F I L ECOPY . Nottobetakenaway .

. 4 -

i p o r
0 . #0 5 i . 1 .1 , (./ 4 \ e m
. 1 1 1 1 ' a i o

% l e 1

E l e m e n t ss o u sd ro i t sd ' a u t e u r

C O N T E N T S
CRAP .

F o r e w o r dbyHenriBerr P r e f a c e 1

F AGS

INTRODUCTION T H EORIGINO F L A N G U A G E 5 - 1 6 T h eproblemof theorigin oflanguageoutside t h es c o p eofphilologybelongsproperlytoman's primitivehistory .Languageasas y s t e mofs i g n a l s b e t w e e nhumanbeingsp r e s u p p o s e s a certain s t a g e of psychological and social evolution a c c o m p l i s h e d . P ART I SOUNDS I. THES O U N D M E C H A N S I M S 1 A physiologicalclassicationofthe7 s o u n d sthe h u m a nvocalapparatuscanproduce, and an indicationof theirnature. 3 3 II. THEP H O N E T I C S Y S T E M A N DITSM U T A T I O N S 34-51 T h esoundseachspeakermakesconstitute a s y s t e mw h o seelementsareu n c o n s c i o u s l ytransf o r m e din a regularandabsoluteway .Phonetic l a w sa n dt e n d e n c i e s .Modicationsd u etoevolution a n dt h o s eduetosubstitution. IlL THEP H O N E T I C W O R D A N D V E R B A L I M A G E S 52-10 T h edifferentelementsthat go to makeup the'phoneticword; their ilutualreactions.The verbalimageand thesentence.Casualtiesand irregularitiestowhichtherealizationoftheverbal i m a g eissubject.

E l e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

xxvi C O N T E N T S
P A R T I I :GRAMMAR
CHAP . P A G Z

I.W O R D S A N D M O R P H E M E S . . . 73-89 T h edistinctionbetweenmorphemes and s e m a n t e m e s .Differentkinds ofm o r p h e m e sas n e c t i n g link with s e m a t h e m e s . " W o r d " i m p o s s i b l e d todenewithoutregardtom o r p h o l o g i c a lvariety . e ILG R A M M A T I C A L C A T E G O R E I S 9 0 - 1 1 4 tG e n d e r ,Number ,T ense,V oice. Relativity of g r a m m a t i c a lcategoriesanddifcultiesinrecone cilingg r a m m a ran dlogic. r IlLD I F F E R E N T K I N D S O F W O R D S 1 1 5 1 3 6 m A criticismofthea c c e p t e dclassicationofthq i p a r t sofs p e e c h .Then o u naso p p o s e dtotheverb, a n dviceversa.Attemptedlogicalclassication n b a s e dontherespectiveanalysesofsubstantive e a n dverbalsentences.Suggestedpsychological cl dassication. Iv.A F F E C T I V E L A N G U A G E b 1 m p o r t a n c eof affectivity in language.3 Its yI l i n gui s ti c means of expressi o n. Word-order. t 7 Relationofaffectivetogrammaticall a n g u a g e . h 1 V .M O R P H O L O G C I A L M U T A T I O N S 1 eG 5 e n e r a lnature of morphologicalevolution. 5 T n d e n c ytowarduniformityandworkings of ie 4 5and a n a l o g y .T endencytowarde x p r e s s i v e n e s s r t h etransformation of independentwords -into 1 g r a m m a t i c a linstruments. n 7 a P A R T III :VOCABULAR Y 1 t I. THEN A T U R E A N D E X T E N T O F V O C A B U L A R E I S175-191 u r e , E l e m e n t ssousdroitsd'auteur p
a

C O N T E N T S x x v i l E t y m o l o g y .Particular andimmediatevalue ofw o r d sass p o k e n .Howw o r d sareg r o u p e din t h emind. Wordsymbolism.Impossibility of d e t e r m i n i n gthen u m b e rofw o r d sinanyvocabulary . H o w T H E M E A N I N G O F W O R D S ISM O D I F I E D192-211 T h elife ofwords,andpolysemia.Meanings m o d i e dbyspecializationandgeneralization. A semantics c i e n c e? ilL HowTHET E R M STHA TE X P R E S SIDEASARE C H A N G E D 212-230 P h o n e t i cwear-and-tear ,ande x h a u s t i o nofw o r d m e a n i n g s .T aboosa n de u p h e m i s m s .Socialc a u s e s ofvocabularymodications.Hown e ww o r d sare c o i n e d .

CRAP .

P A R T IV : THESTRUCTUREOFL A N G U A G E S L A N G U A G E A N D L A N G U A G E S 233-244 A languagemustbedenedindependentlyof r a c eandindividualmentality ,astheidealform o fl a n g u a g ei m p o s e donalltheindividualsofone g r o u p .The variety ofl a n g u a g e s; a reexionof c o m p l e xsocialinter-relations. ILD I A L E C T S A N D S P E C I A L I Z E D L A N G U A G E S 245-259 Denitionof a dialect;isoglossallinesand dialectalboundaries.Denition of a special lannage;slangandreligiousphraseology . S T A N D A R D O R C O M M O N L A N G U A G E S260-279 S t a n d a r dl a n g u a g e sborn of thetendencyto uniformity .Differentwaysin,w h i c hac o m m o n l a n g u a g eisarrivedat.Inter-relationsofc o m m o n l a n g u a g e sand ofstandardl a n g u a g e sand their dialects.

dementssousdroitsd'auteur

xxviii C O N T E N T S
CHAP .

Iv. THEM U T U A L I N F L U E N C EO F L A N G U A G E S280-296 V aryingc o n s e q u e n c e sofl a n g u a g econtactsand theirrespectiveimportance. Howl a n g u a g e sdie out.Mixedl a n g u a g e sandtheconditionsinwhich theyarebuiltup. V . THER E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N L A N G U A G E SAND T H E C O M P A R A T I V E M E T H O D 2 9 7 - 3 11 W h a twearetounderstandbyterm " relations h i p" philologicaldescent,andco-existenceof l a n g u a g e s .Thecomparativemethodanditsu s e s intheestablishmentof linguistic " families"i P ART V : WRITING I. ORIGINA N D D E V E L O P M E N T O FW R I T I N G 315-330 Writingp r e s u p p o s e sa rationalconceptof the g r a p h i csign.Picture,ideographic,andphonetic writing.Syllabismandalphabets. T H E W R I T T E N L A N G U A G E A N DITSS P E L L I N G331-343 G e n e r a lcharacterof a writtenlanguage; its relationswiththes p o k e ntongue.Anomaliesof s p e li n g;howfar ar e m e d yisfeasible. C O N C L U S I O N T H E P R O G R E S S O F L A N G U A G E 344 T h eincompatibilityoftheterm "p r o g r e s s",as a p p l i e d to language, with its usual literary 359 acceptation.Mutationa n dmodicationo fl a n g u a g e e l e m e n t sdonotresultinstabilizationofimprovem e n t s .Linguisticevolutionb e i n gbutareectiono f s o c i a levolution,hypothesis of progress to be a c c e p t e dwithreservations. B I B L I O G R A P H Y 3 6 1 A P P E N D I X 3 6 9 INDEX 375

d e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

L A N G U A G E
ALINGUISTICINTRODUCTION TO HIS

Erpeirria a 1,46 ravraor ;T ri c ov o W r o A O s b v o p , 8 5 1 v 0 a Kat Ivea. 11 Iiad )ua' A r r i , par X X c , lhe 2 T r o A 4 8 i e s 8 2 1 4 1 1 4 9 . p r ) 0 o 4

d e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

dementssousdroitsd'auteur

P R E F A C E
T r e s e r v e dforL a n g u a g einaseriesdedicatedtothehistory o fhumanity . The precedingvo l u meshaveacquaintedthe H r e a d e rwiththes t a g eu p o nwhichthisgreathistoricald r a m ais E t obeplayed.Man,theprincipalactor ,therem a k e shisappeara n c ee q u i p p e dwithallthematerialr e s o u r c e sn e c e s s a r y . Yet R e v e nthusp r e p a r e dh ew o u l da s s u r e d l yh a v er e m a i n e di n c a p a b l e E o fplayinghisdestinedrolehadhenotbeeninp o s s e s s i o nof l a n g u a g e .An instrumentand,atthes a m etime,anauxiliary i o fthought, it islanguagewhichhasenabledmanboth to u n d e r s t a n dhimselfandtoc o m m u n i c a t ewithhisfellows,and s thisfacth a sm a d etheestablishmentofsocietypossible. It is n difcult foruseventoimagineaprimitivestateofaffairsin w h i c hm a nw a swithoutthisefcaciousm e a n sofaction.The o historyofhumanityp r e s u p p o s e sattheverystartthee x i s t e n c e of anorganizedl a n g u a g e; therecouldhavebeennoh u m a n n evolutionwithout it. e Buteven if thestudyofl a n g u a g eindisputablyo c c u p i e sa p l a c e at the h ead of any general historical survey , there may e b eadivergenceofopinionuponthemannerinwhichthis s t u d yistobec o n c e i v e d .Languageisc o m p l e x; it isaffected d b ydifferents e t soflaws,a n dinterestsdiverseg r o u p sofs c h o l a r s . o is aphysiologicalact insofaras itm It a k e suseofseveral o r g a n softheh u m a nbody; a p s y c h o l o g i c a lactinthat it pref s u p p o s e svoluntarymentalactivity; a socialact in that it r e s p o n d stotheneedofc o m m u n i c a t i o nbetweenm e n; and, a nally , it is anhistoricalfact,foundunderverydifferent l f o r m sandatverydifferenttimes,throughouttheworld. We m ythereforethink ofl an g u ag eeitherasthestudyof the oa p h y s i o l o g i s twhoclassiestheways in which the speechn o r g a n sfunction; or of thepsychologistwhoanalysesthe m e c h a n i s m of thought while taking into account the ndi n gs gmentalpathology; of thesociologistw of h od e m o n s t r a t e sthe i n u e n c eofsocialorganizationuponitsdevelopment; or p nally ,ofthehistorianw h oarrangesl a n g u a g e saccordingto r liesanddeterminestheirg fami e o g r a p h i c a ldistribution.Any e a m b i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

2 L A N G U A G E o n eofs u c hs c h o l a r scouldwrite abookwhichmightp e r h a p s penetrateinto thelinguisticeld, butwouldstartfrom a pointoutsidethescienceandwouldarrive atc o n c l u s i o n s e x t e n d i n gb e y o n dit. T h ewriter of thepresentwork, a linguistbyprofession, p r e f e r s to connehimselfexclusively to the linguistic eld. He startsfromlinguisticfacts asfurnishedby exp e r i e n c e .Thea r r a n g e m e n toftheb o o kfollowstheanalysisof thelinguisticp h e n o m e n a .Philologistsdistinguishthreedifferent e l e m e n t sinl a n g u a g e s o u n d s ,g r a m m a r ,a n dvocabulary .The rstth rees e c t i o n softheb o o kareaccordinglyd e v o t e dto the s t u d yoft h e s ethreee l e m e n t s .They arethusastudy ,ato n c e staticanddynamic,w h o s eobject it is todiscoverfromthe f a c t sthec a u s e sof thec h a n g e swhichtheyconcealand to s e r v easapreparationforthefourthpart. This fourthpart i sc o n c e r n e dwiththestudyoflanguageassuch. I t deals s u c c e s s i v e l ywith the denition oflanguage, its different existingtypes, themethodsof formation,evolution,and divisionofl a n g u a g e s ,thecontactandinteractionofonelang u a g eo nanother ,and,nally ,theq u e s t i o nofgeneticrelations h i p s .Ourm e t h o dwillbetop r o c e e dfromthesimpletothe. c o m p l e x;sounds,forinstance,aresimplerthanthewords a n dthes e n t e n c e sofwhichanyl a n g u a g eisc o m p o s e d .As a resultofthisa r r a n g e m e n t ,therstthreech ap t ersarethem o s t tech n i calandwillalsoappearthedriest. To atoneforthis, h o w e v e r ,thelastchapterswillo p e nupwiderandm o r evaried vistasto thereaderwhohasnotbeendisheartenedby the earliersections. A fthpart,inthenatureofanappendix,is d e v o t e dtowrittenl a n g u a g e .Thebook,asawhole,ise n c l o s e d withintwogeneralchapters,oneintroductory ,presentingthe p r o b l e moftheoriginofl a n g u a g e ,andtheotheraconclusion, d i s c u s s i n gitsgrowth. A r o u n dthecentrallinguisticfactsarethusg r o u p e dallt h o s e d e v e l o p m e n t sthatformthespecics u b j e c tmatteroftheb o o k . A l t h o u g hthematerialisofavariednatureandoftene m b r a c e s relatedb r a n c h e sofk n o w l e d g e ,thebook, I think,p o s s e s s e s adeniteunityarisingfrom the viewpointconsistently a d h e r e dto bytheauthor . On rareo c c a s i o n s ,it hass e e m e d u s e f u ltos u p p l e m e n ttheinformationgainedfromlinguistics b yane x c u r s i o nintos o m en e i g h b o u r i n gs c i e n c e .Theauthor h o p e sthatthesedeviationsfromhisprinciplewillnotappear

,_ierlientssousdroitsd'auteur

P R E F A C E

unjustied. In generalhehaslimitedhimselftopresenting thefactsa salinguist,judgingthistob ethebestw a yofinterestingworkersinothers c i e n c e sw h o mhecouldhaveassuredly taughtnothingn e whadhee n c r o a c h e du p o ntheirelds. T h eadoptionofthisprinciple,however ,i m p o s e sadifcult task. To studyl a n g u a g easalinguistquitenaturallywould l e a dto aspecictreatiseongenerallinguistics. Yet a n y o n e w h ois at allversedinphilologyk n o w sverywellthatthere a r efewm o r ed a n g e r o u sundertakings.For as u c c e s s f u lstudy ofthiskind,am a nwouldhavetobeacquaintedwithallthe existingformsoflanguage,andtrainedin all thel a n g u a g e s s p o k e nontheglobe.Doess u c ham a nexist? It isdoubtful. If itw e r eaq u esti o nsimplyofselectingfroma m o n gtheliving t h eparticulaiindividualwhoapproximatedmostcloselyto s u c h a nideal,scholarsmightp e r h a p shavelittle difcultyin m a k i n gachoice. Yet thefactr e m a i n sthatuptothepresent m o m e n t ,n ob o o kh a sa p p e a r e dinw h i c hap r o g r a m m ec o v e r i n g t h ew h o l eeldoflinguisticsh a sb e e nentirelyrealized. In e e dhardlysaythatthiswillnotberealizedinthepresent b o o keither .Irrespectiveofotherr e a s o n s ,therestricteds p a c e attheauthor'sdisposalwouldsufcientlyexplainwhyhehas n o tm a d etheattempt.Each ofthefactsstudiedhadtobe c o n s i d e r e dasad e t a c h e dfragmentb e l o n g i n gtoavasthistory stilltob ewiitten. In reviewingthem a i nlinguisticq u e s t i o n s a n dnonehasbeenneglectedexceptthrougherrororforgetf u l n e s s h ehasb e e nforcedtorestricthimselftothedevelopm e n tofcharacteristictypesonly . Soepisodalam e t h o dmay p e r h a p ssufferfromthedisadvantagethat it dividesupthe materialandthusbreaksthec o n n e c t i n glinkrunningthrough all itsdevelopments,and toremedythis the authorhas r e s o r t e dtos o m e t h i n gin thenatureof asubterfuge. Like everythingwith ad e v e l o p m e n tand a lifehistory ,language f o r m sa continuum,in thes e n s ethatp h e n o m e n ahaveno denitelylimiteddemarcations,andthatwep a s sbyaseries ofinsensible*gradationsfromoneto-theotherof thehigh p e a k sw h e r ee a c hfactm a n i f e s t sitselfin all itsfullness. It is sufcient,therefore,ifwearrangethed e v e l o p m e n t sins u c ha w a ythattheirnaturaltransitionsb e c o m eapparent,transitions, thatis to say ,arisingfromthenatureof thefactsstudied. H a dtheauthorp r e s u m e dtoforcethewholematerialinto abstractformula,rigidly linkedtogether ,seriousgaps in

,iernentssousdroitsd'auteur

6 L A N G U A G E N o rcanweadvancemuchfurther by thestudyof the l a n g u a g eofuncivilizedpeoples.Savagesarenotprimitive p e o p l e s ,althoughthey have oftenwronglybeencalled ofourown,whileothersp o s s e s sa simplicitythatourmost s s i m p l el a n g u a g e smightwellenvy .Bothtypesaretheresult of h a n g e sofw h o s epointofdepartureweareignorant. I f oc thereisadifferenceb e t w e e nthel a n g u a g e sofso-calledcivilized .e p o p l e s ,a n dt h o s eofs a v a g e s ,itliesratherinthei d e a se x p r e s s e d t h a n in the e x p r e s s i o n itself. The l a n g u a g e s of uncivilized S p e o p l e smaysupplyuswithusefulinformationaboutthe rel oationsbetweenlanguageandthought,'but notonwhat w a stheoriginalformofl a n g u a g e . m W emight,indeed,betemptedtos e e kit inthel a n g u a g eof chi l d ren, * an equally futile attempt. Children can only teach e u sh o wanorganizedl a n g u a g eisacquired; theycangiveus n oideawhatl a n g u a g ewaslike initially. By observingthe o effortsm a d ebychildrentorepeatwhattheyh a v eh e a r dadults f ,wegetmorethanoneindicationof thec say a u s e sof the c h a n g e sfow h i c hl a n g u a g eissubjected.But thechildreturns t tousonlywhathehasreceived; heworksonlyuponthe e l e m e n t sfurnishedby hissurroundingsandconstructshis h w o r d sands e n t e n c e soutofthem. His isaworkofimitation, e ofcreation; it lacksallspontaneity not .Whateverinnovati onshemayintroduceareu n c o n s c i o u s .Theyaretheresult i ofanaturallazinessthatiscontentwithu s i n gwhatisnearat r h a n d ,andisnotd u etoanydeliberatecreativeactivity . Whether , then, he is deal i n g with the ol d est k n o w n l a n g u a g e s , l ththel wi a n g u a g e sofs a v a g e s ,orwiththosewhichchildren le arntosp eak,thelinguisth a sbeforeh i mano r g a n i s malready a f o r m e dandpreparedbytheworkofc o u n t l e s sgenerationsin nc the o u r s eofmanycenturies.Theproblemoftheoriginof l a n g u a g e is o u t s i d e his jurisdiction. The p r o b l e m is, in reality , g b o u n dupwiththatoftheoriginofm a nandofsociety ,andit u Levy-Bruhl, )(Orin, p.78ff. For the l a nguage of children. cf. Icularly Clara and William Sterns aKindersprache,Leipzig(1907). e e also:Meumann,DieSprachedes Die Kindes,Zurich (1903).(Abhandlungenh e r a u s g e g e b r nvon derGesellschaft fur d e u t s c h eSprachein Zurich); Ch.Roussey , " Notessurl'apprentissagede g laparolec h e zunenfant." VII (1899a n d1900); M.Grammont,"Observations sur lelangagedesenfants,"X CIX,pp.,61-82;O.Bloch,"Notessurlelangage e d'unenfant," VI chitunenfantbilingue,Paris(1913). * sX V I I I , a p . 3r 7 ;e i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur
J .

INTRODUCTION b e l o n g s to primitive humanhistory. Language has e v o l v e djust in so far asthehumanbrainhasdeveloped a n dsocietyhasb eenorganized. I t isi m p o s s i b l etosayin w h a tformh u m a ns p e e c hrstt o o ks h a p e ,butw ec a ne n d e a v o u r todeterminetheconditionswhichmades p e e c hpossible. T h e yareato n c ep s y c h o l o g i c a landsocial. T h emostgeneraldenitionofl a n g u a g ethatcanbegiven isthat it isas y s t e mofsigns.' To studytheoriginofl a n g u a g e m e a n s ,therefore,tolookfortheparticulars i g n snaturallyat m a n ' sdi sp o salandthem a n n e rinwhichhew a sledtoe m p l o y t h e m . B ysigns,w eu n d e r s t a n dallt h o s es y m b o l sc a p a b l eofserving a sam e a n sofc o m m u n i c a t i o nb e t w e e nmen.Ass i g n scanbe ofvariouskindstherearen e c e s s a r i l ym a n ykindsofl a n g u a g e s . A n ys e n s e o r g a nmayservetocreate alanguage.There is olfactory ,tactile,visual,andauditorylanguage.There is l a n g u a g ew h e n e v e rtwoindividualsc o m etoattributeacertain s e n s etoagivenactandperformthisactwithaviewtoc o m m u n i c a t i n gwitheachother. Theuseof agivenscentona d r e s s ,aredoryellowhandkerchiefprotrudingfromapocket, am o r eorlessp r o l o n g e dh a n d s h a k e a ltheseconstitutethe e l e m e n t sof al a n g u a g edirectlyanytwop e r s o n sagreetou s e t h e mtotransmitanorderoram e s s a g e . B u ta m o n gthedifferentl a n g u a g e sp o s s i b l ethereiso n em o r e importantthanalltheothers,o w i n gtothevarietyofthem e a n s ofe x p r e s s i o nwhich it provides.This isauditorylanguage, calledalsos p o k e norarticulatel a n g u a g e ,andit istheonlyo n e withwhichw eshalldealinthisbook. It iss o m e t i m e sa c c o m p a n i e d ,andmorefrequently stillsu p p l emen t ed ,by visual l a n g u a g e .Amonganpeoples,gesture,to a certainextent, e m p h a s i z e stheword,andfaciale x p r e s s i o n ,nolessthanthe v o i c e ,translatesthee m o t i o n sandthoughts.Mimicry,too, isavisuall a n g u a g e ,andwritingm u s tber e g a r d e da sb e l o n g i n g tothiscategory ,and,ingeneral,everys y s t e mb a s e donsignals. V isuall a n g u a g eisprobablyquitea solda sauditoryl a n g u a g e . W ehavenoreasonto believe,andcertainlynom e a n sof p r o v i n g ,thatoneante-datedtheother . T h emajorityofvisuall a n g u a g e sinu s eto-dayaredirectly d e r i v e dfromtheauditoryone.This istrueofwriting,asw e
1B.Leroy ,LXXXVIL

i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

8 L A N G U A G E shalls e einPart V,andit istrueofsignalc o d e slikewise.The m a r i n esignalcode,forexample,isintendedtofurnishvisual e q u i v a l e n t sforthew o r d sands e n t e n c e sofexistingl a n g u a g e s . It givesusnoinformationastotheoriginofs i g n sasrepres e n t a t i o n sofideas. A particularsignhasbeenc h o s e nin p r e f e r e n c etoanotherbyconvention,but aconventionwith certaininherentlimitations.Suchl a n g u a g e sarebydenition articial.Onenaturaluseofvisuall a n g u a g eiswellknown, n a m e l ythel a n g u a g eofgesture,e m p l o y e dbycertains a v a g e p e o p l e ssidebysidewithauditorylanguage.' We arenot h e r edealingwiththeg e s t u r e sthata c c o m p a n yw o r d s ,s u c has w ecanobservea m o n gcivilizedpeoples,butwith as y s t e m ofg e s t u r e sw h i c hbyt h e m s e l v e se x p r e s swhatw o r d sarem e a n t toexpress,namelyideas. It is arudimentarylanguage,but o n ewhichhas itsadvantages,for it canbee m p l o y e dfor d i s t a n c e sw h e r es o u n d sc o u l dnotcarry ,thoughtheeyemight stillbeabletodistinguishm o v e m e n t s . I t permits,furtherm o r e ,ofc o m m u n i c a t i o nwithoutfearofattractingtheattention ofp e r s o n spresent,bytheuseofthevoice.Schoolboysuse thism e a n sofsilentc o m m u n i c a t i o ninthec l a s s r o o mGesture l a n g u a g emaythushavebeenutilitarian inorigin. Yet the factthata m o n gs a v a g epeoples it isspeciallye m p l o y e dby w o m e n , s u g g e s t sanotherexplanation. A differenceofl a n g u a g e b e t w e e nthes e x e sisusuallyofreligiousorigin. m e n empl o y are forbi d den to w o m e n , the latter have to use 2speci Aa s t h e a lvocabulary ,createdbyt h e m s e l v e s ,whichcanfreely substi tute gesture forvoicewhennecessary . The survival w o r d s o fgesturel a n g u a g ecanthusbeexplainedasduetotheconstraintimposedby interdictions (cf. pp. t84, 22o). But w h a t e v e ritsoriginmayh a v ebeen,it isonlyasubstitutefor auditoryl a n g u a g e ,andtothis itm u s tadaptitself. T h eg e s t u r el a n g u a g eofd e a f m u t e sisalsob a s e donauditory l a n g u a g e . I t isthroughgesturesthatwemakeknownto p e o p l ethusafictedthemethodsandrules of everyday l a n g u a g e ,and tlupenablethem toc o m m u n i c a t ewithone a n o t h e rand to readwhatmenwho'hearandspeakhave written. By substitutingones e n s eforanotherweenable t h e mtoc o m m u n i c a t ebysigns.

1 Wundt,CCX XIII, i, 1, p.128. 1VanGennep, MEM p.265 ff.

i _ i e m e n t ssousdroitsd'auteur

I N T R O D U C T I O N

n o tfollowanylogicals u c c e s s i o nalonga straightpath. I t w o u l dbeanerrortoi mag i n ethattheplanofthePort-Royal G r a m m a rcouldhaveb e e ni m p o s e du p o ntheh u m a nmindat t h eoutsetas a frameto belledin by amethodicalprog r e s s i o n . B e t w e e nthesignandthethingsignied,b e t w e e nthelinguisticformandthethingtober e p r e s e n t e d ,thereisnevera naturalc o n n e x i o n ,only ac o n n e x i o narisingout ofcertain c o n d i t i o n s . It w a sforalongtimebelievedthattheearliest linguisticactc o n s i s t e dingivingn a m e stothings,thatistosay , increatingavocabulary .That istheideatow h i c hLucretius g a v ee x p r e s s i o ninthelines ooftencited.
UHlitasexpressiinominarerum,

w h e r e i nh equiterightlyattributestheoriginofl a n g u a g etothe n e c e s s i t yofsatisfyings o m especialneed. In France,in the e i g h t e e n t hcentury ,P r e s i d e n td eB r o s s e sIattemptedtoa c c o u n t fortheoutwardformsofw o r d sbythem e a n i n gtheye x p r e s s . T h eaimofhisr e s e a r c hwas to construct a kindofs o u n d s y m b o l i s mwhichprimitivemanmighthaveu s e dtocreate w o r d s .To-day,s u c hanattemptonlyr a i s e sasmile.Whatis e s s e n t i a lisnotthelabellingofobjectswithspecialn a m e s , b u ttheadoptionof acurrentvalueforwords,by asortof tacita g r e e m e n tb e t w e e ns p e a k e r s ,soastom a k etheminto a m e a n sofe x c h a n g e ,justa sw eh a v esubstitutedc a s horp a p e r m o n e yforp a y m e n t sinkind. N e a r e rourowntime,certainlinguistshaveadvanced t h e o r i e sa c c o r d i n gtowhicheveryvocabularyistheo u t c o m e ofacrya n a l o g o u stothebarkingofad o g ,ore l s eofas e r i e sof s o u n d swhichserve to suggestobjectsofvariouskinds.g Itwasaboutthes a m eperiodthattheV edics c h o l a r sattrib u t e dallmythologyeithertolightningorthec o u r s eofthe s u n .Philologistsandmythologistswerethencontentwith simplisticc o n c e p t i o n sofp h e n o m e n a .Discussionstookplace a stow h e t h e rl a n g u a g eb e g a nwithn o u n sorv e r b s; theverb e x p r e s s i n gactionandthenoundesignatingideasandthe qualityofobjects.Butdifferenta sn o u na n dverbm a ya p p e a r t ous,there is noessentialoppositionbetweenthesetwo
1Trait/d elaformationm i c a n i q u ed e sl e i n g u e s ,Paris(1765); cf. R.M.Meyer , XXX,vol. xii, p.243. S e ethedetaasinjespersen, CX XXI V ,2nded., p.330 ff. andBorinsid, CUM, pp.11 ff., 39.

i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

L A N G U A G E

p o l e s" of ourgrammar .Does the barking of thedog signify " I amhungry" or " Givemesomethingto eat ", "Thisisg o o d" or " I havedoneeating"?Neitheror b o t h . We mayinterpret it asweplease,by a verb or a n o u n ,animperativeorapasttense.Despite allourefforts, b e t w e e ntheprimitive " bark"andouroldestt o n g u e sthere e x i s t sagulfwhichcanneverbebridged. W h a thascontributedtowardstimulatingr e s e a r c hintothe primitiveformsofl a n g u a g eisthec o m p a r i s o nwhichh a sb e e n e s t a b l i s h e db e t w e e nthephilologicalandnaturals c i e n c e slike g e o l o g y ,botany ,orzoology .Thisinaccuratec o m p a r i s o nhas r e n d e r e dillservicetothesubject. If w ew i s htonda n a l o g i e s t ol a n g u a g eweoughtrathertoseektheminsocialscience. M i c h e lBr6a1wentsofarastoc o m p a r etheIndo-European c o n j u g a t i o nto " largepoliticalandjudicialinstitutions p a r l i a m e n t sorKingscouncilswhich,springingfroms o m e f u n d a m e n t a lneed,graduallyb e c a m ediversied,extending theirattributesuntil a laterage,ndingthemachinerytoo c u m b r o u s ,h a dcurtailedapartofitanddistributeditsfunctions a m o n gseveralfreeandindependentbodies,whichstill part o o k ,in acertainm e a s u r eandwithvisiblesignsoftheirold solidarity ,oftheinitialc o n c e p t i o n ". T h i s c o m p a r i s o n may be applied to l a n g u a g e in general , for 1 l a n g u a g eisaninstitution. In language,however ,thereare certaine l e m e n t sm o r estationaryandlesssubjecttoarbitrary h u m a nwill thanpoliticalinstitutions.Theseelementsare s o u n d s ,andwiththemweshallbeginourstudy .
' 2 8 4

i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

P ART I
S O U N D S

dementssousdroitsd'auteur

THESOUNDMECHANISMS 2 9 T h es a m em e c h a n i s mp r o d u c e sthenasalc o n s o n a n t s . All c o n s o n a n t smaybenasalandcertainl a n g u a g e sarek n o w nto p o s s e s sanasalformof v, i, andtr. But ingeneralwereserve t h etermnasalforsonantocclusiveswithnasalr e s o n a n c e s . W h e ntheuvularemainsl o w e r e dduringtheo c c l u s i o nofb,d, g ,wegetthenasalsm,n,S p a n i s h4 T h e s e p h o n e m e s c a n be p r o l o n g e d , but the air naturally e s c a p e s n (through w r i the t tn e n only o s e ,sincethebuccalo c c l u s i o npreventsany p a s s a g eof air. There g n i are n asmanynasalsastherearesonant o c c l u s i v e &Thosewhichc o r r e s p o n dto theocclusivesurds, F r e are n theoretically c h ) possi . ble,are in facts a n dwhich o m e w h a t rarelyused. W ehavejusts e e nthatnasalsp o s s e s s i n glengthandvoice, entailar e s o n a n c efromthenasalf o s s z e .That istosay ,they a r ec a p a b l eofplayingthepartofv o w e l saswellastheliquids. M a n yl a n g u a g e sin factp o s s e s svocalicnasals,a n dweknow thattheywerepresentinIndo-European.To-daytheycan b everyclearlyheardin thes e c o n dsyllableof theG e r m a n w o r d sMemandbletett.Furthermore,Indo-Europeanused thenasalsnandmass e c o n dm e m b e r sof adiphthong,a n d treateden,e m ,on,o m ,forexample,likeel,eu,ol,mt.Ancient G r e e kpreservedtracesof thisusein itsaccentuation,and Lithuanianstillfurnishesu swithe x a m p l e softhes a m ething.' N a s a l sperceptiblyaugmentthe list ofs o u n d semittedby theh u m a ns o u n dm e c h a n i s m .But evenwiththesewehave n o tyete x h a u s t e ditspossibilities.Ther e a s o nwhythelistof p o s s i b l es o u n d sisa l m o s tlimitlessisthatthee l e m e n t sc o m p o s i n g t h e mare for themostpartinterchangeable,andcontain an u m b e rofvariables. Avowelisp r o n o u n c e don a denitenotewith a denite s t r e s sforadeniteduration;andpitch,stress,andquantity multiplythevarietiesofeveryvowel.And astherecanbe differentquantitiesinthes a m elanguage.ands i n c epitchand s t r e s spermitofmodulationsandintonations,thesedifferent varietiescontainwithinthemselvesthec a u s e sfor multiple variation. Meillet, XCIV, p. 89. 21 aOntherelationsof quantity, pitch,andstressin theSlavonicandBaltic
languages,cfespeciallytheneworkof F. deSaussure, VI, vol. vili, p. a n dXXX. Ans.. vol. vi, p. 157,andGauthiot, VI tV O LXi, p. 336 ; cf. also Fortunatov , MOM, vol. 'mil,p p133.

i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

3 0 S O U N D S T h epartplayedbyquantityintheclassicl a n g u a g e sm a ybe realizedinc o n n e x i o nwiththeirversication.Thes a m eistrue ofSanskrit.Withregardtomusicalpitch,w ehaveremarkable e x a m p l e s ,incertainl a n g u a g e softheFarEast,inw h i c hintonationalones u f c e st odistinguishthem e a n i n ga n dvalueofw o r d s thatwouldotherwisebeh o m o p h o n e s . In C h i n e s e ,o n em o n o syllablem a ybep r o n o u n c e dinsixdifferenttones,ordifferently i n t o n e dto designatesix differentobjects. There is still greatervariety inA n n a m e s e I for thesyllablecofteen differentpronunciationshavebeencounted,corresponding tothemostvariedmeanings. T h e r e are still other variations possi b l e , e v e n in the man2 n e rofformingther e s o n a n c epropertoeachvowel.There isthehardattack,thetesterEinsatzoftheG e r m a n s ,a n dthe soliW adeor kiserEitssatz.Thedifferencelies in theway t h eglottisiso p e n e dw h e naninitialvowelisp r o n o u n c e d . In t h ehardattack the glottisopensabruptly ,andseparates t h evowelclearlyfrom all thatp r e c e d e sit ; thismethodis c u s t o m a r ywithNorthG e r m a n s . It iss otypicalthat its e r v e s todistinguish a Germanfromeither a Frenchmanor an E n g l i s h m a n ,bothofw h o mu s ethesoftattack. TheEnglish p h o n e t i c i a nEllisu s e sanexcellentanalogytos h o wthediffere n c e .The earlyd a w nbreakss ograduallyandinsensiblythat it isi m p o s s i b l etosayw h e nnighte n d sanddaybegins.This i sthesoftvowelattack. On theotherhand,w h e nthed o s e d shuttersofaw i n d o waresuddenlyo p e n e datmiddayablaze oflightcompletelyoodst h er o o min asinglem o m e n t .This isthehardattack. Thisabruptp r o c e d u r eisnotevenlimited totheo p en i n g *oftheglottis.Certainlanguages,Danishfor e x a m p l e ,alsou s eit tomarkclosure. I t isdirectlyafterthe v o w e l s ,w h e nthee m i s s i o nof air iscomplete,thatthiscatch o r"stop"occurs(StossinGerman,S t r a dinDanish). The t w oDanishwordsa n d e n " duck",anda n d e n " theother", differonlyin thep r e s e n c eora b s e n c eof theSiod.Certain E n g l i s hdialects,a n despecialythats p o k e ninScotland,furnish equallyg o o de x a m p l e softhe"glottalstop" . T h epronunciationofc o n s o n a n t salsoadmitsofveryimpor3 tantvariationsquiteapartfromthedifferencesinarticulation
Cadierc, !NM. p. 79 ff. I Grammont. VI, vol. xvi. p. 75. l e s p e r s o n , CLXXIII , p. 7 9 .

i _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

3 1; d e s c r i b e da b o v e .Two atleastared e s e r v i n gofmentionhere t h o s eduetom u s c u l a reffort,andthosed e p e n d e n tuponthe extentoftheglottalo p en i n g . Notalll a n g u a g e srequireanequalexpenditureofm u s c u l a r f o r c eintheproductionofarticulatorym o v e m e n t s . In certain ofthemtheeffort isreducedto 'anegligibledegree,s p e e c h o w i n ga l o n ginac o n t i n u o u sa n de a s yfashion,withas u s t a i n e d e v e n n e s softone. In others,o nthecontrary ,thereisam u s c u l a r v e h e m e n c ewhichp r o d u c e suponthe ear animpressionof violence,withabruptstops,jerks,ands h o c k s . E v e nin thes a m elanguage,certainp h o n e m e sd e m a n da greatermusculareffortthanothers. This facthadalready strucktheancientG r e e k sw h odistinguishedtheirc o n s o n a n t s a sstrongandweak. In general,thedifferenceinstressis relatedtothecontrastb e t w e e ns o n a n t sandsurds.Thisw a s t h ec a s einancientGreek,and it isthec a s einFrench,w h e r e thec o n s o n a n t sp, I, k,areatthes a m etimesurds,andstrongly e n u n c i a t e d ,andthec o n s o n a n t sb,d, g,onthecontrary ,are ato n c esonantandweaklyenunciated. But thereares o m e l a n g u a g e sinwhichthisdistinctionisu n k n o w n ,orm a d ein a differentfashion. Thus one of thedifferencesseparating F r e n c hfromtheG e r m a no c c l u s i v e sisthatinG e r m a n ,especialy S o u t hGerman,thesonanto c c l u s i v e sb,d,g,arestrong,and a p p e a lto theFrenchear ass o u n d sintermediatebetween s o n a n t sandsurds,s o m e t i m e sevenmorecloselyakintos u r d s thantosonants.Conversely ,thesurdc o n c l u s i v e sp, k in S o u t hG e r m a nareoftenweak;evenasweshallsee,when theyarenotaspirated. A n o t h e rc a u s eforvariationin thepronunciationofc o n s o n a n t sliesinthesizeoftheglottalo p en i n g .Thereareocclus i v e sf o r m e dbyano p e nglottis,andothersf o r m e dbyac l o s e d glottis. W h e r etheglottisisc l o s e d ,asinFrench,andalsoinSlavonic a n dancientGreek,theb a n d softheglottis,orthevocalc h o r d s a r ed r a w ntogetherduringthepronunciationoftheocclusives. T h e yarethusreadytovibrateforthevowelfollowing, if the o c c l u s i v eis asurd,andtovoicetheocclusiveass o o nasthe i m p l o s i o nh a sb e g u nif it isasonant.Ontheotherhand,w h e n theglottisiso p e n ,asitgenerallyisintheG e r m a nlanguages,'
p. 84.

THESOUNDMECHANISMS

Meillet, XCV, p. 36,and IV, vol. xvi, p. cliii Grammont, L

. _ i e r n e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

3 6 S O U N D S

A M P

s o u n d sw h i c hheh a slearnedtop r o n o u n c e ,butw o r d sorg r o u p s ofw o r d s .Hencehiso r g a n smusta c c o m m o d a t ethemselves p r o d u c i n g s o u n d combi n ati o ns which are s o m e t i m e s exceed. inglycomplicated. The childisrarelys u c c e s s f u lat the rst attempt. He hastomaketheeffortseveraltimes,correcting to h i spronunciationbyreferencetothatofthepeoplew h os p e a k tohim,untilhefeelsthatheisabletor e p r o d u c eexactlywhat h ehears. The formsadoptedpermanentlyat theendofhis a p p r e n t i c e s h i pconstitute his phoneticsystem,which he e s t a b l i s h e s by successivetrials by eliminatingincorrect s o u n d sandbymakinghisvocalchordsexiblee n o u g hfor perfectexecution.' The production of thesemovements nallyb e c o m e sautomatic. The vocalo r g a n shaveam e m o r y c o m p a r a b l eto that of the pianist'sngers,whichmove m e c h a n i c a lyoverthekeysas theeyefollowsthenotation o ntheprintedpaper . T h etransmissionofpronunciationfromonegenerationto a n o t h e risdiscontinuous,in thes e n s ethatthechildisforced tolearn everythingover again. During apprenticeship, d o u b t l e s s ,hereditarydispositionsplays o m epart, but it is n o tdifculttorealizehowmanyaccidentsmayaffect the integrityofpronunciationwithe a c hn e wgeneration. It rarely h a p p e n s ,indeed, that when its apprenticeship is ended t h echild'sphoneticsystem is exactly like that of its parents.Somephoneticiansevenclaim that this never h a p p e n s . Inthisinterplayofcomplexm o v e m e n t swhichconstitutes thephoneticsystem,the organmayeitherexaggerateor inhibititsactionto a veryslightextent. A musclemaybe s o m e w h a tw e a korslowinexecutingam o v e m e n tor itmay ,on thecontrary ,beunusuallyv i g o r o u sa n drapid.As aresultthere isadiscrepancybetweenthephonetics y s t e m sofs u c c e s s i v e g e n e r a t i o n s .Thislackofa g r e e m e n tm a yb eaveryminoraffair, a n dmaynotevenbeappreciabletotheear;nevertheless,it is , s e r i o u sin itsc o n s e q u e n c e s ,for itm e a n snothinglessthan a abreakinthecontinuityofthephoneticsystem.Sometimes, h o w e v e r ,the discrepancy is dearlymarked. The 'child articulatesdifferentlyfrom Its parents,andsubstitutes a differentseriesofs o u n d sforthatwhichtheyp o s s e s s .Thus a
I Cf. theworkscited at thebeginningof thechapterprecedingandalso A .MeiHet, IX, I, p. 311,and ii, p.860.

,_ierlientss o u sdroitsd'auteur

3 7 childw h oacquiredthehabitofp r e s s i n gthetip ofhist o n g u e a g a i n s tthetopofhisalvecklxinsteadofplacingitagainstthe teeth,instead of pronouncingthe Frenchdentalswould p r o n o u n c etheEnglish tand6 1 . Thiskindofp h o n e t i cc h a n g ep r e s e n t sseveralveryimportant features. In therstp l a c eit isu n c o n s c i o u s .Thechildw h o s e t o n g u eg o e seithertoofarornotfare n o u g hisnota w a r eofthe e x c e s sori n a d e q u a c yofhisefforts. He thinksh eisarticulating likehisparentsw h e nhe i s the u n c o n s c i o u s nature of the change which explains its p e r m a n e n c e .The childwouldendeavourtocorrecthimself if he w e r e c o n s c i o u s of his mi s take. really Furthermore,thec h a n g eisa b s o l u t e .That is to say ,that ar t i cis u l ae tteiandirremediable. I t is not to be the change compl r e g a r d e d as a s p o n t a n e o u s creation addi n g a new el e ment to ng the system,butasthetransformationofanexistingelement. Thi r e s u p p o s e sthat thechild isincapable ds itransformation f f e rp e ofexactlyreproducingap h o n e m ehehasheard. It israther n t lthat y the . p striking h o n e m ea b a n d o n e dforanotheris,ofallthe p h o n e m e s , usual l y that o n e w h i c h is forei g n to the s y s t e m : the In o ethat istmostdifcult to articulate. No onehasmore difculty inp o n o u n c i n ga liquid I thantheFrenchof the i sr p r e s e n tday ,w h ohavejustlost it. Lastly ,thec h a n g eisregular ,that is to say , itsdirection h a sbeendeterminedbypreviousc h a n g e s .This featureis e x p l a i n e dbythenatureoftheelementswhichbuildupthe equilibriumofthesystem. In allphonetics y s t e m sthereare d o m i n a t i n ge l e m e n t sAlia regulatetheothers. In describing thes y s t e mofanym o d eofs p e e c h ,wecanalwaysa c c o u n tfor allthepeculiarities of thats p e e c hbyreferenceto certain g e n e r a lprinciples of tongue-position,breathing-force, or m u s c u l a reffort.Doubtlesst h e s egeneralprinciplesholdg o o d onlyfor agiventime,sincethes y s t e mc h a n g e sm o r eorless f r o ma g etoa g e; butatthatparticularm o m e n ttheyconstitute theframeworkandskeletonofthelanguage.Fromthepoint ofviewofthegradualevolutionofthel a n g u a g e ,thesegeneral principlesindicate its naturaltendencies.And, indeed, it h a sb e e nproved,byc o m p a r i n gtwodifferenthistoricalperiods ofal a n g u a g e ,thatthec h a n g e sexhibitedbythelatterexisted ing e r mintheearlierperiod.

PHO NET I CSYSTEMS

d e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

S O U N D S 3 8T h eclassicexample of regularity in phoneticchanges i sthe Germanic " sound-shifting", called in German, L a t d v e r s c h i e b u n eThisp h e n o m e n o nisf o u n dinotherl a n g u a g e s b e s i d e stheG e r m a n i c:inArmenian,forexample,andOssetic. T h einitialc a u s eofthed e v e l o p m e n tliesb e t w e e npronunciation withtheglottisclosed,and aprontmicationwiththeglottis o p e n(seep.31). W h e na certainraceisa c c u s t o m e d ,like theG e r m a n s ,to s p e a k i n gwiththeglottisopen,theonantandsurdo c c l u s i v e s a r esubjectedto aseriesofalterations,dueto adelayin the startingoftheglottalvibrations( s e ep.31). On theo n ehand, inagroups u c hasdaorba,asthevocalc h o r d sdonotbegin vibratingimmediatelyupontheimplosion, a moreor less largepartofthec o n s o n a n tb e c o m e ssurd;andthereisnally atendencytoc h a n g etheentiresonantinto asurd. On the otherhand,inag r o u ps u c haslaorpa,b e t w e e nthee x p l o s i o n oftheo c c l u s i v ea n dtheproductionoftheaw h i c hfollows,there isam o r eorlessshortinterval. But theexplosionallowsthe airfreep a s s a g e .Hencethereisanaturaltendencytoc h a n g e theo c c l u s i v eintoanaspirate,orevenintoafricative,particularly if theexplosionisviolentand if theorgans,despitethe abruptrushofairthatiss e e k i n gtoe s c a p e ,donotimmediately returnto apositionofrest. We thengetthepronunciation tha,pha,oreventsaor pfa. I f therushof airrendersthe o c c l u s i o nincomplete,thenaturaltendencyforaspiratesand affricatesist o w a r d sthespirant(Pa,fa).2 T h etwop r o c e s s e sw eh a v ejustexplainedplayac o n s i d e r a b l e r6leinthehistoryoftheG e r m a n i cl a n g u a g e s . It ist h e s ew h i c h a c c o u n tforthefactthattheIndo-Europeanso n an to c c l u s i v e s a l w a y sc o r r e s p o n dto thec o m m o nGermanicsurds(Gothic s k a p j a n" tos h a p e",itan " toeat",OldHighG e r m a nmei/4n "tomilk ",asc o m p a r e dwiththeLatins c a b o ,edo,m u l g e o ) a n dthesurdo c c l u s i v e salwaysc o r r e s p o n dtospirants(Gotta. Milan " toy",pahan" tobequiet",asc o m p a r e dwiththe G r e e kK A I V O lLatin(aceo).Theseare the onlytwoshifts
I The interpretation of thisphenomenongiven here is that generally approvedby Frenchlinguists (Millet, XCV, p. 27 ; Gauthiot. VI. vol. xs, p a192 ; Vendryes. XCI X. p. 130). I t is not admitted by everyone; cf. n o wWundt. CC XXIII, i, 2.pa405 ; H. Meyer. X XXV, vol. xlv, p.107 ff.; Hirt, CLXVII, p.615; S. Feist, XXVI, vol. xxxvi, p.307,andxxxvii, 112. Thesign p indicates the dentalandspirantheard in the English Mick ortkank,

d e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

PHONETICSYSTEMS

4 3

varyingn u m b e rofu n k n o w nfactors.Nevertheless,a saformula e x p r e s s i n gc h a n g e sthathavetakenplaceinthepast,phonetic lawis absolute. This characterresultsfrom thegeneral c o h e r e n c eof thephoneticsystemandtheregularityof the c h a n g e s(seep.37)thattakeplace.As theseaffectarticulationasawhole,ratherthanisolatedw o r d s ,allw o r d sinvolving thes a m earticulationb e c o m ealteredinthes a m eway .Therein liestheonlyprincipleofphoneticlaw.Suchlawsaresimply f o r m u l a ewhichs u mupp r o c e s s e sandrulesgoverningcorres p o n d e n c e s . T h e s ephoneticlaws,then,enableustoincludeincertain f o r m u l mthehistoryofthes o u n d sw h i c ho c c u rinanyl a n g u a g e , a n dprovideu swithakeytothec h a n g e stheyh a v eu n d e r g o n e . If weknowawordin agivenlanguagew h o s eformcanbe a c c o u n t e dforbyaphoneticlaw,wealsok n o wthef o r m sofall otherw o r d sinthatl a n g u a g ec o m i n gwithintherangeofthat law .Giventwodialectss p r u n gf r o mo n el a n g u a g eandfollowing adenitelaw ,ak n o w l e d g eofthatlawwillrevealthephonetic principlesinvolvedineachof thedialects. I f I knowthat G e r m a nhassubstitutedaninitialzfortheoriginal Ip r e s e r v e d inEnglish, I ato n c eu n d e r s t a n dwhy I ndtheformZahrein o n easo p p o s e dtotearintheother; but Iu n d e r s t a n dalsothe o p p o s i t i o nofz e h ntoten,z w i n g e ntotwinge,Z u n g etot o n g u e ,etc. O n eoft h e s ew o r d se n a b l e su stopredicttheother . It h a p p e n s o c c a s i o n a lythat philologistshavereconstructed a priori theformofs o m enon-existentword,andhavebeensubsequentlyjustiedbythediscoveryof anewtextcontaining thatword.Phoneticlawsarethebasisof alletymological r e s e a r c h .Anyetymologistwhoignoredthemwouldlabour invain. It ise a s ytod e m o n s t r a t e ,likewise,h o wt h e s elawsaidinthe s t u d yofforeignl a n g u a g e s . In learningan e wl a n g u a g eit is ofgreatassistancetoknowtherulesgoverningsound-corres p o n d e n c eb e t w e e nthisl a n g u a g eandt h o s ewealreadyk n o W . T h u s ,if I k n o wthatS p a n i s hc h a n g e stheinitialLatin f toh, Ik n o wthat " faire" ishacer ,"farine"harina, " foin"h e n o , "fer "hierro," Ills "hijo, " leuille"hoja,"lumee"h u m o,etc. T h e r eisakindofairw h i c hg u i d e sthem e m o r yins u c hc a s e s , a n dwhichatneedwillsubstitutetheproperformwiths o m e g u a r a n t e eofcorrectness.Possibilitiesoferrornonetheless exist.Mistakes mayevenarisefrom aninopportune or

,_ierlientss o u sdroitsd'auteur

4 4

S O U N D S

e x a g g e r a t e dapplicationofphoneticlaws(suchas in hyperd i a l e c t i s morhyper-urbanism,discussedon p. 49). I n the f o r e g o i n gc a s eit wouldleadtoerror,forinstance,toattempt a napriorireconstructionoftheS p a n i s hw o r dforrea l o n gthe linesofthec o r r e s p o n d e n c eb e t w e e nthelatinfocus,theItalian f u o c o ,andtheFrenchfeu. The trueformisfuego,andnot h u e g o ,b e c a u s einitial f, inSpanish,doesnotchangeinto it b e f o r euw h e r ethereisahiatus. TheG a s c o ndialectsgoeven furtherinthisr e s p e c tthanS p a n i s h; theyhaveh u e kfor" feu" a n dc h a n g einitial f intohineven/position. T h e linguist' s rst consi d erati o n, therefore, must be to dene 1 ytheconditionsinwhichphoneticlawapplies,andits exactl e x t e n s i o nins p a c eandtime. In fact,phoneticc h a n g e sarelimited in time. Once the c h a n g ehasaffected all thosewordsonwhich its action is p o s s i b l e ,thelawe x p r e s s i n gthatc h a n g eb e c o m e snullandvoid. T h elanguagemayrecreatenewcombinationsaltogether similartothosepreviouslyaffectedbythechange,butthese c o m b i n a t i o n swilln o wremainwithoutmodication.Theyare s a i dtobenolongersubjectto thelaw. Thas alllanguages h a v edoubletsrepresentingwordsfrom identicalsources introducedintothel a n g u a g eat differentperiods.Theoldest f o r m scanber e c o g n i z e db e c a u s ethayhaveu n d e r g o n egreater modicationd u eto theinuenceofphoneticc h a n g e swhich o p e r a t e dn olongeratthetimew h e nthem o r erecentf o r m swere introduced. In Frenchtherearethew o r d sa v o u eandavocat, loyalandlegal,respectivelyderivedfrom thesameLatin prototypes.Whentheses e c o n dformsc a m eintotheFrench l a n g u a g eby a differentroute,however ,from the rst, the p h o n e t i cc h a n g e swhichhadbroughtaboutalterationsin the earlierformshadlongs i n c ec e a s e dtobeoperative. Ithappenslikewisethat theformula of correspondence e s t a b l i s h e dbetweencertainl a n g u a g e sares o m e t i m e scontradicted by forms that havebeenborrowedfromanother l a n g u a g e .Germanhass sforthesingleordoublemedial I in English,so that theyhavebessetinstead of better ,wasser insteadofwater . But thetwol a n g u a g e shavethes a m eword inbutter ,andtheGermanM e s s eis inEnglishm a s s(as in C h r i s t m a s ,Lammas),bothofwhichcontradictthepreceding lawin differentways. The reasonis thatbutterandmass e s s e )arebothb o r r o w e dfromLatin.
1cf. Mak tLineuistiquehisioriqueetlinguistiqueghteraie. ILII (1908) 9 p. 5 .

_iernentssousdroitsd'auteur

PHONETICSYSTEMS

4 5

Buteven if wetry tokeepbeforeustheconditionswhich determinether a n g ea n de x t e n s i o nofphoneticl a w sa n da c c o u n t forapparentexceptionsasnaturalfacts,wedonotalways s u c c e e dinavoidingalldifculties.Someoftheseareinherent inthemethoditself.Phoneticlaws,in therstplace,throw alimiteda m o u n toflightu p o nthenatureofthec h a n g e sw h o s e resultstheyrecord; and, in thesecond,they are but the a v e r a g eofdiverscomplicatedp r o c e s s e s . % T h e phoneticchangesdue to substitutionmust be distinguishedfromthosep r o d u c e dbyevolution. It isevolution, forinstance,w h e no n es o u n diss p o n t a n e o u s l ytransformedinto anotherbym e a n sofs o m enormalinnovation. In theFrench oftheIle-de-France,forexample,thelongc l o s e deoftheLatin h a ss u c c e s s i v e l yb e c o m ewe,thenw a(writtenoito-day ,accordingtoanoldspellingw h i c hhadalreadyc e a s e dtobethecorrect renderingofthepronunciationinthethirteenthcentury). In thispartofFrancew ep r o n o u n c eastwa,rzva,pwar ,lwarwhat w ewritea sloi,rol,poire,loir.Thisisthenormalpronunciation inParisianFrench.Whenw ehearthispronunciationaffected b ypeopleliving farfromthecapital it isgenerallyb o r r o w e d f r o mParisians p e e c h ,andisnotduetoanynaturalinnovation intheirown. The proof of this is oftenfurnishedby the localpronunciationst h e m s e l v e s ,whichhereandtherepreserve thepronunciationnaturaltothemeitherunderanolderform orincertainspecialwords.Thus ino n eprovincialdialectwe m a yhearunler, forunloir,sidebysidewithunepoire. It is thepronunciationof/wirethatismodiedbyimitation,that istosay , it isborrowed.' T h eimportanceofborrowedelementsinphoneticc h a n g e s m a n i f e s t sitself inthemake-upof all literaryl a n g u a g e s(see p.271).Thus,w h e nNorthG e r m a nsubstitutesala n dauforthe s i n g l es o u n d s1andu it isduetoborrowing; thec h a n g eisnot s p o n t a n e o u s .Similarly,w h e naSaxon,adoptingthestandard pronunciationofGerman,saysm u s s e nands c h o n ,insteadof m i s s e nands c h e n , it is ac h a n g ebysubstitutionandnotby evolution. T h estatementofthephoneticlaw,however ,d o e snotreveal 2 thenatureof thechange.Additionaltestimonyandspecial
I On the character of suchborrowedpmnunciations in patois, see Grammont. In, vol. x, p. 2.93,andTerracher, CUM, Introduction. Poirot. IL vol ix, p. 603 ; of. Bremer, C XUna, p. I 1,and,forEnglish, Storm, CCU, p. 820.

dementssousdroitsd'auteur

5 0 S O U N D S todoubtastotheproperformofw o r d s . A frequentfaultis thatofbeingtoocorrect,oferringthroughane x c e s sofpurism. T h i smistakew a softencommittedbytheG r e e k sw h e nthey triedto write in a dialectnottheirown.Therearemany hyper-dialectisms,forinstance,intheDoricoftheP y t h a g o r e a n a u t h o r s .As they(or theircopyists)k n e wthatAttic1 7 often c o r r e s p o n d e dtolongainDoric,theyc h a n g e dintoam a n ya n Attic/ 1w h i c hs h o u l dh a v epersistedinDorica sr): fore x a m p l e , a r o g a a s s ,kivaots,ipxrcitixaT os,etc., found in the Pythag o r e a nwritersinstead of arathatt,gismo's,liptTtit3Xtros It is likely that at thetimewhentheGreekdialectswere f u s e dintoac o m m o nlanguage,similarm i s t a k e sw e r efrequent w h e npeoplewishedto write a puredialect. Errorseasily a r o s eout of themedleyof dialects,strewnwithc o m m o n f o r m s ,where it wasoftendifcult todistinguishthe real dialectalelementsfromthenon-dialectal.Evenpeoplew h o h a ds p o k e nacertaindialectfrombirthwereliabletohyperd i a l e c t i s m s . Intheprecedingaccountwehavepointedoutinstancesin w h i c hregularphonetictendenciescameintoconictwith t e n d e n c i e sof a differentcharacter .Suchc a s e smusthave o c c u r r e dofteninthehistoryofl a n g u a g e s ,a n ditistot h e mthat w emustattribute theirregularitiesfound in all phonetic history . In particular it mustoftenhaveh a p p e n e dthat a nationchangedits languageand,consequently ,that the s a m e l a n g u a g ew a ss p o k e nbypeopleofdifferentnationality . S o m e t i m e saconqueringracei m p o s e ditstongueuponthe c o n q u e r e d;sometimespolitical orsocialconditionsforced apeople to adopt a neighbouringtongue.Hencecertain l a n g u a g e shaved e v e l o p e dstrangeandrapidtransformations, forthep e o p l ew h oadoptan e wl a n g u a g eoftenkeepthepronunciationpeculiartothel a n g u a g etheyhavedropped.This iswhyGaulishinuenceisfound in thephoneticsof the V ulgarLatin ofGaul. I t istruethatR o m a n c ephilologists a r enotina c c o r du p o nthispoint.' It iscertain,however ,that similarp h o n e t i cc h a n g e sarefoundinthel a n g u a g e sofdifferent r a c e swhoaregeographicallycontiguous,as in Livonian
Meyer-Ltibke, CLXXXL Rumanian,cf.DensuFiann, U M vol. I, p. . 13. 1 7 0 . F o r t h e i n u e n c e

, _ i e r n e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

PHONETICSYSTEMS 5 1 (ofthe Finnishgroup) and Lettish ' (Indo-European), A r m e n i a n(Indo-European),andGeorgian. Certainphilologistshave a tendency toexaggeratethe i n u en ceo fac h a n g eofl a n g u a g eandtoattributetos u c hproc e s s e stheoriginoftheprincipalphoneticchanges. s p o n t a n e o u s phoneti c c h a n g e s do take place as a result of a 2 As a fs a c t , aboutandjustiedby natural c h a n g einthe y s t e mbrought u s eofthel a n g u a g eitself. T h estudyofthed e v e l o p m e n tofl a n g u a g e se n a b l e so n eto distinguish,in aseriesofphonetictransformations,thosethat a r eduetoforeigninuences.Thephilologistwhohasset h i m s e l fattheoutsetthetaskofm a s t e r i n gthephonetics y s t e m ofagivenl a n g u a g eatanyparticularm o m e n tinitsevolution, easilyr e c o g n i z e sinthelaterhistoryofthel a n g u a g etheeffect ofthenormalt e n d e n c i e sw h i c hexistedpotentiallyintheolder s t a g e . S u c hastudyp r o m i s e sresultsofgeneralimport. By cornparinga n dco-ordinatingthedataf u r n i s h e dbyallthel a n g u a g e s w h o s ehistory isknown,the regularp r o c e s s e sof phonetic transformationc a nb eestablished.Thisw o r kh a snotyetb e e n nished. At thesametime,anylinguistwhoknowsthe p h o n e t i chistoryofseverall a n g u a g e sisalreadyinapositionto s a ywithverylittlehesitationw h i c histheolderoftwoattested p h o n e t i cs t a g e s ,andh o wthetransformationc a m eabout.
J e s P e r s e n * cLuall *Cf.especiallyGamilscheg,LieberLau:substitution(Printipienfragender ti p 7 9 s .setschaft(1911), pp. 162-91),andDelbruck, C o P c m a n i s c h e *Sprachwi p.152.

e , v " =
ilrnentss o u sdroitsd'auteur

C H A P T E R III T H E P H O N E T I C W O R D A N DT HEV E R B A LI M A G E T c o n c e r n e dresultedfromtransformations of phonetic s y s t e m s .Thec a u s e sofalterationsins o u n dunitshadtobe H s o u g h t in the relation of these p h o n e m e s to the system as a Eh w o l e .Yet thistypeofc h a n g e ,isnottheonlyo n ethelinguist h a stoconsider . p T h e r earenoisolatedp h o n e m e sinlanguage.Thisd o e snot h ym onl e a nthatp h o n e m e shavenoindependentexistence,and c a n n o t be anal y sed separately except by a p r o c e s s of abstraco s tion, i n c etheyconstituteas y s t e mineveryl a n g u a g e; it also m a n sthat theyarenotemployedseparately . We cannot ne s p e a ksimplyinc o m b i n a t i o n sofp h o n e m e s .Theshortests e n t e n c e e wordp or r e s u p p o s e sas u c c e s s i o nof complexarticulatory m o v e m e n t sandtheircombinations,andoutofthesecombinat tionsarisereciprocalactsinvolvingdiverskindsofchanges. T ih ec h a n g e sw h i c haffectp h o n e m e sb e c a u s eoftheirc o n n e x i o n s with other p h o n e m e s of the s a m e word may be termed contact c c h a n g e s .They arenolessimportant in thehistory of the l a n g u a g ethantheprecedingones.' c Before,however ,enteringu p o nastudyoft h esec h a n g e s ,we hu m s trst xthelimits of thephoneticgroupwithinwhich contact c h a n g e sarise,or, toput it differently ,wemustdene a t h ep h o n e t i cw o r d . n T h e questi o n that confronts us here is two-fold ; it consi s ts g indeterminingwhether asentencein anyparticular rstly l a n g u a g e ,consideredsolelyfrom the point of view of the e p h o n e m e s c o m p o s i n git,admitsofdivisionsperceptibletothe s s p e a k e r;andsecondly ,whetherthesedivisionscoincidewith p s y c h i c a l or grammati c al o n e s . w T othe rstquerywecananswerunhesitatingly in the afrmative. It is not to bedoubtedthat naturalphonetic i divisionsexistin agivenphrase.Suchdivisions,in fact,are t severalkinds. of I Sievers, CCV, p. 377. A remarkableaccount of facts taken from the h Slavonicis tobefoundin Broth, CXLIX, p.185. w h i c _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

THEPHONETICWORD

5 3

O n eof themostnoticeableis thedivisionintosyllables. Everyspeakerisc o n s c i o u softhis,asmentalpathologyhas proved. feel i n g for the syllable survi v es c o m p l e t e forgetful n ess of the 1o w r d .The patientc a nonlyd e s i g n a t eo b j e c t sbythen u m b e rof c o m p o n e n tsyllablesin thewordtheyrepresent.Without C a b e i n gabletoe x p r e s seitherc h a p e a uortabouret,heindicates s ehis s ngersthatthe rst ofthesewordscontainstwo with syl l a bl e s, and the s e c o n d three. He h a s lost the m e m o r y of the o articulatory m o v e m e n t sn e c e s s a r yforp r o n o u n c i n gtheword, but n o w showmanyofthemthereare. I t is true f hestillk thatwemaynotadmitthetestimonyofs u c hanexperiment a o nthegroundthatthere is hereanelementintroducedby a c q u i r e d habit, after the subj e ct had l e arned to read, and that m itisi m p o s s i b l etodistinguishwhatb e l o n g sessentialytowritten l a n g u a g efromthatbelongingtospokenl a n g r u a g e .Habits n e a c q u i r e dbythehandwhichtracesletters,andthoseacquired s ie b ythe y ew h i c hp e r c e i v e sthem,may ,infact,bec o n f u s e dhere a n ddisturbtheproperco-ordinationoffacts. a W ecandrawm o r evalidc o n c l u s i o n sfromversication. In a largen u m b e rofl a n g u a g e smetred e p e n d su p o nthen u m b e rof h syllables,s o m e t i m e se v e nint h o s ew h e r ewritingisu n k n o w na n d ah w e r epoetryw a stransmittedonlybyoraltradition.Thusin t h eearlyd a w nofIndiana n dG r e e kliterature,longp o e m sw e r e v c o m p o s e dwitharigorousa d h e r e n c etoruleinthen u m b e rof e lables,atleast ifw syl earetojudgebythedirectheirsofthe ri c h Vedic poetry or the founders of the Lesbian lyric.* b T h eb e g i n n i n g sofwritingconrmthistestimony . In phonetic writing, l a n g u a g ew a satrstt r a n s c r i b e dsyllabically .Division e intosyllablespreceded,andevenretarded for a variable e p e r i o doftime,divisionintoletters(seePart V). A longand careful anal y si s w a s n e c e s s a r y to di s ti n gui s h the e l e m e n t s of a n syllable. The rsta l p h a b e t santedatethisanalysis;theyare syllabic. o Divisionintosyllablesevenp r e c e d e ddivisionintowords. btheoldestextanttextsofm In a n yl a n g u a g e sthew o r d sarenot s e p a r a t e d . The e n d of o n e w o r d is c o m b i n e d , a c c o r d i n g to the s r u l e sofsyllabicwriting,withthebeginningofthefollowing w o r d; this isthec a s einthevariousIndianancientwritings. e I Cf.R o u s s e lot, C XV, vol. ii pi969. r I L. Havet, LIME, p.166. v e d i d e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

THEPHONETIC WORD

'55

latorymotionandtheauditive perceptibility fold variation permi t s u s to determi n e the limits of the syllable . inacertainn u m b e rofc a s e s .But inmanyothersthedivision isarbitrary. I ts would ." 1 Thi t be h as r puerile e e to - attempt to x this divisionasitwouldbetoattempttodetermineatwhatprecise pointlies the bottom of a valley situatedbetweentwo m o u n t a i n s . T h edenitionofthephoneticwordishardlylessarbitrary , forw eoftenhavesyllables,andeveng r o u p sofsyllables,which w edonotk n o wwhethertogroupasindependentwordsorto attachtoneighbouringones.According to thelanguagein question,thisdivisionism o r eorl e s sdear-cut. A c c e n toughttob eam e a n sofsolvingtheproblem.Weh a v e s e e nthatthee m i s s i o nofbreathfromthetrachealopeningis n o talwaysproduced in an identicalmanner . The exp u l s i o nof air is notcontinuous,for them u s c l e scontrolling thep a s s a g eofthebreaths o m e t i m e ss p e e dupands o m e t i m e s retardthem o v e m e n t .Accordinglyw ehaveaccelerationsand diminutionsofs p e e da n ds t o p p a g e sgreaterorlesserinnumber , a c c o r d i n gtothelanguageandthespeaker . In otherwords, thes p o k e nwordcontainswithinitself arhythmicprinciple, withaccentedandnon-accentedbeats. Just aswedivide a m u s i c a lphraseintom e a s u r e sirrespectiveof themelody ,so likewisewecanrecognizeinanys p o k e nphrase,irrespective ofitss e n s e ,acertainn u m b e rofdivisionsl e s sregularandm o r e variable in measure,doubtless,thanthose of music, but equallydependentupon a periodicrecurrence ofaccented beats.Languageitselfh a srhythmicp e a k sandd e p r e s s i o n s . T h e s epeakshavefrequentlyapsychicalvalue. I t might a l m o s tbesaidthatthem u s c u l a rm o v e m e n t sp r o d u c i n gs t r e s s a n dpitchares o m e t i m e sdeterminedbyp s y c h i cc a u s e s .Accent s e e m stobreathelifeintotheinertphoneticbody . To borrow ametaphorfromtheoldgrammarians,accentisthe "soul oftheword;whetherpitchorstressbeaffected, it givesthe w o r dcharacterandpersonality .Nevertheless,accentd o e snot sufcetodenetheword.' Intherstplace,it butimperfectlydenest h elimitsofthe w o r d . In certainlanguagestheposition of theaccent is
ISeeGrammont'spenetratingremark: onFrenchaccent, LXXVIIII, p.121.

CXIII, p.182.

, e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

THEPHONETIC WORD

5 7

apartfromthemorphologicalvalueoftheword,itslengthor accent,theterminalsyllableassuchisweak. This general principleofthew e a k n e s sofnalsyllablesvariesinitsapplicationaccordingto thelanguage; thew e a k n e s sitselfmaybe m o r eor less. But in the applications of this principle w emaynd itsownconrmation,for the results of this w e a k n e s sare themoreevidentthemoretheworditself is i n d e p e n d e n tanda u t o n o m o u s .Thus, thespecialpronunciationof nalsyllablesis a function of theexistenceof the w o r d ,anddenesitslimits. Havingadmittedtheexistenceofthephoneticword,w em a y s t u d ythemodicationsp r o d u c e din it bythereciprocalaction ofitsc o m p o n e n telements. T h everythingw ehavejustb e e nconsideringiso n eofthose g e n e r a lfactswhichfollowfromtheexistenceofthewordasa p h o n e t i cunit; it isanexampleofcontactc h a n g e . In IndoE u r o p e a nlanguages,the nalsyllabledevelopsin a special w a ysimplybyvirtueofbeingnal;that istosay ,b e c a u s eof t h eposition ito c c u p i e sandirrespectiveofallotherconsiderations. I f incertainoftheselanguagesthisgeneralprinciple oftheweakeningofnalsb e c o m e ss o m e w h a tattenuated,as inthec a s eofexceptionspermittingthisorthatnalsyllable toremainintact, it is partlyb e c a u s ealll a n g u a g e shavenot maintainedwithequalprecisiontheseparatecharacterofthe nalsyllable,andpartlyb e c a u s eparticulara g e n c i e shavecut a c r o s sthegeneralagencyby virtue ofwhichnalsyllables b e c o m eweak. T h u s ,nalmveryearlyc e a s e dtobep r o n o u n c e dinLatin ; b u tthewordremkept itsnasal, a traceofwhichstillexists intheFrenchrien. This isb e c a u s eit isashortmonosyllabic w o r d ,andb e c a u s esuchwordsoftenresistalterationsthat a r eregularinlongones.Conversely ,longwordss o m e t i m e s u n d e r g ospecialchangesdue to their especi a l y true of frequently used words which, because of . le ngt, h .u 'n their frequency are d e r s t o o devenbeforetheyareuttered, s othat o m e s i s p e n s ewiththenecessity(If T h the i speaker s c itod s completelyarticulatingthem,andcontentshimselfwithan abbreviation.Phoneticdeterioration is then particularly m a r k e d .Thesew o r d saregenerallya c c e s s o r yintheirnature,
I Male, VI, vol. xlii, p. 26.

_ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

E l e m e n t s sous

C H A P T E RI W O R D S A N D M O R P H E M E S E o ntheonehand,thee x p r e s s i o nof a certainn u m b e rof p r e c e p t srepresentingideas,ando ntheother ,theindicationof V certainrelationsexistingbetweenthem. I f I saytheh o r s e E r u n s , I havetwoideasinmymind,ah o r s eandrunning,and I uni tethetwointhestatementtheh o r s eruns. If I sayPeter's R h o u s eislarge,theideasofah o u s e ,1eter,andl a r g e n e s sinmy m n daresimilarlyc o m b i n e din thestatementwhichconYi stitutesmys e n t e n c e . s It iswelltorealizethatw eaccep tfactsa sl a n g u a g ep r e s e n t s t h e mtous,thatistosay ,thatw ethinkofverbali m a g e sinthe e f o r minwhichl a n g u a g eclothesthem. This is themeaning nbeattributedtotheideaabovee to x p r e s s e d ," W ethink in s e n t e n c e s . " We s u p p o s e that by virtue of certain u n c o n s c i o u s t tsthementalactwhichunitesawordandanobject(the habi h o r s e ,inthisc a s e )takesplaceinthebrain,togetherwiththe e actthatc o n n e c t sthisobjectwithanaction,a n dw h i c hrestricts n t h eactionwithincertaintimelimits,whenwesaytheh o r s e r u n s . cT h i smentalacts u p p o s e dbylanguageincludestwosucc e s s i v eoperations e theimagehas beenformed, the minddistinguishes a . c nnumberofelementsbetweenwhich it establishes a certai c o n n e x i o n(herethehorseandrunning), ands u b s e q u e n t l ya : a o p r o c e s sofsynthesis,inwhichthesedifferentelements,recogp r oc eysed s bythemind,arec n i z e dand anal o m b i n e da n e wtoform n the verbal i m age. Synthesis al o ne c o n c e r n s the linguist. But s t is ofparamountinterest, forfromthe differentforms this of o athisfoperationofsynthesisresultthedifferencesin the structureoflanguages.' a nuss a lo y i Let u p p s e thatdifferenth u m a nbrainsreceiveinequal d e g r e e the s a m e visual i m p r e s s i o n of the ' r unni n g h o r s e ; and s i s , n usadmit,althoughthismay not be a safeinference, let that a m ewaythee l e m e n t sformingthis is theyanalyseinthes Finck n d y w h i C is c U M h t I _ , e m e n t ss o u sdroitsdiauteur a f i

7 4

G R A M M A R

representation,andestablishexactly thesameconnexion b e t w e e nthehorseandtherunning. Theexpressionof this c o n n e x i o nwouldtakeaparticularformine a c hl a n g u a g e; the verbalimageswillbedifferentlycombined.The distinctions postulatedat'thebeginningofthischapteris not,therefore, apurelytheoreticalone. I t c o r r e s p o n d stowhatw emaycall m o r p h e m e sands e m a n t e m e s . B ys e m a n t e m e sweunderstandthelinguisticelementswhich e x p r e s stheideas of theconcepts(representations); in this c a s e ,theideaofthehorse,ortheideaoftherunning;andby m o r p h e m e sweunderstandthoseelementswhichexpressthe c o n n e x i o n sbetweentheideas.Here, thefactoftherunning w h i c hisc o n n e c t e din ageneralwaywiththehorse,isreferred tothe thirdpersonsingularindicative.Morphemesconsequentlye x p r e s stherelationsestablishedinthemindbetween thes e m a n t e m e s .The latterareonlytheobjectivee l e m e n t sof theconceptandwillbeseparatelyc o n s i d e r e din thesection ofthebookdevotedtovocabulary . T h em o r p h e m eis generallyaphoneticelement (asound, syllable,orevenseveralsyllables)indicatingthegrammatical relationsb e t w e e ntheideasinthesentence. InaG r e e ks e n t e n c es u c hasM o o L e y ' k a x 6 v A v i e n K E vZistorans, "S i m o n i d e sraised a beautifulaltar," it iseasytorecognize thatsidebysidewiththesyllablese x p r e s s i n gthefundamental i d e a sof thesentence(Simonides,to raise, altar, beautiful), thereare othersyllablesw h o s eentirefunctionconsistsin indicatingthatthequalityofbeautyb e l o n g stothealtar,and that it isSimonideswho ats o m epasttimeperformedthe actionof raisingthe altar in question. The rst ofthese syllablesarethes e m a n t e m e sandthes e c o n dthem o r p h e m e s . O rtakeFrenchg r o u p sofw o r d ss u c haspour(Joiner ,jed o n n e , i sdonnas, ladonation,d e sd o n c a e u r s ,audonataire.Analysis clearlyperceives a permanentelement, the syllabledon, c o n n e c t i n gallthesew o r d swiththeideaofgiving. But there a r ealsointheseg r o u p sacertainnumberofphoneticelements w h i c hservetoindicatewhetherwearedealingwith a verb oranoun,ofwhatkind,andtowhatgrammaticalcategory (gender ,number ,person)thewordsbelong,as wellasthe relationunitingthemwith theotherwordsin thesentence. T h e s eelementsarem o r p h e m e s .

lementssousdroitsd'auteur

W O R D SAND MORPHEMES 1 3 1 incontrastto vial feminine;similarly ,thethirdp e r s o nh a s citala " hehaskilled "(masculine)andqatei/at " s h ehas killed ". T h u s ,w es e ethattheIndo-EuropeanandSemiticl a n g u a g e s c o m b i n etwokindsofm o r p h e m e s ,vocalicablautandafxion, butindifferentd e g r e e s .Thevocalicablautplaysthegreater partinSemitic. " Thepeculiarwaythesel a n g u a g e shaveof e x p r e s s i n gthefundamentalideabyc o n s o n a n t sands e c o n d a r y m o d i c a t i o n sbyvowels,bringsabout asystemof internal inectionofwords."1 " AnArabicrootischaracterizedonly b yitsc o n s o n a n t s .As tothevowels,everyc o n s o n a n tinevery rootm a yb efollowedbya,a, ed, 1 1 ,orzero,orh a v ealls e v e n f o r m sandeach of thesesevenserves to characterizethe g r a m m a t i c a lfunction."2 Thise n a b l e stheSemiticl a n g u a g e s toform an u m b e rofderivativeswithouttheaid ofafxes: Arabickeitaba"hehaswritten",kdish"writer",hitabIt ("thatw h i c hiswritten"). InIndo-European,w o r d scouldnotbeformedin thisway withouttheaidofsufxes.Compare,forexample,thethree p r e c e d i n gArabicw o r d swiththeGreekt r u o r i p t i c S e i v ,a t i p y y p a t P t k h , a n dcri;Typa p u r p o s e softhevocalicablautistob e s t o waparticularvalue i u p o ntheso-calledrootbyseparatingit fromthenetworkof afxes n dbyco n cen trati n gu p o nit,s otospeak,them a x i m u m h a capacityforexpression.Thespeakerb e c o m e sawareof the m asarealityo root w i n gtothefactthat ith a sdifferentvocalic states, each c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a different use. The reality a.the B u lies t in thisvariability. The principleofvocalic of root abl ute n a b l e st h e s ee l e m e n t stoplayasubstitutiverole.This i a n isa verydelicateandverysubtleinteraction,towhichthe I emi nt d oIndo-Europeanm S i c and i n d shadb e e ntrained. W e m u s tnotc o n f o u n dtherootwiththeradical. In French - ecanrecognizebyanalysisinwordslike aim-er,part-ir, w y e c e v o i r ,the l e m e n t saim-,part-,recev-; butthesee l e m e n t s E u oe areonlygrammaticalentitiesofw h o s eexistencethespeaker p e a aware. n The g i shardly rammari an scallthem " radicals". In German,theprincipleofvocalicablautgivestheradicals , aclearervalue. The oppositionofg e b e nandgab,n e h m e n , a R e n a n ,CXL s XCIV ,4thed.,p.133. i n S e t e m e n t ssousdroitsdiauteur m i

8i G R A M M A R n a h m ,andg m o m m e n ,may ,toacertainextent,c o n v e ytheidea ofa singleelementcharacterizedby thec o n s o n a n t sgatior n-tn,withinw h i c hcertainv o w e l sw o u l darisea c c o r d i n gtothe s e n s etobee x p r e s s e d . In theIndo-Europeangroupwemust g o backtoancientG r e e kandabovealltoSanskrit,togetthe b e s tnotionoftheroot. N e v e r t h e l e s s ,Indo-EuropeanandSemiticgenerallyemploy afxes(sufxesorendings) in addition to vocalicablaut. InIndo-European, it isveryrareforvocalicablautaloneto characterizeaword,a n dw h e nthish a p p e n s ,thephilologistm u s t a d m i tthat thewordhasazerosufxor a zerod e s i n e n c e . F o rexampleGreekd m ; ) p comparedwith04peworitoilpos. H e n c e ,theIndo-Europeanroot,althoughithass u c hagreat m o r p h o l o g i c a lvalue,h a sn e v e r t h e l e s sn oi n d e p e n d e n texistence. It wasaconventionoftenb a s e du p o nanarbitraryanalysisof factswhichledtheg r a m m a r i a n sof Indiaintothehabit of b r e a k i n gup theirwordsanddiscoveringtheirroots,and w h i c ha c c o u n t sforourSanskritdictionariesto-daystilltracing b a c ktheverb-formstoanidealtypewhichwecalltheroot, f r o mwhichalltheformsw o u l dhaves p r u n gbytheaddition ofsufxes. Neitherhasthesufxanindependentexistence; it o w e s w h a t e v e rreality itp o s s e s s e stovocalicablaut(liketheroot), a n dto themeaningattributed to it, whichis oftenvery p r e c i s e . In a Greekwordlikew a T T 3 p ,w a r p d s ,irwriptc, the v o c a l i cablautgivesaprecisevaluetothesufx ( k y r t i T t o p , pl. ( 1 7 d r o p e y , which is only a c o m p o u n d of the preT c e d i n g ,givesustwonewformsofsufx( TIIP i sasufxd e n o t i n grelationship. p -1 0 s i n e n c e scan becloselyc o m p a r e dwith sufxes ; they T -l a s o are el e ments added to the root. They can only be dis c t i n g u i s h e d from sufxes b y their use, as the sufx i n d i c a t e s the ) o g e n e r a lcategorytowhichthew o r db e l o n g s(agentive,aspect, r e 1 instrumental,augmentative,diminutive, etc.), while the p 3 -i e n d n gsimplys h o w sthe partplayed by theword in the n s e n t e n c e . Thus, the two have different functions, but from o t h e point of view of word-formati o n, both arem o r p h e m e sof t -andSemitic. t h es a m echaracterinbothIndo-European u f x e sa n dendingsareaddedto the7 root. This is the hS u s u a lmethod of composition for Indo-European words, 0 e p d i ) f _ i e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

WORDS - invariable.Thea a l t h o u g hit isnot u g m e n tplacedbeforethe ro o tisanexcepti n; in averblikeA t ; c o ,1 Ao N p a s t time exactly as the 0of X 6 1 7 o ) i n di c ates the future. ix te /must Gra i surpri t sed,therefore,toe D W not be n c o u n t e rinother l a n g u a g e si the te condi i n d copposi a t e s tionsto thatprevailinginIndoM O E u r o p e a norS e m i t i c n a m e l y ,initialinection.Frencheven g i v e suss o m eR ideaP ofthisinthepluralsofw o r d sbeginning with a vowel,whicharee x p r e s s e dby a prexedsibilant: H E arbre, z P o p u l a r l a n g u a g e gi v es us a c u r i o u s e x a m p l e of the extensi o n M E ofthispeculiarityintheverbzyeukr ,derivedfromtheplural of o u s S In certainLorrainedialects,theysayz a the r bword r cell. a n dmilesforeux,elks,andzout" leur"(ontheanalogyof e s vout). 8 out, H o w e v e r , this is merel y an excepti o nal state of affairs in 3 h o 1 F r e n c h ,and ithasnobearingonanythingfundamental.On m t h econtrary ,certainSemiticl a n g u a g e slikeArabicp o s s e s sa true initial inection. For exampl e , in o n e of the two Arabic m t e n s e s ,theimperfect,p e r s o nisalwaysindicatedbyanafx p l a c e e g i n n i n gofthew o r d: e ,dattheb 1 s tp e r s o nsing.agitilu,pl.nagiutu. z2 n dpersonmas.tagtulu-laqiulana,dual. tagiuldni, fem. tagtul ina-tagtulna. -3 r dp e r s o nm a s .yagtuiu,pl.yagittlna,dual.yaktulani,fern, tagtul u-yagluina,tagtulani. h o In Georgi a n, whi c h c o m e s from quite a different stock, we m ndequallystrikinge x a m p l e sofinectionatthebeginning o ftheword,andwec o n c l u d etherefromthat thep r o c e s sof m afxationc o n s i s t sofa d d i n gtotherootm o r p h o l o g i c a le l e m e n t s e s w h i c hm a ybep l acedeitherinfrontorb e h i n d a Incontrasttol a n g u a g e slikeIndo-EuropeanandSemitic, w h e r ethewordformedfromthe rootandtheafxesisa u c o m p l e t e and i n d e p e n d e n t entity , there is a seri e s of l a n g u a g e s f inwhichthem o r p h e m e sarem o r eorlessi n d e p e n d e n tofthe e m a n t e m e s .Theclearesttypeis that inwhichal a n g u a g e ,s d i s t i n g u i s h e stwocat eg o ri esofw o r d s ,thefullandtheempty , z tou s etheC h i n e s eterminology .The fullw o r d sarethes e m a n t e m e s ,andtheemptythem o r p h e m e s .The latterarenever I E. Rolland, VIM vol. v, p. 151. c e u f _ L e m e n t ss o u sdroitsdiauteur s

8 8 G R A M M A R t e l e s c o p e dm o r p h e m e s .Theyhavenoi n d e p e n d e n texistence; t h e yareofvalueonlyinbeinginterchangeabletothemind, forwecansayjenetialpasvu,tutiem'avais as vu,n o u stie v o u sauranspasvu,etc.,thusvaryingaswepleasetheconstitutiveelementsoftheword.Doubtlesswemustobserve therelativedifferencesbetweentheseelements.The je,me, tu,leareactuallysimplym o r p h e m e swithoutanyi n d e p e n d e n t e x i s t e n c eandtheyarenotu s e dseparately .The jeexistsonly inacombinationlikejepark " I speak", jec o u r s" I run" t h e m e l i k ewi s e can only be u s e d in p h r a s e s like je m e dis " I ; tellmyself",tum efrappes"youstrikem e". Were it notfor thefactthato n eorm o r ee l e m e n t sm a ybeintroducedb e t w e e n thep r o n o u nandtheverb(jedis,jeledis,jetieledispas),we c o u l dc o n s i d e rthejeofjedisasequivalenttothenalointhe Latin dic j-e s t a g e ; but it has been pointed out that already for several c e n t u r i e sthepronominalsubjecthasbeentendingm o r eand o m o r etofusewiththeverb. We shouldnotsayto-day ,as d aa n d R b e l a i sdid: " je, dit Picrochole,lesprendrai k merci." iP s o p u l a rusage,on the contrary ,frequentlyemploysthe a s p r o n o u n in the third p e r s o n e v e n w h e n the subj e ct is e x p r e s s e d : ," pere, ii dit ce qu'll veut" (Father, hesayswhat he sLe u likes), " lesb o u r g e o i s ,usontbiendelac h a n c e" (themiddle t m e c l a s s e s ,they're all right),etc. Yet am o r p h e m es u c ha sn o u s , u v o u s ,h is,toacertainextent,akintoaw o r ds i n c ethes a m eform t c a no c c u p yanemphaticpositionandc o r r e s p o n d ,atthes a m e ti me,to a t je,me,andmoi; to tu,te,and la ; to ii, le,andlui. Thi s further co mp l i c ates the probl e m of deni n g w o r d s , quite d F r thep apartfrom r e s e n c eofadverbsandnegations,which i h v e rbetweentheconditionsofm o r p h e m e sandwordsin eo t h emidstofverb-forms. It maybesaidthat inFrenchthe s no w r disveryill-dened. h i sis equallytrue ofl a n g u a g e slikeT urkish, in which ,c T the m o r p h o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t s either waver b e t w e e n o n e s e m a n it e m eandanother ,orh a n glooselytogether .The unityofthe h w o r din T urkish is presentedby a phoneticp h e n o m e n o n , l h icharmonywhichdeterminesthe vowelcharacterof vocal different syllables in a c c o r d a n c e with a domi n ant syllable. a T h e unity of the Bantu w o r d is d u e to another c a u s e , to the u s e d of e t e r m i n e dine a c hm o r p h o l o g i c a lcat eg o rybythe s classiers,d ii t n ( i p _ , a m e n t ss o u sdroitsdiauteur t

W O R D SAND MORPHEMES 8 9 r6leofthew o r dinthes e n t e n c e .However ,w eareco n strai n ed toincludeundertheterm "w o r d"inBantu,asinFrenchor T urkish,v a r i o u ' se l e m e n t sw h i c harefelttop o s s e s sasubstitutive character ,andwhichhavethereforea veryloosec o n n e x i o n withthesemanteme. primitive A m e r i c a n l a n g u a g e s like the G r e e n l a n d dialect of the 1 F i a lc l E s k i m o ,n inwhi hy it isimpossibleto xthedivisionsin the s e n t e n c e t h iand s wherethere is a tendencyto formasmany w o r d sass e n t e n c e s ,andasm a n ys e n t e n c e saswords.' i O s contrary nthe , in theSemiticl a n g u a g e s ,aswellas in the early I n do-European tongues, like Sanskrit, Vedic, or a l s o G r e e k ,thewordhas a completeautonomy ,manifested in v a r i o u s kindse of characteristicphonetictreatment,as for t h e x a m p l e ,inthenalsyllables,orthedelicateplayofaccent-c a s bearswithinitselfthesignofitsu b a l a n c e .Theword s eand thee x p r e s s i o nofitsm o r p h o l o g i c a lvalue; it hasacompletee n e s sw h i c hl e a v e snothingtobedesired.TheC h i n e s eword,for differentr a s o n s ,canalsobeeasilydened.Separatedfrom w ie itscontext,however ,itl o s e sall itse x p r e s s i v evalue,andhas t h abstractmeaningwhichcanberelatedto no onlyavague particular use. c e r W ecannot,therefore,attemptanydenitionoftheword t i applicableto alll w h i c ha shallbe a n g u a g e s ,exceptp e r h a p sthe denition p r o p o s e d by M. Meillet, whi c h p u r p o s e l y avoi d s any n explanationofthegrammaticaluseanditse x p r e s s i o n: " A w o r distheresultofthea s s o c i a t i o nofagivenm e a n i n gwitha g i v e ncombinationofs o u n d s ,capableofagivengrammatical u s e . "3
GatithlOt I Finck, CIAL p. 31. t X,1913,IL L X I I I t o p p . 3 4 - 5 ,

_ , a m e n t ss o u sdroitsdiauteur

E l e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur