Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics 9783110803853, 9789027930248

Table of contents :
Josef Vachek’s Work in General and English Linguistics
A Preliminary Remark
A. GENERAL PHONOLOGY
Phonemes and Phonological Units (1936)
Can the Phoneme be defined in terms of time? (1937)
The Non-Static Aspect of the Synchronically Studied Phonological System (1967)
Notes on One Aspect of the Internal Structuration of the Phonological System (1967)
On the Explanatory Power of the Functional Load of Phonemes (1969)
On Some Basic Principles of ‘Classical’ Phonology (1964)
B. OTHER GENERAL LINGUISTIC ISSUES
On Functional Complementation as an All-Level Analytical Procedure in Language Research (1965)
On the Integration of the Peripheral Elements into the System of Language (1966)
On the Interplay of External and Internal Factors in the Development of Language (1962)
A Note on Future Prospects of Diachronistic Language Research (1968)
Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache (1939)
Written Language and Printed Language (1948)
Some Remarks on Writing and Phonetic Transcription (1945–9)
The Present State of Research in Written Language (1972)
C. ENGLISH PHONOLOGY
The Phonematic Status of Modern English Long Vowels and Diphthongs (1963)
The Place of [ɔI] in the Phonic Pattern of Southern British English (1965)
Phonemic Remarks on the “Long Mixed Vowel” of Modern English (1965)
On Peripheral Phonemes of Modern English (1964)
I. Peripheral Elements in the Structure of Language
II. The Elimination of the Modern English /h/-Phoneme
III. The Early Middle English Phoneme /J/ and the Personal Pronoun She
IV. The Phonematic Values of the English WH-Sounds
V. The Problem of the Phonematic Status of the Modern English [n] -Sound
VI. The Decline of the Modern English /r/
VII. The Phonematic Relation of Modern English [i] and [j]
VIII. The Modern English ‘Short Mixed Vowel’ as a Phonematic Problem
IX. The Place of [ɔI] in the Modern English Phonematic Pattern
Some Thoughts on the Phonology of Cockney English (1962)
Some Phonological Problems of Modern English Sonant Sounds (1969)
Remarks on the Sound Pattern of English (1970)
D. OTHER PROBLEMS OF ENGLISH
Some Less Familiar Aspect of the Analytical Trend of English (1961)
I. Some Remarks on the Analytical Character of English
II. The Status of the Word in Modern English
III. The “Possessive Case” of Modern English
IV. The Compactness of the Modern English Sentence
V. The Oppositions of Quantity and Quality in Modem English Vowels
VI. The Oppositions of Voice and Tension in Modern English Paired Consonants
VII. The Eclipse of the Modern English Neutral Consonant
Notes on Gender in Modern English (1964)
On Social Differentiation of English Speech Habits (1960)
Some Sociolinguistic Factors in the Development of English (1972)
Two Chapters on Written English (1959)
I. On the Functional Hierarchy of Spoken and Written Utterances
II. Some Remarks on the Development of the Written Norm in English
Index of persons
Index of subjects

Citation preview

JANUA

LINGUARUM

STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK

DEDICATA

edenda curat

C.H. VAN SCHOONEVELD Indiana

Universily

Series Maior,

92

SELECTED WRITINGS IN ENGLISH AND GENERAL L I N G U I S T I C S by JOSEF

VACHEK

1976

ACADEMIA P U B L I S H I N G H O U S E OF T H E CZECHOSLOVAK ACADEMY OF S C I E N C E S

PRAGUE

MOUTON THE HAGUE

·

PARIS

Scientific

Editor

Professor Dr. Jan Horecky, DrSc. Scientific

Advisers

Doc. Dr. Jaroslava Pacesovä, CSc. Jan Caha

ISBN:

©

90 279 3024 4

Josef Vachek, Prague 1976

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Printed in Czechoslovakia

T A B L E OF

CONTENTS

Jan F i r b a s : Josef Vachek's Work in General and English Linguistics A Preliminary Remark

7 14

A. GENERAL PHONOLOGY Phonemes and Phonological Units (1936) Can the Phoneme be defined in terms of time? (1937) The Non-Static Aspect of the Synchronically Studied Phonological System (1967) . . . . Notes on One Aspect of the Internal Structuration of the Phonological System (1967) . . . On the Explanatory Power of the Functional Load of Phonemes (1969) On Some Basic Principles of "Classical" Phonology (1964)

15 20 23 29 36 44

B. OTHER GENERAL LINGUISTIC ISSUES On Functional Complementation as an All-Level Analytical Procedure in Language Research (1965) On the Integration of the Peripheral Elements into the System of Language (1966) . . . . On the Interplay of External and Internal Factors in the Development of Language (1962) A Note on Future Prospects of Diachronistic Language Research (1968) Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache (1939) Written Language and Printed Language (1948) Some Remarks on Writing and Phonetic Transcription (1945—9) The Present State of Research in Written Language (1972)

67 77 91 104 112 121 127 134

C. ENGLISH PHONOLOGY The Phonematic Status of Modern English Long Vowels and Diphthongs (1963) The Place of [о/] in the Phonic Pattern of Southern British English (1965) Phonemic Remarks on the "Long Mixed Vowel" of Modern English (1965) On Peripheral Phonemes of Modern English (1964) I. Peripheral Elements in the Structure of Language II. The Elimination of the Modern English /A/-Phoneme III. The Early Middle English Phoneme Д7/ and the Personal Pronoun She IV. The Phonematic Values of the English WA-Sounds V. The Problem of the Phonematic Status of the Modern English [η] -Sound . . . . VI. The Decline of the Modern English /г/ VII. The Phonematic Relation of Modern English [i] and [?'] VIII. The Modern English "Short Mixed Vowel" as a Phonematic Problem IX. The Place of [ol] in the Modern English Phonematic Pattern

147 162 168 176 176 179 194 204 224 233 246 253 261

6 Some Thoughts on the Phonology of Cockney English (1962) Some Phonological Problems of Modem English Sonant Sounds (1969) Remarks on the Sound Pattern of English (1970)

288 297 304

D. OTHER PROBLEMS OF ENGLISH Some Less Familiar Aspeot of the Analytical Trend of English (1961) 310 I. Some Remarks on the Analytical Character of English 310 II. The Status of the Word in Modern English 315 III. The "Possessive Case" of Modern English 328 IV. The Compactness of the Modern English Sentence 337 V. The Oppositions of Quantity and Quality in Modern English Vowels 353 VI. The Oppositions of Voice and Tension in Modern English Paired Consonants . . . 364 VII. The Eclipse of the Modern English Neutral Consonant 372 Notes on Gender in Modern English (1964) 386 On Social Differentiation of English Speech Habits (1960) 392 Some Sociolinguistic Factors in the Development of English (1972) 400 Two Chapters on Written English (1959) 408 I. On the Functional Hierarchy of Spoken and Written Utterances 409 II. Some Remarks on the Development of the Written Norm in English 421 Index of persons Index of subjects

·

442 446

JOSEF VACHEK'S WORK IN GENERAL AND E N G L I S H L I N G U I S T I C S Jan Firbas

I. The present volume offers a selection from the writings of Professor Josef Vachek, one of the most prominent representatives of post-war Czechoslovak linguistic scholarship. The selection comprises writings that are chiefly concerned with problems of general and English linguistics. The need of such a selection has long been felt by scholars both in and out of Czechoslovakia. The present volume meets this need; it conveniently assembles a great number of studies that have appeared in various publications within a period of almost four decades and are now not always easily accessible and certainly never at hand all at a time. Vachek's main fields of interest are English, Czech and general linguistics. In agreement with the selection, Vachek's writings chiefly concerning Czech have not been included and this introductory paper confines itself to a brief evaluation of his contribution to the first and the third of the three mentioned fields. Problems of Czech linguistics, however, are thereby not wholly excluded, for Vachek's constant interest in problems of general linguistics frequently induces him to compare English with other languages, especially Czech. II. Professor Josef Vachek, Ph.Dr. (Caroline University, Prague), Sc.Dr. (Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague), was bom in Prague on March 1, 1909. From 1945 to 1947 he was Reader, and from 1947 to 1962 Professor of English Language of the University of Brno. In the years 1962—1971 he was one of the Senior Research Workers at the Institute of the Czech Language of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in Prague, one of the leading centres of linguistic research in Czechoslovakia. Since 1971 he has been Professor of English Language at the Interpreters' Institute of the University of 17th November and Comenius University in Bratislava. Ever since the end of the war he has been an external member of the teaching staif of the Department of English of the Caroline University in Prague. Among Vachek's university teachers, especially four had a marked share in moulding his personality as well as his conception of language and language study: Professors Vilem Mathesius, Bohumil Trnka, Oldrich Hujer, and Milos Weingart. Two other scholars should be named in this connection: Bohuslav Havranek and Roman Jakobson, who were Professors in the University of Brno (in Vachek's student days), but took part in the meetings and other activities of the Prague Linguistic Circle.

8 In the third term of his University studies (begun in 1927) Yachek became Professor Mathesius' amanuensis, filling a post held before him by Professor Trnka. His duties consisted chiefly in reading books and articles to Professor Mathesius, whose eyesight was failing, and in writing Professor Mathesius' lectures and papers from dictation. In the fifth term of his University studies, Vachek became secretary to the Prague Linguistic Circle, whose President Mathesius was, and shortly afterwards, in February 1931, even a virtual member of the Circle. (The main condition of membership was the delivery of a lecture at a session of the Circle.) Having recognized his pupil's extraordinary talent for linguistic research, Mathesius soon began to encourage Yachek to start preparing his habilitation work. But war intervened and Vachek's habilitation took place in Brno only in September 1945, five months after Professor Mathesius' death. By that time Vachek's name had already become well known even outside Czechoslovakia, both on account of his publications and on account of his papers and interventions presented at some pre-war linguistic congresses. It has become even better known since. Vachek has lectured on the results of his research in a great number of universities, both in the West and in the East. Two visiting professorships perhaps deserve special mention: that at the 1964 Linguistic Institute held at the Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, and that at the University of Leiden in the academic year 1968/9. III. As is well known, it was the phonological level of language that in the pre-war years mostly attracted the Prague group's attention. Even Vachek's pre-war interests were chiefly focused on phonology. A wide range of interests is revealed chiefly by his post-war work, although phonology continues to occupy a most prominent place in it. It will therefore be appropriate to concentrate first on his work in the field of phonology. It concerns general phonological theory, the phonological system of Modern English, the history of the English phonological system, the phonological system of Modern Czech as well as its history, and last but not least the linguistic characterology of the English and Czech phonological systems. It is naturally Vachek's contribution to English phonological studies that will mainly be dealt with here, although due regard will have to be paid at least to some of his most important contributions to general phonological theory. Here belongs, for instance, his contribution to the inquiry into the concept of the phoneme, a problem that has received much attention from the members of the Prague group.1 Endeavouring to improve on the definition offered by the 'Projet', Vachek defines the phoneme as 'a part of the member of the complex phonological opposition, a part which may be dissociated into simultaneous, but not into successive phonological units'. It should be added that by simple phonological opposition Vachek understands a 'minimum phonic opposition capable of serving, in the given language, for the differentiation of intellectual meanings', whereas by a complex one he understands a 'nonminimum phonic opposition' of analogous capacity. A phonological unit is defined by him as 'a member of a simple phonological opposition'. Like other definitions of the phoneme offered by the members of the Prague group, Vachek's

9 definition pays due regard to semantic criteria and to phonic facts implementing the phonemes. In consequence, he is opposed to D. Jones' intentional exclusion from the definition of the phoneme of any reference to its distinctive functioning in language. On the other hand, he is equally opposed to Yale group's denial of the importance of the phonic aspect of the sounds for phonemic interpretation. Vachek's term 'phonological unit' (adopted from N. S. Trubetzkoy) in fact covers what is nowadays usually called 'distinctive feature'. Yachek, however, does not concur with the Harvard group in the amount of emphasis laid on the importance of distinctive features. In his researches into the history of phonological systems (to be discussed presently), he has shown that it is often not the distinctive features but rather the phonemes as wholes that are the bearers of systemic tensions which frequently result in important reconstructions of the phonological system. Another important pre-war contribution of Vachek's to phonological theory is his monograph devoted to the problem of phonemic interpretation of diphthongs, in which among other things he pays special attention to the ModE i- and «-diphthongs.2 On the phonic level, he describes them as glide vowels, accounting for their gliding character by the unstable qualities of their initial and final points. He draws the conclusion that the ModE i- and w-diphthongs cannot be phonically characterized by specific positions of their components, but by specific zonal extents of the diphthongal sounds regarded as wholes. On the phonemic level, Yachek consequently interprets the ModE i- and ω-diphthongs as monophonematic. In his post-war work,3 he shows that this interpretation is born out by the very history of these diphthongs, which have been developing as compact, monophonematic wholes, not as biphonematic groups. Further changes to which the diphthongs are subject in present-day Cockney only substantiate this monophonematic interpretation. In the late 'forties and early 'fifties, the Prague phonologists found themselves in a defensive position. They were induced carefully to weigh the methods used and the results achieved. It was not, for instance, always duly appreciated that the Prague phonological theory was by no means ahistoric. The critics did not seem to realize that valuable contributions to historical phonology had been offered by B. Havranek, R. Jakobson, В. Tmka and also J. Vachek himself, though the latter's main contribution to historical phonology was still to come. It was his monograph on the peripheral phonemes of English, 4 an outcome of work extending for over ten years and based on a number of papers published in various periodicals. In the mentioned monograph, Yachek concentrates his attention on phonemes that are, to use Martinet's term, not 'fully integrated' in the phonemic pattern or exhibit a very low functional load. He rightly finds that the existence of such phonemes bears out the fact that language is not a closed, fully balanced system, and concurs with C. F. Hockett in regarding this lack of 'functional balance' as a language universal. He even goes further than Hockett in that he sets out to inquire into the causes of this lack of balance and into the problem of how this lack can be reconciled

10 with the systemic character of language. In doing so, he further develops some of the earlier findings of the Prague group and vindicates the claim that the problems of the periphery of language have been given more profound consideration by this group than by any other centre of linguistic thought. His detailed analysis of peripheral phonemes throws new light on a number of vexed problems of the historical development of English. The monograph inquires into the history and the phonematic status of the ModE [A], wh, [η], [г], [г], [j], [э], [oi]-sounds. Perhaps one of the most remarkable achievements of the research presented by the monograph is the new light thrown on the development of ME sehe from EME ?ho, ghe [ςο:, fe:] < OE Mo. The development is explained as the result of an interplay of all language levels, especially the phonic and the grammatical. IV. After the war, phonological research in fact no longer stood in the centre of interest of Czech and Slovak linguists. Especially syntactic problems came to have more attraction for the younger generation. Vachek found this a natural and desirable development. Like other members of the Prague group, he has never confined his functionalist and structuralist conception of language to the phonic level alone. This is borne out by his habilitation work on General Negation in English and Czech.5 He shows in it, among other things, that in regard to positiveness or negativeness the English verb is neutral, becoming positive or negative only after its incorporation in a context. This dependence on the sentence context of the meaning and the grammatical function of the English verb, together with the existence in English of the pronouns of the any-type, made it possible for the rationalistic tendencies in the 17th century to bring about the discarding of double negation in English, Other problems of grammatical structure are taken up in some of the chapters of Vachek's monograph on the analytical trend of English, 6 which throws fresh light on a number of problems connected with the analytical character of English. Thus, for instance, one chapter deals with the so-called complex condensation phenomena in English, which are an outcome of the well-known English tendency to use nominal elements, especially participles, gerunds and infinitives, in the place of subordinate clauses. Comparing English sentences with their Czech counterparts, Vachek finds that the former tend to be more condensed, and in regard to the relations between at least some of their members, more complex than the latter. These differences are in close connection with the greatly reduced dynamism of the English finite verb form on the one hand, and the comparatively high amount of dynamism present in the Czech finite verb forms on the other. Ultimately, all the mentioned differences are to be traced to the analytic and synthetic character of English and Czech respectively. In another chapter of the same monograph, Vachek shows that what is usually called the 'possessive case' is to be regarded as a form that has considerably loosened the ties originally linking it up with the substantival paradigm and is gradually acquiring an adjectival character. An opposite tendency is displayed by the Czech

1] dialectal absolute possessive ending in -ovojino (tatinkovo Father's, mamincino Mother's) which, though originally an adjectival form, has come to function almost as a variant of the genitive singular within the nominal paradigm. One of the most outstanding contributions of the discussed monograph is the emphasis on 'the necessity of regarding the analytical trend of English not as a merely morphological affair but rather as a principle which, though manifested mainly on the grammatical level, affects all planes of language and whose operation, from time to time, may even become felt on the phonic plane.' The validity of this observation is borne out by some of the important phonological changes which, to a considerable extent, were prompted by the changing situation on the morphological level of English, i.e. by the process restructuring the prevalently synthetic grammatical structure into one prevalently analytical. (This concerns the re-evaluation of the opposition of vocalic quantity into that of contact, and an analogous re-evaluation of the consonantal opposition of voice into that of tension.) In treating of these problems, Vachek convincingly presents language as a complex system comprising a number of subsystems or levels, each of which has its own particular structure and consequently its own specific structural problems. If often happens that a change effected in one subsystem has repercussions in the other subsystems. In this way Yachek avoids a separation (compartmentalization) of the subsystems (levels) without mixing them. The methodological approach of the discussed monograph is also adopted in Vachek's paper on gender in Modern English. 7 It answers in the affirmative the question whether there is a category of gender in Modern English. A proof of the existence of this category is the very contrastive use in which gender differences are being utilized for signalling emotional approach. A good deal of Vachek's attention has been devoted to problems of written language. In his view, the functionalist and structuralist approach of the Prague group can throw fresh light even on such problems. His own investigations corroborate the legitimacy of this view. His interest in written language dates back to the pre-war years (see his German paper on the said issues). The main conclusions at which he arrived have been summarized in his extensive paper included in this volume (and most recently, in a special monograph).8 The functional justification of the existence of two norms of language, spoken and written, follows from the definitions of the two. The function of the spoken norm is, 'in principle, to react to a given stimulus (which, as a rule, is an urgent one) in a dynamic way, i.e., in a ready and immediate manner expressing not only the purely communicative but also the emotional aspect of the reacting language user.' On the other hand, the function of the written norm is 'to react to a given stimulus (which, as a rule, is not an urgent one) in a static way, i.e. in a preservable and easily surveyable manner, concentrating particularly on the purely communicative aspect of the approach of the reacting language user.' Yachek has also shown keen interest in problems of the standard language and

12

linguistic culture, a field worked in by Czechoslovak linguists since the pre-war years. It is therefore understandable why particular attention has been paid by Vachek to A. C. Ross' article "Linguistic Class-Indicators in Present-Day English." 9 Vachek's approach of the problem stresses the fact that class-indicators, though certainly of social provenience, are often revaluated into indicators of style. The preceding discussion has sufficiently illustrated Vachek's insistence on not examining linguistic levels in isolation. In fact he maintains that the entire language system should not be examined in isolation from the extralingual reality. He is against 'a self-contained immanentist conception', unjustifiably ignoring the fact of the social functioning of language. In his investigation into the internal and external factors in the development of language,10 lie comes to the conclusion (anticipated by B. Havränek) that the system of language may succumb to foreign influence provided the latter is not incompatible with the requirements of the former. V. At this point it seems appropriate to insert a note on Vachek's attitude to most recent developments in linguistics. Though, or rather because he is an adherent of the Prague group, he wholeheartedly subscribes to V. Mathesius' dictum that language is a fortress that can and must be assailed from different sides. It is in this spirit that Vachek presented his evaluation of N. Chomsky's approach to language, naturally concentrating chiefly on phonological problems.11 As in other places, even in the said evaluation Vachek takes great pains in weighing the pros and cons before drawing his conclusions. Endeavouring to appreciate even diametrically opposed views, he masters the art of disagreeing with a scholar without belittling his achievements. Vachek shows in which respects he cannot agree with Chomsky, as well as in what he finds the latter's main contribution to the development of modern linguistics. He objects to Chomsky's view that the Prague approach is to be described as taxonomic in the sense that the facts of the phonic level are only enumerated and classified, no notion being taken of the relations existing between them and other linguistic facts. Vachek's view of language as a system certainly entitles him to raise this protest. He further shows that Chomsky is not right in blaming the members of the Prague group for subscribing to such 'inconsistent' principles as those of linearity, biuniqueness and complementary distribution. ' The exceptional cases to which the mentioned principles cannot be applied are not a proof of the inadequacy of the criticized principles but are" due to the fact that language does not constitute a perfectly balanced, fully closed, self-contained; static system. The special circumstances in which the principles do not apply indicate places in the system of language which are to be regarded as fuzzy points, "indicators of the fact that, at the given time, the system has some structural problems to solve, in other words, that far from being a static structure, it is a structure in motion."12 Nevertheless, like other members of the Prague group, Vachek is not opposed to the methods of algebraic linguistics and mathematical models. He even points

13 out the possibility and usefulness of an attempt at a synthesis of Chomsky's conception and that of the Prague group. He finds that the possibility of such a synthesis is afforded by the fact that the two conceptions approach the problem of language from complementary angles. He feels inclined to believe that Chomsky's generativist and transformationalist conception is in fact an ingenious attempt at a theory of what Saussure denoted as 'parole'. The functionalist and structuralist approach of the Prague group, on the other hand, is found by Yachek to be in essence a theory of 'langue', conceived of, naturally, as a dynamic, not as a static phenomenon. Chomsky's conception of grammar is that of a number of selective processes by which the means placed at the disposal of the speaker are selected and mobilized for communicative purposes. His approach may consequently be denoted as processual. In Vachek's view the Prague approach, on the other hand, concentrates on the system of means, 'langue', from which the selection is made, i.e., in other words, on a system of entities with and upon which the processes operate. It follows that it is the entitative aspect that the Prague approach is chiefly concerned with. Yachek believes that this evaluation indicates the possibility of a synthesis of the two approaches. VI. Before closing the survey of Vachek's work in the field of English studies, we cannot fail to mention (i) the service he has rendered Anglicists through editorial work, and (ii) his awareness of the necessity of turning the results of linguistic research .to practical purposes. He has prepared, for instance, a posthumous edition of V. Mathesius' university lectures on a functional analysis of present-day English and provided it with extensive editorial comment.13 — Well known in Czechoslovakia is his comprehensive textbook of English; in addition to this, he is co-author of textbooks of English for Czech and Slovak grammar schools, and has taken interest in questions of practical language teaching. All this is quite in keeping with the efforts of the members of the Prague group, who in their overwhelming majority have been far from pursuing linguistics for linguistics' sake. By way of closing this survey, the following should be added. Since his student days, Vachek has remained Mathesius' devoted pupil, but carried on the work of his teacher in an original, nonepigonic way. There are not too many masters who can claim such a pupil—one who, keeping abreast of the times, continues and develops the work in a manner truly worthy of and equalling his great master's achievements. Vachek further develops the progressive ideas of the pre-war Prague Linguistic Circle without indiscriminately subscribing to all theses held by the Circle in the pre-war years and without having his eyes closed to the exploits of other groups. In the post-war years he became one of the leading figures of the Prague group, the teaching of which he made accessible to a wide scholarly public in a triad of books commonly associated with his name.14 These and others of his works in the field of general linguistics provide a welcome frame for his English as well as Czech studies. They have also opened long new vistas into further fruitful and ingenious research.

14 NOTES 1

See here pp. 15 ff. J . V a c h e k , „Über die phonologisehe Interpretation der Diphthonge mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Englischen", Prague Studies in Englieh 4 (1933), pp., 87 — 170. ' See here pp. 147 ff. and 288 ff. 4 See here pp. 177 fif. 5 J . V a c h e k , „Obecny z&por ν anglißtine a ν festine" [General Negation in English and Czech], Prague Studies in English 6 (1947), pp. 6—72. The results of the monograph are summarized here on pp. 93 if. « See hero pp. 311 ff. ' See here pp. 38« ff. ' See here pp. 134 ff., pp. 408 ff. and J. V a c h e k , Written Language. Janua Linguarum, Series Critica 14 (The Hague 1973). » See here pp. 393 ff. 10 See here pp. 91 ff. 11 See here pp. 44 ff. 12 See also here pp. 23 ff. 13 V Mathesius, Obsahovy rozbor soufasni angliStiny na zakladi obecni lingvisticMm (Prague 1961). The English version of this volume has been just (1975) published by Mouton & Co., The Hague, under the title A Functional Analysis of Present Day English (translated by L. DuSkovd). 2

14

J. V a c h e k , Dictionnaire de linguistique de 1'Ёсо1е de Prague (with J. Dubsk^, UtreohtAnvers 1960); J. V a c h e k, A Prague School Reader in Linguistics (Bloomington, Indiana, 1964); J . V a c h e k , The Linguistic School of Prague (Bloomington-London 1966).

A PRELIMINARY

REMARK

Inasmuch as the included papers are meant, among other things, also as documents of the author's gradually developing views, no coordination of terminology has been effected in them. Also the wording of footnotes annexed to the papers was, in principle, left unchanged, except for some purely technical details. Finally the author wishes to express his most sincere thanks to his wife Pavla, his daughter Helena, Doc. Dr. J. Firbas, CSc., Dr. L. Duskova, CSc., Dr. J. Hladky, Dr. M. Kuncova, Dr. J. Ondracek, CSc. and Dr. A. Svoboda for the generous and most efficie n t help in reading the proofs of the present volume and in compiling its indices. J.

Vachek

Α. G E N E R A L P H O N O L O G Y

P H O N E M E S AND P H O N O L O G I C A L

UNITS*

The fourth volume of the present Travaux contains the well known "Pro jet de terminologie phonologique standardise" (pp. 309—322). Some of its introductory definitions will have our attention. They run as follows: "Phoneme... — Unite phonologique non susceptible d'etre dissociee en unites phonologiques plus petites et plus simples. "Unite phonologique... — Terme d'une opposition phonologique quelconque. "Opposition phonologique... — Difference phonique susceptible de servir, dans une langue donnee, ä la differentiation des significations intellectuelles. The definitions just quoted have so far been accepted without any discussion.1 And yet, what has been dealt with by the phonologists as "phonemes" and "phonological units" in their practice, i.e. in phonological descriptions of various languages and idioms, does not correspond to what is implied by the definitions of the Pro jet, if they are carefully considered and consistently developed. In proving this, we shall at first mutually confront the definitions as they have been quoted above. The "phonological unit" is said to be the term of any phonological opposition. But the concept of the "phonological opposition" appears to be defined in the Projet more broadly than is usually realized by linguists. It covers namely not only oppositions as I : r in English low : row but also cases like Ы : gr- (in blow : grow), and even oppositions like Мэг: pa'teit- (hero : potato), feim-: konsi'ens- {famous : conscientious): in all of the mentioned pairs of words we are faced with phonic differences responsible for the differences of intellectual meanings in English. A consistent application of the definitions contained in the Projet must, then, necessarily lead to the acceptance of Ы-, gr-, Мэг- and even ps'teit-, feim- and konsi'ens- as "phonological units" None of the phonologists, as far as I know, has ever used the term in this broad sense. It is not surprising, because the term, as defined in the Projet, is so broad as to render it useless. As a consequence of this, the phonologists either avoided the term "phonological unit" altogether or used it in a different meaning, ignoring, or failing to notice, the * From Travaux du Сercle Linguistique de Prague 6 (Prague, 193Θ), pp. 236—239.

16

inconsistency of such a use with the definitions of the Projet. As a representative of the latter group of linguists, we may mention V. Skalicka,2 even if the term he uses is not "phonological units" but "phonological elements". As far as his clever but rather fragmentary expositions can be followed, phonological units are understood to be the smallest phonic items in a language, capable of differentiating intellectual meanings. I should like to show that the new significance of the term "unite phonologique" requires a slight, but a substantial, change in the definitions of the Projet. We have seen that the definition of the "phonological unit" in the Projet is too broad; and the same applies to the definition of the "phonological opposition" as it appears there. That is why both definitions cannot, in the wording of the Projet, be of any use in phonological practice. The phonological unit in the revised sense is not a term of any phonological opposition but of what may be called a simple phonological opposition. This, again, should be defined as a minimum phonic difference responsible for the difference of intellectual meanings. It has been found of use, then, to distinguish the broad concept of the phonological opposition in general from the narrower, subordinate concept of the simple phonological opposition, as it is only the latter (subordinate) concept which may lead us to an adequate conception (and definition) of the phonological unit. Moreover, it will not be entirely without value to establish and to define another concept, viz that of a complex phonological opposition. It is coordinate to the simple phonological opposition, and subordinate (again) to the phonological opposition in general: Phonological opposition simple

complex

It may be defined as a non-minimum phonic difference responsible, in a given language, for differences of intellectual meanings.3 Further considerations will show that the establishing of the new concept is not due to the hair-splitting of a logician but that it is of high importance for the basic phonological problem — the definition of the phoneme. To return to the definition of the phonological unit, as adapted in the above lines, it is hardly necessary to dwell upon the fact that phonological units, being terms of minimum phonic differences, must take part in their minimum differential character. To put it differently, a phonological unit must be indivisible into smaller phonological units. This requirement is in entire agreement with the character of Skalicka's "phonological elements". Skalicka, however, hesitates to draw all the necessary conclusions from the character. The problems we are facing now may be expressed in the following way. The definition of the phonological unit, as adapted here, covers exactly the same

17 field as the definition of the phoneme as contained in the Projet. Does this mean that one of the two terms appears superfluous? Or, does, perhaps, the definition of phoneme, as styled in the Projet, also need rectifying? Linguistic facts give ample evidence that none of the two terms discussed is superfluous. Both the phoneme and the phonological unit represent distinctly different concepts, even if in many cases individual phonemes equal individual phonological units. To illustrate this statement by some examples, let us again recall several cases of phonological oppositions. In a pair of words like glow: grow the terms of the difference are undoubtedly I : r. But in a pair like bad : pad the difference cannot be stated as b : p, if it is to be a m i n i m u m difference. The minimum difference here is "sonority: 0", as b, not only phonetically but also phonologically, is composed of an archiphoneme ρ + the mark of correlation (in this case, sonority). In other words, it is only the presence of sonority, as opposed to its absence, which is responsible for the difference of meanings of the two forms, bad and pad. Obviously, it is only the sonority which, being indivisible into further phonological units, may claim the character of the phoneme, as defined by the Projet. In fact, however, no phonologist has ever used the term phoneme in case of this kind: b and ρ as wholes have been termed phonemes, and the sonority, as a mark of correlation, has been, so to speak, included within the frame of the bphoneme. Linguistic practice here goes |the right way in opposition—even if it is subconscious—both to the definitions of the Projet, and to the witty and concise but not precise statement of Karl Bühler who denotes phonemes as diacritica of morphemes (see the fourth volume of the present Travaux, p. 295). I t is evident that in cases like ours only the sonority of b is the diacriticon (as has already been emphasized by Skalicka in his above-mentioned paper). A phoneme like b, consequently, contains two phonological units—the p-unit and the sonority unit. Even more phonological units, however, can be united in a phoneme, as e.g. in the Russian ό'-phoneme, the units concerned being ρ + sonority + palatal character. Inversely, there exist phonemes containing one phonological unit only such as e. g. ρ, I, r in English). The conclusion to be drawn from the above considerations is that the definition of the phoneme as given in the Projet is inadequate and needs rectifying. And it is in this point that Skalicka hesitates to go further. Upon the whole, he may be said to have clearly recognized the difference between phonemes and phonological units but tries to reconcile that fact with the definition of the phoneme in the Projet. He states (p. 133 of the above-mentioned paper) that "the archiphoneme together with the mark of correlation constitutes the lowest, further indivisible unit. The correlative relation of two (or several pairs of) phonemes is considered as their private affair which has no bearing on actual speech". To this statement more objections can be raised. Firstly, that the correlative relation very often has a bearing upon actual speech (as is shown by the alternation of correlative phonemes due to particular groupings of phonemes—that is, to actual speech—such as in English is si < iz si 2 Selected Writings

18 'is she?'). Secondly, that the definitions of the Projet are not established inductively from actual speech but proceed, in a deductive way, from the fact that there exists such a things as significant (or signal-like) oppositions—the basic assumption without which no language (not only the spoken language) is possible—and that, therefore, the criticism of these definitions must keep to the basis of the Projet and its terms and concepts, and not shift problem to another domain, viz. that of actual speech. (Even there, however, the bearing of the correlative relation may be traced, as has been pointed out above.) The necessity of an amendment of the phoneme definition as given in the Projet is thus obvious. How can it be effected? What we certainly know is that the phoneme equals the phonological unit so long as the unit remains single; as soon as there are two or more simultaneous phonological units, they all enter the same, and one single phoneme. Two or more successive phonological units, on the other hand, are equal to as many (two or more) phonemes. To put it differently: there can, and do, exist simultaneous phonological units but there cannot occur simultaneous phonemes.4 It appears that the clear delimitation of our two terms, the phoneme and the phonological unit, can only be done in terms of time. The phoneme might be defined as that part of a word which cannot be divided into successive pholonogical units. This, however, would imply the introduction of a new term into the sphere of concepts employed by the Projet. And we may indeed avoid that introduction by making use the term of complex phonological opposition established in the above] paragraphs of this paper. The final wording of the definition will then run as follows: The phoneme is a part of a term of a complex phonological opposition which is sometimes divisible into simultaneous, but never into successive, phonological units. This definition is by no means contradictory to my previous definition given in American Speech X/1935 (p. 250) where the phoneme is stated to be "a signal-like counter of the language which becomes manifested in actual speech by means of (two or more) sounds which are (1) related in character, and (2) mutually exclusive as to their phonic surroundings; all exceptions to (2) must be accounted for on morphematic grounds only".5 Both definitions refer to one and the same thing and both have their advantages and disadvantages. The definition quoted in this paragraph has the unquestionable advantage of being clearer and more workable than the definition employing the terms of the Projet. The advantage of the latter is that it can afford the omission of the phonetic term "sound" and the grammatical term "morpheme". But this very advantage becomes a disadvangage if the definition is applied in phonological practice, i.e. in phonological interpretation of a given language. In this most urgent task of phonological research my definition given in American Speech will be found much more useful. In conclusion I shall try to give the French wording of the definitions corrected or established in this paper:

19 Opposition phonologique simple: Difference phonique minimum susceptible de servir, dans une langue donnee, ä la differenciation des significations intellectuelles. Opposition phonologique complexe; Difference phonique minimum susceptible de servir, dans une langue donnee, ä la differenciation des significations intellectuelles. Opposition phonologique complexe: Difference phonique non-minimum susceptible... (as above). Unite phonologique: Terme d'une opposition phonologique simple. Phoneme: Partie d'un terme d'une opposition phonologique complexe, d^coupable parfois en unites phonologiques simultanees, mais jamais en unites phonologiques successives. The definitions given suggest some interesting consequences both for phonological theory and practice. Their discussion, however, must be left to another occasion.

NOTES 1

As the latest specimen of an approval of the definitions, see N. S. Trubetzkoy's paper «Essai d'une theorie des oppositions phonologiques» in Journal de Psychologie normale et pathologique X X X I I I (1936), pp. 1—18 (see esp. pp. 9 and 10), -where they are only slightly modified («cette distinction n'apporte aucun changement essentiel»). 1 See his paper on Problems of phonological oppositions written in Czech (K ot&zk&m fonologickych protikladü, Liety ßologicM L X I I I (1936), pp. 133—139). 3 This ooncept, as is easily seen, covers the above oppositions Ы-: gr-, Мэг-: рзЧей-, etc., but not such as I : r, which fall within the scope of the simple phonological opposition. * Cp. also Skalißka, p. 133f; he, however, does not fully realize the consequences of the fact. 5 In principle, the wording of the definition dates from 1932; it may be found in my paper on «Prof. Daniel Jones and the Phoneme» in Charisteria Ou. Mathesio... oblata (Pragae 1932), p. 11.

CAN T H E P H O N E M E B E D E F I N E D IN T E R M S OF T I M E ? *

§ 1. In the sixth volume of Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (Prague 1936) I hope to have made clear the mutual relation of the terms « phoneme » and « phonological unit» by revising and rectifying some of the definitions given by the «Projet de terminologie phonologique standardised) (contained in the fourth volume of the said Travaux, Prague 1931, pp. 309—332). The results of the analysis mentioned1 may be summed up in a set of definitions which I reprint here in French, the language of the Projet, adding some illustrations to each of them. «Opposition phonologique simple: Difference phonique minimum susceptible de servir, dans une langue donnee, ä la differentiation des significations intellectuelles. (Examples: difference between I and r in English glow/grow, between sonority and 0 in English bad/pad). «Opposition phonologique complexe: Difference phonique non-minimum susceptible de servir, dans une langue donnee, a la differentiation des significations intellectuelles. (Examples: difference between Ы- and gr- in English blow/grow, between Ыэгand рэ'ий in hero /potato). «Unite phonologique: Terme d'une opposition phonologique simple. (Examples: English r in grow, I in glow, sonority of b in bad, 0 [ = absence of sonority in p] in pad). «Phoneme: Partie d'un terme d'une opposition phonologique complexe, decoupable parfois en unites phonologiques simultanees, mais jamais en unites phonologiques successives. (Examples: English r, I, b; the last of them is divisible into a p-unit and a simultaneous sonority unit.) As may clearly be seen, there can, and do, exist ^simultaneous (that is, simultaneously realizable) phonological units, but simultaneous phonemes cannot occur. In other words, as I have emphasized in the paper from which I have been quoting (p. 238), a clear delimitation of the two terms, the phoneme and the phonological unit, can only be made in terms of time. * From Melanges J. van Ginneken, (Paris, 1937), pp. 101 — 104.

21 This delimitation appears, as I am going to show in another paper, to be of great importance both for phonological theory and practice, if due consequences are derived from it. First of all, however, it must face an objection that seems to be of some importance. It may appear unjustifiable to introduce terms of time, like "simultaneous" and "successive" into the definition of the phoneme, 'since it has been emphasized lately by N. S. Trubetzkoy (IY me Congres International de Linguistes a Copenhague 1936, Resumes des communications, p. 104) that phonemes as elements of 'langue' do not allow of any measurement in time. To this, however, it should be answered that our intention is not to measure the phonemes but simply to refer to, and derive consequences from, the phenomenon called by Ferdinand de Saussure «caractere lineaire du signe linguistique», or, better, to the linear structure of any form 2 in any language. Such a form consists, as is well known, of phonemes, each of which occupies its specific place in the structure (or, pattern) of the form, which, as must be emphasized again, is a linear one, i.e. phonemes of a given form build up an uninterrupted, and only one, series throughout the whole of the form. Thus e.g. the form bced is made up of an uninterrupted series of three phonemes, b, a and d, constituting the linear structure of the form bced. If, now, the form is manifested in actual speech (in 'parole'), i.e. if the word \bwd] is actually pronounced, the linear structure of the form described above becomes realized successively in time by means of sounds through which the phonemes of the form are manifested. And here one particular fact should be emphasized. The linear structure of the form with the fixed order of the phonemes composing it is realized in 'parole' a l w a y s in t h e same d i r e c t i o n . That is to say, whenever, e.g. the form bced is realized, the word in which it is actually manifested must begin with [6] and end in [d]; the reverse order never takes place. There are even cases like [net]/[ten] where the two sound series with mutually reversed orders of components evidently realize two forms with mutually reversed orders of phonemes. The facts just considered are only seemingly truisms; they are important evidence to the effect that forms, even if they belong to 'langue', cannot be quite exempt from considerations of time. The two ends of the linear structure of any form cannot be regarded as entities of absolutely the same order; one—and always the same!— of the two "ends" is, as a matter of fact, the "beginning"! The fact that the direction in which the form becomes realized is an i n t e g r a l f e a t u r e of i t s s t r u c t u r e , not a matter of indifference, has been overlooked, perhaps because it is too obvious to seem important. We cannot, therefore, dispense with the distinction between the "beginning" and the "end" of any form; likewise it is impossible, with regard to the phonemes of the form, to avoid terms like "preceding", "successive" etc. if their mutual relations are to be properly characterized. To do justice, however, to the abstract character of 'langue', we may speak about a "potential beginning" and a "potential end" of a form, as it is only in their realizations in 'parole' that one of the two extreme places of the form really succeeds the other in time.

22 Again, an objection might be raised here: if the succession becomes realized in. words only (in 'parole'), why should the difference be insisted upon in 'langue'? Our answer is that 'langue' has not an aim in itself, but its whole and only "raison d'etre" is in the 'parole', i.e. in its use for purposes of expression and communication.3 Were it not for its actualization in concrete acts of speech, the 'langue' could not exist at all. It is, therefore, in view of its function that 'langue' must be examined, and the functioning of forms, constituents of langue, cannot be simply reduced to the sum of the phonemes of which they consist; we must also take into account the linear character of the form and, last but not least, the direction in which it functions. That is why terms of time like "beginning", "end", "successive" etc. cannot be excluded from statements made about 'langue', if we are to arrive at a satisfactory understanding and a reliable characterization of forms, its constituents, and, consequently, of phonemes and phonological units, the constituents of forms. The terms, of course, are used in their "potential" meaning, as far as langue is concerned, the actualization of the meaning falling within the sphere of 'parole'.

P.S.—Our phoneme definition quoted above may be subjected to a stylistic improvement which, however, by no means affects the developments contained in the present paper. The improved wording runs as follows: «Phoneme: Tranche d'un terme d'une opposition phonologique complexe non contenant des unites phonologiques successives.»

NOTES 1 The title of the paper is "Phonemes and phonological units" and it may be found on pp. 235—239 of Travaux 6. 2 The term "form" is used here in the meaning given to it by W. P. Twaddell; it denotes a constituent of 'langue', corresponding to a word in 'parole'. 3 The systematic character of any language—and of any system of signs—is but a necessary presupposition for an adequate fulfilment of the purpose.

T H E N O N - S T A T I C A S P E C T OF T H E S Y N C H R O N I C A L L Y S T U D I E D P H O N O L O G I C A L SYSTEM*

One of the positive contributions of the Prague linguistic group of the late 'twenties and 'thirties to the linguistic theory of the period was undoubtedly the stress its protagonists laid on the systematic character of language. This approach, urging that no element of a language can be duly evaluated unless its relations to the other elements of the same language are taken into account, was necessarily coupled with deep interest in the contemporary stage of the examined language: it is exactly in examining the contemporary stage that the systematic character of the language can be most convicingly demonstrated. In this way the Prague group revolted against the Neogrammarian more or less atomizing and programmatically diachronistic conception of language facts, and it was for this reason that the Prague approach has been duly and concisely called structuralist (the other epithet, functionalist, was attached to the Prague approach for other motives which cannot be analysed here). As it often happens, the emphasis laid on the synchronistic and structuralist approach was sometimes formulated in a rather simplifying maimer which was not sophisticated enough to get hold of the whole truth. Even scholars as eminent as Vilem Mathesius and Ferdinand de Saussure did not quite succeed in grasping the complex mutual relation existing between synchrony and diachrony: Mathesius' very terminology, opposing the "static" approach to language to the "dynamic" approach (where we now speak about the synchronistic vs. diachronistic approaches) is dearly demonstrative of his rather inaccurate conception of the two ways of studying language—it should be, realized, of course, that his terms were coined as early as in 19111 when the very fact of seeing the possibility of the two approaches was as good as revolutionary.—Saussure2, again, seems to have been rather embarrassed by the destructive effect diachronistic changes were due to have upon the synchronically conceived system of language (admittedly, it was exactly Saussure who had clearly formulated and convincingly demonstrated the systematic character of language viewed synchronically). It was, however, only Roman Jakobson who was * From Phonologie der Gegenwart, Wiener Slaviatisches Jahrbuch 6 (Graz—Wien—Köln, 1967), pp. 7 9 - 8 7 .

24 to succeed, as early as in the late 'twenties3, in bridging the gap supposedly existing between the synchronistic and the diachronistic approach to language facts. As is well known, in his conception any change taking place in a given language must be examined with due regard to the whole system of that language·: such regard may reveal that many of the changes have a therapeutic function, helping, as it were, to do away with some structural defects of the concerned system. This is not the place to argue whether this therapeutic function has a monopolistic position in language; admittedly, its operation is accompanied by the operation of some other functions, but the part played by the former appears to be the most essential. What, in our opinion, is the most important lesson to be drawn from Jakobson's conception, is the conclusion that even the systematic character of language is not to be insisted upon in a too literal, simplifying manner: Obviously, if language were a perfect, "one hundred per cent" system, there would be no margin left for the operation of the just mentioned therapeutic tendencies—these can only assert themselves if there is something "wrong" with the system aifected by these tendencies. In other words, it must be admitted that the language system affected by those tendencies is simply not systematic enough, or, as it was customary to say in the Prague group of the late 'twenties, not perfectly balanced. One can go even further than that: as the existence of the development of language is clearly one of language universale, it logically follows that equally universal is also the incomplete balance of the language system (on this point, interesting observations have ately been made by F. Danes4). As one of the linguists of the 'thirties very aptly put it, language is not a thoroughly systematic but a consistently system-striving "systemstrebend") complex of facts. This, of course, detracts nothing from the systemic tenor of language: all that it does is to enforce a more sophisticated, more realistic conception of the language system, a conception free of primitivistic generalizations. To go back to the distinction between synchrony and statics, it was again Jakobson who, as early as in the 'thirties5, rightly insisted upon the necessity of viewing a contemporary stage of language not as a static, momentary snap made by a photographic camera, but as a synchronistic, short section of a film in which, despite its brevity, the important dynamic tendencies of the action can be distinctly ascertained. In other words, at any moment of its history any language contains not only the "normal", common means of expression, but also some archaic elements as well as some neologisms: such elements, though historically motivated, have to be evaluated as synchronic facts. Linguistic consciousness—or, if you like, intuition—evaluates them as stylistic facts (one speaks here, sometimes, of a projection of diachronic facts into synchrony, projection effected by means of stylistic evaluation). The above fine distinction between synchrony and statics has by now been widely accepted, especially by European scholars of structuralist orientation (among whom Andre Martinet has done much valuable work in thrashing out some of the points of diachronistic phonology). But it is sometimes not realized with equa

25

clearness that just as synchrony does not equal statics, so the systematic character of a language does not, and even cannot, equal a state of its rigid, "faultless" balance. The non-existence of such a state is, as shown above, a necessary corollary of the very fact of language development. It can be demonstrated that also within the system of language there can be, more or less clearly, distinguished two areas: the centre of the language system in which the mutual relations linking up the elements of the system stand out very clearly, and, on the contrary, the periphery of the system, in which the ties linking its elements to those of the centre appear rather loose and sometimes may even be on the point of vanishing altogether. Further, J n the periphery of the language system may appear as rather vague those relations and those distinctions which in the centre of the system appear to be clearcut and separated from one another by distinctly drawn lines. Examples of the vagueness of distinction characteristic of the periphery of the system of language might be drawn from all levels of language; as, however, we are concerned here mainly with the phonic (and especially phonological) level of language, we will confine ourselves to discussing some outstanding specimens of peripheral language phenomena found in phonological systems. A number of such phenomena was discussed in our monograph "On Peripheral Phonemes of Modern English"6. In it we traced, among other things, the process by which the English phoneme jhj, which in the oldest period of the language was clearly an element of the very centre of the phonological system, has become shifted, in the course of the development of English, to the farthermost periphery of the system. This shift can be documented both by qualitative and by quantitative changes that have extended throughout the history of English. As to the former changes, it should be noted that in OE the phoneme Щ, with its allophone [x\, was very firmly integrated (to use Martinet's term) in the system of OE consonant phonemes. (It participated in the opposition "voice—lack of voice" through its opposition to Jyl, and in the opposition "continuant—interrupted" through its opposition to /&/.) Contrary to this, in the Present Day Southern British standard it shares no distinctive feature with any other item of the phonological system of consonants found in that standard (except that it, too, constitutes a consonant phoneme). This absence of integration in the phonological system, then, makes for the qualitative evidence of the shift of the /^/-phoneme to the periphery of that system. The quantitative evidence of the shift, again, is supplied by the fact that in the course of the development of English from OE to the Present Day Standard British the phoneme /А/ was to be gradually ousted from many of the word positions in which it had occurred in OE, so hat at present only one position of occurrence has been left to it, viz., the pre-vocalic position at the beginning of the stem morpheme. Obviously, the peripheral status of the phoneme /А/ cannot guarantee its firm position in the phonological system; one can rather infer from it that forces are at work that tend to discard jhj from that system. (The systemic inadequacy is here, in the case of /А/, coupled with its economic inefficiency, as aptly pointed out, for cases of the

26 kind, by Martinet7—although, in our opinion, economy is only one of the factors that are at work here.) The reason why the peripheral phoneme /А/, for all the impact of the forces trying to discard it, is still upholding its position in the phonological system of Present Day Standard British is probably to be looked for in the operation of civilizational factors. Such forces are commonly working in language communities in which a more or less rigid standardization of the language system has taken place, whether it has been imposed on that system from above (i.e. by some official authority) or has grown up organically from below. Such standardization, that is, regularly includes a set of orthoepic precepts concerning not only the articulational implementation of individual phonemes and phonemic groups but also of the word forms and of their combinations into sentences. If such orthoepic precepts are raised to become norms of polite behaviour (as they usually are), they can withstand the impact of the structurally motivated tendencies of development for relatively long periods of time. The correctness of this diagnosis in the case of Present Day Standard British /А/ is borne out by the well-known fact that in English popular dialects (including London Cockney) the sound /А/ has clearly lost its phonemic status, serving rather as a signal of emotive functioning (which, in N. S. Trubetzkoy's terminology, does not belong to the sphere of phonology but rather to that of "Lautstilistik" 8 ). It can thus be seen that the phonological system of Present Day Standard British is anything but a static system—on the contrary, a clearly noticeable tension appears to exist in it (even if it is usually overlooked by the adherents of generative grammar 9 . The problem of this tension in Standard English could not have been solved by now, but the outlines of its possible solution seem to be clearly indicated by the situation ascertained in the popular dialects. As has been shown here above, the process that is at work in Standard British is aimed at the elimination from the phonological system of an element which has proved to be insufficiently integrated in that system. At other times, the trend of the process may have a different motivation: e.g., the goal at which it appears to be aimed may be the fusion of two separate phonemes into one. This kind of process, as we have shown in our monograph quoted here above, Note 6, has been taking place in Present Day Standard Czech where one can find a tendency directed at the fusion of the phonemes /г/ and jjj, a fusion, incidentally, which appears to have been already eifected in Standard British and virtually effected in Present Day Standard Slovak. In such instances, the process may again be prompted by economic motives: if two elements of the system can be merged into one that can serve the purpose equally well, it appears uneconomic to preserve in that system the separate existence of both such elements. A specific group of processes which may be found to take place in many languages is concerned with the domestication of a phonic element which originally had the status of an alien, heterogeneous fact in the given phonological system but which in the course of time was becoming re-evaluated into a homogeneous, organic element

27 of the pattern. This kind of process may be effected relatively smoothly in those instances where the assimilated element may be able to fill a gap existing in the pattern ("une case vide", as Martinet calls it): see, e.g., the quick domestication in Middle English of the phonemes /«/, jzj, originally stigmatizing as foreignisms10 a number of loanwords that had penetrated into English from French. At other times, when there is no such "case vide" in the accepting language, the process may be more complicated and therefore a protracted one—such, in our opinion, has been the process aimed at he domestication of the diphthong joij in Present Day Standard British, a diphthong which for a long time had served in English as a clear signal of synchronically foreign status of words containing it but which in the more recent decades has tended to be assimilated to the other vocalic and diphthongal items of the phonological system (for particulars we refer to our paper published not long ago11). We have found that phonological systems of languages are often found to be in a "state of flux", i.e. to include some elements that are not firmly integrated in the systems and which rank, in a sense, as its peripheral elements. The presence of such elements in the system should not deter a linguist from asserting the systematic character of the analysed language (as it did deter, at times, some critics of the structuralist conception); still less should it induce the structurally minded scholar to "patch up" the partly defective system by "adapting" its not quite systematic elements to his own idea of what a "perfectly organized system" should look like (as a matter of fact, this was sometimes done by Trubetzkoy himself, as we pointed out as early as in 193312). A linguist fully realizing the part played by structure in language, as well as the fact that synchrony in language never equals statics, is never surprised at discovering in the system of language (including its "higher", grammatical levels) such elements as do not perfectly fit in the structure of the system: he would rather be surprised if he should not discover any such elements. Moreover, he appreciates the discovery of such elements because of their high heuristic value: it is exactly these elements that enable him to find out those areas in the system in which it appears to be "in a state of flux", those points which are indicative of the tendencies operating in the non-static, synchronically conceived system, points which some American linguists have not improperly termed the "fuzzy points of the pattern" (see, e.g., C. F. Hockett, C. A. Ferguson, and some others; also J. Kurylowicz's writings on historical phonology bear witness to situations of the kind, even if he never uses the term "fuzzy point"). May we be allowed to conclude by pointing out that the study of the phonological level of language (and of language in general) as a synchronistic but non-static system has been consistently pursued by Prague linguists developing systematically, if critically, the basic ideas of the Prague linguistic group of the late 'twenties and early 'thirties. As evidence of this may be adduced the recently published volume 2 of their Travaux 13 the central theme of which is exactly the group of problems concerning the centre and the periphery of the system of language. The members

28

of the Prague group of today feel confident that this approach of phonological problems (and linguistic problems in general) may be able to throw some light on a number of moot points of linguistic research, whether synchronistic or diachronistic.

NOTES 1 In his paper О potencialnosti jevü jazykovych, published in the Czech periodical V&stnik Krdlovske ieski spole6nosti nauk, 1911; the English translation of the paper was to be published only in 1964 in our anthology A Prague School Reader in Linguistics (Bloomington, Indiana) pp. 1—32 under the title On the Potentiality of the Phenomena of Language. 2 Cours de linguistique generale2, (Paris 1922), esp. pp. 283 fF. 3 Remarques sur revolution phonologique du russe comparee a celledes autres langues slaves, TCLP 2 (1929). 4 The Relation of Centre and Periphery as a Language Universal, ΤLP 2 (1966), pp. 9—21. 5 See his paper Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie, TCLP 4 (1931), pp. 164—182. 6 In: Brno Studies in English 4 (1964), pp. 7 — 109 (Chapter II). 7 Ёсопотге des changements phonetiques, (Berne 1955), p. 80 ff. β Grundzüge der Phonologie, TCLP 7 (1939), pp. 17 ff. 9 Cf. our paper On some basic principle of "classical" phonology, ZfPhon 17 (1964), pp. 409-431. 10 On synchronically conceived foreignisms see Y. Mathesius, Zur synchronischen Analyse fremden Sprachguts, Englische Studien 70 (1934), pp. 21—35; reprinted in A Prague School Reader (see above, Note 1), pp. 398—412. 11 The Place of \OI\ in the Phonic Pattern of Southern British English, Linguistics, No. 14,1965, pp. 5 2 - 5 9 . " Über die phonologische Interpretation der Diphthonge mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Englischen. In: Facultas philosophica universitatis Carolinae Pratensis, Prdce ζ viZdeckych üstavü 33 (1933), pp. 8 8 - 1 7 0 . 13 In the volume, see especially D a n e s ' s paper quoted here above, Note 4, and J. V a c h e k , On the Integration of the Peripheral Elements into the System of Language, pp. 23—37.

N O T E S ON O N E A S P E C T O F T H E I N T E R N A L S T R U C T U R A T I O N OF T H E P H O N O L O G I C A L SYSTEM*

One of the outstanding achievements of Roman Jakobson has been his successful effort at bridging the gap that had supposedly existed between the vocalic and consonantal zones of the phonological system of language. His thesis that some of the important oppositions of distinctive features (such as, especially, the oppositions 'compact: diffuse' and 'grave: acute') can be ascertained both in vocalic and consonantal phonemes1 has proclaimed the essential unity of the phonological system taken as a whole. But it would be mistaken to suppose that all problems of the mutual relation of these two zones existing within the phonological system have been solved by the proclamation of the essential unity of that system. Despite that unity, the existence of the two zones, vocalic and consonantal, within the system remains an indisputable fact, and some interesting problems appear to follow from it. At least one of them shall be briefly discussed in the present paper. The problem to be considered is that of the internal structuration of the phonological system with special regard to the mutual relation between its two component zones, vocalic and consonantal. It may be formulated as follows. Are there, apart from the existence of the inner links of the two zones, consisting in the presence of the same opposition of distinctive features in the phonemes of both, also some external links connecting the two zones, or are there no such external links? In other words, does there exist or not something like an interzonal area whose elements reveal some qualities typical of the one zone but at the same time different qualities associated with the other? To put the matter still differently, is there or is there not a sort of peripheral area lying between the two zones, an area whose elements do not display the purely typical features of one of the adjacent zones only but may participate in the features typical of both zones? If it is so, then the elements of the area will be seen to acquire some sort of vagueness, such as is often characteristic of interzonal areas in languages.2 It appears that different languages take here different courses, inasmuch as such vague interzonal areas are clearly present in some phonological systems but just as clearly absent in others. A concrete example will make this distinction more lucid. * From To Honor Roman Jakobson III, (The Hague 1967), pp. 2109—2116.

30 One of the most obvious differences that can serve in the mutual delimitation of vocalic and consonantal phonemes in language appears to be a prosodic one, viz. the ability or, respectively, inability of these phonemes to act as syllabic nuclei: while the vocalic phonemes can usually perform this function, the consonantal phonemes regularly do not do so. In some languages the line separating the categories of vocalic and consonantal phonemes, seen from the point-of-view of syllabic functioning, can be drawn very easily and unequivocally: any vocalic phoneme can function there as a syllabic nucleus (and, indeed, cannot occur except in such a function) while any consonant phoneme is always devoid of serving as syllabic nucleus. Such is the case, e.g., in Modern Standard Russian where all vocalic phonemes are unequivocally syllabic, and all consonant phonemes non-syllabic. One can say that, in this respect, the two zones of the phonological system of Russian are clearly delimited from one another, there being no area linking the two zones by the presence in it of phonemes of 'amphibious' character, i.e., of phonemes which in some instances can function as syllabic nuclei, but in other instances cannot perform that function. Some other languages, however, are characterized exactly by the presence in them of the interzonal area containing such 'amphibious' phonemes. As a typical example of such a language can be adduced Modern Standard Czech. In this language there exist at least two consonantal phonemes which are regularly implemented by nonsyllabic consonant sounds but in a specific phonological environment (i.e., when preceded by a consonant and the same time not followed by a vowel) by their syllabic counterparts.3 These two phonemes are jrj and ßj, their phonological implementations being [r]/[r] or, respectively, [Z]/[i]: cf. nom. sg. pratr [[- ei > эг >

96 ал within the so-called Great Vowel Shift. The stage эг was reached in the course of the 17th century, so that at that period (and well into the 18th century) wordpairs like refines—joins made perfect rhymes. Under these circumstances, one might have expected the diphthongal эг of words like joint, point to develop into ai, along with the ai that had been traced back to ME %. The ultimate merger of what were originally the ME sounds г and ui really did take place in a number of dialects but not in the standard language. On the contrary, in words of the type joint, point one can note, from the middle of the 18th century onwards, the penetration of the diphthong [эг], which has remained characteristic of the standard pronunciation of such words until the present day. This unexpected turn of development is commonly attributed to the influence of spelling14; as is well known, the written form of words like joint, point had contained the diagraph oijoy since the ME take-over of these words from Norman French. There is no reason why this explanation should be refuted; and yet, it again contains only a part of the truth, not the whole of it. It is worth pointing out that the said explanation leaves one aspect of the process unaccounted for: why is it that the impact of the written norm upon its spoken counterpart has come to assert itself in this particular type of words, while in some other word-types in which the written о also corresponded to the spoken э no such impact can be observed—see, e.g., words like come, done, love, pronounced in ME as [кит, dun, luv], in the 17th century as [кэт, dm, lav], in ModE as [kam, dan, lav}. No trace of the influence of written о upon the pronunciation can be established here. How can the difference of development in the two word types be accounted for? In attempting to answer this question one should again recall the fact that the impact of the written norm of language upon its spoken counterpart is only a specific instance of that more general phenomenon, viz. of the influence of external factors on the development of the system of language. Convinced as we are of the specific character of the system of the written norm (see above, note 8), the external character of the interventions of that norm into the structure of the corresponding spoken norm is not open to doubt: the interventions are qualitatively different from the internal changes going on within the structure of the spoken norm. As however, these internal changes often appear to be motivated by the structural needs and wants of the spoken norm, a hypothesis may naturally emerge to the effect that the very intervention of the written norm may be somehow connected with the structural situation within the spoken norm. In other words, one should ask whether the spelling pronunciation [эг] in words like joint, point may not have been motivated by what Ha vranek calls "raisons intrinseques" of the English spoken norm. To answer this question adequately, one should recall the fact that the diphthong [эг] plays a very specific part in the ModE phonematic system. As has been shown in some detail elsewhere,15 the ModE [эг] signals the synchronically foreign character of the word containing it. 16 It must have been felt as such signal since the EME

97

period when the diphthong QI (and да!) appeared for the first time in English in loanwords of Norman French origin. Graphically both diphthongs were recorded by one and the same digraph, viz. oijoy. When words containing the ME ui reached the stage of эг, a concrete possibility arose of the definite merger of what originally had been ME г and ME ui. It should be realized that such phonematic merger would have deprived the words of the type joint, point of their signal of foreign character; i.e. words of that type would have become virtually domesticated. This domestication would have drastically separated such words from those lexical items of French origin which had contained the diphthong QI (also a-signal of foreign character) and were to preserve this diphthong also in the future (see e.g. choice, joy). One may thus conclude that in EModE a tendency emerged counteracting the possibility of domestication of words like joint, point·, this tendency may have been aimed at strengthening the lexical and stylistic links joining the words of that type with those of the type choice, joy, equally felt as synchronically foreign, by the introduction of Qi into the words of the former type. There can be no doubt that the diphthong gi, an outstanding and, on account of its structural asymmetry, 17 also a very striking phonematic item of the language, was particularly fitted for the purpose of underlining the synchronically foreign character common to both discussed word categories. The need to differentiate, аз clearly as possible, synchronically foreign words from those which, were synchronically domestic was indicated in English with particular urgency, in view of the important stylistic part played in that language by foreign lexical items since the ME period18. But other languages, too, present analogous instances of increased differentiation: see e.g., the part played in vulgar Colloquial Czech by the phoneme / г is well substantiated by acoustic and articulatory experience, the loss of χ' has, to our knowledge, so far not been satisfactorily accounted for. The reason for the said change can only be ascertained if a correct phonological evaluation is found of the involved phonetic changes. It must be kept in mind that, viewed from both the articulatory and acoustic standpoint, the sound [χ'] (in the IPA transcription, [f] ) is very close to the sound [;], from which it differs only by the absence of voice. Further, the glide [i], such as arose between EME i and χ' mniht, mihte, is likewise articulatorily and acoustically very close to [j], from which it differs only by the absence of friction,. It may, indeed, be taken for granted that the Early ME sounds t/j/j were allophones of one and the same phoneme.28 When Early ME χ' and i began to occur in immediate vicinity, evidently voice assimilation of χ' to the preceeding i took place, which entailed the phonological transfer of the sound χ' from the range of the phoneme jhj to that of the i/i-phoneme. This change was probably first effected in the inflected forms like nihte, nihtes where the syllabic limit safely separated the /'-sound from the voiceless t (which otherwise could have influenced the χ' to preserve its voicelessness), and only then was transferred, through analogy, to the nominative singular and other forms characterized by the absence of an ending. It was not until the above-described assimilation—and obvious simplification of -ii- > -i- — had been effected that the contractions of the type niit > mt could occur.—In the indicated manner, then, the ME phoneme /h/ became deprived of an additional allophone χ'; after the completion of the process, the only two left allophones of the phoneme were to be h- and χ(-). In phonematically evaluating the further development of the ME velar fricative χ (as in taughte, rough, phonetically [tau/Je,, ru-.χ]) one must again consider the general situation of this χ in the phonematic pattern of LME. One must realize the importance of the fact that after the disappearance of Early ME /g/, the phoneme jhj remains almost the only2® voiceless phoneme without a voiced counterpart in the system. Its two remaining variants h and χ are articulatorily fairly remote from each other, which cannot but lead to the loosening of the bonds of phonematic unity thus far existing between them. 30 With this loosening is undoubtedly connected the technical fact that ME spelling is beginning to note these two variants differently (h — gh). Thus, the groundwork was laid in the ME system of consonants for a phonological revaluation of the voiceless /-sound. How, then, did this revaluation materialize? K. L u i c k has very appropriately pointed out {Hist. Or., § 513, Note 3) that one must keep in mind the presence of a «-like element invaribly preceding ME χ; this element originated in Early ME from a «-glide arising between χ and a preceding back vowel. Consequently, in interpreting the history of ME χ, one must use this ιιχ as a starting point. In this cluster, L u i c k says, there arises "ein durch die «-Stellung geführter Hauch", a sort of Λ". This qualification has much to commend it, but it misses the most essential point, viz. that this χ u (this notation is preferable

188 to L u i c k ' s hu) had evidently started to be revaluated to W, i.e. voiceless [u>], just as the abovediscussed χ' had been revaluated to 9, i.e. J (voiceless [?]). Obviously, the sound χ in the cluster -u·/- (or rather ·ηχα·) differs from -u- only by its voiceless and fricative articulation, but shares labialization with it, having obtained it by assimilation. The relationship of -u- to this χΜ is thus in essence the same as that of -i- to χ , as discussed above, and thus the development in words of the type tauyte was obviously parallel to that in the palatal region of words like mi-/4e. The sound χ", here already conceived as W, became assimilated to the preceding u, so that а -им arose, which was immediately simplified to -Ц-. Thus the sound χ" was transferred from the range of the phoneme jhj to that of the и/м-phoneme, and the phoneme jhj, which had already been considerably weakened before, became deprived of an additional position of occurrence in English words. From them on, it was to be reduced to a single position of occurrence, viz. to word-initial, where its last surviving allophone \K\ has managed to maintain itself—with the above-noted great difficulty—until the present day. The parallel between the fates of χ and χ' is of course not complete. The fates of χ and χ' were exactly alike only where χ occurred word-medially before a consonant (mainly R (if the last-mentioned type was really an OE, not a ME, affair). The changes belonging here were: (1) the change of the wordinitial Prim. Gmc. *χ- into *h-35, (2) the distinctly later change of the intervocalic *-χ- into *-h- 36, (3) the loss of this intervocalic -h- followed by the contraction of the adjacent vowels; (4) the changes of -%s- into -Tcs-, as in weahsan > weaxan; (5) the loss of h in forms like heahne > heanne (and, possibly, in feorhes > feores, if this change really took place at all, cf. Quirk—Wrenn, OEG, § 189); and (6) the changes of clusters of the type hr > hR (but not the changes of the type hR > R). All these changes with the exception of (4) consisted in the assimilation of the fricative articulation of χ to the articulation of the neighbouring vowel or sonant. In (4) one is faced with a case of dissimilation, which again is physiologically motivated. On the other hand, the changes belonging to the later period (starting with hR > R, hl > L, hn > N, hw > W) can hardly be regarded as due solely to physiological causes. The changes just mentioned cannot be fully accounted for as due to assimilation followed by the loss of acoustically indistinct h-\ as a matter of fact, the analogously built clusters/?-, pi, pr- were not assimilated at all. Therefore, the elimination of the Ä-clusters must have sprung from deeper roots. Most probably, the reason of the changes should be looked for in what appears to be specific of these clusters and what thus distinguished them from the analogously built clusters unaffected by the changes. The specific feature common to all the eliminated clusters was clearly the

193 phoneme jhj, constituting a component part of each of them. It so appears that the changes are most adequately explained if they are taken for the first of the manifestations of the tendency directed towards the gradual elimination of the insufficiently utilized hj%- phoneme which at that time was already beginning to be evaluated as a peripheral item of the phonematic pattern. This evaluation must have been considerably furthered by the rapid decline of the /^/-phoneme, for a short time a correlative partner of /А/%/, but already greatly restricted in its positional distribution and doomed to disappear from the phonematic pattern very shortly. After the ultimate loss of in the first half of the 13th century, the tendency driving towards the elimination of the peripheral /A/-phoneme must have struck firm roots in the language. This conclusion is not necessarily contradicted by the fact that also the changes restricting the existence of /А/ after 1200 were to result in facilitating articulation, i.e. proved to be in accordance with the physiological tendencies of the organs of speech. The principal difference between the changes prior to, and following, 1200 is that the former took place independently of the needs and wants of the language system with which, for the time being, they did not interfere. But as soon as the position of the //«/-phoneme had become palpably weakened, and been driven towards the periphery of the phonematic pattern, it must have become an affair of the whole language system which had to derive all necessary consequences from the situation and to duly react to it. That such reaction was to make due use of the physiological mechanism of speech organs was only natural and inevitable. But the physiological motivation was here only an instrument of deeper motives, springing from the needs and wants of the language system. That this was indeed so is indirectly proved by the situation in 0[ld] H[igh] G[erman]. There the physiological situation of prevocalic h- was substantially the same as in English, but the inner, deeper motivation tending to the elimination of h- was missing, and thus no elimination of prevocalic h- has ever taken place. It should be recalled that the first stages of the eliminating process, analogous to those found in English, can be found also in OHG. Although the intervocalic -h- (pronounced as a laryngal sound) had not yet been dropped in OHG, the OHG clusters hr·, hi,· hn- and hw- had been subjected to simplication since the 9th century, and also the OHG group -χβ- became assimilated to -ss-, though before a consonant only. The weakening of the position of the Λ/χ-phoneme in the phonematic pattern of OHG was also furthered by a radical positional restriction of the ^-sound, the voiced counterpart of χ. The High German development of the j-sound was to be more radical than the English development: the j-sound, in PrimGmc. the main allophone of the gjg-phoneme, 37 in OHG appears to have been ousted from virtually all its positions by the jr-sound, originally a mere subsidiary allophone. Thus in OHG, too, the correlative relation formely existing between the phonemes /g/ and jhjyj became cancelled. Under these circumstances, the prospects of the OHG phoneme h/χ did not seem particularly bright; but its situation became consolidated thanks to the operation of an opposite tendency, attempting to restore the full functional capacity of Λ/χ. The operation of this other tendency had been prepared by the results of the "second" (i.e., High German) consonant shift, in the course of which the Prim. Gmc. word-medial intervocalic -k- passed into OHG -χχ-, which, later on, became simplified into -χ-. Thus a fairly high number of additional words containing the χ-sound emerged in the language and the scope of the OHG Λ/χ-phoneme became notably widened. 13 Selected Writings

194 In this connection it is interesting to note that after the simplification of -χχ- > -χ- the High German language was faced with the possibility of a phonematic split of the Λ/χ-phomeme into two separate phonemes, /hj and /χ/. The possibility was prompted by word-pairs like rauchen— rauhen, kriechen—ziehen, Zeichen—verzeihen, etc. The language, however, did not avail itself of this possibility; the split was forestalled by the ultimate loss of the intervocalic -h-. The reason why the possibility of enriching the German phonematic pattern by a new item was made use of was probably the very slight degree of functional utilization of the prospective new phonematic opposition.

In the present chapter we hope to have shown, at least in general and rough outlines, how a language may handle the problem of a peripheral phoneme which is found to be increasingly inadequate from the functional viewpoint. Further chapters will show that other solutions may be possible and that, in some instances, no immediate solution may be at hand, and the peripheral phoneme may thus remain a sore point of the system.

III. T H E E A R L Y M I D D L E E N G L I S H /J/ A N D T H E P E R S O N A L P R O N O U N SHE*»

1. In Chapter Two we proposed a theory pointing out the part played by the quantitative aspect of phonic phenomena in the development of language. A number of cases were pointed out in which one may observe a distinct tendency to discard from the language such phonemes as are utilized only to a very slight extent, and thus prove to be peripheral items of that language, having no solid foothold in its phonematic system. It was shown that the said tendency can account for the loss of EME voiceless phonemes jR, L, Nj (going back to OE clusters hr-, hi- and hn-, respectively) which soon became substituted by the phonemes standing closest to them in the EME phonematic system, i.e. by the respective voiced phonemes /г, I/, and /и/. For this reason, OE words of the types hroefen, hlüd, hnutu are represented in ModE by the corresponding forms raven, loud, nut (the EME forms of the words were Raven, Lud and Nute). We also hope to have demonstrated the fact that our theory of the tendency trying to discard slightly utilized peripheral phonemes can throw some new light on a number of moot points still found in the phonological development of English. The present chapter wants to submit another case of evidence for the thesis urging that the above-mentioned theory may enable us to obtain a clearer insight into the concrete problems of language development. The case to be dealt with is that of the ModE personal pronoun she, the history of which has not yet been satisfactorily explained in all its points. Of all the EME forms of our pronoun, those of the East Midland dialects will serve as the starting point of our discussion, because the dialects of that area were to afford a basis on which the S[outhern] E[nglish] S[tandard] of the present day was

195 to develop. As is generally known, the EME forms of the feminine personal pronoun in that area are commonly denoted in grammars as ghp, ghe, alternating sometimes with go, The scribes of the period display a rich variety of spellings, among the most common being gho, geo, hyo, ge, ge, ghe, ghye, etc. The phonic values lying behind these writings appear to have been [go:, ge:], with the alternatives [jo:, je]:. As to their origin, the forms ghö, ghe are traced back, by common consent, to the OE pronominal form hio, and possibly also to the accusative form hie, which, owing to its gradual replacement in the accusative function by the dative form hire, was free to be utilized in other functions. The ultimate victory of the form ending in -8 should obviously be attributed to the influence of the masculine form of the same pronoun, i.e. he. I t is generally taken for granted that in the whole process leading from hio to go (or, respectively, from hie to ge) the first step must have been the shift of balance in the falling diphtong eo (or, respectively, le). The shift was probably due to loss of stress (see K. Luick, Hist. Gr., §§ 266, 360) and resulted in the formation of the rising diphtong ίδ (or jfi, respectively). In the pronominal forms hi δ, Цё, the initial he I hi- "melted into a voiceless χ' " (К. Luick, o.e., § 705), i.e. into [f]. The above-described mutual relation of OE heojhle and EME ghöjr-rAg is so obvious as to be generally accepted. Much less clear, however, is the relation existing between the ModE form she and the EME ghojghe, and scholars widely disagree on this point. Quite a number of them, beginning with L. M o r s b a c h in the late 'eighties (Ursprung, p. 121), refuse to admit a direct descent of the ME form sehe, the predecessor of ModE she, from the EME form ghöjghB. In their opinion, scKe goes back to the OE demonstrative pronoun seo (the stages of the process being seo > seö > s%5 < scho); is again explained as due to the influence of the masc. form he. As a typical representative of the scholars holding this view we may mention H. B r a d l e y , who expressly rejects the possibility of explaining the form she from OE häofhte (see the NED, Oxford, s. v. She). Only a minority of scholars have regarded the ME [£-] in scJie as a direct continuation of EME [ς], The first to do so was G. S a r r a z i n almost seventy years ago (Ursprung, pp. 330f.). S a r r a z i n ' s view was endorsed, though in a slightly modified form, by K. L u i c k (Hist. Gr., § 705), in whose opinion the [s-] of sehe is to be taken for a sound substituting the earlier [g-], at least in the East Midland dialects. It is worth noting that L u i c k speaks not of an organic sound change of [f] to [s], but of a substitution (he calls the [s]-sound an "Ersatzlaut"). Luick's cautious wording was probably prompted by the same fact that had led other scholars to the downright rejection of any possibility of the change of [ς > s]—viz. by the virtually total absence of any other evidence for the change.39 So much, then, for the traditional views voiced on the problem of origin of the ModE form she. 2. In our opinion, the problems connected with the rise of the form she can be somewhat elucidated by applying to them our above-mentioned theory, to the effect that slightly utilized peripheral phonemes tend to be discarded in the course of language development. The following paragraphs are intended to show that, seen in

196 the light of this theory, S a r r a z i n ' s and L u i c k ' s views appear to be truer to facts than the view held by M ö r s b a c h and B r a d l e y . Even S a r r a z i n a n d L u i c k , however, have not succeeded to penetrate to the very core of the problem. First of all it should be observed that the rise of the EME [f]-sound in gho/ghl, admittedly going back to the earlier hjo < heo < кёо (or hj~ < hie < hie, respectively), is in perfect agreement with what is known of the rise of the EME voiceless sonant sounds [Й, L, N, W\ going back, in their turn, to the respective OE clusters hr-, hl-, hn-, and hw-: the same kind of progressive assimilation, with the subsequent loss of A-, was at play in the development of both hj and of all the other enumerated clusters.40 The EME sound [ς] also shared with the EME sounds [R, L, N, W] the status of a separate phoneme marked by a very slight degree of functional utilization, so that its peripheral character is again obvious. Its degreee of utilization was even smaller in the case of the /f/-phoneme (or, better, /J/-phoneme) than in the cases of the phonemes jR, L, Nj, and jW/: the only East Midland pair in which the difference of [g — j ] (phonematically, j j — j / ) was associated with the difference of meanings was EME ghq — ft 'she — you', whereas each of the other parallel phonematic differences, viz. jR — rj, jL — Ij, jN — nj and jW — wj, was responsible for analogous differences of meanings in a greater (though relatively also very small) number of word-pairs. Another point deserves to be noted: the established phonetic and phonematic parallelism of /J/ and jR,

L, N,

Wj seems to be reflected also in the written norm of E M E . The spelling gh

for [p] is no doubt closely parallel to the spellings of the type rh, Ih, nh, wh, commonly interpreted as graphical representations of the sounds [Д, L, N,

W]; the letter h in such digraphs was

obviously a, mere diacritical mark indicating the voiceless quality of the sound denoted b y the letter preceding h."

The phonematic parallelism established here between the EME /