Abstract
For the purposes of the present discussion, the term structure will be used in the following non-rigorous sense: A set of phonemes or a set of data is structured in respect to some feature, to the extent that we can form in terms of that feature some organized system of statements which describes the members of the set and their interrelations (at least up to some limit of complexity). In this sense, language can be structured in respect to various independent features. And whether it is structured (to more than a trivial extent) in respect to, say, regular historical change, social intercourse, meaning, or distribution β or to what extent it is structured in any of these respects β is a matter decidable by investigation. Here we will discuss how each language can be described in terms of a distributional structure, i.e. in terms of the occurrence of parts (ultimately sounds) relative to other parts, and how this description is complete without intrusion of other features such as history or meaning. It goes without saying that other studies of language β historical, psychological, etc.βare also possible, both in relation to distributional structure and independently of it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The investigation of historical regularity without direct regard to descriptive (synchronic) structure was the major achievement of the linguists of the late eighteen hundreds. There are incipient studies of historical-descriptive interrelations, as in H. M. Hoenigswald, βSound Change and Linguistic Structureβ, Lg. 22 (1946), 138β43; cf. A. G. Juilland, βA Bibliography of Diachronic Phonemicsβ, Word 9 (1953), 198β208. The independent study of descriptive structure was clarified largely by Ferdinand de Saussureβs Cours de linguistique gΓ©nΓ©rale, the Prague Circle in its Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, Edward Sapir in various writings, and Leonard Bloomfieldβs Language
The investigation of historical regularity without direct regard to descriptive (synchronic) structure was the major achievement of the linguists of the late eighteen hundreds. There are incipient studies of historical-descriptive interrelations, as in H. M. Hoenigswald, βSound Change and Linguistic Structureβ, Lg. 22 (1946), 138β43; cf. A. G. Juilland, βA Bibliography of Diachronic Phonemicsβ, Word 9 (1953), 198β208. The independent study of descriptive structure was clarified largely by Ferdinand de Saussureβs Cours de linguistique gΓ©nΓ©rale, the Prague Circle in its Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, Edward Sapir in various writings, and Leonard Bloomfieldβs Language
These approaches are discussed by Martin Joos, βDescription of Language Designβ, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 (1950), 702β8, and W. F. Twaddell, ibid. 24 (1952), 607β11.
These approaches are discussed by Martin Joos, βDescription of Language Designβ, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 (1950), 702β8, and W. F. Twaddell, ibid. 24 (1952), 607β11.
Y. R. Chao, βThe Non-Uniqueness of Phonemic Solutions of Phonetic Systemsβ, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4 (1934), 363β98. Cf. the two solutions of Annamese phonemes in M. B. Emeneau, Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) Grammar, 9β22.
This kind of formulation is best expressed in the work of Sapir and Newman; cf. reviews of Selected Writings of Edward Sapir (ed. by D. Mandelbaum) in Language 27 (1951), 289β92; and of Stanley Newman, Yokuts Language of California in International Journal of American Linguistics 10 (1944), 196β211.
This kind of formulation is best expressed in the work of Sapir and Newman; cf. reviews of Selected Writings of Edward Sapir (ed. by D. Mandelbaum) in Language 27 (1951), 289β92; and of Stanley Newman, Yokuts Language of California in International Journal of American Linguistics 10 (1944), 196β211.
E.g. in Edward Sapir, βLa rΓ©alitΓ© psychologique des phonΓ¨mesβ, Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30 (1933), 247β65 (translated in David Mandelbaum, Γ©d., Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, 46β60).
C. F. Hockett, review of Recherches structurales in International Journal of American Linguistics 18 (1952), 98.
Here we have discussed whether the distributional structure exists in the speakers as a parallel system of habits of speaking and of productivity. This is quite different from the dubious suggestion made at various times that the categories of language determine the speakersβ categories of perception, a suggestion which may be a bit of occupational imperialism for linguistics, and which is not seriously testable as long as we have so little knowledge about peopleβs categories of perception. Cf. for the suggestion, Benjamin L. Whorf, βThe Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Languageβ, Language, Culture and Personality (Sapir Memorial Volume) (ed. by A. I. Hallowell, L. Spier, and S. Newman), 75β93; βLanguages and Logicβ, The Technology Review, 1941, 43β6; and against it, Eric H. Lenneberg, βCognition in Ethnolinguisticsβ, Lg. 29 (1953), 463β71; Lewis S. Feuer, βSociological Aspects of the Relation Between Language and Philosophyβ, Philosophy of Science 20 (1953), 85β100.
Here we have discussed whether the distributional structure exists in the speakers as a parallel system of habits of speaking and of productivity. This is quite different from the dubious suggestion made at various times that the categories of language determine the speakersβ categories of perception, a suggestion which may be a bit of occupational imperialism for linguistics, and which is not seriously testable as long as we have so little knowledge about peopleβs categories of perception. Cf. for the suggestion, Benjamin L. Whorf, βThe Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Languageβ, Language, Culture and Personality (Sapir Memorial Volume) (ed. by A. I. Hallowell, L. Spier, and S. Newman), 75-93; βLanguages and Logicβ, The Technology Review, 1941, 43β6; and against it, Eric H. Lenneberg, βCognition in Ethnolinguisticsβ, Lg. 29 (1953), 463β71; Lewis S. Feuer, βSociological Aspects of the Relation Between Language and Philosophyβ, Philosophy of Science 20 (1953), 85β100.
In E. G. Schachtelβs βOn Memory and Childhood Amnesiaβ, Psychiatry 10 (1947), 1β26 it is suggested that the experiences of infancy are not recallable in later life because the selection of aspects of experience and the classification of experience embodied in language, which fixes experience for recall, differs from the way events and observations are experienced (and categorized) by the infant.
The following analysis can be fully understood only if one checks through the actual lists of Cherokee forms. The few forms cited here are taken from William D. Reyburn, βCherokee Verb Morphology IIβ, International Journal of American Linguistics 19 (1953), 259β73. For the analysis, see the charts and comments in Reyburnβs work and in Z. S. Harris, βCherokee Skeletal Grammarβ, and βCherokee Grammatical Word Lists and Utterancesβ, in the Franz Boas Collection of the American Philosophical Society Library.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Β© 1981 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harris, Z.S. (1981). Distributional Structure. In: HiΕΌ, H. (eds) Papers on Syntax. Synthese Language Library, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8467-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8467-7_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-1267-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-8467-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive