F.H.H. KORTLANDT
»•**M>«>>tUfo&ia*Kmtomrtn^^
MODELLING THE PHONEME
>IOUTON
\ D i s < . Amsterdam QU
MODELLING THE PHONEME
New trends in Fast European phonemic theory
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
TER VERKRÜGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN AAN DE UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS, DR. A. DE FROE, HOOGLERAAR IN DE FACULTEIT DER GENEESKUNDE, IN HEX OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN IN DE AULA DER UNIVERSITEIT (TUDELIJK IN DE LUTHERSE KERK, INGANG SINGEL 411, HOEK SPUl)
OP DINSDAG 30 MEI 1972, DES NAMIDDAGS TE 2.30 UUR
DOOR
FREDERIK HERMAN HENRI KORTLANDT geboren te Utrecht
1972
MOUTON
THE HAGUE · PARISPROMOTOR: PROF. DR. C.L. EBELING COREFERENT: PROF. DR. S.C. DIK
SAMENVATTING
Het doel van deze Studie is tweeledig. In de eerste plaats tracht ik een overzicht te geven van de recente ontwikkelingen van de fonologie in Oost-Europa. De nadruk ligt hierbij op mathematische en semi-mathematische modellen van het foneem. In de tweede plaats geef ik aan wat naar mijn mening de fundamentele problemen zijn in een sluitende fonologische theorie. Bijzondere aandacht wordt geschonken aan het feit dat een definitie van het foneem als een klasse spraakklanken niet in overeen-stemming is met het distinctiviteitsbeginsel.
In het eerste hoofdstuk geef ik een kort overzicht van de Russische fonologie voor 1962. Het tweede hoofdstuk is een kritische uiteenzetting van de fonologische theorie van S.K. Saumjan. In het derde hoofdstuk behandel ik verzamelingentheo-retische modellen zoals die van I.I. Revzin en S. Marcus. Het vierde hoofdstuk is gewijd aan identificatiemodellen. In het vijfde hoofdstuk geef ik een uiteenzetting van het model van de logicus T. Batog. Het zesde en zevende hoofdstuk hebben betrekking op algemene problemen van linguistische methodologie, en het achtste betreft de linguistische aspekten van het foneembegrip. Het negende hoofdstuk gaat over optionele distincties en het tiende over configuratieve eigenschappen.
PREFACE
This study, which is submitted äs a doctoral thesis at the University of Amsterdam, has been accomplished under the inspiring guidance of Professor C.L. Ebeling. The opportunity to work with him has enabled me to draw heavily upon bis valuable insights and ample experience.
I am most grateful to Professor A. H. Kuipers for his penetrating criticism of the manuscript. The stimulating discussions which we had together have greatly added to the value of this publication.
I am also indebted to Professor S.C. Dik and Professor E.M. Uhlenbeck, and to my colleagues A.A. Barentsen, M.P.R. van den Broecke, N.S.H. Smith, H. Stein-hauer and W.A.L. Stokhof for reading the manuscript and commenting upon it. I thank Mrs. C.G. Blomhert for the copy editing and Miss A. Pols for the proof reading.
Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. P. de Ridder for the quick publi-cation of the book.
F.H.H.K. February 8th, 1972
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 9 Abbreviations 14 Introduction 15
PART I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS 1. Russian phonemic theory before 1962
1.1. Baudouin de Courtenay 19 1.2. Scerba 20 1.3. Jakovlev 21 1.4. Trubetzkoy 21 1.5. The Moscow school of phonology 23 1.6. Thefifties 25 2. Saumjan's two-level model
2.1. Introduction 28 2.2. The antinomy of transposition 29 2.3. The identification antinomies 31 2.4. Saumjan's definition of the phoneme 33 2.5. The operator method of the paradigmatic identification of phonemes 35 2.6. Criticism 37 2.7. Social and individual variants 39 2.8. The operator method of the syntagmatic identification of phonemes 40 2.9. Criticism 41 2.10. Distinctive features 43 2.11. Prosodic features 44 3. Set-theoretical models
3.1. Introduction 46 3.2. The initial objects of Revzin's model 47 3.3. Revzin's definition of the phoneme 48
3.4. A paradigmatic model . 51 3.5. Syntagmatic models 53 3.6. Phonetic and phonemic Systems 56 3.7. A fundamental hypothesis 59 3.8. Marcus' definition of the phoneme 61 3.9. Criticism 63 3.10. Nebesky's conception of relevant features 66 3.11. Graphic models 70 3.12. Kanger's model of the phoneme 71 3.13. Relations between models 72 4. Identification models
4.1. Introduction 76 4.2. The initial objects ofUspenskij's model 77 4.3. Identification rules 78 4.4. Uspenskij's definition of the phoneme 82 4.5. Beloozerov's model of the phoneme 83 4.6. Peterson and Harary 87 5. Batog's logical model
5.1. Introduction 91 5.2. Logical preliminaries 92 5.3. The initial objects of Batog's model 95 5.4. From phonetic chain to phonetic system 95 5.5. The distribution of sounds 99 5.6. Batog's definition of the phoneme 100 5.7. Criticism 103 5.8. The role of features 108
PART II
FUNDAMENTALS OF PHONEMIC MODELLING 6. The use of mathematical methods in linguistics
6.1. The dehumanization of the study of language 113 6.2. Criticism 116 6.3. Conclusion 118 7. Models and modelling
7.1. Revzin's conception of modelling 120 7.2. Saumjan's conception of modelling 122 7.3. Apresjan's conception of modelling 124 7.4. Stoff's conception of modelling 126 7.5. Conclusion 129
TABLE OF CONTENTS 13 8. The phoneme
8.1. The motivation for taxonomic phonemics 131 8.2. Descriptive adequacy 133 8.3. Distinctiveness 135 8.4. Relevant features 137 8.5. Segmentation 140 8.6. Phonemic units 143 8.7. Identification 144 8.8. Uniqueness 147 8.9. Joint features 148 8.10. Conclusion. A characterization 150 9. Optional features and heavy phonemes
9.1. Phonemic overlapping 152 9.2. Phonemic interchange 154 9.3. Optional features and heavy phonemes 157 9.4. Theproof 161 9.5. Optional phonemes 162 9.6. Junctures 163 10. A note on configurational features
10.1. Inherent and configurational features 165 10.2. Relations between features 166 List of references 167
ABBREVIATIONS Am. Bu. Ch. Cz. Dan. Du. Eng. Fr. Ge. Gr. It. Jap. Li. Po. Ru. Rum. SCr. Skt. Sp. Sw. Tu. American Bulgarian Chinese Czech Danish Dutch English French German Greek Italian Japanese Lithuanian Polish Russian Rumanian Serbo-Croatian Sanskrit Spanish Swedish Turkish
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the present study is twofold. Firstly, I will try to give a survey of the recent developments in phonemic theory that took place in Eastern Europe during the sixties. Emphasis is laid upon mathematical and semi-mathematical models of the phoneme. Since I am only concerned with theoretical phonemics in the present study, phonetic investigations remain out of the picture. Secondly, I will give an account of the problems which I regard äs fundamental in any consistent theory of phonemics. Special attention will be paid to the important but often neglected fact that a definition of the phoneme äs a class of speech sounds is incompatible with the principle of distinctiveness.
Mathematical methods in linguistics fall into two classes, quantitative and non-quantitative. Quantitative methods are not discussed in the present theory-oriented study. This is a consequence of the fact that no linguistically relevant features are of the continuous-scale type (cf. Hockett 1955: 17). The mathematical disciplines that are relevant for THEORETICAL linguistics are, above all, algebra, set theory, and logic. However, only the most elementary notions from these disciplines play a part at the present stage in the development of linguistics. Mathematical concepts are introduced gradually in the course of this book in order to make the topics under discussion accessible to scholars without any previous training in mathematics. Formal definitions of basic mathematical concepts have been deferred to section 5.2. The only parts of the book where more mathematical sophistication than ordinary common sense is required are sections 3.10 and 5.4-5.6. I have purposely minimized the number of formulas in the second part of the book.
In the first chapter I give a brief survey of Russian phonemic theory before 1962. The only aim of this chapter is to outline the background of the new developments in Soviet linguistics during the sixties. It is shown how all of the three main trends in phonemic thought, represented in Russian linguistics by Scerba, Jakovlev, and Trubetskoy, essentially go back to Baudouin de Courtenay, and how they finally stood with regard to each other.
The second chapter is an exposition and discussion of S.K. Saumjan's two-level theory, which has hitherto found hardly any response outside the Soviet Union. Attention is focused on the paradigmatic and syntagmatic identification of phonemes, which I regard äs the main problem in phonemic theory.
In the third chapter I give an account of the set-theoretical models that have been proposed for various aspects of phonemic analysis. The main part of the chapter is devoted to the theories that have been put forward by I.I. Revzin and S. Marcus, who are the leading theoreticians on language models in Eastern Europe. Among the other models that are discussed in this chapter are some important contributions by L. Nebesky and S. Kanger. Here, äs well äs in the subsequent chapters, consi-derable attention is paid to the initial objects of the models under discussion and to the formal definitions of the phoneme.
The models discussed in the third chapter are characterized by a lack of interest in and explicitness about the identification problem. This is why I have devoted the fourth chapter to models that are primarily concerned with the identification of phonemic units. This chapter contains an explicit Statement of identification rules and their logical implications. It is shown that different relative priorities of the identific-ation rules lead to different phonemic Solutions.
In the fifth chapter I give an exposition of the formally most elaborate model of phonemic analysis, which is the one that has been presented by T. Batog. The expo-sition is preceded by a short account of basic mathematical notions. The last two sections of this chapter are a review of my objections to the model put forward by Batog äs well äs, more generally, to any predilection for criteria other than the principle of distinctiveness.
Chapter 6 deals with the possibilities and limitations of the application of mathe-matical methods in linguistic investigations, and Chapter 7 with the definition of the concept of 'model'. These chapters are not concerned with phonemic theory but only with general issues of linguistic methodology. Various Standpoints are set up against each other, and a tentative conclusion is drawn.
In Chapter 8 I defend the thesis that a grammar lacking a taxonomic phonemic level cannot achieve descriptive adequacy because it cannot account for lexical innovations that do not conform to existing phonemic patterns. The existence of linguistically relevant units on the phonemic level derives from the fact that not only the presence vs. absence of features but also their relative ordering plays a part in the distinguishability of linguistic forms. As a criterion for both the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic delimitation of phonemic units I adhere to the principle of distinctiveness. The impossibility of assigning certain features to a single phonemic unit leads to the postulation of 'joint features'.
In Chapter 9 the optional character of certain distinctive oppositions^is discussed. This phenomenon, which in theoretical linguistics has not yet received the attention which it deserves, is illustrated with a considerable number of examples from different languages. Chapter 10 is a small excursus on configurational features.
PART ONE
l
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962
1.1. BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY
Russian phonemic theory goes back to pre-revolutionary days. The first phonologist on the Russian scene was the famous Polish linguist J. Baudouin de Courtenay, who can be viewed äs the predecessor of both the Moscow and Leningrad schools of phonology.1 As early äs 1881 he wrote (1963: 122):
The concept 'phoneme' is decomposed into two essentially different notions: 1) the mere generalization of anthropophonic [i.e., phonetic] properties,
2) the mobile [i.e., variable] component of a morpheme and the mark of a certain morphological category.
This coincides with two categories of correlates.
In the course of the further development of these ideas it will be necessary to make a strict distinc-tion between the two aspects of the concept of a phoneme and at the same time to set up separate terms for them.
It took Russian linguistics 75 years before the necessary distinction was finally established (Avanesov 1956). Particularly during the last twenty years of this period a great amount of unproductive discussion was wasted on the question of whether a phoneme should be regarded äs a family of phonetically related sounds, which was essentially the view held by the Leningrad school, or äs a family of automatically alternating sounds, äs the Moscow school maintained. It is remarkable that not only the first opinion goes back directly to Baudouin de Courtenay, but that the second opinion does äs well, for it corresponds rather closely to the same author's earlierviews. On the one hand the principal object of Baudouin de Courtenay's studies was the determination of strictly synchronic laws. On the other, his phonological theory required the comparison of morphemes for the investigation of synchronic relations in the sound system of a language. But relations between morphemes had not yet been touched upon by synchronic analysis. Baudouin de Courtenay regarded the establishment of morphemic correspondences äs being justified only historically, etymologically. There were two ways out of this profound contradiction. One could either give up morphological criteria in phonology or rebuild the description of
20 THE DEVELOPMENT ÖF MODELS IN PHONEMlCS
morphemic structure on a synchronic base. Baudouin de Courtenay went both ways. But if the comparison of morpheme alternants in phonemic identification is rejected and morphemic units cannot be identified on etymological grounds, a new criterion is needed for each problem. The criterion chosen by Baudouin de Courtenay, under the influence of psychologism in the linguistics of his day, was the feeling of the native Speakers.2 This notion, which is not present in his 1881 publication, became the
cornerstone of his later work. His new ideas are most fully expounded in Proba teorji alternacyj fönetycznych (l 894), which appeared in a revised German translation the next year. His definitions of the phoneme and the morpheme now ran äs follows (1895:9f.):
Das Phonem = eine einheitliche, der phonetischen Welt angehörende Vorstellung, welche mittelst psychischer Verschmelzung der durch die Aussprache eines und desselben Lautes erhaltenen Ein-drücke in der Seele entsteht = psychischer Aequivalent des Sprachlautes. Mit der einheitlichen Vorstellung des Phonems verknüpft sich (associiert sich) eine gewisse Summe einzelner anthropo-phonischer Vorstellungen, welche einerseits Articulations-Vorstellungen, d.h. Vorstellungen voll-gezogener oder in Vollziehung begriffener physiologischer Articulationsarbeiten, anderererseits [sie] aber akustische Vorstellungen, d.h. Vorstellungen gehörter oder im Gehörtwerden begriffener Resultate jener physiologischer Arbeiten, sind. [...]
Morphem = jeder, mit dem selbstständigen psychischen Leben versehene und von diesem Stand-punkte (d.h. von dem StandStand-punkte eines selbstständigen psychischen Lebens) aus weiter unteilbare Wortteil. Dieser Begriff umfasst also: Wurzel (radix), alle möglichen Affixe, wie Suffixe, Praefixe, als Exponenten syntaktischer Beziehungen dienende Endungen, u.s.w.
1.2. SiERBA
These were the foundations of the Petersburg/Leningrad school in linguistics. During the twenties and thirties of the present Century Baudouin de Courtenay's most prominent pupil, L.V. Scerba, dominated the linguistic scene in the Soviel Union. The inherited phonological theory remained basically unchanged in these years though the stress laid on the psychological Interpretation of the phoneme varied considerably. In 1912 Scerba emphasized the word-differentiating function of the phoneme, which Baudouin de Courtenay had stated äs early äs 1869 (Ivic 1965: 133). This criterion is a sufflcient one for establishing the number of phonemes in a given position but not for the assignment of variants in different positions to the respective phonemes. Following Scerba, sounds in complementary distribution should be identified according to their resemblance. This can mean two different things. Firstly, the feeling of the Speakers can be resorted to: this was Baudouin de Courtenay's solution, which came to be known in Soviet linguistics äs the 'sub-jective method'. It met with sharp criticism in the young Soviet state because it was regarded äs a manifestation of subjective idealism. Besides, it did not yield a solution in many instances. Some of Scerba's disciples considered the first vowel of Ru.
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962 21 golova [gslavä] 'head' a variant of /a/, others identified it with /i/ (which has an unrounded back variant after hard consonants in both stressed and unstressed positions). And, äs Panov puts it (1967: 376), "if the first solution of the problem turns out to be more widespread, then it is only because it is supported by Scerba himself, the very authority on 'linguistic feeling' ".
The charge of idealism made Scerba stop referring to the feeling of the Speakers, but it did not basically affect his ideas (1958: HOff.). The only criterion left for the identification of phonemes in different environments was phonetic resemblance. This criterion, characteristic of the so-called Objective method', did not solve the Problem just mentioned either, because [a] resembles any unrounded füll vowel equally well. So there was simply a change of labels. However, it made linguistic theory less vulnerable from the Marxist methodological point of view. At the same time it opened a way back to traditional phoneticism, and this largely explains the popularity of Scerba's ideas among phoneticians after the elimination of psycho-logical formulations.
1.3. JAKOVLEV
There were two ways of avoiding the Scylla of psychologism and the Charybdis of phoneticism. The first possibility was to return to Baudouin de Courtenay's earlier views and to take into account the alternations that morphemes show in juxtaposition with other morphemes. This was the standpoint of the eminent Caucasist N.F. Jakovlev, who äs a result became the forerunner of the Moscow school of phonology. As early äs the beginning of the twenties he remarked that
the individual feeling of the Speaker can hardly serve äs a particularly reliable basis for phonemo-logical [sie] investigations, and in fact it is no such basis in the works of the followers of phoneme theory [...] one should regard [the phoneme] äs wholly conditioned by a definite correlation of phonetic and semantic elements with the lexicon and morphology of a given language (1923:66f.) and a fewyears later he actually defined the phoneme äs asetof alternating sounds in different positions (1928).3 Thus, the first vowel of Ru. voda [vadä] 'water' is to
be identified with /o/ because of the plural vody [vodi], not with /a/ äs in Scerba's theory. He clearly realized the consequences of this approach: "physically absolutely identical sounds are sometimes different grammatical sounds, diiferent phonemes" (Jakovlev and Asxamaf 1941: 407). One cannot but wonder why the Moscow school of phonology did not come into existence ten years earlier than it actually did.
1.4. TRUBETZKOY
The other way was found by the outstanding Russian linguist, N. S. Trubetzkoy (Trubeckoj), a member of the Prague Circle, who in Western Europe is generally 5 Reformatskij 197Q; 129f,, cf, Zinder 196$; J9<5,
22 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
regarded äs the founder of phonology. In bis opinion, the final consonant of Ru. prud 'prut] should neither be identified with /t/ on the basis of phonetic resemblance nor with /d/ on account of its alternation with [d] before case endings, because neither phonetic nor morphological criteria should be decisive in the identification of pho-nemic units. Word-final [t] is in fact not identical with prevocalic [t] because it is not opposed to [d], so from the functional point of view it lacks a feature which is inherent in /t/. On the other hand, prud is homophonous with prut, so these words cannot be phonologically distinct: the Opposition between /t/ and /d/ is 'neutralized' in word-final position. This insight, which was fundamentally inspired by de Saussure, necessarily leads to the postulation of a new unit, the 'archiphoneme' (Trubetzkoy 1939:70f.).4
The notions of 'neutralization' and 'archiphoneme' have given rise to a lot of confusion and misunderstanding which eventually prevented them from gaining general acceptance. At least three interpretations have to be distinguished. The most widespread misconception is stated by Panov in the following words (1967: 397): "N. S. Trubetzkoy and his fellow-Praguists were the founders of syntagmatic phono-logy". This was NOT what Trubetzkoy was primarily interested in, however. The cornerstone of his whole theory is the concept of distinctiveness, which is a para-digmatic relationship (in the sense of Hjelmslev 1943: 36) and has nothing to do with tactics. If Ru. word-final [t] cannot be identified with /t/, this is not because fd] does not occur in the same position (which is a tactical characteristic) but because the Substitution of the latter sound for the former cannot yield a change of meaning. Consonants are always hard before unstressed [a] in Russian, but it does not follow that the Opposition hard ~ soft is neutralized in this position, äs Panov suggests (1967: 400). The non-occurrence of soft consonants before unstressed [a] is a necessary but insufficient condition for the phonemic identification of the sequence C + [a]. In the present instance, the vowel is an archiphoneme, not the consonant, äs is clear from the fact that [ν'αζύ] is interpreted äs vjazu '(I) knit', not vozu '(I) carry, conduct', and [nan'asu] äs nanesu '(I) shall inflict', not na nosu On the nose'.
The second common misconception regards the notion of neutralization. Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to say that the Opposition between the final consonants of the words prud and prut is neutralized. These words are homonyms ending in [t]. The fact that this sound alternates with [d] and [t] respectively before case endings is irrelevant äs to its phonemic identification. Neutralization is non-distinctiveness of phonemes in a certain environment and cannot be established merely on the basis of morphemic alternations. Trubetzkoy's Interpretation of tense o in Ru. [sonca] 'sun' äs /öl/ is not based on morphemic alternation, äs Panov suggests, but on the non-distinctiveness between [o] and [öl].5
4 "Tout le mecanisme du langage [...] repose sur des oppositions de ce genre et sur les differences
phoniques et conceptuelles qu'elles impliquent" (Saussure 1916: 167).
& Cf. Trubetzkoy 1939: 56 and Panov 1967:400. The identification holds no longer for contemporary
Finally, a sharp distinction should be made between neutralization and defective distribution. The initial clusters [vzt] and [fxt] do not occur in Russian, but not for the same reason: whereas a native Speaker easily identifies the formet cluster with [fst], the latter cannot on the basis of phonetic cues be identified with any cluster actually occurring in the language. Though [on vztal] is easily understood äs on vstal 'he got up', the string [on fxtal] is uninterpretable but for the presence of extralinguistic indications in the Situation. Obviously, the Opposition between voiced and voiceless fricatives is neutralized, while the Opposition between dental and velar fricatives is not: the phoneme /x/ simply does not occur in the position under consideration.
1.5. THE MOSCOW SCHOOL OF PHONOLOGY
Political circumstances often have an important impact on the development of linguistic science. The very fact that Trubetzkoy had left his native country made it possible for his ideas to spread all over Western Europe but isolated them from Russian linguistic thought. The Russian translation of Trubetzkoy's Grundzüge der Phänologie (1939), a book filled with subtle observations on his mother tongue, appeared only in 1960. On the other band, the Moscow school of phonology, to which belonged such important linguists äs R.I. Avanesov, V.N. Sidorov, A.A. Reformatskij, and P.S. Kuznecov, remained almost unnoticed in Western countries until the present time. The fundamental theses of this school are summarized by Zinder äs follows (1968: 197).6
1. It is necessary for the characterization of phonological oppositions to distinguish a strong Position (in which the maximum number of distinctions is operative) from a weak position (where neutralization is possible).
2. Distinction is made between the basic shape of a phoneme (appearing in strong position),
variations, which are tactically conditioned modifications of a phoneme in positions where the
oppositions to other phonemes are not neutralized, and variants, i.e. tactically conditioned modifica-tions in the case of neutralization. A Variation is always related to one phoneme, a variant to two phonemes.
3. The make-up of a phoneme is revealed only in strong positions.
4. The fact that a sound occurring in a morpheme belongs to a given phoneme is also revealed only in strong position.
5. If a morpheme contains a sound that cannot be placed in strong position (e.g., the flrst vowel of the word korova [i.e. [karovs] 'cow']), this sound cannot be assigned to any particular phoneme; it is a member of a 'hyperphoneme', i.e. a group of phonemes which are connected by positional or com-binatory alternations.
Thus, alternating sounds in different positions are to be regarded äs variants of the same phoneme. As a consequence of this Identification principle, different sounds
6 In 1970 an interesting book by Reformatskij appeared: it contains not only an excellent exposi-tion of the ideas and development of the Moscow school of phonology but also a reader in which all 'classical' papers of the school have been reprinted, e.g., Jakovlev 1928, Avanesov 1947,1948, 1955,
24 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
may represent the same phoneme and different phonemes the same sound. The identification is based on the comparison of morphemes.
There are several difficulties connected with this approach. First of all, a position which is 'strong' with respect to one pair of phonemes is not necessarily so with respect to another pair of phonemes. In Dutch, the Opposition /a/ ~ /a/, which is operative in stressed syllables, is neutralized pretonically in disyllabic words, so the word banaan 'banana' can be pronounced either [banän] or [banän], or something half-way between (Cohen etc. 1961: 49). On the other hand, the Opposition /Λ/ ~ /a/
is restricted to unstressed closed syllables and neutralized under stress and in open unstressed syllables (Ebeling 1968: 141 f.). Another example of an Opposition which is neutralized under stress is found in Tajik (Panov 1967: 195fn.). In Dutch and English the phonemes /h/ and /n/ are in complementary distribution, so there is no
'strong position' in which the Opposition is operative.
Secondly, the choice of the 'basic shape' of a phoneme is rather arbitrary. In Russian, there is [i] instead of [i] after hard consonants and [e] instead of [ε] before soft consonants (cf. Kortlandt forthcoming b, ms. p. 2). There is no objective reason for [i] or [ε] to be more basic than [i] or [e] respectively, however. It could be argued that the basic shape of a vowel is found between pauses, but several languages (e.g., Arabic, German, Kabardian) have been described äs having no word-initial vowels.
Such a criterion does not yield a satisfactory solution for consonants either, since word-initial and word-final neutralizations are especially common. Neither do consonants display their 'basic shape' intervocalically in view of the fricativization of stops that many languages (e.g., Danish, Spanish, Tamil) show in this position. The distinction between 'variations' and 'variants' rests upon the criterion of distinc-tiveness, which is basically alien to a theory that advocates phonemic identification through the comparison of morpheme alternants.
Thirdly, the concept of the hyperphoneme requires some comment. This concept is a hybrid result of two lines of thought. The positionally determined neutralization of an Opposition leads to the impossibility of assigning at least some sounds (like [a] in the example cited above) to a definite phoneme and therefore, if one does not want to make an arbitrary choice, it also leads to the postulation of a new kind of units. This is essentially the justification of Trubetzkoy's 'archiphonemes'. In the theory under discussion, however, phonemic identification should be conformed to mor-phemic alternation. From this point of view, the sound [a] in Ru. [karovs] is assigned to a 'hyperphoneme' <A> because it does not ALTERNATE with either [a] or [o]. This is quite different from what Trubetzkoy did when he assigned it to an 'archi-phoneme' /A/ because it is not DISTINGUISHED from these sounds, that is, it can be replaced by [a] or [o] without impairing the intellegibility of the linguistic sign. Whereas Trubetzkoy's identification is a direct consequence of the view of language äs a code, the Muscovite introduction of 'hyperphonemes' results from a choice concerning the things to be described. Now, there are two possibilities. If one distin-guishes a sound [a] that does not show alternation with [a] or [o] from another [a]
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962 25 that does, one should also distinguish an [o] that alternates with [a] from one that does not. Consequently, the four sets of sound alternants [ο, a, a], [o, a], [a, a], [a], which characterize the first vowel of the words voda 'water', doktor 'doctor', topor 'axe', saraj 'barn', respectively, are four diiferent phonemic entities (cf. Gvozdev 1958: 84f. and Halle 1963: 15). However, if one does not want to make such a distinction and combines [o, s] with [ο, a, 9] into one 'phoneme' <o>, there is no reason not to identify both [a, s] and [a, a, s] with one and the same symbol <a>. This is just a matter of simplicity since "the morphophonemic rules [...] will always select the appropriate phoneme [the author means sound] regardless of what other Symbols are added to those already included in the brackets" (Halle 1963: 15). In that case, the arbitrariness of the choice whether to include [a, s] in <a> or in <o> is wholly irrelevant because either solution yields the same results, and that is the only restraint simplicity-minded authors would impose. So the 'hyperphoneme' does not originate from a single conception: on the one band, it does not fully take into account the automatic alternations that exist in the language and therefore does not give complete Information about them; on the other, the Information which it does convey is redundant within the framework of a System of morphophonemic rules. It is not quite clear what Panov means when he writes (1967: 404): "When speaking about the links between the Moscow phonological school and Jakovlev's group it needs to be emphasized that the 'Muscovites' made a very big step forward: the doctrine of the neutralization of phonemes emerged".7
1.6. THE FIFTIES
The 1950's are marked by two important trends in Russian phonemic theory: the search for a synthesis between the ideas advocated by the Moscow and Leningrad phonological schools, and the penetration of Western structuralism into Soviet linguistics. The controversy about structuralism started in 1952, when an article by S.K. Saumjan appeared under the title 'The problem of the phoneme'. In this article, which was written under the influence of both Trubetzkoy's and Hjelmslev's ideas, Saumjan emphasized the "dual aspect of Speech sounds, their physical and functional aspects" (1952: 334, cf. Milivojevic 1970: 17). His main objection against Trubetzkoy's phonemic theory concerned the absence of a consistent differentiation between the phonemic and the phonetic level of language. This view led Saumjan to a strict distinction between the 'level of observation' and the 'level of constructs' in his later work (1960, 1962, 1965). But at the time that the article appeared, Soviet lin-guistics was not yet ready for a favorable discussion of structuralism and Saumjan's paper met with sharp criticism from all prominent Soviet linguists.8 The discussion 7 This remark is all the more surprising in view of Panov's judgment on Trubetzkoy: "Trubetzkoy's
theory is not free from contradictions; the very core of this theory, the doctrine of the archiphoneme, is vulnerable" (Panov 1967:401).
8 Avanesov 1952, Reformatskij 1952, contributions by Bernätejn, Gvozdev, Panov, Zinder and
26 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
was renewed in 1956, when the Russians suddenly feit the necessity of 'catching up and overtaking the achievements of Western structuralism'.
The synthesis of the view that the phoneme is the smallest phonic component of a morpheme and the view that it is the smallest phonic constituent of a word form could be achieved in three different ways. One could either restate the Moscow defmi-tion of the phoneme in terms of the Leningrad phonological school or vice versa, or devise a new, 'neutral' terminology in which both kinds of phonemes would find their proper place. Avanesov chose the first possibility, Kuznecov the second, Bernstejn the third.9 So the 'Moscow' phoneme, which remained the only true
pho-neme in Kuznecov's opinion, changed into a 'phopho-neme series' (fonemnyj rjad) in Avanesov's new terminology and into a 'phoneme of the second degree' according to Bernstejn's proposal. The 'Leningrad' phoneme became Avanesov's 'phoneme', Bernstejn's 'phoneme of the first degree', and Kuznecov's 'language sound' (zvuk jazyka), which of course is to be carefully distinguished from both the same author's 'speech sound' (zvuk reci) and Bernstejn's 'language sound' (not to mention Bern-stejn's 'speech sound'). Moreover, Kuznecov's 'speech sound' Stands for at least two essentially different things (1959: 30f.): on the one band, "any utterance by any Speaker in any language [...] consists of some sequence of speech sounds" in the sense of tokens of sound types, and on the other "we can recognize and identify [...] one and the same infinitely repeated speech sound" in the sense of a type of 'speech sounds' in the previous sense. The latter entity is commonly called a 'variant', but this term is inappropriate for Kuznecov because it signifies something quite different in Moscow phonological tradition (see above). Bernstejn, however, states that "the positional modifications of one and the same phoneme of the first degree are called the 'variants' of the phoneme" and "a language sound is an articulatory-acoustic-auditory formation used in a given language äs a variant of some phoneme of the first degree", while 'speech sounds' are in his opinion elements from a universal phonetic classification of sounds (1962: 66f.). In addition to phonemes of the first degree and phonemes of the second degree, Bernstejn distinguishes phonemes of the third degree, i.e., series of phonemes that show non-automatic alternation such äs [k] ~ [c] in Ru. [rukä] 'band', [rucnoj] 'band (adj.)'. Thus, a phoneme of the first degree, which is also called a 'variational series', is a set of positionally determined variations in the 'Moscow' sense; a phoneme of the second degree, which is also called a 'substitutional series', is a set of automatically alternating variants in the 'Moscow' sense; and a phoneme of the third degree, which is also called a 'trans-formational series', is a set of grammatically alternating variants (Bernstejn 1962: 73).10 If Bernstejn's exposition of phonemic theory had been published 25 years
earlier, äs it was originally intended to be, it would have saved Soviet linguistics a lot of vain discussion.
9 Avanesov 1955, 1956, Kuznecov 1959, Bernstejn 1962. Cf. also Klimov 1967:90. 10 Cf. Reformatskij 1955b: 99 and Bloomfield 1926:160f.
At the time when the controversy around the nature of the phoneme was dying a natural death, the Isolation of Russian linguistic thought from Western structuralism was finally ended. The Russian translations of Trubetzkoy's Grundzüge der Phänologie and Hjelmslev's Prolegomena to a theory oflanguage were published in 1960 and the translations of Chomsky's Syntactic structures and a number of papers by Jakobson and Halle appeared in 1962. Jakobson's binarism gave rise to discussion on the possibility of identifying distinctive features with their phonetic correlates.11 This
was the background of Saumjan's two-level theory, which we shall examine in Chapter 2.
11 Kuznecov 1958, 1959, Piotrovskij 1960, 1963, Reformatskij 1961, Ivanov 1961, 1962, Nork etc. 1962, Kibrik 1962, Grigor'ev 1962, 1964, 1967.
2
SAUMJAN'S TWO-LEVEL MODEL
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The year 1962 was, in a sense, a milestone in Soviel linguistics. Not only Bernstejn's article, which finally put an end to the discussion between the Moscow and Leningrad schools of phonology, but also the first two books of the new, mathematically oriented trend: I.I. Revzin's Models of language and S.K. Saumjan's Problems of theoretical phonology, were published in 1962. Since both of these important con-tributions to modern linguistics have been translated into English (the former in 1966, the latter in 1968), quotations will be made from the translations. This chapter is devoted to Saumjan's two-level theory. Revzin's ideas, äs far äs they directly concern phonemic theory, will be dealt with in the subsequent chapter, in which other set-theoretical models are also put under examination.
An outline of Saumjan's theory had been published in 1960 in the fifth issue of Voprosy jazykoznanija, so when two years later the füll exposition of the theory appeared it did not entirely come äs a surprise. In fact, its main tenet, the complete Separation of the functional from the physical aspect of Speech sounds, is no more than the ultimate consequence of the view put forward in Saumjan's 1952 paper on the phoneme and goes back directly to Hjelmslev's ideas. The theory is presented äs a critique and, at the same time, äs a further elaboration of Trubetzlcoy's phono-logy, which Saumjan calls the 'relational-physical theory of the phoneme' (relja-cionno-fiziceskaja teorija fonemy). This name is based on Trubetzkoy's definition of phonological oppositions, which is reformulated by Saumjan äs follows: "phono-logical oppositions are these sound oppositions which can differentiate between the signifiants of two words of a given language" (1968:23f.). So phonological oppositions are sound oppositions, i.e., oppositions between physical entities. However, the property that makes sound oppositions phonological is their ability to differentiate between the signifiants of two words, i.e., refers to a relation within the System of the language. A member of a phonological Opposition is a 'phonological unit'. A phonological unit which from the standpoint of a given language cannot be further segmented into smaller consecutive phonological units is a 'phoneme' (1968: 32). This System of definitions "should be regarded äs a System of hypotheses whose function is to explain the principle of the invarjanee of sounds in any
lan-SAUMJAN's TWO-LEVEL MODEL 29
guage" (1968: 33). Such a System of definitions which can be regarded äs a System of hypotheses about observable phenomena is what I will henceforth call a MODEL.12.2. THE ANTINOMY OF TRANSPOSITION
From the model outlined here two Statements evolve (Saumjan 1968: 35): (1) Phonemes are elements whose function is to differentiate between signifiants. (2) Phonemes are acoustic elements.
The first Statement leads Saumjan to the following conclusion:
If it is true that the function of phonemes is to differentiate between signifiants then it follows that there exists an inherent possibility of transposing the acoustic substance into other forms of physical substance — graphic, chromatic, tactile. Any System of distinctive features and phonemes can be presented not only äs acoustic properties but äs graphic, chromatic or tactile Symbols äs well. However, "if it is true that phonemes are acoustic elements it follows that they cannot be transposed into other forms of physical substance since in that case they would cease to be themselves, i.e. acoustic elements" (1968:36). According to Saumjan, the resulting contradiction, which he calls the 'antinomy of transposition', constitutes an inherent theoretical difficulty in Trubetzkoy's model of the phoneme. The reasoning is clearly incorrect. If we substitute 'green table' for 'phonemes', 'thing' for 'elements', and 'colour' for 'function', we obtain something like this: (1) A green table is a thing whose colour is green.
(2) A green table is a table.
If it is true that the colour of a green table is green then it follows that there exists an inherent possibility of transposing its table-ness into other forms of thing-ness. However, if it is true that a green table is a table it follows that it cannot be transposed into other things since in that case it would cease to be a table.
Analogy is a bad argument and I am no supporter of the kind of debating exhib-ited in the preceding paragraph, but it certainly shows that a bit of superficial logic does not make up for the lack of explicitness with regard to the underlying assump-tions. Saumjan's reasoning would hold true if the first Statement were reversible, but that is clearly not the case if the second Statement holds. In principle, there is nothing against defining phonemes äs acoustic elements whose function is to differ-entiate between signifiants. It just does not touch upon the real problem, which is IDENTIFICATIONAL. And it is with respect to the identification of phonemic units that different 'schools' propose different Solutions.
Now, there are several questions to be answered. First of all, one may wonder whether justice is done to Trubetzkoy in the model that Saumjan ascribes to him. In fact, Trubetzkoy defines the phoneme NOT äs an entity possessing both physical
1 Saumjan does not mention the concept of 'model' in this connection but his use of the term elsewhere in his book (1968) does not seem to contradict the paraphrase given here, cf. the discussion on modellin g in Chapter 7 of this book.
30 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
and functional properties but äs "die Gesamtheit der phonologisch relevanten Eigen-schaften eines Lautgebildes" (1939: 35), i.e., a purely functional entity. His identi-fication rules, however, refer to physical rather than functional phenomena, and this is where a confusion of levels arises. So even if Saumjan's argument against an admittedly fundamental inconsistency in a Statement concerning the NATURE of a defined concept — a Statement which is incorrectly attributed to Trubetzkoy — is based on an elementary logical error, it does point to a possible contradiction between the definition of the concept — which is an abstraction in the sense that it requires at least some generalization from directly observed data — and the IDENTIFICATION rules that make entities in reality correspond to the concept in a definite way. Every-thing is mixed up, but the spirit of Saumjan's criticism is basically right with reference to the spirit of Trubetzkoy's theory.
Secondly, Saumjan does not overlook the objection that if phonemes are elements whose function is to differentiate between signifiants and, at the same time, acoustic elements, then
the property of the differentiation between signifiants and the property of being an acoustic element are equally essential for the phoneme and the bond between these two properties must be considered indispensable within the limits of natural languages. Therefore, we are not justified in deducing from Statement l that the phoneme can be transposed from acoustic substance into other forms of physical substance. (1968:36)
Since Saumjan's method of refuting this view is characteristic of the nonchalance that many contetnporary linguists show in referring to logic äs the sole basis of all trustworthy insight, I cannot resist the temptation of quoting his observations in füll. It must be noted beforehand that "a mental experiment is a deductive process which consists of the deduction of specific consequences from Statements acknow-ledged to be true which, although not confirmedly empirical facts, appear to be fundamentally possible" (1968:31). This is Saumjan's comment on the view ex-pounded above.
This objection can be answered äs follows. If we regard definitions äs convenient compressed descrip-tions of directly observed data then, since in natural languages phonemes are always sound elements, we are not justified in separating the functional properties of the phoneme from its acoustic properties. But the subject matter of science comprises not only empirical data, not only what is but also that which in principle can be; hence, if a mental experiment arrives at what can be, we disclose the essence of the studied subject. We regard the definition of the phoneme not äs a convenient compressed description of an empirical fact but äs a hypothesis, i.e. speaking in the words of H. Reichenbach, äs a nomological Statement. "In a general nomological Statement the ränge of the all-operator is given by all possible argument-objects and is not restricted to all real argument-objects." (Reichenbach 1947:401) The antinomy of transposition develops specifically at the level of the Interpretation of the relational-physical definition of the phoneme äs a nomological Statement. At this level there exists the question whether the communicative function of natural language would be violated if its acoustic substance were transposed into other forms of physical substance. Obviously, no such violation would occur. We are, therefore, justified in transposing phonemes, by means of mental experiment, from acoustic substances into other forms of physical substance. The results of the mental experiment contradict, however, the Interpretation of the acoustic properties äs the essential properties of the
SAUMJAN'S TWO-LEVEL MODEL 31
phoneme, since if the acoustic properties are essential properties of the phoneme the phoneme cannot be transposed from an acoustical substance into any other form of physical substance. So if the definition of the phoneme is a description of directly observed data, the phoneme has both functional and acoustic properties. But if we take into account not only empirical facts but everything which is fundamentally possible, äs science should, the definition of the phoneme is a hypothesis or — even better — a nomo-logical Statement. This gives us the chance to drop in at Reichenbach's, quietly aband-oning one of the two essential properties of the phoneme. The only question left after we have passed the heights of logic is "whether the communicative function of natural language would be violated if its acoustic substance [sc., of the phoneme] were transposed into other forms of physical substance". This is exactly what we have seen before, but the tail of the argument is nevertheless formulated with pain-staking care. Such a reasoning unduly discredits logic in the eyes of linguists and linguistics in the eyes of logicians. I should be noticed that all this is not an argument against Saumjan's two-level theory. I merely want to stress that there is no LOGICAL justification for this model of the phoneme.2.3. THE IDENTIFICATION ANTINOMIES
Thirdly, one may wonder if the identification rules should reflect the physical and the functional aspect of speech sounds to the same extent. This is where the real difficulty is encountered. Sameness on the functional level need not coincide with sameness on the physical level. Saumjan Signals the existence of two identification antinomies, of which the first regards the 'paradigmatic' and the second the 'syn-tagmatic' identification of phonemes. These terms are explained äs follows (1968: 37): Every language differentiates two basic types of relations: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Paradigmatic relations are relations of linguistic units which undergo a mutual alternation within the same position. Syntagmatic relations are linear relations between linguistic units within the speech flow.
This is in conformity with general usage in modern linguistics.2 Saumjan points out
correctly that the two kinds of relations do not, however, correspond to disjunction and conjunction in logic, äs Hjelmslev suggested. If two linguistic units can occur in the same position, a choice between them (and, possibly, other admissible units) is to be made in every occurrence of that position, so that the units are necessarily mutually exclusive: "the specific character of the paradigmatic relations precludes the coexistence of the members of the relations [...] Therefore, the paradigmatic relations can be analogous only to the so-called exclusive disjunction" (1968: 39).
The digression on Hjelmslev's views makes it all the more striking that the meaning of the word 'paradigmatic' in Saumjan's 'antinomy of the paradigmatic identification of phonemes' is quite different from the one outlined here: it corresponds instead to
32 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMlCS
the traditional meaning of the word 'paradigm' in the sense of a set of word forms representing the same lexical item in its various syntactic environments, such äs, e.g., Skt. {devas, devam, devena, deväya, devät, devasya, deve, deva}. The 'antinomy' runs äs follows (1968: 40):
If in the speech flow in Position PI we encounter a class of phonemes KI, then in position T?z there exists a class öl phonemes K2, which corresponds to the class of phonemes KI in such a way that the phonemes which differ in respect to their phonation are in identical correspondence while those phonemes which are identical in respect to their phonation are in non-identical correspondence. Thus, if we encounter [q], [k], [k'] before back vowels and [k], [k'], [c] before front vowels, functional identity does not coincide with acoustic identity. There is, how-ever, one possible Identification which Saumjan does not take into consideration, though it violates neither the functional nor the physical properties of the phoneme. He writes:
if, in accordance to Statement l [see above], phonemes possess a function of differentiation between signifiants, then phonemes which occur in different positions can be altered in respect to their phona-tion äs sharply äs desired äs long äs they do not get confused with one another. (1968:41)
According to this view, one could, strictly speaking, regard any pair of sounds äs variants of one and the same phoneme provided only that they are in complementary distribution: thus [q] in position PI can be identified with [c] in position P2, and subsequently [k] and [k'] can be identified in accordance with their acoustic pro-perties. It follows that Saumjan's antinomy cannot be logically derived from his Statements l and 2 alone, but that it rests upon an additional assumption concerning the mutual relations between phonemes äs well. This does not diminish the value of his argument because such an assumption is explicitly present in Trubetzkoy's work.
The identification of phonemic units in different positions äs discussed in the preceding paragraph presupposes their paradigmatic and syntagmatic delimitation in any one environment. Here 'paradigmatic' is again used in the Hjelmslev sense of 'referring to equally admissible but mutually exclusive alternatives'. Within the relational-physical theory of the phoneme, two antinomies concerning the paradigm-atic (in this sense) and syntagmparadigm-atic delimitation of phonemes can be inferred. Saumjan mentions only the latter of these and calls it the 'antinomy of the syntagmatic iden-tification of phonemes'. The former is wholly analogous to Saumjan's 'antinomy of the paradigmatic Identification of phonemes' except for the positional difFerence between the sounds involved: even in one and the same position it holds true that phonetically different sounds may be functionally identical and phonetically identical sounds may not be functionally equivalent. The first possibility is generally called 'free Variation'. Such a relationship holds between, e.g., apical r and uvular r in Dutch. The second possibility is no less common though rarely referred to in publi-cations on THEORETICAL linguistics. This is the relationship between, e.g., e and ζ
SAUMJAN'S TWO-LEVEL MODEL 33
without affecting the meaning of the word, while the same Substitution of the [e] in [xore] 'sick (nom.pl., no male persons)' and many other words yields a non-existing form.3 So these two phonetically and positionally identical sounds are neverthelessfunctionally different.
The 'antinomy of the syntagmatic identification of phonemes' consists in the fact that on the one band phonetic sequences made up of e.g. stop + spirant or vowel + semivowel such äs [ts] or [ej] are in some languages interpreted monophonemically, cf. Ru. /c/ and Du. /e/, while on the other fairly homogeneous sounds may in some languages be identified with sequences of phonemes, like Du. [s] f- /sj/ or Sw. [d] l- /rd/.4 It is not clear whether Saumjan acknowledges the latter possibility because
he discusses only the former. This antinomy again rests upoji an additional assump-tion, namely that there exists a natural segmentation of the speech flow into sounds which does not coincide with the segmentation into phonemes. According to Saumjan, "physical segmentation of the speech flow into separate sounds, i.e., into separate acoustic Segments, is an objectively ascertained phonetic fact" (1968:42).5 In that
case a sequence of acoustic segments can, in principle, constitute a single phoneme.
2.4. SAUMJAN'S DEFINITION OF THE PHONEME
The 'three fundamental theoretical difficulties' which Saumjan signalizes in the relational-physical theory of the phoneme and which he calls the 'antinomy of transposition', the 'antinomy of the paradigmatic identification of phonemes', and the 'antinomy of the syntagmatic identification of phonemes' lead him to a strict distinction between the level of observation and the level of constructs. The relation-ship that holds between 'sounds', which are directly observable entities, and 'pho-nemes', which are constructs, is termed the relation of 'embodiment' (voploscenie), denoted by the symbol /. The fact that the sound segment [ts] embodies the phoneme /c/ in Spanish is denoted äs follows (Saumjan 1968: 50):
I(tS, "c") (2.1)
In German, however, the sound segment [ts] embodies the phonemic sequence /ts/:
/ (i, "t"} (2.2)
Ι(!,αη (2.3)
This notation is equivalent to the one defined in footnote 4 of this chapter, and will be used throughout the present book:
Sp. [ts] H /c/ (2.4) Ge. [ts] μ /ts/ (2.5)
3 Ebeling 1967:134f., cf. Chapter 9 of this book.
4 Cf. also Trubetzkoy's discussion of tense o in Ru. solnce, section 1.4. The symbol 'l-' Stands for
'is identified äs' or 'is the realization of, cf. Kortlandt, forthcoming d, and Stokhof 1972.
34 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
Then follows a discussion of Saumjan's own views on defining the phoneme (1968:51). Since this passage raises a number of questions I shall quote it in füll.
In our theory phoneme is regarded äs a primary, undefinable concept. By the same token we also introduce the concepts of paradigmatic oppositions and syntagmatic oppositions äs primary, un-definable concepts. Both these oppositions we also rank among constructs.
Phonemes are subject to the following rule: every phoneme must be in Opposition to at least one phoneme on the paradigmatic axis and to at least one phoneme on the syntagmatic axis.
At the level of observation phonemes are embodied in sounds, and oppositions are embodied in contrasts which are established through an analysis of the informant's deposition.
A definition of the phoneme äs a construct can be expressed in the language of symbolic logic thus:
P =fl/ (x)(ly)[S(x).S(y-).C(x,y) => I(x,P)}, (2.6)
where P denotes the phoneme, S the sound segment, C relationship of contrast established on the basis of the informant's deposition, and / relationship of embodiment. Before the square brackets there occur the Symbols of quantifiers which are generally accepted in modern symbolic logic: the symbol (x) which Stands for "given any x" is a universal quantifier; the symbol (3χ) which Stands for
"there exists at least one y such that" is an existential quantifier.
This formula which is the correspondence rule between the construct 'phoneme' and the level of observation should be read äs follows: if x is a sound segment and is in relation of contrast to at
least one sound segment y, then x is in relation of embodiment to the phoneme P.
Though the phoneme "is regarded äs a primary, undefinable concept" its definition "can be expressed in the language of symbolic logic". On the other hand, the defi-nition of the phoneme "is the correspondence rule between the construct 'phoneme' and the level of observation". Actually, it is not quite clear what the formula really Stands for. Since the symbol P occurs in both the definiendum and the definiens it cannot be the defined concept itself. The symbol P on the left side of the equality sign may stand for "P is a phoneme", but in that case it is not clear in what respect the phoneme P differs from any other phoneme because the variable x is bound by the universal quantifier.6 However, the main objection that can be made against
the formula consists in the fact that it does not reflect Saumjan's own 'rules of cor-respondence for the paradigmatic and syntagmatic identification of phonemes' which will be discussed below. In fact, the expression on the right side of the equality sign can be viewed äs an unduly simplified minimal-pair identification rule: any sound segment x which can be contrasted with at least one sound segment y has some phonemic identity. Neither the paradigmatic and syntagmatic delimitation of pho-nemic units, nor the identification of units in different positions, are touched upon.7
The former component of Saumjan's assertion that "every phoneme must be in Opposition to at least one phoneme on the paradigmatic axis and to at least one phoneme on the syntagmatic axis" is a more precise formulation of the Statement contained in his formula, while the latter component is an unwarranted assumption about phonemic distribution because there exist in many languages words consisting
6 Cf. Reichenbach 1947:88, Tarski 1965:12.
SAUMJAN'S TWOLEVEL MODEL 35 of a single phoneme, such äs Fr. eau /o/ 'water', Sw. a 'river', Dan. 0 'island', Tu. o 'he, she, that'. Thus, the main probleras remain open: the paradigmatic and syntagmatic delimitation of phonemes depends on the effective Interpretation of the Symbols C and S, and the identity of phonemes in different positions depends on the nature of the phoneme, which so far remains unclear except for the fact that it is not a directly observable entity.
2.5. THE OPERATOR METHOD OF THE PARADIGMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF PHONEMES
The principle of identification put forward by Saumjan is what he calls the Operator method'. This method should be used in both the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic identification of phonemes. The identification procedures, which are fully described in the second chapter of Saumjan 1968, are regarded äs 'rules of correspondence' between the level of constructs and the level of observation (1968: 113):8
Operations which enable us to determine the substrata of identical or different phonsmes on the paradigmatic axes, and the substrata of one or two phonemes on the syntagmatic axis, are, in principle, nothing eise but correspondence rules which facilitate identification of phonemes in sounds which embody them.
Saumjan's 'paradigmatic identification of phonemes' involves the following opera-tions(1968: 114):
(1) selection of a Standard,
(2) establishment of homogeneous sets of sounds, (3) measurernent of the action of positional operators, (4) establishment of paired sounds.
The application of these operations is clarified with the help of an example, the Russian vowel System under stress. There are five vowels in this position: [a], [ε]
(which is closed [e] before soft consonants), [i] (which is back unrounded [i] after hard consonants), [o], and [u]. All vowels undergo an articulatory shift forward and upward in the final phase of their articulation before soft consonants, idem in the initial phase of their articulation after soft consonants, and during the entire duration of their articulation if they stand between soft consonants.9 As a Standard Saumjan
selects the set of sounds with a minimal palatal shading: Mi = {[a], [t·], [i], [o], [u]}. The position in which these sounds are found in Opposition to each other is designated by the symbol Pi. Other 'homogeneous' sets of sounds are labeled M%, which com-prises the sounds with a palatal shading in the terminal phase of their duration, occurring in position P% (— before soft consonants), Ms, which comprises the sounds with a palatal shading in the initial phase of their duration, occurring in position PS
8 The translation is incorrect: the Russian text speaks of correspondence rules by means of which (blagodarja kotorym) phonemes are identified (Saumjan 1962:91).
36 THE DEVELOPMENT OP MODELS IN PHONEMICS
(= after soft consonants), and M i, which comprises the sounds with a palatal shading over the entire Segment of their duration, occurring in position P i (= between soft consonants). These sets of sounds are called 'homogeneous' because the difference between them and the Standard is attributed to the influence of the same positional conditions. According to Saumjan,
comparing various sets of vowels and consonants in various positions, we can always reduce the sets of vowels to a single set of vowels (Standard set of vowels), and the sets of consonants to a single set of consonants (Standard set of consonants). Sets of vowels and sets of consonants cannot be mutually reduced since the differences between vowels and consonants are not dependent on positional conditions. (1968:115)
Thus, Saumjan explicitly denies the possibility that, e.g., [i] and [j] belong to the same phoneme even if the choice between these two sounds is positionally determined. On the other hand, Saumjan admits that within the System of vowels or the system of consonants the difference between sounds in complementary distribution cannot always be attributed to the positions in which they occur, e.g., the difference between Ge. Du. Eng. [h] and [rj], so the Standard set does not necessarily coincide with the set of sounds actually occurring in some well-defined position. This makes the rules for the selection of a Standard all the more arbitrary.
The effect of the operators in the above example is the degree of palatali/ation exhibited by vowels in different positions. Operator PI induces minimal palatalization and operator P$ induces maximal palatalization. However, the operators P% and Pz differ not äs to the degree, but äs to the placement of their palatalization:
the set of vowels Mz in position Pz and the set of vowels M3 in position PS differ not in respect to the
degree of palatalization but in respect to the fact that the set of vowels MZ has a palatal shading in the terminal phase of its duration while the set of vowels Ma has a palatal shading in the initial phase of its duration. (1968:117)
So the relation of the degree of palatalization represents a partial order.
The establishment of paired sounds is based on Saumjan's 'law of reduction', which is formulated äs follows: "if a given set of sounds Mi is taken äs a Standard, then for every sound ai of this set one can find a corresponding sound O) of the set Mj, whose difference from the sound <n can be attributed solely to the action of the positional operator P" (1968: 118). In the above example one can find for every minimally palatalized sound frorn the Standard set a corresponding sound in the other sets such that the difference between the corresponding vowels can be reduced to the action of the positional operator. It is on the basis of tbis correspondence that the identity of phonemes in different positions is finally established. In this connection Saumjan introduces the concepts of 'concrete' and 'abstract' referring to entities before and after the identification described in the present section: a 'concrete phoneme' is a sound construct in a given position, an 'abstract phoneme' is a sound construct without reference to its position (or a class of paradigmatically identified 'concrete phonemes'), a 'concrete phonemoid' is an observable sound occurring in
SAUMJAN'S TWO-LEVEL MODEL 37 the speech flow, and an 'abstract phonemoid' is the realization of an 'abstract phoneme' without reference to its position (or a class of 'concrete phonemoids' embodying the same 'abstract phoneme').
2.6. CRITICISM
The Identification procedure outlined here contains several weak points which may call forth various kinds of criticism. First of all, the selection of a Standard is arbi-trary. The idea of having a Standard goes back to the Moscow school of phonology, which made a distinction between the 'basic shape of a phoneme' and its 'variations' and 'variants' (cf. Chapter 1). The same objections that have been put forward against this distinction can be raised against Saumjan's 'Standard'. There is, e.g., the possibility that an Opposition which is operative in one position is neutralized in another while the distinctiveness of another Opposition may be restricted to the latter position (cf. Dutch /a/ ~ /«/ which is neutralized pretonically in disyllabic words and /Λ/ ~ /9/ which is neutralized under stress and in open unstressed syl-lables); or phonemes may happen to be in complementary distribution so that they are never encountered in Opposition to each other, like Ge. Du. Eng. /h/ and /n/. In Saumjan's example the sound [i] is chosen äs the Standard unrounded closed
vowel because it occurs between hard consonants. Intuitively, however, it would be more natural to select the sound [i], which occurs word-initially and after soft con-sonants, äs the Standard and to regard the variant [i] äs resulting from the influence of a positional operator, which is the preceding hard consonant. This is, essentially, the treatment proposed in Lomtev 1962. According to Lomtev, the Standard variant of a vowel is the one used in Isolation. Back vowels (a, o, u) undergo a shift forward and upward in juxtaposition with soft consonants, while front vowels (i, e) undergo a shift backward under the influence of juxtaposed hard consonants. In fact, I see no reason why one could not take one more step and regard ANY actually occurring sound äs the realization of a phoneme acted upon by a positional operator: in that case, there is no need for a basic variant. The Standard can be postulated on the level of constructs without specifying the articulatory or acoustic characteristics of its physical correlates.
Homogeneous sets of sounds arc established. According to Saumjan, "the criterion of homogeneity should be the dependence of sound changes on the influence of positional conditions" (1968: 114). But the 'measurement of the action of positional operators', which models the influence of positional conditions, is based on the comparison of homogeneous sets of sounds. This clearly is a vicious circle. It would be correct to call 'homogeneous' a set containing the sounds which occur in a fixed Position. Then one can advance the hypothesis that the differences between homo-geneous sound sets can be described in terms of positional operators. It is not clear to me why vowels and consonants cannot, in Saumjan's opinion, belong to one
38 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
homogeneous set of sounds though the existence of such minimal pairs äs e.g. Ru. [vasknsenjs] 'Sunday', [vaskfisentia] 'resurrection', where [i] is automatic, points to the presence of an ordinary Opposition /i/ ~ /j/. Elsewhere I have argued that Sp. [i] and [j] are realizations of the same phoneme because the choice between them can be described in terms of surrounding phonemes, morpheme junctures and place of stress (Kortlandt, forthcoming a, ms. p. 6). Such a description is unacceptable in Saumjan's two-level theory because vowels and consonants "cannot be mutually reduced".
The concept of 'positional operator' reflects a principle which is not at all new in linguistics. As a matter of fact, it has been one of the most populär descriptive devices ever since the Junggrammatiker, especially in historical linguistics. In con-temporary synchronic studies it is, though hardly ever absent, not always referred to explicitly. An explicit Statement is found, e.g., in Martinet's discussion of Span-ish /c/:
On pourrait etre tente de considerer le [s] du groupe [ts] comme une Variante combinatoire de i dont l'articulation castillane est assez voisine. Mais il faudrait pour cela que le voisinage de [t] justifle le caractere proprement chuintant de [s], caractere qui le distingue de [s], ce qui n'est pas le cas. (1939:97)
I believe that one of the important merits of Saumjan's theory is that this principle, according to which the positional variants of a phoneme should be justified by the phonetic characteristics of their environment in the speech flow, has finally been put forward with such consistency. The requirement in bis theory that a set of phonemes in Opposition to each other should display a similar shift between different positions replaces Trubetzkoy's requirement that the variants of one phoneme in different positions should be characterized by identical oppositions to other phonemes. However, I do not think that Saumjan's Operator method' can be applied more successfully than the identification principle based on the analysis of distinctive features. There are two kinds of argument in favour of this view (cf. Kortlandt, forthcoming a). Firstly, the reference to directly observable phonetic characteristics in order to establish the relation of identity between constructs is, in my opinion at least, strikingly contrary to the whole spirit of the two-level theory. It simply does not make sense to first plead for a sharp distinction between the physical and the functional characteristics of speech sounds and then to identify the functional units on the basis of the physical characteristics of their phonetic substrata without any regard to their function within the System of the language. Secondly, it is not always easy to determine to what extent the position of a phoneme should justify its phonetic realization.10 The following rules can be stated for the Standard
pro-nunciation of modern Russian :u
(1) Dental consonants are palatalized by a following soft labial consonant, e.g., zmeja [zmiiä] 'snake'.
10 Cf. Reformatsldj 1957, Gvozdev 1957.
