Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology: Volume 2 Synchronic Romance Linguistics 9783110816129, 9789027978967

Table of contents :
2.1 Linguistic description
Introduction
Phonetics and phonology
Synchronic comparative grammar or in quest of the Romance type
Some problems in semantic investigation
2.2 Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Studies on linguistic nationalism in the Romance languages
2.3 Methodological approaches
Idealism
La psychosystématique du langage dans les études romanes
La glossématique
Functionalism and Romance linguistics
Generative grammar
Index of Names

Citation preview

Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology Volume 2

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 13

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton Publishers The Hague · Paris · New York

Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology Volume 2: Synchronic Romance Linguistics edited by

Rebecca Posner John N. Green

Mouton Publishers The Hague · Paris · New York

ISBN 90 279 7896 4 © Copyright 1981 by Mouton Publishers. The Hague. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form — by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means — nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: Western Printing Services Ltd. Bristol. — Printing: Hildebrand, Berlin — Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer Buchgewerbe GmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany

Contents 2.1

Linguistic description

John N. Green Introduction . . . . . . . . . 3 Göran Hammarström Phonetics a n d phonology . . . . . . . 37 Maria Manoliu-Manea Synchronic comparative grammar or in quest of the Romance type 65 Emanuel Vasiliu Some problems i n semantic investigation . . . . 89 2.2

Sociolinguistics

Beatriz R. Lavandera Sociolinguistics Kenneth H. Rogers Studies on linguistic nationalism in the Romance languages 2.3

129 . 229

Methodological approaches

Hans Helmut Christmann Idealism Gerard Moignet La psychosystematique du langage dans les etudes romanes Michel Arrive L a glossematique . . . . . . . Henry G. Schogt Functionalism and Romance linguistics John N. Green Generative grammar . . . . . . . Index o f Names

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

259 285 .

3 0 5 353

.

3 6 9 .4 0 9

Contributors Prof. Michel Arrive

Universite de Paris X, France

Prof. Dr. Hans Helmut Christmann

Romanisches Seminar der Universität Tübingen, Federal Republic of Germany

Dr. John N. Green

Dept. of Language, University of York, England

Prof. U. G. E. Hammarstrom Dept. of Linguistics, Monash University, Australia Prof. Beatriz R. Lavandera

Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University, U.S.A.

Prof. Maria Manoliu-Manea Dept. of French and Italian, University of California at Davis, U.S.A. t Prof. Gerard Moignet

formerly Universite de Paris-Sorbonne, France

Prof. Kenneth H. Rogers

Dept. of Languages, University of Rhode Island, U.S.A.

Prof. Henry G. Schogt

Dept. of French, University of Toronto, Canada

Prof. Emanuel Vasiliu

Institutul de Lingvisticä, Bucure§ti, Romania

2.1 Linguistic description

JOHN N. GREEN

Introduction

In grouping these studies under the general heading "Synchronic Romance linguistics", we ascribe coherence —or at least compatibility — to fields of scholarship sometimes perceived as remote and even mutually exclusive. Synchrony, narrowly defined, has difficulty in accommodating intra-community variation and eschews altogether the comparative dimension; for the awareness of affinity among cognate languages — an awareness which varies from culture to culture — is at best a peripheral adjunct to 'langue'. Yet Romance is quintessentially the domain of the comparatist. How then are the two viewpoints to be reconciled? At the most obvious level, an answer is provided by the scores of Romanists around the world who busy themselves with what they believe to be 'synchronic linguistics', without worrying overmuch about the epistemological niceties of the undertaking. Indeed, to refute the view — common among general theoretical linguists — that Romanists are preoccupied with language history, one need only glance at the proceedings of recent Romance Congresses (Cong. 12,13,14) in which explicitly historical studies form a diminishing minority. Likewise, among the first five annual Linguistic Symposia on Romance Languages (Symp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) only one (Symp. 2) was specifically devoted to historical topics. But one must beware of reading too much into a statistical tally of conference papers. Undoubtedly they project an image of the major concerns within a discipline, but they are also subject to purely organizational constraints which effectively exclude certain types of contribution — most notably the mature 'conspectus view' — from all but a privileged handful of plenary sessions. If, over the last two decades, speakers at Romance congresses have tended to avoid detailed history, the same can

4

John N. Green

be said with even more justification of systematic comparison. It may be that the sheer weight of data available to the comparative Romanist defies presentation at more than a trivial level in a fifteen to twenty minute expose. Yet Romanists clearly feel the need for a comparative dimension. The very fact that such large numbers are prepared to converge every three years to hear and discuss papers about a Romance language in a Romance language (often not the same one), is eloquent testimony to the need for such cross-fertilization. And while few papers explicitly take a pan-Romance view, even the sternest of monolingual titles — "The status of X in the phonology of French", "The treatment of Υ in Italian syntax", "The analysis of Ζ terms in Portuguese" — will contain allusions to analogous phenomena in neighbouring languages and dialects. If not, comparative exemplification almost always emerges from the ensuing discussion. Nor will a discussant who responds to a paper on Portuguese phonology with the comment, "In my work on northern Friulian dialects I have come across similar processes . . ." ever be accused of irrelevance. It is a common assumption within the field that comparative data from other Romance speech varieties must be relevant. (For a spirited defence of this attitude, see Posner 1976.) The force of this methodological consensus is well illustrated in a number of recent publications on aspects of cliticization (for detailed discussion, see Manoliu's article below and my own in part 3 of this volume). All Romance varieties appear to have clitics, but their precise grammatical (categorial) status is problematic, no less than their derivation (in generative terms) or the rules governing their ordering and placement with respect to the verb. Of the major standardized Romance languages no two exhibit quite the same usage and patterning, and if one takes into consideration dialectal and 'sub-standard' varieties, the signals emerging seem yet more contradictory and confusing. Nonetheless, the arguments and counter-claims have hinged crucially on the need to find one unified clitic theory. Linguists — often of rather different theoretical persuasions — have been prepared to dismiss as 'absurd' a 'solution' for Italian which is manifestly false for Spanish and, moreover, to believe in the existence of a unique solution with no firmer grounds for that belief than the ubiquity of clitics in speech varieties known to be closely related. Even though this kind of 'God's truth' linguistics may at some future date be rejected as the futile pursuit of unattainable goals, in the meantime its tacit acknowledgement of bonds of cohesion among cognate languages

Introduction

5

can be seen as a vindication of traditional Romance attitudes and a powerful fillip to comparative work within Romance linguistics. If broad-sweep comparative investigation is now, for practical reasons, largely confined to monographs, a form of presentation suitable for conference papers and short periodical articles has evolved in the shape of the 'contrastive study'. It begs certain questions to suggest that this fairly recent genre has appeared in response to an intuitive awareness of lacunae in earlier coverage. Contrastive linguistics, although in a rather obvious sense a branch of comparative linguistics, has a different pedigree and distinct theoretical concerns. In particular, the connotations of pedagogical applications which have tended to cluster round contrastive work are not always welcome to comparatists of the traditional mould. A deeper reason for this malaise may lie in the differing aims of the two approaches. The normal contrastive method presupposes a rigorous analysis of some identifiably similar linguistic structure in two languages (related or otherwise) within the same theoretical framework, and proceeds to contrast the salient features of these pre-existent descriptions. There is a strong implication that the investigator expects to find differences, and certainly if differences are found this does not lead to a re-analysis in the hope of eliminating them. The result is a typological statement of linguistic distance. In traditional comparative work, on the other hand, perhaps by contamination from the methodology of comparative reconstruction, the expectations are reversed: two cognate languages are presumed similar until proved distinct. When pre-existent descriptions suggest divergence, this may well provoke reanalysis — and sometimes the substitution of new analytical tools — in an effort to demonstrate homogeneity of structure. The result now is a geneticallybased statement of affinity. In consequence of this fundamental difference of outlook, contrastive and comparative approaches to the same body of data can result in incompatible conclusions. This should not surprise us any more than the fact that typological classification when applied to groups of genetically related languages may show patterns of relationship radically different from those presumed by the historico-areal family-tree model, a point to which we return below. Romance contrastive studies, still in their infancy, have not yet come into serious conflict with the results of comparative research, but as their volume increases, so does the likelihood of incompatible results.

6

John N. Green

At present, the major source of Romance contrastive work is a group of younger scholars in Bucharest, though the older generation and other localities are also represented. Typically, these studies contrast Rumanian with one other standard language, highlighting some tightlydelimited aspect of phonology (Coteanu 1974; Munteanu 1974; Maneca - Perillo 1977), of grammar (Lombard 1975; Vintilä-Rädulescu 1976a, 1977), or of lexis (Maneca 1974; Iliescu 1977). Occasionally, a different pair of standards is contrasted (Carrasco 1975) and, more rarely, two standards with one 'dialect' area (Iliescu 1976). A fully-fledged contrastive analysis of Rumanian and French (Cristea 1977) has now appeared with chapters on translation theory, error analysis and pedagogical grammar. Significantly, it is published by the Editura Didacticä s,i Pedagogics, a further reminder of its intended audience. The avowedly didactic aims of much of this work must not be allowed to detract from its scholarly worth. Contrastive analysis, used on a panRomance scale, suffers from an inbuilt limitation which does not affect traditional comparative work, but it also has, I believe, one potential virtue which has tended to go unsung. The limitation is easily identified: it is not fortuitous that so many contrastive studies are limited to two languages; the very methodology wills it so. Nor is it easy to conceive of a valid means of extension. Certainly when A has been exhaustively contrasted with B, the researcher may repeat the process with A and C, but this tells us nothing of the relation B-C. To capture the dynamics of the A-B-C relation (and certainly of more complex interactions) requires sophisticated multidimensional modelling, which in turn cancels out the immediate applicational attractiveness of the current binary method. To some extent, the comparative approach suffers from the same defect since, aside from trivial listings, it too must progress in binary stages. But explicit procedures for dialect subgroupings and step-by-step extension of the comparison have made a virtue of necessity in a way apparently debarred to contrastive analysis. To achieve a similar extension, this determinedly synchronic approach would be compelled to rely on the inherent contradiction of a prior subgrouping along traditional historical lines (even would-be 'panchronic' techniques like lexicostatistics have historical undertones), or to accept as input a purely typological classification which had already interpreted and hierarchized precisely those linguistic features that contrastive analysis would normally expect to handle as raw data. An uncomfortable choice, in other words, between

Introduction

7

the Scylla of methodological contradiction and the Charybdis of procedural circularity. The potential value of contrastive analysis within the Romance domain lies, I believe, in its use as a tool of typological classification. To realize this potential will require the development of an 'evaluation metric' and possibly also multi-dimensional modelling. A rapid glance at the use made by Romanists of the major classificatory techniques will set this proposal in a more meaningful context. All the principal methods of classification have at some point been tried on Romance: genealogical (with or without wave-theory modifications), typological, areal, glottochronological and various other statistical techniques (for discussion see Malkiel 1972, 1978; Hall 1975; and Posner's introduction to Vol. 1). There can be no doubt that the wealth of supporting information — from cultural historians, philologists (in the widest sense), ethnographers, archaeologists and anthropologists — makes Romance an almost insurpassable testing ground for methodological innovation destined, ultimately, for language groups less well provided with safety nets. It is unfortunate that the very breadth of energy that has been devoted to Romance classification has given rise to a rather confusing picture. Instead of acknowledging firstly that different methods seek to highlight different linguistic features and consequently have an inbuilt bias towards divergence, and secondly that surprising or unpalatable results deserve at least the courtesy of examination on their own terms, Romanists have sometimes reacted to conflicting schemata by assuming that one variant must be wrong. Thus, for instance, there is a strong resistance to accepting typologically-based classifications which appear to conflict with genetic models based on 'known historical fact'. This may be reasonable when the 'historical fact' is 'known' with sufficient precision, but in linguistic matters the condition is not always satisfied. Even when the broad sweep of a development is incontrovertible, fine details of actuation and ordering are always elusive and often irrecoverable. But for a genetic classification which aims at 'historical truth', the accuracy of the fine details is crucial, since linguistic splits are directly predicated upon them. In the familiar branching model common to most family-tree genetic classifications and to certain typological ones, bifurcations imply for the historian shared innovation versus conservatism, but presence versus absence of a particular feature for the typologist. Since a tree structure

8

John N. Green

necessarily imposes hierarchization on the splits, typologists are obliged from the start to reveal their subjective assessment of the relative importance of linguistic features, or — the same thing at one remove — their adherence to a theoretical position which provides a ready-made set of relativities. This makes easy ammunition for critics. Sceptics may indeed claim that the relativities are subject to the pure whim of fashion, or at least that they cannot shake off the influence of current linguistic research. Thus, the original proposal of von Schlegel — updated and refined in Greenberg's 'typological indices' (1960) — accords preeminence to morphological organization, whereas numerous studies dating from the heyday of European structuralism make their first split on phonological grounds, between for instance five-term or seven-term vowel systems. More recently, languages have been grouped using criteria like 'left-branching versus right-branching', a syntactic concept that might arguably not have been identified without the advent of generative grammar. If the subjective and arbitrary aspects of typological classification clamour for attention, they are no less inherent in genetic work for being more discreet. A wide margin of error is possible in the identification of the feature responsible for language split, and it is a moot question whether that identification is less or more arbitrary when made on the investigator's subjective judgement or when predetermined by a chosen theoretical framework (as, for instance, the primacy of phonemic split in the Bloomfieldian version of the comparative method). Surely it is conceivable for two communities to innovate simultaneously at different linguistic levels? If so, the family-tree model is no doubt correct in recording a split, but the strong additional overtones of innovation versus conservatism may be entirely spurious. Castilian, for example, is typically said to be innovating with respect to its neighbours Leonese and Aragonese and a 'node-label' suitable for signalling this might be the loss of word-initial/- before monophthongs. Gascon, on the other hand, is not considered innovating in the Gallo-Romance area, nor even particularly so in the more restricted Occitan group, with the result that the/- > 0 change it also undergoes is relegated to the level of a residual curiosity. As a further example, we might take the now classic position, associated particularly with Rohlfs and von Wartburg, that the major subdivision of Romance is East versus West. It can be justified by reference to two principal demarcators: lenition, extending throughout the north and

Introduction

9

west to the Spezia-Rimini line, and sigmatic versus vocalic plural marking, the sigmatic pattern coinciding very closely with the extent of lenition. The existence of minor pockets of lenition-free varieties in the mountainous valleys of Aragon and the Beam (documented in Elcock 1938) is insufficient to invalidate the whole theory, but may incline one to prefer plural-marking as the principal symptom of split. Here Aebischer's work (1971) has made serious inroads into traditional assumptions, arguing that many of the Italian 'vocalic' areas did not preserve old vocalic nominatives, but rather vocalized the -5 of an already-generalized sigmatic pattern. From the standpoint of chronology, this debate may be resolved by current work on pattern alternation in North Italian dialects (see for example Danesi 1976, 1977). For classification purposes, whatever the outcome of this research, plural-marking remains a perfectly valid synchronic indicator. But it may become worthless for genetic classification if it can be shown to 'steam-roller' the strata of a complex historical development and wrongly assign innovative dialects to a conservative branch. In Romance classifications^ the importance of the geographical factor can scarcely be over-emphasized. Modern Romania, though much less extensive than Augustan Latinity, still presents an impressive territorial continuity and this symbolic cohesion exerts a pervasive and largely beneficial influence on attempts at classification, whether synchronic, historical or hybrid in character. Most obviously, nearly all diagrammatic representations arrange their 'terminal node' language labels in a linear order corresponding as nearly as may be to the East-West axis. More subtly, areal considerations seem to act as a brake on more adventurous groupings. Thus a synchronic typological argument favouring a major division of North versus South meets with interest and a call for further research (Borodina and Manoliu discussing Cremona's paper for Cong. 12, 1968), and a hybrid proposal to classify Aragonese as the 'parentnode' for both Gascon and Catalan seems novel though not outlandish (Bee 1970-71, vol. 2), whereas few Romanists would seriously entertain a suggestion to make the primary split between Portuguese and all-therest on the grounds that Portuguese has an inflected infinitive and the others do not. We know, of course, about the strong historical and cultural links —aside from the self-evident geographical ones—between Portuguese and the other Iberian varieties and this knowledge precludes us from treating the suggestion as anything more than jocular. At the

10

John N. Green

same time, as a purely linguistic criterion, the inflected infinitive is no more absurd than plural-marking, or two versus three-term demonstratives, or differentiation versus syncretism in the lexical and auxiliary functions of 'to have' (see Pulgram 1978). Could it be that differentiating criteria are sometimes, perhaps unconsciously, chosen in support of a pre-existing 'plausible' distribution and not always on their linguistic significance? Many of the difficulties of both typological and genetic classification methods as applied to Romance arise, I suggest, from a conflict of fragmentary criteria each apparently valid in its own right. Progress might be achieved firstly by a more rigorous separation of properly linguistic from non-linguistic or mixed criteria. Within the former, we should still need to resolve cross-level contradictions of the kind: A and B are unusual in both having phonemic nasal vowels, but A marks counterfactual conditionals with a subjunctive in both clauses while B uses indicatives. Only an explicit, metatheoretic evaluation metric can deal systematically with difficulties of this order. Inasmuch as the contradiction exists at the observational level, it may be incapable of 'resolution' (although an analysis of underlying patterns might reveal an identity of structure belied only by different exponents). But at least an evaluation metric would provide an objective hierarchization of the observed contradictions. The detailed content of the metric matters less than its systematic application. If, following Chomskyan assumptions, syntactic correspondence scores more highly than phonological, and if similarity of morpheme structure constraints scores above identity of phonemic inventory, then the mere fact of systematically using these agreed standards throughout the data for classification may bring some advances, regardless of whether the standards are in some absolute sense 'true'. This is where fully-developed contrastive analysis has a contribution to make. The kind of evaluation metric sketched in the previous paragraph can only operate in connection with a 'total grammar' in which the functional relationship of the subcomponents is made explicit. To date, the systematic multi-level contrastive analysis of two varieties would make the best input to such a metric. The most promising avenue for progress is now an exhaustive application of the technique to all permutations of pairs of the major Romance varieties, each one considered as a total grammar. Evidently, this would be a major undertaking requiring the efforts of a team of researchers (if eight principal varieties are

Introduction

11

selected, twenty-eight pairings are possible). A concomitant advantage of this multi-dimensional classification should be the possibility of identifying, as the one having the highest indices of relation to most others, that variety which most centrally reflects Romance characteristics — what Manoliu calls 'the Romance type'. Whether this elusive panchronic goal can be attained through traditional comparative means is now open to doubt. Some recent attempts to find comparative patternings in contemporary Romance (for instance, Dietrich 1973 in respect of verb-aspectual relations, and Ettinger 1974, Giurescu 1975 and Reinheimer-Ripeanu 1974 with reference to word formation), however valuable as meticulous source-books, fail in my view to advance beyond the listing of formal correspondences. They do nevertheless serve as illustrations of the point made earlier: that Romanists engaged on putatively synchronic research feel the need for the comparative dimension even when the trends so revealed seem contradictory. Thus Ettinger identifies and documents differing phonological constraints on productive diminutive suffixation, whereby Italian rejects a favoured suffix if its use would result in identical or similar consonant articulations in adjacent syllables (hence momenta + diminutive —»· momentino not *momentetto, tavola —» tavolina not *tavolella\ whereas Portuguese — perhaps for synaesthetic effect — positively encourages such repetitions (tamanho —> tamanhinho, folha —> folhinha). Unfortunately no attempt is made to describe the more general phonotactic constraints of Italian and Portuguese, so it remains difficult to assess whether these findings represent an important divergence or a minor eccentricity within a common fundamental system. That the Romance languages do share many fundamental features is already established in popular as well as scholarly belief. The problem now facing synchronic Romance linguists is that of providing formal demonstration, and while the listing of correspondences is a necessary first stage, it is grossly wanting as a proof. The way is at least clear to an answer in historical terms. Malkiel, in a number of penetrating essays (especially 1964, 1977) has underscored the factors responsible for this essential unity. In particular, whereas the classic 'comparative method' historical model pictures differentiating dialects continuing to diverge, in Romania the survival of late Latin for centuries as the diglossic 'High' counterpart to the vernacular, and the continued social and cultural interchanges among the various 'focussed' regions, have arrested much of

12

John N. Green

the divergence and in some measure brought about linguistic convergence. Examples can be found at all levels, but nowhere more so than in vocabulary composition, where for instance Rumanian is shown in a recent study to have inherited only a third of its 'representative vocabulary' from common Proto-Romance but to have homogenized its lexicon by subsequent large-scale borrowing from other Romance sources (Birlädeanu - Maneca 1978). Rumanian is admittedly the extreme example, but the process is everywhere attested. Nor can frequent borrowing from contemporaneous Romance and from spelling-pronounced Latin be absorbed without affecting the structure of the recipient language. There are now technical and learned registers of usage throughout the Romance area which convey the strong impression of a 'lingua franca' with minor variations rather than of eight or more separate languages with limited intercomprehensibility. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of the modern Romance standard languages is the presence of historically-stratified vocabulary whose synchronic function is the differentiation of register. This in turn leads to rather serious problems for the descriptive linguist, since layers of the so-called 'learned' Latinate vocabulary often exhibit regular phonotactic patterns which nevertheless cut across those of the basal vocabulary. In the early 'abstract' days of generative phonology (treated in some detail below, in part 3 of this volume), a determined attempt was made by Schane and J. W. Harris among others to account for these phenomena within one holistic theory which accepted as axiomatic that varied phonetic shapes with identical meanings must be traceable to a single underlying form. In practice, such a neat semantic formulation can only be achieved at the expense of introducing complex sets of phonological rules to convert these underlying forms into phonetic 'surface representations', and traditional Romanists reacted with polite condescension or sometimes derision when invited to believe that a twentieth-century French infant learns the wordfeuille as an underlying form something like /folia/ because of the alternation with foliation (Schane 1968: 58-59). Theoretical pyrotechnics of this kind are roundly condemned in Hammarstrom's survey of Romance phonetics and phonology below, and there can be no doubt he represents the majority view on this matter. For someone whose own phonology is based squarely on observational phonetics, the proposed underlying forms are altogether too fanciful. This attitude is very instructive with respect to the limits of tolerance

Introduction

13

Romanists are prepared to grant to 'synchronic description'. It must not be forgotten that a prime argument used in favour of abstract phonology within the Chomskyan school was precisely that the morphophonemic alternations so treated still exist in the language and are thus by definition 'synchronic'. Productive alternations, the theory says, are part of the native speaker's 'competence' and must have a formal characterization in the analysis. Perhaps so; but Romanists call a halt when the mechanics require the postulation of underlying forms strongly reminiscent of reconstructed Proto-Romance. Equally, a work representing the opposite extreme of the theoretical spectrum, Hall's Structural sketch of French (1948), has found little favour in European circles. Its strictly monolingual scope and rigorous confinement to the description of observable data, however laudable in their own terms, are felt to deny the pervasive 'Romanceness' of French. Synchrony, then, can be inimical to comparative information; but this is to some extent a question of definition. Saussure himself was prepared to be pragmatic: "En pratique, un etat de langue n'est pas un point, mais un espace de temps plus ou moins long pendant lequel la somme des modifications survenues est minime", or, a little later, "Un etat absolu se definit par ['absence de changements, et comme malgre tout la langue se transforme, si peu que ce soil, etudier un etat de langue revient pratiquement ä negliger leschangementspeu importants. . ."([1916] 1965:142). This position, dictated perhaps by Saussure's insistence on langue as a 'fait social', is significantly more liberal than that taken by some of his successors and certainly by some Bloomfieldians. It leaves jus.t enough leeway for the minor variations which crucially provide the raw ingredients of linguistic change. The system, in other words, contains the seeds of its own evolution. This 'liberal' interpretation of synchrony would, I believe, command wide support among Romanists, for whom the pursuit of absolutely static descriptions seems at best artificial. This view of synchrony-more-or-less chimes well with another Saussurean notion — that of history as a succession of 'etats de langue'. Although the precise connotations of langue might not be accepted in a discipline whose positivist tradition has largely ignored dualist conceptions of language (Chomsky's as much as Saussure's), the idea of linguistic periodization is almost as old as Romance linguistics itself, and certainly predates Saussure. Again, the nature and extent of the surviving evidence may have determined its presentation: numerous historical

14

John N. Green

grammars begin in effect with a synchronic picture of the Latin literary language, followed by 'Vulgar Latin', Old French', 'Middle French' and so on — periods which have fuzzy edges, to be sure, but nonetheless sufficient distinctive features to warrant the division. This is not to say that Romance lacks properly diachronic studies — far from it — but the presentation has tended to vary with the subject matter. Thus, in etymological work, the long-term trajectory of the etymon and its immediate congeners is a familiar genre, whereas in syntax the exposition of word-order change has sometimes been so closely tied to evolutionary periods as to become, in turn, a defining characteristic for those same periods. (Witness, in this context, the coincidence of the end of Old French' with the loss of some optional orderings, notably OVS: Totes autres pierres passoient II Celes delgraal sanz dotance; Chretien de Troyes quoted in Rickard 1974: 64.) The influence of the subject matter on its own presentation and the reluctance of many Romanists to be fettered by a narrowly synchronic frame of reference are nowhere more apparent than in the field of dialectology. Although the observation and description of contemporaneous speech varieties can in principle be carried out with no historical dimension whatever, aside from a comparatively small number of monographs principally concerned with the detailed phonetics of a single dialect, this has not been the general trend. Gillieron himself set the tone by envisaging linguistic geography less as a purely synchronic record than as a means first of tracing lexical diffusion and the spatial propagation of sound-shifts, and ultimately of refuting the Neogrammarian strictregularity hypothesis. There is indeed a remarkable parallel to be drawn in the history of linguistics between the emergence of linguistic geography as a reaction to the straitjacket of Neogrammarian 'Ausnahmlosigkeit', and the intrusion into the neatly-formal domain of Chomsky's idealized speaker-hearer of the messier 'real data' of Labovian sociolinguistics. In the first English edition of the Jordan -OnIntroduction to Romance linguistics (1937), the longest section is that devoted to linguistic geography and the authors make fairly plain their belief that this represents probably the single most important innovation in Romance studies. Yet despite their enthusiasm for "the revolution it has brought about in our linguistic outlook and the remarkable results it has achieved" (1937: 144), they are scrupulous in not claiming the "method" as a new "science". Similarly, W. G. Moulton cavils at the use in this context of the

Introduction

15

expression 'dialect theory': "The term is in part a misnomer, because geographical linguists in general were not, and still are not, theoryoriented" (1972: 200). Such niceties have not deterred large numbers of Romanists from following the lead set by Gillieron. By any standards, the volume of work produced, in terms both of individual dialect monographs and large-scale atlases, has been extraordinary (some idea of its breadth is conveyed in Jordan -Orr -Posner 1970, Malkiel 1972, Moulton 1972 and Pop 1950). In view of this considerable and continuing activity, the absence from these volumes of a separate chapter on dialectology will no doubt cause surprise. We would justify the omission on two principal grounds. Firstly — a practical consideration — a great deal of micro-dialectology is covered under various other headings: phonetic studies by Hammarström's survey (this volume), lexis throughout part 3 of volume 1, folk literature by Karlinger in part 1 of volume 3, the main non-national languages and the overseas diversification of French, Spanish and Portuguese in volume 3, parts 2 and 3 respectively, and regional trends in Romance research (with dialectology taking the lion's share in several cases) throughout volume 4. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the high level of activity in dialectology has not brought a commensurate advance in synchronic linguistic theory. Certainly, the impact of the steady accumulation of dialectological material in Romance has made itself felt in a transformation of historical studies, sometimes purposefully engineered (Gillieron 1918; Rohlfs 1954, 1971; Wartburg 1950, 1969), sometimes emerging as a natural evolution (witness the collected essays of Jud [edited by Huber and Ineichen, 1973] or Paiva Boleo 1974-75). Moreover, to reiterate a point made earlier, comparative work among dialects necessarily entails a certain time-depth which clamours for the attention even of those linguists who, following in the footsteps of Weinreich (1954) and Pulgram (1964), have attempted structuralist diasystemic analyses (Alvar 1969,1975; Goosens 1969; Rensch 1970). But in macrodialectology, and principally in the elaboration of large-scale linguistic atlases, the essential aims and methodology are not very different from those of Gillieron. There have certainly been many improvements — which must not be belittled — in such practical matters as the design of questionnaires, sampling of informants, techniques of interviewing and recording, and typographical presentation of findings, but none of these constitutes a theoretical advance. It may indeed be claimed with some

16

John N. Green

justification that a linguistic atlas, in aiming to provide an impartial record of usage, should by choice avoid theory as a potential source of bias. Despite the commonsense attractiveness of this standpoint, we should at all times be aware that Observations' of linguistic phenomena are rarely independent of at least some prior assumptions and can never transcend limitations in the investigator's skill. These points are taken up independently in other contributions to this volume: by Hammarström, as regards both auditory discrimination and experimental phonetic techniques, and by Manoliu and Vasiliu, in respect of grammatical and semantic units of analysis. These caveats aside, a major research effort continues to be devoted to the second generation of linguistic atlases. Although some work along these lines is taking place throughout Romania, by far the heaviest concentration is to be found in France. Here, a project originally inspired by A. Dauzat to replace and expand Gillieron's Atlas linguistique de la France (1902-10) by a whole series of in-depth regional surveys is being organized and funded by the Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques (its scope and results achieved are reviewed in Seguy 1973c). The intention was to harmonize as far as possible the questionnaires and interviewing techniques, but simultaneous work by different research teams on some twenty atlases and the time scale entailed by so ambitious a project (the first volumes appeared in the early '50s and several have not yet begun publication) have militated against homogeneity so that some not insignificant variation is already to be found. The personality of the principal investigator in the earlier work and the wish to preserve features of local dialect in danger of extinction, are factors in this divergence. To date, only three projects are complete, including maps, commentary and indices: ALE du Lyonnais (Gardette 1950-68), ALE de la Gascogne (Seguy et al. 1954-73) and ALE du Massif Central (Nauton 1957-63). Those others whose publication is under way include: ALE de la Champagne et de la Brie (Bourcelot 1966-), ALE du FrancheComte (Dondaine 1973-), ALE de la Bretagne romane, de l'Anjou et du Maine (Guillaume - Chauveau 1976-), ALE du Jura et des Alpes du Nord (Martin - Tuaillon 1972-), ALE de l'Ouest (Massignon - Horiot 1971-) and ALE de l'lle-de-France et de l'Orfeanais (Simoni-Aurembou 1973-). Two other completed works, not in this series but planned as complementary are: AL de la Wallonie (Haust et al. 1953-69) andAL des Pyrenees Orientales (Guiter 1966).

Introduction

17

No other Romance country can begin to compete with France in this kind of dialectology. Rumania runs a creditable second. The new series Atlasul lingvistic romin, under the direction of E. Petrovici, appeared in seven volumes between 1956 and 1971, accompanied as its predecessor had been by a concise version: Micul atlas lingvistic romin (1956-67). At the same time, a set of regional atlases on the lines of the French ones is being executed under the direction of B. Cazacu: two have so far appeared—of Oltenia (Cazacu 1967) and Moldavia (Komarnitki 1972). Large-scale work is also under way in several other countries, but the number of separate projects involved is generally smaller. A welcome addition to the literature on Friulian will be the Atlante storico linguistico etnografico friulano (ASLEF), of which the first volume is now available (Pellegrini 1972). In Italy, theAtlante linguistico italiano, founded originally by Bärtoli and Vidossi, and more recently directed by Terracini and Bonfante, has been in preparation for many years. It is designed to replace the classic Jaberg - Jud AIS (1928-40), using a much larger questionnaire and giving greater coverage of Southern dialects. Turning to Ibero-Romance, Catalunya once bid fair to be the best-served region: Griera's Atlas linguistic de Catalunya (1923-64) was based on fieldwork completed in summer 1922 and had completed publication of five volumes from San Cugat del Valles by 1939, but the monastery was sacked during the Civil War and the remaining material lost, so that fieldwork had to be repeated, many years after the major data collection phase, in order to complete the project. Needless to add, the exceptionally long publication schedule and the mixed dating of the material, aside from doubts about the original conception, have led most critics to a negative judgement on this project, and work is under way on a replacement Atlas linguistic del domini catala directed by Badia Margarit. The Spanish atlas planned by Navarro Tomäs was also disrupted by the Civil War, and it was not until 1962 that a much-modified Atlas linguistico de la peninsula iberica (ALPI) began publication under the auspices of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. In the interim, probably the best of the regional atlases was conceived and brought to relatively quick fruition by Alvar: Atlas linguistico y etnografico de Andalucia (Alvar 1961-65). (Alvar 1969, to which we alluded above, is in part a commentary on its planning and execution.) Portugal appears to be in the least satisfactory position of all, for despite a massive collection of dialect information assembled mainly by correspondence methods by Paiva

18

John N. Green

Boleo and his pupils at Coimbra —an effort which has continued almost without interruption since 1942 (see Paiva Boleo 1974-75 for details) — the much-missed Atlas lingüistico-etnografico de Portugal e da Galiza seems likely to remain an unrealized dream. The degree of activity generated in individual countries by macrolinguistic research on this scale, also offers a rough guide to the production of state-of-the-art surveys and monograph studies of single dialects, and though Italy constitutes a somewhat special case, there can be no doubt that France leads in the sheer volume of scholarly output. Useful surveys include Chaurand 1972; Gardette 1976, covering briefly the entire development of French dialectology from Gillieron to the end of the '60s; and Tuaillon 1976, a more detailed look at the last thirty years. Regular congresses are held (see especially Marzys 1971; Straka 1972, and the conference proceedings collected in the Revue de Linguistique Romane 35 [1971] and 41 [1977]). The major preoccupations are the conduct of fieldwork, the detailed interpretation of linguistic maps (Tuaillon 1971) including 'dialectometric' measures of degree of relationship (Seguy 1973a, 1973b), the distribution of French dialects and patois (Lerond 1973, Müller 1971, Warnant 1973), the plotting of isoglosses and the cohesion of the dialectal areas so identified (Picoche 1969, Tuaillon 1972) — especially the status and boundaries of the perennial enigma franco-provenqal (Jochnowitz 1973). Of many studies of individual dialects (Picoche 1973 is a useful bibliography), two particularly deserve mention: Doussinet 1972 and Vincenz 1974. The latter is a model of its genre, charting the gradual extinction of a franco -prove n$al dialect (attributed to compulsory French-medium education, the 1914-18 war, and principally the disappearance of the peasant way of life "dont le patois etait 1'expression") and highlighting certain findings that run counter to accepted belief in dialectology (he found for instance that patois lexical items have a better chance of survival the rarer they are, and also that the men were much more conservative than the women, who tended to take — sometimes unilaterally — the decision to speak only French to their children). The general level of awareness of dialect in Italy and the relatively slow penetration of a national linguistic norm have there favoured the pursuit of dialectology over the better part of a century. Symptomatic of this focus of attention is the thriving state of dialect-oriented periodicals in Italy: not only does the specialist Italia dialettale, with its annual supple-

Introduction

19

ment Studi e saggi linguistici, continue to flourish side by side with two other major periodicals giving extensive space to dialectological matters (Archivo glottologico italiano and Lingua nostra), but — much more surprising — the '70s have seen the launch of two other titles, the traditionally oriented La ricerca dialettale, edited by M. Cortelazzo, and the more adventurous Lingua e contesto (see below); and this at a time when once vigorous dialect periodicals in other European countries have either withered altogether or been forced to broaden their scope to survive. An indispensable compendious guide to Italian dialectological practice is Cortelazzo 1969-72. Recent developments are also discussed in Coco 1977 and Arnuzzo - Marcato 1976 (an annotated bibliography). The distribution of dialects is treated in Devoto 1969, Devoto Giacomelli 1972 and Pellegrini 1973, and can be supplemented by numerous narrower-gauge studies, such as Plomteux's thorough investigation of the eastern Liguria region (1975) and Rensch's rather misleadingly titled Nordkalabrischer Sprachatlas (1973). Also noteworthy in this context is what promises to be an excellent series of regional studies commissioned by the Pisa publishing house Pacini under the general title Profile dei dialetti ilaliani; already available are Puglia (Valente 1975), Calabria (Falcone 1976) and Toscana (Gianelli 1976). I shall not duplicate here the near-exhaustive coverage of works on Rhaeto-Friulian and Catalan provided by Francescato and Gulsoy respectively in their contributions to volume 3. In Rumania, aside from the preparation of the regional atlases (see above), work continues on a series of text chrestomathies to accompany each one (Cazacu 1973 covers Muntenia). Thorough studies of one particular dialect also appear (Saramandu 1972), but a considerable effort is dissipated in numerous short and fragmentary articles regularly carried by the periodicals Studii si cercetäri lingvistice and Revue roumaine de linguistique. One notable attempt to assess the achievement of Rumanian dialectology in a wider context and to identify — clearly in diachronic terms — some of the unificatory and fragmentary tendencies of the present-day varieties, is made by Nandris 1975. In Spain, purely synchronic dialectology appears to be in decline, although activity continues apace —perhaps influenced by the still enormously influential figure of Menendez Pidal — on the collection and annotation of historical material. The ALE de Andalucfa has been the focus of methodological and data commentaries by both Alvar and his associates, the most thorough being a study of its farming

20

John N. Green

vocabulary (Fernändez-Sevilla 1975); and well-documented monographs on single dialects still appear, if somewhat sporadically (Penny 1969,1978; Cummins 1974). In Portugal, Paiva Boleo's majorInquerito (see above) has absorbed the great majority of available resources, though monograph studies do also appear (Maia 1975 is a commendable study of the Algarve and southern frontier region). An overview of progress in Portuguese dialectology and proposal for a major reclassification of mainland varieties on phonetic grounds was made by Lindley Cintra in the early '60s, though publication irregularities at the Boletim de FUologia delayed its appearance until 1971. This brief survey of Romance dialectology would be incomplete without a mention of what, in the mid '60s, seemed to promise a major rejuvenation. Unlike earlier efforts to marry structuralist theory with traditional dialectology, the proposals made by some transformationalists (especially Saporta 1965, Saltarelli 1966) looked distinctly more hopeful. The historico-comparative dimension which is so fundamental to most dialectological work is not easily grafted on to the structuralist conception of a network of synchronically closed systems. Thus the neatness of Weinreich's original 'diasystems' (1954) was completely shattered by Moulton's incorporation of the further dimension of phonological correspondences in shared vocabulary (1960). Moulton argued that Weinreich's diasystem, although perfectly valid as a typological comparison of any set of languages, actually misrepresented the relationship between dialects: it compared phoneme inventories while neglecting the differing distributions of the phonemes among cognate items. Moulton was undeniably right here: speech varieties that do not share substantial numbers of cognates are not called 'dialects' and a typological comparison which ignores this relationship is not 'dialectology'. Saporta and Saltarelli independently saw the potential of the duallevel transformational framework to resolve this apparently insuperable difficulty. If, as TG postulated, monolingual native speakers constructed abstract phonological 'underlying forms' to account for morphophonemic variants, and if in practice these synchronically-justified abstractions were very similar to historically-attested antecedents, then it was likely that the underlying forms of related dialects would have a high rate of congruence. If, in other words, Schane was right in postulating /folia/ as the underlying representation offeuille in modern French (see above), the same /folia/ might well underlie Italianfoglia and conceivably

Introduction

21

Rumanian/ocz/e also. Dialectal variation could then be accounted for on the basis of a common input to a slightly different, or differently ordered, set of phonological adjustment rules. The attraction of this suggestion is twofold. Firstly, it incorporates — at a theoretical level — an evolutionary tendency into a synchronic description. Secondly, it can claim a significant psycholinguistic justification in demonstrating formally how native speakers of one dialect, with a little practice, can easily become proficient in handling neighbouring dialects; to do so, they have merely abstracted a few phonological realization rules which they apply at the end of their own phonological grammar. It is most unfortunate that this promising line of attack, which could do much to revitalize Romance dialectology, suffered the fate of many attempts at theory application: the theory moved on and left the application suddenly shorn of its apparently solid underpinning (the reaction away from abstract phonology is further discussed in my survey of generative grammar in part 3 of this volume). The fleeting possibility of rejuvenating dialectology from formal generative theory has been overtaken by a much more powerful impetus. The impact of Labovian sociolinguistics (enthusiastically documented by Lavandera in this volume) has been seized upon by some Romanists, particularly in Italy and Catalunya, but is facing an uphill struggle in other countries. It is a development to be welcomed, a natural evolution — as Malkiel 1976 shows — of trends having a very long pedigree within Romance linguistics. The transition has been most successful where eminent dialectologists have espoused the new methodology (see for example Alvar 1975, Badia Margarit 1976), but in Italy, where sociolinguistics remains largely the province of younger scholars, the desire to ensure continuity has resulted in some deliberately bi-faceted studies (for instance, the social significance of dialect at school — Spigarelli 1973) and the founding of the periodical Lingua e contesto (Manfredonia: Atlantica; 1974-) specially designed to accommodate work of this kind. Sociolinguistics and dialectology have in common the presentation of synchronic material with an inbuilt time-depth. They also share, at least at a superficial level, various methodological procedures — the use of questionnaires, personal interviewing of informants, and multi-member research teams to cover often large geographical distances and later to process the abundant data they have collected. Yet these similarities of approach can still produce unrecognizably different results depending on the selection and location of informants. Whereas dialectologists have

22

John N. Green

tended to choose elderly informants from rural communities (sometimes, indeed, with a consciously antiquarian wish to preserve dialectal information in danger of being lost), sociolinguists typically select young informants, sometimes children and adolescents, from large urban centres. Dialectology thus records archaizing tendencies — of great value to long-scale historical investigation — while sociolinguistics identifies innovating trends and to some extent predicts the future. (It is sad — and also rather disturbing for a would-be synchronic linguist —to reflect that a good proportion of the informants were no longer alive by the time several major linguistic atlases completed publication.) For Romance linguistics, the different kinds of results produced by dialectology and sociolinguistics, are equally valuable — and the more so for their abundance; they should not be seen in any way as competitive, but as complementary in advancing our understanding of long-term linguistic processes. Taken together, dialectological and sociolinguistic findings set neat operational limits on synchrony — provided only that they can avoid recording usage which is either practically dead (as in the reminiscences of a very old informant with no remaining contemporaries alive) or, at the opposite extreme, totally transient (as in items of teenage slang discarded before the survey is complete). In the wake of this increased activity in sociolinguistics has come a dramatic upsurge of interest in pidgin and Creole languages. Although the great bulk of this material dates only from the second half of the twentieth century, the origins of Creole research — as Reinecke points out in the foreword to a recent collection of essays (Valdman (ed.) 1977) — can be traced back over two centuries. The many early sources quoted in the authoritative and near exhaustive Bibliography of pidgin and Creole languages (Reinecke et al. 1975) come, however, not from linguists but from explorers, missionaries, travellers and colonial administrators, and are thus often more tantalizing than directly informative. Even the systematic investigation undertaken in the eighteen-eighties by Schuchardt relied on correspondence and secondary material assembled by non-linguists (see Hall 1966: 108, 117 for a rather unsympathetic account). Aside from a very few pioneering works such as Baissac's Etude sur le patois creole mauricien (1880), thorough linguistic analysis only really got under way during and shortly after the 1939-45 war. At that time, it was mainly American structuralists who took the initiative and not surprisingly their

Introduction

23

efforts were for the most part directed to the 'English based' Creoles of the Caribbean and the Guineas, although attention was also drawn — principally by Robert Hall and Douglas Taylor — to some Romance-based Creoles of the same area, notably Haitian, Dominican and Papiamentu. As in linguistic geography, so in Creoles, it is the French-related varieties which have received most thorough investigation, though the intense phase of this investigation — and certainly official encouragement to indulge it — is scarcely a decade old. The major fillip was the founding of the Centre d'etudes des relations interethniques de Nice whose first conference (held 1968, proceedings published 1969) sought to document the extent and diversity of Creole French, world wide. More recently, a Societe des etudes Creoles has been formed and has begun organizing international conferences of the kind that really launched English Creole studies (Le Page (ed.) 1961; Hymes (ed.) 1971). The most complete overview of French Creoles currently available is Vintilä-Rädulescu 1976b, which concentrates on the major problems of evidence, historical development and synchronic affinity. The earlier comparative study by Goodman (1964), though defective in some details, is an ambitious attempt to document the reflexes of a number of French lexical and morphosyntactic etyma. Chaudenson 1973 also adopts a comparative perspective. Unfortunately, with the exception of the brief illustrations provided by Hall (1966:155-158), the works of broad scope contain little or no Creole running text, but the format adopted by Baissac (1880), of grammatical notes on an individual dialect followed by sample Creole stories, has been followed by several of his successors. Such studies are now available for all the major varieties, though the quality is sometimes erratic and the range of descriptive frameworks employed makes comparative work an uphill task. We should mention at least the following: for Louisiana — Broussard 1942; for Haiti — Faine 1936; Sylvain 1936; Hall 1953; D'Ans 1968; Valdman 1975; for Martinique — Jourdain 1956a, 1956b; for Dominica — Taylor 1947, 1951, 1968; Christie 1969; for French Guiana — Fauquenoy 1972; for Indian Ocean in general and Reunion in particular — Chaudenson 1974a, 1974b; for Mauritius — Baker 1972; and for Seychelles — Bollee 1977; Corne 1977. By comparison with French, the other Romance-based Creoles are ill-served in the literature, though of course judged simply in terms of numbers of speakers, they are correspondingly less important.

24

John N. Green

Papiamentu — one of the very few Romance Creoles to develop a name independent of its geographical location — has always attracted attention and continues to do so (see Reinecke (ed.) 1975:147-209). To the classic study, Lenz 1928, can now be added a modern analysis, Birmingham 1970, and some well-documented discussion of its earliest manifestations: Granda 1973a, 1974a; Wood 1972. Palenquero, a Spanish-based Creole spoken in a small area of northern Colombia, has interesting features but has not yet been comprehensively described; preliminary discussion can be found in Bickerton - Escalante 1970 and Granda 1973b. Granda has also written on more general aspects of Spanish creole varieties and those found in the Atlantic islands (1970, 1974b). K. Whinnom'sSpfl/ns/z contact vernaculars in the Philippine Islands (1956) still stands virtually alone as a representative not only of East Indies Spanish but also of the analysis-plus-illustrative texts format. Portuguese creole, especially that of Säo Tome, is documented in a number of essays collected in Valkhoff 1966. Sociolinguistic studies on cocoliche — the speech of Italian immigrants in the Buenos Aires region of Argentina and recognized by some scholars as the nearest approach to an Italian creole — are discussed in Lavandera's article later in this volume. It may not, at first sight, be apparent how the study of pidgins and Creoles can illuminate traditional Romance problems but in fact there are many parallels, on both synchronic and diachronic levels. The kinds of features Romanists have subsumed under the generic label 'substratum influences', insofar as they arise from the relatively sudden contact of two languages and cultures under conditions of great sociological disparity — of victor to vanquished — bear a more than passing similarity to those arising from creolization processes. True, the languages in contact were for the most part Indo-European and much more similar in structure than those whose contact produced the 'real' Creoles, but these differences may well be of degree rather than of kind. Although Hall has stated that the modern Romance languages "show no clear traces of such pidginization or of subsequent creolization; all the changes from Latin structure which they manifest can be shown to be the result of gradual change over the twenty centuries that separate us from Roman times" (1966:3), other scholars have maintained that the parallelism is in fact very close — see, for instance, Schlieben-Lange 1977. We should also remember, in assessing this question, that all the documented European-based Creoles show evidence of 'decreolization' in the direction of their respective 'model'

Introduction

25

languages (see Valdman 1973 for French and Baum 1976 for Papiamentu), just as Romance dialects have tended to focus towards localized norms, thus erasing evidence of earlier diversity. Synchronically, the most tantalizing question is why the French Creoles are typologically so similar. The Indian Ocean Creoles are, to a large extent, mutually intercomprehensible with those of the Caribbean, although contact between them has always been minimal. Mutual comprehensibility has proved a very difficult criterion to apply rigorously, but there can be no doubt that intelligibility among the French Creoles is far higher than between any creole and standard French. The crucial relationship here is clearly between recognizability of grammatical structures and of cognate vocabulary. Research findings in this area could well have applications in European Romance: how far, for instance, does the continuing 'relexification' of Rumanian from, chiefly, French vocabulary stock cancel out some rather striking non-Romance grammatical features, such as the postposed article? Again we see that a fruitful crossfertilization of creole and more traditional orientations entails further blurring of the frontier between synchrony and diachrony. That Romanists take a broad view of synchrony is, I have argued, a consequence of the material with which we work. It may be legitimate to perform a strictly synchronic experimental analysis of the phonetics of an individual speaker or of the average vowel-length or voice-onset timing of a small group of speakers of one variety, but in moving to phonology — even of a reasonably homogeneous standard language — Romance scholars have refused to eschew diasystemic statements like: 'the opposition between X and Υ is not consistently maintained by all speakers in all speech modes' (see Martinet 1945, 1949, 1956; Mateus 1975; Thomas 1976; Walter 1976,1977a, 1977b). As a general rule, if the history/description dichotomy does not hold in phonology, it is even less likely to do so with respect to grammatical and semantic levels. Hence, while determinedly synchronic analyses of morphosyntax are attempted, it is at the expense of restriction to a national standard or one very well delimited variety (for example Cristea 1975, Garcia 1975 — though even here cross-dialectal comparison cannot be avoided). More usually, Romanists acknowledge a historical slant, either openly (Wunderli 1976) or more tacitly, as the two score contributors to a recent congress on Fenomeni morfologici e sintattici nell'italiano contemporaneo (Roma: Bulzoni, 1974). Again, it may be legitimate to view strictly synchronically the

26

John N. Green

relations holding between members of well-defined conceptual or lexical sets, but any attempt to describe the total lexicon of a community, or even of an idiolect, must refer to neologisms, archaisms, productivity of derivational patterns and other features all inescapably contributing a timedepth (for discussion, see Vasiliu's survey below, and, for more panchronic aspects: Mignot 1972, Martin 1976, Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1977 and Schogt 1976). The great linguistic atlases can be read, transversely, as a static record of the speech of one locality at a precise point in time, but this is only a small part of their usefulness (in recording lexical diffusion and the propagation of sound shifts, and as a general context against which to set innumerable individual dialect monographs). Indeed for some types of investigation favoured among Romanists the boundary between synchrony and diachrony is impossible to draw without falsifying the object of study. Etymology is such a case: primarily a historical study in which only the end-points of the trajectory are properly synchronic, but for which the identification of a 'meaning' (that is, a statement of a term's usage within a temporally static norm) is an indispensable prerequisite. Similarly, a contemporary statement of distribution is an essential part of toponymy, though it would be hard to see the point (other than cartographical) of a strictly synchronic account of place names. This willingness to 'let the data speak for themselves' and so to some extent determine their own organization, may be the main factor in the reputation of Romance linguistics as a loose amalgam of many different schools and scholars. Whether one sees this as a sign of vitality (the picture presented in Jordan - Orr - Posner 1970) or as the mark of a discipline riven with internal dissent (Hall 1963, 1975) depends on personal standpoint, but there is undeniably some truth in the characterization. Despite all this intense and diverse activity — the cynical might say because of it — few of the major theoretical innovations of linguistics have originated in the Romance domain. The Neogrammarians, Saussure, Jakobson and Trubetzkoy, Bloomfield, and Chomsky can in no way be identified as Romanists. Even the European movements arising in or near Romance-speaking countries — Bärtoli's idealism, Martinet's functionalism, Hjelmslev's glossematics, Guillaume's psychomechanics — use Romance for exemplification rather than as the springboard for theoretical advance (a detailed discussion of each of these approaches, and of generative grammar, is provided in part 3 of this volume). In the

Introduction

27

history of linguistics tout court it is not even certain what place should be reserved for such a towering charismatic figure as Meyer-Lübke. It tne forty-odd years since the death of Meyer-Lübke have seen the 'Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft', the fault must lie at least as much with the ravages of time in the ranks of senior Romanists — many of them representing the 'first-generation' of Meyer-Lübke's disciples — as with any sense of disillusionment among those remaining. The catalogue of deaths is both sad and alarming (for an enumeration, see lordan - Orr - Posner 1970: 411, and Posner's introduction to Volume 1); two of the contributors to this series of volumes, Togeby and Moignet, and an intending contributor, J. L. Butler, have not lived to see its publication. But the 'crisis' of Romance linguistics, prematurely bereft of many of its luminaries, is not one of personnel: the triennial Congress attracts very large numbers of participants wishing to signal thereby their membership of the Romance fellowship. Rather, there is a lack of overall direction and a loss of confidence, coupled perhaps with a slight embarrassment at being preoccupied with data when the real 'whizz kids' of linguistics appear able to toss off a whole new theory before breakfast. Let me state firmly in conclusion: Romanists owe no apologies for being data-oriented comparatists. Theories need testing. Romance is still by far the richest and best-documented resource, both descriptively and historically, for this purpose. Hopefully, too, the spread of Popperian attitudes among linguistic theorists will remove any remaining suspicion that theory-testing is a secondary and inferior activity to theory-creation. The two go necessarily hand in hand. One of the most promising signs is the alacrity with which Romanists have responded to the challenge of Labov-inspired sociolinguistics. This rejuvenation of traditional dialect geography is indeed an area where Romance can make a valuable and immediate response. More speculatively, the current high level of interest in language universals, stemming largely from Greenberg's pioneering work in that field (1966a, 1966b, 1978), requires an intense investigative effort — in particular of syntactic typology. In an area where not even the elementary identification techniques are yet agreed (some myths a; least are exposed in Green 1976 and M. B. Harris 1978), there is an acute need for a well-documented group of genetically-related languages on which to verify, as a first stage, postulated universals. Again, Romance is the obvious candidate. In launching this series of volumes to catalogue and assess the

28

John N. Green

achievements of the past, we naturally hope to foster a new impetus in Romance research. It does not take a visionary to see where that research would be best directed. The need is only to recover a shaken sense of confidence and get on with the task! References Aebi scher, P. 1971

"Le pluriel -äs de la premiere declinaison latine et ses resultats dans les langues romanes", ZRPh 87: 74-98. Alvar, M. 1969 Estructuralismo, geografla lingüistica y dialectologia actual (Madrid: Credos). [Second edition 1973.] 1975 Teorfa lingüistica de las regiones (Barcelona: Planeta). Alvar, M. - A. Llorente - G. Salvador 1961-65 Atlas lingüistico y etnografico de Andalacfo, 4 vols. (Granada: U.P.). [Supplementary material appeared in two further vols. (Granada: U.P., 1972,1973).] Arnuzzo, A. M. - G. Marcato 1976 Lingua e dialetti italiani. Contribute alia bibliografia della lingua e dei dialetti italiani per gli anni 1967-71 (Pisa: Pacini). Badia Margarit, A. M. 1976 "Nivelacion geolingiustica y lenguas en contacto", Revista espanola de lingüistica 6: 269-300. Baissac, C. 1880 £tude sur le patois craole mauricien (Nancy: Berger-Levrault). Baker, P. 1972 Kreol. A description of Mauritian Creole (London: Hurst). Baum, P. 1976 "The question of decreolization in Papiamentu phonology", Linguistics 173: 83-93. Bee, P. 1970-71 Manuel pratique de philologie romane, 2 vols. (Paris: Picard). Bickerton, D. - A. Escalante 1970 "Palenquero: A Spanish-based Creole of northern Colombia", Lingua 24: 254-267. Birlädeanu, M. - C. Maneca 1978 "Physionomie genealogique de deux modeles lexicaux: fran^ais et roumain", BSRLR 13: 55-72. Birmingham, J. C., Jr. 1970 The Papiamentu language of Curasao (unpublished dissertation: University of Virginia). Bollee, A. 1977 Le c^ole franqais des Seychelles. Esquisse d'une grammaire, textes, vocabulaire (Tübingen: Niemeyer). Bourcelot, H. 1966- Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Champagne et de la Brie (Paris: CNRS). [Vol. 1 1966, vol. 2 1969.] Broussard, J. F. 1942 Louisiana French dialect (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U.P.).

Introduction

29

Carrasco, F. 1975 "Remarques sur le comportement des clitiques neutres dans le Systeme attribut de l'espagnol et du frangais", RRom 10: 293-305. Cazacu, B. et al. 1967 Noul atlas lingvistic roman pe regiuni. Oltenia (Bucure§ti: Editura Acaderniei). 1973 Texte dialectale. Muntenia I (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Centre d'etudes des relations interethniques de Nice 1969 Le frangais en France et hors de France, I. Crfoles et contacts africains (Paris: Belles Lettres). Chaudenson, R. 1973 "Pour une etude comparee des Creoles et parlers franqais d'outremer: survivance et innovation", RLR 37: 342-371. 1974a "Le Noir et le Blanc: la classification raciale dans les parlers Creoles de l'ocean indien", RLR 38: 75-94. 1974b Lexique du parier creole de La Raunion (Paris: Champion, 2 vols.). Chaurand, J. 1972 Introduction a la dialectologie fi- aise (Paris: Bordas). Christie, P. G. 1969 A sociolinguistic study of some Dominican Creole-speakers (unpublished doctoral dissertation: York). Coco, F. 1977 Introduzione allo studio delta dialettologia italiana (Bologna: Patron). Cong. 12 1970-71 Actele celui de-al Xll-lea congres international de lingvisticä j/ filologie romanicä (Bucure$ti, 15-20 aprilie 1968), edited by A. Rosetti and S. Reinheimer-Ripeanu (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). [Vol. 11970, vol. II1971.] Cong. 13 1976 Actes du XIII congres international de linguistique et philologie romanes tenu a I'universM Laval du 29 aoüt au 5 septembre 1971, edited by M. Boudreault and F. Mohren, 2 vols. (Quebec: Laval U.P.). Cong. 14 1976-78 Atti del XIV congresso internazionale de linguistica e filologia romania (Napoli, 15-20 aprile 1974), edited by A. Varvaro, 4 vols. (Amsterdam: Benjamins). Corne, C. 1977 Seychelles Creole grammar. Elements for Indian Ocean proto-creole reconstruction (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 91) (Tübingen: Narr). Cortelazzo, M. 1969-72 Avviamento critico allo studio delta dialettologia italiana, 3 vols. (Pisa: Pacini). Coteanu, I. 1974 "Structure consonanticä a cuvintului in romäna §i franceza literarä (grupurile consonantice)", SCL 25: 385-395. Cremona, J. 1968 "L'axe nord-sud de la romania et la position du toscan", in Cong. 12.1:155-159. Cristea, T. 1975 Le locatif spatio-temporel en frangais contemporain (Bucure§ti: Editura didacticä §i pedagogicä). 1977 Elements de grammaire contrastive: domaine frangais-roumain (Bucures.ti: Editura didacticä §i pedagogicä).

30

John N. Green

Cummins, J. G. 1974 El habla de Coria (London: Tamesis). Danesi, M. 1976 La lingua dei 'Sermoni subalpini' (Torino: Centre di studi Piemontesi). 1977 "The sigmatic plural in Old Piedmontese", Romania 98: 367-370. D'Ans, A.-M. 1968 Le craole /ταηςals d'Haiti (= Janua linguarum, series practica 106) (The Hague: Mouton). Devoto, G. 1969 "L'ltalia dialettale", Atti del quinto convegno di studi umbri (Gubbio: Centro di studi umbri), 93-127. Devoto, G. - G. Giacomelli 1972 / dialetti delle regioni d'Italia (Firenze: Sansoni). Dietrich, W. 1973 Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen (= supplement to ZRPh 140 (T bingen: Niemeyer). Dondaine, C. 1973- Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Franche-Comtέ (Paris: CNRS). Doussinet, R. 1972 Grammaire saintongeaise: etude des structures d'un parier ^gional (La Rochelle: Rupella). Elcock, W. D. 1938 De quelques affint s phonetiques entre l'aragonais et le baarnais (Paris). 1960 The Romance languages (London: Faber). [Second edition revised by J. N. Green, 1975.] Ettinger, S. 1974 Diminutiv- und Augmentativbildung: Regeln und Restriktionen (= T binger Beitr ge zur Linguistik 54) (T bingen: Narr). Faine, J. 1936 Philologie criole; atudes historiques et έtymologiques sur la langue creOle d'Haiti (Port-au-Prince: Imprimerie de l'Etat). Falcone, G. 1976 Calabria (Pisa: Pacini). Fauquenoy, M. St. Jacques 1972 Analyse structurale du creole guyanais (Paris: Klincksieck). Fern ndez-Sevilla, J. 1975 Formas y estructuras en el lexico agricola andaluz: interpretacion y estudio de 200 mapas ling isticos (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). Garcia, E. 1975 The role of theory in linguistic analysis: the Spanish pronoun system (Amsterdam: N. Holland). Gardette, Mgr. P. 1950-^8 Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Lyonnais, 4 vols. (Paris: CNRS). 1976 "La dialectologie galloromane. Etat present", in Cong 13.1: 37-53. Gianelli, L. 1976 Toscana (Pisa: Pacini). Gillieron, J. 1902-10 Atlas linguistique de la France (Paris: Champion). 1918 Genealogie des mots qui dέsignent I'abeille d'apres Γ Atlas linguistique de la France (Paris: Champion).

Introduction

31

Giurescu, A. 1975 Les mots composes dans les langues romanes (The Hague: Mouton). Goodman, M. F. 1964 A comparative study of Creole French dialects (The Hague: Mouton). Goosens, J. 1969 Strukturelle Sprachgeographie: eine Einführung in Methodik und Ergebnisse (Heidelberg: Winter). Granda, G. de 1970 "On the study of the Creole dialects in Spanish-speaking areas", Orbis 19:72-81. 1973a "Papiamento en Hispanoamerica (siglos XVII-XIX)", Thesaurus 28: 1-13. 1973b "Un caso de utilizacion de datos etnograficos con finalidad lingüistica", RDyTP 29: 61-72. 1974a "El repertorio lingüistico de los sefarditas de Cura9ao durante los siglos XVII y XVIII y el problema del origen del papiamento", RomPh 28: 1-16. 1974b "Un posible modelo para la descripcion sociolingüistica de las hablas 'criollas' atlänticas", ZRPh 90: 174-202. Green, J. N. 1976 "How free is word order in Spanish?", Romance syntax; synchronic and diachronic perspectives, edited by M. B. Harris (Salford: U.P.), 7-32. Greenberg, J. H. 1960 "A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language", UAL 26: 178-194. 1966a "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements", Universals of language, edited by J. H. Greenberg (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press), 73-113. 1966b Language universals: with special reference to feature hierarchies (The Hague: Mouton). Greenberg, J. H., et al. 1978 Universals of human language (Stanford: U.P.). [Vol. 1: Method and theory, 2: Phonology, 3: Word structure, 4: Syntax.] Griera, Mons. A. 1923-64 Atlas linguistic de Catalunya (Monserrat: Monastery Press). [Vols 1-3 1923, vol. 4 n.d., vol. 5 1942. Later volumes and reprints of the earlier ones were undertaken by a different publisher (Barcelona: Institute internacional de cultura romänica, vol. 6 1962, vol. 7 1963, vol. 8 1964; vols 1-3 reprinted 1966-68).] Guillaume, G. - J.-P. Chauveau 1976- A tlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Bretagne romane, de l'Anjou et du Maine (Paris: CNRS). Guiter, H. 1966 Atlas linguistique des Pyrenäes orientales (Paris: CNRS). Hall, R. A., Jr. 1948 Structural sketch 1: French (= Language monograph 24) (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America). 1953 Haitian Creole: grammar, texts, vocabulary (Philadelphia: American Folklore Society). 1963 Idealism in Romance linguistics (Ithaca: Cornell U.P.). 1966 Pidgin and creole languages (Ithaca: Cornell U.P.). 1975 External history of the Romance languages (= Comparative Romance grammar I) (New York: Elsevier).

32

John N. Green

Harris, M. B. 1978 The evolution of French syntax. A comparative approach (London: Longman). Haust, J. - E. Legros - L. Remade 1953-69 Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie, 3 vols. (Liege: Vaillant-Carmanne). Huber, K. - G. Ineichen (eds.) 1973 Jakob Jud. Romanische Sprachgeschichte und Sprachgeographie (Zürich: Atlantis). Hymes, D. (ed.) 1971 Pidginization and creolization of languages (Cambridge: U.P.). Iliescu, M. 1976 "Les groupes consonantiques initiaux et finaux en roumain, en fran9ais et en frioulan", RLR 40: 1-7. 1977 "Strutura semanticä a urmasjlor sufixului lat. -arius, -aria, -arium in romänä §i in italianä", SCL 28: 599-608. Jordan, I. - J. Orr - R. Posner 1970 An introduction to Romance linguistics, its schools and scholars. Revised, with a supplement: Thirty years on (Oxford: Blackwell). [Originally published as Introducere in studiul limbilor romanice (Jassy U.P., 1932), translated and in part recast by J. Orr (London: Methuen, 1937).] Jaberg, K. - J. Jud 1928-40 Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweitz (AIS), 8 vols. (Zofingen). Jochnowitz, G. 1973 Dialect boundaries and the question offranco-prove^al (The Hague: Mouton). Jourdain, E. 1956a Du / aux purlers Creoles (Paris: Klincksieck). 1956b Le vocabulaire du parier croole de la Martinique (Paris: Klincksieck). Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1977 La connotation (Lyon U.P.). Komarnitki, V. 1972 Atlasul lingvistic moldovenesc. Lexicul: Casa. Obiectele de uz casnic (Chi§inäu: Editura cartea moldoveneascä). Lenz, R. 1928 El papiamento, la lengua criolla de Curasao (Santiago de Chile: Balcells). Le Page, R. B. (ed.) 1961 Proceedings of the conference on Creole language studies, 1959 (= Creole language studies 2) (London: Macmillan). Lerond, A. (ed.) 1973 Les parlers regionaux (= LFr 18) (Paris: Larousse). Lindley Cintra, L. F. 1971 "Nova proposta de classificaqao dos dialectos galego-portugueses", BF 22 (1964-71): 81-116. Lombard, A. 1975 "Determinant et determine, en roumain et en Italien", RRLing 20: 515-521, 723-729. Maia, C. de A. 1975 "Os falares do Algarve", RPF 17: 37-169. Malkiel, Y. 1964 "Distinctive traits of Romance linguistics", Language in culture and society, edited by D. Hymes (New York: Harper and Row), 671-688.

Introduction 1972

33

"Comparative Romance linguistics", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 835-925. 1976 "From Romance philology through dialect geography to sociolinguistics", Linguistics 177: 59^84. 1977 "Factors in the unity of Romania", RomN 18: 263-271. 1978 "The classification of Romance languages", RomPh 31: 467-500. Maneca, C. 1974 "Analiza cantitativä a lungimii silabice a cuvintelor din douä vocabulare romanice: roman §i Italian", SCL 25: 396-417. Maneca, C. - A. S. Perillo 1977 "Cenni di tipologia contrastiva fonostatistica rumeno-italiana", RRLing 22: 179-186. Martin, J.-B. - G. Tuaillon 1972- Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Jura et des Alpes du Nord (Paris: CNRS). Martin, R. 1976 Inference, antonymie et paraphrase (Paris: Klincksieck). Martinet, A. 1945 La pronunciation du franfais contemporain (Paris: Droz). 1949 Phonology as functional phonetics (Oxford: U.P.). 1956 La description phonologique avec application au parier franco-prove^al d'Hauteville (Savoie) (Geneve: Droz). Marzys, Z. (ed.) 1971 Actesdu colloque dedialectologiefranco-provengale, Neuchatel, 23-27sept. 1969 (Neuchätel: U.P.). Massignon, G. - B. Horiot 1971- Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de Ouest (Paris: CNRS). [Vol. 1 1971, vol. 2 1974.] Mateus, . . . 1975 Aspectos da fonologia portuguesa (Lisboa: Centro de estudos filologicos). Mignot, X. 1972 "Les notions d'homonymie, de synonymic et de polysemie dans 1'analyse ensembliste du signe", BSL 67: 1-22. Moulton, W. G. 1960 "The short vowel system of northern Switzerland", Word 16: 155-182. 1972 "Geographical linguistics", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 196-222. Müller, B. 1971 "La bi-partition linguistique de la France", RLR 35: 17-30. Munteanu, D. 1974 "Fonemele consonantice in romänä §i spaniolä", SCL 25: 419-425. Nandris, O. 1975 "Dialectologie roumaine et dialectologie romane: agents de morcellement linguistique", TLL 13: 7-30. Nauton, P. 1957-63 Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Massif Central 4 vols. (Paris: CNRS). Paiva Boleo, M. de 1974-75 Estudos de lingüfstica portuguesa e romanica. I. Dialectologia e historia da lingua (Coimbra: U.P.).

34

John N. Green

Pellegrini, G. B. 1973 "I cinque sistemi linguistic! dell'italo-romanzo", RRLing 18: 105-129. Pellegrini, G. B., et al. 1972- Atlante storico linguistico etnografico friulano (ASLEF) (Padova-Udine: Societ filologica friulana). Penny, R. 1969 El habla pasiega. Ensayos de dialectologia montanesa (London: T mesis). 1978 Esfudio estructural del habla de Tadanca (= ZRPh, Beiheft 167) (T bingen: Niemeyer). Petrovici, E. - J. PatruJ 1956-67 Micul atlas lingvistic romfn, 3 vols. (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Petrovici, E., et al. 1956-71 Atlasul lingvistic romin, l vols. (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Picoche, J. 1969 "Definition d'un lexique dialectal", RLR 33: 325-336. 1973 "Les monographies dialectales (domaine gallo-roman)", LFr 18: 8-41. Plomteux, H. 1975 / dialetti della ligura orientate odierna, 2 vols. (Bologna: Patron). Pop, S. 1950 La dialectologie. I. Dialectologie romane (Louvain: Duculot). Posner, R. 1976 "The relevance of comparative and historical data for the description and definition of a language", York Papers in Linguistics 6: 75-87. Pulgram, E. 1964 "Structural comparison, diasystems and dialectology", Linguistics 4: 66-83. 1978 "Latin-Romance habere: double function and lexical split", ZRPh 94: 1-8. Reinecke, J. E., et al. 1975 A bibliography of pidgin and Creole languages (= Oceanic linguistics special publications 14) (Honolulu: Hawaii U.P.). Reinheimer-Ripeanu, S. 1974 Les άέηνέχ parasynthetiques dans les langues romanes (The Hague: Mouton). Rensch, Κ. Η. Μ. 1970 "Die 'dia-synchronische' Verwandschaft von Phonemsystemen. Ein Beitrag zur strukturellen Dialektologie", Orbis 19: 94-101. 1973 Nordkalabrischer Sprachatlas (The Hague: Mouton). Rickard, P. 1974 A history of the French language (London: Hutchinson). Rohlfs, G. 1954 Die lexikalische Differenzierung der romanischen Sprachen (M nchen: Beck). 1971 Romanische Sprachgeographie (M nchen: Beck). Saltarelli, M. 1966 "Romance dialectology and generative grammar", Orbis 15: 51-59. Saporta, S. 1965 "Ordered rules, dialect differences and historical processes", Lg 41: 218224. Saramandu, N. 1972 Cercet ri asupra aromanei vorbite In Dobrogea. Fonetica. Observafii asupra sistemului fonologic (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Saussure, F. de 1916 Cours de linguistique ga^rale (Paris: Payot). [Third edition 1965.]

Introduction

35

Schane, S. A. 1968 French phonology and morphology (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Schlieben-Lange, B. 1977 "L'origine des langues romanes — un cas de creolisation", Langues en contact: pidgins et Creoles (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 75), redige par J. M. Meisel (Tübingen: Narr), 81-101. Schogt, H. 1976 Semantique synchronique: Synonymic, Homonymie, polysemie (Toronto: U.P.). Seguy, J. 1973a "La dialectometrie dans I'Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne", ALK 37: 1-24. 1973b Matrices d/a/ec/om^in'^«« (= supp. to ALE de la Gascogne, vol. 6) (Paris: CNRS). 1973c "Les atlas linguistiques de la France par regions", LFr 18: 65-90. Seguy, J., et al. 1945-73 Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Gascogne, 6 vols. (Paris: CNRS). Simoni-Aurembou, M.-R. 1973- Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l'Ile-de-France et de l'Orleanais (Paris: CNRS). Spigarelli, O. 1973 // dialetto e la scuola (Firenze: Le Monnier). Straka, G. (ed.) 1972 Les dialectes de France au moyen age et aujourd'hui: domaine franco-prove^al (Paris: Klincksieck). Sylvain, S. 1936 Le c^ole haüien. Morphologie et syntaxe (Wetteren: de Meester). Symp. l 1972 Generative studies in Romance languages, edited by J. Casagrande and B. Saciuk (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Symp. 2 1975 Diachronie studies in Romance languages, edited by M. Saltarelli and D. Wanner (The Hague: Mouton). Symp. 3 1974 Linguistic studies in Romance languages, edited by R. J. Campbell, M. G. Goldin and M. C. Wang (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P). Symp. 4 1976 Current studies in Romance linguistics, edited by M. Lujän and F. G. Hensey (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P.). Symp. 5 1977 Studies in Romance linguistics, edited by M. P. Hagiwara (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Taylor, D. R. 1947 "Phonemes of Caribbean Creole", Word 3: 173-179. 1951 "Structural outlines of Caribbean Creole", Word 7: 43-59. 1968 "Le Creole de la Dominique", Le langue, redige par A. Martinet (Paris: Gallimard), 1022-1049. Thomas, J. M.-C. 1976 Initiation a lapho^tique. Pho^tique articulatoire et phonltique distinctive (Paris: P.U.F.). Tuaillon, G. 1971 "Analyse d'une carte linguistique'cheval-chevaux'(/lL/ r 269)",rLL 9:91-176.

36

John N. Green

1972 "Frontiere linguistique et cohesion de l'aire dialectale", SCL 23: 367-396. 1976 Comportement de recherche en dialectologie frangaise (Paris: CNRS). Valdman, A. 1973 "Some aspects of decreolization in Creole French", Current trends in linguistics 11 (The Hague: Mouton), 507-536. 1975 "Creole et frangais en Haiti", FR 49: 174-185. 1977 (ed.) Pidgin and Creole linguistics (Bloomington: Indiana U.P.). Valente, A. 1975 Puglia (= Profile dei dialetti italiani) (Pisa: Pacini). Valkhoff, M. F. 1966 Studies in Portuguese and create, with special reference to South Africa (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand U.P.). Vincenz, A. de 1974 Disparition etsurvivancesdufranco-prove^al (= ZRPh, Beiheft 136) (Tübingen: Niemeyer). Vintilä-Rädulescu, I. 1976a "Observa^ii asupra propozitfei subjective in limbile francezä §i romänä", SCL 27: 359-375. 1976b Lecraolefra^ais (=JanuaLinguarum, seriescritica 17) (The Hague: Mouton). 1977 "Observa^ii asupra subordonatei predicative in limbile francezä §i romänä", SCL 28: 157-165. Walter, H. 1976 La dynamique des phonemes dans le lexique fra^ais contemporain (Paris: France-Expansion). 1977a La phonologic du frangais (= Le Ungutste 18) (Paris: P.U.F.). 1977b Phänologie et societe (= Studio phonetica 13) (Montreal/Paris: Didier). Warnant, L. 1973 "Dialectes du franqais et fra^ais regionaux", LFr 18: 100-125. Wartburg, W. von 1950 Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume (Bern: Francke). 1969 Problems and methods in linguistics, revised by S. Ullmann (Oxford: Blackwell). [Originally published as Einführung in Problematik und Methodik der Sprachwissenschaft (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943).] Weinreich, U. 1954 "Is structural dialectology possible?", Word 10: 385-400. Whinnom, K. 1956 Spanish contact vernaculars in the Philippine Islands (Hong Kong: U.P.). Wood, R. E. 1972 "New light on the origins of Papiamentu", Nph 56: 18-30. Wunderli, P. 1976 Modus und Tempus: Beiträge zur synchronischen und diachronischen Morphosyntax der romanischen Sprachen (Tübingen: Narr).

GÖRAN HAMMARSTRÖM

Phonetics and phonology

0. Although many of the books and papers mentioned below can obviously be labelled in more than one way, we shall deal with them according to the main interest of each work under the headings: 1. Surveys of a group of languages; 2. Works on a specific language; 3. Works on a specific dialect; 4. Problems studied in more than one language; 5. Detailed phonetics; 6. Functional phonetics; 7. Syntagmatic structure; 8. Statistical phonetics; 9. Contrastive studies; 10. Writing; 11. Future developments. 1. Surveys of a group of languages In the first edition (1957)of Manual of phonetics Hammarström provided a survey of the phonetics of the most important Romance languages. It contained a table of the phoneme inventories of the languages dealt with, remarks on articulation, phonological problems and prosodic features. Except for the treatment of 'semi-vowels' in French (see below, 6.1.1) this paper in general avoids controversial topics. Malmberg (1962) discusses problems of French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, particularly those related to the number of phonemes in inventories and to 'phonological systems'. Also provided is a discussion of the syllable in general and in French (p. 155-156), while the last few pages deal with some general facts about the phonetics of Romance languages. Avram (1966) discusses some interesting similarities of Rumanian and Portuguese particularly in relation to central and nasal vowels. This account resembles the two studies mentioned above in being explicitly both 'phonetic' and 'phonological'.

38

Göran Hammarström

2. Works on a specific language There is a long list of surveys of 'the sounds' of individual Romance languages. Many are unoriginal in the sense that they draw on common knowledge and in this event they usually have few references to sources in the main part of the text (whereas there may well be a good bibliography at the end). They are often well-written and successful in terms of their pedagogical aims. Moreover, many of these works contain at least some original observation and some, based mainly on original research, could as well be considered independent investigations as teaching aids. For French, Peyrollaz - Bara de Tovar, Manuel de phonetique et de diction fran$aises a l'usage des etrangers or Leon, Pronunciation dufranfais standard. Aide-memoire d'orthoepie ä l'usage des etrangers may be mentioned. The latter pays special attention to the relationship between pronunciation and orthography. In the case of French, explanations are much needed in this respect. More recently (1974), Carton published a good Introduction a la phonetique du franfais, while Rothe (1972) concentrates on the 'phonology' of French. For Spanish, Navarro Tomäs' detailed and accurate Manual de pronunciacion espanola (1918) has been the basic source of information for many years. To this first manual the author added Manual de entonacion espanola (1944). A more recent account is Quilis and Fernändes (1969), which, although directed to 'anglo-American' students, can profitably be read by others. For Portuguese, Gongalves Vienna's three descriptions of European Portuguese phonetics (1883, 1892, 1903), in which the author's own observations play a considerable role, are of basic importance. The first 79 pages of Dunn's Grammar (1928) give a succinct but detailed account of both pronunciation and spelling in European Portuguese. Väzques Cuesta and Mendes da Luz (1971) record the most important differences between the Brazilian and European varieties (vol. 1: 128-150, 307-363) and compile a valuable bibliography. For Italian, one may mention Josselyn (1900), Camilli (1965), Tagliavini (1965) and Rossi (1970). One of the more recent manuals is Lichem's Phonetik und Phonologic des heutigen Italienisch (1969). For Rumanian, Lombard's La prononciation du roumain (1935) is partly based on the author's own observations. A more recent work is Vasiliu (1965). Other items come more clearly under the rubric of scientific investiga-

Phonetics and phonology

39

tion. Some excellent early works on French are comparatively original — naturally so, since they had fewer sources to draw on: Passy (1895), Nyrop (1902), Rousselot and Laclotte (1902). Sten's Manuel de phonetiquefra^aise (1956) provides an account of French pronunciation as well as a scholarly discussion of many of the most interesting problems in French. References to predecessors are given. For Catalan, one may refer to the good survey by Badia Margarit (1973). Meyer-Lubke's well known Das Katalanische, which dates back to 1925, deals extensively with phonetics, although on 'an historical basis'. For Sardinian, the classic work is Wagner's Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen (1941) which is also written from an historical viewpoint. Its chapters 12 and 13 deal with phonetics and morphology. There are many descriptions of phonetic facts relating to the Occitan dialects of Southern France. One of these is Coustenoble (1945) providing a phonetic description of 'modern Provengal'. K hn (1951: Chapter 7) mentions various works on Rhaeto-Romance and Francescato (1970) discusses phonetic problems in some of these dialects. A somewhat special problem is the archaic Judaeo-Spanish to which Sala (1971) devotes a detailed study of the form spoken in Bucharest. (For a survey on work done on Judaeo-Spanish see Sala 1976.) In recent years there has been considerable interest in the study of French pronunciation in Canada; see, for instance, Gendron (1966), who provides measurements as well as auditory impressions, or the study of French Canadian nasal vowels by Charbonneau (1971). A group apart are pronunciation dictionaries, such as, for French, Michaelis-Passy (1914), Barbeau-Rodhe (1930) and Warnant (1962). Some books like Fouche's Tratte de pronunciation /ταηςαΐχε (1956) deal with orthoepic questions in a more systematic way than a dictionary (although the systematization is somewhat incomplete and confused). Standard dictionaries sometimes contain reliable indications of pronunciation, for example Harrap's French dictionary or Robert's dictionary (whether in its complete form or in one of the shorter versions, Le Petit Robert or Micro Robert). As is the case with other languages, such works are sometimes rather conservative and give as the sole pronunciation, or as an alternative, a form which is now rarely attested — e.g. [1ε] alongside or to the exclusion of the common [leg] for legs. Among the Romance

40

Göran Hammarström

languages French has a much greater need of orthoepic treatment than any of the others because the pronunciation is much less predictable from orthography. In many other languages, for example in Spanish, the problem of how to read a written word is much less complicated. The recent Dictionnaire de la pronunciation frangaise dans son usage reel by Martinet and Walter can perhaps be considered superior to any other pronunciation dictionary written on any language. The words with questionable or varying pronunciation were submitted to seventeen informants whose pronunciations were tape recorded. These recordings were notated in IPA symbols and the variants are entered under each word in the dictionary. In most monographs on the phonetics of some language the 'sounds' (vowels and consonants) are given much more attention than 'intonation' and similar problems, which are sometimes completely excluded. On the other hand some works concentrate on these matters; Navarro Tomäs (1944) has been cited above, and we should now mention Coustenoble Armstrong Studies in French intonation (1934). For the benefit of teachers and students "the main features of French intonation are compared and contrasted where helpful, with those of a characteristic type of English intonation" (p. 1-2). As in many other works of phoneticians of the British tradition the intonation is shown by lines (referring to syllables) at different heights. This is certainly a good pedagogical device. 3. Works on a specific dialect The number of monographs on the phonetics of individual Romance dialects is legion. To the present date, most of them have been conceived from an 'historical basis', which means that (at least in most typical cases) there is no sufficiently explicit and complete account of the vowels and consonants of the dialect under discussion. Instead, all sounds are 'squeezed' into a classification which is that of Late Latin and not of the present-day dialect. Often 'laws' or 'rules' summarizing the change from Latin to the modern dialect are stated and perhaps discussed with a view to assessing whether they are correct or misconceived. In the apt terminology of Lüdtke (1956: 6-7) these monographs use the framework of 'linear descent'. This is certainly salutary for certain diachronic purposes but not for the immediate description of a dialect. Other monographs have been more satisfactory from a theoretical viewpoint, witness

Phonetics and phonology

41

Martinet (1956) which describes the dialect of Hauteville in particularly explicit 'phonological' terms. Little is known about the 'intonation', 'accentuation' and similar facets of various dialects although it may be said that in many cases they distinguish, more than anything else, a dialect from the standard language. It would, however, not be true to say that this kind of study is completely neglected. Recently Carton (1972) devoted a monograph to the study of 'accentuation' in certain dialects of Northern France. His study includes measurements. In an extensive study Forner (1975) deals with the dialect of Genoa within the framework of generative phonology. 4. Problems studied in more than one language There are books and papers on some 'sound' or group of 'sounds' in various Romance languages, such as Michel, Etude du son 'S' en latin et en roman (1953) or Galmes de Fuentes, Las sibilantes en la Romania (1962). Although much may be said about some vowel or consonant in such studies the reader may feel that the perspective is somewhat narrow as the particular detail dealt with is not clearly seen in the framework of the more complete phonological system. Other problems are perhaps more clearly suitable for comparative study in several languages. For instance, Posner (1961) has treated dissimilation in Romance languages, concentrating her study on diachronic dissimilation rather than on synchronic facts, which, however, are also abundantly provided. 5. Detailed phonetics 5.0 Investigations may concentrate on the 'sounds' as such in more or less detail. Although the functions of the sounds are not highlighted in such studies, units like phonemes, words and syntactic constructions cannot be excluded from consideration, and so may be taken into account vaguely and implicitly. It is vastly preferable, as sometimes happens, for these to be made clearly and explicitly the general basis for detailed statements about the nature of the sounds as sounds. Deriving a tripartite subdivision from a description of the speech situation based upon the speaker-medium-hearer relation, speech sounds can be considered from a genetic, a gennemic or an energemic viewpoint (see Hammarstrom 1967):

42

Goran Hammarström

(a) All aspects of speech-sound production are included in the genetic rubric. However, comparatively little is known about processes in the brain, nerves and muscles. Traditionally most scholarly endeavour has been directed towards articulation and phonation. In a loose sense of the term, 'articulatory phonetics' may include both. (b) The term 'gennemic' has been little used in recent years. It can be equated with acoustics in the narrow sense of the word, i.e. excluding audition. Below we shall use the term 'acoustics'. (c) Everything related to the perception of speech sounds may be termed 'energemics'. However, processes in the ear, nerves and brain will not interest us below, and only 'auditory phonetics' will be considered. The most common way of accounting for one's auditory impressions is to write them down in 'phonetic transcription'. (In most cases, 'phonic notation' would be a more appropriate term as nothing has been transcribed in the proper sense of the word, i.e. it is not the case that a text in normal orthography is transcribed by phonetic symbols.) 5.1 Articulatory and acoustic phonetics Despite the importance of distinguishing articulatory and acoustic facts, both kinds of facts have so often been studied together that it is not appropriate to separate them in our account. Both belong to 'instrumental' or 'experimental' phonetics. In the early stages of modern 'experimental' phonetics France and Germany were the two most important centres of research. Rousselot's 1,250-page long Principes dephotätique experimentelle can be considered as the leading work at the beginning of the century. Problems of articulation were investigated with the help of palatography, kymography and other mechanical aids, and acoustic properties were established by kymograph and resonators. However, of all Rousselot's thousands of measurements, little remains if they are seen as information on French pronunciation. The pride phoneticians used to take in their 'exact' measurements may be understandable but later developments in phonetics have made them appear completely superseded. Several interesting works in the tradition of Rousselot and other early phoneticians were carried out by Menzerath and de Oleza on the duration of sounds in Spanish (1928), by Durand on consonant length (1936) and vowel length (1946) in French, Varney Pleasantson Te muet' (1956) and by many others. These certainly contain interesting conclusions, and

Phonetics and phonology

43

great numbers of measurements which are not quite devoid of interest. The deficiencies of the kymographic technique were, however, not sufficiently recognized. Lacerda criticized the kymographic technique and invented the chromograph (which is essentially identical to the instrument which is now used under the name mingograph or oscillomink). Several studies based on this improved technique were carried out in his Coimbra Laboratory, such as Lacerda - Rogers, Sons dependentes da fricativa palatal afona, em Portugues (1939), Lacerda - Canellada, Comportamientos tonales vocalicos en espanol y portugues (1945), Lacerda Badia Margarit, Estudios de foneiica y fonologia catalanas (1948) and Lacerda - Rossi, "Particularidades do comportamento elocucional do falar do Rio de Janeiro" (1958). Again the measurements as such have lost much of their interest, although the general results may still be valid. In Lacerda's more general works (1941, 1947, 1950, 1952, 1975), in which the examples usually are Portuguese, the most basic questions are: Who speaks? Of what does he speak? To whom does he speak? Why (or for what purpose) does he speak? Where does he speak? In a very detailed classification these questions (and some others) are answered. Among other things attitudes (admiration, surprise, determination, hesitation, etc.) are classified and subclassified. Various texts pronounced in different ways by different speakers are judged by informants and painstakingly measured. The reading of Lacerda's work is often rather demanding because of the mass of detail provided. In more recent years the sonagraph has been used for acoustic measurements. In Romance phonetics Delattre should be mentioned as outstanding among phoneticians interested in spectral analysis. As early as 1948 he presented sonagraphic measurements of French vowels. He was also interested in speech perception and carried out experiments using synthetic speech. The titles of some of his most important papers may be quoted as an indication of the problems he was interested in: "The physiological interpretation of sound spectrograms", "Un triangle acoustique des voyelles orales du frangais", "Les attributs acoustiques de la nasalite vocalique et consonantique", "Les indices acoustiques de la parole", "Le jeu des transitions de formants et la perception des consonnes". (These papers are reprinted in Delattre 1966: 225-286; Valdman 1972 (ed.): 21-30 presents a list of Delattre's publications.) In the field of articulatory studies the Phonetics Laboratory of

44

Göran Hammarström

Strasbourg under Straka (now under Simon) is one of those particularly worthy of note. In Straka's Album phonetique a great number of palatograms and X-ray photos are provided. Many X-ray films have been produced in Strasbourg and several studies are based on these. As characteristic of these works Simon's Les consonnes frangaises — Mouvements et positions articulatoires a la lumiere de la radiocinematographie (1967) may be mentioned. Despite the interest of this work, the present author does not agree with one of its most basic assumptions. As Lacerda and Menzerath have so convincingly argued, articulation implies continuous movement. However, Simon believes that there are phases of movement and phases of no movement. These latter are called 'tenues' and their length is measured. With Menzerath and Lacerda (1933) one may prefer to believe that in natural speech there is actually always movement (except for pauses). On the other hand, particularly in the case of the occlusion of plosive consonants, it is certainly of interest to measure the duration of the occlusion, as Simon does (for some of these consonants). It should, however, be noted that occlusion does not equal lack of movement as there is normally movement (although perhaps an extremely small one) up to a 'maximum' occlusion, the articulators involved being increasingly firmly pressed together and the area of contact being usually (except in bilabials) enlarged. After the 'maximum' occlusion there is a gradual weakening of the contact up to the time when the 'explosion' starts. (Although it may be argued that these movements are so small that they are almost of no importance for the sound produced, they are crucial for the theory of Menzerath and Lacerda as their non-existence would prove these investigators to be wrong.) Simon also measures the 'tenues' of various vowels. 'Tenues' can perhaps be established with some profit if one discards minor movements. However, on spectrograms of connected speech there is at least some change from moment to moment and it is clear that constantly changing formants can only be produced by constantly changing shapes of the supraglottal cavities. It should be noted that if, by definition, a 'tenue' is allowed to have even the smallest articulatory movement, the boundary between 'tenue' and movement becomes arbitrary. In the general theory of phonetics Grammont's Tratte de phonatique (1933) is an important work of synthesis. The number of kymograms, palatograms and tracings of articulators in different positions is limited in comparison with Rousselot and the way generalities are explained is

Phonetics and phonology

45

more rewarding. One of the best known ideas of this book is the law of the strongest. This law applies particularly to assimilations and dissimilations. Two phonemes are involved but one commands the other ("il y a un phoneme qui commande 1'autre"). This is the 'stronger' one ("celui qui a plus de force ou de resistance ou de stabilite ou de faveur", p. 633). Grammont still believed in the accuracy of the kymograph in the manner of the early phoneticians: "On peut done accorder toute confiance aux traces de cet appareil quand 1'experience a etc bien menee, c'est-a-dire quand 1'appareil etait bien regle et fonctionnait normalement" (p. 35). Although Grammont has just been quoted as a general phonetician, his remarks on French phonetics and his influence on phonetic studies of Romance languages carried out by others warrant his inclusion in the present paper. 5.2 Auditory phonetics The almost countless papers or books on the phonetics of Romance dialects are obviously in the first place auditory studies. It may be true that what was called dental, palatal, nasal, open, close, etc. were in most cases sounds corresponding to their articulatory labels, but it is also true that the labels, or the corresponding 'phonetic symbols', were usually established on the basis of auditory impressions and direct articulatory investigations were the exception rather than the rule. (In a work such as Hasselrot 1937, a number of palatograms are included but they hardly constitute the major contribution of this work.) It is always possible that a sound which is correctly heard as 'dental, palatal, nasal, open, close' etc. would not have the expected correspondence at the articulatory level. Since the end of the 19th century more linguistic atlases have been undertaken on Romance languages than on any other language family. These were basically works of auditory phonetics. The technique was that of listening and 'transcribing' (or better: 'notating'). Some atlases were more or less impressionistic, like the Atlas linguistique de la France. Here Gillieron attempted to offer, for each locality, narrow phonic notations exactly in accordance with the investigator's auditory impressions, and he scrupulously avoided amending or retouching the original notations of the field worker's first impressions. Other atlases were 'normalizing', which implied that fewer phonetic details were included as the aim was to provide forms which were characteristic for some given locality.

46

Göran Hammarström

(Some details and references concerning impressionistic versus normalizing theories are given in Hammarström 1955.) Atlases of both types have often been quoted in discussions of problems of Romance phonetics. Although many interesting variants were included in atlases, not all these variants are reliable: little time is given to each locality, which prevents a more thorough investigation; the investigator is less effective in localities where he has little knowledge of the dialect; the form recorded may be characteristic of a sociolect (or even an idiolect) rather than of the locality as a whole; only a couple of informants (or just one) are accounted for at each place. In recent years materials have been notated from tape recordings. This procedure increases the probable accuracy of the notations because the notator can listen to the words as many times as he wishes and other investigators can easily check his notations. In the fifties this new technique was used in the Phonetics Laboratory of Coimbra in extensive studies on Portuguese dialects: Hammarström (1953), Lacerda-Parker (1956-60), and in 1958 Herculanode Carvalho used this recording technique as the basis of a good monograph on the dialect of Miranda do Douro. Two other early studies providing detailed notations are Lacerda - Hammarström, "Transcrigäo fonetica do Portugues normal" (1952) and Companys, "Notes sur les finales atones portugaises apres consonne sourde" (1954). The authors of the Coimbra Laboratory (Companys, Hammarström, Lacerda, Parker and others) were rather enthusiastic about the new possibility of establishing minor phonic details with comparatively high accuracy but there was no major effort to describe the variants established as to their communicative function (expressive, sociolectal, dialectal). Companys published a detailed description of the technical aspects of the new technique (1956) and Seguy recognized the possibilities of notations based on tape recordings (1959) and was responsible for the extensive use of recordings in important research on the dialects of Southern France (see Seguy 1973). 6. Functional phonetics 6.1 Constructive function The main function of phonemes and prosodemes is 'constructive', i.e. they build syllables, words and syntactic units.

Phonetics and phonology

47

6.1.1 Phonemics 'Phonological' problems related to phonemes of Romance languages have often been dealt with. It would even be true to say that from this viewpoint French has been dealt with in a more extensive and varied way than any other language. Basic considerations on the French inventory of phonemes and the shape of the 'phonological' system were provided by Martinet (1933, 1960) and Malmberg (1940, 1942b, 1943) in the spirit of the Prague School. One of the main points for discussion was the status of [j] (as in pied), [q] (as in lui) and [w] (as in loi). Malmberg (1943:20, 1962:146) establishes three separate consonant phonemes /j, q, w/. Martinet (1933: 198-201, 1960, §3.21) is more inclined to consider such sounds as combinatory variants of the three vowel phonemes /i, y, u/ (as in n, lu, mou) but believes the phonological opposition [pej] —[ρεί] (paye—pays) prevents one from considering [j] and [i] as variants within a phoneme. Hammarstr m (1957: 284-285, 1965: 345-346) maintains that segments, to be Opposed', must have the same position within a syllable. In fact the one-syllable word paye and the two-syllable word pays are not a minimal pair and nothing prevents [j] and [i] from being variants of one phoneme, which would be the phoneme /i/. (This solution implies that French has diphthongs and triphthongs as in pied /ie/ and ouaille /uai/ respectively.) The solutions proposed by the Prague School were usually realistic and not arbitrarily abstract. Martinet opposes 'realism' and 'formalism' (1962) and takes sides with the former. He states ironically (p. 14): "it is clear, for instance, that if we can analyse cane 'duck', which is pronounced [kan] as [kana], nothing but phonetic reality (but who cares about that?) can prevent us from analysing quand, which is pronounced [k ], as [kan], and in general analysing nasal vowels into oral vowel plus nasal consonant". (On this point Martinet quotes Togeby, whose work is discussed later in this section.) However, it is not uncommon for European structuralists to become unrealistic, or counter-intuitive, moved by an antipsychological, or anti-mentalistic, streak in their theoretical orientation. For instance, when Malmberg (1943) prefers the distinction fortis — lenis to unvoiced — voiced for the phonological system of French consonants, he discards the circumstance that the latter distinction is clearly more audible than the first mentioned. In the opinion of the present writer, if any feature is to be considered as more important than others it

48

Göran Hammarström

should be the one which is best (and most often) perceived by the hearers. A clearer example of lacking realism is, however, Malmberg's description of Spanish which includes the phonemes (sic!) /k w , gw, xw, f / (as in cuando,guarda,juego,fuego) (1971: 325-330, 334, 402-403, 405^12, 414^20, 426^28, 460-^161, 469). The certainly valid counterargument that, if these 'phonemes' are accepted, then also /b*, pw, tw, dw, n w , / (as in vuelta,puerto, tuerto, duelo, nuevo, luego) must be accepted as phonemes, is dismissed on the ground that "tandis que Pinterpretation monophonematique des groupes initiaux de luego, nuevo n'aurait aucune autre consequence qu'un allongement inutile et methodiquement inacceptable de la liste des consonnes, la meme interpretation des /k"/ - /g*/ rendra plus clairs certains phenomenes devolution dialectale et vulgaire en les faisant entrer dans le cadre de tendances structurales d'un caractere general" (Malmberg 1971: 419). Again, the obvious form of the language existing in the speakers and used by them is less important than considerations which have no direct link with the speakers' system as used by them in communication. Consequently, Malmberg prefers a solution which is not 'methodically unacceptable' (= 'economic'?) and which casts light on dialectal and vulgar developments in the framework of general (!) structural tendencies. (Note that already structuralists were sometimes tempted to establish generalizations regardless of their adequacy.) Gougenheim (1935) exploits the Prague School idea of archiphoneme in the description of French phonemes. French is thus thought to possess seven vowel archiphonemes. Malmberg (1962), although sceptical about the uncritical use of binary features, describes the phonological features of French, and some other Romance languages (under the influence of Jakobson - Fant - Halle, Preliminaries to speech analysis) in terms of binary acoustically defined features (see, e.g., p. 136-137): compact, acute, grave, flat, etc. (To the present author these features are inferior to the traditional articulatory ones.) The first part of Togeby's Structure immanente de la langue frangaise (1951) deals, among other things, with the phonology of French. The author emphasizes theoretical issues and in the spirit of Copenhagen structuralism (glossematics) he provides solutions rather different from those envisaged by other European and American structuralists. On p. 43 he argues the existence of a 'latent feminine e' in the feminine [fini] (finie) although he does not assume that there is any trace of such a vowel in the

Phonetics and phonology

49

pronunciation. He believes that one can 'demontrer l'existence de ce groupe par une generalisation [sic!] de la construction des signes: petit/ petite \finilfinie". On p. 49 he points out that in order to 'reduce' variants in different positions he prefers to start from the position within a word in which one finds the largest possible inventory. Variants in other positions are then considered as variants of the phonemes established on the bases of the larger inventory. This procedure usually yields appropriate results. The 'reductions', however, sometimes go beyond what most linguists can accept. He observes that his procedure is the opposite of the one adhered to by Prague School phonologists who tend to start from the smallest possible inventory and reduce larger inventories found in other positions. However, the archiphonemes they obtain "represented un certain niveau de classes de phonemes". On p. 49 he notes concerning the English [η] that "1'analyse la plus simple est la decomposition de [rj] en [ng]". And he believes that the French word un has a final /n/ that can be established through comparison with une. On p. 57 he concludes that French has ten vowels as "les voyelles nasales se decomposent en voyelles orales + [n] ou [m]; les semi-voyelles sont des variantes des voyelles fermees; les oppositions [0/ce] et [o/o], des differences quantitatives causees par un e feminin latent". This kind of phonology, in which intuitive knowledge and direct and natural relations between the abstractions of the description and the actual sound segments sometimes count less than (artificial) 'simplicity' and 'generalizations' can be seen as an ancestor to recent generative phonology with its sometimes still more extravagant underlying abstractions. Schane (1968) deals with French from the viewpoint of generative phonology and provides underlying abstract forms as fanciful as /trAvAli/ for travail (p. 60), /folia/ forfeuille (p. 61) and /frAmbeza/ for framboise (p. 63). Posner believes that Schane may be "playful" and "clever" while playing his "game", "But if we take language seriously — seeing it as an all-important feature of human social behaviour — this must be a distressing book: For all its cleverness it says nothing that we did not already know, and it leaves much more unsaid" (1971: 633). It seems obvious that forms such as the three just quoted have been influenced by the author's knowledge of Late Latin. Hall feels that the intention of Schane (Saltarelli, J. Harris and others) is only to "epater les bourgeois" and that the new procedures do not

50

Göran Hammarström

demonstrate "anything really new or true about the language concerned" (1973: 33). Generally, Hall thinks that the "misrepresentations" of the generativists are "fantastic" and that the new "rules" are not determined by "the facts of the language" (1973: 29). Concerning French two somewhat special works by Martinet and Hammarström may be mentioned: Martinet (1945) investigated phonemic distinctions according to answers given in questionnaires by a large number of speakers from different parts of France. On the credit side of this work, one should grant the advantages of letting speakers' responses play an important role in establishing phonemic oppositions. On the debit side, written answers are certainly less reliable than more direct oral testing by the investigator would have been. Hammarström (1965) feels that it may not always be possible to establish clear-cut solutions. In the minds of the speakers there may be not only the correspondences to the clear-cut phonemes of regular linguistic description, but also more complicated units which can be analysed equally validly in more than one way. If so, 'alternative solutions' must be provided; the linguist should not try to accept one solution and reject the others. For French three vowel inventories are suggested: one of 16, one of 14, and one of 29 phonemes. For Spanish, where phonological problems seem less intractable than in French, Alarcos Llorach (1950) gave an extensive discussion of the phonological level and provided at the same time a good introduction to phonology in general. Hall wrote two early papers on (Brazilian) Portuguese phonology (1943a and 1943b) in the framework of North-American structuralism. Lüdtke's detailed papers (1952-1953), Mattoso Cämara's book Para estudo da fonomica portuguesa (1953) and the first part of Sten's Les particularites de la langue portugaise (1944) can also be mentioned as early treatments of Portuguese phonology. In a long general introduction Mattoso Cämara (unfortunately) rejects 'psychological' phoneme definitions (the "Lautvorstellung" of Baudouin de Courtenay and others) and favours the more antimentalistic ideas of Trubetzkoy, Saussure, Jakobson and Hjelmslev. No wonder that he reduces the Portuguese nasal vowel inventory to nothing, invoking 'economy' as a reason: "[. . .] nada impede, para a economia da apresentagao do sistema fonemico, que se dispense o quadro das vogais nasais,

Phonetics and phonology

51

fazendo coincidir a interpretagao fonemica com a tradicional representagäo ortogräfica" (1953: 92). Hall dealt with Italian phonology in the first part of his Descriptive Italian grammar (1948). In the enlarged and revised edition of 1971, La struttura dell'italiano, Hall also evidences his post-Bloomfieldian outlook. Already in 1942 Malmberg had published a paper on Italian phonology (Malmberg 1942a). As in the case of French and Portuguese, Rumanian, by virtue of its complicated structure, invites linguists to deal with phonological problems. The interpretations of diphthongs, central vowels, final 'pseudovowels' and other problems have been extensively discussed from this viewpoint and also the resources of a modern phonetics laboratory have been used. Avram (1965, 1976), Petrovici (1956), Rosetti (1959 ed., 1965, 1972) and many other Rumanians have been very active in this field. Agard published a Structural sketch of Romanian in 1958. In addition to Schane's book on French (see above) it should be mentioned that in their books of 1969 and 1970 respectively Harris and Saltarelli dealt with Spanish and Italian from the viewpoint of generative phonology. As is often the case in such works, it seems that forms of older stages, Latin in the present case, have been allowed to influence the shape of the underlying abstractions. As Italian and Spanish are less different from Latin than French, the abstract forms provided by these two authors are less inappropriate than those of Schane. Saltarelli's book contains valuable remarks on the most important works published on Italian phonetics. Augerot (1974) deals with Rumanian phonology from a generative standpoint. Among a great number of instances from generativists who use 'economy' as a criterion instead of importance in communication one may quote from Saltarelli: "From the point of view of distinctive-feature representation, we would discard the geminate analysis in favour of tense/lax (or long/short) on the strength of feature economy in the transcription" (1970: 26). Phonologists would be well advised to stop playing intellectual games and, instead, start looking at languages as systems for communication possessing features which can be empirically established. In Coseriu's works Romance phonemes with their variants are sometimes provided. However, these are not given in order to characterize a language but rather to illustrate some point in Coseriu's wide and important theoretical framework. Basic problems of phonology are discussed in

52

Göran Hatnmarström

his Forma y sustancia en los sonidos del lenguaje (1954) and in several other of his publications. 6.2 Prosodemics Many papers and books have dealt with the field which could be called prosodemics. The approaches are manifold and definitions and terms are numerous: prosodeme, prosodic feature, suprasegmental, pitch contour, intonation, stress, accent, etc. Most books explaining pronunciation for learners (see above, section 2) have a section on these matters. Some monographs such as Coustenoble - Armstrong 1934 even have the teaching of 'intonation' as their sole aim. For French it has often been repeated that a 'groupe rythmique' which is not in sentence-final position has rising pitch and a (weak) stress on the last syllable (si vous voulez (je leferai))and that at the end of a sentence the pitch goes down although the last syllable has a (weak) stress ((si vous voulez) je leferai). It has also often been said that French has an 'accent d'insistance' which can be either 'accent logique' (as in l'homme PROpose et Dieu DISpose) or 'accent emotionnel' (as inc'est ePOUvantable). These are examples of what appear to be the three most fundamental functions of prosodic features: to indicate (1) syntactic constructions, (2) emphasis and (3) feelings and attitudes. The prosodic features with function (1) are 'discrete': they mark the presence or absence of a boundary or the identity of the sentence as a statement, question etc. Those with function (2) give 'discrete' emphasis to some part of a sentence which is opposed to some other part of the same sentence (as in the French example of 'accent logique') or some part of another sentence that could also have been said (which is common in Germanic languages: the GIRL did it as opposed to the BOY did it; compare French c'est le garfon qui I'a fait, in which syntactic and not prosodic features signal the opposition). Those with function (3) are 'continuous' (and not 'discrete'). If anger or some other feeling is expressed this feeling must be thought of as able to assume an indefinite number of values along a scale from weak to strong. On the expression side of language, prosodic features can be investigated at the articulatory, acoustic and auditory levels (see 5.1 and 5.2) and the features to be determined are (at the auditory level) variations in pitch, loudness, quality and length.

Phonetics and phonology

53

In this paper I shall not attempt to explain how different contributions relate to the basic framework just suggested and it will have to suffice to mention some contributions to the field: Coustenoble - Armstrong (see above, 2), Faure (1975), Lacerda (see above, 5.1), Navarro Tomäs (see above, 2). In 1972 Leon published "Ou en sont les etudes sur 1'intonation?" in which a certain number of publications on Romance languages are mentioned. 6.3 Expressive features The prosodic features which were said to have function (3) (see 6.2), i.e. those signalling feelings and attitudes, are often not very different from those having functions (1) and (2). However, in the opinion of the present author, because of their function, but not because of their sound properties, these features should rather be dealt with separately and given some label of their own, perhaps 'expressive features'. (In my own terminology, (1) syllable prosodemes, word prosodemes and syntactic prosodemes are distinguished from (2) emphatic prosodemes and (3) contouremes, i.e. expressive features.) In several works Lacerda (see 5.1) has given a rather systematic account of feelings and attitudes and provided measurements of the sound properties which manifest them in Portuguese. 6.4 Idiolectal, sociolectal and dialectal functions 6.4.1 Idiolectal function Sound properties characterize individual speakers but individual variation has usually been seen as something that should be abstracted away. The problem appears to be universal, so we should not expect it to be associated with specific Romance languages to any significant degree. 6.4.2 Sociolectal function As is also the case in non-Romance languages, the importance of the sociolectal function of languages has been underestimated. Differences in language between social groups in a society were often only seen as something one should abstract away: The traditional dialectologist sought the 'real', 'uncorrupted' dialect and ended up describing a language that was far from a coherent description of a system used by anybody. His interest was not basically to describe a system of communi-

54

Göran Hammarström

cation but rather to detect Old' forms which could be fitted into his historical jigsaw puzzle (which as such is quite a legitimate task). Traditional dialectologists also excluded cities, and these are the places where sociolectal studies are particularly rewarding. Although no really major investigation has been carried out on a Romance language with the explicit purpose of studying sociolectal variation in the detailed way of Labov's New York investigation (1966), there are obviously some contributions of interest. Several phoneticians have seen the sociolectal relevance of the distinction Id — /a/ in French. Mettas (1970) studies this problem on the basis of detailed statistics concerning different Paris sociolects. A further contribution is Valdman's paper "Phonologic structure and social factors in French. The vowel un" (1959). 6.4.3 Dialectal function In view of the orientation of traditional dialectology (see 3 and 6.4.2) it is natural that dialectal forms have not been studied in detail as to their function in communication: when, where, by whom, in what syntagmatic context are these forms used? What is generally the status of the dialect? What kind of speakers are proud of it and what kind ashamed of it? These and similar problems are seldom mentioned. 7. Syntagmatic structure A description of how a syllable, morpheme (allomorph) or word can be structured in terms of phonemes does not seem to have been considered of pressing interest. Certain statistical studies (see below, 9) present different structures (but, obviously, their focus is on the frequency of their occurrence). Sequences of phonemes with grammatical functions (case endings, plural endings, morphemes for tenses, etc.) have always attracted interest. Even elementary grammars cannot avoid having 'paradigms' of such morphemes. Alternations such as the one found in French veut— voulons or peut — pouvons attract immediate interest. The study of such facts has traditionally been called morphology or morphophonemics. Recently some generativists have included them under the heading of phonology. They are, for instance, included in the above mentioned works of Schane, Harris, Augerot and Saltarelli. Another generative work on morphology is Kiefer (1973) on French.

Phonetics and phonology

55

Whitley (1976) discusses Spanish word stresses in a generative framework. Whether or not one agrees with his procedures the paper is valuable for dealing with a high number of word stress patterns from a language where this problem is particularly well represented (amo,agata, arroz, andaluz, adrede, etc.; note that the stress marks are not those of Spanish orthography). Agard (1953) on Rumanian is an example of a non-generative approach to morphology. 8. Statistical phonetics Some major works in the field of statistical phonetics and morphology have been dedicated to Romance languages. Juilland et al. provide frequency dictionaries for words in Spanish (1964), Rumanian (1965), French (1970) and Italian (1973). Messner (1976) provides interesting statistical data on Portuguese sounds (see my review, Hammarström 1977: 80). With the aim of rationalizing teaching, valuable studies on statistical frequencies of words were carried out in France under the guidance of Gougenheim as evidenced in L'elaboration du franfais fundamental (1964) and Dictionnaire fundamental de la langue frangaise (1958) which contains approximately the 1,350 most common words of French. 9. Contrastive studies Although contrastive studies have often been criticized in recent years, their capacity for explaining errors made by learners give them an undeniable importance. We might mention in this context that Romance languages have been involved in some of the most important contrastive studies: Cardenas, Spanish and English (1960); Stockwell - Bowen, English and Spanish (1965); Agard - Di Pietro, English and Italian (1965); Feldman, Brazilian Portuguese and American Spanish (1967); Tätaru (1975), Rumanian and English. 10. Writing As languages (in contradistinction to what is usually the case with dialects and sociolects) have generally two expression modes, one spoken and one written, we will now add some considerations concerning the status of the written language. For various reasons, writing is normally considered to be secondary to

56

Goran Hammarström

speech, and thereby of secondary importance in a more general sense. There seem, however, to be good reasons for considering writing as an alternative expression system on a par with speech. If so, the two expression modes can naturally be correlated. One may either give an account of how spoken words and segments of words are written, or a description of how written symbols constitute words or segments of words. Both of these approaches have been explicitly explored in Hammarström (1970) in relation to French phonemes and letters. 11. Future developments To date, a great variety of approaches have been applied to the study of the phonetics of the Romance languages. It is obviously not easy to guess at future developments. The present author believes, however, that it would be particularly rewarding to carry out studies in greater depth and detail concerning expressive (compare 6.3), idiolectal (compare 6.4.1), sociolectal (compare 6.4.2) and dialectal (compare 6.4.3) functions of language as expressed through sound. Another promising possibility would be the attempt to establish relations between, on the one hand, basic facts about phonemes ('phonological system' and number in the inventory) and, on the other, facts about 'phonotactics' (syntagmatic structure, including length, of syllables and words), speed of pronunciation, coarticulation and clarity of pronunciation at various points of an utterance. References Agard, F. B. 1953 "Noun morphology in Romanian", Lg 29: 134-142. 1958 Structural sketch of Romanian (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America). Agard, F. B. - R. J. Di Pietro 1965 The sounds of English and Italian (Chicago: U.P.). Alarcos Llorach, E. 1950 Fonologia espanola, segun el metodo de la escuela de Praga (Madrid: Credos). Augerot, J. E. 1974 Romanian phonology. A generative phonological sketch of the core vocabulary of standard Romanian (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Avram, A. 1965 "La phonetique experimentale et les problemes de la description du roumain", RRLing 10: 281-285. 1966 "Paralele fonetici §i fonologice romano-portugheze", SCL 2: 147-155. 1976 "Sur la valeur phonologique et la function morphonologique du timbre des consonnes finales en roumain et dans d'autres langues romanes", BSRLR 11: 5-17.

Phonetics and phonology

57

Badia Margarit, A. 1973 "Phonetique et phonologic catalanes", La linguistique catalane. Colloque international ο^αηΐζέ par le Centre de philologie et de littaratures romanes de VUniversite de Strasbourg du 23 au 27 avril 1968, edited by A. Badia Margarit and G. Straka (Paris: Klincksieck), 115-179. Barbeau, A. - E. Rod he 1930 Dictionnaire phoritique de la langue fi-αηςaise (Stockholm: Norstedt). Camilli, A. 1965 Pronuncia e grafia dell'italiano (= 3rd edition revised by P. Fiorelli) (Firenze: Sansoni). Cardenas, D. N. 1960 Introduction a una comparacion fonologica del espanol y del ingles (Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Carton, F. 1972 Recherches sur ['accentuation des parlers populaires dans la region de Lille (Lille U.P.). 1974 Introduction a la pho^tique du franfais (Paris: Bordas). Charbonneau, R. 1971 Etude sur les voyelles nasales du francais canadien (Quebec: Laval U.P.). Companys, M. 1954 "Notes sur les finales atones portugaises apres consonne sourde", Revista do laboratorio de fonetica experimental 2: 105-127. 1956 "Les nouvelles methodes d'enquete linguistique", Via domitia 3: 90-167. Coseriu, E. 1954 Forma y sustancia en los sonidos del lenguaje (Montevideo U.P.). [Translated into German in Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 5 Studien (M nchen: Fink, 1975).] Coustenoble, H. N. 1945 La phonltique du provenyal moderne en terre d'Arles (Hertford: Austin). Coustenoble, H. N. - L. E. Armstrong 1934 Studies in French intonation (Cambridge: Heffer). Delattre, P. 1948 "Un triangle acoustique des voyelles orales du franqais", FR 2l: 477-484. [Reprinted in Delattre 1966: 236-242.] 1966 Studies in French and comparative phonetics. Selected papers in French and English (The Hague: Mouton). Dunn, J. 1928 A grammar of the Portuguese language (New York: Hispanic Notes and Monographs; also London: Nutt, 1930). Durand, M. 1936 Etude explrimentale sur la duree des consonnes parisiennes (Paris: Klincksieck). 1946 Voyelles longues et voyelles breves. Essai sur la nature de la quantM vocalique (Paris: Klincksieck). Faure, G. 1975 "Description des systemes prosodiques", ZPhon 24: 347-359. Feldman, D. M. 1967 "A comparison of the segmental phonemes of Brazilian Portuguese and American Spanish", Linguistics 29: 44-57. Forner, W. 1975 Generative Ph nologie des Dialekts von Genua (Hamburg: Buske).

58

Göran Hammarström

Fouche, P. 1956 de pronunciation franfaise (Paris: Klincksieck). Francescato, G. 1970 Studi linguistici sul friulano (Firenze: Olschki). Galmes de Fuentes, A. 1962 Las sibilantes en la Romania (Madrid: Gredos). Gendron, J.-D. 1966 Tendances phonotiques du franqais parU au Canada (Quebec: Laval U.P. and Paris: Klincksieck). Gillieron, J. 1902-10 Atlas linguistique de la France (Paris: Champion). Gonc,alves Vianna, A. R. 1883 "Essai de phonetique et de phonologic de la langue portugaise d'apres le dialecte actuel de Lisbonne", Romania 12: 29-98. [Reprinted in BF 7 (1941): 161-243.] 1892 Exposicäo da pronuncia normal portuguesa para uso de nacionais e estrangeiros (Lisboa: Sociedade de Geographia). 1903 Portugals. Phonitique et phonologic, morphologie, textes (= Skizzen lebender Sprachen, ed. W. Victor) (Leipzig). Gougenheim, G. 1935 EUments de phonologic franfaise (Paris: Beiles Lettres). 1958 Dictionnaire fundamental de la langue franfaise (Paris: Didier). Gougenheim, G. - P. Rivenc - R. Michea - A. Sauvageot 1964 L'llaboration du frangais fundamental (l" degre) (Paris: Didier). Grammont, M. 1933 Träte de pho^tique (Paris: Delagrave). Hall, R. A., Jr. 1943a "The unit phonemes of Brazilian Portuguese", SIL 1.15: 1-6. 1943b "Occurrence and orthographical representation of phonemes in Brazilian Portuguese", SIL 2.1: 6-13. 1948 Descriptive Italian grammar (Ithaca: Cornell U.P.). 1971 La struttura dell'italiano (Roma: Armando). 1973 "'Underlying representation' and observable fact in phonology",JEL 7: 21-42. Hammarström, G. 1953 Etude de phonetique auditive sur les parlers de Algarve (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell). 1955 "Importance des enregistrements et de la transcription phonetique indirecte pour la dialectologie", SNPh 27: 43-52. 1957 "The Romance languages", Manual of phonetics, edited by L. Kaiser (Amsterdam: North Holland), 279-288. [Reprinted in Readings in Romance linguistics, edited by J. M. Anderson and J. A. Creore (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), 52-61.] 1965 "Sur l'inventaire des phonemes fran;ais", Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani (Bucurefti: Editura Academiei), 343-346. 1967 "On terminology in genetic, gennemic and energemic phonetics", Word 23: 254-256. 1970 Fransk fonetik (2nd edition) (Stockholm: Natur och Kultur). [Edited by U. Petersen as Französische Phonetik (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 25) (Tübingen: Narr, 1972).] 1977 Review of Readings in Portuguese linguistics, edited by J. Schmidt-Radefeldt (Amsterdam: N. Holland, 1976), Phonetica 34: 79-80.

Phonetics and phonology

59

Harrap, G. 1972 Harrap's new standard French and English dictionary, revised by R. P. L. Ledesert and M. Ledesert (London: Harrap). Harris, J. W. 1969 Spanish phonology (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Hasselrot, B. 1937 Etude sur les dialectes d'Ollon et du district d'Aigle (Vaud) (Uppsala). [Doctoral dissertation.] Herculano de Carvalho, J. 1958 Fonologia mirandesa (= supp. to Biblos 36) (Coimbra). Jakobson, R. - G. Fant - M. Halle 1952 Preliminaries to speech analysis (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Josselyn, F. M. 1900 Etude sur la phonetique italienne (Paris: Welter). Juilland, A. - D. Brodin - C. Davidovitch 1970 Frequency dictionary of French words (The Hague: Mouton). Juilland, A. - E. Chang-Rodriguez 1964 Frequency dictionary of Spanish words (The Hague: Mouton). Juilland, A. - P. M. H. Edwards - J. Juilland 1965 Frequency dictionary of Rumanian words (The Hague: Mouton). Juilland, A. - V. Traversa 1973 Frequency dictionary of Italian words (The Hague: Mouton). Kiefer, F. 1973 Generative Morphologie des Neufranz sischen (T bingen: Niemeyer). K hn, A. 1951 Romanische Philologie. Erster Teil: die romanischen Sprachen (Bern: Francke). Labov, W. 1966 The social stratification of English in New York City (Washington D .C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Lacerda, A. de 1941 Caracterfsticas da εηίοαςαο portuguesa 1 (= supp. to Biblos) (Coimbra: U.P.). 1947 Caracteristicas da entoagao portuguesa 2 (= supp. to Biblos) (Coimbra: U.P.). 1950 Analise de express es sonoras da compreens o (Coimbra: U.P.). 1952 "Facteurs de la variation elocutive", Revista do laboratorio de fonetica experimental 1: 39-118. 1975 Objectos verbais e significado elocucional. Toemas e entoemas. Εηίοαςάο (Coimbra: U.P.). Lacerda, A. de - A. Badia Margarit 1948 Estudios defonaticayfonologiacatalanas (Madrid: Institute Antonio de Nebrija). Lacerda, A. de - M. J. Cannellada 1945 Comportamiento tonales vocalicos en espanol y portug^s (= RFE supp. 32) (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). Lacerda, A. de - G. Hammarstr m 1952 "Transcris o fonetica do portugues normal", Revista do laboratorio de fonatica experimental 1: 119-135. Lacerda, A. de - J. M. Parker 1956-60 "Variantes foneticas de falares regionais do distrito de Beja", Revista do laboratorio de fonatica experimental 3: 38-146, 4: 107-174, 5: 5-72.

60

Göran Hammarström

Lacerda, A. de - F. M. Rogers 1939 Sons dependentes da fricativa palatal afona, em portugues (= Biblos supp. 15) (Coimbra: U.P.). Lacerda, A. de - N. Rossi 1958 "Particularidades do comportamento elocucional do falar do Rio de Janeiro", Revista do laboratorio de fonltica experimental 4: 5-103. Leon, P. 1966 Prononciation du frangais standard. Aide-mtmoire d'orthoopie usage des etrangers (Paris: Didier). 1972 "Ou en sont les etudes sur 1'intonation?", Proceedings of the seventh international congress of phonetic sciences (The Hague: Mouton), 113-156. Lichem, K. 1969 Phonetik und Phänologie des heutigen Italienisch (München: Hueber). Lombard, A. 1935 La prononciation du roumain (Uppsala: U.P.). Lüdtke, H. 1952-53 "Fonemätica portuguesa", BF 13: 237-288, 14: 197-217. 1956 Die strukturelle Entwicklung des romanischen Vokalismus (= RVV 2) (Bonn: U.P.). Malecot, A. 1975 "The glottal stop in French", Phonetica 31: 51-63. Malmberg, B. 1940 Review of Gougenheim (1935), AL 2: 54-60. 1942a "A propos du Systeme phonologique de l'italien", AL 3: 34-43. 1942b "Bemerkungen zum quantitativen Vokalsystem im modernen Französisch", AL 3: 44-56. 1943 Le Systeme consonantique du fran$ais moderne. Etudes de pho^äque et de phonologic (Lund: Gleerup). 1962 "La structure phonetique de quelques langues romanes", Orbis 11: 131-178. 1971 Phonitique gorirale et romane. Etudes en allemand, anglais, espagnol et frangais (The Hague: Mouton). Martinet, A. 1933 "Remarques sur le Systeme phonologique du fransais", BSL 34: 191-202. 1945 La prononciation du franfais contemporain (Paris: Droz). 1956 La description phonologique avec application au parier franco-provengal d'Hauteville (Savoie) (Geneve: Droz). 1960 EUments de linguistique g n ral (Paris: Colin). 1962 A functional view of language (London: Oxford U.P.). Martinet, A. - H. Walter 1975 Dictionnaire de la prononciation franfaise dans son usage reel (Paris: FranceExpansion). Mattoso Cämara, J., Jr. 1953 Para estudo da fonemica portugulsa (Rio de Janeiro: Organizagao Simöes). Menzerath, P. - A. de Lacerda 1933 Koartikulation, Steuerung und Lautabgrenzung (Bonn/Berlin: Dümmler). Menzerath, P. - P. de Oleza 1928 Spanische Lautdauer. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung (Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter).

Phonetics and phonology

61

Messner, D. 1976 "A statistical approach to Portuguese", Readings in Portuguese linguistics, edited by J. Schmidt-Radefeldt (Amsterdam: North Holland), 425-446. Mettas, O. 1970 "Etude sur le A dans deux sociolectes parisiens", RRom 5: 94-105. Meyer-Lübke, W. 1925 Das Katalanische. Seine Stellung zum Spanischen und Provenzalischen (Heidelberg: Winter). Michaelis, H. - P. Passy 1914 Dictionnaire photätique de la langue frangaise (Hannover/Berlin: Meyer). Michel, L. 1953 Etüde du son "S" en latin et en roman. Des origines aux langues romanes. De la pho^tique au style (= Publications de la Faculte des Lettres 6) (Montpellier: U.P.). Navarro Tomäs, T. 1918 Manual de pronunciacion espanola (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). [Fourteenth revised edition 1968.] 1944 Manual de entonacion espanola (New York: Hispanic Institute). Nyrop, K. 1902 Manuelphonutique du frangais parle (K0benhavn: Nordiske Forlag). [Revised by A. Lombard, 1963.] Passy, P. 1895 Les sons du frangais (Paris: Firmin-Didot). Petrovici, E. 1956 "Esquisse du Systeme phonologique du roumain", For Roman Jakobson, edited by M. Halle et al. (The Hague: Mouton), 382-389. Peyrollaz, M. - M.-L. Bara de Tovar 1954 Manuel de phonotique et de diction frangaises usage des etrangers (Paris: Larousse). Posner, R. 1961 Consonantal dissimilation in the Romance languages (Oxford: Blackwell). 1971 "The generative generation and French phonology", RomPh 24: 625-633. Quilis, A. - J. A. Fernändes 1969 Curso de fonetica y fonologia espanolas para estudiantes angloamericanos (4th edition) (Madrid: Institute Miguel de Cervantes). Robert, P. 1957-64 Dictionnaire alphab tique et analogique de la langue frangaise, 6 vols. (Paris: Societe du Nouveau Littre). Rosetti, A. 1959 (ed.) Recherches sur les diphtongues roumaines (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei/K0benhavn: Munksgaard). 1965 Linguistica (The Hague: Mouton). 1972 "Sur les voyelles roumaines [3] et f [i]", Proceedings of the seventh international congress of phonetic sciences (The Hague: Mouton), 782-784. Rossi, M. 1970 "Phonetique synchronique", Precis de phoneuque de l'italien. Synchronie et diachronie, edited by P. Antonelli and M. Rossi (Aix-en-Provence: Annales de la Faculte des Lettres), 1-183. Rothe, W. 1972 Phänologie des Französischen (Berlin: Schmidt).

62

Göran Hammarström

Rousselot, P. J. 1902-08 Principes de phonetique explrimentale, 2 vols. (Paris: Didier). Rousselot, P. J. - F. Laclotte 1902 Precis de pronunciation frangaise (Paris: Didier). Sala. M. 1971 Phontlique et phonologic du. judoo-espagnol de Bucarest (The Hague: Mouton), 1976 Le judao-espagnol (= Trends in Linguistics, State-of-the-Art Reports 7) (The Hague: Mouton). Saltarelli, M. 1970 A phonology of Italian in a generative grammar (The Hague: Mouton). Schane, S. A. 1968 French phonology and morphology (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Seguy, J. 1959 Review of Hammarström (1953), Phonetica 4: 54-55. 1973 "La dialectometrie dans l'Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne", RLR 37: 124. Simon, P. 1967 Les consonnes fra^aises. Mouvements et positions articulatoires a la lumiere de la radiocinomatographie (Paris: Klincksieck). Sten, H. 1944 Les particular's de la langue portugaise (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 2) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag). 1956 Manuel de phonetique franc.aise (K0benhavn: Munksgaard). Stockwell, R. P. - J. D. Bowen 1965 The sounds of English and Spanish (Chicago: U.P.). Straka, G. 1965 Album phonetique (Quebec: Laval U.P./Paris: Klincksieck). Tagliavini, C. 1965 La corretta pronuncia italiana, Corso discografico difonetica e ortoepia (Bologna: Capitol-C.E.B.). Tätaru, A. 1975 A contrastive study of the pronunciation of Rumanian and English. A general comparison of their systems, and a special comparison of their occlusive consonants (Bonn). [Unpublished dissertation.] Togeby, K. 1951 Structure immanente de la langue franc,aise (Paris: Larousse). [2nd ed. 1965.] Valdman, A. 1959 "Phonologic structure and social factors in French. The vowel un", FR 33: 153-161. 1972 (ed.) Papers in linguistics and phonetics to the memory of Pierre Delattre (The Hague: Mouton). Varney Pleasants, J. 1956 Etudes sur I'e muet (Paris: Klincksieck). Vasiliu, E. 1965 Fonologia limbii romane (Bucures,ti: Editura §tiint.ifica). Vazques Cuesta, P. - M. A. Mendes da Luz 1971 Gramatica portuguesa (3rd edition) (Madrid: Gredos). Wagner, M. L. 1941 Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen (= ZRPh supp. 93) (Halle: Niemeyer).

Phonetics and phonology Warnant, L. 1962 Dictionnaire de la pronunciation frangaise (Gembloux: Duculot). Whitley, S. 1976 "Stress in Spanish: two approaches", Lingua 39: 301-332.

63

MARIA MANOLIU-MANEA

Synchronic comparative grammar or in quest of the Romance type1

Over the last four decades, the structural approach to linguistic phenomena, and the evolution of the concept of grammar itself, from the description of the product (seen as an inventory of units) to the description of the producer or the 'generative device' (represented as a set of rules), have brought closer together two widely differing orientations which had previously seemed incompatible: typology and comparative grammar. The movement of isolated units — the main focus of study in historical linguistics — is of course more readily discernible than the movement of such complex sets as structures. But now the genetic and typological approaches — the former as solidly rooted in history as the latter is ahistorical — have come together in a novel symbiosis, in which the comparison of structures as they are produces static descriptions, irrespective of whether the compared units are simultaneous or successive. From this standpoint, the dichotomy 'correspondences between simultaneous structures' versus 'rules of change' becomes less clear-cut as the historical dimension is attenuated. Often, indeed, the only way to determine whether a particular rule of correspondence is a 'historical change' or a 'typological parallelism' is by recourse to non-linguistic knowledge about conditions of use.2 This problem has constituted and, in my opinion, still constitutes the principal obstacle to the would-be marriage of typology and comparative grammar, although, for the time being, no one can deny the importance of linguistic criteria (synonymous with typological ones at some levels) in the quest for a genetic type. As Benveniste has pointed out, a genetic classification is also typological (1952-53:40); in fact the 'material' identification of forms and elements of these forms

66

Maria Manoliu-Manea

— the methodology, in other words, of historical linguistics — always succeeds in bringing out a formal, grammatical structure characteristic of the family of the compared languages.3 Since typological difference is independent of genetic relationship, one of the key questions in the modern comparative approach is 'how to select the correspondences which will be relevant for the genetic relationship'. In other words, in defining the Romance type, one must retain those specific grammatical correspondences by which the type under discussion is opposed to other genetic types (see lordan 1966: 7), a procedure that has many historical implications — since the direction of the evolution might be relevant 4 — as well as statistical ones (for instance, the frequency of the change5). Typological comparison is, therefore, an important step in the discovery of those invariant devices which may be called the 'Romance type', devices that govern the 'functioning', as well as the development, of the Romance languages (see Coseriu 1965: 279). This fact requires, in turn, the determination of a common point of reference, in order to formulate rules of equivalence between descriptions of each language not specifically designed for comparative purposes. Not so long ago, the answer to the question "how does one write a Comparative Romance Grammar?" was restricted to two formulas, those of Meyer-Lübke (1890-1902) and Bourciez (1910), each having as its main goal the determination of the differences between Latin and its successors (see Malkiel 1960 and Togeby 1962: 318-319). Through its desire for invariance and recurrence, structuralism has emphasised the general unchanging devices, i.e. the idea of the Romance type. Consequently, the criteria for identifying the symbols, the rules in the descriptions made of each Romance language must be explicitly motivated. As we might expect, every comparative study — including comparison of different stages of the same idiom (how difficult it is sometimes to decide whether it is the 'same' or 'another' language!) — has established common reference points and correspondence rules: suffice it to mention the correspondence between cases and prepositions, apparently one of the first to be observed in comparative Romance grammar (the same correspondence which certainly inspired 'case grammar' — see Fillmore 1968, 1971; Gruber 1967; Anderson 1971). If, in classical comparative grammar, the common reference point was sought at that phonematic level6, at the semantic level, and/or in the

Synchronic comparative grammar

67

patterns of the traditional grammar, the variety ot present-day models and theories, by contrast, imposes options and demands adjustment of individual language descriptions. Since linguistics in the second half of our century values theoretical innovation over and above factual minutiae (that is why, perhaps, for a long time, the Romance domain proved refractory to structuralist and, more so, to generative approaches), a further layer of difficulty is the adjustment of principles (concepts and patterns). Not infrequently, the comparatist must recast the description of each language in order to unify the 'metalanguage' itself (compare the pan-Romance grammars based on structural criteria: Rohr 1964; lordan - Manoliu 1974; Posner 1966, and so on). Self-explanatory in traditional comparative grammar, identification becomes a necessarily explicit step and, we should recognise, remains a tricky problem for an inductive comparative approach. 1. Identifying the units (symbols, concepts) As long as the appropriateness of the type of grammar was not explicitly considered one of the main goals of linguistics, the adjustment of descriptions was a routine procedure not requiring theoretical explanation. Sometimes, however, it was evident that identical terminology could disguise different realities. Let us consider some instances in morphology and syntax: (i) The Romance neuter has been linked to the 'inanimate' by virtue of Latin grammar (see Rosetti 1963: 435^37; Graur 1968: 65;. lordan Gu^u - Niculescu 1967: 75), though in Rumanian it has to do primarily with the feature of 'unspecified natural gender'. In Rumanian, for instance, the neuter of the noun is related to the semantic (noncontextual) feature in the nominal root that may be called 'non-specification in respect of sex' (see Diaconescu 1970; lordan - Manoliu 1974: §5.1.1.2.2). The speaker has no interest in specifying the sex of the object denoted by the nominal lexical item, either because the object has no sex (inanimate referents) or because it represents a collectivity, a group of individuals, whether persons, animals or plants: popor 'people', stol 'flock'. In Spanish, the neuter gender is linked to the semantic feature 'unspecified class of things' — and, consequently, unspecified grammatical gender for the corresponding nominal items (compare iQtä es estol 'What is this?' or \Esto no es para mi\ 'This is not for me!' — see

68

Maria Manoliu-Manea

Fernandez 1951:110-114). Therefore, the relation 'inanimate' —neuter is no longer relevant for the description of Romance gender. (ii) The difference between 'conjoined' (bound) and 'absolute' (free) forms of the personal pronoun has been equated with the variation stressed/unstressed (see, for example, Academia R. S. Romania 1965,1: 239), as in some Romance languages—in French or Spanish, for instance — the bound forms (those that appear only with a verb) are also unstressed (they make a phonological word with the verb). In Rumanian, however, the bound forms may be stressed (ii dau Ί give him', tl v d Ί see him'), as well as unstressed (i-a dot 'he gave him', l-a v zut 'he saw him') depending on the context. This means that both distinctions must be present in a comparative grammar. (iii) Finally, let us mention a simple syntactic phenomenon. Descriptions in which the Romance languages are said to have retained the Latin 'double direct object construction' in certain contexts (e.g. Rum. tt rog ceva Ί am asking him something', tt invaj chimia Ί teach him chemistry'), appear quite strange when viewed through the common English grammatical pattern, where no 'double direct object' is accepted. If two objects are adjacent and not separated by any preposition, one of them, the 'animate' noun commonly, is considered to be the indirect object (in fact relative position is playing the role of case marking in English). In comparative morphology, the classical grammatical categories have survived best: terms such as noun, verb, gender, number, person, tense, etc. are still unanimously accepted by structural paradigmatics as well as by generative grammar (even if, in the last few years, linguists have disagreed about the number of 'deepest categorial symbols'; see, for example, G. Lakoff 1971). As the central goal in Romance paradigmatics has been to establish the inventory of 'units in opposition' (contrastive units), structuralist Romance grammars not infrequently refined classical concepts of grammar. Even traditional grammars (the Academic ones) were influenced by this 'new look' (see the revised editions of the grammars of the Rumanian Academy (1963), the Spanish Royal Academy (1962), Larousse grammars, etc.). The '50-'60 period constituted the great watershed for the redefining of morphological units - by internal (linguistic) relations. In short, a new morphosyntax emerged, parallel to morphophonemics, in Martinet's terminology (see Pettier 1958, 1962b, 1967; Coseriu 1967), in which every unit is analysed from three points of view: (i) the phonemic

Synchronic comparative grammar

69

form ('morphematics' itself), (ii) the function (sometimes identified with linguistic relations, sometimes not — see Martinet 1962; Pettier 1967; Corbeil 1969) and (iii) the semantic content (the relevant semantic features, called 'seme', 'sememe, 'classeme', etc.; see Pettier 1962a, Baldinger 1970). 1.1 By their degree of generality and by their acceptance of the 'form of the content' — the plerematic level —in defining grammatical categories (a very important consideration for the comparative approach), glossematics (see Hjemslev 1935, 1961) and psychomechanics (see Guillaume 1919, 1964, 1965) have offered quite appropriate starting points for structural comparative morphology. The distinction 'morpheme' versus 'plereme' at the level of content form, defined in terms of obligatory heterosyntagmatic relations7, allowed revision of the classical opposition between the grammatical and lexical levels, beyond the traditional difference between morphology and syntax. It was quite a significant result, since obligatory heterosyntagmatic relations could link bound, as well as free, morphemes. Hence, one could classify the article or the comparative morphemes as grammatical, although in the Romance languages they are free morphemes. As Coseriu has pointed out, the Romance languages replaced bound morphemes by words in accordance with a more general rule: 'analytical forms for the internal grammatical categories and synthetic forms for the external grammatical ones' (voice, case, etc.). Togeby (1953, 1965), Alarcos Llorach (1951), Fernandez (1951), Dubois (1965, 1967, 1969), Stefanini (1962), Imbs (1953, I960), Moignet (1959), Pottier (1962a, 1962b), Diaconescu (1970), Manoliu (1968, 1973, 1974), Caragiu-Marioteanu (1968) — to cite only a few names and omitting arbitrarily many others — have investigated one or several Romance languages and reexamined some of the baffling aspects of traditional morphology. Taken together, they retrace the limits of grammatical categories and of their members with regard to relational criteria and to the form of the content. Any survey of this kind, indeed, must answer the question: "What is the original contribution of these investigations?". It is a legitimate question, for, at least in the early days, critics frequently claimed that works of this kind had brought terminological innovations but no 'real ones' ('real' originality being judged in terms of 'new facts'). But the question was answered many times (every time a

70

Maria Manoliu-Manea

researcher looked at a traditional concept in terms of structural method, he had to justify the need for so doing). For this reason I do not think it worthwhile to insist upon the inconsistency of such criticisms. Perhaps we should merely remind ourselves that structural analysis had as its goal the discovery of relationships between units (i.e. to rearrange the units in a more rational way) rather than to discover new items. From this point of view, the works mentioned above constitute an original contribution in the Romance area, even if, on occasion, they merely produced confirmations by formal methods of Older discoveries', although this does not of course mean that any research attempting to apply the structuralist method is interesting and fruitful simply by virtue of that method. Rather, for example, by reconsidering the neuter in the wider context of the place of gender among grammatical categories in general, by reexamining the position of the reflexive voice — and indeed of voice relations generally, by reinterpreting the French and Spanish conditional and the Spanish future subjunctive, by establishing the place of 'indefinite pronouns' within the whole quantifier system, by highlighting the relevant features of prepositions and conjunctions, by redefining nominal and verbal flexional types — all these works shed new light on the most controversial points of Romance morphosyntax. 'Commutation' has provided the fundamental proof for establishing the inventory of invariants in each grammatical category; the absence of the relation under discussion has brought out — and not infrequently — the weak points of Romance morphology. Gender and voice have usually been the most discussed categories. If for Hall (1965) there are only two genders in Romance (including Rumanian), Dubois (1965), Diaconescu (1970) and Marcus (1962) admit at least three grammatical genders (by virtue of syntagmatic relationships). If Graur (1969) or Stefanini (1962) recognize three voices (mainly on the strength of semantic criteria), other researchers have accepted only two — and without excluding any voice from the grammar — since in Romance there are no bound morphemes expressing the relations under discussion (see Alarcos Llorach 1970). In the paradigmatic analysis of the content shared by grammatical categories, an important role was played by Guillaume's psychomechanics. In this context, for example, Pettier applied the hypothesis of 'vectors' in his description of the Spanish article, as Guillaume himself had done for French (the indefinite and the definite articles express a continuum from the 'universal', envisaged as a 'lot of individuals': un cabal-

Synchronic comparative grammar

71

lero espanol nunca miente 'a Spanish gentleman never tells lies', to 'individual' — as either 'count unit': entro un joven 'a young man came in' or as 'known one': el mozo tendria unos veinte anos 'the youth must have been about twenty' and then to another 'universal', this time envisaged as a 'universal extension', 'the class': elcaballero espanol nunca miente '[literally] the Spanish gentleman never tells lies' (Pettier 1958)). It might be interesting to compare the psychomechanic description of the article with the hypothesis of generative semantics about quantifiers and presuppositions (reference and specificness) (see, for instance, Hall-Partee 1970). Stefanini was also inspired by Guillaume's theory on voice (1962), whereas Moignet developed psychomechanical suggestions in his analysis of the French personal pronoun (1965). 1.2 Distribution and correspondences between distributional classes American descriptivism (see especially Z. Harris 1951) in which the main criterion for identifying and classifying linguistic units is their distribution, or position, in the speech string, is more closely related to specific aspects of language. In the quest for formal definitions of traditional concepts, the grammatical or so-called Mexico-grammatical' categories were refined through the distributional filter: the noun, the verb, the pronoun, the numeral, the adjective were isolated as 'classes of words' — even if not always in a satisfactory way — by diagnostic contexts. At this stage, distributional description was not favourable to the comparative approach, as the diagnostic contexts differed from one language to another, owing primarily to 'individual co-occurrences' (i.e. words or morphemes rather than morpheme-classes) which were included among the defining contextual features. For example, the distributional definition of the substantive in Rumanian rests on the following contexts (see Diaconescu 1970): (\)acest 0 'this' aceastä . . . 0 acestui . . . 0

(ii) 0 ... acest 0 ... aceasta 0 ... acestui

'this'

72

Maria Manoliu-Manea

(iii) 0 ... meu 0 . . . mea

0 ... scump 0 ... scump

'my'

'expensive'

The experiment is not uninteresting, as it reveals the ability of the distribution to mirror other differences, like those between parts of speech, but, at least in this form, such a description cannot be confronted with the descriptions of the same category in other languages because of its lack of generality. In the generative model, the contextual constraints and the order of units belong to less deep underlying structures. Sometimes, indeed, they are considered merely 'surface filters', as, for example, the order of the clitics in Romance (see Perlmutter 1969, 1971). In fact, the degree of appropriateness of distributional or positional criteria for the comparative approach is directly proportional to the degree of generality of the symbols used and their ability to relate to the 'same categories of objects' in the non-linguistic world. For instance, Greenberg formulates some grammatical universals regarding the order of units, precisely because he introduced such concepts as subject, object, verb, etc., that had previously been employed in the description of many natural languages, by virtue of their semantically-based definitions (the relation with the referent) (see Greenberg 1966a). In these terms, one could also formulate pan-Romance rules, as, for example, the rule stating the position of the pronoun: 'the personal pronoun, if unstressed, precedes the finite form of the verb'8. The fact that, in Rumanian, the feminine singular direct object follows the verb in the 'compound past' (a vazut-o 'he saw her' but ο να vedea 'he will see her') would be captured by a specific rule of Rumanian grammar not included in the pan-Romance grammar. In Slavic or Germanic languages, the distribution of the personal pronoun is governed by other rules — in declarative sentences, the object pronoun follows the verb, or at least the auxiliary: compare Engl.

Synchronic comparative grammar

73

he promised me, he saw him, Germ, er hat mir versprochen, er hat ihn gesehen, but Fr. m'a promis, Ul'a vu, Rum. mi-α promts, Γα v zut, etc. Distributional characteristics, considered as surface phenomena, might be the proof, if not necessarily for a genetic relationship, then at least for a deep linguistic resemblance, precisely because they belong to the area of specific features. It is for this reason that we think distributional behaviour cannot be neglected in the comparative approach. 2. Reduction in a transformational grammar In the Romance domain, generative syntax has trailed far behind and produced, in some ways, less of theoretical interest, perhaps because of the rich tradition and results of paradigmatic structuralism still preponderant in Europe. After the semi-formalised model of Tesniere's syntax (1959) which adumbrates certain new directions in generative semantics by considering the verb as the kernel of the sentence (very like the predicate in the predicate calculus), Schane (1964, 1968) and Langacker (1965, 1966, 1968) pioneered the application of classical transformational grammar to the Romance languages. Shortly afterwards, Gross (1968) applied Chomsky's suggestions to the syntax of the French verb in an original way, in which the 'surface frames' play a more important role than the so called 'deep structures' (there are no trees in the whole book) — maybe also under the influence of the distributional orientation. In addition to Dubois - Dubois-Charlier's syntax (1970) which tries to combine the results of paradigmatic description with transformational requirements, we should particularly note Ruwet's contributions (1972), which refine the lexicalist transformational model through the description of French syntax. R. Lakoff provided the first transformational model of Latin (1968), Costabile (1967) applied the '57 transformational model (see Chomsky 1957) to Italian in a quite general form, Vasiliu — GolopenJia-Eretescu (1969) published the first Rumanian transformational syntax while Hadlich explained and illustrated the '65 model (Chomsky 1965) on Spanish data, as Ruwet had done for French readers some time earlier (see Hadlich 1971; Ruwet 1967). In the last few years, Romance generative-transformational research, mainly in its new forms (generative semantics and generative phonology) has become more sophisticated and attracted a larger audience of young

74

Maria Manoliu-Manea

and middle-aged linguists; to name but a few: Perlmutter, Rivero, Kayne, Otero, Saltarelli, Naro, Goldin, Lo Cascio, Rohrer, Figge, M. B. Harris, Panä Dindelengan, Suner, Radford, Fauconnier, Quicoli, and others. Since the transformational literature is less rich in comparative studies (see Manoliu 1971), we shall limit ourselves here to a discussion of general aspects of the identification procedure and the rules of correspondence. 2.1 Identifying the symbols in transformational grammar Despite the hypothesis about the universal character of deep structure, equivalences between categorial symbols belonging to different generative grammars are not self-evident; these require an explicit device, a motivation for the option selected. Conversely, the identity of the grammars under comparison is not always demonstrated by the identity of their symbols — nor indeed always by the identity of their rules. Let us consider, for example, three rules in Vasiliu - Eretescu's grammar (1969: 21): (ii) VP -* V^PrepP (in) VP -» V~NP~PrepP Rule (i) is related to dative constructions (the verb has an indirect object in the dative), rule (ii) to the prepositional indirect object. In a model of the Italian verb phrase (Cirstea 1971: 333), there are the same rules, but the first one corresponds to the direct object (which is captured in the Rumanian model by a further rule: (iv) VP -» Vpe^NP), while the indirect object is related to the structure V^ PrepP as in rule (ii). In order to compare these two models, one must first decide whether the symbols NP and PrepP from the Rumanian model and the NP, PrepP from the Italian model are identical. The answer will be different depending on the reference system: (a) One can answer affirmatively, if the position of the symbols in the model is the criterion: NP > VP is characterized by the strict subcategorization rule: NP -+ CS/ [-1- V] _, in both the models. PrepP has the same definition in the models under discussion: PrepP -> CS/

Synchronic comparative grammar

75

Consequently, in order to rewrite the case of NP as dative in Rumanian and as accusative in Italian, different phonological rules have to be stated: compare ii dau Ί give him' and lo vedo Ί see him'. (b) The answer must be negative if we adopt as reference system the classical syntactic categories and/or the referent. If we admit the identity of the NP symbols, we will obtain odd results: (a) identical deep structures for constructions which we used to consider different on the strength of classical categories such as 'direct object', 'indirect prepositional object', etc.; (b) moreover, there is no Rumanian verb which meets the structural description of rule (i) and which has an Italian corresponding verb that meets the structural description of rule (i) in Italian grammar. Such a comparison would be entirely inefficient in a contrastive grammar. In other words, one will always obtain different deep structures for identical non-linguistic situations— which is in itself acceptable (even in the traditional descriptions there are similar cases: compare Fr. i7 demande Monsieur N — direct object, but Rum. intreab de domnul N and Sp. pregunta por el Senor N 'he asks for Mr N' — prepositional indirect object), but also identical deep structures for different nonlinguistic relations (different 'scope relations', i.e. the relations between the action — verb — and the objects correlated with it); such a result contradicts the hypothesis of the universal underlying structure: compare (1) It. Giuseppe ha colpito Pietro, (2) Rum. Iosifl-a lovitpe Petru 'Joseph hit Peter' and (3) Rum. mincarea aceasta ii priemte, (4) It. questopiato te donna 'this food is suitable for you'. In the above mentioned models, (1) and (3) meet the same structural description: V~NP, while (1) and (2) have different structural descriptions. When viewed through the classical syntactic pattern, sentences (1) and (3) are different: in (1) Pietro is the direct object, in (3) ft' is the dative indirect object, whereas sentences (1) and (2) are identical: Pietro and (pe) Petru are both direct objects. If one transposes sentences (l)and (3)intoFillmore'scase model, they again appear as different: (1) Giuseppe ha colpito Pietro has the underlying structure: Verb Agentive Experiencer 'colpire' 'Giuseppe' 'Pietro' — whereas (3) mincarea ii priefte meets the structural description: Verb Objective Experiencer 'prii' 'mincarea' 'el'

76

Maria Manoliu-Manea

Consequently, we are tempted to consider the NP and PrepP symbols as different in the Italian and Rumanian models, in addition to the above mentioned rules (i) and (iii). To accord with linguistic intuition, one must adjust the rules and set up the symbols so that they serve to establish correspondences between constructions which used to be considered equivalent by reason of classical syntactic patterns and the semantic interpretation of the verbs involved. Sometimes, even the classical syntactic pattern is unable to correlate in a common reference system different constructions that we feel to be equivalent. Compare (5)Rum.mi-efoame, (6)¥r.j'aifaim, (7)Sp.tengo hambre am hungry', or (8) Rum. ma dorpicioarele, (9) Fr.j'ai mal aux pieds 'my feet ache', have a pain in my feet'. In (5) the 'patient' is dative (mi) as the indirect object, and the 'physical condition' becomes the subject of the sentence; in (6), (7), the 'patient' is the subject and the 'hunger' is the object. In (8) the 'patient' (who is also the 'possessor') is the direct object (accusativemä), while the 'part of the body' (inalienable possession) picioarele 'the feet' becomes the subject (as shown by the agreement in number: compare mä doare piciorul 'my foot aches'). In French, the (9) construction is completely different: the 'patient' becomes the subject but the 'possessed object' is expressed by a prepositional (locative) phrase, aux pieds. If the description is limited to classical syntactic concepts, there is no relation between the constructions (5) and (6) or (7), nor between (8) and (9). Nonetheless, the translation mechanism must group them together. What position should linguists take? Should they consider these equivalences as belonging to a non-linguistic area? Or should they try to refine the models in order to capture generalizations of this kind and translate the differences in 'context-sensitive grammars'? Paradigmatic approaches still manifest some hesitation as to the linguistic character of such a basis for comparison, while generative semantics subscribes to the second solution.9 In the search for a more appropriately universal metalanguage for the semantic structure, generative semantics has borrowed the formulae of symbolic logic. The results are quite interesting, especially as regards the description of conjunctions (propositional calculus), negation and quantifiers (predicate calculus), and merit closer attention for the advantages they offer to the comparative approach. First of all, the symbolism of the logic has a high degree of formality; furthermore, the truth values of the simple proposition require meaning postulates — empirically stated —

Synchronic comparative grammar

77

that provide a common comparative base, although, in some areas, the empirical evidence (the experience) may differ from one community to another. Even in expressing the relation between sentences, natural languages differ widely (see Coseriu 1968). Rumanian and Spanish possess the conjunctions §i, y/e, which express the logical operator ET in certain syntactic conditions, like Fr. et or Engl. and (for example, when the coordinated sentences are both true and have an affirmative form: p ET q), and in addition the 'adversative' conjunctions Rum. dar, Sp. pero, corresponding to Fr. mais and Engl. but (which express the same ET, but when one of the two terms of the complex proposition is negated: p ET q or p ET q; compare cintä dar nu danseazä, nu cinta dar danseazä; canta pero no baila, no canta pero baila 'she sings but she does not dance' or 'she does not sing but she dances'). Rumanian and Spanish, however, possess a further conjunction ci/sino, again to express the operator ET, but in other conditions; compare (10) Rum. nu cintä, ci danseazä, (11) Sp. no canta sino baila 'She does not sing, she dances', (12)eile ne chantepas, eile danse and (13) Rum. nu cintä dar danseazä, (14) Sp. no canta pero baila 'she does not sing but she dances'. In (10), the presupposition is that 'N sings and does not dance' — the terms are presented as contradictory ones (when p, then q, and the converse); the speaker is negating the presupposition p ET q and states p ET q (the condition of contradictoriness remains invariable; compare also (15) Rum. Icred cä nu cintä ci danseazä think she does not sing, she dances', (16)nu credcä nu cintä, ci danseazä do not think she does not sing and she dances', where (16) is synonymous with (1 leered cä ea cintä §i nu danseazä think she sings and does not dance' — in fact, this is the correct way to express the idea under discussion, while (16) is rather strange, if not ill-formed). In (13), the presupposition (in the hearer's mind) was 'she does not sing and she does not dance' (the terms are equivalent, in the logical meaning: 'when p, then q'; compare (18) Icred cä nu cintä dar danseazä; (19) nu cred cä nu cintä dar danseazä; (l 9) is synonymous with (20) cred cä (nid) nu cintä §i (nici) nu danseazä, which is perfectly acceptable, while (17) and (19) are less probable). In (13) the speaker is negating the presupposition p ET q under the form p ET q; the fact that 'she dances' is presented as a compensation for the absence of the fact (or capacity) of singing. But what is important for the present discussion is that the equivalences just proposed rest upon a common interpretation in terms of such general

78

Maria Manoliu-Manea

concepts as operators and negation. In spite of doubts about the appropriateness of logical metalanguage for linguistic purposes (for such a metalanguage might confuse the distinction between logic and linguistics), it seems worthwhile to formulate the comparative basis in terms of symbolic logic. At this point, linguistic research could profitably be directed to stating precisely the rules which transpose logical relations into natural languages.10 2.2 Identifying the rules in a transformational grammar In the approach that defines typology as the science of isomorphisms, the main task of the comparatist seems to be the identification of the rules rather than the identification of the units. As we have seen already in the previous paragraph, the identification procedure is not the easiest step in comparative work, since any resemblances may be the result of the way in which the syntactic rules are related by the interpretive rules to the language-object, in other words, consequences of the way in which the models were conceived, rather than the mirror of 'real identities'. Obviously, the possibility of obtaining identical models at an intermediate level presupposes similar phenomena in the languages under study: the fact that in Italian rule (i) is modelling the direct object construction, while in Rumanian the same rule is related to the dative construction, reflects the ability of these languages to have a nonprepositional object. However, this does not mean that such correspondences are really relevant for deep affinities. In this case, at least, the fact that two languages share a construction which does not need a preposition between the verb and its indirect object seems to be a quite trivial discovery. If the interpretive rule changes and rule (i) is related (in Italian and in Rumanian) to the direct object, then it is necessary to formulate a rule which rewrites the case as a discontinuous morpheme, including the preposition pe in Rumanian, under certain conditions. Therefore, the difference between Italian and Rumanian is captured in a manner different from that of the previous interpretation. In order to choose one of these solutions (and actually there are more than two solutions) one may take into consideration the nature and degree of resemblance as mirrored by the rules under discussion and by their interpretation. In the first case, their identity with respect to rule (i) conceals the difference between direct object in Italian and indirect object in Rumanian, and the accompanying distinction in case markers

Synchronic comparative grammar

79

(dative, accusative, preposition). As we have already shown, the distinction of direct versus indirect object is accompanied, in this context, by a change in the 'scope relation'. In the second interpretation the relation between the action and its 'actors' does not change, although there is a change in case markers. It is for this reason that we would prefer the second solution. 2.2.1 The situation in which the models to be compared have identical rules is not so frequent. Commonly, the resemblances are verifiable only for some parts of the models. What adjustment procedure can one propose then? Let us suppose, for example, that Latin differs from Romance in the Verb Phrase only by the rule that explains the occurrence of a genitive indirect object: vivorum memini, admoneo prudentiae. In order to construct a common grammar one may proceed as follows: first, introduce rule (j), VP —> V~NPg; then, in order to capture the fact that Romance languages lack this construction, choose one of the following solutions: (1) Be satisfied with the statement: 'rule (j) does not apply in Romance languages'. (2) Try to formulate a correspondence rule between the Latin construction and its Romance translations (this is actually the method commonly adopted by the classical comparative grammars) by virtue of the semantic relation between the verbs requiring the genitive object and their Romance counterparts. At this point, a relation between the verbs /a,b,c/ in Latin and the verbs /a',b',cV in Romance is established with regard to a common semantic feature — let us call it 'verba memoriae'. These are then related to other symbols (metasymbols) /A,B,C/; in other words a reduction is effected at the level of verbal units, and the subcategory of 'verba memoriae' is introduced in the pan-Romance model. This subcategory is characterised by the rule that requires the genitive mark for the object: (j')Vm-»CS/_[+NPg] / + verba \ \ memoriae / The fact that in Romance the symbol g (the case marker) changes its place in order to precede the noun - as a preposition -will be captured in a specific reordering rule. (3) An alternative way to translate the phenomenon under discussion

80

Maria Manoliu-Manea

in a pan-Romance transformational grammar, one which also takes as its starting point the 'verba memoriae' class, would be to formulate the rule: (j")V0 m ^CS/_[+Pre P d P] + verba \ memoriae / Thus, Latin would require an obligatory rule to move the case marker Prepd to the right of the noun, as a genitive morpheme. V

2.2.2 Even when two rules differ widely, they may be reduced on the strength of contextual identity and of the results they produce. Consider, for example, the FOR-TO complementiser, which R. Lakoff related to the Latin 'accusative + infinitive'. Even if objections are raised to Lakoff's treatment because she prefers to apply the English transparent formula FOR-TO in the description of Latin complementation (1968: §§3.12, 6.4), this rapprochement does not seem unreasonable: FOR, as the Latin accusative, transforms the subject of the complement clause into the object of the main clause and TO plays the role of the infinitive morpheme which reduces redundant person and tense marking. 3.

Conclusions

Whatever method is chosen to describe each of the languages being compared (traditional, structuralist — whether glossematics or distributional descriptivism — or transformational generative), there are only two general ways of considering a comparative grammar: (1) A classical comparative grammar compares the descriptions made separately for each language, in order to establish what is identical and what is different. The difficulty in establishing the equivalences resides in the fact that, in most cases, the comparatist is confronted by descriptions that have not been designed for comparative purposes: the basis for comparison is lacking and, in the main, can only be improvised. Equivalences are brought out by verifying the description of language L, when applied to language L% and vice versa. In so doing, we can arrive at a whole series of adjustments of each description in order to emphasize their similarities, by establishing equivalences based on the following types of relation: (a) relationships between language and referents ('designatum'): We consider, for example, that the verbs Lat. memini, Rum. a-$i aminti, Fr. se souvenir have the semantic feature 'verb of memory', by virtue of their

Synchronic comparative grammar

81

relation to the referent. Obviously, this feature is introduced into the matrix of the verb in order to characterise the differences in their syntactic behaviour as compared with other subcategories, like, for example, 'verbs of saying', or 'verbs of telling'; (b) identity of position in the models analysed (contextual definition in terms of distributional classes (see 1.2) or in terms of categorial symbols (see 2.1)); (c) functional identity (the relation between the units of the level analysed and those of the 'upper level': case and preposition, for instance, are considered equivalent if one looks at their syntactic functions — object introducers, noun determiner marks, etc. (see 2.1)); (d) similar conditions (see the discussion of the FOR-TO complementiser and 'accusative + infinitive' in 2.2.2). Since the identifying procedure applies to parts of the compared models, any equivalences so identified can be only partially validated. (2) The second possible formula is to conceive of the comparative grammar as the sole model for the various languages to be compared: only the common rules will be introduced in this grammar. The differences between languages are then dealt with by specific rules; the languages become 'instances of context'. In other words, differences between the languages become variations of the type depending on the context (see 2.2.1, solutions (2) and (3) and the generative semantics method in 2.1). The operation which consists in discovering equivalences between various models is logically prior and extrinsic to that of creating the model itself. What constitutes the purpose of classical comparative grammar (relations of equivalence) now becomes the postulates of the prototype model —only the appropriate rules for describing the differences have to be fashioned. At the following stage, the pan-Romance model itself must be reconciled, in turn, with the universal features of human language. The genetic type, the intermediate step between 'universal' and 'individual', is still a working hypothesis that awaits its linguistic validation. Postscriptwn Since the present chapter was written in the early seventies, it does not refer to several important contributions published in the last few years.

82

Maria Manoliu-Manea

The major additions are: Alarcos Llorach 1970; Cristea 1976; Fauconnier 1974; M. B. Harris 1976, 1978; Manoliu-Manea 1977. Notes 1. Since the current trends in the grammar of individual Romance languages are separately treated in other chapters of this book, I have considered it necessary only to treat here specific aspects of pan-Romance comparative grammar; in other words, I shall try to characterize only the comparative approach in the light of the recent developments of our discipline. 2. See, for example, Jakobson (1963: 71): "Contrairement ä la parente et ä l'affinite, l'isomorphisme n'implique pas necessairement le facteur temporel ou spatial. L'isomorphismepeutunirdifferentsetatsd'unememelangueou deux etats (simultanes ou separes dans le temps) de deux langues differentes, qu'elles soient contigues ou eloignees, parentees ou non". 3. See also Katioic (1970: 83): "There is, of course, a very definite correlation between genetic and typological relationship, especially in morphology. It is always very probable that genetically related languages will show also a certain degree of typological relationship. But the contrary is not true since typological relationship may, as far as I know, very well occur without genetic relationship". 4. SeeCoseriu (1965: 279): "Las convergencias linguisticas no tienen nada de misterioso, si se tiene en cuenta el caräcter tecnico de la lengua: ellas representan la aplicacion en lenguas diferentes — y, eventualmente, con materiales diversos — de pautas sistemäticas y tipologicas anälogas; aplicacion que puede extenderse a traves de un periodo de tiempo muy largo (por ej., del latin vulgar hasta la actualidad). Lo que se 'hereda', en este caso, no son las llamadas 'tendencias', sino los modos tecnicos que constituyen la lengua como 'sistema de posibilidades'. Los hechos realizados pueden ser, como tales, independientes unos de otros; no asi, en cambio, las reglas o los principles de su realization, que son, simplemente, comunes". 5. For the implications of the statistical approach in typology, see Greenberg (1966b: 67): "To begin with there is the obvious methodological advantage that frequency phenomena can be explored for every language whereas other criteria are more limited in this respect, [...]". 6. See, for example, Katioic (1970: 86-87): "Since morphological correspondence in comparative linguistics presupposes phonemic correspondence and the latter is defined by correspondence of content among other fundamental concepts, this latter correspondence is indirectly relevant for morphological correspondence also [...]. Maximal correspondences of content are relevant rather to typological than to genetic research. But in combination with morphological correspondence, maximal correspondence of content can be most useful in comparative morphology". 7. In Hjemslev's view, the morpheme is characterised by the capacity to establish obligatory heterosyntagmatic relations, while the plereme is characterised by the absence of this possibility (Hjemslev 1935). 8. The corresponding Greenberg universal is: "The nominal object may follow the verb whether the pronoun object precedes or follows, while the nominal object may precede the verb only if the pronoun precedes" (Greenberg 1966a: 97). 9. The above commentary on sentences (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) was inspired by Fillmore's case theory (see 1971:376), where the 'patient' as well as the 'beneficiary' belong to the same case, the 'Experiencer' in the deepest underlying structure. 10. For the present orientation in generative semantics see the following chapter in this

Synchronic comparative grammar

83

volume, and also Steinberg-Jakobovits (1971 eds.), especially the article by G. Lakoff, 232-296.

References Academia R. S. Romania 1963 Gramatica limbii romane, 2 vols. (2nd edition) (Bucuresti: Editura Academiei). 1965 Istoria limbii romane. I. Limba latino (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Alarcos Llorach, E. 1951 Gramatica estructural (segun la escuela de Copenhague y con especial atencion a la lengua espanola (Madrid: Gredos). 1970 Estudios de gramatica funcional del espanol (Madrid: Gredos). Anderson, John M. 1971 The grammar of case. Towards a localistic theory (Cambridge: U.P.). Baldinger, K. 1970 Teoria semantica. Hacia una semantica moderna (Madrid: Ediciones Alcalä). Benveniste, E. 1952-53 "La classification des langues", Conferences de l'lnstitut de Linguistique de I'Universita de Paris XI. [Reprinted in Problemes de linguistique g n rale I (Paris: Gallimard), 99-118.] Bourciez, E. 1910 Ellments de linguistique romane (Paris: Klincksieck). [5th revised edition 1967.] Caragiu-Marioteanu, M. 1968 Fono-morfologia aromana (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Casagrande, J. 1972 "Syntactic studies in Romance", Generative studies in Romance languages, edited by J. Casagrande and B. Saciuk (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House), 1-22. Chomsky, N. 1957 Syntactic structures (=Janua Linguarum, series minor 4) (The Hague: Mouton). 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Cirstea, M. 1971 Verbe determinate ji nondeterminate in limba italianä contemporanä. Generarea grupului verbal (Bucure§ti). [Unpublished dissertation.] Corbeil, J.-C. 1969 Les structures syntaxiques du franqals moderne. Les elements fonctionnels dans la phrase (Paris: Klincksieck). Coseriu, E. 1958 Sincronia, diacronla e historia (Montevideo: U.P.). 1965 "Sincronia, diacronia y tipologia", Actas del XI congreso internacional de lingüistica y filologia romanicas, Madrid 1965 (Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1968), 1: 269-283. 1967 Teoria del lenguaje y lingüistica general (Madrid: Gredos). 1968 "Coordinacion latina y coordinacion romanica", Actas del III congreso espanol de estudios clasicos (Madrid: C.S.I.C.), 3: 35-57. Costabile, N. 1967 Le strutture della lingua italiana: grammatica generativo-transformativa (Bologna: Patron). Cristea, T. 1976 Relations et formes casuelles en frangais (Bucure§ti: Universitatea).

84

Maria Manoliu-Manea

De Boer, C. 1954 Syntaxe du fra^ais moderne (Leiden: U.P.). Diaconescu, P. 1970 Structurä ji evolufie (n morfologia Substantivului romanesc (Bucures,ti: Editura Academiei). Dubois, J. 1965 Grammaire structurale du franfais: nom et pronom (Paris: Larousse). 1967 Grammaire structurale du franc, ais: le verbe (Paris: Larousse). 1969 Grammaire structurale du frangais: la phrase et les transformations (Paris: Larousse). Dubois, J. - F. Dubois-Charlier 1970 Elimenis de linguistique frangaise: syntaxe (Paris: Larousse). Fauconnier, G. 1974 La conference: syntaxe ou semantique? (Paris: Seuil). Fernandez, S. 1951 Gramatica espanola. Los sonidos, el nombre y el pronombre (Madrid: Ediciones de la Revista de Occidente). Fillmore, C. J. 1968 "The case for case", Universals in linguistic theory, edited by E. Bach and R. T. Harms (New York: Holt), 1-88. 1971 "Types of lexical information", Semantics, edited by D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (Cambridge: U.P.), 370-392. Goldin, M. 1968 Spanish case and function (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P.). Graur, A. 1968 Tendinfe actuate ale limbii romane (Bucure§ti: Editura S,tiir»lifica). 1969 "Diatezele", SCL 20: 13-22. Greenberg, J. H. 1966a "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements", Universals of language, edited by J. H. Greenberg (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press), 73-113. 1966b Language universals: with special reference to feature hierarchies (The Hague: Mouton). Gross, M. 1968 Grammaire transformationnelle dufrangais: syntaxe du verbe (Paris: Larousse). Gruber, J. S. 1976 "Look and see", Lg 43: 937-947. Guillaume, G. 1919 Le probleme de article et sa solution dans la langue fra^aise (Paris: Hachette). 1964 Langage et science du langage (Paris: Nizet/Quebec: Laval U.P.). 1965 Temps et verbe. Thlorie des aspects, des modes et des temps (2nd edition) (Paris: Champion). Hadlich, R. L. 1971 A transformational grammar of Spanish (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall). [Translated as Gramatica transformativa del espanol (Madrid: Gredos, 1973).] Hall Jr., R. A. 1965 "The 'neuter' in Romance: a pseudo-problem", Word 21: 421-427. Hall-Partee, B. 1970 "Negation, conjunction and quantifiers: syntax versus semantics", FL 6: 153-165.

Synchronic comparative grammar

85

Harris, M. B. 1976 (ed.) Romance syntax: synchronic and diachronic perspectives (Salford: U.P.) 1978 The evolution of French syntax: a comparative approach (London: Longman). Harris, Z. S. 1951 Methods in structural linguistics (Chicago: U.P.)· Hjelmslev, L. 1935 "Essais d'une theorie des morphemes". [Reprinted in Essais linguistiques (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog-og Kulturforlag, 1959), 152-164.] 1961 Prolegomena to a theory of language, translated by J. Whitfield (Madison: Wisconsin U.P.). [Originally published as Omkring sprogteoriens grundlaeggelse (K0benhavn: Munksgaard, 1943).] Imbs, P. 1953 Le subjonctifen franfais moderne (Paris: Belles Lettres). 1960 L'emploi des temps verbaux en franfais moderne (Paris: Klincksieck). lordan, I. 1966 "Probleme generate ale lingvisticii romanice", SCL 17: 3-12. lordan, I. - V. Gutu-Romalo - A. Niculescu 1967 Structura morfologica a limbii romane contemporane (Bucures.ti: Editura §tiinlificä). lordan, I. - M. Manoliu 1974 Linguistica romanza (Padova: Liviana). Jakobson, R. 1963 Essais de linguistique g n rale, translated with a preface by N. Ruwet (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit). Katicic, R. 1970 A contribution to the general theory of comparative linguistics (= Janua Linguarum, series minor 83) (The Hague: Mouton). Kayne, R. 1974 The transformational cycle in French syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Lakoff, G. 1971 "On generative semantics", Semantics, edited by D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (Cambridge: U.P.), 232-296. Lakoff, R. T. 1968 Abstract syntax and Latin complementation (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press). Langacker, R. W. 1965 "French interrogatives: a transformational description", Lg 41: 587-600. 1966 "Les verbes faire, laisser, voir, et cetera", Langages 3: 72-89. 1968 "Observations on French possessives", Lg 44: 51-75. Malkiel, Y. 1960 "A tentative typology of Romance historical grammars", Lingua 9: 321416. Manoliu-Manea, M. 1968 Sistematica substitutelor din daco-romana contemporanä standard (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). 1971 "Preliminaires a une syntaxe romane transformationnelle", CLTA 8: 37-51. 1973 Structuralismul lingvistic (Bucure§ti: Editura didacticä §i pedagogics). 1974 "La nature du pronom et la 'pronominalisation'", Proceedings of the XI congress of linguists (Bologna: II Mulino), 2: 433-443. 1977 Tipologie ft istorie. Elemente de sintaxä comparatä romanicä (Bucure§ti: Universitatea).

86

Maria Manoliu-Manea

Marcus, S. 1962 "Le genre grammatical et son modele logique", CLTA 1: 103-122. Martinet, A. 1962 A functional view of language (London: Oxford U.P.). Meyer-Lübke, W. 1890-1902 Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Reisland). [Facsimile edition (Hildesheim: Olms, 1972).] Moignet, G. 1959 Essai sur le mode subjonctif en latin post-classique et en ancien franqais (Paris: P.U.F.). 1965 Le pronom personnel fra^ais: essai de psychosystamatique historique (Paris: Klincksieck). Naro, A. , 1968 History of Portuguese passives and impersonals (Cambridge, Mass.). [Unpublished dissertation.]. Panä Dindelengan, G. 1974 Sintaxa transformationalä a grupului verbal in limba romänä (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). Perlmutter, D. M. 1969 "Les pronoms objets en espagnol", Langages 14: 81-133. 1971 Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax (New York: Holt). Posner, R. 1966 The Romance languages. A linguistic introduction (New York: Doubleday). Pottier, B. 1958 Introduction a l'itude de laphilologie hispanique (Bordeaux). [2nd edition 1960 (Paris: Payot).] 1962a Syst matique des l ments de relation (Paris: Klincksieck). 1962b Introduction a l'itude des structures grammatical fundamentales (Nancy: Faculte des Lettres de 1'Universite). 1967 Prtsentation de la linguistique. Fondements d'une theorle (Paris: Klincksieck). [Also published TLL 1 (1967): 7-60.] Real Academia Espafiola 1962 Gramatica de la lengua espanola (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). [Revised from the original 1931 edition.] Rivero, M.-L. 1970 "A surface structure constraint on negation in Spanish", Lg 46: 640-666. 1971 "Mood and presupposition in Spanish", FL 305-336. Rohr, R. 1964 Einführung in das Studium der Romanistik (Berlin: Schmidt). Rosetti, A. 1963 "Contributii la studiul neutrului in limba romänä", SCL 14: 435-437. Ruwet, N. 1967 Introduction ä la grammaire go^rative (= Recherches en sciences humaines 22) (Paris: Plon). 1972 Theorie syntaxique et syntaxe du frangais (Paris: Larousse). Schane, S. A. 1964 "The historical development of the French syntactic construction: ce + etre + noun or pronoun", M.I. T. Research Laboratory in Electronics Quarterly Progress Report 75. 1968 French phonology and morphology (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press).

Synchronic comparative grammar

87

Stefanini, J. 1962 La voix pronominale en ancien et en moyen frangais (Paris: Klincksieck). Steinberg, D. - L. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971 Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (Cambridge: U.P.). Tesniere, L. 1959 EUments de syntaxe structural (Paris: Klincksieck). Togeby, K. 1953 Mode, aspect et temps en espagnol (K0benhavn: Munksgaard). 1962 "Comment ecrire une grammaire historique des langues romanes", SNPh 34: 315-320. 1965 Structure immanente de la langue frangaise (Paris: Larousse). Tuiescu, M. 1972 Le groupe nominal et la nominalisation en frangais moderne (Bucure§ti: Societe roumaine de linguistique romane). Vasiliu, E. - S. Golopentia-Eretescu 1969 Sintaxa transformational a limbii romane (Bucuresti: Editura Academiei).

EMANUEL VASILIU

Some problems in semantic investigation

L General trends 1.1 The main feature characterizing the development of semantics within the period starting with de Saussure is the shift of interest from diachronic to synchronic problems raised by the investigation of meaning. In other words, more recent developments in semantics have concentrated less on changes in meaning, and much more on what meaning is, and its place within linguistic structure. The same is true of the semantic approaches favoured by scholars working in the Romance field. There are four principal directions in which Romance semantics has innovated in the last decades: (a) The more traditional one, directly related to Saussurean theory: this trend can be viewed as a kind of 'immediate consequence' of de Saussure's ideas (Ullmann 1952 and Wartburg 1963 are good examples of works with this orientation). (b) The trend originating in Trier's semantic field theory or 'Begriffsystem' (Hallig - Wartburg 1952 on the one hand and Heger 1965, Baldinger 1966, 1970 on the other are good examples of works of this type). (c) Semic analysis, a trend frequently characterized by the application of phonological methods and conceptual devices to the study of meaning (for example Coseriu 1964; Pettier 1964, 1967). (d) Transformational and logicist approaches (for example Todorov 1966b; Ducrot 1972). 1.2 Traditional Saussurean semantics Orientation (a), as I have said, is an immediate consequence of de

90

Emanuel Vasiliu

Saussure's general theory of language because the semantic studies belonging to this category are concerned mostly with applying basic Saussurean tenets to the special field of semantics: motivation/nonmotivation of the sign, relation between 'signifie' and word structure, 'emotive' meaning, a systematic approach to synonymy, homonymy and polysemy, meaning investigated from the standpoint of associative (paradigmatic) and syntagmatic relations, etc., (see the treatment of such problems by Ullmann 1952, 1953; Wartburg 1963). The few examples below are intended only to give the outline of a linguistic description in these terms. Ullmann (1952) draws a distinction between languages in which the word is more 'concrete' (like Latin) and those in which the word is more 'abstract' (like French): "Le mot latin est 'concret', il n'existe pas en dehors de ses relations grammaticales. En frangais, au contraire, le mot hup est invariable, affranchi de toute determination syntaxique: le hup, du hup, des hups" (Ullmann 1952: 86). In a language like French, where the word is more 'abstract', the role of context in the clarification of the meaning is more important: "le röle du contexte est relativement plus important en frangais que dans les langues plus concretes" (Ullmann 1952: 143). The meaning of a word may be more or less autonomous; in the former case, it is less dependent on context, in the latter, it is more so: "Le fait meme qu'il y a des degres dans l'importance du role joue par le contexte est une preuve implicite de l'existence d'une autonomie semantique plus ou moins etendue. Par la nature des choses, cette autonomie n'est jamais absolue; dans le cas des mots homophones, eile se trouve reduite ä zero" (Ullmann 1952: 98-99). An 'abstract' word is more 'arbitrary' in the Saussurean sense: its (constituent) structure gives no information about the meaning conveyed: "Affranchi d'associations formelles, le mot se fait plus abstrait [...] II ne porte plus en lui-meme les indices explicites de sä signification: il se definit par rapport ä d'autres termes au champ associatif qui 1'entoure" (Ullmann 1952: 130). On the other hand Wartburg (1963), in the chapters devoted to semantic problems, points out the importance of linguistic geography as well as the idea of language as a system ("ou tout se tient"): "Si la faqon de considerer ces problemes [= etymological problems] s'est ä tel point modifiee aujourd'hui par rapport ä hier, c'est surtout ä 1'activite de

Some problems in semantic investigation

91

Gillieron qu'on le doit. C'est lui qui s'est efforce de decouvrir les secrets de la vie, de la maladie et de la lütte des mots" (Wartburg 1963:127). Or: "[· · ·] la recherche etymologique ne doit avoir de cesse avant qu'elle n'ait constate pourquoi un mot s'introduit dans une certaine position semantique, quand et d'oü part le mouvement et quelles consequences il entraine" (Wartburg 1963: 129). The traditional problem of 'popular etymology' is approached via the Saussurean concept of the motivation/non-motivation of the linguistic sign (Wartburg 1963: 136-147). The Saussurean notion of 'associative relations' in semantics is linked to the concept of 'semantic field': "Parmi tous ces rapports associatifs, une importance toute particuliere revient ä ceux qui se nouent entre les membres d'une sphere conceptuelle" (Wartburg 1963: 168). Gauger, adopting the Saussurean dichotomy (1972:53-57), makes the distinction between synonymy in 'langue' and synonymy in 'parole': "Ich trage in meinem Bewußtsein so etwas wie eine —nicht immer benützte — aber doch verfügbare — 'Synonymik'. Diese 'Synonymik' ist ein Teil dessen, was Saussure als 'la langue' terminologisch zu fassen suchte" (1972:55-56). "Nun läßt sich neben der Synonymik der langue auch eine 'Synonymik' der parole denken. Diese hätte die Bedingungen zu untersuchen, unter denen die Synonymitäten der langue, die den Gegenstand der herkömmlichen Synonymik bilden, in der parole wiederkehren und in ihr wirksam werden" (1972: 57). 1.3 Semantic field theory In orientation (b), the meaning of words is approached by way of a conceptual system which is independent of word-meaning. The words of a given language are grouped into various 'lexical fields'. A lexical field is, according to Öhman, "formed by a word and its conceptual cognates" (1953: 126). A given lexical field "corresponds to the entirety of the conceptual field". It follows that a conceptual field is subdivided by means of the words which belong to its corresponding lexical field; the meanings (senses) of the words belonging to the same lexical field are nothing more than the result of such a 'decoupage' of the corresponding conceptual field; and the surface of a conceptual field is 'covered' by word-meanings like a surface covered by the pieces of a mosaic. As Öhman puts it: "the image of a mosaic has accompanied the field theory from its beginnings" (1953: 103).

92

Emanuel Vasiliu

Duchäcek draws a distinction between "les champs de mots ayant pour centre un mot et les champs d'idees dont le noyau est forme par un concept" (1967: 32). (The case for recognizing several kinds of 'linguistic fields' is further developed in Duchäcek 1960.) Osswald (1970) is an example of the application of semantic field theory in comparative linguistics. The distinction meaning/concept and its corresponding pair lexical field/conceptual field serve as a basis for two different approaches to meaning: semasiology and onomasiology. According to Baldinger, the difference is to be understood as follows: "La Semasiologie part du signifie (Bedeutungsumfang) et examine les differentes significations ou sememes en degageant les semes ou differentiae specificae [...] L'onomasiologie, au contraire, part du concept qui [...] est independant de la structure d'une langue donnee, pour trouver les designations, les realisations linguistiques dans uneou dans plusieurs langues" (1966:12-13). Baldinger's distinction signifie /sememe can be traced back to Heger (1965:28). It will become clear below that the status of the 'signifie' as an entity distinct from the 'sememe' is not consistently maintained in Heger's theory. In fact, Heger himself considers that this distinction is unimportant (1965:29). To understand Baldinger's explanation we may, for the time being, disregard the distinction signifie/sememe, and simply consider that the point of departure of semasiology is the 'signifiant' (with which several 'sememes' are associated). Kronasser (1952: 62) considers that Weisgerber's distinction between semasiology and onomasiology is purely terminological (for a more detailed account of these terms, see Baldinger 1957; Quadri 1952). The theory of conceptual systems (distinct and independent from the word meanings of any specific language) is taken as a basis for compiling conceptual dictionaries (see Hallig - Wartburg 1952) because this theory provides a general criterion for classifying meanings (see Ullmann 1953: 226).' Semantic field theory is considered by some scholars as "one of the turning points in the history of modern semantics" (Öhman 1953: 126). We shall, nevertheless, be concerned in this section with some of the more significant criticisms levelled against it. Tollenaere (1960) considers that there is a contradiction between the 'prescientific' character of the conceptual system, and its intended universality: "Des qu'on veut un scheme ä concepts universels, il importe de

Some problems in semantic investigation

93

se defter de connaissances prescientifiques si etroitement liees ä la langue. En effet, les concepts peuvent differer selon les peuples" (Tollenaere 1960: 22). At the same time, the influence of scientific knowledge on our world outlook, and hence on the concepts we have concerning the world cannot be denied. For example, Tollenaere points out that in the Middle Ages not only were the referents of words like baleine or pore de mer thought to be 'fishes' but also the referents of words like futures, moules. To quote Tollenaere's conclusion: "Si au Moyen Age le concept de poisson de mer n'est point identique au concept moderne, il s'ensuit que ces concepts ne sont point convertibles d'une valeur en une autre, disons de celle du frangais medieval. Des lors, est-il probable que le Systeme de Hallig et von Wartburg puisse servir de base pour des periodes anciennes du langage?" (Tollenaere 1960: 22); and further: "Le Begriffsystem en effet, est un classement philosophique bien ordonne et lucide, partant du principe phenomenologique. Mais la langue ne se compose point de concepts, mais de mots, c'est-ä-dire de signes pourvus d'un certain element significatif. Un Systeme 'logique' est essentiellement tout autre chose qu'un Systeme de mots illogiques" (l 960:24). Heger's criticism of the Hallig-Wartburg conceptual system is similar to Tollenaere's: the universal validity of the conceptual system is incompatible with its prescientific character and the latter is attributable to its links with some particular language (only languages reflect such prescientific ideas about the world): "Un concept qui est obtenu ä partir du contenu significatif d'un mot et qui ä la fois pretend etre ce qui dans un domaine independant du Systeme de la langue donnee correspond ä ce contenu du mot, n'est evidemment qu'une contradictio in. adiecto" (Heger 1965: 16). From the angle of traditional Saussurean semantics as well as of semic theory the main objection to semantic field theory is almost the same: the conceptual system is not arrived at by the investigation of the semantic structure of actual languages, but comes 'from outside' and is 'imposed on' the language. Three quotations will suffice to illustrate this: Ullmann: "No major gain for synchronistic semantics can be expected from these schemes since, by the very nature of things, they are based on extra-linguistic, a priori considerations and do not spontaneously emerge from the semantic material itself" (1953: 226-227). Pettier: "II ne peut exister de 'champ' que dans la mesure ou une limitation peut lui etre assignee. Or c'est la un probleme qui n'est

94

Emanuel Vasiliu

generalement pas traite. II suppose le phenomene d'association qui, s'il n'est pas defimlinguistiquement [italics are mine, EV], releve du domaine de la psychologie, oü tout devient possible" (1964: 110). Coseriu: "La lexicologie traditionnelle n'a jamais ete structurale, c'est-a-dire fondee, du moins implicitement, sur des oppositions fonctionelles; meme les tentatives d'une lexicologie 'ideologique' ne le sont pas, puisqu'il y est question le plus souvent de domaines de la realite designee par les mots, et non de structures proprement linguistiques" (1964: 144). 1.4 Semic analysis The main feature of trend (c) is the fact that word meaning is not considered as an unanalysable unit, but as a set of smaller entities, the semantic distinctive features (or semantic markers, or semes). These markers are the semantic counterpart of phonological distinctive features. A set of semantic markers (semes) characterizing a lexical unit is arrived at by means of a procedure parallel to the phonological procedure for establishing distinctive features: if the meaning of two different words is contrasted, the minimal meaning difference constitutes a semantic marker (or seme). For example, the minimal distinction between Fr. fauteuil and chaise is the fact that the meaning of the former contains the seme 'avec bras', whereas the latter does not. A systematic presentation of the basic concepts above mentioned is to be found in Pottier (1967: 23-24): "Le contenu semique d'un lexeme est son sememe. Le sememe est 1'ensemble dessemes. Leseme est le trait distinctif minimal de signification, et se revele par opposition dans un ensemble lexical. Ce n'est done qu'en travaillant sur de petits ensembles lexicaux qu'on peut etablir les semes d'un sememe. Nous renvoyons ä notre etude sur la serie des sieges, et repetons que 'avec bras' est un seme de fauteuil uniquement parce qu'il existe chaise dans un meme ensemble fonctionnel (champ d'experience d'une certaine categoric de Frangais)." A semantic feature that corresponds to the (non-distinctive, plain) phonetic features from phonology is, in Pottier's terminology, the 'virtueme': "Les semes peuvent appartenir ä la constante de la signification ou ä la variable. Les semes variables forment le virtueme et sont connotatifs (rouge: 'danger', qui ne se realisera que dans teile combinaison de discours; ce sont des semes actualisables et presents dans la langue d'un grand nombre de locuteurs)" (1967: 24).

Some problems in semantic investigation

95

The explanations given in Pettier (1964) show that the concept of 'virtueme' may be looked on as a kind of 'combinatory availability' (compared with the 'selection restrictions' of transformational semantics): "Chaque lexie a ainsi un certain nombre de virtualites combinatoires, qu'on peut appeler ses virtuemes" (Pottier 1964: 131-132). The 'semes' which are constants (that is to say the 'semes' which are not 'virtuemes') are either specific or generic. To quote again Pottier: "Les semes specifiques permettent de distinguer une poire, d'une poche ou d'un abricot. Un seme generique indique Pappartenance ä une classe generate teile que 'materiel', 'discontinu', etc." (1967: 24; see also 1965: 33). To develop further the analogy between semantics and phonology, the 'classemes' correspond to such phonological features as 'vocalic' or 'consonantal' which indicate membership of a phonological category and differ in nature from features like 'compact' or 'continuant' which express solely phonological properties. The semantic concept corresponding to the 'archiphoneme' is the concept of 'archisememe': "sous-ensemble commun ä un ensemble de sememes" (Pottier 1965: 33). For example, siege is an 'archisememe' with respect to the 'sememes' of words like chaise, fauteuil, tabouret, etc. The parallelism semantics/phonology is made even more explicit by Coseriu (1964) (see also Posner's article in volume 1). Coseriu draws our attention to features like the following: (l)Both lexical structure and phonological structure presuppose "IOrganisation d'une substance moyennant des unites fonctionnelles qui sont differentes dans des langues differentes" (Coseriu 1964: 150). His illustration is: Spanish

Phonology Italian

Lexis Latin

Spanish

senex vetulus

viejo

vetus iuvenis novellus novus

joven nuevo

96

Emanuel Vasiliu

The meaning differences between Latin and Spanish are shown by means of the following contrasting series: Lat.: miles senex, cam's vetulus, urbs vetus, Sp. soldado viejo,perro viejo, ciudad vieja; Lat. miles iuvenis, canis novellus, urbs nova, Sp. soldado joven, perro joven, ciudad nueva. (2) Within both lexical and phonological structures, the functional units are members of contrasting sets (oppositions); the members of one set are partially identical and partially different with respect to the members of its opposite set. The members of two opposite sets are different "en vertu des traits differentiels" (Coseriu 1964:150-151). His example is: Phonology Fr. /b/: oral — bilabial — stop — voiced Fr. /p/: oral — bilabial — stop — voiceless has /pas

Lexis Lat. senex Old' — "for persons" Lat. vetus Old' — "for things" (mater) senex/(urbs) velus

(3) Both lexical and phonological units are analysable into 'distinctive features' (in Coseriu's terms: 'elements differentiels' or 'traits distinctifs') (1964: 152-153). (4) The phonological structure is characterized by the fact that the same oppositions appear in a series of cases; for example, the opposition voiced/voiceless appears in French throughout the consonant system: [p,b], [t,d], [k,g], [f,v], [f,3]. Within lexical systems such 'repeated oppositions' are quite usual when grammatical in character, but purely lexical ones are found very seldom. Coseriu quotes the opposition aller — venir which, in Spanish and Portuguese, is of the same type as the opposition porter — apporter (1964: 153-154). Another approach explicitly based on the principles of phonology is that of Prieto (1964). The structural meaning unit, in terms of Prieto's theory, is the 'noeme', defined as follows: "Un ensemble maximum de traits composant le signifie d'un enonce et se trouvanten rapport ab entre eux constitue ce que j'appellerais un 'noeme'" (1964: 91). An Ob-relationship' is, according to Prieto: "celui qui existe entre deux traitsa et b composant le signifie d'un enonce donne lorsqu'il n'y a dans la meme langue aucun enonce ä signifie moins restreint et comportant le trait a mais non le trait b ou, au contraire, comportant le trait b mais non le trait a" (1964:88-89).

Some problems in semantic investigation

97

Each noeme (like each phoneme) is a member of a definite paradigm (1964: 103) A noeme which consists exclusively of features shared in common by two or more noemes is an archinoeme (1964: 107). The concept of noemic neutralization is defined in the following way: "Dans le paradigme ou figure l'archinoeme de deux ou plusieurs membres d'un autre paradigme, l'opposition de ceux-ci se trouve 'neutralisee' (1964: 110). What is characteristic of Prieto's approach in comparison with semic analysis, is the fact that Prieto's starting point is what he calls 'phonic': "Sauf les cas ou Γόη emploie une langue ecrite, les signaux des actes de parole consistent en des suites de sons. Us regoivent de ce fait la designation particuliere de PHONIES. Les sons [Rade la mwa], par exemple, constituent une phonie" (1964:14-15). What Prieto calls 'phonic' can be — I think — better understood by reference to the distinction type/token: Prieto's 'enonce' (utterance) is, in fact, an utterance-type; the 'phonie' is a token of an utterance-type, i.e., an utterance-token corresponding to a definite utterance-type. Semantic features ('traits' in Prieto's terminology — see 1964: 59) are identified by contrasting 'phonies' and not words (as in the usual semic analysis technique). At the same time, it must be pointed out that, according to Prieto, the semantic 'traits' are not simply the result of comparing concepts but rather sets of conditions under which different 'phonies' can be applied to different objects. Applications of semic analysis can be found in studies like Dubois (1960, 1964a), Dubois - Irigaray (1966), Greimas (1964b), Pa§aliu (1968), Reinheimer (1965). Sometimes semic analysis is combined with distributional criteria: the 'petits ensembles lexicaux' (see above, the quotation from Pettier 1965) are defined by a set of distributional criteria (see for example, Dubois 1964a, 1964b; Greimas 1964b; Meschonnic 1964). This kind of approach is motivated by Z. Harris' claim that meaning differences are formally expressed by differences in distribution. Sometimes semic analysis is combined with transformational techniques — where 'transformations' are viewed as a kind of analytic device and not as generative rules (see Coyaud 1965). In certain studies in semic analysis, some concepts from set theory are incorporated (see, for example, Bidu-Vr nceanu 1970a, 1970b). Semic analysis (that is to say the 'discovery procedure' to be applied in order to obtain the semic inventory) is not necessarily based on contrast-

98

Emanuel Vasiliu

ing the meaning of minimal pairs of words (like in phonology); semes may be identified by the analysis of lexicographical definitions given to the words of the set under examination. This is the way taken by Mounin (1965). The relation between the semic structure of the word and its lexicographical definition is thoroughly investigated by scholars like Pottier (1965), Rey-Debove (1966). Mounin considers that the analysis of the definitions of the 'signifies' is a "purely linguistic operation" (1963: 126-127). It can easily be seen that within such a theoretical framework only the meaning of the units (that is to say, of the words) is dealt with; the more comprehensive problem of how the meaning of larger units is formed out of the meaning of smaller units lies beyond the limits of this kind of approach. In other words, semic analysis enables one to establish a semic inventory and systematically to describe a set of words in terms of this inventory; semic analysis does not provide a theory or methodology in terms of which the meaning of simple and/or complex sentences is to be accounted for. Baldinger considers that this kind of semantics covers only the field of lexicology (1966: 4). Todorov makes a similar remark: "La täche implicite de ces recherches, dans la plupart des cas, n'est pas d'expliquer le fonctionnement des elements semantiques d'une langue, mais de decrire son vocabulaire; nous sommes dope dans le domaine de la lexicologie plutot que dans celui de la semantique" (1966a: 11). Todorov's criticism is concerned also with some more specific aspects of the methodology of semic analysis: (1) In Todorov's view, semic analysis is based in fact on reference and not on meaning. Thus, even the smallest change within the extralinguistic world entails a change of the semic inventory (1966a: 15). (2) The identification of the semes presupposes a comparison of words belonging to the same semantic field. However, there is no efficient method of delimiting clearly a semantic field. The consequence of this shortcoming is that when word meaning is to be characterized in terms of a definite number of semes, one can always find one more seme whose presence contrasts this word with some other not previously considered as belonging to the same semantic field. For example, the word chaise may be characterized, in addition to the semes given by Pettier, also by semes like 'inedible' (if compared withpetits pois\ 'transportable' and 'social' (if compared with montagne), etc. (1966a: 16). (3) A hierarchy of semes (like the hierarchy of phonological distinctive

Some problems in semantic investigation

99

features) is not established. The absence of such a hierarchy is to be explained by the fact that semic analysis is merely a methodological transfer from phonology into semantics (1966a: 17). (4) Up to now, valuable studies have been confined to small classes of words (nouns and pronouns) — or almost the same ones taken from various languages — though the entire vocabulary of a language contains thousands of units (1966a: 17). Togeby, discussing Greimas' semic analysis, raises the question of how to arrive at semes on the basis of purely linguistic criteria. His opinion is that: "on ne peut pas faire cette analyse semantique de fa$on suffisamment sure si ne la bätit pas sur les fondements de la combinatoire" (Togeby 1965: 7). 1.5 An 'extension' of semic analysis I think that semantics in Greimas' sense is to be viewed as an 'extension' of semic analysis to the extent that his semantic theory endeavours to transcend the limits of an account of word meaning alone, so as to provide an account of the meaning of larger units, like sentences or even texts. It seems to me that the basic concept which allows one to move from word meaning to the meaning of larger syntactic constructions is that of isotopy. Unfortunately, throughout Greimas 1966 no proper definition of this basic notion is given. (See Klinkenberg's article in volume 3 for further discussion.) Since I wish to avoid misinterpreting Greimas, I shall confine myself to several more extensive quotations from his work: L'analyse contextuelle ä laquelle nous avons precede au commencement de ce chapitre a mis en evidence des semes qui, tout en etant 'contextuels' par rapport au noyau envisage, appartiennent cependant au noyau contigu, et non au contexte iteratif tel que nous cherchons ä le definir. Par opposition aux semes nucleaires, nous proposons, par consequent, de considerer comme classemes les semes contextuels proprement dits (1966: 53). Une teile conception des classemes, caracterises par leur iterativite, peut avoir une valeur explicative certaine, ne serait-ce qu'en faisant mieux comprendre le concept, encore tres vague et pourtant necessaire, de totalite de signification, postule ä un message ou ä une lexie au sens hjelmslevien. Des maintenant, on est en mesure de dire

100

Emanuel Vasiliu

qu'un message ou une sequence quelconques du discours ne peuvent etre considered comme isotopes [italics mine, EV] que s'ils possedent un ou plusieurs classemes en commun. Bien plus: en depassant le cadre etroit du message, nous essaierons de montrer, grace ä ce concept d'isotopie [author's italics], comment les textes entiers se trouvent situes ä des niveaux semantiques homogenes, comment le signifie global d'un ensemble signifiant, au lieu [. . .] d'etre postule a priori, peut etre interprete comme une realite structurelle de la manifestation linguistique (1966: 53). La linguistique danoise a bien vu le probleme en proposant de fonder l'isotopie du message sur la redondance des categories morphologiques. En effet, les unites syntaxiques, qui sont de nature hierarchique, servent en meme temps de cadres ä l'interieur desquels se situent les iterations des structures morphologiques: homoelementaires, elles definissent, par leur repetition, ce qu'on appelle traditionnellement Vaccord; homo-categoriques, elles rendent compte de la rection. Une teile redondance grammaticale peut dejä servir de modele pour comprendre l'isotopie semantique du message (1966: 69-70). L'usage frequent que font les bons mots des recits-presentations montre dejä le besoin qu'eprouve le conteur de rassurer son auditoire en etablissant solidement le plan isotope du discours, en posant d'abord un contexte plus large, ä l'interieur duquel il peut introduire ensuite une isotopie nouvelle. Le fait est que les gens serieux savent toujours, ou croient savoir, de quoi ils parlent; la conversation spirituelle est, au contraire, caracterisee par 1'utilisation parallele et successive de plusieurs isotopies ä la fois. On voit done que le probleme de la separation des isotopies et de la reconnaissance des dimensions des contextes isotopes est d'importance (1966: 71). Le syntagme, reunissant au moins deux figures semiques, peut etre considere comme le contexte minimal permettant d'etablir une isotopie; l'enonce permet de tester l'isotopie des syntagmes qui le constituent; celui-ci, ä son tour, devra etre insere dans la phrase (1966: 72). Klinkenberg underlines the importance of the concept of isotopy for

Some problems in semantic investigation

101

the semantic description of texts as well as for mechanical translation: "On sail d'emblee l'importance de ce concept pour Panalyse du discours [. . .], puisque celui-ci se definirait non seulement par des regies logiques d'enchainement des sequences, mais aussi par une coherence semantique encore ä decrire. Importance egalement pour la traduction automatique, dont un des ecueils est precisement la difficulte qu'il y a ä delimiter et ä separer les contextes isotopes afin de lever les ambiguftes et les homonymies" (1973: 285). On the other hand, Klinkenberg considers that the concept of isotopy is better clarified in some other writings of Greimas. He quotes the following ones: "Ensemble redondant de categories semantiques qui rend possible la lecture uniforme du recit, teile qu'elle resulte des lectures partielles des enonces et de la resolution de leurs ambigui'tes, qui est guidee par la recherche de la lecture unique" (Greimas 1970: 188). Or: "Faisceau de categories redondantes, sousjacentes au discours considere" (Greimas 1970: 10). In order to clarify further this concept, he quotes the following lines from Greimas (1966: 53): "Un message ou une sequence quelconque du discours ne peuvent etre considered comme isotopes que s'ils possedent un ou plusieurs classemes en commun" and (72): "Le syntagme reunissant aux moins deux figures semiques peut etre considere comme le contexte minimal permettant d'etablir un isotopie" (see Klinkenberg 1973: 287). A characteristic of Greimas' approach is his attempt to place linguistic semantics within the more general field of semiotics. 1.6 Transformational and logicist semantics First of all the very formulation of the title of this section requires explanation: what will be considered a 'logicist' approach to semantics is in many cases either derived from the transformational approach, or presupposes a grammar of a transformational — as opposed to taxonomic — type. Rey makes the following remark concerning the connection between the two: "L'abondante litterature consacree depuis quelques annees aux Etats-Unis aux problemes de la reference, aux presuppositions, aux 'restrictions selectives', conduit ä introduire dans la description linguistique, aux depens de l'imperialisme syntactique, des modeles semantiques (semantique extensionnelle pour la reference, semantique intensionnelle pour les restrictions selectives) congus comme tres proches des modeles logiques (respectivement: logique des predicate et logique

102

Emanuel Vasiliu

des classes)" (1969: 25). Quoting McCawley, Rey considers that semantic markers (or semantic distinctive features) can be viewed as "elements d'une predication: il existe un (sujet)jc tel que les traits /etre humain/ + /intelligent/, etc, s'appliquent ä cet*" (1969: 25). In the original form (that is to say as outlined by Katz and Fodor), semantics was an interpretive component of the transformational grammar. If syntax is a recursive device defining the well-formedness of sentences in L, semantics is a device accounting for how sentences in L are understood. More specifically, semantics accounts for how a speaker is able to assign a meaning to any sentence of the infinite class of sentences in L in terms of: (a) a lexicon containing the meaning specification of each item belonging to it, and (b) a finite number of rules (= projection rules in Katz — Fodor terminology) by means of which the meaning of a sentence is mapped from the meaning of its ultimate constituents (lexical items). "A semantic theory describes and explains the interpretative ability of speakers: by accounting for their performance in determining the number and content of the readings of a sentence; by detecting semantic anomalies; by deciding upon paraphrase relations between sentences; and by marking every other semantic property or relation that plays a role in this ability" (Katz - Fodor 1964: 486). Among these "other semantic properties" to be accounted for are the analytic or synthetic qualities of the sentence (Katz 1964: 519-543). A detailed presentation of this theory can be found in Todorov (1966a: 26-37) as well as in Rey (1969: 22-27). According to Todorov, Chomsky's theory of grammar modifies the principle as well as the very object of linguistic studies: "on manie [. . .] un Systeme de regies au lieu d'un Systeme d'elements" (1966a: 24). The most valuable feature of transformational semantic theory is its integration into a grammar of the Chomskyan type: "C'est pour la premiere fois qu'une theorie semantique definit nettement sa position par rapport ä la grammaire et s'accorde avec les exigences de celle-ci" (Todorov 1966a: 33-34). This theory marks a switch of interest from the description of the vocabulary to the "fonctionnement du langage sous son aspect semantique" (1966a: 33). As an example of the application of this theory we may take Todorov's study of some different types of anomalous French sentences (1966b). Todorov distinguishes between 'logic anomalies' which can be accounted for in terms of the semantic theory, and 'referential anomalies' which cannot be so treated: "Cette impossibilite resulte des limites de la theorie

Some problems in semantic investigation

103

semantique, en general, limites etablies par Katz et Fodor" (1966b: 115). An account of all referential anomalies would involve the formalization of one's entire world-knowledge. Works like Vincenz 1968, 1969, 1972 are based on similar transformational principles. A modified version of transformational semantics is to be found in Rohrer (1971). Rohrer's version represents the 'deep structure' of sentences in terms of logical predicate calculus. This approach to deep structure seems to be more powerful than the orthodox one in accounting for many semantic problems of natural language. As for synonymy, we read: "Der Hauptunterschied [with respect to Chomsky's model, EV] besteht zunächst darin, daß in unserem Logikkalkül zu den Formationsregeln noch Axiome und Deduktionsregeln kommen. Der Kalkül ä la Aspects hat nur Formationsregeln. Die Axiome und die Deduktionsregeln erlauben es, zu bestimmen, wann zwei gegebene Formeln äquivalent sind" (Rohrer 1971: 121). In this way, the concept of synonymy is captured. The transition from this abstract representation of the deep structure to the surface structure is achieved by means of a set of transformational rules. Rohrer's approach (partially inspired by the works of Bach, Lakoff, McCawley, from the period 1967-1968 which marks the beginning of 'generative semantics') is similar in form to present-day 'generative semantics' (as opposed to 'interpretive semantics' promoted first by Katz and Fodor). It seems to me that we have here a parallel development of ideas (starting from almost the same point) where Rohrer arrived at the final formulation of his results at about the same time as the American generativists. By this I mean that these results should not be seen as a mere 'importation' from outside Romance linguistics or a simple 'application' of ideas originating outside, but a development of semantic theory from within the Romance field. A similar approach to semantics is found in Vasiliu (1972).2 In contradistinction to Rohrer (1971), here the predicate calculus is not the form given to the deep structure; it is simply another language into which the 'kernel sentences' of natural language are translated. The semantic properties of the original sentences (i.e. sentences of natural language, specified by means of a set of rewrite rules) are investigated through the predicate calculus. This kind of approach can validly use the full range of conceptual and methodological devices developed within 'logical semantics' (the same methodology cannot be applied directly to natural language).

104

Emanuel Vasiliu

Galmiche (1975) develops the main ideas of generative semantics. We must, nevertheless, also mention the reaction of some linguists, like for example Ruwet, to the ideas of generative semantics. Among his introductory remarks to the chapter devoted to the analysis of factitive constructions, we read: "Je m'attacherai surtout ä montrer que certains aspects, d'ordre lexical ou semantique, des constructions en cause, non seulement posent des problemes ä la semantique generative, mais semblent etre susceptibles d'un traitement plus revelateur dans le cadre de la theorie classique etendue" (Ruwet 1972: 129). A logic-oriented approach to meaning, but rather different from that of generative semantics may be found in Pa§aliu (1971, 1972). Strongly related to logic-oriented semantics as well as to recent developments in generative semantics is the theory of presuppositions. Ducrot (1972) represents one of the most comprehensive approaches to this subject (he develops here many of the ideas formulated earlier in Ducrot 1969). Ducrot's starting point is the remark that many linguistic expressions contain not only an explicit meaning, but also an implicit one. A sentence like Pierre doute que Jacques va venir has not only the meaning 'Pierre doubts that Jacques is going to come' but also conveys the meaning 'Jacques is going to come' (1972: 22-23). The sentence Pierre doute que Jacques va venir is posed, whereas the sentence Jacques va venir is presupposed by the first one. Presuppositions can be considered either as conditions of use of a given sentence (Ducrot 1972: 26-62), or as "elements of the content" of that sentence (1972: 62-67). Presupposition is considered "un acte de parole particulier" (1972: 69). It is easy to see that presupposition in the widest sense belongs to the theory of 'speech acts' and consequently falls within the domain of pragmatics. I think it could be said that the device created for describing presuppositions is also a device for describing the 'pragmatic meaning' of sentences. The semantic description of a language is then required to account not only for the 'posed', but also for the 'presupposed' meaning of sentences. This semantic device is described as follows: "La description semantique des occurences d'enonces d'une langue L, consisterait bien ä leur faire correspondre une formule d'une langue L'. Mais au lieu de considerer L' comme un metalangage universel, on lui imposerait seulement des conditions analogues ä la suivante. Soil R une relation intuitivement

Some problems in semantic investigation

105

attestee, entre occurrences d'enonces de L; il faut alors que Γόη puisse definir sur les formules de L' une relation R' calculable (= teile que Γόη puisse determiner par des precedes purement formels quelles formules sont dans la relation R') et qui corresponde R (nous entendons par la que, si deux occurrences A et B d'enonces de L sont, intuitivement, dans la relation R, leurs traductions A' et B' doivent etre dans la relation formelle R')" (Ducrot 1972: 108-109). The meta-language L' is developed (1972: 144-148) as a predicate calculus. Ducrot applies his model to French existential quantifiers (1972: 148-152), to French restrictives (as in Seul Pierre aime Marie or Pierre n'aime que Marie} (1972: 152-162), and to the relation between restrictives and passivization (1972: 162-165). 1.7 Final remarks This brief presentation of the various approaches to semantics within the Romance field prompts the following remarks by way of conclusion: (l)The majority of the semantic theories presented in 1.2-1.6 are theories of word-meaning. They are not intended to account for the meaning of larger units (like phrases, sentences, complex sentences, etc.). From this point of view, transformational and logic-oriented semantics, in addition to Greimas' semic analysis, must be seen as quite distinct: they are intended to provide an account of the meaning of larger structures: phrases, sentences, complex sentences and even full texts (Greimas). (2) As will become clearer in 2.3, semic system theory may be interpreted in terms of semantic field theory and vice versa. This possible 'translation' is due to the fact that semes are only labels for concepts. The two theories are not to be opposed; hence the attempts of scholars like Heger or Baldinger to construct an integrated theory of the linguistic sign in which the basic concepts of the semic analysis (moneme, sememe, seme) are integrated with those of semantic field theory. (3) On the other hand, one should note that the transformational view of the lexicon presupposes a description of lexical items in terms of 'semantic markers' (in semic analysis terminology: semes, classemes, virtuemes) (see Manoliu 1973: 182). I would say that semic analysis is included in a semantic theory of the transformational type (either in its 'classical' or more recent 'generative' form). In other words, semic analysis is a part of semantic theory. That is why I do not see any serious reason for choosing one of these theories and rejecting the others.

106

Emanuel Vasiliu

In this respect, I think that Tutescu (1974: 211) is right to favour the idea of complementarity between semic analysis and the transformational viewpoint.3 2. Main problems 2.1 This section aims to account for the more important answers given to basic semantic problems within the framework of Romance linguistics. Accordingly, problems concerning the delimitation and methodology of semantics will be dealt with throughout the ensuing sections. 2.2 The concept of 'meaning' According to Saussurean tradition, the linguistic sign has two aspects: the 'signifiant', or (phonetic) form, and 'signifie', or concept. The two sides are interdependent; no concept is a 'signifie' unless linked to a definite concept. The question of whether the linguistic sign is a sign for a concept or is a sign for something else (like, for example, a real object) is left to some extent undetermined in strictly Saussurean terms. It seems to me that Saussure implicitly favoured the idea that the linguistic sign is the sign of a concept; on the other hand, the very fact that the 'signifie is a part of the linguistic sign makes this conception almost odd: the linguistic sign is a sign for something which is a part of the linguistic sign itself. The most important consequence of this view is the idea that the true object of linguistic semantics is not to consider linguistic signs in relation to their denotata, but just to describe those 'concepts' which, by virtue of their relation to some 'signifiant(s)' are no longer to be considered simple concepts but something different, viz. 'meanings'. Thus, what in general semantics is called 'reference' (or 'denotation') is completely banished — whether in explicit or implicit form — from linguistic semantics. This is the position taken by most linguists of traditional Saussurean stamp (see 1.2) and by most proponents of semic analysis (see 1.3). For example, Coseriu considers that a sharp distinction must be kept between "significatum et designatum, meaning et thing-meant: les signifies qui sont linguistiques, et les 'choses' designees qui ne le sont pas" (1964: 139). This idea is advanced also by Manoliu-Manea (1971). With respect to lexicographical definitions, Imbs makes the following comment: "On sait que la tradition aristotelicienne et scolastique distinguait lesdofinitions de mots et ^definitions de choses. Du point de vue linguistique, toutes les

Some problems in semantic investigation

107

definitions sont des definitions de mots" (1960: 10). A similar position is taken by Rey (1966: 68). Moreover, Heger (1965: 32) considers that the relation concept-thing does not concern linguistics proper. However, in one of his more recent works, Heger reformulated to some extent his sign theory; in this new formulation the concept of 'class of denotata' plays an important role (see Heger 1969 passim and especially 62-65; see below, 2.3). Baldinger expresses a view similar to that of Heger (1965) when he says: "la determinacion de los objetos mentales [= 'concepts' or 'meanings', EV] de la lengua comun no puede partir de la realidad, sino de la lengua misma. Las definiciones de los objetos mentales deben analizar las oposiciones semänticas, los rasgos distintivos; las definiciones deben ser — en general — intensionales, no extensionales. Los objetos mentales son definibles (intensionalmente), los limites en realidad no lo son, al menos no dentro del lenguaje comun" (1970: 51). However, Baldinger calls our attention to the three-term relation involved in what is called 'signifying': "Lenguaje es ya transposicion de la realidad. Pero, precisamente, esta transposicion de la realidad solo puedo entenderla, cuando la contemplo en relacion con la misma realidad. Con otras palabras, la lingüistica no puede evitar el objeto mentalIconcepto [. . .] que, a su vez, estän en relacion con la realidad extralingüistica. El lenguaje estä unido a la realidad por encima de la representacion conceptual; vox significat mediantibus conceptibus" (Baldinger 1970: 45). At the same time, Todorov, who seems to favour semantics of the transformational type (see 1966a), expresses an identical point of view: meaning and reference have to be sharply distinguished and the very object of semantics (dealing with natural language) is meaning and not reference. Todorov's criticisms of the semantic approach of Weinreich and also of semic analysis consist of deploring the fact that both of these deal with reference and not only with meaning (Todorov 1966a: 10, 15 etc.). This conception of meaning is — I think — discrepant with the very nature of the language. If one agrees that language is a device for achieving communication among people, then one must also agree that signifying is one of the essential functions of human language. Nevertheless 'signifying' is but using signs instead of 'showing' objects. As De Mauro has put it: "possiamo definire il significare come I'individuare una situazione con un segno (frase)" (1970: 228). Under such conditions, the

108

Emanuel Vasiliu

'meaning' of a sign is the way in which a sign 'signifies' objects, events, states, etc. The linguistic sign is linked to the (extra-linguistic) object by means of its meaning. That is why I do not see any reason for considering the relation meaning/sign ('signifiant') 'more linguistic' than the relation meaning/object, if it is once accepted that a sign is a sign only to the extent that it signifies something and this 'something' is signified through the meaning of the sign. Accordingly, accounting for meaning is no more than accounting for that feature which allows for the establishment of a relation between sign and thing. We are faced, then, with a two-sided relation (viz. meaning/sign and meaning/thing) and not with a one-sided one (viz. meaning/sign). Coteanu and Bidu-Vr nceanu (1975: 34) consider that the 'thing' cannot be disregarded when speaking of the structure of the linguistic sign. Mounin considers that semantics is that part of linguistics where "Γόη passe incessamment de la langue au monde et du monde la langue" (1963: 138). On the other hand, I have tried to show that there are many very simple features of natural language for whose description the concept of reference cannot be dispensed with; to this category of features belong appositive relations and all lexical items (like /, here, now) whose meaning cannot be semantically defined unless their reference is taken into account.4 As to relations between 'meaning' (linguistic entity) and 'concept' (non-linguistic entity), clarifying this aspect is a favourite theme among semantic-field theorists (see above 1.3) although Manoliu-Manea has insisted on the difficulty inherent in this undertaking (1973: 230). Heger (1965) and later Baldinger (1966, 1970) have adjusted Ogden Richards' (1923) triangular representation of the relation sign-meaningthing to the need to account for the four-term relation, viz. signmeaning-concept-thing. Heger's geometrical figure is a trapezium (1 965 : 31): signifie sememe concept moneme,

substance phonique

chose

Some problems in semantic investigation

109

It is easy to see that Heger's figure contains labels derived from semic analysis theory (like 'sememe', 'moneme');5 however, these elements are not relevant to our discussion and the distinction 'signifie-sememe' will be disregarded. Heger considers (1) that the right hand side of the trapezium is not the object proper of linguistic description and (2) that the relation sememeconcept is a relation from genus (concept) to species (sememe). Heger's example is the relation between the words soixante-dix, septante and the concept '70'. Heger points out that the word septante expresses in addition to the concept '70', the fact that the speaker "appartient ä un de ces groupes regionaux ou professionnels qui sont distingues par le fait qu'ils disent septante au lieu de soixante-dix" (1965: 24). If we agree to represent by 'a' the very fact of 'sayingseptante instead of soixante-dix' and by 'ä' the lack of this feature, then the meaning of septante is to be represented as "'70' and 'a'" but that of soixante-dix by "'70' and '§'". Here, in the two meaning representations, '70' is to be taken as genus and 'a' or 'ä' is to be taken as 'specific difference'; accordingly, both "'70' + 'a'" and "'70' + '§'" are species of the genus '70'. As was pointed out in 1.3 above, according to semantic field theory, a conceptual system is independent of natural language. That is to say, concepts do not exist inside the language, they are not constituent parts of language, but are extra-linguistic entities. According to this view, alongside the meanings corresponding to words like Fr. septante, soixante-dix, Rum. §aptezeci, It. settanta, we have also the concept '70'; alongside the meanings of the words Fr. maison, Rum. casa, It. casa etc. we have also the concept 'HOUSE'. It seems to me that this kind of approach leads us to the hypostasization of concepts (see Vasiliu 1970: 30). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that Heger's theory of the linguistic sign (adopted in Baldinger 1966, 1970) seems to be incompatible with the assumption that concepts are independent of language: since the entities represented by the top side of the trapezium (= signifiesememe-concept) are selected by what Heger calls "consubstantialite quantitative" (1965: 31), it follows that the concept enters a relation that holds only within the linguistic sign, that is to say, the concept is not independent of the linguistic sign and does not evince any independent existence, but seems rather to be a constituent part of it.

110

Emanuel Vasiliu

2.3 Accounting for meaning From the viewpoint of semasiology, accounting for meaning is an operation by means of which the correspondence between various 'signifiants' and their associated 'sememes' is established. Indeed, the departure point of semasiological procedure, according to Baldinger (1965:12-13), is the 'signifie' (Bedeutungsumfang) see above 1.3). According to Heger (1965:29), the first step in semasiological procedure is the determination of a class of monemes which are to be compared further. The second step is the comparison of the monemes themselves to determine whether the focused 'signifiant' (of the moneme) has one or more sememes. Since the relation seme me-concept is a relation from genus to species (see above 2.1), the question: how may sememes correspond to a given 'signifiant'? is answered by registering the species number associated with the said 'signifiant'. The species comparison enables one to establish their specific differences and to arrive at the concept, which is the genus proximus. In such terms, the end-point of semasiological procedure is the concept, and the final result of the semasiological approach is then establishing the correspondence between 'signifiants' on the one hand, and concepts on the other, via sememes. The onomasiological approach presupposes a logical hierarchy of concepts (see Heger 1965:29). The departure point of this procedure is the choice of either a genus or a species; thereafter, the monemes which designate this concept are sought out in one or more languages. In 1.3 it was pointed out that the difference between sememe and 'signifie' is not sufficiently clear-cut. Indeed, according to Heger, there are monemes which are in relation with more than one sememe and these sememes (in relation with one moneme) may be either in a conjunctive or disjunctive relationship. The first possibility defines polysemy, the second, homonymy. Toute combinaison disjonctive de plusieurs sememes peut ä la fois etre comprise comme combinaison non-disjonctive des semes qui constituent ces sememes [. . .]; et tout signifie peut etre compris comme somme des semes qui ne se distingue de la somme formee par le sememe que par la presence des membres facultatifs. Aussi bien que \Qsememe, le signifie est lie au concept par une relation d'espece ä genre; la relation enlre signifie et sememe est celle d'une variation

Some problems in semantic investigation

111

combinatoire ou, s'il n'y a pas de combinaison disjunctive qui cree 1'homonymie, une simple identite (Heger 1965: 28). In fact, what is not clear in Heger's conception is the status of the so-called Optional' semes: if the sememes are 'combinatory variants', then the semes distinguishing these sememes are Optional'; but, at the same time, the semes distinguishing these sememes are to be viewed also as specific differences with respect to the concept which is the genus in relation to the same sememes. Consequently, these semes cannot be considered as optional. It must be noted also that the formulation "somme des semes qui ne se distingue de la somme formee par le sememe que par la presence des membres facultatifs" does not make too much sense. Since each sememe contains both obligatory and optional semes, the 'signifie' cannot be considered distinct from the sememe by the fact that the former contains Optional' semes whereas the latter does not. In Heger 1969 the relation 'signifie-sememe-concept' becomes, I think, quite clear. The 'signifie' is to be viewed as the logical conjunction of the semes belonging to the various sememes corresponding to the same 'signifiant'; if some of these sememes are in an exclusive disjunction relation, some of the conjuncts of the 'signifie' are exclusive disjunctions (sometimes of conjunctive semes) (see Heger 1969: 56). As to the 'concept' (from Heger's trapezium; 1965: 31), it is later replaced by "seme ou noeme" (1969: 57). The term 'noeme' is to be taken simply as a way of specifying the class of objects to which the sign can be applied (class of denotata) (Heger 1969: 64). In the light of this last explanation, the distinction between semasiology and onomasiology becomes clearer and simpler: the semasiological approach proceeds from the 'signifiant' to the class of denotata (specified by means of the concept (= noeme)); the onomasiological approach proceeds from a given class of denotata (specified by means of a concept (= noeme)) to the 'signifiant(s)' applied to this class (Heger 1969: 62-^5). Independently of whether the distinction sememe/signifie is or is not to be maintained, both the semasiological and onomasiological approach to meaning consist essentially of establishing a definite relation between a linguistic sign and a hierarchical systematization of a class of concepts. Thus, one is able to show how a given conceptual field is subdivided by

112

Emanuel Vasiliu

means of the words belonging to its corresponding lexical field (see above 1.3). From the standpoint of semic analysis, accounting for meaning is the reduction of meaning (sememe) to its semic components (sometimes by a methodology which parallels phonological reduction to distinctive features) and the systematization of the meanings in terms of the relations holding among the semes. According to Pottier, "toute forme se trouve situee au croisement de deux mouvements semantiques. L'un la met en relation avec ses composants particuliers (les semes); Pautre avec des classes semantiques tres generates, revelees par des comportements distr.ibutionnels (dassemesy (1964: 124). That is to say any sememe is characterized also by some features belonging to the set of classemes: 'animate', 'inanimate', 'human', 'non-human', 'material object', 'material object', 'non-material object', etc. The examples given by Pottier (1964:124) show that the classemes are members of a hierarchy: ,

. A »['person' animate i , . ,, [animal

t.

. ,/'material object' inanimate \ . . , ,. , [ non-material object

It seems to me obvious that classemes are only concepts and their hierarchy is a hierarchy of concepts. With respect to these concepts belonging to the category of classemes, the semes have (within the structure of a sememe) the role of specific difference(s); for example, the sememe of a word like chaise contains, perhaps, besides the semes 'pour s'asseoir', 'sur pieds', 'pour une personne' and 'avec dossier' (Pottier 1964: 122), also the classemes 'inanimate' and 'material object'. The above mentioned semes play the role of the specific difference, with respect to the genus 'material object'; in such terms, the species 'chaise' is defined with respect to the genus 'material object'. The essential similarity between this approach and semantic field theory is clear enough: in both cases meaning is specified by establishing a correspondence between a word and a hierarchy of concepts (semes and classemes, we have pointed out, are just concepts). Moreover, an interpretation of semic analysis theory in terms of semantic field theory is (almost) always possible: a classeme of a given rank within the hierarchy is a conceptual field containing classemes of a lower rank; 'animate' is a larger conceptual field, containing the fields 'human' and 'non-human'; 'inanimate' is

Some problems in semantic investigation

113

another semantic field containing the fields 'material object' and 'nonmaterial object'. Let us suppose for the sake of our discussion that 'material object' occupies the lowest place within the classeme hierarchy (i.e. this concept has no subordinate concepts); under these conditions the meaning of chaise is to be represented by " 'material object' -I- {'pour s'asseoir', 'sur pieds', 'pour une personne', 'avec dossier'}" (just like septante was defined by "'70' + '§'"; see 2.2) where 'material object' + {'pour s'asseoir', 'sur pieds', 'pour une personne', 'avec dossier'}" should be taken as the meaning. The possibility of interpreting semantic distinctive features (= semes) in terms of semantic field theory was made explicit by scholars like Coseriu: "Nous pensons que ces systemes restreints et immediats du lexique, qui, au point de vue structural, sont parfaitement analogues aux systemes des voyelles et des consonnes de la phonologic, coincident au fond, au niveau des fails linguistiques, avec les champs conceptuels (Begriffsfelder) de MM. J. Trier et L. Weisgerber" (1964: 155). Todorov discusses some problems of semic analysis frequently using the terminology of semantic field theory (1966a: 16). For example, he considers that semes are identified by comparing words belonging to 'the same semantic field'. The difficulty in establishing a finite number of semes for defining the meaning of a word lies in the absence of a method for establishing a definite limit to a given 'semantic field'. Despite these essential similarities between semantic field theory and semic analysis, one major difference must be mentioned. As I have said above, the conceptual system provided by semantic field theory is independent of language. From this point of view, the conceptual system might be considered as a kind of 'semantic universal', or, more specifically, if interpreted as a set of semantic markers (like those of transformational semantics), the conceptual system might be considered as a set of universal semantic markers. By contrast, the seme (and classeme) inventories of semic theory are entirely dependent on the analysed system(s); they are always the result of the analysis of some particular language (s). Coseriu considers that semantic field theory should be modified so as to allow the conceptual systems to reflect structural semantic properties of particular languages: Nous croyons que la theorie des champs a besoin d'etre approfondie

114

Emanuel Vasiliu

et developpee et qu'une des directions dans lesquelles eile pourrait 1'etre est precisement la direction structurale. Aussi croyons-nous que la theorie des champs conceptuels doit etre combinee avec la doctrine fonctionnelle des oppositions linguistiques (qui, du reste, y est implicite) et que l'epreuve de la commutation doit etre appliquee egalement aux rapports lexicaux, non pas pour identifier les unites, qui y sont donnees, mais pour etablir les traits distinctifs qui les caracterisent et, par la, les oppositions de contenu dans lesquelles les unites memes fonctionnent (1964: 157). To conclude this section, we must point out that if the aim is a comparison among semantic systems, then a set of 'semantic universals' must always be taken as the reference point. It seems that either a 'conceptual system' or a set of 'semantic markers' (= semes and/or classemes) are reasonable candidates for such a system of 'semantic universals'. In this light, the problem of whether a conceptual or a semic system is necessarily dependent or not on the language under analysis, loses its importance. 2.4 Object language versus meta-language Baldinger (1970: 14, and also 1966: 3) acknowledges the distinction between object-language and meta-language among those new distinctions that were essential for the development of linguistics in recent years. Its importance for semantics seems to me self-evident. Without it, there could be no distinction between sentences referring to facts and sentences referring to other sentences. Heger (1965:19) considers that in order to describe semantic facts one needs two meta-languages: the first to refer to language (as objectlanguage) and the second, to linguistic statements; in other words, we may need a meta-language and meta-meta-language. Pottier draws a distinction between the words of the language ("mots de la langue") and semes, which can be apparently identical with a word of the language, but belong to the meta-language: "/douleur/est un seme, exprime par un mot de la metalangue de description, /douleur/ est une seme distinctif, douleur est un mot dont le sememe comporte des semes distinctifs" (1967: 68).6 Nevertheless the distinction between entities belonging to the objectlanguage and entities belonging to the meta-language is not always clear in Pottier's approach. For example, one can find: "Si Γόη dit que la

Some problems in semantic investigation

115

cicatrisation est un phenomene, on utilise un signifiant dont le signifie ne contient pas un sous-ensemble de cicatrisation, mais un indice de classe de comportement sans signifiant propre. C'est une metalexie ou 'mot' de la metalangue" (1965: 39). That is to say, 'phenomene' is a unit of metalanguage, because it does not designate anything but is a sign for a "classe de comportement" (of a word of the object-language). However, the word phenomene as a part of the 'definiens' — according to the rules governing the relation between definiendum and definiens —can be substituted in any context (of the object-language), together with the other items of the definiens it is a part of, for the word cicatrisation (the 'definiendum') which, obviously, is an item of the object-language. On the other hand, even the idea that a word \\kephenomene is a simple "indice de classe de comportement", that is to say, has no denotation properly speaking, seems to me questionable. Let us take a further example, Pottier's assertion: "'il n'y a pas de fiimee sans feu'. Cela signifie que iouiejumee implique un feu, que /feu/ est un seme de fiimee" (1967: 48). One could perhaps say that the sentence "toulefumee implique un feu" belongs to the object-language (= French) but it is not clear at all, in Pottier's formulation, whether "/feu/ est un seme defumee" is a sentence in French or about French. Thus: (i) which kind of sentence is the full expression "Cela signifie. . ."? (ii) is the verb implique in this sentence a word in French, or a word of the meta-language, expressing a relation between two French words (fumee and feu)? Here again the clear theoretical distinction objectlanguage/meta-language seems to be obscured when actual facts are dealt with. Notwithstanding, the distinction under discussion here is considered by some scholars not only useless, but even harmful. Todorov avers that this distinction is one of the results — "plutöt nefastes" — of logicians' efforts to introduce into linguistics their own methods and terminology (1966a: 10). Todorov's argument runs as follows: On a emprunte aussi aux logiciens le terme et la notion de metalangue, une langue ideale dans laquelle on discuterait la langue-objet. Ce faisant, on sous-estime le fait que ce metalangage n'existe pas Objectivement' et que les termes dont nous nous servons dans le metalangage font bien partie de notre langue naturelle, de la langue-objet. Ce fait est riche en consequences. Rappellons ici, ä

116

Emanuel Vasiliu

titre d'illustration, que la definition d'un terme, qui jouit en logique d'un Statut particulier, possede exactement les memes caracteristiques formelles (syntactiques) que les autres phrases de la langue (1966a: 10-11). If I understand him correctly, Todorov's criticism contains three main points: (1) that the meta-language for describing natural language has no Objective' existence; (2) that this so-called meta-language belongs in fact to the object-language (= the natural language); (3) that, as a consequence of (1) and (2), the definitions given for the terms (perhaps of object-language) exhibit precisely the same syntactic form as the expressions of the object-language which are not definitions. It seems to me that none of these three points can withstand critical examination. Concerning (1): Leaving aside the rather obscure meaning of the formulation "this meta-language does not Objectively' exist", one point must be clear: a meta-language can be either entirely constructed by someone investigating an object-language, or it can be contained in the object-language (as a 'sub-language' of it). Sometimes the meta-language used in describing natural languages is contained in some natural language (not necessarily identical with the object-language); that is to say, one can use a sub-language of French for describing French itself (that part of French which is not the meta-language) or for describing Spanish, or English or any other natural language. Sometimes the meta-language in terms of which natural language is described can be completely different from it; for example, the non-terminal vocabulary of transformational grammar as well as its rules (rewriting and transformational rules) can be viewed as a meta-language quite distinct from the language being described by the transformational device. In which of these two possibilities should we say that the meta-language has an Objective' existence? I would answer that it depends simply on what is understood in this particular context by the word Objective'. But however this word is understood, it throws no more light on the problem that really interests us: is natural language to be described in some other way than in terms of a meta-language? Concerning (2): From the axiom that the meta-language is included in the object-language (as a sub-language of it), it does not necessarily follow that there is no difference between object-language and meta-

Some problems in semantic investigation

117

language. In fact, even when it is a part of the object-language, the meta-language contains a number of signs which are obviously metalinguistic signs and nothing else: adjectif,pronom, conjunction, or phrases like // est vrai que . . ., or il est faux que . . ., or sentences like cette proposition est bien formee are items of French but, at the same time, belong to that part of French in which one speaks about French, and cannot be used for any other purpose, because their denotata are not facts but linguistic objects. On the other hand, it must be admitted that even, let us say, French meta-language is not 'purely' French; it is a kind of 'artificial' French created by means of specific terminology, specific conventions (for example, that of representing semes within '/ /', of representing meaning between quotes, or of using italics for the 'names of the words under consideration', etc.) and specific stipulated definitions which assign one and only one meaning to words that in common use display various meanings. A sentence like "l'archilexeme des mots tabouret, chaise, fauteuil est siege" is clearly a sentence of the meta-language, in spite of the fact that this sentence is formulated in French. It is a sentence of the meta-language because it makes a statement about a language (which happens to be French) and not about facts; moreover, even words like tabouret, chaise, fauteuil, siege, which do not belong to the metalanguage, are not used here as names of the objects they usually (i.e. within the object-language) refer to, but simply as names of themselves (this fact is expressed by the use of italics). To put it another way, the sentence above is a sentence of the meta-language, because it makes an assertion about the WORDS tabouret, chaise, fauteuil, siege and not about the OBJECTS 'tabouret', 'chaise', 'fauteuil', 'siege'. Concerning (3): It is not very clear what Todorov means when he says that "la definition d'un terme [. . .] jouit en logique d'un Statut particulier". Does he have in mind the specific sign by means of which new signs are introduced in a system (signs like for example, '=Df')? If s°i it must be said that the usual lexicographic meta-language equally contains a special sign for definition, namely the juxtaposition of the definiendum (followed by the grammatical indexes) and the phrase playing the role of definiens. This kind of definition makes explicit the relation between a definite word (definiendum) and the phrase (or word) which is the definiens; these two items are interchangeable, in principle, in any context (the corresponding spoken form of such kind of definition would be something like "le mot χ signifie _y").

118

Emanuel Vasiliu

If Todorov has in mind definitions like "le substantif est la partie du discours qui ...", then we are dealing here with a definition given in a meta-meta-language, that is to say, in the meta-language used for speaking about the first meta-language; according to such a definition the word substantif and the phrase partie du discours qui... are interchangeable in any context of the first meta-language. Here the definition has — at first glance — the same form as a sentence like le chien est I'animal domestique qui garde la maison. In both sentences the copula est expresses the identity relation between two classes. However, it is obvious that the first sentence is not about facts, but about linguistic objects (like substantif, partie du discours, etc.), whereas the second one is about facts. The 'special status' of the definition arises not from some specific syntactic form, but because the expression belongs to the meta-language (and not to the object-language). The same observation holds when statements about logic languages are made: an expression like "art-order predicate is a predicate taking as argument an expression of the type rt-1" is a definition given in terms of a second order meta-language, i.e. that meta-language in terms of which we speak about the first meta-language (about words like Vt-order predicate', 'argument', 'expression', 'type', etc.). Here again, the 'special status' of the definition derives not from the syntactic form, but from the very circumstance that they are expressions dealing with linguistic objects and not with facts. This second kind of definition has indeed a special status, but its specific character is attributable not to its syntactic form but to its belonging to a higher order meta-language. In this light, it is hard to see the point of the third part of Todorov's criticism. To conclude this examination of Todorov's standpoint with respect to the distinction object-language/meta-language, I have to say that his arguments cannot withstand critical analysis. 2.5 'Vagueness' and 'relativeness' of meaning Some scholars draw our attention to the fact that, in many cases, distinct meanings (concepts) do not necessarily have clearly distinct facts associated with them. In other words, among word-meanings (concepts) there are sharp limits, whereas among facts (objects, events, states) of the real world such sharp limits do no exist. Closely related to this problem is the following: what is the status of the definitions given to the meaning of specific words with respect to the

Some problems in semantic investigation

119

objects the words are applied to? For example: is 'caterwauling' a feature of the meaning definition of the word cat, or not? Baldinger raises very acutely the first question: e es lo imprecise?, ^el objeto mental [to be understood as something equivalent to 'meaning', EV] ο la realidad? Sabemos muy bien distinguir entre el objeto mental 'casa' y el objeto mental 'palacio'. Sabemos muy bien distinguir entre los objetos mentales 'dia' y 'noche', entre 'joven' y 'viejo'. Las dificultades empiezan cuando tenemos que aplicar nuestros objetos mentales a realidades que no corresponden exactamente a nuestro esquema mental. No sabemos si se trata de una 'cabana' o de una 'casa' si el objeto real tiene al mismo tiempo rasgos de una cabana y rasgos de una casa. La realidad no corresponde ni al uno ni al otro de nuestros objetos mentales. Nuestra inseguridad radica, por tanto, precisamente en el hecho de que tenemos una idea (demasiado) precisa de lo que han de ser una cabana y una casa (1970: 49-50). Or:

La \enguapuede seguir limites dados por la naturaleza (si los hay), pero al menos no los sigue forzosamente. Por lo general, la realidad no conoce limites, sino gradaciones sin limites. En estos casos — y es el caso normal — los limites no existen en la realidad, sino en el lenguaje (1970: 50). In 2.2 we said that the sign signifies the thing through its meaning. Following Carnap, we can say that the meaning of a word is represented by "the general conditions which an object must fulfil in order to be denoted by this word" (1960: 234). Very close to this Carnapian definition of 'intension' is Prieto's following point concerning the 'signifie': "II est done possible de determiner le signifie d'une phonie en determinant les traits qu'un sens doit presenter pour que cette phonie Padmette" (1964: 60). (Notice that Prieto's "sens" is merely equivalent to denotatum.) The class of objects denoted by a sign (in our case a word) is the extension of this sign . It is clear that the extension of a sign is related to its meaning (= intension): one can assign an object to the extension of a sign only to the extent that one knows the meaning of the given sign. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that a speaker's ability unambiguously to assign a given object to the extension of a sign depends on the

120

Emanuel Vasiliu

degree of precision of the meaning. According to Carnap (1960), the size of the class of objects for which the speaker is unable to decide whether they do or do not belong to the extension of a given sign measures the degree of vagueness of the intension of this sign. Now, if a native Spanish speaker is sometimes unable to decide whether the object he is looking at is acasa or acabana, it means that the meanings of both words display some degree of vagueness. It follows from the above remarks that the linguist's prime concern should not be the absence of clear limits between objects in the real world, but word-meanings which in natural language display a degree of vagueness that must be determined individually for each lexical item. I should add that the vagueness of meaning does not render two meanings indistinguishable by the (native) speaker: the meaning of casa is always distinct for a native Spanish speaker from, the meaning of cabana; and it is no wonder that it should be so: one can know exactly what conditions are to be fulfilled by two objects for them to be named by two distinct signs, but these conditions may be (in part) wrongly established. That we are dealing not with the 'absence of clear limits' among objects but simply with vague meanings is made clear by the existence of 'scientific languages' (discussed in Baldinger 1970: 52-58). As Coseriu points out: "En partie, les terminologies ne sont aucunement 'structures' (elles sont de simples 'nomenclatures' enumeratives, correspondant ä des delimitations dans les objets) et, dans la mesure ou elles le sont, leur structuration ne correspond pas aux normes du langage mais aux points de vue et aux exigences des sciences et techniques respectives, concernant la realite meme des choses" (1966: 182-183). Which is to say scientific language expresses — according to Coseriu—the limits among objects. This idea is based on the acknowledgement of two facts: (a) the existence of limits among objects and (b) the existence of some languages (namely, the scientific ones) which express these limits. Of these languages, it must be said that the meanings they convey are less vague than the meanings conveyed by natural language. The second problem raised at the beginning of this section derives naturally from the above discussion of vagueness of meaning. In many cases the precision of the meaning of a word is socio-culturally determined. Rey (1965:77-78) points to the fact that lexicographic definitions reflect, in the period from the 17th to the 19th centuries, an increasing influence of scientific knowledge in zoology as far as animal names are

Some problems in semantic investigation

121

concerned. The lexicographer is the one who first becomes aware of the distance separating the 'vague' meaning of a word in everyday language from the 'exact' meaning of the same word in the scientific language of zoology. A lexicographic definition which mentions 'caterwauling' among the conditions to be fulfilled by an object for it to be named by the French word chat reflects the vagueness of the meaning of chat in everyday language. When this kind of definition is compared with the scientific one, where 'caterwauling' is not taken as a specific feature, one is perfectly justified in asking: is 'caterwauling' a defining feature of the meaning of chat or not? Hence the idea that lexicographic definitions are to some extent arbitrary (see Rey 1965: 74). Actually, in lexicography, a particular selection of defining features should be understood simply as an approximation to the meaning of a word as it is revealed by its use and not as something given.7 3. Concluding remarks This paper was not intended as an account of the results achieved by the semantic investigations of Romance languages, but as a presentation of the main theoretical and methodological trends of research in Romance linguistics. It is hardly necessary to add that the bibliography on which this paper is based is selective. Many works are referred to only for exemplification. It was not my aim to list and annotate (almost) all that has been written in one or other of the research trends discussed here. Some gaps in bibliographical coverage are, I think, unavoidable in this kind of work. I hope however not to have missed any major contributions. I must also point out that works dealing with 'grammatical meaning' or, more precisely, with the content of grammatical categories have been consistently omitted. This serves to explain why works such as Benveniste (1966) — where many questions of 'pragmatic meaning' are treated in connection with verbal tense or with the personal pronoun — or Heger (1967) or Manoliu-Manea (1968) — dealing with the content of pronouns and substitutes — have not been mentioned in our previous discussion. The first section of this paper tries to give a brief description and characterization of the theoretical and methodological basis of the major directions of research. In the second section, I discuss the points of view expressed in

122

Emanuel Vasiliu

Romance linguistics with respect to what I consider to be some of the more contentious problems in general semantics: the nature of meaning (the relation meaning-concept-object), the construction of the semantic meta-language (for example, the 'conceptual system' of semantic field theory, the 'semes' of semic theory are to be viewed as constituent parts of two different semantic meta-languages), the distinction between objectlanguage and meta-language (a distinction considered by some scholars as essential for the development of semantics) and finally, the status of meaning in relation to the real world. In this way, I have tried to show that Romance linguistics has made valuable contributions to the solution of many general and crucial problems in semantics. After an enumeration of the most up-to-date trends in linguistic research, Badia Margarit, at the 12th Congress of Romance linguistics and philology, pointed out: "Je pense que nous, romanistes, nous pourrions apporter ä toutes ces tendances des vues qui ne seraient pas tout ä fait depourvues d'interet. Mais permettez-moi d'ajouter que, meme si nous ne pouvions y apporter rien de profitable, je pense que nous devrions y etre presents, ä cause du sens ontologique de notre profession: rien de ce qui se refere aux langues romanes ne peut nous laisser indifferents" (1970: 13). The 'presence' of Romance scholars in debates on current problems in general semantics is now — it seems to me — far from being a mere desideratum. Notes 1. Ullmann (1953: 226-227) considers that the compilation of conceptual dictionaries and semantic fields are two distinct 'special techniques' in semantics. 2. The first version — in Rumanian — of this book appeared in 1970. 3. In this work, as it happens, Tutescu also takes into consideration the pragmatic point of view. 4. Cf. Vasiliu: Semn, sens, re/erin/ [Sign, meaning, reference], (forthcoming). 5. In fact Heger (1965) tries to give a kind of integrated theory of the sign, where elements of semantic field theory and of semic theory are linked together. 6. In this way, Pottier keeps explicit a distinction which in terms of the Katz-Fodor theory is lost. My view is on record that the Katz-Fodor theory of analytic sentences is weakened by the absence of this distinction (see Vasiliu 1972: 29-32). 7. A similar discussion is to be found in Mounin 1965: 9-24. In his view, lexicographic definitions reflect the use; that is to say, they are not independent of it.

References Badia Margarit, A. 1970

"Deschiderea congresului" [Inaugural address], Actele celui de-al XII congres

Some problems in semantic investigation

123

international de lingvisticä jifilologie romanicä (Bucuregti, 15-20 aprilie 1968) (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei), 1: 9-14. Baldinger, K. 1957 Die Semasiologie. Versuch eines Überblicks (Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften). 1966 "Semantique et structure conceptuelle (Le concept de 'se souvenir')", CLex 8.1: 3-46. 1970 Teoria semantica. Hacia una semantica moderna (Madrid: Ediciones Alcalä). Benveniste, E. 1966 Problemes de linguistique g n rale (Paris: Gallimard). Bidu-Vränceanu, A. 1970a "Esquisse de Systeme lexico-semantique: les noms de couleur dans la langue roumaine contemporaine", RRLing 15: 129-140, 267-278. 1970b "Une modalite de description paradigmatique au niveau du lexique", RRLing 15:345-368 Carnap, R. 1960 "Meaning and synonymy in natural languages", Meaning and necessity (Chicago: U.P.), 233-247. Coseriu, E. 1964 "Pour une semantique diachronique structurale", TLL 3: 139-186. 1966 "Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire", Actes du premier colloque international de linguistique appliqtäe (Nancy: U.P.), 175-217. Coteanu, 1. - A. Bidu-Vränceanu 1975 Limba romänä contemporanä, II: vocabularul (Bucure§ti: Editura Didactica 51 Pedagogicä). Coyaud, M. 1965 "Transformations linguistiques et classification lexicale", CLex 6.1: 2534. Dubois, J. 1960 "Les notions d'unite semantique complexe et de neutralisation dans le lexique", CLex 2: 62-66. 1964a "Distribution, ensemble et marque dans le lexique", CLex 5.1: 5-16. 1964b "Representation de systemes paradigmatiques formalises dans le lexique", CLex 5.2: 3-15. Dubois, J. - L. Irigaray 1966 "Les structures linguistiques de la parente", CLex 8.1: 47-69. Duchäcek, O. 1960 "Champ conceptuel de la beaute en franqais moderne", VR 18: 297-323. 1967 Precis de semantique { aise (Brno: U.P.). Ducrot, O. 1969 "Presupposes et sous-entendus", LFr 4: 30-43. 1972 Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de semantique linguistique (Paris: Hermann). Fodor, J. A. -J. J. Katz(eds.) 1964 The structure of language. Readings in the philosophy of language (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall). Galmiche, M. 1975 Somantique generative (Paris: Larousse). Gauger, H.-M. 1972 Zum Problem der Synonyme (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 9) (Tübingen: Narr).

124

Emanuel Vasiliu

Greimas, A.-J. 1964a "Les topologiques. Identification et analyse d'une classe de lexemes", CLex 4.1: 17-28. 1964b "La signification et sä manifestation dans le discours", CLex 5.2: 17-27. 1966 Semantique structurale. Recherches de methode (Paris: Larousse). 1970 Du sens (Paris: Seuil). Hallig, R. - W. von Wartburg 1952 Begriffsystem als Grundlage for die Lexicographic (Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften). Heger, K. 1965 "Les bases methodologiques de l'onomasiologie et du classement par concepts", TLL l: 7-32. 1967 "Temporale Deixis und Vorgangsquantität ('Aspekt' und 'Aktionsart')", ZRPh 83:512-582. 1969 "L'analyse semantique du signe linguistique", LFr 4: 44-66. Imbs, P. 1960 "Au seuil de la lexicologie", CLex 2: 3-17. Katz, J. J. 1964 "Analiticity and contradiction in natural language", in Fodor - Katz (1964): 519-549. Katz, J. J. -J. A. Fodor 1964 "The structure of a semantic theory", in Fodor - Katz (1964): 479-518. Klinkenberg, J.-M. 1973 "Le concept d'isotopie en semantique et en semiologie litteraire", FM 41: 285-290. Kronasser, H. 1952 Handbuch der Semasiologie (Heidelberg: Winter). Manoliu-Manea, M. 1968 Sistematica substitutelor din daco-romänä contemporanä standard (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). 1971 "Un peu de semantique avant toute chose", RRLing 16: 241-250. 1973 Structuralismul lingvistic (Bucure§ti: Editura Didacticä §i Pedagogics). Mauro, T. de 1970 Introduzione alia semantica (Bari: Laterza). Meschonnic, H. 1964 "Essai sur le champ lexical du mot 'idee'", CLex 5.2: 57-68. Mounin, G. 1963 Les problemes thäoriques de la traduction (Paris: Gallimard). 1965 "Essai sur la structuration du lexique de l'habitation", CLex 6.1: 9-24. Ogden, C. K. - I. A. Richards 1923 The meaning of meaning (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Öhman, S. 1953 "Theories of the 'Linguistic field'", Word 9: 123-134. Osswald, P. 1970 Französisch 'campagne' und seine Nachbarwörter im Vergleich mit dem Deutschen, Englischen, Italienischen und Spanischen. Ein Beitrag zur Wortfeldtheorie (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 4) (Tübingen: Narr). Pa§aliu, I. 1968 "Matur/non-matur in limbile romänä, francezä, spaniola §i italianä", SCL 19: 123-134.

Some problems in semantic investigation 1971

125

"Les activites d'identification. Recherches sur la zone semantique du verbe a fi (etre) dans le roumain contemporain", RRLing 16: 469-490. 1972 "A AVEA (avoir) — relation d'existence simultanee", RRLing 17: 531-564. Pottier, B. 1964 "Vers une semantique moderne", TLL 2: 107-137. 1965 "La definition semantique dans les dictionnaires", TLL 3: 33-39. 1967 Presentation de la linguistique. Fondements d'une theorie (Paris: Klincksieck). Prieto, L. J. 1964 Principes de noologie (The Hague: Mouton). Quadri, B. 1952 Aufgaben und Methoden der onomasiologischen Forschung (Bern: Francke). Reinheimer, S. 1965 "Schi^ä de descriere structuralä a verbelor de mis.care", SCL 16: 518-529. Rey, A. 1965 "A propos de la definition lexicographique", CLex 6.1: 67-80. 1969 "Remarques semantiques", LFr 4: 5-29. Rey-Debove, J. 1966 "La definition lexicographique: recherches sur l'equation semique", CLex 8.1: 71-94. Rohrer, C. 1971 Funktionelle Sprachwissenschaft und transformationeile Grammatik (München: Fink). Ruwet, N. 1972 Theorie syntaxique et syntaxe du franyais (Paris: Larousse). Todorov, T. 1966a "Recherches semantiques", Langages 1: 5-43. 1966b "Les anomalies semantiques", Langages 1: 100-123. Togeby, K. 1965 "Grammaire, lexicologie et semantique", CLex 6.1: 3-7. Tollenaere, F. de 1960 "Lexicographic alphabetique ou ideologique", CLex 2: 19-29. Tu^escu, M. 1974 Precis de semantique franfaise (Bucures,ti: Editura Didacticä §i Pedagogicä). Ullmann, S. 1952 Precis de semantique fi- aise (Bern: Francke). 1953 "Descriptive semantics and linguistic typology", Word 9: 225-240. Vasiliu, E. 1970 Elemente de teorie semanticä a limbilor naturale (Bucures.ti: Editura Academiei). 1972 Outline of a semantic theory of kernel sentences (The Hague: Mouton). Vincenz, I. 1968 "Aspects semantiques des nominalisations", CLTA 5: 247-287. 1969 "Generarea derivatelor cu sufixe in limba romänä contemporanä", SCL 20: 399^14, 545-556. 1972 "La semantique des derives a prefixes et des composes dans le roumain contemporain", RRLing 17: 217-236, 295-318. Wartburg, W. von 1963 Problemes et mathodes de la linguistique, translated by P. Maillard; second edition, enlarged and recast with the aid of S. Ullmann (Paris: P.U.F.).

2.2

Sociolinguistics

BEATRIZ R. LAVANDERA

Sociolinguistics*

1. The current state of Romance Sociolinguistics A quick glance at an updated bibliography of studies on the Romance languages would lead one to expect a sizeable number of reports on sociolinguistic research. However, when the literature is examined more closely, it turns out that this type of study is rare. The erroneous impression of high productivity is based on the following evidence: (a) the relatively large number of articles and books with references to 'sociolinguistics' in their titles,1 (b) the proliferation of reviews in Romance journals by Romance scholars who discuss work done in Sociolinguistics, for the most part among Anglophone groups, (c) the sections devoted to Sociolinguistics at congresses on Romance dialectology, linguistics, and philology, (d) entire congresses organized in response to the growing concern with Sociolinguistics,2 (e) special issues dealing with sociolinguistics published by European journals devoted to the Romance field,* and (f) translations into Romance languages of American readers, or new readers compiled from translations of the classic articles in American Sociolinguistics.4 Other indications that Sociolinguistics has aroused considerable interest among Romance scholars can be found in a number of clearly dialectological works which devote at least a few paragraphs to consideration of the advantages of the sociolinguistic approach,5 or in the attempts by some Romanists to provide original programs for sociolinguistic research, ranging from short definitions to various schemata for analytical models.6 Thus the Romance field appears to provide a propitious climate for this kind of linguistics, even if it has as yet not been very productive. Many of

130

Beatriz R. Lavandera

those writers who vouch for sociolinguistics, however, employ the term in its broadest sense to include all analyses which relate linguistic facts to social, economic, or political facts. But the term may also be used in a more restricted sense to designate the interdisciplinary field which had its start in the United States and Canada around the mid-sixties and finds its clearest manifestation within the field of linguistics in the work of Labov. The principled theoretical orientation has been clearly formulated by Hymes, while interdisciplinary models have been provided by Gumperz, Fishman, Ervin-Tripp, and Ferguson, to mention some of the authors who have been notably influential in the Romance area.7 If we take the first, very broad definition of sociolinguistics, which includes all studies in some way concerned with diversity among languages, and with variability within single languages or dialects, studies which incorporate information on social, economic, geographic, and/or historical background, we must acknowledge that Romance scholars of philology, dialectology, stylistics, etc., have always registered and commented on the external context of linguistic facts, seeing language as a cultural and social phenomenon. Greimas (1969: 96) offers a clear statement of this perception: La sociolinguistique ne fait que reprendre un probleme ancien en termes qu'elle essaie de rendre nouveaux; il s'agit, dans un cas comme dans l'autre, de rendre compte de la diversite des langues, en expliquant en meme temps la diversite des societes humaines. Le principe d'explication reste le meme: c'est dans les langues naturelles qu'il faut chercher les significations sociales. Furthermore, it is a fact that has repeatedly been pointed out that the study of language in sociocultural context has been called for at different times by scholars of varying backgrounds and attitudes, such as Meillet (1921), Sapir (1921), Malinowski (1937), and Firth (1935). One might be tempted to draw a line from Meillet through Weinreich to Labov to show the European influence on the American model. However, it would be giving Meillet too much credit to call him the pioneer of sociolinguistics, thereby attributing to Europe the paternity of sociolinguistics. 'Sociolinguistics' as an independent discipline, generating a special type of research and a methodology which can be considered an alternative to the latest product of American mainstream linguistics, transformational grammar, did not come into being before the second half of the sixties.

Sociolinguistics

131

I will show below in what sense the recent American sociolinguistic model constitutes a new approach, responding to a different orientation which sets different goals and standards and therefore develops a different method. The novelty of the model has not always been fully comprehended, even by those who have adopted it; moreover, the extent to which it has been considered new has varied according to the topic of research. Thus, within the Romance field the innovative character of American sociolinguistics emerges more strikingly in studies of the structure of social variation and its role in linguistic change than in descriptions of languages in contact, which have a long and extremely productive tradition of research within a number of disciplines.8 Let us just recall here that as early as 1953 Weinreich was able to compile a lengthy listing of linguistically focused studies of bilingualism, even though he was by no means aiming at exhaustiveness. Although he was not a Romanist, Weinreich was not far removed from Romance linguistics, since his doctoral dissertation was in itself an excellent piece of Francoprovenqal dialectology. Weinreich's best statement of the principles of the new discipline appears in the paper he published together with Labov and Herzog (1968). This paper establishes the general theoretical framework for the development sociolinguistics was to undergo within American linguistics, before being imported into the Romance field. Even if we acknowledge that Romance scholars began formulating approaches which related social factors to linguistic phenomena well before the United States model started to take shape and that they have continued to work on their own, the fact remains that the increasing attention such studies have been receiving of late has been sparked by the introduction of the United States model into the discussion. This connection has been explicitly recognized even by those Romance linguists who oppose wholesale adoption of the American model and either opt for European counterparts or develop approaches of their own. Quoting some of these scholars directly may help illustrate the point. Cortelazzo (1969: 139) says: Sulle connessioni tra lingua e societä e stato scritto molto, anzi, se ne e creata una disciplina ehe aspira alia autonomia e ehe va sotto il nome recente di sociolinguistica, venutoci datt'America, dove 1'esigenza di un approfondimento del concetto, lungamente accarezzato dalla scuola linguistica francesa, affascinata dalla tradizione

132

Beatriz R. Lavandera

durkeimiana, ha trovato il terreno piü propizio e fertile. Ma non e rapporto univoco: e chi ne ha trattato ha espresso un punto di vista spesso diverse da quello degli altri. [Emphasis added, BRL] A few pages later (144, fn. 1), Cortelazzo appears somewhat reluctant to accept the American model without modifications: Dobbiamo confessare ehe, pur ammirandone il rigore e la severitä di metodo, non ci sentiamo di accettare integralmente le sterilizate ricerche di tipo statistico-sociologico americano: a parte le illazioni ricavate da campioni molto ridotti o costituiti attraverso anonime inchieste per corrispondenza, vediamo sfuggirci la vitalitä ehe circola nell'uso del dialetto e nel suo contrasto o compromesso con altri piani linguistici e ehe forse complicano, ma non deturpano, rimmagine lineare e facilmente trasferibile in schemi e sociogrammi. However, Cortelazzo as well as Marcellesi (1971: 3) and others adopt the dimensions proposed by Bright (1966) for the definition of sociolinguistics. Vallverdu is even more explicit in his opposition to the acceptance of the American model, yet he grudgingly acknowledges American paternity in this field. He, too, refers to Bright's definition; furthermore, in all of his studies he uses analytic concepts put forward by American sociolinguists, in particular the idea of diglossia formulated by Ferguson and Fishman. He even reprints some of Labov's graphs in one of his books. Nevertheless, he warns (1973: 13) that: [. . .] el fet que els nord-americans hagin estat els primers a ai'llar cientificament els temes que son de competencia de la sociolinguistica, sola aquesta etiqueta, es un merit academic que no podem regalejar-los, pero te alguns perills. En sintesi, son els perills de fer ideologia del "rebuig de la ideologia". Observem com els nord-americans incorren en una fabulosa capacitat d'ignoräncia de tot allo que no siguin estudis acomplerts als Estats Units, llevat de casos excepcionals: aixi, entre els sociolingüistes l'obra de Marcel Cohen es sistemäticament oblidada. 2. Definition of sociolinguistics I shall now present, however briefly, my own view of the goals and contributions of the American theory of sociolinguistics, showing to what

Sociolinguistics

133

extent I see it as diverging in methodology and aims from dialectology, linguistic geography, philology, applied linguistics, and general linguistics.9 This summary should help readers gain perspective and provide them with additional tools for thoughtful evaluation of this review. In a very crude simplification, for purposes of illustration only, I wish to distinguish between: (a) 'linguistics' as proposed by de Saussure, in which the emphasis rests on the fact that language is a device of communication, and the linguist is a specialized semiologist, and (b) the Chomskyan model of language as a psychological ability, the study of which will lead to the understanding of the mind; the linguist thus becomes a type of psychologist. As I see it, sociolinguistics (or ethnolinguistics, for that matter) adds at least a third dimension to the two aspects I have mentioned, and it is this component which receives the main stress: language is also an instance of human behavior, mainly of that behavior oriented toward organizing human beings into social groups. The aim of sociolinguistic description goes beyond the description of the form of the code (structural grammar), or analysis of the native's intuitions and his ability to generate an infinite number of sentences (generative grammar). It points toward development of a theory of language which defines its object of study as the richest and most complex device for human communication, stored and manipulated by human minds to be used to achieve the forms of social and cultural organization found in human societies. Based on such a many-faceted definition of language, sociolinguistics necessarily becomes a challenging discipline to scholars working in a number of different fields. Of course different aspects are emphasized, depending upon which branch of scholarship has predominated in the training of each particular researcher. Analysis of linguistic structures can range from being made the central issue of the research to being neglected completely. Granting that the relationship between language and society or between language and culture has long been perceived and discussed, I wish to argue that the main and novel contribution of sociolinguistics lies in the explicit realization of the full implications this relationship has for linguistic analysis, including the constraints linguists must acknowledge. The theoretical statements formulated under the label of sociolinguistics in the second half of the sixties may be seen as an attempt to let generally

134

Beatriz R. Lavandera

accepted facts pertaining to the place of language in society determine the scope and aims of the discipline. The most drastic theoretical modification involved abandoning the old identification of structure with homogeneity (which had impelled American linguists, for better or worse, to seek out homogeneous objects of study). Now it was recognized that the heterogeneity of language is functionally structured. Also consistent with the view of language as something more than a semiotic code or a generative grammar was replacement of the sentence as the unit of analysis by the speech event or even the speech community, notions which of course needed to be redefined (Hymes 1974; Gumperz 1962; Fishman 1971; Labov 1972a: 120-121). Proposing a set of entirely new problems constitutes a good part of the contribution the new trend makes and the focus on methodology can thus be seen to be theoretically motivated (Labov 1972a, 1972b); it is not simply a matter of devising techniques to obtain more and more varied data with greater efficiency and objectivity, although this is a legitimate pursuit and has already been partially successful. The new methods aim at uncovering previously unknown aspects of linguistic structure and of the relationship of linguistic means to other non-verbal forms of communication. The objective is to achieve a true understanding of language. 3. Sociolinguistics as a socially concerned discipline A good part of Romance research in sociolinguistics seems to direct its chief efforts at methods of operating on language as a cause or symptom of social problems. This holds especially true for the Latin American production (for more on this, see Lavandera 1974), but it is also valid for Europe, mainly for those groups of scholars working on 'threatened languages' and 'threatened cultures'. One of the most articulate Latin American presentations of the view that sociolinguistics represents a change in the practical application of linguistics can be found in a collection of essays by the Peruvian scholar Alberto Escobar (1972a). To him, the task of linguistics, at least in his part of the world, must be to help meet real social needs. Escobar insists that linguists broaden their concerns and carry out their work within an interdisciplinary framework. He asserts they have an obligation to participate in the efforts to prevent cultural disintegration and social dismemberment.

Sociolinguistics

135

Another Latin American, Uribe Villegas from Mexico, holds a similar view, but his extensive production (1970a, 1970b, 1971, 1972) tends to be too value-laden. For example, Uribe Villegas (1970b: 14) says: En Mexico, el interes por la sociolingüistica surge de la convergencia de dos procesos: primero, el de la creciente preocupacion por los problemas humanos, mundiales, de la epoca y segundo, el de difusion creciente tanto de los estudios sociologicos como (en menor medida) de los lingüisticos, que se une al deseo de los mexicanos de mantenerse al dia en los desarrollos de estas disciplinas y contribuir a su progreso y, tercero, el de afirmacion de un interes por los multiples problemas concretos que plantea al pais su actual etapa de desarrollo, y el deseo de acelerar — por procedimientos basados en el conocimiento — ese mismo proceso. [...] aun cuando el fruto no este totalmente sazonado aun, ya se puede empezar a hablar — en anticipacion de un futuro que no parece estar muy lejano — de sociolingüistica, a pesar de que todavia no sabemos cabalmente, que es puede llegar a ser esa sociolingüistica. [Emphasis added, BRL] In the United States, the practical aim of operating on language led to development of a branch of study known as 'language planning' which is really a part of sociology and usually does not involve much linguistic analysis. Rubin, one of its main proponents and contributors, says (Rubin -Shuy 1973: v): The study of language planning processes allows us to consider language as one more object of human manipulation — not only by language specialists but also by lay persons who may change its basic nature through their attitudes towards language. The discipline has already made many contributions to our knowledge and approaches to language use, attitudes and beliefs, language maintenance and change. As language planning is often defined as the conscious, predictive approach to changes in language and language use (Rubin and Jernudd, 1971), its proper application requires the right kinds of information about the sociolinguistic habits of the target population and about the social basis for language policy in order to project productive directions of change. [Emphasis added, BRL] There have been some publications in this area on situations involving a Romance language. Heath (1972) comes across as a thoughtful effort at

136

Beatriz R. Lavandera

analysing the available documentation with the aim of understanding the history of Mexican language legislation from the period of the Spanish conquest to the present. In general, the practical view of 'sociolinguistics' has gained wide acceptance. Scholars vary in their degree of optimism as to the role linguists can play in influencing a sociolinguistic situation. Insightful social scientists (like Vallverdu 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973; or Ninyoles 1969, 1971, 1972), who go to great lengths to understand both the real forces operating in the language contact situations they examine and the ideologies sustaining the proposed policies, nevertheless conclude that the reaction must occur at a more general level, and that the rescue must go beyond the language to the entire culture. In Vallverdu's words (1973: 133): En tot cas, per concloure, podem afirmar que allo que realmentposa en perill el catala com a llengua de cultura no es pas la resurreccio parcial del llati ni el conreu esporädic del castellä, de l'italiä o del frances — fenomens que, repetim-ho, son generals a 1'Europa d'aquells temps —, sino la perdua de for§a de les classes dirigents autoctones i la seva submissio politica a la Corona. [Emphasis added, BRL] 4. Aims and content of the survey I plan to survey that part of the recent Romance literature whose main recurring lines to some degree qualify as sociolinguistic and to discuss a number of the methodologically controversial points in the general field. What Romance sociolinguists lack most is adequate information on each other's work in different parts of the world. The American production and critical evaluation of it are more easily accessible, and it is evident that it is through them that most Romance scholars have gained familiarity with the chief sociolinguistic issues. What we may want to know now is to what extent the general theoretical hypotheses and methodologies have been tested on Romance data, whether this new type of evidence can be incorporated into a wider framework, and whether the new approach enriches our knowledge of the Romance area with fresh insights. While I have deliberately allowed my subjective judgements to affect my choice of studies to discuss, or the light in which I show them, I have nevertheless made a conscious effort at assembling a representative

Sociolinguistics

137

list, if not an exhaustive one. I offer summaries of the studies under examination whenever I feel they might be useful to students engaged in or planning to undertake sociolinguistic research. A number of considerations limit my review to two major topics: studies of languages in contact and quantitative studies of variation. I decided at the outset not to include work which can be considered psycholinguistic, and I also left aside research on forms of address derived from the Brown and Oilman hypothesis (see Ervin-Tripp 1971 for a general survey). I likewise decided not to comment on Creole studies (see the Introduction to this volume). These decisions may have led to some unfair exclusions. T. SlamaCazacu or A. Tabouret-Keller, for instance, are psycholinguists who are extremely aware of the relevance of the social context. It might be argued, however, that most psychosocial studies on language like theirs focus on the individual or individuals, not on the group, and that the sociocultural context is handled as just one more variable. As to the studies of address forms I agree with Bates and Begnini (1975: 271) that they "have almost always concentrated on a single set of rules, as they would be used by one idealized speaker". Also, studies of address forms using Romance data are for the most part merely short reports on re-tests of the Brown and Oilman hypothesis conducted with barely modified versions of the original questionnaire. Bates and Begnini represent an interesting departure in that their examination has sociological aims. In all these cases, however, linguistic analysis plays a minimal role. For Argentine Spanish data, a much more thorough treatment of the problem, in which the questionnaire is complemented with literary sources, is Wainerman (1972). I have stated some of my reservations elsewhere (Lavandera 1974). The reasons for excluding Creoles are even more compelling. From what we have been able to learn about Creoles so far, it does not seem advisable to study them under the heading of the standard languages with which they coexist. Such groupings would imply that Creoles are examined as mere deviations from those standard languages. In addition, the controversy aroused by their study makes it more fruitful to examine the different Creoles (or pidgins) together, rather than to treat each Creole variety separately as it appears in contact with English, French, Portuguese, or other languages. Finally, creolists are specialized scholars who feel stronger ties to others working in this subfield than to scholars

138

ßeatriz R. Lavandera

engaged in studying the standard languages upon which the different Creoles are based. Thus, although Creole studies are one of the most vital offshoots of the sociolinguistic approach, I feel it is not justified to discuss them within the framework of Romance sociolinguistics. If a particular study is written with educational policies or other such goals in mind, and does not present data from sociolinguistic research, I sometimes only mention it in passing, without focusing the discussion on it. On the other hand, I have extended this survey to include both sociolinguistic work produced by Romance scholars and that conducted by general linguists who draw on Romance data to formulate or verify more inclusive theoretical and methodological sociolinguistic hypotheses (Gumperz 1967; Fishman 1968; Lambert 1967a). Furthermore, even though sociolinguistic studies of complexly determined and highly variable socially patterned language behaviors and attitudes are necessarily incomplete in the absence of linguistic description, Romance sociolinguistics is still too embryonic for me to restrict this survey to truly interdisciplinary studies in which linguistic analysis plays a meaningful role. Thus, since I concentrate on studies of groups, I include some work on language which falls under the heading of social psychology, like language attitude studies along the lines of Lambert (see below, 5.1.1). Romance scholars interested in examining the non-Romance production in socio and ethnolinguistics may benefit from referring to the following readers: Gumperz - Hymes 1972; Sanches - Blount 1975; Bauman Sherzer 1974; in Italian, Giglioli 1973; in Spanish, Garvin -Lastra 1974; and in Portuguese, Fonseca - Neves 1974. 5. The form of sociolinguistics in different parts of the world What follows is a sketch of what I see as the general picture for the major regions where sociolinguistics has been applied to Romance languages. It appears that sociolinguistics as developed in the United States and Canada has been regarded by European Romance scholars with some interest and a great deal of mistrust (see the above quotations from Vallverdu and Cortelazzo), while in some Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru), the discipline has had a far warmer welcome. The reception sociolinguistics has enjoyed in the different areas is based on a combination of at least the following factors: the linguistic tradition of the given area, the area's relationship with the country where the trend originated, i.e. the United States, and the types of social and

Sociolinguistics

139

economic problems which those working in linguistics are engaged in solving. Other factors can be isolated in particular cases. For instance, it makes a difference whether or not there is a local theoretician who has introduced the theory more or less successfully, what funds are available for research (work in this field is usually very costly and requires special financial support), and so forth. 5.1 United States and Canada Sociolinguistics' own object, language analysed in the social and cultural context, necessarily stands out in sharper relief in a milieu such as the North American one, in which mainstream linguistics has developed an increasing capacity for isolating the facts of language at their most abstract, and in which obvious variation has been relegated to footnotes by even the most scrupulous linguists. Romance sociolinguistic work in the United States and Canada adheres to the style of the rest of American sociolinguistic work on English and other Romance languages.10 Both countries have participated in the development of models and techniques; I will discuss below the theoretical achievements of the Montreal group directed by G. Sankoff and H. Cedergren who, together with the mathematician and linguist, D. Sankoff, have had a revolutionary effect on the quantitative analysis of variation along the lines established by Labov (D. Sankoff Cedergren 1976). Both countries have also produced a wide array of especially motivated studies. French in Canada and Spanish and other immigrant languages in the United States create situations of languages in contact which have aroused the attention of sociologists, social psychologists, psychologists, and linguists. However, most of the research conducted to explore the dynamics of bilingualism has been in fields other than linguistics. Linguistic description of the varieties in contact has been comparatively neglected, and the writing of code-switching rules restricted to a very few examples and suggestions. 5.1.1 Language attitude studies Any survey of the sociolinguistic research carried out in Canada, even if focused on studies which are more linguistic in method, must necessarily devote some space to the many research projects which have added to an understanding of language oriented attitudes. The larger problem has been approached by Wallace Lambert and his associates through inves-

140

Beatriz R. Lavandera

tigations of the "attitudes and emotions toward the 'typical' speakers of particular language variants" (Fishman 1971: 331). Lambert belongs to those scholars who have contributed to Romance linguistics without themselves being Romanists. Thus he says that although he gives "illustrations from Canadian and American settings, the underlying processes are likely to be universal ones" (Lambert 1967b/1971: 95 [emphasis added, BRL]). Lambert's 'matched guise technique' was first developed at McGill University in 1960 specifically to deal with the Canadian situation; it has since been extended to measure attitudes toward other languages or language varieties.11 A good presentation of Lambert's ideas on language attitudes, in which he describes the matched guise technique, sums up other experiments, 12 and provides interpretations of his findings, can be found in Lambert (1967b). The technique is ingenious,13 but the interpretations Lambert gives of his findings are sometimes too far-fetched. What he found in the Canadian experiments is that the same speakers were judged differently by people listening to their taped voices, according to whether they were speaking English or French, Canadian French or Continental French, and that other variables such as the sex of the speakers and the sex of the judges also affected the evaluations. Lambert undoubtedly has evidence that "the whole process of becoming bilingual can be expected to involve major conflicts of values and allegiances, and bilinguals could make various types of adjustments to the bicultural demands made on them" (1967b/1971: 95). But he perhaps goes too far when he considers the possible consequences (101): Imagine the types of role adjustments that would follow if the same person were first seen in the F[rench] C[anadian] guise and then suddenly switched to a perfect E[nglish] C[anadian] guise. The situation may in fact be much less dramatic, as Agheyisi and Fishman (1970: 146) have pointed out in a critique of Lambert's experiment: [...] this reasoning [...] presupposes that each population or subpopulation is characterized or identifiable by a single language variety. However, when we examine bilingual speech communities and networks, particularly within a diglossia setting, a lot of switching is found to go on — in the form of inter-dialect switching, or switching from standard to non-standard varieties, or even from one language

Sociolinguistics

141

to another — depending on factors such as domain, topic, location, role, interaction type, or network type. While I agree with Ervin-Tripp (1971: 79) that Lambert's method "does not allow isolation of the critical linguistic features" and with Fishman's similar remark (1971: 331) that "the features of language that are considered attractive or unattractive, proper or improper, distinctive or commonplace, have largely remained unstudied" [emphasis added, BRL], I do find it fair to say that Lambert has been able to identify a gratifyingly wide range of social meanings in speech variations (see Ervin-Tripp 1971: 79). Lambert realizes that attitude studies have important implications for education. His evidence supports his assertion that "methods of language training could be modified and strengthened by giving consideration to the social-psychological implications of language learning" (1971: 105). One of the volumes on the Canadian languages in their social context edited by Darnell (1973) includes some studies which pursue these same issues. D'Anglejan and Tucker aim at demonstrating "from a sociolinguistic perspective ... people's awareness of the role of language in their lives and their reactions to the attempts of a modern government in a developed country at language planning" (1973: 65). They take issue in important respects with Lambert (his experiment is described on page 68) and with Brown's (1969) dissertation, summarized on page 69. D'Anglejan and Tucker tried to respond to one of Fishman's criticisms of Lambert's matched guise technique, i.e. that speakers may be reacting to things such as "the congruity, or lack of it, between the topic, speaker, and the particular language variety" (Agheyisi - Fishman 1970: 146). They prepared a tape with thirty-second excerpts from comments on a record-breaking blizzard. They also made use of a context-free tape on which the same speakers counted from 1 to 20; they based this technique on Ellis's (1967) finding "that a twenty-second sample of counting was a sufficiently powerful stimulus to enable [subjects] to make accurate social class predictions" (D'Anglejan - Tucker 1973: 73). They report that "among the [subjects] whom we studied, Quebec style speech does not yet appear to serve as a symbol of national identity" (1973: 91). As to Lambert's findings, they say that "the consistent pattern of downgrading both UFC [Upper French Canadian] and LFC [Lower French Canadian] speech in favor of an SEF [Standard European French] style reported by

142

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Lambert (1967b) and by Brown (1969) again emerged" (1973:91-92).14 In this same volume (Darnell 1973) there is a study by Gagnon which argues for "la preponderance du facteur aptitude sur celui d'attitude" in learning a language (1973: 103). Gagnon studied the attitude toward English, a second language for Canadian French-speaking students. He expected that the weight of attitude as a factor in language learning would vary with age, sex, and province of residence. He applied a scale of attitude to 4,249 French-speaking public high school students. The student was presented with opinions and photographs and asked to state his or her degree of support for each one. Gagnon found that for the students of Ontario and New Brunswick attitude seemed of less consequence in language learning; it was more determinant for young women, and its influence did not vary much among the different age groups. Another interesting experiment with French Canadian and English Canadian factory workers was carried out by Taylor and Simard (1972) with factory workers who met in an actual face-to-face situation. The researchers accompany their report with a summary (101) and a survey of other studies, as well as summaries of Taylor and Gardner's work with French and English students (1970a), and their study of Chinese and Filipino students (1970b). Here the revealing experiment on values and bilingualism conducted outside Canada by Elize Botha (1968) can help us test Ervin-Tripp's (1964) assertion that "bilinguals have been observed to respond differently to the same stimulus material with a change of language " (quoted by Botha 1968:159). Botha decided to apply a test of values to two hundred Arabic-French and Arabic-English high school boys between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, one hundred from the French section and one hundred from the English section of a Beirut school. Arabic was the dominant language for all of them; they all belonged to the upper middle and upper classes, and the questions had to do with the utility of things. The categories of evaluation Botha established were: sustentative, benevolent, hedonistic, esthetic, religious, and hierarchical. Botha found that" 'French values' appeared to a greater extent when French was used than 'American values' when English was used" (163). She interprets these results in terms of social factors (1968: 163-164): [. . .] these Arabic-French bilinguals learned French at an earlier age than the Arabic-English bilinguals learned English, and speak the

Sociolinguistics

143

second language more frequently in the home. In Lebanon the "French educated" are regarded as a distinct group with distinct cultural values ("French" values) and those belonging to this group are proud of the distinction. Social rewards in Beirut for French customs and manners are considerable. The way in which French and English are taught may also account for the difference. In general English is simply taught as a language, whereas French textbooks usually deal with French language and culture and much time is spent on acquainting the student with the French way of life. 5.1.2 The quantitative paradigm The development of a linguistic model capable of incorporating noncategorical rules (Labov 1966, 1972a, 1972b) sparked off the study of language in use. The quantitative correlation of reported free linguistic variation with extralinguistic social dimensions such as sex, age, socioeconomic status, ethnic group, etc., uncovered underlying patterns which regulate this variation. On the American scene Labov's contribution has been appropriately acknowledged by some of the most distinguished scholars in the field (Hymes 1974; Ervin-Tripp 1971; Fishman 1971; etc.). In Romance linguistics, Labov's resonance takes two different forms. On the one hand we find extremely frequent references to his work, often accompanied by long descriptions of his methods and findings; some writers even reproduce his most revealing graphs and tables (Giglioli 1968; Robert 1973; Gadet 1971; Vallverdu 1973). One of Labov's articles, "On the mechanism of linguistic change", has been translated into both Spanish and Italian (Garvin -Lastra 1974; Giglioli 1973), while "Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change" has also been translated into Spanish in the Garvin and Lastra reader. On the other hand, since most of Labov's articles and books provide detailed reports on every stage of his research, complete with information on the techniques employed for data-gathering, quantitative analysis, interpretation of findings, etc., they are more readily used as models for duplicate studies conducted in similar situations, but in different areas and sometimes with different languages.15 In Canada the Labovian study of variation has received special impetus from a group of scholars (G. Sankoff, D. Sankoff — a mathematician as well as a linguist —, H. Cedergren, and their associates). They work in

144

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Montreal with data from French, Spanish, and Tok Pisin (a pidgin which is now the first language of a generation of urban New Guineans). D. Sankoff and Cedergren developed a revolutionary extension of Labov's model by revising Labov's notion of competence to make it incorporate probabilities instead of frequencies. Since 1973 (when Cedergren wrote her dissertation) they have been working on this model, which Labov, who joined in their task, welcomed heartily. D. Sankoff — Cedergren 1976 contains a further improvement on this development.16 The authors of the material I will now discuss assume that the reader is familiar both with the most recent linguistic trends (i.e. transformational grammar in its different manifestations) and with Labov's model. Both types of linguistics, the transformational grammar model and the quantitative study of variation, require some mathematical sophistication.17 In various papers of theoretical and methodological import Gillian Sankoff reports on her research on Montreal French. In G. Sankoff 1974, she uses examples taken from the ongoing project on //-deletion and que -deletion to construct a mise-au-point of the principal controversial aspects of the theory and methodology underyling the model of quantitative analysis of variation. Her own position is also presented. Sankoff, Cedergren, and Sarrasin (1971) had already analysed the deletion of the complementizer que and found some variable phonological deletion constraints. Also, Laberge and Cedergren (1972) had shown not only that surface que is absent in places where there is evidence that it exists as an underlying form, but also that it appears in surface structures whose deep structures would not be analysed as containing it. Thus, there seems to be a que -deletion as well as a que -attachment rule. In G. Sankoff 1973 she draws on examples from syntax and semantics from her own and her associates' work on Montreal French and New Guinea Tok Pisin to demonstrate that variability can be dealt with at all levels of grammar above (or beyond) phonology. She employs the framework of transformational grammar enriched by the addition of Labov's variable rule (Labov 1969, also in Labov 1972a) and formulates a rule with only syntactic constraints, accompanied by a table of probability values that shows, for instance, that parce is a categorical environment for que, whereas comme is a very unfavorable environment. In Sankoff - Sankoff 1973 the Sankoffs discuss the methodological aspects of the Sankoff-Cedergren study of Montreal French. They state their aims, which they claim differ both from those of conventional

Sociolinguistics

145

linguistics and from the sociology of language, and define them as the attempt to "understand linguistic structures as they are embedded within a social and cultural matrix" (1973: 8). The sociolinguist, they say, concentrates "on the nature and extent of grammatical diversity within a speech community, and how this diversity reflects social stratification, geographical dispersion, language change, stylistic variation, the various possible communicative functions of particular linguistic forms, the dynamics of interpersonal interaction, and so on" (1973: 8). They are also interested "primarily in the detailed linguistic structure of speech behavior, whereas the [sociologist of language] generally relies on a few very obvious linguistic distinctions" (1973: 8). The Sankoffs, who use a random sample of individuals, give a clear report on the criteria used to select the one hundred and twenty informants, the means employed, even the cost of the interviews, and an analysis of the sample obtained. They also describe the structure of the interview and the automatic data-handling techniques used for transcription. In paragraph 5.0. on the "use of the data" they describe the application of quantitative methods, and formulate variable rules for analysis of (L) deletion in articles and pronouns, complement que deletion, expletive que deletion, and analysis of interrogative structures and of changes in the use and semantic structure of impersonal pronouns. The data from this project have since been analysed by a number of individuals and research teams, the problems studied ranging from phonetics to semantics. Cedergren's doctoral dissertation (1973), although on Panamanian Spanish and written for Cornell University, should be included in the Montreal model just discussed, since the variable rule computer program known as the Cedergren-Sankoff program, of significant importance for the writing of linguistic rules in general, was presented in this work and applied for the first time in this analysis.18 Cedergren takes five phonological and two lexical variables to illustrate different processes: (1) deletion of S: "class differentiator" favored by adult lower-class males not natives of Panama City; (2) lenition of CH: sound change in progress initiated by young lower-middle-class adults of urban origin; (3) velarization and deletion of word-final N: in the process of change; differences can be traced to urban and rural origin; (4) deletion of D: change near completion and still a subtle social differentiator; intervocalic D lenition is stigmatized and shows "strong

146

Beatriz R. Lavandera

correlation with the sociolinguistic structure of the community" (1973: 107); (5) syllable final R: (a) spirantization, (b) aspiration, and (c) deletion in a "well-developed sociolinguistic feature" (1973:129) affected by age, socioeconomic status, and local origins. The two 'lexical' variables are the instability of the initial syllable of the copula esta, and the deletion of intervocalic R in para. On the basis of the total number of observed cases, she carries out a quantitative analysis of all these variables. For each variable she establishes its constraints, and each constraint is assigned a probability coefficient through a multiplicative model which depends on the assumption that each of the contributing factors is independent (1973: 33): In any empirical context it is not necessarily true that factors operate independently on the probabilities of the events. Indeed there are any number of examples where factors interact in different ways. [. . .] However, independence or non-interaction of factors shall be our primary hypothesis. This will be rejected only where the resultant model does not fit the data. [Emphasis added, BRL] The imperfect fit between predicted probabilities and observed count proportions of rule application per number of eligible environments leads to rejection of the hypothesis of independence. Cedergren further states (1973: 36): [. . .] the environmental factors are examined more carefully to see which ones interact and to determine the linguistic significance of this interaction. Finally, she says in her summary and conclusions that this hypothesis has been confirmed by her research in most of the examined cases. However, she herself is very careful in presenting all the cases she finds of nonindependent interaction. In Lavandera 1974, I indicated a number of additional considerations which I felt might have been adopted for the analysis of S (I did not discuss the other variables). At that moment I was unaware that Cedergren was continuing her research, on which she has now reported at a number of recent meetings. But in addition, by focusing on one single variable, I failed to make clear that one of the outstanding points made by Cedergren's dissertation (taken up by G. Sankoff, 1974: 4) is that

Sociolinguistics

147

Different phonological variables are differently affected by the factors of age, sex, class, and rural vs. urban origin, as well as being differently involved in stylistic marking [. . .] though speakers may be scalable in one way for a particular variable, scaling on another variable will not always result in the same ordering of speakers. 5.1.3 Spanish in the United States French-English bilingualism has also been researched in some areas of the United States,19 but it is the contact with Spanish which has absorbed most of the attention of students of bilingualism, who often share an ultimate concern with bilingual education. The problem requires the skills of scholars from very different disciplines, but I will single out current projects that make real use of linguistic data. Two main varieties of Spanish have been isolated and examined: Puerto Rican Spanish and Mexican-American Spanish. The knowledge which has been achieved for both varieties of Spanish, as well as associated social and cultural aspects, is still very much in the exploratory stage, although the presence of a sizeable Spanish-speaking minority confronts American society with problems that cry out for further research. It is true that many of the issues arising from this language contact cannot be fully understood solely from the linguistic point of view. Hymes (1974: 119) correctly warns that Bilingual education is a sociolinguistic subject par excellence. The skills of linguists are both necessary and insufficient. [. . .] Research on bilingual education requires a kind of linguistics not yet fully constituted. Unfortunately, although the American Southwest, for instance, has long been recognized as a linguistically highly diversified area, and made the subject of considerable research, the position of Southwest Spanish and of Mexican-American Spanish speakers is so socially disadvantageous that discussion of linguistic groups in that area has too often been marred by emotional overtones and a lack of objectivity. 5.1.3.1 Mexican-American Spanish A persistent effort at calling attention to the need for serious research on the sociolinguistic situation created by the contact of Spanish and English in the American Southwest can be traced in Jacob Ornstein's work. Yet

148

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Ornstein is the first to acknowledge that practically everything still remains to be done. He concentrates his energies on sketching out some of the lines this research must take, mainly in the field of linguistics. In Ornstein 1975, he points to the "multi-disciplinary approach of sociolinguistics" as "the most promising for casting a new light on language usage in this area" (1975: 11). After reviewing the different models and techniques available to the discipline as a whole, Ornstein decides that there is no "best model for sociolinguistic research in the Southwest" (1975:23), but that a methodology will have to develop out of the combination of several different approaches adapted to the particular needs of the situation. In addition to the general survey, Ornstein provides a more directly relevant review of the Southwest, including brief descriptions of some work on Puerto Rican Spanish. There follows an inventory of variables which Ornstein submits both for Spanish and English. The list is welcome insofar as it directs researchers to problems that must be studied. Ornstein provides other helpful guidelines for future research in this area, chief among them a sketch for a three-year pilot research program which includes a categorized enumeration of the kinds of information it would be desirable to gather and analyse. This essay represents the synthesis of Ornstein's own lifelong interest in this area (1951, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975, among others) and might constitute a direct stimulus for those who plan to complete his investigations. The bibliographical references both in footnotes and in an additional list at the end of the article present an almost complete bibliography, to which Hensey adds important references in an appendix to the volume (e.g. Gilbert 1970, Tsuzaki 1970, etc.). Ornstein's essay with Hensey's appendix provides a very good survey of studies on the subject. I will not add more on this matter, therefore, but will simply refer the reader to a few more works: Voegelin - Voegelin - Schutz 1967; Sawyer 1959,1964; Linn 1967; Lozano 1961. For my review of Tsuzaki 1970, a publication of his doctoral dissertation (1963), see Lavandera 1974. Again we find for Mexican American Spanish as we did for Canadian French (Lambert) contributions to Romance languages which come from a general theoretician. Gumperz began writing on issues which would become part of the core of sociolinguistics as early as the end of the fifties. Among his numerous and inspiring contributions to the development of the field is his extensive research on a variety of situations in India, Europe, and the United States. He has studied both intra and interlan-

Sociolinguistics

149

guage code-switching in bilingual communities such as Hindi-Punjabi, Kannada-Marathi in India, Ranamäl-Bokmäl in Norway, Puerto Rican Spanish-English in New York, and Mexican-American Spanish-English in California. Of the articles dealing with bilingual situations which include Spanish, Gumperz - Hernandez 1971 can be recommended as one of the best presentations of Gumperz's ideas on code switching. Their handling of the data and their interpretations of the different switches raise a series of theoretical and methodological issues to test elsewhere. Suggestive as they are, and very likely accurate, their conclusions cannot as yet be considered tested hypothesis (1971: 123): [. . .] any analysis which, like ours, relies on a single case raises some questions about the generality of the results. It seems that one would have to say of switches what Sperber (1975: 28) suggests for symbols in general: [. . .] the motivation of symbols is arbitrary; after the fact, any pairing at all may be motivated, but none may be predicted. But Gumperz and Hernandez themselves perceive the symbolic function of switching (1971: 118): To some extent the juxtaposition of English and Spanish symbolizes the duality of value systems evidenced in the discussion. [Emphasis added, BRL] Thus they state explicitly (1971: 122): [. . .] the relationship of such factors [as ethnic identity, age, and sex, degree of solidarity, or confidentiality] to verbal messages is quite different from what the sociologist means by correlations among variables [. . .] ratings determine the likelihood of a switch, but they do not tell us when a switch occurs in a particular case, nor do they predict the meaning of a switch. What seems to be involved rather is a symbolic process very much like that by which linguistic signs convey semantic information. [Emphasis added, BRL] Gumperz and Hernandez view their paper as "an attempt to elucidate the relationships between linguistic form, interactional strategies, and social meaning on the basis of detailed study of natural conversation" (1971:

150

Beatriz R. Lavandera

114) [emphasis added, BRL]. They differentiate between (1) stylistic ethnic identity markers such as "ändale pues" and "dice", which are normally part of a bilingual's style of English, and (2) true codeswitching, which consists of entire sentences inserted into the other language text, and also of some examples of change within single sentences. 5.1.3.2 Puerto Rican American Spanish Puerto Rican Americans are the other group of Spanish speakers which Voegelin, Voegelin, and Schutz list as "of wide public interest to the monolingual English speakers" (1967: 405). Fishman et al. (1968) still constitutes the largest interdisciplinary project carried out with Puerto Rican bilinguals. The setting was a Puerto Rican neighbourhood in the Greater New York area. The final report includes descriptions of research and experiments conducted by linguists, psychologists, and sociologists with 431 Puerto Ricans living in ninety households. (In Lavandera 1974: 262-269,1 have reviewed the analysis of the linguistic data within Labov's framework.) Fishman (1971) cites the linguistic data of this project to clarify two .questions. In reference to the first, he charges Labov, Lindenfeld (1969), and Geertz (1960) with being unable to elucidate "which of these two sources of data [social class differences and contextual-situational differences in language use] is the stronger of their data" (1971: 268). The second question, which he complains has not even been asked by those three authors is, "what could it mean insofar as the overall societal organization of language behavior — if only one or another of these two sources of usage variation [societal and situational] obtained?" (1971: 269V To answer these questions Fishman isolates one of the Spanish variables recorded by Ma and Herasimchuk and one of the English variables in the analysis of Puerto Rican bilingualism in New York. He claims to have found that the Spanish variable (deletion of s) "was primarily attributable to contextual-situational variation along a continuum of formality-informality. Whereas demographic factors (not social class in this case since our subjects were so uniformally of the lower class) added to the overall prediction of this variable — as did the interaction between demographic factors and speech context — it is clear that these are of lesser importance" (1971: 279). Fishman finds "just the opposite [. . .] in the realization of English phonology" (279).

Sociolinguistics

151

In the same chapter, which is intended as a definition of the sociology of language illustrated with examples of the different subjects and methods taken from published research, Fishman reports on his own study, coauthored with Greenfield (1970), which is a continuation of Greenfield, included in Fishman et al. 1968. Fishman sees both as concerned with "the relative importance of person, places, and topics in the perception of congruent and incongruent situations and with the impact of perceived congruency or incongruency on claimed language use in different domains" (1971: 250). Fishman finds in these two studies and in Edelman et al.'s data (in Fishman et al. 1968), evidence of the existence of "classes of events recognized by each speech network or community such that several seemingly different situations are classed as being of the same kind" (1971: 255). He also notes "the construct vitality of domains as analytic parameters for the study of large sociolinguistic patterns" (253 ).20 Kimple, Cooper, and Fishman (1969) react in a continuation of Lambert 1967b to the necessity pointed out by Lambert of conducting research on the consequences, from the perspective of the bilingual, of using different languages. Kimple et al., following Cooper, Fowles, and Givner (in Fishman et al. 1968), develop another technique to measure a bilingual's awareness of the social meaning of differences in the use of language varieties in conversation. Cooper et al. had employed several Puerto Ricans adept at language switching to produce five naturalistic taped conversations, each of which represented a different situation in that the role-relationships among the speakers and the locations, topics, and purposes of interaction varied. These were played back to other Puerto Rican bilinguals. Kimple et al. took two of the conversations used by Cooper and his associates and re-recorded them to alter the language patterns used by the speakers. They had their subjects (high school students) listen to the tapes, which included the original versions, and had them answer a multiple-choice questionnaire with five types of items to assess the ability to identify (1) the role-relationships of speakers, (2) the setting of the conversation, (3) manifest content (or surface events of the story), (4) social or latent content (e.g. the occupational status of the speakers), and (5) the appropriateness of language usage. As to the last set of items, the authors explain that they "required that the respondents judge subjectively, and there was thus no correct answer" (1969: 129). The results show "homogeneity of response to the items which could be

152

Beatriz R. Lavandera

keyed as correct or incorrect" (1969: 130) and "significant differences, however, for some of the items requiring subjective evaluation" (130). Kimple et al.'s conclusion is that (134) [. . .] not all shifts in language pattern cause concomitant changes in bilinguals' perception of social meaning. But in some special situations changes in the language spoken result in changed perceptions of the speech situation. [. . .] these bilinguals appear to have internalized generally accepted norms regarding the appropriate use of Spanish and English. [. . .] shifts in the use of the two languages [. . .] may result in the feeling that the conversation has become more or less 'natural'. Other limited-scope studies which describe Puerto Rican Spanish are Labov -Pedraza 1971; Lavandera 197la; and Wolfram 1969. Sociolinguistic studies of Puerto Rican Spanish as spoken in the United States can profitably be examined in conjunction with descriptions of the sociolinguistic situation on the island. From a descriptive linguistic point of view, Navarro Tomäs 1948 remains unsurpassed. Nevertheless Matluck's (1961) findings, complemented by Dillard's (1962) comments, are excellent additions. He questions the categorical form of some of Matluck's statements, such as the assertion that word-initial s is never aspirated or that the /f/ phoneme is realized as /x/. Dillard claims that this last phenomenon becomes more perceptible at the lower end of the social scale and is also stylistically affected. He raises the issue of the afronegroid influence (according to him convincingly demonstrated by Alvarez Nazario 1961) and points out that the lower classes in Puerto Rico are predominantly black. In spite of some limitations, which I will now comment on, Granda (1968) provides a serious attempt at understanding the Puerto Rican situation, with a good grasp of the literature on the topic. His work can serve as a valid starting point for future studies. As Granda himself indicates, he sets out to study the linguistic interference of English in Puerto Rican Spanish within the anthropological category of transculturation and as a manifestation derived from the latter. For our purposes, the most interesting chapters are: VII, "Sociedad, actitud y lengua", VIII, "El bilinguismo portorriquefto", and IX, "Resultados del proceso de interferencia linguistica". In chapter VII he refers to Lefebvre 1966, and examines two historical

Sociolinguistics

153

periods which are sociolinguistically significant: (a) 1898-1940, when acculturation was coercive, and (b) after 1940, when an increase occurred in the prestige enjoyed by English, together with a loss of prestige for Spanish. Granda, in contradistinction to Ruben del Rosario, sees no cause for optimism as regards the fate of Spanish among Puerto Ricans. Chapter VIII, which is explicitly related to Hymes's concern with the social structure of the community in relation to the use of language, does not contain a report of research. It relies instead on secondary sources and very general information. Granda describes the purpose of Chapter IX as follows (1968: 158): [...] se trata de estudiar las repercusiones sobre los recursos linguisticos del espanol insular de los condicionamientos socioculturales expuestos en las päginas anteriores [...] de exponer muy sucintamente (pues un examen detallado de los datos individuales no tendria cabida en este trabajo) los fenomenos puertorriquenos que, refiriendose a la "norma" lingüistica insular, pueden ser incluidos en lo que modernamente se denomina lingüistica institutional. On page 161 he announces the presentation of "manifestacionesconcretas de la interferencia lingüistica que se ha producido en Puerto Rico", and he differentiates among three main processes: (1) convergence toward English, (2) simplifying impoverishment, (3) dialectalization. However, his data, certainly somewhat scanty, proceed exclusively from his own recent experience as a visitor to the island. He lists (1) lexical borrowings, (2) semantic caiques, (3) grammaticalization of expressive possibilities parallel to English ones, (4) syntactic interferences. This analysis is in no way complete. He quotes features "a modo, solo, de ejemplo y paradigma" (1968:173). In other words, the linguistic analysis contained in this work is notably insufficient and plays no important role in his study, which Granda characterizes as "diagnostico lingüistico [...] basado en una gran cantidad de factores variables, politicos, economicos, sociales, y culturales" (180). 5.2 Europe 5.2.1 Eastern Europe Ivan Petkanov of Bulgaria, after reporting in 1974 that "cette jeune

154

Beatrix R. Lavandera

science [sociolinguistics] n'est pas encore düment cultivee en Bulgarie", gives what I find to be a very fitting reason:21 La raison de ce retard peut etre indiquee dans le fait qu'en general chez nous on prete grande attention aux causes et circonstances de caractere economique, social, historique, politique dans 1'explication des phenomenes linguistiques et culturelles et par consequent aussi des elements de caractere sociolinguistique y ont ete compris ipso facto. [Emphasis added, BRL] Petkanov is thinking in terms of one substantial aspect of sociolinguistics, its concern with the social facts of language. He points out correctly that insofar as those topics are concerned, American sociolinguistics cannot constitute a novelty in his country. Thus, familiarity with these very issues blocks receptivity and subsequent adoption of a new methodology to deal with them. Petkanov's argumentation can be extended to the rest of the socialist world. The Socialist Republic of Rumania, for example, has long been producing a copious literature on all the situations suitable for sociolinguistic analysis, while only a few authors felt the need to give their method a special name. Rumanian linguistics has recently added two important publications to its already extensive literature on the problem of disappearance of languages. One is a collection of articles by Marius Sala on Judeo-Spanish (1970), the form of Spanish retained by Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 as it is partially preserved in Bucharest today. Judeo-Spanish is the general term for a variety which covers a series of different subvarieties once spoken the length and breadth of the Mediterranean. Sala presents this instance of Judeo-Spanish as an example of a language which is dying out without becoming 'mixed'.22 The other study, Iliescu 1973, describes the Rumanian variety of Friulian, a 'dialect' of Italian. Here we have another case of a language becoming extinct without having first gone through a stage of disintegration. The question of what causes a language to become extinct is particularly crucial at present in those areas where the language spoken, be it Catalan, Mexican-American Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish, etc. (all actually much stronger than Judeo-Spanish, Friulian, or Occitan), is threatened with substitution. It is by no means a new problem for Romance scholars, and it has been extensively referred to as the question

Sociolinguistics

155

of 'la mort des langues' (see Vendryes 1921: 339-348 on the disappearance of Breton in favor of French; also 1933). Sala himself refers to Vendryes and others: Meillet (1921); Terracini (1957); Graur (1965, 19671 Sala (1970) offers a clear account of the history of the Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal, along with information on the gradual loss of prestige they suffered in exile. This is a good framework for forming an understanding of the fate of this variety of Spanish outside Spain. Although Sala does not present enough empirical data on the linguistic facts, his interpretations of the degree of structural difference between the languages in contact in terms of domains of usage sound convincing and deserve further investigation. He acknowledges that the criteria he uses to examine the contact situation are taken from Coteanu 1957a. He says (1970: 23): En Rumania la semejanza del judeoespanol con el rumano ha contribuido tambien al abandono del primero. and a few pages further on (39), [...] lo que salvaguardo el caracter espafiol del judeoespanol es la ausencia del bilinguismo active entre este idioma y las lenguas con las cuales se encontro en contacto. To establish the current state of Judeo-Spanish in Bucharest, Sala employs a questionnaire and views this method as a considerable improvement over study based on texts. However, he finds that there are some benefits to be gained from examining texts; they might, for example, show words entering into relationships in a manner that would not be apparent from research conducted with a questionnaire (1970:105). He considers proverbs another important source of data, and analyses 200 of these. Nevertheless, his survey is severely limited, for he worked with only eight informants, four of each sex, with differing degrees of proficiency in Judeo-Spanish. An interesting hypothesis which he does not prove in these essays has to do with the order in which internal and external causes operate in linguistic change. Sala suggests that external causes initiate the process of extinction of a language, while internal causes come into play mainly in the final phase of the process (1970: 26). I think the general tendency among linguists has been to see external causes as exploiting the internal vulnerability of the system, although this

156

Beatriz R. Lavandera

has not always been explicitly stated (Lavandera 1975b, Longmire 1976)." Let us turn now to the other Rumanian author. Iliescu (1973) launches a serious attempt at providing new information on the actual linguistic situation of the groups of 'frioulans' in Rumania. Iliescu characterizes their language as (230): "[. . .] un dialecte etranger parle au sein d'une population ä langue de civilisation autochtone." Her presentation of linguistic data is detailed and appears very complete, but the analysis itself can best be evaluated in a different sort of review. The Introduction (19-32), chapter 6, "considerations sur le bilinguisme frioulanoroumain", and the Conclusions (235) require at least a brief comment here. Iliescu passed through different stages of field work, applying increasingly complex questionnaires .and collecting some texts which were recorded and simultaneously transcribed. Her examination of historical material and description of the present situation emboldens her to present the situation she foresees for ten years later, i.e. the disappearance of Friulian (235): "[. . .] il disparaitra, comme le dalmate, non pas par 'desintegration', mais par manque de sujets parlants." It must be made clear that neither Sala nor Iliescu represents the existence of a new sociolinguistic trend in Rumania. Their subject matter would lend itself to sociolinguistic study, but what we see in their contributions is simply how close a dialectological approach can come to a sociolinguistic perspective. Boris Cazacu (1972) gives a list of the studies he considers to be 'sociolinguistic'.24 Before leaving Eastern Europe I want to give special mention to Antonin Vasek. In the paper he read at the International Days of Sociolinguistics in Rome (1969b), he attempts a definition of sociolinguistics stressing the linguistic aspects of the discipline. His own contributions to the investigation of Slavic-Rumanian linguistic contacts and his linguistic description of the Carpathian area and the so-called Carpathian pastoral colonization depend on the examination of a number of external factors — geographic, historical, and ethnographic. But while he welcomes the sociolinguistic view of the study of language, Vasek does not feel the need to change his methods of research. Indeed, he views this type of study as very much part of a tradition. After expressing his support for that linguistic approach which holds "that the development of language is determined by both types of factors, external, social, and internal, structural; [...] and that it is necessary to investigate the degree of

Sociolinguistics

157

influence exerted by both types of factors and their mutual relations", he adds that "m accordance with the Czechoslovak linguistic tradition'" he feels convinced that it is this view that "adequately reflects the real state of affairs" (1969b: 872 [emphasis added, BRL]). 5.2.2 Western Europe Many Western Europeans, too, see nothing new in the topics, the kind of data examined, or the possibility of undertaking a sociological study of language. It is easy, then, to understand their lack of excitement upon examining the North American initiatives and their difficulty in accepting the fact that a good portion of 'sociolinguistics' constitutes a theoretically and methodologically innovative proposal.25 5.2.2.1 France A good example of indifference toward the American model can be found in France, where there was even a well-established school with a name quite similar to that of the trend now being presented as something new, i.e. the French sociological school. Meillet (1906), Cohen (1956), and Lefebvre (1966), among others, have already introduced French minds to the association between the concepts of language and society. Vallverdu (1973) complains that Americans do not know the kind of work done by Cohen and others in Europe. Verdoodt includes Cohen among those who recommend integrating "le domain linguistique dans la sociologie generale" (1973: 203), and he goes on to say, Du cote des linguistes, il importe de signaler Cohen (1956), un promoteur du rapprochement entre sociologues et linguistes, entierement dans la ligne de Brunot, Meillet et Vendryes qu'on a appele 1'ecole sociologique frangaise. Regardless of where European research falls chronologically with respect to the growth of American sociolinguistics in the sixties (there are prior developments but also contemporary ones), what is important is that French linguists take pride in pointing to Europeans who are independent of the American model. Some authors are even more negative. Thus Greimas (1970), after identifying the possible field of sociolinguistics with the idea of systems of connotation established by Hjelmslev, characterizes it as a new discipline which still seems to be searching for its own object and its specific

158

Beatriz R. Lavandera

method. On the other hand, Greimas himself has provided some interesting suggestions as to the form of a possible sociolinguistic grammar (1969). He outlines different kinds of models — "proxemic", "morphologic", and "functional" — which correspond to different kinds of societies. But although Greimas claims that certain models describe certain societies better than others, he suggests that it is only through joint application of various models that a society can satisfactorily be accounted for. In the last section of this paper (1969: IV, "La syntaxe sociolinguistique") Greimas asks himself about the use of an individual belonging to a society may and does make of the sociolinguistic connotations of that society. The main fact, according to Greimas, is that those who interpret discourse are at the same time those who produce it. What he calls sociolinguistic syntax is, as he says, "une strategic de la communication". It is this syntax which makes it possible that [. . .] la reconnaissance, chez autrui, d'une configuration sociolinguistique particuliere a pour effet de provoquer automatiquement le phenomene d'auto-correction, d'ajustement de son propre discours (1969: 107). Pottier (1974: 419) suggests establishing the following: A cote de la taxonomie lexicale, bien connue [. . .] une taxonomie grammaticale egalement tres liee ä 1'experience humaine, comme tout ce qui est langage. He argues that there is a continuum which ranges from "observations explicitees" to "intuitions peu explicables" which "se traduisent dans la langue par des categorisations grammaticales". Examples of "observations" are the grammatical categories which distinguish sex, number, person, etc. Of the "intuitions", at the other extreme, the examples are such categories as transitivity, perfectivity, duration, etc. Pottier offers only a very general formulation of this idea, and I am not aware of any further research based on it. Gadet, defining the problems of sociolinguistics, says: "Ce type de recherches n'est encore qu'ebauchee en France" (1971: 74). However, he seems well disposed toward the trend, since he goes on to say: "mais

Sociolinguistics

159

aux tats-Unis de nombreux travaux ont dej etc realises, souvent avec une grande rigeur methodologique" (1971: 74). But it is possible to identify some studies on French, and on Occitan (spoken in the south of France), which can legitimately be treated within the bounds of a discussion of this kind. We should note at least the following kinds of publications: (a) studies of phonological variations (1) in response to Martinet (1945): Reichstein 1960; Deyhime 1967; Valdman 1974; (2) as applications of the American model within Labov's framework: Lindenfeld 1969; Robach 1974. These last two also follow Bernstein. (b) studies which should perhaps rather be included in the trend of 'phonostylistique', but which are nevertheless unquestionably relevant to the sociolinguistic analysis of French. Pierre Guiraud (1972: 1125) comments on this development: "Held for some time in suspicion and contempt, the postulators of sound symbolism are again attracting the attention of modern phonetics". Within my focus, Leon 1970, 1971, 1972-73 and Mettas 1969, 1971 deserve some comment. (c)the following studies on Occitan: Kremnitz 1973; Lafont 1952, 1971a, 1971b, 1973; Schlieben-Lange 1971a, 1971b; Tabouret-Keller 1964; Weil 1972. Martinet is generally considered to be unenthusiastic about the sociolinguistic approach, and as a matter of fact this is what one would gather from his brief and uninteresting references to the trend in his Guide (1969), in which he disposes of sociolinguistics with a couple of references to it as "l'aspect sociologique de la dialectologie" (419). However, even a cursory reading of his writings yields ample evidence that he is as aware as other authors judged to be more socially oriented of the close connection between language and its external environment (see his comments to Reichstein 1960). But most important, it is his 1945 book which provides the first empirical evidence for the analysis of French phonology and comes quite close to a sociolinguistic analysis. It directly inspired at least three linguists to carry out sociolinguistic analyses of French pronunciation. Thus, we have quite comparable data on the phonemic contrasts /a—a/, /ε—ε:/, /έ"~οε/ in Martinet 1945, Reichstein 1960, and Deyhime 1967. Finally, Valdman (1974) evaluates the results of the earlier analyses. Reichstein (1960: 55) plans to

160

Beatriz R. Lavandera

[. ..] rechercher systematiquement les varietes de la prononciation parisienne [. . .] les fixer dans 1'espace, leur assigner une place dans le cadre social et donner un apergu de leur ampleur. She studies loss of opposition in French vowels. One interesting statement which is not followed up relates the expressive needs to phonetic changes (1960: 59): Les besoins que la langue sert ä exprimer changent, et ce changement influencera 1'evolution phonique ä travers les systemes morphologiques et lexicales. Reichstein employs a phonological questionnaire with the form: Prononcez-vous de fagon identique: [list of nine pairs follows]? The questions are presented in the form of short sentences like: "II marche ä quatre pattes / II mange des pätes", written on cards for the students to read. For each student she registers her own auditory impression and, immediately after that, the student's reaction as to whether both members of the pair have been pronounced identically (1960: 59-60). A richer corpus of data might have been used, but at least it was a wise decision to register both the students' subjective evaluation of their pronunciation and her own auditory impression. Another valuable aspect of her work lies in the possibility of comparing her data with Martinet's (1945). His subjects represent the generation of Parisians born between 1880 and 1920 (Martinet 1945: 22), while Reichstein's were born from 1940 to 1945. She is able to establish that the degree to which the oppositions are used diminished all along the line and to an enormous extent. For her social study she takes a series of factors: type of school, neighbourhood, position of the school in the neighbourhood, rural/Paris origin of the students, profession of the parents. She makes a series of remarks which indicate a clear perception of the role of linguistic differences in social organization, for example, group integration. Thus (1960: 73-74), Ainsi, la prononciation d'un arrondissement nous apparait comme une espece de "carte d'identite" que chaque intrus s'empresse d'obtenir comme moyen d'integration au groupe. [. . .] Mais les provinciaux se conforment aux habitudes linguistiques propres ä leur milieu parisien.

Sociolinguistics

161

In 1967 Deyhime also began a kind of continuation of Martinet's analysis carried out twenty years earlier, but he asserts that he paid more attention to establishing the facts as he found them than trying to trace an evolution. He mentions Reichstein's work on Paris, but he expected to find differences in different regions of France. Deyhime, like Martinet, used a questionnaire, but with the improvement that Martinet's was written, while Deyhime's was oral. He interviewed college students whose average age was twenty-three. He had about five hundred subjects, half men and half women, twenty of whom were from Africa. Martinet had homogenized his sample by taking French officers in a German prisoner-of-war camp. Deyhime did not use Labov's framework, but this is understandable if we consider that he was writing practically at the same time as Labov's (1966) dissertation was being published. He concludes, as any structural grammarian or linguistic geographer would, by establishing three systems: (1) non-southern French, (2) southern French, (3) Paris French. He adds another system for the Africans, "intermediate between that of non-southern France and southern France" (1967: 102). This is precisely the difference between his work and Labov's studies on sociolinguistic variation. Deyhime did not look for structure in heterogeneity, in variation, but instead set out to establish the boundaries which would allow him to narrow down 'dialects' with less internal variation than that which is found when French speech is taken as a whole. Reporting in an appendix on the differences in the data that can be correlated with the sex variable, Deyhime remarked that these were more noticeable in Africa than in metropolitan France, where none can be detected. The two studies to be discussed next, Lindenfeld 1969 and Robach 1974, depart from the ones just examined in that they constitute replications of Labov's and Bernstein's findings, which they try to verify with French data. Lindenfeld 1969, a short study of syntactic variation in French within the framework of transformational grammar, is intended to uncover the sociological and contextual factors which condition variation. Complexity of sentence structure is measured by transformations, and the summary which precedes the article states that (1969: 890) A clear correlation obtains between sociological variation (socioeconomic Class I/Class II), contextual variation (formal/informal

162

Beatriz R. Lavandera

situation) and syntactic variation (particularly in terms of nominalization). In the introduction Lindenfeld promises (1969: 891): The two hypotheses to be tested are as follows: (1) Our use of syntactic cues to categorize speakers in a given situation is based on the existence of covariation between syntactic structure and the speaker's social identity. (2) Our perception of speakers on the basis of syntactic cues is reinforced by a comparison of their respective performances in different social situations. There must therefore be covariation also between syntactic and sociocontextual structure. The latter hypothesis is based on the often-heard claim that higherclass speakers have a wider stylistic range than lower-class speakers. Of course, as she points out in the next sentence, the claim behind the second hypothesis comes from Bernstein's concepts of 'elaborated and restricted' codes. Of the three transformations she uses, subordination can be omitted from this discussion, since it does not show any correlations. The differences based on socioeconomic class for the other two transformations, relativization and nominalization, are not pronounced, and obtain only in the formal style. Since her informants were asked "to imagine themselves in two different types of situations, one formal and one informal, and to speak accordingly" (1969: 892), I do not hesitate to question her conclusions about the second hypothesis that "Class II speakers have a very narrow stylistic range" (896). Her informants from Class II may have found it difficult or even impossible to accommodate their speech to an imaginary situation, without this failure's proving anything. However, Fishman (1971: 267-68) in commenting on this work does not raise objections to the way the data were elicited. Lindenfeld's choice of transformations and furthermore of these specific transformations to measure syntactic complexity is not principled. She restricts relativization so that her definition "does not cover other types of operations that some linguists now put under the heading of relativization, such as the derivation of attributive adjectives, appositions, etc." (1969: 894). There is no reason to believe that the two transformations (relativization in a restricted sense and nominalization)

Sociolinguistics

163

are the best or even sufficient indices by which to measure syntactic complexity. (Her own example of relative proper, "The boy who told you this is a liar", does not seem very complex.) Is there any reason not to suspect that for those texts in which these two transformations did not reach a very high frequency other transformations may have applied, resulting in complex structures after all? The sample is very small: six residents of Paris and six residents of Rouen, all between twenty-two and thirty-six years of age, except for one sixty-three-year-old. Six of the informants are men and six are women (see pages 891-892 on the form of the sample). Lindenfeld herself acknowledges that "another limitation of this pilot study lies in the small size of the sample" (1969: 896), and the experiment can only be considered suggestive for either of the two hypotheses. Robach prefaces her study with three interesting questions (1974: 9): Par quels traits linguistiques se distinguent les individus provenant de differents milieux sociaux? Les variations dans la performance refletent-elles des variations dans la competence? Les differences dans le comportement verbal sont-elles Vindication qu'ily a aussi des differences dans la maniere de penser, de raisonner et de sentir? [Emphasis added, BRL] Robach makes five predictions as to social variations in the division of discourse into syntactic segments of different length (1974: 18). She expects to find variation in (1) the proportion of interjections, (2) the proportion of fragments of sentences to the sentences themselves (French phrase), (3) the proportion of incomplete sentences to complete sentences, (4) the proportion of correct sentences in relation to the total number of sentences, (5) the grammatical complexity of the sentence. Only the fifth prediction is fulfilled according to Robach. As to how she gathers the data, she depends exclusively on interviews, pointing out that "W. Labov, par exemple, utilise des interviews" (1974: 26). Also, in contrast with earlier experiences (Labov 1966; Lavandera 1975), she reports that it was people from the lower social classes who demonstrated less willingness to be interviewed (note that in these studies the informants are not paid). However, Robach hints that her exception-

164

Beatriz R. Lavandera

ally high number of refusals among the lower social classes is probably related to the verbal ability of the subjects. The whole paragraph deserves to be quoted (1974: 23): Le nombre des refus pose des problemes au point de vue de la representativite de Pechantillon interviewe, problemes d'autant plus importants que les refus ne sont pas egalement repartis entre les differentes categories. Us sont en effet beaucoup plus nombreux dans les couches sociales les moins aisees. Or, comme nous ne disposons pas de renseignements precis sur les motifs des refus, nous ne savons pas pourquoi ce sont surtout les personnes appartenant ä ces couches sociales qui ont refuse de se faire interviewer, ni si elles ont les memes motifs de ne pas accepter que les personnes appartenant ä d'autres couches sociales. On ne peut pas etre sür que cette reticence a se prefer a une interview soil sans rapport avec la faculte verbale des temoins. [Emphasis added, BRL] She realizes that this fact about the refusals is introducing some bias into her sample (1974: 23-24): On risque que les personnes interviewees ne soient pas representatives de leurs categories sociales au point de vue verbal, et ce risque augmente avec le nombre des refus. Ces risques sont cependant ä peu pres inevitables dans une enquete de ce genre. B. Loman et son equipe se sont heurtes aux memes difficultes lors de leurs enregistrements du suedois parle, ainsi que W. Labov dans ses etudes concernant l'anglais parle ä New York, bien que les refus dans ces deux cas n'aient pas ete aussi nombreux. Robach does not follow Labov in the form of the interview, since she does not attempt to establish different contexts of elicitation. She perceived, probably correctly, that different interviewees experienced the interview situation differently. To some it seemed informal, to others formal and constraining (1974: 30): Les personnes interviewees interpreted la situation d'interview differemment. Pour les uns eile est peut-etre familiere, pour les autres formelle et contraignante. La motivation des reponses aux questions peut egalement varier.

Sociolinguistics

165

Later in her study, however, she contradicts herself and argues that this was probably not the case (138): II est done vraisemblable que les variations constatees sont duesnon ä des differences dans la fagon d'interpreter la situation [of the interview] mais a des differences dans la faculte de s'exprimer. [Emphasis added, BRL] Two pages later (140) she concedes that II se peut aussi, comme je l'ai dit plus haut, que les differences soient dues ä des facteurs extralinguistiques, par exemple ä des differences dans 1'interet, dans la motivation et dans Vinterpretation de la situation. [Emphasis added, BRL] All this back and forth about the existence of factors which may be biasing the findings on differences in verbal ability seem to stem from Robach's a priori conviction that lower-class speakers are verbally less adept than those from the upper social levels. She is, however, not willing to leave herself open to criticism about her unawareness of the possible limitations of her data. The chapter on social stratification (Chapter 3) is a survey of the methods of sampling in other sociolinguistic studies. Here she includes Labov, Bernstein, Lawton, etc. Chapter 4, on methods of linguistic analysis, is weak. The following observation points to the type of problem which obscures her findings (1974: 65): Dans d'autres cas c'est seulement le contexte ou la prosodie qui indiquent si une phrase est achevee ou non. [...] Personne n'ignore que les gestes jouent un grand role dans le langage parle. Par consequent on ne peut pas etre sür que certaines phrases, classees comme inachevees n'aient pas etc achevees par des gestes [. . .] inevitables dans les etudes fondees sur des enregistrements magnetiques. The fact that what was predicted was not found, and that her criteria for deciding what to count and where are so uncertain, does not seem to discourage her. She evidently believes this research constitutes good, sound, empirical evidence for Bernstein's theory. Let me conclude the survey of this group of studies with some remarks on Valdman's review of Martinet 1945 and of his article (1974), which incidentally show considerable overlap. Valdman takes the sociolinguis-

166

Beatriz R. Lavandera

tic model as stated by Labov as the point of departure for an examination of some of the analyses of French we have just reviewed here. He is well aware that Labov's analysis constrains the type of data relevant to the theory (1974: 379): Labov's description of the mechanism of linguistic change and the embedding of linguistic variables in social behavior sets certain constraints on the type of data that can serve as the input to genuinely empirical phonological descriptions. First, the phonologist must deal with overt behavior rather than speakers' intuitions. Second, the samples collected must represent the speaker's total stylistic range and must consist of connected discourse as well as isolated forms. Third, observations must be made of speakers engaged in normal verbal communication in natural settings and, ideally, without their being aware that they are systematically observed. Fourth, in order that the distribution and rate of transmission of a linguistic variable be quantifiable, observations must be made on statistically reliable groups of representive speakers. Fifth, since linguistic indicators are specific to certain groups, the social characteristics of speakers (age, geographical provenience, social status or socioeconomic class) must be carefully noted and controlled. Finally, so that the sociolinguistic function of a linguistic variable may be determined, viz. whether it is an indicator or a marker, it must be subjected to the test of stylistic shift by conscious manipulation on the part of the observer of the social context of the speech act. He then summarizes his own research, which seems to be a close application of Labov 1966. He distinguishes, for example, five situational contexts and even asks the danger-of-death question (Labov 1966: 595). The passage quoted above shows that Valdman interprets correctly the relevance of the data on stylistic shift. This was in fact Labov's main finding in 1966. What is significant is not that dialects can be isolated to correspond to social class, nor that style varies according to the formality of a given situation, but precisely that the direction of stylistic shift for the different social classes shows that they share a norm, and that it is that which makes them members of the same speech community.26 Leon (1972-73) describes a situation in Touraine, where nine of the one hundred and thirteen inhabitants have acquired a Parisian accent, emulating the speech of a young Parisian worker who arrived in Touraine

Sociolinguistics

167

some years earlier and enjoys marked prestige among the young people. Leon identifies the main features of the Parisian worker's accent: (1) general lenition of the intervocalic consonants, (2) posteriorization, (3) pharyngeal R, (4) stress on the penultimate syllable. He also isolates the external factors which reinforce adoption of this accent: belonging to the working class, embracing a leftist ideology, situations of superiority (for example, a man addressing a woman), etc. Leon claims that there is a close relationship between linguistic patterns and social patterns, and he is able to distinguish between conservative forces (women and peasants) and dynamic elements (young people, workers). The main theoretical issue Leon is investigating is, however, illustrated in the following question (704): "[. . .] pourrait-on imaginer que les gens du seizieme [in Paris] parlent avec l'accent faubourien et ceux des faubourgs avec l'accent du seizieme?" The implication is that this is inconceivable. The following quote by the Hungarian linguist Ivan Fonagy (1971b: 78) may help to place Leon's work in the proper perspective: Le principe de l'arbitraire distingue la langue de la communication animale. Ce qui distingue cependant toute langue naturelle, et surtout le langage sonore, des sytemes de communication artificielle, tel que l'ALGOL, est plutöt l'integration de la communication arbitraire. Le principe de l'arbitraire n'est qu'imparfaitement realise dans le langage humain. C'est en vertu de cette imperfection que le langage sonore repond si parfaitement ä nos exigences multiples et contradictoires. In this particular situation the question takes the form of asking why the workers in the village feel attracted by the Parisian accent. The explanation is located at the 'unconscious' level; this accent would thus be a manifestation of a more general paralinguistic pattern. On page 787 Leon interprets as follows the four features identified among the nine Touraine speakers as adoptions of the Parisian working class accent: (1) 'Tarticulation relächee" is a characteristic of people "qui se soucient peu de communiquer avec autrui"; (2) posteriorization signals "par metaphore directe une attitude resolument vulgaire, et par metaphore indirecte (voix grave) un effort pour faire masculin"; (3) pharyngealization of R "suggere le rejet de Pautre"; and (4) the pattern of penultimate stress, "C'est la metaphore de la gouaille et de l'exageration". Accent is tenta-

168

Beatriz R. Lavandera

lively approached for study as a sociolinguistic metaphor. Leon suggests that Mettas' work (1969, 1971) can be interpreted in the same light. Mettas' experiment consisted of an acoustic analysis of isolated declarative sentences, recorded on tape, plus some sentences taken from recorded natural conversations. The first set of sentences was read by subjects born in Paris, of Parisian families, thirty to fifty years old, lifelong residents of elegant neighbourhoods. She finds differences in the duration of consonants in stressed syllables, both subjective and confirmed by acoustic analysis, and defines these long consonants as "stylistic variants" adopted by those who want to give their habitual speech a flair of "distinction". She suggests that this form of speech reflects the influence of an English model: [a] —> [a:] as in Received Pronunciation car, march. Leon returns to her data to suggest that this extension of a snobbish accent in the "seizieme arrondissement" which Mettas reports would not have taken place if these phonic realizations had not suited the speakers' expressive needs in some particular way. I do not find that definite proof has been presented for anything. However, these hypotheses are appealing, and there are now efficient sociolinguistic techniques available to test them (see also Leon 1970, 1971). I will now briefly examine the studies of Occitan, a Romance variety spoken in the south of France (also in Val d'Aran in Spain and the Piedmont highlands of Italy). For the boundaries of Occitan, see Lafont 1971a as well as Ronjat 1930-38. Within the dialectal configuration of Occitania, Lafont (197la) distinguishes three groups: 'southern', 'northern Occitan', and 'Gascon'. The situation Lafont reports for the present (1971b) is an almost complete disappearance of Occitan monolingualism. It is being replaced by a majoritarian French monolingualism in the urban centres and a complex diglossia in both rural and urban areas. The complexity of the diglossia situation derives, among other things, from the existence of a written register of Occitan: "La situation de diglossie occitane [.. .] se complete par une situation de digraphie" (1971b: 93). In spite of its written form, Occitan is considered a language inadequate for most uses and restricted both in its spoken and written forms to informal contexts. Lafont diagnoses, mainly for women, a feeling of guilt that manifests itself in the absence of information on the limits of the language (Vallverdu attributes its gradual disappearance to fragmentation, 1973: 43) and in a divided perception of it as always being an alien form of speech, called 'provengal'

Sociolinguistics

169

or 'gascon' when applied to the speech of outsiders, but identified simply as 'patois' by those who speak it. Nevertheless Lafont thinks he can detect signs of a revival which aims at freeing "une parole condamnee socialement" (1971b: 99). The subject is clearly within the domain of sociolinguistics, but there has not been enough work conducted with adequate concepts and methods to provide solid data. Schlieben-Lange (197la) starts by listing some studies: Brun (1923), who describes the situation forty years earlier, and the sociological notes of F. P. Kirsch (l 965) and Tabouret-Keller (1964). She largely dismisses these studies when she says that all of them "ne donnent que des apergus sur la fa?on dont devrait se faire une [. . .] etude sociologique" (1971a: 299). Schlieben-Lange undertakes a comparison of the Occitan and Catalan situations. The list of traits of the Occitan situation includes (a) a generalized bilingualism, while certain 'domains' are exclusively French; (b) the awareness of belonging to a linguistic community, together with a marked fragmentation, both already mentioned above. She agrees with Lafont when she says: "C'est tres rare de rencontrer des sujets parlants qui se declarent occitan" (1971a: 301); and (c) a feeling of inferiority vis-ä-vis the official language. At least in this study, as well as in 1971b, Schlieben-Lange does not come up with a sociolinguistic analysis of the situation, but seems satisfied with the attempt to locate the problem within that kind of framework. Given such an approach, three questions should be answered for Occitan: which are the codes that coexist within the same linguistic community? what is the linguistic behavior of the different social groups (in what Badia Margarit 1969 identified as a "situation pathologique")? and finally, following Fishman, Labov, and Ferguson, what are the precise ideological elements underlying this "conscience linguistique" and conditioning the linguistic identification of the individual with a linguistic community (1971a: 302)? It must by now have been made clear that these and similar studies on Occitan (see Weil 1972) are not an indication of activity in sociolinguistics in the French context, but I have spent this much time on them in order to communicate the firm belief, also expressed in Schlieben-Lange, that Occitan ought to be added to the subjects of sociolinguistic research as a source of data which may help extend and challenge existing theories. It will also fit in very neatly with general questions and issues arising from

170

Beatrix R. Lavandera

all those Romance dialects and languages which are under some kind of negative pressure: Spanish in the Caribbean, Catalan in Spain and the Rosello, etc. (Vallverdu 1973:43 compares Catalan with Occitan; he also uses criteria of predominance to compare Barcelona with Rosello Catalan, Canadian French, and Judeo-Spanish 1973:49.) Eventually all these studies should be examined on a world-wide basis within the framework of languages which have to compete with different national languages. To complete this portion of the survey, the best work I can recommend is Tabouret-Keller's thoughtful and careful discussion of French research on this issue produced between 1945 and 1973 (1975). Tabouret-Keller introduces her review with some general remarks in which she distinguishes between studies concerned with the internal relationship between certain dialectal forms of speech and French, and those concerned with the survival of French in the face of a world-wide advance of English. For the first problem she studies the Occitan and Alsatian situations separately. For Occitan she shares Lafont's view that this is a case of diglossia without bilingualism. Most of the work she mentions for Alsatian will not be reviewed here, since it responds mainly to psycho-pedagogic concerns, including some of Tabouret-Keller's own production. She also refers to Philipp's (1965) study and evaluates it as containing "un chapitre fondamental pour l'etude des processus de contact au niveau de la deuxieme articulation" (1975:127). There is also an extensive passage on the use of sociolinguistic survey techniques in collaboration with R. B. Le Page. I shall pass over the remaining sections: "La defense du Frangais" (128-130), "Le Frangais dans les pays ex-coloniaux" (130-131), "Afrique du Nord" (131), and "Enseignement bilingue precoce" (131-132) because they are not sociolinguistic but pedagogical at different levels. Tabouret-Keller herself decides to exclude the problems of plurilingualism in relation to the status of French outside France (Belgium, Canada, Val d'Aoste, etc.). Her bibliography corresponds to the copious references throughout the article. 5.2.2.2 Spain Spain also shows a tradition of analysis using extralinguistic factors in explanations, and Spanish linguists have worked mainly in philology and dialectology without keeping language strictly apart from culture, linguistics from literature, philology from history. Nevertheless, some of Spain's dialectologists recently perceived that in their work on dialect geography

Sociolinguistics

171

they could make good use of at least some of what American sociolinguistics has to offer, without abandoning their own working tradition, their erudition, and their long experience (Alvar 1966, 1971a, 1971b, 1971c, 1972). Diego Catalan, in his brilliant survey of Ibero-Romance (1972) offers an interesting case in point, because although he shows a decidedly positive attitude towards Sociolinguistics, he nevertheless does not go so far as to recognize it as a proposal essentially different from traditional dialectological work. In Alvar's view, Sociolinguistics is not a sequel to generative grammar, nor has it a mentalistic aspect (see C.-J. Bailey's notion of conceptualism, 1971), nor is formalization really important. For him it is an improvement only on old methods, not on theoretical standpoints. However, his sociolinguistic work constitutes a step forward in the knowledge of Romance languages, and the research he performed under this label is superior to what he could have achieved within a purely dialectological framework. I will discuss Gonzalez Olle 1964 as an example of the kind of Spanish dialectological work which comes really close to the methodological issues raised by a more directly sociolinguistic approach. Gonzalez Olle describes the speech of the province of Burgos. He reports that the most characteristic linguistic features of the area (phonetic, morphological, and lexical) are seldom found among those belonging to the under-forty group, and he attributes this fact to contact with the modern mass media and to increased frequency of travel (1964: 23). He offers a linguistic evaluation of the speakers and describes a series of phenomena of sociolinguistic concern: the lack of innovations, evaluative judgments of speech volunteered by the informants such as mas brusco 'more brusque', mas decente 'more decent', los de Ρόζα de la Sal hablan muy mal 'those who are from Poza de la Sal speak very badly', etc. (1964: 24). As to the methodological aspects ot the study, certain details deserve mention: the area was chosen because of Gonzalez Olle's awareness that the province of Burgos lacks linguistic uniformity, in spite of its historical cohesion. The choice was also dependent on an exploratory examination of the historical, social, and geographic conditions (1964: 19). The data were gathered in 1960 in the best tradition of dialectological work: "recorri a pie toda la zona". There is a list of all the points at which he applied his questionnaire. In five places he stayed longer than a day.

172

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Conversation, the ALPI (Atlas lingüistico de la Peninsula Iberica) questionnaire, and participant observation were used complementarity (1964: 22): [. . .] ademäs pude mezclarme y convivir con diverses grupos de gentes en faenas agricolas, tabernas, etc. para obtener una informacion mäs directa y espontänea. Frequent brief remarks prove Gonzalez Olle's sensitivity to the problems of data-gathering; for example, he says he usually applied the questionnaire to a subject in the presence of others, since experience had taught him that this reinforces the objectivity and precision of the information. Even if he had been wrong in his judgment, an issue subject to empirical testing, his thinking would still show his awareness of the kind of consideration required by this sort of field work. Gonzalez Olle heads only one of the sections of his book "Sociologia Linguistica". In it he establishes the existence of two generations of speakers, with a transitional age group in their forties. As I said above, it is only by way of example that I focus on Gonzalez Olle; there are other dialectological studies in the Spanish tradition which display similar merits. All studies of this kind are relevant as tokens of the very good work produced in Spain independently of the sociolinguistic movement, work done in a tradition which should be preserved even when the new model is adopted. 5.2.2.3 The Catalan area Within the geographical area of Spain, the literature available on the analysis of the Catalan situation is quite different in character. It reveals a significant influence exerted by the American model and its main concepts, as well as by some European proposals such as those of Bernstein, Halliday, Cohen, Rossi-Landi, et. Badia Margarif s work shows him to be a linguist of outstanding training, probably the most independent of Catalan linguists. Some of his earlier studies, clearly not sociolinguistic, were already relevant to this field because of their richness in observations that pointed toward theoretical consequences. One example is the analysis carried out together with Cardus de Badia of a purely linguistic fact, the use and knowledge in Barcelona Catalan of the simple preterite. They report (1969: 297-298):

Sociolinguistics

173

[. . .] es entes sempre (sigui llegit, sigui sentit); es bastant emprat en la modalitat escrita (ädhuc no literaria, familiar, etc.); manca d'us espontani parlat; apareix sovint, en la modalitat oral, dins una rica gamma d'usos, fossilitzats pero vius (dins els quals no solament es entes, com sempre, sino que hies repeat conscientment). Sembla que no podem dir, doncs, que no existeixi. I be, si existeix, aixö vol dir que forma part del sistema verbal catalä y barceloni que es classificable dins el conjunt de formes de que es compon el dit sistema. Tenim proves que la gent el sabria conjugar. On the basis of his Catalan evidence, Badia Margarit has also written some specifically theoretical pieces which are of interest to sociolinguists. In Badia Margarit 1962, he differentiates between natural and environmental bilingualism. Natural bilingualism, he explains, has its origin in the advent of mass immigration, while environmental bilingualism results from a political fact: e.g. the status of Catalan as a minority language which is subject to the influence of Spanish. However, to back up this distinction, Badia Margarit does not employ any sophisticated sociolinguistic methods; instead his evidence stems directly from personal observations made over the course of fifteen years (1962: 370). His more recent contribution (1969) comes closer to the field we are surveying, at least to its sociological trend. No explicit relationship with either the American or English sociology of language is acknowledged. Badia Margarit took a genuinely personal approach to a question which intrigued him. Of course he was familiar with sociological survey questionnaires, but the design of the project, with no pretence at sophistication, was totally his own. He describes findings obtained by using a survey questionnaire which was applied by mail in Barcelona to 21,550 subjects. There were two hundred and twenty-four oral administrations of this same questionnaire. Badia Margarit's interest in studying the Barcelona situation is to establish the position of Catalans toward their own Iangauge. He also wants to sensitize Catalans and non-Catalans in Barcelona to the psychological fact that there are two languages coexisting within the same individual and the sociological fact that there are two languages coexisting in the same society (1969: 30). The first section of the book is an in-depth report on all the details relevant to the conduct of the survey, while the second section introduces part of the interpretation of the data. A second volume which will

174

Beatriz R. Lavandera

complete the interpretation has been promised. Although the character of the data is limited by the tool employed, it is also true that a survey questionnaire with thirty-five questions to be answered either in Catalan or in Castilian constitutes a simple procedure which has the advantage of making it possible to gather relatively quickly and with quite modest resources the opinions of a large number of informants. Some bias may have been introduced by the high percentage of refusals, but I still welcome this titanic piece of work as a fruitful initiation of studies in this area. The research is liable, in my judgment, to far more general reservations regarding the above-questioned reliability of using questionnaires alone to elicit language attitudes and language use. (On this see Lavandera 1974 in the review of Wainerman 1972; also see Agheyisi - Fishman 1970.) The Catalan situation, even more than the Occitan situtation, is too close to many people's personal feelings and political passions to make discussions free of emotional overtones possible. Also, the problem is more likely to be attractive to sociologists and political ideologists than to linguists. Elsewhere, I have reviewed Ninyoles 1972 and Vallverdu 1972. Both authors have written other books and articles on related problems, all of them within the same type of approach (Vallverdu 1970, 1971, 1973; Ninyoles 1969, 1971; see also Aracil 1966, 1968). 5.2.2.4 Italy Värvaro, who recently published an excellent two part article on history of language as a controversial category, responded in 1974 to an inquiry of mine about the state of sociolinguistics in his country by saying: "La demanda ehe lei me pone e un poco imbarazzante, propio perche gli studi di sociolinguistica romanza sono appena all'inizio." A careful examination of sociolinguistic activity in the past ten to fifteen years in Italy confirms Värvaro's view. However, it must be pointed out that although Italian sociolinguistics is just at its inception, there are signs of interest and there is already some production which will almost certainly stimulate further research. We must distinguish between at least two separate types of Italian sociolinguistic work. The first type comes from a group of Marxistoriented thinkers who have given much thought to the relationship of language and society. They are very well aware of what American sociolinguistics is, they claim to understand how its methodology has

Sociolinguistics

175

arisen and what it implies, but they themselves refuse to adopt imported models based on an ideology to which they are opposed. The leader of this group, Ferruccio Rossi-Landi, has produced an extremely copious bibliography, covering philosophy, politics, and semiology, among other areas. He has gained disciples in Italy (Ponzio 1970, 1973), and his influence extends beyond Italy (see Vallverdu's work in general). RossiLandi and his followers emphasize the need to explore the ideology behind all linguistic theories and all decisions concerning language problems. But while they reject the methods developed in the United States, for example 'correlational linguistics', they have not yet offered any alternate methodology for linguistic analysis. By methodology I mean conceptual tools and a definite set of routines which the analyst can apply to linguistic data in order to learn something about a particular language and about language in general. It can be said, however, that they do provide a methodological orientation, for the science in general and for the way linguistic theories ought to be approached. In any case, this school of thought affects the conception Italians have of sociolinguistics.27 Italian linguists have the other alternative of seeing sociolinguistics as many other Europeans do, as a fruitful extension of 'geolinguistics' or dialectology (Grassi, Pautasso, et al.). These Italian dialectologists have been quite ready to adopt the problematics and some of the techniques of American sociolinguistics, but only as working procedures within the dialectological tradition. The theoretical framework of these studies remains essentially unchanged; the only addition is stress on the sociological dimensions which help describe a linguistic structure. The Italian dialectological branch of sociolinguistics is the one which has produced empirically based research, but it also includes some theoretical forays into definition and evaluation of the scope of the discipline. Corrado Grassi, a student of Terracini's (who was also interested in problems such as the disappearance of languages, see Terracini 1957) has published two articles (1964, 1965) in which he discusses the relationship, within the framework of a linguistic description, between social phenomena and linguistic data. Grassi does not attempt to develop a new methodology but deals instead with some issues relevant to an analysis of language in context. Thus, in the 1965 article (also part of a polemic with Tullio de Mauro) he deals with the city as a factor in sociolinguistic processes (compare Alvar 1973: "La ciudad como estructura sociolingüistica", 79-89).

176

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Two other Italian scholars who have discussed the general aims and methods of sociolinguistics are Cortelazzo (1969) and Giglioli (1968). Both demonstrate a thorough acquaintance with the American proposals, the relevant European theoreticians like Cohen, and the oftquoted pioneers, Firth, Meillet, et al. Cortelazzo describes his study (1969) as a sort of appendix to Carlo Tagliavini's thesis Le origine delle lingue neolatine (1946). In the first volume, Cortelazzo presents the history of Italian dialectology; Chapter V deals with "Dialettologia sociologica", Chapter VI with "Dialetto e societä in Italia", and Chapter VII with "Dialettologia culturale"; these are the portions of the book most closely related to sociolinguistics. Cortelazzo locates the origin of sociolinguistics in the United States (1969: 139), while recognizing a strong inclination to that sort of approach in France. He also defends the linguistic geographers against the accusation of having disregarded the social context of dialects (141). As for himself, he does not feel totally at ease with what he sees as the over-simplifying statistical-sociological American style (144, fn. 191). He engages in a lengthy discussion of methods, which covers "observations", "settings", "interrogatories", Labov's different techniques of sampling, Gumperz's networks, and Fishman's typology of possible situations. The chapter on urban dialectology examines the issue of linguistic change, reproducing Fodor's list of factors (1965: 12-13). As to Labov's distinction between changes from above and changes from below, Cortelazzo attributes the change from below to the "inconscio" which he sees as characteristic of all the strata in which the cultural factor does not intervene. He refers to a "dinamica inconscia del processo linguistico" (1969: 157). One practical contribution which is very welcome is his survey of linguistic congresses from 1931 to 1968 in which he examines the place given to the dyad "dialect-society" (160-162, section 26). Giglioli 1968 concentrates even less on Italian research, but this can be taken as evidence of the gradual spread of American sociolinguistics in Italy, which Giglioli himself is in fact promoting actively by publishing the introduction and article in the special issue of the Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia (1968) and by editing a sociolinguistic reader in Italian (1973). For this 1968 issue of the Rassegna, completely given over to sociolinguistics, Giglioli reviews the sociolinguistic research conducted in the United States. It is the work of a sociologist, but done with an

Sociolinguistics

177

open-minded approach which makes it equally useful to linguists and psychologists. His first remarks in the introduction aim at countering the suspicion that Italy would not be a good receptor for a sociolinguistic discipline (1968: 191): Da qualque anni a questa parte, il rapporto tra linguaggio e scienze umane e divenuto un tema largamente discusso negli ambienti culturali italiani. But it is important to note that he agrees with Varvaro and Cortelazzo in reporting an almost total lack of serious empirical research (1968: 191). I concur entirely with his choice of the two most distinctive new features of the sociolinguistic approach: the interest in linguistic variation and the stress on the multiple functions of language aside from the referential ("cognitive") one. He opposes those foci of study which grew out of the emphasis in previous linguistic theory on analysis of homogeneous linguistic structures: that theirs presupposed a unique and homogeneous community of users and a single referential function. Among Italian essays on the general orientation and concrete aims of sociolinguistics we can probably place a rather curious essay by Pellizzi (1969a). He accurately summarizes the central argument of his article as the contention "That a broader philosophical outlook is required for sociolinguistics, especially if any form of macro-sociolinguistics is to be attempted" (1969a: 41). What makes this 'review' somewhat unusual is that the discussion goes all the way back to Locke and Vico. By the end of the article Pellizzi wonders whether some readers may not find his comments "superflue oestranee alia sociolinguistica" (1969a: 41). But aside from his epistemological notes (see also Pellizzi 1969b), Pellizzi has definitely helped to advance the development of sociolinguistics in Italy. It was his initiative to organize the International Days of Sociolinguistics held in 1969 at the Istituto Luigi Sturzo in Rome. From the published Proceedings of these meetings we can see that the second section was devoted to Italian contributions to sociolinguistics. In the first section, which was of a more general nature, with papers on the relationship between linguistics and sociology (Pagliaro, 13-34) and on general issues such as functions of speech (Hymes, 111-144), we also find some papers by Italian scholars: Pellizzi (53-75) and Devoto (299-305). The third

178

Beatriz R. Lavandera

part of the Proceedings contains papers which cover a variety of linguistic situations or discuss specific issues. Before focusing attention on Part Two of this volume, we should mention Denison's contribution, included in the first part (255-275). It is basically a very clever review of the ideas developed mainly in the United States on the problems of bilingualism. Denison also offers his own theoretical proposals. The paper's main contribution from the point of view of this survey is that Denison cites as an example of his own work in the village of Sauris in northeast Italy (further described in Denison 1968, 1971). Three different languages are used in Sauris, the choice of language varying according to the situation and the participants in the speech event. Denison's findings will be of significance to theoretical linguistics, language teaching, social anthropology, and psychology. Denison places his observations within a ''parole-based, or parolebiased framework" and refers to Hymes (1964).28 He is mainly interested in the idea of 'register' in monoglot studies and justifies his choice of a trilingual community as follows (1968: 582): In plurilingual communities [. . .] language-switch can be (relatively) unequivocally determined, since it is observable independently of variation in the associated situation. One may then look for correlations between language and situation-category. These, in turn, provide clues as to the kind of correlations to expect between register and situation in monoglot communities (though the precise number and the functions of the diatypes must of course be established for each community in its own right). The languages involved are a dialect of Italian, a Carnian variety of Friulian, and an Austro-Bavarian dialect of German. Denison's main thesis in this paper (which he promises to expand and develop in a longer study) is that (1968: 585): For Sauris we have to see the three languages as constituting, for community-internal purposes, one super-code, as it were. The choice of one of them as macro-textual vehicle for the linguistic component of a communicative event is like the selection in a monoglot community of register at the earliest degree of delicacy. Denison provides for Sauris what he calls (584)

Sociolinguistics

179

[. . .] a very tentative hierarchy of situational factors in descending order of correlation with language-selection: 1. Degree of formality of the occasion. [. . .] 2. Degree of spontaneity of the text. [. . .] 3. Linguistic equipment of sender. 4. Linguistic equipment of receiver. 5. Assumed or known equipment or preference of passive participant. 6. Assumed or known habitual preference of receiver, if any. 7. Any habitual preference of sender. 8. Age-status of sender and receiver. [. . .] 9. Sex of participants. [. . .] 10. Topic. [. . .] Clearly each of these factors is very distinct in character, yet Denison provides no evidence of the observations on which he bases either his choice or his particular ranking. But this reservation of mine does not imply doubt as to the value of his study, which is one of the very few which offers recorded transcriptions of natural speech, including a fragment of conversation with numerous forms of switching among the three languages (1968: 586), analysed both lexically and grammatically by Denison. He also interprets the data in terms of the closeness of the relationships between participants, the topic, functions of marking, and village identity.29 The Italian contributions to the meeting in Rome touch on diverse subjects; there are general considerations of the state of Sociolinguistics and its relationship to other disciplines, some papers on content analysis, and one paper which is pedagogically oriented (Parisi, 565-578). The Bolzano group presented a paper on the perception of the problem of bilingualism by the political and youth elites. The research model is extremely simple, calling chiefly for use of a questionnaire. The interpretation, sociological and not linguistic, makes sense, even if the study is still largely exploratory and the findings tentative. Di Maria's contribution falls within the empirical research on the measurement of meaning by the mathematical-statistical method of semantic differentiation. The hypothesis that "political conviction influences the meaning of a concept expressed by a word" (472) is consistent with the results obtained. The analysis is not exhaustive enough for Di

180

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Maria's claim that the results confirm the hypothesis. The study employed twenty-six university students as subjects, all males, between nineteen and twenty-six years old. Ten word-stimuli and ten pairs of polar terms were used. It is difficult to decide whether this kind of experiment can be considered sociolinguistic, but we do find interpretation of linguistic data and some attention paid to questions of language usage. We return once more to Grassi, this time to his report on a small-scale research project, carried out in the Italian communities of the Quargnasca Valley by thirty of his students in Italian dialectology (1969: 543-554). Grassi sets out to investigate "the possibility of utilizing the linguistic datum as an element of knowledge which can be made use of, for operative purposes, by whoever is in charge of the organization of the territory of a given region" (1969: 549), i.e. he is interested in the use of these data "for the formulation of a plan of regional development" (550). The regional problem in this case has to do with trying to foresee what consequences the construction of a super-highway might have for the population of the Quargnasca Valley. The sociolinguistic aim was to individualize "the sociolinguistic dynamics which at present characterize the communities of the Quargnasca Valley" (1969: 551). The results of the sociolinguistic investigation are intended to be compared with socioeconomic findings. Probably because of time limitations at the Rome meeting, the stage of data-gathering is described very briefly in this paper. Questionnaires were used and the results transferred to linguistic charts, "especially designed and illustrated" (1969: 551). The sociolinguistic distinctions are based on lexical and phonetic traits; they would have been easier to understand with a map of the area. Grassi interprets the comparison of his sociolinguistic findings with the socioeconomic analysis of the area and arrives at some challenging observations as to the kind of knowledge that can be derived from sociolinguistic data. On the one hand, "the sociolinguistic datum, documenting the consequences of the successive economic and social transformations on the links between the various communities which compose the region, gives, more than any other types of investigation, an 'historic' justification of the socioeconomic dynamisms, which at present characterize the region itself" (1969: 553). Why this should be so is convincingly discussed, but what Grassi wants to stress is that "the sociolinguistic analysis does not permit us to extrapolate a long-term forecast from the actual

Sociolinguistics

181

dialect situation" (1969: 554), whereas the socioeconomic analysis does allow this. Along this same dialectological-sociolinguistic line, another very good piece of research is Pautasso 1969. We infer some familiarity with the American model from the fact that in the section of her bibiliography headed "Linguistic sociology research" she includes the Bright (1966) and Fishman (1968) readers, along with Cohen and Grassi. Her own paper clearly provides another instance of a sociolinguistic study in which description of the linguistic facts is intended to illuminate a sociological problem. Such studies are the counterpart of sociolinguistic studies in which sociological and cultural information is employed to achieve more accurate linguistic description.·''0 Pautasso's linguistic analysis rests on the assumption that the processes of cultural and linguistic integration run parallel (1969: 63). She wants to determine whether the cultural pluralism which has been observed so far will remain constant or whether it will be overcome by a new phase of complete integration. She believes that if linguistic examination allows her to foresee what language all the inhabitants of Pettinengo will eventually speak, she will then have proof of future cultural uniformity (1969: 91). Methodologically Pautasso is mainly attempting to show how linguistic analysis can be an instrument of sociological or anthropological analysis. As to the linguistic analysis itself, Pautasso describes the phonetic and lexical characteristics of the Italian commonly spoken in Biellese and Pettinengo. Her purpose is to determine the position of the Pettinengo variety within the Piedmontese linguistic area in general and particularly within Biellese speech. The general conclusion (1969: 105-107) is that standard Italian is gaining strength among immigrants as well as natives. The Pettinengo variety presents a relatively marked lexical and phonetic unity (1969: 41), within which Pautasso is able to locate a number of phenomena that reveal a continuing evolution (1969: 44). Pautasso's study includes observations on language attitudes with respect to the dialect and Italian. She also discusses the effect which the dialect and attitudes toward it have on the process of learning Italian (1969: 105). She observes that the attitudes differ for different age groups. She also explores the 'domains' for the use of dialects and Italian. Finally, she cites her experience with several questionnaires: a dialectological one, a sociological one, and a sociolinguistic one, all of which are reproduced as appendices. She discusses her decision to employ this tool

182

Beatriz R. Lavandera

and seems to be aware of the problems involved. She uses the same informants for the linguistic and the sociological questionnaire, and this strategy is also expressly justified (1969: 74). The fuzziness of the boundaries between sociolinguistics and dialectology in Italian scholarship makes it almost impossible to treat Italian sociolinguistics exhaustively. I would not want to conclude my discussion of Italian contributions before mentioning the volume edited by Pellegrini, Cortelazzo, and Grassi, containing the proceedings from a meeting on bilingualism and diglossia in Italy (1974). Although the papers describe dialectological studies on these subjects, the first page of the first article, by Martin Camaj, points out that the authors incorporate "i nuovi metodi della moderna linguistica" (1974: 5). One of these articles can be especially singled out as 'sociolinguistics' (and it even uses the term in the title): Francescato's sociolinguistic investigation of the bilingual situation in Italy and the 'Friuli' (84-90). To him the novelty of the sociolinguistic approach consists in its double aspect, linguistic and sociological. He sees the sociolinguistic approach as uniquely suited to capturing the social implications that emerge from bilingualism. Using the new perspective, he takes up an old problem, that of 'dialectical bilingualism', that is, the fact that a majority of speakers first learn to speak a 'dialect' and only later, a 'language'. In countries like Italy this pattern constitutes the rule. Although Francescato correctly identifies this situation as bilingualism, he is not prepared to abandon a distinction between a bilingual situation involving a dialect and 'its' language from cases of strict bilingualism involving two different languages. Francescato finds that the first case is appropriately captured by Ferguson's concept of 'diglossia'/11 Francescato's use of the term diglossia allows him to select certain Italian linguistic situations which would qualify as 'diglossic', taking Italian as the national language representing "1'elaborazione privilegiata [...] di un mezzo di comunicazione linguistica sostanzialmente affina alia parlata ehe essi apprendono inizialmente" (1974:85). But this characterization cannot be extended to all situations. Thus, in the areas called 'ladine', while Ml Friuli' accepts the Italian language — Francescato points out, nevertheless, that some speakers object to considering Friulian a dialect — in the Dolomite area there is a more or less explicit acceptance of German linguistic-cultural superiority (1974: 85). The situation is further complicated by the co-occurrence in these areas of the Venetian

Sociolinguistics

183

dialect, which does lead to cases of true 'plurilingualism'. At this point Francescato insists that it is necessary to undertake the analysis of all of these situations "alia luce di precisi criteri di carattere sociolinguistico" (1974:86). The rest of the paper becomes a compelling research proposal for the region Friuli-Venice-Giulia. Francescato points out all the complicating factors which add up to Bernstein's distinction between 'elaborated and restricted codes', and refers to, as an example of studies which have already provided useful information, a review by Denison (1968), on which I commented earlier in this section. He sees Denison's study as being largely tradition-oriented, but detects "un notevole passo avanti" (1974: 83) in Denison's opportune application of sociolinguistic discoveries. What he himself recommends, however, is macro-research, wherein the dialectological and sociolinguistic approaches are described as complementary (1974: 89-90). Recognition of the fact that Italy is a bilingual country is accompanied by a measure of regret that sociolinguistic proposals have not as yet received a good enough response in Italy. It is evident that Francescato's presentation at this congress was intended as an empirically based appeal for moving from orthodox, traditional dialectological analysis to a new type of dialectology enriched by the application of the sociolinguistic models. Italian receptivity to sociolinguistic work is clearly propitious. Because of the existence of a solid tradition of dialectological work on similar problems, however, introduction to the new approach has not yet produced any significant body of research. I actually find the situation extremely encouraging, since the sort of blind enthusiasm which would have led to rejection of a tried and true methodology would have meant a regrettable and damaging loss. 5.3 Latin America Scholars in some Latin American countries have accepted the sociolinguistic model more wholeheartedly than most Europeans. However, this is probably not due to a reaction against a specific linguistic tradition, as it seems to have been in the United States, but rather due to a very special economic and political situation which makes Latin America an exceptionally fertile field for any discipline which promises to be in some way relevant to social reality. There seems to be a contradiction between the rapid acceptance and

184

Beatrix R. Lavandera

popularity enjoyed by sociolinguistics in Latin American countries and the paucity of sociolinguistic research (similar however to the state of sociolinguistics in the whole Romance field). I have accounted elsewhere for this apparent paradox as the kind of imbalance between popularity and actual practice one can expect to find whenever a model or an area of research does not arise in situ as the result of the accumulation of individual contributions, but is imported as already fashionable (Lavandera 1974). Giglioli (1968: 191) describes the Italian reaction in quite similar terms: Purtroppo, come setnbra inevitabile nel caso dell'introduzione di nuovi "paradigmi epislemologici" in una situazione culturale come quella italiana e divenuto troppo facilmente un argomento alia moda, con tutte le limitazioni ehe tale fenomeno comporta: tendenza a discutere piü a livello metafisico ehe metodologica, frettolositä di giudizi, frequenti dimostrazioni di dilettantismo e, supratutto, una quasi mancanza di serie ricerche empiriche. [Emphasis added, BRL] Another important factor in the development of sociolinguistics in Latin America is the close dependence on the United States, which has led to considerable direct exposure to the theory and its methodology as formulated in the United States. Quite a few Latin American linguists were trained in the United States, and they have come to think of sociolinguistics as the best available model (to the extent to which it is based on empirical observations subject to verification), a model which allows for statements of language as used by human groups, especially insofar as language can be isolated as a problem-causing factor within those groups (Escobar 1972a, 1972b; Uribe Villegas 1970a, 1970b, 1971, 1972; Lastra 1968, 1972a, 1972b, 1975). Among the people and institutions whose influence led to the formation of a particular Latin American view of sociolinguistics, PILEI (the Inter-American Program of Linguistics and Language Teaching), must definitely be included. Especially in the last few years the activity of the Association has been directed toward sociolinguistics, mainly toward problems of linguistics and education. The PILEI engendered the idea of the Project to Study the Cultivated Norm in the Main Cities of Ibero-America and Spain, which originated in the Committee on Iberoamerican Linguistics and Dialectology. The Project began to function in 1966, under Juan Lope Blanch's coordination,

Sociolinguistics

185

with the cooperation of members representing most Latin American countries as well as Spain. Even though the Project is not sociolinguistic in its final form, at the initial planning stages many of its members wanted to conduct their research within a sociolinguistic framework. Later, however, during the first working meetings of the executive subcommittee of the Project, most of the members decided that research was to be restricted in each city to average (habitual) cultured speech (Lope Blanch 1969: 225). It was also agreed that any city research team interested in working with a stratified design could do so outside the general framework of the Project, and the sociolinguistic findings would be included as an appendix when the main body of comparable results was published. 5.3.1 Bilingualism In Latin America, as everywhere else, bilingualism has been studied from a variety of angles, for different purposes and accordingly with different methodologies. However, the diversity of approaches does not invalidate Di Pietro's statement that the situation of languages in contact in Latin America has been little studied (1968: 409). Di Pietro offers a fairly representative survey of studies on this topic. He mentions the Mexican research of Diebold (1962b) and McQuown (1962), applications of Lambert's model, Rubin's thesis (1968b), Rona's research on Uruguay (1963, 1965), etc. He provides a table of the different types of language contact found in Latin America. Di Pietro's survey covers all kinds of studies of contact between Spanish and Portuguese and Indian languages or such immigrant languages as Italian and French. In reference to a sociolinguistic approach, Di Pietro says that he would like to extend Diebold's suggestion (1962a) that Mexico be made a laboratory for the study of language contact to include all of Latin America. Among other desiderata he points out the need for more study of urban language contact (1968: 409) since, according to Davies 1965, three-quarters of the population of Latin America lives on only one-quarter of the land area. One of the situations of bilingualism in an urban area which he mentions and which has been quite extensively studied is that of cocoliche. However, Di Pietro is correct in his assessment that these studies are little more than an acknowledgment of its existence. He mentions Grossman (1926), for example. On cocoliche, see also Meo Zilio 1960a, 1960b, 1964; Entwistle 1936; Whinnom 1971; Lavandera

186

Beatriz R. Lavandera

1975a, etc., which can serve as starting points for more intensive investigations of the problem. Sociolinguistically, the problem of cocoliche is extremely interesting, since this linguistic variety has resulted from the mixture of two languages, Italian and Spanish. Although cocoliche shows reduction in its grammar and use, it has never achieved the features of stability and autonomy assigned to real pidgins. Therefore it has been given a special name to identify it vis-ä-vis the other varieties of Spanish spoken by foreigners, not because it showed these linguistic features, but rather because it has always been associated with a specific speech community, clearly bounded, which played an important role in the cultural and social development of the country. In order to understand what prevented the creation of an independent contact language, we would need to know more about the origin of cocoliche, about the extent to which true 'multilingualism' existed, about the human relationships pertaining between the cocoliche speakers and other people in the area, etc. Keith Whinnom (1971) claims that only a multilingual situation can give rise to a pidgin, and that since the situation in Argentina was only bilingual, cocoliche could be no more than what it was, a phenomenon of hybridization. However, it is very likely that the degree of intelligibility among the different Italian dialects which coexisted in Argentina was considerably less than Whinnom assumes, and that the linguistic situation was consequently closer to multi than to bilingualism. His explanation would then break down. But we can look for a solution in other linguistic and extralinguistic factors: (a) The grammatical and phonological similarity and the considerable lexical overlap between Italian and Spanish. Those phonemes which are missing in Italian, such as /x/, could be replaced by other phonemes without affecting overall intelligibility (for example, amico instead of amigo, trabacando instead of trabajando}; (b) the constant exposure to native Spanish which made it possible for Italian speakers to improve their own production continuously, and thus come ever closer to the national linguistic norm; (c) the possibility of acquiring mobility within the socioeconomic structure of Buenos Aires. Although to a certain extent the wish to learn a more correct form of Spanish might have been impeded by plans for eventually returning to Italy and by the uninterrupted arrival of new immigrants, it is nevertheless true that the desire for mobility led the first

Sociolinguistics

187

generation of offspring to embrace Buenos Aires Spanish as their primary language. As for the Argentine speakers of Spanish, they constructed, on the basis of what they heard, their own stereotyped version of this variety, and published it in the popular press, or introduced it into theatrical productions. There was no reason for them to use that linguistic stereotype to address Italians, and if the latter ever came into contact with this imperfect imitation, the mockery may have served more to correct mistakes than to promote them. These stereotyped versions are the ones which have become most widespread. They consist of a few features picked up at random by the ear of the porteno. Entwistle (1936: 274) quotes one of these parodies. When read in conjunction with these brief studies of Italian in Argentina, Franceschi's (1970) extensive study of Italians in Costa Rica is sociolinguistically interesting, although it is more sociological than linguistic. Franceschi reports on a linguistic, ethnographic, and sociological research project carried out in an Italian agricultural community in San Vito de Jabba, Costa Rica. He studies two problems: (1) the relationship of Italian to its different dialects, and (2) the relationship of Italian to Spanish. What is especially interesting is that he is describing a situation in which Italian is the language of a social elite in a Latin American Spanish-speaking country, as opposed to the Spanish of thepeones. In all the other occurrences of Italian in contact with Latin American Spanish described so far, Italian is the low prestige language spoken by indigent immigrants far down on the social scale. Prior to the advent of the American sociolinguistic proposal, a number of scholars undertook dialectological studies aimed at describing situations in which there was interference between Spanish and the Indian languages with which Spanish was, and still is, in contact in Latin America. For the most part these studies concentrated on 'lexical borrowing', e.g. Alonso 1941; Trager 1944; Spicer 1943. Today, with the issues of bilingual education, integration of minorities, etc., occupying center stage, the phenomenon of monolingual or bilingual Indian language speakers has once more received considerable attention. Like any other case of bilingualism, those contact situations in Latin America which involve Spanish and Indian languages need to be examined from a variety of angles and for different purposes. The projects designed by a group of PILEI members, together with

188

Beatriz R. Lavandera

local researchers,32 for Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Yucatan (Mexico) in 1974 included a proposal to study the problem of language attitudes. Wölck's techniques for this type of analysis, based mainly on his studies of Spanish-Quechua contacts (1972), were discussed and recommended for these projects. There are already two excellent publications, albeit of a very different sort, in the field of sociolinguistic studies of Spanish-Indian bilingualism. The first chronologically is Rubin's (1968b) analysis of Guarani-Spanish bilingualism in Paraguay. Her data were gathered mainly by means of a questionnaire, but she complemented them with data from other sources. In her analysis Rubin employed the techniques of semantic componential analysis as well as some statistics (see Lavandera 1974 for more on this work). It is still the best description of that situation, but there exists some evidence in Asuncion of a definite interest among local researchers in pursuing in this study, mainly because of its relevance to decisions on bilingual education.;t:t The other study I was referring to is Albo's analysis of Cochabamba Quechua (1970). Although his analysis of Quechua34 is not, strictly speaking, Romance linguistics, it is nevertheless interesting to our field for its treatment of some of the characteristics of a contact situation in which Spanish is the prestige language, i.e. the reverse position of Spanish in contact with English in the United States. Albo carefully reports every stage of his research, describing and evaluating the techniques employed, presenting useful illustrations of the use of linguistic and sociolinguistic tools in this kind of analysis. For this study Albo devised a set of new and sophisticated techniques that allow him to elicit speech under rather difficult conditions. For instance, he managed to elicit a formal style from illiterate informants that would be the near-equivalent of a reading style among literate informants. Special techniques were also applied to process the Quechua material automatically. An adapted and updated version is to appear in Spanish as a publication of the Institute de Estudios Peruanos in Lima, Peru. 5.3.2 Studies of variation In Latin America Labov's model for the analysis of variation has been applied mainly to phonological variation. More than that, except for Cedergren's description of Panamanian Spanish (which I discuss above as a substantial part of the work of the Canadian Montreal group), these

Sociolinguistics

189

monolingual studies usually deal with one of two variables: S, or for Argentine Spanish, both S and z. The S variable is examined by Cedergren (see above, 5.1.2); it had previously been dealt with by Ma and Herasimchuk in their pioneering examination of Puerto Rican Spanish as spoken in New York (see Lavandera 1974). It is in fact a traditional topic in dialectological discussions, and it has been taken up once more within a sociolinguistic framework by Fontanella de Weinberg (1973, 1974). (For a review of the latter, see Lavandera 1974). Her study is based on a sample collected in Bahia Bianca, in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina/ 55 She adopts Labov's notion of 'linguistic variable' and analyses the correlation of the different linguistic variants of S with the extralinguistic variables included in her design: social level, educational level, sex, age, and style. Her results confirm Labov's for New York City. She finds that for the community she is examining, the extralinguistic variable most clearly correctable with the different realizations of S turns out to be education. The S was also examined sociolinguistically by Dillard (1962) in his review of Matluck's analysis of Puerto Rican Spanish on the island (1961). For Cuban Spanish it was studied by Tracy Terrell (1975a, 1975b, 1976). Beym 1963 and Foster 1975 (for the latter see my review in Language 54: 697-701), although less strictly speaking sociolinguistic. are nevertheless useful contributions to the same problem. The other phonological variable which has been examined within this framework for Latin American Spanish has been the Argentine z. Two dissertations for the University of Buenos Aires (one of them already accepted, although still unpublished, by Fontanella de Weinberg, the other by Clara Wolf still in preparation) deal with this feature in a quantitative approach. This problem also has a worthy tradition of analysis, including for example Guitarte's astoundingly early (1955) presentation of very modern observations. As to quantitative studies of syntactic variation in Latin American Spanish. I only know of my own work on tenses in conditional clauses (1975b). The main body of data includes 1,418 examples drawn from eighty hours of speech recorded in semi-directed interviews in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during June-August 1972, supplemented by production, repetition, and comprehension tests and by participant observation. The linguistic variable studied is the verbal tense of non-past conditional clauses in Spanish represented by the present indicative, the imperfect

190

Beatriz R. Lavandera

subjunctive, and for some speakers, the conditional. The conditional -RIA is used by some speakers in conditional clauses as a third option in the continuum of probability, categorized in the standard system by the present indicative and the imperfect subjunctive. There is a socially conditioned variation between the use of a two-member system and a three-member system. But what is expressed by linguistic means in these two cases is not exactly the same. The problem is approached from two different angles in two successive steps. First there is the presentation and discussion of the correlation between the linguistic variable and the social variables. These are interpreted as evidence that this variation is socially patterned along the dimensions of age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and ethnic group. Second, once it is clear that this is a case of socially conditioned variation, a semantic examination of the variants in their contexts shows that they are not referentially equivalent. Their meanings and their distribution account for how this system started to vary, and why this variation affected some linguistic environments rather than others. The conclusion is that cases of syntactic variation of this kind can only be understood by examining all the aspects of every phenomenon, ranging from the individual intention behind a particular message, to overt sociological forces which inhibit or encourage the use of particular alternatives. The presentation of the sociolinguistic analysis includes a special section on data-gathering, in which the decisions made in sampling, structuring the interview, modifying it, etc. are offered for evaluation. Another section describes the quantitative tools, which range from very simple arithmetic manipulation to the use of statistics, and, finally, to the processing of data with the Cedergren-Sankoff computer program which converts frequencies into probability estimates. The description of the alternation among the present indicative, the imperfect subjunctive, and the conditional was supplemented by an investigation of the variation between the two different morphological realizations of the imperfect subjunctive: -RA and -SE. Posner (1976) provides data from other Romance languages which show that an explanatory description of the non-standard usages which I described for Buenos Aires must include comparative and historical data. Latin American research with data from Portuguese is even more

Sociolinguistics

191

scanty. The majority of Brazilian sociolinguists contributed to an issue of the Revista de Cultura Vozes (1973) given over to sociolinguistics. Head's work falls squarely within the domain of sociolinguistic analysis of linguistic variation. He deals with the problem of 'r-caipira' (1973), a Brazilian Portuguese variant defined by Amadeu Amarah (1920) and reported by Celso de Cunha to be in the process of disappearing. Head sketches out "some perspectives and techniques for studying it in the social context", and his conclusions confirm previous findings: he isolates conservative groups which resist this form (which he considers 'stigmatized'), as well as innovative groups which accept it, and he provides empirical evidence to support Celso de Cunha's observation. Dino Preti presents an article in which he deals with the problem of levels of speech, which he calls registers or linguistic repertoires. The level depends on the speaker/hearer and the situation. He points out that language takes shape in the tension between uniformity and diversity. He holds that the importance of research on diversity lies in its possible application to teaching and the study of speech defects. He includes examples of the kind of research he did on comic books that have children as characters. Even though the demonstration is very brief, it whets one's curiosity and strengthens one's eagerness to see the results of the whole project, and to extend this sort of analysis to other written and spoken corpuses. Finally, the issue of contact between Spanish and Portuguese has been dealt with quite recently in a sociolinguistic framework by Hensey in his dissertation. He describes linguistic interference in a community on the Brazilian-Uruguayan border (1972). Hensey quantifies phonological interference by means of a procedure he derives from Labov's analysis of social variation (1966). The sample is too small to yield conclusive evidence as to the effects of factors like education or social status, but it can be established that interference is greater among Uruguayan bilinguals than among Brazilian border-dwellers. Lexical interference could not be quantified, but it is discussed in the terms suggested by Haugen (1950). Hensey proposes a new treatment of the Portuguese fronterizo dialect which had previously been described as having a different phonology from either standard Spanish or Portuguese. In structural terms, he shows that (1972: 77)

192

Beatriz R. Lavandera

[. . .] the consonant system of fronterizo could be derived from remodeling that of Portuguese, in contact with Spanish, by processes found to affect the speech of bilinguals: under- and overdifferentiation and reinterpretation of distinctive features. This is not the place to discuss the details of Hensey's linguistic analysis (perhaps somewhat outdated since it does not take into account alternate newer phonological treatments or Labov's improvements in the quantitative study of variation). Rather I suggest that this study meets the fundamental requirements of sociolinguistic research as it can be undertaken by linguists. As a general comment, which goes beyond the scope of Hensey's particular study, I would like to point out the need for designing new questionnaires and other techniques of elicitation which would provide a richer body of data. In addition, every effort ought to be made to obtain samples of adequate size. A non-quantitative treatment of the lexicon cannot be justified on the basis of insufficient data, nor can lack of data serve as an excuse for not examining interesting social dimensions separately. 6. Conclusion From this survey two equally valid conclusions seem to emerge. One might assert that sociolinguistics has always been practised in Romance linguistics; or one might claim that there exists as yet no Romance sociolinguistic research. For each of these conclusions one could find persuasive arguments in the writings of scholars cited here. How does the inconsistency arise? Undoubtedly it derives from the ambiguity inherent in the term 'sociolinguistics'. On the one hand, sociolinguistics as a specific theory of language (formulated primarily in the United States) has not yet succeeded in stimulating research on the Romance languages. On the other hand, the view of language as culturally and socially embedded has always been present in Romance scholarship. Future research should look in two opposite directions: forward, toward new techniques for solving the old problems and identifying new ones, and backward, toward the valuable achievements of the past. Romance linguistics is already social and it is linguistic; it is methodologically rich and prolific in data. Let me quote Labov, who quotes Wang,

Sociolinguistics

193

who quotes a mathematician friend: "You know, in mathematics we step on each other's shoulders; in linguistics, you step on each other's faces" (Labov 1975: 227). Let us, in Romance linguistics, do more respectful quoting. Many of our colleagues, who would not classify themselves as sociolinguists in the modern American sense, have very sturdy shoulders. Notes * I want to express my gratitude to Eugenia M. Kobrak for her critical reading of several stages of the manuscript and for her helpful suggestions. I also wish to thank Krishna R. Winston who devoted many hours to improve the style of this paper and made me aware of the subtleties of written English. Finally, I must acknowledge the marvelous efficiency of the Interlibrary Loan Service of the Milton S. Eisenhower Library at Johns Hopkins University. 1. See for example Avanzini et al. 1971; Badia Margarit 1969, 1974; Biderman 1973; Braga 1969; Carnice de Gallez 1966;Cazacu 1973; Craddock 1972; Daan - Weijnen 1967; D'Anglejan -Tucker 1973; Denison 1969a, 1969b; Edgerton 1971; Elizaincin 1973a, 1973b; Ellis 1969; Fonseca et al. 1974; Fontanella de Weinberg 1974; Francescato 1974; Garvin - Lastra 1974; Giglioli 1968; Grassi 1969; Greimas 1969; Helgorsky 1973; Hensey 1972; Lavandera 1975b; Longmire 1976; Lopez Morales 1973; Marcellesi - Gardin 1975; Monteverde-Ganoza 1974; Ornstein 1970; Pellegrini 1969;Pellizzi 1969a;Robach 1974;Rona 1970;Rusu 1973, 1974; G. Sankoff n.d.;G. Sankoff - Cedergren 1972; G. Sankoff - Cedergren - Sarrasin 1971; Schelb 1973; Schlieben-Lange 1971b; Slama-Cazacu 1972b, 1972-73, 1973b, 1973d; Uribe Villegas 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Valkhoff 1975; Vandresen 1973; Vasek 1969b; Wainerman 1972; Wildgen 1975. 2. See Cortelazzo (1969: 160-162) for the role of 'dialect and society' in linguistic congresses from 1931 to 1968. Also, see the proceedings of the International Days of Sociolinguistics (1969), as well as those of the Bressanone meeting published as Bilinguismo e diglossia in Italia (1974). TheRevista Espanolade Lingiiistica, in its 1975 (1) issue announced the "V Simposio de la Sociedad Espanola de Lingüistica" to be held 15-17 December 1975, with the title of "Variedades espaciales y sociales de la lengua" with the following explanation: "bajo esta denominacion se comprenden los estudios de Dialectologia, Geografia Lingiiistica y Sociolingiiistica tanto en su aspecto teorico como aplicado a casos concretes". Finally, Corvetto reports in Lingua e Stile (1975: 610-611) on the eighth international congress of the Italian Linguistic Society, held in Bressanone 31 May-2 June 1974, on "Aspetti sociolinguistici dell'Italia contemporanea". 3. For example, Giglioli 1968; Marcellesi 1971; Sumpf 1968; among others. 4. Garvin - Lastra 1974; Giglioli 1973; Fonseca - Neves 1974. 5. For example, Lope Blanch 1974; Vasek 1969b; etc. 6. Greimas 1969; Pottier 1974; Malkiel 1968a; Braga 1969; Edgerton 1971; Rona 1958. 7. We will distinguish below between influence manifested in the adoption of particular models and that reflected in bibliographical references. 8. The most exhaustive bibliography of bilingualism in general is undoubtedly Mackey 1972, see Bureau's enthusiastic review for a description. Other partial bibliographies I found useful are Oksaar 1970 for Western Europe, Di Pietro 1968 for bilingualism in Latin America, and especially Tabouret-Keller 1975 for plurilingual situations involving French. I would also like to thank Professor Samarin who kindly made available to

194

Bcatriz R. Lavandera

me the bibliography he had prepared for his article on the sociolinguistic situation in Canada. 9. Although Yakov Malkiel would probably never think of himself as a sociolinguist, Romanists engaged in working in the new field of sociolinguistics cannot disregard his studies on etymology, historical phonology, and morphology, as well as his theoretical statements. While Malkiel's view of change as being sparked by a combination of factors is usually centered on the linguistic causes, he does not refrain from casting occasional glances at external forces. In a lively essay (contained in Malkiel 1968a), "Some diachronic implications of fluid speech communities", he devises an ingenious geometric sociogeographical model. For a very fair, if clearly admiring overview of Malkiel's contributions to Romance linguistics, see Posner's excellent supplement to lordan - Orr, "Thirty Years On" (1970: 434^47). 10. See surveys of the field: Hymes 1973; Ervin-Tripp 1971; Fishman 1971. A good representative collection of studies dealing with the Canadian situation can be found in two volumes prepared by Regna Darnell (1971, 1973), as well as in an earlier publication by Kelly of the proceedings of the International Seminar on the Description and Measurement of Bilingualism held at the University of Moncton in 1967 (1969). 11. The area of the study of language attitudes has been efficiently surveyed in a typology by Agheyisi and Fishman (1970), and although it was published some years ago, it still provides an "outline of the theoretical and methodological trends in attitude studies to date . . . followed by a general review of methodology in studies involving language attitudes in current sociolinguistic literature and . . . some suggestions . . . regarding data-gathering methodology for particular types of attitude studies" (1970: 137). 12. Another good review of the first studies with matched guise techniques can be found in Lambert - Frankel -Tucker 1968, which also contains a bibliography. 13. "The matched-guise technique used by Lambert and his students . . . presents for the subject a series of tape recorded sections in which voices of the same speakers are heard using different languages or dialects. The subjects are asked to make judgments of the speakers' personalities. As long as they cannot know how they have rated the same speakers before, they unconsciously translate their social attitudes towards language into differential judgments of the speaker's honesty, reliability, intelligence, etc.". Summary taken from Labov (1972a: 212-213) "The study of language in its social context". 14. D'Anglejan and Tucker's results agree with those of Chiasson-Lavoie and Laberge 1971 in showing that the subjects in Montreal are less conscious of grammatical variables than of phonological ones. 15. For American English, Shuy - Wolfram - Riley 1969; Wolfram 1969, etc.; for British English, Trudgill 1974; for Swahili, Wald 1973; for French, G. Sankoff 1973; Laberge 1972, etc.; for Spanish, Cedergren 1973; Lavandera 1975b, etc.; for contact of Spanish and Portuguese, Hensey 1972. 16. For a presentation of my understanding of this program and the use I made of it in my analysis of Spanish, see Lavandera 1975b: 31 off. 17. For an understanding of the transformational grammar models and their subsequent developments a certain familiarity with Turing machines is necessary, and for the quantitative model some training in statistics and probability theory as well as information on the form of transformational grammars is presupposed. 18. For the latest modifications of the model, see also D. Sankoff - Cedergren 1976. 19. See for example Kloss 1970; Miller 1970; Sister Stella Maris 1959; Avila - Stewart 1954; Locke 1949; Theriault 1960. 20. On the concept of domain, see Fishman 1965c; 1971: 248-255; 1972.

Sociolinguistics

195

21. Personal communication. 22. For the distinction between this type of case and those of disintegration of the system, Sala refers to Terracini (1957: 26^0). 23. "To attribute the reason for language change to social factors influencing the adoption of a change is to confuse selection with origin" (Longmire 1976). 24. Coja 1967; lonascu 1962; Rusu 1961; L. Wald 1969; lordan I960, 1962; Graur 1965, 1967; Micläu 1959; Vasiliu 1959; Rizescu 1961; Petrovici 1967; Sala 1961, 1962. 25. For definitions of 'sociolinguistics' by scholars who have worked on Romance languages, see, among others: Sumpf 1968; Cortelazzo 1969; Marcellesi 1971; Giglioli 1968; Greimas 1969; Escobar 1972a;Slama-Cazacul973b;Pottierl974;Gadet 1971; Grassi 1969; Francescato 1974; Pellizzi 1969a; Lopez Morales 1973. 26. Another important achievement in Labov 1966 was that he was able to isolate and measure the force of hypercorrection in linguistic change. 27. I owe to Eugene K. Galbraith the following summary of Rossi-Landi (1974): "In his essay 'Linguistics and Economies' Rossi-Landi intends 'to begin a semiotic elaboration of the two social processes which we can define as "the production and circulation of goods (in the form of commodities)" and as "the production and circulation of sentences (in the form of verbal messages)'" (1787). Beginning with the 'theory of the anthropogenic character of work', as distilled from Hegel and Marx (viz., human beings are the product of their own work), he sets out to demonstrate that all social sign systems have value and meaning in virtue of being the products of human work, and that is these sign systems which determine all human behavior ("social programming"). Given the above, it is only through an examination of the character of work (meaningful social activity) that language can be understood in its formal, semantic, and social aspects, in its totality. Just as goods in the form of commodities 'are' messages, so too, sentences in the form of verbal messages 'are' commodities, this being so because they are alike part of the system of social signs. Messages have 'use-value' because they satisfy the human need for expression and communication, while 'in the case of words and syntagms considered in the abstract, their exchange value is to be sought in the reciprocal relationships into which they enter within the language of which they are a part, within the code when it is considered independently from the further linguistic work through which they are converted into messages' (1921). Having laid this foundation, he then goes on to elaborate upon certain of the ways in which work informs linguistic production through the application of the labour theory of value to language. Just as in the field of material production, the speaker makes use of the products of previous work without necessarily being aware of it'". 28. Giglioli shares this questionable view of sociolinguistics as a "linguistics of parole" (1968: 331). 29. It may be profitable to examine this study in the light of Gumperz - Hernandez 1971 and Hasselmo 1970, even though the latter treats not Romance but Swedish and Finnish bilingualism. 30. See Fishman 1971. 31. Francescato refers here to Gaetano Berruto's contribution in Parole e Metodi (1971). I want to encourage the reader to refer to that journal in general. 32. Paul Garvin, Wolfgang Wölck, Roger Shuy, Evangelina Arana, Norman McQuown, Beatriz Lavandera. Albo directs the Bolivian project, Alberto Escobar the Peruvian one, and in Ecuador there was not as yet a permanent director, but among those who participated were Manuel Corrales, Ruth Moia, Donald Burns, as well as representatives of the National University, the Catholic University, and the Summer Institute of Linguistics.

196

Beatriz R. Lavandera

33. Asa member of PILEI, I travelled to Asuncion, Paraguay in December 1974 to discuss the possibility of getting financial support for local researchers who would carry out this type of research there. My main interlocutors were Domingo Rivarola, director of the Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociologicos, Graziella Corvalän, and Padre Bartolome Meliä. 34. Originally a Cornell University dissertation. 35. Both Fontanella de Weinberg and 'Lavandera use the expression 'Buenos Aires Spanish'. Fontanella de Weinberg's data represent the speech of the province of Buenos Aires as spoken in Bahia Bianca, a city of 120,580 inhabitants, 350 miles south of Buenos Aires. Lavandera is describing the dialect spoken in the city of Buenos Aires, the capital of the country, with a population of 8,352,900 (these figures are taken from Webster's New Geographical Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1972), and derive from the 1970 national census). Bey m (1963) and Foster (1975) prefer to use the label 'porteno' for the Spanish of the city of Buenos Aires, which is the way it is referred to in Argentina itself. Given the difference in size, role, and therefore complexity between Buenos Aires and Bahia Bianca, it follows that the two represent sociologically and sociolinguistically quite distinct situations.

References Agard, F. B. 1950 "Present-day Judeo Spanish in the United States", Hispania 33: 203-210. Agheyisi, R. - J. A. Fishman 1970 "Language attitude studies: A brief survey of methodological approaches", AnL 12: 137-157. Albo, X. 1970 Social constraints on Cochabamba Quechua (= Latin American Studies Program. Dissertation Series 19) (Ithaca: Cornell U.P.). Alexandre, P. 1972 Languages and language in Black Africa (Evanston: Northwestern University Press). [First French edition Langues et langage en Afrique noire (Paris, 1967).] Alonso, A. 1941 "Sustratum y superstratum", RFH 3: 209-218. Alonso Montero, J. 1968 Realismo y conciencia critica en la literatura gallega (Madrid: Ciencia Nueva). Alvar, M. 1965 "Polimorfismo y otros aspectos foneticos en el habla de Santo Tomäs Ajusco (Mejico)", AdL 6: 11-41. 1966 "El espaflol de Tenerife. Cuestion de principios", ZRPh 82: 507-548. 1968 Estructuralismo, geografia lingüistica y dialectologia actual (Madrid: Gredos). [2nd enlarged edition 1973. Reviewed by Larochette Orbis 19 (1970): 237-241; Monies Thesaurus 15 (1970): 295-297; Diaz Velez Romanica 3 (1970): 183-187;GardetteflLA35 (1971): 225-227; Greive RF 83 (1971): 317-320; Lope Blanch AdL 9 (1971): 256-260; Moreno de Alba NRFH 20 (1971): 407^110; Casado RDyTP 30 (1974): 547-551).] 197la "Bilingiiismoe integration. Comentarioshispanoamericanos",ASEL 1:25-57. 1971b "Un probleme de langues en contact: lafrontierecatalano-aragonaise", TLL 9: 73-84. 1971c "Sociologia en un microcosmos lingüistico. (El Roque de las Bodegas, Tenerife)", Prohemio 2: 5-24. 1972 Niveles socio-culturales en el habla de Las Palmas (Las Palmas: U.P.).

Sociolinguistics

197

Alvarez Nazario, M. 1957 El arcaismo vulgar en el espanol de Puerto Rico (Mayagiiez, Puerto Rico). [Reviewed by Taylor Word 14 (1958): 395-399.] 1961 El elemento afronegroide en el espanol de Puerto Rico (San Juan de Puerto Rico: Institute de Cultura Puertoriquena). [Reviewed by Lope Blanch NRFH 16 (1963): 453-455.] Anderson, N. (ed.) 1969 Studies in multilingualism (= International studies in sociology and social anthropology 8) (Leiden: Brill). Andersson, T. - M. Boyer (eds.) 1970 Bilingual schooling in the United States (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office). Anfora, G. - E. Ferreiro - B. Lavandera 1973 "Adquisicion de recursos sintäcticos complejos en dos grupos sociales opuestos", Paper delivered at the Jornadas de Lingüistica, Buenos Aires, November 1-3. Anonymous 1975 "Recherches sociolinguistiques dans la region de Sherbrooke. Faculte des Arts de l'Universite de Sherbrooke", RLR 39: 452. Aracil, LI. V. 1966 "Un dilema valenciä/A Valencian dilemma", Identity Magazine 24. 1968 "Introduccio", to Les xiques de l'entresuelo/Tres forasters de Madrid, by E. Escalante (Valencia: Garbi). Arce de Vazquez, M. 1949 "El espanol en Puerto Rico", Asomante 3: 52-62. Ardener, E. (ed.) 1971 Social anthropology and language (= ASA monographs 10) (London: Tavistock Publications). [Reviewed by Griper US 1 (1972): 277-279.] Avila, L. E. - A. R. Stewart 1954 "French in Maine", FR 27: 460-466. Avanzini. G. - G. Berruto - E. Salvemini 1971 "La sociolinguistica", PeM 1: 79-94. Badia Margarit, A. M. 1962 "Some aspects of bilingualism among cultured people in Catalonia'.', PICL 9: 366-373. 1963-68 "Les vocals toniques e i en el Catalä de Barcelona. Assaig d'analisi fonolögica de la situacio actual", ER 12: 119-172. 1964 Llengua i cultura als paisos Catalans (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1966 "La integracio idiomatica i cultural dels immigrants. Reflexions, fets, plans", Questions de Vida Cristiana 31: 91-102. 1969 La llengua dels Barcelonins: Resultats d'une enquesta sociologico-linguistica. Votum primer: L'Enquesta. La llengua i els seus condicionaments (Barcelona: Edicions 62). [Reviewed by Macarie SCL 23 (1972): 562; Schlieben-Lange IbRom 3 (1971): 209-213; Gardette RLR 36 (1972): 180-181.] 1972 "Langue et societe dans le domaine linguistique Catalan, notamment ä Barcelone", RLR 36: 263-304. 1974 "Proces i objectius de la sociolinguistica catalana", IbRom n.s. 1: 19-30. Badia Margarit, A. M. - M. Cardus de Badia 1969 "Sociologia del preterit simple en el catalä de Barcelona", IbRom 1: 273-298. Badia Margarit, A. M. - G. Straka (eds.) 1968 La linguistique catalane. Colloque international ^ par le Centre de

198

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Philologie et de (literatures romanes de Γ Universite de Strasbourg du 23 au 27 avril (Paris: Klincksieck). [Reviewed by Schib RLR 38 (1974): 548-551.] Bailey, C.-J. 1971 "Trying to talk in the new paradigm", PI L 4: 312-338. Barker, G. C. 1947 "Social functions of language in a Mexican-American community", Acta Americana 5: 185-202. 1950 Pachuco: An American-Spanish argot and its social functions in Tucson, Arizona (Tucson: University of Arizona). Basso, E. B. 1973 "The use of the Portuguese relationship terms in Kalapalo (Xingu Carib) encounters: Changes in a central Brazilian communications network", US 2: 1-21. Bates, E. - L. Begnini 1975 "Rules of address in Italy: A sociological survey", LiS 4: 271-288. Bauman, R. - J. F. Sherzer (eds.) 1974 Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (Cambridge: U.P.). Beardsmore, H. 1971 Le franqais regional de Bruxelles (Bruxelles: U.P.). [Reviewed by Chumbow Linguistics 163 (1975): 94-97.] Beauchemin, N. 1972 "Phonetical indices of social classes in Quebec", PICL 11. Bee, P. 1963 La langue occitane (Paris: P.U.F.). Bernstein, B. 1964 "Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences", The ethnography of communication, edited by J. J. Gumperzand D. Hymes,AmA 66 (6/2), 55-69. 1971-73 (ed.) Class, codes, and control. 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language I 2: Applied studies towards a sociology of language (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Berruto, G. 1970 Dialetto e societa nella valle d'Andorno. Note per una sociologia dei sistemi linguistici (= Supplemente al BALI, n.l). 1971 "Per una sociologia dei rapporti tra lingua e dialetto", PeM 1: 45-58. Besso, H. V. 1951 "Judeo-Spanish in the United States", Hispania 34: 89-90. 1952 "Bibliografia sobre el judeo-espaflol", Tribuna Israelita (Mexico D.F.) 93. 1963 "Situacion actual del judeo-espanol", Arbor 54: 155-173. Beym, R. 1963 "Porteno /s/ and [h], [fi], [s], [x], 0 as variants", Lingua 12: 199-204. Bickerton, D. 1973 "Quantitative versus dynamic paradigms: The case of Montreal que", New ways of analyzing variation in English,edited by C.-J. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press), 23-43. Biderman, M. T. 1973 "Sociolinguistica", Revista de Cultura Votes 67/8: 50-56. Blom, J.-P. - J. J. Gumperz 1972 "Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway", Directions in sociolinguistics, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), 407-434.

Sociolinguistics

199

Boileau, A. 1969 "Commentaires", Description and measurement ofbilingualism, edited by L. G. Kelly (Toronto: U.P.). 156-164. Bolzano (Gruppo di) 1969 "La percezione del bilinguismo entro elites politiche e giovanili / The perception of bilingualism within political and juvenile elites". International days ofsociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 381—416. Botha, E. 1968 "Verbally expressed values of bilinguals", Journal of Social Psychology 75: 159-164. Bourhis, R. Y. - H. Giles - W. E. Lambert 1975 "Social consequences of accommodating one's style of speech: A cross-national investigation", Linguistics 166: 55-72. Bouthillier, G. - J. Meynaud (eds.) 1972 Le choc des langues au Quebec 1760-1970 (Montreal: Quebec U.P.). [Reviewed by Laberge LiS 4 (1975): 228-229.] Boyd-Bowman, P. 1960 El habla de Guanajuato (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma). [Reviewed by Lope Blanch NRFH 16 (1962): 455-459.] Bozzini, M. C. 1943 "El tratamiento de 'vos' en la Argentina", For nuestro idioma 8: 2-3. Braddy, H. 1960 "The Pachucos and their argot", Southern Folklore Quarterly 24: 255-271. Braga, G. 1969 "Proposta di un modello metodologica per la ricerca sociolinguistica / Proposed methodological model for socio-linguistic research". International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 353-379. 1970 "Das 'System der Kommunikation' als intermediäre Struktur zwischen Gesellschaft und Sprache", Zur Soziologie der Sprache, edited by R. Kjolseth and F. Sack (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag), 48-67. Brandt, E. 1970 "On the origins of linguistic stratification. The Sandia case", AnL 12: 46-50. Bright, W. (ed.) 1966 Sociolinguistics (The Hague: Mouton). Brown, B. L. 1969 The social psychology of variations in French Canadian speech styles (unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University). Brown, R. - A. Oilman 1960 "The pronouns of power and solidarity", Style in language, edited by T. A. Sebeok (Cambridge Mass.: M.I.T.), 253-276. Brun, A. 1923 Recherches historiques sur I'introduction du fran$ais dans les provinces du Midi (Paris: Champion). Bryan, A. M. 1972 "Le 'tu' et le 'vous'", FR 45: 1007-1010. Burgelin, O. 1967 "Linguistique et sociologie", Revue de l'enseignement superieur 1-2: 8088. Bustin-Lekeu, F. 1973 "Tutoiement et vouvoiement chez les lyceens franc,ais", FR 46: 773-782.

200

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Cadogan, L. 1948 "En torno al bilingiiismo en el Paraguay", Revista de Antropologla 6: 23-30. Camaj, M. 1974 "II bilinguismo nelle oasi linguistiche albanesi dell'Italia meridionale", Bilinguismo e diglossia in Italia (Pisa: Pacini), 5-13. Camproux, M. C. 1967 "Situation actuelle des lettres d'oc", Nph 51: 128-141. Cardenas, D. 1970 Dominant Spanish dialects spoken in the United States (Washington D .C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Carnice de Gallez, E. 1966 "Observaciones sobre el aspecto sociolinguistico del lenguaje de la radio", Cuadernos del Sur (Bahia Bianca) 5: 47-58. Carranza, M. A. - E. B. Ryan 1975 "Evaluative reactions of bilingual Anglo and Mexican American adolescents toward speakers of English and Spanish", Linguistics 166: 83-104. Carrillo Herrera, G. 1964 "Tendencies a la unificacion idiomätica hispano-americana e hispana. Factores externos". Presente y futuro de la lengua espanola (Madrid: Ofines) 1: 17-34. Casiano Montaftez, L. 1975 La pronunciation de los puertorriquenos en Nueva York (Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo). Cassartelli, M. A. 1960 "La lengua espanola en Israel", Revista de la Universided National de Cordoba [Argentina] n.s. 1, nos. 4-5. Castilho, A. T. de 1973 "O estudo da norma culta do portugues do Brasil", Revista de Cultura Voz.es 67/8: 21-25. Catalan, D. 1962 "Dialectologia y estructuralismo diacronico", Miscelanea. Homenaje a Andre Martinet (La Laguna: U.P.) 3: 69-80. 1966 "El espaftol en Tenerife. Problemas metodologicos", ZRPh 82: 467-503. 1972 "Ibero-Romance", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 927-1106. Cazacu, B. 1957 "Sur la reaction du sujet parlant par rapport au fait linguistique", Melanges linguistiques pubtäs a {'occasion du VIII' Congres International des Linguistes a Oslo, 175-188. 1963 "Despre dinamica limitelor dialectale", FD 5: 27-40. 1966a "Despre notiunea de 'interdialect'", SCL 17: 14-18. 1966b "Procesul de diferentier in graiul unei comune (Meria-reg. Hunedoara)", Studii de dialectologie romana (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei), 91-120. 1972 "Rumanian", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 1145-1189. 1973 "Un aspect al cercetarii interdisciplinare: sociolinguistica", FD 8: 11-18. Cedergren, H. J. 1973 The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University). Cedergren, H. J. - D. Sankoff 1974 "Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence", Lg 50: 333-355.

Sociolinguistics

201

Chart, I. E. 1944 "The voseo and tuteo in America", Modern Language Forum 28: 17-24. Chevalier, L. 1968 Les parisiens (Paris: Hachette). Chiasson-Lavoie, M. - S. Laberge 1971 Attitudes face au fran^ais pane a Montreal et degre de conscience de variables imguistiques (unpublished research paper, McGill University). Clivio, G. P. 1970 "The volgare in Piedmont from the middle ages to the end of the sixteenth century", RF 82: 62-93. Clyne, M. 1972 Perspectives on language contact (Melbourne: Hawthorne). [Reviewed by Hasselmo Linguistics 164 (1975): 63-72.] Cohen, M. 1956 Pour une sociologie du langage (Paris: Albin Michel). [Reviewed by Grassi Comunitä 51: 90-93.] Coisson, O. 1969 "Notizia sugli Occitani d'ltalia", // Bimestre (Firenze), juillet-octobre. Coja, I. 1967 "Limbä — fenomen social", RFiloz 14/9, 1031-1036. Coltharp, L. 1965 The tongue of the Tirilones. A linguistic study of a criminal argot (Alabama: U.P.). [Reviewed by Mauer UAL 32 (1966): 297-301.] 197 la "Invitation to the dance: Spanish in the El Paso underworld". Texas studies in bilingualism, edited by G. G. Gilbert (Berlin: de Gruyter). 1970b "Some additions: Lexicon of the Tongue of the Tirilones", Studies in language and linguistics, edited by R. W. Ewton and J. Ornstein (El Paso: Texas Western Press), 67-68. Congres des romanistes scandinaves 1967 Actes du Quatrieme . . . (Copenhague aoüt 1967) [Reviewed by Stempel RF 84 (1972): 193-196.] Congres international de dialectologie generate 1964-65 Communications et rapports du premier . . . (Louvain-Bruxelles, I960) (Louvain: Universite Catholique). [Reviewed by Figueroa Lorza Thesaurus 20 (1965): 381-387; Wolf ZRPh 83 (1967): 631-641; Wunderli VR 28 (1969): 360-361.] Congreso internacional de lingüistica y filologia romänicas 1968 Actas del XI . . . (Madrid, 1965) (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). [Reviewed by Ineichen ZRPh 87 (1971): 579-592; Neira Martinez Archivum 21 (1971): 407430.] 1 970 Actele celui de al -lea Congres international de lingüistica $ifilologie romanicä (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). [Reviewed by KovacecS/MZ (1967): 275-285; Micusan - Romero Espanol Actual 12 (1968); Hassan Sefarad 28 (1968): Contini, M. 1970 "Resistance et passivite de sujets Logoudoriens face ä l'italianisation de leur langue", RLR 34: 365-376. Convegno del Centra per gli Studi dialettali italiani 1971 Atti del VII . . ., Torino (Torino: Istituto delML/). [Reviewed by Lurati VR 32 (1973): 363-366.]

202

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Cooper, R. L. 1968 "How can we measure the roles which a bilingual's language plays in his everyday behavior?", Description and measurement ofbilingualism, edited by L. G. Kelly (Toronto: U.P.), 192-208. Corne, C. 1970 La pronunciation dufrangais Tahitien (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland). Cortelazzo, M. 1969 Avviamento critico allo studio delta dialettologia italiana. I, Problemi e metodi (Pisa: Pacini). [Reviewed by Zolli LN 34 (1973): 132-133.] Coteanu, I. 1957a Cum dispare o limba (istroromana)? (Bucure§ti). 1957b "A propos des langues mixtes", Melanges linguistiques publics a l'occasion du Vilf Congres des Linguistes a Oslo (Bucure§ti). Craddock, J. R. 1972 Lexical analysis ofsociolinguistic studies on Southwest bilingualism (SSSB) bilingual corpuses: Dialectal traits and chief interference patterns (ElPaso:TexasU.P.). 1973 "Spanish in North America", Current trends in linguistics 10 (The Hague: Mouton), 467-501. Cuellar, B. V. 1971 "Observaciones sobre la 'rr' velar y la 'y' africada en Cuba", Espanol Actual 20: 18-20. Curtis, A. forthcoming New perspectives on the history of the language problem in Belgium (to appear in The Hague: Mouton). Cuestionario provisional . . . 1968 . . . para el estudio de la norma linguistica culta de las principales ciudades de Iberoam rica y de la Peninsula Iberica, I (Mexico, D.F.: PILEI). [Reviewed by Baldinger ZRPh 85 (1969): 648-649; Boyd-Bowman Hispania 53 (1970): 153-154; Pottier BHi 72 (1970): 492^93; Colon VR 31 (1972): 217-218; de Torres RDyTP 29 (1973): 529-531.] Daan, J. - A. Weijnen 1967 Taalsociologie (= BMDial 32) (Amsterdam: N. Holland). [Reviewed by Fabiäo RPF 15 (1969-1971): 306-310.] D'Anglejan, A. - G. R. Tucker 1973 "Sociolinguistic correlates of speech style in Quebec", Canadian languages in their social context, edited by R. Darnell (Edmonton and Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.), 65-94. Därdano, M. 1973 // linguaggio dei giornali italiani (Bari: Laterza). [Reviewed by Biagi LN 35 (1974): 28-31; Hall Lg 51 (1975): 211-215.] Darnell, R. (ed.) 1971 Linguistic diversity in Canadian society (Edmonton and Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.). [Reviewed by Tucker LiS 1 (1972): 284-285.] 1973 Canadian languages in their social context (Edmonton and Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.). [Reviewed by Saint-Pierre LiS 3 (1974): 292-294.] Dauzat, A. 1929 Les argots, cara^res, Evolution, influence (Paris: Delagrave). Davies, H. (ed.) 1965 South American handbook (London).

Sociolinguistics

203

Davis, J. E. 1966-68 "The Spanish of Argentina and Uruguay. An annotated bibliography for 1940-1965", Orbis 15: 160-189, 442-488; 17: 232-277, 538-576. 1971 "The Spanish of Mexico: An annotated bibliography for 1940-1969", Hispania 54: 265-656. De Mauro, Tullio 1963 Sloria linguistica dell'ltalia unita (Bari: Laterza) Denison, N. 1968 "Sauris, a trilingual community", Man n.s. 3: 578-592. 1969a "Sociolinguistic aspects of plurilingualism / Aspetti sociolinguistici del plurilinguismo", International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 255-297. 1969b "Sociolinguistics and plurilingualism", PICL 10/1,551-559. 1971 "Some observations on language variety and plurilingualism". Social anthropology and language, edited by E. Ardener (London: Tavistock), 157-183. Deyhime, G. 1967 "Enquete sur la phonologic du frangais contemporaine", La Linguistique 1 , 1 : 97-108, 2: 57-84. Diebold, Jr., A. R. 1961 "Incipient bilingualism", Lg 37: 97-112. [Reprinted in Language in culture and society, edited by D. Hymes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 495-508.] 1962a "A laboratory for language contact", AnL 4: 41-51. 1962b "Mexican and Guatemalan bilingualism", Study of the role of second languages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, edited by F. Rice (Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Dillard, J. L. 1962 "Sobre algunos fonemas puertorriquenos", NRFH 16: 422-424. Di Maria, F. 1969 "Attegiamento politico e differenziale semantico / Political behaviour and semantic differentiation". International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 459^83. Di Pietro, R. J. 1968 "Bilingualism", Current trends in linguistics 4 (The Hague: Mouton), 399414. 1970 "The discovery of universale in multilingualism", MSLL 23: 13-24. Donghi de Halperin, R. 1925 "Contribucion al estudio del italianismo en la Republica Argentina", Cuadernos del Institute de Filologia 1: 183-198. 1958 "Los italianos y la lengua de los argentinos", Quaderni Ibero-Americani 3: 446^49. Doppagne, A. 1968 "La expresion de la cortesia", Actas del tercer congreso internacional de hispanistas (Mexico: El Colegio de Mexico). Doroszewsky, W. 1933 "Quelques remarques sur les rapports de la sociologie et de la linguistique", Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30: 82-91. Dubois, J. 1962 Vocabulaire poütique et social en France de 1869 ä 1872 (Paris: Larousse). 1969 "Enonce et enonciation", Langages 13: 100-110.

204

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Durango Restrepo, A. 1948 "El tu, el vos y el listed", Revista Interamericana de Education 7: 20-35. Echaide, A. M. 1966 "Castellano .y vasco en contacto: Tendencias foneticas vascas en el castellano de los vascohablantes biling es", BAE 46: 513-524. 1968 "Problemas actuales de contacto entre vasco y castellano", Actas del XI congreso international de ling istica y filologia romanicas (Madrid: C.S.I.C.) 2: 437443. Edgerton, Jr., M. F. 1971 "L'espace sociolinguistique et les systemes ideolinguistiques: la France et les franqais", SL 25: 21-51. Eguiluz, L. 1962 "Formulas de tratamiento en el espaflol de Chile", BFUCh 14: 169-233. Elizaincin, A. 1973a "Algunos aspectos de la socioling istica del dialecto fronterizo", Paper delivered at the Congreso de Lenguas y Literatures Hispanoamericanas, Salta, Argentina, January 8-10. 1973b "Notes propos de la sociolinguistique", Vers une pedagogic moderne (Montevideo) 4. 1973c El proceso de adquisicion del lenguaje frente a la dicotomia innato-cultural (= Temasde Ling istica l, Departamentode Ling istica, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias) (Montevideo: U.P.). Ellis, D. S. 1967 "Speech and social status in America", Social Forces 45: 431-437. Ellis, J. 1969 "Some lines of research in sociolinguistics", PICL 10/1, 565-568. Entwistle, W. J. 1936 The Spanish language, together with Portuguese, Catalan and Basque (London: Faber and Faber). Epstein, E. H. 1967 "National identity and the language issue in Puerto Rico", Comparative Education Review 2: 133-143. 1968 "Social change and learning English in Puerto Rico", Schools in transition: Essays in comparative education, edited by A. M. Kazamias and E. H. Epstein (Boston: Allyn and Bacon). Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1964 "An analysis of the interaction of language, topic, and listener", The ethnography of communication, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, AmA 66 (6/2), 86-102. 1971 "Sociolinguistics", Λί/να/icesiVi the sociology of language, edited by J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton), 15-151. Escobar, A. 1972a Lenguaje y discrimination social en Amarica Latino (Lima: Millabatres). 1972b El reto del multilingiiismo, ed. by A. Escobar (Lima: Institute de Estudios Peruanos). [Reviewed by March NRFH 23 (1974): 415^16.] Espinosa, A. Jr. 1930 Estudios sobre el espanol de Nuevo Μέ]κο (= Biblioteca de dialectologia espanola 1) (Buenos Aires: Institute de Filologia). Ewton, R. W. -J. Ornstein (eds.) 1969-70 Studies in language and linguistics (El Paso: Texas Western Press).

Sociolinguistics

205

Fabre, D. - J. Lacroix - J.-L. Fossat 1973 "Elements d'analyse ethno-linguistique du vent d'autan", RLaR 80: 119-148. Ferrigno, J. 1951 Linguistic patterns of the Iberian peninsula in Sicilian and other southern Italian dialects (Boston: Camillo P. Marlino). Firth, J. R. 1935 "The technique of semantics", TPhS 36-72 (Also in Firth 1957: 7-35, and in Hymes 1964: 66-70). 1957 Papers in linguistics 1934-1951 (London: Oxford U.P.). Fishman, J. A. 1965a "Varieties of ethnicity and varieties of language consciousness", MSLL 18: 69-79. 1965b "The status and prospects of bilingualism in the United States", MLJ 49: 143-155. 1965c "Who speaks what language to whom and when?", La Linguistique 2: 67-88. 1966 Language loyalty in the United States. The maintenance and perpetuation of nonEnglish mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups (The Hague: Mouton). [Reviewed by Rudnyckyj Lg 44 (1968): 198-201; HasselmoLingua 22 (1969): 261-266.] 1968 (ed.) Readings in the sociology of language (The Hague: Mouton). 1970 Sociolinguistics (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). 1971 "The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society". Advances in the sociology of language, edited by J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton) 1: 217-404. 1972 "Domains and the relationship between micro- and macrosociolinguistics", Directions in Sociolinguistics, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston), 435^)53. Fishman, J. A. - R. L. Cooper - R. Ma et al. 1968 Bilingualism in the barrio. Final Report on Contract OEC-1 -7-062817-0297 to DHEW (New York: Yeshiva University). [Also: (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1971).] Fishman, J. A. - L. Greenfield 1970 "Situational measures of normative language views in relation to person, place and topic among Puerto Rican bilinguals", Anthropos 65: 602-618. [Also in Advances in the sociology of language, edited by J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1971).] Fodor, I. 1965 The rate of linguistic change; Limits of the application of mathematical methods in linguistics (The Hague: Mouton). Fody, M. HI 1970 "The Spanish of the American Southwest and Louisiana: A bibliographical survey for 1954-1969", Orbis 19: 529-540. Fonagy, 1. 1968 "Les bases pulsionelles de la phonation", Revue Frangaise de Psychanalyse 34: 101-136. 1971a "La synthese de l'ironie", Phonetica 23: 42-51. 1971b "Le signe conventionel motive", La Linguistique 7/2: 55-80. Fonfrias, E. J. 1965 "Geografia, voz y espiritu de Puerto Rico en el idioma espanol", Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos 181: 110-129.

206

Beatriz R. Lavandera

de Fonseca, M. S. V. - M. F. Neves (eds.) 1974 Sociolingüistica. Introdugao de Paulino Vandresen (= Colegao Enfoque 3) (Rio de Janeiro: Eldorado Tijuca). Fontanella de Weinberg, M. B. 1973 "Compartamiento ante -5 de hablantes femeninos y masculinos del espanol bonaerense", RomPh 27: 50-58. 1974 Analisis sociolingüistico de un aspecto del espanol bonaerense: La -s en Bahia Bianca (= Cuadernos de Lingüfstica) (Bahia Bianca: Universidad Nacional del Sur). Forgue, G. J. - R. 1. McDavid Jr. 1972 Les langues des Americains (Aubier: Montaigne). Foster, D. W. 1967 "A Note on the /y/ phoneme of Porteno Spanish", Hispania 50: 119-121. 1975 "Concerning the phonemes of standard Porteno Spanish", Three essays on linguistic diversity in the Spanish-speaking world, edited by J. Ornstein (The Hague: Mouton), 61-70. Foster, G. 1964 "Speech and perception of social distance in a Spanish speaking Mexican village", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 20: 107-122. Fox, J.

1969 "The pronouns of address in Spanish", PICL 10/1: 685-693. Fox, R. 1968 "Multilingualism in two communities", Man 3: 456-464. Francescato, G. 1965 "Struttura linguistica e dialetto", Actes du X congres international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Paris: Klincksieck), 3: 1011-1018. 1974 "Suirindagine sociolinguistica delle situazioni bilingui in Italia e in particolare nel Friuli", Bilinguismo e diglossia in Italia (Pisa: Pacini), 83-90. Franceschi, T. 1970 Lingua e cultura di una comunita italiana in Costa Rica (Firenze: Valmartina). [Reviewed by Menarini LN 34 (1973): 68; Tuaillon RLR 38 (1974): 564-565.] Francis, S. 1960 Habla y cultura popular en la antigua capital Chapianeca (Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista). Frangois, D. 1973 "Andre Haudricourt, linguiste. Le langage traite comme fait social", La Pensoe 171: 24-36. 1974 Fra^ais parle: analyse des unitas phoniques et significatives d'un corpus recueilli dans la region parisienne (= Societe d'Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France, numero special 2) (Paris: SELAF). Froehlich, P. A. 1973 "O problema dos niveis de fala", Revista de Cultura Vozes 67/8: 27-32. Fuster, J. 1962 Nosaltres els valencians (Barcelona: Edicions 62). Gadet, F. 1971 "Recherches recentes sur les variations sociales de la langue", LFr 9: 74-81. Gagnon, M. 1970 Echelle d'attitude a iegard de la langue seconde, anglais pour francophones (Montreal: Lidec). 1973 "Quelques facteurs determinant 1'attitude vis-ä-vis de l'anglais, langue seconde",

Sociolinguistics

207

Canadian languages in their social context, edited by R. Darnell (Edmonton and Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.), 95-104. Gallardo, J. M. 1947 "Languages and Politics in Puerto Rico", Hispania 30: 38-44. Garvin, P. L. 1947 "Distinctive features in Zoque phonemic acculturation", SIL 5: 13-20. Garvin, P. L. - Y. Lastra de Suärez 1974 Antologia de etnolingütstica y sociolingüistica (Mexico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional Autonome de Mexico). Garvin, P. L. - M. Mathiot 1968 "The urbanization of the Guarani language and culture". Readings in the sociology of language, edited by J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton), 365-374. Gauchat, L. 1905 "L'unite phonetique dans le patois d'une commune", Festschrift Heinrich Morf (Halle: Niemeyer), 174-232. Geddes, Jr., J. 1897-98 "American French dialect comparison: Two Acadian-French dialects compared with some specimens of a Canadian French dialect spoken in Maine", MLN 12: 456^62; 13: 28-36, 88-97, 210-224, 271-283. Geertz, C. 1960 "Linguistic etiquette", Religion of Java (Glencoe: Free Press). [Also in Readings in the sociology of language, edited by J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1968), 282-295.] Gendron, J.-D. 1966 Tendances phonetiques du franfais parle au Canada (Quebec: Laval U.P.). [Reviewed by Delattre Lg 44 (1968): 852-855.] 1974 "La definition d'une norme de langue parlee au Quebec: une approche sociologique", RLR 38: 198-209. Giglioli, P.-P. 1968 "Direzioni di ricerca in sociolingüistica", Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 9: 329-381. 1973 (ed.) Linguaggio esocieta (Bologna: II Mulino). [Reviewed by UguzzaniSILTA 3 (1974): 546-566; Lawton MLJ 58 (1974): 105-151.] Gilbert, G. G. (ed.) 1970 Texas studies in bilingualism: Spanish, French, German, Czech, Polish, Serbian and Norwegian in the Southwest (Berlin: de Gruyter). [Reviewed by Clyne Linguistics 164 (1975): 72-77.] Giles, H. - D. M. Taylor - R. Bourhis 1973 "Towards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: some Canadian data", US 2: 177-192. Goidanich, P. G. 1926 "Saggio critico sullo studio de L. Gauchat", AGI 20: 60-71. Gomez de Ivashevsky, A. 1969 Lenguaje coloquial venezolano (Caracas: Institute de Filologia 'Andres Bello'). Gonzalez, R. J. 1966 "Pachuco: The birth of a Creole language", Arizona Quarterly 23: 343-356. Gonzalez Olle, F. 1963 "El habla de Burgos como modelo idiomätico de la lengua espaftola y su situacion actual", Presente y futuro de la lengua espanola (Madrid: Ofines), 1: 227-238. 1964 El habla de la Bureba. Introduccion al castellano actual de Burgos (Madrid:

208

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas). [Reviewed by Giese ZRPh 82 (1966): 435^37; Meier ASNS 203 (1966): 232-234; Simon RJb 17 (1966): 343-346; Sandru RRLing 12 (1967): 265-269; Craddock HR 36 (1968): 152-154; Leslie MLR 63 (1968): 275-276; Wolf RF 80 (1968): 171-172; Cuaron NRFH 19 (1970): 430-431.] Gougenheim, G. 1929 La langue populaire dans le premier quart du 19eme siede (Paris: Belles Lettres). Graham, R. S. 1962 "Spanish language radio in northern Colorado", AS 37: 207-211. Granda, G. de 1968 Transculturacion e interferencia linguistica en el Puerto Rico contemporaneo (1898-1968) (=Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo 24) (Bogota: Institute Caro y Cuervo). [Reviewed by Monies Thesaurus 23 (1968): 630-631; Baldinger ZRPh 85 (1969): 651-652; Vientos Gaston Amaru (Lima) 10 (1969): 86-89; Boletin de la Academia de Artes y Ciencias de Puerto Rico 5 (1969), Alonso 317-320, Morales Carrion 321-335, Garcia Pasablanca 337-345, Nieves 347-351, Llorens 353-370; Ballesteros-Gaibrois Thesaurus 25 (1970): 114-122; Pellegrini Quaderni Ibero-Americani 5 (1970): 115-116; Uribarri Revista de Occidente 29 (1970): 371-376.] 1968-71 "Materiales complementarios para el estudio sociohistorico de los elementos lingüisticos afroamericanos en el area hispanica", Thesaurus 23: 547-573, 26: 118-133, 400-422. 1973 "Dialectologia, historia social, y sociologia linguistica en Iscuande", Thesaurus 28: 445-470. Grassi, C. 1957 "Per una storia delle vicende cultural! e sociali di Guardia Piemontese ricostruite altraverso la sua parlatta attuale", Bollettino della Societä di Studi Valdesi 101: 71-77. 1964 "Comportamento linguistico e comportamento sociologico (A proposito di una recente publicazione)", AGI 49: 40-66. 1965 "Ancora su 'Comportamento linguistico e comportamento sociologico'", AGI 50: 58-67. 1967-68 "Sistemi in contatto: 11 concetto di diasistema e i principi della geografia linguistica", Atti della Academia delle Scienze di Torino 102: 75-88. 1969 "L'utilizzazione dei dinamismi sociolinguistici per I'organizzazione del territorio di una regione /The utilization of sociolinguistic dynamisms for the organization of the territory of a region". International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 543-554. 1970 "Lingua parlata regionale e lingua scritta nel processo di integrazione di un gruppo di imigrati in un centro industriale piemontese", Bollettino del Centra de Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani 11: 203-207. Graur, A. 1965 "Raportul intre factorii interni §i externi in istoria limbii", LbR 14: 17-20. 1967 "Role de 1'imitation dans les changements linguistiques", Melanges de philologie et de linguistique offen a Tauno Nurmela (Turku), 61-65. Greimas, A. J. 1969 "Des modeles theoriquesen sociolinguistique", International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 95-109. 1970 Du sens; essais semiotiques (Paris: Seuil).

Sociolinguistics

209

Grimes, L. M. 1971 El tabu ling is co: su naturaleza y funcion en el espanol popular de la ciudad de Mexico (Tesis de El Colegio de Mexico). Grinevald-Craig, C. 1968-69 La situation linguistique de la communaute portoricaine de Cambridge, Massachusetts (These, Faculte des Lettres de Paris, Nanterre, Departement d'espagnoi). Grossmann, R. 1926 Das ausl ndische Sprachgut im Spanischen des Rio de la Plata (Hamburg). Guiraud, P. 1965 Le β-αηςαί* populaire (Paris: P.U.F.). [Reviewed by Valdman Lg 44 (1968): 123-127.] Guitarte, G. L. 1955 "El ensordecimiento del zeismo porteno. Fonetica y fonologia", RFE 39: 261-283. Guitarte, G. L. - R. T. Quintero 1968 "Linguistic correctness and the role of the Academies", Current trends in linguistics 4 (The Hague: Mouton), 562-604. Gumperz, J. J. 1962 "Types of linguistic communities", AnL 4/1: 28-40. [Also in J. J. Gumperz, Language in social groups (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1971).] 1967 "On the linguistic markers of bilingual communication", Problems of bilingualism' edited by J. Macnamara, Journal of Social Issues 23/2: 48-57. 1972 "On the communicative competence of bilinguals. Some hypotheses and suggestions for further research", LiS 1: 143-154. Gumperz, J. J. - E. Hernandez-Chavez 1971 "Cognitive aspects of bilingual communication", Language use and social change, edited by W. H. Whiteley (Oxford: U.P.), 111-125. Gumperz, J. J. - D. Hymes (eds.) 1972 Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (New York: Holt). Hager, F. - H. Haberland - R. Paris 1972 Die verwertete Sprach Wissenschaft. Eine kritische Einf hrung in die Soziolinguistik (Stuttgart: Metzler). Haggis, B. M. 1973 "Un cas de trilinguisme", La Linguistique 9/2: 38-50. Halliday, M. A. K. 1975 "Sociological aspects of semantic change", PICL II, 853-888. Hampl, Z. 1965 "Para o estudo das formulas do tratamento no portugues do Brasil: o tratamento desenhor",PICL 10/1: 357-372. Hasselmo, N. 1970 "Code-switching and modes of speaking", Texas studies in bilingualism, edited by G. G. Gilbert (Berlin: de Gruyter), 179-210. Haudricourt, A.-G. 1959 "Methode scientifique et linguistique structural", L'Ant eSociologique, 31-48. Haugen, E. 1950 "The analysis of linguistic borrowing", Lg 26: 210-231. 1956 Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide (= PADS 26) (Alabama: U.P.).

210

Beatriz R. Lavandera

1973 "Bilingualism, language contact, and immigrant languages in the United States: A research report 1956-1970", Current trends in linguistics 10 (The Hague: Mouton), 505-591. Hayes, F. C. 1949 "Anglo-Spanish speech in Tampa, Florida", Hispania 32: 48-52. Head, B. F. 1972 "The social structuring of pronoun usage in Brazilian Portuguese", Paper delivered at the Linguistic Society of America Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, December 27-29. 1973 "O estudo do "r-caipira" no contexto social", Revista de Cultura Vozes 67/8: 43^9. Heath, S. B. 1972 Telling tongues. Language policy in Mexico. Colony to nation (New York: Teachers College Press). [Reviewed by Lara NRFH 21 (1972): 412- 14; Lastra de Suärez LiS 2 (1973): 294-297; McQuown Lg 50 (1974): 607610.] Helgorsky, F. 1973 "La sociolinguistique aux Etats-Unis et en France", FM 4: 387-415. Henriquez Urena, P. 1938 El espanol en Mexico, los Estados Unidos y la Amlrica Central (= Biblioteca de dialectologia hispanoamericana 4) (Buenos Aires: Institute de Filologia). Hensey, F. 1965 "El bilingüismo en relacion a la lectura: encuesta en una comunidad fronteriza", Cebela 1: 90-97. 1972 The sociolinguistics of the Brazilian-Uruguayan border (The Hague: Mouton). 1973 "Grammatical variables in southwestern American speech", Linguistics 108: 5-26. Heraud, G. 1968 Peuples et tongues d'Europe (Paris: Denoel). Hernandez-Chavez, E. - A. D. Cohen - A. F. Beltramo 1975 El lenguaje de los chicanos. Regional and social characteristics of language used by Mexican Americans (Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Hertzler, J. O. 1965 A sociology of language (New York: Random House). [Reviewed by Fishman Lg 43 (1967): 586-604.] Heye, J. B. 1972 "Bilingualism and language attitudes in Merano, Italy", Paper delivered at the Northeastern Anthropological Association Meeting, Buffalo, New York, April 21-23. Houis, M. 1956 "Etats des conaissances linguistiques dans l'Ouest africain et perspectives de recherches", Orbis 5: 169-184. 1962 "Aperqu sociologique sur le bilinguisme en Afrique noire", Notes africaines 46: 107-113. Hymes, D. 1964 Language in culture and society, ed. by D. Hymes (New York: Harper and Row). 1973 "The scope of sociolinguistics", Sociolinguistics: current trends and prospects, edited by R. W. Shuy (Washington D.C.: Georgetown: U.P.), 313-333. 1974 Foundations in sociolinguistics (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania U.P.).

Sociolinguistics

211

Hymes, D. - W. E. Bittle (eds.) 1967 Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics (The Hague: Mouton). Iliescu, M. 1973 Lefrioulan (The Hague: Mouton). [Reviewed by Francescato Lingua 37 (1975): 267-271.] Iona§cu, A. 1962 "Cu privire la aspectul social al elementelor limbii", Probleme de lingvisticä generalä (Bucures.ti) 4: 175-192. lordan, I. 1960 "Despre inovatje in limbä", SCL 11: 519-526. 1962 "Inovatji individuale 51 inovat.ii colective", Probleme de lingvisticä generalä (Bucures,ti) 4: 9-17. lordan, I. - J. Orr 1970 An introduction to Romance linguistics. Its schools and scholars. Revised with a supplement: Thirty years on by R. Posner (Oxford: Blackwell). John-Steiner, V. P. - V. M. Homer 1970 "Bilingualism and the Spanish-speaking child", Language and poverty, edited by F. Williams (Chicago: Markham), 140-152. Jucquois, G. 1973 "Les allocutions du franqais et la situation de la femme". La reconstruction linguistique, application a I'indo-europeen (= Cours et Documents 2) (Louvain: U.P.), 199-208. Kelly, L. G. (ed.) 1969 Description and measurement ofbilingualism: An international seminar (Toronto: U.P.). Kernan, K. T. - B. G. Blount 1966 "The acquisition of Spanish grammar", AnL 8: 1-14. Kimple, J., Jr. - R. L. Cooper - J. A. Fishman 1969 "Language switching and the interpretation of conversations", Lingua 23: 127-134. Kirsch, F. P. 1965 Studien zur languedokischen und gaskognischen Literatur der Gegenwart (Wien: Braumüller). Kjolseth, R. - F. Sack (eds.) 1971 Zur Soziologie der Sprache (= Sonderheft 15 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie) (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag). Klein, W. - D. Wunderlich (eds.) 1971 Aspekte der Soziolinguistik (Frankfurt: Athenäum). [Reviewed by Wolf ZRPh 88 (1972): 603-604.] Kloss, H. 1970 Les droits linguisticjues des franco-americains aux Etats-Unis (Quebec: Laval U.P.). Kovacec, A. 1968 "Observations sur les influences croates dans la grammaire istroroumaine", La Linguistique 3/1: 79-115. Kraus, K. 1951 "Judeo-Spanish in Israel", Hispania 34: 261-270. Kreidler, C. W. 1958 A study of the influence of English on the Spanish of Puerto Ricans in Jersey City, New Jersey (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan).

212

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Kremnitz, G. 1973 "La situation de la langue d'oc a travers une enquete sur les mass-media", RLaR 80: 249-315. Laberge, S. 1972 Etüde d'un changement linguistique: les pronoms indlfinis dans le franfais montrfalais (unpublished thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montreal). Laberge, S. - H. Cedergren 1972 "Les regies variables du QUE expletif dans le fran9ais parle ä Montreal", Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Laberge, S. - M. Chiasson-Lavoie 1971 "Attitudes face au fransais parle a Montreal et degres de conscience de variables linguistiques", Linguistic diversity in Canadian society, edited by R. Darnell (Edmonton and Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.), 89-126. Labov, W. 1966 The social stratification of English in New York City (Washington D .C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). 1969 "Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula", Lg 45: 715-762. Also in Labov 1972b. 1972a Language in the inner city (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania U.P.). 1972b Sociolinguistic patterns (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania U.P.). 1973 "The boundaries of words and their meanings", New ways of analyzing variation in English, edited by C.-J. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P.), 340-373. Labov, W. - P. Pedraza 1971 A study of the Puerto Rican speech community in New York City (Report to the Urban Center of Columbia University). Labov, W. -J. Waletzky 1967 "Narrative analysis", Essays on the verbal and visual arts, edited by J. Helm (Seattle: University of Washington Press), 12-44. Lafont, R. 1952 "Remarques sur les conditions et les methodes d'une etude rationelle du comportement linguistique des Occitans", Annales de l'lnstitut d'Etudes occitanes 11: 41-45. 197la Clefs pour iOccitanie (Paris: Seghers). 1971 b "Un probleme de culpabilite sociologique: la diglossie franco-occitane", LF 9: 93-99. 1973 "Acculturation, alienation ethnique et degenerescence patoisante dans une situation ancienne de contact linguistique: question de methode", Ethnics 3: 27-36. Lambert, W. 1967a "The use of tu and vous as forms of address in French Canada: a pilot study", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 614-617. 1967b "A social psychology of bilingualism",7o«rna/ of Social Issues 23:91-109. [Also in W. H. Whiteley (ed.). Language use and social change (Oxford: U.P., 1971), 95-110. 1969 "Psychological studies of the interdependencies of the bilinguals' two languages", Substance and structure of language, edited by J. Puhvel (Berkeley: California U.P.), 99-126. 1972 Language, psychology and culture: Essays by W. E. Lambert (Stanford: U.P.). Lambert, W. - H. Frankel - G. R. Tucker

Sociolinguistics 1968

213

"Judging personality through speech: A French-Canadian example". Journal of Communication 16: 305-321. Lambert, W. - R. C. Hogson - R. C. Gardner - S. Fillenbaum 1960 "Evaluational reactions to spoken language". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 44-51. Lambert, W. - C. Rawlings 1969 "Bilingual processing of mixed-language associative networks". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: 604-609. Lance, D. M. 1969 A brief study of Spanish-English bilingualism. Final report research project OrrLiberal Arts-15504 (College Station, Texas). Lapesa, R. 1968 "Prologo", Transculturacion e interferencia ling istica en el Puerto Rico contemporaneo (1898-1968) (Bogota: Institute Caro y Cuervo). Lastra de Su rez, Y. 1968 "Literacy", Current trends in linguistics 4 (The Hague: Mouton), 415-463. 1972a "Codigos amplios y restringidos en el espanol de Oaxaca, Mexico", Anales de Antropologia (Mexico) 10: 189-207. 1972b "Los pronombres de tratamiento en la ciudad de Mexico", AdL 10: 213217. 1975 "El habla de los ninos de origen mexicano en Los Angeles", El lenguaje de los chicanos, edited by E. Hernandez-Chavez et al. (Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Lavandera, B. 197la "The system of past tenses in New York - Puerto Rican Spanish", The English Language Journal (Buenos Aires) 2: 129-135. 1971b "La variable ecologica en el habla de Buenos Aires", Filologia 15: 61-85. 1974 "On sociolinguistic research in New World Spanish: A review article", LiS 3: 247-337. 1975a "Cocoliche", Diccionario de ciencias sociales (Barcelona: UNESCO). 1975b Linguistic structure and sociolinguistic conditioning in the use of verbal endings in Si-clauses (Buenos Aires Spanish) (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Le Calvez, A. 1970 Un cas de bilinguisme: Le Pays de Galles (Lannion). Lecointre, S. - J. Le Galliot 1973 "Le changement linguistique: Problematiques nouvelles", Langages 32: 7-26. Lefebvre, C. 1971 La selection des codes linguistiques a la Martinique: un modele de communication (unpublished thesis, University of Montreal). Lefebvre, H. 1966 Le langage et la χοήέίέ (Paris: Gallimard). Lehrer, A. 1975 "Talking About Wine", Lg 51: 901-923. Leon, P. 1970 "Systematique des fonctions expressives de l'intonation", Prosodic feature analysis /Analyse desfaitsprosodiques, edited by G. Faure, P. R. Leon, A. Rigault (= Studia Phonetica 3) (Montreal-Paris-Bruxelles: Didier), 57-74. 1971 Essais de phonostylistique (= Studia Phonetica 4) (Montreal-Paris-Bruxelles: Didier).

214

Beatriz R. Lavandera

1972-73 "Reflexions idiomatologiques sur I'accent en tant que metaphore sociolinguistique", FR 46: 783-789. Le Page, R. B. 1968 "Problems of description in multi-lingual communities", TPhS, 189-212. 1972 "Preliminary report on the sociolinguistic survey of multilingual communities; Part I: Survey of Cayo District, British Honduras", LiS 1: 155-172. Lieberson, S. 1965 "Bilingualism in Montreal: A demographic analysis", American Journal of Sociology 71: 10-25. 1970 Language and ethnic relations in Canada (New York: Wiley). [Reviewed by Pinard American Journal of Sociology 77 (1971): 623-625; Brazeau LiS 1 (1972): 296-297; McCormack AmA 74 (1972): 935-936.] Lindenfeld, J. 1969 "The social conditioning of syntactic variation in French", AmA 71: 890-898. [Also in Advances in the sociology of language, edited by J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1972).] Linn, G. B. 1967 "Linguistic functions of bilingual Mexican-American children", Journal of Genetic Psychology 3: 183-193. Llorens, W. 1974 El habla popular de Puerto Rico (Rio Piedras: Edil). Locke, W. N. 1949 The pronunciation of the French spoken at Brunswick, Maine (= PADS 12) (Greensboro, North Carolina). Longmire, J. 1976 "On the origin of sound change, with examples from a sociolinguistic study of Spanish of Merida, Venezuela", Paper delivered at the Penn Linguistics Club, University of Pennsylvania, April 22. Lope Blanch, J. M. 1969 "Proyecto de estudio coordinado en la norma lingüistica culta de las principales ciudades de Iberoamerica", El simposio de Mexico (Mexico: PILEI), 222-233. 1974 "Dialectologia mexicana y sociolingüistica", NRFH 23: 1-34. Lopez Morales, H. 1971 Estudios sobre el espanol de Cuba (Long Island City, N.Y.: Las Americas). [Reviewed by FajardoA/AFW 22 (1973): 353-355; Honsa Hispania 56 (1973): 1125-1126; Salamanca de Abreu Thesaurus 28 (1973): 138-146; Simon MLN 88 (1973): 503-505.] 1973 "Hacia un concepto de la sociolingüistica", Revista Inter-Americana 2/4: 478^89. Lorwin, V. 1970 "Linguistic pluralism and political tension in modern Belgium", Canadian Journal of History 5: 1-23. [Reprinted in J. A. Fishman, Advances in the sociology of language (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), 2: 386-412.] Lozano, A. G. 1961 "Intercambio de espaftol e ingles en San Antonio, Texas", Archivum 11: 111-138. [Reviewed by Fody Orbis 19 (1970): 536-538.] 1964 A study of spoken styles in Colombian Spanish (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas). Mackey, W. F. 1962 "The description of bilingualism", CJL 7: 58-85.

Sociolinguistics 1965

215

"Bilingual interference: Its analysis and measurement", Journal of Communication 15:239-249. 1966 "The measurement of bilingual behavior". The Canadian Psychologist 7: 75-92. 1967 Le bilinguisme, phenomene mondial I Bilingualism as a world problem (Montreal: Harvest House). 1972 Bibliographie internationale sur le bilinguisme (Quebec: Laval U.P.). [Reviewed by Bureau La Linguistique 10/1 (1974): 156-158.] 1973 "Les etudes du bilinguisme au Canada", ELA 10: 83-90. McMenamin, J. 1973 "Rapid code-switching among Chicano bilinguals", Orbis 22: 474-487. Macnamara, J. 1967 Problems of bilingualism (= Journal of Social Issues 23/2). McQuown, N. 1962 "Indian and Ladino bilingualism: Sociocultural contrasts in Chiapas, Mexico", MSLL 15: 85-106. Maley, A. C. 1971-72 "Historically speaking, tu or vous'\ FR 45: 999-1006. Malinowski, B. 1937 "The dilemma of contemporary linguistics", Nature 140: 172-173. [= Review of M. M. Lewis, Infant Speech.] Malkiel, Y. 1950 "Distinctive features in lexicography: A typological approach to dictionaries exemplified with Spanish", RomPh 12: 366-399. 1957 "A tentative typology of etymological studies", UAL 23: 1-17. [Reprinted in Malkiel 1968a: 199-227.] 1960 "A tentative typology of Romance historical grammars", Lingua 9: 321-416. [Reprinted in Malkiel 1968a: 71-164.] 1964 "Some diachronic implications of fluid speech communities", The ethnography of speaking, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, AmA 66 (6/2): 177-186. [Reprinted in Malkiel 1968a: 19-31.] 1968a Essays on linguistic themes (Oxford: Blackwell). [Reviewed by BaldingerZAP// 84 (1968): 636-637; LupasRRLing 14 (1969): 415^*16; Posner Lg 45 (1969): 364-369; Worthington RomPh 23 (1969-70): 65-75; Potter MLR 65 (1970): 854-856; Price FS 24 (1970): 323-324; Wunderli VR 29 (1970): 171-172; Kerkhof Nph 55 (1971): 452^54; Roth RF 83 (1971): 97-103; Dembowski ALA 36 (1972: 163-172.] 1968b "Hispanic philology", Current trends in linguistics 4 (The Hague: Mouton), 158-228. 1972 Linguistics and philology in Spanish America. 1925-1970 (The Hague: Mouton). [Reviewed by Granda RDyTP 29 (1973): 280-282; Canfield Hispania 57 (1974): 1022-1023; Kroll RF 87 (1975): 117-118.] 1972-73 "The first quarter-century (and some antecedents)", RomPh 26: 3-15. Malmberg, B. 1947-48 "L'espagnol dans le Nouveau Monde — probleme de linguistique generale", SL 1: 79-116; 2: 1-36. 1950 Etude sur la phonatique de l'espagnol parle en Argentine (Lund: U.P.). 1961 "Linguistique iberique et ibero-romane. Problemes et methodes", SL 15: 57-113. Mangue, P. 1970 Le particularisme alsacien 1918-1967 (Paris).

216

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Marcellesi, J.-B. 1971 "Presentation", Linguistique et societä, edited by J.-B. Marcellesi, LF 9: 3-5. Marcellesi, J.-B. - B. Gardin 1975 Introduction a la sociolinguistique (Paris: Larousse). Martinet, A. 1945 La prononciation dufranfais contemporain (Paris: Droz). [Reviewed by Valdman Lg 50 (1974): 582-586.] 1954 ^Dialect", RomPh 8: 1-11. 1965 EUments de linguistique g n ral (Paris: Colin). 1966a "Bilingualisme et plurilinguisme. Hierarchie des usages linguistiques", Revue tunisienne de sciences sociales 8: 57-78, 103-114. 1966b "Prologue", Languages in contact, by U. Weinreich (4th ed.) (The Hague: Mouton). 1969 La linguistique. Guide alphabitique (Paris: Denöel-Gonthier). Marzys, Z. 1971 Colloque de dialectologie francoprovenfale (Geneve: Droz). Matluck, J. 1951 La pronunciacion en el espanol del Volle de Mexico (Mexico: Morales-Sanchez). [Reviewed by Florez Thesaurus 7 (1951): 378-380.] 1961 "Fonemas finales en el consonantismo puertorriquefio", NRFH 15: 332342. Mayer, K. 1956 "Cultural pluralism and linguistic equilibrium in Switzerland", Demographic analysis, edited by J. J. Spengler and O. D. Duncan (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press), 478-483. Megenney, W. W, 1970 An ethnolinguistic study of west African influences on Bahian Portuguese (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin). Meillet, A. 1906 "Comment les mots changent de sens", L'annee sociologique. [Also in Meillet 1921: 230-271.] 1918 Les Langues dans I'Europe nouvelle (Paris: Payot). 1921 Linguistique historique et linguistique g n rale (Paris: Societe de Linguistique). Meliä, J. 1970 Informe sobre la lengua catalana (Madrid: Coleccion Novelas y Cuentos). Menarini, A. 1947 Ai margini della lingua (Firenze: Sansoni). Meo-Zilio, G. 1960a "Los sonidos avulsivos en el Rio de la Plata", A1ON 2: 113-120. 1960b "Sull'elemento italiano nello spagnolo rioplatense", LN 21: 97-103. 1964 "El cocoliche rioplatense", BFUCh 16: 61-119. Mettas, O. 1969 "Etude sur la duree des consonnes dans Tun des parlers parisiens", SL 22: 91-103. 1971 "Remarques sur les aspects phoniques d'un des parlers parisiens", ELA 3: 106-116. Michel, J. 1969 "A pilot project for recording the speech of the five-year-old Texas SpanishEnglish pre-school bilingual child", Florida FL Reporter 7: 15-17, 20.

Sociolinguistics

217

Micläu, P. 1959 "Trecerea de la limbä comunä a poporului la limbä natjonala — c u aplica^ii la limbä francezä", Probleme de lingvisticä generalä \: 69-88. Miller, M. R. 1970 "Bilingualism in northern New England", PADS 52: 1-23. Miquel i Verges, M. E. 1963 "Formulas de tratamiento en la ciudad de Mexico", AdL 3: 35-86. Monteverde-Ganoza, L. A. 1974 "Aspectos sociolingih'sticos en la afasia de los bilingües", LyC 14: 1-9. Morais-Barbosa, J. 1962 "Sur le /r/ portugais", Miscelanea. Homenaje a Andre Martinet (Canarias: La Laguna)3: 211-226. 1965 "Lingua, dialecto, falar local", Estudos poKticos e sociais 3: 727-739. [Reviewed by Head RPF 14 (1966-1968): 608-613.] Muller, H. F. 1945 "Phenomenes sociaux et linguistiques. Un cas demontrable de concordance entre phenomenes d'ordre social et phenomenes d'ordre linguistique", Word l: 121-131. Muftoz Cortes, M. 1964 "Niveles sociologicos en el funcionamiento del espafiol. Problemas y metodos", Presente y futuro de la lengua espanola (Madrid: Ofines), H, 35-37. Nash. R. 1970 "Spanglish: Language contact in Puerto Rico", AS 45: 223-233. Navarro Tomäs, T. 1948 Elespanol en Puerto Rico (Rio Piedras: Puerto Rico U.P.). [Reviewed by Zamora Vicente Filologia 1 (1949): 75-79; Florez Thesaurus 7 (1951): 370-375.] Niculescu, A. 1962 "Structure de l'expression pronominale de la politesse", CLTA 1: 179-183. Ninyoles, R. LI. 1969 Conflicts linguistic Valencia (Barcelona: Edicions 62). [Reviewed by Azevedo Lg 49 (1973): 733-736.] 1971 Idioma y prejudici (Palma de Mallorca: Moll). [Reviewed by Azevedo Lg 49 (1973): 733-736.] 1972 Idioma y poder social (Madrid: Tecnos). [Reviewed by Lavandera Li'S 4 (1972): 230-231.] Oksaar, E. 1970 "Bilingualism", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 476-511. Oliver, J. D. 1970 Social determinants in communication events in a small bilingual community in New Mexico (Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Ornstein, J. 1951 "The archaic and the modern in the Spanish of New Mexico", Hispania 34: 137-141. 1970 "Sociolinguistics and new perspectives in the study of southwest Spanish", Studies in language and linguistics 1969-1970, edited by R. W. Ewton and J. Ornstein (El Paso: Texas Western Press), 127-184. 1971 "Language varieties along the US-Mexican border", Applications of linguistics, edited by G. E. Perren and J. L. M. Trim (Cambridge: U.P.), 349-362. 1972 "Toward a classification of southwest Spanish non-standard varieties", Linguistics 93: 70-87.

218 1975

Beatriz R. Lavandera

"Sociolinguistics and the study of Spanish and English language varieties and their use in the U.S. southwest (with a proposed plan of research)", Three essays on linguistic diversity in the Spanish-speaking world, edited by J. Ornstein (The Hague: Mouton), 9-45. Paiva Boleo, M. de 1965 estudo das relafoes mutuas do portugues e do espanhol na Europa e na America, e influencia destas linguas em territories da Africa e da Asia (Coimbra· U.P.). Pap, L. 1949 Portuguese-American speech. An outline of speech conditions among Portuguese immigrants in New England and elsewhere in the United States (New York: King's Crown Press). Parisi, D. 1969 "Deficienze linguistiche di origine sociale all'inizio della carriera scolastica / Sociocultural influences on language abilities at the beginning of the school education", International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 565-589. 1970 "Differenze di origine socio-culturale nella produzione linguistica di soggeti in etä pre-scolare", Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicala 2: 95-101. 1971 "Development of syntactic comprehension as a function of socio-economic level", Developmental Psychology 5: 186-189. 1973 Nascita delle differenze sociali nel linguaggio dei bambini (Istituto di Psicologia, C.N.R.). Parisi, D. - P. Barbieri - V. S. Pizzino 1971 "Ruolo della madre nello sviluppo cognitivo del bambino: differenze di classe sociale", Neuropsichiatrie infantile 125: 532-545. Parisi, D. - F. Tonucci 1971 Tre studi suite capacita linguistiche aliinizio della carriera scolastica in funzione della classe sociale. L'insegnamento dell'italiano in Italia e all'Estero (Roma: Bulzoni). Pautasso, M. 1969 Dialetto, lingua e integrazione linguistica a Pettinengo (= Publicazioni della Facolta di Lettere dell'universita di Torino) (Torino: Giappichelli). Pellegrini, G. B. 1969 "Noterelle di sociolinguistica", Protimesis. Scritti in onore di V. Pisani (Lecce: Associazione Linguistica Salentina), 99-109. Pellizzi, C. 1969a "Material per una sistematica sociolinguistica", Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 10: 5^t2. 1969b "'Realta', 'segno', e altre note epistemologiche / 'Reality', 'sign', and other epistemological notes". International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 53-94. Perez-Sala, P. 1973 Interferencia linguistica del ingtts en el espanol hablado en Puerto Rico; un estudio sobre la sintaxis de los puertorriquenos (Hato Rey, Puerto Rico: Inter American U.P.). [Reviewed by Alcalä NRFH 23 (1974): 134-138; Lipski LiS 4 (1975): 365-366.] Perisinotto, G. 1972 "Distribucion geogräfica de la asibilacion de vibrantes en el habla de la ciudad de Mexico", NRFH 21: 71-79.

Sociolinguistics

219

Petkanov, I. 1965 "Les elements romans dans les langues balkaniques", Actes du X congres de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Paris: Klincksieck), 3: 11591176. Petrovici, E. 1967 "Elementele sud-slave Orientale ale istroromanei §i problema teritoriului de formare a limbii romane", CLing 12: 11-19. Philipp, M. 1964 "Transfer! du Systeme phonologique de Blaesheim sur une autre langue, le francais", PIC L 9, 392-397. 1965 Le Systeme phonologique du parier de Blaesheim. Etude synchronique et diachronique (Nancy: Annales de l'Est, Memoire No. 27). Pietropaolo, D. 1965 "Bilinguisme", RRLing 10: 343-350. Ponzio, A. 1970 Linguaggio e relazioni sociali (Bari: Adriatica). 1973 Produzione linguistica e ideologia sociale. Per una teoria marxista del linguaggio e delta communicazione (Bari: De Donato). Pop, Sever 1950 La dialectologie (Louvain: U.P.). Posner, R 1970 "Thirty Years On", supplement to An introduction to Romance linguistics. Its schools and scholars, by I. lordan and J. Orr (Oxford: Blackwell). [Reviewed by HallLg 47 (1971): 932-936; Harris7L 7 (1971): 301-304;LarochetteOrWs 20 (1971): 295-297; Genaust VR 31 (1972): 364-381; Gregory MLR 67 (1972): 181-182; Niculescu 5CL 23 (1972): 75-77; Price FS 27 (1973): 1 14.] 1976 "The relevance of comparative and historical data for the description and definition of a language", York Papers in Linguistics 6: 75-37. Pettier, B. 1970 "Linguistique culturelle", Echanges et communications. Malanges offerts ä Claude Levi Strauss (The Hague: Mouton) 1, 609-613. 1974 "Ethnolinguistique et grammaire", RLR 38: 418^19. Price, M. G. 1964 "The problem of modern literary Occitan", ArchL 16: 34-53. 1969 The present position of minority languages in Western Europe: A selective bibliography (Cardiff: Wales U.P.). 1972 "A bibliography of the present position of minority languages in Western Europe: First supplement", Orbis 21: 235-247. Pride, J. B. 1974 "Sociolinguistics", Current trends in linguistics 12 (The Hague: Mouton), 1607-1628. Ramirez, R. L. 1964 "Un nuevo enfoque para el anälisis del cambio cultural en Puerto Rico", Revista de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Puerto Rico 8: 339-355. Rando, G. 1967a "Alcuni anglicismi nel dialetto di Filicudi Percorini", LN 28: 31-32. 1967b "Influenze dell'inglese sull'italiano di Sidney", LN 28: 115-118. 197la "English loan-words and standard Italian original in the vocabulary of Australian Italian", Te Reo 14: 74-80.

220

Beatriz R. Lavandera

1971b "The influence of Australian English on Italian spoken by Sicilian migrants from Perth", Quaderni dell'Istituto Italiano di Cultura (Melbourne) 4: 171176. 1971c "L'italiano parlato d'Australia", La Fiamma 25: 10-14. 1971d "The semantic influence of English on Italian", Iialica 48: 246-252. 1971 e "L'italo-australiano di Perth", LN 4: 118-120. 1971f "Profilo linguistico dell'italo-australiano", Working Papers in Linguistics (Romance Languages Department, University of Auckland) 7. Reichstein, R. 1960 "Etude des variations sociales et geographiques des faits linguistiques (Observations faites ä Paris en 1956-1957)", Word 16: 55-99. Reimen, J. R. 1965 "Esquisse d'une situation plurilingue, le Luxembourg", La Linguistique 1/2: 89-102. Revest, A. M. 1966 "El espanol hablado en Cuba", Idioma 3: 188-191, 243-244, 300-303. Ricci, J. 1967 "The influence of locally spoken Italian dialects on River Plate Spanish", FI 1: 48-59. Rice, F. A. (ed.) 1962 Study of the role of second languages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics). Rizescu, I. 1961 "Rolul factorilor interni s,i a) factorilor extern) in dezvoltarea limbii (cu aplicatii la afixele locale)", Probleme de lingvisticä generalä 3: 125-138. Robach, I.-B. 1974 Etüde socio-linguistique de la segmentation syntaxique du franqaisparli (= Etudes Romanes de Lund 23) (Lund: Gleerup). [Reviewed by Blumenthal MS 74 (1975): 184-185.] Robe, S. L. 1960 The Spanish of rural Panama (= UCPL 20) (Berkeley and Los Angeles: California U.P.). [Reviewed by Saporta Lg 37 (1961): 144-147; Salomonski ZRPh 82 (1966): 255-257.] Robert, F. 1973 "Aspects sociaux du changement dans une grammaire generative", Langages 32: 88-97. Rona, J. P. 1958 Aspectos metodologicos de la dialectologia hispano-americana (Montevideo: Universidad de la Republica). 1963 La frontera lingüistica entre el portug^s y el espanol en el norte del Uruguay (Porto Alegre: U.P.). 1964 "El problema de la division del espaflol americano en zonas dialectales", Presente y futuro de la lengua espanola (Madrid: Ofines) 1: 215-226. 1965 El dialecto "fronterizo" del Norte del Uruguay (Montevideo: Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias). [Reviewed by Hampl PhP 10 (1967): 122-123; Avram SCL 20 (1969): 117-118.] 1966 "The social and cultural status of Guarani in Paraguay", Sociolinguistics, ed. by W. Bright (The Hague: Mouton), 277-293. 1967 Geografia y morfologia del "voseo" (Porto Alegre: U.P.). 1970 "A structural view of sociolinguistics", Method and theory in linguistics, edited by

Sociolinguistics

221

P. L. Garvin (The Hague: Mouton), 199-211. [Reviewed by G. Sankoff US 1 (1972): 265.] 1973 "Normas locales, regionales, nacionales, y universales en la America espanola", NRFH 22: 310-321. Ronjat, J. 1930-38 Grammaire historique desparlersprovengaux modernes (Montpellier: Societe des Langues Romanes). Rosario, Ruben del 1964 "Estado actual del espafiol de Puerto Rico", Presente y futuro de la lengua espanola (Madrid: Ofines), I, 153-160. 1967 "Uso y funcion del inglesen Puerto Rico", Elsimposio de Bloomington (Bogota), 69-77. Rossi-Landi, F. 1968 // linguaggio como lavoro e coma mercato (Milano: Bompiani). 1972 Semiotica e ideologia (Milano: Bompiani). 1974 "Linguistics and economics". Current trends in linguistics 12 (The Hague: Mouton), 1787-2017. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism 1967-70 Report of the ... (Ottawa: Queen's Printer). Rubel, A. J. 1968 "Some cultural aspects of learning English in Mexican-American communities", Schools in transition. Essays in comparative education, edited by A. M. Kazamias and E. H. Epstein (Boston: Allyn and Bacon), 370-382. Rubin, J. 1968a "Language and education in Paraguay", Language problems of developing nations, edited by J. A. Fishman, C. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta (New York: Wiley). 1968b National bilingualism in Paraguay (The Hague: Mouton). [Reviewed by Fontanella Thesaurus 26 (1971): 444^48.] Rubin, J. - B. Jernudd (eds.) 1971 Can language be planned? (Honolulu: East-West Center Press). Rubin, J. - R. W. Shuy (eds.) 1973 Language planning: Current issues and research (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P.). Rudgioz, C. 1967 Le plurilinguisme hier, aujourd'hui, demain (Dakar: Centre de Linguistique Appliquee). Rusu, V. 1961 "Note despre legätura dintre fenomenele de limbä §i istoria societä^ii", Probleme de lingvisticä generalä 3: 95-105. 1965 "Tradition et innovation dans le domaine de la dialectologie", PICL 10/2: 95-100. 1969 "Reflecjü despre structura dialectalä a dacoromänei (pe marginea unor studii recente)", SCL 20: 215-220. 1973 "Aspecte sociolingvistice in vorbirea populara (pe baza textelor dialectale Oltenia)", FD 8: 184-186. 1974 "Geographie linguistique et sociolinguistique", Atti del XIV congresso internazionaledilinguisticaefilologiaromanza (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 2:265-270. Ruxandra, P. - N. Saramandu 1971 "Dialectologia sociologica", Progresele jtünfei 9: 446-449.

222

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Ryan, J. S. 1973 "The Italians and their language in Australia", Orbis 22: 488-519. Sacks, H. - E. Schegloff - G. Jefferson 1974 "A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation", Lg 50: 696-735. Sala, M. 1961 "Observaiii asupra dispari(iei limbilor", Probleme de lingvisticä generalä 3: 107-124. 1962 "Disparitia limbii §i polisemia', Probleme de lingvisticä generalä 4: 147-158. 1970 Estudios sobre el judeoespanol de Bucarest (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico). [Reviewed by Fernändez-Sevilla Thesaurus 26 (1971): 439^44; Sandru-Olteanu SCL 22 (1971): 444-445; Bolton-Burla AdL 9 (1971): 286-292; Kahane Lg 49 (1973): 943-948; Thompson LiS 2 (1973): 308-310.] Sanches, M. - B. G. Blount 1975 Sociocultural dimensions of language use (New York: Academic). Sanchis Guarner, M. 1967 La llengua dels valencians (3rd edition) (Valencia: Garbi). Sankoff, D. - H. Cedergren 1976 "The dimensionality of grammatical variation", Lg 52: 163-178. Sankoff, D. - G. Sankoff 1973 "Sample survey methods and computer assisted analysis in the study of grammatical variation", Canadian languages in their social context, edited by R. Darnell (Edmonton and Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.), 7-64. Sankoff, G. 1973 "Above and beyond phonology in variable rules", New ways of analyzing variation in English, edited by C.-J. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P.), 44-61. 1974 "A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence", Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, edited by R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (Cambridge: U.P.), 18^9. 1975 "The origins of syntax in discourse: Some evidence from Tok Pisin", Paper delivered at the International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles, University of Hawaii. [Revised version published in Lg 52 (1976): 631-666.] n.d. L'apport de la sociolinguistique a I'etude du franfais quebecois (University of Montreal). Sankoff, G. - H. Cedergren 1971 "Les contraintes linguistiques et sociales de l'elision du (L) chez les Montrealais", Actes du XIII congres international de linguistique et philologie romanes (Quebec: Laval U.P.), 2: 1101-1117. 1972 "Sociolinguistic research on French in Montreal", LiS 1: 173-174. Sankoff, G. - H. Cedergren - R. Sarrasin 1971 "Quelques considerations sur la distribution sociolinguistique de la variable QUE dans le fra^ais de Montreal", Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Association canadienne-fra^aise pour l'avancement des Sciences. Sapir, E. 1921 Language (New York: Harcourt Brace). Sapon, S. M. 1953 "A method for the study of socio-economic differentials in linguistic phenomena", SIL 11: 57-68.

Sociolinguistics

223

Sawyer, J. M. 1959 "Aloofness from Spanish influence in Texas English", Word 15: 270-281. 1964 "Social aspects of bilingualism in San Antonio, Texas", PADS 41: 7-15. Schelb, A. 1973 "Soziolinguistische Implikationen dialektgeographischer Untersuchungen", LBer 23: 34-45. Schlieben-Lange, B. 1971 a "La conscience linguistique des Occitanes", RLR 35: 298-303. 1971b Okzitanisch und Katalanisch: Ein Beitrag zur Soziolinguistik zwei romanischer Sprachen (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 20) (Tübingen: Narr). [Reviewed bv Vintilä-Rädulescu SCL 23 (1972): 679-681.] Sechrest, L. - L. Flores - L. Arellano 1968 "Language and social interaction in a bilingual culture", Journal of Social p rycholoK\ 76: 155-161. Seguy, J. 1950 Le fi- ais pane a Toulouse (Toulouse: Privat). Sheldon, E. S. 1887 "Some specimens of a Canadian French dialect spoken in Maine", Transactions of the Modern Language Association of America 3: 210-218. Sherwood, J. A. 1965 The speech of the Italian community of northern Queensland (unpublished thesis, University of Queensland). Shuy, R. W. - W. Wolfram - W. K. Riley 1969 A study of social dialects in Detroit (= Final report Project 6 -1347) (Washington D.C.: Office of Education). Simon, G. 1974 Bibliographie zur Soziolinguistik (Tübingen: Niemeyer). [Reviewed by Goyvaerts RLaV 41 (1975): 643.] Slama-Cazacu, T. 1959 Limbaj s_i context (Bucure§ti: Editura §tiinlifica). 1969 "Psycholinguistics and social psychology of language", Experimental social psychology (Prague: Institute of Psychology, CSAV), 323-333. 1970a "Code levels, interdisciplinary approach and the object of psycholinguistics", Revue Roumaine des Sciences Sociales, Psychologie 3: 211-219. 1970b "Die dynamisch-kontextuelle Methode in der Sprachsoziologie", Zur Soziologie der Sprache, edited by R. Kjolseth and F. Sack (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag), 73-86. 1970c "Les elements de la communication, niveaux de code et la triade langagelangue-parole", Linguistique contemporaine. Hommage a Eric Buyssens (Bruxelles: U.P.), 237-251. 1970d "The powers and limits of social context language", CLTA 7: 31-41. 1971 "La psicolingüistica y la aplicacion del metodo contextual en la dialectologia", Recherches sur la philosophic des sciences (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei), 517-532. 1972a La psycholinguistique: lectures (Paris: Klincksieck). [Reviewed by Cvasnii RRLing 18 (1973): 283-286.] 1972b "Sociolingvistica §i lingvistica aplicatä (La sociolinguistique et la linguistique appliquee)", Limbä ji literaturä 609-636. 1972-73 "Sur le concept 'socio-psycholinguistique'", Bulletin de psychologie 26/5-9: 246-251.

224

Beatriz R. Lavandera

1973a Introduction to psycholinguistics (The Hague: Mouton). 1973b "Is a 'Socio-psycholinguistics' necessary?", IJPs 2: 93-104. 1973c "The role of social context in language acquisition". Paper delivered at the IXth International Congress of Anthropological Sciences, Chicago. 1973d "La sociolingiiistica y el aprendizaje de idiomas", LyC 13: 165-170. Softietti, J. P. 1966 "Bilingualism and biculturalism", Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 222-227. Also in MLJ 44: 275-277. Sole, Y. R. 1970 "Correlaciones socio-culturales del uso de tu/vos y usted en la Argentina, Peru y Puerto Rico", Thesaurus 25: 161-195. Sommerfell, A. 1962 Diachronie and synchronic aspects of language (The Hague: Mouton). [Reviewed by Benveniste BSL 59/2 (1964): 24-25; Lehmann RomPh 21 (1967): 6775.] 1965 "Linguistic structures and the structures of social groups", Diogenes 51: Problems of Language (Montreal: Casalini), 186-192. 1970 "L'element social dans les changements phonetiques et phonematiques", Milanges Marcel Cohen (The Hague: Mouton), 137-139. Sperber, D. 1975 Rethinking symbolism (Cambridge: U.P.). Spicer, E. H. 1943 "Linguistic aspects of Yaqui acculturation", AmA 45: 410-426. Stella Maris, Sister 1959 "A Note on the pronunciation of New England French", FA 32: 363-366. Straka, G. 1952 "La prononciation parisienne", Bulletin de la Faculti des Lettres de Strasbourg 31, 5/6. Straka, M. 1970 Handbuch der europäischen Volksgruppen (Wien: Braumüller). Sumpf, J. 1968 "Linguistique et sociologie", Langages 11: 3-35. Tabouret-Keller, A. 1962 "Observations succintes sur le caractere sociologique de certains fails de bilinguisme", Bulletin de la Faculte des Lettres et Sciences Humaines (Toulouse) 4: 1-13. 1964 "Contribution ä l'etude sociologique des bilinguismes", PICL 9: 612-621. 1968 "Sociological factors of language maintenance and language shift: A methodological approach based on European and African examples", Language problems of developing nations, edited by J. A. Fishman, C. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta (New York: Wiley), 107-118. 1969a "La motivation des emprunts. Un exemple sur le vif de Papparilion d'un sabir", La Linguistique 5/1: 25-60. 1969b "Plurilinguisme et interferences", La imguistique. Guide alphabitique, sous la direction d'A. Martinet (Paris: Denoel-Gonthier), 305-310. 1972 "Plurilinguisme", Encyclopaedia Universalis (Paris), 183-187. 1975 "Plurilinguisme: revue des travaux franqais de 1945 ä 1973", Linguistique 11/2: 123-137. Tabouret-Keller, A. - R. B. Le Page 1970 "L'enquete sociolinguistique ä grande echelle. Un exemple: Sociolinguistic sur-

Sociolinguistics

225

vey of multilingual communities. Part I, British Honduras survey", La Linguistique 6/2: 103-118. Taylor, D. M. - R. C. Gardner 1970a "Bicultural communication: A study of communicational efficiency and person perception", Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2: 67-81. 1970b "The role of stereotypes in communication between ethnic groups in the Philippines", Social Forces 49: 271-283. Taylor, D. M. - L. M. Simard 1972 "The role of bilingnalism in cross-cultural communication", Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 3: 101-108. Terracini, B. 1957 Conflitti di lingua e di cultura (Venezia: Neri Pozza). Terrell, T. 1975a "Functional constraints on deletion of word final /s/ in Cuban Spanish", Proceedings of the First Berkeley Linguistics Conference (Berkeley: California U.P.). 1975b "Sobre la aspiracion y elision de la /s/ implosiva y final en el espanol de Puerto Rico", University of California, Irvine, ms. 1976 The inherent variability of word final Isl in Cuban and Puerto Rican Spanish (University of California, Irvine). To appear in Teaching Spanish to the Spanish speaking (San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University). Theriault, G. F. 1960 "The Franco-American of New England", Canadian dualism, edited by M. Wade (Toronto: Laval U.P.), 392-411. Trager, G. 1944 "Spanish and English Loanwords in Taos", UAL 10: 145. Traugott, E. 1973 "Le changement linguistique et sa relation ä l'acquisition de la langue maternelle", Langages 32: 39-52. Trojan, F. 1952 Der Ausdruck von Stimme und Sprache (Wien: Maudrich). Trudgill, P. J. 1974 The social differentiation of English in Norwich (Cambridge: U.P.). [Reviewed by Macaulay Lg 52 (1976): 266-270.] Tsuzaki, S. M. 1970 English influences on Mexican Spanish in Detroit (The Hague: Mouton). [Reviewed by Nichols RomPh 26 (1972): 437-440; Fontanella de Weinberg Thesaurus 29 (1974): 197-201.] Tubau-Bensoussan, M. 1968 "Le probleme du bilinguisme en Catalogne", Les Langues Neo-Latines 185: 72-75. Uribe Villegas, O. 1970a Sociolingiifstica concreta (algunas facetas) (Mexico). [Reviewed by Mares SCL 23 (1972): 557.] 1970b Sociolinguistica: una introduccion a su estudio (Mexico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico). [Reviewed by Lara AdL (1971): 247-256; Lastra de Suärez LiS 2 (1973): 157-159.] 1971 Sociolinguistica doctrinaria (Mexico). 1972 Situaciones de multilinguismo en el mundo (Mexico, D.F.: Institute de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico).

226

Beatriz R. Lavandera

Valdman, A. 1974 "Toward the empirical study of French phonology", Orbis 23: 377-391. Valkhoff, M. 1975 "Une enquete socio-linguistique sur I'archipel du Cap Vert", RLaR 81: 322. Vallejo-Claros, B. 1970 La distribution y estratificacion de Irl, If I, y Is I en el espaAol cubano (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin). Vallverdu, F. 1970 Dues llengues, dues functions. Per una historia lingüistica de la Catalunya contemporanea (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1971 L'escriptor catalä. Spanish translation: Sociologlay lengua en la literatura catalana (Madrid: Cuadernos para el Dialogo). 1972 Ensayos sobre bilinguismo (Barcelona: Ariel). 1973 El fet linguistic com a fet social (Barcelona: Edicions 62). Vandresen, P. 1972 "O ensino de portugues em comunidades bilingiies", Mensagem Pedagogica 6/7: 7-8. 1973 "Tarefas de sociolingüistica no Brasil", Revista de Culture Voz.es 67/8: 5-11. Värvaro, A. 1972-73 "Storia della lingua: passato e prospettive di una categoria controversa (1-11)", RomPh 26: 16-51, 509-531. Vasek, A. 1967 "Sur la methodologie des recherches carpathologiques linguistiques", Romanoslavica 14: 13-38. 1969a "On Slavic-Roumanian linguistic contacts", FoL 5: 156-168. 1969b "Some remarks on sociolinguistics in monolingualism and plurilingualism", International days of sociolinguistics (Roma: Istituto Luigi Sturzo), 871-879. 1969c "On the subject and method of linguistic carpathology", PICL 10/1: 599-603. Vasiliu, E, 1959 "Limbä. vorbire. stratificare". SCL 10: 465^71. Vendryes, J. 1921 Le langage (Paris: La renaissance du livre). 1933 "La mort des langues", Co«/7 This is of course not a mere coincidence; Coseriu, Rumanian by birth, spent ten years as a student and lecturer in Italy, where he received decisive impulses. It is therefore not surprising that he ranges himself within the orbit of Italian linguistics and refers with special frequency to Pagliaro. Hence we may be justified in discussing Coseriu's linguistic theories in these particular surroundings. 5K Like Pagliaro, but on an even broader basis, Coseriu aims at a synthesis of idealism and structuralism, which in turn makes him come close to Humboldt. For him, too, language isenergeia, a free, creative activity and thus to be viewed from a teleological angle. The individual does not pick up a language as a complete, ready-made system, he learns speak it; referring to Croce's sentence "noi non apprendiamo la lingua ehe parliamo, ma apprendiamo a crearla' 1 , Coseriu writes "el saber linguistico es un saber hacer". In other words — and here we are once more reminded of Pagliaro — language is a technique, a technical system, and as such an open system, not a closed one. Consequently linguistic change is nothing but the actualization of this technique, the actualization of this system of possibilities. We may add that with this concept Coseriu is in accord with Vossler (1923: 155): "Thus I have tried to show in earlier studies that the

Idealism

271

system of a language becomes fully effective by its evolution, or its grammar by its history." The innovations which are due to linguistic change correspond to the exigencies of expression, which may be cultural, social, aesthetic, or functional. As for linguistic technique, Coseriu points out three different structural levels: norm, system, and type.·™ Norm comprises everything that is traditionally actualized in a language; system comprises the rules which correspond to what is actualized; and type comprises the principles underlying these rules. The distinction of these three levels enables us to point out more clearly how Coseriu succeeds in surmounting the antinomy of synchrony and diachrony: everything that is diachronic on the levels of norm and of system appears as synchronic on the next higher level. Coseriu's essay on the future tense in Romance languages may serve as an example of his numerous explanations of individual linguistic problems."0 Without forgetting the importance of homonymy in connection with the decay of the Latin synthetic future tense, he takes up Vossler's and Spitzer's idealistic explanations of the periphrastic future tense; but he goes further, since in his opinion one must look upon the new Christian mentality, which is a specific phenomenon of the epoch, as the real cause of the success of this new grammatical form. Coseriu's position, as we have outlined it so far, can be qualified as a kind of structuralism of idealistic coinage. While it applies to individual languages, Coseriu has recently tried to give their due also to transformational generative grammar and to text-linguistics, referring them respectively to domains other than individual languages, that is, to language as a general human activity (langage), and to speech acts of individuals in specific situations (texts). Thus he argues that the main trends of modern linguistics are complementary in the following way (Coseriu 1973: 7): "transformational generative grammar corresponds to speaking in general and thus to designation ;H1 functional and structural linguistics corresponds to individual languages and thus to meaning; and text-linguistics corresponds to the text and thus to the sense" (which means the specific meaning in a specific context). 4. Idealistic principles within other recent schools of linguistics Some essential idealistic principles have been adopted by scholars of different trends and of different intellectual backgrounds; they are also to be found independently in recent linguistics.

272

Hans Helmut Christmann

One of these is of course the Humboldt-Vosslerian principle stating the close relationship between language and culture, which many scholars have appreciated (e.g., Tagliavini 1969,1: 289). Walther von Wartburg's Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, which is the most important enterprise of Romance lexicology of the 20th century, could not be imagined without this principle, and Wartburg himself stressed his accordance with idealism more than once.82 In succession to Wartburg and with reference to Vossler, Kurt Baldinger (1961: 36; 1968: 84; and elsewhere) advocates the embedding of linguistics within the history of culture. In 1953, Vossler's book Frankreichs Kultur und Sprache was published in French, translated and provided with a laudatory preface by the phonemicist Alphonse Juilland (Vossler 1929/1953: 5-8). We cannot go into details about all the various attempts at elucidating the history of language by means of the history of culture, made by other linguists; but we do wish to point out the striking change of atmosphere in this respect which during the past two decades has become apparent within American linguistics. While so-called 'American structuralism' grew narrower and narrower to the point of becoming an exclusively internal approach to language,-there has been a growing tendency in the United States for the last twenty years to make linguistic research more accessible for the history of culture. The collected volumes edited by Hoijer (1954), Henle (1958), and Hymes (1964) are characteristic of this trend; it is well worth mentioning that the names of Humboldt (150, 726) and Vossler (150, 381, 688) occur in the Hymes volume. And Labov's recent reference to the import of prestige and the upper class for sound change is in perfect accordance with Vossler and Lerch.ei Another important principle which has won recognition far beyond idealism is the concept of the congeniality of language and art. The best-known instance to be mentioned in this connection is Edward Sapir's reference to Croce.H4 And by granting a poetical function to language beside its function of communication, the Prague phonologists deliberately adopted, at least in parts, Vosslerian ideas."5 Roman Jakobson, another member of the Prague School, has repeatedly emphasized the poetical function of language. His emigration from Europe has enabled him to take a considerable part in the propagation of these ideas in the United States. He agrees to a certain extent with Chomsky in regard to the letter's concept of creativity. We should like to go as far as to maintain that there exists a certain conformity between Chomsky's categories of

Idealism

273

'rule-changing creativity' and 'rule-governed creativity' and Vossler's categories of 'language as creation' and 'language as evolution'.™ Chomsky has of course never been conscious of any such parallel, but he is quite conscious of certain affinities with Humboldt. 67 Anyone who more or less identifies language and art will consider literature as a subject of linguistics. The idealists did, and their literary stylistics has been hailed from various quarters." 8 As to including literature in linguistics, an ever growing number of scholars agree at least fundamentally with that idealistic claim, though for different reasons. In this connection we must mention the rediscovery of the Formalists who were linked to the Linguistic Circle of Prague by numerous ties. Here again it is Roman Jakobson who holds something of a key-position; he was a sort of link between the Formalists and the Prague Circle. In the United States he has successfully advocated the propagation of this approach and thus participates, beside Spitzer and others, in the "partial reconciliation of linguistics and literary study".*' All of these three principles — elucidating language by means of culture, conceiving language as art, including literature in linguistics — imply that linguistics is also concerned with written language. In our day this is a matter of course. But we must not forget that only a few decades ago it certainly was not, and that written language was frequently neglected owing to the conviction held by the neo-grammarians and eventually by Romanticism that the genuine life of language can only be witnessed on its lower levels. The fact that modern linguistics has adopted a more discriminate attitude, which is closer to reality, is largely due to the idealists, who gave special attention to written language. In order to prove their modern way of thinking even at a very early stage, we shall take a look at the development of Wartburg's Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. In its first numbers written language was not taken into consideration — a circumstance which Wartburg explained much later in the following way (1960: 213): "Cela tient ä la formation de ma generation. [...] que ce frangais, comme langue litteraire, put etre un sujet d'etude, jamais on n'aurait congu cette idee ä mon epoque [...] C'etait evidemment une erreur incroyable [...]" Wartburg corrected this mistake from the end of the first volume, taking into account sources of literary French to an ever growing extent. 70 But the knowledge of the importance of written and literary language could have come to him much earlier, if he had read the idealist Leo Spitzer, who had

274

Hans Helmut Christmann

expressed this knowledge precisely in comments on Wartburg's dictionary. 71 Croce and Vossler have been dead these last twenty-five years, and hardly any of their immediate disciples are still alive. But idealism, which is a kind of Humboldtianism, certainly goes on living in the shape of important ideas and principles of linguistics. If it were not for these ideas and principles, linguistics, which indeed offers an immensely colourful and manifold spectacle nowadays, would not only be less colourful, but also decidedly poorer. Notes 1. Compare the chapter "Idealism (or Humanism)" in lordan - Orr - Posner 1970: 451-455. 2. Vidos 1959: 90-107; Bai 1966: 51-53; Värvaro 1968: 233-248. On general linguistics, hut still close to Romance, see Tagliavini 1969: I, 285-294; on general linguistics, Leroy 1970: 135-149. See also Uitti 1969: 125-141. 3. The sharpest criticism of recent times was that of the Romance linguist Robert Hall (1963); see below, notes 12 and 14. 4. This is not the place to go into their doctrines, or indeed into those of Schuchardt, which are similar to Vossler's. For Croce, Humboldt and Schuchardt, see Christmann 1974: 11-19. 5. Mainly in Vossler 1904, 1905 (both published in Italian 1908), 1923, 1925. For bibliography, consult Ostermann 1951, adding to his list Vossler 1954. On Vossler, see Gamillscheg 1966; Christmann 1974: 21-34. 6. See Christmann 1958: 23. 7. See Schneider 1973: 113-134, 143-144. 8. Vossler 1929 (1st edition 1913), Italian edition 1948, French edition 1953, Spanish edition 1955. 9. The concentration on written and literary language has met with criticism (see recently Värvaro 1972-1973: 31-32). But this deliberate one-sidedness (Vossler's subtitle reads "Geschichte der französischen Schriftsprache . . .") is also to be understood as a reaction against the emphasis laid on popular speech and dialects by linguists of the day, which was no less one-sided; see below note 70 concerning Wartburg. 10. Vossler's assumption of an interaction approximates to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This is not surprising, since Vossler as well as Sapir and Whorf can be traced back to Wilhelm von Humboldt, who had also qualified the relationship between mentality and language as an interaction (see Christmann 1967: 447 ff.; Brown 1967: 13 ff.). 11. For bibliography, P. M. Schon in Lerch 1955: 454-481. On Lerch, see Edmund Schramm in Lerch 1955: 5-21. 12. Quite rightly, they were sharply attacked in the nineteen twenties. But we do not consider it fair to go on judging a scholar like Lerch, who subsequently wrote quite a number of important books and essays, solely on the basis of those few unfortunate essays. That is exactly what Hall does in his general attack on the idealists (1963: 45-46), which Malkiel qualifies as "an almost Quixotically biased account" (1972b: 884). Without having read a single line by Lerch himself, and based only on a few secondary sources. Hall passes a crushing general verdict on that scholar (see also below, note 14).

Idealism

275

13. Earlier articles are collected in Lerch 1930-193 1; among later works the most outstanding are: Lerch 1940b, 194()c, 1941h. 14. Lerch 1925: 1-2. Thus Hall's reproach, maintaining that Vossler and Lerch had initiated the concept of the so-called Volksseele greatly favoured by National Socialism, is highly unfair considering the fate of the Vosslerian school under the Nazi government: Vossler was persona ingrata until the end of the war; Lerch was forced from office to premature retirement and it was not u n t i l 1946 that he was offered another Chair; Spitzer and Hatzfeld had no alternative but emigration; Rheinfelder's promotion to a full professorship, which had been announced by the Munich Faculty of Humanities, was not ratified by the Nazi government and did not become effective until after the war. . . . 15. Some time ago Anna Granville Hatcher announced that a bibliography of his numerous studies, scattered over many periodicals, was in preparation. There are selective bibliographies in Wellek I960: 330-334 and in Spitzer 1962: 279-285. 16. Spitzer 1961: 25-26. 17. "Wortkunst und Sprachwissenschaft" (1925), in Spitzer 1928: II, 502. 18. See for example "Wortkunst und Sprachwissenschaft" (1925), in Spitzer 1928: II, 517; and 1943: 429. Later, he qualified this formula as "perhaps excessive" (1956: 86). 19. Spitzer 1956: 78 ff.; I943: 426. 20. See, for instance, the enumeration of his studies on Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan in lordan - Alvar 1967: 236-238, from which is omitted the title mentioned below in note 21. 21. Spitzer 1933: 307-308; see Christmann 1974: 135-136. In later years, he compared his explanation with the method of Prague phonemics (Spit/.er 1943: 415^16, 420 ft'.). 22. Beinhauer 1930/1958, Spanish edition 1963; see Catalan 1972: 978-979. 23. The more important studies are collected in several, partly overlapping, volumes, among others Spitzer 1928, 1948a (Spanish edition 1955), 1966, 1970. 24. For bibliography and appreciation see A. S. Crisafulli in Hatzfeld 1964b: 1-21, 23-30. 25. Partly collected (and translated from various languages) in Hatzfeld I 955, 1967, 1971. 26. Curtius, who incidentally was like Vossler a student of Gustav Gröber, comments: "The linguistic programme of Wörter und Sachen need not stop at the flail" (I960: 40). 27. Lerch 1933 passim, 1936 and 1943, 1938 and 1939, 1940a, 1941a. 28. Spitzer 1948b contains "Milieu and ambiance", 179-316 (quotation, 303 note 74). See also Spitzer 1963. 29. Hatzfeld 1946a, 1946b (Spanish version 1955: 33-143). 30. Published in the series The Catholic University of America Studies in Romance Languages and Literatures. 31. For bibliography see D. Briesemeister in Rheinfelder 1963: 407^11. Necrology by Malkiel, RomPh 26 (1972-1973): 689-691. 32. Especially Rheinfelder 1933, 1955, 1956, and the collection 1968. 33. See D. Gazdaru, "Influjos de Benedetto Croce sobre la lingiiistica contemporanea", in Gazdaru 1969: 11-47; and Christmann 1974: 44-53. 34. Bertoni -Bartoli 1928. The part written by Bartoli also appeared in extended form as Bartoli 1925. 35. See also Bertoni 1932, 1937 and 1939. 36. "Question! teoriche. Le leggi fonetiche", in Parodi 1957, 1: 42-59. 37. Vossler 1923/1940, Latin American edition with notes and a preface by Amado Alonso 1943. It was followed by Vossler 1925/1959 and 1929/1955. 38. See Catalan 1972: 976-979, 992. Bibliography in Alonso 1953. Posthumous publications: Alonso 1955, 1955-1969.

276

Hans Helmut Christmann

39. See especially his preface to Vossler 1923/1943; his presentation of Herrera's conception of language, which he regards as idealistic ("espiritualista") (Alonso 1938: 96 ff.); and his preface to Saussure 1945. 40. See Alonso 1935: 31-32, 105 ff. On his theory see the well known "Carta a Alfonso Reyes sobre la estilistica", 1955:95-106, and "La interpretacion estilistica de los textos literarios", 1955: 107-132. 41. He once referred to himself as "le plus vieil admirateur de Croce qui soil au monde" (Mencndcz Pidal I960: 49). 42. See Castro 1928: 129-130; and recently Catalan 1972: 935, 942-943, 955-957. 43. See Coseriu 1968a: 32 andpassim. Among translations of idealistic studies, we should mention yet another owed to Alonso and Lida: Vossler - Spitzer - Hatzfeld 1932. 44. See Elia 1955, with its characterisation of language as creation and evolution, its equation of linguistics and stylistics, its comprehensive treatment of Vossler, etc. 45. See Gazdaru 1966: 47-48, 51 ff., 1969. On Gazdaru: Fernandez Pereiro 1962 and Coseriu 1968a: 19, 51. 46. Affinities between Vossler and Saussure have already been pointed out by Pagliaro (1930: 94) and Amado Alonso (in Saussure 1945: 11-12). 47. Among others Lerch 1934: 375 ff., 1940d: 44. 48. Coseriu 1967; Christmann 1972, 1974: 62-74. 49. On Italian linguistics see Mauro 1972; Ramat 1972 (ibid. 8-12 on Devoto, Terracini and Pagliaro). 50. See Hatzfeld 1958, 1964a (Italian version 1967: 7-27); Terracini 1966: 72 ff., 109 ff.; D. Isella, "La critica stilistica", in Corti - Segre 1970: 161-177; G. L. Beccaria, "La critica e la storia della lingua italiana", in Corti - Segre 1970: 217-231. 51. Bibliography: L. Terracini 1968. On Terracini: M. Corti in Grana 1969: 3103-3119, 3125-3128 (also in Terracini 1963/1970); Beccaria 1970; Värvaro 1972-1973: 32-33. 52. Terracini 1963, 1966. See also 1976. 53. Bibliography: Devoto 1958: xvii-xxiv, 1967: xvii-xix, 1972: xv-xvi. On Devoto: C. A. Mastrelli, in Grana 1969: 3147-3168, 3173-3178; Värvaro 1972-1973: 34-36. 54. Devoto 1953. See also Devoto 1950 and 1962. 55. Bibliography: G. R. Cardona, in Pagliaro 1969b: III, 311-324. On Pagliaro: T. de Mauro, in Grana 1969: 3179-3195, 3202-3205. 56. Pagliaro has set down his doctrines in numerous studies of various lengths, which frequently overlap. Special mention should be made of Pagliaro 1957, 1962, 1969a, 1973. 57. Major work: Coseriu 1958 (German version 1974). Collections of dissertations and essays: Coseriu 1962 (Italian version 1971), 197()a. On Coseriu see: Spence 1960, Christmann 1961: 47-49; lordan - Orr - Posner 1970: 454-455; Malkiel 1972a: 112-114. See also Coseriu 1977. 58. On his idealistic tendency Coseriu wrote (1968a: 32): "A peculiar form of idealism, closer to Hegel and Humboldt than to Vossler and stylistics, is found in the theoretical works of Montevideo." Coseriu taught there from 1951 to 1963. 59. See especially Coseriu 1968b (German version in Coseriu 1970a: 71-88). 60. Coseriu 1958: 89-100 (2nd edition 1973: 157-177; German version 1974: 132-151), 197()a: 53-70. 61. In thiscontext designatum is the 'thing meant'. See also Coseriu 1970b (also in 1970a: 213-224), 1972. 62. Wartburg 1934b. See also the highly positive appreciation of Vossler 1929 (1st edition 1913) in Wartburg 1923-1924: 562-563.

Idealism

277

63. Labov 1963, 1965 and also 1973. Compare Lerch, "Oberschicht und Unterschicht in der Sprache", 1930-1931: II, 221-31 1. See Schneider 1973: 134-143. 64. Sapir 1921: iii: "Among contemporary writers of influence on liberal thought Croce is one of the very few who have gained an understanding of the fundamental significance of language. He has pointed out its close relation to the problem of art. I am deeply indebted to him for this insight". Compare also, "The unconscious patterning of behavior in society" (1927), in Sapir 1949:550:". . . the forms of speech developed in the different parts of the world are at once free and necessary, in the sense in which all artistic productions are free and necessary". 65. V. Mathesius, "On the potentiality of the phenomena of language" (1911), in Vachek 1964: 29; Mukarovsky 1938: 101. Compare also V. Skalicka, "The need fora linguistics of la parole'" (1948), in Vachek 1964: 377. 66. See Christmann 1974: 104-105. A comparison between Chomsky and Croce was made by Jakobson at the Ninth International Congress of Linguists 1962 (Jakobson 1971: 597). 67. On creativity see Christmann 1974: 104-105. On further parallels between Chomsky and idealism relevant in this connection see the chapter "Sprache und Geist in der modernen Sprachwissenschaft" in Christmann 1974: 119-128. 68. See for instance Guiraud 1954: 38-39; Ullmann 1970: 204, 214-215. 69. Uitti 1969: 140. On the overall situation, not only in the United States, sec Chatman Levin 1973. 70. See Wartburg 1929 and the preface to 1934a: i-ii. 71. Spitzer 1922b: 265-266, 1925: 150.

References Alonso, A. 1935 El problema de la lengua en America (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). 1938 Castellano, espanol, idioma national (Buenos Aires: Losada). [3rd edition 1953.] 1953 "Bibliografia de Amado Alonso", NRFH 7: 3-15. 1955 Materia y forma en poesla (= BRHi II, 17) (Madrid: Credos). 1955-69 De la pronunciation medieval a la moderna en espanol (= BRHi I,5)(Madrid: Credos). [Vol. 1 1955, vol. 2 1969.] Bai, W. 1966 Introduction aux etudes de linguistique romane (Paris: Didier). Baldinger, K. 1961 "Sprache und Kultur", Ruperto Carola, Mitteilungsblatt der Universität Heidelberg 29: 29^6. 1968 "Sprachgeschichte und Kulturgeschichte", Ruperto Carola 45: 82-90. Bartoli, M. G. 1910 "Alle fonti del neolatino", Miscellanea distudiin onorediAttilio Hortis (Trieste), 2: 889-918. 1925 Introduzione alia neoimguistica (Geneve: Olschki). Beccaria, G. L. 1970 "B. Terracini: dalla linguistica alia critica", Critica estoria letteraria. Studi offertia Mario Fubini (Padova: Liviana), 2: 780-811. Beinhauer, W. 1930 Spanische Umgangssprache (Bonn: Dümmler). [2nd edition 1958. Spanish translation: El espanol coloquial (Madrid: Gredos, 1963).] Bertoni, G. 1922 Programma di fiiologia romanza come scienza idealistica (Geneve: Olschki).

278

Hans Helmut Christmann

1932 Lingua e pensiero (Firenzc: Olschki). 1937 Lingua e poesia (Fircnze: Olschki). 1939 Lingua e cultura (Firenze: Olschki). Bcrtoni, G. - M. G. Bartoli 1928 Breviario di neolinguistica (Modena: Societä Tipografica Modenese). Bonfante, G. 1947 "The neolinguistic position", Lg 23: 344-375. 1970 La dottrina neolinguistica (Torino: Giappichelli). Brown, R. L. 1967 Wilhelm von Humboldt's conception of linguistic relativity (The Hague: Mouton). Castro, A. 1928 Review of R. Mencndez Pidal, rfgenes del espanol, in Romania 54: 125-130. Catalan Menendez Pidal, D. 1955 La escuela lingüistica espanola y su conception del lenguaje (Madrid: Gredos). 1972 "Ibero-Romance", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 927-1106. Chatman, S. - S. R. Levin 1973 "Linguistics and literature". Current trends in linguistics 10 (The Hague: Mouton), 250-294. Christmann, H. H. 1958 "Strukturelle Sprachwissenschaft", RJb 9: 17-40. 1961 "Strukturelle Sprachwissenschaft. II Teil", RJb 12: 23-50. 1967 Beiträge zur Geschichte der These vom Weltbild der Sprache (Mainz: Akademie). 1972 "Saussure und die Tradition der Sprachwissenschaft", ASNS 208: 241-255. 1974 Idealistische Philologie und moderne Sprachwissenschaft (München: Fink). Corti, M. - C. Segre (eds.) 1970 / tnetodi attuali della critica in Italia (Torino: Radiotelevisione Italiana). Coseriu, E. 1958 Sincront'a, diacronia e historia. El problema del cambio lingüistico (Montevideo U.P.). [2nd edition 1973 (Madrid: Gredos). German translation: Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte (München: Fink, 1974).] 1962 Teoria del lenguaje y lingüistica general (= BRHi II, 61) (Madrid: Gredos). [Italian translation: Teoria del linguaggio e lingüistica generate (Bari: Laterza, 1971).] 1967 "Georg von der Gabelentz et la linguistique synchronique", Word 23: 74-100. 1968a "General perspectives". Current trends in linguistics 4 (The Hague: Mouton), 5-62. 1968b "Sincrom'a, diacronia y tipologia", Actas del XI congreso internacional de lingüistica y filologia romanicas (Madrid: C.S.I.C.), 269-283. 197()a Sprache, Strukturen und Funktionen (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 2) (Tübingen: Narr). 1970b "Semantik, innere Sprachform und Tiefenstruktur", FoL 4: 53-63. 1972 "Les universaux linguistiques (et lesautres)", Atti del XI congresso internationale dei linguisti, edited by L. Heilmann (Bologna: II Mulino, 1974), 47-73. 1973 Die Lage in der Linguistik (= IBS 9) (Innsbruck: U.P.). 1977 El hombre y su lenguaje (= BRHi II, 272) (Madrid: Gredos). Curtius, E. R. I960 Büchertagebuch (= Dalp-Taschenbücher 348) (Bern: Francke). Devoto, G. 1950 Studi di stilistica (Firenze: Le Monnier).

Idealism

279

1951 l fondainenti delta storia linguistica (Firen/e: Sansoni). 1953 Profilodi storia linguistica italiana (Firenxc: LaNuova Italia). [4thedition 1964.] 1958-72 Scritti minori (Firenxe: Le Monnier). [Vol. 1 1958, vol. 2 1967. vol. 3 1972.] 1962 Nuovi studi di stilistica (Firenze: Le Monnier). Elia. S. 195 5 OrienUn'oes da linguistica moderna ( = Biblioteca BraxUeira de Filologia 7)(Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Academica). Fernandez Pereiro, N. G. B. de 1962 "Dimitrie Gazdaru". Orbis 1 1 : 393-W4. Gamillscheg, E. 1966 "Karl Vossler", Portraits of linguists, edited by T. A. Seheok (Bloomington: Indiana U.P.), 2: 333-342. Gazdaru, D. 1966 iQue es la lingiifstica? (= Coleccion esquemus 68) (Buenos Aires: Editorial Columba). 1969 Ensayos de filologia y linguistica romanicus I (La Plata: Instituto de Filologia). Grana, G. (ed.) 1969 Letteratura italiana. I critici, IV (Milan: Mar/orati). Guiraud, P. 1954 La stylistique (= Que sais-je? 646) (Paris: P.U.F.). Hall, R. A., Jr. 1963 idealism in Romance linguistics (Ithaca: Cornell U.P.). Hatzfeld, H. A. 1946a "Linguistic investigation of Old French high spirituality", PMLA 61: 331-378. 1946b "The influence of Ramon Lull and Jan van Ruysbroeck on the language of the Spanish mystics", Traditio 4: 337-397. 1955 Estudios literarios sobre mistica espanola (= BRHi II, 16) (Madrid: Gredos). 1958 "Recent Italian stylistic theory and stylistic criticism", Sludia philologica et litteraria in honorem Leo Spitzer (Bern: Francke), 227-243. 1964a "Points de repere dans revolution de la stylistique romane, 1886-1962", Melanges Delbouille (Gembloux: Duculot), 324-340. 1964b Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Helmut A. Hatzfeld (Washington D.C.: Catholic U.P.). 1967 Saggi di stilistica romanza (Bari: Adriatica). 1971 Analisi e interpretation! stilistiche (Bari: Adriatica). Henle, P. (ed.) 1958 Language, thought and culture (Ann Arbor: Michigan U.P.). Hoijer, H. (ed.) 1954 Language in culture (Chicago: U.P.). Hymes, D. (ed.) 1964 Language in culture and society (New York: Harper and Row), lordan, I. - M. Alvar 1967 Linguistica romanica (Madrid: Alcalä). lordan, I. - J. Orr - R. Posner 1970 An introduction to Romance linguistics, its schools and scholars. Revised with a supplement, Thirty years on (Oxford: Blackwell). [Originally published as/niroducere in studiul limbilor romanice (Jassy: U.P.. 1932). translated and in part recast by J. Orr (London: Methuen, 1937).] Jakobson, R. 1971 Selected writings. H Word and language (The Hague: Mouton).

280

Hans Helmut Christmann

Labov, W. 1963 "The social motivation of a sound change". Word 19: 273-309. 1965 "On the mechanism of linguistic change". Report of the sixteenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U.P.), 91-114. 1973 "The social setting of linguistic change". Current trends in linguistics 11 (The Hague: Mouton), 195-251. Lerch, E. 1925 "Der Dauerfranzose", Frankfurter Zeitung, 10 June 1925, 1-2. 1925-34 Historische französische Syntax, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Reisland). 1930-31 Hauptprobleme der französischen Sprache, 2 vols. (Braunschweig: Westermann). 1933 Französische Sprache und Wesensart (Frankfurt: Diesterweg). 1934 "Die neue Sprachwissenschaft", NS 42: 375-397. 1936 "Histoire et influence des mots distractus et distrait", RLR 12: 270-283. 1938 "'Passion' und 'Gefühl'", Archivum Romanicum 22: 320-349. 1939 "Pasiones y sentimientos", Ensayos y Estudios 1: 214-229. 1940a '"Deliver us from evil' in Romance languages", RR 31: 52-73. 194()b "Gibt es im Vulgärlateinischen oder im Rumänischen eine 'Gelenkspartikel'?", ZRPh 60: 113-190. 1940c "Proklise oder Enklise der altfranzösischen Objektspronomina?", ZRPh 60: 417-501. 1940d "Difesa della grammatica", LN 2: 42^4. 1941 a "Französisch priser — deutsch preisen — englisch to praise und das Kirchenlatein", RF 55: 57-^2. 1941b "Sentir 'riechen nach' (II sent le vin — il sent son renard)", Archivum Romanicum 25: 303-346. 1943 "Zerstreutheit. Zur Geschichte des Begriffs", Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie 1 1 1 : 388^60. 1955 Studio Romanica. Gedenkschrift für Eugen Lerch (Stuttgart: Port). Leroy, M. 1970 Les grands courants de la linguistique moderne (Bruxelles: U.P./Paris: P.U.F.). [2nd edition 1970.] Malkiel, Y. 1972a "General diachronic linguistics", Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 82-118. 1972b "Comparative Romance linguistics". Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 835-925. Mauro, T. de 1972 "Italian and Sardinian". Current trends in linguistics 9 (The Hague: Mouton), 1128-1144. Menendez Pidal, R. 1960 Le Chanson de Roland et la tradition epique des Francs (Paris: Picard). Mukarovsky, J. 1938 "La denomination poetique et la fonction esthetique de la langue", Actes du IV congres international de linguistes (Copenhagen), 98-104. Nencioni, G. 1946 Idealismo e realismo nella scienza del linguaggio (Firenze: Le Monnier). Ostermann, T. 1951 Bibliographie der Schriften Karl Vosslers 1897-1951 (München: Akademie).

Idealism Pagliaro, 1930 1957 1962 1963 1969a 1969b

281

A. Sommario dt linguistics arioeuropea (Roma: U.P.). La parola e iimmagine (Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane). "II conoscere linguistico", Ricerche linguistiche 5: 17-48. "Linguaggio e conoscenza dopo l'idealismo". De homine 7-8: 3-24. II segno vivente (Torino: Radiotelevisione Italiana). Studio classica e Orientalin Antonino Pagliaro oblata, 3 vols. (Roma: Istituto di Glottologia). 1973 "La forma linguistica", La forma linguistica, by A. Pagliaro - T. de Mauro (Milano: Rizzoli), 15-167. Parodi, E. G. 1957 Lingua e letteratura, 2 vols. (Venezia: Neri Pozza). Ramat, P. 1972 Die italienische Linguistik seit 1945 (= IBS 5) (Innsbruck: U.P.). Rheinfelder, H. 1928 Das Wort "persona" (= ZRPh supplement 77) (Halle: Niemeyer). 1933 Kultsprache und Profansprache in den romanischen Ländern (Geneve/Firenze: Olschki). 1955 "El vocabulario liturgico y las corrientes lingüisticas", Adas del VII congreso internacional de linguistica romanica (Barcelona: San Cugat del Valles), 495-504. 1956 "Semantique et theologie", Annales de l'Universite de Paris 26: 486-504. 1963 Medium Aevum Romanicum. Festschrift für Hans Rheinfelder (München: Hueber). 1968 Philologische Schatzgräbereien (München: Hueber). Sapir, E. 1921 Language (New York: Harcourt). 1949 Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality (Berkeley/Los Angeles: California U.P.). Saussure, F. de 1945 Curso de linguistica general, translated, with a prologue and notes by Amado Alonso (Buenos Aires: Losada). [2nd edition 1955.] Schneider, G. 1973 Zum Begriff des Lautgesetzes in der Sprach Wissenschaft seit den Junggrammatikern (= Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 46) (Tübingen: Narr). Spence, N. C. W. 1960 "Towards a new synthesis in linguistics: the work of EugenioCoseriu"Mrc/iL 12: 1-34. Spitzer, L. 1922a Italienische Umgangssprache (Bonn: Schroeder). 1922b "Ein französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch", /5 30: 264-270. 1925 "Aus der Werkstatt des Etymologen", Jahrbuch für Philologie 1: 129-159. 1928 Stilstudien, 2 vols. (München: Hueber). [2nd edition 1961.] 1929-30 (ed.) Meisterwerke der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, 2 vols. (München: Hueber). 1933 "Zum Warum der Lautentwicklung", Melanges de philologie offerts a JeanJacques Salverda de Grave (Groningen), 306-311. 1943 "Why does language change?" MLQ 4: 413-431. 1948a Linguistics and literary history (Princeton U.P.). [New edition 1962 (New York: Russell). Translated as: Linguistica e historia literaria ( = BRHi II, 19) (Madrid: Credos, 1955).]

282

Hans Helmut Christmann

1948b Essays in historical semantics (New York: Vanni). [New edition 1968.] 1956 "The individual factor in linguistic innovations", CultNeol 16: 71-89. 1961 "Lesetudes de style et lesdifferents pays", Langue et litterature (= BFPhLL 161) (Paris: Les Belles Lettres), 23-38. 1962 Essays on English and American literature (Princeton: U.P.). 1963 Classical and Christian ideas of world harmony (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P.). 1966 Critica stilistica e semantica storica (Bari: Laterza). 1970 Etudes de style (Paris: Gallimard). Tagliavini, C. 1969 Introduzione alia glottologia (Bologna: Patron). [7th edition 1969.] Terracini, B. 1963 Lingua libera e liberta linguistica, edited by M. Corti (Torino: Einaudi, 1970). 1966 Analisi stilistica (Milano: Feltrinelli). 1976 / segni, la storia, edited by G. L. Beccaria (Napoli: Guida). Terracini, L. 1968 "Bibliografia [di Benvenuto Terracini]", AGl 53: 1-25. Uitti, K. D. 1969 Linguistics and literary theory (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall). Ullmann, S. 1970 "Sprache und Stil", Einführung in Problematik und Methodik der Sprachwissenschaft, by W. von Wartburg and revised by S. Ullmann (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 203-217. Vachek, J. (ed.) 1964 A Prague school reader in linguistics (Bloomington: Indiana U.P.). Värvaro, A. 1968 Storia, problem! e metodi della linguistica romanza (Napoli: Liguori). 1972-73 "Storia della lingua: passato e prospettive di una categoria controversa", RomPh 26: 16-51, 509-531. Vidos, B. E. 1959 Manuale di linguistica romanza (Firenze: Olschki). Vossler, K. 1904 Positivismus und Idealismus in der Sprachwissenschaft (Heidelberg: Winter). 1905 Sprache als Schöpfung und Entwicklung (Heidelberg: Winter). [ 1904 and 1905 together translated as: Positivismo e idealismo nella scienza del linguaggio (Bari: Laterza, 1908).] 1923 Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sprachphilosophie (München: Hueber). [Translated as Filosofia dellenguaje (Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1940; then Buenos Aires: Losada, 1943, 4th edition 1963).] 1925 Geist und Kultur in der Sprache (Heidelberg: Winter). [Later edition 1960 (München: Dobbeck). Translated as Lengua y cultura (Madrid: Cultura Hispänica, 1959).] 1929 Frankreichs Kultur und Sprache (Heidelberg: Winter). [Translations: Civilta e lingua di Francia (Bari: Laterza, 1948); Langue et culture de la France (Paris: Payot, 1953); Cultura y lengua de Francia (Buenos Aires: Losada, 1955).] 1954 Einführung ins Vulgärlatein, edited by H. Schmeck (München: Hueber). Vossler, K. - L. Spitzer - H. Hatzfeld 1932 Introduccion a la estiKstica romance (Buenos Aires: Institute de Filologia). [New edition 1942.]

Idealism

283

Wartburg, W. von 1923-24 "Sprachgeschichte und Kulturgeschichte", Schweizerische Monatshefte für Politik und Kultur 3: 552-564. 1929 "Das Schriftfranzösische im Französischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch", Festschrift Behrens (= ZFSL supplement) (Jena/Leipzig: Agricola), 48-55. 1934a Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch III (Leipzig: Teubner). 1934b "Über die Bildungswerte des sprachwissenschaftlichen Studiums der neueren Sprachen", Neuphilologische Monatsschrift 5: 241-257. 1960 "L'experience du FEW", Lexicologie et lexicographic fra^aises et romanes (Paris: C.N.R.S.), 209-218. Wellek, R. 1960 "Leo Spitzer", Comparative Literature 12: 310-334.

tGERARD MOIGNET

La psychosystematique du langage dans les etudes romanes

La psychosystematique du langage est une theorie linguistique dont les postulats sont tels qu'ils s'appliquent au fait humain du langage dans son entier. Elle n'en insiste pas moins sur le caractere specifique du Systeme de chaque langue — son architecture — au sein d'une structure plus generale appartenant au type de langue (par exemple, la structure indoeuropeenne), et se defend avec vigueur centre la tentation, ä laquelle succombent bien des theories, de proposer une grammaire generale applicable ä toutes les langues du monde. Les lois universelles, en matiere de langage, sont en tres petit nombre, et leur generalite meme ne leur confere qu'un interet mediocre aux yeux du linguiste, qui, en revanche, ne se lasse pas de deceler, dans leur indepassable ingeniosite, les solutions particulieres apportees par chaque langue aux problemes de representation mentale qui conditionnent l'acte de langage. Gustave Guillaume, inventeur de la psychosystematique, qui a passe sa vie ä reflechir sur les grandes structures qui caracterisent l'ensemble des langues du monde (nulle typologie ne va plus profondement que sa 'theorie des aires'), a etudie des langues de tous les domaines. Ses dernieres annees ont ete pour une part importante consacrees au chinois. II n'en a pas moins, surtout au debut de sa carriere de savant, privilegie le domaine roman et particulierement le franc.ais. Dans Temps et verbe (1929), le contraste existant entre l'architectonique latine du temps et la frangaise, prise comme exemple du type roman, est dessine avec une grande nettete. D'autre part, c'est un fait que les disciples de Gustave Guillaume sont en majorite des romanistes, pour le moment du moins. Ceci rend possible de definir l'apport de l'ecole psychosystematicienne

286

Gerard Moignet

en matiere de romanistique, tout en contestant vivement la valeur du reproche parfois formule: que la psychosystematique est congue dans le Systeme des langues du domaine roman et meme du frangais. La psychosystematique de Gustave Guillaume est d'abord une reflexion sur les langues, visant — par une remontee theorique operee ä partir des discours produits et ä travers les signes visibles, tels qu'ils s'organisent entre eux — ä retrouver le Systeme de pensee coherent que postulent les uns et les autres, et qui ne peut pas ne pas etre. Au niveau profond, ce Systeme est 'au voisinage immediat', comme etant — au sein de chaque communaute linguistique —le produit premier des conditions memes de la pensee, lesquelles ne sont que mouvements entre les poles que cette pensee a su se donner ä elle-meme. Ces mouvements, et les interceptions qui peuvent etre operees sur eux, constituent proprement l'architecture des langues. La psychosystematique est le produit d'une psychomecanique, et l'etude de celle-ci n'a pas d'autre objet que de definir les mouvements de pensee generateurs des systemes. Les etapes de la demarche theorisante qui fonde la linguistique comme science sont done, invariablement: (a) Une analyse approfondie des discours produits dans chaque langue consideree, de fagon ä en donner une description aussi complete que possible. (b) Un reperage des unites linguistiques grace auxquelles les discours sont produits et entendus, et une description des systemes semiologiques qui organisent ces unites entre elles. Le premier stade du travail du linguiste est la definition de la psychosemiologie de la langue en cause. Ce travail est ä reprendre ä la base pour chaque langue, car les grammaires descriptive existantes, trop directement influencees par les effets de sens obtenus en discours grace aux signes, ne savent pas, le plus souvent, interpreter correctement la valeur exacte des elements constitutifs. Ainsi, les modes verbaux du frangais seront interpretes comme fondes sur la notion vague de modalite de la pensee et ramenes ä la signification de la realite, de la non-realite, de l'eventualite, de la volition, etc., ce qui conduit ä une impasse absolue. Les valeurs en discours de l'indicatif, du subjonctif, de l'imperatif, du 'conditionnel' s'enchevetrent inextricablement, alors que la simple analyse de la morphologic verbale, correctement interpretee, avec un regard fixe sur son amont et non sur son aval, invite a voir une coherence profonde. (c) L'etude de la psychosemiologie d'une langue a pour fin la definition

La psychosystematique du langage dans les etudes romanes

287

de sä psychosystematique, qui est la recherche du Systeme de pensee qui se reflete — de fagon plus ou moins reussie — dans le Systeme des signes. II s'agira, par exemple, de transcender ce qu'indique la morphologie verbale du franqais pour decouvrir les rapports mentaux existant necessairement entre formes en -at, -as, -a (dans la conjugaison dominante), en -rai, -ras, -ra, en -ais, -ais, -ait, en -rais, -rais, -rait. Le quadrilatere ainsi obtenu, soit:

-rai -rais

-at -ais

encadre, de toute evidence, la forme non marquee du present de Tindicatif, soit, en Systeme semiologique: -ai

-rai

-ais

-rats

et en Systeme psychique:

passe I

futur I present

passe II

futur II

(d) Le Systeme psychique ainsi defini statiquement devra etre, ä son tour, transcende en vue de la decouverte de ses conditions d'existence, qui ne peuvent etre que de nature genetique et ressortir ainsi d'une psychomecanique adossee aux conditions de fonctionnement memes de la pensee. La description semiologique amene Gustave Guillaume ä la decouverte de la chronogenese, qui rend compte ä la fois, dynamiquement, de la representation du temps dans le mentalisme du frangais et de toutes des ressources d'expression qu'on en peut tirer dans l'infinite des discours emis en cette langue.

288

Gerard Moignet

Le Systeme de l'indicatif se revelera ainsi comme etant une ordination mentale comme 1'illustrera le schema suivant: passe

pr ese nt

futur

Niveau d'incidence «· du temps

-ai

-rai

Niveau de (\ec-Ader\ce

-ais

-rais

^

du temps On pourra ainsi expliquer, par les orientations des representations verbales en cause, les valeurs en discours du present, du preterit def ini, du futur, de l'imparfait, du 'conditionnel' fran9ais, de 3 beaucoup plus rationnelle et coherente que ne savent le faire les grammaires traditionnelles. On ne peut retrouver exactement la demarche de l'activite linguistique descendant du plan de la langue ä celui du discours qu'ä condition d'avoir su operer, ä travers le Systeme des signes, une remontee du discours ä la langue. Si les discours sont audibles et visibles, etant physifies par la phonie et la graphic, la langue est secrete et inaccessible ä la perception immediate. II faut, pour Tatteindre, des instruments d'analyse appropries, que Gustave Guillaume a su decouvrir et mettre en oeuvre. Une exigence stricte de methode impose de ne rien negliger de ce qui entre dans le Systeme et de ce que permet le Systeme dans le plan de l'expression. La theorie guillaumienne sera ainsi portee ä ce qui, le plus, fait difficulte dans les langues, notamment ä ce qui apparait marginal, peu coherent avec le reste, ä ce dont les grammaires peu difficiles sur les principes se debarrassent sous la rubrique des exceptions. On voit ainsi Gustave Guillaume, et ses disciples a sa suite, s'attaquer de preference aux singularites. La chronogenese a ete decouverte ä la suite d'une reflexion sur le tour: 5/ + indicatif et que + subjonctif (si vous \efaites et qu s'ensuive un accident. . . ; cf. Temps et verbe, p. 49 et Roch Valin, Avant-propos ä la deuxieme edition de Temps et verbe,

La psychosystematique du langagc dans les etudes romancs

289

pp. xvii-xviii) qui postule l'anteriorite du mode subjonctif par rapport au mode indicatif en Systeme de representation mentale du temps. Cette 'curiosite' syntaxique est, en realite, tres revelatrice de ce qui se passe au plus profond. Que le frangais et d'autres langues romanes mettent en oeuvre deux auxiliaires, avoir et etre, pour construire leur aspect transcendant est un Probleme linguistique qu'il fallait examiner aussi au fond des choses. Qu'une morphologie aussi singuliere que celle du verbe aller en fran3 5 ne soit pas l'effet du hasard ou de je ne sais quel caprice de la langue, c'est ce que Gustave Guillaume s'est, avec bonheur, attache ä demontrer, en faisant voir la diversite des representations mentales du passe qui habitent le radical all-. On ne s'etonnera pas, dans ces conditions, que les romanistes 'guillaumiens' aient pu s'interesser particulierement ä des problemes comme celui des rapports du temps et de l'aspect, celui du sens de l'opposition preterit-defini/imparfait, ä l'infinitif personnel du portugais, ä l'aoriste periphrastique du Catalan, au Systeme de la negation ä deux termes en frangais et en espagnol, aux enigmes que posent le mot que et ses homologues romans, aux pluriels doubles de l'italien, etc. On a dit familierement que ce qui attire surtout les linguistes psychomecaniciens, ce sont les moutons ä cinq pattes. Le postulat selon lequel "la langue est un systeme ou tout se tient" implique de ne pas eluder, mais, tout au contraire, de choisir, ce qui, des 1'abord, fait le plus difficulte, car le petit fait singulier est le plus souvent, quand il est bien interprete, beaucoup plus eclairant que le trait general et banal. Pour exposer l'apport de la psychosystematique ä l'etude des langues romanes, on passera en revue 1. les travaux qui exposent les principes generaux de l'analyse psychosystematicienne; 2. les travaux sur le latin; 3. les travaux sur les langues romanes: 3.1 le frangais; 3.2 les autres langues romanes. /. Travaux generaux Citons en premier lieu quatre articles de doctrine de Gustave Guillaume, tous reimprimes dans le recueil Langage et science du langage (1964):

290

Gerard Moignet

"Observation et explication dans la science du langage" I (non date) et II (1958), "La langue est-elle ou n'est-elle pas un Systeme?" (1952) et "Psychosystematique et psychosemiologie du langage" (1953). L'essentiel de la doctrine se retrouve dans un recueil de textes de Gustave Guillaume constitue de passages inedits de ses oeuvres: Principes de linguistique theorique (1973a). Bien anterieurement, un article avait ete consacre ä Gustave Guillaume par Antoine Meillet dans Encyclopedic franqaise (1935, tome 1, 32, 2). Le premier expose theorique de la psychomecanique est du ä Roch Valin: Petite introduction ä la psychomecanique du langage (1954). L'ensemble de la doctrine est expose dans 1'ouvrage recent de Marc Wilmet: Gustave Guillaume et son ecole linguistique (1972). On lira aussi "Pensee structuree et semiologie", de Bernard Pottier (1958). Une discussion de caractere polemique qui s'est elevee en 1959 a ete l'occasion de misesau point theoriquessur lesprincipesde la linguistique. Citons Valin, "Qu'est-ce qu'un fait linguistique?" (1959), Stefanini, "Le Systeme et les faits en linguistique" (1959), et Moignet, "Encore le fait linguistique" (1959d). Les rapports de la psychosystematique avec la linguistique historique, son apport ä la tradition, sont exposes avec precision et rigueur dans 1'ouvrage capital de Roch Valin, La methode comparative en linguistique historique et en psychomecanique du langage (1964), dont on citera les comptes-rendus de Chevalier (1966), de Contreras (1966), de Dubois (1966) et de Langdon (1966). Monsieur Roch Valin a public en outre une serie d'etudes theoriques sur la psychomecanique dans les introductions et avant-propos qu'il a donnes aux editions ou reeditions des oeuvres de Gustave Guillaume, soit: Introduction ä Langage et science du langage (1964), Introduction ä la deuxieme edition de Temps et verbe (1929/1965), Introduction et Avertissement au premier volume des Le ons de linguistique (1971) et Introduction aux Principes de linguistique theorique (1973a). D'autres exposes, de moindre ampleur, peuvent egalement etre mentionnes: Bonnard 1969; Eich 1959; Fouche - Pignon 1960; Gabriel Guillaume 1965, 1970; Jacob 1960; Moignet 1961, 1964a, 1964b; Stefanini 1967; Toussaint 1967; Valin 1968; et Wilmet 1970. L'oeuvre scientifique de Monsieur Bernard Pottier a ete fortement

La psychosystematiquc du langagc dans los etudes romancs

291

marquee par la pensee de Gustave Guillaume. On en trouvera des echos dans les travaux suivants: Pottier 19615, 1967, 1968b. Signalons enfin que la pensee linguistique de Gustave Guillaume a fait l'objet d'une these de philosophic: Jacob 1970. La systematique rencontre, au plus pres de la notion de Systeme, la notion integrante du vocable, element immediatement integre au Systeme en tant qu'unite constitutive. La linguistique de Gustave Guillaume est une linguistique du vocable, ce qui, dans le domaine roman, revient dire linguistique du mot de langue. Cette notion fondamentale se manifeste partout dans l'oeuvre du linguiste, mais eile est traduite en premier lieu, avec une grande nettete, dans deux articles publies en 1939: "Discernement et entendement dans les langues. Mot et partie du discours" et "Comment se fait un Systeme grammatical" (reimprimes dans le recueil de 1964: 87-98, 108-119). Les rapports existant entre les parties de la langue que sont les mots sont definis par le principe de l'incidence, qui est decrit particulierement, pour le ίΓ3ης3Ϊ8 (mais la description est valable pour l'ensemble des langues romanes) dans Gustave Guillaume 1973b, et dans les articles suivants: Moignet 1963a, 1973c; et Stefanini 1973. La reconnaissance du mot en tant que partie fondamentale du Systeme de la langue entraine que la plupart des travaux de Gustave Guillaume et de ses disciples portent sur les elements connus sous le nom de 'parties du discours'. En cela, la psychosystematique ne fait que continuer, en l'approfondissant, une tres ancienne tradition grammaticale. 2. Travaux sur le latin Le latin n'a pas fait l'objet de travaux d'ensemble de la part de Gustave Guillaume et de ses disciples. II a cependant retenu leur attention a plusieurs points de vue. Gustave Guillaume avait requ d'Antoine Meillet une solide formation de comparatiste et se plaisait le rappeler; on lira, cet egard, l'avant-propos que Louis Maries a ecrit Cuny 1946. Le comparatiste theoricien qu'etait Gustave Guillaume s'etait manifeste dans plusieurs chapitres de Temps et verbe (1929) et surtout, pour les langues anciennes, dans L'architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques (1943a). On chercherait vainement une theorie plus complete et plus coherente du verbe latin que celle de Gustave Guillaume, comme aussi une explication plus penetrante de ce qu'est la voix dans les langues anciennes

292

Gerard Moignct

(notamment la voix moyenne du grec et la voix deponente du latin) que celle qui est exposee dans son article "Existe-t-il un deponent en franqais?" (1943b). La structure du substantif flechi des langues anciennes, en face du substantif ä cas unique des langues romanes modernes, a etc un sujet de meditation assidue pour Gustave Guillaume, qui y est revenu ä maintes reprises dans son enseignement ä l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes de la Sorbonne (legons encore inedites, dont les exemplaires dactylographies peuvent etre consultes au Fonds Gustave Guillaume de I'Universite Laval, Quebec). On en trouvera un echo dans "Esquisse d'une theorie psychologique de la declinaison" (1939). Parmi les travaux des linguistes 'guillaumiens', on notera qu'une part assez importante est consacree au latin tardif, preroman, dans plusieurs theses de linguistique frangaise qui seront citees plus loin, notamment celles de Messieurs Robert-Leon Wagner, Paul Imbs, Gerard Moignet et Jean Stefanini. La these de Monsieur Maurice Molho sur le verbe espagnol (1975) fait egalement reference ä 1'etat latin du Systeme verbal. Une these de troisieme cycle, encore inedite, est consacree au nombre en latin, dans une perspective psychosystematicienne: Carvalho 1973. 3. Travaux sur les langues romanes L'ensemble du domaine roman, sans etre integralement embrasse du regard, est cependant largement evoque, ä propos des mots grammaticaux, surtout ceux du frangais et de l'espagnol, dans Pettier 1962a. Quatre langues romanes: le frangais, Thalien, l'espagnol et le roumain sont comparees sur la question du mode imperatif du verbe dans Prud'homme 1971. Plusieurs etudes mettent deux langues romanes en regard: Chevalier 1969; Moignet 197la; et Molho 1968a. 3.1 Travaux sur le franqais II n'existe pas encore de grammaire integralement psychosystematique du frangais. Cependant, des manuels recents sont assez marques par Tinfluence des theories de Gustave Guillaume: on citera Baylon - Fabre 1973 et Moignet 1973a. La plupart des travaux de psychosystematique ™ 86 concernent des parties de la langue ou des categories grammaticales. Gustave Guillaume a montre la voie en publiant, parmi d'autres sujets, des etudes sur deux parties importantes de la langue, primordiales pour leur valeur demonstrative: l'article et le verbe.

La psychosystematique du langage dims los etudes romancs

293

3.1.1 L'article Quand, apres plusieurs publications linguistiques de jeunesse (1911, 1912-1913), Gustave Guillaume eut apergu quelques unes des lignes de force de ce qui allait devenir la psychomecanique du langage, c'est, d'emblee, ä Tun des problemes les plus ardus qu'il s'est attaque, un probleme de linguistique generale, de linguistique romane et frangaise. Son premier grand ouvrage est: Le probleme de article et sä solution dans la langue frangaise (1919), livre qui a ete Pobjet de deux comptes-rendus qui signalent sä nouveaute et l'extraordinaire penetration de Pauteur: Havet 1919 et Meillet 1919. Le titre de Pouvrage pose le principe que Particle repond ä une exigence de pensee qui peut etre satisfaite de fagon specifique dans teile langue ou tel etat de langue. Par la suite, Gustave Guillaume elaborait la theorie de Particle, signifiant de Pextensite du substantif, c'est-ä-dire de sä definition, soit en perspective particularisante (c'est le sens de Particle un), soit en perspective generalisante (c'est le sens de Particle le), ce qui amenait la decouverte du mecanisme fondamental, en genese linguistique, qu'est le tenseur binaire radical, soit, en figure: tension I

seuil

tension II

Une serie d'articles parus dans Le frangais moderne, portant sur le Systeme des articles frangais, fonde la theorie. Ce sont: "Particularisation et generalisation dans le Systeme des articles frangais" (1944); "La question de Particle" (1945a); et "Logique constructive interne du systeme des articles frangais" (1945b). Les idees de Gustave Guillaume sur Particle avaient retenu de bonne heure Pattention d'esprits, peu nombreux certes, mais perspicaces. II en est tire parti, par exemple, dans Matsubara 1931. La theorie a ete reprise dans plusieurs travaux de disciples de Gustave Guillaume: Maillard et Valin 1959; Pottier 1962b; et Valin 1967. 3.1.2 Le verbe L'autre 'partie du discours' qui a le plus suscite la reflexion de Gustave Guillaume, apres Particle, fut, on le sait, le verbe. La theorie integrale du verbe surgit, entierement elaboree dans ses grandes lignes dans Temps et verbe, theorie des aspects, des modes et des temps (1929). Par la suite,

294

Gerard Moignct

Gustave Guillaume est revenu sur le problerne du verbe dans une longue serie d'articles ou le verbe frangais sert d'exemple privilegie: Guillaume 1933, 1937, 1938, 1941, 1943b, 195la, 1951b. C'est la psychosemiologie du verbe frangais qui est decrite dans "Psycho-systematique et psycho-semiologie du langage" (1953), cependant que l'ensemble du Systeme etait encore une fois dessine dans, "Epoques et niveaux temporels dans le Systeme de la conjugaison frangaise" (1955). Le verbe frangais est egalement analyse dans son Systeme et dans ses emplois dans un recueil de textes publics en 1971 mais jusqu'alors inedits: Legons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume, 1948-1949, serie A. Les travaux de Gustave Guillaume sur la systematique du verbe frangais sont au depart d'un nombre important d'etudes approfondies sur la syntaxe du frangais. Us ont mis leur empreinte sur une these qui fait date dans l'histoire de la syntaxe, celle de Robert-Leon Wagner: Les phrases hypolheliques commengant par "si" dans la langue frangaise, des origines a la fin du XVI* siede (1939), ou la notion de 'scheme sublinguistique' est definie et pertinemment employee. Le meme linguiste est revenu longuement sur les principes de la psychosystematique dans la partie theorique de son Introduction a la linguistique frangaise (1947) et dans un article, "De ("analyse et de la comparaison en linguistique" (1948). Monsieur Paul Imbs, autre 'guillaumien' de la premiere heure, a largement expose la theorie de la chronogenese dans Le subjonctif en frangais moderne (1953), ainsi que dans son importante these Les propositions temporelles en ancien frangais (1956), et dans son etude L'emploi des temps verbaux en frangais moderne (1960). La theorie des modes verbaux exposee dans Temps et verbe anime integralement la these de Gerard Moignet, Essai sur le mode subjonctif en latin postclassique et en ancien frangais (1959b). Le meme subjonctif fait Tobjet de la these, encore inedite, de M. Barral: L'imparfaitdu subjonctif. Etude sur l'emploi des temps du subjonctif dans le frangais moderne (1974), et egalement d'une etude de son emploi dans le dialecte wallon (Warnant 1974). La theorie des temps de l'indicatif rend compte d'une forme verbale du frangais archaique, celle en -re(t), dans Moignet 1959c. La theorie de la voix verbale, exposee dans l'article de Gustave Guillaume "Existe-t-il un deponent en frangais?" (1943b), est ä la base de la these de Stefanini, La voix pronominale en ancien et moyen frangais

La psychosystcmatique du langagc dans les etudes romanes

295

(1962), dont on citera deux comptes-rendus: Moignet 1965d, et Molho 1965. Les rapports de la voix verbale et de la personne sont etudies dans Moignet 1971c. Les valeurs en discours de l'imparfait de Tindicatif fran9ais servent de theme de demonstration privilegie dans l'ouvrage de theorie dejä signale: Valin 1964. Un aspect de cette question est evoque aussi par Warnant (1967). La theorie des temps repose, en derniere analyse, sur la theorie du present. On lira sur ce point Valin (1966). Le probleme de l'aspect a etc traite, dans la perspective de Temps et verbe, par le meme linguiste (Valin 1965). Dans un optique onomasiologique non conforme ä Fenseignement de Gustave Guillaume, mais restant dans le cadre de la psychosystematique, des travaux sont consacres aux rapports du temps et de l'aspect par Martin (1965, 1970a). Le probleme est particulierement bien pose par Lafleche 1973. Citons encore les travaux suivants, portant sur des points plus particuliersde l'etude du verbe frangais: Barral 1971; Maillard 1959; Moignet 1957,1960, 1961,1963b, 1969; Molho 1959a; Stefanini 1953, 1954, 1956, 1970. Le verbe unipersonnel est etudie dans une serie d'articles: Moignet 1970a, 1971c, 1973c, 1974a, 35 1974b. 3.1.3 Le nom: substantif et adjectif On meconnaitrait gravement l'oeuvre de Gustave Guillaume si ne voyait en lui que le theoricien de Particle et du verbe, sur la foi de ce qu'il a public de son vivant. En fait, les tres nombreux inedits qu'il a laisses le prouvent, den de ce qui entre dans le Systeme de la langue n'a echappe ä son investigation. Gustave Guillaume a souvent expose ce qui caracterise specifiquement le substantif: l'"incidence interne", qui fait que le substantif est prevu, dans le plan de la langue, pour ne parier que de lui-meme. II en est traite, notamment, dans les Lefons (1948-1949), serie C (1973b). La theorie des cas du substantif — cas multiples des langues anciennes et cas unique du frangais — est indiquee dans son article de 1939, "Esquisse d'une theorie psychologique de la declinaison", et reprise en partie par Pettier (1957) et, pour 1'ancien frangais, par Moignet (1966a). La categoric du nombre est etudiee dans Moignet 1965b. Le probleme de la semantese nominale et des ses modificateurs fait l'objet de plusieurs travaux — 1'un public, Weber 1963 — et de theses en preparation. La derivation des noms abstraits en frangais est etudiee par Madame

2%

Gerard Moignct

Danielle Becherel; la prefixation en ancien frangais et en frangais moderne, par Monsieur Jean Dolbec. L'adjectif est l'objet de plusieurs travaux en cours. La place de l'adjectif frangais, avant ou apres le substantif, est un probleme delicat de systematique et de syntaxe, tant en frangais moderne qu'en ancien frangais, dont plusieurs chercheurs sont en train de traiter. La derivation adjective est evoquee dans Martin 1970b. 3.1.4 L'adverbe L'adverbe, sa place en Systeme, les conditions de sä genese ä partir de 1'adjectif ont donne lieu ä deux articles: Moignet 1963a, et Cahne 1972. Les degres de comparaison des adjectifs et des adverbes apparaissent dans deux etudes: Valin 1952 et Pettier 1966. 3.1.5 Les parties de langue non predicatives Les relations systematiques des parties de langue non predicatives avec les elements notionnels sont encore, pour une part, ä definir dans le cadre du Systeme integral de la langue. La psychosystematique a apporte quelques reponses ä cette question, en dehors de ce qu'elle a produit sur le probleme de Particle. Le pronom personnel, souvent analyse par Gustave Guillaume, est etudie en detail dans les ^ (1948-1949), serie C (1973b). Moignet y consacre une etude: Le pronom personnel frangais. Essai de psychosystematique historique (1965a), et deux articles (1970a, 1972). Le Systeme de la personne est egalement traite par Joly (1973). Les pronoms dits 'indefinis' constituent un champ largement ouvert ä la recherche psychosystematique, car l'embarras de la grammaire traditionnelle est grand ä leur egard. Certains mots entrant dans cette categoric vague, par definition, ont ete etudies par des linguistes psychosystematiciens, surtout Martin (1966, 1967, 1969) et Moignet (1967, 1968, 1970b). La negation est un theme plusieurs fois aborde par les psychosystematiciens: Carvalho 1967; La Folette - Valin 1961; Martin 1972; Moignet 1965c; Queffelec 1968; et Wilmet 1973. La preposition est abordee par Pottier 196la, et la conjonction, par Moignet 1974c. Les divers moyens grammaticaux ayant permis, historiquement, de signifier 1'exception sont etudies dans l'etude de Moignet: Les signes de l'exception dans rhistoire du frangais (1959a).

La psychosystcmiitique du langage dans les etudes romanes

297

La phrase, unite du discours, a moins retenu l'attention des psychosystematiciens que le mot, unite de la langue. On citera cependant, sur differents types de phrase, Moignet 1966b et 1973b, et, du meme auteur, un article evoquant sous Tangle systematique l'ordre des mots en ancien frangais (1971b). II y a lieu aussi de signaler que la confrontation du 'guillaumisme' avec la grammaire generative transformationnelle, qui, eile, met la phrase au premier plan, a ete faite, en prenant le franqais pour langue de demonstration, par Molho: Linguistique et langage (1969a). Le meme face-ä-face a ete le theme d'un colloque tenu ä Bruxelles en mai 1974, dont les Actes ont paru dans Le franqals moderne 42. La semantique — en dehors de celle des mots grammaticaux, qui a principalement retenu Gustave Guillaume et ses disciples — est abordee dans une optique psychosystematique dans un certain nombre d'essais recents: Mantchev 1967, 1970, 1971; Molho 1969b; et Pottier 1964. Une semantique 'guillaumienne' est actuellement congue et appliquee au vocabulaire de Chretien de Troyes par Monsieur Andre Eskenazi. 3.2 Autres langues romanes 3.2.1 Domaine occitan Une these importante fait largement appel aux conceptions linguistiques de Gustave Guillaume: Lafont, La phrase occitane, essai d'analyse systematique (1967). D'autres questions, moins amples, sont egalement traitees dans l'optique psychosystematicienne: Baylon 1971, 1972; Joly 1971. 3.2.2 Domaine hispanique Parmi les guillaumiens, c'est Bernard Pottier qui a considere dans le sens le plus large l'apport de la psychosystematique ä I'espagnol; on lira surtout: Lingüistica moderna yfilologia hispanica (1968a) et Grammaire de I'espagnol (1969). Un travail de grande ampleur et de grande portee, mettant l'accent sur la structure specifique du present en espagnol, en comparaison avec le latin et le frangais, est celui de Molho:Sistematica del verbo espanol (1975); these de doctoral soutenue en Sorbonne en 1972, cet ouvrage est encore inedit quant ä la version frangaise. On peut lire encore, sur les problemes du temps et du verbe: Chevalier 1967, 1969, 1971; Luquet 1969; et Molho 1971; sur la negation: Molho 1962; sur les pronominaux: Molho 1968a, 1968b; sur les adverbes: Chevalier 1970; et sur la suffixation diminutive, un important travail actuellement sous

29H

Gerard Moignct

presse: Weiser, Contribution ά Γ etude des suffixes quantificateurs en espagnol moderne. Pour le portugais, on citera Pottier 1953 et Molho 1959b, et pour le Catalan, l'etude de Molho sur Taoriste periphrastique (1976). 3.2.3 Domaine italien Quant Titalien il faut mentionner un memoire encore inedit d'AIvaro Rocchetti sur Les interferences de Γ aspect et de la voix en italien (1962), et trois articles: Moignet 197la; Molho 1970 et Rocchetti 1968. 4. La relative abundance des travaux de psychosystematique portant sur le τΥαης3Ϊ5, due la nationalite de son fondateur et de ses disciples directs, la rarete des travaux portant sur les autres langues romanes ne prouvent qu'une chose: un champ d'investigation tres vaste est ouvert dans le domaine roman pour une plus rigoureuse definition des systemes et des mecanismes linguistiques generateurs de systemes. References Barral, M.

1971

"Un cas de concordance des temps du subjonctif: I'imparfait apres le conditionnel present. Etude diachronique et synchronique", RLaR 79: 29-69. 1974 L 'imparfait du subjonctif. Etude sur l'emploi des temps du subjonctif dans le fran^ais moderne. [Unpublished thesis.] Baylon, C. 1971 "Les pronoms personnels dans le parier de Beuil", Romanistique (= Annales de la Faculte des Lettres de Nice 14) (Paris: Les Belles Lettres), 43-56. 1972 "Les demonstratifs dans deux parlers provengaux alpins", RLaR 80: 97-108. Baylon, C. — P. Fahre 1973 Grammaire systematique de la langue fi-αηςaise (Paris: Nathan). Bonnard, H. 1969 "Guillaume il y a vingt ans", LFr 1: 21-35. Cahne, P. 1972 "Place, valeur et adverbialisation de l'adjectif", RLaR 80: 117-127. Carvalho. Y. de 1967 De la negation verbale dans le franqais du XVie siecle (Bordeaux). [Unpublished dissertation.] 1973 Recherches sur la categorie du nombre en latin. Le pluriel poetique (Paris). [Unpublished dissertation.] Chevalier, J.-C. 1966 Review of Valin 1964, BHi 68: 174-176. 1967 "L'expression verbale du passe en espagnol (passe d'aspect et passe d'epoque)", Revue des langues neo-latines 182: 3-11. 1969 "Remarques comparees sur I'infinitif espagnol et I'infinitif fran9ais", BHi 71: 140-173.

La psychosystcmatique du langage dans les etudes romanes 1970

299

"Otrosi et Asimesmo (etude semantique d'apres La cronica de los reyes catolicos por su secretario Fernando del Pulgar)", BHi 72: 376-385. 1971 "Architecture temporelle dans le Romancero traditional", BHi 73: 50-103. Contreras, H. 1966 Review of Valin 1964, Lg 42: 106-108. Cuny, A. 1946 Invitation ά Γ etude des langues indo-europeennes et des langues chainito-semitiques (Bordeaux: Biere). Dubois, J. 1966 Review of Valin 1964, FM 34: 148-149. Eich, C. 1959 "Gustave Guillaume, 1883-1960", V R 18: 388-395. Fouche, P. -J. Pignon 1960 "Gustave Guillaume", FM 27: 81-85. Guillaume, Gabriel 1965 "Echos d'un message linguistique: oeuvres et Icgons de Gustave Guillaume", RLR 29: 295-313. 1970 Grand Ungutste franqais: Gustave Guillaume (= Marche armoricaine) (Paris: Picard). Guillaume, Gustave n.d. "Observation et explication dans la science du langage, I". [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 25-45.] 1911 Etudes de grammaire logique comparee. Les passes de l'indicatif franqais, allemands et russes (Paris: Fischbacher). 1912-13 Etudes de grammaire frangaise logique. Le lieu du mode dans le temps, dans I'espace. I L'article [1912] // Les temps [1913] (Paris: Fischbacher). 1919 Le probl me de l'article et s solution dans la langue frangaise (Paris: Hachette). [Reprinted, edited by R. Valin (Paris: Nizet, 1975).] 1929 Temps et verbe (Paris: Champion). [Reprinted, together with L'architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques, edited by R. Valin (Paris: Champion, 1975).] 1933 "Immanence et transcendance dans la categoric du verbe; esquisse d'une theorie psychologique de l'aspect". Journal de psychologic. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964:46-58.] 1937 "Themes de present et Systeme des temps franςais", Journal de psychologie. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 59-72.] 1938 "Theorie des auxiliaires et examen de fails connexes", BSL 39: 5-23. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 73-86.] 1939 "Esquisse d'une theorie psychologique de la declinaison", AL 1: 167-178. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 99-107.] 1941 "De la repartition des trois radicaux du verbe aller entre les formes de la conjugaison fran9aise", FM 9: 170-180. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 120126.] 1943a L'architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques (K0benhavn: Munksgaard). 1943b "Existe-t-il un deponent en franc.ais?", FM 2: 9-30. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 127-142.] 1944 "Particularisation et generalisation dans le Systeme des articles fransais", FM 12: 89-107. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 143-156.] 1945a "La question de Particle", FM 13: 70-82. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 157-166.]

300 1945b 195 la 195 Ib 1952 1953 1955 1958 1964 1971 1973a 1973b

Gerard Moignet "Logique constructive interne du Systeme des articles frangais", FM 13: 207-229. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 167-183.] "La representation du temps dans la languefran9aise",/ 7 M 19: 29^1,115-133. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 184-207.] "De la double action separative du present dans la representation frangaise du temps". Melanges Albert Dauzat (Paris: d'Artrey), 131-146. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 208-219.] La langue est-elle ou n'est-elle pas un systeme? (— Cahiers de linguistique struclurale 1) (Quebec: Laval U.P.). [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 220-240.] "Psychosystematique et psychosemiologie du langage", FM 21: 127-136. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 241-249.] Epoques et niveaux temporeis dans le systeme de la conjugaison frangaise (= Cahiers de linguistique structurale 4) (Quebec: Laval: U.P.). [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 250-271.] "Observation et explication dans la science du langage, 11", Les Etudes Philosophiques 1958: 446^62. [Reprinted in Guillaume 1964: 272-286.] Langage et science du langage (Paris: Nizet). Le ons de linguistique (1948-1949), serie A (Quebec: Laval U.P./Paris: Klincksieck). Principes de linguistique theorique de Gustave Guillaume (Quebec: Laval U.P./Paris: Klincksieck). Le ons de linguistique (1948-1949), serie C. Grammaire particuliere du frangais et grammaire generate (Quebec: Laval U.P./Paris: Klincksieck).

Havet, L. 1919 Review of Guillaume 1919, Le journal des savants 5-6: 158-159. Imbs, P. 1953 Le subjonctif en frangais moderne. Essai de grammaire descriptive (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). 1956 Les propositions temporelles en ancien franqais. La determination du moment (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). 1960 L'emploi des temps verbaux en frangais moderne (= Bibliotheque frangaise et romane, A 1) (Paris: Klincksieck). Jacob, A. 1960 "Gustave Guillaume, 1883-1960", Les tludes philosophiques 2: 267-268. 1970 Les exigences thtoriques de la linguistique selon Gustave Guillaume ( = Etudes linguistiques 10) (Paris: Klincksieck). Joly, A. 1971 "Le complement verbal et le morpheme a en bearnais", ZRPh 87: 286305. 1973 "Sur le systeme de la personne", RLaR 80: 3-56. Lafleche, G. 1973 "Etude de psychosystematique sur les valeurs aspectives des temps du passe en frangais", RLaR 80: 365-389. La Follette, J. A. - R. Valin 1961 "Un curieux emploi de la negation en fran9ais canadien", CJL 7: 15-25. Lafont, R. 1967 La phrase occitane. Essai d'analyse systematique (= Publications de la Faculte des Lettres de Montpellier 28) (Paris: P.U.F.). Langdon,M. 1966 Review of Valin 1964, UAL 32: 410^12.

La psychosystematique du langage dans les etudes romanes

301

Luquet, G. 1969 Observations sur la voix pronominale en espagnol moderne (Bordeaux). [Unpublished dissertation.] Maillard, J. 1959 "Verbes et auxiliaires dans la langue fran9aise actuelle", FM 27: 252-256. Maillard, J. - R. Valin 1959 "Norn et article", VR 18: 31^8. Mantchev, K. 1967 "Hierarchie semantique des verbes franqais", CLex 10: 31-46. 1970 "Competence semantique d'une classe de verbes du fran9ais contemporain", Annuaire de l'Universite de Sofia 63: 151-169. 1971 "Elements d'ideogenie (domaine fransais)", Annuaire de Γ Universite de Sofia 64: 359-392. Martin, R. 1965 "Temps et aspect en frangais moderne", TLL 3: 67-79. 1966 Le mot RIEN et ses concurrents en fra^ais (du XlVe siede a l'epoque contemporaine (= Bibliotheque fi-αηςaise et romane A 12) (Paris: Klincksieck). 1967 "Le Systeme relatif-interrogatif qui -cui/que -coi en ancien franςais", TLL 5: 97-122. 1969 "Analyse semantique du mot PEU", LFr 4: 75-87. 1970a Temps et aspect. Essai sur l'emploi des temps narratifs en moyen frangais (Paris: Klincksieck). 1970b "A propos de la derivation adjective. Quelques notes sur la definition du suffixe", TLL 8: 155-166. 1972 "La 'negation de virtualite' du moyen frangais", Romania 92: 20-49. Matsubara, H. 1931 La syntaxe de Γ article en frangais moderne (Paris: Sirey). Meillet, A. 1919 Review of Guillaume 1919, BSL2\: 178-181. Moignet, G. 1957 "Pitie pour I'indicatif", FM 25: 161-169. 1959a Les signes de ['exception dans l'histoire dufi-αηςais (Geneve: Droz).[2nd revised edition 1973.] 1959b Essai sur le mode subjonctifen latin postclassique et en ancien βταηςais (Paris: P.U.F.). 1959c "La forme en -re(t) dans le Systeme verbal du plus ancien fran9ais", RLaR 73: 1-65. 1959d "Encore le fait linguistique", FM 27: 94-101. 1960 "La suppleance du verbe en franqais", FM 28: 13-24, 107-124. 1961 L 'adverbe dans la locution verbale (= Cahiers de psychomecanique du langage 5) (Quebec: Laval U.P.). 1963a "L'incidence de Padverbeet I'adverbialisationdesadjectifs", TLL 1: 175-194. 1963b "La suppleance anticipative du verbe en franQais", BJR 8: 1-8. 1964a "Gustave Guillaume et la science du langage", TLL 2: 7-16. 1964b "Gustave Guillaume et la systematique du langage", LM 2: 139-148. 1965a Le pronom personnel fra^ais. Essai de psychosystematique historique (Paris: Klincksieck). 1965b "Le nombre en fran9ais", Etudes linguistiques: le problems du nombre (Paris: Klincksieck), 463-478. 1965c "L'opposition NON/NE en ancien ΐΓ3ης3ΐ$", TLL 3: 45-65.

302

Gerard Moignet

1965d Review of Stefanini 1962, FM 33: 132-144. 1966a "Surle Systeme de la flexion deuxcasde I'ancien frangais", TLL 4: 339-356. 1966b "Esquisse d'une theorie psychomecanique de la phrase interrogative", Langages 3: 49-66. 1967 "Le Systeme du paradigmegwi -que -quoi en ίΓ3ηςΕΐ5 moderne", TLL 5: 75-95. 1968 "Systematique du mot que", TLL 6: 85-112. 1969 "Le verbe void - voila", TLL 7: 189-202. 197()a "Personne humaine et personne d'univers: contribution l'etude du verbe unipersonnel", TLL 8: 191-202. 197()b "La place en Systeme de que comparatif", The French language. Studies presented to L. C. Harmer (London: Harrap), 103-114. 197la "Fran9ais que, Italien ehe, etude de systematique comparee", Interlinguistica. Festschrift Mario Wandruszka (T bingen: Niemeyer), 220-241. 1971b "L'ordre verbe-sujet dans la Chanson de Roland", Melanges Jean Boutiere (Liege: Soledi), 397-421. 1971c "Verbe unipersonnel et voix verbale", TLL 9: 267-282. 1972 "Sur le Systeme de la personne en frangais", TLL 10: 71-81. 1973a Grammaire de I'ancien franfais (= Initiation a la tinguistique B 2) (Paris: Klincksieck). 1973b "Existe-t-il en frangais une 'proposition infinitive'?", Grammaire generative transformationelle et psychomecanique du langage (Lille: U.P.), 111-137. I973c "Incidence verbale et transitivite", TLL 11: 111-133. 1974a "Grammaire transformationelle et psychomecanique du langage, propos du verbe unipersonnel", Actes du XHIe congres de linguistique romane (Quebec: Laval U.P.), 1061-1074. 1974b "Sur la 'transitivite indirecte'", TLL 12: 281-299. 1974c (ed.) Etudes depsychosystematique franc,aise (= Bibliotheque/ταηςaise et romane A 28) (Paris: Klincksieck). Mol ho, M. 1959a "Imperatif, indicatif et subjonctif", FM 27: 199-205. 1959b "Le probleme de I'infinitif en portugais", BHi 61: 26-73. 1962 "De la negation en espagnol", Melanges Marcel Bataillon (Bordeaux: Feret), 704-715. 1965 "Une theorie de la voix en ancien et en moyen fran9ais. Observations en marge d'un ouvrage recent", Cahiers de civilisation medievale 8: 191-200. 1968a "Remarques sur le Systeme des mots demonstratifs en espagnol et en franqais", LM 3: 335-350. 1968b "Observations sur le voseo", BHi 70: 56-76. 1969a Linguistique et langage (= Collection Ducros 2) (Bordeaux: Ducros). 1969b Semantique et poetique (= Collection Ducros 5) (Bordeaux: Ducros). 1970 "Duel et possessifs en florentin du 500", Melanges Pierre Fou^ (Paris: Klincksieck), 59-79. 1971 "SOY-ESTOY-VOY-DOY. Essai sur la semiologie des verbes d'existence en espagnol". Melanges Jean Boutiere (Liege: Soledi), 841-868. 1975 Sistematica del verbo espanol: aspectos, modos, tiempos, 2 vols (Madrid: Gredos). 1976 "L'aorist perifr stic catala", Problemes de llengua i literatura catalanes. Actes del II colloqui internacional sobre el catala (Amsterdam 1970) (Barcelona: Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat), 67-100. Pottier, B. 1953 "Les infixes modificateurs en portugais", BF 14: 233-256.

La psychosystematique du langage dans les etudes romancs 1957

303

"Surla nature ducaset de la preposition". Melanges Istvan Franck (Saarbrücken: Saar U.P.), 546-551. 1958 "Pensee structuree et semiologie", BHi 60: 101-112. 1961 a "Sur le Systeme des prepositions", FM 29: 1-6. 1961b "Problemes de methode en linguistique structurale", Bollettino dell'instituto di lingue estere 6: 24-33. 1962a Systematique des elements de relation; etude de morphosyntaxe structurale romane (Paris: Klincksieck). 1962b "L'absence d'article en franqais et sä motivation", RLR 26: 158-162. 1964 "Vers une semantique moderne", TLL 2: 107-137. 1966 "Comparatifs et superlatifs", AL 9: 123-129. 1967 Presentation de la linguistique. Fondements d'une theorie (Paris: Klincksieck). 1968a Lingüistica moderna y filologfa hispanica (Madrid: Gredos). 1968b "Gustave Guillaume, N. Chomsky et les niveaux d'analyse" [resume], BSL 63, l, xxx-xxxii. 1969 Grammaire de l'espagnol (= Que sais-je? 1354) (Paris: P.U.F.). Prud'homme, J. 1971 "Remarques sur l'imperatif dans quelques langues romanes", Romanistique ( = Annales de la Faculte des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Nice 14), 7-15. Queffelec, A. 1968 Recherches sur la negation en ancien frangais (Nice). [Unpublished dissertation.] Rocchetti, A. 1962 Les interferences de l'aspect et de la voix en Italien (Paris). [Unpublished dissertation.] 1968 "Les pluriels doubles de Thalien", LM 3: 63-71. Stefanini, J. 1953 "Remarques sur la syntaxe d'apres que en frangais moderne", Annales de la Faculte des Lettres d'Aix-en-Provence 27: 65-87. 1954 "La tradition grammaticale franqaise et les temps surcomposes", Annales de la Faculte des Lettres d'Aix-en-Provence 28: 67-108. 1956 "Nouvelles remarques sur la syntaxe d'apres que", Annales de la Faculte des Lettres d'Aix-en-Provence 29: 107-139. 1959 "Le Systeme et les faits en linguistique", FM 27: 26-44. 1962 La voix pronominale en ancien et moyen franqais (= Publications de la Faculte des Lettres d'Aix-en-Provence 33) (Gap: Ophrys). 1967 "Approche au guillaumisme", Langages 7: 74-92. 1970 "Notes sur les formes surcomposees", TLL 8: 287-296. 1973 "Quelques remarques sur la notion d'incidence", Grammaire generative transformationelle et psychomecanique du langage (Lilie: U.P.), 89-109. Toussaint, M. 1967 "Gustave Guillaume et l'actualite linguistique", Langages 7: 93-100. Valin, R. 1952 Esquisse d'une theorie des degres de comparaison (= Cahiers de linguistique structurale 2) (Quebec: Laval U.P.). 1954 Petite introduction a la psychomecanique du langage (= Cahiers de linguistique structurale 3) (Quebec: Laval U.P.). 1959 "Qu'est-ce qu'un fait linguistique?", FM 27: 85-93. 1964 La methode comparative en linguistique historique et en psychomecanique du langage (= Cahiers de psychomecanique du langage 6) (Quebec: Laval U.P.).

304 1965

Gerard Moignet

"Les aspects du verbe frangais", Melanges Alexandra Rosetti (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei), 967-975. 1966 "D'une difficulte inherente Panalyse du present frar^ais", TLL 4: 485-494. 1967 "Grammaire et logique; de nouveau sur Particle", TLL 5: 61-74. 1968 "Des conditions d'existence d'une science du mentalisme linguistique", LM 3: 297-309. Wagner, R.-L. 1939 Les phrases hypothetiques comme^ant par SI dans la langue fra^aise, des origines a la fin du XVle siecle (Geneve: Droz). 1947 Introduction a la linguistique fra^aise (Lille: Giard/Geneve: Droz). 1948 "De ['analyse et de la comparaison en linguistique", Journal de psychologic 41: 374 ff. Warnant, L. 1967 "Moi j'etais le papa . . . L'imparfait preludique et quelques remarques relatives a la recherche grammaticale". Melanges Maurice Grevisse (Gembloux: Duculot), 343-366. 1974 "Le subjonctif imparfait en ίτ3ης3ΐχ et en wallon", FM 42: 42-69. Weber, M. 1963 Contributions a l'etude du diminutif en frangais moderne (Zurich: Altorfer). Wilmet, M. 1970 "Syntaxe historique et structuralisme". Revue universitaire de Bruxelles 4: 1-18. 1972 Gustave Guillaume et son ecole linguistique (= Langues et culture 12) (Paris: Nathan). 1973 "Le traitement de la negation en grammaire generative et en psychomecanique du langage", Grammaire generative transformationnelle et psychomecanique du Iangage (Lille: U.P.), 55-87.

MICHEL ARRIVE

La glossematique*

A qui jette un coup d'oeil sur la production linguistico-semiotique contemporaine — voire, d'une faqon plus generale, sur le discours des sciences humaines — apparait immediatement, a I'egard de la glossematique, un trait caracteristique: ä quelques rares exceptions pres, la reference ä la glossematique est absente ou fortement pejorative. Les theories de Hjelmslev (est-il besoin de preciser qu'il n'est ä peu pres jamais question du second 'jumeau' de la glossematique, H. J. Uldall?) jouent le role d'epouvantail structuraliste, et permettent souvent, de ce fait, de recuperer Saussure, presente comme moins 'extremiste' que Hjelmslev. Naturellement, pour jouer ce role d'epouvantail structuraliste, la glossematique a ete au prealable fortement caricaturee. Donnons quelques exemples de cette attitude. En 1972, J. Kristeva lie indissolublement le projet de constitution d'une semiotique (la semanalyse) au rejet de la pensee de Hjelmslev: [. . .] grace ä la typologie des pratiques signifiantes (eclatement d'un sens) que la semanalyse propose, la 'reconnaissance' ideologique peut etre mise entre parentheses; eile cede devant l'intervention de la psychanalyse (avant tout) qui en constitue un objet de science comme objet specifique. Encore une fois je suis persuadee que c'est le geste indispensable ä la constitution d'une semiotique: sans cela, la semiotique est condamnee ä se contenter de suivre la pensee de Hjelmslev, en structurant la transcendance d'Un Sens.1 Propos elliptique et sibyllin, ou il semble cependant difficile de deceler une analyse exacte de la glossematique: le "Sens" (sic, avec une majuscule) est-il, chez Hjelmslev, "transcendant"? Est-il, surtout, "Un"?

306

Michel Arrive

En 1974, dans La revolution du langage poetique (Paris: Seuil), Kristeva precise son analyse (p. 38): [. . .] les functions semiotiques (^expression et de contenu nous renvoient ä 1'univers phenomenologique: la comme ici, ce sont des relais entre un sens pre-suppose, done toujours dejä en quelque sorte pose, et son enunciation linguistique ou, plus generalement, semiologique; la comme ici, le semiologique releve d'un signe en tant qu'il est signe d'objet pose comme existant: "II semble juste qu'un signe soit signe de quelque chose et que ce 'quelque chose' reside en quelque sorte hors du signe lui-meme" (Prolegomenes, p. 82). Cette analyse est ä notre sens entierement inexacte. L'erreur de Kristeva repose vraisemblablement sur les deux elements suivants: (a) Elle a interprete le mot sens de la traduction fran$aise comme designant une grandeur proprement linguistique teile que le contenu. II n'en est rien: le moisens renvoie au motpurport de la traduction anglaise, pour lequel Hjelmslev lui-meme dans Particle sur "La stratification du langage" suggere la traduction par matiere: "Pour designer la manifestante sans impliquer qu'elle soit semiotiquement formee, c'est-a-dire sans distinguer manifestante semiotiquement formee et manifestante semiotiquement non-formee, ce qui est une notion entierement differente, nous proposons le terme matiere (en anglais:purport)" (p. 58). 2 II va sans dire que la matiere peut etre manifestante aussi bien au plan de l'expression qu'au plan du contenu. D'ou — compte tenu de l'equivalence matiere-sens — cette notion apparemment problematique de sens de {'expression qui apparait dans les Prolegomenes (p. 80). Compte tenu de ce qui vient d'etre rappele, cette notion designe done la manifestante du plan de l'expression, sans distinguer si eile est ou non semiotiquement formee. (b) La phrase isolee des Prolegomenes citee par Kristeva a pour fonction d'expliquer de quelle fagon l'analyse glossematique de la fonction semiotique peut recevoir une description apparemment analogue ä celle qui est donnee de la conception courante du signe. Mais Hjelmslev indique immediatement apres de quelle fagon doit etre comprise, en glossematique, l'expression "etre signe de quelque chose": "Aussi paradoxal que cela puisse paraitre, le signe est done ä la fois signe d'une substance de contenu et d'une substance d'expression. C'est dans ce sens

La glossematiquc

307

que peut dire que le signe est signe de quelque chose" (Prolegomenes p. 82). On voit ä quel point on est loin de la conception que Kristeva tente de faire passer pour celle de Hjelmslev! Au reste, les premieres phrases du chapitre "Expression et contenu" marquent sans aucune equivoque possible la distance entre le modele hjelmslevien du signe et la conception traditionnelle: Jusqu'ä present, nous avons voulu nous en tenir ä Tancienne tradition selon laquelle un signe est avant tout signe de quelque chose. C'est la une conception courante ä laquelle nous nous sommes conformes, et c'est aussi une conception largement repandue en epistemologie et en logique. Nous voulons pourtant demontrer qu'elle est insoutenable du point de vue linguistique. [. . .] La theorie moderne, formulee en particulier par F. de Saussure et, ensuite, par L. Weisgerber, congoit le signe somme le tout forme par une expression et un contenu. (Prolegomenes p. 71) On voit done ä quel point il est arbitraire de parier, ä propos de la glossematique, d'une quelconque "transcendence d'Un Sens"! Chez Meschonnic, le discours relatif ä la glossematique est fortement polemique. Des Pour lapoetique (Paris: Gallimard, 1970), il fait allusion au "structuralisme (que Paul Ricoeur appelle dejä ancien) de Saussure et de Hjelmslev" (p. 29) — confondant les deux linguistes dans la meme reprobation. Dans Le signe et le poeme (Paris: Gallimard, 1976), la critique est considerablement developpee et affinee. Elle reste toutefois aussi contestable que celle de Kristeva, et exactement pour les memes raisons: une precision insuffisante dans l'analyse de la theorie hjelmslevienne du signe (voir, notamment, les pages 225-227). II faut cependant remarquer que Meschonnic a au contraire de Kristeva apergu l'une des ambigu'ites de la theorie glossematique: le probleme des relations entre le referent et le contenu n'est pas explicitement pose dans les Prolegomenes* Curieusement, la conclusion de Meschonnic disjoint le cas de Hjelmslev de celui de Saussure — contrairement ä la position adoptee dans Pour la poetique: Hjelmslev ne peut pas ne pas apparaitre, monstrueusement, ä cause de sä filiation, et des stereotypes qui regnent, comme un anti-

308

Michel Arrive

Saussure, et meme, etant donne le developpement de la semiotique, le plus grand malheur posthume de Saussure. Car, dernier paradoxe, ce n'est pas le theoricien de la grammaire, dont l'apport sur les problemes de la rection ou du pronom a sa pertinence, mais c'est, en Hjelmslev, le metaphysicien du structuralisme qui a ete suivi. (p. 231) On remarquera avec interet que ce qui est ici reprouve dans la figure de Hjelmslev, ce n'est pas le linguiste — dont I'"apport" est, quoique de ίαςοη desinvolte, reconnu pour reel — mais le pere de la semiotique. II est interessant de constater que Lacan ne cite Hjelmslev que de ί3ςοη decorative, en un point seulement des Ecrits.4 Mais certains lacaniens n'observent pas la meme reserve. Ainsi E. Roudinesco, qui procede d'abord une analyse sommaire de la glossematique: La methode formelle de Hjelmslev represents dans l'histoire de la linguistique un recul par rapport la these saussurienne du signe et de la langue. Impasse et aboutissement tout la fois de la methode structurale, eile considere la langue comme un Systeme clos et abandonne toute hypothese relative la nature du langage, cedant ainsi la demarche du logico-positivisme qui considere le discours au seul niveau des enonces. La glossematique appartient de ce fait un courant de la linguistique qui, comme le dit Chomsky, se cantonne au domaine de la structure superficielle du langage.5 Propos evidemment beaucoup trop general et allusif pour avoir ne serait-ce que le merite de pouvoir etre commodement falsifie. Plus interessant, car plus explicite, est le discours aux "glossematiciens et aux fonctionnalistes" (bizarrement amalgames) qu'elle prete Lacan: Lacan ne fait que repeter le discours freudien; il dit ce que dit ce discours: il dit aux fonctionnalistes et aux glossematiciens que le signe est 'casse' chez Saussure, qu'il n'y a dans le langage ni hierarchic ni double articulation, que le sens ne 'nait' pas dans les unites, que le langage-instrument et la langue-outil sont les grands alibis d'un pragmatisme du 'communicatif, que le discours n'a rien communiquer mais represente Texistence meme de la communication (ibid. p. 104) On reconnait beaucoup plus facilement dans cette etrange caricature le

La glosserruitique

309

fonctionnalisme que la glossematique: compte tenu du role qu'elle donne ä la forme, celle-ci ne peut evidemment que releguer au second plan le Probleme de la communication, du fait meme du role de la substance dans la communication. Quant ä la 'cassure' du signe, est-il necessaire de rappeler quelle place eile prend dans la theorie de Hjelmslev? Pour reprendre les termes de Greimas, chacun des deux plans simples du langage — l'expression et le contenu — est soumis "separement ä une segmentation et ä une systematisation non plus des signes, mais pour employer le terme hjelmslevien, des figures, c'est-ä-dire des unites — construites et non plus manifestoes —des deux plans".** Le probleme est evidemment de savoir ä quel type de 'cassure' du signe fait allusion E. Roudinesco: question qui nous amenerait ä nous interroger sur la validite de la lecture lacanienne de 1'algorithme saussurien. Ainsi la glossematique se trouve-t-elle generalement condamnee. Les rehabilitations sont rares. Celle ä laquelle precedent Deleuze et Guattari s'appuie sur une disjunction operee entre Saussure et Hjelmslev, mais cette fois au profit du second: la linguistique de Saussure est une linguistique du signifiant, celle de Hjelmslev une linguistique des flux: [. . .] la linguistique de Hjelmslev s'oppose profondement ä I'entreprise saussurienne et post-saussurienne. Parce qu'elle abandonne toute reference privilegiee. Parce qu'elle decrit un champ pur d'immanence algebrique qui ne se laisse plus survoler par aucune instance transcendante, meme en retrait. 7 Parce qu'elle fait couler dans ce champ ses flux de forme et de substance, de contenu et d'expression. Parce qu'elle substitue au rapport de subordination signifiant-signifie le rapport de presupposition reciproque expressioncontenu. Parce que la double articulation ne se fait plus entre deux niveaux hierarchises de la langue, mais entre deux plans deterritorialises, convertibles, constitues par la relation entre la forme du contenu et la forme de l'expression. Parce qu'on atteint dans cette relation ä des figures qui ne sont plus des effets de signifiant, mais des schizes, des points-signes ou des coupures de flux qui crevent le mur du signifiant et vont au-dela. Parce que ces signes ont franchi un nouveau seuil de deterritorialisation [. . .]. Loin d'etre une surdetermination du structuralisme, et de son attachement au signifiant, la linguistique de Hjelmslev en indique la destruction concertee," et constitue une theorie decodee des langues dont on

310

Michel Arrive

peut dire aussi bien, Hommage ambigu, qu'elle est la seule adaptee ä la fois a la nature des flux capitalistes et schizophreniques: jusqu'ä present la seule theorie moderne (et non pas archa'ique) du langage/' Chez Derrida, c'est un autre aspect de la glossematique qui est positivement releve: l'exclusion des considerations de substance dans la definition des unites du plan de l'expression (comme du contenu). Cette exclusion permet en effet ä Hjelmslev et ä Uldall de reconnaitre la "specificite de I'ecriture": 10 "Sans doute l'Ecole de Copenhague liberet-elle ainsi un champ de recherches: l'attention devient disponible non seulement pour la purete d'une forme deliee de tout lien 'naturel' ä une substance, mais aussi pour tout ce qui, dans la stratification du langage, depend de la substance d'expression graphique" (ibid. p. 86). II taut bien constater cependant que le graphocentrisme exclusif de Derrida entraine, dans son discours, de bien etranges gauchissements de la pensee de Hjelmslev. Ainsi le voit-on avec surprise etablir un lien entre la reconnaissance de la specificite de l'ecriture et l'interet pour la litterature — effectivement marque, quoique de fac,on tres programmatique, des les Prolegomenes: "En reconnaissant la specificite de recriture, la glossematique ne se donnait pas seulement les moyens de decrire 1'element graphique. Elle designait l'acces ä ('element litteraire, ä ce qui dans la litterature passe par un texte irreductiblement graphique, liant \tjeu de la forme ä une substance d'expression determinee".10 En realite, les quelques allusions ä la litterature eparses dans les Prolegomenes (voir notamment les pages 146 et 157) ne sont pas liees au probleme de la specificite de 1'ecriture, mais, dans un cas, au projet de construction d'une semiologie, dans l'autre ä la mise en place du concept de connotation. II est d'ailleurs tout ä fait eclatant que l'idee meme de "Her le jeu de la forme ä une substance determinee" — incontestablement derrideenne — est en contradiction flagrante avec la theorie glossematique. Derrida le reconnait d'ailleurs implicitement aussitöt apres, en remarquant que l'"archi-ecriture" dont il construit la theorie "ne pouvait avoir aucune place dans la systematique de Hjelmslev" (ibid. p. 88). Tel est le role de la glossematique dans le discours theorique contemporain: le plus souvent dressee en epouvantail — apres avoir, comme il se doit, etc soigneusement deguisee — il lui arrive parfois d'etre partiellement recuperee — mais pour une piece isolee de son appareil theorique: c'est l'attitude de Derrida. Le seul exemple de prise en compte exhaustive

L;i glossematique

311

est fourni par Deleuze et Guattari. Encore faudrait-il sans doute s'interroger sur la validite de la comparaison entre les "flux" hjelmsleviens du contenu et de l'expression et les "flux capitalistes et schizophreniques", debat dont nous nous contenterons de marquer ici la place, sans nous donner le ridicule de nous y engager. On a volontairement passe sous silence ce qu'on peut sans doute appeler Tecole frangaise de semiotique, centree autour de Greimaset de Barthes. On trouvera, dans la rubrique 5 de notre bibliographic critique, un inventaire commente de ses travaux, avec Tindication du role qui y est joue par la glossematique. Si on s'interesse maintenant non plus au discours sur la glossematique, mais au discours de la glossematique, on ne peut etre, au premier abord, que fascine. La theorie presente toutes les apparences de la plus grande rigueur, notamment dans ses aspects 'ascetiques' (par exemple ('elimination des considerations de substance). Elle resiste bien aux nombreuses critiques qui ont ete formulees, tant de l'interieur du champ linguistique — notre bibliographic enumere ces critiques dans la rubrique l, et specifiquement 1.3. — que de l'exterieur: c'est ce qu'on a cherche montrer dans les pages qui precedent. Et pourtant, il faut bien reconnaitre que les realisations pratiques, specifiquement dans le domaine linguistique stricto sensu, sont, quelques brillantes exceptions pres, rares, pauvres et decevantes. On aura une idee de ce desequilibre en comparant, dans la bibliographie, Timportance quantitative de la rubrique 2 — consacree aux travaux theoriques fondes sur ou influences par la glossematique — et de la rubrique 7 — consacree aux applications de la glossematique aux diverses langues romanes: la premiere est beaucoup plus fournie que la seconde. On remarquera dans cette derniere que certaines langues romanes — notamment l'italien et le portuguais — n'ont donne lieu qu' un nombre extremement limite de travaux. On constate egalement que certains chercheurs ont, dans un premier moment de leur carriere, observe de la fagon la plus rigoureuse les regies de la glossematique, pour s'en eloigner considerablement dans la suite. On citera ici comme exemples les travaux de Togeby1' dans le domaine de la grammaire, ou de Johansen 12 dans celui de la semiotique textuelle: 1'un et 1'autre partis des conceptions hjelmsleviennes, ils ont d'abord elabore des travaux fondes, de ίβςοη aussi precise que possible, sur les concepts de la glossematique. Mais ils ont rapidement abandonne ces concepts, et se sont diriges le premier vers une grammaire, pour 1'essentiel historique,

312

Michel Arrive

de type traditionnel, oü la reference ä la glossematique n'est que tres indirecte, le second vers une methode d'analyse litteraire de caractere stylistique. 1:t La bibliographic fait egalement apparaitre un autre desequilibre: celui qui se manifeste entre les travaux de linguistique au sens strict et les travaux de semiotique: les seconds sont etonnamment nombreux par rapport aux premiers. Ce caractere suffirait sans doute ä marquer l'originalite de la glossematique parmi les autres theories linguistiques, qui n'ont generalement donne lieu qu'ä un nombre tres limite d'applications ä la semiotique. Tout se passe ä cet egard comme si les Prolegomenes, selon l'expression de Greimas, avaient ete lus ä rebours: par leurs derniers chapitres, ils offrent moins une theorie linguistique qu'une theorie semiotique, une "epistemologie des sciences humaines" visant, "ä travers le langage, toutes les manifestations de l'humain".' 4 Quels sont les elements de la theorie glossematique qui ont le plus nettement retenu l'attention des chercheurs, et qui ont, de ce fait, determine la possibilite d'applications soit ä des langues naturelles, soit ä d'autres systemes semiotiques? II semble qu'il soit necessaire de faire une place privilegiee aux trois aspects suivants. (1) La 'stratification du langage'. C'est, on le sait, le titre d'un important article de Hjelmslev, 15 qui precise, affine et formalise une analyse dejä presente dans les Prolegomenes. La caracteristique essentielle de cette analyse est d'articuler entre eux les deux couples de concepts expression-contenu et forme-substance: On ne saurait rendre compte, meme d'une fac.on rudimentaire, de la linguistique d'aujourd'hui — ni meme, d'une faqon generale, de la science de l'homme dont eile fait partie —sans donner une large part ä la double articulation entre forme et substance et entre contenu (signifie) et expression (signifiant). [. . .] Une des theses que nous allonssoutenir[. . .]impliquea certains egards une relation analogue entre la substance du contenu, la forme du contenu, la forme de ^expression et la substance de l'expression, si bien que, si on passe dans 1'ordre indique (en avant ou en arriere) de l'un de ces quatre compartiments ä 1'autre, on peut faire pour chaque pas les memes observations. II parait possible d'enoncer des lois dirigeant les rapports entre ces quatre grandeurs, en les prenant deux ä deux, lois qui s'avereraient indifferemment valables pour n'importe laquelle de

La glossematique

313

ces paires. On a par consequent interet ä disposer d'un nom commun pour les designer. C'est un fait digne d'attention d'ailleurs que, dans la terminologie consacree depuis le Cours de Saussure, on dispose du mot plans pour designer le contenu (le signifie) et ['expression (le signifiant), mais non d'un terme commun servant ä designer les quatre grandeurs que nous envisageons. Nous proposons de les appeler strata, (p. 44, puis 47) Du point de vue strictement terminologique, il serait interessant de suivre, dans la production linguistico-semiotique contemporaine, la concurrence entre la terminologie hjelmslevienne (contenu-expression)et la terminologie saussurienne (signifie-signifiant). On observerait sans doute divers cas de figure, depuis I'utilisation deliberee d'une des deux terminologies pour recuser la validite de l'autre, jusqu'au glissement — bien oberve par Meschonnic chez Greimas 1 " — de la terminologie hjelmslevienne sous le nom de Saussure. Quant ä l'analyse articulee par la terminologie hjelmslevienne, eile se distingue nettement de l'analyse saussurienne, essentiellement en reservant le concept deforme au reseau relationnel definissant les unites, et en renvoyant la substance (saussurienne) semiotiquement non formee au domaine de la matiere (en anglais, purport, et, dans certaines traductions frangaises, sens, d'oü les erreurs d'interpretation signalees plus haut). Les debats sur la stratification du langage prennent une large part dans la production glossematique et post-glossematique: on pourra s'en rendre compte en parcourant les rubriques l et 2 de la bibliographic. Dans les applications de la glossematique ä la description des langues naturelles, c'est le probleme de la prise en consideration des phenomenes de substance qui prend une place centrale. On n'en donnera ici comme exemple que la Structure immanente de la langue frangaise de Togeby (= 7.2.11. de la bibliographic). D'une generate, Togeby est, ä l'egard de la substance, d'une severite plus rigoureuse que Hjelmslev: on le voit ainsi rejeter, dans le chapitre consacre ä la prosodie,'7 toute definition de la syllabe fondee sur la substance phonique (p. 34), en phonologic18 toute classification des phonemes fondee sur des criteres articulatoires (p. 54 et 57). En syntaxe 19 son attitude est peut-etre un peu plus conciliante ä l'egard de la substance: il cite ä plusieurs reprises les analyses de V. Br0ndal, et va jusqu'ä reconnaitre qu'elles sont "en accord avec l'analyse fonctionnelle" (p. 75). En morphologic,20 il reproche ä Hjelmslev

314

Michel Arrive

"d'examiner la substance semantique" pour distinguer plusieurs especes de formes intensives et extensives (p. 105). Mais ä differentes reprises il donne des tableaux des descriptions de la substance de plusieurs categories (p. 122, 126, 129, etc), tout en precisant "qu'il n'y a pas de passage possible entre les definitions fonctionnelles et les definitions semantiques" (p. 116). Cependant, certains auteurs de comptes rendus remarqueront justement que Togeby fait intervenir au moins implicitement des considerations tant au niveau de l'expression qu'au niveau du contenu: voir, notamment les comptes rendus de Juilland et Pettier cites ä la rubrique 7.2.11. (2) L'epreuve de commutation. II est possible de formuler une definition de la commutation qui soit commune ä la glossematique et ä la phonologic pragoise: l'epreuve de commutation "consiste [. . .] ä remplacer, dans une unite A de contenu ou d'expression, un composant a par un autre element b du meme plan, sans rien modifier par ailleurs en A. Si le remplacement produit une unite linguistique, et qu'il entraine de plus un changement dans le plan oppose, on dit que a et b commutent dans le contexte precis qui est celui de a dans A".21 Comme le remarque justement Ducrot, peu de phonologuescontesteraient une teile definition. Et pourtant, la commutation en glossematique s'eloigne considerablement de ce qu'elle est en phonologic, essentiellement sur les deux points suivants: d'une part eile concerne aussi bien le contenu que l'expression (Hjelmslev insiste de faqon particulierement redondante sur ce point); d'autre part eile peut s'appliquer ä des elements de dimension indifferente, de la figure elementaire (de l'expression ou du contenu) jusqu'ä la syllabe et ä l'enonce complet. On le constatera en parcourant non seulement les rubriques l et 2, mais aussi 7, et meme 5 de la bibliographic: l'epreuve de commutation a une place capitale dans la plupart des travaux postglossematiques, naturellement dans les descriptions du plan de l'expression22 mais egalement dans celles du plan du contenu (les travaux post-hjelmsleviens de 'semantique structurale', 2:t qui se donnent pour objet Panalyse de la forme du contenu), et meme, quoique de fagon plus timide, dans les travaux de semiotique, surtout parmi ceux qui sont realises au Dänemark. 24 (3) La definition des metalangages et des langages de connotation. Ni la notion de metalangage, ni celle de langage de connotation ne trouvent leur origine chez Hjelmslev. C'est cependant dans les Prolegomenes que les deux notions, se trouvant Tune et l'autre articulees avec l'analyse de la

La glossematiquc

315

stratification du langage, regoivent la definition la plus rigoureuse: "II nous reste ä demontier, par un dernier elargissement de notre perspective, qu'il existe des langages dont le plan de l'expression est un langage et d'autres dont le plan du contenu est un langage. Nous appellerons les premiers langages de connotation et les seconds metalangages" (Prolegomenes p. 155). En outre, Hjelmslev envisage explicitement (p. 161-162) la possibilite pour certains metalangages ou langages de connotation, d'avoir leurs deux plans constitues par un langage, ce qui permet de prevoir les formules de Tinfinite des types de langages theoriquement possibles. Le concept de metalangage prend necessairement une place importante non seulement dans les travaux de semantique, mais encore dans toutes les reflexions epistemologiques sur la linguistique. II semble cependant que, de tous les concepts extraits de la glossematique, ce soit celui de langage de connotation qui ait connu la plus forte diffusion, au point de se repandre, en dehors du champ linguistico-semiotique, non seulement dans l'usage de plusieurs autres sciences humaines (par exemple la psychologic, la sociologie, la psychanalyse, etc), mais encore dans le vocabulaire quasi-quotidien. Un detail caracteristique: le mot connotation est ä peu pres le seul terme linguistique technique a apparaitre frequemment dans l'usage journalistique. Est-il necessaire de preciser que cette vulgarisation de l'emploi de la notion s'est accompagnee d'une fächeuse perte de rigueur dans sa definition? Ainsi, certains psychanalystes utilisent le terme connotation comme un simple substitut decoratif de signification. 25 Dans l'usage quotidien, le mot prend frequemment le sens de 'sens vague'. Par un choc en retour inevitable, la connotation s'est trouvee contestee par plusieurs linguistes et semioticiens, ä commencer par Barthes,-* qui avail pourtant, quelques annees plus tot, 27 contribue ä en repandre l'usage. Quoiqu'il en soit des aventures de ce concept, il reste evident qu'il continue ä donner lieu ä de nombreuses recherches dans le champ des semiotiques textuelles et nontextuelles. 28 II nous reste ä rendre compte a posteriori du parti apparemment etrange qu'on a pris pour presenter, dans cet ouvrage, la glossematique. On a en effet renonce ä decrire dans leur ensemble les theories de Hjelmslev et de Uldall. Moins en raison de la difficulte tres reelle — et signalee mainte fois — de la täche, que pour une raison materielle specialement pertinente: il existe actuellement un tres grand nombre de

316

Michel Arrive

descriptions de la glossematique. Nous avons cherche ä les enumerer dans la rubrique l de la bibliographie, et, malgre d'inevitables oublis, nous n'avons pas rencontre moins de 70 travaux ayant pour objet, partiel ou total, la description de la glossematique. Etait-il necessaire d'ajouter une reference supplementaire? En revanche, il nous a paru que la bibliographie etait presque entierement muette sur les points suivants: (1) Situation de la glossematique dans le discours linguisticosemiotique contemporain; (2) Bibliographie des travaux fondes sur ou influences par la glossematique, specifiquement dans le domaine de la linguistique romane; et (3) Analyse de ceux des aspects de la theorie glossematique qui sont preferentiellement retenus par les chercheurs dans leurs travaux. C'est ä combler cette triple lacune que nous avons travaille. Notes * [Get article etant pourvu d'une bibliographie critique de la glossematique, placee ci-dessous, nous avons cru inutile d'y ajouter une liste supplementaire des ouvrages cites dans le texte. Les references ayant la forme '5.1.8.' renvoient au numerotage de la bibliographie critique. JNG]. 1. J. C. Coquet et J. Kristeva, "Semanalyse", Semiotica 5(1972): 324-349. Citation ä la page 342. 2. Hjelmslev signale, en note, la possibilite d'utilisation du mot sens. 3. Meschonnic, Le signe et le poeme, p. 227, se referant ä la page 82 des Prolegomenes (= 0.1.6.2 de la bibliographie). 4. J. Lacan, Ecrils (Paris: Seuil, tome 1 1966, tome 2 1971). 5. E. Roudinesco, Un discours au reel (Paris: Mame, 1973). Citation ä la page 51. 6. A. J. Greimas, Essais desemiotiquepoetique (Paris: Larousse, 1972). Citation ä la page 13. 7. On voit ä quel point cette analyse s'ecarte de celle de J. Kristeva, qui, eile, ne lit chez Hjelmslev que la "transcendance d'Un Sens"! 8. Cette fois, c'est ä la position d'E. Roudinesco que s'oppose celle de Deleuze et Guattari. 9. G. Deleuze et F. Guattari, Capilalisme et Schizophrenie. L'anti-Oedipe (Paris: Minuit, 1972). Citation ä la page 288. 10. J. Derrida, De la grammatologie (Paris: Minuit, 1967). Citation ä la page 87. On remarque avec interet que Derrida ne s'est pas contente de lire les Prolegomenes de Hjelmslev, mais s'est egalement interesse aux articles de Uldall. 11. Voir, dans la bibliographie, les numeros 2.81, 2.82, 7.1.4, 7.2.11 ä 7.2.16, et 7.5.9. 12. Voir les numeros 1.2.19 et 5.1.24. de la bibliographie. 13. Svend Johansen a en effet public de nombreux travaux de stylistique qui, tres eloignes de la theorie glossematique, n'avaient pas ä figurer dans la bibliographie. Citons ici, ä litre d'exemple, un de ces travaux: "Ecriture et fiction dansSaint-Julien I'Hospitalier", RRom 3(1968): 30-51. 14. Introduction ä ('edition franqaise de Le langage (= 0.1.7.1. de la bibliographie), p. 10. 15. Voir Essais linguistiques (= 0.1.1. de la bibliographie; edition frangaise), pp. 44-76. 16. Le signe et le poeme, p. 231: "Lestermesde Hjelmslev sont si bien surimposes ä ceux de

La glosscmatique

317

Saussure, dans une certaine tradition structuraliste, que Greimas, par exemple, pour rendre compte de la 'conception saussurienne des deux plans du langage', emprunte les termes de Hjelmslev et dit: 'celui de l'expression et celui du contenu'". 17. La prosodie est le nom que prend la syntagmatique au niveau de ('expression. Nos references renvoient ä la deuxieme edition de l'ouvrage (1965). 18. C'est le nom de la systematique au niveau de ['expression. 19. Syntagmatique au niveau du contenu. 20. Systematique au niveau du contenu. 21. Voir O. Ducrot, "La commutation en glossematique et en phonologic" (= 1.2.4. de la bibliographic), p. 101. 22. On sail que Hjelmslev est l'auteur d'une description du Systeme d'expression du fn^ais (= 0.1.2. de la bibliographic) naturellement fondee sur l'epreuve de commutation. 23. Hjelmslev a intitule Tun de ses articles "Pour une semantique structurale", Essais linguistiques (= 0.1.1.), 105-121. Le litre de l'ouvrage de Greimas (= 5.0.3) fait evidemment allusion a cet article. 24. Voir surtout les numeros 5.1.23. et 5.1.30. de la bibliographic. 25. C'est par exemple ce que fait Serge Leclaire dans Psychanalyser (Paris: Seuil, 1968) ainsi que les redacteurs du Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse (Paris: P.U.F., 1971). 26. Dans5/Z (= 5.1.8.), p. 10-16. 27. Voir 5.0.1. de la bibliographic. 28. Voir les rubriques 5.1. et 5.2. de la bibliographic.

Bibliographie critique de la glossematique 0. Travaux de Hjelmslev et Uldall 0.1. Travaux de Hjelmslev 0.2. Travaux de Uldall

1. La glossematique objet de description 1.1. Histoire de la glossematique 1.2. La glossematique comme Systeme 1.3. Critiques de la glossematique

2. Travaux theoriques fondes sur ou influences par la glossematique 3. Glossematique et autres theories linguistiques 3.1. Glossematique 3.2. Glossematique 3.3. Glossematique 3.4. Glossematique

et ecole de Prague et fonctionnalisme et guillaumisme et grammaire generative

4. Glossematique et disciplines linguistiques annexes 4.1. Glossematique et sociolinguistique 4.2. Glossematique et psycholinguistique 4.3. Glossematique et linguistique appliquee

5. Glossematique et semiotique 5.0. Travaux generaux de semiotique fondes sur ou influences par la glossematique 5.1. Glossematique et semiotique textuelle 5.2. Glossematique et semiotiques non-textuelles

6. Glossematique et autres disciplines scientifiques 6.1. Glossematique et logique 6.2. Glossematique et mathcmatiques

318

Michel Arrive

7. Glossematique appliquee aux langues romanes 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5.

Espagnol Fran9ais Italien Portugals Roumain

Remarque: Les abbreviations utilisees sont celles de la Bibliographie linguistique. Nous y ajoutons, pour ce chapitre exclusivement: TCLC = Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague.

0. Travaux de Hjelmslev et de Uldall 0.1. Travaux de Hjelmslev Une bibliographic apparemment exhaustive des travaux de Hjelmslev jusqu'ä 1958 a etc public dans 0. l. l. A cette bibliographic, qu'il etait evidemment inutile de repeter, on s'est contente d'ajouter une tres breve liste —certainement non exhaustive — de publications posterieures ä 1958, ainsi qu'une liste —d'exhaustivite egalement non garantie — des traductions de Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlaggelse et de Sproget. 0.1.1. Hjelmslev, Louis, Essais linguistiques (= TCLC 12) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog-ogKulturforlag, 1959). Reeditionen 1971 (Paris: Editions de Minuit). 0.1.2. Hjelmslev, Louis, "Le Systeme d'expression du fran9ais moderne (resume)", Bulletin du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 1941-1965 [1970]: 217-222. Une "note liminaire" indique qu' "il ne s'agit pas d'un resume redige par Hjelmslev lui-meme, mais d'une reconstruction, basee sur les notes de Meile Eli Fischer-J0rgensen. Deux ou trois exemples cites par Hjelmslev ont ete remplaces par d'autres juges plus instructifs". L'article se termine par une comparaison de l'analyse de Hjelmslev avec celle de Togeby dans 7.2.11. 0. l .3. Hjelmslev, Louis, Essais linguistiques II (= TCLC 14) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1973). Contient deux textes inedits (Pun de 1933, l'autre de 1941), ainsi qu'une serie d'articles, tous prealablement publics, relatifs au plan de l'expression, et les notices consacrees par Hjelmslev ä quatre linguistes danois: Rasmus Rask, Vilhelm Thomsen, Holger Pedersen et Otto Jespersen. 0. l .4. Hjelmslev, Louis, Sprogsystem og sprogforandring [Systeme du langage et changement du langage] (= TCLC 15) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1974). Texte reste inedit ä la mort de Hjelmslev, public par Francis J. Whitfield. 0. l .5. Hjelmslev, Louis, Resume of a theory of language (= TCLC 16) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1974). Traduction anglaise due ä Whitfield. 0.1.6. Traductions de Omkring sprogteoriens grundlteggelse 0.1.6.1. Prolegomena to a theory of language, by Louis Hjelmslev, translated by Francis J. Whitfield. (Baltimore: Indiana U.P., 1953). Seconde edition (Madison: Wisconsin U.P., 1961). Selon les indications fournies ä Michel Arrive par Andre Martinet, Whitfield avail fait la traduction sans rien dire ä personne. C'est Martinet qui signala ä Hjelmslev I'existence de la traduction de Whitfield, et lui permit ainsi d'apporter ä la traduction plusieurs ameliorations.

La glossematique

319

0.1.6.2. Prolegomenes a une theorie du langage, traduit du danois par une equipe de linguistes, traduction revue par Anne-Marie Leonard, suivi de La structure fundamentale du langage. (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1968). On constate que la traduction 3 3 5 de Omkring est de 15 ans posterieure ä la traduction anglaise, ce qui a considerablement nui ä la diffusion de la glossematique dans les pays de langue franqaise. Toujours selon les renseignements d'Andre Martinet, Hjelmslev avail des 1953 les epreuves d'une traduction frangaise realisee par Knud Togeby. Cette traduction fut revue par Andre et Eva Martinet, mais le projet de publication n'aboutit pas. Quant ä la traduction de 1968 — vraisemblablement realisee sur le texte anglais — eile donna lieu, lors de sä publication, ä de nombreuses critiques: Nombreuses incoherences terminologiques, absence de l'index de 106 definitions, etc. (voir notamment sur ce point Mounin, 1.3.16, p. 95-96). Une nouvelle edition est parue en 1971. La traduction, due ä Una Ganger avec la collaboration d'Annick Wewer, echappe aux critiques formulees contre la premiere. 0. l .6.3. lfundamenti della teoria del linguaggio, traduzzione italiana e introduzzione di Giulio C. Lepschy. (Torino: Einaudi, 1968). Voir notamment le compte rendu de Ugo Castagnotto, Parole e melodi l (1971): 97-99. 0.1.6.4. Prolegomeni k teoriijazyka, dansNovoe v lingvislike (Moskva: Progres, 1960), 264-389. A la suite de cette traduction des Prolegomenes figure unc traduction de Outline of glossematics, p. 390-436. 0.1.7. Traductions de Sproget 0.1.7.1. Le langage. Une introduction, traduit du danois par Michel Olsen, preface de A. J. Greimas. (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1966). 0.1.7.2. // linguaggio, traduzzione di A. Debenedetti Woolf, introduzzione di G. C. Lepschy. (Torino: Einaudi, 1970). 0.2. Travaux de H. J. Uldall Une bibliographic apparemment exhaustive des travaux de Uldall a etc donnee dans : 0.2. l. Hjelmslev, Louis - H. J. Uldall, Outline of glossematics. Part l, General theory (TCLC 10) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1967). Bibliographie: p. 91-92. 0.2.2. Traductions de Outline of glossematics 0.2.2.1. Voir 0.1.6.4. 0.2.2.2. Une traduction franqaise a ete realisee en 1974 par des etudiants de l'Universite d'Aix, mais n'a pas ete public.

1. La glossematique objet de description l.l. Histoire de la glossematique 1.1.1. Droixhe, D., "L'orientation structurale de la linguistique au XVlIIeme siecle", FM 39 (1971): 18-32. "Chez Condillac, l'analytisme (structuration lexicale)et Panalogisme (structuration formelle) s'articulent comme versions de la vieille dualite cartesienne son-lettre, langue maternelle-langue spirituelle. Mais en plus ils se rejoignent ä la base dans un commun principe de totalite. Ce n'est pas encore le principe de Hjelmslev, mais c'en est au moins l'annonce" (p. 24).

320

Michel Arrive 1.1.2.

1.1.3. 1.1.4.

1.1.5. l. l .6.

1.1.7.

1.1.8. 1.1.9. 1.1.10.

1.1.11.

Ducrot, O., "Le structuralisme en linguistique", Qu'est-ce que le structuralisme? (Paris: Le Seuil, 1968). "On trouve dans l'oeuvre de Humboldt bien des remarques qui annoncent les linguistes du XXeme siecle. Son insistence sur le phenomene de la rection fait penser a Hjelmslev" (p. 27). Ege, N., "Le signe linguistique est arbitraire", TCLC 5 (1949): 11-29. Comparaison de la fagon dont se pose le probleme de l'arbitraire du signe en glossematique et chez Saussure. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., "Introduction" a la 2eme edition de Outline of glossematics (voir 0.2.1.), p. i-xxii. Description de la collaboration entre Hjelmslev, Uldall et Lier. Influence de Sapir et de Bloomfield. Precisions interessantes sur la genese du concept de glossematique: "About Christmas 1935, however, they discovered that cenematics and formal grammar, as described by Hjelmslev in his earlier work Principes de grammairegenerate, could be combined into a single discipline, in which content and expression were to be analysed according to the same principles. At the suggestion of Uldall they called this new discipline "glossematics'" (p. iv). Ivic, M., Trends in linguistics (The Hague: Mouton, 1965). Dans le chapitre consacre a la glossematique (p. 176-185), etude rapide de l'influence de Saussure et de Carnap sur la glossematique. M01ler, K., "Contribution to the discussion concerning 'langue' and 'parole'" TCLC 5 (1949): 87-94. "The final conclusion of Hjelmslev's detailed examination of de Saussure's linguistic concepts, is that langue must be understood as meaning "schema", Danish: sprogbygning, Eng.: pattern, Ger.: Sprachbau, etc. and parole as meaning "usus", Oa.:sprogbrug, Eng.: usage, Ger.:Sprachgebrauch,etc. This reduces Saussure's division of the language into langue and parole to a clear formula". Muraro, L., "Hjelmslev lettore del corso di linguistica generale", CFS 27 (1971-1972): 43-53. "Tra gli stereotipi riccorrenti nella presentazione del pensiero di Saussure, la distinzione forma/sostanza e quasi un prodotto della glossematica" (p. 44). Siertsema, B., A study of glossematics. Critical survey of its fundamental concepts (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1955). Etude des sources linguistiques de la theorie glossematique. Spang-Hanssen, H., Recent theories on the nature of the language sign (= TCLC 9) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1954). Togeby, K., "Theodor Kalepky et les oppositions participatives", immanence et structure (= RRom, no. special 2, 1968), 45-50. "Theodor Kalepky (1862-1932), precurseur du structuralisme moderne, a preconise des 1894 un principe d'oppositions participatives qui anticipe celui de inlensif/extensif de Hjelmslev" (p. 46). Wells, R. S., "De Saussure's system of linguistics". Word 3 (1947): 1-31. "Wells tourne en ridicule Interpretation glossematique de Saussure, en en deduisant que seul importerait, dans un Systeme linguistique, le nombre global des elements commutants. En realiteil faut considerer le nombre des commutantspourchaquecontexte determine" (Ducrot; voir 1.2.4., p. 114, note 20).

La glossematique

321

1.2. La glossematique comme Systeme 1.2.1. Bazell, C. E., "Glossematic definitions". Studies by members of the English Department, Istanbul University 2 (1951). 1.2.2. Bazell, C. E., Linguistic form (Istanbul: U.P., 1953). 1.2.3. Diderichsen, P., "M. Hammerich et sesmethodes"s,/IP/is 23 (1952): 87-97. Reponse ä 1.2.14. 1.2.4. Ducrot, O., "La commutation en glossematique et en phonologic", Word 23 (1967): 101-121. "L'auteur signale 1'opposition radicale existant entre les points de vue phonologique et glossematique: selon le premier, I'epreuve de commutation permet d'identifier ce qui sert au fonctionnement de I'instrument linguistique (eile est done avant tout un critere de pertinence); pour Hjelmslev au contraire, la commutation subsiste independamment des fonctions qu'elle remplit; les phonologues n'ont applique ll'epreuve de commutation qu'au plan de I'expression, tandisque Hjelmslev a preconise son application aux deux plans" (RRLing 15, 1970: 294). 1.2.5. Ducrot, O., voir 1.1.2. La glossematique est etudiee aux pages 69-81. 1.2.6. Ducrot, O., article "Glossematique" du Dictionnaire encyclopedique des sciences du langage (Paris: Le Seuil, 1972), 36-41. 1.2.7. Ducrot, O., article "Glossematique" du Supplement a la Grande encyclopedic Larousse. 1.2.8. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., "Danish linguistic activity 1940^48", Lingua 2 (1949): 95-109. Breve presentation de la glossematique (p. 100-101), comparee ä la theorie de Viggo Br0ndal. 1.2.9. Fisher-J0rgensen, E., "Louis Hjelmslev", AL 9 (1965): 1-22. Necrologie de L. Hjelmslev presentant un interet pour la description de la glossematique. 1.2.10. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., "Form and substance in glossematics", AL 10 (1966): 1-33. "It contains the following sections: 1. The sources of the glossematic distinction between form and substance. 2. Form and substance as described in Hjelmslev's Prolegomena and in works from the same period. 2.1. The distinction between form and substance. 2.2. The relation between form and substance. 3. Modifications introduced in "La stratification du langage". 4. Form and substance in relation to the problem of the minimum linguistic units. 4.1. The minimum units of expression. 4.2. The m i n i m u m units of content" (Sommaire de ('article, p. 33). 1.2.11. Garvin, P. L., compte rendu de Prolegomena to a theory of language; Lg 30 (1954): 69-96. Apres une analyse detaillee de l'ouvrage, l'auteur procede ä un examen des comptes rendus critiques publics ä propos de l'edition de l'ouvrage en langue danoise (voir 1.3.19). 1.2.12. Graffi, G.,Struttura, formaesostanzain Hjelmslev (Bologna: HMulino, 1974). Etude des relations entre les concepts de 'function' et de 'structure' d'une part, de 'forme', 'substance' et 'matiere' d'autre part. L'ouvrage se termine par une analyse descriptive et critique de Outline of glossematics de LJIdall: "equivalente ä la puissance d'une algebre de Boole, la puissance de l'algebre glossematique de Uldall peche par defaut quand l'objet ä analyser est une

322

Michel Arrive langue naturelle" (X. Mignot, compte rendu de l'ouvrage, BSL 70, 1975: 43). 1.2.13. Haas, W., "Concerning glossematics", ArchL 8 (1956): 93-110. 1.2.14. Hammerich, L. L., "Les glossematistes danois et leurs methodes", APHS 21 (1950): 1-21. Compte rendu presente sous forme d'article de l'edition danoise des Prolegomenes. Hammerich considere la glossematique comme "une recherche du temps perdu" (p. 21). Voir une critique de ses critiques dans 1.2.3. 1.2.15. Haugen, E., "Quelques remarques sur la linguistique americaine", BSL 66 (1971): 45-58. II s'agit du texte d'une allocution prononceeen 1966pourlecentenairede la Societe. Interessantes remarques sur les relations entre glossematique et grammaire generative: "Les categories de cette nouvelle grammaire (la grammaire generative) sont classees en partant des unites plus vastes pour aboutir aux plus petites, done on peut la qualifier de 'deductive' (methode recommandee par Hjelmslev) plutot qu'Mnductive' (methode de Bloomfield)" (p. 55). 1.2.16. Haugen, E., "Directions in modern linguistics", Lg 27 (1951): 211-222. 1.2.17. Haugen, E., compte rendu des Prolegomenes (edition americaine), U A L 20 (1954): 247-251. 1.2.18. Ivic, M., voir 1.1.5. 1.2.19. Johansen, S., "Glossematics and logistics", A L 6 (1950): 17-30. l .2.20. Juilland, A. - H. H. Lieb, 'Klasse' und {Classification in der Sprachwissenschaft (The Hague: Mouton, 1968). Etüde du concept de classe et de taxinomie en linguistique chez plusieurs theoriciens, en particulier Hjelmslev. 1.2.21. Koerner, E. F. K., Ferdinand de Saussure: origin and development of his linguistic theory in Western studies of language (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1973). Avec des indications sur l'influence des theories de Saussure sur la glossematique. 1.2.22. Lamb, S. M., "Epilegomena to a theory of language", RomPh 19 (1966): 521-573. 1.2.23. Leroy, M., Les grands courants de la linguistique moderne (Bruxelles: Editions de rUniversite, 1963, puis 1973). 1.2.24. Lindekens, R., Hjelmslev: Prolegomenes a une theorie du langage (Paris: Hatier, 1975). 1.2.25. Llorente Maldonado de Guevara, A., Los principios de gramatica general de Hjelmslev y la lingufstica (Granada: P.U., 1953). 1.2.26. Malmberg, B., Les nouvelles tendances de la linguistique (Paris: P.U.F., 1968). Un important chapitre (p. 207-233) sur la glossematique. 1.2.27. Manoliu-Manea, M., "Un peu de semantique avant toute chose", RRLing 16 (1971): 241-249. "La methode promue par Hjelmslev repose surun cercle vicieux: ^commutation. Pour etablir si le sens A est different du sens B, on doit savoir si la sequence phonique correspondant ä A, soil a, est differente de la sequence qui correspond ä B, soil b. Mais pour etablir si a et b sont identiquesou ne le sont pas, il faut connaitre la relation entre A et B" (p. 241-242). 1.2.28. Martinet, A., "Au sujet des Fondements de la theorie linguistique de Louis Hjelmslev", BSL 42 (1942-1945): 19^2. Article capital, tant pour son interet theorique que pour le role qu'il a joue

La glossematique

1.2.29. 1.2.30.

1.2.31. 1.2.32.

1.2.33.

1.2.34.

1.2.35.

1.2.36. 1.2.37.

1.2.38.

1.2.39.

323

dans la divulgation de la theorie de Hjelmslev, jusqu'alors public en danois. Voir en annexe le texte de la lettre adressee ä Martinet par Hjelmslev. Martinet, A., "Structural linguistics", Anthropologv today, redige par A. L. Kroeber (Chicago: P.U., 1953), 574-586. Mounin, G., La linguistique du XXeme siecle (Paris: P.U.F., 1972). Le chapitre consacre ä "Louis Hjelmslev" (p. 126-136) reste relativement rapide et superficiel. Mounin insiste,comme Graffi (voir 1.2.12.)surl'"inadequation de l'algebre glossematique" (de Uldall dans Outline et de Hjelmslev dans "La stratification du langage"). Aucune allusion n'est faite a I'influence de Hjelmslev sur le developpement de la semiotique. Munot, P., "A propos de ce qui est linguistique dans l'etude du langage", FM 33 (1965): 271-283. Remarques generales sur le caractere "immanent" de la glossematique. Pavel, T., "La paire langue-langage'\ RRLing 12 (1967): 443-452. "Hjelmslev semble avoir assimile la distinction (saussurienne) languelangage et l'avoir laissee inexprimee. De toute , lesProlegomenes ne sont nullement intelligibles si le terme language (le danois sprog) est pris dans le sens de "langage", a l'exception, peut-etre, du ler chapitre" (p. 445). Prebensen, H., "La theorie glossematique est-elle une theorie?", Langages 6 (1967): 12-25. Les fondements logiques de la glossematique, et les deplacements que Hjelmslev fair subir ä la terminologie logique: "Classe glossematique et classc logique ne peuvent pas etre identifiees" (p. 19). "Puisque les definitions de analyse, classe, hierarchic, relation et correlation ne resistent pas aux critiques formulees, lesdeux notions fundamentales de procö et de Systeme restent sans definition" (p. 21). Ruwet, N., "Linguistique et sciences de I'homme", Esprit, novembre 1963, p. 1-15. Allusions interessantes ä l'utilisation de certains concepts glossematiques en ethnologic et en semiotique musicale. Ruwet, N., "La linguistique generate aujourd'hui", Archiven europeennes de sociologie 5 (1964): 277-310. Le probleme des relations entre morpheme et phoneme. "L'expression et le contenu, quels que soient les noms qu'on leur donne, sont rigoureusement distingues, et leurs rapportsconsidered d'une maniere plusabstraite, en termes de regies de representation" (p. 287). Cette position, adoptee de faqon de plus en plus generale, est toute proche de celle de Hjelmslev. Voir 1.1.18. S0rensen, H.-C., "Fondements epistemologiques de la glossematique", Langages 6 (1967): 5-11. Les caracteresarbitraire et adequat de la theorie doivent etre distingues (p. 9). "11 n'y a pas d'opposition entre l'exigence du principe d'empirisme de la glossematique et I'empirisme tel qu'on 1'entend communement (p. 10). S0rensen, H. S., "Classes et relations", Langages 6 (1967): 26-35. La distinction entre functional category et functival category recouvre la distinction desc/asses derivees et classes coordonnees. "Pour etablir des classes coordonnees, on ne peut se servir que de relations unilaterales" (p. 30). "Par contre, on peut se servir de relations bilaterales dans l'etablissement des classes derivees" (p. 31). Spang-Hanssen, H., "Glossematics", Trends in European and American

324

Michel Arrive

1.2.40. 1.2.41. 1.2.42. 1.2.43.

1.2.44. 1.2.45.

1.2.46. 1.2.47.

1.2.48.

linguistics 1930-1960, redige par C. Mohrmann et al. (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1961), 128-164. Vaste panorama, avec une importante bibliographic, de la theorie glossematique et de ses applications. Togeby, K., "Linguistics in Denmark 1940^8", Symposium 3 (1949): 226-237. Togeby, K., "Louis Hjelmslev", SNPh 37 (1965): 269-278. Ungeheuer,G., Logischer Positivismus und moderne Linguistik (Glossematik) (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1959). Vasiliu, E., "Grammaire transformationnelle: theorie et interpretation", RRom (no. special 4, 1970): 19-31. Defense (p. 27) de la glossematique contre les critiques formulees l'egard des grammaires structurales par Chomsky. de Waelhens, A., Existence et signification (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1958). Le probleme aborde dans l'ensemble de I'ouvrage est pose propos de la glossematique aux pages 136-137. Wells, R. S., compte rendu de Recherches structurales (= TCLC 5); Lg 27 (1951): 554-570. "Glossematics quite rightly insists that it is extremely important not to confound these two antitheses (forme-substance, contenu-expression), as Bloomfield and many other linguists do" (p. 555). Whitfield, F. J., "Linguistic usage and glossematic analysis". For Roman Jakobson, redige par M. Halle et al. (The Hague: Mouton, 1956), 670675. Wittwer, J., "Glossematique, logistique et psychologic", ELA 4 (1966): 28-38. Traduction du schema hjelmslevien des relations entre forme et substance selon la logique bivalente des propositions. Zvegincev, V., "Glossematika i lingvistika", Novoe v lingvistike (Moskva: Progres, 1960), 215-243.

1.3. Critiques de la glossematique Remarque: On n'a tenu compte ici que des critiques formulees dans des publications linguistiqucs. On a fait allusion dans le corps du chapitre des critiques formulees de points de vue non linguistiques. 1.3.1. Abaev, V. I., "Modernisme et deshumanisation de la linguistique", Langages 15 (1969): 85-98. Traduction ίΓαηςαί^ d'un article precedemment paru dans la revue sovietique VJa 3 (1965): 22-43. La glossematique est frappee de plein fouet par les critiques du structuralisme comme "formalisme" ideologique. 1.3.2. Cikobava, A. C.. Problema jazyka kak predmeta jazykoznanija [Problemes du langage comme objet de la linguistique] (Moskva: Progres, 1959). La glossematique se limite la morphologic et la syntaxe. Elle n'a pas d'interet pour la diachronie. 1.3.3. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., "Remarques sur les principes de l'analyse phonemique", TCLC 5 (1949): 214-234. Le probleme du recours a la substance. "Dans la pratique (et contrairement aux assertions theoriques), on tient compte de la substance toute etape de l'analyse, et il ne s'agit pas. comme pour l'epreuve de commutation, des seules differences, mais de la constatation d'une certaine hierarchic de differences et

La glossematique

1.3.4. 1.3.5. 1.3.6. 1.3.7. 1.3.8.

1.3.9. 1.3.10

1.3.11.

1.3.12.

1.3.13. 1.3.14. 1.3.15. 1.3.16.

1.3.17.

325

de ressemblances qui rendent une identification plus ou moins arbitraire qu'une autre" (p. 231). Hammerich, L. L., voir 1.2.14. Hermondson, L., "Zur glossematischen Bedeutungsforschung", SNPh 26 (1953-1954): 35-57. Hintze, F., "Zum Verhältnis der sprachlichen 'Form' zur 'Substanz'", SL 3 (1949): 86-105. Jakobson, R., "On the identification of phonemic entities", TCLC 5 (1949): 205-213. Jakobson, R. - M. Halle, "Phonetics and phonology", premiere partie de Fundamental* of language (The Hague: Mouton, 1956). Reprise, aux pages 115-116, de la critique formulae par Eli Fischer-J0rgensen dans 1.3.3.: "En depit de I'exigence theorique d'une analyse totalement independante de la substance, on tient compte de la substance ä toute etape do I'analysc". Leroy, M., voir 1.2.23. L'Hermitte, R., "La linguistiquc sovietique", Langages 15 (1969): 3-13. Allusions aux critiques formulees contre la glossematique par Smirnitskij et Akhmanova (1953). Ces critiques sont "essentiellement portees ä partir de presupposes ideologiques" (p. 9). Mahmoudian, S., "Syntaxe et linearite". De la theorie linguistique a l'enseignement des langues, redige par J. Martinet (Paris: P.U.F., 1972), 34-37. L'auteur affirme la superiorite de la linguistique fonctionnelle sur les theories de Harris et de Hjelmslev en ce qui concerne l'analyse des fait syntaxiques: "La theorie glossematique est restee ä l'etat d'ebauche; il n'y a que peu d'applications de cette theorie sur les langues" (p. 37). Manczak, W., Z Zagadnien jezykoznawstwa ogolnego [Problemes de linguistique generate] (Wroclaw: Ossolinski, 1970). Critique d'ensemble des ecoles structuralistes, et specifiquement de la glossematique. Manoliu-Manea, M., voir 1.2.27. Martinet, A., voir 1.2.28. Morais-Barbosa, J., "Fonetica e fonologia. Problemas teoricos e metodologicos", RP 26 (1961): 307-314. Mounin, G., "La semiologie chez Hjelmslev", Introduction a la semiologie (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1970), 95-102. "Obnubile par son postulat d'isomorphisme, Hjelmslev est conduit ä elaborer une definition de la langue teile qu'elle puisse couvrir ä la fois par exemple le code de la route et la langue franiaise comme systemes de signes" (p. 97). Prebensen, H., "Quelques reflexions sur le paradigme des pronoms interrogatifs-relatifs", RRom (no. special 1, 1967): 113-128. A propos du Systeme frar^aisdes interrogatifs-relatifs, critique de la notion deflexifzero et des procedures de division du texte de Hjelmslev et Togeby: "Les individus (au sens logique) ont des proprietes que nous designons au moyen de predicats. L'erreur ä laquelle aboutit, ä notre avis, l'analyse fonctionnelle, est de ne pas respecter la difference entre signes individuels et predicats, ce qui conduit ä considerer les proprietes des individus comme des parties de ces individus" (p. 118).

326

Michel Arrive 1.3.18. Scerbak, A. M., "Notes linguistiques", Langages 15 (1969): 99-107.Traduction (τ-άης-άΊκ d'un article public dans VJa 6 (1965): 16-23. Defense des ecoles structuralistes — notamment de la glossematique — contre les critiques formulees par Abaev (voir 1.3.1.). 1.3.19. Skalicka, V., "Kodansky structuralismus a prazka skola", 55 10 (1948): 135-148. Article propos de l'edition danoise des Prolegomenes. 1.3.20. S0rensen, H.-C., "The problem of linguistic basis elements", AL 11 (1968): 67-80. Critique de la theorie hjelmslevienne du signe. 1.3.21. Vasiliu, E., voir 1.2.43. 1.3.22. Wittwer, J., voir 1.2.47.

2. Travaux theoriques fondes ou influences par la glossematique 2.1. Agricola, E.,Semantische Relationen im Text und im System (Halle: Niemeyer, 1969; The Hague: Mouton, 1972). 2.2. Avram, A., "Contenu et expression au niveau du phoneme", Phonetica 13 (1965): 18-21. 2.3. Bakos. F., "Semnul lingvistic, unitate continutului s.i a formei", Omagiu lui Alexandra Rosetti la 70 de ani (Bucures,ti: Editura Academiei, 1965), 39-42. 2.4. Basb0ll, H., "Commentary on Hjelmslev's analysis of the Danish expression system", AL 13(1971): 173-211 et 14(1972): 1-24. "Basb0ll has given a penetrating and acute analysis of the inconsistencies in Hjelmslev's description and he has shown, convincingly, that it is possible to improve Hjelmslev's rules and notations considerably within his own framework" (E. FischerJ0rgensen, 2.26., p. 143). Mise en relation des notations de Hjelmslev avec celles de la phonologic generative. 2.5. Bazell, C. E., "On some assymetries of the linguistic system", AL 5 (1945-1949): 139-145. 2.6. Bazell, C. E., "On the neutralisation of syntactic opposition", TCLC 5 (1949): 77-86. "It is relatively rare that the three relations of cohesion, subordination and determination should be all completely independent of one another" (p. 84). 2.7. Bazell, C. E., "The choice of criteria in structural linguistics". Word 10 (1954): 126-135. 2.8. Been, G., "Zum Problem der Inhaltsanalyse", SNPh 21 (1955): 108-118. 2.9. Besse, H., "Paraphrases et ambiguites de sens", CLex 22 (1973): 1-42. 2.10. Borgstr m, C. H., "The technique of linguistic description", AL 5 (1945-1949): 1-14. 2.11. Boysen, G., "Le structuralisme immanent et la linguistique diachronique", Langages 6 (1967): 106-111. Pour 1'essentiel, un compte rendu critique de Coseriu, 2.19. 2.12. Brandt, P. A., "Mode, textualite. Note sur la modalite romane", RRom 6 (1971): 145-168. Reference de depart la glossematique. 2.13. Bulygina, T., "Sur (Organisation du plan du contenu du point de vue de s relation avec l'organisation du plan de Texpression" [en russe], Problemy jazykoznanija, redige par F. P. Filin (Moskva: Nauka, 1967), 62-66.

La glossematique

327

2.14. Christensen, N., On the nature of meanings: a philosophical analysis (K0benhavn: Munksgaard, 1965). Discussion des theories de Hjelmslev sur le signe. 2.15. Collis, D. R. F., Pour une semiologie de l'esquimau (Paris: Dunod, 1971). Criteres de description empruntes ä la glossematique. 2.16. Copceag, D., "Sur la definition de la 'substance' en linguistique", CLTA 3 (1966): 47-51. "Sans avoir l'intention de nier la valeur de la linguistique saussurienne ni de la glossematique de Hjelmslev, je crois qu'une revision — non de ('essence de ces deux doctrines, qui resterait intacte — mais de la forme, et, surtout, de la terminologie dont se servent les deux auteurs pour definir la substance est absolument necessaire" (P- 48). 2.17. Copceag, D., "Remarques sur la genese d'un 'type' commun (dans les langues romanes, germaniques et slaves)", RRLing 12 (1967): 143-150. Le probleme des rapports entre affinite genetique et affinite typologique, d'apres les notions degagees par Hjelmslev dans Sproget. 2.18. Coseriu, E., Teoria dellenguajey lingüistica general. Cinco estudios (Madrid: Credos, 1962, puis 1967). Reproduit cinq etudes precedemment parues soil sous forme d'ouvrages, soil sous forme d'articles. "Coseriu a decouvert une conception analogue du Systeme linguistique dans le dernier livre de Louis Hjelmslev, Sproget [. . .] A la difference de ce dernier, Coseriu envisage non seulement 1'usage linguistique, mais egalement le Systeme d'elements, ]astructure de la langue comme un Systeme ouvert du point de vue des principes fonctionnels de la structure (du type linguistique)" (Vintilä-Rädulescu, 2.85., p. 184). 2.19. Coseriu, E., "Pour une semantique diachronique structurale", TLL 2 (1964): 139-186. "Aux termes saussuriens nous preferons les termes de M. Hjelmslev, expression et contenu, sans toutefois nous limiter ä la soi-disant 'forme du contenu' (forme purement relationnelle et sans designation semantique). Nous pensons ä une etude diachronique structurale duplan du contenu. et par 'contenu' nousentendons 'forme'et 'substance' semantiques a la fois, ou, pour mieux dire, la 'substance' semantique en tant que linguistiquement 'formee'" (p. 139). 2.20. Coseriu, E., "Sincronia, diacronia y tipologia", Adas del XI congreso internacional de lingüistica y filologia romanicas (Madrid: Gredos, 1968), 269-281. 2.21. Ducrot, O., "Le roi de France est sage: implication logique et presupposition linguistique", ELA 4 (1966): 39-47. Article reprisdans Ducrot, La preuve et le dire (Paris: Mame, 1973), 211-224, avec quelques precisions supplementaires. Interpretation du concept hjelmslevien de connotation en relation avec ceux d'implication et de presupposition: "Le fait de parier du roi avec ('intonation habituelle aux enonces affirmatifs est un signifiant pour I'idee "il y a un roi" " (p. 44). "La connotation permet ä un discours d'affirmer au sens figure ce qu'il presuppose s'il est pris au sens propre" (p. 46). 2.22. Ducrot, O., Dire et ne pas dire (Paris: Herman, 1972). 2.23. Ebeling, C. L. - H. G. Schogt, "A propos de la neutralisation semantique", Travaux de I'lnstitut de Linguistique del'Universite de Paris (Paris: Klincksieck, 1957), 37-41. "En cherchant des situations paralleles ä la neutralisation phonologique nous voudrions tout d'abord restreindre nos recherchesen ne depassant pas le domaine des signifies. En ceci nous sommes d'accord avec Hjelmslev. [. . .] Nous ne le suivons pas quand il parle d'unites cenematiques" (p. 37).

328

Michel Arrive

2.24. Ege, N., voir 1.1.3. 2.25. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., voir 1.3.3. 2.26. Fischcr-J0rgensen, E., "Supplementary note to Hans Basb0ll's commentary on Hjelmslev's analysis of the Danish expression system", AL 14 (1972): 143-152. A propos de Basb0ll 2.4. 2.27. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., "The commutation test and its application to phonemic analysis". For Roman Jakobson, redige par M. Halle (The Hague: Mouton, 1956), 140-151. La notion de commutation est prise au sens qui lui est donne en glossematique: "The general principle of commutation can now be given the preliminary formulation that two units are commutable if the replacement of one by the other in the same paradigm (environment) is capable of entailing a change in the other plane of the language" (p. 141). Note interessante (p. 141)sur l'histoire du concept de commutation. 2.28. Flydal, L., En spraklig analyse av norskeboktitler 1952 [Analyse linguistique des litres d'ouvrages norvegiens en 1952.] (Bergen: Grieg, 1954). 2.29. Flydal, L., "Signes et symboles dans les grandeurs les moins complexes du plan du contenu", Proceedings of the ninth international congress of linguists, redige par H. G. Lunt (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), 537-545. 2.30. Fourquet, J., "Analyse linguistique et analyse phonologique", TCLC 5 (1949): 38-47. "Ce debat sur la phonologic peut peut-etre apporter quelque lumiere dans le debat sur la creation d'une science de l'organisation propre du signifie, dont les premiers traits apparaissent depuis les travaux de M. Hjelmslev et de son ecole" (p. 46). 2.31. Greimas, A.-J., voir 5.0.3.. 2.32. Heltberg, K., "Derivation et commutation", Langages 6 (1967): 80-89. 2.33. Herault.G. -P. Moreau, "Generalites sur les relations entre le plandel'expression et le plan du contenu", Traduction automatique 3 (1962): 33-43. 2.34. Hiorth, F., "On the subject matter of lexicography", SL 9 (1955): 61-77. 2.35. Hiorth, F., "Field research and lexicography", SL 10 (1956): 57-66. 2.36. Hiorth, F., "On the foundation of lexicography", SL 11 (1957): 18-31. 2.37. Hiorth, F., "On defining 'word'", SL 12 (1958): 1-26. 2.38. Holt, J., Etudes d'aspect (= Acta jutlandica 15, no. 2) (Aarhus: P.U., 1943). 2.39. Holt, J., Rationel Semantik (Plerematik) (= Acta Jutlandica 18, no. 3) (K0benhavn: Munksgaard, 1946). 2.40. Holt, J., "Order of content entities". Language and society. Essays presented to A. M. Jensen (K0benhavn: Del Berlingske Bogtrykkeri, 1961), 65-72. 2.41. Holt, J., "Contribution ä l'analyse fonctionnelle du contenu linguistique", Langages 6 (1967): 59-69. 2.42. Koerner, E. F. K., Contribution au debat post-saussurien sur le signe linguistique (The Hague: Mouton, 1972). Vaste bibliographic critique qui fait une place raisonnable ä la glossematique. 2.43. Kurylowicz, J., "La notion d'isomorphisme", TCLC 5 (1949): 48-60. "Le present article se pose le but de vulgariser la glossematique tout en restant dans les cadres de la terminologie traditionnelle et courante. [. . .] L'idee principale de la glossematique est de degager les traits structuraux communs aux deux plans de la langue, phonique et semantique (expression et contenu)" (p. 48). 2.44. Kurylowicz, J., "Linguistique et theorie du s'igne". Journal de psychologie 42 (1949): 170-180.

La glossematique

329

2.45. Lehman, C., "The linguistic sign: old and new hats", communication inedite au congres de Γ AIS, Milan 1974. 2.46. Leon, P. R., "Forme et substance du corpus en phonetique descriptive", FM 37 (1969): 239. Notule sur l'importance de la forme au sens hjelmslevien du terme: "L'etude intonative repose sur l'analyse de la forme et non sur celle de la substance". 2.47. Levin, P., "Application de l'algebre logique divalente en linguistique", Langages 6 (1967): 36-58. "La nature meme de la langue favorise une description algebrique. La langue est "une institution sociale qui existe hors de l'individu et en reste independante" (Hjelmslev). C'est la raison pour laquelle, selon cet auteur, la langue doit etre decrite par des methodes objectives et structurelles" (p. 36-37). 2.48. Levin, P., Semantik (K0benhavn: Busck, 1968). 2.49. Llorente Maldonado, A., voir 1.2.25. 2.50. Malmberg, B., "An lisis estructural y an lisis instrumental de los sonidos del lenguaje: forma y sustancia", Phonetique generate et romane (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 181-191. 2.51. Manoliu-Manea, M., "La categoric du nombre dans la Romania", RRLing 13 (1968): 449-459. 2.52. Martinet, A., "La double articulation linguistique", TCLC 5 (1949): 30-37. Interessante speculation de linguistique-fiction: "II n'est pas difficile de supposer un Systeme o les articulations du plan de 1'expression seraient des gestes et non des phonemes. [. . .] Si nous ne desirons pasexclure du domaine linguistique lessystemes du type de celui que nous venons d'imaginer, il est tres important de modifier la terminologie traditionnelle relative l'articulation du plan de l'expression de ίβςοη a en eliminer toute reference la substance phonique, comme le fait Hjelmslev lorsqu'il emploie 'ceneme' et 'cenematique' au lieu de 'phoneme' et 'phonologic'. On comprendra toutefois que la plupart des linguistes hesitent modifier de fond en comble 1'edifice terminologique traditionnel pour le seul avantage theorique de pouvoir inclure dans le domaine de leur science des systemes purement hypothetiques" (p. 36-37). Cet article a etc reproduit, avec quelques modifications, dans La linguistique synchronique (Paris: P.U.F., 1965), 11-21. 2.53. Martinet, A., "Arbitraire linguistique et double articulation", CFS 15 (1957): 105-116. "Parmi les nombreux paradoxes qui sont, tout ensemble, un des attraits de la glossematique et la source de bien des reserves son egard, le principe de l'isomorphisme occupe une place de choix" (p. 105). Article reproduit dans La linguistique synchronique (Paris: P.U.F., 1965), 21-35. 2.54. Miclau, P., "La fonction linguistique dans le rapport forme-substance", CLTA 3 (1966): 117-121. "Le moment est venu de revoir ces principes [ceux de Hjelmslev] Ά la lumiere des donnees actuelles de la linguistique generale enrichie par l'usage de plus en plus large de la methode dialectique et des nouveaux points de vue apportes par la theorie de 1'information" (p. 117). Miclau cite en note (no. 2, p. 117) de nombreux travaux publics par des chercheurs roumains dans la revue Probleme de lingvistic general sur le probleme "du rapport contenu-forme dans la langue". La ίβςοη dont sont presentes ces travaux — et jusqu' la terminologie qui leur est empruntee — montre que les theories glossematiques sont tout au plus utilisees comme point de depart ou objet de critique par les chercheurs roumains. 2.55. M0ller, K., voir 1.1.6.

330

Michel Arrive

2.56. Mortensen, A. T., '"Sens' et 'verite' ä la lumiere de la glossematique", Langages 6 (1967): 120-128. Le probleme de la reference en glossematique. 2.57. Pelc, J., Studies in functional logical semiotics of natural languages (The Hague: Mouton, 1971). 2.58. Pohl, J., "Le pleme". Word 23 (1967): 453-468. 2.59. Pettier, B., Systematique des elements de relation (Paris: Klincksieck, 1962). Reference frequente, mais souvent critique, ä la glossematique de Hjelmslev. Voir le compte rendu de M. Arrive, FM 32 (1964): 217-225. 2.60. Prieto, L., "Figuras de la expresion y figuras del contenido", Estructuralismo e historia, redige par D. Catalan (La Laguna: P.U. de Tenerife, 1957), 243-249. 2.61. Prieto, L., "D'une asymetrie entre le plan de l'expression et le plan du contenu de la langue", BSL 53 (1957-1958): 86-95. 2.62. Prieto, L., "Rapport paradigmatique et rapport syntagmatique sur le plan du contenu", Omagiu lui lorgu lordan (Bucures,ti: Editura Academiei, 1958), 705-713. 2.63. Prieto, L., "La notion de noeme", Proceedings of the ninth international congress of linguists, redige par H. G. Lunt (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), 771-778. 2.64. Prieto, L., Principes de noologie. Fondements de la theorie fonctionnelle du signifie (The Hague: Mouton, 1964). La reference ä la glossematique, constante dans les plus anciens travaux de Prieto, s'estompe peu ä peu dans les plus recents. 2.65. Rey-Debove, J., "Les relations entre le signe et la chose dans le discours metalinguistique", TLL 1 (1969): 113-129. 2.66. Rey-Debove, J., "La semiotique de l'emprunt lexical", TLL 11 (1973): 109-123. Dans ces deux articles, emploi hjelmslevien des concepts de metalangage et de connotation. 2.67. Skärup, P., "La categoric des cas, en general et en feroien", Langages 6 (1967): 70-79. 2.68. S0rensen, H. C., "Contribution ä la discussion sur la theorie descas", TCLC 5 (1949): 123-133. 2.69. S0rensen, H. S., "Meaning", To honor Roman Jakobson (The Hague: Mouton, 1967), tome II, 1876-1889. 2.70. S0rensen, H. S., Word-classes in modern English (K0benhavn: Gad, 1968). Reflexion theorique sur le concept hjelmslevien de texte d'une langue. 2.71. Spang-Hanssen, H., "On the simplicity of descriptions", TCLC 5 (1949): 61-70. 2.72. Spang-Hanssen, H., Recent theories on the nature of the language sign (= TCLC 9) (K0benhavn: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1954). 2.73. Spang-Hanssen, H., Probability and structural classification in language description (K0benhavn: Munksgaard, 1954). "Spang-Hanssen decrit les trois functions glossematiques de la maniere suivante: soil A et B deux elements susceptibles de se combiner dans un texte; + signifie evenement possible, -^ signifie evenement exclu, signifie 'qui se combine avec': Solidarite AxB -Isans B = A x A + BsansA = BxBn-

Selection AxB + AsansB+ sans A-^

(Voir B. W. Christensen, 7.2.5, p. 24).

Libre combinaison AxB -AsansB+ sans A+

La glossematique

331

2.74. Spang-Hanssen, H., "Finiet infinidanslevocabulaire",Langages 6 (1967): 100-105. Signale l'emploi du terme glosseme par Bloomfield dans Language (New York: Holt, 1933), 264-277. 2.75. Stati, S., "Analysis of content entities", RRLing 1 (1962): 257-268. 2.76. Stati, S., "Contenu et expression, symetrie et asymetrie", CLTA 1 (1962): 223-234. 2.77. Stati, S., Teorie $/ metoda in sintaxa (Bucures,ti: Editura Academiei, 1967). Resume en frangais, p. 263-271. Citations frequentes, mais souvent critiques, de Hjelmslev. 2.78. Stati. S.. "Dependance 'simple' et 'complexe' dans la structure de I'enonce". RRLing 13 (1968): 49-60. Analyse de la notion de dependance en glossematique, p. 51. 2.79. Stati, S., "Autourdusysteme semantiquedesadjectifs",KÄom 8 (1973): 286-293. La reference ä la glossematique devient de plus en plus indirecte dans la succession des travaux de Sorin Stati. 2.80. Stötzel, G., Ausdrucks- und Inhaltsseile (München: Hueber, 1970). 2.81. Togeby, K., "Neutralisation morphologique", Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de l'Universite de Paris (Paris: Klincksieck, 1957), 149-150. 2.82. Togeby, K., "Qu'est-ce qu'un mot?", TCLC 5 (1949): 97-111. 2.83. Vasiliu, E., voir 1.2.43. 2.84. Vintilä, I., "Tendances actuelles dans l'analyse du plan du contenu", RRLing 11 (1966): 537-548. Compte rendu critique des travaux de Prieto. 2.85. Vintila-Rädulescu, 1., "EugenioCoseriuet la theoriedu langage",RRLing 14 (l969): 179-187. 2.86. Vogt, H., "L'etude des systemes de cas", TCLC 5 (1949): 112-122. 2.87. Wandruszka, M., "Le mot: connotations et indices socio-culturals", TLL 11 (1973): 53-61. Critique du concept de connotation (voir notamment p. 59-60). 2.88. Zavadowski, L., "A classification of signs and of semantic systems". Sign, language, culture (The Hague: Mouton, 1970), 28^9. 2.89. Zinckernagel, P., "Imperatifs de description", Langages 6 (1967): 129-134. "La decouverte d'une contradiction irreductible dans un ouvrage scientifique est une grave affaire, tandis que dans un poeme ou un texte religieux une incoherence n'est pas decisive" (p. 129).

3. Glossematique et autres theories linguistiques 3.1. Glossematique et ecole de Prague 3.1.1. Dokulil. M.. "Zum wechselseitigen Verhältnis zwischen Wortbildung und Syntax", TLP l (1966): 215-224. Allusion ä l'isomorphisme entre "le plan du contenu linguistique et le plan de Pexpression linguistique, par exemple entre la construction de la phrase et la construction de la syllabe" (p. 215), avec reference explicite ä Hjelmslev (Prolegomenes) et ä Kurylowicz (2.43). 3.1.2. Ducrot, O., voir 1.2.4. 3.1.3. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., voir 2.27. "Hjelmslev's general formula differs from the Prague version by applying equally well to content and expression" (p. 142).

332

Michel Arrive 3.1.4. 3.1.5.

3.1.6. 3.1.7.

Karcevskij, S., "Les quatre plans semiologiques du langage", CFS 1 (1942): 14-15. Nemec, I., "Basic lexical unit in historical lexicology", TLP 3 (1968): 143-154. Cite l'intervention de Hjelmslev au huitieme Congres International des Linguist es. Novak, L, "Caractere peripherique des consonnes dans le Systeme phonologique et dans la structure syllabique", TLP 2 (1966): 127-132. Allusion aux theories de Hjelmslev et Kurylowicz sur risomorphisme. Sabrsula. J.. "A propos des formations premorphologiques". TLP 2 (1966): 183-192. "Certains auteurs ont essaye de systematiser les unites du plan du contenu, en partant d'une conception ensembliste" (p. 184). L'auteur fait allusion ä Hjelmslev ("Stratification") et ä Kurytowicz (2.43).

3.2. Glossematique et fonctionnalisme 3.2.1. Christensen, B. W., voir 3.4.4. 3.2.2. Mahmoudian, S., voir 1.3.11. 3.2.3. Martinet, A., voir 1.2.28. 3.2.4. Martinet, A., voir 1.2.29. 3.2.5. Martinet, A., voir 2.52. 3.2.6. Martinet, A., voir 2.53. 3.2.7. Martinet, A., "La notion de fonction en linguistique", Travaux de la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite Catholique de Louvain (Louvain: P.U., 1971), xi + 12 pages. 3.3. Glossematique et guillaumisme 3.3.1. Guiraud, P., "De la grive au maquereau", FM 34 (1966): 280-308. "A cette analyse de Guillaume correspond point par point celle de Hjelmslev qui distingue le texte, la structure de la langue et l'usage de la langue" (p. 305). 3.4. Glossematique et grammaire generative 3.4.1. Basb0ll, H., voir 2.4. 3.4.3. Birnbaum, H., Problems of typological and genetic linguistics viewed in a generative framework (The Hague: Mouton, 1970). "Le premier article, 'Structure profonde et typologie linguistique', tente de concilier la glossematique et la grammaire generative" (J. Bastuji, compte rendu de l'ouvrage. La linguistique 10.1 (1974): 151). 3.4.3. Chomsky, N., Structures syntaxiques, traduction frangaise de M. Braudeau (Paris: Le Seuil, 1969). La plus explicite des allusions faites par Chomsky ä la glossematique: "La grammaire d'une langue donnee doit etre construite conformement ä une theorie specifique de la structure linguistique dans laquelle des termes tels que 'phoneme* ou 'syntagme' sont definis independamment de toute langue particuliere. Je presume que ces deux conditions sont analogues ä ce que Hjelmslev avail en tete, parlant du caractere appropria et arbitraire de la theorie linguistique (Prolegomena)" (p. 56). 3.4.4. Christensen, B. W., "Glossematique, linguistique fonctionnelle, grammaire generative et stratification du langage". Word 23 (1967): 57-73.

La glossematique

333

En prenant comme grille generate le modele glossematique adapte, l'auteur compare la representation quadripartite de la relation entre sons et sens — expression, contenu, forme, substance — a u x deux articulations de Martinet et aux trois composantes de Chomsky. 3.4.5. Fischer-J0rgensen, E., voir 2.26. 3.4.6. Haugen, E., voir 1.2.15. 3.4.7. Ruwet, N., Introduction a la grammaire generative (Paris: Plon, 1967). L'auteur etudie, aux pages 344-346, les relations entre les concepts de forme de l'expression/forme du contenu en glossematique et dcstructure superficielle/structure profonde en grammaire generative. 3.4.8. Schveiger, P., "Parataxis and hypotaxis in a generative grammar", RRLing 15 (1970): 49-61. Les concepts de constellation (parataxe), determination (Hypotaxe), interdependance (catataxe) utilises comme bases d'une grammaire generative. 3.4.9. Sgall, P. - E. Hajicova, "A functional generative description", RRLing 16 (1971): 9-37. Insiste tantot sur les points de contact, tant t sur les divergences entre la glossematique et la grammaire generative. 3.4.10. Tutescu. M.. "La categoric de la nominalisation en frangais moderne et contemporain", RRLing 14 (1969): 343-364. Sur un probleme de grammaire fran5aise, tentative d'articulation des concepts de la glossematique et de la grammaire generative (voir notamment pages 346 et 352. 3.4.11. Vasiliu, E., "Form and substance in transformational phonology", CLTA 3 (1966): 181-186. 3.4.12. Vasiliu, E., "Grammaire transformationnelle: theorie et interpretation", RRom no. special 4 (1970): 19-31. Defense de la glossematique (p. 27) contre les critiques formulees par Chomsky contre les grammaires structurales.

4. Glossematique et disciplines linguistiques annexes 4.1. Glossematique et socio-linguistique 4.1.1. Greimas, A.-J., "Pour une sociologie du sens commun", Du sens (Paris: Le Seuil, 1970), 93-102. Article precedemment paru en italien dans Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 9 (1968): 199-209. L'auteur distingue plusieurs zones de connotations, "dont certaines pourraient interesser une discipline naissante, la socio-linguistique" (p. 96-97). "Si Γόη peut concevoir la culture comme une semiotique, son existence postule une structure connotative parallele, dont les manifestations multiples entourent rhomme de toute part et l'enferment dans une ambiance de realite rassurante" (p. 102). 4.2. Glossematique et psycho-linguistique 4.2.1. B r, E., "Semiotics and psychotherapy", communication inedite au premier congres de 1'AIS (1974). Distinction entre une semiotique denotative et une semiotique connotative. 4.2.2. Slama-Cazacu, T., "La methodologie psycho-linguistique et quelques-unes de ses applications", RRLing 10 (1965): 309-316.

334

Michel Arrive

4.2.3.

4.2.4.

La glossematique est presentee comme un obstacle au developpement de la psycho-linguistique: "Contrairement ä certains courants extremistes de la linguistique structurale (voir Hjelmslev), la psycho-linguistique, dans I'acception que nous lui donnons, ne meprise pas la methode inductive" (p. 313). Slama-Cazacu,T.,"Quelquesremarquestheoriquesetmethodologiquessurle Probleme de la forme et de la substance dans la genese du Systeme phonematique", CLTA 3 (1966): 171-179. "Si Ics pre-phonemes sont des approximations de cette forme, dans la tendance de l'enfant ä se rapprocher de la langue et de s'approprier sä forme, en tout cas on peut appliquer aux sons initiaux la formule de Hjelmslev, des 'actes sans norme' (p. 174). Wittwer, J., voir 1.2.47.

4.3. Glossematique et linguistique appliquce 4.3.1. Besse, H., voir 2.9. 4.3.2. Greimas, A.-J., "Les problemesde la linguistique appliquee", CLex l (1959): 47-75. Vaste panorama des problemes poses par la description mecanographique des langues naturelles, dans une optique essentiellement hjelmslevienne. L'auteur retient la pertinence de concepts tels que forme, substance, selection, solidarite, combinaison, lexie, etc: "Les dimensions de la lexie ne sont determineesque par la lisibilite de celle-ci, et non par les limitesd'ordre syntaxique" (p. 53). 4.3.3. Greimas, A.-J., "Remarques sur la description mecanographique des formes grammaticales". Bulletin du laboratoire d'analyse lexicologique de Besangon 2 (I960): 1-25. Propositions de codage des traits grammaticaux selon une grille fondee sur les concepts de la glossematique. 4.3.4. Mahmoudian, S., voir 1.3.11.

5. Glossematique et semiotique 5.0. Travaux gcneraux de semiotique fondes sur ou influences par la glossematique 5.0.1. Barthes, R., "Elements de scmiologie", Communications 4 (1964): 91-135. Republic en volume ä la suite de Le degre zero de l'ecriture (Paris: DenoelGonthier, 1964). Large utilisation du test de commutation (au sens glossematique), et, surtout, du concept de connotation. 5.0.2. Benveniste, E., "Semiologie de la langue", Semiotica 1 (1969): 1-12 et 127-135. L'auteur prend ses distances par rapport aux conceptions de Hjelmslev sur la semiologie: "Ce qu'il [Hjelmslev] appelle semiotics est defini comme 'a hierarchy, any of whose components admits of a further analysis into classes defined by mutual relation, so that any of these classes admits of an analysis into derivates defined by mutual relations" (Prolegomena, p. 106). Une pareille definition ne sera recevable que dans une adhesion globale aux principes de la glossematique" (p. 127).

La glossematique 5.0.3.

5.0.4. 5.0.5.

5.0.6.

335

Greimas, A.-J., Semantique structurale. Recherche de methode (Paris: Larousse, 1966). Parmi les comptes rendus, voir surtout J.-C. Coquet, "Questions de semantique structurale", Critique 248: 70-85. L'ouvrage s'articule en deux grandes parties: la premiere (p. 5-101) vise ä construire un Systeme de concepts rendant compte des unites minimales constitutives de la signification. La seconde (p. 101-221) est un effort de division de l'univers signifiant dans sa totalite. L'ouvrage s'acheve sur un "echantillon de description" (l'univers de Bernanos, p. 222-256). La reflexion de Greimas se situe done successivement au niveau de la semantique (unites linguistiques) puis de la semiotique (unites translinguistiques). La reference aux concepts de la glossematique, quoique non exclusive, cst constante, notamment dans la mise en place du concept capital d'isotopie. Greimas, A.-J., Du sens. Essais semiotiques (Paris: Le Seuil, 1970). Greimas, A.-J., Semiotique et sciences sociales (Paris: Le Seuil, 1976). "Nous savons dejä un certain nombre de choses sur le mythe et ses variantcs, sur le conte et ses variations. Je crois qu'il faut retenir comme acquise la definition de Levi-Strauss et dire, en generalisant, que le recit n'est pas un message-occurrence autonome, mais qu'il est constitue par I'ensemble des correlations entre toutes ses variantes. Cette definition d'ailleurs ne fait que reprendre ä son compte la conception de Hjelmslev, pour qui la grammaire comparee des langues indo-europeennes par exemple n'est qu'un Systeme de correlations entre les langues particulieres par lesquelles il se manifeste" (p. 194). Les conceptions de Hjelmslev auxquelles Greimas fait allusion sont exposees dans Sproget. Mounin, G., Introduction a la semiologie (Paris: Minuit, 1970). Reference frequente, mais souvent critique, aux theories de Hjelmslev. Voir notamment 1'article 1.3.16.

5.1. Glossematique et semiotique textuelle 5.1.1. Arrive, M., "Postulats pour la description linguistique des textes litteraires", LFr 3 (1969): 3-13. Traduction allemande. Romanistische Stilforschung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975), 355-370. 5.1.2. Arrive, M.,LeslangagesdeJarry, essai de semiotique litteraire (Paris: Klincksieck, 1972). Essai de construction d'une semiotique de la connotation, avec extension au niveau du recit. 5.1.3. Arrive, M., "Pour une theorie des textes poly-isotopique", Langages 31 (1973): 53-63. Traduction allemande, Theorie - Literatur - Praxis, redige par R. Bruiting et B. Zimmermann (Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1975), 108122. Mise en place du concept d'isotopie connotee. 5.1.4. Arrive, M., "Poetique et rhetorique", SNPh 48 (1976): 97-120. Passim dans 1'article, appreciation de l'influence de la glossematique sur les recherches franqaises en poetique et rhetorique. 5.1.5. Arrive, M., Lire Jarry (Bruxelles: Complexe et Paris: P.U.F., 1976). Nouveaux developpements de la semiotique de la connotation. 5.1.6. Barthes, R., voir 5.0.1. 5.1.7. Barthes, R., Le degre zero de l'ecriture (Paris: Le Seuil, 1953). Get ouvrage est, pour une large part, un recueil d'articles parus ·* , 1947 ä

336

Michel Arrive

5.1.8.

5.1.9.

5.1.10.

5.1.11. 5.1.12. 5.1.13. 5.1.14. 5.1.15.

5.1.16. 5.1.17. 5.1.18. 5.1.19. 5.1.20.

1950 dans le quotidien Combat. La reference ä la glossematique, implicite dans 1'ouvrage, etait explicite dans un au moins des articles du journal. Barthes, R., S/Z (Paris: Le Seuil, 1970). Le texte etudie —Sarrasine, de Balzac —est divise enlexies: "Le signifiant tuteur sera decoupe en une suite de courts fragments contigus, qu'on appellera ici des lexies, puisque ce sont des unites de lecture" (p. 20). Tres interessante mise au point sur le concept de connotation, qui se trouve successivement soumisä unecritique, puisä une rehabilitation (p. 13-16). Voir4.3.2.et 5.1.5. Brandt, P. A., "Lapenseedutexte (delalitteralitedelalitterarite)",Esia/sife la theorie du texte (Paris: Galilee, 1973), 185-205. A partir d'une critique de la hierarchic des langages chez Hjelmslev, essai de construction d'une 'glossematique generative': "II est clair que le Systeme selon Saussure-Hjelmslevnepew/pas engendrer. Si mouvement il y a, il part du niveau le plus has pour se propager vers le haut: tout Systeme non primaire presuppose un Systeme inferieur auquel il se rapporte comme une 'forme' ä sä 'substance'. Tandis qu'ici il s'agit bien du contraire, d'un mouvement descendant, derivationnel, et qui n'est pas purement 'constitutif' (de 'presupposition'). Ce qu'il faut appeler une 'glossematique generative' semble vivre de ne pas voir ni meme soupgonner l'existence du probleme" (p. 191). Busse, W., "La semiologie litteraire: la glossematique et la stylistique", BJR 10 (1964): 36-42. Reproduit partiellement, et sous un autre litre dans La stylistique, lectures, redige par P. Guiraud et P. Kuentz (Paris: Klincksieck, 1970), 116-120. Busse, W., "Das literarische Zeichen: zur glossematischen Theorie der Literatur", Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven, redige par J. Ihwe (Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1971), 807-824. Coquet, J.-C., Semiotique litteraire, contribution a {'analyse semantique du discours (Paris: Mame, 1973; puis Delarge, 1975). Ferenczi, T., "Structures linguistiques et fonction litteraire", Nouvelle Revue Frangaise 214 (1970): 118-128. Flydal, L., "Phonemes et symboles en interference", Travaux de I'lnstitut de Linguistique de i Universite de Paris (Paris: Klincksieck, 1959), 15-34. Flydal, L., "Lesinstrumentsde I'artisteen langage",FM 30 (1962): 161-171. "On qualifiera d'artiste en langage celui qui, se servant de la langue comme substance d'expression, communique un contenu second, de nature non linguistique, mais symbolique ou sensorielle' (p. 161). "Le contenu de n'importe quel signe peut servir d'expression ä un contenu symbolique, depuis les unites les plus grandes, comme le roman, jusqu'aux plus petites, comme le morpheme" (p. 167). Greimas, A.-J., Essais de semiotique poetique (Paris: Larousse, 1972). Dans le chapitre introductif de Greimas, extension du concept d'isotopie au plan de I'expression. Greimas, A.-J., Maupassant. La samiotique du texte: exercicespratiques (Paris: Le Seuil, 1976). Ihwe, J., Linguistik in der Literaturwissenschaft (München: Fink, 1971). Voir surtout 2.3.2. Jansen.S., "L'unite d'action aansAndromaque et dansLorenzaccio",RRom 3 (1968): 16-29 et 116-135. Jansen, S., "Sur les röles des personnages dans Andromaque", OLit 22 (1967): 77-87.

La glossematique

337

5.1.21. Jansen, S., "Alfred de Musset dramaturge", OLit 21 (1966): 222-254. 5.1.22. Jansen, S., Alfred de Musset som dramatiker (= Studier fra Sprog- og Oldtidsforkning 265) (K0benhavn: Gad, 1967). 5.1.23. Jansen, S., "Esquisse d'une theorie de la forme dramatique", Langages 12 (1968): 71-93. Ce travail est unessai theorique de deplacement des concepts essentiels de la glossematique (expression-contenu, forme-substance)de l'objetlinguistique ä l'objet litteraire: "L'objet de l'analyse dramaturgique tel que nous le concevons s'ecarte dejä considerablement de celui de l'analyse linguistique. Et bien que nous allionscontinuer de nous servir de la methode de cette derniere pour preciser celle ä employer dans la premiere, nous preferons remplacer les termes d'expression et decontenu parceux detexte et aOeuvre dramaüque" (p. 73). Les autres travaux de Jansen cites ci-dessus sont des essais d'application pratique ä des oeuvres dramatiques concretes de la methode ainsi mise en place. 5.1.24. Johansen, S., "La notion de signe dans la glossematique et dans I'esthetique", TCLC 5 (1949): 288-303. Application au texte litteraire du concept de signe connotatif. 5.1.25. Mancas, M., "La structure semantique de la metaphore poetique",RRLing 15 (1970): 717-734. "Les metaphores-implications (dans la terminologie de L. Hjelmslev) ne presentent qu'un seul terme dans le texte, tandis que les metaphorescoalescences ont les deux termes exprimes" (p. 319). 5.1.26. Nysenholc, A., "La phrase nominale dansAmers de Saint-John Perse", FM 37 (1969): 198-211. Etude partiellement fondee sur la conception hjelmslevienne de la phrase nominale. 5.1.27. Pavel, T., "Signification linguistique et poesie", RRLing 12 (1967): 49-57. "L. Hjelmslev ecrivait qu'au cours de l'analyse la substance linguistique peut etre regardee comme etant elle-meme composee de forme et de substance. On peut concevoir aussi une situation linguistique concrete favorisant la formalisation partielle de la substance. C'est justement la situation du langage poetique" (p. 56-57). 5.1.28. Rastier, F., Essais de semiotique discursive (Paris: Mame, 1973). Recueil de plusieurs etudes pour la plupart precedemment parues dans diverses revues. L'auteur s'appuie essentiellement sur la Semantique structurale de Greimas. La reference directe ä Hjelmslev est frequente. 5.1.29. S0rensen, H. C., Studier i Baudelaires poesi (K0benhavn: Lunos, 1955). "La litterature aurait pour substance de l'expression la langue, pour forme de l'expression le style (metaphores, figures, rythme, rimes), pour forme du contenu les themes, la composition et les genres, et pour substance du contenu les idees, les sentiments, les visions" (Togeby, 5.1.33., p. 204). 5.1.30. Stender-Petersen, A., "Esquisse d'une theorie structurale de la litterature", TCLC 5 (1949): 277-287. Avec 5.1.24., Tun des premiers essais d'extension des concepts de la glossematique aux sciences humainesen general, et specifiquement ä la theorie de la litterature: "La tentative de M. Louis Hjelmslev contient pour d'autres sciences humanistes une incitation extremement forte ä trouver —chacunc ä part ou meme en commun — une base theorique analogue a celle qu'il a voulu donner ä la linguistique" (p. 277). "La fiction domine les plans de l'expression

338

Michel Arrive

5.1.31. 5.1.32.

5.1.33.

5.1.34. 5.1.35. 5.1.36.

et du contenu en pleine solidarite, de qu'une epreuve de commutation montrera qu'un echange sur le plan de ['expression (la langue) amenera un echange sur le plan du contenu (le Systeme des motifs) et inversement" (p. 286). Stender-Petersen, A., "Zur Möglichkeit einer Wortkunsttheorie", Theorieset problemes. Contributions a la methodologie litteraire (= OLit, supplement l ) (K0benhavn, 1958). Todorov, T., Litterature et signification (Paris: Larousse, 1967). Le concept de connotation, emprunte ä Hjelmslev, est considerablement elargi. Voir une critique de cet elargissement dans le compte rendu de M. Arrive, FM 36 (1968): 339-340. Togeby, K., "Litterature et linguistique", OLit 22 (1967): 45^8. Reprise dans Immanence et structure (= RRom, no. special 2, 1968), 203-206. "On peut se demander si une oeuvre litteraire est vraiment, dans le sens hjelmslevien, une langue" (p. 205). Togeby, K., "Langue, science, litterature et realite", RRom 8 (1973): 298-303. Trabant, J. V., Zur Semiologie des literarischen Kunstwerks. Glossematik und Literaturtheorie (München: Fink, 1970). Wienold, G., Semiotik der Literatur (Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1972). "Noch einflussreicher für die unifizierende Semiologie als de Saussure ist Hjelmslevs geschichtete Semiotik geworden" (p. 16).

5.2. Glosscmatique et semiotique non-textuelles 5.2.1. Barthes, R., "Le message photographique", Communications l (1961): 127-138. 5.2.2. Barthes, R., "Rhetorique de l'image", Communications 4 (1964): 40-51. La notion de lexie est utilisee pour designer l'image. Deplacement au niveau du message iconique du concept de connotation: "Un Systeme qui prend en charge les signes d'un autre Systeme pour en faire ses signifiants est un Systeme de connotation. On dira done tout de suite que l'image litterale est denotee et l'image symbolique connotee" (p. 43). 5.2.3. Barthes, R., Le Systeme de la mode (Paris: Le Seuil, 1967). 5.2.4. Dorfles, G., "Valeurs denotatives et connotatives dans le Capriccio ("Abreise") de J. S. Bach", communication inedite au premier congres de PA1S, 1974. Extension de la connotation au domaine de la semiotique musicale. 5.2.5. Eco, U., La strutturaassente (Milano: Bompiani, 1968). Traduction fra^aise: La structure absente; introduction a la recherche semiotique (Paris: Mercure de France, 1972). Vaste panorama de la recherche en semiotique, avec reference frequente, mais souvent critique, ä la glossematique (voir notamment les pages 34-36). 5.2.6. Greimas, A. J., "Conditions d'une semiotique du monde naturel", Langages 10 (1968): 3-35. Le probleme des relations entre forme et substance de l'expression dans la gestualite. 5.2.7. Lindekens, R., "Semiotique de l'image. Analyse des caracteres typologiques", Working papers and prepublications (Urbino) 3 (1971). 5.2.8. Lindekens, R., Elements pourune semiotique de la photographie (Paris/Bruxelles, 1971).

La glossematique 5.2.9. 5.2.10.

5.2.11. 5.2.12.

5.2.13. 5.2.14. 5.2.15. 5.2.16.

339

MacLean, W. P., "Iconicity and connotation in the photographic image", communication inedite au l" congrcs de I'AIS, 1974. Metz, C., "Le cinema, langue ou langage?". Communications 4 (1964): 52-90. "Le 'plan' est la plus petite unite syntagmatique du film, c'est le 'taxeme' au sens de Hjelmslev ("Stratification du langage")" (p. 77). Metz, C., Langage et cinema (Paris: Larousse, 1971). Voir notamment, aux pages 157-158, une analyse des relations formesubstance-matiere. Peninou, G., Intelligence de la publicite, etude semiotique (Paris: Laffont, 1972). Le nom de Hjelmslev n'est pas cite dans la bibliographic, mais la reference ä la glossematique, par l'intermediaire de Barthes, est evidente. Utilisation constante du concept de connotation. Provost, E., "Analyse semiotique du plan d'architecte", communication inedite au 1 er congres de I'AIS, 1974. Rastier, F., "Comportement et signification", Langages 10 (1968): 76-86. Definition, selon des criteres empruntes ä Hjelmslev, du comportement comme 'expression'. Ruwet, N., voir 1.2.34. Sarot, R. A., "Du denotatif au connotatif visuel (ambigu'ite des images dans renseignementaudio-visuel)", communication inedite au l"congrcsde I'AIS, 1974.

6. Glossematique et autres disciplines scientifiques 6.1. Glossematique et logique 6.1.1. Ducrot, O., voir 2.21. 6.1.2. Ducrot, O., voir 2.22. 6.1.3. Johansen, S., voir 1.2.19. 6.1.4. Prebensen, H., voir 1.2.33. 6.1.5. S0rensen, H. S., "On the logic of classes and relations in linguistics", Semtotica 3 (1971): 343-352. 6.1.6. Wittwer, J., voir 1.2.47. 6.2. Glossematique et mathematiques 6.2.1. Christensen, B. W., voir 7.2.4. 6.2.2. Christensen, B. W., voir 7.2.5. 6.2.3. Levin, P., voir 2.47. 6.2.4. Spang-Hanssen, H., voir 2.73.

7. Glossematique appliquee aux langues romanes 7.1. Espagnol 7.1.1. Alarcos Llorach, E., Gramatica estructural (segun la escuela de Copenhague y con especial atencion a la lengua espanola) (Madrid: Gredos, 1951). Voir notamment les comptes rendus de B. Pottier. RomPh 7 (1953-1954): 203-205 et de F. J. Whitfield, Word 9 (1953): 279-280.

340

Michel Arrive 7.1.2.

Copceag, D., "Sobre la definicion del articulo espanol", RRLing 9 (1961): 63-65. La sous-classe des articles est deli mi tee dans la classe des determinants par le fait que les formes el et un sont les seuls determinants selectionnes (au sens hjelmslevien) par d'autres determinants. 7.1.3. Manoliu-Manea, M., "