„Das phonologische Inventar und seine morphonologische Klassifizierung“ (einige Bemerkungen)

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 159 -175 „The phonological inventory and its morphophonic classification‘ (some remarks) € BOHUMIL OUT Ustav pro jazyk česky AV CR In the present paper an attempt is made to describe the Lithuanian expression plane (the phonological system) according to glossematic principles. We compare this description with the morphonological description of Lithuanian proposed by Tomas Hoskovec. On this basis a few observations are made on the relation between the glossematic description of the expression plane of language and morphonology. In the first issue of the second year of the journal Acta Linguistica, several reviews and notes by Louis Hjelmslev appeared, including that of Ludovit Novak’s essay “K zäkladnym otäzkam strukturälnej jazykovedy” (see Hjelmslev 1940-41a; Novak 1937). Ludovit Noväk, one of the "preluded boys" of the second generation of the Prague school, published this essay in the then still important journal Sbornik Matice slovenskej (especially thanks to Noväk's editorial staff) and understood it as a fundamental rethinking of the initial theses and practice of Prague structural linguistics, especially of the "preluded boys" of the second generation of the Prague school. of phonology. Louis Hjelmslev stressed the importance of Noväk’s essay and also regretted that it had been written in Slovak, “dans une langue si peu répandue dans le monde international”. At the same time, however, Hjelmslev also added his own views in a compressed form to Noväk’s statements. The time when magazine articles worth discussing appeared seems to have long passed. The story of Noväk and Hjelmslev can hopefully nevertheless repeat itself. An article by Tomaš Hoskovec was recently published in the journal Slavia (see Hoskovec 2002). Although the Slavia of today is not similar to the Sbornik Matice slovenskej edited by Novék, Hoskovec’s essay is written in Czech, a language that is not widely used in the international world. Like Noväk earlier, Hoskovec also tries to think through and develop a theory —using the example of Lithuanian—, namely the functional-linguistic relationships between the pre-launched boys (in Czech „hubati kluci“) cf. Leska (2002: 53f.). 160 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL A narrative description of Petr Sgall, one of the most important continuers of the Prague tradition, and in this context specifically the (so far less considered) questions that arise here on the morphphonological level. As the title of the paper suggests, the main theme is the question of what happens to the phonological inventory after its morphophonological reclassification. In other words, it is about how the phonological elements are to be reinterpreted when their roles in the construction of the signifiants are taken into account. It is well known that Hjelmslev welcomed the program of morphology (in its then form) —in contrast to that of phonology— (see Hjelmslev 1973: 228, 234 and also below 2.4.), because morphology —as Hjelmslev states—tries to describe the elements of the plan of expression of language according to the linguistic form and not according to the substance. Although there are also considerable differences between morphology and Hjelmslev- ’s description of the expression plan (e.g. because morphphonology does not focus on the substance aspect of language use like phonology, but rather on the sign aspect and not on language structure like Hjelmslev; See also below 2. ), the morphphonological description and that of Hjelmslev are nevertheless obviously closer to each other. This can also be observed in the result of the “morphological classification” of the Lithuanian phonological inventory, to which Hoskovec has come. We will therefore use this opportunity to compare the morphphonological description with an attempt at a glossematic description of the elements of the expressive side of the linguistic sign in Lithuanian (in order not to compromise on phonology or kenematics...). This comparison concerns above all the question of the reduction of the elements and some more general questions of the “object of description”. First, however, let us recall the well-known fact that the glossematic theory is a fragment and has not been completed in all its aspects. This is also why there are only a few and not unproblematic descriptions of individual languages from the glossematic point of view. Nevertheless, perhaps something can be said’. There is no one-to-one relationship between spoken and written Lithuanian, and they must therefore be considered as two different languages (schemas). In the following, spoken Lithuanian is referred to as Lithuanian. 1.1. Lithuanian has both analytical and synthetic sentences (lexeme and Nexi) and sentence groups (lexies and nexies): It has divisible expression units that can form a catalyzed superchain (i.e. the unit immediately preceding in the analysis) alone, and it has extensive expression characteristics (modulation). We will not deal with the category of extensive expression characteristics in more detail here: the description of the Lithuanian sentence intonation represents, as Hoskovec (2002: 269f.) states, almost a terram incognitam. We will not define the glossematic terms and refer to the corresponding literature (e.g. Hjelmslev 1973: 247-266; 1975). „THE PHONOLOGICAL INVENTARY...“ | 161 Lithuanian also has analytical syllables (syllabeme) and synthetic syllables: it has both units that in catalyzed form can form an uncatalyzed lexicon on their own in the plan of expression, as well as intense expression characteristics (Accents). As for the description of the system of intense expression characteristics, there seem to be two possibilities. The category can be divided into two subcategories: The first category is represented by the so-called. accents formed, the second by the so-called. Intonations. The first subcategory is selected by the second (the second is syntagmatically dependent on the first) and both have two members, the arbitrary "strong accent" (') and "weak accent" (°) respectively. “acute intonation” (“) and “circumflected intonation” () can be called. The system is as follows (1st category ‘pointed’ and negatively oriented; 2nd category ‘ascending’ and positively oriented- ): a A o A o ' — or —within the framework of the whole category, which is divided into two dimensions (horizontal ‘ascending’ and positive-- negative oriented, vertical ‘point’ and negative oriented- ): o A - = ; A 9 ' The so-called. Intonations select the so-called. accents, since the accents may stand alone (i.e. without intonation) (namely the accent'in the syllables with a so-called short vowel and without /, r, n, m), but not vice versa (see also Hjelmslev 1973: 189-191). The “weak accent” (°) is intense, since in connection with it the intonations are latent, i.e. syncretized and manifested by zero, whereby it is a matter of a dissolvable syncretism (cf. Hjelmslev 1973: 188, 204 and below 2.4.2.). The “circumflected intonation” (7) is intense, because in connection with it the vowels a and e vary (see below 1.2.2.). The second possibility mentioned is not to divide the category (neither into subcategories nor into dimensions) and to count with four members arbitrarily designated as “strong accent” or “gravis” ('), “weak accent” (°), “acute intonation” (‘) and “circumflected intonation” (7). The system is the following (on the dimension ‘ascending’): B B Y r _, or 162 | BOHUMIL BREWERY Against the second possibility speaks the coexistence of the members of the categories “intonation” and “accent” (in other words, the second structuring of the category does not encompass the syntagmatic relationship in which the two categories enter). An alternative is Hjelmslev's solution. Hjelmslev (1973: 197-202) removes the accent ': The so-called. short a and «e manifest in the so-called. accentuated syllables without /, r, n, m the connection of a resp. «e with “and the so-called. short u and i manifest in the same syllables the connection of u resp. i my =. The system could look like this (on the dimension ‘ascending’): B B Y —, or (See also below 3.) 1.2 The constituents of expression (-thematic) form four categories: the selected ones (vowels), the selecting ones (consonants), those that are both selected and selecting (sonants- ), and those that are neither selected nor selecting. The fourth category includes the elements of expression that can serve as interjections, and one could perhaps also include the foreign elements here, if they can be counted as part of the given language structure. 1.2.1. The constituents that are both selected and selective are in the Lithuanian two: i and u. Their vowel varieties are represented by the phonemes /i/ resp. /u/ manifested, their consonant varieties by /j/ and /v/ (or rather /w/). When registering, the respective varieties are reduced to a single invariant in Lithuanian, both because of the noun and because of the sign aspect of language use (for the second reduction, see tave ‘you’ vs. tau ‘you’; got ‘ich bekam’ vs. get ‘bekommen’; four ‘vier’ vs. fourth ‘der vierter’; eiti ‘to go’ ėjau ‘I went’; gujau ‘I hunted’ vs. guiti hunting’). (See also 2.4.1 below.) The system of the sonates thus looks as follows (on the dimension ‘front’): o A i u i is intense, since it represents the syncretism between the so-called ‘front’ and ‘back’. palatalized and non-palatalized consonants dominated (or since before i the so-called non-palatalized consonants vary —if the palatalized consonants are reduced; see below 1.2.3.). 1.2.2. The selected expression constituents are two: a, 2. The remaining candidates can be reduced to vowels: i = ii, ū =uu,e=x2, o=aa (see Hjelmslev 1973: 198-200), ž = variety of @ in connection with “ and before latent n, a = variety of a in connection with “ and before latent n (see Hjelmslev 1973: 182f., 197, 201f.). The sizes e and ö can be used as signals for foreign words and variants of @ resp. a be considered. „THE PHONOLOGICAL INVENTARY...“ | 163 ab, which Alle diese Reduktionen hängen offensichtlich von der Annahme der Latenz von n however brings problems (latent n before sibilants, but not in the future like gerins ‘he/she/it will /they will improve’); latent n at the end of the syllable cf. Hjelmslev 1973: 206, but not in expressions like ten ‘there’ or šiandien ‘today’). Without a latent n one would have to count with the following inventory of vowels: a,2&,e,ö, undo and € would have to be dd and €. ee be considered, which would bring a complication in that e and ö are contained alone in foreign words, while as parts of identity diphthongs they also form native signs; moreover and above all there would be hardly any (morphological) reasons for such a reduction. The vowels without e and ö form the following system (on the dimension ‘frontal’): o A x a 2 is intense for the same reason as i (see 1.2.1.); between the vowels, however, there is a syncretism in most cases. Including e and ö, the system looks like this (horizontally ‘front’, vertically ‘middle’ or ‘closed’): a A a e d A x a 1.23. Most candidates can also be reduced to consonants. So you can the so-called. dissolve palatalised consonants before u and a into a connection of the corresponding nonpalatalized consonant with the consonant variety of i: p’ =pj, b’ =bj, t’ =1j,d’ =dj,k’=kj,- g’ =gj,c’ =cj,3' =3, = čj, j=j,s’ =5j,2' =2j, $' = šj, F' = Z,m’=mj,n- ’=nj,r' =rj, P =|,v=vj,f=- fj,x=x, h’ = hj; before i and & as well as the other palatalized consonants are p’ etc. Variety of p etc. The so-called. Neutralization of the palatal correlation (before a non-palatalized consonant and at the end of a word) is to be considered as a manifestation of the latency of. An alternative reduction of the so-called. The reduction of palatalised consonants before u and a would be that into a connection of the corresponding non-palatalized consonant with the vowel variety of i. This reduction would have to be made because there is the (potential) commutation between the so-called palatalized consonants and the connection of the corresponding nonpalatalized with j seems to be; cf.: dialectal pjonycia “drinker” and the fluctuating expressions bjaurus /biaurus ‘garlic’, pjauti /piauti ‘slice’, pjudyti | piudyti ‘heat’ and their derivatives (tautosyllabic Ci”* before u and a is manifested by /C’/ and Ci*°® by /Cj/). A further resolution is possible for the affixes: c = ts, 3 = dz, č = 18, 5 = dž. An alternative reduction would be the following: c’ = tj, 5’ = dj (see also Hjelmslev 164 | The 164th 1973: 201f. ); 2’ and d’ are signals for foreign words or interjections and variants of t respectively. d. The reason for the dissolution of p’ etc. into pj or pi etc. as well as of c etc. into ts etc. is in any case —as indicated— the absence of commutation between p’ etc. and pj or pi etc. respectively. c etc. and is etc. (on this principle cf. Hjelmslev 1943: 62f. ; 1973: 217). The sizes f, x, h can be considered as signals for foreign words and variants. The resulting system ten: f schließt Synkretismus mit p ein, x mit k und h mit Null. can be divided into two subcategories. 1.2.3.1. The first subcategory is formed by the elements that must be immediately next to a vowel or a sonant: m, n, r, 7°. Your system can be arranged either in two dimensions or in a single dimension: (horizontal ‘nasal’; vertical ‘rear’) a A a n I A m r B B n || (on the ‘closure’ dimension) 1.2.3.2. The second subcategory has ten elements and the following system (horizontal ‘front’; vertical ‘voice’ with syncretisms): a A B B r a b g z ž d A p k S Sh t The vowel consonants, however, like to dissolve themselves in connections of the corresponding vowel with h and to be considered before another vowel as variants of the corresponding vowel. The so-called. Neutralization of the vowel correlation (before a voiceless consonant and 3 Here naturally arises the question of the distinction between the accidental and the structural absence of element combinations, which however seems only axiomatically solvable (cf. Vykypél 2003: §2 with literature). By the way, this question also arises when it is stated that a quantity in connection with other quantities is to be dissolved due to the absence of commutation between the quantity and the connection: Even the absence of a combination in the position in question in which the commutation test is carried out can be accidental. For the same reason, we do not deal with the question of the order of the elements into which it is reduced, because Hjelmslev’s (1973: 161,255) rule xyz = xy + yz is not necessarily valid in this perspective (cf. Fischer-Jorgensen 1979: 108). „THE PHONOLOGICAL INVENTARY...“ | 165 at the end of the word) would be considered as a manifestation of the latency of h. The system would then be the following (on the dimension ‘front’): a A B B Y r p k S § h t An alternative arrangement of the system would be the following (horizontal ‘front’; vertical ‘closure’): | 3 B p S A Pe x a Now we try to compare the breakdown of the Lithuanian expression system with the morphphonological classification of the Lithuanian phonological inventory in some aspects. 2.1 At this point it is perhaps appropriate to recall some of the history of morphology (without, however, telling the whole story). In the initial program of morphphonology, as its founder, N. S. Trubetzkoy (1929; 1931; 1934; cf. also Skalicka 1979: 77f., 83), formulated it, various things were included: the general task of examining the phonological structure of (minimal) signs broke down into two areas, namely those of the "bound alternances", which are phonologically determined (i.e. by which contentless units of expression the individual signs are formed), and those of the "free alternances", which are morphologically determined (i.e. by which content elements the units of expression in question are connected with). Trubetzkoy himself, however, never completed his own program of morphology — for whatever reasons — and moreover the status of morphology as an independent linguistic discipline was criticized by claiming that the assumed tasks of morphology were to be incorporated into phonology (the “bound alternances”) and morphology (the “free alternances”) (cf. Martinet 1963: 88 f.; 1965: 95; D'urovič 1967 a; 1967b Kurylowicz 1967; neuerdings vgl. Patri 2002). The criticism on the second point can be summarized in the objection that there is no difference between morphology and formal morphology*, because both investigate the structure of the signifiants. One would notice two things in the answer here. First of all, it can be said that morphphonology examines what the SINGLE phonological elements are in the construction of the 4. Perhaps it is not necessary to remind that here the examination of the (minimal) signs under morphology resp. whose signifiants are understood as formal morphology, whereas Hjelmslev meant the description of certain content elements with morphology. 166 | BOHUMIL BREWERY Signs do, while formal morphology deals with COMPLEXES of these elements as sign components. However, since morphology also describes complexes of phonological elements (e.g. diphthongs or phonemic combinations that alternate with a single phoneme) and conversely formal morphology has to take into account the roles of individual phonemes in sign formation, a second possible difference seems more important: morphology examines the possibilities of the linguistic (phonological) system for the construction of the signs, formal morphology deals with how these possibilities are exploited, i.e. how the concrete signifiants are constructed. And just in this We can also draw points from Hjelmslev's positive evaluation of morphology, mentioned at the beginning. The difference between the possibilities offered by the system and the exploitation of these possibilities represents for Hjelmslev, as is well known, one of the important distinguishing features between language construction and language use (see also Vykypel 2003: $1). The descriptive object of morphology could thus be incorporated in the Hjelmslev language structure, while that of formal morphology could be incorporated in the language usage. Apart from this point, there are other points of contact that connect morphology with Hjelmslev's kenematics (description of the plan of expression- ). First of all, it should be recalled that the elements of expression in the two disciplines are not classified according to their manifestation (phonetic or phonological, i.e. according to Trubetzkoy’s “phonological content”). The difference, however, lies in the way in which they are classified: in morphology according to the roles of the elements in the construction of the signs, in kinematics according to the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in which the elements can enter without being limited by the framework of the sign. Nonetheless, both can be regarded as an INNER point of view: the kinematics moves in pure form, without taking into account the substance (manifestation); in the case of morphology, it is about the sign formed by the interpenetration of the two planes of language (the content and the plan of expression) with each other, and not about manifestation, which represents the interpenetration of the planes with the world. Nevertheless, from a strictly glossematic point of view, it must be admitted that the morphphonological description of the construction of the signifiants —however it may or may not be limited to possibilities and does not deal with the concrete signs— must not be included in the description of the construction of language, because the signs belong to language use and the kenematic description is directed only to the contentless expression entities: The possibilities offered by the system mentioned above (2.1.) represent the syntagmatic and paradigmatic combination possibilities of the elements as well as their possibilities of manifestation, among which language use then chooses at different levels (in the plan of expression on the morphphonological and later on the formalmorphological level). Thus it can be said that in Hjelmslev's program of investigation of the plan of expression in the first place (i.e. that of language construction) only that area of the Trubetzkoy „THE PHONOLOGICAL INVENTARY...“ | 167 Morphology fits, which the investigation of the so-called. bound alterations (cf. Vykypél 2002: 243f.). 2.3 Even if morphphonology can only be partially integrated into kinematics, there remains a (choice-) relationship between these two disciplines, which is obviously based on the fact that in both cases more of what can be realized is studied than what is realized. It can also be assumed that this is also expressed in the willingness of morphology to reduce the elements. Thus, we can finally return to the essay by Tomaš Hoskovec. Here, a similar reduction of the so-called. The analysis of palatalised phonemes in Lithuanian was carried out as above (1.2.3.): The palatalised phonemes were interpreted from the morphphonological point of view as connections of the respective non-palatalized consonants with a “palatalizing element” (cf. Hoskovec 2002: 283-291). However, this step was not taken purely arbitrarily, but because the consonant system is thereby “significantly simplified- ”, as was explicitly stated. At the same time, Hoskovec admits that the so-called. he does not do this reduction, because it would not bring any simplification with it, or in other words, there is no use for such a modification from the morphphonological point of view (cf. Hoskovec 2002: 283). In the case of the long vowels /i/ and /ü/, a further reduction is considered possible from the morphphonological point of view (cf. Hoskovec 2002: 293f.), namely by their dissolution into /ii/ and /ü/ respectively. /uu/, i.e. similar reduction as above (1.2.2.) is performed. At the same time, however, it is stated on the one hand that the dissolution of these phonemes is not possible in all cases, and on the other hand it is not considered for the other vowels at all. Both are understandable, because there are no morphphonological reasons for this – or in other words, such operations would not have led to any simplification from the morphphonological point of view. The kinematic description, however, finds its reasons for both, namely in the generalization principle (on this see Hjelmslev 1943: 63; 1975: 2): The solution by reduction, which the quantities f and & in the one case clearly and in the other ralizes“. This principle can also be applied to the so-called. Apply affricates. Similarly to /i/ and /ū/, the affixes are also found (in other words) to be morphphonologically interpretable in some cases as dental-sibilanth connections, but not in others (cf. Hoskovec 2002: 286-290). Due to the generalization principle, however, all afficats can be solved as above (1.2.3.). However, the fact that the generalization of the resolution does not achieve any simplification from the morphphonological point of view speaks against its morphphonological resolution. It should anderen mehrdeutig zulassen, wird für alle Fälle sowie für die anderen Vokale genebe noted that there are also purely phonological reasons for interpreting Lithuanian long vowels as identity diphthongs (see Trubetzkoy 1939: 172). 174 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL not referred to. It is well known that Latvian has an “intonation” that is missing in Lithuanian, namely the so-called broken intonation (”). It would correspond to this that Latvian also has in its content plan a content element of the numeral-genus category, which is not found in Lithuanian, namely the ‘personality’ (see vinš, vina vs. tas, ta). For lovers of area linguistics and language unions, it is certainly interesting that comparable situations can be found in the neighboring Germanic languages: cf. the Swedish intonations and Swedish han, hon ‘he, she (personal)’ vs. den, det ‘he/she, it (non-personal)’, which are both missing in German. LITERATURVERZEICHNIS Ducror, O. 1967: The commutation in glossematics and phonology. Word 23, 101-121. D’urovic, L. 1967 a: Discussion paper on Kurylowicz 1967. Hamm 1967, pp. 170–171. D’urovic, L. 1967 b: The problem of morphology. To honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday 11 October 1966. 1. The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 556-568. (Janua Linguarum, Major series, 31.) FISCHER-JORGENSEN, E. 1975: Trends in Phonological Theory, Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag. FISCHER-JORGENSEN, E. 1979: 25 Years’ Phonological Comments, Munich: Fink. (International Library of General Linguistics, 31.) HAMM, J., ed., 1967: Phonology of the Present. Lectures and discussions on the occasion of the International Phonology Conference in Vienna 30. VIII-3. IX. 1966, Graz-Vienna-Cologne: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. HJELMSLEV, L. 1940-41a: Review of "The Slavic Languages of the Middle East" by Noväk 1937. Acta Linguistica 2, 64-65. Hjelmslev, L. 1940-41b: Rezension von L. Noväk: Some remarks on the phonological system of Hungarian. Acta Linguistica 2, 67. HIELMSLEV, L. 1943: Omkring sprogteoriens grundleeggelse, Copenhagen: Munksgaard. HIELMSLEV, L. 1959: Linguistic Essays, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag. HIELMSLEV, L. 1972: Sprogsystem og sprogforandring, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag. HIELMSLEV, L. 1973: Linguistic Essays II, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag, 1973, pp. 103-104. (Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague, 14.) HIELMSLEV, L. 1974: Essays on Linguistics, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. HIELMSLEV, L. 1975: Résumé of a Theory of Language. Ed. by E. J. Whitfield, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag. (Works of the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, 16.) HoskovEc, T. 2002: Phonological inventiveness and its morphological challenges. General methodological consideration of the specific material of the Lithuanian language. Slavia 71, 267-300. Kuryrowicz, J. 1967: Phonology and Morphology. Hamm 1967, pp. 158–169. LESKA, O. 2002: We have finished reading Vachek’s Prolegomena. Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Prague, n.s. 4, 52-54. MARTINET, A. 1963: Basic Principles of General Linguistics, London: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. MARTINET, A. 1965: La linguistique synchronique (études et recherches), Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1965, p. France. (The Linguist, 1.) NOVAK, LE. 1937: The Structural Problems of Linguistics. Journal of the American Mathematical Society 15, 3-23. PATRI, S. 2002: The method of Troubetzkoy morphologist. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 55, 63-83. SKALICKA, V. 1979: Typological studies. Ed. by P Hartmann, Braunschweig-Wiesbaden: Vieweg. ‘DAS PHONOLOGICAL INVENTAR...“ | 175 SPANG-HANSSEN, H. 1949: On the Simplicity of Descriptions. Work du Cercle linguistique de Copenhagen 5, 61-70. TRUBETZKOY, N.S. 1929: South la ‘morphology’. Work du Cercle linguistique de Prague 1, 85-88. TRUBETZKOY,N.S. 1931: Thoughts about Morphology. Work du Cercle linguistique de Prague 4, 160-163. TRUBETZKOY, N.S. 1934: The morphophonic System of the Russian language, Prague: Jednota &eskoslovenskych matematikü fizikü a & Otto Harrassowitz. (Working du Cercle linguistique de Prague, 5/2.) TRUBETZKOY,N.S. 1939: Basic features of Phonologie, Prague. (Working du Cercle linguistique de Prague, 7.) VYKYPEL, Czech Republic B. 2002: Questions of the Description of the Expression plan (with Examples from the Upper Sorbian). In: R. Blankenhorn, S. Dönninghaus, R. Marzari, eds., Contributions of the European Slavistic Linguistics (POLYSLAV) 5, Munich: Publishers Otto Sagner, 236-250. (Die World of Slave. Collector's books/ "Cöopunkn, 15." VYKYPEL, B. 2003: Vowels and Consonants as Self-and Mitlaute (with Examples from the Upper Sorbian). Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Brno A 51 (in Druck). Bohumil Vykypel Received 2003 05 02 Ustav pro jazyk česky AV CR etymological separation Web 97 CZ-60200 Brno ([email protected])