- Obviously, de Groot even dislikes the term ‘distinctive’ which is used by the bundelists. But he cannot avoid mentioning incidentally that when two sound units “have an autonomous function, i.e., when they differentiate two words identical in form… but different in meaning” we are dealing with two phonemes (dat ze zelfstandige distinctieve functie hebben, d.i. dat ze twee overigens gelijke woordvormen… maar met verschillende betekenissen, van elkar ondersheiden), page 173.
- A comparison with Moulton's recent paper on the same subject reveals in which details de Groot's approach is now obviously obsolete. Cf. William G. Moulton, “The Vowels of Dutch: Phonetic and Distributional Classes.” Studia Gratulatoria Dedicated to Albert Willem de Groot, Amsterdam, 1962, 294–312.
- A de Groot, “Structural Linguistics and Syntactic Laws.” Word V (1949), 2.
- Je cite entre parenthèse les noms d'auteur. Pour les textes écrits en collaboration, je ne cite que le premier auteur. Le recueil de Saporta est cité (S.).
- Osgood, C. E. et Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Psycholinguistics. A Survey of Theory and Research Problems. Baltimore, 1954. (Ouvrage cité: O.S.)
- Voir le sommaire de l'ouvrage et les paragraphes introductifs: 1.2 “Disciplines concerned with human communication” (O.S., pages 3–4) et 1.3 “Plan of this report” (O.S., pages 4–7).
- L'exposé de Saporta, rapporté ci-dessus, est caractéristique des conceptions auxquelles faits partiels et théories partiales finissent par aboutir.
- Les termes soulignés le sont dans le texte d'Osgood.
- Cf. O.S., p. 3: “Translating into traditional psychological language,… destination and source become ‘cognition’ (meaning, attitude, and the like)” et plus loin: “Since the distinction between source and destination within the same communicator seems relevant only with respect to the direction of information exchange, we substitute the single term mediator for that system which intervenes between receiving and transmitting operations” (O.S., p. 4).
- Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. et Tannenbaum B., The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana (Ill.), 1957.
- Pour mémoire, le texte déjà cité: “Psycholinguistic units would be those segments of the messages shown to be functionally operative as wholes in the processes of decoding and encoding.” (O.S., p. 61—termes soulignés dans le texte original).
- The section under discussion is on pages 249–250; the later reference is on page 263. In other sections of the book the reader's interest is similarly kept alive, for some unknown reason, for several pages. The map on page 198 is laconically labelled “a linguistic map”; the explanation is tucked away in the last lines of page 203.
- F. Mossé, Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent. Paris, 1938, p. 143, #248.
- Ibid., pages 138–142.
- A similar usage of “phoneme” is found in Erkki Itkonen's “Über den Charakter des ostlappischen Stufenwechselsystems,” Finnish—ugrische Forschungen XXVII (1941), 137–67; e.g., “… Phonemen, deren Stamm ein- oder dreisilbig ist…” (page 138). In more recent work, however, Itkonen employs “Phoneme” in a more standard sense.
- Lauri Posti, “From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic,” Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen XXXI (1953), 63. Although Posti is ignored here, his article is used to support syntactic views; cf. footnote 3, page 351.
- A full statement of my theory was made in a lecture, entitled “The Development of a Plural Marker in Finno—Ugric,” delivered before the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, August 8, 1961, in Austin, Texas.
- The following errata of a substantive nature should be noted; Page 14, line 8: words> word stems; p. 29, §25: * e and *i > * and * ; p. 34, §27C6: a period should follow “nine”; “n<*ń also…” should begin a new paragraph. Here also belongs a treatment of the *ń originally posited for the so-called dative-genitive and illative suffixes (cf. §47C1 and §47E); p. 41, §28A2: d<*δ should be dissociated from the reflexes of *γ p. 50, line 5: löyhkää ‘to stink’ >löyhkätä ‘to stink’~löyhkä ‘stink’; p. 73, §47F: *patalen> *pataleń; p. 74, line 14: plural > often singular.
- The following of these references should be corrected: Page 16, footnote 1: 25B2> 27B; p. 34, §27E1: 27A4> 27A3a; p. 68, §47C1 and p. 72, §47E: 27C4 (appropriate reference omitted by error); p. 69, §47D: 27H9c>2718c; p. 72, §47F: 27H9b>27H8b; p. 75, §471: §53 §44>§53.44; p. 105, §11: 52.17>52.16; p. 257, §9A3: 67.3b>67.3d; p. 258, §9A3: 2717 > 2716 and 28.5 > 28A5; page 342, §31: 27C1 > 27C3.
- Where we here write a circumflex, Harms writes a superscript s.
- M. Swadesh and C. F. Voegelin, “A problem in phonological alternation”, Language XV (1939) 1–10, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics (Washington, 1957).
- I of course refer here to complementary distribution on the morphophonemic level: two putative morphophonemes are in complementary distribution if the distinction between them does not need to be marked in morphophonemic representations.
- Considering the frequency with which American linguists accuse people of mixing morphophonemics into phonemics, I must confess to taking some pleasure in making the converse accusation.
- The only counter-example which I can find in Harms' grammar is the word /vaņkka/, a loan-word used as a derogatory term for Russians (the original Russian word means a shmoo-shaped doll which bounces back to a standing position when knocked over); I think that this word can safely be said to have no bearing on the structure of Estonian.
- One is never clearer about the relative advantages of oral and written communication than when reading the transcript of a symposium. A statement prepared to be read at leisure has the advantage, ideally if not typically, that a certain amount of care has gone into its formulation and that it has been matched for consistency with other statements in the same discourse; it has the disadvantage that when the reader fails to get the meaning, he cannot ask for a paraphrase nor can he share with the author insights of his own which might direct the flow of ideas in more fruitful ways. Oral communication, on the other hand, has the disadvantage that statements made during conversation are not always carefully thought through, and that fruitful ideas are too often allowed to remain undeveloped because the flow of conversation has taken an unexpected turn. The transcript of a symposium makes one painfully aware of these matters: it has the advantages of neither and the disadvantages of both. Although the present transcript contains none of the repetitions, false starts, etc., which one would expect to find in normal speech, the editors have obviously been more or less faithful to the original. There are quite a few discrepancies, unhappy phrases, etc., which would have been edited out of a written text. In the same discussion Stockwell talks about /r/ as having ingliding allophones, as well as vowels having ingliding allophones before /r/ (I.15). Sledd gives contradictory transcriptions of words in his own speech: on page 21 he gives /kok/ as his pronunciation of “coke” while on page 99, in another discussion of his own dialect gives /kowk/; “porch” is given as /puhc/ on page 21 and as /poye/ on page 99. One feels that a kind editor should have caught the following statement of Stockwell's: “The three possibilities were time, pitch, and tensity, as we called it; certain junctures have only two of those features, while certain ones have the other two.” (II.61.)
- The Hague, 1956.
- The world of linguistics is grateful to have another pair of terms for distinguishing between those phonetic features which are somehow initially associated with phonemes and those which are assignable by rules. We may now add crucial/non-crucial to the collection including phonemic/non-phonemic, phonemic/allophonic, determining/determined, specified/predictable, constant/occasional, autonomous/concomitant, inherent/adherent, decisive/redundant, distinctive/non-distinctive.
- In a government publication entitled The Communication Situation.
- Language XXIV (1948), 3–46.
- One finds it extremely frustrating to read such exchanges as the following (I.27): Stockwell: How do you speakers of Southern dialects handle a word like higher? McDavid: Higher. (Pronounces it.)
- 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