Selected Writings: Volume I Phonological Studies 9783110892499, 9783110173628

Table of contents :
Introduction to Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston
Preface
The Concept of the Sound Law and the Teleological Criterion
Proposition au Premier Congrés International de Linguistes. Quelles sont les méthodes les mieux appropriées à un exposé complet et pratique de la phonologie d'une langue quelconque?
Remarques sur l'évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves
Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonologie
Über die phonologischen Sprachbünde
К характеристике евразийского языкового союза
Principes de phonologie historique
Phonemic Notes on Standard Slovak
Phoneme and Phonology
Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues
Спорный вопрос древнерусского правописания (дъжгь, дъжчь)
Über die Beschaffenheit der prosodischen Gegensätze
On Ancient Greek Prosody
Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes
Zur Struktur des Phonems
Un manuel de phonologie générale
Les lois phoniques du langage enfantin et leur place dans la phono¬logie generale
Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze
Звуковые особенности, связывающие идиш с его славянским окружением
Comparative Slavic Phonology
On the Identification of Phonemic Entities
(with J. Lotz) Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern
For the Correct Presentation of Phonemic Problems
On Slavic Diphthongs Ending in a Liquid
(with E. Colin Cherry and Morris Halle) Toward the Logical Description of Languages in their Phonemic Aspect
(with M. Halle) Phonology and Phonetics
Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Geräuschlaute im Russischen
Mufaxxama - the 'Emphatic' Phonemes in Arabic
Typological Studies and their Contribution to Historical Compara¬tive Linguistics
A New Outline of Russian Phonology
Why “Mama” and “Papa”?
Die urslavischen Silben ūr-, ūl-
(with M. Halle) Tenseness and Laxness
Избыточные буквы в русском письме
APPENDIX
Фонетика одного северно-великорусского говора с намечаю¬щейся переходностью
Contributions to the Study of Czech Accent
On the Elimination of Long Consonants in Czech
Retrospect (1961)
ADDENDA
(with M. Halle) Note on the Tonality Features of Roumanian Consonantal Phonemes
Опыт фонологического подхода к историческим вопросам славянской акцентологии
A Phonemic Approach to the Structure and Evolution of the Common Slavic Prosodic Pattern
The Prosodic Questions of Slavic Historical Phonology Restated
Information and Redundancy in the Common Slavic Prosodic Pattern
О латинизации международных телеграмм на русском языке
The Role of Phonic Elements in Speech Perception
Роль звуковых элементов в восприятии речи
Extrapulmonic Consonants: Ejectives, Implosives, Clicks
К вопросу о глухости и звонкости русских щелинных губных
Круговорот лингвистических терминов
(with M. Halle) The Revised Version of the List of Inherent Features
Saussure's Unpublished Reflections on Phonemes
Prefatory Letter to Studies in Honor of Eli Fischer-Jørgensen
INDEXES
Index of Names
Index of Languages
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

ROMAN JAKOBSON SELECTED WRITINGS I

W DE G

LECTED WRITING ι

Phonological Studies THIRD EDITION with a new introduction by

LINDA R. WAUGH AND MONIQUE MONVILLE-BURSTON

2002

MOUTON DE GRUYTER BERLIN

NEW Y O R K

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. K G , Berlin. The 1st edition was published in 1962. The 2nd edition was published in 1971.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the A N S I to ensure permanence and durability.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek —

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Jakobson, Roman: Selected writings / Roman Jakobson. - Berlin ; New York : M o u t o n de Gruyter 1. Phonological studies. - 3. ed. / with a new introd. by Linda R. Waugh ; Monique Monville-Burston. - 2002 ISBN 3-11-017362-X

© Copyright 1962, 1971, 2002 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Jacket design by Sigurd Wendland, Berlin Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin Printed in Germany.

INTRODUCTION TO ROMAN JAKOBSON, SELECTED WRITINGS On Language: The Life, Work and Influence of Roman Jakobson Linda Κ Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston

The Selected Writings (Volumes I-VIII, 1962-1985) of Roman Jakobson (1896-1982)' show his vast erudition coupled with his seminal contributions in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. They cover the period from 1915, the date of his first publication at 19 years old, to 1985, three years after his death, when his last original writings were published (although collections of his writings and reprintings of his bestknown works continue to this date). They are a remarkable testimony to his brilliance, his vitality, and his erudition, as well as to his seminal and bold contributions to a wide variety of humanistic and scientific disciplines. His favorite topic in all of these writings is language, in all of its manifestations. It provides the center for all of his work, thus uniting subjects as diverse as the grammar of poetry, verse patterns, aphasia, child language, distinctive features, acoustic phonetics, grammatical meaning, language typology and universale, neurolinguistics, semiotics, glossolalia, proverbs, language and culture, Slavic epic studies, the early history of the Slavic Church, Czech Hagiography, the names of Slavic Gods, and so forth. Since language is the recurring theme throughout Jakobson's work, we have decided to discuss in this introduction his view of language, and to focus on the foundations of his approach to language. Various studies explicating his view of language have appeared and are for the most part still available.2 Rather than recapitulate them, we explore 1

This Introduction is a revised, partially updated, version of Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston, 1990, "Introduction: The Life, Work and Influence of Roman Jakobson". Revised and reprinted by permission of the publishers from O N L A N G U A G E by Roman Jakobson, edited by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 1990 by the Roman Jakobson and Krystyna Pomorska Jakobson Foundation, Inc. 2 See in particular Holenstein 1976a, 1987, Waugh 1976e, 1984a, Sangster 1982, Stankiewicz 1983a, b, 1987a, Mel'cuk 1985, Delas 1993, Bradford 1994, Toman 1995, Gadet and Sériot 1997.

VI

INTRODUCTION

here his ideas in the context of his intellectual development, asking as he once did (1977c:248) in an article on Charles Sanders Peirce, What are the roots of his thought? How did his ideas grow?3 The reader should be warned that no single discussion, especially a schematic one like ours, can do justice to all facets of Jakobson's contributions to general and theoretical linguistics. We agree with Edward Stankiewicz (1983a:21): "Like the great works of the classics, [Jakobson's work] has a richness of texture and a multiplicity of angles that will forever intrigue the attentive reader."

Intellectual Biography Linguista sum; linguistici nihil a me alienum puto.4 (I am a linguist and I consider nothing having to do with language as foreign to me.)

Moscow

Period

Born in Moscow on October 11, 1896, to a chemical engineer and prominent industrialist, Roman Osipovic Jakobson was fortunate enough to grow up in the intellectually lively milieu of the Russian intelligentsia just before the Revolution. From the beginning, he was interested in poetry and language, or to put the latter more precisely, language and languages, since he was always to study the one in light of the other. Bilingual in Russian and French, Jakobson learned many other languages throughout his life. He himself (1980d) pointed to the importance that his early command of two languages had for his intellectual development as well as for his interest in language itself. As a youngster, he was fascinated by children's counting-out rhymes, proverbs, idiomatic phrases, riddles, magical incantations, and graffiti; as a boy of ten, he compiled long lists illustrating the different meanings and uses of the cases of Russian (RJ 1980d: 19-26, 1936a); and as a high-school student, he had already begun serious analysis of con3 We use the abbreviations RJ and SW in the text, notes, and references to stand for Roman Jakobson and Selected Writings respectively. Jakobson's writings are listed separately at the beginning of the References at the end of this Introduction as Works of Roman Jakobson; the Selected Writings are listed at the beginning of that section. 4 This sentence represents Jakobson's self-characterization, modified from that of the Latin playwright Terence; see, for example, RJ 1953c:555.

INTRODUCTION

VII

temporary verse (for example, that of the French poet Stéphane Mallarmé). Jakobson received his high-school education at the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages, Moscow, from which he graduated cum laude in 1914, and his university training in the Slavic section of the historico-philological faculty at Moscow University. He was awarded the Buslaev Prize in 1916 for his work on North Russian folk epics5, which was accepted in lieu of a master's thesis; the degree was awarded in 1918. He wrote his first scholarly article as a nineteen-year-old on the phonetics of a Northern Great Russian dialect (published as RJ 1927). The dominant linguistic school at Moscow University was that of the followers of F. F. Fortunatov, whose approach was essentially that of the neogrammarian tradition. The Neogrammarians (see Malmberg 1964, Robins 1968) declared that the only scientific study of language possible was historical and genetic: for example, the way to understand the sounds of a given language was to trace each sound in turn to its manifestation in an earlier stage of the language. Moreover, they thought that languages could vary without order and without limit, and they ignored in their studies the communicative function of language. Already as a student Jakobson reacted against this way of thinking. As he himself put it: Though the linguistic textbooks of our college years used to define language as an instrument of communication, chief attention in these manuals was paid to the pedigree of its disjecta membra [scattered parts]. No answer appeared to the crucial question: how do the diverse components of this tool operate? (RJ 1962c:631)

Despite this orientation, Jakobson found kindred elements in Fortunatov's views. He was attracted by the notion that language is not merely the expression of ready-made ideas but first and foremost is a tool that has its own independent existence. Hence, it can be used for thinking. Jakobson also praised his teachers for "their uncommon open-mindedness" (1971b:vi), their promotion of rigor of thought, their concern for the discovery of general laws as the primary object of linguistics, and their conviction that the study of language should be closely tied to that of literature (RJ 1980d). 5

In 1915 he did his first systematic fieldwork, with the ethnographer Pëtr Bogatyrëv (see RJ 19760 and the linguist Nikolai Jakovlev. They collected tales, songs, proverbs, and rituals. This work on folk literature led Jakobson and Bogatyrëv to defend the idea of the "collective creation" of folk traditions (RJ 1929c, 1931e).

Vili

INTRODUCTION

While neogrammarian conceptions were dominant among his teachers, in those formative years Jakobson became acquainted with the work of linguists who had developed the basis for structural linguistics. As a first-year student, he read the work of Lev V. Scerba (1912), which was in the tradition of the Kazan' School (Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and Mikolaj Kruszewski); these two Polish linguists of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries had laid the foundation of modern phonology by their discussion of the notion of the phoneme. 6 And in 1917 Sergej Karcevskij returned to Moscow from Geneva, bringing with him the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the founders of modern linguistics7. Here Jakobson found affinities with his own views, in particular the overarching notion of language as a system of signs. The sign (signum, in the Latin terminology that Jakobson favored) is composed of a signifier (sound form, signans) and a signified (meaning, signatum). The signifier is perceptible ("sensuous" or "sensible"); the signified is conceptual (see 1949h). "Every linguistic sign is a unity of sound and meaning" (RJ 1976d:23) and is normally diagramed as in Figure 1. Linguistic signs can be exemplified by grammatical morphemes, lexical items, syntactic constructions, whole discourses, and the like.

6

See Kruszewski 1 8 8 4 - 1 8 9 0 , RJ 1929b, 1943, 1960b, 1967b, Baudouin de Courtenay 1972, Stankiewicz 1972, Fischer-Jergensen 1975, Kilbury 1976, Anderson 1985. 7 Saussure died in 1913. His Cours de linguistique générale (see Saussure 1966) was first read by Jakobson in the early 1920s, even though it was first published in 1915, with a revised version in 1916. The book was not written by Saussure but was compiled by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye o n the basis of students' notes. For information on the relation between the published Cours and Saussure's o w n notes, see Godei 1957, Engler 1967, de Mauro 1972, Koerner 1973, Harris 1987. The translation of Saussure by Wade Baskin (Saussure 1966) has long been the standard for English readers (page references here are to that version); a new translation by Roy Harris (Saussure 1987) is also available. For general discussions of Saussure's work in the context of linguistics, see Malmberg 1964, Robins 1968, Lepschy 1970, D a v i s 1973, Fischer-Jorgensen 1975, Culler 1976, Sampson 1980, Anderson 1985, Harris 1987.

INTRODUCTION

IX

In those years, too, the students of linguistics at Moscow University were discussing the newest developments in the phenomenology of language. They learned, in particular, to distinguish between linguistic meaning (signatum) and extralinguistic reference (idenotatum; RJ 1962c:631); they absorbed the strong Russian tradition of Hegelian and post-Hegelian dialectics, which stressed the importance of antinomies (dichotomies). Jakobson adopted the ideas of Edmund Husserl (1913) and Anton Marty (1908) on universal grammar as the only firm theoretical basis for linguistic work (Holenstein 1976a, 1987). Jakobson then correlated this basis with the work on Gestalt psychology, which insisted on relations (especially part-whole relations), on their constitutive character, and on the importance of contextualization (RJ 1963c). Strong antipositivist and antimechanistic views in Russian thought of the time left their imprint on Jakobson (RJ 1929e). He did not favor formalistic abstractions, however, or dismiss the physical aspect of phenomena. As Elmar Holenstein puts it (1987:17), Jakobson was "an empirical scientist and philosophical theories served him only as heuristic guides which must be both theoretically specified and empirically underpinned". He strove for rigor and precision in all his work (he disliked causerie in work and in life), without sacrificing the complexity and integrity of his object of study. Characterizing himself as a realist, Jakobson nonetheless fought against a naive realism in art and science (RJ 1921a). He championed the reality of linguistic phenomena, as well as the point of view of language users (speakers and addressees) rather than that of the observer who is outside of the system and thus least able to understand its reality. It is very dangerous to operate with the term "reality". A physical signal is real for the physical instruments that pick up the sign, but not for the listeners. For them the psycho-acoustic sign that they perceive is real, and that does not at all necessarily correspond to the physical facts. (RJ 1973c:39)

He thus favored the participant-observer over the "cryptanalyst" (RJ 1956a:475-476, 1961b, 1962c:658, 1979b). The strongest influence on Jakobson's thinking was "the turbulent artistic movement of the early twentieth century" (RJ 1962c:631). Himself a friend of nonrepresentational painters and poets, Jakobson participated in the renewal in the arts and sciences that took place in Europe (including Russia) in the 1910s. He observed with interest the artistic experiments of the avant-garde (for example, Picasso, Braque,

χ

INTRODUCTION

Stravinsky, Joyce, Xlebnikov, Le Corbusier); he followed enthusiastically the Futurists and Cubists (RJ 1919, Rudy 1983, 1987) and wrote Futurist (transrational) poems himself under the pseudonym Aljagrov (Rudy 1987, Vallier 1987). What particularly struck him about these new artistic trends was "their unique feeling for the dialectical tension between parts and the uniting whole, and between the conjugated parts, primarily between the two aspects of any artistic sign, its signans and its signatum" (RJ 1962c:632). What provided an even greater impetus for these ideas and inspired Jakobson with a conviction that he never lost - namely, the inseparability of Science and Art - was the development of modern physics (RJ 1962c:632), in particular the theory of relativity. In his historical studies he took inspiration from Einstein's discovery that time is not an absolute but a force in its own right and that time and motion must be understood in relation to each other. Jakobson was drawn to the fact that for Einsteinian physics, as for Cubism, everything is based on relationship (RJ 1972a, 1980c). The artist's credo "I do not believe in things, I believe in their relationship" (Georges Braque) thus joined the mathematician's motto "It is not things that matter, but the relations between them" (Bell 1945). Or as Jakobson himself put it much later, "Attention must be paid not to the material units themselves but to their relations" (RJ 1973c:27). Later still, Edward Sapir's dictum (1924:159) "What fetters the mind and benumbs the spirit is ever the dogged acceptance of absolutes" served as the epigraph for The Sound Shape of Language (RJ 1979b). The other side of relativity, as Jakobson was fond of pointing out, is invariance - in particular, invariance in relationship (equivalence). This notion arose simultaneously in physics, mathematics, and linguistics and is concerned with the defining characteristics of a given phenomenon: these characteristics (1) are constantly associated with it, and (2) relate it to and differentiate it from other entities in the same system. In its turn, invariance is associated with the complementary notion of variation: an entity may, as it occurs in different contexts or situations, be altered and influenced in various ways. Yet certain constant, invariant characteristics remain. Jakobson untiringly claimed that the question of equivalence in difference, of invariance in the midst of variation, is "the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics" (RJ 1959b; see also 1981c). In 1915, together with other students (in particular, Bogatyrëv), Jakobson founded the Moscow Linguistic Circle, dedicated to "the study

INTRODUCTION

XI

of linguistics, poetics, metrics, and folklore" (RJ 1965c; see also 1981b, 1985b), and served as its president until 1920. In the same period he cofounded the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOJAZ) in Saint Petersburg and was coauthor with Jurij Tynjanov of its programmatic statement (RJ 1928c). These two groups, which today go under the name of Russian Formalism, consisted of linguists, literary scholars, and writers (especially aestheticians and poets). They insisted on the autonomy of literary studies and called for an immanent analysis of literary works, with a focus on the properties that distinguish literary material from any other kind. 8 This interest implied a focus on the text and on its relational properties, in particular those based on linguistic structure (for instance, accent and vowel length, which underlie meter in verse; see RJ 1921b, 1923). Jakobson's first linguistic studies, then, were centered on poetry: "It's by dint of analyzing poems that I began to work on phonology" (RJ 1975b: 125). Poetry became, as it were, a testing ground for, and a catalyst of, his own emerging theory of language structure.

Prague

Period

In 1920 Jakobson went to Prague and subsequently decided to remain there, disturbed by the political events in the Soviet Union. He received his doctorate in 1930 from Prague University; in 1933 he began teaching at the T. G. Masaryk University at Brno, and in 1937 assumed the chair of Russian philology and Old Czech literature at that university. Prague was a congenial environment for him. Situated at the crossroads of western and eastern European culture, it was a melting pot, a city where diverse ideas of modern thought, including those of the artistic avant-garde, formed a new synthesis. He found, too, that he had much in common with the linguists working there, and in 1926 he helped to found the Prague Linguistic Circle9, dedicated to studies 8

For discussions of Russian Formalism, see Erlich 1955, Todorov 1965, 1978, Pomorska 1968, 1983, Steiner 1984, Matejka 1987. 9 Cofounders were Vilém Mathesius, Bohumil Havránek, Jan Mukafovsky, Prince Nikolai S. Trubetzkoy, Bogatyrëv, and Karcevskij. For a discussion of the circle see RJ 1930a, 1933a, 1938a, 1939d, 1956d, 1962c, 1963d, 1965c. For the viewpoint o f others, see Malmberg 1964, Trnka 1964, Vachek 1966, Robins 1967, Garvin 1969, Lepschy 1970, Davis 1973, Fischer-Jorgensen 1975, M. Ivic 1976, Kilbury 1976, Steiner 1976, 1982, Souèkovà 1976, Matejka 1976a, b, Linhartová 1977, Rensky 1977, Sampson 1980, Galan 1985, Anderson 1985, Merquior 1986, Toman 1987, 1989.

XII

INTRODUCTION

in general linguistics, poetics, and the history of the Slavic languages, literatures, and cultures. He served as its vice-president until his departure from Czechoslovakia in 1939. The Prague Circle, which is known as the cradle of the structuralist movement, became a major force in twentieth-century linguistics. It stood for both a functional and a structural view of language. Language serves for communication; from this fact, Praguians claimed, comes the fundamental "need to analyze all the instrumentalities of language from the standpoint of the tasks they perform" (RJ 1963d). Language is a system with an internal structure suited to these communicative tasks. Indeed, it was Jakobson who first coined the term "structuralism" in 1929 (republished as RJ 1971c:711), as a cover term for this viewpoint. Were we to comprise the leading idea of present-day science in its most various manifestations, we could hardly find a more appropriate designation than structuralism. Any set of phenomena examined by contemporary science is treated not as a mechanical agglomeration but as a structural whole, and the basic task is to reveal the inner, whether static or developmental, laws of this system. What appears to be the focus of scientific preoccupations is no longer the outer stimulus but the internal premises of the development; now the mechanical conception of processes yields to the question of their functions. 1 0

The basic unit of this structural-functional whole is the linguistic sign. The Prague Circle (like the Moscow Circle before it) provided Jakobson with an intellectually stimulating milieu in which to develop his new ideas. Indeed, those years saw the maturing of his scientific genius. He wrote major works on many of the themes that were to remain central to his thought: the theory of both synchronic and diachronic phonology, the comparative historical phonology of the Slavic languages, linguistic geography, questions of prosodie phonology, and sound and meaning in morphology. 11 10 See also RJ 1963d, 1975b, Holenstein 1976a, Waugh 1976c. The reader should be aware that there are many definitions and uses of the term "structuralism," not all of which are compatible in their details with Jakobson's work. Indeed, as we shall see, he placed himself in opposition to earlier (Saussurean), contemporary (European), and later (American) forms of structuralism. For a discussion of structuralism as it has come to be generally understood, see Cassirer 1945, Benveniste 1962, Malmberg 1963, Bierwisch 1966, Ducrot 1968, Lepschy 1970, Piaget 1970, Lane 1970a,b, de George and de George 1972, Steiner 1976, Hawkes 1977, Hymes and Fought 1981, Gardner 1981, Merquior 1986, Harland 1987, Stankiewicz 1990. 11 He also wrote on many other themes, including poetics, semiotics, folklore, film theory, musicology, comparative Slavic poetics and metrics, and Medieval Slavic (in particular Old Czech) literature, culture, and civilization. See Pomorska 1977, 1985a,c, 1987, and Pomorska and Rudy 1987.

INTRODUCTION

XIII

One of the topics that occupied Jakobson's attention throughout his life was the structural theory of phonology (the function of sound in language); in particular he focused on the sound properties that are the ultimate constituents of language, the buildung blocks of linguistic structure. His experience with poetry led him to start with these characteristics; subsequently, other levels of language structure (for example, grammatical morphology) were examined in the light of their similarities with, differences from, ^nd interrelation with phonological structure. We can trace four stages of Jakobson's work in phonology (for stages 1 - 3 , see also P. Ivic 1965): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Phonological systems and relations (1920s and 1930s), Distinctive features and child language (late 1930s and 1940s), Acoustic definitions of the features (1950s and 1960s), The sound shape as a whole (1970s).

The first stage was developed in close collaboration with Trubetzkoy, one of the leading Praguians. Basing themselves in part on the work of Baudouin de Courtenay, Kruszewski, Scerba, and Saussure as well as Jakobson's own early writings in poetics (RJ 1921b, 1923), Jakobson and Trubetzkoy endeavored to establish the notions of phoneme and phonological system as fundamental concepts for linguistics.12 Together they developed a set of principles, all of which are based on the fact that a phonological system is a structural whole (rather than a mere agglomeration of disparate elements). Jakobson's and Trubetzkoy's point of departure was that sound is not to be treated as a thing in itself but as a functional element in language. The task of the linguist is thus not simply to inventory all the phonetic minutiae in a language but rather to explore the functions of sound differences. The phoneme is the element of sound that is capable of differentiating between words: for example, the English phonemes /p/ versus Ibi in pin versus bin. As such, a phoneme is not the same as the elements of sound that are not capable of such a function: for example, the nonphonemic difference between the aspirated [ph] of pin, the unaspirated [p] of spin, and the unreleased [p-1] of tip. The latter are contextual, or combinatory, variants (sometimes called allophones) of the invariant phoneme Ipl. Furthermore, these variants are not equal in status: some are more basic ([ph]), and others more marginal ([pn]). 12

See Trubetzkoy 1929, 1931a, 1939a, 1949, 1969 and RJ 1931g, 1932a, 1976d.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

Phonemes are relationally invariant: their nature is determined by the other phonemes in the system of which they are a part. Vowels, for example, are often aligned in characteristic patterns; in particular, there are both triangular and quadrangular vowel systems, built on the relations high-low (sometimes called close-open) and front-back (see Figure 2). The difference is whether or not there is a front-back distinction in the low vowels to match the one in the high vowels. On this basis, the nature of /a/ in the triangular system is seen to be different from that of lai in the quadrangular one. Several types of correlations were defined, of which the most important is what was later called markedness relations. Phonemes often come in pairs - for example, the front-back pairs i-u and œ-α in Figure 2, or the nasal-oral pairs typical of consonantal systems: m-b, n-d. Furthermore, in such oppositions there is always an asymmetry: one of the terms differs from the other in possessing a special "mark" that the other lacks. In the nasal-oral opposition, nasal is the marked term, while nonnasal (oral) is unmarked (RJ 1980d). Close comparison of different types of languages, different combinations of features, and markedness relations led Jakobson to adumbrate the important structural concept of implicational laws (rules): X and Y may be copresent in the same system (mutual solidarity); either X or Y may occur but not both (mutual exclusion); the presence of X may imply the copresence of Y, but Y can occur without X (asymmetric implication, irreversible solidarity). An early application of these phonological principles can be found in Jakobson's article on Slovak (1931d); some of his best-known ideas in this area pertain to the relations between prosodie (that is, suprasegmental) elements such as stress, length, and word tone 13 . Prosodie elements also provided evidence for a further function of sound: they often serve to divide the spoken chain into words. In front

back

front

back

i.

u

high low Figure 2 13

a

^

Triangular and quadrangular vowel systems

Jakobson used such rules to explain the nature and history of various prosodie systems of the Slavic languages, a theme to which he often returned. See RJ 1928a, 1929a, 1931a, 1937a,b, 1958a, 1963b, 1963e, 1964a, 1965a, P. Ivic 1965, Birnbaum 1977.

INTRODUCTION

XV

Czech, for example, stress is fixed on the first syllable of the word and thus serves to delimit the beginning of words. In such languages sound has what Jakobson and Trubetzkoy called a demarcative or deliminative function, in addition to its phonemic/phonological function (RJ 1952c). Jakobson also began to apply the new structural techniques to the history of languages, thus breaking with the neogrammarian tradition in historical (diachronic) linguistics. In 1928 he finished a monograph on the evolution of the phonological systems of various Slavic languages (RJ 1929a) and in 1931 wrote a theoretical, systematic study of types of phonological change (RJ 193If; see also 1949a). In these works he showed that change must be understood in terms of the structural principles that had been worked out in synchronic phonology. In particular he demonstrated that implicational laws have predictive power: in the case of asymmetric implication, for example, no language can develop X without either already heaving Y or acquiring Y concurrently with X. Jakobson also became convinced that "linguistic changes are systematic and goal directed, and ... the evolution of languages shares its purposefulness with the development of other socio-cultural systems" (RJ 1980d; see Galan 1985, Liberman 1987). A teleological approach to language change is thus essential. The Prague years also saw the elaboration of Jakobson's theory of language structure in contrast with the most-accepted views in Europe at that time, those of Saussure. Saussure indeed served as a reference whom Jakobson praised for his innovative steps over the previous generation, but against whom he defined, in dialectical fashion, his differences. 14 Jakobson found the picture of language propounded by Saussure to be at the same time too abstract, too static, and too simplified. This view was evidenced in particular through the Saussurian antinomies (dichotomies) such as synchrony-diachrony, langue-parole, and paradigmatic-syntagmatic. Saussure saw a conflict between the opposite ends of any dichotomy and tended to exclude one of them from linguistics altogether. For him, linguistics was about langue (the system of language) and could not include parole (the usage of language). Or he established absolute fusions between various dichotomies: syn14 This attitude persisted throughout Jakobson's life. It is most evident in the way he constructed 1971c; see also RJ 1928a,b, 1953b, 1959c, 1962e, 1971e,f, I975e, 1980d, 1984c.

XVI

INTRODUCTION

chrony (the system of language at any one time) is always static; diachrony (language over time), always dynamic. Jakobson, however, regarded the two sides of a dichotomy as complementary and all dichotomies as independent of one another. He argued that linguistics must study parole, and his work on the roots of sound change in synchrony led him to claim that synchrony can be both static and dynamic. Any state of language thus presents a dynamic synchrony. Changes in progress are manifested as stylistically and socially marked variants (sometimes called functional dialects) in the system of a language at a given time: for example, old-fashioned versus newfangled, more careful versus more sloppy, "allegro" versus "largo" speech. In this way Jakobson insisted on the inclusion of time as an element of synchronic structure - in particular of phonological structure (RJ 1980d). And, he added, space can also be a structural element of language (RJ 1980d). He and Trubetzkoy elaborated a theory of linguistic alliances (Sprachbundtheorie): the phonological or grammatical traits of a given language may expand beyond its borders (for example, through widespread contact and bilingualism), and a set of geographically contiguous languages may form alliances because they share certain properties. 15 They thereby proposed a second approach to language groupings — a spatial (areal) one — in addition to the historical (genetic) one, both of which are based on the fundamental notion of linguistic affinities (1949b), in which resemblances arise from a genetic link or convergence of development. Phonology became "the methodological model for all other areas of linguistic analysis" (RJ 1960b:428). Using this model as a basis, Jakobson developed a theory of form and meaning in morphology and elaborated fundamental principles for semantic analysis (see 1973c). He argued, in particular, that all grammatical categories contain an inseparable union of form and meaning, that grammar in itself is always meaningful, and that meaning is to be differentiated from reference. He further demonstrated that grammatical meanings exhibit the same properties as phonological units, namely, the relation between invariance and contextual variation, the separation of basic and marginal contextual variants, and the opposition between marked and unmarked elements. 16 For example, a given case exhibits a semantic invariant, 15

See RJ 1931b,c, 1938c, 1949d, 1953e, 1980d, 1985c, Trubetzkoy 1931c. Jakobson discussed these themes in the programmatic 1932b, the classic, wideranging study 1936a, and the later studies, RJ 1957c, 1959d, 1973c, 1974a, 1980d, 1981c. 16

INTRODUCTION

XVII

even though its specific meanings (contextual variants) differ according to the sentences in which it is used. By incorporating both invariance (context-independent meaning) and variation (context-specific meaning), he gave the basis for the interrelation of what later were to be considered two disciplines, semantics and pragmatics. Jakobson also showed that the forms of grammatical categories are intricately tied with their meanings. For example, the falling together ("syncretism") of two or more categories - such as the accusative and genitive case for animate nouns in Russian — is semantically motivated (see RJ 1936a). He demonstrated that the seemingly random variations in form manifested by many grammatical categories are not totally arbitrary, as had been surmised by others. During this period he thus focused on sound, meaning, and their interrelation. Jakobson's analysis of the close relationship between form and meaning brought him to further theoretical work on the nature of the linguistic sign - in particular, the "zero sign": the absence of a linguistic form can be meaningful only if it is in relation to a corresponding overt form (RJ 1939c, 1940). Such zero signs can occur at all levels of language: phonology (the absence of nasality in /t/ versus its presence in Inf), morphology (a zero ending in a grammatical paradigm, such as cat or cat-0 versus cat-s, where 0 is used for a morphological zero), syntax (elliptical constructions such as the answer John to the question Who came?), and so forth. In the late 1930s, the second stage in Jakobson's views on phonology began when he presented his first drafts for a full theory of the distinctive feature and of the child acquisition of language. Developing further the insight that phonemes often come in pairs and are related by various properties (for example, front-back, high-low in the vowels), it became clear to him that phonemes are decomposable into distinctive features. 17 Indeed, he argued that the phoneme is a combination (bundle) of distinctive features; it is composed of diverse primitive signaling units and can itself be incorporated into larger units such as syllables and words. It is simultaneously a whole composed of parts and is itself a part that is included in larger wholes (see RJ 1963c). Hierarchy, then, is the fundamental structural principle (see Caton 1987:230). Jakobson also argued that the distinctive features are all binary in nature (RJ 1976d). The particularly difficult problem was that of the linear pattern that seems to exist between the front-to-back points of 17

See RJ 1928b, 1931d, 1938d, 1939a, b, 1962a, 1980d.

XVIII

INTRODUCTION

articulation of the consonants (p-t-k in English). He showed that this pattern is underlain by two binary relations: p, t versus k on the one hand, and ρ versus t on the other hand. Through refining the definition of the features and by working out his analyses on various languages 18 , he came to the conclusion that these same two relations also recur in the vowels in the sets u, i versus a and u versus i respectively19. The vocalic triangle thus has a corresponding consonantal one (see Figure 3). Jakobson made a further step in his definition of the phoneme and the distinctive feature: they are signs.20 Their signified is "(mere) otherness," or pure differentiation: they serve merely to distinguish words. Since words are also signs, phonemes and features are pure "signs of signs," unlike all other types of signs, which have some content. By using such definitions, he placed these phonological elements in a much broader context. He claimed that language is a completely semiotic system, a system of signs from the largest components (discourses) to the smallest ones (the distinctive features). "An important structural particularity of language is that at no stage of resolving higher units into their component parts does one encounter informationally pointless fragments" (RJ 1963c). During the same time Jakobson also turned his attention to child language, in particular, to stages in the acquisition of phonology. His earlier work with Trubetzkoy on the comparison of different languages led to important cross-linguistic conclusions about phonological structure, in particular to the fact that some phonemes and phoneme relations are more fundamental than others. Languages may thus be grouped in accordance with the type of structure they evidence: not only may some conform to the triangular type and others to the

V' a

'V 7 ' k

Figure 3 Vocalic and consonantal triangles For example, he gave distinctive-feature analyses of Serbo-Croation (RJ 1949d) and French (RJ 1949e, with John Lötz); see also RJ 1951. 19 In the technical terms he was to work out later, i versus u and t versus ρ represent acute versus grave, whereas u versus a and t, ρ versus k represent diffuse versus compact. 20 Jakobson reached this conclusion in a lecture given in 1938, published as RJ 1962a. A less technical elaboration of those ideas can be found in RJ 1976d, written in 1942. 18

INTRODUCTION

XIX

quadrangular type in their vocalic systems, but in both types there may be only two degrees of height (high and low, as above), or there may be three degrees (high, mid, and low). On the basis of such observations, a third kind of relation between languages (grouping) was defined: the typological relation, based solely on structural similarities. Moreover, certain traits occur in all or nearly all of the languages of the world and, being universal or nearly so, are more basic (for example, the vowel /a/ and the consonants /p/ and /t/), while others are found in a smaller number of languages and are thus less central (the vowels /ε/ and loi and the consonants Id and /δ/). In both the triangular and quadrangular language types, therefore, the presence of mid vowels is an extra complexity imposed on the simpler high-low distinction. The hierarchical relations within and among phonemes and features that were revealed by questions of typology and universals had not only a static and synchronic side for Jakobson but also a dynamic one. They were useful for predicting certain aspects of language change and for explaining the order of acquisition in children: universal relations come before nonuniversal ones; unmarked elements before marked; simple structures (such as two heights in the vowels) before more complex ones (three heights). More elaborate structures are thus a later expansion of an elementary base (see RJ 1979b). In general, Jakobson saw this pattern as a balance between optimality (perceptually more distinct sounds) and greater number and complexity of systemic elements (which reduce the perceptual distinctions). Perhaps the most striking finding was his determination of how the implicational laws that underlie sound systems apply. Jakobson demonstrated the dynamic aspect of irreversible solidarity: in order for Y to appear in child language acquisition, X must also appear or must have appeared before; in other words, implicational laws have a predictive power not only in the synchronic and diachronic structure of languages but also in language acquisition. He showed in addition that the structures that are the first to appear in children are the last to disappear in aphasies; that is, the order of loss of phonological elements in aphasies is a mirror image of their acquisition by children. Preliminary versions of this research were formulated in the late 1930s (RJ 1939e), but the best known is that of his classic text Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals (RJ 1941a).21 This monograph is interesting from a methodological point of view. Jakob21

The title of the original is Kinderspruche, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. RJ 1949c is a compact survey of its main points, whereas RJ 1960d focuses o n the initial stages in the acquisition of phonology; see also RJ 1962f.

XX

INTRODUCTION

son did not personally work at length with children or aphasies but consulted numerous writings on the topic. From them he retained specific facts that, with remarkable insight, he related to observations he had made on language. These facts thus confirmed general hypotheses he formulated about language structure and relations. His task was not to give more examples of the details of child language acquisition (or aphasie dissolution) but rather to provide a universal schema by which any given case could be understood. Much later he widened his concern in these matters to questions of grammar as well as phonology: besides numerous writings on aphasia (RJ 1955a, 1956b, 1960d, 1964b, 1966c, 1975c), he produced further theoretical work on typology and universale (RJ 1958a and 1963e), in which he outlined again the importance of (near) universals and implicational relations for language structure and language change.

American

Period

In 1939 Jakobson fled the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia and went to Scandinavia. He was visiting lecturer in Copenhagen and Oslo until 1940 and then in Uppsala until 1941, when he decided to go to the United States. 22 His ideas gave rise to suspicion and unfavorable reactions from some American structuralists, mainly occupied at the time with a mechanistic description of language. He did find friends however - Franz Boas, Benjamin Lee Whorf, and Leonard Bloomfield (see Halle 1988) — and he quickly became part of the international community that formed in New York during the war. He was professor of general linguistics and of Czechoslovak studies at the FrancoBelgian "University in Exile," the Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes in New York City (under the auspices of the New School for Social Research), from 1942 to 1946. (For a discussion of the Ecole, see Rutkoff and Scott 1986.) In 1943 he was cofounder of the Linguistic Circle of New York and was its vice-president until 1949. From 1943 to 1946 he was visiting professor of general linguistics at Columbia University, where he became, in 1946, T. G. Masaryk Professor of Czechoslovak Studies.

22

In the course of these peregrinations he learned one new language after another, assimilating many aspects of their grammar, vocabulary, and phraseology but stubbornly maintaining his Russian accent: he always considered it a waste of effort to try to imitate fully the sound pattern of another language (RJ 197le)!

INTRODUCTION

XXI

In 1949 Jakobson moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he was named the Samuel Hazzard Cross Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Harvard University, and later (1960) professor of general linguistics. In 1956 he was president of the Linguistic Society of America. In 1957 he became the first scientist to be jointly named, along with his chair at Harvard, Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While there he co-organized and headed the Center of Communication Science, establishing a nucleus of scholars working on linguistic and mathematical linguistic problems. From 1966 to 1969 he was also attached to the Salk Institute for Biological Studies (La Jolla, California) and the Center for Cognitive Studies at Harvard. The months that Jakobson spent wandering from one country to another, far from hindering his scholarly activities, gave new impetus to his intellectual development: "The succession of scientific environments, each with its own particular interests and local watchwords, allowed me to reformulate my own questions and to enlarge their scope" (RJ 1980d:35). In the midst of the terrible international situation and despite his own personal danger, Jakobson pursued his work in Scandinavia in 1939 and 1940 on the phonic laws of child language and on aphasia and its manifestations (this effort resulted in RJ 1941a). His settling in America coincided with a broadening of both his vision and the bases of his linguistic research. 23 It was, in Holenstein's terms (1976a: 11), a "phase of interdisciplinary consolidation." Jakobson started to look at language more in relation to other human activities. The history of linguistic figures and concepts became a favorite topic with him, whereas it had been little represented in his previous works. He also gave theoretical issues (in both linguistics and poetics) their most thorough treatment at this time. 24 The only exception — an important one — seems to be in phonology, where as we have seen, Jakobson wrote quite a few theoretical articles before 1942.25 Above all, the American period saw the emergence of deeper questions having to do with the function of language. 23

He also worked in the areas of semiotics, poetics and literary theory, metrics, philology, comparative mythology, Slavic epic studies, and history of Slavic culture and civilization. 24 He was indeed concerned with such issues before (we have seen that he had already written his theoretical work on the zero sign), but they tended to be incorporated in more specific discussions (e.g., the general case theory embedded in RJ 1936a). 25 See e.g. RJ 1949a (the first version written as RJ 19310 and RJ 1928a, I929d, 1931a,g, 1932a, 1962a (written in 1939).

XXII

INTRODUCTION

For the Prague Circle, functionalism and structuralism were inseparable. Jakobson himself described his theory of language as one in which function (language as a tool for communication) and structure (language as a lawful governed whole) are combined (RJ 1963d): language is structured so as to be suitable for communication. During his Prague period the structural aspect chiefly concerned him. But during the mature phase of his intellectual career, especially the 1950s and 1960s in the United States, there was a shift of emphasis: he devoted more attention to a "means-ends" approach and began to build a model of "language in operation" (RJ 1964e). With renewed insistence, Jakobson stated that language is an interpersonal (intersubjective) means of communication; that is, it operates between speakers and addressees. It is learned and maintained through dialogue, through the exchange of linguistic messages (instances of parole). Language is not an abstract object but is constituted through and related to the act of communication. Jakobson thus brought parole to the fore and indeed, at this time, endeavored to emphasize the mutual dependence of langue and parole (RJ 1984c). Many years before, as mentioned above, he had begun rethinking this antinomy, reacting against Saussure's definition of these terms as contradictory: while langue for Saussure was social, homogeneous, and static, parole was individual, heterogeneous, and subject to change. Jakobson contended that these two equally necessary aspects of language should not be conceived of as absolutely separated. Rather they must be seen as functionally and structurally linked: langue exists for the construction of instances of parole, and instances of parole depend on langue for their successful functioning. Furthermore, the equation of langue with what is social in language and parole with what is individual must not be absolutized: on the one hand, there exist different personal styles of langue; on the other hand, instances of parole are interpersonal and thus social. Jakobson received another impetus for this repudiation of Saussurian doctrine from a very different source: communication theory (RJ 1961a, b). Intrigued by work in the mathematical theory of communication, information theory, and cybernetics, he reflected on the dynamics and the complexity of the communication process in society (RJ 1974d). He was particularly drawn by the "modern, less ambiguous terminology" afforded by this trend (RJ 1971c:718), so much so that he championed the new terminology wholeheartedly: langue and parole were henceforth "code" and "message"; speaker and addressee, "encoder" and "decoder"; production and comprehension, "encoding"

INTRODUCTION

XXIII

and "decoding"; stylistically marked variants, "stylistic subcodes"; and so on ( R J 1953c, 1966d). Recognizing the theoretical richness of communication theory, he also placed it in the broader context of a theory of pragmatics, that is, his theory of the "functions of language." For most linguists and philosophers at the time, the purpose of communication was referential. But for Jakobson and the Prague School, "Reference is not the only, nor even the primary goal of communication" (Caton 1987:231). Language is rather a system of systems suited to various communicative goals. These goals in turn are correlated with the act of communication in which language is used. Jakobson had inherited from the psychologist Karl Bühler (1934) the tripartite schema of the speech event as necessarily encompassing the following three factors: (1) a speaker (an encoder), (2) an addressee (a decoder), and (3) a thing referred to, which Jakobson generalized to the notion of context. Through his work on poetry, he had already added a fourth factor, namely, (4) the message, the particular instance of parole being communicated by the speaker to the addressee. Jakobson's initial insight was to define four functions of language and to show that, within the message, each function is related to one of the four factors: (1) the emotive (expressive) function corresponds to focus on the speaker; (2) the conative function, focus on the addressee; (3) the referential (cognitive) function, focus on the context; and (4) the poetic (aesthetic) function, focus on the message. At this time Jakobson added two more factors in speech communication: (5) the code that is common to speaker and addressee, and (6) the contact between them, the medium by which they communicate. The two additional functions, then, are (5) the metalingual (metalinguistic) function, corresponding to focus on the code, and (6) the phatic function, focus on the contact. In his presidential address at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in 1956, he presented for the first time his sixfold typology of the speech event and the corresponding functions (published as R J 1976c; see also R J 1960c, 1981c). This schema appears in Table 1. Table 1

The speech event: components and functions

Components of the speech event

Corresponding functions

context message speaker addressee contact code

referential poetic emotive conative phatic metalinguistic

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

With this integrated view of the act of communication, Jakobson was able to avoid the abstractness of other approaches to language (such as American structuralism and generative grammar). For example, he situated his discussion of metalanguage (the use of language to speak about language itself) and its role in our acquisition and use of language within a more comprehensive theoretical environment, where its relation to the other functions of language is overtly specified (RJ 1976c). Also in 1956 Jakobson published "Two Aspects of Language" (RJ 1956b), in which he analyzed the relation between communicative processes and properties of linguistic structure. On the one hand, he distinguished the two operations used for production and comprehension: selection (substitution) and combination (also called contexture). In order to produce utterances, speakers have to select linguistic items from sets and combine them into larger wholes, thereby creating contexts; in their turn, addressees have to comprehend the combinations and discern which items were originally selected. On the other hand, Jakobson contrasted two types of relations in language structure, similarity (all types of equivalence) and contiguity (temporal and spatial neighborhood) 26 : linguistic items belong to classes or types that share properties, and they always appear in a context. Jakobson had already been extensively using similarity versus contiguity and the corresponding tropes, metaphor (based on similarity) versus metonymy (founded on contiguity), in his work on poetics and semiotics (especially cinema). 27 In RJ 1956b he shows that the tension between contiguity and similarity permeates the whole of language and that, in particular, the two structural relations underlie the two operations: that is, the elements in a selection set are normally associated by similarity, and those in combination by contiguity. Thus, the operations by which speakers and addressees encode or decode messages are linked to the means by which the elements of the message are related to each other (see Table 2). Moreover, the two operations/relations are the basis of the division in aphasie disturbances between similarity disorders and contiguity dis-

26

These dichotomies - selection-combination and similarity-contiguity - had already been prefigured in the work of Kruszewskij (see RJ 1967b) and Saussure (1916) but were not fully distinguished; this is also true of the modern terms "paradigmatic" (associative) and "syntagmatic." 27 See RJ 1921a,b, 1932c, 1933b, 1935b, 1936b, 1937d.

INTRODUCTION

XXV

orders. 28 The similarity versus contiguity dichotomy was also used by Jakobson to classify types of discourse. In poetry, for example, in which focus on the message is dominant, equivalence (similarity) relations are used to build the combinations rather than only to underpin the elements of the selection set. "In the poetic function, the relation of equivalence is projected from the axis of selection to the axis of combination" (RJ 1960c). According to this projection principle, parallelisms between equivalent units help to structure the poetic text; tropes built on similarity, such as metaphor, are more likely to be found in poetry, whereas metonymy is more characteristic of prose. In the latter, focus is on some other facet of the speech event, and contiguity is the essential constructional principle. Jakobson also used similarity versus contiguity to characterize various artistic schools (for example, Symbolism versus Realism), the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic rites, personality types, and so forth. With one stroke he defined a fundamental polarity of language, culture, and human thought in general (RJ 1956b). The close relation between code and message, which is evident both in the nature and in the operation of language, led as well to a réévaluation of the nature of shifters (first put forth in RJ 1950a; see also 1957c, 1981c). Shifters are elements in the code whose general meaning can be specified only by taking into account their use in messages, because this meaning incorporates a conceptualization having to do with particular elements of the speech event. For example, pronouns designate speaker, addressee, and context; tenses, the time of the speech event; adverbs like here and now, the place and time of the speech event. By exploring how language encodes factors of the context of utterance, by taking a fresh look at the grammatical categories of the Table 2

Selection-combination and similarity-contiguity 2 operations (encoding-decoding)

selection (substitution)

and

combination

(contexture)

similarity (equivalence) (basis of metaphor)

and

contiguity (temporal and spatial neighborhood) (basis of metonymy)

2 structural relations in code and message

28

In later publications (RJ 1964b, 1966c) Jakobson delineated three binary relations underlying aphasie disorders: similarity-contiguity, encoding-decoding, and simultaneity-successivity.

XXVI

INTRODUCTION

Russian verb (already studied in RJ 1932b), and by opposing shifters to nonshifters, Jakobson provided a "calculus of possibilities" (Mel'cuk 1985), a basis upon which all possible verbal grammatical categories can be predicted. 29 Moreover, in his discussion of these categories he put forward concepts that are essential for any analysis of meaning. In particular, he called attention to the distinction between the narrated event (the event spoken about) and the speech event (the act of communication), both of which are necessary to the understanding of any message and thus crucial to the structure of any semantic category in the code. Grammar also became a renewed focus of investigation. Jakobson gave it a more theoretical and pragmatic basis: following Boas, he defined grammatical categories (both morphological and syntactic) as those that are obligatorily present in the construction of acceptable messages (RJ 1959d). They are thus an important factor in the shaping of messages, even though speakers may not be aware of their workings, whereas particular lexical categories (derivation, vocabulary, phraseology) are optional. Through this view of grammar Jakobson provided a semantic and operational approach to well-formedness (grammaticality) as well as to the relation between language and cognition: grammatical categorizations provide the necessary patterns for thought. In addition to his work on shifters, he returned to grammatical questions several times during these years, concentrating in particular on the Slavic languages. 30 In all of these writings he carefully distinguished between morphological and syntactic questions and applied the findings already worked out in phonology - binary features, which produce intersecting classifications and define markedness relations between pairs of categories — to morphological data. A famous application of this concept of binarism is the "case cube" (RJ 1958b). Taking the operational definition of grammar specified above as his point of departure, Jakobson directed his attention to the analysis of texts and in particular to his favorite testing ground: poetry. Thus emerged his interest in how grammar plays a pivotal role in the equiva29 RJ 1957c also inspired him to further study of the acquisition of grammar by children. For example, in RJ 1975a, 1977b, and 1980a he underlined the importance of differentiating the two-word phase from the subject-predicate phase, with its attendant emergence of shifters. 30 See RJ 1957d, 1958b, 1960a, 1965b; see also his studies of Gilyak (1957b, in which a microtheory of general grammar is embedded) and Rumanian (1962d) and the earlier 1935a, 1936a,b, 1948, 1949f.

INTRODUCTION

XXVII

lence relations and parallelisms by which the poetic text is constructed: "Grammatical categories, whether reiterative or contrasting, [have] a compositional function" (RJ 1980d:112). Elements that remain latent in nonpoetic speech are pushed to the fore in poetic language and become salient, palpable. Armed with his work on sound and meaning, Jakobson devoted a good deal of his intellectual energy in the 1960s and 1970s to a detailed analysis of the grammar of some forty poems in over a dozen languages (SWIII). 3 1 Jakobson's coordinate concern with function and structure can also be linked with his discovery in the early 1950s of the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. He characterized Peirce as "the most inventive and the most universal of American thinkers" (RJ 1966d), who "in this country has been for me the most powerful source of inspiration" (RJ 1971b:v). Indeed, a glance at Jakobson's whole oeuvre shows that since his arrival in the United States, he referred more to Peirce than to any other American thinker. The Peircian ideas that recur the most often and that have had the most wide-ranging theoretical influence are those concerning the three sign types: icon, index, and symbol. The notion of the icon (based on a similarity relation between signans and signatum) was particularly influential and impelled Jakobson to a recognition of iconic elements in language; this insight led to a more profound analysis of the nonarbitrariness of the linguistic sign (RJ 1949j, 1966d). As for the index, it underlies his discussion of shifters. For Peirce, any semiotic behavior is to be seen not as the outcome of a static system but rather as a dynamic process in which the essence of a sign is its interpretation, that is, its translation, by some further sign. Jakobson henceforth defined the signatum as that which is "interpretable" or "translatable" (RJ 1959b, c). He characterized the Peircian approach as "the only sound basis for a strictly linguistic semantics" (RJ 1976c: 118) and stipulated that this widened definition of translation was an essential aspect of language and thus a crucial question of linguistic theory (RJ 1959b, cf. 1930b). The discovery of Peirce's work along with the emergence of communication theory also prompted Jakobson to develop a fully articulated theory of semiotics (Eco 1977): language as a tool of communication and a system of signs is to be seen as the human semiotic system 31

These studies include many observations on grammatical meaning, lexical meaning, syntax, figurative meanings, discourse analysis, and so forth. Like his studies of aphasia and child language (RJ 1971g), they are even now an unmined source for Jakobsonian insight.

XXVIII

INTRODUCTION

par excellence, the phylogenetic and ontogenetic basis for all other semiotic systems and thus the starting point for any valid semiotic analysis. It is important, moreover, to confront language with other sign systems in order to discover what the specific properties of language are. As schematized in Figure 4 (inspired by a similar diagram in Holenstein 1976a: 187), linguistics (the study of communication by any verbal messages whatever) incorporates poetics (the study of poetic verbal messages) and is itself included in semiotics (the study of communication by any messages), which in its turn is part of a larger study of communication, involving social anthropology, sociology, and economics (RJ 1990: chapt. 27). Jakobson's interdisciplinary studies did not stop there. Since language is our central and defining activity, he extended his vision to all sciences that touch on humans. Biology became a special object of his attention: particularities of structure and function allowed him to differentiate language from animal communication in a rigorous way; and the adoption of teleology as a central concern enabled him to relate biology and linguistics, since both deal with goal-directed phenomena. The confrontation of culture (learning) and biology (innateness) led him to examine their respective roles in language acquisition and confirmed his belief that learning was more crucial than the inherited biological base, and thus he questioned the importance sometimes given to innateness. During this period Jakobson not only was concerned with larger theoretical and interdisciplinary questions, he returned as well to one of his favorite topics, phonology. The 1950s saw the beginning of the third stage in his phonological research. In keeping with his growing interest in functional questions, he realized that the distinctive features

Figure 4

The relation between the various communication sciences

INTRODUCTION

XXIX

must ultimately be defined in acoustic terms, or more accurately, acoustico-perceptual terms, since acoustic means are used for the perceptual differentiation of words. Jakobson, the acoustician C. Gunnar Fant, and the linguist Morris Halle were able to use the newly developing results in acoustic analysis (see Fant 1960/1970) to confirm his earlier, intuitive conclusions. In addition, they incorporated the insights gained from his studies of child language acquisition and universals. They provided acoustic definitions for the features, accompanied by a description of the articulatory means by which the acoustic ends could be met (RJ 1952c). These definitions were refined in later publications by Jakobson (several in conjunction with Halle) 32 in accordance with advances in acoustic phonetics and in response to criticisms. Communication theory also gave Jakobson, the information theorist E. Colin Cherry, and Halle a much stricter mathematical definition of the rhetorical concept of redundancy (RJ 1953a). They used it to clarify the notion of contextual variation: while the invariants (phonemes) are bundles of distinctive features, the additional properties of contextual variants are characterized by redundant features. The latter are aspects of sound that are nondistinctive but relevant for perception because they serve to support and enhance the distinctive features (RJ 1952c, 1966a). The aspiration of /p/ in English (as in [ph]), for example, is a redundant feature that enhances its differentiation from nonaspirated Ibi. Jakobson, Fant, and Halle applied the principle of economy and especially Occam's maxim ("entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary") to the distinctive features and reached conclusions that were to have far-reaching theoretical consequences. Vowels and consonants share the same features, especially if one defines them in acoustico-perceptual terms: thus, front-back in the vowels is the same as labial versus dental or velar versus palatal in the consonants; and high-low in the vowels is the same as labiodental versus palatovelar in the consonants. There is thus a limited, universal set of (twelve) distinctive features; this set underlies the phonological patterns of all the languages of the world (see RJ 1979b). In this connection the notion of invariance versus variation was further developed: two or more distinctions were regarded as members of one feature if and only if they possess common acoustic properties and never oppose one another in any language. For example, rounding, 32

See RJ 1953a, 1956a,c, 1957a, 1959a, 1962b, 1966a, 1968a,d, 1971c, 1979b.

XXX

INTRODUCTION

labialization, velarization, and pharyngealization - all of which cause a lowering of the pitch - were unified in the feature of flatness (RJ 1952c, 1956a, 1957a). Invariance similarly received a new, relational basis: it is not the absolute values that count, but rather the identity of relation. For example, higher versus lower in the vowels is not an absolute but is established in a particular system. Therefore, what may seem to be different acoustically may be the same structurally. The vowel system often schematized as in Figure 5 with a ternary high-midlow relation is actually structured by a binary relation of higher versus lower in addition to front-back and rounded-unrounded 33 , as shown in Table 3. Thus, hi is relationally more similar to Iii and /u/ than to Id and loi. In like fashion, what seems to be the same acoustically may be different structurally. For example, the Danish [d] is weaker (lax) in relation to [t] in word-initial position and stronger (tense) in relation to [ö] in word-medial position, as in Figure 6. Thus, the word-initial [d] and word-medial [d] are structurally different from each other. The fourth stage in Jakobsonian phonology culminated in his last major work, The Sound Shape of Language (RJ 1979b), written with Linda R. Waugh. In general, this stage could be characterized as a further widening of functional concerns. For example, Jakobson and front

back

i e

9

u

high

0

mid low

a Figure 5

Table 3

Traditional ternary vowel-height system

Jakobson's binary solution for a "ternary" system Nonfront

Higher Lower

33

e

Central Unrounded

Back Rounded

3 a

u o

In more technical terms, three distinctive features are at work: compact-diffuse and grave-acute, with gravity subdivided into flat-nonflat.

INTRODUCTION

XXXI

Waugh concentrated on the multifunctionality of the speech sound. They developed the idea that speech sounds are totally defined by a variety of feature types, not only the distinctive, redundant, and configurative (demarcative) features defined earlier, but also expressive (stylistic) and physiognomic features (see also RJ 1952c, 1966a, Waugh 1987a). Since all of these features together represent the entire makeup of a sound (its "shape"), there is nothing that is "pure" sound, nothing that does not combine function and sound essence. Jakobson had earlier said that since the universal distinctive features are defined in acoustico-perceptual (material) terms and since they are relationally invariant, the Saussurian distinction between form and substance is invalid: one cannot differentiate between structure and the concrete material that manifests that structure. Moreover, "since the sound matter of language is a matter organized and formed to serve as a semiotic instrument, not only the significative function of the distinctive features but even their phonic essence is a cultural artifact" (RJ 1949d:423). The sound shape as a whole, then, is a cultural artifact. The oppositions traditionally made between linguistic and non-linguistic, abstract and concrete, functional and nonfunctional, (phon)emic and (phon)etic are consequently inappropriate (see also Lévi-Strauss 1972). The sound-shape stage is also characterized by further refinements in the acoustic definition of the distinctive features and by a relational application of the notion of markedness 34 : either pole of an opposition can be marked, depending on the context in which the Phoneme

Figure 6 34

Word-initial

Word-medial

The Danish dental consonants

Jakobson and Waugh were goaded in part by what they saw as errors in chapter 9 of Chomsky and Halle's Sound Pattern of English (1968), devoted to questions of markedness.

XXXII

INTRODUCTION

\7aa Figure 7

t

\7

Ρ

k

Markedness relations in consonants and vowels (marked sounds are underlined)

feature is found. In triangular systems, the tip (k) is marked in the consonants, whereas the base (/, u) is marked in the vowels35 (see Figure 7). Evidence for this difference is provided by the order of acquisition in children and by language typology and universale, especially implicational rules. Another concern at this stage is the question of arbitrariness. As mentioned above, Jakobson had been able to put his argument against arbitrariness on a different footing after his discovery of Peirce (1966d). In Sound Shape, a new dichotomy was defined, namely, mediacy versus immediacy: an indirect relation between sound and meaning (double articulation) versus a direct relation between sound and meaning (see also Waugh 1987a). Immediacy is exemplified by phenomena ranging from sound symbolism and synesthesia to mythic and poetic uses of sound. This dichotomy was also related to the hemispheres of the brain (left versus right respectively), the topic of one of Jakobson's last theoretical texts (RJ 1980b). Sound Shape was also an answer to what Jakobson and Waugh saw as excesses in generative phonology. In particular, the collapsing of two sharply delineated functions of the distinctive features and phonemes was rejected on the grounds that they serve different pragmatic ends (RJ 1979b:53-59). The first function is that of keeping apart words that are different in meaning (pin versus bin); this is distinctiveness proper (sense-discrimination) and is primary. On these grounds the concept of phoneme should not be abandoned, since sense-discrimination is carried out by both the distinctive features and their combinations, the phonemes (see RJ 1966a, 1979b). The second function, which Jakobson and Trubetzkoy originally called morphonological (morphophonemic), was later renamed "sense-determination"; its domain encompasses the phonological structure of morphemes, the alternations of words and morphemes (for example, wife and wives, take and took), and, in a given word, the arrangement of features that may supply 35

In more technical terms, compactness is marked in consonants, and its opposite, difluseness, is marked in vowels. See RJ 1979b,c, Waugh 1979.

INTRODUCTION

XXXIII

information about its derivational and inflectional structure and grammatical meaning. 36 These two functions are different not only operationally but also cross-linguistically: for example, universal laws operate much more widely and rigorously in sense-discrimination than in sense-determination, whose scope and structure differ radically from one language to another. Jakobson's interest in the sense-determinative function of sound is manifested in works in which he examined in detail the phonological shapes of morphemes. "Russian Conjugation" (RJ 1948) provided a maximally economical description of a complex grammatical paradigm. In a strictly formal analysis he was able to predict the variant forms of the Russian verb, given (1) one basic form of the stem (not two, as in traditional analyses) and (2) a small set of rules that state the changes the stem undergoes before different types of endings (for example, truncation of a vowel-final stem before a vowel-initial suffix). Jakobson was even more interested in the close relationship between sound and meaning. Already in his earliest works he had expressed the conviction that since language communicates meanings through sounds (as manifested in the concept of the linguistic sign), both sound and meaning should be analyzed in their interrelations (RJ 1949g). In his studies of the 1950s and 1960s, he discussed further the problem of the formal expression ("grammatical processes") of grammatical categories: in particular, he worked out a rigorous typology of declensional and conjugational syncretisms in Russian (see RJ 1936a, 1958b, cf. RJ 1957b,c; 1965b). He also established a set of close parallels between various morphological and syntactic categories and their formal expression, thus showing the limits of arbitrariness. 37 For example, a grammatical category such as "plural" is typically iconic in the sense that it has a form that is longer or more complex than the form of the category "singular," because of its meaning. The topic that binds together Jakobson's general linguistic and interdisciplinary studies and his more specific concerns, especially in phonology, is the history of linguistics, which attracted his attention in the

36

The difference between sense-determination and sense-discrimination was already evident in the work o f Baudouin de Courtenay (see RJ 1929b, 1960b), in Jakobson's earliest poetic writings (1923), in his and Trubetzkoy's joint work (Trubetzkoy 1931b, 1939a, 1969, RJ 19750, and in RJ 1959h,i; see also RJ 1981c and Stankiewicz 1976. 37 See RJ 1949g, 1957d, 1960a, 1966b, 1976b, 1979b, 1980d, 1982a.

XXXIV

INTRODUCTION 38

1960s and 1970s. His interests were far from antiquarian: he studied the past insofar as it was of relevance to the present and to the future. In keeping with his approach to the history of languages, his point of view was always a prospective one. He constantly searched in his predecessors for the germs of various ideas of modern linguistics, especially his own (see Stankiewicz 1977). Perhaps the most famous of the trophies of this hunt are his (re)discovery and (re)appraisal of the work of the forerunners of modern linguistics. In conformity with this historical interest, in the last twenty years of his life, Jakobson focused more on his own thought (Pomorska 1987). Beginning with his "Retrospect" to Volume I of his Selected Writings, continuing through the "Retrospects" to the next five volumes 39 , and culminating in the Dialogues (RJ 1980d, written with Krystyna Pomorska) and in his "meta"-retrospects (RJ 1981c; 1984a), Jakobson traced his own development 40 , at the same time answering his critics. Going beyond a bare summing up, Jakobson used these articles to lay down new paths for himself (and his readers) to travel. It is characteristic that time and space do not exist as themes in either Holenstein (1976a) or Waugh (1976c) (even though Jakobson read and commented on both books when they were still in manuscript), but they are a major focal point in the Dialogues (RJ 1980d), where they illuminate new correspondences between various properties of language. The relation between language and the brain, which was attached to questions of aphasia in earlier work, likewise became a major focus near the end of his life (RJ 1980b). In Dialogues and in private talks, Jakobson confessed that if he were a young linguist today, he would follow closely work in neurolinguistics, pursuing questions of child language acquisition of grammar and of schizophrenia as a disorder of language and

38

See e.g. RJ 1960b, 1965c, 1966e, 1967b, 1971a,e,f, 1972a, 1975d,e,g, 1977c, 1979b:chap. 1, 1979d, 1980c, 1981b; see also RJ 1929b, 1937c, 1943, 1949Ì, 1956d, 1963d, 1976d, 1984c. 39 The six publications entitled "Retrospect" are RJ 1962c, 1966g, 1971c, 1979a, 1981a, and 1985a. 40 These documents have been invaluable to the preparation of the present survey. For a discussion of this autobiographical bent, see Waugh 1985, Pomorska 1987. It is remarkable that Jakobson's own works, as well as the biographies written by others (Holenstein 1976a, Pomorska 1985a,c, 1987), treat his intellectual evolution after leaving Czechoslovakia only briefly. What is said here about the first fortyfive years of his life accords with these other appraisals. The characterization of the next forty years (his years in America), and in particular the emphasis on functionalism, was developed by the editors.

INTRODUCTION

XXXV

delving further into the relation between language and the genetic code, language and the unconscious, distinctive features and the brain. 41 He was excited by the work on hemispheric specialization and on the localization of various functions within the hemispheres - and by the fact that these discoveries correlated with findings in linguistics.42 His fascination with time as a structural factor was combined with Peirce's reflections on time as related to icon, index, and symbol (RJ 1980b). Icons are "the accomplished image of an experience that is already past; while the index is linked to an ongoing experience in the present. The symbol, however, always possesses a general meaning and is based on a general law; everything that is truly general is related to the indefinite future ... It is a potentiality whose mode is esse in futuro" (RJ 1980d:91-92). Thus, the Futurist Jakobson of the 1910s joined the futurist Jakobson of the 1980s. For him, all words are symbols; thus, "the word and the future are indissolubly linked" (RJ 1980d:92, emphasis added). This view meant, in particular, that his work — words about words - was a legacy to the future (Ivanov 1983), a vast program of work in progress. Roman Jakobson died in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on July 18, 1982, at the age of eighty-five.

Jakobson's Work as a Dialogue When speaking of language as a communicative tool, one must remember that its primary role, interpersonal communication, is supplemented by a no less important function which may be characterized as intrapersonal communication ... While interpersonal communication bridges space, intrapersonal communication proves to be the chief vehicle for bridging time.

(RJ I974d:98) Explaining in the preface to Dialogues why he had enthusiastically accepted the invitation to relate his intellectual experiences in the framework of a conversation with Krystyna Pomorska, Jakobson 41

Jakobson did do some work in these areas: for acquisition of grammar, see RJ 1975a, 1977b, 1980a; for schizophrenia, RJ 1976a, 1977b; for the genetic code, RJ 1968e, 1970c, 1974c (see Jacob 1977); for the unconscious, RJ 1970e, 1976e, 1978c; for distinctive features and the brain, RJ 1979b, 1980b. 42 The last conversation that Linda Waugh had with Jakobson was about recent research on the acoustics of speech (see Sachs, Young, and Miller 1982, esp. Figs. 6 and 7, Young and Sachs 1979, Fant 1986); he saw in it further corroboration of his distinctive features.

XXXVI

INTRODUCTION

wrote (1980d:xiii), "In language and in the science of language, the presence of an interlocutor is of fundamental importance." Conversing not only dominates linguistic activity but also presides over scholarship. Jakobson saw a definite kinship between the subject matter and its study, between the fundamentally dialogic nature of language and the communicative aspects of scientific work; both language and creativity are fostered by interchange and debate. His work and his professional life are eloquent testimonies of this attitude toward scientific research. The first function of dialogue, Jakobson said, is to bridge temporal and spatial discontinuity: "Language is [the] overcoming of isolation in space and time" (RJ 1967c: 101). He engaged in a dialogue with the past and present of linguistics and with scholars from a number of different traditions. He was particularly fond of reading his predecessors and loved to find in them ideas that had already occured to him. In his pursuit of a temporal, diachronic dialogue, his favorite interlocutors were undeniably the first structuralists: the "trailblazers" Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski (RJ 1929b, 1943, 1960b, 1967b); the "brilliant pioneer" Sapir, who after Saussure is the linguist most quoted and discussed in Jakobson's entire work; and of course Saussure. Jakobson devoted innumerable comments, words of praise, and criticism to Saussure as well as three specific articles (RJ 1971a, 197If, 1984c; see also 1975e). Frequent tribute is also paid to Peirce, whose "drafts of epochal significance" (RJ 1966d) opened for Jakobson new horizons in semiotics. In three important articles (RJ 1966d, 1975e, 1977c) he shows that the American philosopher "must be regarded as a genuine and bold forerunner of structural linguistics" (RJ 1953c:565). One should not forget, however, all the other grammarians, linguists, philosophers, scientists, and many others who are discussed in the articles gathered in the sections entitled "Toward a Nomothetic Science of Language" in Selected Writings or who are referred to, favorably or critically, in the rest of Jakobson's writings. 43 Some important names have even been rescued from oblivion by Jakobson's attention. This citation of so many other thinkers is the result not only of an enormous erudition (see, for example, RJ 1975d, on the medieval grammarians) 43

See e. g. references to Sweet, Masaryk, Boas, Meillet, Karcevskij, Whitney, Benveniste, Scerba, Polivanov, Jespersen, Bloomfield, Whorf, in addition to Páijini, Plato, the Stoics, Saint Augustine, T h o m a s Aquinas, the medieval Schoolmen, and many others (see RJ 1930a, 1937c, 1943, 1944, 1956d, 1963d, 1966e, 1971e, 1975d, 1979d).

INTRODUCTION

XXXVII

but also of Jakobson's receptiveness to the ideas of his predecessors and openness to others in general. Jakobson's interest in others shows itself in his vivid curiosity about their intellectual development. One can often find, in the midst of theoretical considerations, extensive biographical notes on the scholar he is discussing - see, for instance, his articles on Peirce (RJ 1966d, 1975e, 1977c), Einstein (RJ 1980c), and the Kazan' School (RJ 1960b). Jakobson does not provide a typical historical account of these other linguists but is selective, preferring to gloss over weaknesses, ignore errors, and consider in detail only what corroborates his point. There is no global analysis of their thought, and his focus is on original, fruitful ideas that contributed, in his opinion, to the advancement of linguistics. In the history of linguistics, as in language, everything is related to everything else (tout se tient). All are engaged in collective research in which everybody can benefit from the insights of others. On the one hand, then, attention must be paid to the voice of predecessors, and Jakobson often deplores the "fancy kind of antitraditionalism" that is "a traditional feature in the history of linguistic science" (RJ 1975d:186). On the other hand, contemporaries should be partners in the enterprise of establishing linguistics as a modern science. Jakobson (1971c:712) contends that an unbiased examination of the astonishing variety of viewpoints in current linguistics reveals, behind the disputes and controversies, a remarkable unity of purpose (RJ 1963d). Such unity demands a dialogue between the participants. Indeed, many of Jakobson's writings appear as dialogues: they answer his contemporaries and at the same time call for further exchange of ideas. In some cases, the addressee is named. Jakobson reacted explicitly, for example, to the proposal of American structuralists and of early transformational grammarians to study grammar without reference to meaning (RJ 1936a, 1949h, 1953c, 1959d, 1973c) and to the tendency of logicians to reduce meaning to reference or to take the question of reference out of linguistics (RJ 1957c, 1959b, 1973c). Many of his judgments of contemporaries are indirect, however, and thus his texts are addressed to unnamed interlocutors. One of the aims of "Russian Conjugation" (RJ 1948), for example, was to critique the description of Russian conjugation by a representative of American structuralism (see Matejka 1975:105-107). Jakobson never discussed generative grammar at length but occasionally did air favorable and unfavorable opinions. Beginning in the

XXXVIII

INTRODUCTION

late 1960s, he reserved his most indirect and implicit criticism for the work of Halle (his former student and coauthor) and Chomsky, both of whom were his friends. He viewed their work generally as a chapter in the history of structuralism 44 , and he was disturbed by their tendency to absolutization and their disregard for the functional, pragmatic, social, and communicative basis of language. 45 Many of his phonological studies are answers to arguments against his ideas by generative phonologists (and by acoustic and articulatory phoneticians). As noted above, The Sound Shape of Language (RJ 1979b) is typical 46 and can be seen in part as a reply to Chomsky and Halle's Sound Pattern of English (1968), especially with respect to the relevance of the phoneme, the importance of invariance, markedness, and the function of the distinctive features and their acoustic definitions. Jakobson and Waugh even avoided using the words "phonology" and "phonological" - terms that Jakobson himself had helped to launch decades earlier with Trubetzkoy - because they considered that their meaning had been deformed in generative phonology. For the latter, the term "phonology" covers two different domains according to Jakobson: phonology proper (sense-discrimation) and mor(pho)phonology (sense-determination). Many other texts also contain at least implicit subtexts against generative work. The title of 1980b, for example, is dialogic. Jakobson's "Brain and Language" contrasts with Language and Mind (Chomsky 1968); he stresses empirical research on the brain in opposition to untestable assertions about an abstract mind. In 1970c Jakobson emphasizes the greater importance of learning and the lesser importance of innateness for language acquisition, against strong hypotheses about innate ideas. RJ 1972a underscores the usefulness of a widened and redefined notion of transformation in all areas of linguistics versus its limited application in syntax. We could cite many similar examples. The dialogue was not just a written one. Jakobson's friends often mention his relish for discussion, argumentation, and talks with colleagues, students, fellow linguists, and scholars scattered all over the

44

Many others have viewed Chomsky's and Halle's work similarly; see Bierwisch 1971, Holenstein 1976a: 142, Hymes and Fought 1981. Consider also Jakobson's interesting characterization of transformational grammar (RJ 1971c:720): "The linguistics of today has exhibited a lucid distinction between the totally coded words and the coded matrices of the sentences; so-called transformational grammar may be viewed as an auspicious extension of paradigmatic analysis to the sphere of syntax." 45 See RJ 1959d,g, 1961b, 1964d, 1971c,e, 1972a, 1975c, 1977b, 1979b, 1980a. 46 See also RJ 1952c, 1966a, 1968a,b, 1978b, 1979b,c.

INTRODUCTION

XXXIX

world (A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983). He was constantly looking for intellectual empathy with others. For him, a necessary condition for successful communication was a certain sense of fellowship. "What is needed in order to grasp the language of another? One must have a keen feeling of intelligibility, an intuition of solidarity between the speaker and the listener" (RJ 1967c:101). The most obvious manifestation of this sense of fellowship was his constant attraction to scholarly cooperation. In this regard he remembered fondly the Prague Circle. "Recollecting their passionate, impetuous discussion which tested, egged on, and whetted our scientific thought, I must confess that never since and nowhere else have I witnessed learned debates of similar creative force" (RJ 1971b:vi). During his time in Prague, he and his colleagues drew up collective statements for the first international congresses47 and attended those meetings with the almost missionary zeal of claiming new converts to their point of view. Many did join them in spirit (see RJ 1963d, 1979d, 1980d). And the scholarly exchange never stopped throughout his life. While at MIT, for example, where his interest in interdisciplinary matters became manifest, he talked with, and gave seminars with, mathematicians, physicists, biologists, neurologists, physiologists, psychologists, and information theorists. 48 From the beginning of his career, his initiative and energy helped to create circles meant to promote intellectual exchange in Moscow, Prague, and New York. 49 And not only did he contribute to their general program directed at a drastic revision of accepted views, he was also their leading participant. Forced by political events to move from one country to another, he had an uncanny ability to survive devastating uprooting again and again (as Michael Silverstein once commented). He quickly bridged the discontinuities in space by being receptive to the ideas of the new milieu and by reformulating his own views in the light of each new stimulus. He thus fostered a fertile ambience for discussion and debate. 47

One such statement was the propositions for the First International Congress of Linguistics: "What are the most appropriate methods for a complete and practical exposition of the phonolog of any language?" (RJ 1928b). 48 See Holenstein 1976a, many contributions in Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, and A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983. 49 Jakobson just as often helped to found scientific journals: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, Slovo a Slovesnost, and Acta Linguistica while in Prague; Word in New York; and International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics in Cambridge, Mass.

XL

INTRODUCTION

He just as enthusiastically associated himself with collaborators. His favorite interlocutor was undoubtedly Trubetzkoy, the "penetrating, wise, inquisitive" linguist with whom the dialogue lasted more than fifteen years, especially in the form of a regular correspondence (see RJ 1939d, 1949i, 1975f,g, Liberman 1980). Jakobson and Trubetzkoy had planned to write together a phonology of Russian, but after various problems near the end of Trubetzkoy's life, the project collapsed. 50 Three of Jakobson's most original studies on phonology, however (1949a,b,c) were appended to the French translation of Trubetzkoy's Principles of Phonology, which was dedicated to Jakobson (Trubetzkoy 1949). There they are intercalated in dialogic fashion with two of Trubetzkoy's own works on morphonology (1931b) and linguistic geography (1931c). Jakobson wrote some of his most original studies with others: for example, with Tynjanov, Bogatyrëv, Lötz, Fant, Cherry, Halle, LéviStrauss, Rudy, Waugh, and Pomorska. 51 Although he was usually first author in these works, the importance of the coworker both for Jakobson and for the ideas themselves should not be underestimated. Progress in scholarship implies intellectual exchange and mutual creative energy. In addition to exchange of ideas in interpersonal communication, a dialogue at the intrapersonal level takes place in Jakobson's work: his areas of research are not islands but benefit from each other. What he learns from his environment and what he knows from another field (whether scientific or artistic) give inspiration to the particular subject he is treating (and vice versa). Metrics cannot be dissociated from phonology; markedness in morphology parallels markedness in phonology; binarism, communication theory, and genetics illuminate each other; aphasia in its development is linked to child language acquisition and is connected to the study of tropes; and so forth. Theoretical advances and empirical observations feed on each other. A great sense of integration, therefore, one of relatedness and also of continuity, emanates from Jakobson's oeuvre. It is structurally of a piece. Questions 50 For details, see Viel 1984:317-325. Jakobson and Trubetzkoy had met in Russia; Trubetzkoy, who died in 1938, was teaching in Vienna while Jakobson was in Czechoslovakia. 51 With Tynjanov, Jakobson wrote RJ 1928c; with Bogatyrëv, 1929c, 1931e; with Lötz, 1941b, 1949e; with Fant and Halle, 1952c; with Cherry and Halle, 1953a; with Halle, 1956a, 1959a, 1962b, 1968d; with Lévi-Strauss, 1962g; with Rudy, 1977a; with Waugh, 1979b, 1979c; with Pomorska, 1980d.

INTRODUCTION

XLI

that have been abandoned for a while are reexamined, and their answers are reformulated. The themes for which Jakobson had lasting attachment (RJ 1981c) recur like threads unifying all his thought. 52 They are constantly reconsidered and reappraised, and their importance restated, even though certain technical terms (such as "phoneme", "feature," and "markedness") remain deceptively the same. This fidelity to the conceptual foundations of his work (and to tradition) did not entail conservatism or stagnation. There was no resistance to change in Jakobson; he believed in modernity and was associated with avant-garde art from his earliest years. Adherence to the principles that govern language and its science simply guarantees sound bases for enrichment and innovations and protects scholarship from shallowness. "A renewal is fruitful only when it goes hand in hand with tradition," Jakobson wrote (1975d:186), quoting Stravinsky. "Living dialectic wills that renewal and tradition shall develop and abet each other in a simultaneous process." This principle is amply verified in Jakobson's career. The idea of the linguistic sign, for instance, formulated as far back as Stoic philosophy, revived by Saussure, and repeatedly pondered by Jakobson and enriched by his reading of Peirce, led to his recognition of the profoundly semiotic essence of language. The conviction that the distinctive features should be defined perceptually and not articulatorily and should all be based on binary oppositions preoccupied him for many years before the availability of modern instruments for acoustic analysis confirmed his earlier intuitions. For Jakobson, there are no pure revolutions: "No revolution, however radical, discards the evolutionary continuity" (1970c; cf. Kuhn 1962). The evolution of linguistics evidences the same phenomena as does the history of languages. Convergences and divergences between individuals and groups, dynamics and statics (both at a given time period and over time), and continuity and change are characteristic. Science in general is a dialogue, not a series of monologues (RJ 1933a:539); creativity results from the concurrence of tradition, interdisciplinary outlooks, scholarly fellowship, and fidelity to one's own pursuits.

52 Certain themes remained present throughout his life - especially language and poetry - and constantly criss-crossed with each other, while others came and went (e.g., cinema and music, epic studies, Medieval Czech culture, and mythology).

XLII

INTRODUCTION

The Jakobson Legacy in Linguistics and Related Fields His works were translated, paraphrased, genuflected to, attacked ... They form part of the intellectual history of our time. (Adapted from McLean 1983:18)

It is not surprising that Jakobson, with his breadth and depth of knowledge, his brilliant imagination, the originality of his accomplishments, and his internationalism, has had a considerable impact on linguistics and other fields the world over. Jakobson's contributions have now become a permanent part of American and European views on language. One of the leading participants in the renewal of linguistics that began in the 1870s, he has broadened the perspective of linguistics while giving it new directions and specifying its domain (Stankiewicz 1987a). As Paul Kiparsky has noted (1983:27), "One measure of Roman Jakobson's towering role in linguistics is that his work has defined the field itself." Jakobson's influence is both direct and indirect. It is direct in that scholars explicitly acknowledge it or clearly work with Jakobsonian theoretical concepts or more generally consider themselves to share in the Prague School viewpoint. 53 For example, many adherents of structuralism recognize the role Jakobson played in not only inventing the term but also defining some of its major principles. 54 Characteristically, even linguists today who reject, just as Jakobson did, a narrow structuralist perspective (such as sociolinguists, functionalists, and generative grammarians) have integrated many of his ideas. In many cases, however, the repercussions of Jakobson's work are less immediate and therefore more difficult to trace. Certain of Jakobson's concepts and discoveries are now so deeply ingrained in the theoretical bases of modern linguistics that they are thought to be commonplace or self-evident. The widely used concepts of feature, binary opposition, markedness, redundancy, and universal, for example, have become the intellectual property of beginners in linguistics, often without the acknowledgment that they originated in or were fostered by Jakobson's work. 53

Friedrich ms. is a list of scholars in the United States who are influenced by Prague School ideas; it includes linguists, anthropologists, Slavists, and folklorists. 54 The propositions for the First International Congress of Linguists (RJ 1928b) have been cited as the "official birthdate of European structuralism" (Malmberg 1973:366). For a discussion of Jakobson's role in structuralism, see the readings listed in note 10.

INTRODUCTION

XLIII

We consider first the more straightforward aspects of Jakobson's impact, particularly on American linguistics since the mid 1960s, and later offer some brief notes on other disciplines.55 We group the approaches, concerns, and ideas in linguistics that are Jakobsonian in inspiration under three general headings: (1) functional view of language, (2) search for universale, and (3) analysis into ultimate constituents. 56 Functional View of Language

Viewing language as a relational whole and a communicative tool with many functions, Jakobson emphatically objected to any reductionalism in its study and opposed any "rigid confinement of research" (1971c:712). For him, linguists should therefore not abstain from synchronic investigation (as did the Neogrammarians); they should not dispense with the study of semantics (contra the American structuralists) or eliminate it from the domain of syntax (as early transformational grammarians did). Langue should not be overemphasized to the detriment of parole (as for Saussure), nor competence to the detriment of performance (as for Chomsky). Furthermore, one should not concentrate on the cognitive or referential function of language to the prejudice of the other, primordial functions (a weakness of many current linguistic approaches). This holistic and goal-oriented view of language, characteristic of Jakobson and the Prague Circle, opened the door to functionalist approaches: for example, those of André Martinet, himself a Praguian, Michael Halliday and the recent rise of functionalist approaches in American linguistics.57 More generally, it abetted the development of types of linguistic studies that take as their object of investigation an 55 Jakobson's considerable impact o n Slavic linguistics (it has been claimed that he almost single-handedly created Slavic linguistics in the United States) will not be discussed here (see Jones 1977, Lunt 1983:55, Sussex 1986), nor will we consider his influence o n the study of other language groups, e. g., Paleosiberian languages (Austerlitz 1977, 1983). 56 As will become obvious, both the separation o f linguistics from other fields and the division of linguistics into various subgroupings are to a certain extent artificial. This is evidenced most particularly by the discussion of poetics, which is a recurring theme in our discussion of discourse and textual analysis; sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, and anthropological linguistics; and literature, poetics, and semiotics. 57 See Martinet 1949b, 1962, 1966; for Halliday, see G . Randolph's foreword to Halliday and Hasan 1976 and Halliday 1 9 7 0 : 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 , 1973, 1985; see also Nichols 1985, Silverstein 1987, T h o m p s o n 1992, Joseph 1995.

XLIV

INTRODUCTION

utterance larger than a single sentence and that consider its wider linguistic and "real-world" environment. Pragmatics thus takes into account all the components of the speech event and diverse types of contextual parameters. Discourse analysis (text linguistics) studies whole texts from the point of view of their construction, style, and purpose. Introductory manuals to these new disciplines declare that linguistic elements cannot be described independently from their environment at large or from the purposes they serve in human communication (Kinneavy 1971, Beaugrande and Dressier 1981, Brown and Yule 1983). "Linguistics and Poetics" (RJ 1960c) is often quoted by these textbooks and by more specialized works (for example, van Dijk 1972, Taylor 1980); Jakobson's analyses of poetic texts (such as RJ 1970f) are also mentioned to illustrate the use of linguistic methods in text analysis. 58 His work has also been influential in linguistics and literature (Traugott and Pratt 1980, Hodge 1990, Fowler 1996, Fabb 1997). See also Yaguello 1998 for an introduction to linguistics based on Jakobson's functions of language. Jakobson's epochal work on shifters (1957c) showed that grammar is context dependent, that code (langue) and message (parole) are interrelated, and thus that semantics and pragmatics are but complementary sides of the same phenomenon. The category of shifter and the complementary concept of deixis continue to be used in verbal and nonverbal morphology, and their implications reflected upon and explored. 59 The dichotomy of speech event and narrated event has also been taken up by others (for example, Friedrich 1974, Waugh 1976a,b,d). Finally, Jakobson's insistence that grammatical categories (1959d, 1960c) necessarily underlie all language usage - not only ordinary everyday discourse but also and more importantly poetry - has led modern theoreticians to explore the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis with regard to poetic signification (Friedrich 1975, 1979b, Lucy and Shweder 1979, Kay and Kempton 1984, Lucy 1992a, b).

58

We use "pragmatics" here in a rather broad sense. On this term and the various ways in which it is understood, see Levinson 1983:ix-xii, 1 - 4 7 . See also Leech 1983, Mey 1993, Verschueren 1999. For other works in discourse analysis, see Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 1997, Taworski and Coupland 1999, Renkema 1993, Schiffrin 1994, Stubbs 1983, Tannen 1989. 59 Works directly inspired by Jakobson include van Schooneveld 1959b, 1977a,b, 1986, Silverstein 1975, 1976b, 1981, 1987, 1993, Waugh 1976a,b, 1977, Hanks 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1996, Mel'èuk 1985, 1990, Aronson 1990, Parret 1990, Yokoyama 1990, and Shaul and Furbee 1998.

INTRODUCTION

XLV

Jakobson's work on grammatical meaning illustrating the interdepence of invariance and variation has also had repercussions. The concept of invariance (general meaning) has proven to be particularly productive for the study of grammatical and lexical semantics. For examples, see Birnbaum 1986, Andrews 1991, Garcia 1991, Newfield and Waugh 1991, Tobin 1991, and Waugh 1991a. The 1991 publications are from the conference "New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation," held at New York University in 1990 and dedicated to Jakobson (see Waugh and Rudy 1991). Jakobson's articles on morphology (RJ 1984b) have inspired other studies in this area. RJ 1936a and 1958b in particular have motivated further illustrations, discussions, and development of his case theory 60 , and his delineation of tense and aspect in RJ 1957c has laid the groundwork for research on the interrelation of tense and aspect with syntax, discourse, and the lexicon.61 Work in pragmatics has led linguists to explore the boundaries of their discipline with the neighboring fields of anthropology, sociology, mythology, philology, and philosophy, in a truly Jakobsonian interdisciplinary spirit (Levinson 1983:374-378). Michael Silverstein, for example, by considering the use of speech indexicals (gender pronouns, kinship terms, and so forth) to mark social distinctions and other nonreferential notions, shows that a " 'pragmatic' analysis of speech behavior — in the tradition extending from Peirce to Jakobson" can explain the "linkage of language to culture" (1976b: 11 -12). 6 2 Work in "metapragmatics" ("reports of the use of language forms" — Caton 1987:249) too has been inspired by Jakobson's differentiation of shifters and nonshifters (RJ 1957c) and his distinction between the metalingual and the referential function of language (RJ 1960c).63 His insistence (RJ 1976c, written in 1956) on the importance of metalanguage (especially para60

On case theory, see Vogt 1949, Serensen 1949, Lötz 1949, 1956, M. Ivic 1961, P. Ivic 1967, Tronskij 1967:73-82, Burston 1977, van Schooneveld 1977a,b, 1978, Chvany 1984, Worth 1985, Brecht and Levine 1986a (which is dedicated to Roman Jakobson, "a pioneer in case studies and peerless scholar and teacher") and papers included therein, especially Mel'Cuk 1986, Comrie 1986, Chvany 1986, Miller 1986, Kilby 1986, Timberlake 1986, and van Schooneveld 1986. 61 See Comrie 1976, 1985, Kuòera 1983b, Flier and Brecht 1985, Flier and Timberlake 1985, Chvany 1985, Monville-Burston and Waugh 1985, 1991a,b, Waugh and Monville-Burston 1986, Waugh 1987b,c, 1990, 1991b, Waugh and Bahloul 1996. 62 See also Silverstein 1975, 1977b, as well as Friedrich 1966, Tyler 1969, Luong 1984, Errington 1985a; cf. Geertz 1960; and Cabley 1996 for communication theory. 63 See Silverstein 1979b, 1981, 1987, 1993, Caton 1987, Lucy 1987, 1993, Tannen 1989, Hanks 1990, 1996; see also Briggs 1986, Bauman 1986, Beeman 1986, Parmentier 1994, Waugh 1995.

XLVI

INTRODUCTION

phrases, definitions, translations) has inspired research in this area of semantics (see Dixon 1971, Silverstein 1976b). Present-day pragmatics exhibits a Percian current, and it was through Jakobson that linguists first discovered Peirce and have been prompted to use his ideas in their research. In addition to indexicality, iconicity and questions about the limitations of arbitrariness have become an important contemporary theme, leading to new work in syntax, morpholoy, and phonology. 64 Some linguistic (and poetic) descriptions have taken a fully semiotic point of view.65 For Jakobson, imagining linguistic structure as a cellular (modular) construction with neatly partitioned components (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics) is too simplistic and threatens the wholeness of linguistics. Similarly, focusing research on just one part of dichotomies such as code versus message, diachrony versus synchrony, similarity versus contiguity, or substitution versus combination destroys the fundamental complementarity of both members (RJ 1971c:717). Jakobson was famous for coining seemingly oxymoronic formulas - "poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry," "dynamic synchrony," "autonymy and integration" — in order to emphasize the necessity of reconciling opposites, of synthesizing the inner dualities of language (Pitkin 1977:360). Jakobson in particular fought the supremacy granted to the first member in Saussure's langue-parole dichotomy. He showed the fallacy of considering the "ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community" (Chomsky 1965:3), as the essential concern of linguistic theory. He made it clear that a language actually offers to its speakers a variety of subcodes (speech styles), all having equal right to be described (1980d).66 By doing so, he helped to pave the way for the advent of sociolinguistics.67 Uriel Weinreich, an early sociolinguist, had a

64

See Valesio 1969, Malmberg 1970, 1977, Wescott 1971, 1973, Friedrich 1975, Frishberg 1975, Montgomery 1978, Justice 1980, Vincent 1980, Haiman 1980, 1983, 1985a,b, Monville-Burston 1981, Mannheim and Newfield 1982, Robertson 1983, Newfield 1983, Givón 1985, Slobin 1985, Battisteila 1985a,b, ms., Bybee 1985a,b, Waugh and Newfield 1989, Waugh 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, Landsberg 1995, Duranti 1997, 2001 a,b. 65 See e.g. H. Andersen 1973, Hendricks 1973, Stankiewicz 1974, Silverstein 1975, 1976a, Shapiro 1976, 1980a, 1981, 1983, Bruss 1978, Martin 1978, Norrick 1981, Waugh 1982, 1983b, 1984c,d, 1986. 66 See Stankiewicz 1964 on emotive/expressive aspects of language. 67 Jakobson's own contributions to sociolinguistics, such as RJ 1945 and 1966h, should also be mentioned.

INTRODUCTION

XLVII

68

Praguian training, and William Labov studied under Weinreich. Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog (1968:100) argue that "the generative model for the description of language as a homogeneous object is itself needlessly unrealistic and represents a backward step from structural theories capable of accomodating the facts of orderly heterogeneity." The paradoxical Jakobsonian combination "dynamic synchrony" insists on the fact that historical changes are yielded by spatial and social variations and that investigating social dialects may shed light on linguistic evolution. The work of Labov (1972a,b) and his followers is based precisely on these premises. As Joseph Errington (1985b:20) has said, "Jakobson (1966d) has shown more clearly than anyone, perhaps, how synchronic analysis need not and in fact should not be conceived of as 'static.' " The ethnography of communication (see Hymes 1962, 1964a,b, 1972, 1975, Gumperz and Hymes 1964, 1972, Bauman and Sherzer 1974) has also taken its inspiration from Jakobson's multifunctional perspective on communication (Caton 1987:251). His schema of the speech event, components and functions (see Table 1), has been more or less taken for granted and elaborated on by scholars in this field. It remains central in the investigation of speech in interaction (Beeman 1986:21). Dell Hymes (1964a:42), referring to Jakobson 1962c, stipulates that the starting point of analysis in an ethnolinguistic theory should be "the totality of communicative habits" in a community and the realization that the linguistic resources of any fluent speaker constitute an "articulated system" of subcodes. Hymes notes (p. 6) that the ethnography of communication is inspired by "the continuing trend in linguistics toward the study of the full complexity of language in terms of what the Prague Circle ... called 'functional and structural analysis,' and which Jakobson now designates as a 'means-ends model.'" In fact, Hymes's (1962) influential paper on the ethnography of speaking builds upon Jakobson's work (1960c) and was dedicated to him (Hymes 1975). Everyone who has used Hymes's schema for the speech event and its attendant functions, or its successive amplifications in Hymes's later papers 69 , is thus indebted to Jakobson (Hymes 1983 and personal communication). 68

In the acknowledgments of his thesis, "Languages in Contact," written at Columbia (published in 1953), Weinreich thanks his supervisor Martinet, as well as Jakobson and Joseph Greenberg. 69 See Hymes 1964b, 1972, 1974; also Gumperz and Hymes 1964, 1972, Bright 1966, Garvin 1967, Robinson 1974, Bauman and Sherzer 1974, Sanchez and Blount 1975, Matejka and Titunik 1976, Silverstein 1976b, 1979, 1981, Basso 1979, Heath 1983, Briggs 1986, Caton 1987, Mannheim 1987a, Duranti 1997.

XLVIII

INTRODUCTION

Anthropological linguists - who adopt a functional and pragmatic perspective with an interest in folklore, poetics (oral traditions), and discourse analysis - draw on and develop the ideas of the Prague School. Paul Friedrich (1975, see also 1979a), for example, acknowledges the seminal influence of the work of Jakobson; Richard Bauman (1977:3, 1986:2, 112) praises Jakobson for his integrated vision of the social and the poetic in the study of oral literature and cites in particular RJ 1957c, 1960c, 1966f, 1968c; see also Foley 1997, Duranti 1997, 2001a, b, Shaul and Furbee 1998. Tedlock and Mannheim cite his work as one of the inspirations for the growing interest in a dialogic approach to culture (1995). Jakobson has also been credited with showing the need for an immanent analysis of oral texts, true to the "genius" of the local tradition. This type of analysis relates directly to current concerns in fields such as ethnopoetics (Hymes 1981, Duranti 1997, 2001 a, b). Most critical is Jakobson's notion of the architecture - the hierarchical and parallelistic structure - of the poetic text. Interest in the study of parallelism (RJ 1966f, 1970e) in various types of discourse is also attributable to Jakobson. Adele Berlin (1985:ix, 7) credits Jakobson's approach with having more potential and being more influential than any other for providing a comprehensive and integrated view of parallelism. This concept has been shown to be valid in research on biblical texts as well as on oral narrative, first of American Indians and now more generally (Hymes 1981). In fact, it has generated interest in anthropological analysis of native discourse (see Caton 1987).70 Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the principle of equivalence may be fundamental to oral, everyday narrative in any society (Hymes 1981, personal communication). As Jakobson indicates in a "Retrospect" (1971c:719), the extraordinary progress of applied linguistics in recent years should also be seen as a "natural and predictable offshoot" of a goal-directed conception of language. Better human communication is the raison d'être of language planning, language policies, communication engineering, and language teaching. With respect to the teaching of languages, we should note the success of the communicative approach, which adopts a holistic view of language learning and considers second-language

70

See Fox 1977, who shows the near-universality of parallelism in poetic discourse; see also Austerlitz 1961, Hymes 1981, Caton 1984, Urban 1986, and Mannheim 1986a,b, 1987a,b, Foley 1997. Pomorskaand Drazen ( 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 2 ) demonstrate its use in the analysis of literary discourse.

INTRODUCTION

XLIX

acquisition as a unified development involving linguistic, cognitive, and social knowledge (see the notion "communicative competence" in Hymes 1972). Scholars now believe that not only should the learner be taught the code of the target language but also should be made aware of practical importance of the emotive, conative, and phatic functions and of pragmatic and social factors (Lewis and Cherry 1977, Brown and Levinson 1978, Widdowson 1979:89-100, 252-261, Hatch 1983:235-238, Levinson 1983:376, Kramsch 1993). Although Jakobson never wrote an article in the area of applied linguistics proper, his theoretical articles on Russian morphology have been used in Russian textbooks. 71 In the concluding remarks to RJ 1948, he explicitly stated that the rules he formulated for Russian conjugation "could be presented in a popular form for teaching purposes." He was also interested in orthographic questions. His 1963a article discusses the inadequacies of Russian orthography and makes some suggestions for improving it (R Ivic 1965:75), and his 1965e article proposes various schemata for the transcription of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet in Latin characters. In another domain of applied linguistics, the theory of translation, Jakobson's 1956b article defines the activity of translating as interpreting one sign by another and not just as finding cross-language equivalents. Following Jakobson, Eugene Nida (1964:3) divides the general field of translation into three parts: intralingual (paraphrasing), interlingual (translation proper), and intersemiotic (transmutation from one semiotic system to another). Search for

Universals

Jakobson directed a fundamental, often-repeated criticism against theories of language that are content with mechanical itemization (such as the neogrammarian doctrine, in reaction to which structuralism was born) or that restrict themselves to mere observation, inventories, and classifications of patterns in particular languages (for example, American structuralism). When he arrived in America, there was little interest in abstractions or generalizations about language. They were deemed to be outside the scope of linguistics or were branded as vague and unscientific and even as wrong; note Martin Joos's (1957:96) often71

See e. g. the analyses presented in RJ 1936a, 1948, 1957c, and 1958b, which have inspired Townsend 1970, Matejka 1975:106, Lipson 1977, and Pomorska 1985a.

L

INTRODUCTION

quoted claim that "languages could differ from each other without limit and in unpredictable ways." On the contrary, Jakobson emphatically stressed the need to make clear the "internal logic" of linguistic structures and to "search for verbal laws governing all systems" (RJ 1971c:713). His thought exhibits a constant movement from the empirical to the general, from the particular to the universal, from the accidental to the permanent, and back again (see Muljaöic 1977:312). This movement is accomplished through the pivotal principles of invariance and relativity. According to Jakobson, his own interest in the inherent and universal properties of language is shared by contemporary linguistics, whatever the doctrines, varieties, or creeds. He sees a definite equivalence, for example, between the search for "explanatory adequacy" in generative grammar and the "elicitation and interpretation of the entire network" aimed at by Praguian structuralism (RJ 1971c:713).72 Chomsky (1983:82) suggests that there is a fundamental convergence between his own linguistic program and Jakobson's generalistic views. For Jakobson, Chomsky says, "Linguistics was a science that sought to discover something fundamental, something real and invariant, in the real world — something analogous, let's say, to the laws of physics ... Linguistics had the task of discovering explanatory principles" (see also Lyons 1970:126, Fischer-Jorgensen 1975:49). This point of view appears in particular in Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals (RJ 1941a), generally regarded as one of Jakobson's most original and most influential works. This monograph was revolutionary because it incorporated a change of perspective in linguistic analysis, a shift from the particular and specific to the general and the universal. It thus was the "point of departure of a new era in linguistics" (Malmberg 1973:368, 370). It stressed the importance of language universals attested in both the acquisition of language and the comparative typology of languages. The widespread movement that presently investigates universal properties of language, both "universal grammar" and "language universals," is thus deeply indebted to Jakobson. McCawley (1977:280)

72

Anderson (1985:134-139) has also commented on the relationship between Jakobson's interest in the mathematical theory of communication and the generative grammarians' concern for "evaluation procedures" used to measure the adequacy of linguistic descriptions.

INTRODUCTION

LI

remarks that it was not until Chomsky came in contact with Jakobson and worked with Jakobson's student and coauthor Halle that he fully realized the explanatory power of universale and their relation to language acquisition; thereafter he set out to determine universal constraints on the forms of grammars. The other stream of research in universale, practiced by Greenberg and his associates 73 , examines concrete materials from a great variety of languages in order to establish typological classifications and discover the laws that underlie the general structure of human language. For Greenberg, the structuralist assumption that language is a relational whole led to a generalizing approach to typology: linguistic properties are connected in an orderly fashion, and groupings of properties define types. "In this way, developments in the Prague School contributed in no small measure to the contemporary linkage of typology with the study of universale" (Greenberg 1974:42-43). Jakobson's most original idea in this area was undoubtedly the concept of implicational laws. An impetus was thus created to look for implicational relationships and universals in all areas of language: word order, order of acquisition of linguistic structures by children, the applicability of certain transformations, hierarchy of features, marking conventions in phonology, and conventions in redundancy rules. 74 Because of Jakobson's role in discovering the general principle by which a simple core structure (for example, the primary vocalic triangle) expands in a predictable way into larger systems (for example, the diverse vocalic systems of languages), Malmberg identifies it as "Jakobson's Law" (Malmberg 1963, 1972, 1977; see also Stankiewicz 1983b, 1987b). With respect to the overall code, this law could be illustrated in generative grammar by the notions of kernel sentences versus trans73

See Greenberg 1957b, 1963a:xiii, 1966, 1974, 1978:2, 1990, Ferguson 1978:10, Hawkins 1980, 1983, 1985, 1990, Comrie 1981, P. Andersen 1983, Croft 1990, Whaley 1997, and further references therein. In the development of universals research and the t w o current streams (generative and typologically based) in the United States, see Ferguson 1978 and Greenberg 1990. In Europe, the search for universals is also influenced by Jakobson; for one example out of many, see the works of the U N I T Y P group (Seiler 1978, 1989, Seiler and Brettschneider 1985). 74 Works o n word order include Greenberg 1963a:xix, 1963b, 1966, Silverstein 1976a, van Riemsdijk 1978, Comrie 1981, 1983, 1984, Hawkins 1983, 1985, Butterworth, Comrie, and Dahl 1984; on child language acquisition, C h o m s k y 1968, 1981; o n transformations, see the accessibility hierarchies in Keenan and Comrie 1977; o n hierarchy, Shapiro 1974a, van den Broecke 1976; on marking conventions, Chomsky and Halle 1968; o n redundancy rules, Stanley 1967, Anderson 1985; and on sonority hierarchy, Hankamer and Aissen 1974.

LII

INTRODUCTION

forms (in Chomsky 1957), or by universal grammar versus core grammars versus particular languages (in Chomsky 1981). It is also relevant across subcodes, in the relationship, for example, between spoken and written language or between elliptic and explicit speech. Many scholars have recognized the importance of typology for the study of language change (RJ 1980d).75 Jakobson's insistence on the relevance of typological questions for historical reconstruction has sparked new analyses of the Indo-European phonological system (for the most recent, see Gamkrelidze, Elizarenkova, and Ivanov 1977 and Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984). More generally, modern approaches to historical and geographical linguistics owe much to Jakobson 76 , and his work in this area continues to be reprinted in readers: Keiler 1972 has RJ 1949a,b, 1958a; Baldi and Werth 1978 contains RJ 1949a. The seminal idea that changes must always be treated in view of the system that undergoes them (RJ 1980d) is one that many linguists now share, so much so that it is the essential premise for textbooks in historical linguistics.77 The teleological basis for language change has been instrumental in inspiring further work; for a general discussion, see Galan 1985, Liberman 1987, and Holenstein 1987. Watkins (1973:104) sees in the notion "conspiracy" used by generative phonologists in historical linguistics (see Kiparsky 1982:88-89, 106-115) a manifestation of Jakobson's teleological principle: unrelated rules in a grammar bring about the same change. Typological questions have also influenced research on areal linguistics. Joel Sherzer, for example, begins his areal-typological work with Jakobson's statement in RJ 1963e that "a systematic world-wide mapping of linguistic properties" is urgently needed (1973:749, 1976:xiii) and notes later the importance of markedness and implicational rules for such study (1976:13, 256-263) (see also Emeneau 1956, Sommerfelt 1962, Silverstein 1974). In Chambers and Trudgill (1980:204), RJ 1949b and Trubetzkoy 1931c are cited as "the most influential writings on the subject of linguistic areas." 75

See especially Greenberg 1957, 1974, 1990, Sharadzenidze 1970, H. Andersen 1973, 1974, 1983, van Coetsem, Hendricks, and McCormick 1981, Newfield 1983, Croft 1990, Croft et al. 1990. 76 For some recent studies particularly inspired by Jakobson's work in these areas, see H. Andersen 1972, Robertson 1983, 1990, Battistella 1985a, van Coetsem 1987, Monville-Burston 1990. 77 See e.g. Hoenigswald 1960, Sturtevant 1961, Lehmann 1962, Anttila 1972, Arlotto 1972, Bynon 1977, Hock 1986, and general works like Martinet 1952, 1955. See also Szemerényi 1972, Robins 1973, Hoenigswald 1973, Kiparsky 1973.

INTRODUCTION

LIII

By revealing the close relationship between developmental studies and vital questions of linguistic theory, Child Language (RJ 1941a) also launched psycholinguistics.78 Although Jakobson's work in this domain is limited in quantity, it has had an extraordinarily stimulating effect. Werner Leopold (1956), reviewing the literature on child language before 1941, showed that the results of existing individual case studies needed to be coordinated and looked at in a more general perspective, which is precisely what Jakobson's monograph did. Many psycholinguists now recognize that current explanations of the child's acquisition of speech sounds are still greatly dependent on Jakobson's work. 79 "It is a considerable tribute to this insight that, if the ensuing forty years of research have revised many points in detail 80 , the broad outlines of his bold synthesis continue to be confirmed" (Anderson 1985:129; see also Halle 1979:338). Following Jakobson's example, scholars interested in language pathology have studied aphasia from a linguistic point of view. According to Henry Hécaen, the appearance of 1956b "marked the point of departure of pluri-disciplinary studies of aphasia; neurologists, linguists, and psycholinguists have worked together since then, and linguistic models have been applied to the study of language disorder" (1972:591; see also Lesser 1978). The aphasiologist Alexander Luria states that Jakobson's distinction between similarity disorders and contiguity disorders can be regarded as fundamental: "It is firmly supported by contemporary ideas of the functional organization of the human brain" (Luria 1977:243; see also 1974:12, 1976) and opens the way for a "new branch of science ... NEUROLINGUISTICS" (1973:57, see also Caplan 1987). Analysis into Ultimate Constituents The occurrence of signs in sequence is an easily recognizable property of language. For Jakobson, however, the linear dimension of the sign 78

It should also be noted that Jakobson has influenced theoretical development in psychoanalysis (see in particular Lacan 1968, 1977) as well as work in psychophonetics, including synesthesia (see Marks 1975, Osgood 1 9 7 6 : 5 - 8 , Fónagy 1979, 1983, Johnson 1982). 79 See e. g. Nakazima 1 9 6 6 - 1 9 7 4 (1972), Paíesová 1968, D. McNeill 1970, Vanvik 1971, Ohnesorg 1972, Cazden 1972, Meggyes 1972, Slama-Cazacu 1972, Ferguson and Farwell 1975, Ferguson and G a m i c a 1975, Dale 1976, Macken 1977, RükeDravina 1977, Blache 1978:xi, Elliot 1981. 80 Jakobson and Waugh (1979b) characterized Child Language and RJ 1949c as "drafts", meant to be tested and fleshed out later.

LIV

INTRODUCTION

cannot be considered independently of its second dimension, its less evident simultaneous character. He was the first to investigate in depth the concurrent constituents of linguistic elements, starting with the phoneme, which he decomposed into distinctive features (RJ 1952c, 1956a, 1976d, 1979b), and going on to the meaning of morphemes, which he dissociated into semantic minima (RJ 1936a, 1957c, 1958b, 1979d). Many contemporary linguists consider these discoveries, especially in phonology, to be Jakobson's greatest contribution to linguistics (Robins 1977:400).81 The concept of the distinctive feature has been described as his most important insight and, after the notion of the phoneme, the most significant step forward in the development of modern phonology (P. Ivic 1965, Halle 1983b). Generative phonology recognizes Jakobson as one of its founding fathers 82 , in particular through Jakobson's student Halle; "much of the conceptual capital of generative phonology is inherited from Jakobson's work" (Anderson 1985:139). According to Halle (1983b:78), "Jakobson's first contribution to [generative] theory was the insight that the repertory of sounds of a given language is not just a random assembly of speech sounds, but that it is rather a highly structured collection of entities and that the structure determines to some extent what types of sounds can belong to the repertory of a given language." The very notion of feature, including its binary nature, also comes directly from Jakobson. In Chomsky and Halle's Sound Pattern of English (1968), which is dedicated to Jakobson, the features are not distinctive in the Jakobsonian sense. 83 Rather, they help to account for alternations within words and morphemes by specifying phonological segments in abstract underlying representations. The notion of underlying representation itself has its roots in the "basic forms" that Jakobson used in "Russian Conjugation." 84 "His 1948 account of the Russian Conjugation," writes Halle (1979:339), "with its explicit recognition of the distinction between surface and underlying forms of words that are related

81

See also P. Ivic 1965, Singh 1976, McCawley 1977, Baltaxe 1978, Halle 1983b, Anderson 1985. 82 See among others Halle 1976, 1979:339, 1983a,b; McCawley 1977:271-275; Pitkin 1977:359; Newmeyer 1980:35-39; Anderson 1985:116-139, 3 1 4 - 3 2 7 . 83 See the discussion above of the acoustic foundation of the distinctive features and the difference between their distinctive and their morphophonological function. 84 Some credit should be given to Bloomfield's "Menomini Morphophonemics" (1939b), which clearly inspired "Russian Conjugation."

INTRODUCTION

LV

to each other by means of a set of synchronic sound laws, provided an essential model for much subsequent work." 85 This comment applies in particular to Halle's own Sound Pattern of Russian (1959), which was the starting point for generative phonology. In addition to inspiring generative phonology, "Russian Conjugation" (1948) served as a model for the morphophonological description of verbal morphology in other Slavic languages. 86 Later studies of morphophonological (morphophonemics) are also clearly Praguian in character and show as well the influence of Percian notions such as the iconicity and indexicality of morphological relations. 87 Jakobson's differentiation of distinctive versus redundant features (RJ 1952c, 1979b) has paved the way for more rigorous consideration of redundancy in language systems. This concept has been incorporated into generative phonology and has been discussed in various textbooks as well as in more theoretical studies 88 , although the insight that redundant features serve to enhance the distinctive features has not always been retained. Markedness and the correlated notion of binary opposition, which are closely linked to that of distinctive features in Praguian thought, have also been integrated into the generative model (through The Sound Pattern of English) as well as into other linguistic approaches (see, for example, van Schooneveld 1959b, 1977a,b, Greenberg 1966, 1990). The concept of markedness is now widely used, sometimes in senses that are close to Jakobson's view.89 In other works, however, its meaning does 85

See also Halle 1983b, as well as Matejka 1975, Sussex 1976, McCawley 1977, Shapiro 1980b, Mel'öuk 1985. 86 See e . g . Old Church Slavonic (Halle 1951), Czech (Rubenstein 1951, KuCera 1952), Polish (Schenker 1954), Serbo-Croatian (van Schooneveld 1959a), Slovene (Lencek 1966), and others (see Matejka 1975, Mel'Cuk 1985). 87 See e . g . Stankiewicz 1966, 1969, 1976, 1979, Friedrich 1974, Shapiro 1974b, 1983, Anttila 1975. 88 Besides "redundancy," some other terms used are "morpheme structure rules" and "gaps (zeros) in the matrix." See Harms 1968, Schane 1973, Hymes 1975, Dell 1980, as well as Halle 1959, Stanley 1967, C h o m s k y and Halle 1968, Cairns 1969, Anderson 1974, Kenstowicz and Kissebirth 1975, Christie 1980. Anderson ( 1 9 8 5 : 1 0 - 1 4 ) uses the example of redundancy to motivate his discussion of the historical origins of modern views. He refers to Jakobson and Trubetzkoy and to the debt o f the former t o communication theory. 89 For a theoretical discussion, see Kuipers 1975, Holenstein 1976a: 1 2 1 - 1 3 7 , Waugh 1 9 7 6 c : 8 9 - 1 0 0 , 1979, 1982, Shapiro 1980a, 1983, Andrews 1984a,b, 1985, 1987, 1991, Battistella 1985a,b, 1 9 8 7 , 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 9 6 , Newfield and Waugh 1991, Sangster 1991, Ojeda n.d., Waugh and Lafford 1994. See also Shapiro's application of markedness to the analysis o f poetry (1976) and Blumstein's experimental verification (1973) o f the order

LVI

INTRODUCTION

not conform to the original definition. Instead of possession versus nonpossession of a specific fixed property by one of the two members of an opposition (1980d), markedness is for some a statement about the naturalness of a linguistic element (cf. Jakobson's notion of optimality, in RJ 1941a, 1949c, 1960d, 1979b)90; it is also frequently associated with ideas of normality, regularity, predictability, and frequency of occurrence, 91 all of which are present in Jakobson, but secondary. Componential analysis - analyzing an item into ultimate or primitive constituent properties and representing it as a combination of these — was quickly generalized as a methodological model from phonology and grammatical meaning to other areas of study. Van Schooneveld, for example, has expanded Jakobson's three-feature system for Russian cases (RJ 1958b) and constructed a semantic theory in which the concepts of feature, markedness, deixis, and hierarchy are central and account for both grammatical and lexical meanings. 92 Componential analysis also provides the organizational structure of lexical representations in generative grammar (Chomsky 1965:83, Katz 1972) and has been adopted in other approaches as a means of describing the structure of semantic fields: for example, shapes, cooking terms, vocabulary related to flora, objects such as containers, and the perception of color arrangements. 93 Although, as Greenberg (1967:215) points out, feature analysis outside phonology has a long history as a scientific tool, its use in semantics in recent years has been greatly fostered by the phonological model that is ultimately due to Jakobson. The notion of zero as a meaningful unit has also proven to be fruitful with regard to both morphology and syntax (Haas 1957, Greenberg 1966, Sebeok 1974a, Mel'òuk 1979, 1985). According to Mel'óuk (1985:196), "Jakobson was the first to propose a general picture of all of dissolution in aphasia based on markedness values. Markedness reversals, too, have been found in various areas of language; see H. Andersen 1968,1972, Silverstein 1976a, Haiman 1980, 1985a,b, Shapiro 1983, Witkowski and Brown 1983, Newfield and Waugh 1990, Stankiewicz 1990, Battistella 1990. 90 It should further be noted that Jakobson's work in this area as well as 1941a served as a model for the elaboration of natural phonology; see Stampe 1979, D o negan and Stampe 1979. 91 See Singh 1976, McCawley 1977:275, Baltaxe 1978:35-47, Lass 1980:42, Brakel 1983, Viel 1984:369- 410, 673 - 702, Anderson 1985:chap. 12. 92 See van Schooneveld 1977a,b, 1983, 1986, 1987. Van Schooneveld's feature system has inspired various studies, including Armstrong 1973, Waugh 1976a,b,d, 1977, Burston 1977, Howden 1979a,b; see also Sangster 1982. 93 See e.g. Goodenough 1956, Bendix 1966, Greimas 1966, Dixon 1971, N. McNeill 1972, Lehrer 1974, Nida 1975a,b.

INTRODUCTION

LVII

those phenomena to which we apply the term 'zero'. In this picture, he provided a reliable basis for the elaboration of a formalized theory of zero in language." Influences on Other

Disciplines

The evaluation of Jakobson's influence on contemporary thought would be inaccurate and unfaithful to the spirit of his work if we omitted reference to some of the adjacent disciplines that also attracted his interest, especially literature, poetics, semiotics and social anthropology, mythology, and folklore. As we have noted, he always sought to erase the putative boundaries between linguistics and the other sciences also involved in the study of social communication. 94 For Jakobson, a linguistic theory must be comprehensive to be sound. Contrary to the received idea, therefore, literary language is not at all peripheral to linguistics; it represents language in its aesthetic usage and thus deserves as much attention as language in its other uses. This position leads to the study of the properties that characterize literature, especially poetry, and contributes as well to the development of structural poetics (see Rudy 1976). Jakobson's most original and influential contributions in this area include his conception of the work of art as a system, the notion of poetic function as related to other uses of language, the highlighting of the role of tropes (more specifically, his insightful treatment of metaphor and metonymy; see 1956b), the study of parallelism as a poetic device (RJ 1966f, 1970e), and the focus on grammar as a means of structuring poems. Jakobson's theoretical papers "Linguistics and Poetics" (see 1960c) and "Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry" (RJ 1961c, 1968c) and his analytical studies of Charles Baudelaire's "Les chats" (RJ 1962g, with Lévi-Strauss) and Shakespeare's "Th' Expence of Spirit" (RJ 1970f, with Lawrence Jones) have established him as an important theoretician of literature. 95 These four works have been 94

It should also not be forgotten that Jakobson's work on Slavic studies was typically interdisciplinary in nature: he worked on questions of linguistics, philology, literature, mythology, civilization, and culture. For more details, see Jones 1977, Linhartová 1977, Mares 1977, Mayenowa 1977, Picchio 1977, Svejkovsky 1977, Pritsak 1983. 95 Jakobson's earlier work on poetics had already had an influence on New Criticism through René Wellek, who had spent some time in Prague (see Wellek and Warren 1956, Wellek 1969). Jakobson also worked on verse, metrics, and rhyme (see SWV, entitled On Verse, Its Masters and Explorers) and has had an impact on

LVIII

INTRODUCTION

translated, discussed, quoted, and selected for various anthologies on structuralism.96 His approach to literary analysis was enthusiastically accepted and developed in France 97 , from where it gained international recognition. 98 In addition, "he was responsible for reintroducing to the Russians some of the Russian figures like Propp, Bakhtin, and Vygotsky - who are at the center of much contemporary literary theory" (Sussex 1986; see Clark and Holquist 1984:331-332). One can thus say that he is the source of not only structuralist but other contemporary trends in literary theory. Rhetorics and stylistics also bear the evidence of Jakobson's influence (Guiraud 1974). His theory of functions (1960c) "has become the touchstone of structural stylistics" (Taylor 1980:43; see also Bradford 1997, Wales 2000), and a new rhetoric has been developed in France that is strongly inspired by RJ 1956b (Groupe μ 1981). Jakobson has also helped to develop semiotics as a discipline in its own right and has been called the "major 'catalyst' in the contemporary 'semiotic reaction'" (Eco 1977:141; see also Pomorska 1985a:208, Nöth 1990, Johansen 1993, Martin and Ringham 2000, Waugh and Rudy 1998, Waugh 1998). His two programmatic statements (RJ 1970c,d) and two of his more specific articles 1956b, 1966d are important for semiotic research, since they discuss aspects of all systems of

these fields as well (see Worth 1977). For a comparison of Russian Formalism and New Criticism, see Thomson 1971. 96 See e.g. Lane 1970a and de George and de George 1972, Weber 1996. See also Seiden 1985, Lechte 1994, Newton 1997. Jakobson's theoretical and grammatical studies concerning poetry are included in S W I I I , in particular the illustrative analyses he performed on specific texts to demonstrate the validity of his method. 97 See Barthes 1966, !967a, 1978, Genette 1966, 1969, 1972, Greimas 1966, 1970, Utaker 1974, Todorov 1977a,b. 98 See Wellek 1969, Laurent 1971, Brooks-Rose 1976, Hawkes 1977, Lodge 1977, 1986, 1990, Eekman and Worth 1983, Jusdanis 1985, Pomorska 1985b. Seiden 1985 begins with Jakobson's six functions of language (RJ 1960c) and also discusses the metaphor-metonymy dichotomy (RJ 1956b) as well as the dominant (RJ 197Id); Fokkema and Kunne-ibsch (1978) devote a considerable a m o u n t of their book to Jakobson; and Tsur 1992 bases his discussion of the "poetic mode of speech perception" on Jakobson 1941a, 1980b. In this history of structuralism, Dosse (1997:52-58) calls Jakobson "The Man Who Could D o Everything". For appraisals of Jakobson's work and influence in the field of literary analysis, see Levin 1962, Gras 1973, Svejkovsky 1974, Stankiewicz 1974, Hawkes 1977, Pomorska 1977, Todorov 1977b,c, 1985, Waugh 1980, Martinez-Bonati 1981, Rudy 1981, Brown 1983, Easthope 1983, Kiparsky 1983, Holenstein 1983, McLean 1983, van Dijk 1985, Con Davis 1986, Pomorska and Rudy 1987, Collins 1991, Makaryk 1993, Hawthorn 1994, Herman 1996, Literary History 1996, Waugh and Rudy 1998, Lecercle 1999.

INTRODUCTION

LIX

signs and propose basic assumptions that serve as the foundation for semiotics (Eco 1977)." The latter became firmly established in the sixties and seventies in America, where it has also been influenced by the work of Peirce, mainly through the agency of Jakobson (Sebeok 1974a). Jakobson also helped to launch semiotics in Europe, in France and in Italy in particular, where it was aided by the interest in his literary work, the fact that many semioticians were also literary theorists (Roland Barthes, Jean-Claude Coquet, A. J. Greimas, Julia Kristeva, Umberto Eco), and his association with Lévi-Strauss, Jakobson's work has also been influential in the emergence of semiotics as a scientific discipline in the Soviet Union (see Rudy 1986). Jakobson's ideas have inspired semiotic analyses in many domains of human activity, including fashion, food, architecture, furniture, cinema, and painting. 100 Jakobson's work in semiotics has also had repercussions in the areas of economics (Rossi-Landi 1975); mathematics, especially catastrophe theory (Thom 1974, 1975, and Petitot-Cocorda 1985, which is dedicated to Jakobson) and communication theory (Cherry 1957); and philosophy, in particular, phenomenology (Holenstein 1974, 1976b, 1977, Liszka 1982). Jakobson's influence on anthropology is considerable. In American anthropology in general three convergent Jakobsonian ideas have proven to be particularly fruitful: the structure of the poetic text, the closeness of ties between poetry and mythology, and the relationship between discourse and cultural context (see in particular Fox 1974, 1977, Hymes 1981). His work on the relationship of Slavic languages and cultures has proven to be a source of inspiration to cultural anthropologists and folklorists (Sebeok 1956, 1959a, 1960b, Hendricks 1974, Toporov 1974, Caton 1987:249). Jakobson's greatest impact, however, has been on structural anthropology, a field that is associated with the name of Claude LéviStrauss. 101 Lévi-Strauss considers himself a disciple of Jakobson and has repeatedly acknowledged his indebtedness to him, since the days when he attended Jakobson's lectures at the Ecole Libre des Hautes 99 Jakobson also wrote more general studies o f semiotics: 1932c, 1964c, 1967a,d, 1970a, 197If, 1975e; see also Winner 1987 and Pomorska and Rudy 1987. 100 See e . g . Barthes 1967b, 1972, Kristeva 1969, 1980, Greimas 1970 (also Parret 1983), Coquet 1973, Eco 1976; for fashion, see Barthes 1983; for cinema, Metz 1974; for painting, Vallier 1975. 101 See Lévi-Strauss 1966, 1968, 1972; see also Leach 1970, 1976, 1983, Boon 1972, Silverstein 1975, Hawkes 1 9 7 7 : 3 2 - 5 8 , Rossi 1977.

LX

INTRODUCTION

Etudes in 1942 (see Lévi-Strauss 1976, 1983, 1985; also RJ 1976d). There, he said, he "received ... the revelation of structural linguistics" (Lévi-Strauss 1976:xi; see also 1945) and discovered the rich possibilities it offered for the study of society. Linguistics, he wrote (1945:32), "will certainly play the same renovating role with respect to the social sciences that nuclear physics, for example, has played for the physical sciences." Lévi-Strauss's work on kinship reveals various Jakobsonian themes: the notion of system and relational structure, laws of compatibility and incompatibility, typology, teleology, relational invariance, the unconscious nature of social structure, the use of mathematics in structural analysis, and componential analysis (Lévi-Strauss 1945; see also 1951, 1952, 1953).102 Prague structuralism sought to bring to light a coherence among facts that seemed prima facie disorganized, and linguistic and cultural phenomena seemed to have a common inner nature that encouraged the use of similar methods and concepts in their study. (There are major differences too; concepts such as function, heterogeneity, and subsystem play much less of a role in Lévi-Strauss's work than in Jakobson's.) Just as phonemes and distinctive features are members of a relational system, so are the components of social behavior (Lévi-Strauss 1955, 1958a, 1964a, 1968:34, 46). Lévi-Strauss's analysis of modes of preparing food (1965, 1966) is an exemplary case of the application of Jakobson's method to anthropology, as he maintains that cooking, like language, is also based on an underlying system of distinctive features and signifying oppositions, and he places different cooking procedures and types of end product on the two intersecting axes of nature versus culture and normal versus transformed to arrive at his "culinary triangle" which is analogous to Jakobson's "triangle of phonemes." 103 (Glucksmann 1974:63)

Binarism and distinctive features have been incorporated into LéviStrauss's structuralism, with explicit references to Jakobson. The universe of the tale is "progressively defined, analyzable in pairs of oppositions, diversely combined within each character who - far from constituting a single unity - is a bundle of differential elements, in the manner of the phoneme as conceived by Roman Jakobson" (Lévi-Strauss 102

For componential analysis of kinship in the work of others, see e. g. Lounsbury 1956, 1962, Goodenough 1956, Friedrich 1964, Schneider 1968, Dixon 1971, Scheffler 1984. ,03 For Jakobson's triangles of phonemes, see above and RJ 1956a. In her study of the semiotics of color in painting, the art historian Dora Vallier (1975,1979,1987) also models her color triangle on Jakobson's phonemic triangles.

INTRODUCTION

LXI

1968:135; see also 1945, 1949; for a discussion of Lévi-Strauss and the phoneme, see Ardener 1971; see also Duranti 1997). Jakobson's ideas have also been seminal in the study of myths and primitive thought. Lévi-Strauss (1963:206-231,1968:115-145) applied the notion of invariance in the search for universale in mythology and claimed that the great variety of myths in world cultures can be reduced to a small number of basic, significant recurrent elements, called mythemes. He also used the Jakobsonian dichotomy of similarity-contiguity: a myth, on the one hand, can be decomposed into linearly connected segments (metonymy); on the other hand, it is an analogical representation (metaphor). 104 Indeed, metaphor has recently become a "key with which to elucidate culture" (Caton 1987:252).105 Anthropological theory, social-cultural and linguistic anthropology, as well as other fields that structural anthropology has influenced, have been heavily affected by Lévi-Strauss's work in one way or another. Given Jakobson's impact on Lévi-Strauss, many linguistic anthropologists and social anthropologists are, as Edmund Leach has said (1983:10), "deeply indebted to Roman Jakobson ... even though the filiation is somewhat indirect." It is indirect in the same way in structural sociology, some of whose practitioners also acknowledge the influence of Lévi-Strauss. 106 Hayden White in his work on metahistory (1978) discusses the ideas of Jakobson — in particular as found in RJ 1956b, 1960c - partly in connection with Lévi-Strauss.

Conclusion Jakobson, his ideas, and his achievements have generated an enormous amount of scholarly work and, from the 1950s onward, have been 104 Furthermore, through the same dichotomy, Lévi-Strauss explained (1964b) the equivalences that exist between certain sets of opposites pertaining to food (edibleinedible, for example) and other sets of a different order (native-foreign) in particular cultures. 105 See Fernandez 1974, 1974 (1986), 1977, J. D . Sapir 1977a,b, Friedrich 1979a; cf. also Burke 1941, 1945, w h o uses metonymy. In addition, Jakobson's analyses o f Slavic and Indo-European mythical motifs in a comparative and typological perspective (RJ 1950b, 1969e, 1970g, 1982c) have inspired a group o f Soviet linguists and anthropologists t o carry forward research in this domain (Ivanov and Toporov 1965, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, Ivanov 1985; see also Watkins 1983a,b). 106 Lorrain 1975, on mathematical models of social structure, is dedicated to Jakobson, Lévi-Strauss, and the sociologist Harrison White. See also Boorman and White 1976, Eisenstadt 1981, 1982, Berkowitz 1982, Rossi 1983.

LXII

INTRODUCTION

widely honored. Several volumes have been published in his honor: Halle et al. 1956, For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday; and 1967 To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Gribble 1968, Studies Presented to Roman Jakobson by His Students', Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, Roman Jakobson: Echoes of His Scholarship·, Schnelle 1981, Sprache und Gehirn: Roman Jakobson zu Ehren; Cuevas and Haidar 1996, La Imaginación y la intelligencia en el lenguaje: homenaje a Roman Jakobson. Special issues of periodicals have been dedicated to an appraisal of his work, including Poétique 2 no. 7 (1971), "Hommage à Roman Jakobson", Critique 30 no. 322 (1974), "Roman Jakobson", L'Arc no. 60 (1975), "Roman Jakobson", Cahiers Cistre 5 (1978) "Jakobson", Poetics Today 2 no. 1 a (1980), "Roman Jakobson: Language and Literature", American Journal of Semiotics 2 no. 3 (1983), "The Semiotics of Roman Jakobson", and International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27 (1983) Supplement (Halle 1983) "Roman Jakobson: What He Taught Us". There have been numerous books and articles about him. His works have been translated into sixteen languages, and collections of his major articles have been published in nearly as many. Jakobson was interviewed repeatedly. 107 He received twenty-six honorary degrees and was an honorary member of some thirty learned societies. He was visiting professor at numerous institutions. Between 1967 and 1974, for example, he taught at the Collège de France and at Yale, Princeton, Brown, Brandeis, Leuven, and New York Universities. In 1980 he received the International Prize for Philology and Linguistics of the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, and in 1982, the Hegel prize of the city of Stuttgart. After his death in 1982, memorial tributes were held in his honor at various institutions, most notably Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see A Tribute to Roman Jakobson, 1896—1982, 1983),108 and several conferences were dedicated to his memory. They have included The Generation of the 1890s: Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984 (see Pomorska et al. 1987); Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Missouri-Colombia, 1984 (see Youmans and

107

See e.g. RJ 1966ij, 1967d, 1968e,f, 1971h, 1972b,c, 1976g, 1980g, 1984d. ios λ T,iijUte to Roman Jakobson contains homages and reminiscences by Gennadij Ajgi, Hymes, Waugh, Sir Isaiah Berlin, Lévi-Strauss, Halle, Horace Lunt, Calvert Watkins, Chomsky, Walter Rosenblith, Victor Weisskopf, Jerome Bruner, and Rudy.

INTRODUCTION

LXIII

Lance 1985); New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, New York University, 1985 (sponsored by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities; see Waugh and Rudy 1991); Roman Jakobson: Linguistica e Poetica, Università di Roma, 1986 (see Montani and Prompolini 1988). There were also conference held in 1996 to mark the centennial of his birth. Among these were the International Congress: Roman Jakobson Centennial, held at the Russian State Humanities University, Moscow, 1996 (see Contributions to the International Congress "Roman Jakobson Centennial"), and the Roman Jakobson Centennial Symposium held at the University of Copenhagen, 1996 (see Brandt et al. 1997). Hugh McLean has fittingly concluded that Jakobson became "recognized worldwide as not just a great Slavic scholar or a great linguist or a great theoretician of literature, though he was all of these things, but as one of the major creative minds of our century" (1983:19).

REFERENCES

Works by Roman Jakobson

Abbreviations We refer here to the eight volumes of the Selected Writings with the following abbreviations. Vol.1, Phonological Studies. 1962; 2 nd exp. ed. 1971. Vol.11, Word and Language. 1971 Vol.Ill, Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. 1981 Vol.IV, Slavic Epic Studies. 1966. Vol.V, On Verse, Its Masters and Explorers. 1979. Vol.VI, Early Slavic Paths and Crossroads. 1985. Pt.I, Comparative Slavic Studies: The Cyrille-Methodian Tradition Pt.2, Medieval Slavic Studies. SWVII Vol.VII, Contributions to Comparative Mythology; Studies in Linguistics and Philology, 1972-1982. 1985. S W V I I I Vol.VIII, Major Works, 1972-1982. 1987. SH-Ί SWII SW III SWIV SW V SffVI

References here are either to the English version of a work or, when such is unavailable, to the original version. The original source of works is given only for items not appearing in Selected Writings or other collections of Jakobson's writings, except that items still available as separate publications are so identified. For a complete bibliography of Jakobson's writings, see Roman Jakobson, A Complete Bibliography of His Writings, 1912-1982, comp, and ed. Stephen Rudy (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990), 178 pages. 1919 "Futurism." In 1987a, 28-33. 1921a "On Realism in Art." In 1987a, 19-27. 1921b Novejsaja russkaja poèzija. Nabrosok pervyi. Viktor Xlebnikov. S WW, 299-354. English translation (partial): "Modern Russian Poetry: Velimir Khlebnikov." In Major Soviet Writers: Essays in Criticism, ed. E.J. Brown, 58-82. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. 1923 O cesskom stixe—preimuscestvenno ν sopostavlenii s russkim. SWV, 3 - 1 2 1 , with the addition of the English translation of the afterword to the Czech edition (1926). Reprinted in Brown University Slavic Reprints, no.6, ed. T. Winner. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1969. (Contains English appendixes translated from the 1926 Czech edition.) 1927 "Fonetika odnogo severno-velikorusskogo govora s nameCajuâèejsja perexodnost'ju." S W 1, 571-613. (Written in 1916.) 1928a "The Concept of the Sound Law and the Teleologica! Criterion." S W I, 1 - 2 .

WORKS BY ROMAN JAKOBSON

LXV

1928b "Quelles sont les méthodes les mieux appropriées à un exposé complet et pratique de la phonologie d'une langue quelconque?" (approved and countersigned by S. Karcevskij and N. Trubetzkoy). S W l , 3 - 6 . (Propositions for the First International Congress of Linguists, 1928.) 1928c With Jurij Tynjanov: "Problems in the Study of Language and Literature." S I f III, 3 - 6 . Reprinted in 1980f, 2 9 - 3 2 ; 1985e, 2 5 - 2 7 ; and 1987a, 4 7 - 4 9 . 1929a Remarques sur l'évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. SÍVI, 7 - 1 1 6 . 1929b "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay." S W I I , 3 8 9 - 3 9 3 . 1929c With Pëtr Bogatyrëv: "Folklore as a Special Form of Creativity." In The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929-1946, ed. P. Steiner, 3 2 - 4 6 . Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. 1929d Collectively with members of the Prague Linguistic Circle (N.M. Durnovo, B. Havránek, V. Mathesius, J. Mukarovsky, N.S. Trubetzkoy, and B. Trnka): "Theses Presented to the First Congress of Slavic Philologists in Prague, 1929." In The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929-1946, ed. P. Steiner, 3 - 3 1 . Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. (Originally published in French in Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1:5-29.) 1929e " Ü b e r die heutigen Voraussetzungen der russischen Slavistik." Slavische Rundschau 1 (8):629 - 646. 1930a "Problems of Language in Masaryk's Writings." In T G. Masaryk in Perspective Comments and Criticism, ed. M. Capek and K. Hruby, 6 3 - 8 2 . New York: SVU Press, 1981. 1930b "On the Translation of Verse." S W V, 131 - 1 3 4 . 1931a "Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort und Syntagmaphonologie." S W I , 117-136. 1931b "Über die phonologischen Sprachbünde." SW I, 137-143. 1931c Κ xarakteristike evrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza. SW\, 1 4 4 - 201. 1931d "Phonemic Notes on Standard Slovak." SWÌ, 2 2 1 - 2 3 0 . 1931e With Pëtr Bogatyrëv: "On the Boundary between Studies of Folklore and Literature." In Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views, ed. L. Matejka and K. Pomorska, 9 1 - 9 3 . Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1971. 193If "Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4:247-267. (cf. 1949a, the later, reworked version.) 1931g "Projet de terminologie phonologique standardisée." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4:309-323. 1932a "Phoneme and Phonology." SWÌ, 2 3 1 - 2 3 3 . 1932b "Structure of the Russian Verb." In 1984b, 1 - 1 4 . 1932c "Musicology and Linguistics." In 1987a, 4 5 5 - 4 5 7 . 1933a "La Scuola Linguistica di Praga." S W I I , 5 3 9 - 5 4 6 . 1933b "Is the Film in Decline?" In 1987a, 4 5 8 - 4 6 5 . 1935a "Les enclitiques slaves." S W II, 1 6 - 2 2 . 1935b "Marginal Notes on the Prose of the Poet Pasternak." In 1987a, 3 0 1 - 3 1 7 . 1036a "Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian Cases." In 1984b, 5 7 - 1 0 3 . (Original version: "Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus." S U ' I I , 2 3 - 7 1 . ) Reprinted in 1996, 3 3 2 - 3 8 5 . 1936b "Marginal Notes on Puskin's Lyric Poetry." SPf V, 2 8 1 - 2 8 6 . 1937a "Über die Beschaffenheit der prosodischen Gegensätze." SW I, 2 5 4 - 2 6 1 . 1937b " O n Ancient Greek Prosody." S W l , 2 6 2 - 2 7 1 . 1937c "Antoine Meillet zum Gedächtnis." SW II, 4 9 7 - 5 0 0 . 1937d "The Statue in PuSkin's Poetic Mythology." SWV, 2 3 7 - 2 8 0 . Reprinted in 1987a, 3 1 8 - 3 6 7 .

LXVI

REFERENCES

1938a "Die Arbeit der sogenannten 'Prager Schule'." S W U , 5 4 7 - 5 5 0 . 1938b "Die Reimwörter Cech-Lech." SWU, 6 0 5 - 6 1 0 . 1938c "Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques des langues." In Actes du IV Congrès International des Linguistes, 4 8 - 5 8 . Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. (cf. the revised version, 1949b.) 1938d " O souhlaskach." Slovo a slovesnost 4:192. (Czech abstract of 1939a.) 1939a "Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes." SWI, 2 7 2 - 2 7 9 . (cf. 1938d.) 1939b " U n manuel de phonologie générale." S W I , 3 1 1 - 3 1 6 . 1939c "The Zero Sign." In 1984b, 1 5 1 - 1 6 0 . 1939d "Nikolaj Sergeevic Trubetzkoy (16 April 1 8 9 0 - 2 5 Juni 1938)." SWU, 501-516. 1939e "Le développement phonologique du langage enfantin et les cohérences correspondantes dans les langues du monde." In P™0 Congrès International des Linguistes: Résumés des communications, 2 7 - 2 8 . Brugge: Imprimerie Sainte Catherine. (Abstract of 1949c.) 1940 " D a s Nullzeichen." S I K H , 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 . 1941a Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universali. The Hague: M o u t o n , 1968. (Original version: Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. S W I, 3 2 8 - 4 0 1 . ) 1941b With John Lötz: "Axioms of a Versification System-Exemplified by the Mordvinian Folksong." SWV, 160-166. 1943 "Polish-Russian Cooperation in the Science of Language." SWU, 451—455. 1944 "Franz Boas' Approach to Language." S W I I , 4 7 7 - 4 8 8 . 1945 "The Beginnings of National Self-Determination in Europe." S l f V I , 115-128. Also in Readings in the Sociology of Language, ed. J. Fishman, 5 8 5 - 5 9 6 . The Hague: Mouton, 1968. 1948 "Russian Conjugation." SWU, 119-129. Reprinted in 1984b, 1 5 - 2 6 . 1949a "Principles of Historical Phonology." In A Reader in Historical and Comparative Linguistics, ed. A.R. Keiler, 1 2 1 - 1 3 8 . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971. Also in Readings in Historical Phonology: Chapters in the Theory of Sound Change, ed. P. Baldi and R. Werth, 1 0 3 - 1 2 0 . University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. Reprinted in 1990b, 184-201. 1949b "Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues." S W I , 2 3 4 - 246. (Revised version of 1938c.) Older English translation: " O n the Theory of Phonological Associations a m o n g Languages," in A Reader in Historical and Comparative Linguistics, ed. A.R. Keiler, 241 —252. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971. Reprinted in new English translation: "On the Theory of Phonological Affinities between Languages," in 1990b, 202-213. 1949c "The Sound Laws of Child Language and Their Place in General Phonology." In 1971 g, 7 - 2 0 . Reprinted in 1990b, 2 9 4 - 304. 1949d "On the Identification of Phonemic Entities." S W I , 4 1 8 - 4 2 5 . 1949e With John Lötz: "Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern." S W I, 4 2 6 - 4 3 4 . 1949f Slavic Languages., New York: Columbia University, Department of Slavic Languages. (2nd rev. ed.: Slavic Languages: A Condensed Survey. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.) Chapter 1: "Comparative Slavic Phonology." S W I , 4 1 3 - 4 1 7 . Chapter 2: "Comparative Slavic G r a m m a r . " S U ' I I , 115-118. 1949g "The Phonemic and Grammatical Aspects of Language in Their Interrelations." S W I I , 103-114. Reprinted in 1990b, 3 9 5 - 4 0 6 . 1949h "Notes on General Linguistics: Its Present State and Crucial Problems." New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Mimeo. Reprinted in part in 1990b, 4 9 - 5 5 .

WORKS BY ROMAN JAKOBSON 1949i 1949j

LXVII

"Autobiographical Notes on Ν.S. Trubetzkoy." In Ν.S. Trubetzkoy, Principles of Phonology, 309—323. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. "Letter to Gladys A. Reichard about Language and Synesthesia." Word 5:226, 2 3 0 - 2 3 1 .

1950a "Les catégories verbales." Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 9:6. (Early draft of 1957c.) 1950b "Slavic Gods and Demons." VII, 3 - 1 1 . 1951 "For the Correct Presentation of Phonemic Problems." SWI, 435-442. 1952a "Texte guilyak." SfVU, 98-102. 1952b "Slavic Epic Verse: Studies in Comparative Metrics." S f f l V , 414-464. 1952c With C. Gunnar M. Fant and Morris Halle: Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (Rev. ed. [including 1962b], 1963). Also in SWVIII, 583-660. Chapter 1 reprinted as "The Concept of the Phoneme," in 1990b, 242-258. 1953a With E. Colin Cherry and Morris Halle: "Toward the Logical Description of Languages in Their Phonemic Aspect." S W I, 449-463. 1953b "Pattern in Linguistics." SU'II, 223-228. 1953c "Results of a Joint Conference of Anthropologists and Linguists." S W I I , 554-567. 1953d "Vestiges of the Earliest Russian Vernacular." S W I I , 611 - 6 1 9 . 1953e "The Yiddish Sound Pattern and Its Slavic Environment." Yidishe Shprakh 13:70-83. Reprinted in Judah A. Joffe Book, 207-220. New York: Vivo Institute, 1958. 1955a "Aphasia as a Linguistic Topic." S W 11, 229-238. Reprinted in 1971g, 37-48. 1955b "Russian Binary Meters." S l f V , 167-169. 1956a With Morris Halle: Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton. (2nd rev. ed., 1971.) Also in SW I, 464-504, as "Phonology and Phonetics." 1956b "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasie Disturbances." In 1956a as part 2, and in S W I I , 239-259. Reprinted in 1987a, 95-119. Reprinted in 1990b, 115-133. 1956c "Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Geräuschlaute im Russischen." SWI, 505-509. 1956d "Serge Karcevskij." SWU, 517-521. 1957a "Mufaxxama: The 'Emphatic' Phonemes in Arabic." S H71, 510-522. 1957b "Notes on Gilyak." SWU, 79-97. 1957c "Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb." S W U , 130-147. (cf. 1950a, an earlier draft.) Reprinted in 1984b, 4 1 - 5 8 . First part reprinted in 1990b, 386-392. I957d "The Relationship between Genitive and Plural in the Declension of Russian Nouns." S W H , 148-153. Reprinted in 1984b, 135-140. 1958a "Typological Studies and Their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics." SW I, 523-532. Reprinted in 1990b, 143-151. 1958b "Morphological Observations on Slavic Declension: The Structure of Russian Case Forms." In 1984b, 105-133. English summary in SH^II, 179-181. Reprinted in part in 1990b, 375-385. 1959a With Morris Halle: "Note on the Tonality Features of Roumanian Consonantal Phonemes." S W I , 661-663. 1959b "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation." SWU; 260 - 266. Reprinted in 1987a, 428-435. 1959c "Linguistic Glosses to Goldstein's 'Wortbegriff'." S W I I , 267-271. 1959d "Boas' View of Grammatical Meaning." S W I I , 489-496. Reprinted in 1990b, 324-331.

LXVIII

REFERENCES

1959e "While Reading Vasmer's Dictionary." S W I I , 6 2 0 - 649. 1959f "Dostoevskij ν otgoloskax Majakovskogo." S W V , 4 0 6 - 4 1 2 . 1959g "Trois conférences données à Bucarest les 3 et 6 oct. 1958." Bucharest: Institut de linguistique de l'Académia de la République Populaire Roumaine. Mimeo. (Contents: I. "Les problèmes les plus actuels de l'étude des sons du langage"; II. "Discussions sur la linguistique mathématique"; III. "Sur les méthodes d'analyse de la langue.") 1959h With C.H. van Schooneveld: "Introductory Note." In Morris Halle, The Sound Pattern of Russian, 5—8. The Hague: Mouton. 1959Í "A New Outline of Russian Phonology." StVI, 5 3 3 - 5 3 7 . 1960a "The Gender Pattern of Russian." SPFII, 1 8 4 - 1 8 6 . Reprinted in 1984b, 141-143. 1960b "The Kazan' School of Polish Linguistics and Its Place in the International Development of Phonology." StV II, 3 9 4 - 4 2 8 . 1960c "Linguistics and Poetics." In S W I I I , 1 8 - 5 1 . Reprinted in 1987a, 6 2 - 9 4 . First part reprinted as "The Speech Event and the Functions of Language", in 1990b, 6 9 - 7 9 . 1960d "Why ' M a m a ' and 'Papa'?" StV I, 5 3 8 - 5 4 5 . Reprinted in 1990b, 3 0 5 - 3 1 1 . 1961a "Introduction to the Symposium on the Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects." S W I I , 5 6 8 - 5 6 9 . 1961b "Linguistics and Communication Theory." In S W I I , 5 7 0 - 5 7 9 . Reprinted in 1990b, 4 8 9 - 4 9 7 . 1961c "Poetry of G r a m m a r and G r a m m a r of Poetry." In 1987a, 1 2 1 - 1 4 4 . English translation (of sections 2 and 4): "Two Poems by Puäkin." In I985e, 4 7 - 5 8 . (cf. 1968c, the reworked English version.) 1962a "Zur Struktur des Phonems." StVI, 2 8 0 - 3 1 0 . (Written in May 1939.) 1962b With Morris Halle: "Tenseness and Laxness." S IVI, 5 5 0 - 5 5 5 . Reprinted in 1963, in rev. of 1952c. 1962c "Retrospect." SlVl, 6 3 1 - 6 5 8 . 1962d "On the Rumanian Neuter." SIV II, 187-189. 1962e "Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure's Doctrine." In 1980f, 3 3 - 3 8 . Reprinted in 1985e, 2 8 - 3 3 . 1962f "Anthony's Contribution to Linguistic Theory." SIVil, 2 8 5 - 2 8 8 . Reprinted in 1971 g, 3 1 - 3 5 . 1962g With Claude Lévi-Strauss: "Charles Baudelaire's 'Les c h a t s . ' " In 1987a, 180-197. 1963a "Izbytoènye bukvy russkogo alfavita i smeinye orfograficeskie voprosy." S i f l , 556-569. 1963b "Opyt fonologièeskogo podxoda k istorièeskim voprosam slavjanskoj akcentologii." In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, 153-176. The Hague: Mouton. With an English summary, "A Phonemic Approach to the Structure and Evolution of the C o m m o n Slavic Prosodie Pattern," in SIV I, 6 6 4 - 6 8 9 . 1963c "Parts and Wholes in Language." S W I I , 2 8 0 - 2 8 4 . Reprinted in 1990b, 110-114. 1963d "Efforts toward a Means-Ends Model of Language in Interwar Continental Linguistics." S W I I , 5 2 2 - 5 2 6 . Reprinted in 1990b, 5 6 - 6 0 . 1963e "Implications of Language Universals for Linguistics." StV II, 5 8 0 - 5 9 2 . Reprinted in 1990b, 152-163. 1964a "The Prosodie Questions of Slavic Historical Phonology Restated." StV I, 690-692. 1964b "Toward a Linguistic Classification of Aphasie Impairments." S W I I , 2 8 9 - 306. Reprinted in 1971g, 7 5 - 9 4 .

WORKS BY ROMAN JAKOBSON 1964c 1964d 1964e 1965a 1965b 1965c 1965d 1965e 1966a 1966b 1966c 1966d 1966e I966f 1966g 1966h 1966i

1966j 1967a 1967b

1967c 1967d 1968a 1968b 1968c

1968d

1968e

1968f

1969a

LXIX

"Visual and Auditory Signs." S f f II, 3 3 4 - 3 3 7 . (cf. 1967a.) "Results of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists." S I f II, 5 9 3 - 6 0 2 . "Language in Operation." SW 111, 7 - 1 7 . Reprinted in 1987a, 5 0 - 6 1 . "Information and Redundancy in the C o m m o n Slavic Prosodie Pattern." S If I, 6 9 3 - 6 9 9 . "Structure of the Russian and Ukrainian Imperative." In 1984b, 3 3 - 4 0 . "An Example of Migratory Terms and Institutional Models" (on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Moscow Linguistic Circle). S W II, 5 2 7 - 5 3 8 . "Vers une science de l'art poétique." SU 7 V, 5 4 1 - 5 4 4 . " O latinizacii meídunarodnyx telegramm na russkom jazyke." S [VI, 700-704. "The Role of Phonic Elements in Speech Perception." S l f I, 7 0 5 - 7 1 7 , and 5 f f VIII, 2 4 1 - 2 5 3 . Also in 1979b, 2 3 9 - 2 4 8 (1st ed.), 2 4 1 - 2 5 3 (2nd ed.). "Relationship between Russian Stem Suffixes and Verbal Aspects." S W I I , 198-202. Reprinted in 1984b, 2 7 - 3 1 . "Linguistic Types of Aphasia." SWII, 3 0 7 - 3 3 3 . Reprinted in 1971g, 95-125. "Quest for the Essence of Language." SWU, 3 4 5 - 3 5 9 . Reprinted in 1987a, 4 1 3 - 4 2 7 . Reprinted in 1990b, 4 0 7 - 4 2 1 . "Henry Sweet's Paths toward Phonemics." SWU, 4 5 6 - 4 6 7 . "Grammatical Parallelism and Its Russian Facet." W i l l , 9 8 - 1 3 5 . Reprinted in 1987a, 145-179. "Retrospect." SW1V, 6 3 7 - 7 0 4 . "The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs." 5 I f VI, 101-114. "La linguistique va-t-elle devenir la science des sciences? Un entretien de Claude Bonnefoy avec Roman Jakobson." Aris, no. 20, 1 0 - 1 1 (February 9-16). "Questionner Jakobson" (interview with Jean-Pierre Faye). In J.-P. Faye, Le récit hunique, 2 7 3 - 2 8 5 . Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1967. "On the Relation between Visual and Auditory Signs." S W II, 3 3 8 - 3 4 4 . Reprinted in 1987a, 4 6 6 - 4 7 3 . "ZnaCenie KruSevskogo ν razvitii nauki o jazyke." S I f II, 4 2 9 - 4 4 9 , with an English summary, "Kruszewski's Part in the Development of Linguistic Science," 4 4 9 - 4 5 0 . "Language and Culture." S If VII, 101-112. "Entretien sur le cinéma." Revue d'esthétique 26 ( 2 - 4 ) : 61 - 6 8 (1973). "Extrapulmonic Consonants (Ejectives, Implosives, Clicks)." SWi, 720-727. "K voprosu o gluxosti i zvonkosti russkix scelinnyx gubnyx." SW], 728-733. "Poetry of G r a m m a r and G r a m m a r of Poetry." SW III, 8 7 - 9 7 . (Abridged and reworked English version of 1961c.) Excerpts reprinted in 1980f, 8 3 - 8 5 ; reprinted in 1985e, 3 7 - 4 6 . With Morris Halle: "Phonology in Relation to Phonetics." In Manual of Phonetics, ed. Β. Malmberg, 441 - 4 4 9 . Amsterdam: North Holland. (Revised version of 1956a.) "Vivre et parler: Un débat entre François Jacob, Roman Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, et Philippe L'Héritier." Les lettres françaises, no.1221, 3 - 7 ; no. 1222, 4 - 5 . "La langue est le moteur de l'imagination: Entretien" (interview with Michel Tréguer and François Châtelet). La quinzaine littéraire, no. 51, 1 8 - 2 0 (May 15-31). "Dubiety tipy sockle/scël ν pokazanijax T. Fenne o jazyke Pskova na poroge XVII veka." SWU, 2 0 3 - 2 0 8 .

LXX

REFERENCES

1969b "Jazykovedèeskie boi generala Mrozin'skogo: Pamjatka i napominanie." SWII, 375-388. 1969c "Linguistics in Relation to Other Sciences." S W I I , 655-696. (cf. 1970c.) 1969d "The Modular Design of Chinese Regulated Verse." SWM, 215-223. 1969e "The Slavic God Veles" and His Indo-European Cognates." SU 7 VII, 33-48. 1970a "Motor Signs for 'Yes' and 'No'." Language in Society 1 (1):91 —96 (April 1971). Reprinted in 1987a, 474 - 478. 1970b "Tempus-Rotatio-Aduiterium." SWll, 650-652. 1970c "Linguistics." Revised version of 1969c; further revised for separate publication as chapters 2 and 3 in 1973b. Also in S W I I , 655-696, as "Linguistics in Relation to Other Sciences." Reprinted in 1990b, 451-488. 1970d "Language in Relation to Other Communication Systems." SW II, 697-708. 1970e "Subliminal Verbal Patterning in Poetry." SWIII, 136-147. Reprinted in 1980f, 127-136; 1985f, 59-68; and 1987a, 250-261. 1970f With Lawrence G. Jones: Shakespeare's Verbal Art in "Th' Expence of Spirit. " S W I I I , 284-303. Reprinted in 1987a, 198-215. 1970g "Linguistic Evidence in Comparative Mythology." SU 7 VII, 12—32. 1971a "Saussure's Unpublished Reflections on Phonemes." S W I , 743-750. 1971b "Acknowledgments and Dedication." S W I I , v-viii. 1971c "Retrospect." SWU, 711-722. Reworked version reprinted as chapter 1 in 1973b. 197Id "The Dominant." . W i l l , 751-756. (Written in 1935.) Reprinted in 1987a, 41 - 4 6 . 197le "The World Response to Whitney's Principles of Linguistic Science." S ^ V I I , 219-236. 197If "La première lettre de F. de Saussure à A. Meillet sur les anagrammes." S ^ V I I , 237-247. 1971g Studies on Child Language and Aphasia. The Hague: Mouton. Contains reprintings or English translations of 1949c, 1955a, 1956b, 1960d, 1962f, 1964b, 1966c. 1971 h "Conversation with Ved Mehta." In Ved Mehta, John Is Easy to Please, 177-84. Middlesex: Penguin. 1972a "Verbal Communication." SWVII, 81-92. 1972b "The Editor Interviews Roman Jakobson." Modem Occasions 1 (1): 14-20. 1972c "Entretien de Roman Jakobson avec Jean-Pierre Faye, Jean Paris, et Jacques Roubaud." In R. Jakobson et al., Hypothèses: Trois entretiens et trois études sur la linguistique et la poétique, 33-49. Paris: Collection Change. 1973a "When a Falcon Has Molted." S J f V I I , 321-331. 1973b Main Trends in the Science of Language. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1973; New York: Harper and Row, 1974 (with revised index by RJ). (Revised version of 1969c, 1970c, 1971c.) 1973c Aspects of the Theories of Roman Jakobson, ed. Marleen van Ballaer. Louvain: Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, Fakulteit der Wijsbegeerte en Lettern. (Memoir containing three series of lectures by Roman Jakobson at the Catholic University of Louvain, February 14-March 14, 1972. Though published with his authorization, these transcripts were not made under his supervision and cannot be regarded as definitive.) Reprinted in part in 1990b, 315-323. 1974a "Mark and Feature." SWVII, 122-124. 1974b "Goroun's Urn." S W VII, 332-335. 1974c "Life and Language" (review of F. Jacob, The Logic of Life: A History of Heredity). Linguistics 138:97-103. 1974d "Communication and Society." SU'VII, 98-100.

WORKS BY ROMAN JAKOBSON

LXXI

1975a "The Fundamental and Specific Characteristics of H u m a n Language." SWVII, 93-97. 1975b "Structuralisme et téléologie." S U ' V I I , 125-127. 1975c "On Aphasie Disorders from a Linguistic Angle." S W V I I , 1 2 8 - 1 4 0 . Reprinted in 1980e, 9 3 - 1 1 1 . 1975d "Glosses on the Medieval Insight into the Science of Language." SU 7 VII, 185-198. Reprinted in 1980e, 3 9 - 6 0 . 1975e "A Glance at the Development of Semiotics." In S If VII, 1 9 9 - 2 1 8 . First published in 1980e, 1 - 2 9 . Reprinted in 1987a, 4 3 6 - 4 5 4 . 1975f N.S. Trubetzkoy's Letters and Notes, ed. Roman Jakobson, with the assistance of H. Baran, O. Ronen and M. Taylor. The Hague: Mouton. (Letters from the 1920s and 1930s.) 1975g "Foreword." In 1975f, v - x i v . 1976a With G. Lübbe-Grothues: "Ein Blick auf Die Aussicht von Hölderlin." In R. Jakobson, Hölderlin, Klee, Brecht, ed. E. Holenstein, 2 7 - 9 6 . Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. "The Language of Schizophrenia: Hölderlin's Speech and Poetry" (partial English translation). In 1980f, 137-144. Reprinted in 1985f, 133-140. Also 'Two Different Types of Discourse in Hölderlin's Madness" (partial English translation). In Cognitive Constraints on Communication: Representations and Processes, ed. L. Vaina and J. Hintikka, 115-136. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984. 1976b "Spatial Relationships in Slavic Adjectives." S W V I I , 6 8 - 7 2 . Reprinted in part here in the Appendix to Chapter 8. 1976c "Metalanguage as a Linguistic Problem." S W V I I , 113-121. (Written in 1956.) Reprinted in 1980e, 8 1 - 9 2 . 1976d Six Lectures on Sound and Meaning. Hassocks, England: Harvester; Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1978. (Written in 1942.) Excerpts reprinted in 1990b, 2 1 7 - 2 4 1 . 1976e "On Poetic Intentions and Linguistic Devices in Poetry: A Discussion with Professors and Students at the University of Cologne." In 1980f, 8 7 - 9 6 , and in 1985f, 6 9 - 7 8 . 1976f "Pëtr Bogatyrëv (29.1.93-18.VIII.71): Expert in Transfiguration." S W V I I , 293-304. 1976g "Interview with Roman Jakobson on Poetics." Philosophy Today 22 (1/4): 65-72(1978). 1977a With Stephen Rudy: Yeats' Sorrow of Love through the Years. SW III, 6 0 0 - 6 3 8 . Reprinted in 1980f, 9 7 - 1 2 5 ; 1985f, 7 9 - 1 0 7 ; and 1987a, 2 1 6 - 2 4 9 . 1977b "The Grammatical Buildup of Children's Language." S W V I I , 141-147. 1977c "A Few Remarks on Peirce, Pathfinder in the Science of Language." SW VII, 2 4 8 - 2 5 3 . Reprinted in 1980e, 3 1 - 3 8 . 1978a "Notes on the Makeup of a Proverb." S W I I I , 7 1 2 - 7 1 4 . 1978b "Mutual Assimilation of Russian Voiced and Voiceless Consonants." SWVII, 62-65. 1978c "On the Linguistic Approach to the Problem of Consciousness and the Unconscious." S W VII, 148-162. Reprinted in 1980e, 113-132. 1979a "Retrospect." S W V , 5 6 9 - 6 0 1 . 1979b With Linda R. Waugh: The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; Hassocks, England: Harvester Press. (2nd, aug. ed., Berlin: Mouton, 1987.) Reprinted in S W V I I I , 1 - 3 1 5 . Excerpts reprinted in 1990b, 138-140, 2 5 9 - 2 9 0 , 4 2 2 - 4 4 7 . 1979c With Linda R. Waugh: "An Instance of Interconnection between the Distinctive Features." S W V I I , 5 9 - 6 1 . 1979d "The Twentieth Century in European and American Linguistics: Movements and Continuity." S W V I I , 2 6 5 - 2 7 8 . Reprinted in 1980e, 6 1 - 7 9 .

LXXII

REFERENCES

1980a "The Primary Syntactic Split and Its Corollary." S W V I I , 6 6 - 6 7 . 1980b Brain and Language: Cerebral Hemispheres and Linguistic Structure in Mutual Light. S f F V I I , 1 6 3 - 1 8 0 . Reprinted in 1990b, 4 9 8 - 5 1 3 . 1980c "Einstein and the Science of Language." S J F V I I , 2 5 4 - 264. 1980d With Krystyna Pomorska: Dialogues, with a foreword by M . Halle. C a m bridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1983. (Reprinted Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.) Reprinted in part in 1985e, 11 —24, as "Dialogue on Time in Language and Literature." Excerpts reprinted in 1990b, 134-138, 1 6 4 - 1 7 5 , 176-183, 290-293. 1980e The Framework of Language. Michigan Studies in the Humanities. Introduction by L. Matejka. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Contains reprintings or English translations of 1975c,d,e, 1976c, 1977c, 1978c, 1979d. 1980f Roman Jakobson: Language and Literature. Special issue of Poetics Today 2:1a. Contains reprintings or English translations of 1928c, 1962e, 1968c (excerpts), 1970e, 1976a (excerpts), 1976e, 1977a, 1980d. 1980g "Art and Poetry: The Cubo-Futurists" (interview with David Shapiro). In The Avant-Garde in Russia, 1910-1930: New Perspectives, ed. S. Barron and M. Tuchman, 18. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. 1981a "Retrospect." S ^ I I I , 7 6 5 - 7 8 9 . 1981b "To the History of the Moscow Linguistic Circle." SW VII, 2 7 1 - 2 8 2 . 1981c "My Favorite Topics." S W V I I , 3 7 1 - 3 7 6 . Reprinted in 1985f, 3 - 7 , and in 1990b, 6 1 - 6 6 . 1982a "Notes on the Declension of Pronouns in Contemporary Russian." SW VII, 7 3 - 7 7 . Reprinted in 1984b, 145-149. 1982b "The Evasive Initial." SJKVII, 181-182. 1982c "Drevnearmjanskij Vahagn ν svete svranitel'noj mifologii." S W V I I , 4 9 - 5 3 . 1984a "On the Dialectics of Language." SWVII, 377-378. 1984b Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies, 1931-1981, ed. L.R. Waugh and M. Halle, introduction by L.R. Waugh. Berlin: Mouton. Contains reprintings or English translations of 1932b, 1936a, 1939c, 1948, 1957c, 1958b, 1960a, 1965b, 1966b, 1982a. 1984c "La théorie saussurienne en retrospection." Linguistics 22:161-196. (Written in 1942.) Reprinted in 1990b, 8 0 - 1 0 9 . 1984d "Réponses" (interview with T. Todorov). Poétique 5 7 : 3 - 2 5 . 1985a "Retrospect." S W V I , 8 8 7 - 8 9 7 . 1985b "Oieredyne zadaci obäcej lingvistiki." S W V I I , 2 8 3 - 2 9 2 . (Written in 1979.) 1985c "The Immediate Quests and Achievements of Comparative Linguistics." SfrFVII, 3 1 4 - 3 1 7 . (Written in 1980.) 1985d "The Etymology of Grib (E.S1. Fungus, W.S1. Boletus)." S U 7 V I I , 3 3 6 - 3 3 7 . 1985e Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, ed. Κ. Pomorska and S. Rudy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (With articles by L.R. Waugh, K. Pomorska, and I. Mel'cuk on "Jakobson's Legacy.") Contains reprintings or English translations of 1928c, 193 lh, 1961c (excerpts), 1962e, 1968c, 1970e, 1976a,e, 1977a, l$80d, 1981c. 1987a Language in Literature, ed. Κ. Pomorska and S. Rudy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Contains, among others, 1919, 1921a, 1928c, 1931h, 1932c, 1933b, 1934, 1935b, 1937d, 1956b, 1959b, 1960c, 1961c, 1962g, 1964e, 1966d,f, 1967a, 1970a,e,f, 197 Id, 1975e, 1977a. 1990a A Complete Bibliography of His Writings. 1912-1982, comp, and ed. S. Rudy. Berlin: Mouton. 1990b On Language, ed. with an introduction by L. Waugh and M. Monville-Burston. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Contains all of or excerpts

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXIII

from 1936a, 1949a,b,c,g,h, 1952c, 1956b, 1957c, 1958b, 1959d, 1960c,d, 1961b, 1963c,d,e, 1966d, 1970c, 1973c, 1976b,d, 1979b, 1980b,d, 1981c, 1984c.

Other References

Cited

American Journal of Semiotics 2. 1983. "The Semiotics of Roman Jakobson". Andersen, Henning. 1968. "IE *s after /', u, /; k in Baltic and Slavic." Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 11:171-190. 1972. "Diphthongization." Language 48:11-50. 1973. "Abductive and Deductive Change." Language 49:765-793. 1974. "Towards a Typology of Change: Bifurcating Changes and Binary Relations." In Historical Linguistics, II, ed. J. Anderson and C. Jones, 1 7 - 6 1 . Amsterdam: North Holland. 1983. "Morphological Change: Towards a Typology." In Historical Morphology, ed. J. Fisiak, 1 - 5 0 . The Hague: Mouton. Andersen, Paul Kent. 1983. Word Order Typology and Comparative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anderson, Stephen R. 1974. The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century-Theories of Rules and Theories of Representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Andrews, Edna. 1984a. "A Theoretical Foundation for Markedness: Asymmetry in Language from a Mathematical Perspective." Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. 1984b. "Markedness Theory: An Explication of Its Biases and Applicability in Semantic Analysis." In Memorial Volume in Honor of J. Daniel Armstrong, ed. Charles Gribble et al., 169-180. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. 1985. "Markedness Reversals in Sign Systems." In In Memory of Roman Jakobson: Papers from the 1984 MALC, ed. Gilbert Youmans and Donald Lance, 169-180. Columbus, Mo.: Linguistics Area Program. 1987. "Jakobsonian Markedness as Mathematical Principle." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 177-198. 1990a " G r a m m a r and Pragmatics: The Two Axes of Language and Deixis." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. 1990b. Markedness Theory: The Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. 1975. The Indexical Element in Morphology. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Ardener, Edwin. 1971. "Introductory Essay: Social Anthropology and Language." In Social Anthropology and Language, ed. E. Ardener, i x - c i i . London: Tavistock. Arlotto, Anthony. 1972. Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Armstrong, Daniel and C . H . van Schooneveld, eds. 1977. Roman Jakobson: Echoes of His Scholarship. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Armstrong, J. Daniel. 1973. "A Semantic Approach to Russian Word Formation: Suffixal Word Formation in Substantives." Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Aronson, Howard. 1990. "Toward a Typology of Verbal Categories." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Austerlitz, Robert. 1961. "Parallelismus." In Poetics Poetyka Poètika, ed. D. Davie et al., 4 3 9 - 4 4 3 . Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk.

LXXIV

REFERENCES

1977. "The Study of Paleosiberian Languages." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977. 13-20. 1983. "Studies of Paleosiberian Languages." In Halle 1983c, 72-76. Baldi, Philip and Ronald W. Werth, eds. 1978. Readings in Historical Phonology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Baitaxe, Christiane A.M. 1978. Foundations of Distinctive Feature Theory. Baltimore: University Park Press. Barthes, Roland. 1966. "Introduction à l'analyse structurale des récits." Communications (Paris) 8:1-27. _ 1967a. Writing Degree Zero. London: Cape. 1967b. Elements of Semiology. Paris: Seuil. 1972. Mythologies. London: Cape. 1978. "Avant-Propos." Cahiers Cistre (Lausanne) 5:9-10. 1983. The Fashion System. New York: Hill and Wang. Basso, Keith. 1979. Portraits of "The Whitemen". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Battistella, Edwin. 1985a. "Markedness Isomorphism as a Goal of Language Change: The Spread of Periphrastic Do in English." Lingua 65:307—322. 1985b. "Markedness Isomorphism and Auxiliary Do." In Memory of Roman Jakobson: Papers from the 1984 MALC, ed. Gilbert Youmans and Donald Lance, 159-168. Columbia, Mo.: Linguistics Area Program. 1987. "Marked and Unmarked Pronouns in English." Secol Review, 6 6 - 7 7 . 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York: Oxford University Press. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1972. Selected Writings of Baudouin de Courtenay, ed. Edward Stankiewicz. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bauman, Richard. 1977. Verbal Art of Performance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 1986. Story, Performance, and Event: Contextual Studies in Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer, eds. 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang Dressier. 1981. introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Beeman, William. 1986. Language, Status, and Power in Transition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bell, E.T. 1945. The Development of Mathematics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bendix, Edward. 1966. Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Benveniste, Emile. 1962. "'Structure' in Linguistics." In 1971, 79—84. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press. (English translation of 1966.) Berkowitz, Stephen. 1982. An Introduction to Structural Analysis: The Network Approach to Social Research. Toronto: Butterworth. Berlin, Adele. 1985. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1971. Modern Linguistics: Its Development, Methods, and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Birnbaum, Henrik. 1977. "Roman Jakobson's Contribution to Slavic Accentology." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 29-38. 1986. "Gesamtbedeutung-Reality of Language or Linguistic Construct?" Scando-Slavica 32:139-159.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXV

Blache, Stephen. 1978. The Acquisition of Distinctive Features. Baltimore: University Park Press. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1939. "Menomini Morphophonemics." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8:105 - 1 1 5 . Blumstein, Sheila 1973. A Phonological Investigation of Aphasie Speech. The Hague: Mouton. Boon, James. 1972. From Symbolism to Structuralism: Lévi-Strauss in a Literary Tradition. New York: Harper and Row. Boorman, Scott and Harrison White. 1976. "Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I: Role Structures." American Journal of Sociology 81:1384-1446. Bradford, Richard. 1994. Roman Jakobson: Life, Language, Art. London: Routledge. 1997. Stylistics. London: Routledge. Brakel, Arthur. 1983. Phonological Markedness and Distinctive Features. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Brandt, Per Aage, et al. 1997. Roman Jakobson Centennial Symposium, Copenhagen 10-11 Oct. 1996, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 29. Brecht, Richard and James S. Levine, eds. 1986a. Case in Slavic. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. 1986b. "Case and Meaning." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 1 7 - 3 4 . Briggs, Charles. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bright, William, ed. 1966. Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Brillouin, L. 1964. Scientific Uncertainty and Information. New York: Academic Press. Broadbent, D.E. 1954. "The Role of Auditory Localization in Attention and Memory." Journal of Experimental Psychology 47:191 — 196. Broca, P. 1888. Mémoires sur le cerveau de l'homme. Paris. Broch, O. 1927. "Russenorsk." Archiv für slavische Philologie 41:209-262. Bmndal, Viggo. 1928. Les parties du discours. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad. 1932. Morfologi og syntax. Copenhagen: G.E.C. G a d . 1935. "Structure et variabilité des systèmes morphologiques." In Migliorini and Pisani 1935, 146-148. 1943. Essais de linguistique générale. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. Bronowski, J. 1967. " H u m a n and Animal Languages." In To Honor Roman Jakobson 1967, I, 3 7 4 - 3 9 4 . Brooks-Rose, Christine. 1976. A Structural Analysis of Pound's Usura Canto: Jakobson's Method Extended and Applied to Free Verse. The Hague: Mouton. Brown, Edward. 1983. " R o m a n Osipovich Jakobson, 1896-1982: The Unity of His Thought on Verbal Art." Russian Review 41:91 - 9 9 . Also in Pomorska et al. 1987, 233-256. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger W. and Stephen Levinson. 1978. "Universale in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena." In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. E. Goody, 5 6 - 3 1 1 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reissued with corrections, new introduction, and new bibliography as Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.) Bruss, Elizabeth W. 1978. "Peirce and Jakobson on the Nature of the Sign." In The Sign: Semiotics around the World, ed. R. Bailey, 8 1 - 9 8 . Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena (Reprint, Stuttgart: Fischer, 1965.) Burke, Kenneth. 1941. The Philosophy of Literary Form. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. (Reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.)

LXXVI

REFERENCES

1945. "Four Master Tropes." In A Grammar of Motives, 5 0 3 - 5 1 7 . New York: Prentice-Hall. (Reprint, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.) 1961. The Rhetoric of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press. Burston [Monville-Burston], Monique. 1977. "A Semantic Analysis of the Pali Case System." Ph.D. diss., Cornell University. Butterworth, Brian, Bernard Comrie and Osten Dahl, eds. 1984. Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton. Bybee, Joan. 1985a. "Diagrammatic Iconicity in Stem-Inflection Relations." In Haiman 1985b, 1 1 - 4 7 . ^ 1985b. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cahiers Cistre 5. 1978. "Jakobson". Cairns, Charles E. 1969. "Markedness, Neutralization, and Universal Redundancy Rules." Language 45:863-885. Cassirer, Ernst. 1945. "Structuralism in Modern Linguistics." Word 1:99-120. Caton, Steven. 1984. "Poetry as Political Rhetoric from Khwalan at-Tujal, North Yemen." Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. 1987. "Contributions of R o m a n Jakobson." Annual Review of Anthropology 16:223 - 260. Cazden, Courtney B. 1972. Child Language and Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Chambers, Jennifer K. and Peter Trudgill. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cherry, Colin. 1957. On Human Communication. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. 1972. Language and Mind. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1983. "Homage and Reminiscences." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 81-83. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Christie, William, Jr. 1980. "Redundancy and Explanation in Historical Linguistics." In Papers from the Fourth International Congress of Historical Linguistics, 4 7 - 5 2 . Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chvany, Catherine. 1984. "From J a k o b s o n s Cube as Objet d'art to New Model of the Grammatical Sign." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 29:43-70. 1985. "Background Perfectives and Plot Line Imperfectives." In Flier and Timberlake 1985, 2 4 7 - 2 7 3 . Clark, Katerina and Michael Holquist. 1984. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cobley, Paul. 1996. The Communication Theory Reader. New York: Routledge. Collins, Christopher. 1991. The Poetics of the Mind's Eye. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1983. "On the Validity of Typological Studies: A Reply to Smith." Australian Journal of Linguistics 3 : 9 3 - 9 6 . 1984. "Language Universals and Linguistic Argumentation: A Reply to Coopmans." Journal of Linguistics 20:155-163.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXVII

1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986. " O n Delimiting Cases." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 8 6 - 1 0 0 . Con Davis, Robert. 1986. Contemporary Literary Criticism. New York: Longman. Contributions to the International Congress "Roman Jakobson Centennial." 1996. Moscow: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyj universitet. Coquet, Jean-Claude. 1973. Sémiotique littéraire. Paris: Mame. Critique 30. 1974. " R o m a n Jakobson". Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press. Croft, William, Keith Denning and Suzanne Kemmer. 1990. Studies in Typology and Diachrony for J. H. Greenberg. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cuevas, Susana and Julieta Haider. La imaginación e la intelligencia en la lenguaje: homenaje a Roman Jakobson. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Culler, Jonathan. 1976. Ferdinand de Saussure. Ithaca, Ν.Y.: Cornell University Press. (Rev. ed., 1986.) Dale, Philip. 1976. Language Development: Structure and Function. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Davis, Philip W. 1973. Modern Theories of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. de George, Richard and Fernande de George. 1972. The Structuralists from Marx to Lévi-Strauss. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Delas, Daniel. 1993. Roman Jakobson. Paris: Bertrand-Lacoste. Dell, François. 1980. Generative Phonology and French Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Mauro, Tullio. 1972. Edition critique du "Cours de linguistique générale" de Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris: Payot. Dixon, Robert. 1971. "A Method in Semantic Description." In Semantics, ed. D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, 4 3 6 - 4 7 1 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Donegan, Patricia and David Stampe. 1979. "The Study of Natural Phonology." In Current Approaches to Phonological Theory, ed. D. Dinnsen, 126-173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Dosse, François. 1997. History of Structuralism, vol.1, 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ducrot, Oswald. 1968. "Le structuralisme en linguistique." In Qu'est-ce que le structuralisme? ed. O. Ducrot et al., 1 5 - 9 6 . Paris: Seuil. Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press. 2001a. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. 2001b. Key Terms in Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Easthope, Anthony. 1983. Poetry as Discourse. London: Methuen. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1977. "The Influence of R o m a n Jakobson on the Development of Semiotics." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 3 9 - 5 8 . Eekman, T h o m a s and Dean S. Worth, eds. 1983. Russian Poetics. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Eisenstadt, S.N. 1981. "Some Observations on Structuralism in Sociology, with Special, and Paradoxical, Reference to Max Weber." In Continuities in Structural Inquiry, ed. P. Blau and R. Merton, 165-176. London: Sage. 1982. "Symbolic Structures and Social Dynamics." In Structural Sociology, ed. Ino Rossi, 149-179. New York: Columbia University Press. Elliot, Alison. 1981. Child Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Emeneau, Murray. 1956. "India as a Linguistic Area." Language 3 2 : 3 - 1 6 . Engler, Rudolf. 1967. Edition critique du "Cours de linguistique générale" de F. de Saussure. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Lxxvm

REFERENCES

Erlich, Victor. 1955. Russian Formalism. The Hague: Mouton. Errington, J.J. 1985a. "On the Nature of the Sociolinguistic Sign: Describing Japanese Speech Levels" In Semiolic Meditation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives, ed. E. Mertz and A. Parmentia, 287-310. Orlando, R a : Academic Press. 1985b. Language and Social Change in Java: Linguistic Reflexes of Modernization in a Traditional Royal Polity. Ohio University Center of International Studies: Monographs in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series, no.65. Athens, Ohio. Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and Literature. Oxford: Blackwell. Fant, C. Gunnar. 1986. "Features: Fiction and Facts." In Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, ed. J. Perkell and D. Klatt, 480-492. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferguson, Charles A. 1978. "Historical Background of Universals Research." In Universals of Human Language, ed. J. Greenberg, 7 - 3 1 . Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ferguson, Charles A. and C.B. Farwell. 1975. "Words and Sounds in Early Language Acquisition." Language 51:419-439. Ferguson, Charles A. and O. Gamica. 1975. "Theories of Phonological Development." In Foundations of Language Development I, ed. E. Lenneberg, 153-180. New York: Academic Press. Fernandez, James W. 1974. "The Mission of Metaphor in Expressive Culture." Current Anthropology 15:119—145. (Reprinted in Persuasions and Performance(s): The Play of Tropes in Culture, ed. James W. Fernandez, 28 - 70. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.) 1977. "The Performance of Ritual Metaphors." In Sapir and Crocker 1977, 100-131. Fischer-Jergensen, Eli. 1975. Trends in Phonological Theory: A Historical Introduction. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Fishman, Joshua, ed. 1968. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton. Fleischman, Suzanne and Linda R. Waugh, eds. 1991. Discourse-Pragmatics and the Verb: The Evidence from Romance. London: Croom Helm. Flier, Michael S. and Richard Brecht, eds. 1985. Issues in Russian Morphosyntax. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Flier, Michael S. and Alan Timberlake, eds. 1985. The Scope of Slavic Aspect. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Fokkema, D.W. and E. Kunne-Ibsch. 1978. Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century. London: G. Hunt. Foley, William. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Fonagy, Ivan. 1979. La métaphore en phonétique. Ottawa: Didier. Fowler, Roger. 1996. Linguistic Criticism. 2 nd edition. Oxford University Press. Fox, James J. 1974. " 'Our Ancestors Spoke in Pairs': Rotinese Views of Language, Dialect, and Code." In Baumann and Sherzer 1974, 6 5 - 8 5 . 1977. "Roman Jakobson and the Comparative Study of Parallelism." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 5 9 - 9 0 . Friedrich, Paul. 1964. "Semantic Structure and Social Structure, an Instance from Russian." In 1979a, 126-167. 1966. "Structural Implications of Russian Pronominal Usage." In 1979a, 63-125. 1974. "On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect." International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 28. 1975. "The Symbol and Its Relative Arbitrariness." Expanded version in 1979a, 1-61.

OTHER R E F E R E N C E S C I T E D

LXXIX

1979a. Language, Context, and the Imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1979b. "Poetic Language and the Imagination: A Radical Reformulation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." In 1979a, 441-512. Ms. "Scholars Drawing on or Developing the Prague School, Russian Formalism, and Related Models [in the United States]." Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. "Arbitrariness and Iconicity: Historical Change in American Sign Language." Language 51:696—719. Gadet, Françoise and Patrick Sériot, eds. 1997. Jakobson entre l'Est et l'Ouest. Cahiers de l'ILSL 9. Galan, F.W. 1985. Historic Structures: The Prague School Project, 1928-1946. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gamkrelidze, Thomas, T. Elizarenkova and V. Ivanov. 1977. "LingvistiÈeskaja teorija R.O. Jakobsona ν rabotax sovetskix lingvistov." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977,91-122. Gamkrelidze, Thomas and V. Ivanov. 1984. Indoèvropejskij jazyk i indoèvropejcy. 2 vols. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Publishers. García, Erica. 1990. "Grasping the Nettle: Variation as Proof of Invariance." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Gardner, Howard. 1981. The Quest for Mind: Piaget, Lévi-Strauss, and the Structuralist Movement. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garvin, Paul L. 1969. "The Prague School of Linguistics." In Linguistics Today, ed. A. Hill, 229-238. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, Clifford. 1960. The Religion of Java. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Genette, Gérard. 1966. Figures I. Paris: Seuil. 1969. Figures II. Paris: Seuil. 1972. Figures III. Paris: Seuil. (Reprinted in part as: Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1980.) Georgakopoulou, Alexandra and Dionysis Goutsos. 1997. Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Glucksmann, Miriam. 1974. Structural Analysis in Contemporary Social Thought: A Comparison of the Theories of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Louis Althusser. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Godei, Robert. 1957. Les sources manuscrites du "Cours de linguistique générale" de F. de Saussure. Geneva: E. Droz. Goodenough, Ward. 1956. "Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning." Language 32:195-216. Gras, Vernon. 1973. European Literary Theory and Practice. New York: Dell. Greenberg, Joseph. 1957. "The Nature and Uses of Linguistic Typologies." International Journal of American Linguistics 23:68-77. 1962. "Is the Vowel-Consonant Dichotomy Universal?" Word 18:73-81. ed. 1963a. Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1963b. "Some Universals of Grammar, with Special Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements." In 1963a, 73-113. 1966. Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton. 1967. "The First (and Perhaps Only) Non-Linguistic Distinctive Feature Analysis." Word 23:214-220. 1974. Language Typology: A Historical and Analytical Overview. The Hague: Mouton. 1978. Universals of Human Language. 3 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1990. "Two Approaches to Language Universals." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Greimas, A.J. 1966. Sémantique structurale. Paris: Seuil. (Translated as Structural Semantics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.)

LXXX

REFERENCES

1970. Du sens: Essais sémiotiques. Paris: Seuil. G r o u p e μ (J. Dubois, F. Edeline, J. Klinkenberg, P. Minguet, F. Pire, and H. Trinon). 1981. A General Rhetoric. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Guiraud, Pierre. 1974. "Rhetorics and Stylistics." In Current Trend? in Linguistics XII, ed. T. Sebeok, 9 4 3 - 9 5 5 . The Hague: Mouton. Gumperz, John and Dell Hymes, eds. 1964. The Ethnography of Communication. American Anthropologist 66, part 2. eds. 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Haas, Mary. 1957. "Zero in Linguistic Description." In Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Special Volume of the Philological Society of London, 3 3 - 5 3 . Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Haiman, John. 1980. "The Iconicity of G r a m m a r : Isomorphism and Motivation." Language 56:515-40. 1983. "Iconic and Economic Motivation." Language 59:781-819. 1985a. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ed. 1985b. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halle, Morris. 1951. "The Old Church Slavonic Conjugation." Word 7:155-167. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. 1976. " R o m a n Jakobson's Contribution to the Modern Study of Speech Sounds." In Matejka 1976b, 7 9 - 1 0 0 . Also in Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 123-143. 1979. " R o m a n Jakobson." In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 18:335-341. New York: Free Press. 1983a. " H o m a g e and Reminiscences." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 72-75. 1983b. "On the Origins of the Distinctive Features." In 1983c, 4 2 - 8 6 . ed. 1983c. Roman Jakobson: What He Taught Us. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27, supp. 1987. "Remarks on the Scientific Revolution in Linguistics, 1926-1929." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 9 5 - 1 1 2 . 1988. "The Bloomfield-Jakobson Correspondence, 1944-1946." Language 64:737 - 754. Halle, Morris, and Kenneth Stevens. 1964. "Speech Recognition: A Model and a Program for Research." In Fodor and Katz 1964, 6 0 4 - 6 1 2 . Halle, Morris et al., eds. 1956. For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, Michael A.K. 1970. "Language Structure and Language Function." In New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. J. Lyons, 140—165. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York: Edward Arnold. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, Michael A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English, foreword by G . Randolph. New York: Longman. Hankamer, Jorge and Judith Aissen. 1974. "The Sonority Hierarchy." In Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, ed. Α. Bruck et al., 131-145. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Hanks, W. 1983. "Deixis and the Organization of Interactive Context in Yucatec Maya." Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. 1984. "The Evidential Core of Deixis in Yucatec Maya." Chicago Linguistic Society 20:154-172. 1986. "Authenticity and Ambivalence in the Text: A Colonial Maya Case." American Ethnologist 13 (4):721-744.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXXI

1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Mayas. University of Chicago Press. 1996. Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Harland, Richard. 1987. Superstructuralism: The Philosophy of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. London: Methuen. Harms, Robert. 1968. Introduction to Phonological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Harris, Roy. 1987. Reading Saussure. La Salle, 111.: Open Court. Hatch, Evelyn. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Hawkes, Terence. 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hawkins, John. 1980. " O n Implicational and Distributional Universals of Word Order." Journal of Linguistics 16:193—235. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press. 1985. "Complementary Methods in Universal G r a m m a r : A Reply to Coopmans." Language 61:569-587. 1990. "Language Universals in Relation to Acquisition and Change: A Tribute to R o m a n Jakobson." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Hawthorn, Jeremy. 1994. A Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory. London: Arnold. Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Community and Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hendricks, William. 1973. Essays on Semiolinguistics and Verbal Art. The Hague: Mouton. 1974. "Linguistics and Folkloristas." In Sebeok 1974b, 6 6 1 - 6 8 1 . Herman, Luc. 1996. Concepts of Realism. Columbia, S.C.: Camden House. Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hodge, Robert. 1990. Literature as Discourse. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1973. "The Comparative Method." In Sebeok 1973b, 5 1 - 6 2 . Holenstein, Elmar. 1974. "A New Essay concerning the Basic Relations of Language." Semiotica 12 (2):97—128. 1976a. Roman Jakobsons Approach to Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1976b. Linguistik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik: Plädoyers für eine Strukturale Phänomenologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 1977. "Jakobson's Contribution to Phenomenology." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 145-162. 1983. "Five Jakobsonian Principles of Poetics." American Journal of Semiotics 2 (3):23-34. 1987. "Jakobson's and Trubetzkoy's Philosophical Background." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 1 5 - 3 2 . Howden, Marcia. 1979a. "A Semantic Study of Word Formation in French." Ph.D. diss., Cornell University. 1979b. "Structure in the Lexicon: The French Adjectives Neufand Nouveau." In Contributions to Grammatical Studies: Semantics and Syntax, ed. L. Waugh and F. van Coetsem, 7 0 - 9 2 . Leiden: Brill. Husserl, Edmund. 1913. Logische Untersuchungen. (2nd ed. translated as Logical Investigations. New York: Humanities Press, 1970.)

LXXXII

REFERENCES

Hymes, Dell. 1962. "The Ethnography of Speaking." In Gladwin and Sturtevant 1962, 13-53. 1964a. Directions in (Ethno-) Linguistic Theory. American Anthropologist 66 (3), part 2. 1964b. "Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication." In Gumperz and Hymes 1964, 1 - 3 4 . ed. 1964c. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row. 1972. "Models in the Interaction of Language and Social Life." In Gumperz and Hymes 1972, 3 5 - 7 1 . Also in Hymes 1974, 2 9 - 6 6 . _ 1974. Explorations in Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1975. "The Pre-War Prague School and Post-War American Anthropological Linguistics." In The Transformational Generative Paradigm and Modern Linguistic Theory, ed. E. Koerner, 359-380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Also in D. Hymes, Essays in the History of Linguistic Anthropology, 331—383. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1983. 1981. In Vain I Tried to Tell You: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1983. "Homage and Reminiscences." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 62. Hymes, Dell and John Fought. 1981. American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton. (Originally published in Current Trends in Linguistics XIII, part 2. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.) Ivanov, Vjaöeslav V. 1983. "Roman Jakobson: The Future." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 4 7 - 5 7 . 1985. "Lingvistièeskij put' Romana Jakobsona." In Roman Jakobson, Izbrannye raboty, 5 - 2 9 . Moscow: Progress. Ivanov, Vjaèeslav V. and V. Toporov. 1965. Slavjanskie jazykovye modelirujuscie semioticeskie sistemy. Moscow: Nauka. Ivie, Milka. 1961. "On the Structural Characteristics of the Serbo-Croatian Case System." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 6:38-47. 1965. Trends in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 1976. "The Impact of Mathesius and Jakobson on Slavic Syntax." In Matejka 1979b, 231-237. Ivic, Pavle. 1965. "Roman Jakobson and the Growth of Phonology." Linguistics 18:35-78. 1967. "The Serbocroatian Case System in Diachrony and Diatopy." In To Honor Roman Jakobson 1967, II, 995-1008. Jacob, François. 1977. "The Linguistic Model in Biology." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 185-192. (Translation of "Le modèle linguistique en biologie." Critique 322:197-205 [March 1974].) Jacob, François, Roman Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Philippe L'Héritier. 1968. "Vivre et Parler." Les lettres françaises, nos. 1221-22. Jakobson, 1978. Cahiers Cistre (Lausanne) 5. Jaworski, Adam and Nikolas Coupland, eds. 1999. The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge. Johanson, Jürgen. 1993. Dialogic Semiosis. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Johnson, D. Barton. 1982. "The Role of Synesthesia in Jakobson's Theory of Language." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 26:219-32. Johnson, Marta. 1978. "Introduction." In Recycling the Prague Linguistic Circle, vii—xviii. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Karoma. Jones, Lawrence Gaylord. 1977. "Jakobson and the Postwar Slavists." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 193-200.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXXIII

Joos, Martin, ed. 1957. Readings in Linguistics I. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. Joseph, John. 1995. Trends in 20 th Century Linguistics: an Overview." In History of the Language Sciences, ed. Κ. Koerner and R. Asher. Oxford: Pergamon. Jusdanis, Gregory. 1985. "The Poetics of Roman Jakobson: Aesthetics or Semiotics?" In Semiotics 1984, ed. John Deely, 267—276. New York: University Press of America. Justice, David. 1980. "Iconicity and Association in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax." Romance Philology 33 (4):480-489. Katz, Jerold. 1972. Semantic Theory. New York: Harper and Row. Kay, P. and W. Kempton. 1984. "What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?" American Anthropologist 8 6 : 6 5 - 7 9 . Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie. 1977. " N o u n Phrase Accessibility and Universal G r a m m a r . " Linguistic Inquiry 8 : 6 3 - 9 9 . Keller, Allan. 1972. A Reader in Historical and Comparative Lingustics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kenstowicz, Michael and C. Kisseberth. 1975. Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Kilbury, James. 1976. The Development of Morphophonemic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kilby, David. 1986. "The Instrumental in Russian: On Establishing a Consensus." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 3 2 3 - 3 3 7 . Kinneavy, James L. 1971. A Theory of Discourse. New York: W. W. Norton. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. "On Comparative Linguistics: The Case of Grassmann's Law." In Sebeok 1973a, 115-134. 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Paris. 1983. " R o m a n Jakobson and the G r a m m a r of Poetry." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 2 7 - 3 8 . Koerner, E.F. Konrad. 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development of His Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language, a Contribution to the History and Theory of Linguistics. Braunschweig: Vieweg. Krampen, Martin. 1981. "A Bouquet for Roman J a k o b s o n " (review of Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977). Semiotica 33 (3/4):261-299. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. Kristeva, Julia. 1969. Semeiotikè: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil. 1980. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Kruszewski, Μ. [Ν.]. 1884-1980. "Principien der Sprachwissenschaft." Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1:281-307 (1884); 2:258-268 (1885); 3 : 1 4 5 - 1 8 7 (1887); 5 : 1 3 3 - 1 4 4 (1890). Kucera, Henry. 1952. "Notes on the Czech Conjugation." Word 8:378-386. 1983a. "Obituary of Roman Jakobson." Language 59:871-883. 1983b. "A Semantic Model of Verbal Aspect." In American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, I: Linguistics, 171-184. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuipers, Aert H. 1975. "On Symbol, Distinction, and Markedness." Lingua 36:31-46. L'Arc 60. 1975. " R o m a n Jakobson". Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

LXXXIV

REFERENCES

1968. "The Reflections of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures." In Fishman 1968, 2 4 0 - 251. 1972a. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lacan, Jacques. 1966. Ecrits (Fonction et champ de la parole et du langage en psychoanalyse, Index raisonné: L'ordre symbolique). Paris: Seuil. (English translation as Lacan 1968.) 1968. The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 1977. "On Jakobson." Gradiva 1:152-160. Landsberg, Marge. 1995. Syntactic Iconicity and Lexical Freezes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lane, Michael, ed. 1970a. Introduction to Structuralism. New York: Basic Books. 1970b. "Introduction." In 1970a, 11-39. Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laurent, J.P. 1971. L'analyse de la poésie de Roman Jakobson. Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain. Leach, Sir Edmund. 1967a. "Ritualization in Man in Relation to Conceptual and Social Development." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: 251. ed. 1967b. The Structural Study of Myth and Totemism. London: Tavistock. 1970. Claude Lévi-Strauss. New York: Viking Press. 1976. Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols Are Connected. London: Cambridge University Press. 1983. "Roman Jakobson and Social Anthropology." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 10-17. Lecercle, Jean-Jacques. 1999. Interpretation as Pragmatics. New York: St. Martin's Press. Lechte, John. 1994. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers. London: Routledge. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Lehmann, Winfred. 1962. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Holt. ed. 1967. A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lehrer, Adrienne. 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Lencek, Rado. 1966. The Verb Pattern of Contemporary Slovene. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Leopold, Werner. 1956. "Roman Jakobson and the Study of Child Language." In Halle et al. 1956, 285-288. Lepschy, G.C. 1970. A Survey of Structural Linguistics. London: Faber and Faber. Lesser, Ruth. 1978. Linguistic Investigations of Aphasia. London: Elsevier/North Holland. Levin, Saul. 1962. Linguistic Structures in Poetry. The Hague: Mouton. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1945. "Structuralist Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology." In 1963, 2 9 - 5 3 . 1949. Les structures élémentaires de la parenté. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 1951. "Language and the Analysis of Social Laws." In Lévi-Strauss 1963, 55-66. 1952. "Social Structures of Central and Eastern Brazil." In Lévi-Strauss 1963, 120-131.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXXV

1953. "Social Structure." In Kroeber 1953, 5 2 4 - 5 5 3 . Also in Lévi-Strauss 1958a and in 1963, 2 7 7 - 3 2 3 . 1955. "The Structural Study of Myth." In 1968, 2 0 2 - 2 2 8 . 1958a. Anthropologie structurale. Paris: Pion. 1958b. "The Story of Asdiwal." In Leach 1967b, 1 - 4 8 . Also in Lévi-Strauss 1968, 1 4 6 - 1 9 7 . 1960a. "L'analyse morphologique de contes russes." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 3:122-149. 1960b. "Structure and Form: Reflections on a Work by Vladimir Propp." In 1968, 115-145. 1963. Structural Anthropology I. New York: Basic Books. 1964a. Mythologiques. 3 vols. Paris: Plön. 1964b. The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Torchlight. 1965. "Le triangle culinaire." L'arc, 1 9 - 2 9 . (English translation: "The Culinary Triangle." New Society 221:937-940 [1966].) 1966. The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1968. Structural Anthropology II. London: Allan Lane. 1972. "Structuralism and Ecology." Barnard Alumnae, 6 - 1 4 (Spring). Also in Social Science Information 12 (I):7—23 (1973). 1975. La voie des masques. 2 vols. Geneva: A. Skira. 1976. "Préface." In Roman Jakobson, Six leçons sur le son et le sens. Paris: Editions de Minuit. (English translation by J. Mepham: "Preface." In R o m a n Jakobson, Six Lectures on Sound and Meaning, x i - x x v i . Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1978.) 1981. The Naked Man. New York: Harper and Row. 1983. " H o m a g e and Reminiscences." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 70-71. 1985. " R o m a n , Mon Ami." Le nouvel observateur, vendredi 1er février. Lewis, Michael and Louise Cherry. 1977. "Social Behavior and Language Acquisition." In Interaction, Conversation, and the Development of Language, ed. M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum, 117-147. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Liberman, Anatoly. 1980. "Review of Roman Jakobson, ed., Ν. S. Trubetzkoy's Letters and Notes." Linguistics 18:543-556. 1981. "Review of Roman Jakobson and Linda R. Waugh, The Sound Shape of Language. " Linguistics 19:531 - 540. 1987. " R o m a n Jakobson and His Contemporaries on Change in Language and Literature: The Teleological Criterion." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 143-156. Linhartová, Vera. 1977. " L a place de Roman Jakobson dans la vie littéraire et artistique tchécoslovaque." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 2 1 9 - 2 3 6 . Lipson, Alexander. 1977. A Russian Course. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Liszka, James. 1982. "Peirce and Jakobson: Towards a Structuralist Reconstruction of Peirce." In Semiotics 1980, ed. M. Hertzfeld and M. Lenhart, 2 9 7 - 3 0 6 . New York: Plenum. Literary History and the Challence of Philology. 1996. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Lodge, David. 1977. Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 1986. Working with Structuralism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1990. After Bakhtin: Essays on Fiction and Criticism. London: Routledge. Lorrain, François. 1975. Réseaux sociaux et classifications sociales. Paris: Hermann. Lötz, John. 1949. "The Semantic Analysis of the Nominal Bases in Hungarian." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5:185-197. 1956. "Jakobson's Case Theory and the Russian Prepositions." In Halle et al. 1956, 1207-12.

LXXXVI

REFERENCES

Lounsbury, Floyd G . 1956. "A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage." Language 32:158-194. 1962. "The Structural Analysis of Kinship Semantics." In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. H. Lunt, 1073-93. The Hague: Mouton. 1963. "Linguistics and Psychology." In Koch 1963, 552-582. Lucy, J., ed. 1987/1993, Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992a. Linguistic Diversity and Thought. Cambridge University Press. _ 1992b. Grammatical Categories and Cognitions. Cambridge University Press. Lucy, J., and Richard Shweder. 1979. "Whorf and His Critics: Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Influences on Color Memory." American Anthropologist 81:581-615. Lunt, Horace G. 1983. "Slavic Historical Linguistics." In Halle 1983c, 5 2 - 5 6 . Luong, H.V. 1984. "' Brother' and 'Uncle': An Analysis of Rules, Structural Contradictions, and Meaning in Vietnamese Kinship." American Anthropologist 86 (2):290—315. Luria, A.R. 1973. "Two Basic Kinds of Aphasie Disorders." Linguistics 115:57-66. 1974. "Language and Brain: Towards the Basic Problems of Neurolinguistics." Brain and Language 1:1 — 14. 1976. Basic Problems of Neurolinguistics. Thé Hague: Mouton. 1977. "The Contribution of Linguistics to the Theory of Aphasia." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 237-252. Lyons, John. 1970. Noam Chomsky. Middlesex, England: Penguin. (Rev. ed., 1980.) McCawley, James D. 1977. "Jakobsonian Ideas in Generative Grammar." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 269 - 284. Macken, Marlys A. 1977. "Developmental Reorganization of Phonology: A Hierarchy of Basic Units of Acquisition." Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, no. 14. Stanford University. McLean, Hugh. 1983. "A Linguist among Poets." In Halle 1983c, 7 - 1 9 . McNeill, David. 1966. "Developmental Psycholinguistics." In Smith and Miller 1966, 15-84. 1970. The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental Psycholinguistics. New York: Harper and Row. McNeill, N. 1972. "Colour and Colour Terminology." Journal of Linguistics 9 : 2 1 33. Makaryk, Irena. 1993. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Malmberg, Bertil. 1963. Structural Linguistics and Human Communication. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 1964. New Trends in Linguistics. Stockholm: Bibliotheca linguistica. 1970. "De Ferdinand de Saussure à Roman Jakobson: L'arbitraire du signe et la substance phonique du langage." In Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. Β. Hála et al., 599-603. Prague: Academia. 1972. "Descriptive Linguistics." In Sebeok 1972a, 225-253. 1973. "Linguistique européenne et linguistique américaine à la lumière du débat actuel." Moderna spràk 67:359-375. 1977. Signes et symboles. Paris: Editions Picard. Mannheim, Bruce. 1986a. "Popular Song and Popular Grammar, Poetry and Metalanguage." Word 37:45-75. 1986b. "Semantic Coupling in Quechua Verse." Ms. 1987a. "Couplets and Oblique Contexts: The Social Organization of a Folksong." Text 7:265-288. Also in Perspectives on Repetition, ed. Barbara Johnstone. Forthcoming.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXXVII

1987b. "A Semiotic of Andean Dreams." In Dreaming: Anthropological and Psychological Interpretations, ed. Β. Tedlock, 132-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mannheim, Bruce and Madeleine Newfield. 1982. "Iconicity in Phonological Change." In Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. A. Ahlqvist, 2 1 1 - 2 2 2 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MareS, F.V. 1977. " R o m a n Jakobson and (Old) Church Slavonic Studies." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 2 5 3 - 2 5 7 . Marks, Lawrence E. 1975. "On Colored-Hearing Synesthesia: Cross-Modal Translations of Sensory Dimensions." Psychological Bulletin 82(3):330-331. Martin, Bronwen and Felizitas Ringham. 2001. Dictionary of Semiotics. London: Cassell. Martin, Richard. 1978. Semiotics and Linguistic Structure: A Primer of Philosophical Logic. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Martinet, André. 1949. Phonology as Functional Phonetics. London: Oxford University Press. 1952. "Function, Structure, and Sound Change." Word 8 : 1 - 3 2 . 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques. Bern: Francke. 1962. A Functional View of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1966. Elements of General Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Martinez-Bonati, Felix. 1981. " R o m a n Jakobson's Conception of the Poetic Function of Language." In Fictive Discourse and the Structures of Literature: A Phenomenological Approach, 141-152. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Marty, A. 1908. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle: Niemeyer. 1910. Zur Sprachphilosophie: Die "logische," "lokalistische," und andere Kasustheorien. Halle: Niemeyer. Matejka, Ladislav. 1975. "Crossroads of Sound and Meaning." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 20:93— 119. 1976a. "Preface." In 1976b, ix-xxxiv. ed. 1976b. Sound, Sign, and Meaning: Quinquagenary of the Prague Linguistic Circle. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 1987. "Sociological Concerns in the Prague Linguistic Circle." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 3 0 7 - 3 1 2 . Matejka, Ladislav and Irwin R. Titunik. 1976. Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. Mayenova, Maria. 1977. "Comparative Slavic Poetics in the Work of Roman Jakobson." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 2 5 9 - 2 6 8 . Meggyes, K.S. 1972. "The Synchrony of Different Developmental Stages in the Language of a Two-Year-Old Child." In Colloquium Paedolinguisticum, ed. Κ. Ohnesorg, 159-165. The Hague: Mouton. Mehta, Ved. 1971. "John Is Easy to Please." In John Is Easy to Please, 1 7 5 - 2 4 1 . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Mel'cuk, Igor. 1979. "Syntactic, or Lexical, Zero in Natural Language." In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 224 - 260. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1983. "Studies of the Russian Language." In Halle 1983c, 5 7 - 7 1 . 1985. "Three Main Features, Seven Basic Principles, and Eleven Most Important Results of R o m a n Jakobson's Morphological Research." In Roman Jakobson, Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, 178 - 200. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Originally published in Russian in Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 2 8 5 - 3 0 8 . ) 1986. "Toward a Definition of Case." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 3 5 - 8 5 .

LXXXVIII

REFERENCES

1990. "Structure of a Morphological Model." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Merquior, J.G. 1986. From Prague to Paris: Critique of Structuralist and Post-Structuralist Thought. London: Verso. Metz, Christian. 1974. Film Language. London: Oxford University Press. Mey, Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. 2 nd edition 2001. Miller, James. 1986. "A Third Look at the Second Dative." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 296-311. Montani, Pietro and Massimo Prampolini, eds. 1990. Roman Jakobson. Rome: Editori Riuniti. Montgomery, Thomas. 1978. "Iconicity and Lexical Retention in Spanish: Stative and Dynamic Verbs." Language 54:907—916. Monville-Burston, Monique. 1981. "Approaching Descriptive Adequacy: A Semantic Analysis of the French Disjunctive Indirect Object Pronoun Construction." Papers in Romance, suppl. 2, vol. 3, 147-154. 1990. "The Role of Animacy in Language Change: From Dative to Genitive in Middle Indo-Aryan." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Monville-Burston, Monique and Linda R. Waugh. 1985, "Le passé simple dans le discours journalistique." Lingua 67: 459— 508. 1991a. "Multivalency: the French Historical Present in Journalistic Discourse. In Fleischman and Waugh, 86-119. 1991b. "Multiple Meanings in Context: the French Present Tense". In J. Gvozdanovic and T. Jensen, eds., The Function of Tense in Texts, 183-196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1998. "Lexicon, Genre and Local Discourse Organisation: French Speech Act Verbs and Journalistic Texts." Journal of French Language Studies 8:45-62. Muljaöic, ¿arko. 1977. "Phonologie historique et phonétique." In Armstrong and van Schoo ne veld 1977, 309-320. Nakazima, S. 1966-1974. "A Comparative Study of the Speech Development of Japanese and American English in Childhood." Studia phonologica 4:38-55 (1966); 5:20-35 (1970); 6:1-37(1972); 7:1-11 (1973); 8:1-22(1974). Nattiez, J.J. 1975. "Roman Jakobson dans le siècle." L'arc 60:1-2. Newfield, Madeleine. 1983. "Typological Perspectives on Morphological Innovation." Ph.D. diss., Cornell University. Newfield, Madeleine and Linda R. Waugh. 1991. "Invariance and Markedness in Grammatical Categories." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Newmeyer, Frederick. 1980. Linguistic Theory in America. New York: Academic Press. (Second edition: 1986.) Newton, K., ed. 1997. Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader. 2 nd edition. New York: St. Martin's Press. Nichols, Johanna. 1985. "Functional Theories of Grammar." Annual Review of Anthropology. Nicole, Eugène. 1978. "Review of Roman Jakobson, Six leçons sur le son et le sens." PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature, 175—179. Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1975a. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague: Mouton. 1975b. Exploring Semantic Structure. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Nöth, Winfred. 1990. Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Norrick, Neal. 1981. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. "Obituary for Roman Jakobson, 1896-1892." 1983. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27:7-10. Ohnesorg, Karel. 1972. "Une contribution à la pédophonétique comparée." In Colloquium Paedolinguisticum, ed. Κ. Ohnesorg, 187-192. The Hague: Mouton.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

LXXXIX

Ojeda, Almerindo. N.d. "The Praguean View of Markedness." Ms. Osgood, Charles. 1976. Focus on Meaning. I: Explorations in Semantic Space. The Hague: Mouton. Pacesová, Jaroslava. 1968. The Development of Vocabulary. Brno: Univerzita J.E. Purkynë. Parmentier, Richard. 1994. Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Parrett, Hermann, ed. 1976. History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1983. Semiotics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1990. "Shifters and Deixis after Jakobson." Waugh and Rudy 1991. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. I: Principles of Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (See also 1960.) 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. II: Elements of Logic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (See also 1960.) 1933a. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Ill: Exact Logic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (See also 1960.) 1933b. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. IV: The Simplest Mathematics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (See also 1960.) 1934. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. V: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (See also 1960.) 1935. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. VI: Scientific Metaphysics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (See also 1960.) 1940: "Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs." Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. J. Buchler, 9 8 - 1 1 9 . New York: Dover. 1960. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Book I = vols.I and II; book 2 = vols. Ill and IV; book 3 = vols.V. and VI. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Petitot-Cocorda, Jean. 1985. Les catastrophes de la parole: De Roman Jakobson à René Thorn. Paris: Maloine. Piaget, Jean. 1970. Structuralism. New York: Harper and Row. Picchio, Riccardo. 1977. " R o m a n Jakobson on Russian Epics and Old Russian Literature." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 3 2 1 - 3 5 6 . Pitkin, Harvey. 1977. "Jakobson's Contributions to American Linguistics." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 3 5 7 - 3 6 2 . Poetics Today 2. 1980. " R o m a n Jakobson: Language and Literature." Poétique 2. 1977. " H o m m a g e à Roman Jakobson." Pomorska, Krystyna. 1968. Russian Formalist Theory and Its Poetic Ambiance. The Hague: Mouton. 1976. "On the Structure of Modern Prose." PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1:459—65. 1977. " R o m a n Jakobson and the New Poetics." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 3 6 3 - 3 7 8 . 1982. " T o l s t o y - C o n t r a Semiosis." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 2 5 - 2 6 : 3 8 3 - 3 9 0 . (Combined volumes = Slavic Linguistics and Poetics: Studies for Edward Stankiewicz on His Sixtieth Birthday, 17 November 1980, ed. Κ. Naylor et al. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.) 1983. "The Legacy of the O P O J A Z . " Russian Literature 14:229-240. 1985a. " R o m a n Osipovii Jakobson." In Handbook of Russian Literature, ed. V. Terras, 2 0 7 - 2 1 0 . New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. 1985b. "Poetics of Prose." In R o m a n Jakobson, Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, 169—177. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

xc

REFERENCES

1985c. "Jakobson, R o m a n Osipoviè (1896-1982)." In The Social Science Encyclopedia, ed. A. Kuper and J. Kuper, 4 1 6 - 4 1 7 . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1987. "The Autobiography of a Scholar." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 3 - 1 4 . Pomorska, Krystyna and Mark Drazen. 1970-1972. "Tolstoy's Rotary System: On Symbolism in War and Peace." Richerche slavistiche 2 7 - 2 9 : 4 5 3 - 4 6 3 . Pomorska, Krystyna and Stephen Rudy. 1985. "Preface." In R o m a n Jakobson, Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, vii—xi v. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. _ e d s . 1987. R o m a n Jakobson, Language in Literature. Cambridge, Mass.: H a r vard University Press. Pomorska, Krystyna, et al., eds. 1987. On the Generation of the ¡890s: Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovsky. Berlin: Mouton. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1983. "The Igor Tale." In Halle 1983c, 3 0 - 3 7 . Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morphology of the Folktale. 2nd ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. (Translation of Morfologia skazki. Leningrad, 1928.) Reichard, Gladys, Roman Jakobson, and E. Werth. 1949. "Language and Synesthesia." Word 5:224-233. Renkema, Jan. 1993. Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rensky, Miroslav. 1977. " R o m a n Jakobson and the Prague School." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 379 - 390. Röbel, Léon. 1978. "Les années de formation." Cahiers Cistre (Lausanne) 5 : 3 4 - 3 9 . Robertson, John. 1983. " F r o m Symbol to Icon." Language 59:529-540. 1990. "Invariance and Mutation in Acatec Maya." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Robins, R . H . 1968. A Short History of Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1973. "The History of Language Classification." In Sebeok 1973a, 3 - 4 1 . 1977. "Distinctive Feature Theory." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 391-402. Robinson, W. P. 1974. Language and Social Behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Roman Jakobson. 1974. Critique 322. Roman Jakobson: Language and Literature. 1980. Poetics Today 2 (la). Roman Jakobson: Semiologie, poétique, epistemologie. 1975. L'arc 60. Rossi, Ino. 1977. Anthropology Full Circle. New York: Praeger. 1983. From the Sociology of Symbols to the Sociology of Signs. New York: Columbia University Press. Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio. 1967. "Note di semiotica." Nuova corrente 41:90—109. 1968. Il linguaggio come lavoro e come mercato. Milan: Bompiani. 1975. Linguistics and Economics. The Hague: Mouton. Rubenstein, H. 1951. "The Czech Conjugation." Word 7: 1 4 4 - 1 5 4 . Rudy, Stephen. 1976. "Jakobson's Inquiry into Verse and the Emergence of Structural Poetics." In Matejka 1976b, 477 - 520. 1981. "Preface." In R o m a n Jakobson, Selected Writings III, Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, xi—xviii. The Hague: Mouton. 1983. "Russian Futurism." In The Encyclopedia of World Literature 2:185-186. New York: Ungar. 1986. "Semiotics in the U.S.S.R." In The Semiotic Sphere, ed. T.A. Sebeok and J. Umiker-Sebeok, 5 5 5 - 5 8 2 . New York: Plenum. 1987. "Jakobson-Aljagrov and Futurism." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 2 7 7 - 2 9 0 . Rüfce-Dravina, Velta. 1977. "Child Language Studies." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 4 0 3 - 4 1 0 . Rutkoff, Peter M., and William B. Scott. 1986. New School: A History of the New School for Social Research. New York: Free Press.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

XCI

Ruwet, Nicolas. 1963. "Préface." In R o m a n Jakobson, Essais de linguistique générale I, 7 - 2 1 . Paris: Editions de Minuit. Sachs, Murray, Eric Young, and Michael Miller. 1982. "Encoding the Speech Features in the Auditory Nerve." In The Representation of Speech in the Peripheral Auditory System, ed. R. Carlson and B. Granström, 115-130. Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical. Sampson, Geoffrey. 1980. Schools of Linguistics. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sanchez, Mary and Ben Blount, eds. 1975. Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press. Sangster, Rodney B. 1982. Roman Jakobson and Beyond: Language as a System of Signs. The Quest for the Ultimate Invariants in Language. Berlin: Mouton. 1991. "Two Types of Markedness and Their Implications for the Conceptualization of Grammatical Invariance." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace. 1924. "The G r a m m a r i a n and His Language." In Sapir 1949, 1 5 0 - 1 5 9 . 1949. Selected Writings, ed. D. Mandelbaum. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sapir, J. David. 1977a. "The Anatomy of Metaphor." In Sapir and Crocker 1977, 3-32. 1977b. "The Fabricated Child." In Sapir and Crocker 1977, 1 9 3 - 2 2 3 . Sapir, J. David and J. Christopher Crocker. 1977. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale, ed. C. Bally and Α. Sechehaye. (2nd ed., 1922.) 1966. Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin of Saussure 1916. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1987. Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy Harris of Saussure 1916. La Salle, 111.: Open Court. Scerba, L.V. 1912. Russkie glasnye ν kacestvennom i kolicestvennom otnosenii. Saint Petersburg. Schane, Sanford. 1973. Generative Phonology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. SchefTler, H.W. 1984. "Markedness and Extension: The Tamil Case." Man, n.s., 19:557-574. Schenker, A.M. 1954. "Polish Conjugation." Word 10: 4 6 9 - 4 8 1 . Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Schneider, P. 1968. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Schnelle, Helmut. 1981. Sprache und Gehirn: Roman Jakobson zu Ehren. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Sebeok, Thomas. 1956. "Sound and Meaning in a Cheremis Folksong Text." In H a i l e e t a l . 1956, 4 3 0 - 4 3 9 . 1959. "Folksong Viewed as Code and Message: A Cheremis Sonnet." Anthropos 54:141-53. ed. 1960a. Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press. 1960b. "Decoding a Text: Levels and Aspects in a Cheremis Sonnet." In Sebeok 1960a, 2 2 1 - 2 3 5 . ed. 1966. Current Trends in Linguistics III. The Hague: Mouton. ed. 1972. Current Trends in Linguistics IX. The Hague: Mouton. ed. 1973a. Current Trends in Linguistics X, part 2. The Hague: Mouton. ed. 1973b. Current Trends in Linguistics XI. The Hague: Mouton.

XCII

REFERENCES

1974a. "Semiotics: A Survey of the State of the Art." In Sebeok 1974b, 211-264. ed. 1974b. Current Trends in Linguistics XII. The Hague: Mouton. Seiler, Hansjakob, ed. 1978. Language Universals. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 1990. "Invariance and Variation: The Dimensional Model of Language Universals." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Seiler, Hansjakob and G. Brettschneider, eds. 1985. Language Invariants and Mental Oppositions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Seiden, Raman. 1985. A Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. The Semiotics of Roman Jakobson. 1983. American Journal of Semiotics 2. Shapiro, Michael. 1974a. "Markedness and Distinctive Feature Hierarchies." In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists II, ed. L. Heilman, 775-781. Bologna: Il Mulino. 1974b. "Morphophonemics as Semiotic." Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 15:29-49. 1976. Asymmetry: An Inquiy into the Linguistic Structures of Poetry. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1980a. "The Structure of Meaning in Semiotic Perspective." In Papers from the Fourth International Congress on Historical Linguistics, 53-60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1980b. "Russian Conjugation." Language 56:67-93. 1981. "Peirce's Interprétant from the Perspective of Linguistic Theory." In C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress, ed. K..L. Ketner et al., 313-318. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. 1983. The Sense of Grammar: Language as Semeiotic. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sharadzenidze, T.S. 1970. "Language Typology, Synchrony and Diachrony." In Theoretical Problems of Typology and the Northern Eurasian Languages, ed. L. Dezsö and P. Hajdú, 35—44. Amsterdam: B.R. Gruner. Shaul, David and N. Louanna Furbee. 1998. Language and Culture. Prospect Heights, 111: Waveland. Sherzer, Joel. 1973. "Areal Linguistics in North America." In Sebeok 1973a, 749-795. 1976. An Areal-Typological Study of American Indian Languages North of Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Silverstein, Michael, ed. 1971. Whitney on Language: Selected Writings of William Dwight Whitney. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1974. Dialectal Development in Chinookan Tense Systems: An Areal-Historical Analysis. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 29. Chicago. 1975. "La sémiotique jakobsonienne et l'anthropologie sociale." L'arc 60:45-49. 1976a. "Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity." In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, ed. R. Dixon, 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 1979b. "Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description." In Meaning in Anthropology, ed. Κ. Basso and H. Selby, 11-55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1979. "Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology." In The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, eds. P. Clyne et al., 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1981. The Limits of Awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Papers, no.84. Austin, Tex.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

XCIII

1987. "The Three Faces of 'Function'." In Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought, ed. M. Hickman, 1 7 - 3 8 . New York: Academic Press. 1993. "Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function." In Lucy 1987/ 1993, 3 3 - 5 8 . Singh, Sadanand. 1976. Distinctive Features: Theory and Validation. Baltimore: University Park Press. Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana. 1972. "The Study of Child Language." In Sebeok 1972a, 512-590. Slobin, Dan. 1985. "The Child as Linguistic Icon-Maker." In Haiman 1985b, 221-248. Sommerfeit, Alf. 1962. "The Development of Quantity as Evidence of Western European Linguistic Interdependence." In Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language: Selected Articles, 8 1 - 8 6 . The Hague: Mouton. Serensen, Hans. 1949. "Contribution à la discussion sur la théorie des cas." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5 : 2 3 - 3 3 . Souèkova, Milada. 1976. "The Prague Linguistic Circle: A Collage." In Matejka 1976b, 1 - 5 . Stampe, David. 1979. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York: Garland Publishing. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1964. "Problems of Emotive Language." In Approaches to Semiotics, eds. T. Sebeok et al. 2 3 9 - 2 6 4 . The Hague: Mouton. 1966. "Slavic Morphophonemics in Its Typological and Diachronic Aspects." In Sebeok 1966, 4 9 5 - 5 2 0 . 1969. "Opposition and Hierarchy in Morphophonemic Alternations." In To Honor Roman Jakobson 1967, II, 1895-1905. 1972. "Introduction." In Baudouin de Courtenay 1972, 3 - 4 8 . 1974. "Structural Poetics and Linguistics." In Sebeok 1974b, 6 2 9 - 6 5 9 . 1976. "Prague School Morphophonemics." In Matejka 1976b, 101-118. 1977. " R o m a n Jakobson's Work on the History of Linguistics." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 4 3 5 - 4 5 2 . 1979. Studies in Slavic Morphophonemics and Accentology. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 1983a. " R o m a n Jakobson: Teacher and Scholar." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 1 7 - 2 6 . 1983b. " R o m a n Jakobson: A Commemorative Essay." Semiotica 4 4 : 1 - 2 0 . 1987. "The Major Moments of Jakobson's Linguistics." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 8 1 - 9 4 . 1991. "The Concept of Structure in Modern Linguistics." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Stanley, Richard. 1967. "Redundancy Rules in Phonology." Language 43:393-436. Steiner, Peter. 1976. "The Conceptual Basis of Prague Structuralism." In Matejka 1976b, 3 5 1 - 3 8 5 . ed. 1982. The Prague School. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1984. Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. University of Chicago Press. Sturtevant, Edgar. 1961. Linguistic Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sussex, Roland. 1976. "On the Notions 'Underlying Structure' and 'Process' in Modern Slavic Linguistics." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 2 2 : 1 9 - 4 1 . (Published also as separate brochure. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.) 1986. "The Jakobson Inheritance." Ms. Svejkovsky, FrantiSek. 1974. "Theoretical Poetics in the Twentieth Century." In Sebeok 1974b, 8 6 3 - 9 4 1 .

XCIV

REFERENCES

1977. "Roman Jakobson and Old Czech Literature." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 453-472. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1972. "Comparative Linguistics." In Sebeok 1972a, 119-195. Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge University Press. Tedlock, Dennis and Bruce Mannheim. 1995. The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press. Thom, René. 1974. "La linguistique, discipline morphologique exemplaire." Critique 322:235-245 (March). _ 1975. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis: An Outline of a General Theory of Models. Reading, Mass.: W.A. Benjamin. Thompson, Ewa. 1971. Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism. The Hague: Mouton. Thompson, Sandra. 1992. "Functional Grammar." International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Timberlake, Alan. 1986. "Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 338-360. Tobin, Yishai. 1990. "Invariant Meaning: Alternative Variations on an Invariant Theme." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1965. "Présentation." In Théorie de la littérature: Textes des formalistes russes, ed. T. Todorov, 15-27. Paris: Seuil. 1977a. The Poetics of Prose. Ithaca, Ν. Y.: Cornell University Press. 1977b. "Poétique générale." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 473-484. 1977c. Théories du symbole. Paris: Seuil. 1978. "L'héritage formaliste." Cahiers Cistre (Lausanne) 5:48-52. 1985. "Préface." Roman Jakobson, Une vie dans le langage: Autoportrait d'un savant, 7 - 1 3 . Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, II October 1966. 1967. 3 vols. The Hague: Mouton. Toman, Jindrich. 1987. "A Marvelous Chemical Laboratory and Its Deeper Meaning: Notes on Roman Jakobson and the Czech Avant-Garde between the Wars." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 313-346. 1995. The Magic of a Common Language: Jakobson, Mathesius, Trubetzkoy, and the Prague Linguistic Circle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Toporov, V. N. 1974. "Folk Poetry: General Problems." In Sebeok 1974b, 683-739. Traugott, Elizabeth and Mary Louise Pratt. 1980. Linguistics for Students of Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. A Tribute to Roman Jakobson, ¡896-1982. 1983. Berlin: Mouton. Trnka, Bohumil, et al. 1964. "Prague Structural Linguistics." In Vachek 1964, 468-480. Tronskij, I.M. 1967. Obsceindoevropejskoe jazykovoe sostojanie: Voprosy rekonstrukcii. Leningrad: Nauka. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1929. "Zur allgemeinen Theorie des phonologischen Vokalsystems." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1:39—67. 1931a. "Die phonologischen Systeme." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4:96-115. 1931b. "Réflexions sur la morphonologie." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4:160-163. 1931c. "Phonologie et géographie linguistique." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4:228-234. 1939a. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. 1939b. "Autobiographische Notizen." In Trubetzkoy 1939a, 273-288. (Assembled by Roman Jakobson.)

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

XCV

1949. Principes de phonologie. Paris: Editions Klincksieck. (Reprint, 1967. French translation of 1939a, within appendixes added by Roman Jakobson.) 1969. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. (English translation of 1939a.) Tsur, Reuven. 1992. What Makes Sound Patterns Expressive?: The Poetic Mode of Speech Perception. D u r h a m , N.C.: D u k e University Press. Tyler, S. 1969. "Context and Variation in Koya Kinship Terminology." In Cognitive Anthropology, ed. S. Tyler, 4 8 7 - 5 0 3 . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Urban, G . 1986. "Semiotic Functions of Macro-Parallelism in the Shokleng Origin Myth." In Native South American Discourse, eds. J. Scherzer and G. Urban, 1 5 - 5 8 . Berlin: M o u t o n de Gruyter. Utaker, Arild. 1974. "On the Binary Opposition." Linguistics 134:73-93. Vachek, Josef, ed. 1964. A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1966. The Linguistic School of Prague. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Valesio, Paolo. 1969. "Icons and Patterns in the Structure of Language." In Actes de Xe Congrès International des Linguistes, ed. A. Graur, 3 8 3 - 3 8 8 . Bucharest: Editions de l'Académie. Vallier, Dora. 1975. "Malévitch et le modèle linguistique en peinture." Critique 31:284-296. 1979. "Le problème du vert dans le système perceptif." Semiotica 26:1 - 1 4 . 1987. "Jakobson as Poet: Pre-Figure of a Linguist." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 291-304. van Coetsem, Frans. 1987. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris. van Coetsem, Frans, Ronald Hendricks, and Susan McCormick. 1981. "Accent Typology and Sound Changes." Lingua 53:295—315. van den Broecke, M.P.R. 1976. Hierarchies and Rank Orders in Distinctive Features. Assen: Van Gorcum. van Dijk, Teun. 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars. The Hague: Mouton. ed. 1985. Discourse and Literature. Amsterdam: Benjamins. van Riemsdijk, H.C. 1978. A Case Study in Semantic Markedness. Lisse: De Ridder Press. van Schooneveld, C.H. 1959a. "Serbocroatian Conjugation." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1-2:55-69. 1959b. A Semantic Analysis of the Old Russian Finite Preterite System. The Hague: Mouton. 1977a. Semantic Transmutations: Prolegomena to a Calculus of Meaning. Bloomington, Ind.: Physsardt. 1977b. "By Way of Introduction: Roman Jakobson's Tenets and Their Potential." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 1 - 1 2 . 1978. "Contributions à l'étude comparative des systèmes des cas, des prépositions, et des catégories grammaticales du verbe en russe moderne." Slavica Hierosolymitana 2 : 4 1 - 5 0 . 1983. "Contribution to the Systematic Comparison of Morphological and Lexical Semantic Structures in the Slavic Languages." In American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavists, I: Linguistics, ed. M.S. Flier, 3 2 1 - 3 4 7 . Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. 1986. "Jakobson's Case System and Syntax." In Brecht and Levine 1986a, 373-385. 1987. "Linguistic Structure and Autopoeisis." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 123-142. Vanvik, A. 1971. "The Phonetic-Phonemic Development of a Norwegian Child." Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 24:270-325.

XCVI

REFERENCES

Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Viel, Michel. 1984. La notion de "marque" chez Trubetzkoy et Jakobson: Un épisode de l'histoire de la pensée structurale. Paris: Didier. Vincent, Nigel. 1980. "Iconic and Symbolic Aspects of Syntax: Prospects for Reconstruction." In Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax, ed. P. Ramat, 4 7 - 6 8 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vogt, Hans. 1949. "L'étude de systèmes de cas." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5:112—122. Wales, Katie. 2000. A Dictionary of Stylistics. 2 n d edition. New York: Longman. Watkins, Calvert. 1973. "Language and Its History." Daedalus 102:99-111. 1983a. "Slavic Mythology and Folklore." In Halle 1983c, 38-45. 1983b. "Roman Jakobson and Slavic Mythology." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 39-46. Waugh, Linda. 1976a. "A Semantic Analysis of the French Tense System." Orbis 24 (2):436—485. 1976b. "The Semantics and Paradigmatics of Word Order." Language 52:82-107. 1976c. Roman Jakobsons Science of Language. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. 1976d. "Lexical Meaning: The Proposition en and dans in French." Lingua 39:69-118. 1977. A Semantic Analysis of Word Order. Leiden: Brill. 1979. "Markedness in Phonological Systems." In The Fifth LACUS Forum, 1978, eds. W. Wölck and P. Garvin, 155-165. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press. 1980. "The Poetic Function and the Nature of Language." Poetics Today 2 (la): 57-82. Also in Roman Jakobson, Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, 143-168. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985. 1982. "Marked and Unmarked: A Choice between Unequals in Semiotic Structure." Semiotica 38 (3/4): 299-318. 1983a. 'Homage and Reminiscences." In A Tribute to Roman Jakobson 1983, 63-68. 1983b. "Concluding Address: From a Semiotic Point of View" (in Japanese). Translation in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Anthropology of Spectacle and Entertainment, 399-411. Tokyo: Sanseido. 1983c. "Illuminating the Grammar of Poetry and the Poetry of Grammar." American Journal of Semiotics 2 (3):131 - 1 4 0 . 1984a. "Introduction." In Roman Jakobson, Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies, 1931-1981, ix-xvii. Berlin: Mouton. 1984b. "Introduction à Roman Jakobson: La théorie saussurienne." Linguistics 22:157-160. 1984c. "Some Remarks on the Nature of the Linguistic Sign." In The Sign and Its Systems, eds. J. Pele et al., 389-438. Berlin: Mouton. 1984d. "The Relevance of Research into the Sound Shape of Language for Semiotic Studies." In Semiotics Unfolding, ed. T. Borbe, 1255-62. Berlin: Mouton. 1985. "Preface." In Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings VII, ix-xxiii. Berlin: Mouton. 1986. "Articulation; Distinctive Features; Idiolect; Linearity; Opposition." In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, ed. T. Sebeok, 55—56; 211-212; 337; 452-453; 652-653. Berlin: Mouton. 1987a. "On the Sound Shape of Language: Mediacy and Immediacy." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 157-173. Also in Roman Jakobson, The Sound Shape of Language, 2nd ed., 255-271. Berlin: Mouton, 1987; and in Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings VIII, 255-271. Berlin: Mouton, 1987.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

XCVII

1987b. Marking Time with the Passé Composé: Toward a Theory of the Perfect. Linguisticae Investigationes XI: 1.1 - 4 8 . 1990. Discourse Functions of Tense-Aspect in French: Dynamic Synchrony. In Verbal Aspect in Discourse, ed. Ν. Thelin, 1 5 9 - 1 8 7 . Amsterdam: J o h n Benjamins. 1991a. Introduction. In Waugh and Rudy, 1991: 1 - 7 . 1991b. Tense-Aspect and Hierarchy of Meanings: Pragmatic, Textual, Modal, Discourse, Expressive, Referential. In Waugh and Rudy, 1991: 241—260. 1992. Let's take the Con out of Iconicity: Constraints on Iconicity in the Lexicon. American Journal of Semiotics 9, 7 - 4 8 . [Published version of the Presidential Address to the Semiotic Society of America]. 1993. Against Arbitrariness: Imitation and Motivation Revived, with Consequences for Textual Meaning. Diacritics 23.2:71-87. 1994. Degrees of Iconicity in the Lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics 2 2 : 7 1 - 8 1 . 1995. Reported Speech in (French) Journalistic Discourse: the Relation of Function and Text. Text 15.1:129-173. 1996. Iconicity in the Lexicon: its Relevance for Morphology and its Relation to Semantics. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague (n.s.) 2, 2 5 1 - 2 8 4 . 1998. Semiotics and Language: the Work of R o m a n Jakobson. Hi Fives: a Trip to Semiotics, ed. Roberta Kevelson, 8 5 - 1 0 2 . New York: Peter Lang. Waugh, Linda R. and Maher Bahloul. 1996. La Différence entre le futur simple et le futur périphrastique dans le discours journalistique. Modèles linguistiques 33:19-36. Waugh, Linda R. and Barbara A. Lafford. 1994. Markedness. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 5:2378-2383. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 2000. Markedness. Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation! Morphologie. Ein Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, eds. G. Booij, C. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, 2 7 2 - 2 8 1 . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Waugh, Linda R. and Monique Monville-Burston. 1986. Aspect and Discourse Function: the French Simple Past in Newspaper Usage. Language 62:846-878. 1990. Roman Jakobson: His Life, Work and Influence. In R o m a n Jakobson, On Language, eds. L. R. Waugh and M. Monville-Burston, 1 - 4 5 . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Waugh, Linda R. and Madeleine Newfield. 1995. Iconicity in the Lexicon and its Relevance for a Theory of Morphology. In Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension, ed. M. Landsberg, 189-221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Waugh, Linda R. and Stephen Rudy, eds. 1991. News Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1998. Jakobson and Structuralism. In Semiotics: a Handbook on the SignTheoretic Foundations of Nature and Cultur/Semiotik: Ein Handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen Grundlagen von Natur und Kultur, eds. R. Posner et al., 2:2256-2271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Weber, Jean Jacques, ed. 1996. The Stylistics Reader: From Roman Jakobson to the Present. New York: Arnold. Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York; The Hague: Mouton. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog. 1968. "Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change." In Directions for Historical Linguistics, eds. W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel, 9 5 - 1 8 8 . Austin: University of Texas Press. Wellek, René. 1969. The Literary Theory and Aesthetics of the Prague School. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Wellek, René and Austin Warren. 1956. Theory of Literature. 3rd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

XCVIII

REFERENCES

Wescott, Roger. 1971. "Linguistic Iconism." Language 47:416-428. 1973. "Tonal Icons in Bini." Studies in African Linguistics 4:197-205. Whaley, Lindsay. 1997. Introduction to Typology. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. White, Hayden. 1978. Tropics of Discourse. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Widdowson, H.G. 1979. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winner, Thomas. 1987. "The Aesthetic Semiotics of Roman Jakobson." In Pomorska et al. 1987, 2 5 7 - 274. Witkowsky, Stanley and Cecil Brown. 1983. "Marking Reversals and Cultural Importance." Language 59:569-582. Worth, Dean. 1977. "Roman Jakobson and the Study of Rhyme." In Armstrong and van Schooneveld 1977, 515-533. 1985. "Russian Gen 2 , Loc 2 Revisited." In Signs of Friendship: Liber Amicorum in Honor of André van Hoik, ed. J.J. van Baak, 295-306. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Yaguello, Marina. 1998. Language Through the Looking Glass: Exploring Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yokoyama, Olga. 1990. "Shifters and Non-Verbal Categories in Russian." In Waugh and Rudy 1991. Youmans, Gilbert and Donald Lance, eds., 1985. In Memory of Roman Jakobson: Papers from the 1984 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. University of MissouriColumbia. Young, Eric and Murray Sachs. 1979. "Representation of Steady-State Vowels in the Temporal Aspects of the Discharge Patterns of Populations of Auditory-Nerve Fibers." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66:1381-1403.

PREFACE

This volume, dedicated to my mother on her ninetieth birthday, sums up forty-five years of inquiry into the sound texture of language (1916-1961) and includes most of the phonological studies written either by myself alone or jointly with E. Colin Cherry (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), Morris Halle (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and John Lötz (Columbia University). Essays dealing with the relationship between phonemics and morphology or with phonemic doctrines of the past, and those where phonological criteria are applied in verse analysis, will appear in further volumes, devoted to grammar, to the history of linguistics, and to metrics. As to the Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, written jointly with Gunnar Fant (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm) and Morris Halle and matching an acoustic theory of speech production with phonemic criteria, may I refer to the fourth printing of this outline, newly issued by the M.l.T. Press, 1961. The papers contained in the present book reproduce the original text with a few abridgments and some small lexical, phraseological, and stylistic changes. All studies which in their definitive version were in English, French, German or Russian appear in these languages, while all other articles are given in English translation. The publication preserves the chronological order in which the studies were originally written; only the three earliest papers, compiled between 1916 and 1926 (the two latter of them shortened), have been put in an Appendix. For help in the preparation of this volume, I am gratefully indebted to my colleagues N. C. Chomsky, M. Halle, O. Pritsak, J. Van Campen and to Dr. Ellen Wiese. The work was graciously facilitated by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford, California) and by the Center of Communication Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

CONTENTS

Introduction to Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston

.

.

.

V

Preface

xcix

The Concept of the Sound Law and the Teleological Criterion

.

1

Proposition au Premier Congrès International de Linguistes. Quelles sont les méthodes les mieux appropriées à un exposé complet et pratique de la phonologie d'une langue quelconque? .

3

Remarques sur l'évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves

7

Avant-propos, 7. - I. Notions fondamentales, 8. - II. Remarques sur les problèmes actuels de la phonologie historique comparée, 16. - III. Remarques sur l'évolution du système phonologique du protoslave, 24. IV. Changement protorusse de je- initial en o- et faits similaires des autres langues slaves, 44. - V. Faits dialectaux du protorusse, 52. - VI. Conséquences de la chute des jers faibles pour les idiomes slaves, 5S. - VII. Institution de la corrélation „caractère mou ~ caractère dur des consonnes" en russe et dans d'autres langues slaves, et faits connexes, 68. - VIII. Faits communs au grand-russe et étrangers aux autres dialectes slaves de l'Est, 89. - IX. Altérations dialectales russes du vocalisme atone, 92. - X. Quelques conclusions, 104. Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonologie

117

Über die phonologischen Sprachbünde

137

Κ xapaKTepHCTHKe eepa3HHCKoro

Η3ΗΚΟΒΟΓΟ

coK>3a

.

1. il3biKOBbiH coK>3, 144. - 2. npo6jTCMa eepaiHücKoro Μ Μ Κ Ο Β Ο Γ Ο coioaa Β coepeMeHHOft Hayice, 146. - 3. A36yxa ΦΟΗΟΛΟΓΗΗ H npoôneMa ΦΟΗΟΠΟΓΗlecKoft reorpaHH, 150. - 4. M O H O T O H H H M M K O B EepaíHH Η conpeaeJibHbie NOJIHTOHHHECKHE sobiKOBhie COK>3U, 156. - 5. TeMÔpoewe pasjiHHH» corjiacHbix Β fnbiicax Eepa3HH Η conpeaejibHux o6jiacTeft, 159. - 6. C B O A ΗΛΛ φοΗοποΓΗ4βα«Η xapaKTepHCTHKa eepa3nftCKoro nuxoBoro coio3a, 182. - 7.143 HCTopHH eBpa3nBcKoro Χ3ΜΚΟΒΟΓΟ coio3a, 185. - 8. MsrKOCTb corjiacHbix Β eeponeiiCKoit Hayxe H rmcbMe, 191. - 9. Oiepe^Hbie sa^ann eBpaîHflCKOrO »3bIK03HaHHH, 194.

144

CII

CONTENTS

Principes de phonologie historique I. Méthode intégrale, 202. - II. Changements phoniques extraphonologiques, 203. - III. Mutation phonologique, 204. - IV. "Déphonologisation", 205. V. "Phonologisation", 207. -VI. "Rephonologisation",209.-VII. Mutations des groupes de phonèmes, 212. - VIII. Modifications dans l'étendue des groupes de phonèmes, 213. - IX. Structure du faisceau de mutations, 215. X. Permutation des fonctions, 216. - XI. Interprétation des mutations, 218.

202

Phonemic Notes on Standard Slovak

221

Phoneme and Phonology

231

Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues .

234

CnopHMH Bonpoc apeBHepyccKoro npaBonHcaHHH (.macrb, ΛΤΟΚΗΙ,)

247

Über die Beschaffenheit der prosodischen Gegensätze . I. Die Betonungsfunktionen, 254. - II. Die Wortunterscheidende und -abgrenzende Betonung, 256. - Die Betonung und die Vokalquantität, 256. IV. Die gipfelbildende Betonung, 258. - V. Die analytische Quantitätsauffassung, 259.

254

On Ancient Greek Prosody

262

Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes

272

Zur Struktur des Phonems

280

U n manuel de phonologie générale

311

Les lois phoniques du langage enfantin et leur place dans la phonologie générale

317

Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze I. Lautentwicklung der Kindersprache und der Aphasie als linguistisches Problem, 328. - II. Schichtenbau des Sprachlautsystems, 356. - III. Begründung der Baugesetze, 373. - IV. Schlussbemerkungen, 394. 3eyKOBbie

OCOÔCHHOCTH,

cBJObmaioiuHe

HJIHILI C

ero

328

CJIABHHCKHM

OKpyxceHHeM

402

Comparative Slavic Phonology

413

On the Identification of Phonemic Entities

418

(with J. Lötz) Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern For the Correct Presentation of Phonemic Problems On Slavic Diphthongs Ending in a Liquid

.

.

.

426

.

.

435 443

CONTENTS

CHI

(with E. Colin Cherry and Morris Halle) Toward the Logical Description of Languages in their Phonemic Aspect . . 1. Introductory, 449. - 2. The Feature Pattern as a Logical Description of the Phoneme, 452. - 3. Removal of the Ambiguous Zero Signs, 456. 4. Considerations of Phoneme Probabilities, 457. (with M. Halle) Phonology and Phonetics I. The Feature Level of Language, 464. - II. The Variety of Features and their Treatment in Linguistics, 467. - III. The Identification of Distinctive Features, 477. - IV. Phonemic Patterning, 491. Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Geräuschlaute im Russischen Mufaxxama - the 'Emphatic' Phonemes in Arabic. . 1. Componential Analysis of Arabic Nonsyllabic Phonemes, 510. 2. Pharyngealized Dentals, 511. - 3. Velarization and Labialization, 513. 4. Pharyngealized Labials, 513. - 5. Pharyngealized Nasals, 514.-6. Pharyngealized Velars, 515. - 7. Pharyngeals, 518. - 8. Some Conclusions, 520.

449

464

505 510

Typological Studies and their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics 1. Report, 523. - II. Concluding Remarks, 530.

523

A New Outline of Russian Phonology

533

Why "Mama" and "Papa"?

538

.

Die urslavischen Silben ür-, ül-

546

(with M. Halle) Tenseness and Laxness

550

M36biTOHHbie ôyKBbi Β pyccKOM micbMe

556

1. OcHOBHoit npHHUHn pyccKoro riHCbMa, 556. - 2. Pa3JiHiHH Mentay yMflrHHTejibHMMH rJiacHbiMH ôyxeaMH, 557. - 3. TjiacHbie SyKBbi nocne HenapHbix cornacHbix, 557. - 4. flee yHKUHH yMJirHHTeJibHbix rnacHbix 6yKB Η ΜΗΓΚΟΓΟ ÌHAKA, 559. - 5. O ô m n f l 3HAMEHATEJIB ο β β κ χ yHicuHfi,

560. - 6. kböbiTOHHOCTb "M KpaTKoro" h oporpa â , o > ô , mais û > ï , de même que u>i. Après la palatalisation des voyelles postpalatales, le vocalisme du protoslave s'est trouvé réduit aux oppositions suivantes: i—u ô—o e—o

(Chaque voyelle en deux variantes corrélatives: longue et brève.) § 3. Seconde manifestation de l'assimilation progressive: amollissement de la consonne dans les diphtongues composées de voyelle prépalatale non labialisée + consonne sonante: er, el, en, ir, il, in > er', eV, en, ir', il', in' (Saxmatov, c §§ 80-83, Trubetzkoy, g 670 sqq.). Antérieurement même au phénomène ici considéré, les voyelles prépalatales devant / de la même syllabe, dans des conditions dialectalement différentes, s'étaient labialisées, tout en conservant leur qualité prépalatale après consonne palatale (car, après consonne palatale, les

26

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

voyelles postpalatales n'étaient pas admises), et dans les autres positions elles étaient devenues, en se labialisant, voyelles postpalatales; par ex. dilgu>dulgu, iiltu>zültu. Dans le parler slave oriental, les voyelles prépalatales de la diphtongue avec / se sont labialisées, quoi que ce fût qui précédât; dans les parlers auxquels remontent le polonais, le tchécoslovaque et les langues sudslaves, la labialisation n'a pas eu lieu après les consonnes labiales. 19 Il semble que l'obstacle à la labialisation, au moins sous certaines conditions, ait été la voyelle prépalatale de la syllabe suivante. C'est ainsi qu'en russe on trouve une série de mots ayant conservé 17 de la diphtongue el suivie d'une syllabe avec voyelle prépalatale. Cf. oaceAeAHiia, o)KeAe4i> ; rieAeBHH (vis-à-vis de π ο α ο β μ ) ; iieAeiijyTCH (vis-à-vis de noAOCKaTBca) ; BeAeTeHb (vis-à-vis de boaot) ;ceAe3eHb, ceAC3CHKa ; AeöeAb (vis-à-vis de AoßoAa). Peut-être doit-on expliquer également par la voyelle prépalatale de la syllabe suivante la forme dans Zographensis. Vraisemblablement aussi les doublets comme vieux-slave : a c A a ^ s i , j K A a c r a et j k a í , 4 ; k , > k a í ; c t h , slovène et tchèque: clan et clen, tchèque: zlab et zleb s'expliquent par deux généralisations non phonétiques diverses : dans un cas, ce qui a été généralisé, c'est le vocalisme qui n'existait à l'origine que quand la syllabe suivante était dure, dans l'autre cas, on a généralisé au contraire le vocalisme qui avait figuré phonétiquement seulement devant syllabe molle, par ex. clen, au lieu de la forme attendue clan, sous l'influence des formes du locatif et du vocatif, et ainsi de suite. On ne se rend pas clairement compte s'il y a eu labiovélarisation de / neutre dans les diphtongues composées de voyelle labialisée prépalatale + /, ou si polonais zlob, zolty, russe >koao6, jkoatmh, etc., sont le résultat d'une transformation dialectale plus tardive de / en l. Si l'on considère la vélarisation de / en diphtongue après voyelle labialisée comme un fait protoslave, il faudrait alors expliquer des formes comme 21a b, dans un texte tchèque ayant encore conservé le phonème particulier / (cf. Gebauer I 360), comme une contamination des formes 2 t a b et Zleb. [Cf. dans le même texte 21 uö (o. c. 361), qui peut-être une contamination de 21uty et de 21 δ.] Les diphtongues öl, ül(ou öl, til?) ont constitué l'unique dérogation au „synharmonisme" — une syllabe molle se terminant par une consonne non molle. Mais les diphtongues en question étaient des entités indivisibles " Notre interprétation de l'histoire des voyelles prépalatales devant le / de la même syllabe est empruntée à un ouvrage de Trubetzkoy non encore publié. Les renvois à Trubetzkoy non accompagnés d'indication de sources plus proches se rapportent à ses travaux non publiés et à ses communications orales.

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

27

dans le système phonologique, et le corrélatif prépalatal de la diphtongue Ôl était la diphtongue représentée par les deux variantes combinatoires extragrammaticales: öl (ou öl?), et el\ et celui de la diphtongue ul la diphtongue représentée par les variantes combinatoires iil (ou iil?), et //'. La variante //', et aussi, partiellement, el\ manquaient dans plusieurs idiomes slaves. Lors de la suppression de öl par voie de métathèse, ö après / non palatalisée a été naturellement remplacé par le son o (parallèlement, Ô dialectal par ö). Lors de l'élimination de la diphtongue öl par voie de transformation en une combinaison dissyllabique, o, apparaissant alors en syllabe ouverte, a été naturellement remplacé par le son e. § 4. L'assimilation régressive fut également utilisée en qualité de véhicule du „synharmonisme" syllabique: les consonnes se sont adaptées, quant à la hauteur de leur son fondamental, au phonème suivant de la même syllabe. Devant voyelle prépalatale, les consonnes se sont palatalisées (ti>t'i, te>tee, etc.). Nous ne sommes pas en mesure de fixer avec précision la chronologie relative de ce processus. Les transformations comme par exemple tel>tol ne nous permettent pas d'inférer que les consonnes placées devant e fussent encore dures au moment du phénomène en question. Si la loi de l'assimilation de la consonne, quant à la hauteur du son fondamental, à la voyelle suivante, a continué à agir, teel aura dû donner naissance à toi et non à fol. § 5. En généralisant, on peut formuler comme suit la loi de la réalisation du „synharmonisme" syllabique: les voyelles se sont assimilé, quant à la hauteur de leur son propre, les consonnes voisines dans la même syllabe (te>t"e, er>er', etc.); quant aux cas où les consonnes ne se prêtaient pas à cette assimilation (consonnes palatales), ce sont elles qui au contraire se sont assimilé les voyelles ( j o > j e , etc.) § 6. Après la transformation des voyelles postpalatales précédées de consonne palatale, en voyelles prépalatales, la position des produits de la Γ " et de la 2'eme palatalisation des gutturales se trouva modifiée dans le système phonologique. Les produits de la seconde palatalisation ne figurèrent plus dès lors que devant voyelle prépalatale, c'est-à-dire que dans les mêmes conditions (entre i et voyelle prépalatale) pouvaient figurer klt gu aussi bien que c, z, s. La position devant voyelle postpalatale devint spécifique de k, g, x; d'une part, ni c, f, s, ni k^ gu ne pouvaient exister dans cette position, d'autre part toute autre voyelle était impossible après k, g, x. Devant k, g, χ pouvaient figurer toutes les voyelles, y compris i. Ainsi donc, la voyelle précédente ne déterminait

28

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

déjà plus le choix de la consonne. De même que ë, z, s, les consonnes gi, xi pourraient être caractérisées, par rapport à k, g, x, comme des variantes combinatoires, conditionnées par la position devant voyelle prépalatale, mais, comme c, z, s et ku gu xl ne se trouvaient pas délimitées entre elles par les conditions externes, elles tendirent à s'opposer l'une à l'autre phonologiquement, et l'un des deux groupes devait s'émanciper. Étant donné que k—ku g—gly χ—xt se trouvaient en alternance grammaticale plus fréquemment que k—c, g—ζ, χ—s, ce furent précisément c, z, s qui en conséquence de la revision des valeurs phonologiques, assumèrent le rôle de phonèmes indépendants, tandis que gu Xi continuèrent à valoir comme variantes extragrammaticales de k, g, x, et que dans des cas postérieurs, l'amollissement des gutturales continua à s'effectuer en la forme de passage à klt gu x^. devant îe de m et dialectalement devant ν palatalisé. Lorsque l'assimilation régressive donne naissance à t\ en qualité de variante extragrammaticale de t, conditionnée par la position devant voyelle prépalatale (t étant pris pour le symbole des consonnes dentales et labiales effectives), cela donne lieu à la proportion sui generis: t,:t=k1:k. Cette proportion est réelle seulement en ce sens que tant k1 que t' sont, devant voyelle prépalatale, les seules variantes possibles de t et de k ; mais, en même temps que ce caractère commun, il existe aussi entre les rapports ty:t et k1:k des différences essentielles. Premièrement: f' et ι ne se différencient, au point de vue acoustique, que par la hauteur du son fondamental, alors que k1 et k diffèrent aussi directement l'un de l'autre par la qualité du son ; deuxièmement : les alternances grammaticales qu'accompagne la variation /'—I ne sont pas parallèles à celles qu'accompagne la variation k1—k. § 7. Le protoslave n'avait pas conservé la caractéristique quantitative des éléments composants des diphtongues indo-européennes. Au point de vue quantité, dans le système protoslave, les diphtongues égalaient les voyelles longues. La longueur et l'intonation portaient sur la diphtongue prise dans son ensemble. Les rapports de quantité se déterminaient à l'intérieur de la diphtongue par l'intonation. Conformément à l'hypothèse de Trubetzkoy, dans les diphtongues sous l'intonation rude le premier élément composant était plus long que le second, il était plus court dans les diphtongues sous l'intonation do.uce. Les diphtongues eurent un sort différent, en fonction du caractère des relations mutuelles existant entre leurs éléments composants. A cet égard, elles se divisent en 3 catégories : I o diphtongues composées des éléments les plus homogènes, à savoir de voyelles de la même série verticale (pu, pu, ei).

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

29

2° diphtongues à consonne nasale comme second élément : la consonne nasale exerçait une action nasalisante sur le premier élément et était elle-même extrêmement susceptible de réduction; telles sont les diphtongues on, an (cf. § 9), çn\ en' (cf. § 9), δη, δη' où la longueur de la voyelle est d'innovation protoslave; 3° les autres diphtongùes — avec les éléments les plus hétérogènes — ôi, les combinaisons o, e, u, / avec liquide. On peut en pròtoslave distinguer dans l'évolution des diphtongues de la 3 ème catégorie les processus suivants : A. Au commencement d'un mot, Γ o de la diphtongue (pour e on n'a pas d'exemples sûrs) s'est allongé jusqu'à la longueur dans les groupements sous l'intonation rude, et, dans les groupements sous l'intonation douce, ainsi qu'on peut le supposer parallèlement, jusqu'à la brièveté normale; quant au second élément de la diphtongue, il est sorti de la mélodie syllabique. B. Dans les parlers sud-slaves et dans le tchécoslovaque, la fonction de porteur de la longueur et de l'intonation est monopolisée en faveur de l'un des éléments de la diphtongue avec liquide. Lorsque le premier élément de la diphtongue est une voyelle plus perceptible et moins rapide par nature (o, e), l'allongement de cette voyelle se fait jusqu'à la longueur et elle prend le rôle monopolisateur; lorsque le premier élément est une voyelle moins perceptible et plus rapide par nature (u, i), c'est alors la liquide qui prend le rôle de son syllabique et celui de monopolisateur de la longueur et de l'intonation, tandis que la voyelle se résorbe (torOtôrt, turt>tft). En tchèque le processus A a précédé B, alors que les parlers sud-slaves et le slovaque (plus précisément l'ancêtre du dialecte slovaque central) ont accompli le processus B antérieurement au prpcessus A, de sorte que ce dernier n'a pu s'y produire. Aussi, vis-à-vis de serbe lâni, zlâto, bulgare láni, zlâto, slovaque ¡ani, zlato, on trouve en tchèque Ioni, zlato, etc. C. Les groupes monosyllabiques oi, or, ol, er', el' (indépendamment de toutes relations de quantité et d'intonation) ont subi une métathèse en conservant la quantité de chaque élément et l'intonation de la combinaison entière. or, o?, er', êl' >ro, To, rè, le. ôr, ôl>rô, Ιδ. ór, öl>rö,lö. o ì > i ò > ì è (par l'effet de l'assimilation). öi>iö (postérieurement i>j, ö>ä). Le type âi n'est pas représenté par des exemples sûrs.

30

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

D. Dans les parlers ayant conservé les groupements „voyelle+liquide", chargés du rôle de porteur de la longueur et de l'intonation, c'est-à-dire dans les parlers n'ayant pas subi le processus Β (parlers slaves du Nord-Ouest et de l'Est), il s'est produit, postérieurement au processus A un processus inverse du processus B. Alors que ce dernier est caractérisé par un enrichissement de l'élément composant le plus fort au détriment du plus faible, ce sont au contraire, dans les parlers slaves du NordOuest et de l'Est, les éléments les plus faibles qui ont reçu le renforcement, pour être en mesure d'assumer une partie de l'intonation syllabique. Dans les combinaisons o, e avec liquide, l'élément le plus faible était précisément la liquide, et les liquides ont été transformées ou en un groupement de liquide non syllabique avec liquide syllabique adéquate, ou en un groupement de liquide non syllabique avec voyelle svarabhactique. Parallèlement, dans les groupements ,,w, /+liquide", les éléments les plus faibles — et ayant tendance à la réduction — u, i, furent quantitativement renforcés, et, comme résultat, on a dans la suite une conservation de leurs représentants même dans des positions où les représentants de u, i hors diphtongue ont disparu. Dans le parler slave oriental, le processus D a précédé le processus C, au contraire, dans les parlers du Nord-Ouest, il l'a suivi. C'est pourquoi on a en slave oriental le groupe tort>tor{t ou tor-t et dans les parlers du Nord-Ouest trot>trrot ou t rot. Le groupe initial ort ne pouvait se scinder en deux syllabes, la liquide étant déjà sortie auparavant de la mélodie syllabique. La liquide syllabique (ou voyelle svarabhactique neutre) s'est transformée par la suite, dans l'idiome slave de l'Est, en une voyelle du même degré que la voyelle précédente, transformation au cours de laquelle le choix entre prépalatale et postpalatale a été déterminé par la hauteur du son fondamental de la liquide; ainsi par exemple, eV est en fin de compte devenu el'e, ol>olo, öl (ou öl)>elo, etc. Dans les parlers du Nord-Ouest, il y a lieu de supposer une voyelle irrationnelle, tombée à date ultérieure de même que t. et b faibles, avec renforcement, de même encore que pour i> et b faibles, de t. et b de la syllabe précédente (cf. Rozwadowski, b et a 164).20 Vu que notre esquisse de l'histoire des diphtongues o, e + r, l, i n'est qu'une modification de la théorie de Trubetzkoy formulée par lui dans une lettre privée écrite au commencement de 1928, je trouve nécessaire de la citer ici sous sa forme originale: „Dans les diphtongues sous l'intonation rude, la première partie était d'une durée plus longue que la seconde ; inversement, dans les diphtongues sous l'intonation douce (comme en lituanien). Je désigne l'élément quiest plus court que la moitié de la longueur normale

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

31

D a n s u n e partie d e s parlers d u N o r d - O u e s t ( p o l a b e et p o m é r a n i e n ) , Yo d e la d i p h t o n g u e or est p a s s é , par l'effet d e la r é d u c t i o n , à « — a p r è s le p r o c e s s u s C , a v a n t le p r o c e s s u s D ( T r u b e t z k o y ) . § 8.

L a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a atteint e n s e c o n d l i e u à s o n t o u r le g r o u p e

d e s d i p h t o n g u e s c o m p o s é e s d e v o y e l l e s d e la m ê m e série. L e p r e m i e r é l é m e n t s'est a s s i m i l é a u s e c o n d , et les d i p h t o n g u e s s o n t d e v e n u e s d e s m o n o p h t o n g u e s l o n g u e s : ou>ü, § 9.

öü>ü,

ei>ï(Trubetzkoy,

c 225).

E n dernier lieu, o n t été m o d i f i é e s les d i p h t o n g u e s à n a s a l e . L e s

v o y e l l e s o et e en c o m b i n a i s o n a v e c c o n s o n n e n a s a l e t a u t o s y l l a b i q u e o n t subi l ' i n f l u e n c e n a s a l i s a n t e d e cette dernière. L e t o n c a r a c t é r i s t i q u e d e s v o y e l l e s n a s a l i s é e s est l é g è r e m e n t p l u s b a s q u e celui d e s v o y e l l e s p u r e s c o r r e s p o n d a n t e s (cf. T h o m s o n , ¿»174,185). A u s s i o e n pareille c o m b i n a i s o n était-il e n p r o t o s l a v e p l u s f e r m é q u e o d e v a n t les autres c o n s o n n e s (o, d e même

p, T r u b e t z k o y ,

c 2 2 3 ) , et, p a r a l l è l e m e n t , e d a n s cette p o s i t i o n

était p l u s o u v e r t q u e e n o r m a l ( e ) . A c ô t é d u c o u p l e çn'—on

existait, d a n s la m a j o r i t é d e s parlers p r o t o -

par ! (o,, r¡, etc.) et l'élément dépassant la durée de la moitié de la longueur normale, sans cependant atteindre toute la durée de cette longueur, par 2 (o 2 , r 2 etc.); enfin, je désigne la durée de la longueur normale par 3 (o 3 ); les voyelles à brièveté normale avaient la durée 2 (o2)." „Au commencement du mot devant les liquides de la même syllabe o se prolongeait jusqu'à la brièveté normale, dans les cas où il était ultrabref (o l r 1 stb>o 1 r i stb) et jusq'à la longueur dans les cas où il était normalement bref (olr1dlo>o3r¡dio)." „La différence quantitative entre o 2 ri sous l'intonaticn rude et o,r 2 sous l'intonation douce, dans la position entre consonnes, a été supprimée: dans le sud-slave et le tchécoslovaque, on a généralisé oir1 et dans les autres dialectes o ^ . " „Les groupements ultralongs o 2 r 2 , o 3 r, au commencement du mot ont été transformés de façon que rt se raccourcît en r, et que les liquides sortissent de la mélodie syllabique." ,,o¡r1>o3rl. Ce processus a eu lieu dans le tchèque avant le processus susmentionné, et dans le slovaque et le sud-slave après." „Dans le russe, le groupements o1r2, etc. sont devenus dissyllabiques (o,rt>or¡·)." „Dans tous les dialectes et dans toutes les positions dans le mot, les groupements e, o (long ou. brefs) + liquide devant consonne ont subi une métathèse, tout en conservant l'intonation du groupement entier ainsi que la quantité de chacun des éléments du groupement." —.

-

„II est possible que parallèlement à l'évolution otrldlo>o3rldlo>o3rdlo>ro3dlo

ait

eu lieu l'évolution Otils(k)nb>o3i1s(k)m>>o3js(k)m>>jo3s(k)m, cf. le lituanien aiskus." Je pense que les modifications de cette théorie ingénieuse présentées par nous ici: I o interprètent d'une manière plus simple la différence entre le traitement des diphtongues initiales dans le tchèque, d'un côté, et dans le slovaque et le sud-slave, de l'autre; 2° expliquent la coïncidence de l'isoglosse des représentants dialectaux de tort, etc. avec l'isoglosse des représentants dialectaux de turt, etc. ; 3° présentent une formule plus synthétique pour les altérations de tort, etc., à l'ouest et au nord-est du monde slave; 4° identifient plus systématiquement le sort de la diphtongue oi avec l'évolution des diphtongues à liquide.

32

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

slaves, le couple eri—an. La dernière diphtongue figurait dans la terminaison du partie, prés. act. des verbes des I, II et V ème classes. C'est seulement en vieux-slave que les participes correspondants se terminaient en -y, ce qui est attesté par l'absence probable de signe pour le phonème a dans les alphabets slaves primitifs et par l'absolue prédominance des formes en BI dans les textes vieux-slaves. Mais même en vieux-slave il y avait un dialecte avec le phonème a, ce qu'atteste le graphème spécial, usité pour le rendre, rencontré dans Zographensis et Marianus, et que l'on rend à son tour, conventionnellement, dans la translittération contemporaine cyrillique, par A. (Liste des formes ayant ce graphème dans l'un et l'autre textes, v. Torbiörnsson, a 208 sqq.). La diphtongue an donne dans toutes les langues slaves des représentants qui sont avec en' dans le même rapport où sont entre eux les représentants d e on e t d e çn : c f . r u s s e H e c a , t c h . nesa

(çn\

on>ii,

u\ erì,

an>ä,

a),

serbe nese {çn'>on, an>en), moyen bulg. Hecai (fusion de an avec çn parallèlement à celle de pn\ avec an'), polon. niosq.21 Les idiomes slaves reflètent deux voies suivies par l'évolution des diphtongues avec nasale. 1. Le processus de l'allongement de la voyelle et celui de la réduction de la consonne nasale sont menés à terme: la voyelle s'approprie la quantité qui était celle de la diphtongue dans son intégralité (cf. le sort " N o u s laissons de côté la question de savoir si la désinence -an s'est f o r m é e p a r voie de c o n t a m i n a t i o n de la désinence -y avec celle des participes des verbes d ' a u t r e s classes -çn' (cf. S i e p k i n , b 89), ou bien p a r la voie de la c o n t a m i n a t i o n des participes masculins et neutres, c o m m e T r o u b e t z k o y le suppose, ou bien enfin si la variation des désinences -y, -an a été originairement conditionnée par une différence d ' i n t o n a t i o n ( c o n f r o n t o n s avec la différence EUHU - 6epA le vieux russe KOHÎ - NAANA, d ' u n côté, et la différence d u traitement de la désinence de l'accus. plur. -ip, -uset de celle des participes du type vedas dans le lituanien, de l ' a u t r e ; cf. F o r t u n a t o v , a 180). En tout cas, nous ne voyons pas d'obstacles à r a p p o r t e r les f o r m e s en -an à l'époque protoslave. Les représentants en sont systématiquement réguliers. Les objections de T o r n b i ö r n s s o n (ft) à l'existence d ' u n p r o t o t y p e protoslave des f o r m e s c o m m e le russe Heca, etc. supposée par E k b l o m (ti) ne gardent leur valeur que dans le cas où nous réduirons avec S i e p k i n (/. r.) la différence entre les f o r m e s p h o n i q u e s HECA et HOCA du Zographensis au fait que la c o n s o n n e devant la désinence est molle dans le dernier cas et dure dans le premier, et où nous interprêtons de la m ê m e manière la différence c o r r e s p o n d a n t e dans le protoslave. Mais une interprétation pareille est très peu vraisemblable. Dès que nous a d m e t t o n s p o u r les f o r m e s du Zographensis Her A etc., et pour les f o r m e s corresp o n d a n t e s des autres dialectes d u protoslave le groupement cons, dure - voy. postpalatale, les objections susmentionnées perdent leur valeur. Van Wijk c o n f r o n t e les f o r m e s du russe et du tchèque nesa avec le rzeka du vieux polonais et fait r e m o n t e r la désinence de ces f o r m e s -a à -onts originaire. Mais la perte de l'élément nasal dans la f o r m e rzeka qui soit dit en passant ne se rencontre que d a n s un seul texte (cf. V. Wijk 280), s'explique facilement p a r le fait q u e c'est un verbum dicendi dont le rôle est subsidiaire et q u e les f o r m e s de ce type t e n d e n t à être p r o n o n c é e s d ' u n e f a ç o n rapide, peu soignée, et sont souvent réduites et e s c a m o t é e s d e diverses façons.

REMARQUES SUR L'ÉVOLUTION PHONOLOGIQUE DU RUSSE

33

de o, e dans les diphtongues or, er, etc. dans les parlers sud-slaves et tchécoslovaques), la consonne nasale se perd, et, en même temps qu'elle, se perd aussi la nasalisation assimilative de la voyelle. L'allongement de la voyelle s'accompagne d'un nouvel abaissement de sa tonalité (p>w, ç>u, e>ä, 3>α), lorsqu'il n'existe pas à ce changement d'empêchements d'ordre phonologique (cf. § 18). 2. Le premier élément s'abrège au profit du second. Les voyelles ç, e des diphtongues en question se fondent avec les voyelles effectives les plus brèves par nature, notamment avec les représentants de u, i (Trubetzkoy, / 37). Cf. le sort de o de la diphtongue or en polabe (§ 7). Nous essayons plus loin (§ 18) de répondre à la question de savoir de quel autre facteur phonologique est fonction le choix de l'une ou l'autre des deux voies que l'on vient d'indiquer. § 10. En faisant la somme de l'évolution des diphtongues décroissantes en protoslave, nous pouvons dégager une tendance fondamentale: la syllabe quantitative ne doit pas dépasser en longueur une voyelle longue. Les solutions excluant la consonne de la mélodie syllabique se sont avérées un palliatif insuffisant, et, ultérieurement, les syllabes fermées, contenant o et e + consonne sonante, devaient se voir toutes éliminées. Les moyens de la liquidation sont: la métathèse, le dédoublement de la diphtongue en deux syllabes, l'assimilation du premier élément de la diphtongue au second, la suppression du second élément, et enfin la réduction de o, e. Les combinaisons u, i + consonne ne dépassant pas en durée les voyelles longues, il n'y a pas eu, dans la plupart des cas, de raisons incitant à les faire disparaître. Ceci constitue un correctif aux assertions courantes comme quoi le protoslave aurait été dominé par la tendance à ouvrir les syllabes. § 11. La méta'thèse des diphtongues à liquide fut suivie de transformations du vocalisme tendant à séparer, au point de vue qualité, les voyelles longues des brèves correspondantes, à renforcer les différences qualitatives accompagnant les différences quantitatives. a) Avant que se fût produite la monophtongaison des diphtongues composées de voyelles de la même série, les voyelles longues labialisées avaient été délabialisées (Trubetzkoy, c 223), alors que les brèves avaient conservé la labialisation. Ainsi s'étaient trouvées modifiées les séries suivantes de la corrélation „longueur~brièveté des voyelles": ,,û—u"> „y—u" ,,ô—o">„â—o", „çn—çn">„àn—çn'\ ,,δη'—