Abstract
Hjelmslev rightly signalizes the ambiguity that lies in the term “function” as it has hitherto been used in science, “where it designates both the dependence between two terminals and one or both of these terminals — the latter when the one terminal is said to be “a function of” the other” (OSG p. 32). To avoid this ambiguity in modern terminology Hjelmslev introduces the technical term “functive” to denote the terminal of a function, reserving “function” for “the dependence between two terminals” only, no longer using it for those terminals themselves1). In this way he goes back, rightly, in my opinion, to the old analysis of the notion of relation (relatio-fundamentum-terminus).
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
L. Hjelmslev and H. J. Uldall, Etudes de linguistique structurale organisées au sein du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague. Bulletin du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague II, 1935, p. 13–15.
L. Hjelmslev, La notion de rection, Acta Linguistica I 1939, p. 10, 11.
L. Hjelmslev, Editorial-Acta Linguistica IV, 1944, p. V.
For the symbols see W. E. Collinson, Some Recent Trends in Linguistic Theory with Special Reference to Syntactics (Lingua I, 3, 1948, p. 316).
It seems to be forgotten again and again that “phonemic analyses are made only on the basis of discriminating phonetic evidence” (E. A. Nida, Review of R. H. Stetson, Bases of Phonology. Word, III, 1947, p. 133).
Eli Fischer-Jørgensen, Nordisk Tidsskrift for Tale og Stemme, VII 2-3, 1943, pp. 91, 92, translation mine.
Dr. A. H. King, A Functional Appraoch to English Teaching, English Language Teaching IV, 1949, nos. 1, 2.
C. F. M. Weyers. Levende Talen No. 161, October 1951, p. 344 ff.
L. Hjelmslev. “La structure des oppositions dans la langue” 11e Congrès International de Psychologie, Paris 1937, p. 241, 242.
Eli Fischer-Jørgensen, On the Definition of Phonemic Categories. Acta Linguistica VII, 1952, p. 12.
L. Hjelmslev, Note sur les oppositions supprimables. TCLP VIII 1939, p. 57.
Louise Kaiser has proved to what great extent the difference in maximum rate of the various speech organs influences sound changes. (Quoted by Stetson in The relation of the phoneme and the syllable, Proc. II Int. Congr. of Phonetic Sciences, 1935, p. 249).
“La conscience d’un rapport intime entre deux phonèmes se rencontre en général dans l’opposition directe, même quand la facultée d’être neutralisée manque” (in a direct opposition only one of the peripheric relevant features differs, the others being the same, in p-b, e.g., sonority). A. W. de Groot, Neutralisation d’oppositions, Neophilologus, XXV, 1940, p. 19.
It is clear that the recent investigations by Mol-Uhlenbeck may give an entirely new turn to the problem. Cf. H. Mol and E. M. Uhlenbeck, The Analysis of the Phoneme in Distinctive Features and the Process of Hearing, Lingua IV, 2, 1954, p. 167–194.
L. Hjelmslev and H.J. Uldall, Synopsis of an Outline of Phonematics, 1936, p. 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1955 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siertsema, B. (1955). Function, Form, and the Functives. In: A Study of Glossematics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6671-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6671-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6504-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6671-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive