- Grammatical Prerequisites to Phonemic Analysis, Word 3.155–72 (1947); hereafter referred to as GPPA.
- Juncture in Modern Standard German, Language 23.225 fn. 14 (1947).
- A Note on Structure, IJ AL, 14.271 (1948).
- Two Fundamental Problems in Phonemics, Studies in Linguistics, 7.33 (1949).
- Further evidence that Hockett believes that a language does not contain one and only one specific list of phonemes is seen in his statement in Problems of Morphemic Analysis, Language, 23.325 (1947):
- A notation is phonemic if it indicates, in every position, only those phonemic contrasts which occur in that position, but indicates all of them. Once one has found the morphemically most desirable notation… and (324): … we may discover that a phonemic notation other than the one we have used—for there are always several mutually convertible possibilities—would simplify the task.
- SIL 7.38 (1949).
- SIL 7.38–39 (1949).
- Taos I: A Language Revisited. IJAL, 14.155–60 (1948). The earlier quote was from An Outline of Taos Grammar 189, Linguistic Structures of Native America, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6 (New York, 1946).
- Language, 23.255–73 (1947).
- The Pitch Phonemes of English, Language, 21.29 (1945): ‘The argument in favor of regarding pitch contours as morphemes is given below in Part 4.’
- SIL 7.29–51 (1949).
- Potawatomi I, IJ AL, 14.2 (1948).
- Quoted above, p. 107.
- Note, also, Wells in Language, 23.259: ‘…by meanings—by grammatical analysis.’
- A Set of Postulates for Linguistic Analysis, Language, 24. 3–46 (1948).
- Such usage may of itself constitute evidence of theoretical importance; see GPPA 156–57.
- Other approaches can also be used to suggest that his attempt is abortive. Thus it may be argued that he has admitted meaning into the system when he says (8) that ‘this sameness is no doubt ultimately a matter of biosocial equivalence.’
- Miss Eli Fischer-jørgensen in Remarques sur les principes de l'analyse phonémique (TCLC Recherches structurales, 5.219 [1949]) has argued that variants of a phoneme are never quite identical, and hence the necessary condition of the recurrence of Bloch's defined variants could never be fulfilled.
- Note that this cannot be free variation type-1, because the segments do not each occur at every place where the other occurs. It can represent free variation type-2, however, since the two occur in some same environments.
- If this is to be read ‘free variation type-1’ (occurrence in all same environments), it adds nothing to the first sentence.
- Occasional Papers No. 1, Studies in Linguistics, (Norman, 1949), 7.
- Occasional Papers No. 3, Studies in Linguistics, (Norman, 1951).
- Compare, for an opposite view, Bloomfield (Meaning, Monatshefte für Deutschen Unterricht 35.102 [1943]):
- In language, forms cannot be separated from their meanings. It would be uninteresting and perhaps not very profitable to study the mere sound of a language without any consideration of meaning. Even in laboratory phonetics one specifies what word or what part of a word is being analyzed. In studying a language, we can single out the relevant features of sound only if we know something about the meaning. This appears plainly when one confronts an unfamiliar language. An observer who first hears the Chippewa of Wisconsin or Michigan will note down such forms as [gi:zik, gi:sik, ki:zik, ki:sik], and he will not know whether he has recorded one, two, three, or four different words. Only when he learns that all four indifferently mean ‘sky’ and when he finds similar variations for other unit meanings, will he realize that these variations are not significant. On the other hand, the difference between the final consonants of such forms as [ki:sik] and [ki: sikk] will perhaps at first escape the observer or seem to him to be trifling or irrelevant, until he realizes that this difference goes hand in hand with a gross difference of meaning, since only the forms with a shorter and weaker final consonant mean ‘sky’, while the others mean ‘cedar’. It is only the differences of meaning which decide that most of the inevitable variations of sound are irrelevant and only certain ones play a part in communication. In short, the significant features of sound (the phonemes) of a language are, of course, those which involve a difference of meaning.
- Peiping Morphophonemics, Language 26.69–70 (1950). Compare also W. E. Weimers, Hints From Morphology for Phonemic Analysis, Studies in Linguistics, 5.91,100 (1947):
- In short, every detail of our phonemic analyses must be justified on the basis of phonetic considerations alone… a shove along the road of phonemic analysis by our knowledge of morphology. However, the final test of our phonemic analysis must be that of phonetic justifiability; yet our choice of one out of several possible phonemic analyses may be determined by the morphology.
- C. F. Hockett, Which Approach in Linguistics is ‘Scientific’? Studies in Linguistics, 8.55 (1950).
- Bloch and Trager. Outline of Linguistic Analysis, 53.
- P. 157:
- Since 'Many of the most significant grammatical facts of a language can be deduced from a crude and inaccurate phonetic transcription: Morphemes can often be identified even by rough similarity in form and meaning; indeed, even accurate phonemic transcriptions sometimes show the morphemes in variant forms. Once the morphemes are identified, they can be grouped into major and minor form classes: into stems, affixes, and the like; into tenses, aspects, etc.; into words, compounds, or phrases; into structural layers of immediate constituents. Boundaries between morphemes, words, clauses, utterances and so on, may then usually be established. That is to say, many of the most important structural facts which differentiate two languages can be discovered from crude phonetic data, subject to some omissions if pertinent sounds are overlooked, or unnecessary complexity of form at those points where allophones, instead of phonemes, are transcribed.'
- Studies in Colloquial Japanese IV, Language 26.124 (1950).
- An Outline of English Structure, 54.
- Contrast their theory, quoted above.
- Studies in Colloquial Japanese II, Language 22.202 (1946).
- Language 26.86 (1950).
- Apart from the desire to keep levels apart.
- Studies in Linguistics 7.40 (1949). Compare, also, his discussion of proposed phonemes of speed in Peiping Morphophonemics (Lang. 26.76–77 [1950]), and note his uncertainty as to the circularity of his argument at that point (especially in his fn. 16).
- Language 26.124 (1950): ‘This does not mean (though it has now and then been misunderstood) that the analyst should shut his eyes to all morphemic and grammatical facts until he has completely worked the phonemics of a new language. Facts of all kinds come to his attention from the very beginning…’
- An Outline of English Structure, 54 (1951): ‘This is not to say that in the actual procedure of analyzing a language there is not a constant going back and forth between phonology and morphemics, with refinements and corrections being made in either direction.’
- Language 26.69 (1950): ‘We have been led to this re-phonemicization through grammatical considerations…’ so some grammatical analysis, or non-phonemic data, was known first.
- See fn. 26, above.
- See GPPA 159–60.
- See, for example, the discussion in my A Problem in Morphology-Syntax Division (Acta Linguistica 5.125–38 [1950]), especially pp. 137–38, where fusion in English phrases prevents certain grammatical borders from being co-terminous with certain phonological ones. For a recent European reaction to the problem, see E. M. Uhlenbeck, The Structure of the Javanese Morpheme, in Lingua 2.254–5 (1950):
- In determining what are phonemes in a language we do not accept the point of view that one should draw a distinct dividing-line between the grammatical and the phonological analysis. Some American linguists favour this point of view…. Thus—purely by means of criteria of a phonal nature—he [Hockett] arrives at the phonemes, which therefore for him and other American linguists can be nothing but relevant “features of sound,” whereas according to our definition phonemes are relevant moments of the form of the word and the morpheme. This aversion from the use of grammatical distinctions in phonological analysis has been—and in our opinion rightly—criticized by Pike.
- See also Roman Jakobson, The Phonemic and Grammatical Aspects of Language and Their Interrelation, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Linguists (Paris, 1948), 5–18.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research