Semiotics and Linguistics

LONGMAN LINGUISTICS LIBRARY

SEMIOTICS AND LINGUISTICS

LONGMAN LINGUISTICS LIBRARY

General editors . R. H. Robins, University of London Martin Harris, University of E888x

Psycholingulstlcs Language, Mind, and World DANNY 0. STEINBERG Dlalactology

W. N. FRANCIS General Linguistics An Introductory Survey Fourth Edition

Principles of Pragmatics GEOFFREY N. LEECH

R.H. ROBINS

Adjectlvas and Comparison A Short History of Linguistics

A Sematic Study

Third Edition R.H. ROBINS

JAN RUSIECKI

Structural Aspects of Language

Generative Grammar GEOFFREY HORROCKS

Change · JAMES M. ANDERSON

Norms of language Theoretical and Practical Aspects

Text and Context Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse lEUN A. VAN DUK Modality and the English Moclala Second Edition F. R. PALMER Grimm's Grandchildren Current Topics in German Unguistics · THOMAS HERBST, DAVID HEATH, HANS-MARTIN DEDERDING Introduction to Text Linguistics

ROBERT-ALAIN DE BEAUGRANDE AND WOLFGANG ULRICH DRESSLER

Spoken Discourse A Model for Analysis

WILLIS EDMONDSON

RENATE BARTSCH The English Verb

Second edition F. R. PALMER Pidgin and Creole Languages

SUZANNE ROMAINE

A History of English Phonology CHARLES JONES Generative and Non-linear Phonology

JACQUES DURAND

Semiotics and Ungulstica YISHAI TOBIN

Semiotics and Linguistics

Yishai Tobin

.........

••• _,,. ••• LONGMAN LONDON AND NEW YORK

LONGMAN GROUP UK LIMITED

Longman House, Burnt Min. Harlow Essex CM20 2JE, England and Associated Compflnies throughout the world. Published in the United States of America by Longman Inc.• New York

@ LongmBn Group UK Limited 1990

All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system. or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying. recording, or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the Publishers or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom Issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 33-34 AHred Place, London. WClE 70P. First published 1990

British Ubrary cataloguing in Publication Data

Tobin. Ytshai Semiotics and 61iguistics. - (Longman linguistics library). 1. Semiotics 2. Linguistics I. Title 001.51

ISBN 0-562-0:.379-S CD ISBN D-512--1Ll7D-3 PPR Library of Congress Cataloguing In f'ublication Data Tobin, Y. Semiotics and linguistics. (Longman linguistics library) Includes bibr10graphical references. 1. Semiotics. 2. Linguistics. I. Title. II. Series. P99.T58 1990 401'.41 89-13490

ISBN 0-582-06379-5 ISBN o-582-01670-3 (pbk.) Set in 10/11pt Linotron 202 Times Produced by Longman Singapore Publishers (Pte) Ltd Printed in Singapore

Table of Contents

List offigures and tables p~~

Acknowledgements Part I: In Search of the Sign: An Historical Overview I

2

viii

u

xiii

1

The Saussurian background 3 Linguistics and semiotics as separate disciplines 3 The historical connection between linguistics and semiotics 8 The sign-oriented approach 13 Sign versus sentence Semiology versus Semiotics · Llnguistics as part of semiotics A search for a sign-oriented method

23

23

24

Defining linguistics semiotically Defining the linguistic sign

26 36 37

Part II: Invariance: An Overview

45

3 Invariance and language synergy Defining language semiotically Defining language synergetically Meaning versus message Meaning versus message and function: The case of lost Language synergetics from the semiotic or signoriented approach The synergetic relationship between encoders and decoders

47 47

48 51

53

58 58

vi

TABLE OF CONI"BNTS

The synergetic relationship between signals and meanings

The synergetic- relationship between lexicon ~ammu

and

Summary and conclusions 4 Invariant meaning: variations on an Invariant theme Sign versus sentence-oriented definitions of language Invariance in linguistic theory reviewed Invariance in Jakobsonian theory Invariance in Guillaumean theory Invariance in Diverian theory The concept of grammatical number Postulating invariant meanings for the dual number:· The Jakobsonian approach The Guillawnean approach The Diverian approach Summary and conclusions

59

oo

64 68 68

70 74

77 79 81 82 82 83

84 85

Part IH: From Sign to System: Marlutdnes& and Distinctive Feature Theory

89

s

91

The dual number: from sign to syslem The dual number: grammar or lexicon? Number systems across languages The dual number.in Modem Hebrew The distribution of the dual in the lexicon The dual number and the communication factor The dual number and the human factor The interaction of the human and communication factors

6

9I

93 IOO IOI

106 1o8 IIO

The plural versus the dual in spoken and written discourse The creative use of the dual in a literary text Summary and conclusions

I45

'I/' venus 'whetha': dnallty rel'islted The non-synonymy hypothesis

125 126

The analysis: invariance and markedness The data Summary and conclusions

127 I30

Part IV: From Sign to Text:

Sign: System: Context: Text: Working Our Way Up

III 1 I8

145

149

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7 'Also' venus 'too': the sJgn as text The problem The analysis: invariance and markedness The data: Alice in Wonderland The data: Looking for Mr. Good.bar Discussion and conclusions The non-synonymy hypothesis The ilon-homonymy hypothesis Word order and iconicity Other non-traditional approaches to the problem Part V: From Text to Sign:

vii

151 153 154

157 166 186 186 187 187 189 191

Text: Context: System: Sign: Working Our Way Down

8 The English comparative system: the text as sign A semiotic presentation of the problem Traditional analyses of the problem The data The micro-level analysis The macro-level analysis 'Curiouser and Curiouser' (Alice in Wonderland) 'Darlingest' (Social Disease) 'Wone-Worser-Worsf ('Summer Whine') The distribution of the forms

Concluding remarks Bibllography Index

193 193

195 202

204 212 213 221

237 239 249 253 277

List of Figures and Tables

Figure I.I The Structuralist Paradigm. Figure2.1 The Linguistic Sign Figure3.1 The Semiotic Model of Language Figure 3.2 The Synergetic Relationship Between The

12.

40

48

Encoder and Decoder Figure 3.3 The Synergetic Relationship Within The Linguistic Sign Figure3.4 The Synergetic Relationship Between The

6o

The Semantic Substance of Number Number in Latin and English Number in Sanskrit Number in Oreek and Hebrew The Hebrew System of Number: An Iconic Hierarchy of Markedness Figure5.6 The Guillaumean Approach Figure5.7 The Interaction of the Human and

94 94

Grammar and Lexicon

Figure5.1 Figure5.2 Figures.3 Figure5.4 Figure S·S

6o

6J 95

96

g8 100

C.Ommunication Factors

III

Figure6.1 Figure6.2 Figure7.1 Figure7.2

The if-whetlra System The Unmarked-Marked Relationship The also-too System The Unmarked-Marked Relationship

128

Table8.1 Table8.2 Table8.3 Table8.4 Table8.5

Synthetic form&: The Moon and Sixpence Periphrastic Forms: The Moon and Sixpence Synthetic Forms: Alice in Wonderland Periphrastic Forms: Alice in Wonderland Synthetic Forms: Social Disease

240 241

128

155 156

241 242 '42

UST OP PIGUUS AND TABLBS

Table 8.6 Periphrastic Forms: Social Disease Table 8.7 Synthetic Forms: Time Table 8.8 Periphrastic Forms: Time

And God said: 'Let there.be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for

signs .. .' (Genesis 1:14)

Have you never questioned travellers? Can you n:ot learn from the signs they offer? (Job 21:29)

Preface

Traffic signs are like linguistic signs, the way counting on two fingers is like calculating with a computer. (Bolinger 1968:219) The relationship between a language and a set of sentences is like that between a car and a set of trips to the supermarket. Remark attributed to W. Reid. (McCawley 198:639)

The above tWo quotations Should give the reader an inkling of what this book may be about: linguistic signs versus sentences. The author's preference for the former probably has not escaped the prospective reader's attention either. This book is about the connection between semiotics and linguistics as they were originally envisioned by Ferdinand de Saussure: i.e. as sign-oriented disciplines. Anyone embarking on the study of linguistics today will undoubtedly hear of de Saussure and of his. dubious, or only 'pai:tially'rdeserved' title as the 'Father of Modem Linguistics'. It is true, on the one hand, that all of twentieth-century linguistics has been searching for an abstract syncbronic system of language as opposed to the purely philological, historical and genealogical enterprises which occupied so many of de Saussure's - and our own - predecessors. But, the fundamental question of whether de Saussure would recognize or approve of the state of the art of linguistics today still remains to be asked. The answer to this question may lie in the fact that perhaps the most fundamental idea de Saussure originally proposed is lost to the majority of linguists today: to make the linguistic sign the operative unit of linguistic analysis. Indeed, the linguistic sign and its various systems of relationships within language were originally a replacement for the more traditional (and presented

as

xii

PREFACE

neo-traditional) categories of linguistic analysis: namely, words,

sentences and their component parts, hlcluding parts of speech. Anyone who has studied language and linguistics will already know that this aspect of the 'Saussurian Sign Revolution' has not taken place. The linguistic sign - and· the notion of invariant meaning - as the unit of language and linguistic analysis has been seriously espoused - for better or for worse - by very few linguists today. The work of some of these sign-oriented linguistic schools and the theoretical and methodological implications of sign· oriented analysis will be the main topics of our discussion. This book will try to show the connection between semiotics and linguistics as sign-oriented disciplines in what may perhaps have been the direction originally envisioned by the Saussurian Sign Revolution. We will begin with a bit of history and theory (and perhaps a bit of the history of theory) and then proceed to present some sign~oriented analyses for various grammatical and lexical problems suclt as the dual number. the differences between if and whether, .also versus too and the alternative synthetic and periphrastic strategies. of comparative and superlative formation in modem English. · In the course of tbese analyses we will see what signs are and how they function within sYstem.s, contexts and texts. The connection between semiotics and linguistics will become .clearer as we see that we can trace two converse and complementaljy. semiotic ptoces5es: going from sign to text and then from tex,~ to sign. Semiotically and linguistically speaking, we will view the 'sign as text' as well as the 'text as sign'. There is no single truth or solitary approach to language and linguistic analysis. The more we study. language the more challenging it becomes because the more we realize how little we actually know. It is not surprising, therefore, that linguistics - and semiotics - are terribly splintered and fragmented disciplines. Many of us have placed oUISelves, or have been plaCed by others, on what seem to be 'theoretical bandwagons' waving a lot of •theoretical and methodological banners' to and fro at each other. One result of all of this 'flag-waving• is that we often seem to forget that there is more than one way 'to skin a cat' - and to do linguistic analysis. It should be important for linguists to learn as much about the various alternative approaches of. analysing language as possible- if only to leam to appreciate the differences. For this reason, I have chosen to write this book presenting the sign-oriented point of view for those who might be interested in understanding it better.

To my teachers who helped me develop the joy of analysis and To my students for whom I am trying to do the same

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: William Collins Sons & Co Ltd for extracts from Saussure by J Culler (1976); Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd for extracts & a Figure from Course in General Linguistics translated by R Harris (1983); The Jerusalem Post for the article 'Summer Whine' by N David Gross from Jerusalem Post 10.6.88; Alfred A Knopf, Inc & the author's agent for extracts from· Social Disease by Paul Rudnick. Copyright © 1986 by Paul Rudnick; Simon & Schuster. Inc for extracts from Looking For Mr Godbar by Judith Rossner, copyright © 1975 by Judith Rossner. We have been unable to trace J Culler & the copyright holder in Course in General Linguistics by F Saussure (McGraw-Hill Inc, 1959) & would appreciate any inform,ation that would enable us to

do so.

Part I

In search of the sign: _an historical overview

The sign did not fail linguistics; linguists have failed the sign. (Reid 1974:33)

The meaning of a sentence is something in the outside world at a given time and in relation to given persons, qualities, and objects. The.meaning of a sign is potential, like that of a dollar bill before it is involved in a transaction. (Adapted from Bolinger 1968:219)

Chapter 1

The

Sau~surian

background

Unguistics and semiotics as separate dlsclpllnn After g)ailcing at the title of this volume,· the prospective reader may justifiably ask: Why another book linking Semiotics and Linguistics? Or, perhaps, more fundamentally: Is there a link

between Semiotics and Linguistics? This book is expressly written for both kinds of readers: those who know or assume that there is a historical connection (but may not be sure precisely what it is), as well as those who would like to know whether there is any real connection between these two disciplines today. There is, of .course, an even more fundamental question. In order to assume a purported connection between these disciplines, one first must aheady know, (or at least have a vague idea), what linguistics and semiotics are about. This book also is written for those people who may have only a slight idea about what these subjects include, but may still want to know more about them and the possible cormection between them. Linguists, as most of us know, arc not only people who speak several languages, but scholars who study the sounds, structures, meanings and the multifarious uses of language ib. all of its possible communicative, psychological, social, historical, cultural and textual manifestations. Linguistics is then perhaps the modem or contemporary term for what was once referred to as philology or 'the love of learning literature and language'. linguistics, however, bas obviously gone beyond the narrow confines of pure philology and, today, the most simplified and generally accepted definition of linguistics claims that it is:. 'the scientific study of language'. As the scientific study of language, theoredcal linguistics ·may be further divided into sub-branches which specialize in all aspects or levels of language including:

4

THE SAUSSUIUAN BACKGROUND

(I) Phonetics and Phonology: the study of speech sounds, how

(2)

(3)

(4) (5)

they are made (articulatory· phonetics); how they are perceived (acoustic, auditory or perceptual phonetics); and how they are systematically integrated, organized and distributed in language in general and in different languages (phonology). Morphology: the study of the meaningful units or forms of languages wJ;tlch can include words, as well as parts of words such as prefixes and suffixes, or units larger than the word such as compound words, expressions, idioms, etc. Syntax: the study of the way in which different meaningful units of language can be constructed and combined to form larger units such as sentences and the interrelationships of these larger constructions. Semantics: the study of aspects of the meaning of linguistic units on all levels of language and language use. Pragmatics: the interrelationship between language and language use and the extralinguistic context or situation in which language is used.

Theoretical linguistics, itself, however, bas not only superseded philology, but has branched out into being what may be viewed as a very unwieldy, highly-hyphenated, interdisciplinary science in its own right. Today, linguistics has many and diverse su~fields which link language to other disciplines or fields of study. Some of these include (in alphabetical order):

(I) Anthropological Linguistics which studies the interrelationship of language and culture in all societies in general, but in 'exotic' or non-Western societies in particular; (2) Applied Linguistics which, as its name implies, applies the tenets, methods and results of the science of language to first and second or foreign language teaching, as well as other issues which may also be viewed as separate sub-fields in linguistics in their own right, including: national language policy, lexicography and lexicology, stylistics, translation, and language for special purposes such as the use of ·hurguage in advertising, law, science, the court room, the media, etc. (3) Clinical Linguistics which deals with the problems of language pathology including speech therapy, and the language related issues of people with various audiological, physical and psychological disorders, e.g. the language of the deaf, aphasia, schizophrenia, etc.

LINGT.JJSTICS AND SEMIOTICS AS SEPARATE DISCIPLINES

5

(4) Computer Linguistics which deals with the interrelationship between lailguage systems and computer languages, artifi. . cial intelligence, expert systems, etc. (5) Discourse or Conversation Analysis which deals with how (usually spoken) language is structured according to various principles of communication in different linguistic and situational .contexts such as convenation, interviews, social talk, etc. (6) Historical Linguistics which studies how languages change through time and space and the genealogical relationships between different languages and language families. -(7) Neuro linguistics which studies the iiiterrelationship between the brain and the production, perception and acquisition of language. (8) Poetics which deals with the creative and artistic uses of language in literature of all types of gemes, styles and registeIS. (9) Psycho linguistics which deals with the interrelationship of language and psychologically related issues such as human cognition and behaviour, the acquisition of language, speech perception, and similar topics. (IO) Socio linguistics which explores the interrelationship of language and society and social structure, attitudes about language, dialects, pidgins and creoles, language variation an~ use among different social groups, etc. (11) Text linguistics which deals with how (usually written) language is structured to form texts as well as the analyses of different text types or gemes of different styles and registers. The above definition of linguistics, the sub-branches comprising theoretical linguistics, as well as the various sub-fields of linguistics itself are not all clearly defined and may often seem to be arbitrary and even overlap with each other. Llnguists representing diverse schools or approaches to linguistics may define or view linguistics and its sub-branches and sub-fields differently. This is not only true of linguistics, but of many, if not most, academic disciplines, particularly those in the humanities and social sciences. The one common denominator that all linguists appear to share, however, is that language is at the centre of their interest and research. Indeed, the differences between individual linguists or schools of linguistics may be inspired by the difficulties involved in defining language itself and by the fact that they all define language in a different way .1

6

THE SAUSSURIAN BACKGROUND

If defining and categorizing language and, therefore, the science of linguistics seems to be fairly difficult and complicated, the same task. is probably even more problematic with semiotics. In general, semiotics is usually defined as a general philosophical theory dealing with the production of signs and symbols as part of code systems which are used to communicate information. Although linguistics is a fairly well-recognized science and subject of inquiry, the statuS of semiotics as a discipline or science is still open to question and debate. The status of semiotics as a philosophy, theory, discipline or science potentially dealing with all kinds of signs and symbols and how they function in codes and. communication has been the subject of so much debate that it has become even more difficult to pin down and define semiotics than linguistics. Semiotics includes visual and verbal ·as well as tactile and olfactory signs (all signs or signals which are accessible to and can be perceived by all our senses) as they form rode systems which systematically communicate information or messages in literally every field of human behaviour and enterprise. There is almost no subject which is not (>pen to (or has not already been the subject of) semiotic analysis. Indeed, semioticians spend more time trying to define their discipline than linguists (or probably anyone else) seem to do. In the first chapter of a book aptly titled: In search of semiodcs, David Sless succinctly presents the problem of defining semiotics and its importance as a discipline: Semiotics ocwrs whenever we stand back from our ways of understanding and communication, and ask how these ways of and communication arise, what form they take and why. Semiotics is above all an intellectual curiosity about the ways we represent our world to ourselves and each other. It bas always been a feature of human intellectual life, but what distinguishes contemporary work in semiotics, and makes it so exciting, is the ambition to transform this scattered and fragmented interest into a unified discipline. . Our written and spoken language, pictures, mathematics, film, television, dress, gesture, indeed all the elements that go to make up the communication environment which we create and in which we are immersed, offer a rich and sometimes bewildering Vbriety, yet we suspect that in some basic way all these different things have something in common. Semiotics tries to define what it is they have in common and what distinguishes them from each other. · We con.rult linguists to find out about lang""le, art historians or critics to find out about paintings, and anthropologists to find out about how people in different societies signal to each other through gesture, dress or decoration. But if we want to know what Oil these thinga have in common then we need to find someone with a semiotic

LINGUISTICS AND

SEMioncs AS SEPARATE DISCIPLINES

7

point of view, a vantage point from which to SUl'lley our world. It is too young to be considered a discipllne, and there are reasoru why ;1 will never become a science. (Sle~ ~6:r) [italics mine] [Y.T.]

At fint glance, it may seem that the only thing that linguistics and semiotics have in common is that they have both developed into octopus-like, gerrymandered · creatures displaying numerous, multi-branched limbs and organs. If we ~}glmine- the accepted definitions of linguistics and semiotics presented above, we can see that, for all practical purposes, linguistics and semiotics are two separate and independent disciplin~. Yet, they also share certain fundamental elements: the notion of forms related to meanings (linguistic signs in language and any other kind of sign in semiotics), that function as part of code systems (language, gesture, music, art~ cinema, etc.) which are used to communicate information. Indeed, scholars who discuss notions such as 'the language of art', 'the language of the cinema', etc., are strongly implying and favouring a co1;1nection between the two. Nevertheless, there appears to be a general consensus that semiotics and linguistics have developed into two basically independendent disciplines which only maintain a rather superficial connection at best. Both sciences have inspired much research as well as a plethora of professional organizations supporting innumerable institutes and enterprises which publish a vast amount of newsletters, articles, conference proceedings, and scholarly tomes. Yet, despite, (or perhaps because of) this large number of semiotic and semiotic-cum·linguistic publications available, there is still a need for a book for linguists and/or students of linguistics who are interested in the possible connection between semiotics and linguistics for the following reasons. Many of the books being published in semiotics are in the form of large, hardcover conference· proceedings or Festschriften dealing with a multitude of diverse (and seemingly unrelated) topics that do not appear to belong to a single or unified discipline. Both these and other more specialized books using semiotics as an 'umbrella term' deal with a massive array of topics ranging from food, fashion and fortune-telling, on the one band, to animal communication, kinesics, and marketing, on the other, i.e. subjects which do . not always appear to be directly related to language or linguistics per se. In short, most books on semiotics deal with particular philosophical, social, economic, artistic, literary and other topics which are often only peripherally related to linguistic8. The only thing which may unify them is a semiotic

8

THESAUSSURL\NBACltGROUND

label loosely based on the notions of signs, code systems and communication which may or may not be of interest to a linguist.1 Many of the books being published in linguistks, on the other hand, may appear to semioticians as being severely specialized in scope, presumptuously mathematical in presentation, and quite formalistic in tone. Linguists (and semioticians) have developed an obscure professional lexicon or jargon that makes muc4 of their work inaccessible to people out of their field, or even to scholars in the same field but working in different theoretical frameworks. Much of the work done today in the mainstream formalistic schools of linguistics cannot always be related to communication in general, and certainly not to the concept of communication based on the specifically sign-oriented code ·systems that interest semioticians. Thus most of the work published today in either field does not necessarily attract people wPl'king in the other.. This is hardly conducive to a better understanding of the connection between linguistics and semiotics. The number of volumes expressly written to appeal to both linguists and semioticians is also severely limited, and they do not necessarily focus on the connection between linguistics and semiotics: i.e. the sign - as the shared unit of linguistic and semiotic analysis. Therefore there is a need for a purely si.gn-oriented volume to bridge the gap between these two interrelated disciplines, and this is precisely the aim of the present book. 3

The hlstorlcal connection between linguistics and semiotics The most basic thing which semiotics and linguistics historically share is their common origin. Indeed, one could say that these seemingly dispara~e and alien disciplines were born together and developed· in a way similar to the biblical twins Jacob and Esau. In the Seminal book Cours de linguistique g~Mrak (1916), the noted Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Sauss~. first defined linguistics as part of a larger, yet-to-be established science of semiology, (or as it IS referred to in the English-s~g world, semiotics, both taken from the Greek slmeton 'sign'). 4 The science of semiology proposed or defined by 4e Saussure was presented in the following way: A science thqt studies the life of signs within society is eonceivable; it would be part of a social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I sba1I call it semiology (from Greek slmeto" 'sign'). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws $Overn them.

IDSTOKICAL CONNEcnON BETWEEN LINGUJS'DCS AND SEMIODCS

9

Since the science does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance. (de Saussure 1959:16) [i~cs mine] [Y.T.]

Linguistics, then, should be viewed historically as being a part of this larger science of semiotics: Unguisttcs is only one branch of this general acience. The laws which semiology will discover will be laws applicable in linguistics, and linguistics will thus be assigned to a clearly defined place in the field of human knowledge. (de Saussure 1983:15) [italics mine] [Y.T.]

This. historical link between the prospective sciences of semiotics and linguistics, and their 'whole' versus 'part' relationship, first established in de Saussure's Cours has become a well-known and widely accepted (albeit not completely understood) given. Roy Harris in his translator's introduction to the Cours proclaims the following: · StlUSSUl'e'a atanding as the founder of modem linguiattcs remain& unchallenged more than hlllf a century after his death. It is based on two facts. One fact is that Saussure, although one among many distinguished linguists of liis day, was the first to recognise the particular range of thwretical questions which had to be answered if linguistics was ever to take its place among the sciences. The other fact is that Saussure himself proposed answers to those questions which have remained either the basis or the point of departure for all subsequent linguistic theory within the academic discipline which thereafter claimed the designation 'linguistics'. This dual achievement suffices to explain Saussure's pivotal place in the evolution of language studies. But he plays oo less a crucial role when bis work is seen in a wider cultural context. For the founder of modern Ungubtia at the same time founded aemiology, the general acience of aigns, within which Unguistiu WM to be one apecial branch. Io so doing, Saussure opened a new branch to the study of many other human patterns of behaviour. It was an approach later to be exploited by theorists in such diverse fields as art, ucbitecturc, philosophy, literary criticism and social anthropology. The implicati.ona for Sau.uure's techniquu for dealing with linguistic analysis extend far beyond the bountlarla oflanguage, in ways which make the Counde ~gtMrakwithoutdoubtoneo/ the moat far-reaching work.f concemingthestudy ofhuman cultund activities to have been published at any time since the Renaissance. (de Saussure 1983:ix-x) {italics mine) [Y.T.]

IO

THE SAVSSt:ltl.A..'li 8ACXGROl.111D

Similar sentiments also have been expressed by Jonatbau Culler (1976) in bis introduction to Saussure as a modem master:

Ferdinand de SaWJsun is the father of modern linguistia. the man who re-organiml the systematic study of language and languaf.es in such a way as to make possible the achievements of n.·entielbcentury linguistics • • .

Secondly, by his methodological example and by ,,-uious prophetic suggestions which be offered, Solinun helped to pTomore semiology, the general sciene4 of sifn&, and structuralism, which bas been an important trend in contemporary anthropology and literacy criticism as well as linguistics . . . (Culler 1976:7-8) [italics mine) (Y.T.]

Indeed, Harris (as one of the more eloquent of many) further describes de Saussure's place in twentieth-century thought as being no less than 'revoutionary', (perhaps ~ven changing a theoretical and methodological paradigm KUbn (1962) often attributed to Noam Chomsky and the so-calle4 'Chomskian revolution'): Sa11.UUTe's Corm tie linguistlque r'n'Tale occupies a place of wiique importance in the history of Western thinking about man in society. It is a key text not only within the development of linguistics but also in the formation of that broader intellectual movement known as 'structuralism'. With the sole exception of Wittgenstein, no thinker bas bad as profound an iafluencc on the modem view of homo loquens as Saussure. The revolution Saussure ushered in has rightly been described as 'Copernican'. For inste'ad of men's words being seen as peripheral to men•s understanding of reality, men's ruulentanding of reality to be seen as revolving around the;,. aocial use of verbal signs . . • (de Saussure 1983:ix) [italics mine] [Y.T.]

came

Similar statements have also been made by many others. Amsterdam.ska (1983), s11IllDl8riziJig others. (e.g. Malmberg 1968:55, Koerner 1978:39, Jakobson 1971a:717), states: The transition from historical to structuralist linguistics wbkh took place in the :lint decades of the twentieth century is commonly . regarded as a major transfonnadon ill JinBuistic theory and resean:h. It has been described both as a paradigm change and as a revolution in the sdene4 of lan1ua1e • and its significance for the development of twentieth-century linguistics cannot be denied ... Saussure's lectUres on general linguistics, • • • have been described as 'the start

HISTORICAL CONNBC110N BBTWBBN LINGUISTICS AND SBMI011CS

11

of a new era in the science of language' and as a 'revolutionary act of providing a new frame of reference in general linguistics.' (Amsterdamska 1983:218) [italics mine] [Y.T.]

Once again, Culler expresses quite similar sentiments: Saussure ala fundamental and probing questions which linguists before him had failed to ask, and he provida answers which have revolutioniud the way in which language i.r studied. Though the solutions and definitions he offers might initially seem of interest only to students of linguistics, they have direct bearing on the fundamental problems of what the French call the 'human sciences': the disciplines which deal with the world of meaningful objects and actions (as opposed to physical objects and events themselves).

SaUSSllTe's reflections on the sign and on sign-systems pave the way for a · getll!Tal study ofthe ways in which human experience i.r organized. (Culler 1976:10-11) (italics mine) [Y.T.)

Indeed, de Saussure's joint 'paternity' to these 'sister' or 'motherdaughter', cognate sciences is usually awarded a great deal of lip-service in most introductory texts and courses in both disciplines. Equally as much respiration and ink have also been spent on de Saussure's key role, (shared with Emile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud, his contemporaries in the fields of sociology and psychology), in establishing the 'structuralist paiadigm' which has dominated most twentieth-century thought in the humanities and social sciences. s Most of post-Saussurian twentieth-century linguistic and semiotic thought can be defined and described as belonging to a larger 'structuralist' paradigm. Within . this general structuralist framework, diverse models of linguistic and semiotic analysis, both quantitative and qualitative. have been developed to describe, interpret, and explain concrete phenomena accessible to our senses in accordance with general and abstract theoretical tenets. Thus, the notion of a structural linguistic or semiotic model may be viewed as being a theoretical and methodological bridge between the abstract and concrete levels whereby abstract theory may explain concrete data. 'Ibis is illustrated schematically in Figure I.I. Very often, this notion of a methodological model has presupposed an analogy between the model itseJf and the phenomenon it purports to exp~. This is not surprising, however, when we consider the fact that for linguistics, for example, it is the analyst's definition of language that determines

12

THE SAVSSUlllAN BACKGROUND

..... ABSTRACT

SYS'IEM

revealed through

MEIHODOLOGICAL MODEL

ID explain

CONCRETE PHENOMENA

nouu 1.1 The Structuralist Paradigm

which linguistic phenomena are chosen as being important and relevant to the theory and the analysis. The model, therefore, is predetermined by the theoretical units found in the definition of language. Indeed, de Saussure. himself, fust maintained that one of the chief tasks of linguistics was to define itself and, secondly, that the objects of study in language, unlike other sciences, are not given in advance. In short, for linguistics, it is the definition of language e8poused by a theory that actually creates the object of study. H, in fact, de Saussure did intend to create a revolution in linguistic thought, this revolution was to be based on the adoption of the linguistic sign (as opposed to the sentence, for example) as the sole and/or primary unit of linguistic analysis. This, too, is unequivocally and eloquently stated in Harris's 1983 translator's introduction to the Course: Saussure's proposals for the establishment of linguistics as an independent science may - at the risk of making them sound rather unexciting - be summarised as follows. He rejected the possibility of an all-embracing science of language, whicJi would deal simultaneously with physiological, sociological, philosophical and psychological aspects of the subject. Instead, he proposed to cut through the perplexing maze of existing approaches to .the study of linguistic phenomena by setting up a unified di&cipUne, based upon a singk, clearly defined concept: that of the linguistic sign. The essential feature of Saussure's linguistic sign is that, being intrinsically arbitrary, it can be identified oilly by contrast with co-existing signs of the same nature, which together constitute a structured system. By taking this position, Saussure placed modem linguistics in the vanguard of twentieth-century structuralism. (de Saussure 1983:x) [italics mine] (Y.T.)

This vol\J.me will examine the historical connection between semiotics and linguistics from the point of view of the linguistic sign, their shared unit of analysis as originally proposed by de Saussure. It will focus on the fact that, despite this common

THE SIGN-OIUENTBD APPROACH

13

theoretical and methodological unit of analysis, linguistics and semiotics still have developed into two separate disciplines following parallel routes with very few points 9f convergence. Indeed, very little work has been done to focus on the linguistic sign as the theoretical and methodological bridge between these two disparate sciences. Thus the primary purpose of this book will be to fill this gap and explain why semiotics and linguistics have taken divergent paths.

The sign-oriented approach The major thesis of this book is that semiotics and linguistics have ventured down separate paths for the simple reason that the 'Saussurian Sign Revolution' did riot really take place iii linguistics. Both in fact and in deed, most post-Saussurian linguistic theories have either ignored or. abandoned the linguistic sign. Semioties, on the other band, has adopted the sign as its basic unit of analysis and, therefore, ironically enough, has continued the Saussurian tradition without linguistics. The irony is that very often the rigorous scientific methodology implicit in the choice of the linguistic sign as proposed by de Saussure, is not found in much of semiotic work. today. In other words, the potential link between semiotics and Jinguistics as originally en'visaged by de Saussure never was realized: Linguists have avoided the sign and semioticians have avoided linguistics and the lessons one can learn from it. There is a further need for this particular volume. Most linguists and students of linguistics entering the field today will undoubtedly hear of de Saussure·and the Cours, but very few will actually read it. Indeed, most post-Chomskian linguists openly consider de Saussure to be depass,. This book will try to make de Saussure and the linguistic sign more accessible to those linguists and students of linguistics who may naturally and unquestioningly assume that 'language is a set of sentences', or 'utterances', or 'speech acts', definitions which overlook or exclude the Saussurian notion of the linguistic sign as being the primary or sole unit of linguistic analysis. For many (if not most) linguists, their historical debt to de Saussure. is more than amply paid by briefly recalling or laconically alluding to the Swiss master's historical role in defining the discipline. Indeed, a cursory look at most Introduction to Linguistics or History of Linguistics books, as well as most Introduction to Semiotics texts~ reveals that, by and large, de Saussure is usuallY. granted his historical due as the founder of

14

nm SAVSSUIUAN BACKGROUND

both semiotics and linguistics. in a few lines or at least pan of an introductory chapter. For others, however, the profound importance of the Saussurian

contribution to the science of linguistics has comprised the central theme of much of their scholarly endeavours. Much of this scholarship has granted de Saussure an honoured place in intellectual history and has designated him as being responsible for the transition of language studies from nineteenth-century historical Romanticism to a twentieth-century synchronic structuralism. The value of de Saussure's contribution to linguistics, semiotics and the. establishment of the structuralist paradigm has not remained unquestioned and has been the subject of much heated _ debate. 6 For those who call themselves 'modem' linguists, (i.e. particu· larly generative grammarians who see the establishment of the discipline in 1957 ·with the publication of Noam Chomsky's Syn1aetic Structures), de Saussure is hardly relevant, and, indeed, may not even merit a mention at all, or only a peripheral or negative one. For other 'modem' linguists, (some of whom now deal in 'pragmatics'), it is often de rigueur to at least indirectly or covertly attack de Saussure by directly and overtly criticizing semiotics. By and large, the common denominator linking those who either ignore or reject de Saussure, is that they do so by overlooking the linguistic sign while concentrating on the 'sentence', the 'utterance' or the 'speech act' as their major unit of analysis. 7 There are some linguistic schools, however, which have followed de Saussure by ostensibly choosing a theoretical and methodological model based on the linguistic sign as their priniary unit of analysis. Most of these schools originally centred around small-intellectual circles in Europe, particularly in Vienna, and in the Prague and Copenhagen Schools, inspired among others by linguists such as Karl Bilbl.er, Count Nikolai Trubetzkoi, Roman Jakobson and Louis Hjemslev, as well as other functionalist schools inspired 1zy French linguists such as Andre Martinet, Emile Benveniste and Gustave GUillaume. This fundamentally European semiologicaJ view of linguistics has also taken· root in North America in the Columbia School, the Jakobsonian School and the Guillaumean School led by sign-oriented linguists such as William Diver, C.H. van.Scbooneveld and Walter Hirtle.8 If de Saussure can be credited for having created a new science of linguistics, it is precisely because he focused on the the sign as the theoretical and methodological unit of semiotic and linguistic analysis. The choice of the sign, however, has wide-reaching

TIIE SIGN-ORIENTED APPROACH

15

implications. As we shall see in the next chapter, the choice of the sign inherently means the replacement of the more traditional units of analysis such as the sentence and its compqnent parts. This sentence-oriented view of language dominated most of the work of de Saussure's predecesson, particularly the classical-oriented traditional and prescriptive grammarians as well as the seventeenth-century Cartesian-inspired Port Royal grammarians who later influenced Chomsky. 9 Harris points out the importance of the difference between the sign-orientation proposed by de Saussure versus the traditional and neo-traditional sentence-orientation still prevalent today to show that the Saussurian Sign Revolution really has not taken place: However, as if to give the lie to the dictum that 'we are all Saussureans now', there appeared in the very same year of 1957 the first manifesto of a new school of transatlantic linguistics which apparently owed little if anything to Saussure however directly or indirectly assimilated. This was A. N. Chomsky's Syntactic Struclllm. The new theory_ proposed to treat language as a 'set (finite or infinite) of sentenca, each finite in length and constructed outofafioitesetofelem.ents' (Chomsky 1957:13)-adefinition which might well have made the author ofthe Cours tum in hil autfaorial grave. (Harris 1987a:xiv) [italics mine] [Y.T.)

In short, de Saussure's success in establishing a structural paradigm and a new science of linguistics and semiotics generally has been accepted. Yet, the Saussurian Sign Revolution which might have been has not taken place from the point of view of the linguistic sign. Most post-Saussurian linguists have not adopted the sign as their theoretical and methodological. unit of analysis but have continued working with the traditional category of the sentence and have even renewed its importance as a neotraditional category. 10 This failure to recognize the need to replace the traditional category of the sentence as the primary theoretical and methodological unit of linguistic analysis for the linguistic sign is the primary reason why semiotics and linguistics have not developed in the waylogy with semantics, the study of meaning and changes in meaning which was not discussed by de Saussure as a separate level of linguistic analysis. As we also know, the science of semiology is also referred to as semiotics which naturally leads to a fundamental 'semantic' question regarding the interchangeability (or 'synonymy') of words in general: can semiology and semiotics (or any two words) ever mean the same thing? The answer is that no two words can ever mean exactly the same thing and a slight difference in meaning .can always be found if one looks hard enough. Appropriately enough, the answer to this question may be found in Ronald Schleifer's introduction to Algirdas Julien Greimas's

famous book StructuTal Semantics. 1 As with all so-called 'synonyms', a distinction between the terms semiology and semiotics can indeed be found. This subtle semantic

SIGN VERSUS SBNTENCB

difference basically reflects no less than the diverse scholarly traditions which historically and geographically separate Europe and the English-speaking world: De Saussure (1959:16), representing the earlier Continental tradition, emphasizes the social aspects of the sign in his use of the word semiology. Charles Sanders Peirce (1931:227), one of the first American semioticians, on the other hand, uses the term semiotics for what he refers to as •the logic of general meaning'. Therefore, the two terms semiology and semiotics - originally refer to and· emphasize two distinct ways of studying and viewing diverse. aspects of the sign as they are reflected in two different scholarly traditions. Today, the subjects studied under the rubrics of semiology and semiotics have overlapped to include both the •social' and 'logical' aspects of the general meaning of signs. Both semiotics and semiology have become umbrella terms for a larger interdisciplinary and international sign-oriented discipline. Yet, very often the original historical and geographical semantic distinction between the terms semiology and semiotics is still preserved in the European (particularly French) preference for the term semiology versus the British and American preference for the term semiotics. We will use the English term semiotics for all aspects of the larger sign-oriented '-'·

-~· diJ.• ... ~ _.

I•

.- •

~

•

• \:

added to the more relatively mut:penoent roots and stems. Both lexical and grammatical signs, however, function together synergetically in order to achieve coherent communication and, indeed, may even be viewed as part of a continuum. 5 Summary and conclusions

In this chapter we have presented the semiotic or sign-oriented view of language as a system of systems - revolving around the dyadic notion of the linguistic sign - used by human beings to communicate. The major theoretical and methodological implications of this particular definition of language have been introduced and discussed. These include: the sign and its component parts, the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships of signs based on the value relationships of their invariant meanings within both lexical and grammatical systems, the dual orientations embodied in the communication factor and human factor, invariance versus variation, invariant meaning versus message and function, encoding versus decoding, and the systems of grammar and the lexicon which may be viewed as a larger continuum of linguistic signs and their relationships. We have tried to connect most of the major theoretical and methodological implications of this semiotic or sign-oriented approach to language to the concept of .language synergesis. Synergesis has been defined as the cooperative action of discrete agencies such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the discrete effects taken independently. We have attempted to show that the notion of synergy may provide a further theoretical refinement to this semiotic or sign-oriented view of language: i.e. provide an underlying set of principles sharing the common denominator of synergy in which the systems of language cevC'lving around the linguistic sign used by human beings to communicate can be understood better. The underlying connection between synergy and the semiotic or sign-oriented view of language may be summarized as follows:

( 1) Language is a holistic code, a system of systems which can be connected to linguistic signs which integrate signals and meanings and their relationships. (2) Invariance is the isomorphic foundation of all aspects of this code and therefore the study of language is the search for invariance in the signals and meanings and their relationships of this code.

(3) The holistic system of language which is to be studied isomorphically must be viewed as a tool of communication used by human beings. The system of language will therefore directly and indirectly reflect both its function as a tool of communication (the establishment of oppositions in forms and meanings and their relationships) as well as the 'users' of this tool of communication, i.e. human beings. (4) Invariant meaning motivates the distribution of linguistic signs and their relationships in all aspects of this code: in forms where the systematic relationship of the arbitrary connection between signal and meaning may iconically reflect extralinguistic reality in their linguistic (phonetic, phonological and morphological) units, their (syntactic) combinations, and their (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) functions all of which are either given and/or inferred from invariant meanings in the process of going from invariant sign meaning to contextual discourse function. (5) Invariant meaning underlies the code level and should not be confused with the exploitation of this code. Sentence and discourse messages and the functions of their component parts are not invariant meanings. In other words, invariant meanings are not equivalent to sentence or dictionary or discourse messages nor to the syntactic, logical, or pragmatic communicative discourse functions and exploitations of this code which are all inferred from and motivated by invariant meanings of the code. (6) All the invariants of the language code are not given in advance, i.e. are not preconceived categories, but must be postulated, validated, i.e. discovered. Perhaps, the primary or only hypothetical unit in the discovery procedure is that of the linguistic sign and its systematic paradigmatic and syntagmatic value relationships within the code based on invariant meaning. Notes 1 The particular semiotic or sign-oriented approaches to language I am

referring to here are the work done by three schools of theoretical linguistics which have adopted the basically Saussurian concept of invariant meaning (Saussure 1916) as their theoretical unit of analysis: The Columbia school of form content analysis (the Diverian approach), the Psychomechanics or Psychosemiology of Language (the Guillaumean approach) and the Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian school. I will compare and contrast these three approaches to linguistic analysis and their alternative ways of viewing invariance in Chapter 4

66

INVARIANCE ~D LANGUAGE SYNERGY

and have also done so elsewhere (Tobin 1985a, 1987a-c, 1988a) as has Kirsner (1984, 1987, 1989). 2 The largest international quantitative language synergetics project dealing with the lexicon (that I'm aware of) is currently being undertaken. by Prof Dr G Altmann, Dr R Kohler and Dr U Rothe at Bochum University. Readers interested in a more extensive bibliography of quantitative oriented language synergetics should consult the Quantitative Linguistics series of Bochum University in general and the Glottometrika volumes in particular (e.g., Altmann 1978, 1980, Grotjahn 1980, Krylov 1982, Lehfeldt and Strauss 1982, Goiter and Arapov 1982, Kohler and Altmann 1983, Kohler and Boy 1983, Boy and Kohler 1984, Rothe 1984, Beothy and Altmann 1984a,b, Kohler 1986, Fickermann 1987). Readers interested in the quantitative implications and applications of Saussurian or semiotic or sign-oriented linguistics in general should consult Herdan (1966) and Shannon and Weaver (1949). 3 Arguments against invariant meaning as being 'problematic', 'nonpredictable', or 'circular' often because invariant meanings composed of words or signs to explain other words or signs have been proposed (e.g. Birnbaum 1978:28-9, 1982:8, 1987, Chvany 1984, 1987, Timberlake 1982, Wierzbicka 1g8ob). It must be remembered, however, that linguistic signs are not limited to independent morphemes and words only but can be both bound and independent forms as well as abstract signals such as zero (0), word order, or larger discourse utterances such as idioms, expressions, phrases, clauses, sentences, entire texts, etc. Furthermore, at some level, all linguistic theories may be 'circular' since linguistics is the only science which uses the object of its research (i.e. language) as the primary means to describe and explain itself. I have discussed these specific issues elsewhere (Tobin 1986b, 1988g) as has Kirsner (1984, 1987, 1989). 4 I am only intending to present here an oversimplified view of the concept of invariant meaning as opposed to a thorough and complete validated linguistic analysis along the lines of the semiotic or signoriented linguistic schools mentioned in note 1. (The word lost (like the word drove), for example, is probably composed of two linguistic signs 'lose'+ 'past'.) My limited aim here is only to give the reader a general idea of how an invariant meaning attached to the same form (as opposed to postulating a series of homonymous forms) can be inferred to have different ('polysemic') messages and syntactic and pragmatic functions in different ~guistic and situational contexts by the speakers of a language. In the presentation of the various possible messages, we will first present the most literal (physical or spatial) messages followed by the more metaphoric (existential or spiritual) messages for each example when more than one message is appropriate. We are not claiming to exhaustively present every possible message for each example. Any additional messages or further examples or syntactic and pragmatic functions that can be inferred by the reader will only serve to substantiate further the synergetic principle of a single invariant

NOTES

meaning versus an array of variation realized in the multitude of ('polysemic') messages and the various syntactic and pragmatic functions inferred from that invariant meaning in different linguistic and situational contexts. 5 This, of course, is a very generalized view of the grammar and the lexicon. A most interesting path for further research might be a new 'synergetically-oriented' view of language typology, whereby the different kinds of lexical versus grammatical signs may be viewed as being placed differently along a continuum of lexicon and grammar in different types of languages from the point of view of their different synergetic contributions to communication across language types.

Chapter 4

Invariant meaning: variations on an invariant theme*

Sign versus sentence-oriented definitions of language

This chapter resumes our discussion on the theoretical and methodological implications of the sign versus the sentenceoriented appr9aches to linguistic analysis in general and the concept of invariant meaning in particular. Three alternative views of invariant meaning representing the three sign-oriented schools introduced in Chapter 1, The Columbia school, the Jakobsonian school and the Guillaumean school, will be presented and exemplified by how each approach might postulate an invariant meaning for the dual number in the paradigmatic grammatical system of number. One of the most fundamental issues which must be addressed when discussing various linguistic approaches is: according to what theoretical and methodological principles can different linguistic theories be compared and contrasted? And, even more fundamentally: What is the basis for determining what these theoretical and methodological principles may be? Every linguistic analysis is the direct result of a specific set of theoretical assumptions which are related to how the linguist: ( 1) defines language; (2) defines a linguistic problem; (3) determines the source, kind and amount of data to be selected and analysed; *This is a much revised version of a paper originally presented at the First International Roman Jakobson Conference held at New York University in October, 1985.

SIGN VERSUS SENTENCE-ORIENTED DEFINITIONS

(4) chooses a methodology to select and analyse the data; (5) evaluates, compares and contrasts analyses in light of all the above. These five criteria basically serve to describe how and what the particular linguist views as the goals of linguistic research. In other words, the way a linguist defines language is very often the first step of a linguistic analysis from which all the other theoretical and methodological assumptions naturally follow. Therefore, it may be assumed that the various 'revolutions' that have or have not taken place in twentieth-century linguistics can be traced to the fact that new definitions of language have redefined the problems linguists have chosen to solve, and, consequently, affected the source, kind and amount of data they employ in their analyses, the methodological models upon which their analyses rest, as well as the criteria upon which their analyses should be evaluated, contrasted and compared. The dichotomy between the invariant meaning of a linguistic sign versus its inferred contextual messages and syntactic functions discussed in the previous chapter, is the most basic Saussurian and, therefore, semiotic axiom. This axiom leads to the idea that de Saussure (should have) created a new theoretical paradigm when he established the sign as the basis of his definitions of both language and of linguistic science: definitions which made the notion of invariance both theoretically and methodologically crucial to scholars who have adopted the sign as their unit of linguistic analysis. Linguists who have taken invariance seriously and have therefore founded linguistic schools based on this fundamental aspect of the sign-oriented definition of language include: Roman Jakobson and Comelis H. van Schooneveld of the Jakobsonian school, Gustave Guillaume, the founder of the school of Psychomechanics or Psychosemiology, and William Diver, the founder of the Columbia school of form content and analysis. These linguists clearly view language as a semiotic system and thus bridge the gap between these two supposedly divergent disciplines. Inspired by the axiomatic Saussurian connection between semiotics and linguistics, they view the postulation of a single invariant meaning for the linguistic sign as the fundamental theoretical task of the linguist, and the basis of the methodological model of a semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic paradigm. Indeed, we may say that the search for invariance, i.e. postulation and validation of the linguistic sign and its invariant meaning is - for these linguists - the primary goal of linguistic analysis.

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANT THEME

These scholars differ, however, in their fundamental conception of what constitutes the invariant meaning of a linguistic sign. In this chapter, these three alternative views of invariance will first be compared and contrasted. Then each school's individual view of invariant meaning will be illustrated by applying it to the system of number in general and the concept of dual number in particular. In short, this chapter will present a 'contrastive analysis' of the notion of invariant meaning as it may be applied to a specific grammatical category according to the theoretical and methodological tenets of these three semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic schools. In Chapter 5 we will present a more detailed analysis of the dual number in Sanskrit, Greek and Hebrew combining the different views of invariance introduced here in this chapter. Invariance in linguistic theory reviewed

It is possible to compare and contrast the concept of invariant meaning in these three different linguistic schools because they basically share similar definitions of language as a flexible and open-ended synergetic 'system of systems' - revolving around the dyadic notion of the linguistic sign - which is used by human beings to communicate. This definition of language based on the linguistic sign as the hypothetical unit of linguistic analysis may be viewed within the structuralist paradigm of an abstract versus concrete level in the following way:

Theoretically, this shared definition of language based on the linguistic sign implies the dichotomy between: ( 1) langue: an abstract code composed of signals and invariant meanings (i.e. linguistic signs) and their paradigmatic, or associative, and syntagmatic relationships; a complex abstract code which is shared by a community of speakers, versus: (2) parole: the concrete and seemingly chaotic realization of this complex abstract code as it is being exploited by individual speakers to communicate specific discourse messages in different linguistic and situational contexts. There are several fundamental theoretical differences between the sign-oriented concepts of langue and parole (de Saussure 1959:913) versus the sentence-oriented concepts of competence and performance (Chomsky 1964:10), despite the fact that they each can be placed in the opposed rubrics of abstract versus concrete

INVARIANCE IN LINGUISTIC THEORY REVIEWED

71

levels within the structuralist paradigm. Langue is basically viewed as a social phenomenon, an abstract sign system shared by a community of speakers used for communication. (:ompetence, on the other hand, is essentially viewed as the abstract system of recursive rules of an individual native speaker used for recognizing and generating sentences. These fundamental theoretical differences are the direct results of defining language either as 'a set of signs and a social fact underlying communication' or 'a set of sentences as an innate mental process of an individual speaker'. In other words, a definition of language usually contains a hypothetical unit of linguistic analysis, the choice of which has direct theoretical and methodological implications. It is the difference between abstract invariant meanings based on signs and their relationships in systems (langue) versus contextual discourse messages (parole) which is the fundamental dichotomy of theoretical semiotic or sign-oriented analysis. 1 Methodologically, this shared theoretical outlook implies: ( 1) an explicit respect for and reliance on concrete language data taken from actual spoken and written discourse in different linguistic and situational contexts, (as well as introspective language data), (2) at least an implicit commitment to deal with the 'human factor' (i.e. the cognitive, perceptual, linguistic, and (possibly) non-linguistic behaviour of human beings) as it is relevant to the postulation of invariant meanings and the subsequent communication of specific discourse messages. The first methodological difference between the sign-oriented versus sentence-oriented approach is the source and control of the linguistic data for an analysis. Sentence-oriented approaches today basically rely on native speakers' intuitions in analysing a grammar of competence and generally shun what people actually say by avoiding a grammar of performance. Therefore a speaker's abstract intuitions may be both the source and control of a linguistic analysis: i.e. judgements based on abstract intuitions to validate abstract linguistic hypotheses. Sign-oriented analyses, on the other hand, usually rely on both observable spoken and written data in context, what speakers and writers actually do (parole), which also reflects their intuitions, as well as judgements based on their intuitions. Therefore linguistic data both on the concrete and abstract levels may serve as the source and control of a sign-oriented linguistic analysis.

72

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANT THEME

The second fundamental methodological point which must be pointed out is that the choice of the sign and the rejection of the sentence and the word as the primary units of linguistic analysis does not mean that sign-oriented linguistics do not recognize the fact that words and sentences have 'psychological reality' for speakers. But, the fact that sentences and words are 'psychologically real' does not necessarily mean they are or must be the abstract hypothetical units of linguistic analysis. 2 The primary theoretical task of the semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic schools is the postulation of the invariant meanings of linguistic signs and• to try to explain how these invariant sign meanings are exploited by human beings to communicate specific discourse messages. In other words, the goal of semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic research is to create a scientific model which will bridge the gap between the abstract 'system of systems' shared by a community of speakers (langue) and the concrete realization or enactment of that abstract code by individual speakers and writers (parole). It is precisely here - in the theoretical and methodological emphasis placed on the dichotomy between invariant meaning versus contextual messages - that semiotic or sign-oriented schools of linguistic analysis differ from traditional and neo-traditional sentence-oriented schools. The latter implicitly or explicitly choose to define language from the point of view of the sentence, usually the 'syntax' of the sentence and its component parts as representations of logical or rational human thought. Semantically and pragmatically, sentence-oriented theories are primarily dealing with the messages of sentences, utterances, or speech acts. Therefore, for all practical purposes, they have either abandoned or overlooked the semiotic or sign-oriented notion of invariant meaning. By either ignoring or rejecting invariance, they subsequently have placed their theoretical and methodological emphasis on the alternative concepts of syntactic categories, contextual messages, speech acts, truth value, logic, and the like at the expense of invariant meaning. The most fundamental and therefore perhaps the most ignored theoretical and methodological implications of the semiotic approach to language and linguistics are: rejecting all preconceived theoretical units and categories such as the sentence, the word, parts of speech, etc., in favour of the unique concept of the linguistic sign; (2) maintaining the distinction between invariant sign meaning versus contextual sentence and discourse messages. 3 (1)

INVARIANCE IN LINGUISTIC THEORY REVIEWED

73

Although the three semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic schools discussed in this chapter may be viewed as adherents of the Saussurian Sign Revolution, i.e. they did adopt and adapt the linguistic sign as the primary unit of linguistic analysis, particularly in their analyses of grammatical systems; they, too, differ with regard to: (1) what they view as an abstract invariant sign meaning; (2) the role of the human factor in linguistic analysis; (3) the methodological procedures by which they validate their invariant meanings both qualitatively and quantitatively.

The Jakobsonian schooJ has attempted to formally incorporate the human factor into the notion of invariant sign meaning through the postulation of a set of distinctive hierarchical binary semantic features. They are thus attempting to 1create a 'calculus of meaning' based on cognitive semantic i features as they are perceived by encoders transmitting messages to decoders in different narrative and speech situations. The Psychomechanics or Psychosemiology school of Gustave Guillaume has taken the notion of 'operative time' and connected it to the notion of invariant meaning. The Guillaumeans postulate dynamic invariant meanings encompassing all the contextual messages and message types derived from them as part of ·a continuum of human cognition and perception. They postulate invariant meanings dynamically moving through grammatical systems within operative time as part of the process of an encoder transmitting messages to a decoder. The Columbia or form content school founded by William Diver postulates invariant meanings which, for grammatical systems, exhaustively classify larger semantic substances or domains. The invariant meanings are presumed to be reflections of aspects of human cognition and perception which can be validated according to both qualitative and quantitative methods reflecting both human linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour. This emphasis on invariant meaning may be viewed simultaneously as: · ( 1) the fundamental link between semiotics and linguistics in general; (2) the most basic distinguishing characteristic of the semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic schools as opposed to the sentenceoriented schools in particular;

74 (3)

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANT TIIEME

the primary means to distinguish between different semiotic or sign-oriented approaches such as the Jakobsonian, Guillaumean and Diverian schools.

Invariance in Jakobsonian theory The concept of invariance in general and invariant sign meaning in particular will first be explored within the Jakobsonian framework. Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) may be considered to be the standard-bearer of the Saussurian notion of invariant sign meaning as it was later adopted and adapted by the Prague School. The hallmark of all of Jakobson's theoretical linguistic and semantic work was his strict insistence on the rigorous distinction between general and contextual meanings: (allgemeine Bedeutung and Gesamtbedeutungen) versus categorical meanings (Hauptbedeutung and Grundbedeutungen) which has been attested to in all the studies dealing with Jakobson and the Jakobsonian approach to language and linguistics. 4 Most of Jakobson's major theoretical and methodological statements on the issue of invariance and invariant meaning in semantic analysis, however, were made in or for German (1932, 1936) or Russian (1958) respectively particularly for the Russian case system and other morphological categories. Accordingly, most of the major criticism of invariant meaning has been made by Slavicists. 5 Jakobson's basic theoretical and methodological argumentation for the principle of invariant meaning generally has appeared in the form of: a detailed catalogue of all the different contextual messages that can be attributed to a linguistic sign; followed by a demonstration that there is a single general meaning underlying all of these specific contextual messages. This kind of argumentation has generally become the mainstay of most of the qualitative validations of the invariant meanings postulated by semiotic or sign-oriented linguists of tbe three schools discussed in this chapter, as well as by other linguists advocating the isomorphic approach of one-form - one-meaning such as Dwight Bolinger (1977). Jakobson's perception of invariant meaning, however, is unique in that it may be viewed as a theoretical and methodological extension of the principle of opposition in phonology. Jakobson and the Jakobsonians (particularly van Schooneveld 1978, 1983a,b) have actively postulated and developed a set of distinctive hierarchical binary semantic features in a way parallel to Jakobson's better known distinctive hierarchical binary phonological features. Much of the argumentation for the validation of these semantic features is based on the postulation of marked and unmarked

INVARIANCE IN LINGUISTIC TIIEORY REVIEWED

75

relationships in paradigmatic morphological systems. Very often this methodological model presents the signs of the system in sentences or utterances containing minimal pairs; or representing relationships of complementary distribution and/or free variation. This Jakobsonian model of invariance thus can be perceived as an attempt to explain the relationship between abstract invariant meaning and concrete contextual messages in a way that corresponds to the relationship between the abstract phoneme and its set of concrete allophonic contextual variants. This approach embodies another crucial aspect of isomorphism, namely that all the different levels of language structure can be analysed according to the same sets of laws or principles of organization. Language is then truly analysed as it is defined as a system of systems within a larger semiotic and linguistic framework. The Jakobsonian·concept of invariant meaning in the form of a hierarchical set of semantic features has been further developed by C. H. van Schooneveld and his students. It has been applied to other morphological systems, lexical signs, as well as traditional syntactic categories such as parts of speech in various Slavic and other languages. The original Jakobsonian semantic features have been expanded and are now viewed as forming part of a larger calculus of linguistic meaning. 6 This new calculus of meaning is composed of complex threedimensional invariant meanings based on six distinctive hierarchical binary semantic features occurring on four levels of perceptional or transmissional deixis in different narrative or speech situations. Furthermore, through the cognitive notion of autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela 198o), attempts are currently being made to establish a link between this linguistic calculus of meaning and the realm of human perception and cognition in general (van Schooneveld 1987, 1988). The six semantic features forming the.basis of invariant meaning within this new calculus of linguistic meaning are (in ascending order): (1) PLURALITY (formerly called transitivity) which means that more than one perception is needed to identify the referent. (2) DIMENSIONALITY which indicates that the referent constitutes a subset within a larger set or a subcontinuum within a larger space. (3) IDENTITY (formerly called duplication and distinctness) which says that the identification of the referent is possible only in a given space at a given time.

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANTIBEME

(4) EXTENSION (corresponding to Jakobson's case feature of directionality) which signals that the referent is identified more than once. (5) CANCELLATION (corresponding to Jakobson's case feature of marginality and previously called restrictiveness) which eliminates the space in which the first identification took place, replacing it by a space with a different entity. (6) OBJECTIVENESS (corresponding to Jakobson's case feature of quantification) which makes the identification of the referent independent from any previously given space, whether initial or subsequent. These semantic features occur on four levels of perceptional and transmissional deixis, referred to by van Schooneveld as singulative perceptional and singulative transmissional. With regard to information content, van Schooneveld (1983a:323) maintains that transmissional deixis contains perceptional deixis; while conversely, the referential range of transmissional deixis is a subset of the referential range of perceptional debris. The four levels of deixis multiply the six hierarchical binary semantic features by four. According to van Schooneveld, the resulting structure of invariant linguistic meaning is of a degree of complexity no greater than that of molecules in organic chemistry- with similar potential recursive power. The structure of an invariant meaning within this framework is represented graphically in the form of a three dimensional cube. The more complex the analysis, the more complex the cube-like structure becomes (van Schooneveld 1978, 1983b:170). The fact that these semantic features occur on four levels of deixis (represented notationally by primes) means that they can apply to relations within the narrated situation and relations in which both the speech and the narrated situations or the speech situation alone are involved. The features represent a mode of observing; what is observed; and how it is observed in that given mode. The narrated situation basically represents the external world. The speech situation fundamentally represents the language user as a participant in that world. The various primes indicate who is observing the given material, which belongs to the realm of parole. Thus, an invariant meaning within this expanded Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian framework usually consists of one or more of the six semantic features with a suprascript in the form of one of the four primes representing the four levels of deixis within the narrative and/or speech situations:

INVARIANCE IN LINGUISTIC THEORY REVIEWED

77

( 1) The first prime - ' = perceptional deixis = narrative situation = a set of potential narrative situations of which one is chosen in parole. (2) The second prime - '' = transmissional deixis = speech situation = a set of speech situations iri which one is chosen in parole. (3) The third prime - '" = singulative perceptional deixis = distinctness between narrative situations = choosing a specific narrative situation. (4) the fourth prime - "" = singulative transmissional deixis = distinctness between speech situations = choosing a specific speech situation. For van Schooneveld and the Jakobsonian school, each semantic feature is a scanning device that tells the perceiver how to zero in on the referent as part of a hierarchical process of perception. The process of meaning allows the perceiver not only to perceive the external world, but also to perceive himself within the very process of perception as he ascends the hierarchical scale of semantic features on the different deictic levels. Thus, due to this hierarchical autopoietic mechanism of perception, the question of invariance in language may then be reduced to our perceiving ourselves encoding into langue our perceptions of every instance of the speech acts of parole. Invariance in language is then reduced to an hierarchical autopoietic process of cognition and perception alternating between the abstract code and its individual application. Invariance in Guillaumean theory Gustave Guillaume (1863-196o) developed a linguistic theory called the psychomechanics of language which centres around the mentalistic concept of invariant meaning. The most fundamental theoretical principle of the Guillaurn.ean school revolves around the question: where do all the contextual senses of a morpheme/ word come from? Thus Guillaume viewed meaningfulness as the sine qua non condition of language. His concept of invariant or potential meaning i.ncludes the perception of all the diverse, actual, contextual senses of a morpheme/word in discourse. Guillaume's research (1919, 1929, 1945) in French and the Classical languages focussed on the discovery of the underlying potential meaning of langue (or tongue) as part of an abstract movement of thought. 7 The Guillaumeans have adopted the pre-Saussurian concept of the linguistic sign, which, as in common usage, stands only for the

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANT THEME

signal or the linguistic form alone. Alternatively, they view the word as the product of a mental process of genesis (in a way similar to Sapir 1921). For the Guillaumeans, a word - referred to as a significant - is a synthesis of two elements: a sign and a significate. The significate is further divided into two parts: the material significate which is similar to the Saussurian concept or signified i.e., an invariant meaning - and a formal significate which is the part of speech a word belongs to. The Guillaumeans (Garnier 1983:28, Hewson 1976, 1981, Hirtle 1967:7-8, Valin 1954:32) also use the terms langue (translated as tongue) and discours (translated as discourse) in a different way from Saussure. Despite the fact that Guillaumean terminology slightly differs from· the traditional Saussurian terminology adopted by the other linguists discussed in this chapter, it is clear that the Guillaumean school still basically shares the theoretical and methodological tenets of sign-oriented linguistics that we have outlined above. The Guillaumean approach is unique, however, in the central role that the notion of operative time plays in its theoretical and methodological model. For the Guillaumeans, everything in language implies time. This is especially true with regard to the concept of potential meaning which Guillaume viewed as part of an abstract movement of thought. This movement of thought from the potential (tongue) to the actual (discourse) obviously demands a certain amount of time - no matter how small. Thus, from the Guillaumean point of view, the abstract level of potential meaning must first precede the actual realization of that potential in the form of specific contextual messages. In other words, meaning is potential before it is actual. This abstract movement of thought from the potential to the actual is always connected to operative time. Therefore, the intrinsic connection between potential and actual meaning and an abstract mental movement in operative time is what distinguishes Guillaumean theory from the other sign-oriented theories discussed in this chapter. Guillaume essentially views a paradigmatic grammatical system as a mechanism in the human mind from which the meaningful members of the system are produced. The underlying potential meaning of each morpheme within that system is determined by its place in that grammatical system as part of an abstract mental process within operative time. That is, each morpheme appears within the system at a different moment of time - initially, medially, or finally- as part of its role in the abstract movement of thought. Therefore, each morpheme must be defined in terms of its position within the micro-stretch of time required for that abstraet movement of thought to take place.

INVARIANCE IN LINGUISTIC TIIEORY REVIEWED

79

Guillaume's concept of potential meaning - like Jakobson's includes all the linguistic and situational contextual messages of a linguistic sign. For Guillaume - and the Jakobsonians, particularly van Schooneveld - potential meaning is always related to the perception of the language system as part of an ongoing abstract mental process. For Guillaume, however, this abstact mental process must always be intrinsically related to the notion of operative time. Consequently, the notion of invariant meaning within the Guillaumean framework is essentially a dynamic one based on an abstract movement of thought within the framework of operative time: This dynamic quality is represented in the graphic way an invariant meaning is presented in a Guillaumean analysis. Guillaumean meanings most often appear linearly, i.e., in the fonn of a straight line with appropriate arrows or vectors indicating the direction of movement and the position (initial, medial, final) of a meaning in operative time as part of a larger grammatical system. Invariance in Diverian theory Form content analysis is a Saussurian based sign-oriented linguistic theory developed over the last twenty years by William Diver and his students at Columbia University. It is based on the rather obvious (but often overlooked) premise that language is a device of human communication. Its basic theoretical and methodological orientation is that the structure and the very nature of language are a direct result of its communicative function. The two basic premises of the theory are that language is (a) an instance of human behaviour and (b) a device for communication. Diver's early analyses (1963, 1964a,b, 1969) were made for Latin, Greek and English. Over the past twenty years, further analyses have been made for many languages including Spanish, French, German, Dutch, Swahili, Hebrew, Finnish, Japanese, Urdu, Serbo-Croatian and others. 8 For the Diverian, the sign-oriented definition of language as a 'system of systems' used by human beings to communicate !Dessages implies that signals and invariant meanings are the only theoretical units of analysis. Therefore, in language, as in other communication systems, the sign is composed of a distinct signal to which a single unitary meaning is invariably paired. Neither the signals nor the invariant meanings are known in advance of the analysis. On the contrary, the first task confronting the linguist is the postulation of each signal and its invariant meaning. The postulation of the linguistic sign must be viewed as a unified process, as the simultaneous postulation of both signifier and

80

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANTmEME

signified. This requires the analyst to approach specific linguistic problems and data - usually distinct morphological or lexical forms - isolate them, postulate an invariant meaning for each form, and then determine inductively how the invariant meaning directly or indirectly motivates the occurrence of its invariably paired signal every time and within every context in which it appears. The precise nature of the signals - be they individual speech sounds, independent or segmentable linguistic forms, abstract signals such as word order position or zero, written words, or entire sentences - and their postulated invariant meanings - must be determined by observing human needs in interaction with communicative needs through inductive generalizations about language data. Human behaviour and intelligence, through inference, context, and knowledge of the world, must be taken into account to explain how the sequence of signs - each composed of a signal and an abstract and often imprecise invariant meaning- can fit together to communicate relatively precise messages in different linguistic and situational contexts. The invariant meanings of linguistic signs in isolation can be characterized by a semantic concept or set of concepts called a semantic substance or a semantic domain. If more than one sign can be characterized by the same semantic substance, these signs are in an oppositional relationship of value in their categorization of that semantic domain. When the invariant meanings of a set of signs taken together exhaustively classify a semantic substance, this is called a grammatical system. Each grammatical system has both an internal.and external structure. The internal structure of each grammatical system is related to the way the semantic substance of that grammatical system is organized or divided. Since the members of the system exhaustively classify the semantic substance, there is no residue in that semantic domain that cannot be referred to explicitly by one of the postulated invariant meanings. Since each invariant meaning is invariably paired to a signal, the number of signals and the number of invariant meanings for each grammatical system is the same. The emphasis on studying language ·both as a device of communication and a specific instance of human behaviour characteristic to the Diverian approach has fundamental theoretical and methodological implications for its concept of invariant meaning: ( 1) The Diverians are particularly interested in· postulating meanings which have a high degree of psychological plausibility and potential cognitive relevance (Kirsner 1984:164). For

TIIE CONCEPT OF GRAMMATICAL NUMBER

81

this reason, the invariant meanings postulated by form content analysts are often relative meanings on a hierarchical scale of value such as HIGH versus LOW FOCUS for Reid's (1979) analysis of the French passe simple versus the imparfait, or MOST, MORE, LESS or LEAST DEGREE OF CONTROL for the nominative, ablative, dative, and accusative cases respectively for Diver's analyses (1964b, 1981, 1982, 1984) of the Latin system of participation or control. (2) The Diverians, (Garcia 1975:52, Kirsner 1979a:34, Tobin 1982a:349, 1985a:65), also view the notion of invariant meaning being exploited for subjective comment: the speaker may use one sign other than another in order to tell us something about his own attitude towards the scene - as opposed to merely giving an objective description. (3) Form content analysis also recognizes the possibility of the indirect exploitation of a linguistic sign without having any visual 'reflex' in the message, such as the optional use of the sign 'that' in its use as a 'subordinating conjunction' in the sentences: 'He said he would come' /'He said that he would come' (Diver 1975:13). (4) A very important methodological difference between the Diverian school and the others based on its conception of invariant meaning is the role of quantitative validation in linguistic analysis. Form content analysts do not only qualitatively validate meanings through the use of glosses of sentences representing minimal pairs, complementary distribution, free variation and/or other utterance types in context, but also use contextually controlled statistical data related to: (a) the relative frequency of signs in texts as well as (b) acceptability judgements of test sentences by native speakers as part of their quantitative validations of sign meanings. 9 The concept of grammatical number

One of the most fundamental grammatical categories found in most languages is that of number. The most common and familiar manifestation of this grammatical category is the distinction between singular and plural (e.g. 'boy' versus 'boys'). In essence, the accepted view is that number deals with the 'countability' or 'enumeration' of entities (usually 'nouns'). The traditional concepts of 'singular' versus 'plural' are most often perceived as being reflected in the well-known opposition of 'one' entity and 'more than one' entity, respectively. This

82

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANT THEME

grammatical category called number appears to be rather straightforward on the surface, but, in reality, it has always proved to be quite problematic. Indeed, it is one of the thorniest problems found in most grammar books of English and other languages. In particular, the lexical categorization of 'mass' or 'collective' versus 'count' nouns, which varies considerably from language to language and often even within a single language, most often categorizes the crux of the problem. There are also. languages (e.g. Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Arabic) which have a special dual number in addition to the more familiar singular versus plural. This dual number is usually used to refer to two (or a pair of) entities. There are even languages such as Fijian which are purported to have a trial number in addition to singular, dual and plural for referring to three entities. The grammatical-lexical category of number in general, and the concept of the dual number in particular, provide a good example to briefly illustrate the concept of invariant meaning as it is manifested in the three different semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic approaches discussed in this chapter. Postulating invariant meanings for the dual number

The Jakobsonian approach The Jakobsonian notion of an invariant meaning for the dual number involves a hierarchy of distinctive semantic features functioning on different levels of deixis as part of an autopoietic perceptual process. According to van Schooneveld (p.c.): The dual is the minimal plural. It is a plurality which is minimally affected by the plurality operation. Thus, according to the hierarchical calculus of features and deictic levels expressed by primes, it would appear in the folloWing way: identity''' plurality' extension''' With regard to singulative perceptional deixis (triple primes), the encoder and the decoder, or at least·the first identifier and the later identifier, must identify the referent simultaneously. For example, in the plural 'books': the -s- suffix instructs the receiver to repeat the identification operation on a type of object indicated by 'book'. We do not know how often the operation has to be repeated, i.e., how large the plurality is. If the plurality is modified by a triple prime feature, it means the following: although we still do not know from the sign how large the plurality is, we do know that we have to deal

POSTULATING INVARIANT MEANINGS FOR DUAL NUMBER

with one definite and specific plurality - since all identifiers have to identify the plurality simultaneously. It must have some specific numeric value. Since all identifiers must identify simultaneously, they observe under third prime not only a specifically numbered plurality, but also a specific plurality operation. This is not sufficient however, to ascertain exactly what the numerical effect will be. However, we are not dealing with any third prime, but with extension'" triple prime. Thus, we observe a plurality operation which will remain as much as possible the same after we have seen it operate as it was prior to its operation. In other words, the plurality operation will be minimally affected by its own operation.

The Guillaumean approach The dual number from the point of view of the Guillaumean framework of dynamic meanings is viewed as part of an unconscious mental process of movement in operative time. The dynamic notion of invariant meaning of Guillaumean theory has theoretical and methodological consequences for the analysis of the grammatical system of number in various languages. In his analysis of the system of number in English, Hirtle (1982) does not view the 'singular' zero morpheme as statically meaning 'one', but rather as a movement going from the notion of plurality to that of singularity. Conversely and symmetrically; he also views the meaning of the 'plural' -s- ending not merely as statically meaning 'more than one', but rather as a movement going from the notion of singularity to that of plurality. This movement represents a mental operation which places each of the relevant morphemes within the grammatical system of number in operative time. Hirtle's proposed system in English thus involves a single abstract mental operation of going from singularity to plurality within two converse and symmetrical movements. This process of a single abstract mental operation taking place within two converse symmetrical movements - called the binary tensor device - was originally proposed by Guillaume for grammatical number in languages like aassical Greek which have an internal plural. The notion of the internal plural is significant for Hirtle's analysis of number in English as. well as for the invariant meaning of the dual number in general. Hirtle (I982:76) sets up a distinction between internal and external plural. The internal plural presents a number of individuals as basically one. The external plural presents them as being separate or discrete, with only a lexical link between them. This is related to Guillaume's (1971:211-12) presentation of the system of number as basically contrasting entities in the field of the continuate - occupying a

VARIATIONSONANINVARIANTTHEME

single stretch of space - versus the field of the discontinuate several entities seen as occupying discrete places in space. The internal plural evokes a plurality within unity, i.e., within some wider continuate, because it results from the interception of a movement towards the singular. The external plural, on the other hand, evokes plurality per se, i.e. separate, discrete discontinuate entities in space, which arise as part of a movement away from the singular. According to Hirtle (p.c.): Guillaume considered the dual number (at least in its traces in the Indo-European languages) to be the result of intercepting a movement of thought from plural to singular at its penultimate position ('instant', if one prefers to consider the operation from its temporal point of view). That is, it marks a near final point in a movement through the field of the continuate, tending to define the minimal in this field, i.e., the singular. Because this movement is in the field of the continuate, any plural obtained here is the result of division - dividing whatever quality into its parts - hence this is called the internal plural. The dual is the smallest version of the internal plural, obtained by dividing a continuate into two. Any further quantitative reduction would result in a singular, which being a minimum, cannot be divided. Thus, in the abstract mental movement from plurality to singularity of continuate space, the dual is the meaning produced immediately preceding the singular - a minimal internal plurality.

The Diverian approach The dual number from the point of view of the Diverian framework may be seen as an example of paradigmatic grammatical systems exhaustively classifying semantic domains: The semantic domain of number can be briefly explained in the following way: When a signal from the System of Number is associated with a lexical item the meaning of that signal suggests that the referent of that lexical item is to be something that can be readily interpreted in terms of counting: there is to be one or more of it in the message that is being communicated (Diver 1984:9).

This semantic substance is exhaustively divided into three parts represented by three distinct signals indicating singular, dual, and plural meaning ONE, 1WO, and OTHER THAN ONE OR 1WO for a language with a well-defined singular versus dual versus plural opposition such as Sanskrit. Not all languages possessing a dual have so clear-cut a number system as Sanskrit. Greek and

NOTES

85

Hebrew. for example, have a dual number which overlaps with the plural so that the concept of 'two' can alternatively be expressed with either dual or plural morphology. This kind of grammatical system of number will be discussed in the next chapter. Summary and conclusions

The first part of this chapter describes the crucial role invariance plays in three selected post-Saussurian semiotic or sign-oriented linguistic theories. In so doing, I have purposely limited myself to a basically Saussurian sign-oriented definition of language, and have thus neglected the rich pre-Saussurian sign-oriented tradition which is a worthy topic of study in its own right. Furthermore, by selecting only three post-Saussurian sign-oriented linguistic schools, I have, pedorce, excluded other sign-oriented approaches to linguistics associated with scholars such as Peirce, Morris. Hjemslev, de Prieto, Martinet. and others, who have been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Hervey 1982, Mulder and Hervey 1972, Parret 1983). After having first presented the primary theoretical and methodological role invariance plays in the semiotic or sign-oriented approach to linguistics in general and in these three theories in particular. I then compared and contrasted theoretically and methodologically their different conceptions of invariant meaning. After a brief introduction to the concept of grammatical number in general and the dual number in particular, an invariant meaning for the dual number according to each of the three theories' individual view of invariance was postulated. De Saussure defined language as a part of semiotics and established the tenets of linguistic science according to the fundamental semiological principle that language was a 'system of signs' and that linguistic science was the patron general of the larger humanistic science of semiology. The Saussurian Sign Revolution in linguistics did not take place, however, judging from the number of individual linguists or schools of linguistics that have seriously and actively adopted and adapted both his sign-oriented view of language and linguistics. In the following chapter the concept of the dual number will be further discussed and elaborated upon from the semiotic or sign-oriented point of view. Notes 1

The peripheral status of the sentence as a unit oflinguistic analysis within the Saussurian framework has been criticized by Chomsky (1964, 1965) and even by Culler (1976:82). The point of this book is, once again, that

86

VARIATIONS ON AN INVARIANT TIIEME

the choice of the linguistic sign as the unit of linguistic analysis implies a communicative-oriented approach based on invariant meaning versus contextual message. The choice of the sign as the unit of analysis replaces the traditional notion of the sentence and its pre-conceived component parts of words and their functions Within the sentence. It is, once again, a social and communicative view of language versus a 'logical', 'truth value' or 'mathematical', 'philosophical' approach. The more recent communicative thrust of pragmatic research differs from the sign-oriented research in that it basically deals with communiOitiOn on the sentence-utterance or speech act-discourse message level rather than discovering the invariant meanings of the actual linguistics signs used. 2 The issue of the psychological reality of speakers' intuitions which may be relevant to the argument that the psychological reality of a unit makes it the prime candidate for linguisic analysis can be found in Garcia ( 1975 :8~,n.1 ). In her discussion of the fact that there may be no 'intuitive reality' to her unitary analysis of the clitic pronoun se in all its different uses, Garcia mentions the fact that one may not be 'intuitively aware' that ice, water, and steam are essentially the same thing - and indeed think that they are three different things - yet their one-ness can be easily shown and learned by demonstration. 3 This basic Saussurian tenet, particularly with regard to the abandonment of the traditional and neo-traditional categories of the sentence and its component parts and 'parts of speech' in particular, was discussed in de Saussure (1959:105-6), and further elaborated upon by the Columbia school in particular e.g. Contini-Morava (1989), Diver (1981), Garcia (1975). Kirsner.(1979a) and Reid (1974), as well as in probably all the form content analyses found in the references. The notion of 'semantic analysis without the sentence' clearly listing the theoretical and methodological differences betWeen the invariant sign meaning and sentence message approaches may be found in Reid and Gildin (1979). 4 Jakobson and his Prague school generation have been the subject of renewed interest as can be evidenced by the following publications, e.g. Galan (1985), Gardiner (1981), Gartin (1964), Holenstein (1976), Johnson (1987), Matejka (1976), Pomorska et al. (1987), Sangster (1982), Steiner (1982), Tobin (1988a), Vac:hek (1964, 1966, 1983), Waugh (1976a). 5 Among the general and the more Slavic oriented critiques of Jakobsonian invariance, Birnbaum (1984:414, 1978:28-9, 1982:8), Chvany (1984, 1987), Timberlake (1982), and Wierzbicka (198ob), should be cited. I have also discussed these issues in Tobin (1986b, 1988g) as has Kirsner (1984, 1987, 1989). 6 Some of the work of the Jakobsonian school by C. H. van Schooneveld and his students includes: Andrews (1984), Armstrong (1973), Bouma (1975), Fradkin (1985), Howden (1979), Levenberg (198), van Schooneveld (1978, 1983a,b, 1~, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989), Waugh (1976b-d). A recent bibliography of Jakobson's writings (Rudy 1988) also is available. Since Roman Jakobson's death, several Jakobson

NOTES

memorial or Prague-inspired international conferences have been held whose Proceedings: e.g. Pomorska et al (1987) (reviewed by Tobin 1988g), Tobin (1988a, 19f19a), contain articles by members of the Jakobsoniao van-Schooneveldian school. · '7 These psychomechanic principles have been further applied to English and other languages in works such as: Fraser and Joly (1975), Joly and Hirtle (198o), Jones (1976), Hewson (1972), Hirtle (1967, 1975, 1982). An Eng]ish version of Guillaume's lectures (Guillaume 1984) reviewed by Tobin (1987b,c) contains a list of references of the Guillaumean school, which comprises a rather large and active group of followers centred in Lille and Laval which organizes annual meetings and publishes a journal (Mode/es Linguistiques) and many books. 8 Some of the Columbia school publications include: Contini-Morava (1976, 1983a,b, 1989), Garcia (1975, 1979, 1983), Gildin (1979), Huffman (1983, 1985), Kirsner (1979a,b, 1983, 1985), Klein-Andreu (1983b), Lattey (1980), Leonard (198o, 1985, 1987), Otheguy (1977a,b,), Penhallurick (1975, 1981, 1984a,b, 1987), Reid (1977, 1979, 1989), Tobin (1982a, 1986a-c, 1988b,c, 1989b,c}, Zubin (1977, 1978, 1979). A recently compiled bibliography of the Columbia school is available at the Linguistics Department of Columbia University. I have applied my own and others' form content analyses to language teaching and problems of translation (Tobin 1975, 1979, 1981a-d, 1982b,c, 1983a, 1984a,b, 1985crand have. combined elements of the other sign-oriented schools to analyses of modem Hebrew (Tobin 1988d,t) as well as to the analyses of English found in this volume. The later work of Garcia (1985a,b, 1987) goes beyond the traditional form content framework. There is a small group working in the Slavic seminar at the University of Amsterdam that has shown a special interest in the work of the Columbia School and which also refers to itself as form-content analysis: e.g. Barentsen (1985), Keijsper (1985), Stunova (1986, 1988). 9 Examples of quantitative validations of invariant sign meanings by form content analysts include: Contini-Morava (1976, 1983a,b, 1989), Diver (1969, 1975), Garcia (1975, 1983), Kirsner (1979a:38-9, 1983, 1984, 1985), Reid (1977, 1979).

Part Ill

From sign to system: markedness and distinctive feature theory I

Semiology is thus based on the assumption that insofar as human actions or productions convey meaning, insofar as they function as signs, there must be an underlying system of conventions and distinctions which make this meaning possible. Where there are signs there is system. (Culler 1976:91) [italics mine] [Y.T.] Although the quest for universals makes dependence on secondary sources inevitable, relying on extant grammars of individual languages is a little like trying to make an omelette out of hard-boiled eggs: the data have already been 'cooked' by the theoretical preconceptions of the grammarians who tend to supply examples which fit their hypotheses and ignore those which do not. (Contini-Morava 1983a:252)

Chapter 5

The dual number: from sign to system

The dual number: grammar or lexicon?

Despite the fact that the dual number is a well-known grammatical category in lndo-European and Semitic languages, from the point of view of 'survival of the fittest', dual morphology is not necessarily the 'best of survivors'. Indeed, one may even ask whether the dual in many languages is still part and parcel of a paradigmatic grammatical system or rather a historical remnant which may be relegated to the lexicon. Baugh (1957), for example, states the following regarding the dual in the Old English pronoun system: From the frequency of its use and the necessity for specific reference when used the personal pronoun in all languages is likely to preserve a fairly complete system of inftections. Old English shows this tendency not only in having distinctive forms for practically all genders, persons, and cases, but also in preserving in addition to the ordinary two numbers, singular and plural, a set of forms for two people or two things - the dual number. Indo-European had separate forms for the dual number in the verb as well and these appear in Greek and to a certain extent in Gothic. They are not found, however, in Old English. The distinction between the dual

and the plural is an unnecessary complication in language and was disappearing from the pronoun in Old English. (pp. 67-68) [all emphases mine] [Y.T.] One other general simplification is to be noted: the loss of the dual number. Language can get along without such nice distinctions as are

expressed by separate pronouns for two persons and more than two. Accordingly the forms wit, 3it, and their oblique cases did not survive beyond the thirteenth century; (p. 193) [all emphases mine) (Y.T.]

92

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

Jespersen ( 1964: 198) is equally as categorical regarding the English dual: . . . we have grammatical expressions of number in most substantives, in some pronouns, and in some verbal forms, but neither in adjectives nor in particles. While some languages distinguish a singular (for one), a dual (for two)- sometimes even a trial (for three)- and a plural, English like most of the cognate languages has now only a singular and a plural. The only remainder of the dual is . [all emphases mine] [Y.T.)

Even in languages where the dual has survived as part of the grammatical system of number, its official recognition and status as a full-fledged member of that grammatical system is often ques· tioned. Hebrew, for example, has a tripartite system of number indicating singular, dual, and plural, but many still view this system as being basically binary. Rosen ( 1977: I 65) correctly points out that the dual differs from the singular or plural in several ways: There is no special dual morphology for adjectival or verbal forms. Adjectives and/or verb forms collocating with dual referents invariably take plural morphology. ( 2) The dual is neutral with regard to gender: unlike the singular and plural, there is only one dual suffix for both masculine and feminine. In spoken Israeli Hebrew, paired objects, articles of apparel, and parts of the body in the dual are unstable for gender, with an analogical preference for feminine gender which is oftentimes applied to the dual form of masculine nouns (based upon the more frequently used 'irregular' feminine forms) and considered to be grammatically 'incorrect'. (3) The dual, unlike the singular and plural, does not have a special compound form of its own. (4) The dual is not the exclusive way of designating two referents in the language: a common variant for the dual number is a syntagm composed of the numeral 'two' (in its compound form) and the plural suffix. Thus, the choice of a dual as opposed to a plural may often be more of a lexical rather than a purely grammatical choice. (5) The dual functions in certain linguistic contexts as a plural: it collocates with a limited set of referents which can be referred to by numerals larger than two. One can say in Modem Hebrew: 'three eyes (dual) or six teeth (dual)'. (1)

NUMBER SYSTEMS ACROSS LANGUAGES

93

Yet, despite all of these 'weaknesses' of the dual, it is still prevalent and productive in both the spoken and written language and appears in all styles and registers for all speakers. In short, one can safely state that the dual number is definitely integral to and part and parcel of all the historical phases of Hebrew, including modern Israeli Hebrew spoken today. The question remains, however, whether the dual number can be considered to be part of the grammatical or the lexical system of the language, or whether it spans the opposition between them. \

Number systems across languages

In order to determine whether the dual number is part of a language's grammar or lexical system, one might best benefit from comparing and contrasting the different number systems found in various languages containing a dual. In this chapter we will be dealing with the grammatical system of what is traditionally called 'Number' based on the theoretical and methodological tenets of the semiotic or sign-oriented approach of the J akobsonian, Guillaumean and Diverian schools discussed in Chapter 4. In the specific semiotic analysis to be presented here, the dual number in Hebrew will be viewed as being part of a grammatical system in which its invariant meaning is included in (i.e. 'overlaps with') the invariant meaning of the plural in a way similar to what is traditionally called 'synonyms' in the lexicon. The theoretical and methodological implications of this 'relationship of inclusion' with regard to the notions of invariance and markedness; unity and discreteness, and objective description versus subjective comment will be discussed in particular. 1 All of the above semiotic or sign-oriented concepts will be further applied to a specific literary text, a children's story in rhyme, which exploits opposition between the singular and ~lural versus the dual number in a most original and creative way. According to Diver (1984, 1987), the semantic substance or domain of the system of number is: 'the countability or the number of entities designated by the attached lexical stem'. This is presented schematically in Figure 5.1. In the semantic domain of number in Latin or English - the familiar 'singular-plural' distinction - any conceivable number associated with a referent will fall either into the category ONE or the category OTHER (THAN ONE) - the two invariant meanings which exhaustively classify this semantic substance, thus giving us a clear-cut paradigmatic grammatical system. This is presented schematically

94

TIIE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

The Semantic Substance of Number Semantic Substance: "The COUNTABILITY or the NUMBER of entitites designated by the attached lexical stems:

FIGURE 5.I

in Figure 5.2. Different languages may differ in the semantic domains they divide, or in the way they divide or organize the same semantic substance. Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Greek, for example, have three signals - commonly referred to as singular, dual, and plural - in their grammatical system of number. Thus, the system of number for these languages, unlike Latin, or English, is a three member system. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the invariant meanings which can be postulated for each of these signals will be identical in each of these languages, nor that they will organize the three member system of number in the same way. 3 Within the internal organization of a grammatical system the value relationships among the invariant meanings may either be in an opposition of exclusion - where each of the invariant meanings is mutually exclusive - or in an opposition of inclusion - where the invariant meaning of (at least) one of the members of the system is included in or overlaps with (at least) one other. Io Latin and Sanskrit, for example, each of the invariant meanings of the signs in the number system - singular-plural versus singular--Oual-plural - is in an opposition of exclusion: ONE-OTHER (THAN ONE) versus ONE-TWO-OTHER (THAN ONE OR TWO) respectively. This means that in Sanskrit the dual number - meaning TWO - is used exclusively to refer to exactly two referents. This relationship of exclusion is presented Number in Latin and English

Singular Morphology: ONE Plural Morphology: OTHER THAN ONE

OPPOSITE OF EXCLUSION= GRAMMAR FIGURE 5.2

NUMBER SYSTEMS ACROSS LANGUAGES

95

Number in Sanskrit

Singular Morphology: ONE Dual Morphology: TWO Plural Morphology: OTHER (THAN ONE OR TWO) OPPOSITION OF EXCLUSION =GR.AMMAR

FlGURE

5·3,

schematically in Figure 5.3. The dual morphology in Sanskrit is clearly part and parcel of a tight exclusive paradigmatic system which clearly and unambiguously regulates the choice of the dual morphology for two and only two entities. Indeed, according to Whitney (1967:88-9): As to the uses of the numbers, it needs only to be remarked that the dual is (w.ith only very rare and sporadic exceptions) used strictly in all cases where two objects are logically indicated, whether directly or by combination of two individuals . . . The dual is used alone (without dva two) properly when the duality of the objects indicated is well understood . . .

In Greek and in Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, only the meaning of the sign for singular - ONE - is in an opposition of exclusion with the meanings of the signs for the dual and the plural. The meanings of the signs for dual and plural, however, are in an opposition of inclusion. The invariant meaning of the dual TWO - is included in or overlaps with the invariant meaning of the plural - OTHER (THAN ONE), thus giving us a less-thanexclusive paradigmatic grammatical system which spans the opposition between the realms of the grammar and the lexicon of a language. This grammatical relationship of inclusion is presented schematically in Figure 5.4. The Greek and Hebrew system is different from that of Sanskrit. The semantic substance signalled by their plural meaning - OTHER (THAN ONE) - is the same as that of Latin and English and includes the semantic substance of the invariant meaning of the dual - TWO. Thus, in Greek and Hebrew - unlike Sanskrit - the signals for either the plural or the dual may be used to refer to two referents. The semantic substance explicitly signalled by the invariant meaning of the Sanskrit plural - OTHER (THAN ONE OR TWO) - is not categorized in the

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

Number in Greek and Hebrew Singular Morphology: ONE Dual Morphology: TWO Plural Morphology: OTIIBR TIIAN ONE (including two) OPPOSITION OF INO..USION FOR DUAL AND PLURAL: SPANS OPPOSITION OF GRAMMAR AND LEXICON

FIGURE

5.4

Greek or Hebrew system of number since it does not have a signal that explicitly specifies it. It is merely that part of the semantic substance of plural that does not overlap with dual. Thus we can see that the dual number in Sanskrit and Greek and Hebrew are not identical and represent two different ways of internally dividing the same semantic domain. Thus, the choice of either dual and/or plural morphology will not be a simple choice of mutually exclusive morphological forms. The external structure of grammatical systems illustrates how different grammatical systems are related to each other within the larger system of language. Some grammatical systems are tightly integrated with each other in larger structures called interlocks, and more loosely related to each other in even larger structures called satellite clusters (Diver 1986). ( 1)

(2)

Two or more grammatical systems are said to be interlocked when some or all of their signals are shared. Therefore these signals describe, from different points of view, the same lexical item. In Hebrew, for example, there is an interlock in the systems of number and gender in the signals -im- and -otwhich indicate that a given referent is plural with respect to the number system and masculine and feminine respectively with regard to the gender system. The gender distinction is neutralized however for the dual form ayim which is unmarked for gender. Satellite clusters are differentiated from each other by being made up of different systems and interlocks. In Hebrew, for example, the systems of number, gender and differentiation (traditionally called definiteness or determinateness) are loosely related in the same satellite structure.

NUMBER SYSTEMS ACROSS LANGUAGES

97

The emphasis on studying language both as a device of communication and a specific instance of human behaviour typical of the semiotic or sign-oriented approach to language has fundamental theoretical and methodological implications. Linguists following the Diverian approach, in particular , .. have discussed the special exploitation of invariant meanings for 'subjective comment'. This simply means that the speaker or writer may use one sign other than another in order to tell us something about his own attitude towards the scene - as opposed to merely giving an objective description. An example of this notion of subjective comment might be the 'ironic' or 'facetious' use of the dual number in Modern Hebrew. More specifically, a speaker or writer may intentionally choose the dual number in order to give an unduly 'over-precise' dual designation to any set of two referents which usually do not come in pairs and, thus, are not conventionally collocated with the dual number meaning TWO. By doing so, he is calling special attention to the fact that there are precisely two referents on the scene by idiosyncratically choosing the dual number instead of the more common plural collocated with the numeral two. The semiotic or sign-oriented analysis of the dual number being presented in this chapter has also been influenced by the concept of a hierarchy of morphological or semantic marked features as it is conceived by the Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian school. According to this approach, a signal or form marked for a semantic feature X makes a specific claim regarding the presence of that feature X, while a signal or form which is unmarked for the semantic feature Xis neutral with regard to that feature. In other words, the unmarked form makes no claim whatsoever either to the presence or the absence of that feature X: i.e. it may be present or absent. The invariant meaning of the dual number itself from the point of view of the Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian framework is a hierarchy of marked distinctive semantic features functioning on different levels of deixis as part of an autopoietic perceptual process. As was pointed out in Chapter 4, van Schooneveld views the dual as a minimum plural which is minimally affected by the marked features of plurality and extension. Therefore the dual may be considered to be even more highly marked than the plural because it specifies a limited and more precise kind of minimal plurality. 4 The sign-oriented Jakobsonian notion of semantic markedness may be considered relevant both to the notion of duality in general, and for the inclusive plural-dual opposition of Hebrew

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

and Greek in particular. In languages possessing the dichotic singular-plural opposition, the latter is usually considered to be marked. Alternatively, in languages with the singular-dual-plural trichotomy, the dual may be considered to be marked: i.e. the dual provides the most specific kind of information. It is this higher markedness value of the dual (particularly in Hebrew and Greek where the plural and the dual are in a relationship of inclusion) which makes the dual form particularly appropriate for 'subjective comment': i.e. to specifically focus attention on the encoder's subjective perception of paired or double entities. Employing the more highly marked dual in original, creative and subjective ways, can serve to focus on particular entities making them more salient within spoken and written discourse. Iconically speaking, the relative hierarchy of markedness between the singular-plural-dual signals in Hebrew is also reflected in their morphological forms as well. The more highly marked the form, the more specific its meaning and the greater its size. This is presented schematically for the masculine forms in Figure 5.5. 5 The semiotic or sign-oriented analysis of the dual number being presented in this chapter has also been influenced by the notions of unity (singularity) versus discreteness (plurality), i.e. the perception of entities in continuous versus discontinuous space, as conceived by the Guillaumean school. In his analysis of the system of number in English, Hirtle (1982) does not view the 'singular' zero morpheme as statically meaning ONE, but rather as a dynamic movement going from the notion of ·'plurality' (discontinuous inner space) to 'singularity' (continuous inner space). Conversely and symmetrically, Hirtle also views the meaning of the 'plural' -s- suffix not merely as statically meaning MORE THAN ONE, but rather as a dynamic movement going from the notion of 'singularity' (continuous inner space) to 'plurality' (discontinuous inner space). This movement represents a mental operation which places each of the relevant morphological signs in the grammatical system of number within the Guillaumean c-0ncept of 'operative time'. Signal

Meaning

0

ONE

im

OTHER THAN ONE

ayim

TWO

FIGURE

5.5 The Hebrew System of Number:

An Iconic Hierarchy of Markedness

NUMBER SYSTEMS ACROSS LANGUAGES

99

Operative time, as discussed in Chapter 4, represents the time necessary to go from the abstract potential invariant meaning of the system to the actual discourse meaning of a specific utterance in context. Hirtle's proposed system in English thus involves a single abstract mental operation of going from 'singularity' to 'plurality' as part of two converse and symmetrical movements. This process of a single abstract mental operation taking place within two converse symmetrical movements - called the binary tensor device - was originally proposed by Guillaume (1945:u819) for grammatical number in languages like Classical Greek which have an internal plural. The notion of the internal plural is significant for Hirtle's analysis of number in English as well as the analysis of the dual number in Hebrew presented in this chapter. Hirtle (1982:76) sets up a distinction between the internal versus external plural. The internal plural presents a number of individuals as basically one - a unity. The external plural presents them as as being separate or discrete, with only a lexical link between them. This is related to Guillaume's (1971:211-12) presentation of the system of number as basically contrasting entities in the field of the continuate perceived as occupying a single stretch of space - versus the field of the discontinuate - perceived as occupying discrete places in space. The internal plural evokes a plurality within unity, i.e. within some wider continuate, because it results from the interception of a movement towards the singular. The external plural, on the other hand, evokes plurality per se, i.e. separate, discrete, discontinuous entities in space, which arises as part of a movement away from the singular. As was pointed out in Chapter 4, according to Hirtle (p.c.): Guillaume considered the dual number (at least its traces in the Iodo-European languages) to be the result of intercepting a movement of thought from plural to singular at its penultimate position ('instant' from the point of view of 'operative time'). In other words, it marks a near final point in a movement through the field of the continuate, tending to define the minimal member of this field, i.e. the singular. Due to the fact that this movement is in the field of the continuate, any plural obtained here is the result of division - dividing whatever quality into its parts - hence this is called the internal plural. The dual is the smallest version of the internal plural, obtained by dividing a continuate into two. Any further quantitative reduction would result in a singular, which being a minimum, cannot be divided. Thus, in the abstract mental movement from plurality to singularity of continuate space, the dual is the meaning obtained immediately preceding the singular -

100

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

The Guillaumean Approach Semantic Substance of Number: Number and Inner Space Are Entities Perceived in Continuous or Discontinuous Space? Number and Inner Space

Singular: ENTITY OR ENTITIES PERCEIVED IN CONTINUOUS SPACE Plural: ENTITY OR ENTITIES PERCEIVED IN DISCONTINUOUS SPACE Dual: POTENTIAL PLURAL PERCEIVED IN CONTINUOUS SPACE

FIGURE

5.6

a minimal internal plurality. The dual number in Hebrew, from a Guillaumean perspective, represents a minimal internal plurality. The Guillaumean view of grammatical number is presented schematically in Figure 5.6. The dual number in Modern Hebrew

As we have previously stated, despite the fact that Modern Hebrew has a tripartite system of number indicating singular, plural and dual, many linguists view the Hebrew number system as being basically binary. Rosen's (1977:165) argument is based on the morphological facts that have already been discussed: namely, the suffixes indicating number (sg. and pl.) are marked (or interlocked) for both number and gender while the dual is unmarked or neutral for gender. Rosen also points out a 'complex categorial purport' comprising number, gender and determination, i.e. in Diverian terms, these three interlocked systems belong to the same satellite structure indicating that a lexical item should be perceived as an entity as opposed to an action or state. For the convenience of the reader, I will again list the major differences between the dual number which spans the opposition of the lexicon and the grammar versus the singular and plural forms as presented for Modern Hebrew at the beginning of this chapter: ( 1) There is no special dual morphology for adjectival or verbal forms. Adjectives and/or verb forms collocating with dual referents invariably take plural morphology. (2) The dual is neutral with regard to gender: unlike the singular

TIIE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUAL IN TIIE LEXICON

IOI

and plural, there is only one dual suffix for both masculine and feminine. In spoken Israeli Hebrew, paired objects, articles of apparel, and parts of the body. in the dual are unstable for gender, with an analogical preference for feminine gender which is oftentimes applied to the dual form of masculine nouns (based upon the more frequently used 'irregular' feminine forms) and considered to be grammatically 'incorrect'. (3) The dual, unlike the singular and plural, does not have a special compound form of its own. (4) The dual is not the exclusive way of designating two referents in the language: a common variant for the dual number is a syntagm composed of the numeral 'two" (in its compound form) and the plural suffix. Thus, the choice of a dual as opposed to a plural may often be more of a lexical rather than a purely grammatical choice. (5) The dual functions in certain linguistic contexts as a plural: it collocates with a limited set of referents which can be referred to by numerals larger than two. One can say in Modern Hebrew: 'three eyes (dual) or six teeth (dual)'. Once again, the reader should be aware that despite all of these 'weaknesses', the dual is still prevalent and productive in both the spoken and written language and appears in all styles and registers for all speakers. Furthermore, the dual number should be considered to be definitely integral to all the historical phases of Hebrew, including Modern Israeli Hebrew spoken today. The distribution of the dual in the lexicon

The dual form in Modern Hebrew -ayim- is used to designate: (1)

numerals, quantitative units, measures, conditions or states: shnayimlshtayim 'two' (masc./fem.), matayim 'two hundred', alpayim 'two thousand'; kiftayim 'double', shivatayim 'sevenfold, manifold (7x)', arba'atayim 'fourfold (4x), (the latter two composed of a syntagm composed of: 'numeral + fem. adv. marker + dual' possibly indicating a repeated process [Y.T.) ribotayim, 'twenty thousand' (2x10,000) (ribo), xofnayim 'two handfuls', 'plenty', apayim 'nostrils', 'face', but also a 'double portion' and orex apayim (double length of face) 'patience', afsayim 'a complete zero', 'a double zero', rivatayim 'two quarters', 'half a dinar', amatayim 'two cubits', etsba'ayim 'two fingers' (ancient

102

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

measure), tfaxayim 'two hands-breadths', korayim 'ancient crop measure 800 litres', satayim 'two seah' (ancient measure), zugayim 'a double paired-kick with both back legs of a donkey', xamor-xamoratayim 'a double donkey' (very stupid), atsaltayim 'lazily' (double lazy), 'very slowly', parvayim 'double (fine) gold'; parvayim 'two oxen', raxamraxamatayim 'double portion (many) presents', (tseva) rikmatayim 'very rich (colour), kilayim 'hybrid', shirayim 'leftovers, remains, residue, dregs'; but not borrowed words: million, billion (or milliartf). familiar place names: givatayim 'two hills', be'erotayim 'two wells', ramatayim 'two plateaus', naharayim 'two rivers' (Mesopotamia), sha'arayim 'two gates', gderotayim 'two fences', maxanayim 'two camps', mitsrayim 'Egypt' (two straits of the Nile); as well as the less transparent: yerushalayim 'Jerusalem', aditayim 'Aditayim', adorayim 'Adorayim', parvayim 'Parvayim', efrayim 'Ephraim'. physical boundaries or locations: shulayim 'margins', 'edges', 'hems', 'shoulders' (of a road), komatayim 'two-storey building', 'double-decker', maxanayim 'two opposed army camps facing each other', 'dodge ball' (game), dlatayim 'double doors' as in the expressions: be-dlatayim ptuxotlsgurot 'in open court/a huis clos', in camera, 'behind closed doors', yarketayim, 'the stern of a ship', ('buttocks' (slang); agapayim 'two wings', 'flanks', (building), 'banks of a water channel', 'two handles of a rolling-pin', beit mitbaxayim 'abattoir', 'slaughterhouse', shfatayim 'enclosure', 'pen', 'lean-to'; but also the less transparent (historically plural): mayim 'water', shamayim 'sky'. punctuation marks: gershayim 'quotation marks', 'inverted commas', nekudatayim 'colon', sograyim 'parentheses', 'brackets', arixayim 'square brackets'; but not: merxaot (single) 'quotation marks', 'inverted commas'. periods of time or time intervals: dakatayim 'two minutes' (slang), sha'atayim 'two hours', yomayim 'two days', shvuayim 'two weeks', 'a fortnight', xodshayim 'two months', shnatayim 'two years'; but not: asorim 'decades', 'ten months, 'ten days', me'ot 'centuries', yovlot 'jubilees'. temporal adverbial expressions: pa'amayim 'twice', maxaratayim 'day-after-tomorrow' (2x

IHE DISTRIBUITON OF THE DUAL IN IHE LEXICON

103

tomorrow); tsoharayim 'noon'; but not: shilshom 'the day before yesterday', xatsot 'midnight'. the concept of 'intermediacy' when attacbed to or collocated with the preposition: bein 'between', 'among', 'amidst'; 'in the middle of; 'inter-', 'intra-' (in compound words); 'during', 'either' (Alcalay 1975:225): e.g. beintayim 'in the meantime', 'meanwhile', bein ha-arbayim 'twilight'; the concept of intermediateness in general when attached to the same preposition as a nominal form: beinayim 'middle', 'intermediate', 'interim' (Alcalay 1965:228) in familiar nominal compounds: e.g. ish beinayim 'middleman', 'mediator', yemei beinayim 'Middle Ages', tsav beinayim 'interim order', kriyat beinayim 'interpolation', 'interruption'; as well as with the derivational adjectival suffix -i-: ·beinaymi 'medieval', 'intermediate' (Alcalay 1975:228).

many parts of the body which can be paired: einayim 'eyes', afapayim 'eye lids', 'eye lashes', oznayim 'ears', tsda'ayim 'temples', nexirayim 'nostrils', lexayayim 'cheeks', sfatayim 'lips', shinayim 'teeth', xanixayim 'gums', ktafayim 'shoulders', shadayim 'breasts', yadayim 'hands', kapayim 'palms', meayim 'intestines', xalatsayim 'loins', kravayim 'entrails', 'viscera', axorayim 'buttocks', yarketayim 'buttocks' (slang), motnayim 'hips', raglayim 'legs', yerexayim 'thighs', berkayim 'knees', shokayim 'shins', 'calves', karsolayim 'ankles', afsayim 'ankles', tsipornayim 'finger/toe nails', gapayim 'limbs' (both hands and feet), 'legs/feet' (of an animal), kra'ayim 'lower part of legs', 'knees', 'legs' (of an animal), knafayim 'wings', karnayim 'horns', 'antlers', tlafayim 'hooves', paxdayim 'animal thighs', sfamayim 'whiskers' (cat, mouse, etc.) (two moustaches); but not: gabot 'eye brows', gvinim 'eye brows', risim 'eye lids', ishonim 'pupils', bavot 'pupils', tnuxim 'ear lobes', rakot 'temples', lesatot 'jaws', miltaot 'jaws', marpekim 'elbows', mifrakim 'joints', prakim 'joints', 'wrists', zro'ot 'arms', etsbaot 'fingers/toes', kapot 'soles' ptamot 'nipples', dadim 'breasts', 'nipples', ashaxim 'testicles', (historic eshkayim), shaxlot 'ovaries', akuz 'buttocks', shet. 'buttocks', re'ot 'lungs', klayot 'kidneys', prasot 'hooves, horseshoes'. (9) paired articles of clothing: mixnasayim 'trousers', avrekayim, brakayim 'breeches', 'britches', 'trousers', 'pants', garbayim 'socks', 'stockings', na'alayim 'shoes', magafayim 'boots', ardalayim 'galoshes',

(8)

104

(10)

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

'rubbers', mukayim 'gaiters', mesulayim 'slippers', rexasayim 'cuff-links'; but not: kfafot 'gloves', xafatim 'cufflinks' sharvulim 'sleeves', (also historically sharvulayim), ktefiyot 'suspenders', taxtonim 'underwear', garbiyonim 'pantyhose', suliyot 'soles of shoes'; nor borrowed words: puzmekaot 'stockings', sandalim 'sandals', mokasinim 'moccasins', anpilaot 'felt boots'. objects that generally are perceived as pairs (dualia tantum): mishkafayim 'eyeglasses', ro'otayim 'eyeglasses' (archaic), ofanayim 'bicycle', misparayim 'scissors', migzazayim 'shears, clippers', migzarayim 'wire-cutters', melkaxayim 'forceps', melxatsayim 'vise', maxalatsayim 'ancient tool', lexatsayim 'clamps', makavayim 'punching tongs', metsiltayim 'cymbals'; moznayim 'scales', 'balance', 'Libra', maxalekayim 'ice-skates', galgalayim 'skates', miglashayim 'skis', mitpasayim 'climbing poles', makbilayim 'parallel bars', kabayim 'crutches', nexushtayim 'fetters', mishvarayim 'stirrups', ovnayim 'potter's wheel', reixayim 'miller's wheel', delayimldelayayim 'two buckets held together by a pole', pagayim 'two rucksacks placed on the sides of a pack animal', kirayim'cooking stove'; but not: mishkefet 'binoculars', ofnoim 'motorcycles', tsvatim (sg. tsevet) (but also mitsbatayim) 'pincers', 'tweezers', 'forceps', tsvatot (sg. tsvat) 'tongs', 'pliers', malket 'pincers', 'tweezers', 'pincette', (commonly referred to as pintseta), melkaxat 'pliers' (commonly referred to as playerim), marsek 'mincer', 'masher', maftseax 'nutcracker', maxlets 'corkscrew', mexuga 'compasses', 'pair of compasses', 'calipers', sketiml galgaliyot 'roller skates'.

It also should be remembered that speakers can idiosyncratically attach the dual to almost any referent (even referents already marked for the plural: i.e. 'dualized plurals') for a comic, facetious, ironic, or rhetoric effect. Indeed, we have found creative uses of the dual in: children's literature: e.g. 'a tale of two kitties' (ma'aseh ba-xatulayim), 'that wailed two wails' (allelayim),_ 'begged each other's (dual) pardon (slixayim) and 'shook their (dual) tails on it' (znavayim), (A. Hillel 1977) [translation mine) [Y.T.] ( 2) original and translated poetry and prose texts written by leading literary figures such as the Israel national poet, author and translator C. N. Bialik and others: e.g. 'two dolls' (1)

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUAL IN THE LEXICON

105

(bubotayim), 'two cup handles' (yadotayim), 'stirrups' (mishvarayim), 'two pounds' (litrotayim), 'two cents' (prutotayim), 'cuff links' (rixsayim), endifayim 'whiskers' (human). (3) slang: e.g. 'buttocks' (axorayim, yarketayim), 'breasts' givatayim, (Ben-Amotz and Ben-Yehuda 1972, 1982) as well as 'pluralized duals' (plural suffixes added to lexically dual referents) in children's language and slang: e.g., 'twos' (shnayimim), 'pairs of trousers' (mixnasayimim), 'pairs of shoes' (na'alayimim) (Ben-Amotz and Ben-Yehuda 1972, 1982). (4) advertising and the press: a recent advertisement for a hotel which has started serving American-style 'brunches' coined the term bokrayim for 'brunch': boker 'morning/breakfast' + tsoharayim 'noon/lunch' = bokrayim 'breakfast + lunch', 'brunch', and 'dualized plurals' (the dual suffix added to a lexical plural) dorotayim 'a pair of generations'.

'

The above is a fairly comprehensive and exhaustive list. The distribution of the dual number in Modern Hebrew may appear, on the surface at least, to be arbitrary for various reasons, (diachronic, prescriptive, analogical, etc.), but by applying certain basic semiotic or sign-oriented principles based on the communication and human factors, a certain system or order may emerge. It is not surprising, however, that the dual number in Hebrew has not been studied at great length by the various sentence-oriented theories that have dominated linguistic research, despite the far-reaching theoretical and methodological implications of the category of number in general and the dual number in particular. Viesen (1923), (a traditional grammarian), devotes a page and a half to the description and partial listing of Hebrew duals dividing them into three categories. Prescriptivists (e.g Babat and Ron (1976)) and the Hebrew Academy maintain that the dual ending should only be attached to 'singular stems', (a normative rule which is obviously violated by speakers as our data clearly indicate). They also strongly condemn the marked preference speakers have for incorrectly attaching the feminine gender to masculine dual nouns by a process of 'false analogy'. Among more modern linguists, Rosen (1977) supports the basic binariness (singular-plural) of the notion of number in Modern Hebrew; provides a limited number of cogent examples to illustrate his point; but limits all his claims about the dual number in Hebrew to only half a page. Berman (1978), in one of the most comprehensive generative accounts of Modem Hebrew to date,

106

TIIE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

limits her treatment of the dual number to one line and two examples. This is later followed by a footnote providing a handful of additional examples divided into the three classic categories of: parts of the body, items of apparel and periods of time; the last of which has also been studied by Grosu (1969). In none of the traditional or neo-traditional studies mentioned above are more than forty examples ever provided. The semiotic or sign-oriented approach to language based on the formal recognition of the communication and human factors by virtue of their inclusion in the definition of language may provide a framework which can help us to better understand and explain the systematic use of the dual number in Modem Hebrew. The dual number and the communication factor

The vast majority of the examples of the dual (over 90 per cent) can be directly and transparently related to the literal concept of two, paired or doubled entities and therefore conform to the invariant meaning TWO postulated by the Columbia school (Diver 1981, 1987): (1) numerals: 2, 200, 2,000; (2) measures: two handfuls, cubits, fingers, hands-breadths, double; (3) locations: two hills, rivers, wells, fences, gates, camps, straits; (4) physical boundaries: margins, hems, shoulders, banks, lean-to like enclosures, double storeys; (5) punctuation marks: quotation marks, colons, parentheses, brackets; (6) time periods and expressions: two minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, twice; (7) paired parts of the body: eyes, ears, lips, nostrils, shoulders, hands, breasts, hips, legs, thighs, knees, calves, ankles, paired limbs both human and animal, as well as wings, hooves, horns, antlers, whiskers; (8) clothing: pairs of trousers, breeches, socks, shoes, boots; (9) objects and tools traditionally referred to as dualia tantum including: pairs of glasses; scissors and other cutting instruments, vices, clamps, tweezers; (10) sport equipment: skates, skis, parallel bars, crutches; (II) two attached rucksacks, buckets; two draft animals harnessed in tandem.

DUAL NUMBER AND COMMUNICATION FACTOR

HY'/

Hirtle (1982), a Guillaumean, does not view the concept of grammatical number in terms of 'countability', but rather postulates an alternative semantic substance for the concept of number: the perception of the division of the inner space occupied by an entity or entitities which, indeed, might be viewed as the invariant meaning underlying the concept of 'countability' itself. According to this view of the invariant meaning of the members of the grammatical system of number: ( 1) singularity represents an entity or entities in continuate space, i.e. perceived as a single unit; (2) plurality represents an entity or entities contained in discontinuate space, i.e. perceived as distinct separate units. (3) duality represents a minimal potential discontinuate plurality contained in continuate space, i.e. a minimal potential plurality perceived in a singular manner. This spatially-oriented view of the semalttic substance of number not only accounts for all the transparent or literal 'two-pairdouble' ,examples listed above, but may also explain the minority of indirect or less transparent examples of the dual: i.e. potentially plural entities or more abstract or a metaphorical process of 'multiplicity' perceived in a unified way, or, in Guillaumean terms, as being contained or perceived in continuate space: 6 (1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5) (6)

parts of the body: teeth, gums, lips (upper/lower); finger + toe nails (right/left/upper/lower); intestines, loins (upper/ lower/large/small); cheeks, buttocks (right/left); time expressions: day after tomorrow ( +2 days), twilight (day/night), noon (morning/afternoon), meantime, meanwhile (before/after); the concept of intermediateness: between, inter, intra, interim, hybrid, middle; repeated or multiple perceptions or processes viewed as a continuate: sevenfold, fourfold, manifold; double kicks, double donkeys, double laziness, double closed doors meaning ve1 strong, very stupid, very lazy, very secret, respectively; dual portions of presents, colours, gold, indicating a large amount or a fine quality; a repeated process connected to a specific entity or place: potters' and millers' wheels; an abattoir or house of (dual)-slaughter or (dual)-residue, remains;

108

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

(7) the non-transparent (historical plurals): water and sky often attributed to Biblical references of 'the water/sky above and the water/sky below'. 8 It is certainly not by chance that all the examples of the highly

marked dual represent familiar lexical items that were used frequently and were of communicative importance during different historical periods reflecting different stages in the evolution and development of Hebrew-speaking society. It is also not by chance that those lexical items that collocate with the highly marked dual also appear in numerous expressions and idioms much more frequently than their plural counterparts. The dual number and the human factor

The vast majority (over 90 per cent) of the 130+ lexical examples of the dual, culled from dictionaries and other spoken and written sources, can be attributed to entities directly related to man, thus worthy to be collocated with the highly marked dual form: parts of the body, clothes, tools and measures related to agriculture trade and work, (2) man's perception of space and time in his immediate environment: place names and time periods and expressions; (3) the majority of the remaining duals are related to animals, particularly those animals which are used and exploited for labour and food. (1)

We can also appeal to the human factor to explain the anomalies of why certain paired entities are lexically expressed with the dual and others are not. With parts of the body, for example, the (highly) marked dual is often used to designate (and draw attention to) the larger or more obvious whole (paired) organ - the umbrella term used to designate the whole organ - while the smaller individual parts are usually pluralised: dual eyes, but plural eyelashes, pupils, eyebrows; dual ears but plural earlobes; dual breasts but plural nipples; dual hands-arms (same word usually used for both) but plural fingers, wrists, joints, elbows, arms, arm pits; (5) dual viscera-guts-insides (possibly historically related to ritual animal sacrifices, i.e. the first things that appear bearing omens), but plural lungs, kidneys; (1) (2) (3) (4)

TIIE DUAL NUMBER AND TIIE HUMAN FACTOR

109

(6)

historically dual (external) testicles (also pluralized) versus only plural (internal) ovaries. (7) It is also interesting to note that the dual l~gs and most of their component parts also appear with the dual: knees (used for ritual bowing and genuflecting), thighs, calves, ankles, all of which are larger than their parallel smaller plural counterparts of the upper limbs: forearms, back arms, elbows, wrists. 9 (8) This same principle can also be applied to attire as well, e.g.: dual shoes but plural laces, soles and heels. The highly marked dual is also reserved for the more useful and, therefore, the more important and frequently used parts of the body over which we have greater control: i.e. those parts of the whole which are worthy of greater attention: (1) (2)

the dual palms of the hands (kapayim) versus the plural soles of the feet (kapot) as well as the other non-dual parts of the hands and arms; the dual eye lids (upper/lower) which we can control in unison to open and close the eyes versus the plural pupils, and pluralized hairs of the lashes and brows over which we have little or no control.

This same principle of human efficiency also holds true for time expressions in which the highly marked dual collocates with the the most frequent and useful ones most worthy of our attention: (1)

(2)

(3)

two minutes, hours, days, months, years, but not decades, centuries, jubilees; dual noon separating morning and afternoon (when we are all awake and busy as evidenced by the familiar time expressions ante/post meridiem AM and PM) versus plural midnight. the day-after-tomorrow maxaratayim (in two days from the today) is a dual form derived from the expression maxarat 'the morrow', 'the day after', while the day before yesterday shilsom literally is a trial: three days prior to and including today.

This principle of human efficiency may also be extended to the various historical weights, measures, coins and tools which were collocated with the dual over the centuries. The more important they were to the sustenance of men in their everyday lives, the

no

mE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

more they were likely to collocate with the highly marked dual. It is not surprising, therefore, that those lexical items collocating with the highly marked dual appear in so many familiar idioms and expressions. Conversely, the less important, less frequently needed and used lexical items taking the dual and plural appear in fewer idioms and expressions, and the dual may even be replaced by a plural for less salient and frequently used lexical items by a process of attrition. 10 The interaction of the human and communication factors

The interaction of the communication and human factors may also explain certain remaining anomalies, particularly those duals which we would expect to be plurals (and vice-versa) which appear, at first, not to conform to the general principles outlined above: The dual is the only plural for ayin ('eye;') - einayim ('eyes') (real, glass or otherwise), and regel ('leg', 'foot')-raglayim ('legs', 'feet') (human, animal, inanimate, measurement) which allows for utterances such as: (a) the monster has five eyes (einayim) (b) the animal/table has three legs (raglayim), etc. Even if we wanted to use a non-dual plural for anomalous utterances such as these, it would not be possible since the plural of these forms has already been taken (and is still used!) for more metaphorical uses of these lexical items to create new lexical items and expressions. The word ayin (or a possible homonym?) is used to mean 'spring', 'fountain' (the 'eye of the desert') (Genesis 16:7) (Aphek and Tobin 1988: 123-6) with the plural form ayanot ('springs', 'fountains'). Likewise, the plural regalim is used to refer to those important religious holidays or festivals involving obligatory pilgrimages (which were made on foot) to Jerusalem. Therefore, the dual versus plural distinction is being exploited for two different kinds of communicative oppositions, thus keeping the system intact and preventing potential breakdowns in communication. Indeed, the dual meaning - continuous space - found in these so-called 'anomalous' utterances actually supports our analysis: a potential plurality of discrete entities perceived in continuous space: i.e. as a single set. A similar problem arises for plural fingers/toes versus dual finger/toe nails. Although we may view fingers as the larger, more

III

PLURAL VERSUS DUAL IN SPOKEN & WRllTEN DISCOURSE

ayin

reg el

~

(eye)

(spring)

I

I

einayim

ayanot

~

(foot)

I

I

FIGURE

regalim etsba

~

tsipornayim

I

raglayim

tsiporen (nail)

(festival)

(carnation)

I

tsipornim

~ (finger/toe)

(digit/measurement) etsba'ayim

I

etsba'ot

5.7 The Interaction of the Human and Communication Factors

functionally salient singular units (which we use individually and separately) and nails as part of a dual set, there may also be a further way to account for why {finger and toe) nails (tsipornayim) are dual, while 'fingers and toes' (etsba'ot) are plural. We could expect the opposite. We find, however, that for these particular lexical items the 'expected' respective plural or dual slot has already been filled by another lexical item: the plural tsipornim is used for the homonymous lexical entry meaning 'pink', 'carnation', 'clove'; while the dual of etsba 'finger', is found in etsba'ayim 'a small (two-finger) measure'. So, even in this last case of an apparent 'exception', both the human factor and the communication factor, together, can account for the data. In all the above cases, the principle of isomorphism is strictly maintained: every difference in form is marked by a difference in meaning. This is represented schematically in Figure 5.7.

The plural versus the dual in spoken and written discourse The 'creative' use of the plural versus dual opposition, i.e. the encoder exploiting the dual for lexical items that do not usually come in pairs and are not conventional or lexicalized duals and/or conversely choosing the plural for conventionally lexicalized duals may also be accounted for by the various semiotic or sign-oriented principles we have already discussed: ( 1) _ The fact that the dual and the plural are in an opposition of inclusion means that the possiblity of using either: 'X +dual suffix ayim' or: '2 + X +plural suffix im/ot'

112

IHE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

for any two lexical items almost always exists for speakers and writers as a potential choice in order to convey subtly different messages. (2) In languages with this kind of singular-dual-plural opposition, the dual may be considered to be the most highly marked member of the system: i.e. the dual provides the most specific and precise information. It is this high markedness value of the dual which makes it particularly appropriate for 'subjective comment': i.e. to specially focus attention on the encoder's subjective perception of paired or double entities. Employing the dual in original, creative and subjective ways can serve to focus on particular entities making them more salient within spoken and written discourse and texts. (3) The fact that the dual also may be viewed as a 'minimal internal plural', that is a unity of joined potentially discrete plural entities, may be exploited to convey how a speaker or writer subjectively perceives particular entities as being part of a single unit ('a + b = ab') as opposed to their being separate, discrete and independent entities ('a+ b =a+ b'). (4) Conversely, the fact that the invariant meaning of the dual is included or overlaps with that of the plural also will allow for encoders to substitute a plural for a more conventional dual for subjective comment as well, thus permitting a speaker and/or writer to focus on the discreteness of two entities which are usually perceived as a unit or a pair. In the following examples we will show how the dual versus plural oppositon is exploited in Modern Hebrew spoken and written discourse. The first examples were taken from real conversations and illustrate the subtle semantic distinction between the use of 'X + dual suffix ayim' (unity) versus '2 + X + plural suffix imlot' (discreteness): ze mivxan katsar, rak sha'atayim (dual) this test short, only two-hours This is a short exam, only two-hours (dual) Context: teacher presenting final exam to students Message: 'I_'he teacher views the exam as a single unit which can be successfully completed in a single two-hour period, hence this conventional use of the dual. The teacher is focussing on the 'whole' rather than the 'individual parts': ('a + b = ab') _,, . (1)

PLURAL VERSUS DUAL IN SPOKEN & WRITIEN DISCOURSE

113

(2) eize mivxan! ze lakax Ii shtei shaot la'anot rak al what test! it took to-me two + hours to-answer only on ha-she'eila ha-rishona (plural) the-question the-first What an exam! It took me two + hours just to answer the first question. (plural) Context: Student's reaction to exam. Message: Two hours weren't enough. It took the student one hour +one hour (two+ plural) hours just to complete a single question. This message is enhanced by the student's not using the conventionally lexicalized dual, thereby focusing on the 'parts' rather than on the 'whole': 'a+ b =a+ b'. (3) al titragez! ze yikax Ii rak dakatayim lehitlabesh (dual) no be angry! it will-take to-me only two-minutes to-dress Don't be angry! It'll take me only two-minutes to get dressed (dual) Context: Habitually tardy wife telling her angry husband that she will be ready in just two-minutes (dual) for an appointment she had forgotten and for which they are already late. Message: The wife is defocusing the individual time units that it will actually take her to dress by avoiding the plural and has chosen the more unusual marked dual to focus on the fact that she'll be ready in a very short time: ('a+ b =ab') (4) ani ken mitragez! ani lo axake lax afilu shtei dakot (pl) I yes am-angry! I no will-wait for-you even two minutes I am angry! I won't even wait two minutes for you (plural) Context: Angry husband's response Message: The husband is already angry and is emphasizing his unwillingness to wait even two plural minutes, focusing on the individual units of time separately hence lengthening the period as opposed to shortening it: ('a + b = a + b'). This exploitation of the dual-plural opposition for subjective comment in time expressions where the unitary dual is perceived as expressing a subjectively shorter view or perspective of a time period while the discrete plural emphasizes the opposite by focusing on the individual time units is also exploited in written Hebrew as well. The next example (5) taken from a leading Israeli newspaper, illustrates the exploitation of a highly marked and less usual dual form as opposed to the more familiar plural form for subjective comment in a way sitnilar to examples (3-4) above:

114

'IHE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

(5) axarei dakatayim hu nir'a ba-kevesh ha-matos (dual) after two-minutes he was-seen in-the doorway the-airplane After two-minutes he was seen at the doorway of the plane (dual) Yediot Axaronot (12 February 1986) Context: The ceremonious arrival of Anatoly Scharansky (the famous 'Prisoner of Zion' who was released from a Soviet Gulag and permitted to emigrate to Israel) covered by all the international news media at the Tel-Aviv airport. The reporter is telling the inside story of how Scharansky's departure from the plane was slightly delayed while he changed trousers inside the plane before he faced the media. Message: The use of the dual dakatayim as opposed to the more conventional plural (shtei + dakot) defocussed the real time that passed and emphasized the briefness of the delay which was barely noticed. (The source of the 'inside story' was reported to be the man who brought Scharansky the trousers.) ('a+ b = ab'). The following examples (6 and 7) illustrate the opposite phenomenon: the plural being exploited instead of the more conventional lexicalized dual in order to emphasize the oppressive length of a particular time period. Example (7) comes from the Hebrew translation of Dickens's Oliver Twist. The context is a description of the severe humiliation suffered by Mr Bumble during the two month period that he was married. After a particularly humiliating scene with his wife of two months, Bumble mumbles to himself: (6)

'All in two months' which was translated into the Hebrew in the following way: (7a) ve-kol ze rak bemeshex shnei + xodashim (plural) and-all this only during two + months Message: By choosing the discrete plural over the more conventional lexicalized dual, the translator is focusing on each individual month that poor Bumble had to suffer as a discrete and separate entity, thus emphasizing the lengthy suffering appropriate to this particular context: ('a + b = a + b'). This same strategy of. employing the plural form when there is a more familiar lexicalized dual to indicate two separate units of time as opposed to a unified set in order to indicate a longer subjective period of time or to emphasize two individual and

PLURAL VERSUS DUAL IN SPOKEN & WRITIEN DISCOURSE

115

separate instances in time is also exploited in the spoken colloquial language. Examples (7b) and (7c) were overheard in conversations in the university cafeteria: (7b)

lo hitslaxti lehiradem shtei shaot . .. (plural) no managed-I to fall asleep two hours It took me two hours to fall asleep (plural) Context: Student complaining about her insomnia, followed by a detailed description of the various methods she employed and things she did before she finally fell asleep. Message: By choosing the more unusual plural strategy as opposed to the more familiar dual sha'atayim 'two-hours', the speaker is emphasizing 'how long it took' before she managed to fall asleep: i.e. each hour as an individual entity. (7c) ha-seret ha-ze metsig shnei yamim (plural) the-film the-this presents two days This film is being shown two days (plural) Context: Two students discussing the possibility of seeing a specific film being shown on campus. The fact that it was being played on two separate days offered them more freedom and flexibility in arranging their schedules. Message: By choosing the more unusual plural strategy as opposed to the more familiar dual yomayim 'two-days', the speaker is emphasizing the two individual and separate performances which were available to them to choose from. This communicative strategy of exploiting the unity of the dual versus the discreteness of the plural is not only limited to specific temporal uses, but to other communicative functions as well. Example (8) exploits this strategy with regard to parts of the body. In this particular case, the speaker has selected a lexical item which usually appears in the singular, but instead chooses to use the highly unusual dual form in a most idiosyncratic way to emphasize the fact that he is speaking to a unity composed of two people whom he views as a couple. (8)

kvar mi-zman lo hezaztem et ha-akuzayim already from-time no you-pl, moved object marker the-arses shelaxem (dual) yours It's been a long time since you've moved your arses (dual)

u6

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

Context: A friend and host urging his guests (a young couple) to join him on a tour of Jerusalem. Message: The friend is emphasizing the fact that he is addressing them both 'in-tandem', as a unit, a couple. The word for 'arse' (akuz) is normally singular. The use of the plural (akuzim) is more usual and acceptable than the highly marked and most unusual dual form (akuzayim) which, however, clearly stresses the point that he is simultaneously addressing both members of the couple together: ('a + b = ab'). This subtle distinction between the unity of the dual as opposed to the discreteness of the plural with regard to repeated actions can also be attested to in literary Hebrew as well. In the Passover Haggadah, there is a passage traditionally memorized and recited by children during the Passover seder. This passage is composed of the famous 'four questions' which centre around the theme of what distinguishes the ritualized Passover meal from every other meal eaten during the year. Each of the four questions begins with the same phrase: (9) ma nishtana ha-layla ha-ze mi-kol ha-leylot what is different the-night the-this from all the-nights How does this night differ from all other nights? One of the answers to this question is that on the Passover night we dip (or steep) our food two + times (shtei + pe'amim) (in the plural!) instead of the more familiar lexicalized dual (pa'ama yim): she-be-xol ha-leylot ein anu matbilin afilu pa'am axat, that-on-all the-nights not we dip even time one, ha-layla ha-ze shtei + pe'amim (plural) the-night the-this two + times On all other nights we do not dip our food even once, on this night two + times (twice). (plural) Message: The passage is referring to two separate instances of the ritual dipping of food during the seder, the Passover ceremonial meal: not zero times (like every other evening), but one time and then another time: i.e. two + times: ('a + b .= a + b'). 11 (10)

The following example (11) illustrating the subtle semantic distinction between the unity of the dual as opposed to the

PLURAL VERSUS DUAL IN SPOKEN & WRITIEN DISCOURSE

117

discreteness of the plural is taken from the autobiography of Israel's former Foreign Minister Yigal Allon (1975:144) (beit avi) and its English translation: Allon (1976:141) (My Father's House). This particular passage describes the author's two unsuccessful attempts to be accepted into the most prestigious agricultural high school in Israel. Despite the fact that he applied twice (dual); was twice (dual) invited to sit for the entrance exam; twice (dual) successfully passed the examination and was duly notified of that fact; his acceptance to the school, however, was vetoed both times (plural!) by the school's scholarship committee which was composed of members of a rival political organization his father had consistently opposed over the years: (u) pa'amayim nirshamti ke-meumad, (dual) twice applied-I as-candidate pa'amayim huzmanti le-bxinot-ha-knisa ... (dual) twice was-invited-I to-exams-the-entrance .. . pa'amayim le-marbe ha-pele amadeti bahem be-hatslaxa, twice to-great the-wonder stood-I in-them with-success,

ve-gam kibalti al kax hoda'a rishmit - (dual) and-also received-I on this notice official aval be- shtei ha-pe'amim hifilu pekidei ha-PIKA but in-two the-times exercised officials the-PIKA et zxut ha-veto shelahem (plural) obj. marker right the-veto their Twice (dual) I enrolled as a candidate, twice (dual) I was invited to the entrance examinations. . . Twice (dual), to my great surprise, I managed to pass them and even received a formal report of the results - and both times (plural) the PICA officials took advantage of their veto. Once again, we find a systematic exploitation of the dual versus the plural forms where the former is used to emphasize the unitary perception of two events ('a + b = ab') and the latter is exploited to focus on the discreteness of a different aspect of the same two events in the same context ('a + b = a + b') to illustrate the author's subjective point of view. The following example (12) illustrates the creative use of what I have referred to as the 'dualized plural', i.e. the very unusual collocation of both a plural and a dual suffix on the same lexical item spanning the opposition of both grammar and lexicon:

II8

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

shmor Ii mekom + ot + ayim la-seret save for-me place + plural + dual for the- film Save me 'double places' (dualized plural) for the film Context: A friend requesting the author to save him and his new girlfriend two seats at an informal screening of a film. Message: The message is that not one, and not only two, but rather two places together be reserved for him. It is significant to note that this was the speaker's subtle way of informing the hearer that he was going to finally meet this new girlfriend that he had been hearing about for weeks. (12)

The creative use of the dual in a literary text

A good example of the creative, productive and subjective use of the dual to emphasize 'unity in plurality and diversity' is found in A. Hillel's (1977) text: ma'aseh ba-xatulayim ('A tale of two kitties'),.[translation mine] [Y. T.], a popular children's story in rhyme. The author first introduces two cats in the conventional plural (shnei xatulim), one black as tar, one white as whitewash. Each one arrogantly claims to the other that he is more handsome than his rival. A heated argument ensues which emphasizes their individual differences and the advantages of being either black or white respectively. Two days later, they are both still angry and a bit unsure of themselves. Each one, individually and independently, decides to change his colour. The white cat jumps into a barrel of tar to make himself all black. The black cat jumps into a barrel of whitewash to make himself all white. After being originally introduced in the plural, each cat now consistently appears in the singular as a unique and individual character. After the two cats (shnei xatulim) (plural) change their colours and identities, however, the author begins to refer to them exclusively in the dual as xatulayim, a highly unusual marked form. When the xatulayim see each other after the change, they become even more confused and upset. They can no longer distinguish which one is which. They begin to lament and 'wail two wails together' (in the highly unusual and marked dual allelayim), further emphasizing the fact that they are now brothers united in their shared misery. They then run away together to wash off the tar and the whitewash in the sea. After returning to their original colours and identities, they become the best of friends. It is here where we find the most creative use of the dual: The xatulayim seal their friendship by:

CREATIVE USE OF DUAL IN A l.ITERARY TEXT

119

'begging each other's dual pardon' (slixayim); 'shaking their (dual) tails on it' (znavayim); happily announcing that 'the way they are, each one, and both of them together, is double (kiflayim) million nice'; and, in the end, they happily go off together to Jerusalem (yerushalayim ). It should be clear that, rhyming aside, the author has most cleverly, productively, subjectively and appropriately exploited the dual and its meaning here to convey his message. Thus, if the dual number in Hebrew is viewed as part of a semantic system which spans the opposition between the grammar and the lexicon of the language - one can explain the non-random distribution of the dual as it is used by speakers for the purpose of subjective comment. There is a direct match between the highly marked and unusual use of the dual with the message of this text: (1) The two cats are first introduced in the plural which emphasizes their discreteness, i.e. two individual, independent and separate entities. There are no instances of the dual in this section of the text. (2) An argument ensues wherein each one emphasizes his individuality, uniqueness and personal superiority over the other. In this particular section of the text, each cat appears exclusively in the singular only. There is only one conventional instance of a dual in this section of the text where each cat claims to be 'doubly beautiful' (kiftayim). (3) After the cats change their colours - each one being transformed into the other - a new unity is born out of a formerly discrete plurality - and the highly marked and exceptional use of the dual form xatulayim 'two-cats' becomes the exclusive form used to the pair of cats. In this particular section of the text, when the cats suffer and wail together, there is an additional highly marked and unusual use of the dual linking them together in their misery: the dual form allelayim 'two-wails'. (4) In the last section of the text, after the cats regain their original identities and become true friends - that is they are united - they are still referred to exclusively by the dual and there are also several additional exceptional exploitations of the dual to emphasize their becoming united in friendship: slixayim ('dual pardon') signified by the shaking of their znavayim ('dual tails') _as well as the use of the conventional kiflayim ('double') and the name of Jerusalem (yerushalayim) an historical dual.

120

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

Throughout this text, the system of number is being exploited in a way which strongly supports the semiotic or sign-oriented analysis presented in this chapter. In those sections where the individuality of the cats is emphasized, we have a single use of the plural introducing the cats, followed by an exclusive use of the singular. There are no unusual instances of the dual in these sections of the text. In the following two sections which emphasize the unity of the cats, they are only referred to by the highly marked and unusual dual form. As their friendship grows, the use of the dual in both its conventional and unconventional and creative ways steadily increases. In short: the more united the cats, the more examples we find of the dual. In other words, the author has exploited the marked and unmarked oppositions of the invariant meanings within the system of number in the most original and appropriate way to convey the message of 'unity in diversity'. Summary and conclusions

In this chapter three alternative views of invariance were combined to provide a more complete semiotic or sign-oriented analysis of number in general, the dual number in particular, and how the specific dual-plural opposition in Hebrew, (which differs from that of Sanskrit, for example), functions systematically within the lexicon in general, in spoken and written discourse, and within a specific literary text. The analysis was based on the semiotic or sign-oriented concepts of semantically motivated grammatical systems, markedness, iconicity, and the isomorphic connections between form, meaning, message and function, all motivated by the underlying concept of invariant meaning based on marked and unmarked semantic features. The point of this chapter was to follow the Saussurian edict to avoid the pre conceived traditional and neo-traditional universal grammatical and sentence-oriented categories inspired by Latin and Greek grammars that have dominated linguistic research and replace them with more human and communication oriented semiotic principles based on the linguistic sign. The motto we h~ve adopted for ourselves is: learning more about how individual languages actually function can only serve as a necessary first step to better compare and contrast different language systems responsibly. Only after we have a thorough understanding of how specific languages work, can we really begin to study the theoretical and methodological implications individual language systems may provide for universal cognition, perception and communicative behaviour. 12

NOTES

121

Most post-Saussurian linguists have often avoided languagespecific analyses, possibly feeling that 'they wouldn't be able see the (language universal) forests because of the (language-specific) trees'. Unfortunately, they may have subsequently lost their way in the forests of supposedly equivalent language categories without having sufficiently examined either the categories themselves or the specific trees, i.e. individual languages. Working with preconceived categories (even supposedly well-established universal ones like grammatical number) in order to explain the creative use of language is, as Contini-Morava (1983a:252) implied, like trying to cook an omelette using hard-boiled eggs. 'Convenient th~oreti­ cal and methodological tools' should not become 'tools of convenience'. To use another culinary metaphor: Linguists have a choice in the way they try to explain language in a similar way to someone trying to bake a cake: One can either collect the ingredients (i.e. linguistic data) and start from scratch, or use an instant cake-mix. However, one cannot do both at the same time. In the following chapters, the semiotic or sign-oriented concepts that have been presented in this section will be further expanded and refined. In particular, we will develop the notions of minimal plurality or duality into a marked semantic feature ('semantic integrality'): i.e. 'plural' entities potentially perceived in discontinuous space viewed as 'a unity' perceived in continuous space. This marked semantic feature will then be applied further to various lexical and grammatical systems in English as an alternative way to account for linguistic problems that have not been amenable to the well-established categories of more traditional and neo-traditional means of analysis. Notes l

The concept of 'grammatical system of inclusion' is from the Columbia school of form content analysis (e.g. Diver 1981:73-4, 1987, Reid 1974:47-8). The concept of markedness as it is used here is from the Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian school (e.g. Andrews 1984, Fradkin 1985, Jakobson 1932, 1936, 1971, van Schooneveld 1978, 1983a,b, 1987, 1988). The concept of the semantic substance of number as a perception of continuous spatial unity versus discontinuous (discrete) space, (what I later will be referring to as the marked feature of 'semantic integrality') is inspired by the Guillaumean school (e.g. Guillaume 1984, Hirtle 1982 (reviewed by Tobin 1985a)). The concept of objective description versus subjective comment comes from the Columbia school (e.g. Garcia 1975:72, Kirsner 1979a:34, Tobin 1982a:349, 1986a:67).

122

nm DUAL NUMBBR: FROM SIGN TO SYSTBM

This particular 'from sign to text' approach to discourse analysis was originally inspired by Diver (1969) and has subsequently become part and parcel of the Columbia school methodology involving both the qualitative and quantitative validation of invariant meanings. A general semiotic view of human communication from this 'from sign to text' approach can be found in an anthology of the same name (Tobin 1989a). The particular text to be analysed here is Hillel (1977). 3 The non-equivalence of semantic systems across languages has been discussed in Lattey (1980) with regard to participation systems in English, Spanish and German, in Tobin (1975) for focus and participation systems in German, Spanish and Hebrew, and in Garcia, van Putte and Tobin (1987) for existentials and locatives in Spanish, Dutch and Hebrew. 4 It is generally assumed that the plural is the marked form in the dichotic opposition of singular-plural. Arguments for the reversed marking order (i.e. marked singular versus unmarked plural) have been presented in Mccawley (1968:568-9) and Haiman (1985:14850), as well as by Noss (1979:176-7) for Fula, an African pidgin in which the singular/plural distinction has been neutralized to a single invariant form. 5 As we have previously stated, the Hebrew system of number (at least for singular and plural) is interlocked with the system of gender (masculine and feminine). We are presenting here the masculine (that we assume are the unmarked) forms only for the sake of simplicity and convenience. It should be pointed out that the same iconic relationship holds for the (presumed marked) feminine morphology as well: fem. sg. = a (or it) fem. pl. = ot (or iot) dual= ayim With regard to the less frequent fem. sg. ending it versus the fem. pl. ending iot, traditionally, i versus o, (the difference between front versus back vowels)) has also been related to the iconic concept of motivated 'sound symbolism': i.e. the notion of 'small' versus 'large' being expressed by front versus back vowels respectively (e.g. Haiman 1985:71, Jespersen 1933, Sapir 1929). 6 This process of 'duality' may be seen as being similar to that of reduplication in Hebrew: katan 'small' versus ktantan 'very small', and/or repetition: le'at 'slowly', le'at-le'at ('slowly-slowly') 'very slowly', yom 'day', yom-yom ('day-day') 'everyday', etc. 7 The frequently used dual form shivatayim ('sevenfold') is no longer used exclusively with the literal meaning of '7x' but is often exploited for the messages 'very much', or 'double', or 'doubly' in conversation, the media (television and radio, including translations of foreign programmes), periodicals, songs and poetry. It is also interesting to note that of all the numerals from one to nine, four and seven, which were historically considered to be 'sacred' numbers, were the ones chosen for the marked dual form. The number seven, in particular, the most frequently dualized number other than two, for example, has a special place in Jewish tradition: the seven 2

NOTES

123

days of the Biblical Creation, the Sabbath or holy seventh day, the seventh year is the year when the land in Israel is left fallow, the seven years of slave holding, the seven weeks of the Omer between Passover and Shavuot, 7 x 7 = 49 years of land holding, Noah's ark landed on Mount Ararat in the seventh month; as does the number four in the forty days of the Flood and the forty days Moses was on Mount Sinai before bringing the Ten Commandments to the people of Israel. It is also worthy of mention that these dualized adverbial processes are 'adverbialized' by the use of the marked feminine construct form -t- shivatayim ('sevenfold'), arba'atayim ('fourfold'), atsaltayim ('very lazy', 'slowly'). Thus, marked forms, particularly in their special, unusual, or exceptional exploitations seem to collocate with each other in order to further focus attention on them which makes them excellent candidates for 'subjective comment'. 8 According to Viesen (1923) and others, the words mayim ('water') and shamayim ('sky') were not orginally duals but the plurals of the singular forms may + im and shamay + im, respectively. The folk-etymological perception of these forms as duals, motivated by their phonological similarity with 'authentic duals', may be further attributed to several sources: In Genesis (1:7), on the second day, God made the firmament and divided the waters above the firmament from those below the firmament, and called the firmament Heaven. Furthermore, the concepts of 'water/waters' and 'sky/skies' are readily perceivable as either 'count' or 'mass' nouns making them likely candidates to be duals or 'minimal plurals' in Hebrew as well as in other languages. 9 It should also be mentioned that the dual knees are not only larger than their plural counterpart elbows, but are more visible and salient in face-to-face encounters where the knees are seen from the front while the elbows are hidden in the back. Furthermore, the word knee (berex) is etymologically (and folk-etymologically) related to the act of blessing ('kneeling') (le-barex), i.e. facing someone or showing them the front of your knee, and, polarically, 'cursing', i.e. showing them the back of your knee, thus making it a more likely candidate for the marked dual form. 10 It is also not by chance that the relatively few paired organs of animals that have become lexicalized duals are those which are of particular importance to men: the tlafayim ('hooves') which are in need of constant treatment by men; karnayim ('horns') which are considered sacred and used in rituals and on religious holidays and are metaphorical symbols of abundance and wealth as evidenced in idioms and expressions such as 'horn of plenty', 'capital', etc. in Hebrew and other languages which are also folk-etymologically related to virility and fertility; kravayim ('viscera') which were omens in ancient sacrifices and for which there is a plethora of 'guts' idioms while there are far fewer (if any) 'kidney', 'lung', etc. idioms in Hebrew and other languages; knafayim ('wings') the object of many idioms reflecting man's jealousy and awe of winged creatures (angels, gods, Pegasus, etc.).

124

THE DUAL NUMBER: FROM SIGN TO SYSTEM

A similar explanation may be found in the so-called 'irregular' plurals in English (e.g. men-women, children, feet, teeth, oxen, sheep, deer, etc.) which can afford to be 'irregular' (i.e. learned as separate lexical items and not part of the grammatical system) because of their relatively high frequency of use, their relative importance and saliency, their overt egocentric human orientation which also includes animals which were vital for men's sustenance, and their use in familiar everyday idioms and expressions. II I owe examples (5-10) including (7a) to Vardit Korot. Examples (7b,c) from colloquial spoken Hebrew exploiting this same distinction have been reported to me as well by students. In this chapter we will not have directly dealt with the diachronic issues of the dual number in the various historical periods of Hebrew and have reserved most diachronic comments to footnotes. 12 Certain sign-oriented scholars have already adopted this point of view by focusing their work on non-equivalence and intranslatability (cf. Aphekand Tobin (1988-1989a,b), Garcia, van Putte and Tobin (1987), Klein (1976), Lattey (198o), Tobin (1975-1988).

Chapter 6

'If' versus 'whether': duality revisited

In Chapter 5 we discussed the concept of duality, i.e. minimal plurality, both for the system of number in general and the concept of the dual number in particular. In this chapter, we will further refine and expand the distinctive feature of semantic integrality underlying the concept of duality; discuss the semiotic or sign-oriented implications of the markedness relationship of semantic features; and apply distinctive feature and markedness theory to an invariant meaning to explain the lexical and grammatical problem of the difference between if versus whether in English. Both if and whether share certain syntactic, semantic and pragmatic qualities and functions which make them appear, at least on the surface and in most reference grammars and dictionaries, to be partially 'synonymous' or 'interchangeable': They both are considered to be 'conjunctions' used in 'conditional' clauses, reported 'ye~no' questions, and/or utterances expressing wishes, stipulations, conditions and suppositions which are often referred to as direct and indirect questions or interrogatives, (inverted or otherwise). (2) They both have a strong tendency to collocate with verb forms or tenses (e.g., unreal past, conditional, future. historical subjunctive, etc.) and verbs (e.g., want, wonder. doubt, decide, think, see, know, the modals shall-should. will-would, etc.) which may be considered to be appropriate to the kinds of 'speech acts' and functions listed in ( 1) above. (3) Very often, when both forms are interchangeable in the same utterance, the choice of if versus whether is deemed to be a stylistic one: if, the shorter and more usual form, is generally (1)

126

'IF VERSUS 'WHETHER':

DUALITY REVISITED

considered to be the more 'colloquial', 'informaU or 'less literary' of the two. This stylistic explanation for the choice of one alternative over the other is certainly open to question, particularly since both forms can and do appear simultaneously in the same sentence, paragraph or passages within the same text. (4) It is also pointed out that whether has a (stronger) tendency to introduce alternative conditions or possibilities, particularly of what I will refer to as dichotic whether or not and whether X or Y kinds of alternative possibilities. (5) This preference for more binary or dichotic alternatives or possibilities for whether is further strengthened by the diachronic fact that the etymons of whether (Old High German hwedar, Old English hwaeder, Middle English hwether) literally meant: '(which) one of (the) two (things)' .1 Based on the isomorphic principles underlying the semiotic or sign-oriented view of language and linguistics, we will show that the same marked semantic feature used to explain the concept of duality may now be further applied to the abstract and hypothetical possibilities introduced by if and whether clauses to explain the distinction between the forms if and whether and their distribution. The non-synonymy hypotheses

The first fundamental theoretical and methodological question which underlies any semiotic or sign-oriented analysis of if versus whether is: To be or not to be synonyms? Does if= whether? Our response ~o this question is, of course, negative: Our primary claim is that if and whether are not synonyms. We do not deny the descriptive facts that they share the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic characteristics and functions previously outlined. Indeed, as all the traditional analyses clearly maintain, if and whether can often replace each other in their various conditional and interrogative functions. However, it has also been noted that whether is reserved for more binary or dichotic kinds of alternative possibilities. Another way of explaining this descriptive and diachronic fact is that the form whether reflects a minimal plurality or duality marked for 'semantic integrality' i.e. 'two' (or more) possible alternatives viewed unitarily. If, on the other hand, may be viewed as an unmarked form which will allow for any and all ways of perceiving possibilities, either unitarily or discretely.2

TIIE ANALYSIS: INVARIANCE AND MARKEDNESS

127

Thus, it cannot be claimed that if and whether are synonyms, i.e. 'mean the same thing'; if, indeed, true synonyms exist. At best, one may say that they overlap in (at least some of) their major conditional and interrogative communicative functions. However, even if we were to accept the various traditional analyses of if and whether as being 'synonymous', the various stylistic and/or other differences appealed to in order to explain the choice of if versus whether will be shown to be inadequate as a means to distinguish between these opposed forms. In short, function is not equivalent to invariant meaning. Functions are, at best, generalized and conventional exploitations of signs, i.e. a label for a message type.

The analysis: invariance and markedness The marked feature of 'semantic integrality' may explain the semantic distinction between if and whether in a unified and systematic way. This alternative approach involves a semantic analysis based on the semiotic or sign-oriented notions of invariance and markedness. Specifically, our analysis is based on the following four principles: We agree with the fundamental assumption that both if and whether share a common semantic domain which can be roughll stated as: THE PRESENTATION OF POSSIBILITIES. (2) We further maintain, however, that if and whether are not synonyms; but rather each possesses a single invariant meaning which distinguishes it from the other, and will motivate its distribution in the language. (3) We further believe that these invariant meanings are in a marked- unmarked relationship revolving around the feature of semantic integrality, i.e. the perception of the abstract and hypothetical possibility and/or possibilities introduced by an if or whether clause within continuous or discontinuous space. 4 (4) This particular marked- unmarked relationship may be stated here in the form of discourse instructions: (a) whether, the marked member of the pair, makes a claim regarding semantic integrality. It means: Regard the following possibilities as being an integral or whole unit, i.e. perceive them as occupying the same continuous abstract internal space, or as being part of a singular set;

(1)

128

'IF' VERSUS 'WHE111ER': DUALllY REVISITED

Semantic Substance

Form

Meaning

if

UNMARKED FOR SEMANTIC INTEGRALITY

PRESENTATION OF POSSIBLITITIES

whether

FIGURE

6. I

MARKED FOR SEMANTIC INTEGRALITY

The if-whether System

(b) if, the unmarked member of the pair, on the other hand, makes no claim regarding semantic integrality. It means: The following possibilities may or may not be integral, i.e. they do not necessarily have to be perceived as occupying the same continuous abstract internal space, or as being part of a singular set. Our analysis may be presented schematically in Figure 6. 1. Thus, if, the unmarked member of the pair making no claim to semantic integrality, is the more flexible, neutral.and open-ended of the two. It allows for the presentation of any and all kinds of possibilities, either integral or non-integral. From the points of view of iconicity and synergesis, it is the shorter, simpler, more frequently used form. The marked member of the pair, whether, making a claim for semantic integrality, is reserved for those linguistic and situational contexts where the possibilities being presented are perceived by the encoder as being integral, i.e. forming a unified set. Iconically, whether is the longer, and therefore, synergetically, the more complex, and generally less frequently used form. It is also worth noting that every example of the marked form whether can be potentially replaced by the neutral or unmarked form if while the opposite is not true. 5 UNMARKED-if

MARKED -

whether

UNMARKED-if

FIGURE

6.2 The Unmarked-Marked Relationship

1HE ANALYSIS: INVARIANCE AND MARKEDNESS

I29

The marked-unmarked semantic relationship may be presented schematically in Figure 6.2. The notion of 'semantic integratity' (the perception of entities within continuous space) has been chosen as the marked feature and not the opposite for the following reasons: ( 1) The process of first perceiving things in general and then further perceiving them as part of an integral set appears to me, at least, as being a more complex cognitive task justifying the choice of the feature of semantic integrality as being the more appropriate candidate for the markedness value. (2) If we take the notion of isomorphism seriously, we also see that the notion of 'integrality' or 'fusion' functions on different levels of language as well. On the phonological level, there is an opposition between vowels and diphthongs and between fricatives and affricates wherein the latter members of each pair are more complex units or sound nuclei composed of the merger, fusion, or integration of two vowels or consonants, respectively, i.e. may be viewed as sounds marked for 'integrality'. On the morphological and syntactic levels we also have simple units versus more synthetic, agglutinative or compounded units composed of the merger or integration of different morphemes or clause types, etc., both in word formation and in clause and sentence formation, where the fused, merged, or integrated units are perceived as being more complex and, therefore, 'marked' as opposed to their simple or 'unmarked' counterparts. (3) As we have already seen in the systems of number as well as with if versus whether, there is usually some sort of iconic connection between the forms themselves and their state of markedness. The marked forms are usually more complex both in their signal and in their meaning. To summarize, this analysis is based on the assumption that the choice of if versus whether is not determined arbitrarily, nor for reasons of style or register, but rather their distribution in the language is directly motivated by the subtle semantic distinction that exists between them. This subtle semantic distinction is expressed in their marked versus unmarked invariant meanings which revolves around the concept of semantic integrality i.e. the way in which possibilities are perceived within continuous or discontinuous space.

130

'IF VERSUS 'WHEnlER': DUALnY REVISITED

The data

The first issue we will deal with is the stronger tendency of the marked form whether to appear explicitly in whether or not and whether X or Y expressions indicating more integrally linked alternative possibilities. In five novels, we found twenty-three examples of whether, eighteen of which appeared in explicit whether or not or whether X or Y expressions. In the remaining five examples of whether not appearing in a whether or not or whether X or Y expression, the integral set of alternative possibilities was implicitly clear from the linguistic and situational contexts. Thus, with regard to the marked form whether, there were no instances where the possibility of a non-alternative or non-integral set of possibilities was indicated either implicitly or explicitly. These data indicate that the marked distinctive feature of 'semantic integrality' can explain why whether is the more appropriate form to occur in those contexts where it is relevant that the encoder perceive possibilities as being part of an integral set of alternatives. Indeed, this 'integrality' is found in all instances where whether is used, and, in the majority of the cases, there is even additional, redundant linguistic information clearly indicating the whether or not or whether X or Y kind of integral relationship between and among the alternative possibilities. This is what is meant by the term 'marked'. In the same corpus of five novels, we found more than two hundred examples of if, with only one explicit if or not kind of phrase, but over seventy instances of idiomatic formulae such as if only, as if, even if, if and when, etc., or similar expressions explicitly indicating 'non-alternative' or 'non-integral' kinds of possibilities. In contrast, the only recurrent expressions found with whether were whether or not or whether X or Y expressions explicitly indicating semantic integrality, and there were no parallel idioms or expressions such as if only, as if, even if, if and when, etc., indicating non-integral alternative possibilities with the marked form whether. The appearance of if in explicit or implicit 'if or not' or 'if X or Y' contexts cannot be viewed as a counter-example to our analysis based on markedness theory. It must be remembered that if is 'unmarked', or 'neutral' with regard to the feature of semantic integrality. If can appear in any and all contexts where integrality may or may not be relevant. Thus, if can and does appear in contexts where the alternative possibilities may be perceived in an

TIIEDATA

131

integral way, but one may expect its appearance there to be more limited than that of the marked form whether, which, indeed, is the case. This, too, can be explained by markedness theory: whether is 'marked', i.e. makes an explicit claim for the feature 'semantic integrality' and can only appear in a context where the integrality of a set of alternatives is being expressed either implicitly or explicitly. Therefore all whether(s) can potentially be replaced by an if, while the opposite is not true. The first set of examples (1-7) presents explicit instances of integral whether or not alternatives found in three novels: From Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961): (1)

... this time she found a little bottle ... and round its neck a paper label, with the words 'DRINK ME' beautifully printed on it in large letters. It was all very well to say 'Drink me,' but the wise little Alice was not going to do that in a hurry. 'No, I'll look first,' she said, 'and see whether it's marked "poison" or llot' . .. (p. 7) (2) ... the cook took the cauldron of soup off the fire, and at once set to work throwing everything within her reach at the Duchess and the baby-the fire-irons came first; then followed a shower of saucepans, plates, and dishes. The Duchess took no notice of them even when they hit her; and the baby was howling so much already, that it was quite impossible to say whether the blows hurt it or not. (p. 52) (3) Alice thought she might as well go back and see how the game was going on, as she heard the Queen's voice in the distance, screaming with a passion. She had already heard her sentence three of the players to be executed for having missed their turns, and she did not like the look of things at all, as the game was in such confusion that she never knew whether it was her turn or not. (p. 73) (4) 'Give your evidence', the King repeated angrily, 'or I'll have you executed, whether you're nervous or not.' (p. 94) From Rosemary's Baby (Levin 1967) a popular American mystery novel and film: 'I don't know whether or not you know it,' he said, buttering a roll, 'but the Bramford had a rather unpleasant reputation early in the century.' (p. 18) (6) 'The stubborn fact remains,' one read 'that whether or not we believe [in witchcraft] [Y. T.], they [members of covens] [Y. T.] most assuredly do.' (p. 154)

(5)

132

'IF' VERSUS 'WHETHER': DUALIT\' REVISITED

From Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976) a best-selling American novel later adapted for the screen: (7) She didn't really want Evelyn to meet Tony, not only because she was afraid he would like Evelyn (or would flirt with her whether he liked her or not) but because she was afraid he might humiliate her in front of her friend. (pp. 185-6) The second set of examples (8-11) presents instances of two or more alternative possibilities found in a whether X or Y expression viewed as an integral set taken from Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner I 976): (8) 'What a shame,' her father said to her, smiling in a moment when he was settled in his room and no one else was there with them, 'I had to get sick for my daughter Theresa to get so friendly.' She stared at him. 'I always thought', she said, 'you didn't care that much. I always knew Katherine was your favorite.' He looked at her as though he didn't know whether to be more grieved or puzzled. She ran out of the room and wasn't alone with him again for the rest of the visit. (p. 140) (9) 'I hate lawyers,' she said, 'they always win arguments whether they're right or wrong.' (p. 202) (IO) 'Why did you get that funny look just now?' 'Did I get a funny look?' 'You're stalling.' He laughed. 'Not stalling, exactly. I was trying to decide whether to talk or ... ' (p. 196) ( 11) '. . . I'm not going to apologize for this, it's the way I am and it barely matters whether it's archaic or foolish or anything else you might think of ... ' (p. 265) The third set of examples (12-16) present instances of whether where a!!Jwplitit whether.m:.n.QLor whetbu.A or Y integral set of alternative possibilities may be inferred from the linguistic and situational contexts despite the fact that there is no explicit whether or not or whether X or Yphrase in the utterance. These examples are taken from the same three novels: From Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961): ( 12) So she was considering in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid) whether [or not] [Y. T.] the pleasure of making a daisy-chain

THE DATA

133

would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her. (p. 3) (13) She was looking about for some way of escape and wondering whether [or not] [Y.T.) she could get away without being seen, when she noticed a curious appearance in the air: it puzzled her very much at first, but, after watching it a minute or two, she made it out to be a grin, and she said to herself, 'It's the Cheshire Cat: now I will shall have somebody to talk to.' (p. 71) From Rosemary's Baby (Levin 1967): (14) She couldn't sleep. She lay awake on her back and frowned at the ceiling. The baby inside her was sleeping fine, but she couldn't; she felt unsettled and worried, without knowing what she was worried about. Well the baby of course, and whether [or not] [Y.T.) everything would go the way it should. She had cheated on her exercises lately. No more of that; solemn promise. (pp. 167-8) From Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976): (15) She was embarrassed. Her throat ached. She never called him Daddy. She called him Dad or avoided calling him anything. She wanted to kiss him but didn't know whether it would be all right [or not] [Y.T.) with all the tubes there. She put her hand on his foot. He smiled at her. (p. 139) (16) One of the kids in school had said that they should call her Mrs. Sunshine when she wore that [yellow] [Y.T.) sweater, and she wondered about the Mrs., whether [or not] [Y.T.] it was significant that he called her that. (p. 270) Working from the principle that: 'if one whether is good, then two or more whether(s) are even better', we will now present our fourth set of examples containing multiple whether(s) in the same utterance or passage from texts of different genres, styles and registers whose communicative function may be defined as establishing 'a plurality or a set of integral alternative possibilities'. The first example (17) is a dialogue containing two whether phrases from one of the literary texts we have already presented. The context is a woman who is more sophisticated than her suitor teasing him about his innocence in general and his sexual inexperience in particular:

134

'IF' VERSUS 'WHE11lER': DUALITY REVISITED

From Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976): (17) 'My God,' she said suddenly, 'you're not really a virgin. Tell me you're not really a virgin.' 'Why do you care?' 'I'm curious. I don't know if I care, I'm curious.' 'I don't like to be a curiosity.' 'I thought you were so big on being honest.' He smiled. 'I seldom lie but I'm often evasive. I'm a lawyer, after all.' 'And a Jesuit.' 'And a Jesuit in training.' A funny expression passed over his face, and since his face so seldom gave away even the lightest secrets, she was intrigued. 'Why did you get that funny look just now?' 'Did I get a funny look?' 'Ypu're stalling.' He laughed. 'Not stalling, exactly. I was trying to decide whether to talk or . . . ' 'you never talk about yourself,' she said petulantly, thinking of Tony saying the same thing to her. 'As though you don't trust me.' 'You've never expressed interest.' 'Well, now I'm expressing interest. I'm interested in whether you're a virgin [or not] [Y.T.]' (p. 196) Example (18) comes from a dialogue from Miguel Street (Naipaul 1971 :23) which sets up a set of integral alternatives connected by whether and or: (18)

'I don't know whether [or not] [Y.T.] he disliked me personally or whether [or not] [Y.T.] he simply had no use for people in general'.

The remaining examples (19-20) of multiple whether(s) come from academic prose, a genre most appropriate for the presentation of multiple alternative possibilities. It is also interesting to note, once again, that the multiple possibilities introduced in the whether phrases do not necessarily have to be exactly 'two' in number, but a minimal plurality of possibilities viewed within a continuate space. The first two examples (19-20) are taken from a classic sociology text: The Lonely Crowd: A study of the changing American character (Riesman, Glazer and Denney 1961). These

TIIEDATA

135

passages deal with the concepts of 'social character' and 'behavioural conformity' in American society and contain two or more whether phrases usually collocating with explicit redundant linguistic information clearly indicating integral sets of alternative possibilities: (19)

(20)

I do not plan to delay over the many ambiguities of this concept of social character - whether it may be properly ascribed to experience rather than to heredity; whether [or not] [Y.T.] there is any empirical proof that it exists; whether it deserves to be regarded here as more important than the elements of character and personality that bind all people everywhere in the world together; or those other elements of character and personality that separate each individual from every other. (p. 18) Of course, it matters very much who those 'others' are: whether they are the individual immediate circle, or a 'higher' circle or the anonymous voices of the mass media; whether the individual fears the hostility of chance acquaintances or only of those who 'count'. (p. 22)

The following example (21) is taken from the classic linguistic text Language (Bloomfield 1933). Bloomfield is discussing the problems inherent to linguistic and semantic analysis using his now classic Jack and Jill story to illustrate his point: (21)

The mechanism which governs speech must be very complex and delicate. Even if we know a great deal about a speaker and about the immediate stimuli which are acting upon him, we usually cannot predict whether he will speak [or not] (Y.T.) or what he will say. We took our story of Jack and Jill as something known to us after the fact. Had we been present, we could not have foretold whether (or not] Jill would say anything when she saw the apple, or, in case [if!] [Y.T.] she did speak, what words she would utter. Even supposing she asked for the apple, we could not foretell whether (or not) she would preface her request by saying I'm hungry or whether she would say please or whether she would say I want that apple or Get me that apple or I was just wishing I had an apple, and so on: the possibilities are almost infinite (but still can be viewed as being alternative possibilities within an integral set!] (Y.T.). (p. 32)

'IF VERSUS 'WHETHER': DUALITY REVISITED

In all of the above examples of singular and multiple whether(s), there are no examples of a non-integral set of possibilities being presented with the marked form whether either explicitly or implicitly. In other words a whether or not or whether X or Y integral set of alternatives can be attributed to every use of the marked form whether. The fifth set of examples (22-26) presents instances of i/where generally only one possibility is intended, explicitly or implicitly, (e.g. 'as if, 'if only', 'when and if, etc.), and where the marked form whether is inappropriate (*whether). In the single case where if might be replaced by whether (ex. 23, para 5), the possibility of a perceived integral set of alternatives is possible. It must be remembered, however, this potential 'free variation' or replacement of if with whether is not a counter-example, but part and parcel of the marked - unmarked relationship. If, the unmarked form ii. neutral to the distinctive feature of semantic integrality and can indicate integral and/or non-integral alternative sets of possibilities. If can probably always replace whether, while whether can only replace if when integrality may be inferred either explicitly or implicitly. Examples (22-23) are taken from Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961). Example (21) is part of the recurrent theme of Alice alternatively growing larger and smaller (where we could expect a whether), but in this particular context, she has already reached her maximum height and she knows that she can only get smaller: i.e. one possibility only, thus the unmarked form if. (22)

'If (•whether) I eat one of these cakes,' [only one possibility!) [Y.T.] she thought, 'it's sure to make some change in my size; and as it can't possibly make me larger, it must niake me smaller, I suppose.' (p. 34)

Example (23) presents the famous passage where the Duchess's baby turns into a pig, which contains seven if clauses in close proximity. The possibility of the baby turning into a pig is clearly implied from the very beginning and steadily develops as the only possibility as the passage progresses. Each additional hint indicating this singular possibility appears, not unsurprisingly, in an if clause, all of which save for one are not replaceable by whether: (23)

'If (•wheiher) everybody minded their own business,' (but they don't, Alice just complained about how the baby is being treated!) [Y.T.] the Duchess said in a hoarse growl, 'the world would go round a deal faster than it does.' (p. 52)

TIIE DATA

137

... 'Here! you may nurse it a bit, if(•whether) you like!' the Duchesss said to Alice, flinging the baby at her as she spoke. [This is a rhetorical question with only one possible answer: i.e. the Duchess is not interested in what Alice really wants, but only in getting rid of the baby!] [Y.T.] 'I must go and get ready to play croquet with the Queen,' and she hurried out of the room. The cook threw a frying-pan after her as she went out, but it just missed her. Alice caught the baby with some difficulty, as it was a queer-shaped little creature, and held out its arms and legs in all directions . . . As soon as she had made out the proper way of nursing it (which was to twist it up into a sort of knot, and then keep tight hold of its right ear and left foot, so as to prevent its undoing itself), she carried it out into the open air. 'If (•whether) I don't take this child away with me,' thought Alice, 'they're sure to kill it in a day or two: wouldn't it be murder to leave it behind?' [no alternative: only one possibility!] [Y.T.]. She said the last words out loud, and the little thing grunted in reply . . . 'Don't grunt,' said Alice; 'that's not at all a proper way of expressing yourself.' The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. There could be no doubt that it had a very tum-up nose, much more like a snout than a real nose; also its eyes were getting extremely small for a baby: although Alice did not like the look of the thing at all. 'But perhaps it was only sobbing,' she thought, and looked into its eyes again, to see if (whether) there were any tears [weak possibility: not requiring marked form!) [Y.T.]. No, there were no tears. 'If (*whether) you're going to tum into a pig, my dear,' said Alice seriously, 'I'll have nothing more to do with you [this one possibility becoming clearly the only really likely one!] (Y.T.]. Mind now!' The poor little thing sobbed again (or grunted, it was impossible to say which), and they went on for some while in silence. Alice was just beginning to think to herself, 'Now, what am I to do with this creature when I get it home?' when it grunted again, so violently, that she looked down into its face in some alarm. This time there could be no mistake about it: it was neither more nor less than a pig, and she felt that it would be quite absurd for her to carry it any further. So she set the little creature down, and felt quite relieved to see it trot away quietly into the wood. 'If (•whether) it

138

'IF VERSUS 'WHEnlER':

DUALJlY REVISITED

had grown up,' she said to herself, 'it would have made a dreadfully ugly child: but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think [only one hypothetical possibility likely] [Y.T.).' And she began thinking over other children she knew, who might do very well as pigs, and was just saying to herself, 'If (*whether) one only knew the right way to change them' [but one doesn't in the real world!] [Y.T.] when she was a little startled by seeing the Cheshire Cat sitting on a bough of a tree a few yards off. (pp. 53-4) Examples (24-26) come from Rosemary's Baby (Levin 1967). These examples come from a chapter dealing with the possibility of either renting a flat in a controversial, stylish old building called the Bramford, (cf. ex. (5)), as opposed to a ·more modern flat (where one could expect the use of whether). In each example, however, only one possibility (the Bramford) is being aired, thus disfavouring the use of whether marked for a set of integral alternative possibilities and, alternatively, motivating the use of the unmarked form if: 'It's only four rooms, you know. No nursery.' 'I'd rather have four rooms in the Bramford', Rosemary said, 'than a whole floor in that white cell block.' 'Yesterday you loved it.' 'I liked it. I never loved it. I'll bet not even the architect loves it. We'll make a dining room area in the living room and have a beautiful nursery when and if (*when and whether) [only one possibility relevant!) [Y.T.].' (p. 8) (25) 'It's a marvellous apartment!' Rosemary said, back in the living room. She spun about with opened arms, as if (*as whether) to take and embrace it. 'I love it!' 'What she's trying to do,' Guy said, 'is get you to lower the rent.' Mr. Micklas smiled. 'We would raise it if (*whether) we were allowed,' he said. 'Beyond the fifteen-per-cent increase, [permitted by the law: only one possibility] [Y. T. ], I mean.' (p. 12) (26) Mrs. Cortez said she would give them until three o'clock; if (*whether) she hadn't heard from them by then [one condition only!] (Y.T.] she would call the next party on the waiting list. (p. 14)

(24)

The sixth set of examples provides instances where both forms if and whether occur in close proximity, thus highlighting the

THE DATA

139

semantic distinction between them. The following data are taken from conversation, correspondence, a television interview, and literary texts of varying registers and styles. These examples present both forms if and whether appearing in the same utterance, paragraph, passage, or episode. In every case, the marked form whether either explicitly or implicitly presents two or more possibilities in a clear and unambiguous 'either-or' relationship while the unmarked form if may be interpreted as presenting one or more possibilities which do not necessarily have to be viewed as forming an integral set. Example (27) was overheard in a telephone conversation in which both forms appear together in what may be viewed as 'free variation': i.e. both forms could easily have replaced each other with only a slight or subtle change in message which can be attributed to their marked-unmarked invariant meanings: (27)

Let me know if you're coming and whether the material will be ready or not.

The context of example (27) is the following: The speaker (a psychologist) and the hearer (a graduate student and research assistant) had previously discussed the possibility of visiting each other. At the time of the conversation, the research assistant was working on a statistical analysis which he hoped to have finished by the time of their intended meeting. In example (27) the speaker explicitly reserved the 'either - or not' integral alternative possibilities for the professional aspect of their visit to the hearer by choosing the marked form whether. The seventh set of examples (28-42) presents the forms if and whether appearing in the same utterance where each instance of whether is replaceable by if. It should be further noted that whether often collocates with expressions such as (n)either-(n)orimplying an integral set of alternatives in opposition to the form if which tends to collocate with linguistic forms such as only, so, etc., implying one rather than a set of integral alternative possibilities. In these cases, the form if cannot be replaced by whether. These examples are taken from a letter of invitation to a conference (ex. 28), a television interview (ex. 29), academic prose (exs. 30-31), and popular and classic novels representing different styles, registers and genres including science fiction and detective stories (exs. 32-42). In example ( 28) the conference convenor presents the first integral set of alternatives with whether or not. This is followed by one possibility with if which then predetermines a further condition on that possibility also expressed by if:

140

'IF VERSUS 'WHB1HER'; DUALnY REVISITED

(28)

Please inform the organizing committee by April 15th whether (if) you will be able to attend or not so all the necessary arrangements can be made for both the subsidized accommodations and the free trips. If (•whether) you are interested in taking advantage of these possibilities, please notify us immediately. We will secure transportation only if (•whether) there is sufficient interest. (Jetter of invitation to a linguistics conference)

In example (29) the television interviewer presents a set of alternatives to his guest with the marked form whether. The guest then chooses one of the alternatives and fortifies her choice with the form if: (29)

Question: Do you have any idea [yes or no!] [Y.T.] whether (if) the U.S. will resort to force as a response to to the terrorists in Lebanon? Answer: I don't think that President Reagan is eager to use force, but if(•whether) he thinks it is completely necessary, I think, yes, he will. (Television interview with Jean Kirkpatrick, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. regarding the hijacking of a TWA plane in Lebanon.)

Example (30) taken from The Course in General Linguistics (Saussure 1983:68) deals with the possibility that both 'natural' and 'unnatural' sign systems (integral opposition collocating with whether) may be included in the science of semiology. When a single possibility is proposed, it collocates with if: (30)

It may be noted in passing that when semiology is

established one of the questions that must be asked is whether (if) modes of expression which rely on signs that are natural (mime, for example) [as opposed to the other 'unnatural' sign systems already discussed] [Y. T.] fall within the province of semiology. If (•whether) they do, [one possibility only!] [Y.T.] the main object of study in semiology will none the less be the class of systems based upon the arbitrary nature of the sign. Example (31) from a linguistics article (Garcia and Otheguy 1977:72) deals with the distribution of Spanish clitic pronouns with regard to the concept of 'animacy'. If the referent is 'animate' (one possibility: if), certain pronominal forms are possible but neither

TI:IE DATA

141

pronominal meaning indicates the alternative possibilities of 'animate' versus 'inanimate' (two possibilties viewed as an integral set: whether): (31)

For instance, if (•whether) the referent of the pronoun in such a situation is an animate, [one possibility only!] (Y.T.] both 'le' and 'lo/la' are appropriate ... and neither meaning specifies whether (if) the referent is animate or inanimate [two alternatives within an integral set] [Y.T.).

Example (32) from a narrative passage of a detective story (Christie 1965:69) presents a set of integral alternative hypotheses with whether and then singles out the latter possibility with if: (32) It is interesting why he built this house, whether (if) it was sheer exuberance of wealth, or whether (if) it was done to impress his creditors [the establishment of two alternatives within an integral set] [Y.T.). If (•whether) the latter, [one possibility only] [Y.T.), it didn't impress them. Example (33) comes from a dialogue in a science fiction story (Vonnegut 1963:10) where whether sets up a set of integral alternatives and if singles out one possibility only: (33)

'I am sorry to say that I don't know as much about your illustrious family as I should, and so don't know whether [or not] [Y.T.] you have brothers and sisters. I/ (•whether) you do have brothers and sisters, I should like very much to have their address so I can send similar requests to them.'

The eighth set of examples (34-36) from Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961), Rosemary's Baby (Levin 1967) and Waiting for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976) presents situations where the heroines are dealing with their present or potential relationships with others. In each case, the use of whether indicates alternative possibilities within the real, imaginary, or potential relationships while the use of if indicates only one possibility or a specific condition within the relationship. From Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961): (34) 'You're looking for eggs, I know that well enough; and what does it matter to me whether (if) you're a little girl or a serpent?' [two alternatives within an integral set] [Y. T.]

142

'IF' VERSUS 'WHEI1lER': DUALilY REVISITED

'It matters a good deal to me', said Alice hastily; 'but I'm not looking for eggs, as it happens; and if (•whether) I was, [but I'm not: one alternative only] [Y.T.] I shouldn't want yours: I don't like them raw.' (p. 47) (35) The Cat only grinned when it saw Alice. It looked good-natured, she thought: still it had very long claws and a great many teeth, so she felt that it ought to be treated with respect. 'Cheshire Puss,' she began rather timidly, as she did not know at all whether (if) [or not] [Y.T.] it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. 'Come, it's pleased so far,' thought Alice, and she went on. 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?' 'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat. '- so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added as an explanation. 'Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'If (•whether) you only walk long enough.' [one possibility only] [Y.T.] (p. 55) (36) A large rose-tree stood near the entrance to the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red. Alice thought this a very curious thing and she went nearer to watch them . . . (p. 64) 'Would you tell me,' said Alice a little timidly, 'why you are painting those roses?' Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two. Two began in a low voice, 'Why, the fact is, you see, this here ought to have been a red rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake; and if (*whether) the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know [one possibility only!) [Y.T.]. So you see, Miss, we're doing the best, afore she comes to -' At this moment, Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out 'The Queen! The Queen!' and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves fiat upon their faces. There was a sound of many footsteps, and Alice looked round, eager to see the Queen. (p. 65) ... Alice was rather doubtful whether (i/) she ought not to lie down on her face like the three gardeners [two alternative possibilities viewed as an integral set] [Y. T.], but she could not remember ever having heard of such a rule at processions; 'and besides, what would be the use of a

THE DATA

143

procession,' thought she, 'if (•whether) people had all to lie down upon their faces, so that they couldn't see it?' [one possibility only] [Y. T.] So she stood still where she was, and waited. When the procession came opposite to Alice, they all stopped and looked at her, and the Queen said severely, 'Who is this?' She said it to the Knave of Hearts, who only bowed and smiled in reply. 'Idiot!' said the Queen, tossing her head impatiently; and, turning to Alice, she went on, 'What's your name, child?' 'My name is Alice, so please your Majesty,' said Alice very politely; but she added, to herself, 'Why, they're only a pack of cards, after all. I needn't be afraid of them!' 'And who are these?' said the Queen, pointing to the three gardeners who were lying round the rose-tree; for, you see, as they were lying on their faces, and the pattern on their backs was the same as the rest of the pack, she could not tell whether (if) they were gardeners, or soldiers, or courtiers, or three of her own children [several possibilities in an 'either-or' relationship: i.e. an integral set of alternative possibilities!] [Y. T.] 'How should I know?' said Alice, surprised at her own courage. 'It's no business of mine.' The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, screamed, 'Off with her head! Off-' (p. 66) From Rosemary's Baby (Levin 1967): (37) RosemFiry came out of the Seagram Building and walked across the forecourt and down the steps and north to the corridor of Fifty-third Street. She crossed Park Avenue and walked slowly towards Madison wondering whether (if) Hutch would live or die and if (*whether) he died, [one possibility] [Y.T.] whether (if) (or not] [Y.T.] she (selfishness!) would ever again have anyone on whom she could so effortlessly and completely depend. (p. 125) From Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976): (38) His wife was still there; he had never said anything about her except that she was perfect; yet once when Theresa had asked him after sex why he was angry with her, he'd said he always disliked women after fucking them. She'd blanched because she had never thought of what they did as just fucking. Now she wondered if he fucked his wife at all, and,

144

'IF VERSUS 'WHE1HER':

DUALITY REVISITED

if so, (*whether so,), whether [or not) he disliked her afterwards. (p. 70)

(39) 'He wants you out there,' Joe called across to Theresa. 'You don't have to go if(• whether) you don't want to. We can get you home later.' But there was no point to that. She'd have to face him sooner or later. Still dazed, she moved across the floor. Everyone was watching her. She opened the door and he was facing her, a few inches away, flushed, drunk, enraged. He moved back just far enough so she could come through, although he'd obviously not expected her to do it so readily. 'Call us, if you need help, honey,' Joe's voice said behind her. Tony made a lunge past her toward Joe, who quickly slammed the door in his face. Tony stood facing the door as though trying to decide whether to break it down [or not) [Y.T.). Theresa said, her voice so small and choked as to make her realize for the first time how frightened she was, 'Let's go home.' And before the words were out of her mouth he had turned on her and slapped her, sending her back against the hallway wall as not five minutes before Joe had sent him back against the living-room wall. Except that she let herself sink down against the wall until she was sitting on the hallway floor in her beautiful sexy black dress. Crying. The fight went out of him. She could feel it without looking at him as he squatted down close to her. The door opened and someone's voice, Joe's probably, asked if she was sure she was all right. She nodded without looking up. After a moment the door closed again and she could hear the bolt being drawn. 'C'm'on,' he said tenderly, helping her to her feet. 'Let'~ get outa here.' They were friends again. Them against the others. (p. 212) (40) He [their father] [Y.T.) had cancer but Katherine had to come back from India before Theresa found out. Why did you have to tell me? Why didn't they tell me earlier?

The two thoughts came into her mind at the same moment, right after the first panic. The wish to have been left in blissful ignorance, combined with resentment that even from India Katherine had managed to be closer to him. 'Why wasn't I told?'

'They didn't know whether [or not] [Y.T.] to tell you, Tessie,' Katherine said. 'They said you didn't seem to wantyou didn't even ask if the tumor was malignant.'

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

145

Resentful. Defensive. 'I thought they'd tell me if there was something I should know.' 'But everyone knows how you've always been about sickness, Tessie.' Soft. Cajoling. 'Not wanting to talk about it.' 'He's my father, too,' she said, her voice cracking. 'Of course he is.' Silence. (p. 232) (41) Still, it wouldn't be funny if (•whether) he didn't come back. She looked at the clock; it was just past seven thirty. She went into the bathroom and looked searchingly at her face as though trying to see in it the answer to whether [or not] James would come back to her. She looked ghastly. If (*whether) it were she coming back, she wouldn't. (p. 249) (42) If (•whether) you drove a car you could make fairly sure that you wouldn't smash into something else, but you could never control whether [or not] [Y.T.] someone smashed into you. (p. 256) In all of the examples of if and whether collocating in the same utterance or in the same passage, the choice of the marked form whether always indicates and very often focuses upon a set of alternative possiblities which can be viewed as being integrally linked to each other as part of a single unit. The use of the unmarked form if is either reserved for a single possibility only or any kind (integral or non-integral) of set of alternative possibilities. The opposition of whether with if, when the latter denotes one possibility only, further strengthens the communicative opposition between them while the possible overlapping of the marked and unmarked forms does not represent a counter-example, but is part and parcel of the marked-unmarked relationship itself. Summary and conclusions In this chapter we have expanded the concept of duality, or minimal plurality, into a marked distinctive feature which we have called 'semantic integrality'. This distinctive feature has then been incorporated into an invariant meaning as part of a markedness relationship that has been used to explain the semantic opposition between the forms if and whether. If and whether traditionally have been viewed as being 'synonymous' because they share certain semantic, syntactic and pragmatic discourse functions. Furthermore, it has often been believed that they might be distinguished by stylistic criteria.

'IF VERSUS 'WHETHER': DUAUIY REVISITED

Based on the semiotic or sign-oriented approach to language, we have presented a 'non-synonymy' explanation based on invariance, markedness and distinctive feature theory to explain the distribution of if versus whether in spoken and written texts of diverse styles, registers, genres and dialects, taking into account the occurrence and non-occurrence of these forms as well as their favoured and disfavoured distribution in different contexts. In the next two chapters we will further apply the semiotic or sign-oriented principles underlying the feature of 'semantic integrality' to other lexical and grammatical systems of English as they function as linguistic signs within specific texts. We will first discuss the 'from sign to text' relationship of a marked form (too versus also) as it functions as a device for thematic cohesion within two texts. We will then discuss the opposite 'from text to sign' relationship to show how the choice of marked versus unmarked forms (the 'synthetic' versus the 'periphrastic' English comparative and superlative system) is motivated in three different texts viewed as signs in their own right. However, with regard to the invariant and systematic semantic distinction between the marked form 'whether' versus the unmarked form 'if, we feel it is safe to conclude that: It really does take two to tango, or at least a potential duality, if you want to use the marked form whether!

Notes This is the position taken by most standard textbooks, dictionaries and reference grammars such as Hornby and Comrie (1974), Thomson and Martinet (1986), Swan (198o), Jespersen (1964), Webster's (1965). The tendency for 'whether' to prefer two alternative possibilities is an interesting diachronic and descriptive fact worthy of further analysis. 2 The reader searching for a familiar binary +/- (100 per cent vs. o per cent) absolute relationship between semantically marked and unmarked forms should remember that the unmarked form does not mean the absence of a particular semantic feature, but rather the lack of a specific claim: it is neutral, i.e. the feature may either be present or absent. Only the marked form claims the presence of a semantic feature. 3 I have chosen the concept of POSSIBILITIES as the core of the semantic domain of if versus whether because it is broad enough to include both the various 'conditional' and 'interrogative' functions that these so-called 'conjunctions' seem to share. 4 This metaphoric inferential leap from the more concrete notion of 'number of entities' for the grammatical system of number to the more abstract concept of the 'number of hypothetical possibilities' for if versus whether which I am postulating and applying to the semantic feature of 'semantic integrality' is similar to the concrete to abstract I

NOTES

147

cline of inferences along the spatio-temporal-existential planes in the lexicon and grammar discussed in Chapter 3. William Diver (p.c.) has also likened the opposition between if and whether with the interrogative pair what versus which where the former is more general, maximal and unspecified while the latter is more specific, minimal and specified. 5 Markedness theory, particularly the differences between phonological and semantic markedness as well as frequency and markedness relations may be among the least understood, or most confused, linguistic legacies of the Prague School. Jakobson does not equate the unmarked element with frequency per se. Although unmarked forms may tend to be generally and relatively more frequent than marked forms, this is not a rule, and very often the frequency of marked versus unmarked forms is dependent on the particular feature being marked as well as context. The theory of markedness and invariance may be considered to be the mainstay of the Jakobsonian school and is discussed at great length in Andrews (1984, 1988), Fradkin (1985), Sangster (1982), van Schooneveld(1978, 1983a,b 1987, 1988, 1989) and Waugh (1976a, 1982). The Jakobsonian School, in tum, may be viewed as a continuation of the intellectual legacy of the sign-oriented Prague School (Galan 1985, Gardiner 1981, Garvin 1964, Johnson 1987, Matejka 1976, Steiner 1982, Tobin 1988a, Vachek 1964, 1966, 1983).

Part IV

From sign to text: Sign: System: Context: Text: Working our way up

Clearly, what we require as linguists are analyses which do fit, i.e. which cover the entire range of exploitations of the form - both cases where it is used and cases where it might be but is not - and which provide a synchronic explanation of all the facts rather than merely a disguised laundry list of them. On an intuitive level we all know what the achievement of 'fit' would be: No exceptions, no counter-examples, no excuses. (Kirsner 1987:76-7)

Chapter 7

'Also' versus 'too': the sign as text

The English adverbs also and too; (at least in the latter's conjunctive or connective function: 'X + Y, too') are generally assumed to be synonyms which can ·be distinguished either by stylistic and diglossic criteria and/or specific word order constraints. However, the following examples taken from both British and American dictionaries and language references, guides and handbooks, illustrate that the above criteria are not always used consistently, may often seem to overlap, and sometimes even contradict each other. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lists also and too as synonyms, (primarily distinguishing them stylistically), and then makes certain prescriptive statements regarding usage and preferred word order:· ·-· ·

_«lw.- adv. Besides,

in addition, likewise, too Synonyms - also, too, likewise, besides, moreover, furthermore. These adverbs indicate the presence of or introduce something additional. The first three generally imply that the additional element or consideration is equal in weight to what precedes it. also is more formal in sound. Usage: Esµe~.i!l],yJn.~riting, also should not be made to do the (I work of connectives such a!! 'and' or 'and also': He studied French · and mathematics, also music and drawing (preferably substitute 'and also' for 'also', or use a simple series). Some grammarians disapprove of also used as the first word of a sentence to link it with a preceding sentence: The package was very bulky. Also, it broke (preferably was very bulky and also it broke). (p. 37)[italicsmine][Y.T.] too..: . adv. 1. In addition; also, as well: He is coming too. 2. Mof.e.~~§.~~~~~n-~, excessively: He studied too much.

'ALSO' VERSUS 'TOO': mE SIGN AS TEXT

::;:.- 3. Very; extremely; immensely: He's too old to be of service. 4. lnfonnal. Indeed; so. Used for emphasis: You will too do it! See synonyms at also (p. 1353) [italics mine] [Y.T.]

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English cites them as synonyms and then primarily distinguishes them diglossically and stylistically: !l~Q

- adv. - too; besides; as well. (p. 15) In spoken English too and as well are often preferred to also. ·--. -· .... too - aav. alSo; as well; in addition (usually with end position but placed imme_

154

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': 1HE SIGN AS TEXT

2 a : EXCESSIVELY b : to such a degree as to be regrettable c: VERY (Webster's p. 931). Thus, it cannot be claimed that also and too are synonyms, i.e. 'mean the same thing'; if, indeed, true synonyms exist. At best, one may say that they overlap in at least one of their major communicative functions, but, as has been already shown, function does not equal meaning. However, even if one were to accept the various traditional analyses of also and too (in their connective function only), the various stylistic and/or or diglossic distinctions and/or word order constraints postulated in these traditional analyses have been shown to be either contradictory and/or inadequate as -a means to distinguish between these so-called synonymous forms. Modern linguistic analyses of too have followed the traditional analyses in their dealing with this problem. Both major generative semantic analyses (Green 1968, 1973) and a more formal semantic and discourse-oriented analysis (Kaplan 1984), have dealt only with the connective function of what they refer to as: bisentential too or too as an 'emphatic conjunction'. By isolating and discussing only one of the uses of too, they are either purposely ignoring its total range of communicative functions, or implying (implicitly or explicitly) that there may be more than one too in the language. This, of course, leads to the second fundamental the()retical and methodological question regarding the possibility of having more than one homonymous too in the language. The second fundamental claim in our semiotic or sign-oriented analysis is that there is a single linguistic sign too and not a set of at least two homonymous too(s) indicating addition versus intensive and/or excessive additions.

The analysis: invariance and markedness The purpose of this chapter is to present a semiotic or signoriented analysis which will explain ·the semantic distinction between also and too (in all of its discourse and communicative functions) in a unified and systematic way. This alternative approach is a further example of the analyses presented for the dual number and if versus whether based on the sign-oriented notions of invariance and markedness. Specifically, our analysis is based on the following four principles:

THE ANALYSIS: INVARIANCE AND MARKEDNESS

155

We agree with the fundamental assumption that both also and too share a common semantic domain which can roughly be stated as: ADDITION. (2) We further maintain, however, that also and too are not synonyms; but rather each possesses a single invariant meaning which distinguishes it from the other, and will motivate its distribution in the language. (3) We further believe that these invariant meanings are in a marked versus unmarked relationship revolving around the feature of 'semantic integrality', i.e. whether an entity or entities is/are perceived as occupying a single continuous space or not. (4) This particular marked-unmarked relationship may be stated here in the form of discourse instructions: (a) too, the marked member of the pair, makes a claim for 'semantic integrality'. It means: Regard an addition to an entity or entities as being integral to that entity or entities, i.e. perceive it as occupying the same continuous internal space, i.e. as being part of a single unit; (b) also, the unmarked member of the pair, on the other hand, makes no claim regarding 'semantic integrality'. It means: An addition to an entity or entities may or may not be integral, it does not necessarily have to be seen as occupying the same continuous internal space, i.e. as being part of a single unit. (1)

Our analysis may be presented schematically in Figure 7. 1. Thus, also, the unmarked member of the pair making no claim to 'semantic integrality', is the more flexible, neutral and open-ended of the two. It allows for any and all kinds of additions, either integral or non-integral. The marked member of the pair, too, making a claim of 'semantic integrality', is reserved for those Semantic Substance

Form

Meaning

also

UNMARKED FOR SEMANTIC INTEGRALITY

too

MARKED FOR SEMANTIC INTEGRALITY

ADDITION

FIGURE 7.1

The 'also'-'too' System

'ALSO' VERSUS 'TOO': mE SIGN AS TEXT

linguistic and situational contexts where the addition to an entity or entities is to be perceived as being integral to that entity or entities. It is not surprising, therefore, that the marked form too is the more appropriate member of this pair for additions which are either intensive and/or excessive for the same specific entity or entities in question. UNMARKED - also

MARKED-too

UNMARKED - also

FIGURE 7.2

The Unmarked-Marked Relationship

The marked-unmarked semantic relationship may be presented schematically in Figure 7 .2. To summarize, this chapter is based on the assumption that the choice of also versus too is not determined arbitrarily, nor for reasons of register, nor as a result of word order constraints. But rather: Their distribution in the language is directly motivated by the subtle semantic distinction that exists between them. (2) This subtle semantic distinction is expressed in their marked versus unmarked invariant meanings which revolves around the concept of 'semantic integrality' i.e. whether an entity or entities is/are perceived as occupying a single continuous space or not.

( 1)

To illustrate the marked-unmarked relationship of these linguistic signs, we will present the following sentence which appears in a well-known phonetics textbook. In this particular context, also and too flank each other in two juxtaposed sentences discussing the concept of 'stops with lateral release': (1)

'Stops with lateral release (see (10) in Table 7.4) were also discussed in relation to their occurrence in English (for example, in 'little, ladle'). In other languages they too can occur initially in a word.' (Ladefoged 1982:152) (a) The author first reminds the reader that 'lateralized stops' were mentioned earlier in the text with regard to English,

THE DATA: ALICEINW(

,?LAND

157

pointing out their exclusive final word order position. In this case, no integral set of all possible word order positions for this general class of sounds is being presented, and the unmarked form also is used. (b) In the next sentence, however, the author is establishing an integral set of all possible word order positions for the general class of 'lateralized stops' for all languages. In this particular context, the form too - marked for 'semantic integrality' - is the one which was chosen. (c) The choice of one form versus the other obviously cannot be motivated by style or register in this particular case since they both appear in the very same passage in an academic text professing to be scientifically objective. The data which will be presented in the rest of this chapter will further show how the same marked and unmarked relationship motivates the choice of these forms. In particular, it will be shown how these opposed linguistic signs are exploited by speakers of the language for the purpose of subjective comment. _Subjecti~ comment means that speakers of the language may use one linguistic sign as opposed to another in order to tell us something about their own attitude towards the scene - as opposed to merely giving an objective description. With regard to also versus too: it will be shown that if the speaker/writer is interested in emphasizing or focusing upon the integrality of an addition (i.e. perceiving an addition within the continuous internal space of an entity or entities) he or she will choose the linguistic sign marked for the feature of semantic integrality. The following data are taken from two texts. It will be shown that the choice of one sign over the other is not arbitrary but motivated by the appropriateness of the marked or unmarked meaning in relation to the message the speaker/writer is trying to convey. The data: Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961)

The first set of examples to illustrate the difference between the unmarked and marked forms also and too (in both the latter's connective and intensive-excessive functions) will be taken from Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961). [In all cases the italicized forms are mine]. Also: unmarked for integral addition in continuous space

In the entire text, there are only two examples of also. The first example appears in the context of the Duchess's baby turning into

'ALSO' VERSUS 'TOO': mE SIGN AS TEXT

a pig. Alice has suspected that the baby may really be a pig from the very beginning, and as the chapter progresses, new details regarding the baby's appearance or its comportment accumulate, providing additional evidence to Alice's suspicions. In example (1), we have an example of two such incidents appearing one right a~er the other, each serving as a piece of independent evidence regarding the true nature of the creature Alice is holding in her arms: The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. There could be no doubt that it had a very turn-up nose, much more like a snout than a real nose; also its eyes were getting extremely small for a baby: altogether Alice did not like the look of the thing at all. 'But perhaps it was only sobbing,' she thought, and looked into its eyes again, to see if there were any tears. No, there were no tears. 'If you're going to turn into a pig, my dear,' said Alice, seriously, 'I'll have nothing more to do with you. Mind now!' The poor little thing sobbed again (or grunted it was impossible to say which), and they went on for some while in silence. (p. 54)

/

It should be noted that the form also opens a clause in a way similar to the conjunction and, a use disapproved of by the American Heritage Dictionary and grammarians already discussed. This usage, reflected in clause initial position, supports the analysis that the meaning of also = unmarked for integral additions perceived in internal continuous space motivates its distribution in this particular context. In this particular context the addition reflected in the choice of also might be schematized as: ('a + b = a + b'). The second example of also occurs in the Queen of Hearts's garden. Alice approaches some cards (in the guise of gardeners) arguing among themselves while painting the white roses of a rose-tree red. One of them sees her first, and then, immediately afterwards, the others (also) see her and react to her presence: (2)

A large rose-tree stood near the entrance of the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red. Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them, and just as she came up to them she heard one of them say, 'Look out now, Five! Don't go splashing paint over me like that!' 'I couldn't help it,' said Five, in a sulky tone. 'Seven jogged my elbow.'

THE DATA: ALICE IN WONDERLAND

159

On which Seven looked up and said, 'That's right! Always lay the blame on others.' 'You'd better not talk!' said Five. 'I heard the Queen say only yesterday you deserved to be beheaded!' 'What for?', said the one who had first spoken. 'That's none of your business, two!' said Seven. 'Yes, it is his business!' said Five. 'And I'll tell him - it was for bringing the cook tulip-roots instead of onions.' Seven ftung down his brush, and had just begun, 'Well, of all the unjust things -' when his eye chanced to fall upon Alice, as she stood watching them, and he checked himself suddenly: the others looked round also, and all of them bowed low. (pp. 64-6) The leitmotiv of this passage is the arguments among the playing cards-gardeners, i.e. their disunity. The circumstance of their discovering Alice serves as an appropriate background to highlight and emphasize this disunity which motivates the choice of the unmarked form also (appearing in the 'disfavoured' clause-final position). The substitution of too (in its 'favoured' word order position): 'the others looked around too' would imply that the others turned round at the same time, and would give the event and its participants a sense of continuous or integral unity which would be inappropriate to the message and spirit of this passage. Too: marked for integral addition in continuous space: (connective function) Examples (3-6) from Alice in Wonderland will illustrate the opposition between the marked and unmarked meanings of too and also. In particular, the messages of those utterances containing the form too marked for 'semantic integrality', serve to unify the entities being discussed to the point at which they may be perceived as occupying a continuous internal space ('a + b = [ab]'), which is reflected in the text. In general, Alice does not get along well with the various creatures she encounters in Wonderland. In the following examples, Alice's use of too, (marked for integral additions), is part and parcel of, and even further incites, arguments between Alice and her animal interlocutors, who obviously do not want to be so intimately and integrally associated with what they view as this alien human creature. Example (3) is part of an ongoing heated argument which takes place between the Gryphon and Mock Turtle against Alice:

I.6o

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': TIIE SIGN AS TEXT

I

(3)

... then they both sat silent and looked at poor Alice, who felt ready to sink into the earth. At last the Gryphon said to the Mock Turtle, 'Drive on, old fellow! Don't be all day about it!' and he went on in these words: 'Yes, we went to school in the sea, though you mayn't believe it-' 'I never said I didn't!', interrupted Alice. 'You did,' [too] [Y.T.] said the Mock Turtle. 'Hold your tongue!' added the Gryphon, before Alice could speak again. The Mock Turtle went on: 'We had the best of educations - in fact, we went to school every day.' 'I've been to a day-school, too,' said Alice; 'you needn't be so proud as all that.' ---._ 'With extras?', asked the Mock Turtle a little anxiously. 'Yes,' said Alice, 'we learned French and music.' 'And washing,' said the Mock Turtle. 'Certainly not,' said Alice indignantly. 'Ah, then yours wasn't a really good school,' said the Mock Turtle in a tone of great relief. 'Now at ours they had at the end of the bill. "French, music and washing-extra."' (p. 80)

It should be noted that as soon as Alice integrally combines her school with that of the Mock Turtle, by using the form too marked for 'semantic integrality', the latter immediately goes out of his way to establish that the schools were not the same at all and cannot be compared, i.e. are not 'integrally linked', as Alice had implied. Example (4) takes place during the trial of the Knave of Hearts (who presumably stole the Queen of Hearts~s tarts). Alice suddenly finds herself growing larger and thus taking up more than her share of room on the bench she is sharing with the Dormouse. The following altercation breaks out between the two: (4) Just at this moment Alice felt a very curious sensation, which puzzled her a good deal until she made out what it was: she was beginning to grow larger again, and she thought at first she would get up and leave the court; but on second thoughts she decided to remain where she was as long as there was room for her. 'I wish you wouldn't squeeze so,' said the Dormouse, who was sitting next to her. 'I can hardly breathe.' 'I can't help it,' said Alice very weakly: 'I'm growing.' 'You've no right to grow here,' said the Dormouse.

THE DATA: ALICE IN WONDERLAND

161

'Don't talk nonsense,' said Alice more boldly: 'you know you're growing too.' 'Yes, but 1gi:ow at a more reasonable pace,' said the Dormouse: 'not in a ridiculous fashion.' And he got up very sulkily and crossed over to the other side of the court. (pp. 93-4) When Alice angrily accuses the Dormouse of growing too, establishing a unity between them, the Dormouse quickly and clearly retorts in such a way that points out and emphasizes their differences, thus denying the implied unity, and then he physically departs establishing a new discontinuous space between them. There is another immediate instance of too involving the Dormouse following the argument with Alice. This example (5) illustrates the lack of unity between the creatures in Wonderland among themselves, where the too form, marked for 'semantic integrality', implies yet another expected kind of lack of cooperation between the disparate participants of the Mad Hatter's tea party in the form of each one denying what the other says about him. In this particular context, these public denials may be viewed as part of a 'chain of events' linked integrally by the marked form too: (

(5)

All this time the Queen had never left off staring at the Hatter, and just as the Dormouse crossed the court, she said to one of the officers of the court, 'Bring me the list of the singers in the last concert!' on which the wretched Hatter trembled so, that he shook both his shoes off. 'Give your evidence,' the King repeated angrily, 'or I'll have you executed, whether you're nervous or not.' 'I'm a poor man, your Majesty,' the Hatter began, in a trembling voice, 'and I hadn't begun my tea - not above a week or so - and what with the bread-and-butter getting thin - and the twinkling of the tea -' 'The twinkling of the what?' said the King. 'It began with the tea,' the Hatter replied. 'Of course twinkling begins with a T!' said the King sharply. 'Do you take me for_a dunce? Go on!' 'I'm a poor man,' the Hatter went on, 'and most things twinkled after that - only the March Hare said-' 'I didn't!' the March Hare interrupted in a great hurry. 'You did!' said the Hatter. 'I deny it!' said the March Hare. 'He denies it,' said the King: 'leave out that part.'

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': TIIE SIGN AS TEXT

'Well, at any rate, the Dormouse said-' the Hatter went on, looking anxiously round to see if he would deny it too: but the Dormouse denied nothing, being fast asleep. (p. 94) The use of the marked form too is not only limited to the relationship between Alice and the curious creatures of Wonderland. At the end of the text, Alice awakes from her curious dream and tells her elder sister all about her adventures in Wonderland. The sister then begins to dream about them too, thus creating an integral link between Alice and her sister and the reader, and, eventually Alice recounts the tale to the entire world. The form marked for semantic integrality provides cohesiveness to the entire text: (6) 'Oh, I've had such a curious dream!' said Alice, and she told her sister, as well as she could remember them, all these strange Adventures of hers that you have just been reading about; and when she had finished, her sister kissed her, and said, 'It was a curious dream, dear, certainly: but now run in to your tea; it's getting late.' So Alice got up and ran off, thinking while she ran, as well as she might, what a wonderful dream it had been. '

But her sister sat still just as she left her, leaning her head on her hand, watching the setting sun and thinking of little Alice and all her wonderful Adventures, till she too began dreaming after a fashion, and this was her dream: [This is followed by a recapitualtion of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) [Y.T.] Lastly, she pictured to herself how this same little sister of hers would in the after-time, be herself a grown woman; and how she would keep, through all her riper years, the simple and lovingJieart of her childhood: and how she would gather about her other little children, and make their eyes bright and eager with many a strange tale, perhaps even with the dream of Wonderland of long ago: and how she would feel with all their simple sorrows, and find a pleasure in all their simple joys, remembering her own child-life, and the happy summer days. (pp. 102-3) Too: marked for integral addition in continuous space: (intensiveexcessive function) The next examples (7-21) are all of the use of too with the messages of intensive and/or excessive addition as perceived

TIIE DATA: ALICE IN WONDERLAND

within the same entity. This rea~i!!g_of too"' not shared by t~: unmarked also, !s directly motivated by its-irtVailant meam tmttked for 'semantic integrality' : i.e. an addition to a single entity or to a specific quality which may be viewed in an appropriate discourse context as being intensified and even carried to the point of being perceived 'in excess'. It will be interesting to note that these examples of marked too with the 'intensive-excessive' message, provide a certain degree of thematic coherence to the text. By this, we mean that once the marked form too is attributed to a theme, event, or entity, it will often recur with that same theme, event, or entity throughout the text. Furthermore, the marked form too may also often be accompanied by the same linguistic collocations (e.g. 'Alas!', very, sooner or later, etc.) every time it appears with the same theme, event, or entity. The first set of examples (7- IO) of too deal with the .i11~en~ ancflQ.r..eJl!:i;.e~sive qualities of physi~!ll ~ntities in Wonderland which caused Alice particular difficulty: - -- -~----- -··-· ... ------(7) Either the well was very deep, or she [Alice} fell very slowly, for she had plenty of time as she went down to look about her, and to wonder what was going to- happen next. First, she tried to look down and make out what she was coming ~-,to, but it was too dark to see anything. (p. 4) "' (8) /Suddenly she came upon a little three-legged table, all made _ / of solid glass; there was nothing on it except a tiny golden key, and Alice's first thought was that it might belong to one of the doors on the hall, but, alas! either the locks were too large or the key was too small, but at any rate it would not open any of them. (p. 6) (9) ... but, alas for poor Alice! when she got to the door, she found she had forgotten the little golden key, and when she went back to the table for it, she found she could not possibly reach it: she could see it quite plainly through the glass, and she tried her best to climb up one of the table-legs, but it was too sllppery: and when she had tired herself out with trying, the poor little thing sat down and cried. (p. 8) (IO) The door led right into a large kitchen, which was full of /smoke from one end to the other: the Duchess was sitting on _/ a three-legged stool in the middle, nursing a baby; the cook was leaning over the fire, stirring a large cauldron which seemed to be full of soup. 'There's certainly too much pepper in that soup!' Alice said to herself, as well as she could for sneezing. There was certainly too much of it in the air. (p. 51)

'ALSO' VERSUS 'TOO': THE SIGN AS TEXT

The following set of examples (11-15) of too deal with the intensive-excessive qualities, characteristics, or feelings Alice finds within herself while in Wonderland. In particuTar, the recurrent theme of her growing larger and smaller in the same contexts previously presented is characterized by the use of the marked form

too:

~··

'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English): 'now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that ever was! Good-bye feet!' (for when she looked down at her feet, they seemed to be almost .out of sight, they were getting so far off). 'Oh, my poor little feet, I wonder who will put on your shoes and stockings for you now, dears? I'm sure I shan't be able! I shall be a great deal too far of/to trouble myself about you ... (p. 9) (12) 'That was a narrow escape!' said Alice, a good deal frightened at the sudden change, but very glad to find herself still in existence; 'and now for the garden!' and she ran with all speed back to the little door: but alas! the little door was shut again and the little golden key was lying on the glass table as before, 'and things are worse than ever," thought the poor child, 'for I was never so small as this before, never! And I declare it's too ball that it is.' (p. 12) (13) There seemed to be no use in waiting by the little door, so she went back to the table, half hoping she might find another key on it, or at any rate a book of rules for shutting people up like telescopes: this time she found a little bottle on it ('which was certainly not here before,' said Alice and round its neck a paper label, with the words 'DRINK ME' beautifully printed on it in large letters. It was all very well to say 'Drink me,' but the wise little Alice was not going to do that in a hurry. 'No, I'll look first,' she said 'and see whether it's marked "poison" or not;' for she had read several nice little histories about children who had got burnt, and eaten up by wild beasts, and many other unpleasant thin~, all because they would not remember the simple rules their friends had taught them: such as, that a red-hot poker will burn you if you hold it too long; and that if you cut your finger very deeply with a knife, it usually bleeds; and she had never forgotten that if you drink much from a bottle marked 'poison', it is almost certain to disagree with you sooner or later. (p. 7)

THE DATA: ALICE IN WONDERLAND

165

It did so indeed, and much sooner than she had expected: before she had drunk half the bottle, she found her head pressing against the ceiling, and had to stoop to save her neck from being broken. She hastily put down the bottle, saying to herself, 'That's quite enough-I hope I shan'tgrow any more -As it is, I can't I can't get out at the door- I do wish I hadn't drunk quite so much! Alas! It was too late to wish that! She kept on growing and growing . .. (p. 27) (14) 'Let's go on with the game,' the Queen said to Alice, and / Alice was too much frightened to say a word, but slowly . ·-''!followed her back to the croquet ground. (p. 77) (15y/'Yes, I think you'd better leave off,' said the Gryphon: and ./ Alice was only too glad to do so. (p. 88)

The next set of examples (16-21) of too deal with the intensive or excessive qualities, characteristics, or feelings felt by the creatures ~oder!.and themselves:_~ -·-----------··-·---- --·· (16) At last came a little feeble, squeaking voice ('That's Bill,' thought Alice), 'Well, I hardly know - no more thank ye; I'm better now - but I'm a deal too flustered to tell you - all I know is, something [Alice!] [Y.T.] comes at me like a Jack-in-the-Box and up I goes like a sky-rocket!' (p. 32) (17) Alice did not feel encouraged to ask anymore questions about it, so she turned to the Mock Turtle, and said, 'What else had you to learn?' 'Well, there was Mystery,' the Mock Turtle replied, counting off the subjects on his flappers, ' Mystery, ancient and modern, with Seaography; then Drawling- the Drawling-master was an old conger-eel, that used to come once a week: he taught us Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils.' 'What was that like?' said Alice. 'Well, I can't show it to you myself,' the Mock Turtle said, 'I'm too stijf. And the Gryphon never learnt it.' (p. 81) (18) So they [the Mock Turtle and the Gryphon] [Y.T.] began solemnly dancing round and round· Alice, every now and ·then treading on her toes when they passed too close, and .-- waving their forepaws to mark the time, while the Mock Turtle sang ... very slowly and sadly ... (p. 84) (19) ''But the snail replied 'Too far, too far!' and gave a look _ askance - (p. 85) (20) 'Tis the voice of the Lobster; I heard him declare,

166

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': mE SIGN AS TEXT

.. ~You have baked me too brown, I must sugar my hair.' . 1(p. 87) (21). As soon as the jury had a little recovered from the shock of being upset, and their slates and pencils had been found and handed back to them, they set to work very diligently to write out a history of the accident, all except the Lizard, who seemed too much overconu! to do anything but sit with its mouth open, gazing up into the roof of the court. (p. 97) In all of the above examples (7-21) a specific spatial, temporal, or existential quality is being added to a particular entity. A marked addition to this characteristic feature within a singular entity can naturally be interpreted as being an intensive one and can further be interpreted as an excessive addition in an appropriate linguistic and/or situational context. The invariant meaning of too and its marked relationship to the opposed invariant meaning of also make it the more appropriate member of the pair to fulfil this communicative function. Thus, there are not two homonymous too(s) in the language, but one form with one invariant meaning marked for the distinctive feature of 'semantic integrality' which is inferred as having two different messages (and two different word orders) in different linguistic and situational contexts.

The data: Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976) The second set of examples to illustrate the difference between the unmarked and marked forms also and too (in both the latter's connective and intensive-excessive functions) will be taken from Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976):

Also: unmarked for integral addition in continuous space Examples (22-26) deal with how Theresa Dunn, a freshman at City College in New York City, falls in love with and subsequently has an affair with Martin Engle, her arrogant English professor. Besides Theresa, there are two other girls in the class, Carol and Rhoda, who are desperately in love with the professor' but it is Theresa, whom he singles out at the expense of the others. The use of also in .these particular examples emphasizes the distinction between Theresa and the other infatuated students in their attempts at vying for the professor's affection. In other words, the students who love Professor Engle are not being viewed as a single set, but rather, subjectively, from the point of view of Theresa as

Ift'/

1HE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

opposed to the others: ('a+ b =a+ b'). In those examples where

al.so and too are 'interchangeable (albeit with a change in word order), the choice of too would imply that all three of the students were being viewed and treated in the same way by Engle, which is not the case as can be seen in these examples:

reed~thin,

G/Professor Martin Engle was tall and with curly / grey-black hair, a gentle sarcastic manner, and beautiful sad eyes, which you didn't really notice until he took off his glasses and ran a hand wearily across his face. He was a poet and had a volume of poetry privately published, as she found out later from two girls in the class, Carol and Rhoda, who were al.so in love with him. (pp. 30- 1) (23 She felt pleased but al.so confused, a condition in which he would often leave her, because she'd been praised but somehow mocked at the same time. It wasn't really important, that was the thing. He was doling out great praise for what everyone knew was really a silly insignificant part of the paper. She was annoyed. She was his slave. (p. 32) (24) He had definitely singled her out for some reason. She checked around surreptitiously, looking at the comments on other people's papers when she could, listening to him, and there was no one else, even of the kids he treated nicely, to whom he displayed such kindness and interest. This made her happy in a tense way; since she wasn't sure how she had earned this sole warm spot in the sunshine of Martin Engle's approval, she was terrified that she would just as ignorantly one day step out of it. Carol and Rhoda (his scorn for them had convinced them that he was even more brilliant than they'd first realized) tried to befriend her, as though some of that magic she possessed would rub off on them. She avoided them for the same reason. They waited for her after class because if she were with the small group flanking him as he left the building and headed toward the North Campus, there was a better chance that he would allow them all to remain around him. While if it were just Carol and Rhoda, for example, he was likely to suggest that they find some other shrine to worship at that day, he was too weary for adoration. Finally a day came when not only Carol and Rhoda but also Jules Finegold, the skinny, dark-haired boy who was the only other regular kicked-around hanger-on, were all out of class and she got to walk the whole way alone with him. It was like being on a roller coaster, up and down,

.9·

168

'ALSO' VERSUS '1UO': 11IE SIGN AS TEXT

up and down, with no way to know which was coming next until you reached it. (p. 36) Examples (25-6) appear later when Theresa and Engle are having an affair. During this time Theresa arranges her entire life around Engle's wishes and whims. She consciously tries to avoid the fact that the professor is married and has two children. The use of also in these examples emphasizes the lack of continuity between Engle's wishes and Theresa's deeds, and the fact that there are other people (mainly the professor's family) encroaching upon what Theresa views as their private space, respectively:

~

In the four years that she was going to know him he would change and she would change, but their relationship would never change at all. He would be pleased that she had become a good typist. He· would be lavish in his praise of her work and her intelligence. He would insist that if she were going to teach at all she must aim for university teaching. (It was the only way she would ever defy him. She kept her education courses down to a bare minimum but was bound and determined to teach young children, no matter what else she might also choose to do.) When she was ill or unhappy he would be tender and sympathetic. When they made love he would become hostile. (p. 66)

In example (25) above~.not replaceable by too. It is clear that 'what else' opens up a set of discontinuous or non-integral additions to whatever other plans she may have in accordance with her lover's wishes. In example (26), also, and not too, is the more appropriate choice which emphasizes the differences between Theresa's emotional claims on Professor Engle and those of his immediate family, and particularly the fact that she and the family were two opposed forces claiming his attention: ~

n the period after Kennedy's assassination she needed to see more of him and instead she saw less, because his !amily also needed him more. Unexpectedly sfie found 6efSelf drawn intOiCircfe consisting of Carol and Rhoda and Jules, whom she never saw in classes any more but ran across in the cafeteria on the day of the assassination. (p. 66)

1HE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

In all of the above examples (22-26) the use of the form also is motivated by its unmarked meaning. In every case, the differences between Theresa and the 'others' who share similar feelings towards Martin Engle are crucial to the message being conveyed. The unmarked meaning is the more appropriate one to imply this non-integral view of the various kinds of relationships, and is best suited to maintain the distinctions between the various characters and Engle. In other words, the unmarked meaning of the sign is what motivates its distribution in the text. Too: marked for integral addition in continuous space: (connective and excessive-intensive functions) In the following sets of examples the form too marked for semantic integrality will be presented in both of its primary functions in the text Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Rossner 1976). It will be shown again that the marked form too appears in a systematic way revolving around the central themes as a marker for thematic cohesion throughout the text. In other words, the form marked for semantic integrality may be viewed as a linguistic sign providing a certain degree of thematic integrality - i.e. connecting the major recurrent themes within the larger text. The first set of examples (27-28) from Looking for Mr. Goodbar illustrate the use of the marked form too to show the connections between Theresa Dunn, the major character, and members of her family. Theresa's relationship with her family revolves around a major recurrent theme: the death of Theresa's older brother Thomas and, as a result of this family tragedy, her subsequent illness and extended hospitalization. Theresa's parents were so devastated by their son's death that they ignored Theresa (who had suffered several years earlier from polio) so much that they didn't notice that she had developed scoliosis, a curvature of the spine. The disease progressed to the point that, at the age of eleven, Theresa had to be operated on and remain in hospital for an entire year. This traumatic experience affected Theresa and her subsequent relationships with people both physically and emotionally throughout her life. The first sentence in the chapter introducing Theresa opens with the unidentified personal pronouns 'they' and 'her', presents the major textual theme of the brother's death and illness, sets up the basis of the guilt, shame and confusion of the relationship, and exploits too in its intensive-excessive reading from the very onset, before the characters are even named and described:

(27)

They didn't look at her for almost two years and then it was too late. Besides, once they understood what had happened

170

'ALSO' VERSUS 'roo': TIIE SIGN AS TEXT

there was nothing but guilt in their eyes so that when she saw them looking at her she had to turn away in shame and confusion. If it hadn't been for her brother's death they might have realized sooner that she needed help. She was willing to forgive them but they couldn't forgive themselves . . . (p. 15) In the subsequent passages discussing Thomas's death, the members of the family are introduced and described. The marked form too, with its connective message, appears twice, simultaneously highlighting each of Theresa's parents' individual pain and, because of its marked meaning containing the feature of semantic integrality, it further serves to link their individual suffering together strengthened by recurring lexical items comparing and contrasting each of the parents' pain: (28)

Thomas was her mother's favorite of them all and his death in a training-camp gun accident when he was eighteen dealt her the most staggering blow of her life. She turned gray almost overnight, a woman thirty-seven years old. She lost her famous temper but she lost her liveliness too. At first she cried all the time. Then she stopped crying and there was a period when she just sat on a hard chair in the living room, staring at the rug. Which had no pattern. Her father grieved too but couldn't match the length or depth of her mother's mourning and became for a while like a ghost around the house. Hovering gray in the black shadow of her mother's grief. (p. 17)

The theme of Theresa's illness and her brother's death comes up again when she reluctantly discusses it with Martin Engle, her English professor at university (ex. 29), and subsequently serves as the pretext for the initiation of their love affair (ex. 30). In this context, Martin Engle shows his shocked subjective reaction to Theresa's story with the use of too in its intensive-excessive message, thus further making the form too marked for semantic integrality - in both of its readings - as a cohesive thematic device of subjective comment throughout this text: (29)

'Did you have a bad experience with a doctor?' 'No, not particularly.' 'Why do you limp?' She gasped. The sudden movement of her body made her coffee spill over the side of the cup as she held it. One hand got wet from it but she barely noticed; she was overwhelmed

lHE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

171

by a sense of unreality. He wasn't real; she wasn't real; they weren't here; he hadn't asked that question. He couldn't have. She didn't limp. 'I don't limp,' she finally said, except that her voice came out in a whisper. ' 'I'm sorry,' he said after a moment, 'that may have been too extreme a word to use. You might have a slight sway, imbalance, whatever you want to call it to your walk. It's not unattractive. If I weren't aware of such things I might never have noticed.' (pp. 48-9) Example (29) introduces the emotionally loaded word limp to denote the after-effect of Theresa's illness. This word will reappear several times throughout the book, always evoking in Theresa a sharp emotional reaction and, more times than not, in contexts .:ontaining the marked form too in both its message functions. In the subsequent passages dealing with Theresa and Martin Engle, the closer Theresa and Engle become, the more the story of her brother's death and her subsequent illness and extended hospitalization is unravelled repeating the same marked form too late which initially introduced the theme. In the following passages, the theme of Thomas's death and Theresa's illness serves as a pretext for the initiation of Theresa and Engle's affair:

(30) 'How old were you when all this happened?' 'Eleven, twelve,' she said. 'Which?' 'I was eleven when I had the operation.' 'How long were you in the hospital?' She looked at him tearfully. Wanting to lie but afraid to. His wife was a doctor, anyway. He could find out. There was no point to lying. 'A year.' He stared at her. He was obviously shocked. His shock stirred up something buried way down inside her, that sense of her illness as a badge of shame. In knowing that she had been in the hospital for a year, he knew something about her against which little could be balanced. She closed her eyes. A moment later she felt his cool hand on her forehead, stroking it softly, brushing back the wispy hairs. She wanted to open her eyes and look at him but she was afraid if she did that he would take away his hand so she kept them closed. She held her breath as he bent over her, kissed her forehead, her eyes, her nose, her mouth. She couldn't believe how tender he was

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo'; THE SIGN AS TEXT

being with her. Not at all as though he'd been repelled by her confession - almost the opposite. (pp. 55-6) . . . . 'I had polio when I was little.' 'Are you serious?' 'When I was four. It was a mild case, I got better, it just left ... a weakness on one side. Nobody noticed when it began to happen ... it was very slow.' 'Didn't your parents pay any attention to you?' She nodded. 'But when it was happening, when you could see it . . . my older brother died and they were very depressed.' 'Jesus Christ,' he said. 'Come over here, Theresa.' She moved over on the floor next to him and he put his arm around her. She rested her arm on his shoulder, continuing to talk because she knew that was what he wanted to do. 'By the time we got to the doctor, it was too late for just a cast, so they used a cast, but then I had the operation, and then I had to be in the cast again.' He kissed her forehead, rocked her gently with him on the floor. (p. 61) The theme of Theresa's illness and her brother's death recurs again as part of a serious discussion with the only other man with whom Theresa ever develops a stong emotional bond, James, her only serious suitor who reminds her of her brother Thomas. This time, when answering James's general query about illness in her family, Theresa, herself, broaches the subject and brings up the· emotionally loaded question of her limp. She then tries to play it down by exploiting the marked form too with its intensiveexcessive message as an expression of understatement or obfuscation. Once again, the same form too marked for semantic integrality - with both its functions - may be viewed as a device of thematic textual cohesion. It should also be noted that when discussing this particular theme, Theresa's parents are referred to with the pronoun 'they', just as in the first .sentence when the topic was originally introduced: (31)

'Was someone ill in your family?' She nodded. 'Who?' 'Me'. 'You're kidding!' he exclaimed. 'I find it hard to associate you with any kind of illness, you're so-' 'I don't want to talk about it.'

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

173

'All right.' 'I had polio.' He was silent. 'And then it went away but later on I developed scoliosis from it.' He nodded. 'My cousin had that, but a much worse case, apparently. She has a very unbalanced walk.' 'Do/ limp?' 'No. At least I hadn't thought of it that way. I noticed you had a niCe sort of lilt to your walk.' 'I was in the hospital for a year.' 'That must have been ghastly.' She shrugged. 'I guess. I don't remember too much of it. Anyway, I don't know why I'm talking about it.' He was silent. 'I never should have been there in the first place,' she went on compulsively. 'If they'd caught it in time I would've had maybe a brace for a while. But my older brother was killed in the service . . . my mother was in a . . . she was depressed ... they were both depressed and ... preoccupied. Nobody noticed what was happening.' Oh, God, it was like yesterday! Fifteen years ago and she was flooded with it. With wanting to tell them how badly it hurt and not being able to because they walked around the house with their eyes on the floor and she knew, anyway, that it was something she'd done that had brought this retribution on all of them. Not just on her. The pain was in some way directed even more at them; what would they do when they found out? So that every time she felt she finally must make them see her pain this other feeling got in the way and she would complain without ever making them know. (p. 200) The connection between James and Thomas and Thomas's death becomes even more explicit in the text in an italicized interior monologue Theresa has while speaking to James for the last time on the telephone: (32)

I love you so much, James. She kissed the receiver. I wish you were my brother. I wish Thomas were alive. Why did you have to die, Thomas? She stared at the receiver in astonishment, as though it were responsible for her suddenly thinking of Thomas. (p. 264)

174

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': 1HE SIGN AS TEXT

The theme of Theresa's sickness and its subjective role in her relationships may also be extended to her relationship with her older sister Katherine. Another major recurrent theme regarding Theresa and her family is her ambivalent relationship with her older sister Katherine ..The following examples (33-36) illustrate how Theresa and Katherine subjectively view each other. In all of the examples, the use of the form too marked for semantic integrality (in both its connective and intensive-excessive readings) links these major themes throughout the text as a cohesive textual linguistic sign. In example (33) these themes merge with the use of the form too marked for semantic integrality in both its message functions: (33)

'I was terrified when you got sick. I knew people could die from polio. I remember when I prayed I kept telling God to save you because I didn't even know you yet. I didn't sleep before they brought you home. I mean at all. I was very happy but I was scared to death- I think maybe that you'd look different. Be a different person. Maybe that sounds silly, too, but the fact is ... you were. You really were.' Theresa saw the tears return to her sister's eyes before she felt them in her own. 'Not just that you were thinner . . . you were so skinny . . . poor baby . . . it was more than that. Your face. You looked a hundred years old. So old and wise. I remember thinking, Holy Mother, I only asked you to keep her alive, not to make her old!' Katherine burst into tears for the second time that night. Theresa wanted to tell her to stop but she was too choked up, and besides, she wasn't sure which she wanted Katherine to stop - talking or crying. (p. 27)

The first time Katherine cried that night was when (two pages earlier!) she confided in Theresa that she had had an abortion. Theresa is the only one in the family Katherine trusted and had ever confided in with regard to her private life. While discussing the gravity of abortion being 'too big a sin to get away with', she employs the form too marked for semantic integrality in its intensive-excessive function: (34) Katherine smiled. 'That's true. I guess I always think of you as younger. Sometimes I've wanted to talk to you so much, Tessie. You don't know. There's no one I can really talk to.' 'What about the girls you live with?'

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

175

'I don't live with girls,' Katherine said after a moment. 'I live with a man. Two men. One in New York and one in Los Angeles. Or I did until a couple of weeks ago.' 'What happened?' 'I got pregnant.' 'Mother of God,' murmured Theresa,-who immediately grasped the situation. 'You don't know which one is the father!' Katherine burst into tears. 'There's no use crying,' Theresa said. She liked this new suffering Katherine a little better but was also less comfortable with her. 'I can't help it.' Katherine was sobbing uncontrollably now. 'I didn't cry the whole time. I had an abortion and I didn't cry!' 'You had an abortion?' Theresa whispered. She'd never even heard the word abortion said out loud. Katherine nodded looking at Theresa as though she expected to be yelled at. 'Did it hurt?' Katherine shook her head. 'But I've been miserable ever since I came back. From Puerto Rico, that's where I had it, it was like a vacation. It's almost like - it's not supposed to be that easy. It's too big a sin to get off that lightly.' (p. 25) Theresa's ambivalent relationship with Katherine can be best described by her feelings of jealousy towards Katherine. Theresa thought that Katherine was much prettier and more intelligent. Moreover, despite all the dark secrets that Theresa knew about Katherine, the latter was still viewed as the 'angel of the family', the 'apple of their father's eye'. Theresa's feelings of sibling rivalry and jealousy towards Katherine, particularly with regard to their father, was more often than not reflected in the sarcastic humour she learned from Martin Engle. . In example (35), Theresa aims a bit of this sarcastic humour towards her older sister, insulting Katherine, upsetting her brother-in-law Brooks, as well as her mother, (whom she views as her traditional enemy). She then becomes concerned whether her father (who she is sure has always favoured Katherine) is as angry at her as the rest of the family for what she has done. The choice of the marked form too in its connective function here is not by chance, but places all the people on the scene within a single group - an integral unity - all of whom Theresa thinks are collectively

'ALSO' VERSUS '700': 'IHE SIGN AS TEXT

against her. The subject of Theresa's sarcasm in example (35) is Katherine's difficulty becoming pregnant. (35) Katherine was trying to get pregnant and couldn't. With Brooks's encouragement she was going back to school in the fall. She didn't know what she wanted to do with her schooling, she was going to go to NYU and start working to get a B.A. 'Unless you get a B-A-B-Y,' Theresa said, meaning it as a casual joke, but Katherine burst into tears and ran out of the room. 'Theresa', her mother said. 'I know you didn't mean it to hurt', said Brooks on his way to find Katherine and comfort her. 'But she's very sensitive on this one, Terry.' So would I be if I'd had an abortion. 'I don't know what's gotten into you, Theresa;' her mother said, as though she didn't believe Brooks's statement that Terry had meant no harm. Theresa herself was surprised and upset ... She looked at her father to see if he was angry, too, but he was absorbed in the baseball game. Or pretended to be . . . She wanted to run to him and ask if he was angry with her, but of course she didn't; she just glared at her mother and said that Katherine could take joke better than she could. Usually. Katherine and Brooks were seldom around, anyway. (p. 65)

a

In example (36) Theresa hears - from Katherine - that their father has cancer. In this particular passage both themes, Theresa's attitude towards illness and death and her feelings of jealousy towards her sister and their father, merge, and perhaps not by chance, with the marked form too in its connective reading (and in collocation with the marked form whether). Once again, the form too marked for semantic integrality is being further exploited as a device for thematic textual cohesion: (36) He had cancer but Katherine had to come back from India before Theresa found out. Why did you have to tell me? Why didn't they tell me earlier? The two thoughts came into her mind at the same moment,

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

177

right after the first panic. The wish to have been left in blissful ignorance, combined with resentment that even from India Katherine had managed to be closer to him. 'Why wasn't I told?' 'They didn't know whether to tell you, Tessie,' Katherine said. 'They said you didn't seem to want - you didn't even ' ask if the tumor was malignant.' Resentful. Defensive. 'I thought they'd tell me if there was something I should know.' 'But everyone knows how you've always been about sickness, Tessie.' Soft. Cajoling. 'Not wanting to talk about it.' 'He's my father, too,' she said, her voice cracking. 'Of course he is.' Silence. (p. 232) The form too marked for semantic integrality in both its connective and intensive-excessive functions also links other themes related to Theresa's subjective view of herself and her other siblings throughout the text. In particular, the opposition between Theresa, who views herself after her illness as being overweight, ugly, and unsociable, and her younger sister Brigid whom she subjectively perceives as being the opposite. The following examples (37-39) deal with this theme as it appears throughout the text, once again, with the form too in both its principal functions being exploited as a device for thematic textual cohesion: (37)

She [Theresa) (Y.T.] grew overweight from inactivity so that her parents began urging her to go out and play with the other children (she was the only one who was urged; the others got orders) but she didn't like the games they played, although she couldn't tell this to her parents. Hide-and-seek frightened her - the part you where you were It and everyone else went away. Games that demanded that you move fast were difficult, too, because of her weight and because she got out of breath very easily. When that happened she got upset and then angry and had to run into the house before anyone could call her a bad sport. Brigid, who was only a year younger than Theresa was exactly the opposite. Restless, athletic, totally uninterested in reading any more than she had to to escape punishment by the sisters, she spent almost as much time out of the house in the winter as she did when it was warm. She got

178

'ALSO' VERSUS 'Too': THE SIGN AS TEXT

along with everyone. There wasn't a child in the neighborhood who wasn't her friend or an adult who didn't consider himself some sort of godparent to Brigid, who from the time of Theresa's first illness, when she herself was three, seemed always ready to leave home and find herself a healthier family. Theresa didn't like Brigid too much, not because of any one thing Brigid did but because she felt reproached in some way by Brigid's existence. Her parents never asked her why she wasn't like Brigid but the question somehow hovered in the air every time Brigid hit another home run or was invited someplace. Not that Theresa minded her sister's popularity, if anything she minded those rare periods when Brigid spent a lot of time at home. (p. 16) (38) Brigid was too young to be allowed in the hospital so they hadn't seen each other for over a year. That didn1t matter; they'd been strangers before and they were strangers now. 'Hi,' Brigid said 'it's nice you're home,' and went off to play baseball. People were beginning to tease her about being a tomboy, now that she was eleven years old and still wrapped up in sports. (p. 20)

Theresa's subjective feelings towards her sisters, herself, and having children are later explicitly described in the text in a passage preceding a serious conversation between Theresa and James, where, at the end, he, too is relieved that they reached a lighter plane (p. 222): (39) Families brought out the worst in everyone. She had noticed about herself that she could go for weeks, even months, without thinking of, say, Katherine, but as soon as they were together she was flooded by the old feelings of suspicion and dislike for Katherine, for herself. (Brigid's having children had somehow changed that relationship for the better; where she'd often pretended Brigid didn't exist, the children now absorbed her attention to an extent where it was unnecessary to pretend.) (p. 221) Example (40) returns to the theme of how Theresa subjectively, i.e. negatively, views herself physically as a woman as a result of her operation, exploiting the form too marked for semantic integrality in its intensive-excessive message function:

(40) Theresa had to go to the group to see how many women had the same problems as she did. How many women disliked

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

179

their own bodies. Theresa looked at her [her friend running a

women's group] [Y.T.] sharply; they'd never talked about anything like that. Evelyn didn't know about her back, her operation, her scar.

'Women always think there's something wrong with them.' Seldom with such good reason. They're too/at, or too thin, their breasts are too small or too big, they're too tall or too short, they have a bad complexion or an appendix scar. (p. 238)

The form too marked for semantic integrality - with both its message functions - also occurs in the context of Theresa's relationship with Professor Martin Engle. In the first set of examples (40-42), Theresa is being perceived by Engle (and not the opposite as with the also examples) as she can be integrally related to him from his own personal and professional points of view. Example (40) is a note Martin Engle wrote to Theresa commenting on one of her writing assignments for his required composition class: (40) Dear Theresa! doubt that you are an artist for you follow instructions too well. But this is a perfect piece - brief and beautiful. The Sacred Gizzard of Xavier - or whichever grove of academe had the privilege of spawning you - obviously did you - or your sense of language, at any rate- no lasting harm. We must talk some time about your plans for the future. If you are an education major I don't want o hear about it. Make up something else before we meet. M.E. (pp. 35--6) Example (41) comes from the meeting proposed by Professor Engle in his note (ex. 40): (41)

'You're much too sensitive, Theresa.' But his voice was caressing her now and her body felt like liquid and she couldn't be angry with him any more. 'We'll have to work on raising your threshold of pain. Let's see. A small dose of nastiness every day, like a shot, until, you build up an immunity? What do you think?' (p. 39)

Example (42) illustrates the working relationship Theresa had as the teaching assistant to Professor Engle. The marked form too here indicates Engle's approval of the way Theresa is developing under his tutelage:

I8o

'ALSO' VERSUS 'TOO': THE SIGN AS TEXT

(42)

She went twice a week for the rest of the term, marking two sets of papers each morning. After a month or so he began to rely on her more completely. He told her to start making a lightly penciled estimate of the quality of each paper on the top. Before long he was just erasing the penciled words and writing a brief version of the same thing in his own hand. 'I liked this,' or 'Dull,' or 'The opinions don't seem honest, though I'm not sure why.' He was pleased to find that she, too, reacted when someone was trying to please rather than express; to adopt an opinion not his own; to omit some essential part of an experience in the interest of self-protection. (p. 52)

In the next set of examples (43-45), Theresa's subjective view of Engle's ending their relationship so that 'Theresa could further grow and develop' and its lasting effect on her private and professional life (exs. 44-45) appear throughout the text often with the marked form too: (43)

'I'm too young to be obsolete,' she said, quite seriously. He laughed. 'The one thing you will always have me to thank for is developing a sense of humor behind those sad green eyes.' She said nothing but her anxiety had turned into dread. She was approaching from too great a distance to know as yet where she was heading, the knowledge that her future did not contain him. (p. 72)

Example (43) 'too young to be obsolete' reappears in another form later in the text when Theresa meets a young man in a bar who successfully tries to pick her up - thus connecting Theresa, her relationship with Engle, and the lasting effect it had on her life: (44)

He grinned at her with satisfaction. She was silent, feeling a mixture of emotions from attraction to disdain. How old was he? Maybe not much more than twenty, twenty-two or three at the most. She was too young to be an older woman, surely. She was amused. (p. 148)

Example (45) ties Theresa's personal and professional life at school with her memories of Martin Engle and their relationship which she finds too depressing: (45)

She was happy in the classroom in a way that she'd never

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

181

been in her life. She gave and took so much that she came home exhausted at the end of the day but she didn't nap because if she slept then, she couldn't fall asleep at night, and it was too depressing to Jie in bed awake for hours when everyone else was sleeping. She still thought about Martin a great deal but it was from a greater distance now. She still dreamed about running into him whenever she was in Manhattan but she could understand now, if only intellectually, that their affair hat/, to end. She also understood that she had idealized Martin somewhat. He was the first person she'd ever known who talked - who was the way he was, and one of the effects of the summer (since their separation] [Y.T.], although she hadn't realized it until she got home, had been to make her realize that at least some of Martin's virtues, his clever way of speaking, his bored sophistication, were not unique. Not that she ever wanted to know anyone else like him. One per lifetime was enough. She didn't believe she could survive another. (p. 88) The form too marked for semantic integrality serves as a thematic marker of textual coherence for other issues as well. For example, Theresa is afraid that she may be prejudiced against Blacks due to her strict Bronx Irish Catholic upbringing. When she first thinks about this issue (ex. 46) and then realizes several years later that it is resolved when she finds herself teaching minority children (ex. 47), the marked form too in its connective function appears both times: (46) The truth was that she was afraid of colored people. Men, particularly, but women too. When she saw colored men on the subway looking at her she was afraid they wanted to rape her or murder her, and she was terrified if she was alone with one of them at an underground station. With the women it was different - there was no question of rape, of course, and yet she always felt they would like to do her violence, that they hated her because she was white. Perhaps they would steal from her. When they were talking and laughing she often felt she might be the object of their laughter, but worse, when their big white teeth flashed in the middle of their dark-brown faces (her fear was in almost direct proportion to their darkness; the pale ones were not nearly so bad), when they laughed and she saw their teeth, she sometimes had a physical memory of an old half-

182

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': 1HE SIGN AS TEXT

remembered dream in which a huge monster was about to devour her, and then a tremor would pass through her whole body, and when it had passed they were people again but still people to be wary of. (pp. 43-4) (47) Her situation at school was different, too, not so much with her students (she'd been relieved to d'iscover that she enjoyed the black and Puerto Rican children as much as the others, and she was, as usual, comfortable and confident in the classroom) as with the staff. Where in the Bronx the staff had been almost entirely made up of middle-aged and older Jewish and Irish women who'd gone into teaching when it was the only decent job they could get and who hadn't stopped at any point since to decide whether they actually liked doing it, the staff here was only half composed of women like that. The remainder were young and often enthusiastic, largely white but sometimes black, mostly female, but there were two men, one black and one white, both dreamy-eyed, both bearded. Their mood paralleled hers in a way she hadn't felt before - idealism about children and their possibilities, combined with a remote, dope-tempered cynicism about the schools, the government, the country. (p. 92) Another major leitmotiv in the text is her developing relationship with James, her Irish Catholic suitor from the Bronx. Theresa had difficulty accepting the fact that James was in love with her and wanted to marry her. The predominant mood she displayed towards James was sarcasm mixed with warmth. The recurrent use of the form too marked for semantic integrality in both its principal message functions serves as a marker of thematic textual cohesion reflecting her connection with James as well. Examples (4~49) are excerpts from the beginning of their relationship when Theresa is playing the role of the sophisticate living in Manhattan showing the Irish boy from the Bronx the local sites. Despite the condescending facade the use of the form too marked for semantic integrality indicates a link between the two: (48)

'I made a reservation at Liichow's.' She was disconcerted again. When she'd first moved in to the Lower East Side she'd passed Liichow's and heard music from inside and thought it looked nice, a place where it. would be fun to be. Then she'd learned that Katherine and her friends disdained Liichow's, that it was too big, too noisy, too straight and too fattening. A meat and potatoes place, as

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

opposed to rice and bean sprouts, say, which they were all into by this time. A place where the pr.ovincials went on Saturday night to drink beer and get red-faced, then shit-faced and then stomp their boots to German band music. She smiled condescendingly. 'Meat and potatoes'. 'My favorite foods.' 'So heavy,' she complained, thinking that she was not only saying something she'd heard Katherine say but she was saying it with Katherine's intonation. 'They have a wide selection, actually,' James said. 'Fish and so on.' 'How about Chinese food?' she asked, smiling naughtily. She hardly ever ate Chinese food, although Katherine adored it. He smiled back. 'No, they don't have Chinese food.' 'That's not what I meant,' she said. 'I meant how about going for Chinese food?' 'I don't eat Chinese food.' 'You're so difficult.' Again unable to suppress a smile because she was being such a brat. He smiled, too. She was amusing him. (p. 166) (49) They were halfway across Fourteenth Street, by now, · heading toward Luchow's. 'That's a beautiful story,' James said. 'You sound like a marvellous teacher.' 'I love teaching,' she said with a fervor that astounded her. 'I'm never happier than when I'm teaching.' This was true but it surprised her that she could say it to him. . . . Still, she had to admit it felt good to hear him say that. He was intelligent, and even if she didn't really like him, it was pleasant to have him recognize her worth when she hadn't even been parading it for him, but only making conversation. 'Until I got to high school, the sisters were the only teachers I ever had,' he said. She wrinkled up her nose to show distaste, though, of course, it was true of her, too. (p. i71) Examples (50-51) show the second stage of their relationship when Theresa is beginning to be attracted to James as a person, but refuses to see him as a lover or a suitor. The recurrent theme marked with the intensive-excessive message of too revolves around her fear that James likes her too much which puts her off:

184

'ALSO' VERSUS 'TOO': THE SIGN AS TEXT

She went out with him six times before he kissed her goodnight. She became almost eager for him to do it, not because she wanted to kiss him but to get it over with. His kiss was light on her lips, as she would have expected. She was unmoved by it. As she would have expected. She smiled naughtily. 'Now you're not a virgin anymore.' 'Ah, Theresa,' he said. 'You're so cruel to me. Why?' Because you like me too much, was what came into her head. But of course that was ridiculous. It wasn't that simple. (pp. 173-4) (51) ... Even her schoolwork was often difficult to focus on these days. Partly it was the restlessness that grew each year when spring came in teachers and students alike. But beyond that was some undefinable change in her own attitude toward the school as a place, a home, that had occurred since the bitter days of the strike. And on top of this brew was the perpetual tension over Tony [her lover] [Y.T,] and-no, it wasn't, it couldn't be about James. There was no tension at all connected with James. Just this vague uneasiness about his liking her too much. Not that it was so awful having someone like you. The problem was that she'd come to sort of enjoying having him around to talk to, and she was afraid he would get too serious and then the whole thing would have to come to an end. (p. 180) (50)

The next pair of examples (52-53) are taken from the stage when Theresa and James become more open and frank with each other and represents the tension between them before they become lovers. The marked form too in its intensive-excessive function appears in these examples: (52)

'Do you still believe in God?' He smiled. 'How could I not believe in the God who's kept my mother from going mad?' 'You might still believe in Him as a force in your mother's mind without believing in Him as a reality.' 'That's true, of course, but I suppose I don't choose to differentiate. No. That's not true. The truth is that I'm wary of religious arguments. I've heard one too many. A thousand too many. All through school, amongst my friends who've left the Church and haven't, and so on. So I tend not to meet a question like that head on, as I should.' He was so decent. So honest. His decency and honesty were painful to her, as they must be to him. (pp. 193-4) (53) She let her free hand rest on his thigh. Beneath the hand his

THE DATA: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

muscles tensed. She stroked his legs lightly. 'Don't,' he said. 'Why not?', she asked. 'It gets me too excited,' he said after a moment. 'Why don't you want to get excited?' 'Because it is not the appropriate time or place.' 'Appropriate time or place,' she mimicked. 'Life must be so easy when you know all the rules.' 'Do you think so?' She sat up. 'All right,' she said crossly. 'Will you kiss me, at least?' He laughed. 'You said that as though you've been trying to seduce me for months and I've been cold and indifferent.' 'I've been trying to seduce you for five minutes and you've been cold and indifferent.' He smiled again. He thought she was being charming. 'Neither cold nor indifferent. I just have certain limitations. I think you knew that when you set out to seduce me. In the back of an automobile. At my cousin's wedding.' 'All right,' she pouted, scrambling to her feet too rapidly and banging her head on the ceiling of the van, 'let's go, then. I don't care if I get wet.' But there were tears in her eyes from banging her head against the ceiling. Ever since I've known you I've had tears in my eyes. (p. 224) The last examples (54-56) are taken from the last stage of their relationship. They become lovers, remain friends, but Theresa does not allow herself to succumb to James's love and desire to marry her. His good-natured humour is expressed with the intensive-excessive message too far (ex. 54) and their physical connection is marked with the connective too (ex. 54). Her fears and hesitation are revealed in the intensive-excessive messages of too late (ex. 55), too smart (ex. 56): (54)

He set down the glass, took off his jacket and came over to the bed, sitting down on the edge - looking as though he were waiting for an invitation to come closer. 'How did you like the music?' she asked. Naughty. 'I didn't. But I suppose it was an educational experience. I've never been to a live rock concert.' Neither have I. 'How come you haven't thanked me for the educational experience?' Naughty again. He laughed. 'That would be going a little too far.' Cautiously he sort of edged onto the bed so that he too was

186

'ALSO' VERSUS

'roo': 1HE SIGN AS TEXT

sitting against the pillows. Next to her. He put his arm around her. She leaned over to turn on the radio but then came back to his arm. She was tense. She leaned forward again and fiddled with the dials until she found some hard rock, but when she saw that he looked amused, she switched to WPAT. (p. 226) (55) He unknotted the tie, took it off and tossed it _aside on the bed, opening his shirt collar. Never taking his eyes off her. She grinned but she was very anxious. He kissed her again. Very gently he cupped her breast with his hand, Held it, murmured her name. She responded in spite of herself. He kissed her again, pressing his body against hers. She could feel his excitement and she could feel his nervousness; his excitement excited her a little but his nervousness made her very nervous. James, let's stop before it's too late. Let's just be friends anything else has to end in disaster. (p. 227) (56) For Christmas he gave her a ring. Not a diamond ring, he was too smart for that, but a thin gold band with a small ruby surrounded by seed pearls in an old-fashioned setting. It had never occurred to her that it would be a ring, not even when she saw the little box-a jewellery box, was what she'd said to herself. She was overwhelmed. She felt everyone watching her and she looked up and blushed. (p. 251) In all of the above examples the form too marked for semantic integrality both as a connective and/or in its intensive-excessive functions systematically serves to connect the major themes throughout the text. The use of this marked form in the process of going 'from sign to text' helps the reader to perceive the text as an integral and cohesive unit by linking the various leitmotivs that make up the text: the parts that underlie the integral whole. Discussion and conclusions

The non-synonymy hypothesis From the above examples it should be obvious that the traditional appeal to stylistic or and/or diglossic criteria as a means of distinguishing between these so-called synonymous forms does not hold. Both too and also appear in the same texts in passages which show no significant difference, change, or fluctuation in their formality of style or register. Thus, the choice of also versus too (at least in their one shared communicative function) is clearly not motivated by stylistic or diglossic criteria. This leaves us, of course, with the other uses of too not shared by also and the subsequent

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

questions of: whether there are a set of homonymous toos or not, and whether a reasonable explanation can be found to unite all the uses of too and, at the same time, distinguish between too and also as well. The non-homonymy hypothesis The marked invariant meaning we have postulated for too: INTEGRAL ADDITION PERCEIVED IN CONTINUOUS INTERNAL SPACE can account for all of its communicative functions: Ordinary additions of an entity or entities on the sentence and clause level, (the function shared with also), when that additional entity or entities is perceived as forming or being part of an integral set; intensive additions (too+ NP composed of noun and/or adjective and/or adverb) when the qualities co-occurring with too are perceived as being integral, inherent, or part and parcel of a single entity; (excessive additions), when it can be inferred from the linguistic and/or situational con~ext that the intensive addition has gone beyond the nonnally desired proportions. Thus, our analysis shows that there is one too with· a single marked invariant meaning which can account for all of its communicative functions including the function of simple addition which too shares with also. Furthermore, the unmarked invariant meaning we have postulated for also accounts for also being used to indicate simple additions where the semantic integrality may or may not be crucial to the message, and even where it may often be inappropriate, unacceptable and, perhaps, even ungrammatical, in short, its non-occurrence in phrases indicating intensive and/or excessive additions. Word order and iconicity The traditional accounts of synonymous also and too have indicated a preference of too to appear in sentence final position ('I went to London and Paris, too'), and/or immediately after the word it modifies ('I, too, went to Paris'), ('Me, too') in its function of simple addition, and/or immediately preceding the words it modifies in its intensive and/or excessive addition functions ('too large', 'too much'). In all of the above cases too appears in the word order position most appropriate to its meaning marked for semantic integrality: i.e. setting up an integral set by being immediately juxtaposed with the members of that set (postposed for simple integral addition and preposed for intensive and excessive integral additions). Therefore, the word order preferences for too may be viewed as being iconically motivated by its marked invariant meaning. The different word orders thus serve as a clear-cut means to disambiguate the different messages

188

'ALSO' VERSUS '700': THE SIGN AS TEXT

conveyed by the same sign with a single invariant meaning. Moreover, it is not by chance that the disfavoured (some even say the 'disallowed') word order position of also (in its shared function with too), is precisely the favoured position for too for that same function: i.e. sentence final position. The tendency for speakers to place also in utterance initial position as a connective (a word order position not found and certainly not favoured for too), may also be motivated by its invariant meaning as well. This word order preference should be viewed as being iconically motivated by the unmarked-marked relationship of the invariant meanings we have postulated for these forms. Furthermore, as we have previously stated, Ridout and Witting (1964:38) contradict this particular word order constraint, claiming that the position of also in a sentence governs the meaning of that sentence: (a) I also have given five pounds to this cause. (Others have given five pounds and so have I.) (b) I have also given five pounds to this good cause. (Besides helping in other ways, I have given five pounds to this good cause.) (c) I have given five pounds to this good cause also. (Besides giving five pounds to other good causes, I have given five pounds to this one.) In each of the above examples, however, the position of also is also iconically motivated with regard to the simple (and not necessarily integral) addition being indicated. In short, the favoured versus disfavoured word order positions of both forms may be viewed as being motivated by their invariant meanings. The forms also and too in all their functions and uses appear in those positions most conducive for efficient communication based on their invariant meanings, thus providing us with an example of semiotically motivated natural syntax versus arbitrary formal syntax. It is worth noting that the also examples in grammar books and dictionaries are often glossed by 'besides' indicating less-integral additions ('a + b = a + b') while too is glossed with 'as well' indicating a more integral addition ('a+ b ==(ab]'). Furthermore, it is not by chance that the traditional grammarians warn us against the use of also as an incorrect substitute for the connective conjunction 'and', or against also being used as the first word of a sentence to link it with a preceding sentence. These preferred glosses and 'errors' made by speakers are most appropriate for, and may even be motivated by, the marked and unmarked invariant meanings of also and too.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Other non-traditional approaches to the problem

Lastly, let us look at other non-traditional approaches to the problem. Both Kaplan (1984) and Green (1968, 1973) deal with too only in its connective function as a formal sentential or discourse emphatic conjunction: Green (1973:198) suggests that 'both is also a variant of whatever too represents', which as a preferred possible paraphrase or gloss lends further support to the marked invariant meaning we have postulated. She also points out that.. in this function of too being 'predicated by propositions', it does not occur initially unless preceded by its 'antecedent' in a previous sentence (Green 1973:199). Kaplan (1984:510-11) discusses the obligatory use of too as varying witll the prominence of the focus on contrasting constituents. He further claims that 'too is obligatory where an overt element is needed to emphasize what is important about the content of a two-clause text - i.e., when what is important is that the same thing is predicated about two contrasting items.' The reason that too is obligatory in such contexts is explained by Kaplan in the following way, (which supports our postulated marked invariant meaning): 'Too is just the element to do this, because of what it conventionally implicates (that what is predicated by the speaker about the contrasting item in one clause is also predicated about the contrasting item in the other) and because of its hypothesized discourse function (to emphasize the similarity between contrasting constituents)' Kaplan also indicates in a footnote (511:I), (a p.c. from Ellen Prince), that this is what distinguispes too from also. Here, once again, 'the discourse functions of these forms may be viewed as being motivated by their invariant meanings. In this chapter, it has been shown that too, the form marked for semantic integrality plays a role of a sign indicating thematic cohesion in the semiotic process of going 'from sign to text'. In the next chapter, this process will be reversed, and it will be shown how a text may influence the choice of a form marked for semantic integrality in the opposite semiotic process of going 'from text to sign'. In conclusion: Our analysis is not only supported by the results of the other traditional and non-traditional analyses of the 'connective' too, but can also account for all the discourse functions of too, too!

Part V

From text to sign: Text: Context: System: Sign: Working our way down

'Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves.' (Alice in Wonderland, p. 75) The thesis I am going to sustain is not one that would surprise the man on the street. Tell him that if two ways of saying something differ in their words or arrangements they will also differ in their meaning, and he will show as much surprise as if you told him that walking in the rain is conducive to getting wet. Only a scientist can wrap himself up in enough sophistication to keep dry under these circumstances. (Bolinger 1977:1)

Chapter 8

The English comparative system: the text as sign

A semiotic presentation of the problem

The purpose of this chapter is to apply the semiotic principles of invariance, markedness, non-synonymy, non-homonymy and iconicity to a grammatical analysis of the comparative and superlative degrees in English. More precisely, it will be shown that these sign-oriented principles reflected in the feature of semantic integrality found in the lexical analysis of 'also' and 'too', can be applied equally as well to both the lexicon and the grammatical systems of language. It is well known that there are two alternative ways of expressing what is traditionally referred to as the comparative and superlative degrees of English adjectives and adverbs, a synthetic and a periphrastic one respectively: 'X-er I X-est' vs. 'more + X I most + X'. These two alternative strategies for the comparative and superlative degrees differ in certain fundamental ways: (1) The first strategy involves the synthetic merging of two different signs: an independent lexical item expressing a certain quality and a bound suffix '-er/-est' expressing a degree of comparison to create a syntagm in the form of a new lexical unit or blend: (a) 'small' + 'er/est' = 'smaller'/'est'. This strategy represents a merging of that quality ('small') with another form indicating a comparative or superlative degree

194

THE TEXT AS SIGN

('-er/-est') to create a new complex independent and integral unit in the form of a 'single word': ('smaller/est'). This new word clearly illustrates the joint exploitation of both the lexical and grammatical systems of the language, and is iconically reflected by the physical 'merger' of these two different kinds of signs to create this new integral complex unit. Strategy 1 therefore may be said to iconically reflect both word order and independent versus non-independent signs. The (dependent) linguistic signs ('-er/-est') are added to an independent sign (X) to express an additional degree of a certain quality (X) and may be viewed as being marked for the feature 'semantic integrality': i.e., an integral addition to/of that quality (X). The quality (X) is focused on since it is an independent sign appearing in first or focus position to which an integral addition is added. (2)

The second strategy, on the other hand, represents an analytic or periphrastic collocation of two independent lexical signs: 'more/most' (indicating different comparative degrees of addition) + another independent lexical sign indicating (X) which may either be an entity ('men') or a quality ('microscopic') to create a new syntagm composed of two independent lexical units: (b)1 'more/most'+ 'men' (bh 'more/most' + 'microscopic'.

Strategy 2 does not reflect a physical merging or blending of linguistic signs to create a new single independent unit. Indeed, 'more' and 'most' can also appear independently as separate lexical items: (c) 'I want 'more', I want 'the most' out of life.' Therefore, the·· juxtaposition of two independent signs 'more/ most' + quality/entity (X) does not necessarily have to be perceived as expressing a physical merger or integral addition to/of an entity or quality. Thus, the linguistic signs 'more/most' indicate a comparative or superlative degree of addition, but they are 'unmarked' for or 'neutral' to the feature of semantic integrality. Strategy 2 also ironically reflects the notions of word order and independent versus non-independent signs. It represents a collocation of two independent signs. The first independent sign ('more/most') expresses an addition to or degree of a certain quality or entity also expressed by an independent sign (X). The

TRADmONAL ANALYSES OF THE PROBLEM

195

independent addition or degree ('more/most') is focused on since it appears in first or focus position followed by the entity or quality (X). The relationship between two independent signs may make them less amenable to the marked notion of semantic integrality where the addition and t~e quality are merged or fused into a single integral entity. Despite their semiotic differences, these two alternative strategies ('X-er/est' vs. 'more/most + X') have been viewed as being 'synonymous' because they both perform the same communicative function and can be used to define each other. According to the Britannica World Language Dictionary: er: 'more: used in the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs: harder, later' (p. 430) more: (1) greater in amount, extent or degree: comparative of much: more water; (2) greater in number: comparative of many; (3) greater in rank or dignity; (4) added to some former number: extra' (p. 827) [italics mine] [Y.T.]

Furthermore, the fact that 'more/most' can appear: independently as a 'noun' ('the more/most'), as part of a conjunction or adverbial phrase ('furthermore', 'moreover', 'anymore', 'foremost, 'uppermost', 'utmost'), as well as in their more familiar comparative/superlative functions with adjectives and adverbs, can easily lend itself to postulating a different homonymous 'more' or 'most' for each of their various linguistic functions. Traditional analyses of the problem

For most students (as well as scholars and grammarians) of English, these alternative linguistic means of expressing different degrees of comparison are a very minor problem, if they are considered to be a problem at all. Indeed, the various traditional and neo-traditional grammarians have established rules that seem to accurately describe the two different ways of expressing comparative and superlative degrees in English in general as well as which classes of adjectives and adverbs are more amenable to comparison and superlative formation than others. Unfortunately, these rules are non-isomorphic in nature, often overlap and contradict each other, and, even worse, do not always work. 1 The traditional and neo-traditional analyses with their formal phonological, morphological and grammatical rules for choosing the 'grammatical', 'acceptable', 'appropriate', or 'correct' comparative or superlative form for various semantic categories of

196

TIIE TEXT AS SIGN

qualities expressed by different classes of adjectives and adverbs (e.g. 'qualitative adjectives', 'relational adjectives', 'gradable' versus 'absolute' adjectives, etc.) are primarily based on the premise that these sets of alternative signals are synonymous: 'mean the same thing' and 'fulfil approximately the same purpose or function'. Therefore, the vast majority, if not all, of the traditional and neo-traditional analyses are motivated almost exclusively by phonetic, prosodic and/or orthographic constraints: The Britannica World Language Dictionary states that grammatical comparison is: That inflection of adjectives or adverbs which indicates differences of degree. There are three degrees of comparison, the positive, comparative, and superlative, the last two being regularly expressed by adding 'er' or 'est' to the positive (except in words of three syllables or more) or by using 'more' or 'most'. (p. 266)

A Practical English Grammar by A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet does not dwell on the 'meaning' of the comparative, but rather concentrates on its alternative manifestations within the language, once again employing the counting of syllables as its means of explanation. It also lists frequently used 'irregular' forms: One syllable adjectives form their comparative and superlative by adding 'er' and 'est' to their positive form:

bright brave

brighter braver

brightest bravest.

Adjectives of three or more syllables form their comparative and superlative by putting 'more' and 'most' before the positive: interested frightening

more interested more frightening

most interested most frightening.

Adjectives of two or more syllables follow one or other of the above rules. Those ending in 'ful' 'ne' usually take 'more' and 'most'. Those ending in 'er', 'y', usually add 'er' or 'est': clever pretty silly

cleverer prettier sillier

cleverest prettiest silliest

TRADrITONALANALYSESOFlHEPROBLEM

197

Irregular comparisons include: bad good little many/much

worse better less more

worst best least most (Section 20: p. ·36-7)

Cassell's Students' English Grammar (Alsop 1983:8o-1) mentions that the comparative compares two objects and the superlative compares more than two objects. It relies on the same basic rules for mono-, poly- and disyllabic adjectives and lists the same 'irregular' forms as well. In its section called 'Notes', however, it advises that when in doubt with regard to disyllabic adjectives, one ought to opt for the 'more/most' option rather than the 'er/est' combination. One is also informed that the addition of a prefix [i.e. an additional syllable!] [Y. T.] does not affect the use of the 'er/est' combination. Jespersen (1965:219-29) adds prosodic factors to the orthographical peculiarities ordinarily used to 'explain' the choice of one alternative form over another for the problematic disyllabic group: adjectives or adverbs of two syllables ending in 'e' or 'y' with the accent on the last syllable get 'er' or 'est':

polite - politer - politest. Jespersen also points out the use of the analogical comparative form 'worser' (frequent in Shakespeare) which has gone out of 'polite usage'; the use of 'littler' and 'littlest', the use of 'er' for frequently used disyllabic words 'ending in a hard group of consonants' (handsome, quiet, pleasant} where, for the most part, the periphrastic ('more/most + X') comparative alternative is preferred. He also provides examples of both monosyllabic words which take the periphrastic comparative: real right

more real more right

most real most right.

Jespersen also takes into account disyllabic adjectives which take the synthetic alternative, particularly for the superlative form: correctest, solidest, stupidest.

Jespersen concludes his listing of irregularities by stating: 'With many words the preference of one or the other way of forming the degrees of comparison depends on individual taste.' (p. 223)

TIIE TEXT AS SIGN

It is also interesting to note that on the section dealing with the

meaning of the comparative and superlative degrees (p. 224-9), Jespersen does not attempt to postulate an invariant meaning for these forms, but rather continues to list irregularities, stylistic preferences, formulaic uses, individual taste, as well as specific comparative and superlative forms borrowed from Latin. This search for regularity, (including the avoidance of a search for invariant meaning) of course, has not been limited only to traditional grammarians alone. Linguists of practically all persuasions have dealt with the problem of English comparative and superlative formation. Indeed, this particular topic became a fairly popular and even polemic issue in the 1970s among rival generative approaches alternatively supporting both syntactic and semantic deep structures. 2 English comparative and superlative formation has also been the subject of more reeent theoretical studies as well. W6jcicki ( 1988) attempts to account for the morphological structure of complex word forms containing morphological or lexical exponents of the grammatical category of comparative degree in a contrastive study of English and Polish. In this study, a specific attempt is made to discover to what extent form and meaning of the relevant comparative forms are regular, i.e. accountable in terms of general statements or rules couched in the recently proposed framework of the Categorial Lexical Model of word formation (Beard 1977, Szymanek 1981, 1985). This categorial lexical model is claimed to be superior to other generative models (particularly Aronoff's (1976) classic study of morphology) because of its explicit distinction between derivational and affixational rules. In particular, W6jcicki points out the weakness of Aronoff's 'one-affix - one rule' hypothesis (Aronoff 1976:89) and the 'Unitary Base' hypothesis (Aronoff 1976:47) which Wojcicki (1988:49) claims fails to recognize a supposed semantic identity of formally distinct affixes ooth within the same language or across languages sharing grammatical categories such as the comparative degree. Even if W6jcicki's criticism is valid within the generative framework, it must be remembered that all the sentence-bound generative frameworks (including the lexical ones) have failed to accept the sign-oriented 'one-form - one meaning' principle of isomorphism and, therefore, the fundamental difference between invariant meaning and contextual message which questions the very notion of semantic identity in the first place. In another recent generative study (Rowicka 1987), it is assumed that the phonological representation of words also enters

TRADmONAL ANALYSES OF THE PROBLEM

199

the morphological processes. This premise leads to a detailed examination of the underlying phonological forms of adjectives following the various historical developments of generative phonology including: Chomsky and Halle (1968), cyclic phonology (Rubach 1981, 1984), na:tural phonology (Hoard 1972), metrical phonology (van der Hulst and Smith 1982) and autosegmental phonology. For each of these phonologically based explanations, problems, exceptions and irregularities are found, and the search for clear-cut principles to determine what is the basis for determining regularity still remains the fundamental unanswered question. This study, like the previous ones, separates semantic from other levels of linguistic analysis and avoids the issue of invariance entirely. 3 All of the above traditional and neo-traditional sentence-bound frameworks have postulated the following (or very similar) rules regarding English comparative and superlative degree formation: (1) (2) (3)

monosyllabic words take the synthetic: X-er or X-est; polysyllabic words of three or more syllables take the analytic: (the) more+ X or (the) most+ X; but: disyllabic words can take either alternative.

In all of these traditional and nee-traditional analyses, however, the choice of which alternative _strategy is not motivated by any difference in meaning (invariant or otherwise) between the two supposedly synonymus alternative strategies, but rather by formal phonetic, prosodic and orthographic constraints and rules. The crux of the problem is that none of these traditional and nee-traditional rules really explain why a speaker chooses which alternative form for the comparison of (especially disyllabic) adjectives and adverbs. Indeed, Illany of the grammarians themselves admit to the inadequacy of their own rules (particularly for the problematic disyllables). Fowler (1965:163-5) expresses his doubts regarding the possibility of postulating strict rules for the formation of comparatives and superlatives which will always be adhered to: Neglect or violation of established usage with comparatives and superlatives sometimes betrays ignorance, but more often reveals the repellent assumption that the writer is superior to conventions binding the common herd. The remarks that follow, however, are not offered as precise rules, but as advice

200

THE TEXT AS SIGN

that, though generally sound may be on occasion set aside [!) (p. 163) [Italics and exclamation point mine] [Y.T.]

Fowler then proceeds to classify comparatives and superlatives into nine categories based not only on the usual phonetic, prosodic and orthographical conventions, but he also grasps at some quantitative and qualitative syntactic, stylistic, diglossic, diachronic, dialectical and pragmatic straws as well: Adjectives regularly taking 'er/est' which include: (a) all monosyllables; (b) disyllables ending in 'y' (e.g. 'holy'), 'le' (e.g. 'noble'), 'er' () ! ~ ~ ,., ) -1or ' ow' (e.g. ' c1ever' , ' narrow ')., ~"J'' ~(!?~) disyllables with word final accent (e.g. 'polite'). with the ~r4}.r, exception of borrowed words[!] (e.g. 'bizarre') or predicate ·.1Y adjectives [!) (e.g. 'afraid') and negative -r_an.~L~----· 'Would you please tell the court exactly what transpired, as you recall it?' 'Well', said Venice, 'it was fabulous. All right, it got boring, but, darling, what doesn't? I hadn't seen Guy for ages, so that was nice. Oh, it's all just dish, you don't want to hear (46)

THE MACRO-LEVEL ANALYSIS

(49)

233

about this.' She laughed knowingly, 'Do you?' (pp. 149-50) (3x) 'Darlings,' Venice asked, anxious about her testimony, 'was I all right?' 'I love the Judge,' said Venice. 'Isn't she the best?' 'Darling, she's yours,' said Licky. (p. 153) (2x)

In Chapter 19 (examples 46-49) Licky and Venice testify before the Judge calling her, the bailiff and the various lawyers darling. (50)

(51)

Chapter 21: The Sentencing (pp. 157-6o) Guy and his cohorts, disheveled and barely focusing, filed into the courtroom and stopped before Judge LaTarga. 'Hi, darling,' said Venice. 'Hi, Honey,' said the judge. 'Ain't you a sight.' (p. 157) 'Darling?' said Venice to her husband. · 'What darling?' said Venice, trying to remain composed. (p. 158) (2x)

In Chapter 21 (examples 50-1) we have Guy's sentencing to a special prison. Venice refers to both the judge and her husband as darling.

(52)

Chapter 22: Up the River (pp. 161-4) Guy was hustled into a heavily armored van. The engine rumbled, and Guy struggled to his knees, peeking out the small grilled window at the rear of the vehicle. When the van stopped at a light, guy noticed a news-stand on a corner. Tabloids covered the stand, all featuring photos of Venice entering the courtroom or on the stand or getting out of a taxi. These photos were captioned 'Darling!' and 'Mrs. Huber Testifies' and 'Justice in Heels.' (p. 161)

In Chapter 22 (example 52) Guy is taken off to prison. Venice has made the headlines and is identified as darling. (53)

Chapter 24: Cellmates (pp. 172-8) As Guy was about to drop, to reincarnate as a puddle of warm perspiration, he experienced a vision. Glancing off the court toward a concrete plaza, his mind invented the most extraordinary mirage. He imagined a cafe surrounded by a low hedge and sprinkled with round white metal tables, each with a pinwheel umbrella stuck at the center . . . A

234

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

THE TEXT AS SIGN

central table, however, was positively deluged with prisoners, gathering three deep, completely obliterating the table from view. The men were laughing and chattering, and, from somewhere deep within their ranks, Guy could swear he detected a familiar voice. 'Darlings,' the voice inquired, 'isn't anyone going to get me something nice and cool?' Guy was certain he was mistaken, perhaps sunstruck. This could not be his beloved. Cigarette smoke curled over the hidden table, and Guy decided to risk a closer investigation. He limped to the table, squirming his way through the pack of babbling prisoners. 'It's about time,' Venice remarked, as Guy appeared. 'Venice!' said Guy, overjoyed his strength returning instantly. (pp. 172-3) 'Darling, it's madness,' Venice explained. 'They want wives and girlfriends to come to the prison and keep you boys happy. It's all supposed to be terribly natural and humane, so you won't all turn into savage creatures or start dating each other. So I said, "By all means, let me pack a bag." I told the warden, "Darling, I am going to rehabilitate my husband until his brains fall out.'" (p. 174) (2x) As Guy and Venice neared the cottage colony, they heard voices raised in the adjacent admissions rooms in the less progressive sector of the prison. 'Darling, what's going on?' Venice asked Guy. 'Are they electrocuting someone?' (p. 175) A new inmate, raw with rebellion, was pummeling the prison barber and pitching scissors and clippers into the hall. 'DarUng!' the inmate howled at the prison barber, 'I said I want a MOHAWK, this is NOT a MOHAWK, this is a CREWCUT, where else have you WORKED?' 'Darling, may I?' said Venice. 'Howdy.' 'Hi, Licky!' said Guy, somehow not surprised to find the peevish servant in custody. 'What's wrong?' ... 'Darling, may I?' asked Venice, scooping the clippers up off the floor. (p. 176) (3x) Venice nibbled a peach. 'Darling, I don't mean to get all nosy,' she asked Licky, 'but what are you in for?' 'Oh, my dears,' sighed Licky, 'it's too ridjculous You won't believe it. I'm mortified. I mean cancel my pedicure, seat me by the kitchen, let's all eat some worms. Wormsjlambe. I was arrested for, now catch this, I, your simple domestic,

THE MACRO-LEVEL ANALYSIS

(58)

235

mouth-piece, . ,was arrested for selling drugs to children.' 'Really?' said Guy, wolfing a Triscuit. 'That's terrible. Boy. Did you do it?' 'Guy,' said Licky, profoundly wounded. 'GUY HUBER. I did not sell drugs to helpless, innocent children, creatures still possessing several unaided senses, their neurons as yet unmolested by pill or potion. Nay.' 'Darling, of course not, soothed Venice. 'I gave them to them', said Licky. 'That's what I thought', said Guy. 'I mean, I knew you wouldn't take advantage.' (p. 177) (2x) 'Darling, it's an outrage', said Venice. 'It's too criminal.' (p. 178)

In Chapter 24 (examples 53-58) the action takes place in Guy's gaol which is more like an expensive and luxurious country club than a prison. Guy's cellmate turns out to be his father who had some difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service. Venice also suddenly appears (and is identified by Guy by her use of the word darling) since it became prison policy to provide the inmates with permanent live-in conjugal visits. Licky then suddenly appears on the scene after being arrested for giving marijuana to some passing kindergarteners. They discover him through his screaming at the prison barber who didn't cut Licky's hair according to the latest punk style. The moment Licky and Venice appear on the scene together we have a plethora of darling examples they use to address each other as well as the erring barber. Chapter 25: Torture (pp. 179-82) 'What darling' asked Venice, without moving. 'Nature isn't dull, darling,' said Venice. 'Don't be silly. Nature is mean. I was out on the golf course this morning ... I just sat in the golf cart, and I still got all these mosquito bites and grass stains and freckles. I kept saying to myself, 'DarUng, you're not a freckled sort of person,' but they just kept happening ... (p. 18o) (3x) (60) 'DarUng, what about the guards?' asked Venice. 'Haven't you met anyone?' (p. 181)

(59)

In Chapter 25 (examples 59-6o) Venice and Licky addressing each other as darling find prison life in this glorified country club of a prison as being unbearable, i.e. 'boring'. They miss the Club de and decide to escape.

236

THB TEXT AS SIGN

Chapter 26: A Daring Escape (pp. 183-86) The group left the cottage and passed through the admissions area, on tiptoe. 'Hello, darling,' said Venice, nodding her shrouded head at a guard. 'You never call me,' the guard whined. (p. 184) (62) Venice paused for a second and looked at the guard. Despite the stocking over her head, the guard dropped his rifle and had to be forcibly prevented from falling on his bayonet. 'Bye, darling!' said Venice, satisfied at last. (p. 185) · (63) 'Darling,' said Venice to the cabbie as she opened the car door, 'are you free?' (p. 186) (61)

In Chapter 26 (examples 61-63) Guy, Venice and Licky make a daring escape from the practically unguarded prison. Venice flirts with the one guard they encountered (calling him darling). Once they are out of prison in the middle of nowhere, they decide to hail a cab to Manhattan. Venice, in her usual style, addresses the cabbie as darling. Chapter 27: Return to the Fabulous Club de (pp. 187-95) (64) 'Darling, who's on the door?' Licky asked . . . . 'it's been kinda dead around here. For a coupla weeks now.' 'Darling, did something happen?' asked Venice. (p. 188) (2x) (65) 'Have a pleasant evening,' the young lady chirped with the automaton twinkle of an airline stewardess. 'Darling,' advised Licky, staring fixedly at this young lady, 'I think it's time for that enema.' . . . The Club was full, and the music had attained its customary blare and thump. Guy looked at the dancers and the drinkers, at the men and women lolling on the banquettes. He blinked and looked again. He did not know a soul. 'Darling, who are these people?' Venice asked, equally puzzled. (p. 189) (2x) In Chapter 27 (examples 64-65) they return to the Club de, only to find out from the help (whom Venice and Licky refer to as darlings) that in the time that they were incarcerated the Club de fell from modish grace and is now open to everyone. They will now have to find the new 'in' nightclub and rejoin their friends.

TIIE MACllO-LEVEL ANALYSIS

237

Throughout this text, the word darling is not qnly the most frequent form of address, in general, but it is highly skewed for two particular characters (Venice and Licky) who represent an exclusive in-group to the point that it becomes a code word for membership within that group. It is not surprising therefore, that in its function as the key or code word it is used both by members in the group to identify themselves and each other, as well as by outsiders either to identify those within the group or to gain admittance within the group. In short, darling represents the unique linguistic category within this particular text which underlies the characters, the setting, and the message of the text. Therefore, the appearance of the unusual superlative form darlingest in the context of identifying with or belonging to the group can be seen as being motivated by its invariant meaning marked for the feature of semantic integrality and thus further supports our analysis. WORSE, WORSER, WORST (from 'Summer Whine') (Caleb's Column by N. D. Gross) Jerusalem Post June 10, 1988) The third text is a short satirical article from a weekly column in the Jerusalem Post weekend magazine complaining in a tongue in cheek manner about the terribly hot and humid summer expected in Israel. In this particular text, the summer is considered by the author to be so bad that the positive degree of the regular paradigm bad-worse-worst is idiosyncratically and ironically transformed into the· comparative worse, giving us the new 'irregular' paradigm: worse-worser-worst. The text is structured in the form of a list of all the possible complaints one may have about life in the summer, where each additional grievance is preceded by an expression containing the words worse, worser and worst. The article also foresees the approaching winter (which is even 'worse' than summer) and thus the last word in the text further strengthens this new positive form bad= worse in the paradigm worse-worser-worst. The exploitation of the irregular positive form worse and the irregular worser simultaneously creates unity and cohesion within this particular ironic and satirical text dealing with the cycle of the seasons. The text 'Summer Whine' is presented here in its entirety: 'Summer has set in with its usual severity', Charles Lamb wrote to his friend, Vincent Novello, the music publisher, one day in May 1826. And the essayist was living in moist England. What would he have said of the climate in this blessed plot, this earth, this chelm, this Israel?

THE TEXT AS SIGN

When the unknown 13th century English songster wrote in his quaint way, 'Sumer is icumen in, Luhde sing cuccu!' he might indeed have been thinking of this country. Only people who are cuckoo would loudly welcome our long, searing boring summer. ···-····~ummer comes in like a roaring lion, or rather a dragon breathing fire down one's neck, before one has time to clear away the flammable weeds that the bountiful rains bequeathed us. . . . And barely a few days after the clouds have wrung themselves dry, and disappeared like Knesset members after an election, the garden is gasping. Weeding and watering, pruning and just pottering keep me from my armchair for minutes on end in a vain effort to keep the wolfsbane from the door. But there's worse. Summer brings flies and mosquitoes to our village, making it impossible to eat, or even snooze, alfresco. And there's worser. Summer brings open windows which force into one's home other people's blaring radios, cassette-players and wild, wild parties. And worst. Summer brings two months in which the schools and kindergartens, those blessed baby-sitter enterprises discharge their charges, foisting them on their parents and grandparents, squalling and wrecking and, at their best, simply wanting things. The Americans use the term 'summer complaint' when they speak of children's diarrhea. It is thus of more than passing interest to note that the Hebrew word for summer, kayitz, is used in various parts of the Bible to mean ripe figs, known, even in lands where they do not grow, as great looseners. --BOreaom is another of summer's curses. You know it's going to be hot tomorrow, as surely as you know the sun will rise, and rise it will, and shine pitilessly all day long. And the days are even longer than had been predestined because of the interference of the clock-watchers and energy misers. I recall standing by the Marble Arch tube station in London at about noon one August day when two elderly ladies emerged from under ground. One looked up at the sky and said to her friend, 'You know, I think it's going to be a nice day?' Now, how in Israel can one have a conversational opening gambit as stimulating as that? But the real trouble with summer, in my book, is that it leads on to winter, which is worse.

The use of the irregular marked form worser creating a new highly marked form for semantic integrality further illustrates a direct connection between the message of this text (viewing the evils of summer as a unique and integral whole), with the creative, productive and exceptional exploitation of the invariant meaning marked for semantic integrality. The replacement of the positive degree 'bad' with 'worse' throughout this text, and in the final sentence introducing the next season winter (there is basically a

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORMS

239

'dry season' (summer) and a 'wet season' (winter) only), in particular, is also motivated by the invariant meaning marked for the feature semantic integrality creating a new and larger integral whole comprising all the seasons of the year. Once again, the semiotic or sign-oriented principle of invariant meaning motivating the non-random distribution of linguistic signs is verified within this text. The distribution of the forms

All the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs appearing in three novels (The Moon and Sixpence, Alice in Wonderland, and Social Disease) and all the issues of Time magazine for three months were examined both for their frequency as well as for the different kinds of qualities found for one strategy as opposed to the other. A strong preference (from almost four times as much in journalistic prose (e.g. Time) to over ten times as much in literary texts (e.g. Alice in Wonderland, 52 versus 5 periphrastic comparisons)!) was found for all texts. A strong preference for the 'er-est' alternative marked for semantic integrality for those spatio-temporal-existential qualities which may be considered to be fundamental, basic, or inherent, i.e. 'integral' qualities was also found. Diachronically and pragmatically speaking, these results are not surprising and fit the descriptive generalizations that have been formulated and reformulated by traditional and neo-traditional grammarians. The synthetic 'X-er/est' form is indeed the older strategy and generally collocates with what is usually the shorter monosyllabic basic Germanic lexicon of English, i.e. the basic everyday language used to describe the most frequently used fundamental spatial qualities such as size, dimension and position, as well as basic temporal expressions, and fundamental existential qualities and number. The analytic 'more/most + X' strategy, on the other hand, is generally reserved for the longer polysyllabic Latinate lexicon of English, i.e. what are very often the more specialized, formal, less frequent lexical items on the spatiotemporal-existential cline of adjectival or adverbial modifiers. Tables 1-8 list the integral qualities collocating with the 'X-er/est' forms in The Moon an4 Sixpence, Alice in Wonderland, Social Disease and Time magazine versus the less integral qualities collocating with the periphrastic forms:

240

THE TEXT AS SIGN

size

time

dimension position

qualities

number

greater slightest larger bigger thinner smaller

quicker longer later latest earlier older younger sooner later

highest deeper rounder further

poorer better wilder kinder surest worse louder safer best calmer lustiest wiser stranger saddest happiest loveliest easier dearer harder falsest cruellest bitterest duller graver distincter gayer richer finest stronger nicer gentler handsomer prettier vaster lonelier maturer pleasantest

latter first last lesser

TABLE

8. I

closer nearer

Synthetic Forms: The Moon and Sixpence

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORMS

most insignificant most singular more/most charming more calmly more seemly most deeply seated more/most convenient more exact most precious most friendly more human more distressed more loathesome more important more vast more favourable more worldly TABLE

more safely enshrined more highly valued more attractive more puzzled most unmitigated most disconcerted more anxious more pathetic more/most wonderful more intimate more modern more difficult more concerned more lonely most ordinary most dreadful more decided

more intimately more formidable more complicated more straitened more embarrassed more faded more lined more honest more pathetic more convinced more violently more wisely more imposing more desolate more/most intense more active

8.2 Periphrastic Forms: The Moon and Sixpence

size

time

dimension position

larger smaller taller shorter slightest

older faster quicker sooner

deepest highest further wilder

TABLE

nearer closer lower

qualities

number

curiouser least pleasanter louder better driest best stupidest riper tougher clearer queerest loveliest prettier

8.3 Synthetic Forms: Alice in Wonderland

TIIE TEXT AS SIGN

more hopeless more puzzled most curious more faintly more calmly TABLB 8.4

size

Periphrastic Forms: Alice in Wonderland

time

dimension position

qualities

earlier latest youngest older

deeper

tightest harder bawdier silliest saddest hottest finest nicest unlikeliest baddest laciest darlingest

TABLE

closest lower

number

8.5 Synthetic Forms: Social Disease

most marvellous more puzzled more satisfied most intimate more satisfactory most expensive more angst-ridden more gloomy more modern most evil more pulled-together TABLB

8.6 Periphrastic Forms: Social Disease

lHB DISTRIBUDON OF lHB FORMS

size

time

dimension position

qualities

number

larger biggest

newest younger sooner earlier older longer later latest faster fastest

higher highest deeper deepest

wiser stronger strongest heavier

last latter former

nearest closest upper inner lower

--grmer

clearer harsher happiest finer brightest harder easier wilder purer purest weaker better best fewer richer sternest tougher toughest flashier poorer bitterer \lesser:\ scarcer likeliest simplest ~Iitest tighter hotter hottest roomier

-

TABLE

8.7 Synthetic Forms: Time

I•

THE TEXT AS SIGN

more developed more ambitious more apparent more volatile most explosive more courageous most elusive more..!~'..k.~:auL more moderate most beautiful more eloquent more comfortable more impressive more efficient more flexible

more sophisticated more miraculous more perceptible more conservative more reasonable more divisive most famous more Hiiiitecf"" most vulnerable more vulnerable more profitable more God-fearing most prominent more interested more restrictive

TABLE

moreJJ.!tens!-. more prosaic more balaneea more staggering more political most powerful more complete more concerned more distant more significant more plausible more polarizing most modest most dressy more ·critical most serious more affluent most becoming most popular more exciting more important more specialized more relevant more likable most outspoken most progressive more cohesive more assimilated

8.8 Periphrastic Forms: Time

A comparison of the distribution of the synthetic and periphrastic strategies of comparatives and superlatives from all the above texts and tables indicates: (1) The marke~n!_l!~!!~__ fQm:i._is clearly the most frequent strategy in all llie texts examined. Human economy in the form of language synergy shows that people prefer to use _ shorter forms to talk about basjc and fundamental things which are relevant and salient to them. The less frequent unmarked periphrastic form is reserved for more specific. .and. -complex not10ns foutidJiLJ?olISfllabic ~~_!gs. The unmarked · ·ronni:fius appears 1conically as a separate word and tends to be relatively more frequent in genres demanding more precise information such as specialized journalistic (particularly news) prose (Time) than in non-specialized literary texts. (2) The marked synthetic form is primarily used for basic and fundamental (i.e. integral) spatio-temporal-existential qualities of size. ~e. dimensio_!b_poslhon_~na€~m!'~!:_wliile the un~ar~d _penphrastic form~ are ~keweafor more ~.9111.P_l~x existential. 9uabbes rather than bemg reserved for the more ·oasiCliiiioanientaf, integral, spatial, temporal and existential qualities related to size, shape, time, dimension, position, number, etc. This may be seen in the differences in distribution of these forms in literary versus journalistic texts.

THE DISTRIBUflON OF THE. FORMS

245

(3) In short, the frequency and distribution of the alternative synthetic versus periphrastic strategies clearly conform to the synergetic principles previously discussed in Chapter 3: the shorter the form the more frequently it is used and the more basic its meanin..&i.!heToiiger-tlierornrthe1ess1reque.ntly Ifls -used, the more morphemes it contains, and therefore the more specific (and subsequently less fundamental) its meaning. (4) Furthermore, the skewing of the alternative strategies in the lexicon indicates that the older synthetic fonn strongly _f!!".O~~s.JJ1e fyp91un~_ntal GermJlllic lexicon of English while the newer periphrastic form is more significantly skewed for the borrowed Latinate realm of the lexicon, thus reflecting the historical development of the language as well as showing a connection between synchronic and diachronic factors which can be further related to the holistic and iconic connection between form, meaning and function and the concept of language synergy implicit to the semiotic or sign-oriented approach to language. The opposition between the kinds of qualities expressed by these alternative forms becomes further evident when they appear in juxtaposition to describe or compare the same entity or entities. In the following examples (1-10), the synthetic and analytic forms are juxtaposed to describe the same entity or compare and contrast two entities. In each example, the synthetic form presents a fu.ndamental, basiSQ!_ J!l!~B~-~-· qu_ality, the results, ram1flea1i0Iis and iinpbcat10ns of which are then expressed by me aifiiryucal ~· ~ ... ..... . foim: . ·-· ·-··---···· ( 1) Pan Am offers the roomier, more comfortable business class. (Time) (2) 'But here is an artist. He desires to paint you the dreamiest, shadiest, quietest, most enchanting bit of romantic landscape in all the Vally of the Saco.' (Melville 1967:13) (3) Rosemary wiped dishes at Mrs. Castevet's elbow, working diligently and conscientiously in the pleasing knowledge that her own kitchen was larger and more graciously equipped. (Levin 1967:56) (4) Andrew-or-Susan (or Melinda) was a little bit bigger inside her than the day before, a little bit more clearly defined and closer to readiness. (Levin 1967: 105)

(5)

'Minnie Castevet has a herbarium and a blender; I'm going to have her make a daily drink for you that will be fresher,

THE TEXT AS SIGN

safer, and more vitamin rich than any pill on the market.' (6)

(7) (8)

/ (9)

'IO)

(Levin 1967:105-6) Ever since he fled to the Soviet Union in 1963, Kim Philby has been a haunting and puzzling figure - one of the cleverest most ruthless, and also most dedicated of KGB moles. (Time) ' ... I was leading the cleanest, most careful life of anyone I knew.' (Rossner 1976:94) Some of the women in the group were married or living with someone, others weren't, but none wanted to feel that they should be or had to be or that they didn't have an identity that was deeper and more important than their relationship to a man. (Rossner 1976:238) Mrs. Strickland's sister was older than she, not unlike her, but more faded . .. (Maugham 1963:47) I called on Mrs. Strickland before I left. I had not seen her for some time, and I noticed changes in her: it was not only that.she was older, thinner, more lined; I think her character had altered. (Maugham 1963:54)

In general, the larger the room or space (integral quality), the more possibilities it has to be made more comfortable or to be equipped more graciously; the bigger an embryo and the closer it is to birth (integral qualities), the more clearly defined it becomes for the mother; the cleaner, fresher, and safer (integral qualities) one's life and food are, the more they can be considered to be more careful, and/or more vitamin rich; the older and thinner (integral qualities) we become, the more faded and more lined we appear to be; the deeper one's sense of identity is, i.e. the more it becomes integrally part of one, the more important it becomes; the cleverer a spy, the more ruthless and more dedicated he has to be in order to succeed. Therefore, it is not by chance that when the two alternative strategies for comparative and superlative formation collocate, the synthetic form marked for integrality (both in its iconic signal and its meaning) generally presents basic, fundamental, or integral qualities and precedes the unmarked analytic form which generally presents relatively less integral qualities which may be viewed as the outcome or results of the more integral qualities presented by the synthetic forms. In short, invariant meaning and the markedness relationship motivate distribution on both the micro- and the macro-textual levels, indeed, in all discourse. In this chapter a semiotic or sign-oriented way of analysing the two alternative strategies of comparative and superlative

247

NOTES

formation in English has been proposed. In essence, this analysis rejects the fundamental assumption that the alternative strategies for comparative and superlative formation in English are 'synonymous'. Therefore, the theoretical and methodological assumption that the choice of one alternative strategy as op_pQsed to the other is explained or niofivateaoy..piiOnetlc, prosodic~-·or" "ortfiograpliiC" constraints only, has also been rejected. A semiotic or sign-oriented point of view which appeals to invariant meaning as the motivating force underlying the choice between two alternative linguistic signs was presented. In other words, the underlying axiom of this analysis is that two different forms sharing a similar function will have to mean two different things, or as Bolinger ( 1974: 18) has so aptly put it: Recent work in linguistics has assumed that . . . there are differences

in form without differences in meaning. But in many, perhaps in all, instances where the assumption has been adopted in practice, an unsuspected difference in meaning can be found. It is a safer working hypothesis that linguistic economy requires all differences in form to be correlated with differences in meaning.

It may appear to the reader accustomed to tidy and convenient syntactic, stylistic, diachronic and/or formal explanations that the semantic distinction postulated for these forms is, in fact, very ·su~~l~:. But, once again, to quote Bolinger (1977:i7):1True, these are subtle differences, but who says semantic distinctions have to be gross?' These alternative strategies fQr _comEarative and superlatjy~ foiin~tton _have remillne-s5. Calvet, L. J. (1975) Pour et contre Saussure. Payot, Paris. Carr, G. F., Rauch, I. (eds) (1980) The signifying animal: the grammar of language and experience. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague. Chomsky, N. (1964) Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton, The Hague. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax MIT University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, N. ( 1966) Cartesian linguistics: a chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Harper & Row, New York. Chomsky, N. (1975) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Plenum, New York. Chomsky, N., Halle, M. (1968) The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row, New York. Chvany, C. V. ( 1984) From Jakobson's cube as objet d'art to a new model of the grammatical sign. International Journal of Slavic Lingµistics and Poetics 29: 43-70. Chvany, C. V. (1987) Jakobson's cube as objet d'art and as scientific model. In Pomorska, K. et al. Language, poetry and poetics, . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 199"-°230. Clark, H. (1973) Space, time, semantics and the child. In Moore, T. F. (ed) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. Academic, New York, pp. 18-33. Contini-Morava, E. (1976) Statistical demonstration of a meaning: the Swahili locatives in existential assertions. Studies in African ·• Linguistics 7(2): 137-56. Contini-Morava, E. (1983a) Tense and non-tense in Swahili grammar: semantic asymmetry between affirmative and negative. Columbia University PhD dissertation. Contini-Morava, E. (1983b) Relative tense in discourse: the inference of time orientation in Swahili. In Klein-Andreu, F. (ed} Discourse perspectives on syntax. Academic, New York, pp. 3-21. Contini-Morava, E. (1987) Text cohesion and the sign: connectedness between events in Swahili narrative. In Odden, D. (ed) Current approaches to African linguistics. Foris, Dordrecht, vol 4 pp. Hry-21. Contini-Morava, E. (1989) Discourse pragmatics and semantic categorization: the case of negation and tense-aspect with special

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

reference to Swahili Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (Discourse perspectives on grammar 1). Coulthard, M. (1977) An introduction to discourse analysis. Longman. Coward, R., Ellis, J. (1977) Language and materialism: developments in semiology and the theory of subjects. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Culler, J. (1975) Structuralist poetics: structuralism, linguistics and the study of literature. Cornell University Press, Ithica. Culler, J. (1976) Saussure. Fontana. Cygan, J. (1975) Synthetical comparative in English. Biuletyn PTJ 33: 53-7. Davis, J. (19841'1987) A combinatory phonology of Italian. MA essay, Columbia University/Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1-99. Davis, P. (1973) Modern Theories of Language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Deely, J. (1982) Introducing semiotics, its history and doctrine. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, (Advances in semiotics). Denes, P. B., Pinson, E. N. (1963) The speech chain. Bell Telephone Laboratories, New Jersey. Derrida, J. (1976) Of grammatology, trans G. C. Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Diver, W. (1963) The chronological system of the English verb. Word 19: 141-81. Diver, W. (1964a) The modal system of the English verb. Word 20: 322-52. Diver, W. (1964b) The system of agency of the Latin noun. Word 20: 178-96. Diver, W. (1969) The system of relevance of the Homeric verb. Acta Linguistica Hafnienslii 122: 45-68. Diver, W. (1974) Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotext[e) 1(2): 11-30. Diver, W. (1975) Introduction Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 2 (2nd corrected edn 1980) pp. 1-20. Diver, W. ( 1979) Phonology as human behavior. In Aaronson, D., Reiber, P. (eds) Psycholinguistic research: implications and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 161-86. Diver, W. (1981) On defining the discipline. Columbia University Working papers in Linguistics 6: 59-117. Diver, W. (1982) The Focus-control interlock in Latin. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 13-33. Diver, W. (1984) The Grammars of Homeric Greek and classical Latin. Columbia University. ms.

BmUOGRAPHY

Diver, W. (1986) The grammar of modem English. Columbia University. ms. Diver, W. (1987) The dual. Columbia University Working papers in Linguistics 8: 100-14. Dotson Smith, B. (1987) Language power. In Zavala, I., van Dijk, T., Diaz-Diocaretz M. (eds) Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia (Critical theory 4). Eco, U. (1976) A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, (Advances in semiotics). Eco, U. ( 1979) The role of the reader: explorations in the semiotics of texts. University of Indiana Press, Bloomington (Advances in semiotics). Engler, R. (1962) Theorie et critique d'un principe Saussurien: L'arbitraire du signe. Imprimeries Populaires, Geneva. Engler, R. (1967-74) Critical Edition of Cours de linguistique generale, 0. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden (2 volumes) (4fascicules). Fickermann, I. (ed) (1987) Glottometrikas. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative linguistics 32). Fowler, H. W. (1933, 1965, 1981) A dictionary of modern English usage 2nd edn rev by Sir Ernest Gowers. Guild and Oxford University Press. Fradkin, R. (1985) Markedness theory and the verb systems of Russian and Arabic: aspect, tense, and mood. Indiana University PhD dissertation. Frank, Y., Bergman, M., Tobin, Y. (1987) Stress and intonation in · the speech of hearing impaired Hebrew-speaking children. ~Language and Speech 30(4): 339-56. t•,aser, T., Joly, A. (1975) Studies in English grammar. Editions · · Universitaires, Paris. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. (1988) An introduction to language 4th edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Galan, F. W. (1985) Historic structures: the Prague School project 1928-1946. Croom Helm. Garcia, E. C. (1975) The role of theory in linguistic analysis: the Spanish pronoun system. North Holland, Amsterdam. Garcia, E. C. (1977) On the practical consequences of theoretical principles. Lingua 43: 129-70. Garcia, E. C. (1979) Discourse without syntax. In Giv6n, T. (ed) Discourse and syntax. Academic, New York, vol 12 pp. 23-49, (Syntax and semantics series). Garcia, E. C. ( 1983) Context dependence of language and linguistic analysis. In Klein-Andreu, F. (ed) Discourse perspectives on syntax. Academic, New York, pp. 181-207.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Garcia, E. C. (1985a) Quantity into quality: synchronic indeterminacy and language change. Lingua 65: 275-3o6. Garcia, E. C. (1985b) Shifting variation. Lingua 67: 189-224. Garcia, E. C. (1987) Grasping the nettle: variation as proof of invariance. In Waugh, L. and Rudy, S. (eds) New vistas in grammar: invariance and variation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, in press (Current issues in linguistic theory 49). Garcia, E. C., Otheguy, R. ( 1977) Dialectical variation in leismo: a semantic approach. In Fasold, R., Shuy, R. (eds) Studies in language variation. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC. Garcia, E. C., van Putte, F., Tobin, Y. (1987) Cross-linguistic equivalence, translatability, and contrastive analysis. Folia Linguistica 21(2/4): 373-405. Gardiner, D. B. (1981) Prague School semantics today: The akobsonian legacy. University of Kentucky ms. rnier, G. (1983) Methods and goals of comparative semantics. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 17: 25-35. Garvin, P. (1964) A Prague School reader on aesthetics, literary structure, and style. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC. Georges, R. and F. de (eds) (1972) The structuralists from Marx to Levi-Strauss. Doubleday, New York. Gildin, B. ( 1979) Subject inversion in French: natural word order or l'arbitraire du signe. In Nuessel, F. (ed) Essays in contemporary Romance linguistics. Newbury House, Rowley, MA. Givon, T. (1979) On understanding grammar Academic, New York. Gleason, H. A. (1961) An introduction to descriptive linguistics. New York, Holt. Godel, R. (1957) Les sources manuscrits du Cours de linguistique generale de F de Saussure. Droze, Geneva and Minard, Paris. Godel, R. (1969) A Geneva school reader in linguistics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Green, G. (1968) On too and either, and not just too and either, either. CLS 4: 22-39. Green, G. (1973) The lexical expression of emphatic conjunction: theoretical implications. Foundations of Language 10: 197-248. Greimas, A. J. (1983) Structural semantics: an attempt at a method, trans. D. McDowell, R. Schleiffer, A. Velie, intro R. Schleifer. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Greimas, A. J. (1988) Maupassant. The semiotics of text trans P. Perron. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia (Semiotics crossroads 1).

~

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grimes, J. E. (1971) The thread of discourse. Mouton, The Hague. Grosu, A. (1969) The isomorphism of semantic and syntactic categories. Hebrew Computational Linguistics 1: 34-50. Grotjahn, R. (ed) (198o) Glottometrika 2. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative linguistics 3). Guillaume, G. (1919) Le probleme de I'article et sa solution dans la langue franfaise. Hachette, Paris. Guillaume, G. (1929) Temps et verbe, theorie des aspects des modes et des temps. Champion, Paris. Guillaume, G. (1945) L'architectonique du temps dans Les langues .-----dflrSsiques. Copenhagen, Munksgaard. ~aume, G. (1971) Lefons de linguistique, 1948-1949 Serie B: psycho-systematique du langage: principes, methodes, et applications I. Presses de l'Universite Laval-Klinchsieck, .--ett,ebec-Paris. GuilUlume, G. (1984) Foundations for a science of language. John --Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia (Contributions in linguistic theory 31). Guiraud, P. (1971) La semiologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, p. 6. Guiter, K. H., Arapov, M. V. (eds) (1982) Studies on Zipfs law. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative linguistics 16). Hagege, C. (1981) Critical reflections on generative grammar trans R. A. Hall Jr. Jupiter Press, Lake Bluff, Illinois (Edward Sapir monograph series in language, culture, and cognition 10). Haiman, J. (1985) Natural syntax. Cambridge University Press. Hall, R. A. (1964) Introductory linguistics. Chilton, Philadelpia. Halliday, M.A. K. (1978) Language as asocial semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold. Hardwick, C. S. (ed) (1977) Semiotics and signifies: the correspondence between Charles S Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Harris, R. (198o) The language makers. Duckworth. Harris, R. (1987a) Reading Saussure Duckworth. Harris, R. (1987b) Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein. Croom Helm. Hawkes, T. (1977) Structuralism and semiotics. Methuen. Hendricks, W. (1973) Essays on semiolinguistics and verbal text. Mouton, The Hague. Herdan, G. (1966) The advanced theory of language as choice and chance. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Hervey, S. G. J. (1982) Semiotic perspectives. George Allen and Unwin.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

261

)ewson, J. (1972) Article and noun in English. Mouton, The

?~ague.

H,ewson, J. (1976) Langue and parole since Saussure. Historiogra/-),hica Linguistica 3(3): 315-48. Hiwson, J. (1981) The Guillaumean tradition in Canadian linguis_/ tics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 26: 161-70. Hill, A. A. (1969) Linguistics. Voice of America Forum Lectures, ~ashington DC. ~rtle, W. ( 1967) The simple and the progressive forms:an analytical pproach. Les presses de l'Universite Laval, Quebec. rtle, W. (1975) Time, aspect and the verb. Les Presses de Universite Laval, Quebec. rtle, W. (1982) Number and inner space: a study of grammatical - number in English. Presses de l'Universite Laval, Quebec. Hoard, J. E. (1972) Naturalness conditions in phonology with particular reference to English vowels. In Brame, M. K. (ed) Contributions to generative phonology. Austin, University of Texas Press, pp. 123-54. Hockett, C. F. (1958) A course in modern linguistics. Macmillan, New York. Hockett, C. F. (1987) Refurbishing our foundations. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia (Current issues in linguistic theory 56). Holenstein, E. (1976) Roman Jakobson's approach to language: phenomenological structuralism trans C. and T. Schelbert. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Hormann, H. (1986) Meaning and context: an introduction to the psychology of language ed with intro R Innis. Plenum, New York. Howden, M. (1979) Structure in the lexicon: the French adjectives Neut and Nouveau. In Waugh, L. (ed) Cornell Linguistic Contributions II: Contributions to grammatical studies. E. J. Brill, Leiden. Huddleston, R. ( 1971) A comparative tautology. Linguistic Inquiry 2(1): 252-3. Huffman, A. (1983) 'Government of the dative' in French. Lingua 6o 283-309. Huffman, A. (1985) The semantic organization of the French clitic pronouns lui and le. Columbia University PhD dissertation. Hulst, H. van der, Smith, N. (1982) An overview of autosegmental and metrical phonology. In Hulst, H. van der, Smith, N. (eds) The structure of phonological representations, (part I) linguistic models 2. Cinnaminson, Dordrecht, pp. 1-45. Innis, R. E. (1982) Karl Buhler, semiotic foundations of language theory. Plenum, New York.

~

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Innis, R. E. (ed) (1985) Semiotics: an introductory anthology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Itkonen, E. (1983) Causality in linguistic theory. Croom Helm. Ivie, M. (1965) Trends in Linguistics. Mouton, The Hague. Jakobson, R. (1932) Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Chiaristeria, V. Mathesio oblata. Cercle Linguistique de Prague, Prague, pp. 74-83. Jakobson, R. (1936) Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240-88. Jakobson, R. (1958) Morfologiceskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem. American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavists. Mouton, The Hague. Jakobson, R. ( 1957/1971) Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb Harvard University Press, Cambridge and Selected writings II: word and language, Mouton, The Hague. Jakobson, R. (1971a) Selected writings II: word and language. Mouton, The Hague. Jakobson, R. (1971b) Studies on child language and aphasia. Mouton, The Hague. Jakobson, R. ( 1973) Main trends in the science of language. Harper and Row, New York. Jakobson, R. (1978) Six lectures on sound and meaning. MIT University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Jakobson, R. (1980) The framework of language. Horace, H. Rackman School of Graduate Studies, chs. 1-2, (Michigan studies in humanities 1). Jakobson, R., Halle, M. (1956) Fundamentals of language. Mouton, The Hague. Jakobson, R., Waugh, L. (1979) The sound shape of language. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Jamieson, G. H. (1985) Communication and Persuasion. Croom Helm. Jespersen, 0. (1933) Symbolic value of the vowel. Reprinted in: Selected writings of Otto Jespersen (n d) George Allen and Unwin. Jespersen, 0. (1964) Essentials of English grammar. University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama (Alabama linguistic and philological series 1). Jespersen, 0. (1965) A modem English grammar on historical principles. Allen and Unwin. Johnson, M. K. (1987) Recycling the Prague Linguistics Circle. r\I{aroma, Ann Arbor. JQ\y, A., Hirtle, W. (1980) Langage et psychomechanique du lJanguage: etudes dediees a Roch Valin. Presses Universtaires de Lille-Presses de l'Universite Laval, Lille-Quebec.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jones, R. M. (1976) The article in Welsh. Studia Celtica 10-11: 326-44. Kaplan, J. (1984) Obligatory too in English. Language 6o(3): 510-18. Keijsper, C. E. (1985) Information structure with examples from Russian, English, Dutch. Amsterdam, Rodopi (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 4). Kirsner, R. S. (196g) The role of zullen in the grammar of modern standard Dutch. Lingua 24: 101-54. Kirsner, R. S. (1972) On deixis and degree of differentiation in modern standard Dutch. Columbia University PhD dissertation. Kirsner, R. S. (1976) On the subjectless 'pseudo-passive' in standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents. In Li, C. (ed) Subject and topic. Academic, New York, pp. 387-415. Kirsner, R. S. (1979a) The problem of presentative sentences in modern Dutch. North Holland, Amsterdam. Kirsner, R. S. (1979b) Deixis in discourse: an explanatory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. In Giv6n, T. (ed) Discourse and syntax. Academic, New York, vol 12 pp. 355-75 (Syntax and semantics series). Kirsner, R. S. (1983) On the use of quantitative discourse data to determine inferential mechanisms in grammar. In KleinAndreu, F. (ed) Discourse perspectives on syntax. Academic, New York, pp. 237-57. Kirsner, R. S. (1984) On determining the appropriateness of binary semantic features in grammatical analyses. Quaderni di Semantica 5: 161-70. Kirsner, R. S. (1985) lconicity and grammatical meaning. In Haiman, J. (ed) lconicity in syntax. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 249-70 (Typological studies in language 6). Kirsner, R. S. (1987) What it takes to show whether an analysis 'fits'. In Bluhme, H., Hammarstrom, G. Descriptio linguistica. Gunther Narr, Tiibingen, pp. 76-n3. Kirsner, R. S. (1988) Grappling with the ill-define~: problems of theory and data in synchronic grammatical description (to appear in Cahiers de Ferdinand de Saussure). Kirsner, R. S. (1989) Does sign-oriented linguistics have a future? On the falsifiability of theoretical constructs. In Tobin, Y. (ed) From sign to text: a semiotic view of communication. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 161-77 (Foundation of semiotics 20). Kirsner, R. S., van Heuven, V. (1988) The significance of demonstrative position in Dutch. Lingua 76: 209-48.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Klein, F. (1975) Pragmatic constraints on distribution: the Spanish subjunctive. CLS 11: 353-65. Klein, F. (1976) 'Same vs.different' crosslinguistically: the articles in English and Spanish. CLS 12: 41-25. Klein-Andreu, F. (ed) (1g83a) Discourse perspectives on syntax. Academic, New York. Klein-Andreu, F. ( 1983b) Grammar in style: Spanish adjective placement. In Klein-Andreu, F. (1983a) pp. 143-79. Koerner, E. F. K. (1972) Bibliographia Saussureana 1870-1970: an annotated classified bibliography on the background, development and actual relevance of Ferdinand de Saussure's general theory of language. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey. Koerner, E. F. K. (1973) Ferdinand de Saussure: the origin and development of his linguistic thought in western studies of language. Vieweg, Braunschweig. Koerner, E. F. K. (ed) (1975) The transformational-generative paradigm and modem linguistic theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Koerner, E. F. K. (ed) (1978) Progress in linguistic historiography: Selected essays. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Koerner, E. F. K. (1984) Karl Biihler's theory of language and Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours. Lingua 62. Koerner, E. F. K. (1987) Saussurean studies/etudes saussuriennes. Editions Slatkine, Geneva. · Kohler, R., Altmann, G. (1983) Systemtheorie und Semiotik. Zeitschrift fur Semiotik 5: 424-31. Kohler, R. (1986) Zur linguistisches Synergetik: Struktur und Dynamik der Lexik. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative linguistics 31). Kohler, R., Boy, J. (eds) (1983). Glottometrika 5. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative Linguistics 20). Krylov, J. K. ( 1982) Eine Untersuchung statistischer Gesetzmiissigkeiten au/ der paradigmatischen Ebene der Lexik natarlicher Sprachen. In Goiter, H., Arapov, M. P. (eds) Studies on Zipfs Law. Brockmeyer, Bochum pp. 234-62. Kuhn, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (International encyclopedia of unified science 2: 2). Kurylowicz, J. (1964) The inflectional categories of IndoEuropean. Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Ladefoged, P. (1982) A course in phonetics 2nd edn. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lakoff, R. T. (1970) Another non-source for comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1(1): 128-9. Lattey, E. (198o) Grammatical systems across languages: a study of participation in English, German and Spanish. City University of New York, PhD dissertation. Leech, G. N. (196g) Towards a semantic description of English. Indiana Univ~rsity Press, Bloomington. Lehfeldt, W., Strauss, U. (eds) (1982). Glottometrika 4. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative linguistics 14). Leonard, R. (198o) Swahili e, ka, and nge as signals of meanings. Studies in African Linguistics n: 209-26. Leonard, R. ( 1985) Testing the validity of competing semantic hypotheses. Studies in African Linguistics 16: 281-93. Leonard, R. (1987) Response to Wilt: discourse distances and the Swahili demonstratives. Studies in African linguistics 18: 97-105.

Lepschy, G. (1970) A survey of structural linguistics. Faber. Leroy, M. (1967) Main trends in modern linguistics. trans G. Price. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Levenberg, J. ( 1980) A semantic analysis of verbal aspect in Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Indiana University PhD dissertation. Levi-Strauss, C. (1963) Structural anthropology. Basic Books, New York. Longacre, R. ( 1983) The grammar of discourse. Plenum, New York. Lyons, J. (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics (2 vols). Cambridge University Press. Malmberg, B. (1968) Les nouvelles tendances de la linguistique. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Mandelbrot, B. (1953) An information theory of the statistical structure of language. In Jackson W. (ed) Communication Theory. London, pp. 486-502. Martinet, A. (1955) Economie des changements phonetiques: traite de phonologie diachronique. Editions A. Francke, Berne. Martinet, A. (196o) Elements of general linguistics trans A. Palmer. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Matejka, L. (1976) Sound, sign and meaning: quinquagenary of the Prague linguistics circle. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor. Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht, Reidel (Boston studies in the philosophy of science 42).

266

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mccawley, J. (1968) Review: T. Sebeok (ed) Current issues in linguistics Ill: theoretical foundations. Language 44(3): 556-92. Mccawley, J. (198o) Review: G Sampson Liberty and language. Language 50(3): 639-47· Menzerath, P. (1954) Die Architektonik des deutschen Wortschatzes. Dummler, Bonn. Morris, C. W. (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs, vol 1 num 2. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (International encyclopedia of unified science). Morris, C. W. (1946) Signs, language and behavior. Prentice-Hall, New York. Morris, C. W. (1971) Writings on the general theory of signs. Mouton, The Hague. Mounin, G. (1968) Ferdinand de Saussure. Seghers, Paris. Mulder, J. W. F., Hervey·S. G. J. (1972) The theory of linguistic signs. Mouton, The Hague. Newmeyer, F. (1981) Linguistic theory in America: the first quarter-century of transformational generative grammar. Academic, New York. Noss, P. (1979) Fula: a language of change. In Hancock, I. (ed) Readings in Creole studies. Studia Scientia, Ghent, pp. 173-88. Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics 1985 Language Files. Advocate Publishing Group, Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Otheguy, R. (1977a)The meaning of the Spanish el, la, and lo. City University of New York, PhD dissertation. Otheguy, R. (1977b) A semantic analysis of the differences between el/la and lo. In Suiier M. (ed) Studies in Romance linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC. Parret, H. (1983) Semiotics and pragmatics: An evaluative comparison of conceptual frameworks John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, (Pragmatics and beyond 4:7). Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (8 vols). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Peirce, C. S. (1931) Collected Papers ed C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, vol 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. p. 227. Pelc, J., Sebeok, T. A., Stankiewicz, E., Winner, T. (eds) (1984) Sign, system and Function. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. · Penhallurick, J. M. (1975y Old English case and grammatical theory. Lingua 36: 23-~. Penhallurick, J.M. (1981)4\. form-content analysis of the modem English systems of time and occurrence. Columbia University PhD dissertation. . Penhallurick, J. M. (1984a} Full-verb inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4: 33-56.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Penhallurick, J. M. (1984b) The semantics of the auxiliary do. Studies in Language 9: 311-32. Penhallurick, J. M. (1987) The semantics of auxiliary inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7(7): 97-128. Percival, W. K. (1976) The applicability of Kuhn's paradigms to the history of linguistics. Language 52(2): 285-94. Percival, W. K. (1977) Review article: Koerner (1973) Ferdinand de Saussure. Language 53(2): 383-405. Perlmutter, D. M., Ross, J. R. (1970) A non-source for comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1(1): 127-8. Pierce, J. E. (1985) The nature of English grammar. Forum 23(3): 2-9. Pike, K. L. (1967) Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Mouton, The Hague (Janua linguarum series maior 24). Pomorska, K., Chodakowska, E., McLean, H., Vine, B. (eds) (1987) Language, poetry and poetics: the generation of the 189os: Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovskij. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Post, M. (1981) Comparatives of identity in English. A semantic study . Acta Universitatis Vratislaviensis, Wroclaw. Pound, L. (1901) The comparison of adjectives in English in the XV and XVI century. Heidelberg. Propp, V. (1984) Theory and history of folklore trans A. Y. Martin, R. P. Martin and several others, ed, intro, notes A. Liberman, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, (Theory and history of literature 5). Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. (1976) A concise grammar of contemporary English. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch Inc., New York. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., Svartik, J. (1972) A grammar of contemporary English. Longman. Rapoport, A. (1982) Ziprs law revisited. In Studies in Zipfs law, Goiter, K. H., Arapov, M. V. (eds) p. 1-28. Reid, W. (1974) The Saussurian sign as a control in linguistic analysis. Semiotext[e] 1(2): 31-53. Reid, W. (1977) The quantitative validation of a grammatical hypothesis: the passe simple and the imparfait. In Kegel, J. A., Nash, D., Zaenen, A. (eds) Proceedings of the seventh meeting of the North Eastern linguistics society, pp. 315-33. Reid, W. (1979) The human factor in linguistic analysis: the passe simple and the imparfait. Columbia University PhD dissertation. Reid, W. (1989) Verb number in English: a functional explanation. Longman, forthcoming).

268

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reid, W., Gildin, B. ( 1979) Semantic analysis withoutthe sentence. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F., Hofbauer, C. L. (eds) The elements: a parasession on linguistic units and levels. Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 163-74. Richards, I. A., Ogden, C. K. Themeaningofmeaning. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ridout, R., Witting, C. (1964) The Facts of English. Pan Books Ltd. Rivara, R. (1975) How many comparatives are there? Linguistics: An International Review 163: 35-51. Robins, R.H. (1967) A Short History of Linguistics. Longman. Rosen, H. (1977) Contemporary Hebrew. Mouton, The Hague. Rothe, U. (ed) (1984) Glottometrika 7. Brockmeyer, Bochum (Quantitative linguistics 26). Rowicka, G. ( 1987) Synthetic comparison of English comparatives. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 20: 129-49. Rubach, J. ( 1981) Cyclic phonology and palatalization in Polish and English. Warsaw, Rozprawy Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Rubach, J. (1984) Cyclic and lexical phonology. The structure of Polish. Foris, Dordrecht. Sambor, J. ( 1984) Menzerath's law and the polysemy of words. In Boy J., Kohler R. (eds) pp. 94-114. Sampson, G. (1980) Schools of linguistics. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Sandell, R. (1977) Linguistics, style and persuasion. Academic, New York. Sangster, R. B. (1982) Roman Jakobson and beyond: language as a system of signs: the quest for the ultimate invariants in language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Sapir, E. ( 1921) Language. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York. Sapir, E. (1929) A study of phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12: 225-39. Saussure, F. de (1879) Menwire sur le systeme primitif des voyelles indo-europeennes. Teubner, Leipzig. Saussure, F. de (1959) (1916) Course in General Linguistics, ed C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, in coll with A. Riedlinger, trans, intro W. Baskin. The Philosophical Library, Inc, New York, reprinted (1966) McGraw-Hill Paperback Edition. · Saussure, F. de (1968) (1916) Cours de linguistique generate edition critique R Engler (tome 1). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. Saussure, F. de (1972) (1916) Cours de linguistique generale pub C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, avec la coll de A. Riedlinger, ed critique preparee par T. de Mauro. Payot, Paris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Saussure, F. de (1983) (1916) Course in General Linguistics, ed C. Bally. Sechehaye, with the coll of A. Riedlinger, trans, annotated R. Harris. Duckworth. Scholes, R. (1981) Semiotics and Literature. Yale University Press, New Haven, p. 6. Harris. Duckworth. Sebeok, T. A. (ed) (1960) Style in language. MIT University Press, Cambridge Mass. Sebeok, T. A. (1981) The play of musement. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W. (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Shapiro, M. (1972) Explorations into markedness. Language 48(2): 343-64.

Shapiro, M. (1976) Asymmetry: an inquiry into the linguistic structure and poetry of structure. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Shapiro, M. (1983) The sense of grammar. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Siegel, D. (1979) Topics in English morphology. Garland Publishing Inc., New York. Sless, D. (1986) In search of semiotics. Croom Helm. Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance, communication and cognition. Blackwell. Spitzbardt, H. (1959) Some remarks on the syntax of comparison. Philologica Pragensia 2: 6-14. Steinberg, D. D., Jakobovits L. A. (eds) (1971) Semantics. Cambridge University Press. Steiner, P. (1982) The Prague School: selected writings. University of Texas Press, Austin. Steiner, P. (1984) Russian formalism: a metapoetics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Steriade, D. (1982) Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification MIT PhD dissertation. Strang, B. M. H. (1968) Modern English structure. Edward Arnold. Stunova, A. (1986) Aspect and iteration in Russian and Czech: a contrastive study. In Barentsen, A. A., Groen, B. M., Sprenger, R. (eds) Dutch studies in Russian linguistics. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 467-501 (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 9). Stunova, A. (1988) Aspect and sequence of events in Russian and Czech: a contrastive study. In Barentsen, A. A., Groen, B. M., Sprenger, R. (eds) Dutch Contributions to the tenth international

BIBLIOGRAPHY

congress of slavists. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 507-34 (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 11). Swan, M. (1980) Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press. Szymanek, B. (1981) Morphological and phonological constraints on suffixational derivation of Polish and English adjectives. Marie Curie Skladowska University, PhD dissertation. Szymanek, B. (1985) Disjunctive rule ordering in word formation. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 20: 45-64. Thienemann-Thass, T. (1973) The interpretation of language: understanding the symbolic meaning of language (vol 1). Jason Aronson Inc, New York. Thomson, A. J., Martinet, A. V. (1986) A practical English grammar 4th edn. Oxford University Press. Timberlake, A. (1982) Invariance and the syntax of Russian syntax. In Hopper, P. (ed) Tense-Aspect: between semantics and pragmatics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 305-34. Tobin, Y. (1975) Two linguistic theories: an analysis of opposing views and a synthesis for a guideline for reading comprehension. New York University, PhD dissertation. Tobin, Y. (1979) A pedagogical view of Sanskrit case. The Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(2): 1-12. Tobin, Y. (198ia) Teaching Latin case through different linguistic approaches. Latin Teaching 36(1): 24-38. Tobin, Y. (1981b) Participation systems, prepositions and deep structure case as decoding models for modern Hebrew. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 54(4): 45-63. Tobin, Y. (1981c) Applying linguistics to decode sentences in Italian. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata 10(1-3): 283-306. Tobin Y (1981d) An applied linguistic model to improve reading comprehension in Spanish. Lenguajes y Ciencias 21(1): 1-26. Tobin, Y. (1982a) Asserting one's existence in modern Hebrew: a Saussurian based analysis of the domain of attention in selected 'existentials'. Lingua 58: 341-68. Tobin, Y. (1982b) Applying linguistic theory to decoding Spanish pronouns. Lenguajes y Ciencias 22(2): 27-49. Tobin, Y. (1982c) Deep structure, de Saussure and decoding French. Bulletin CILA 36: 78-88. Tobin, Y. (1983a) Using linguistics to help students read Old English. Studia Linguistica Posnaniensia 16: 181-9. Tobin, Y. (1983b) The role of morphophonemics in the development of transformational generative grammar from Syntactic

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Structures to Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Language Forum 9( l-4) I 17-38. Tobin, Y. (1983c) Sentence length as a stylistic device in selected texts of Stefan Zweig. Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics 6(1-2): 94-u3. Tobin, Y. (1984a) Applying two linguistic theories to improve reading comprehension in German. The International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL) 22(2): 95-106. Tobin, Y. (1984b) Language teachers should rush in where good translators fear to tread. !TL Review of Applied Linguistics 65: 95-106. Tobin, Y. (1984c) Translation theory as an interface of linguistic and stylistic analysis and its implementation in the teaching of literary translation. Bulletin CILA 39: 7-23. Tobin, Y. (1985a) Review article: Two aspects of sign theory. Bulletin CILA 41: 120-41. Tobin, Y. (1985b) The role of linguistic and stylistic analysis in translation theory and its implementation in the teaching of l!~erarytranslation. In Wilss, W., Tome, G. (ed~) Die Theoriedes Ubersetzens und ihr Aufschlusswert far die Ubersetzungs und Dolmetschdidaktik. Gunther Narr, Tubingen, pp. 114-24. Tobin, Y. (1985c) Case morphology and language teaching revisited. Papers in Linguistics 18(1-4): 259-94. Tobin, Y. (1986a) Review: Geoffrey Sampson: Schools of Linguistics. Lingua 68: 99-108. Tobin, Y. (1986b) Discourse variation in the use of selected 'contrastive conjunctions' in modern Hebrew: theoretical hypotheses and practical applications with regard to translation. In House-Edmonson, J., Blum-Kulka, S. (eds) Interlingual and intercultural communication. Gunther Narr, Tiibingen, pp. 25977 · Tobin, Y. (1986c) Aspectual markers in modern Hebrew: a sign-oriented approach. In Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Hebrew and Jewish Languages. World Union of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, vol 1 pp. 53-6o, reprinted in Morag, S. (1988) Studies on contemporary Hebrew, Academon, Jerusalem, vol 2, pp. 584-92. Tobin, Y. (1987a) Three sign-oriented theories: A contrastive approach. H. Bluhme, G. Hammarstrom (eds) Descriptio Linguistica. Gunther Narr, Tiibingen, pp. 51-75. Tobin, Y. (1987b) Review: Gustave Guillaume: Foundations fora science of language. Lingua 73: 231-9. Tobin, Y. (1987c) Review article: Gustave Guillaume and the psycho-mechanics of language. Mentalities/Mentalites 4(2): 10-17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tobin, Y. (ed) (1988a) The Prague School and its legacy in linguistics, literature, semiotics, folklore and the arts. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, (Linguistic and literary studies in Eastern Europe 27). Tobin, Y. (1988b) Phonetics vs. phonology: the Prague School and beyond. In Y. Tobin (1988a) pp. 49-70. Tobin, Y. (1988c) Modern Hebrew tense: a study of objective temporal and subjective spatial and perceptual relations. In Ehrich, V., Yater, H. (eds) Tempora/semantik: Beitriige zur Linguistik der Zeitreferenz. Niemeyer, Tiibingen pp. 52-81 (Linguistische arbeiten series 201). Tobin, Y. (1988d) The dual number in modern Hebrew. The Journal of Literary Semantics. 17(3): 172-201. Tobin, Y. (1988e) Invariant meaning and non-equivalence in language and translation: the two HOWs in modern Hebrew a case in point. In Snell-Hornby, M., Pohl, E. (eds) Translation and Lexicography. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Tobin, Y. (1988f) A semantic analysis of the modern Hebrew interrogatives eix and keitsad = HOW. General Linguistics 28(3): 183-219. Tobin, Y. (1988g) Review: Krystyna Pomorska et al. (eds): Language, poetry and poetics. Lingua 75(4): 193-9. Tobin, Y. (1988h) Two quantitative approaches to phonology: a contrastive analysis. In Bluhme, H. (ed) Beitriige zur quantitativen Linguistik. Gunther Narr, Tiibingen, pp. 71-112. Tobin, Y. (ed) (1989a) From sign to text: a semiotic view of communication. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, (Foundations of semiotics 20). Tobin, Y. (1989b) Space, time and point of view in the modern Hebrew verb. In Tobin Y (1989a). pp. 61-92. Tobin, Y. (1989c) The ayin-dalet system in modern Hebrew: a sign-oriented approach. In Weydt, H. (ed) Sprechen mit Partikeln. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York pp. 391-402. Tobin, Y., Aphek, E. (1985) Analysis of function words which cause problems in Hebrew as a foreign language. In Ulijn, J. M., Pugh, A. K. (eds) Reading for professional purposes: methods and materials in teaching languages. Acco, Leuven, pp. 90-103. Tobin, Y., Simms, N. (1988) Seeds of the pomegranate: a dual evaluation of Vladimir Propp (Review essay of Vladimir Propp's Theory and History of Folklore, (ed A. Libennan). Mentalities/ Mentalites 5(1): 4-13. Traugott, E. C. (1974) Explorations in linguistic elaboration, language change, language acquisition, and the genesis of spatio-temporal terms. In Anderson, J., Jones, C. (eds) Historical Linguistics I. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 263-314.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Traugott, E. C. (1975) Spatial expressions of tense and temporal sequencing: a contribution to the study of semantic fields. Semiotica 15(3): 205-30. Traugott, E. C. (1978) On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Greenberg, J. (ed) Universals of human language: word structure. Stanford University Press, Stanford, vol 3 pp. 369-400. Traugott, E. C. (1985) On regularity in semantic change. The Journal of Literary Semantics 14: 155-73. Traugott, E. C., Pratt, M. L. (1980) Linguistics for students of literature. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969) Principles of Phonology trans C. A. M. Baltaxe. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Ullman, S. (1964) Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning. Basil Blackwell. Vachek, J. (1964) A Prague School reader in linguistics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Vachek, J. (1g66) The linguistic school of Prague. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Vachek, J. (1983) Praguiana: basic and less-known aspects of the Prague linguistics School. Academia, Prague and John Benjains, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. n, R. (1954) Petite introduction a la psychomecanique du ngage. Presses de l'Universite Laval, Quebec. van Schooneveld, C. H. (1978) Semantic transmutations: prolegomena to a calculus of meaning: the cardinal semantic structure of the prepositions, cases, and paratactic constructions in contemporary standard Russian. Physsardt, Bloomington. van Schooneveld, C. H. (1983a) Programmatic sketch of a theory of lexical meaning. Quademi di Semantica 4: 161-7. van Schooneveld, C. H. (1983b) Contributions to the systematic comparison of morphological and lexical structures in the Slavic languages. In Flier ms (ed) American contributions to the ninth international congress of Slavists, Kiev, September 198o I. Slavica, Columbus, Ohio. van Schooneveld, C. H. (1984) The Place of the opposition active-passive in linguistic structure. Unpublished ms. van Schooneveld, C.H. (1985) Praguean structure and autopoiesis. Unpublished ms. van Schooneveld, C. H. (1987) Linguistic structure and auto poiesis. In Pomorska, K. et al. Language, poetry and poetics, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 123-42.

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

van Schooneveld, C. H. (1988) Paradigmatic structure and syntactic relations. In Tobin, Y. (ed) The Prague School and its legacy, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 109-21. van Schooneveld, C. H. (1989) Paradigmatic oppositions and syntagmatic relations: tenses and moods in ancient Greek. In Tobin, Y. (ed) From sign to text: a semiotic view of communication. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 99-121. Viesen, M.A. (1923) torat halashon. Menorah, Vienna and Berlin. Vygotsky, S. (1962) Thought and language trans E. Haufmann, G. Vakan. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Waldron, T. P. (1985) The principles of language and mind. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wardhaugh, R. (1972) An Introduction to Linguistics. McGraw Hill, New York. Waugh, L. (1976a) Roman Jakobson's science of language. de Ridder, Lisse. Waugh, L. (1976b) The semantics and paradigmatics of word order. Language 52: 82-107. Waugh, L. (1976c) Lexical meaning: the prepositions en and dans in French. Lingua 38 6g-n8. Waugh, L. (1976d) A semantic analysis of the French tense system. Orbis 24(2): 436-85. Waugh, L. (1982) Marked and unmarked: a choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica 38(3-4): 299-318. Whitney, W. D. (1875) Life and growth of language. Appleton, New York. Whitney, W. D. (1967) Sanskrit grammar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, A. (1973) In search of a semantic model of time and space. In Kiefer, F., Ruwet, N. (eds) Generative grammar in Europe, Reidel, Dordrecht, (Foundations of language supplementary series 13). Wierzbicka, A. (198oa) Lingua mentalis. Academic, New York. Wierzbicka, A. (198ob) The case for surface case. Karoma, Ann Arbor. W6jcicki, A. (1988) Towards a contrastive morphology: the comparative degree of Polish and English adjectives. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 23: 47-60. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge Mass. Zubin, D. (1977) The semantic basis of case alternation in German. In Fasold R., Shuy R. (eds) Studies in language

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

variation. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 88-99. Zubin, D. (1978) Semantic substance and value relations: a grammatical analysis of case morphology in modem standard German. Columbia University PhD dissertation. Zubin, D. (1979) Discourse function in morpholgy: the focus system in German. In Giv6n, T. (ed) Discourse and syntax. Academic, New York, pp. 469-504 (Syntax and semantics 12). Zubin, D., Kopcke, K. M. (1981) Gender: a less than arbitrary grammatical category. CLS 17: 439-49. Zubin, D., Kopcke, K. M. (1984) Affect classification in the German gender system. Lingua 63: 41-96. . Zubin, D., Kopcke, K. M. (1985) Cognitive constraints on the order of subject and object in German. Studies in Language 9. Bibliographies and Abstracts

Bibliography of the Columbia School of Linguistics. The Department of Linguistics, 510 Casa ltaliana, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027. Eschbach, A., Eschbach-Szab6, V. (comps) (1986) Bibliography of semiotics 1975-1985 (2 vols). John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Eschbach, A., Schmitz, H. W. (eds) (1989) SEMA Semiotic abstracts. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Nuyts, J., Verschuren, J. (comps) (1987) A comprehensive bibliography of pragmatics (4 vols). John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Rudy, S. (1988) Roman Jakobson: A complete bibliography of his writings 1912-1982. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Dictionaries

Alcalay, R. (1975) The complete Hebrew-English English-Hebrew Dictionary. Massada, Tel-Aviv. Ben-Amotz, D., Ben-Yehudah, N. (1972) The world dictionary of Hebrew slang. R Lewin-Epstein, Jerusalem. Ben-Amotz, D., Ben-Yehuda, N. (1982) The world dictionary of Hebrew slang - part two. Zmora Bitan, Tel-Aviv. Britannica world language dictionary (1954) Encyclopedia Brittanica Homby, A. S., Comrie, A. P. (eds) (1974) Oxford's advanced learner's dictionary of current English. Clarendon. Homby, A. S., Comrie, A. P. (eds) (1974) Oxford's advanced learner's dictionary of current English. Clarendon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Morris, W. (ed) (1969) American heritage dictionary of the English language. The American Heritage Publishing Company and Houghton Mifflin, New York. Webster's seventh new collegiate dictionary (1965) G. and C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts. Corpus

Allon, Y. (1975) beit avi. Hakibbutz Hameuchad, Tel-Aviv. Allon, Y. (1976) My father's house W.W. Norton, New York. Carroll, L. (1961) Alice in Wonderland. Dent: Everyman's Library. Christie, A. (1965) Greenshaw's folly. In Surprise, surprise. Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York. Christie, A. (1976) The mysterious Mr. Quinn. Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York. Hillel, A. (1977) ma'aseh ba-xatulayim (A tale of two kitties) (trans mine) (Y.T.). Keter, Jerusalem. Jong, E. (1984) Parachutes and kisses. Signet/New American Library, New York. Jong, E. (1987) Serinissima. Bantam, New York, p. 62. Kesey, K. (1962) One flew over the cuckoo's nest. Methuen & Co Ltd. Levin, I. (1967) Rosemary's baby. Random House/Fawcett Publications Inc., Greenwich CN. Maugham, W. S. (1963) The Moon and Sixpence 5th edn. Bantam, New York. Melville, H. (1967) Moby Dick. W.W. Norton & Co, Inc, New York. Naipaul, V. S. (1971) Miguel Street. Penguin. Riesman, D., Glazer, N., Denney, R. (1961) The lonely crowd: a study of the changing American character. New Haven, Yale University Press. Rossner, J. (1976) Looking for Mr Goodbar. Simon and Schuster/ Pocket Book, New York. Roth, P. (1969) Goodbye Columbus. Bantam, New York, p. 70. Rudnick, P. (1986) Social disease. Ballantine, New York. Vonnegut, K. (1963) Cat's cradle. Penguin Science Fiction, Penguin Books Ltd. Williams, T. (1986) Collected stories. Ballantine, New York, p. 85. Habitat March-April-May 1988. Jerusalem Post 10 June 1988. Newsweek March-April-May 1988. Time March-April-May 1g88.

Name Index

Aarsleff, Hans21, 253 Akmajian, A. D. 20, 253 Alcalay, Reuben 103, 275 Allon, Yigal 117, 276 Alsop,J. 197,253 Altmann, Gabriel 66, 253, 254-5 Amacker, Rene 21, 253 Amsterdamska, Olga 10-11, 253 Anderson, J. 272 Andrews, Edna 86, 121, 147, 253 Aphek, Edna 20, 124, 248, 253-4,272 Arapov, M. V. 66, 264, 267 Armstrong, J. Daniel 86, 254 Aronoff, Mark 198, 254 Arrive,Michel20,254 Babat, Jacob 105, 254 Bailey, C. J. N. 254 Bailey, R. W. 20, 254 Baldinger, Kurt 254 Baltaxe, C. A. M. 254, 272 Barentsen, A. A. 87, 254, 269 Barthes, Roland 20, 254 Baugh, Albert C. 91, 254 Beard, R. 198, 254 Ben-Amotz, Dahn 105, 275 Ben-Yehudah, Netiva 105, 275 Benveniste, Emile 14, 254 Beothy, E. 49, 51, 6o, 66, 254-5 Berger, A. A. 20, 255 Bergman, Moe 258

Berman, Ruth 105, 255 Bialik, C. N. 104 Bierwisch, Manfred 21, 255 Birnbaum, Henryk 66, 86, 255 Blanchard, M. E. 42, 255 Bloomfield, Leonard44, 135, 255 Bluhme, Hermann 263, 271, 272 Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 271 Blumenthal, P. 201, 255 Bolinger, Dwight xi, 1, 20, 22, 45, 191,201,202,247,248,255 Bopp, Franz 34 Bouma, Lowell 86, 255 Boy,J.66,255,264,268 Brame, M. K. 261 Bresnan, Joan 248, 255 Brugmann, Karl 34 Buhler, Karl 14, 256, 261, 264 Buyssens, E. 256 Calvet, L. J. 256 Carlyle, T. 200 Carr, G. F. 256 Carroll, Lewis 131, 132-3, 136-8, 141-43, 157-66,202,204, 213-21,276 Cassell 197 Chodakowska, Elibieta 267 Chomsky, Noam 10, 14-16, 21, 22,27,70,85,199,256 Christie, Agatha 141, 202, 211-12, 276

NAME INDEX

Chvany, Catherine V. 66, 86, 256 Clark, Herbert 61, 256 Clyne, P.R. 268 Comrie, A. P. 146, 275 Condillac 32 Contini-Morava, Ellen 86, 87, 256-7 Coquet, Jean Claude 20, 254 Coulthard, Malcolm 257 Coward, Rosalind 21, 257 Culler, Jonathan IO, 11, 15-17, 21,22,25,27,32,33,35,42, 85,89,257 Curtius, Georg 34 Cygan,J.248,257 Davis, Phillip 21, 257 Deely, John N. 20, 257 Demers, R. 253 Denes, P. B. 257 Denney, R. 134, 276 Derrida,Jacques21,257 Descartes, Rene 15 Diaz-Diocaretz, M. 258 Dickens, Charles I 14 Diez, Friedrich 34 Diver, William 14, 22, 42, 65, 68-9,73-4,79-81,84,86,87, 93,96,100,1o6,121,122,147, 257-8 Dotson Smith B. 258 Durkheim, Emile 11, 43 Eco, Umberto 20, 21, 258 Ehrich, Veronika 272 Ellis, John 21, 257 Engler, Rudolf21, 25, 258, 268 Eschbach, Achim 21, 275 Eschbach-Szab6, Victoria 21, 275 Fasold, R. 259, 274 Fickerman, I. 66, 258 Fowler, H. W. 199-201, 213, 258 Fradkin', Robert 86, 121, 147, 258 Frank, Yael258 Fraser, Thomas 87, 258 Freud, Sigmund 11, 43 Fromkin, Victoria 20, 42, 258

Galan, F. W. 86, 147, 258 Garcia, Erica C. 22, 45, 81, 86, 87,121,122,124,140,258-9 Gardiner, Duncan86, 147, 259 Garnier, Georges 78, 259 Garvin, Paul 21, 86, 147, 259 Georges, F. de 21, 259 Georges, R. de 21, 259 Gildin, Bonnie 22, 81, 87, 259, 268 Gillieron, Jules 44 Giv6n, Talmy 258, 259, 263, 275 Glazer, N. 134, 276 Gleason, H. Allan 20, 259 Godel, Robert 21, 259 Green, Georgia 154, 18g, 259 Greenbaum, S. 267 Greenberg, J. 272 Greimas, Algirdas Julien 20, 21, 41,259 Grimes, J. E. 26o Grimm, Jakob 34 Groen, B. M. 269 Gross, N. D. (Caleb) 237 Grosu, Alexander 1o6, 26o Grotjahn, R. 66, 253, 26o Guillaume, Gustave 14, 68-9, 73-4,77-9,83-4,87,98-100, 107,121,26o,261,271 Guiraud, Pierre 20, 41, 26o Goiter, K. H. 66, 26o, 264, 267 Hagege, Claude 260 Haiman, John 122, 26o Hall, Robert A. 20, 260 Halle, Morris 199, 256, 262 Halliday, M. A. K. 26o Hamburg, Miriam 248 Hammarstrom, G. 263, 271 Hancock, I. 266 Hanks, W. F. 268 Hardwick, C. S. 20, 26o Harnish, R. M. 253 Harris, Roy9, 10, 12, 15, 21, 254, 26o,269 Hawkes, Terence 20, 21, 26o Hendricks, William 21, 26o Herdan, Gustav 66, 26o

NAME INDEX

IIervey,Sandor21,85,26o,266 Heuven, Vincent van 263 llewson, John 78, 87, 261 llill, Archibald A. 20, 261 Hillel, A. 104, 118, 122, 276 llirtle, Walter 14, 78, 83-4, 87, 98,99,107,121,261,262 Hjemslev, Louis 14, 85 Hoard, J.E. 199, 261 Hockett, Charles 20, 42, 261 Hofbauer, C. L. 268 llolenstein, Elmar 21, 86, 261 Hopper, Paul 270 llormann, H. 261 llomby, A. S. 146, 275 House-Edmonson, Juliana 271 llowden, Marcia 86, 261 lluddleston, Rodney 248, 261 lluffman, Alan 87, 261 llulst, llarry van der 199, 261 Innis, Robert 20, 21, 261-2 Itkonen, E. 262 Ivie, Milka 21, 262 Jackson, W.265 Jakobovits, L.A. 269 Jakobson, Roman 10, 14, 22, 43, 65,68-9,73-7,82-3,86-7,97, 121,147,254,256,262,267, 275 Jamieson, G. H. 262 Jespersen, Otto 92, 122, 146, 197-8,262 Johnson, Marta 86, 147, 262 Joly, Andre 87, 262 Jones, C, 272 Jones, R. M. 87, 263 Jong, Erica 202, 220-1, 276 Kaplan, Jeff 154, 189, 263 Kegel, I. A. 267 Keijsper,C. E. 87, 263 Kesey, Ken 202, 276 Kiefer, F. 274 Kirsner, Robert S. 22, 65, 81, 86, 87,121,149,263 Klein-( Andreu) Flora 22, 87, 124,

279 256, 258, 263, 264 Koerner, E.F. Konrad 10, 21, 264,267 Kobler, Reinhard 66, 255, 264, 268 Korot, Yard.it 124 Krylov, J. K. 49, 51, 6o, 66, 264 Kuhn, Thomas IO, 21, 264, 267 Kurylowicz, J. 248, 264 Ladefoged, Peter 156, 264 Lakoff, Robin T. 248, 265 Lamb, Charles 237 Lattey, Elsa 87, 122, 124, 265 Leech, G. N. 265, 267 Lehfeldt, w. 66, 265 Leonard, Robert 87, 265 Lepschy, Giulio 21 , 265 Leroy, Maurice 21 , 265 Leskien, August 34 Levenberg,Joel86,265 Levi-Strauss, Qaude 21, 259, 265 Levin, Ira 131, 133, 138, 143, 202, 245-6,276 Li, Charles 263 Liberman, Anatoly 21, 42, 267, 272 Locke, John 32, 253 Lyons, John 20, 22, 265 Majakovskij, V.V. 267 Malmberg, Bertil rn, 265 Mandelbrot, B. 49, 50, 60, 265 Martinet, A. V. 146, 196, 270 Martinet, Andre 14, 85, 265 Marx, Karl 259 Matejka, Ladislav 20, 86, 147, 254, 265 Maturana, H. R. 75, 265 Maugham, W. Somerset 202, 207, 210,246,276 Maupassant, Guy de 259 Mccawley, James xi, 122, 266 McLean, Hugh 267 Meillet, Antoine 27 Melville, Herman 202, 245, 276 Menzerath, P. 49-51, 6o, 253, 266 Moore, T. F. 256

NAME INDEX

Morris, Charles 42, 85, 266 Morris, W.276 Monnin, Georges 21, 266 Mulder, Jan 21, 85,.266 Muller, F. M. 34 Naipaul, V. S. 134, 276 Nash,D.267 Newmeyer, Frederick 21, 266 Noss, P. 122, 266 Novello, Vincent 237 Nuessel, F. 259 Nuyts, Jan 21, 275 Odden, D. 256 Ogden, C. K. 268 Osthoff, H. 34 Otheguy, Ricardo 87, 140, 259, 266 Parret, Herman 21, 85, 266 Paul,H.34 Peirce, Charles Sanders 21, 24, 41,85,26o,266 Pelc, J. 266 Penhallurick,John87,266-7 Percival, W. Keith 21, 267 Perlmutter, D. M. 248, 267 Pierce, J. E. 42, 267 Pike, Kenneth L. 21, 267 Pinson, E. N. 257 Pomorska, Krystyna 86, 87, 256, 267,272,273 Post, M. 267 Pound, L. 267 Pratt, Mary Louise 20, 273 Prieto, Luis de 22, 85 Prince, Ellen 189 Propp, Valdimir 21, 42, 267, 272 Putte, Florimon van 122, 124, 259 Quirk, Randolph 267 Rapoport, A. 267 Rauch, I. 256 Reid, Wallis xi, 1, 16, 22, 81, 86, 87,121,267-8 Richards,I.A.268 Ridout, Ronald 152-3, 188, 268

Riesman, D. 134, 276 Rivara, R. 248, 268 Robins, R. H. 21, 268 Rodman, Robert 20, 42, 258 Ron,Mordechai105,254 Ros6n,Haiim92, 100-1, 105,268 Ross, J. R. 248, 267 Rossner, Judith 132, 133, 134, 143-5,166-86,246,276 Roth, Philip 202, 276 Rothe, Ursula 66, 255, 268 Rowicka, Gratyna 198, 248, 268 Rubach, Jerzy 199, 268 Rudnick, Paul 202, 204, 221-37, 276 Rudy, Stephen86, 255, 275 Ruwet, N. 274 Sambor, J. 268 Sampson, Geoffrey 21, 43, 266, 268,271 Sandell, R. 268 Sangster, Rodney 86, 147, 255, 268 Sapir, Edward 78, 122, 268 Saussure, Ferdinand de xi, 8-17, 21,22,23-44,65,69,70,74, 78,85,87,120,140,249,252, 253,255,256,257,26o,261, 264,266,267,268-9 Schacbter,H.201,255 Scharansky, Anatoly 114 Schleicher, August 34 Schleifer, Ronald 23, 41, 259 Schmitz, H. W. 21, 275 Scholes, Robert 20, 41-2, 269 Sebeok, Thomas A. 20, 265, 266, 269 Shakespeare, William 197 Shannon, C. E. 66, 269 Shapiro, Michael 21, 269 Shuy, R. 259, 274 Siegel, Dorothy 248, 269 Sievers, E. 34 Simms, Norman 21, 42, 272 Sless, David 6-7, 20, 269 Smith, Norval 199, 261 Sperber, Dan 21, 269

NAME INDEX

Spitzbardt, H. 248, 269 Sprenger, R. 269 Stankiewicz, Edward 266 Steinberg, Danny 26g Steiner, Peter 20, 86, 147, 254, 269 Steriade, D. 269 Strang, B. M. H. 269 Strauss, U. 66 Stunova, Anna 87, 26g-70 Sufier, M. 266 Svartik, Jan 267 Swan, Michael 146, 152 Szymanek, B. 198, 270 Thienemann-Thass, T. 270 Thome, Gisela 271 Thomson, A. J. 146, 196, 270 Timberlake, Alan 66, 86, 270 Tobin, Yishai 20, 21, 22, 42, 43, 66,81,86,87,121,122,124, 147,248,253-4,259,270-2, 273 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 20, 272-3 Trubetzkoi, Count Nikolai 14, 267,273 Vachek, Joseph 86, 147, 273 Valin, Roch 78, 262, 273 van Dijk, Teun 258 van Schooneveld, C. H. 14, 65, 6g,74-77,79,82-3,86,87,97, 121,147,249,254,273-4

281

Varela, F. J. 75, 265 Yater, Heinz 272 Verschuren, Jef 21, 275 Viesen, M.A. 105, 123, 274 Vine, Brent 267 vonRaffler-Engel, Walburga 254 Vonnegut, Kurt 141, 276 Waldron, T. P. 21, 274 Wardhaugh, Ronald 20, 274 Waugh, Linda 86, 147, 255, 259, 262,274 Weaver, W.66,26g Webster 146, 154, 276 Weydt, Harald 272 Whitney, William Dwight 34, 95, 274 Wierzbicka, Anna 66, 86, 274 Williams, Tennessee 276 Wilson, Deirdre 21, 26g Wilss, Wolfram 271 Winner, Thomas 266 Wittgenstein, Ludwig IO Witting, Clifford 152-3, 188, 268 W6jcicki, Adam 198, 274 Zaenen, A. 267 Zavala, I. 258 Zipf, G. K. 49-51, 6o, 259, 26o, 267,274 Zubin, David 87, 274-5 Zweig, Stefan 271

Subject Index

abstract mental operation 77-9, 83-4,99 abstract vs. concrete 11-13, 29, 30, 40,43,47-8,51,61-2,64-5, 70--2,75,77,78,8o,125,146 acoustic/auditory/perceptual phonetics 4, 39, 42, 43, 156 addition (connective/intensive/ excessive) 153, 155-7, 157-186, 188,250 adjectives 29, 31, 53, 61, 92, 187, 193,195-201,203-4,213-4, 220,239 adverbs 123, 151, 152, 187, 193, 195-201,203-4,239 agglutination 129 allgemeine Bedeutung 74 also/too xii, 19, 151-89, 193, 250 ambiguity 62, 95, 139 analogy92, 101, 105, 197 analytic/periphrastic xii, 194, 197, 199,202,203,204-5,239,240-6, 250 animate/inanimate/human 55-8, 140-1, 223 anomalous utterances 110-11 anthropology/anthropological linguistics 4, 24, 37 antinomy62 applied linguistics 4, 25 I Arabic82

arbitrariness of the sign 41, 43, 65, 140 articulatory phonetics 3, 39, 43, 156 artificial intelligence 5 as/like251 autopoiesis 75-77, 97 Beothy's Law 49, 51, 6o borrowed words 61, 200, 203 calculus of meaning 73, 75-77, 82 cancellation (marginality/ restrictiveness) 76 Cartesian linguistics 15, 22, 27, 29 case systems 74, 81, 91 Categorial Lexical Model 198 children's literature 104, 118-20, 203 Chomskian Revolution 10, 13, 15 classical languages 77, 82, 83, 98-9 clinical linguistics 4 code systems 6, 8, 40, 41, 47, 51, 64-5 cognitive universal 61-2, 120 collocation51-8, r_n, 117, 123, 135, 139,145,163,194,204-12,215, 221,239,246 colloquial 115, 126, 203 Columbia School {Form Content Analysis) 14, 22, 65, 68-9, 73, 79-81,84-5,86-7,93,121

SUBJECT INDEX

communication5, 6, 8, 20, 39, 43, 47-51,63-5,79,97, 110,251-2 communication factor 18, 48-51, 63-5,70-4,79-81, 105, 1o6-11, 120,251 communicative function/behaviour 18,30-1,43,49,58-9,63-5, 70--4,79-81,97, 110, 115, 120, 125-7,133,151,152,154,187, 189,195,196,201,247,251 communicative strategy 111-118, l 18-20, 193-5 comparative/historical linguistics xi,5,9,23,26,34-5,41,43,61 comparative/superlative system xii, 19, 146, 193-247,250 competence vs. performance 70-2 complementary distribution 74, 81 compound words 28, 30, 49, 92, IOI, 129,203 computer languages 5 computer linguistics 5 conditionals 125, 126, 127, 146 conjunctions/connectives 125, 146, 151, 153, 154, 158, 159, 188, 195, 250 continuate vs.discontinuate space 83-4,98-100,107-8,111-121, 127-9, 134,155-7, 157-186,250 Copenhagen School 14 core/unitary meaning 43, 49, 59-62, 74, 251 countability 84-5, 93-5, 107 creativity (linguistic) 81 , 93, 97, 98, 103-4, 111-20,238,250 curiouser and curiouser 200, 204, 212,213-21,250

darlingest204, 212, 221-237, 250 decide 125 deep structure 198 definiteness/determinateness 96, 100-1 deixis (perceptional/ transmissional) 75-7, 82, 97 derivation 31, 61, 198, 248 derivatives 28, 248

dialects/pidgins/creoles 5, 61, 122, 200,203 diglossia 151, 152, 153, 154, 186, 200,202 dimensionality 75 direct/indirect exploitation 81 discourse analysis 5, 21-2, 47, 62, 65,66, 112-120, 122,145, 154, 189,212-47 distinctive feature theory 18, 89, 97,121,125,145,146,193-5, 221,249,250 distribution (favoured/disfavoured) 48,49,74, 101-4, 146,156,158, 159,168-9, 187-8,214,223, 239-46,249-50 distribution (occurrence/ non-occurrence) 187, 250 doubt 125 drove 17, 52-3, 66 dualnum.berxii,18,68,70,82-85, 91-124,154,250 dualia tantum 104, 106 duality 121, 122, 125-46, 221, 250 dualized plurals 104-5, u7-18 duals (Iexicalized) II l, 114, 123 Dutch79 economy of effort 49-5 l , 244 eighteenth century linguistics 32-3 encoder/decoder 48, 49-51, 58-9, 73,82,98,112,128,130,205 English xii, 24, 42, 61, 79, 82, 83, 87,92,93-4,98,99,122, 125, 146,151-89,193,195, 198,199, 239,245-8,249,250,251 English (Middle) 126 English (Old) 91, 126 ethnography 37 etymons 126 expert systems 5 extension (directionality) 76, 82-3, 97 extralinguistic context/categories 4, 17,29,31,47,51-8,61,65, 66-7,128,130, 133,156-86,187, 204

SUB1ECT INDEX

Fijian 82 Finnish79 first language acquisition 61, 65 focus/system of focus 81, 122, 194 folk-etymology 123 form/substance dichotomy 39 fonnal/informal 126, 152, 153, 186 formalism 8, 21, 188, 189, 247, 251 free variation 74, 81, 136, 139 French 24, 27, 28, 36, 38, 77, 79, 81, 151, 16o fricatives vs. affricates 129 Fula 122 function vs. form/meaning 18, 31, 43,47,51,62,65-7,86,127,151, 154,195,196,201,245-7,250-1 functionalist schools 14, 65-6, 68-87,147 gender91,92,96,100-1,105,122, 123 generative grammar 14, 21, 28, 154,198,248 genesis (mental process) 78 Geneva School 21 genre 5, 130, 134, 139 German 74, 79, 122 Germaniclanguages 34, 61, 239, 245 Gesamtbedeutung 43, 74 Gothic91 grammar xii, 62-4, 67 grammatical number 18, 81-5, 146 grammatical systems 18-19, 31, 62-4,73,78,79-81,83-4,84-5, 91-121,146,193,247,249,250 grammaticality/acceptabilty 28, 187,195 Greek 8, 23, 28, 33, 36, 42, 79, 82, 83,84,94-6,98-9, 120 Grundbedeutung 77 Guillaumean School (Psychomechanics/semiology) 14, 18,22,65,68--9,73,77-9, 83-4,86-7,93,98,107

Hauptbedeutung 77 Hebrew 70, 79, 82, 85, 87, 92-3,

94-6,97-8,100-20,122-24,250 Hebrew Academy 105 homonymy 43, 51, 55-8, 62, 66, 110, III, 153, 154, 187, 195 human cognition/perception 40, 41, 43,47,70-2,73,76-7,8o, 108-10, 120,124,127-9, 130-46,156,250 human efficiency 49, 108-10, 188 human factor 18, 47-51, 64-5, 70-4,79-81,105,1o6-11,120, 124,251 human intelligence/inference 49, 54-59,65,80, 132,146,187 human sciences 1 r, 37, 42, 43 h wedarlhwaeaer/hwether 126 iconicity 18, 43, 63, 65, 98, 120, 122,128,187-8,193,194,245-6, 249,250 identity (duplication/distinctness) 75,82-3 idioms/formulaic expressions 4, 30, 54-8,66,110,123,124, 130,139, 198,23 if/whether xii, 18, 125-146, 250 illogicalities 20 I Indo-European languages 84, 91, 99,248 inflection/declension/conjugation 31,61,91,196,248 interlocks/satellite clusters 96, 100-1, 122 interrogatives 125, 127, 146, 147 invariance 17-19, 45, 47-67, 127-9,154-7,199,201-2,248, 249,250,251 invariance vs. variation 43, 51-8, 193,199,201-2,248,250,251 invariant meaning xii, 17-19, 39-40,43,47-67,68-87, 93-100, 122,125,163,166,187, 188,189,198,199,202,237,239, 246,247,249,250,251 ironic/comic/facetious 97, 104, 203, 211, 237 irregular/incorrect/exceptional forms 92, 101, 117, 118-20,

SUBJECT INDEX

123-4,149,196-8,201-4,212, 237,238,248 isomorphism (holistic) 40, 43, 48, 51,62,64-5,75,111,120,126, 129,195,198,245,249 J akobsonian-van Schooneveldian School14,18,22,65,68-9,73, 74-7,82-3,86-7,93,97,147 Japanese79 just/only 251 know 125· Krylov's Law 49, 51, 6o language for special purposes 4 language learning/teaching 4, 28, 42,63 language policy 4 language synergy 17, 47-67, 70, 128,244-5,250 language universal/specific analyses 120 langue/discours 78 languelparole 40, 41, 43, 47, 70-2, 76-7,78 Latin33, 37, 42, 61, 79, 81, 93-4, 120, 198,239,245 lexical units 193-4 lexical systems 18-19, 62-4, 121, 193,247,249 lexicography/lexicology 4, 31 lexicon xii, 49-51, 59-64, 75, So, 100,193,194,239,245 lexicon V!'I. grammar 62-4, 67, 82, 91-3,100,101,117,119,121, 124, 125,146,147, 193, 194 linguistic analysis xii, 11-19, 31, 38,42,68-87,111-20,154, 198, 199,248,251 linguisticcontexq, 17, 47, 51-8, 61,66-7,70-2,99, 128,130, 133,157-86,187,198,200-1 linguistic economy 50, 58-65, 244, 247 linguistic schools 5, 8, 14, 65-87, 147,198,199,248 linguistic sign xi, xii, 7, 12-18, 21,

22,29-31,35-44,47-65,68-87, 146,154,157, 169,174,212,221, 247,248,249,250 linguistic systems 18-19, 26, 33, 41, 62-4,91-120,121,193,247,249 linguistics xi, xii, 3-18, 24-5, 37, 105, 135,153,198, 199,247,248, 249 literal meaning 54-8, 61, 66, 122 lost 17, 53-8, 66 macro-level analysis 204, 212-39, 246 Mandelbrot's Law 49-50, 6o marked/unmarked 18-19, 74, 96, 97,107-10,112-18, 126,128-9, 130-46,154-7,188,194,204-47 markedness theory 18, 89, 93, 97-8,112,120,122,123,125, 127-9,131,146,147, 154-7, 193-5,246,249,250 meaning vs. message 17, 43, 51-65, 61)-72,74,86,201,250 memory limitations 49 Menzerath's Law 49-51, 6o metaphor 54-8, 61 -2, 66, 107, 110, 123, 146 methodological model 11-13, 70-72,75 micro-level analysis 203, 204-12, 246,248 mini-max struggle 59 minimal pairs 74, 81 morpheme 47, 50, 63, 66, 77, 78, 83, 129 morphology 4, 30, 31, 40, 42, 50, 63-5,74,75,8o,91,92,98, 129, 195,198,199,201-2,247 native speakers (intuitions) 71, 86, 201

Neo-grammarian/Junggrammatiker tradition 26, 34-5, 36 neurolinguistics 5, 42 nineteenth-century linguistics 26, 34-5 non-equivalence 122, 124 non-homonymy hypothesis 187,

286 193,249 non-synonymy hypothesis 18, 42, 126-7,146,I86,I93,249,250 nouns (mass/count) 82, IOI, 123 nouns (substantives/nominal uses/NPs) 29, 31, 42, 53-8, 61, 8I,92,IOI,187,I95 objectiveness (quantification) 76 one affix - one rule hypothesis 198 one form - one meaning principle 45,74,I98,251 onomatopoeia 43 operative time 73, 77-9, 83-4, g8-9 opposition of exclusion 94-5 origins of language 32-3 orthography 196, I97, 199, 200, 202,212,247 paradigmatic relationships 31, 41, 42,49,62,64,68,70,75,78,84, 91,93-5,237 paragraphh/passage/episode 126, 139,212-13 . participation/system of control 8 I, I22 participles 53, 55 particles 6I, 92 parts of speech xii, 28-31, 42, 61, 72,75,78,86 person 91 philology xi, 3, 4, 23, 26, 33, 34, 36, 41,42 phonemes/phonemic oppositions 48,49,75 phonetics/phonology 4, 3g-40, 42-3,50,65,74,129,147,156, 195-6,I98-9,200-2,212,218, 247 phonology (autosegmental) 199 phonology (cyclic) 199 phonology (generative) 199 phonology (metrical) 199 phonology (natural) 199 phrase/clause 48, 62, 66, 129, 152, 158, 187 physiology I2, 37, 4I, 42

SUBJECT INDEX

plural (internal/external) 83-4, 99, 112 plural (minimal) 82, 83-4, 112, I2I,123, I25, I26, I34. 145 plural vs. dual opposition 110-120 plurality (transitivity) 75, 82-3, 97 poetics5 polarity62 Polish 198 polysemy 50, 55-58, 6o-2, 66 Port Royal grammarians I5, 27 possessive/genetive expressions 251 possibilities 125, 126, 127-9, 146 possibilities (alternative/integral) I26,127-9,130-46 pragmatics 4, I4, 42, 50, 51, 53-8, 6o-5,66,72,125,126,145,200, 239,25I Prague School 14, 74, 86, 87, 147 prefixes/suffixes/affixes 4, 28, 49, 6I,64,82,83,100, 105, III, I93, 197, 198,201 prepositions 52-3, 61 prescriptive/traditional grammarians 15, 22, 27-g, 35, 72, I05, I5I,I58, 188, I95,198, 202,239 pronouns29,3I,91,140-1,I52, I6g,I72 prosody I96, 197, 199, 200, 202, 212,247 psycholinguistics 5, 12, 42 psychological reality/plausibility 72,So,86 psychology 8, 11, 12, 37, 39, 41 quantitative validation 81, I22 radicals/stems/roots 28, 48, 61, 63, 93,248 rationalism 27, 251 recursive rules 71 reduplication 122 relationship of inclusion 93, 94, 97-8, III-Ii2, 121 Romance languages 34 Romanticism 14 Russian74

SUBJECT INDEX

Sanskrit70,82,84,94-6,120 Saussurian Sign Revolution xii, 13, 15,23,26,41,73,85,249 see 125 semantic distinction 23, 24, 42, l 16, 127,129, 139, 156,201,247 semantic features 73, 74-7, 82-3, 97,120,121,146,193-5,204, 248,250,251 semantic fields 62, 213 semantic identity 198 semantic integrality 18-19, s121, 125-6,127-9,130-46,155-7, 158-89,193-5,201-47,250-1 semantic substances/domains 73, 79-81,84-5,93-5,121, 127, 146, 155-7, 250 semantic value relationships 18, 62, 64 semantics 4, 23, 40, 42, 50, 61, 65, 72,125-6,135, 145-7,198-9, 218,247-8 semiology 8-10, 15-17, 89, 140 semiology vs. semiotics 23-4, 42 semiotic systems 18-19, 26, 33, 35, 36,43,69,93,140, 193,247,249 semiotics xi, xii, 3-19, 23-5, 37, 73-4, 193, 249 semiotics-cum-linguistics 7, 20 semiotics-per se 7, 20 Semitic Languages 91 sentencexi-xii,4, 12, 15-19,21, 28,48,65,8o,86,126,129,152, 187 sentence meaning 1, 55-8, 65, 70-2, 152 sentence orientation 15-19, 22, 23, 27,29-31,37,38,70-2,105, 120,198,251,252 Serbo-Croatian 79 set of sentences 15, 71 set of signs 71, 8o seventeenth-century linguistics 15, 27,32-3 shall/should 125 shy 17,53 signastextxiii, 18xs-s19, 115189, 250, 251

sign meaniing l, 23, as39-40, 43, 47-67,70-2,239,245-6,250, 251 sign to system 18, 36, 89, 91-124, 250 sign to text xii, 18-19, 122, 146, 149,186,189,250,251 sign vs. sentence xi, 12-18, 28-33, 45-67,68-74,86, 189,250 sign-oriented analysis xii, 8, 14-19, 23,28,35-43,68-70,93,105, 111-18, 126,154,189 sign-oriented approach/discipline xi, xii, 8-18, 23, 24, 28, 35-41, 47,68-87,93, 105, 146,198, 249-52 sign-oriented linguistic schools xii, 14, 18,22,68-87,93,147,249 sign-oriented method 26-37, 47-65,68-87,93,105,122, 126, 189,239,245-7,249-52 sign:system:context:text :xii, 18-19, 43,61-2,149,250,251 signal 30, 38, 39, 40, 43, 47, 49, 59-62,66,78,80,249,251 significant/significate 78 signification 39-40 signifielsignifuznt 39-40, 43, 249 signifier/signified 79-So, 249 signs xii, 1, 7, 8, 146, 189, 193-5, 250 singular vs. plural opposition 30, 31,43,62,81-2,91,250 slang 103, 105, 203 Slavic languages 75 Slavicists 74, 86, 87 social sciences II, 23, 37 sociolinguistics 5, 12, 42 sociology 8, 11, 12, 24, 37 sound symbolism/phonesthemes 43,122 Spanish 79, 122 spatio-temporal-existential cline 61-2,66,107,122,147,166, 204-12, 239-44 speech acts 13, 14, 21, 39, 72, 85, 125, 189 speech/narrated situation 76-77,

SUBJECT INDEX

82-3 structural paradigm/model 11-15, 21,24-5,35,42,43,48,70-4, 252 structuralism (European) IO, 11-15,21,24-5,42,43,71,252 style/register 5, 36, 125-6, 129, 133, 139,145, 146, 153, 156, 157, 186,200,251 stylistics4, 125-6, 127, 151, 152, 154,186,198,200,202,247,250 subjective comment 81, 93, 97, 98, 112-13,118-121,157,170 subjects/objects 58, 152 suppositions/stipulations 125 Swahili 79 syllables48,50,1C}6-200 syllables (mono-/di-/poly-) 196-102,239,244 Syllables (open/closed) 201 Symbols6 Synchronic reality 29, 36 synchronic system 14, 29, 36, 149, 247 synchrony/diachrony 36, 41, 105, 124,126,146,149,200,202,239, 245,247 synergesis 48, 59-(i5, 70,128, 244-5,250 synonyms/synonymy 18, 23, 62, 93, 125,126-7,145,151,152, 153-4, 155-7. 195,196,199,201,247, 248,250 syntagmatic relationships/syntagms 31,41,42,49,62,64,64,72,92, IOI, 193 syntax/grammar 4, 15, 30, 31, 40, 42,50,51,53-8,6(rs,66,72, 125,126,145,188, 195,198,200, 202,247,248 synthetic/periphrastic strategies xn, 19,129,146,193-s,I97,I99, 201-3,204-s,239,24o-6,250, 251 system of systems 47, 64-s, 70, 79 text as sign xn, 19, 189, 212-46, 248,250,251

text to sign XI, 19, 189, 191, 250, 251 text/context 48, 50, 55-8, 61-2, 66-7,70-2,75, 112-120,201, 212-47 text:context:system:sign 19, 191, 250, 251 textlinguistics5, n8-20, 212-47, 249 textual/discourse message I9, 47, 51,54-s8,65,70-2,74,86,99, 118·20, 157-86,212-47,250 textual/thematic cohesion 19, 118-20, 146, 163,169, 17o-86, 189,2I2-47 theoretical linguistics 3-4 think 125 traditional/neo-traditional categories xi-xii, 15, 21, 26, 28-9,31-3,38,42,72,75,82,86, 89,91,I20-I,126,I54,I95,196, I99,202 translation 4, 104, 114, 118 trial number 82 truth value 72, 86 twentieth-century linguistics ix, IO, 21,252 typology67 unification vs. diversification 49-51,59-(io,63 unitary base hypothesis I98 unity and discreteness 93, 98, 99, II2-13,II5-I8,I18-21,I26 Urdu79 utterances 13, 14, 48, 66, 74, 99, 139 verb tense 62, 81, 125 verb tense (conditional) 125 verb tense (future) 125 verb tense (historical subjunctive) 125 verb tense (passe simplelimparfait) 81 verb tense (past) (unreal) 125 verb tense (pas/non-past) 62 verbs29,31,42,92

SUBJECT INDEX

verbs (copular) 61 verbs (modals) 125 verbs (phrasal) 52-3 verbs (reflexive) 58 verbs (transitive/intransitive) 53-8 Vienna Circle 12 vowels (front vs. back) 122 vowels vs. consonants 129, 156, 157,197 vowels vs. diphthongs 129

109-10, 124,128,147, 197,204, 213,220,222-3,237,239-46 word length 49-51, 6o-1, 125, 244 word order 30, 31, 39, 43, 49, 66, Bo, 151-4,156-9, 166, 187-8, 194-5, 250 word/sentence meaning (message) 49-51,54-65,67,86,112-18, 127,152, 153,188,201,250 worse-worser-worst 197, 204, 212, 237-9, 250

want 125 whole vs. part relationship 9, 24-6, - 48, 50-1, 62, 108-9, 112 will/would 125 wonder 125 word xii, 4, 26, 28-31, 35, 42, 47, 49,66,72,77, 193, 194,248 word classes 48 word frequency 49-51, 60-1, 91,

X's Y vs. the Y of X 251 X-er/est vs. more/most X 193-5, 199,201,204-47 yes-no questions 125 zero morphology 30, 39, 43, 49, 66, 80,83,98 Zipfs Law 49-51, 6o