Isomorphism 54 Iteration, abstract 180 concrete 180 Iterative process 179, 180, 339 Iterative structures, calculus of 185 Κ Kernel of a language 130 string 131, 132 L Language, genotype 80, 310, 311 kernel of 130 natural 69, 71

354

SUBJECT INDEX

object-language 98 phenotype 310, 311 relator-language 165, 166, 178, 335 standard-language 27, 311 target 30 terminal 124 Language, generative grammar as a theory of 338 Language-typology 25, 26, 27, 253 Languages, structural typology of 308 typological study of 25, 26, 27, 253 Law, commutative 181, 182 distributive 187 of conversion 304 of cycles 305 Left law of distribution 187 Left-recursive element 123, 125 Level, morphonological 83, 84 of abstraction, genotype 77, 143, 335 etic 22, 23 genotype 77, 143, 335 phenotype 143 two-level of 22 of aletheutics 100 Level of constructs 14, 22, 23, 91, 92, 342 of episemions 180 of global symbols 74, 75, 76 of grammatics 99 of observations 14, 15, 22, 91, 92, 342 physical 73, 74 R-level 257 relational-physical 84 semantic 104, 106 semiotic 73, 74 syntactic 106 Lexical morphemes, identical 326 Linearity 204 and non-linearity 77 of linguistic elements 143 Linear order 314, 335 representation 76 Linguistic categories 25, 26 elements 143 invariant 72 Linguistic model 91, 92 Linguistic problems of cybernetics 35 Linguistic processes, diachronic 16 synchronic 16 Linguistic quasi-structure 17 structure 17 Linguistics, applied 30, 339 descriptive 16, 17, 337 diachronic 16 Linguistics, static 16, 17, 337 structural 13, 14, 20, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37,40, 337 synchronic 16, 337 taxonomic 17, 24, 25, 337

Link, block-link 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208 constitutive 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210 dependency 204, 205 Locative construction 266, 267 M Machine, information-retrieval 36 machine-translation 339 machine-translation theory 31, 32, 35 reading machine, automatic 36 sign system as a variety of cybernetic machine 20 Turing machine 135, 141 Main constituent 281 Main direct component 202, 203 Marked phrase 87, 89, 90 observed 91, 95 predicted 91, 95 sentence 125 Markedness 90 Meaningfulness 86, 87 Meaning-invariance 328 Metalanguage 308 Metasign 98 Metasymbol 98 Method, axiomatic 18, 19 constructive 18 deductive 39, 40 Method hypothetico-deductive 40, 91, 109, 111, 118,263, 337 inductive 39, 40 of abstraction 60 of idealization 60, 71, 328 Mirror-image structure 120 Model 53, 54, 57, 62, 64, 65 analytical 118 Model as an idealization 95 as a semiotic analogue of grammatical mechanism 338 as a symbolic representation of a hypotheticodeductive system 338 explanatory power of 143, 201 finite state 303, 304 generative 118 immediate constituent 118 in the empirical sciences 58, 59, 62, 63, 64 in the mathematical sciences 59, 62, 63 linguistic 91 of the theory 56, 57 phrase-structure 119, 127, 128, 129 synthetical 118 taxonomic 22 transformational 303, 304 Modifying clause 196 Monotectonic inductive class 154 Morphemic structure 253

SUBJECT INDEX Morphoculminator 83 Morphodifferentor 83 Morphophoneme 83 Morphophonemic rules 130 Morphophonological level 83, 84 Multiple derivation 206, 207, 328, 340 Mutator 179 Ν Nested construction 183 structure 122 Nominal syntagma 219, 224, 231 Nominalization 248, 265 Nominative case 191, 218, 221, 269, 270, 271 Non-linear combination of symbols 76 system of abstract objects 339 Non-markedness 90 Non-terminal vocabulary 124 Noun 174, 175, 178, 218, 223, 226, 229, 253, 263 affix 172 animate 263, 266, 281 collective 272, 273 inanimate 263, 267, 281 non-derived 173 phrase 122, 181 predicative 227 root 320 Noun-type episemion 171 Null episemion 159 relator 211 semion 175 O Ob-system 77, 154, 330 derivational 155 Object, complex 196 grammatical 32 Object-language 98 Oblique case 192, 218, 221, 228 Observable and unobservable object 60 facts 52 Observation, level of 14, 15, 22, 91, 92, 342 One-level theory of generative grammars 338 Onomatics 104, 105 Operand 170, 183, 184 phrase-operand 166 Operation, binary 151, 182 Operational procedure 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 118 Operator 161, 170, 183, 184 modal, interrogative 178 modal, negative 178 phrase-operator 166 Opposition, binary 82 phonological 340

355

Output text 30 Ρ Participle 224, 227, 228, 229, 319 active 221 passive 221 Permutation of elements 143 Personal pronoun 272 Phrases, affiliated 210, 213 Phenotype 143, 311 grammar 312 language 310, 311 level 77, 143, 335 sentences 80 words 80, 315 Phoneme, accustic substratum of 71 as a bundle of distinctive features 72 as a construct 23 distinctive features 24 Phoneme-invariants 23, 24 Phoneme, variants 23, 24 Phonemoid 23, 70, 72 Phonological code, universal 81 component of generative grammar 122 components of signs 20 Phonological oppositions 340 representation 84, 314 rules 122 shape 335 syllable 74 word 74 Phonology, experimental 85 Phonology in generative grammar 84 in relation to generative grammar 20 in structural linguistics 20 Phonology theoretical 85 Phrase, affiliated 210, 213 binary 215 direct component of phrase 201, 202 elementary 183 forbidden 89, 90, 91 generation of phrases 179, 201 restrictions on 310 grammatical 323 marked 87, 89, 90 meaningful 323 meaningless 323 multi-component 215 non-marked 90 prepositional 263 unmarked 94 Phrase-construct 92 Phrase-formation rules 201 Phrase-generator 159, 160, 161, 162, 166, 204 Phrase-marker 123, 125, 130, 328, 329 level 132

356

SUBJECT INDEX

Phrase-operand 166 Phrase-operator 166 Phrases, connected 246 unconnected 235 Phrase-structure model 119, 127, 128, 129 rules 129, 130 Phrase-transformation rules 201 Physical level 73, 74 Pragmatics 104 Prefix 319 Predicate 220, 247 compound 173 group 185 nominal 232, 250 verbal 250 Predicative noiin 227 syntagma 219 Predicator 178 Preposition 315, 319 Prepositional case 218, 267, 269 Problem of invariance 126, 133 Procedure, decision 107, 341 discovery 106, 107 evaluation 107, 108 hypothetico-deductive cyclical 91 operational 107, 108, 109, 111 verifying 114 Process, connectorial 339 of conversion 179, 339 Productivity, criterion of 43 Pronoun, personal 272 relative 192, 193 Propositor 159, 161, 170, 178, 179, 182 Purely physical concepts 72 relational concepts 72

Q Quasi-structure 17, 337

R Reading machine, automatic 36 Recognition device 19 models 21 Recursive element 123 self-embedding 123 Recursive function theory 116 Recursively enumerable set 113 of strings 137, 138 Reductive process 179, 180, 339 Relation, asymmetric 187 of derivation 155, 156 of designation 70, 71 of differentiation 70, 71 of invariance 144, 201 of representation 71

taxonomic 16 Relational-physical concepts 72 level 84 Relative pronoun 192, 193 Relator 166 affiliated 208 blocking 316, 319 grammar 159 language 165, 166, 178, 335 interpretation of 166 Relators, affiliation of 208 Replacement, operation of 166, 167 rules 188, 313, 314 Representation relation 83 Right law of distribution 187 Right-recurcive element 123, 125 Root, 159, 163, 170, 175, 319 abstract 172 Rule derivational 145, 147 of grammar 78 Rules, grammatical 316 morphophonemic 130 lexical 316 of correspondence 45, 326 classificatory 311 generative 311, 312 of derivation 145, 147 of designation 104 of formation 104, 120, 121, 122 of generation for complexes 144 of phrase-formation 201 of phrase-transformation 201 of replacement 188, 313, 314 of word order 321 S Scheme of generation 304, 305 Sciences, descriptive 39 empirical 39 theoretical 39 theoretical empirical 39 structural linguistic as a theoretical empirical science 40 Self-embedding recursive element 123, 124, 125 Semantics 104 Semantic definitions 100 generator 207 level 104, 106 system 105 tree 206 Semi-bound T-field 209, 210. 212 Semion 156, 157, 167, 168, 171 elementary 156, 157, 158 main components 168 null 175 Semions, calculus of 178

SUBJECT INDEX derivation of 169 virtual calculus of 158 Semiotic level 73, 74 system 69, 98, 99 primitive 69, 73 secondary 69, 73 syntactic 101 Semiotics 35 Sentence, complex 179, 181 compound 232 derivational history of 128 genotype 80 grammatical 86, 87, 88 phenotype 80 simple 232 Sentence, structural description of 78, 120 ungrammatical 86, 87 Sentences, generation of 79 Sentence-type episemion 171 Seqence, derivational 112, 147, 148 normal 148, 149, 150, 154, 169 Set-system 329, 330 Set-theory methods 19 Sign as a sequence of diacritic elements 69 in natural languages 69, 71 Sign-system as a variety of cybernetic machine 20 Simple derivation 206 Simplicity as a formal criterion 110 criterion of 43 descriptive 110 inductive 110 Situation, diacritic 70 Speech, automatic analysis of 338 synthesis of 338 Splitting of T-base 257 Standard-language 27, 311 Static aspect of synchrony 17, 21, 22, 337 Static linguistics 16, 17, 377 Statistical methods 301 Stenographer, automatic 36 Step in derivation 144 String, terminal 122, 124 Strings, derivational history of 129 Strong government 264 Strongly equivalent grammars 124 Structural description of a sentence 78, 120 Structural linguistics 13, 14, 31, 337 and cryptoanalisis 36 and games theory 36 and neurology 36 and traditional linguistics 37 as a theoretical empirical science 40 as the linguistic branch of cybernetic 20 contacts with other science 35 Structural typology of languages 308 Structure 14

357

deep 332, 333, 335, 336 linguistic 17 mirror-image structure 120 morphemic 253 nested 122 quasi-structure 17, 334 surface 329, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 Structures, connectorial, calculus of 185 iterative, calculus of 185 synonymous 206, 207 Subject 220, 247 group 185 Subordinate clause 179, 195 constituent 184 Subordinating conjunction 191, 196 word 193, 194 Subphrase 183 Substantival syntagma 219 Substitution, operation 166 Substratum of phoneme, acoustic 71 Suffix 319 Surface structure 329, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 Symmetrical groups of transforms 296, 298, 299 Synchronic linguistics 16, 337 Synchrony, dynamic aspect of 17, 20, 21, 22, 337 static aspect of 337 Synonymous structures 206, 207 Synonyms, calculus of 274 computation of 301 lexical 300, 301 morphological 300 Synonymy, genotype 301 grammatical 51, 274 phenotype 301 Syntactic definitions 98, 99 interpretation of the theory 55 level 106 meaning 55 relations, immediate 326 Syntactical systems 105 Syntactics 104 Syntagma, adjectival 219 derived 228, 247 nominal 219, 224, 231 predicative 227 verbal 220, 221, 223, 224, 231 Synthesis algorithm 30 in machine-translation theory 32 in structural linguistics 31, 32 Synthesis of speech, automatic 338 Synthesizing automaton 79, 80, 81 System, abstract 154 categorial 325 concatenative 77, 339 deductive 45 deductive of hypotheses 44

358

SUBJECT INDEX

derivational 144, 154 formal 144 hypothetico-deductive 53, 61, 62,115,116, 337 ob-system 77, 154, 330 of abstract object, non-linear 339 set-system 329, 330 sign-system as a variety of cybernetic machine 20 syntactical 105 Target language 30 Taxonomic grammar 21, 22 linguistics 17, 24, 25, 337 model 22 T-base 207, 208, 209, 211 invariant of transformations 224 three-component 217 two-component 217 unconnected 236, 246 Terminal derivatum 146 language 124 string 122, 124 vocabulary 124 T-field, base of 207 bound 209, 210 degeneration 300, 329 derivation rules 208 free 209, 210, 212 generation 209 semi-bound 209, 210, 212 T-generator, bound 229 free 213 semi-bound 213, 229, 233 T-graph: 'butterfly' 286, 298 'crossed lines' 287 'horizontal V' 283, 284 'intersecting angles' 290, 298 'left-facing angle' 278, 279 'lower cross' 263, 283 'middle cross' 283, 299 'rhombus' 280, 298 'right-facing angle' 277, 278 'lower semi-cross' 225 'scissors' 289, 299 'trapezoid' 285, 299 'upper cross' 282, 298 'upper semi-cross' 225 Theoretical empirical sciences 39 Theory, deductive 59 formalized 55, 56 interpretation of 57 in the empirical sciences 52 in the mathematical sciences 59 information theory 35 machine translation 31, 32, 35

of algorithms 115 of automata 115 of forms 13 of games 36 of generative grammars 79, 81 one-level 338 two-level 14 Transform string 211 Transformation, abstract 328 bound 212, 327 directionality of 310 elementary 129, 131 empirical 328 free 212, 246, 327 in diachronic linguistics 29 obligatory 131 of binary phrases 215 of multi-component phrases 215 on the R-level optional 131 semi-bound 327 Transformational analysis 118 fields 207 model 22, 119, 201 rules 129, 130 Transformations, calculus of 224, 247, 309, 326, 327, 328, 341 computation of 275, 325 equivalent 305 Transforms, symmetrical 296, 298, 299 Translation, automatic 30 Transposition 182 antinomy of 70, 71 Turing machine 135, 141 Two-argument function 182 Two levels of abstraction 22 Two level theory of generative grammars 80 of phonology 22, 23, 24 Typological study of languages 25, 26, 27, 253 U Unconnected graph 207, 208 Ungrammatical sentence 86, 87 Unit, complex 181, 247 quasi-complex 181 Universal generative grammar 81 linguistic categories 25, 26 phonological code 81 restrictions on phrase generation 310 on word generation 310 Unmarked sentence 125 V Variant 72 Verb 174, 175, 178, 223, 225, 226, 227 active 228, 253

SUBJECT INDEX

affix 172 causative 269 finite form 171, 173, 221 impersonal 268, 269, 270 intransitive 268 passive 228 phrase 122, 181 reflexive 294 transitive 265 Verbal predicate, simple 232 root 320 syntagma 220, 221, 223, 224, 231 Verbs of action 271 of motion 271 of mutual action 264 of reciprocal action 264, 266, 281 stative 271 Verifiability of hypothesis 48

Verifying procedure 114 Vocabulary, terminal 124 W Weak government 264 Weakly equivalent grammars 124 Word, elementary 171 generation 79 restrictions on 310 genotype 80 order 126, 315 phenotype 80, 315 phonological 80 stress 73 Word-construct 92 Word-generator 162, 163 Word-order rules 321 Words, derivational history of 177, 178