Chapter16:Mid-centuryAmericanphonology:thepost-Bloomfieldians

D.RobertLadd

RevisedApril2018[CorrectedMarch2019]

PreparedforinclusionintheOxfordHistoryofPhonology,editedbyElanDresherandHarryvanderHulst.

1

Abstract

Fromtheearly1940stotheearly1960s,Americanphonology,ledbyBloch,

Trager,andHockett,wasremarkablymonolithic.Itspractitionersnominally

followedBloomfield,butinpracticerejectedhisclearlyexpressedviewsby

treatingtheelementsofphonetictranscription(‘phones’)asanintermediate

levelofabstractionbetweenthephonemeandthephysicalsignal.Theyalso

acceptedastrongversionofwhatHockettcalled‘dualityofpatterning’,

accordingtowhichindividualutterancesaresimultaneouslyarrangementsof

phonemesandarrangementsofmeaningfulunits;thisledtotheirinsistencethat

phonemicanalysishadtobecarriedoutwithout‘mixinglevels’,i.e.withoutany

referencetogrammaticalandlexicalcategories.Amongotherthings,this

principlemadeitdifficulttodealinsightfullywithmorphophonological

regularities.Thiswasperhapsthemajorsourceofdisagreementbetweenthe

post-Bloomfieldiansandthegenerativephonologistswhofollowed;bycontrast,

relianceonphonetictranscriptionrepresentsamajorsourceofcontinuity

betweenthetwo.

2

16.1Introduction

Forabout25yearsinthemiddleofthe20thcentury–roughly1940-1965–

Americanlinguisticswasdominatedbyaremarkablyuniformtheoryof

phonology,whichIwillrefertoas‘post-Bloomfieldianphonemics’.Thetheory

tookonitscanonicalshapeinthe1940samongagroupofscholarswho

identifiedthemselvesasfollowersofLeonardBloomfield,andwasgiven

textbookpresentationinthetwomajorintroductorytextsoftheperiod(Gleason

1955a/1961andHockett1958).ThelinktoBloomfield’sownideasabout

phonologywasactuallyquitetenuous,butthesenseofcommonendeavour

amongthegroupwasveryreal.

Themostinfluentialmembersofthisgroupduringtheperiodunder

considerationwereundoubtedlyBernardBloch(1907-1965),GeorgeTrager

(1906-1992),andCharlesHockett(1916-2000).Othercontributorstothis

phonologicalworldviewincludedMartinJoos(1907-1978),HenryAllanGleason

Jr.(1917-2007),HenryLeeSmith,Jr.(1913-1972),RulonS.Wells(1918-2008),

andWilliamG.Moulton(1914-2000).1Thesemen(thecastofcharactersis

virtuallyallmale)weremostlyscatteredinlanguagedepartmentsatuniversities

allovertheeasternhalfoftheUnitedStates,buttheywereunitedbytheir

almostmissionaryenthusiasmforthenewscientificlinguisticspropoundedin

Bloomfield’sLanguage(1933),andbeginninginthemid-1930s2theyalsohada

regularopportunitytoworktogetherinformallyattheLinguisticSocietyof

America’sannualsummerinstitutes.Manyofthemalsosharedtheexperienceof

workingonstrategicallyrelevantlanguageteachingmaterialsduringtheSecond

WorldWar(seeHall1991;Murray1994:144-151).

1Joosseemstohaveplayedavarietyofbehind-the-scenesrolesinmid-centuryAmericanlinguistics.Hewasinfluentialinbringingwartimeresearchonthesoundspectrographtotheattentionoflinguists(Joos1948)andbringinglinguisticstotheattentionofengineers(Joos1950);healsoeditedtheinfluentialcollectionReadingsinLinguistics(Joos1957).TheinfluenceofGleason’sworkbookofanalysisproblems(1955b),whichinitiatedagenerationoflinguisticsstudentsintophonemicandmorphophonemicanalysis,shouldnotbeunderestimated.SmithcollaboratedwithTragerforseveralyearsandtheirOutlineofEnglishStructure(1951/1957)wasthestandarddescriptionofAmericanEnglishforatleastadecade.WellsandMoultonarelesscentralbutspecificcontributionsoftheirsarediscussedlaterinthechapter.2Itistruethattheinstitutesstartedin1928,butafter1931therewasahiatusuntil1936.Atthetimeofthe1928-1931institutes,manyofthescholarswearediscussingwerestillinhighschoolorcollege.

3

Thereweretwootherscholarsworkingonphonologicalquestionsin

NorthAmericaatthetimewhorequireseparatemention.KennethPike(1912-

2000)raisedimportanttheoreticalobjectionstothemainstreamBloch-Trager-

Hockettorthodoxythroughoutthe1940sandearly1950s,buthewastreatedas

anoutsider,oratbestasadevil’sadvocate(Hockett1949);Ireturntodiscuss

hiscontributionsinsection16.3.4.ZelligHarris(1909-1992)wasaregular

participantinthetheoreticaldiscussionsofthe1940sand1950sand,as

Chomsky’sPhDsupervisor,providesalinkfromthepost-Bloomfieldianperiodto

whatfollowed.Severalfriendlycriticshavesuggestedtomethatmyaccount

hereunjustlyslightsHarris’swork,buttherearebothpracticalandsubstantive

reasonsformyfocusonBloch,TragerandHockett.Thepracticalreasonisthat

Harris’scontributionsareclearlysketchedinDresherandHall’schapteron

“Developmentsleadingtowardgenerativephonology”(thisvolume).The

substantivereasonismyviewthat,duringmostoftheperiodunderdiscussion,

Harriswasmorerespectedthangenuinelyinfluential.Hockett’sandGleason’s

textbookpresentationsofphonologyowemuchtoBlochandTragerandlittleto

Harris;Harris’sinfluencewasprimarilyonsubsequentdevelopments,whichis

whyheismoreappropriatelydiscussedinconnectionwiththeoriginsof

generativephonology.However,Iconcedethatmyunderstandingofthe

intellectualhistorymaybedistortedbymyownexperience.3

TherapidgrowthofAmericanlinguisticsimmediatelyfollowingthewar

involveddevelopmentsacrossthewholebreadthofthefield.Americanlinguists

3Althoughitisneithernecessarynorusualtoprovideanaccountofone’squalificationsforwritingonaparticulartopic,IofferabriefautobiographicalfootnotetoanchormyownphonologicalcareerintheeraIdiscussinthischapter.IstudiedlinguisticsasanundergraduateatBrownUniversityfrom1964to1968,wheremyteachersincludedFreemanTwaddell(1906-1982)andNelsonFrancis(1910-2002)andwheremytextbooksincludedbothHockett(1958)andtoalesserextentGleason(1955a/1961).Amongotherthings,thisundoubtedlymakesmeoneoftheyoungestlinguistsstillworking(b.1947)tohavebeentaughttheTrager-SmithanalysisofEnglishphonology(Trager&Smith1951/1957)ascurrenttruthratherthanhistoricalcuriosity.From1970-1972and1975-1978IwasaPhDstudentatCornell,andthereIspentalotoftimeinclassesandindiscussionwithHockett,thoughhewasneverofficiallyinvolvedinsupervisingmygraduatework.BothTwaddellandHockettwerefairlyfreewithanecdotesandopinionsabouttheircolleaguesandaboutthefield,andmyunderstandingofwhatwentonintheheydayofpost-BloomfieldianphonemicsisunquestionablycolouredbythingsIheardfromthemduringmytimeastheirstudent.Someoftheflavouroftheinteractionsamongthemid-centurypost-BloomfieldianscanbegleanedfromJoos’sobituaryofBloch(Joos1967),fromHockett’sobituaryofTrager(Hockett1993),andfromtheextensivecommentsinJoos1957;seealsothesummaryinMakkai1972:3-6.

4

continuedtoengageingeneralistfieldworkbothasacontinuationofthe

Boas/Sapirtraditionofanthropologicallinguistics(onwhichseeSilverstein,this

volume)andthroughChristianmissionarywork,andanumberofbasicideasin

morphologyandsyntax,suchasimmediateconstituents(Wells1947a)and

‘morphemealternants’(Harris1942a)or‘allomorphs’(Nida1948),werefirst

clearlyairedatthistime.Nevertheless,muchofthetheoreticalandempirical

focusofmid-centuryAmericanlinguisticslayinphonology,andtherewasaclear

sensethatgenuineprogresshadrecentlybeenmadeinunderstandingsound

systems.ThissenseisconveyedbyBloch’sarticle‘ASetofPostulatesfor

PhonemicAnalysis’(1948),whichattemptedtocodifytheconsensusthathad

emergedintheprevious15or20years.InhisintroductionBlochemphasizes

thatheisnotpresentinganythingnew,butsaysthatastatementofpostulatesis

‘aformofstocktaking:apausing,atsomecrucialpointinthedevelopmentofa

science,tolookmorecloselyintothesubstructureofitsmethodsandtorepair

whateverlogicalflawsmayappearinit’.Inhisconclusion,havingfinally

presentedthedefinitiveversionofhisphonemictranscriptionofoneshort

utterance,hesays:

Toaskwhetherthisisa‘correct’ora‘true’transcriptionofthegiven

utteranceismeaningless.Thetranscriptioneitheris,orisnot,anaccurate

recordofthephonemesthatwebelievetooccurinthisutterance,andof

theirorder.Andtheanalysisonwhichthetranscriptionisbasedeitheris,

orisnot,inaccordwithoursetofpostulates.

Anyobjectionstosuchatranscription…mustthereforebestatedand

answeredwhollyintermsofthesepostulates.Whoeverprefersa

differenttranscription…mustshoweitherthatouranalysisviolatesone

ormoreofthepostulatesthatwehavestated,orelsethatthese

postulatesareuntenable.Ifhetakesthelatterposition,wemay

reasonablyaskhimtostatehisownassumptionsinequaldetail,andput

offallargumentuntilhehasdoneso.

Hisconfidenceintheimportanceofthenewsynthesisisclearlyconveyedbythe

uncompromisingtoneofthesefinalparagraphs.

5

InthischapterIwillsketchthemaintenetsofpost-Bloomfieldian

phonemics,drawinginparticularontheworkofBloch,Trager,andHockett,on

Pike’scritiquesoftheirwork,andonJoos’scommentariesonthearticles

anthologizedinReadingsinLinguisticsI(Joos1957),aswellasonmyowndirect

experience.Iusetheterm‘phonemics’todrawattentiontothefactthatthe

theorycoveredarathernarrowsubsetofthephenomenathatmightreasonably

beregardedasfallingwithinthescopeof‘phonology’.Amongotherthings,Iwill

attempttoexplainwhatwasbehindthesescholars’willingnesstopromotesuch

anarrowperspectiveonsoundpatterns.

16.2Phonemes,allophones,andthephone

Itisrathergenerallytakenforgrantedthatgenerativephonologysuperseded

post-Bloomfieldianphonemicsandthatwhatwentbeforeisnowofprimarily

historicalinterest.However,thereisagooddealofcontinuitydespitethestormy

theoreticalupheavalsofthe1960s.Eventhoughtheirtheoreticallegitimacyhas

neverreallyrecoveredfromthegenerativecritiqueof‘taxonomicphonemics’

(especiallyChomsky1964,butalsoHalle1959),thebasicdescriptiveconstructs

ofpost-Bloomfieldianphonemictheoryarestillthoroughlyfamiliar.Thisis

because,ignoringforamomentthespecificaspectsofthemid-century

orthodoxythatattractedChomsky’sandHalle’scriticalfire,someversionofthe

phonemicprincipleremainsattheheartofphonology(seeSchane1971foran

earlygenerativestatementofthisassessment).

Thecorephonemicideamaybesummarizedasfollows.Thesound

systemofalanguageinvolvesaninventoryofabstractunitsofsoundthatstand

incontrastwithoneanotherandthatcanberealizedphoneticallyindifferent

waysdependingonthephoneticand/orstructuralcontext.Intheterminologyof

thepost-Bloomfieldians,theabstractunitsarephonemesandthedifferent

realizationsaretheirallophones;theirversionofcontextuallyconditioned

variationwasconceptualizedascomplementarydistribution.Standard

examplesfromEnglisharestillusedinbeginninglinguisticscoursesthroughout

theAnglophoneworldtoillustratethesefundamentalconcepts.Theyincludethe

differencebetweenclearanddarkallophonesof/l/foundinmanyvarietiesof

6

English(clear[l]inonsetpositioninasyllable,dark[ɫ]incodaposition)andthe

differencebetweenaspiratedandunaspiratedallophonesofthevoicelessstops

(aspiratedstopsinabsoluteinitialposition,unaspiratedstopsfollowingsyllable-

initial/s/).Somesuchnotionofcontextuallyconditionedvariationinthe

phoneticrealizationofabstractphonologicalelementsremainscentraltothe

phenomenathatoccupyphonologists’attention.

Alessobviousbutequallyimportantelementofthepost-Bloomfieldian

synthesis,whichalsoremainscentraltomuchphonologicalthinking,isanother

abstraction:thephoneticsegmentorphone.Thetheorytookforgrantedthe

scientificvalidityofasegment-basedidealisedphoneticrepresentationofspeech.

Ihavediscussedtheemergenceofthephoneconceptanditsrolein20thcentury

phonologyatgreaterlengthelsewhere(Ladd2011),andIonlybriefly

summarizethatdiscussionhere.WiththeexceptionofPike’streatiseon

phonetics(1943),nooneinvolvedindevelopingphonemictheory–oneither

sideoftheAtlantic–seemstohaveworriedmuchaboutthebasisofthephone

idealization.Pikestatedtheproblemsuccinctly:

Speech,asphoneticianswellagree,consistsofcontinuousstreamsof

soundwithinbreathgroups;neithersoundsnorwordsareseparated

consistentlyfromoneanotherbypauses,buthavetobeabstractedfrom

thecontinuum.Phonemicistsconcurinthebeliefthatsomeunitofspeech,

thephoneme,canbediscoveredasthebasicconstituentofalinguistic

system.…Isthereasignificanthalfwaypointbetweenthecontinuumand

thephoneme?Isthereareal,nonfictitioussegmentofsoundwhichisnot

aphonemicone?(p.42)

Hedevotedseveralpagesofhismonographtodeveloping‘aworkablemethod

forthedelineationofnaturalphoneticsegmentation’inwhichthe‘segmental

unitistobedeterminedentirelyapartfromphonemicfunction’,andhe

understoodthathavingsuchamethodwouldmeanthat‘animpressionistic

phoneticrecordofanewlanguageprovestheoreticallylegitimateaswellas

practicallyvaluable…forthephonemicist…’(p.53,emphasisadded).However,

forthemostpartthe‘phonemicists’continuedtouseastringofsegments–

7

phones,thatis–astheirrepresentationoftheprimaryspeechdatawithout

worryingverymuchaboutitstheoreticallegitimacy.Blochbuiltthetheoretical

legitimacyofphonetictranscriptionintohisPostulate11:

Theseriesofperceptiblearticulationsofanygivenvocalorganduringan

utterancecanbedividedwithoutaresidueintosuccessiveparts….In

[this]postulatewedonot[disregardtheinstrumentalevidencethatthe

articulatorsareincontinuousmovement];rather,weimplythata

phoneticallytrainedobservercaninterprettheauditoryfractionsofan

utteranceintermsofarticulationsthatseem(tohisperception)tobe

staticorunidirectional.(Bloch1948:§11.1)

Sincetheemergenceofthephoneconcept,onecomponentofvirtuallyall

phonologicaltheorieshasbeenasegment-basedsymbolictranscriptionof

speech–whatChomsky(1964)called‘systematicphonetics’.Thatis,the

centerpieceofmanyphonologicaltheoriesisamappingbetweenasymbolic

representationexpressedintermsofabstractelementssuchasphonemesor

featuresandanothersymbolicrepresentationexpressingthephoneticdata.This

characterisationappliesveryclearlytoPragueSchoolphonology,tothepost-

Bloomfieldians,toclassicalgenerativephonology,andtomorerecent

developmentsfromclassicalgenerativephonologysuchaslexicalphonologyand

variousversionsofOptimalityTheory.Thesedifferintheirconceptionofthe

mapping(derivationalordeclarative?),inthenatureoftheabstractelements

(phonemesorfeatures?‘taxonomic’or‘systematic’phonemes?),andinvarious

otherways,butallassumethattheprimaryphoneticdatacanbeexpressedin

termsofasegmentedsymbolicrepresentation.

Giventhisconceptionofphonology,thestudyofhowsystematicphonetic

representationsaremanifestedinquantitativeacousticandarticulatorydatais

relegatedtothephoneticslaboratoryandadifferentsetoftheoreticaland

methodologicalprecepts.(Ineffect,thephoneconcepthasrelievedgenerations

ofphonologistsoftheneedtocometogripswithfinephoneticdetail;see

Pierrehumbert&Beckman1988:1-5forsomediscussionofthispoint).Themost

prominentcurrentexceptiontothisgeneralizationisArticulatoryPhonology

8

(Browman&Goldstein1986,1989,andnumerouscolleaguesandfollowers

sincethen),whichassumesthatthesurfacephoneticdata–the‘output’,asit

were–canbestbeexpressedintermsofquantitativemodelparameters.Butthe

centralroleplayedbythephoneinpost-Bloomfieldiantheoryisotherwise

widelyreflectedmorethanhalfacenturylater.

Itisworthpointingoutthattheideaofanchoringphonologytothephone

seemsnottohavebeensharedbyBloomfieldhimself.Infact,Bloomfielddrew

attentiontothemanifoldinconsistenciesofclosephonetictranscriptionand

insistedthat‘onlytwokindsoflinguisticrecordsarescientificallyrelevant.One

isamechanicalrecordofthegrossacousticfeatures,suchasisproducedinthe

phoneticslaboratory.Theotherisarecordintermsofphonemes,ignoringall

featuresthatarenotdistinctiveinthelanguage…’(Bloomfield1933:85;andcf.

Hockett1965,footnote23).Amonghisfollowers,however,thephoneoccupieda

centraltheoreticalrole.Speech–theprimarydata–wasassumedtoconsistofa

stringofphones,andinsomesensethegoalofphonologicalanalysiswasto

assignphonestophonemes.Theterm‘complementarydistribution’isespecially

revealing,becauseitreferstothedistributionofphones.Phoneswerereal;

phonemeswereanalyticconstructs4.

Thebroadacceptanceofsystematicphoneticsbyboththepost-

Bloomfieldiansandtheearlygenerativistsisamajorpointofcontinuity.Itseems

tomethatitoutweighsanissuethatbecameoneofthemajorpointsofdispute

betweenthem,namelythequestionofwhetherphonemes(andallophones)

wereatomsorwerethemselvescomposedofsmallercomponentsthatarenow

universallyknownasdistinctivefeatures.Thereareatleasttworeasonsfor

seeingthelatterissueassecondary.First,thepost-Bloomfieldianswerecertainly4Thisisnottosuggestthatthephonemicistswereunawarethattherelationbetweenphonesandthespeechsignalmightberathercomplex.Joos,asnotedinfootnote2,wroteamonograph(1948)aimedatinforminglinguistsofthenewdevelopmentsalmostassoonaswartimesecrecysurroundingthesoundspectrographwaslifted.Hockett,inhisManualofPhonology(1955:180-211),attemptedtocomegripswiththefactthat,despitethe‘naturalaprioriexpectation…[that]eachallophonewillappearonaspectrogramasarecognizablepattern…theresultsofactualexperimentationarestaggeringlyatoddswithanysuchexpectations.’Nevertheless,theydidnotabandonthephoneidealization,onlysoughttorefineitorjustifyit.Blochinparticular(postulate9)insistedthat‘anobservercanbetrainedtomakeaphoneticdescriptionoftheutterancesofanydialect,orofasufficientsamplethereof,withouttheaidoflaboratorydevices,thatwillbeadequateandvalidforthepurposesofphonologicalanalysis’(1948:§9.1).

9

awareofworkbyTrubetzkoy,Jakobson,andothers,andconsideredwhatplace

featuresmighthaveintheirdevelopingunderstandingofthephoneme;Bloch

devotesanentiresectionofhis1948articletosixpostulates(§§47-52)on

‘features’.Second,despitetheostensiblegroundingofthedistinctivefeaturesin

thephysicaldetailsofspeech,theactualpracticeswithrespecttophonetics

differedlittlebetweenmostgenerativephonologistsandmostoftheir

predecessors.Instead,themorefundamentalriftbetweenpost-Bloomfieldian

andearlygenerativeviewsinvolvesthedegreeofabstractioninvolvedin

definingthephoneme,andtheconsequentrelationbetweenphonemes(whether

post-Bloomfieldian‘taxonomic’phonemesorgenerative‘systematic’phonemes)

andthephonesthatmakeupthesurfacephoneticrepresentation.Thisisthe

threadrunningthroughthetopicsdiscussedinthenextsection.

16.3Theheartofthematter

16.3.1Biuniqueness

Withinpost-Bloomfieldianphonemics,thetheoreticalimportanceofthephone

wasenhancedorexaggeratedbytheprincipleofbiuniqueness.(Thisterm,

whichisalsousedinmathematics,seemstohavebeenfirstusedinconnection

withphonologybyHarris,e.g.1942b,1944.)Accordingtothisprinciple,every

phonemeofalanguagecanbemanifestedbyavarietyofphones,following

regulardistributional(‘allophonic’)rules;everyphoneinanutterancecanbe

identifiedasthephoneticmanifestationofaspecificphonemeofthelanguage;

andcrucially,inagivencontextnophonecanmanifestmorethanonephoneme.

Together,theseprinciplesmeantthatthereisa‘biunique’orone-to-one

correspondencebetweenanystringofphones(i.e.any‘phoneticrepresentation’,

inpresent-dayterminology)andanystringofphonemes.Forexample,giventhe

predictableallophonicdistributionofaspiratedandunaspiratedmanifestations

ofvoicelessstopsinEnglish,thephonemicstring/kɪt/necessarilybeginswith

thephoneticsegment[kh]andthestring/skɪt/necessarilyincludesthephonetic

segment[k].Intheotherdirection,thephoneticsegment[k]followingthe

phoneme/s/in/skɪt/canonlycorrespondtothephoneme/k/.

10

ThefirstclearstatementofthisviewcameinBloch’sshortpaper

‘Phonemicoverlapping’(1941).Hebeganbydiscussingseveralcasesinwhich

therealizationsofphonemesmightappeartointersect,butwhichcanbe

analysedinotherways,orwheretherealizationsaredistinguishedbybeingin

complementarydistribution.(Hisexampleofcomplementarydistribution

contraststhealveolarflapasamanifestationofthephoneme/r/after/θ/asin

threeandasamanifestationof/t/betweenvowelsasinbutter.)Hethen

developshis‘mostseductiveexampleofapparentintersection’,involving

ostensiblyallophonicvariationinvowellengthinsomevarietiesofAmerican

English.Itisnecessarytoquotehimatsomelengthtoconveytheessenceofthe

argument.

Thepairsofwordsbitbid,betbed,batbad,butbud,bitebide,beatbead,etc.

haverespectivelythesamevowelphoneme,butexhibitaregularandfairly

constantdifferenceinthelengthofthevowelallophones.…Thealternation

betweenlongerandshorterallophonesrunsthroughthewholephonemic

system.Thevowelofpotisaffectedbythesameautomaticalternation:…

thereisnothing,sofar,toshowthatapairlikepotpodisnotineveryway

comparabletobitbid.

Inmyspeechbombisdifferentfrombalm,botherdoesnotrimewithfather,

andsorrydoesnotrimewithstarry:thevowelqualityisthesameinallthese

words,butinthefirstwordofeachpairthevowelisshort(justasitisin

pot),andinthesecondnoticeablylonger.Sincethedifferenceinlength

cannotbeexplainedasanautomaticalternation(likethedifferenceinbit

bid),weconcludethatbombandbalm,botherandfather,sorryandstarry

havedifferentvowelphonemes;andwenaturallyidentifythevowelofbomb,

bother,sorrywiththephonemeofpot.Thevowelofbalm,father,starry

appearsalsoinalms,palm,pa,star,card.Again,thereisnothing,sofar,to

showthatthephonemicorganizationisinanywayabnormal.Butnow

comesahitch.

InthesentencePa’dgo(ifhecould),theutterancefractionpa’dmustbe

analyzed,accordingtowhatwehavejustsaid,ascontainingthephonemeof

11

balm.InthesentenceThepodgrows,theutterancefractionpodmustbe

analyzed,againaccordingtowhatwehavesaid,ascontainingthephoneme

ofpot.Butpod…isphoneticallyidenticalwithpa’d!Twooccurrencesofx

underthesameconditionshavebeenassignedtodifferentphonemes.

Blochthengoesontoconcludethattheonlysolutiontotheproblemisto

concludethatthevowelsofpotandpodarenotallophonicvariantsofthesame

phoneme,butmustbephonemicallydifferent.Bydoingso,heacknowledges,‘we

destroytheneatparallelismofthepairsbitbid,bet,bed,bitebide,potpod…[b]ut

bysacrificingthissymmetryweareabletoaccountforallthefactsof

pronunciation,whichissurelythemoreimportantrequirement.’

Inpractice,atleastoneclearclassofpartialexceptionstobiuniqueness

wasacknowledgedbythepost-Bloomfieldians,namely‘freevariation’.Theusual

exampleinAmericanEnglishwasthevariationbetweenreleasedandunreleased

finalstops.Itwasacknowledgedthatboth[bith]and[bit̚]reflectthesamestring

ofphonemes(/biyt/intheTrager-Smithanalysis)andthatthevariation

betweenthetwotypesofutterance-finalstopwasofnophonological

significance.BlochdiscussedfreevariationinhisPostulates(§§27-29).

Otherphenomenathatmighthaveledtoaweakeningofthepreceptof

biuniqueness,however,didnotdoso.Themostobviousexampleis

neutralization.IfweassumethatAmericanEnglish‘flapping’neutralizesthe

/t~d/distinctioninpairslikebettingandbeddingorlatterandladder,wecannot,

giventheprincipleofbiuniqueness,treatthisastheconsequenceofallophonic

ruleswherebyboth/t/and/d/arerealizedintervocalicallyasaflap(whichIwill

representhereas[ɾ]).Thetheorywouldrequirethephone[ɾ]tobeassigned

unambiguouslyasthephoneticmanifestationofonephonemeonly.Suchan

analysiswasrigorouslyappliedinthepronunciationtranscriptionsgiveninthe

ThirdInternationaleditionoftheunabridgedMerriam-Websterdictionary

(1961),wherewordsnormallypronouncedwithaflaparetranscribedwith/d/;

thischoiceisjustifiedatsomelengthinthedictionary’s‘Guidetopronunciation’

(p.41a).Thisanalysismeansthatmorphemeslikebethavetwophonemically

12

distinctallomorphs,/bɛt/and/bɛd/,andthealternationbetweenthetwowould

havetobetreatedasamatterofmorphophonemicsormorphology5.

16.3.2Separationoflevels

Thearchitectsofthetheorydidnotregardtheseconsequencesasflaws.Onthe

contrary:toputitinmodernterms,theysawthetheoreticalconsequencesof

biuniquenessnotasabugbutasafeature.Counterintuitiveconclusionslike

Bloch’sanalysisofpotandpod,whichmightreasonablyberegardedasa

problemorevenareductioadabsurdum,weresometimesheldupasevidenceof

theinsightaffordedbyrigorousadherencetothelogicofthetheory.Inthe

specificcaseofphonemicoverlapping,theinsightwastheprinciplethat

generallywentbythenameof‘separationoflevels’.AsJoosputitinassessing

theimpactofBloch’spaper(Joos1957:96),Bloch‘madeclear,asitneverhad

beenbefore,thatphonemicsmustbekeptunmixedfromallthatliesonthe

oppositesideofitfromphonetics’.Accordingtothisprinciple,thesoundsystem

ofalanguagewastobeanalysedentirelyinitsownterms,withoutanyreference

tothegrammarorthelexicon.Thetwolevelsweretobekeptrigidlyseparate.

Failingtoseparatethemwascommittingthesinof‘mixinglevels’,atemptation

thatproveddifficulttostampout.ToquotefurtherfromJoos’scommentary,‘the

ghostoftheslaindragoncontinuedtoplaguethecommunityoflinguistsunder

suchnamesas“grammaticalprerequisitestophonemicanalysis”[adirectswipe

atPike;seesection3.4below]andhasnotbeencompletelyexorcizedtothis5Mydiscussionofthispointishedgedwithconditionalsbecause,remarkably,thisissuewasseldomdiscussedinpost-BloomfieldianworkeveninanalysesofthephonologyofAmericanEnglish.Neutralization(andtheconstructofthearchiphoneme)loomedlargeintheoreticaldiscussionsinEasternEurope,wherefinaldevoicinginmanylanguagesmeansthatneutralizationiswidespread,buttheloneexampleofflappinginAmericanEnglishwassimplyignoredorassumednottoinvolveneutralizationatall.Bloch’sdiscussionofphonemicoverlapping(1941)clearlyimpliesthatthe‘alveolarflap’inbettingorkittycontrastswith[d]inbeddingandkiddy.Similarly,Trager&Smith’sanalysis(1957)claimsonp.32that‘Inbutterwefindavoicedfortis[t̬]inmostAmericanspeech’,andonp.34mentiononly[d]asamedialallophoneof/d/.Doggedempiricalinvestigationbye.g.Haugen(1938)andOswald(1943),showingclearlythatintervocalic/t/and/d/wereindistinguishablebylisteners,seemstohavehadlittleimpactonpost-Bloomfieldiantheoreticalthinking.BythetimeofGleason’stextbook,however,wefindaclearstatementthat‘insomedialectsthecontrastbetween/t/and/d/hasbeenlostbetweenvowels’.Gleasonlaysoutthepossibleanalyses,notingthat‘Americanlinguistsgenerallyhavepreferredtomatch[theflapwitheither/t/or/d/butnotboth]whereverpossible;someEuropeans,tomaintainunitslike/T/inwhichthevoiced:voicelesscontrastissaidtobeneutralized.’(Gleason1961:295).ThesolutioninWebster’sThirdiscertainlyofGleason’sfirsttype.

13

day’6.

Seenfromthepointofviewofanindividualhearingasentence,theidea

ofseparatingphonologyandgrammarmakesacertainamountofsense.The

phonemicists’assumptionwasthathearersmustfirstidentifythephonemes

theyarehearingandthenparsethemintowords.Thiswasclearlystatedby

Wells:

Phonemicstakesthepointofviewofthehearer.Nowthehearer,inorderto

interpretcorrectlyanutterancethathehears,mustrelyontwoseparate

sourcesofinformation:(a)theheardsounds…;(b)theextra-linguistic

context….[P]honemicsmakesapointofrecordingnothingbutwhatis

conveyedby(a).Allelsebelongstogrammar(andlexicography.)(Wells

1947b:271.)

Ifthisisindeedthehearer’stask,thenthereisaconundrumunlesssomething

likebiuniquenessisatwork.Considertheinputstring[bɛɾɪŋ].Confrontedwith

[ɾ]inaphonologywhereitcouldbeanallophoneofeither/t/or/d/,thehearer

hasnobasisfordecidingwhichphonemeisintendedwithoutknowingwhether

theintendedmessageisbettingorbedding.But–giventheassumptionthat

sentenceunderstandingproceedsstrictlyfromthebottomup–theonlywayto

knowtheintendedmessageistohaveidentifiedthephonemesfirst.The

circularityisapparent.

Theimportanceofthehearer’spointofviewwasathemeofHockett’s

thinking7.Forexample,partofhisresponsetothesuccessofChomsky’searly

6ThemoralistictoneofJoos’scommentsherecanbefoundrepeatedlyinmid-centurydiscussionsofphonemictheory.Laterinthesamecommentary,forexample,Joosgoesontopreachthevirtuesofpost-Bloomfieldiandescriptivism:‘Trubetzkoyphonologytriedtoexplaineverythingfromarticulatoryacousticsandaminimumsetofphonologicallaws…,andoffer[ed]toomuchofaphonologicalexplanationwhereasobertaxonomywouldserveaswell.Childrenwantexplanations,andthereisachildineachofus;descriptivismmakesavirtueofnotpamperingthatchild.’Trager’sreaction(1950:158)toPike’smonographPhonemics:Atechniqueforreducinglanguagestowriting(Pike1947a)echoessimilarthemes:he‘condemn[s]thebookasatheoreticalwork,andevenmoreasatext-book–sinceasthelatteritwillleadastraymanywhomightotherwisebevaluableworkersinlinguisticscience.’NotealsoBloch’sowncharacterizationofhispodpa’dexampleas‘seductive’.

7WhileIwasatCornell,Hockettsuggestedmorethanoncethatanimportantdifferenceinoutlookbetweengenerativeandpost-Bloomfieldianlinguisticswasthattheformertookthepointofviewofthespeakerandthelatterthepointofviewofthehearer.However,exceptfor

14

workwasanarticleentitled‘GrammarfortheHearer’(Hockett1961a),inwhich

heargued,instrikinglycontemporary-soundingterms,thatforthehearer,

parsingcanindeedbeseenasastochasticprocessandmodelledbyafinitestate

grammar.

‘Chomskyhasshownthat,ifweacceptcertainveryreasonableempirical

assumptionsaboutEnglish,thenEnglishisnotafinitestatelanguage.He

hasalsoclaimedthatnofinitestateapproximationtoEnglishcanmatch

theknownfactsofthelanguagecloselyenoughtobeofanyinterest.This

secondpointis,Ibelieve,false.Itwillbeshownlaterinthispaperthatit

isintheorypossibletomatchthefactsofEnglishascloselyaswewish

withafiniteMarkovchain.’(1961a:220)

Yetfromtheoutsetofthearticleheeffectivelyexemptedthesoundsystemfrom

thisoutlook,explicitlyadoptingthefollowingassumption:‘Theheareralways

hearscorrectly:thatis,hehearstwowordsorsequencesofwordsasdifferentif

andonlyiftheyarephonemicallydistinct.’(1961a:221).Hedescribedthis

assumptionas‘customary’,thoughhealsonotedthatitis‘rarelystated

explicitly’.ThisassumptionencapsulatestheviewexpressedbyWellsasquoted

justabove:hearersmustfirstidentifythephonemestheyarehearingandthen

parsethemintowords.Giventhisassumption,theinputtothestochasticprocess

isnotanacousticsignalbutaphonemicrepresentation.

Withhindsightbasedondecadesofpsycholinguisticresearch

(comprehensivelysummarizedbyCutler2012),itisclearthatthisassumption

cannotbemaintained.Speechprocessing–allspeechprocessing,notjust

grammaticalparsing–isinmanyrespectsastochasticprocess.Weknownow

thathearerscontinuouslygeneratehypothesesabouttheincomingspeech

stream,andtrytoidentifywordsastheycomein;theydonot–ornot

necessarily–trytoidentifyphonemesfirst.Indeed,asanyonewhohasever

listenedtothestimuliina‘gating’experimentknows,itisoftendifficultor

impossibletoidentifyphonemesuntilafteronehasidentifiedthewords.the1961apaper,hedidnottomyknowledgedevelopthisideauntilmanyyearslater(Hockett1987).

15

Furthermore,inalmostanycontext,itwillbeclearwhether[bɛɾɪŋ]isintendedto

representbettingorbedding;thephonemicidentityofthe[ɾ](totheextentthat

thisevenmatterstothehearer)followsfromthat.Buttheassumptionthat

hearerssomehowhearphonemesdirectlyleftthepost-Bloomfieldiansunableto

acknowledgetheinterdependenceofthephonologicalandthegrammatical

levelsoflinguisticstructure.8

16.3.3Morphophonemics

Nowhereistheinterdependenceofphonologyandgrammarmoreobviousthan

inthecaseofphonologicallyconditionedalternationsintheformsofwordsor

morphemes.Theprincipleofbiuniquenessmadeitimpossibleforpost-

Bloomfieldianphonemicstotreatmostautomaticalternationsaspartofa

unifiedaccountofphonology.Neutralization,aswesawearlier,couldnotbe

analysedintermsoftwodifferentphonemesconvergingonthesameallophonic

realization;itwastheoreticallynecessarytotreattheneutralizedallophoneas

belongingonlytoonephonemeortheother.Inthesameway,phonologically

exceptionlessalternationslikethe[-s]/[-z]/[-ɨz]variationintheformofthe

Englishpluraland3rdpersonsingularmorphemescanonlybetreatedaspartof

morphologyoraspecificmorphophonemiccomponentofthegrammar,notas

partofthephonology.Oncethetheoreticaldefinitionofthephonemewas

established,thedescriptiveconsequencesforneutralizationandotherautomatic

alternationsdidnotleadtoanyreconsideration.

Thisisnotaprioriunreasonable.Forexample,asdiscussedbyIosad(this

volume),theMoscowandLeningradschoolsofSovietlinguisticsdiffered

preciselyonthematterofwhattodoaboutneutralization;Leningradprivileged

thesurfacesoundofaneutralizedsegment,andpositedasinglephonemic

representation,whileMoscowfocusedonlexicalidentity,andacceptedthat

distinctphonemescouldberealizedinthesameway.Iwouldstatethe

underlyingquestionhereasfollows:isthesoundsystemofalanguageprimarily

8Aresidualsensethatphonologicalandgrammaticaldescriptionshouldbekeptseparatemayberesponsibleforthefactthat,severaldecadeslater,Kaisse’sstudyofconnectedspeech(1985)wascriticizedformakingdirectreferencetosyntacticstructure,andthatmostsubsequentworkontheseproblems(e.g.Selkirk1984,Nespor&Vogel1986,andmuchworksincethen)haspositedasimilarbutseparate‘prosodicstructure’inthephonology.

16

asetofphoneticgeneralizationsoverthelanguage’slexicon,orisitatemplate

thatplaysaroleinguidinglisteners’perceptsofspeechsoundsindependentlyof

thelexicon?Thereisplentyofevidenceforbothpositions;thepost-

Bloomfieldianscamedownfirmlyonthesideofphoneticidentityratherthan

lexicalidentity.

However,therewasplentyofdiscussionbeforegeneralagreementonthis

issuewasreached.Bloomfieldhimself,notablyinhis1939paperonMenominee,

distinguishesclearlybetweenalternationsthatarephonologicallyconditioned

andthosethatarelexicallyidiosyncratic,andseemstosuggestthatthe

phonologicallyconditionedonesarepartofphonetics;heexplicitlystates–only

twoyearsbeforethepublicationofBloch’spaperbanningphonemicoverlapping

–thatthereis‘someoverlappingbetweenphonemes’(1939:§38).Hockett

(1993:787)saysthat‘earlyon[Trager]believedthatmorphophonemicsbelongs,

withphonemics,inphonology;partlyundermyinfluence,helaterchangedthat

opinion.’Joos(1957:92)describesthedebatesaboutthisissueasfollows:

WhenwelookbackatBloomfield’swork,wearedisturbedatthisandthat,

butmorethananythingelseBloomfield’sconfusionbetweenphonemesand

morphophonemesdisturbsus.Bloomfieldkepthimselfoutoftroublehere,

usually,bydescribingjustonelanguageatatime,oroneareawithineachat

atime,adjustingfortheeffectsoftheconfusion.…

Theescapefromthisconfusionwas,naturally,itselfaconfusedaswellasan

arduousjourney,likethatoftheIsraelitesfromEgypt.Mostofitremains

undocumented,consistingofendlesshoursofdiscussionandofprivate

pondering.…

Hethengiveshisowndefinitionofthedistinction,whichagainmakesreference

toassumptionsaboutwhathearersdo:

Thenativelistenermaybesaidtoperceive–tosomehowexploitfor

message-understandingends–itemsinwhathehears.Insofarasthis

processdoesnotdependonunderstanding,theitemsarephonemic;insofar

asitemscannotbeperceivedwithoutunderstanding,morphophonemicsat

least(perhapsmore)isinvolved.IborrowanexamplefromC.F.Hockett:

17

Onceheheardsomeonesay‘Shehaspoise’and,momentarilyinsufficiently

attentive,innocentlysaid‘What’sapoy?’Thephonemicitemshadbeen

apprehendedperfectly,but,throughalapseinunderstanding,the

morphophonemicitemshadnot.

Nevertheless,althoughtheissuewastemporarilysettled,theplaceof

morphophonemicsinpost-Bloomfieldianworkremainedawkward.Gleason’s

textbookmentionsthetermmorphophonemics(ormorphophonemicrules)at

severalscatteredplacesinitscoverageofmorphology,butitnevermentionsthe

issueofwhythelinebetweenphonologyandmorphologyisdrawnwhereitis,

simplytakingitforgrantedthatthemorphemealternantsunderdiscussionare

phonemicallydifferent.Hockett’stextbookprovidesslightlymoreunified

coverageoftheactualphenomenainagroupofchaptersentitled

‘Morphophonemicsystems’,andfurthermoremakesaseriousattempttospecify

theplaceofmorphophonemicsintheoveralldesignoflanguage(1958:137-

144);cf.alsothemoretechnicaldiscussioninHockett(1961b).Butforboth

writersthedefinitionofthephonemeinvolvingbiuniquenesswastakenas

settled,andthetreatmentofmorphophonemicsfollowedasaconsequence.

ThiswasthebasisofHalle’sfamouscritiqueofthepost-Bloomfieldian

phonemeinTheSoundPatternofRussian(1959)9.Underthephonemicists’

definitions,phonologicallyconditionedautomaticvoicingalternationsinRussian

maybetreatedinafewcasesasinvolvingthecomplementarydistributionof

allophones,butmustbetreatedinmostcasesasmorphophonemiceffectsonthe

phonemicrepresentationofmorphemes.MostRussianobstruentsarepartof

phonemicallydistinctvoiced/voicelesspairs(/pb,td/etc.),andinthesecases

automaticvoicingalternationwillchangethephonemicrepresentation.Three

obstruentphonemes,however,namely/ts,tʃ,x/,havenocontrastivevoiced

counterpart,soheretheoccurrenceincomplementarydistributionof

correspondingphoneticallyvoicedandvoicelessobstruentscanbeanalysedas

involvingvoicedandvoicelessallophonesofasinglephoneme.Somethingthat

istransparentlythesamefairlylow-levelprocessofphoneticassimilationhasto

betreatedintwodifferentways.Thecaseisalmostperfectlyanalogousto9ForamoredetailedexaminationofHalle’scritiqueseeDresherandHall(thisvolume),sec.3.2.

18

Bloch’spodPa’dexample,exceptthatHalleandBlochdrewoppositeconclusions.

Halleprivilegedtheunityofthephoneticassimilationprocess,andarguedfor

ignoringthepresenceorabsenceofsurfacecontrastsofvoicinginphonemic

analysis.Blochprivilegedsurfacecontrastsandarguedfor‘sacrificingthe

symmetry’ofallophonicdurationeffectsinaphonemicanalysis,insistingthat

thedifferencebetweenpotandpodmustinvolvethesamephonemiccontrastin

durationfoundinbombandbalm.

Whatisnoteworthyaboutthedifferencebetweenthepost-Bloomfieldian

andthegenerativeapproachesisthatbothapproachmorphophonemicanalysis

inverysimilarways–based,asithappens,ongeneralprinciplesthatwere

alreadyclearlyspelledoutbyBloomfieldhimself(1933,chapter13).Both

GleasonandHockettgivesummariesofhowtodescribemorphophonemic

alternationsintermsof‘baseforms’(i.e.underlyingforms)andsketchthe

principlesinvolvedinselectinganappropriatebaseform;Hockett(pp.277-278)

discussesthedifferencebetweeninternalandexternalsandhiandthesensein

whichoneprocess‘precedes’theother;Gleason’sworkbook(1955b)includesa

longsectionofdataproblemsthatgivestudentspracticeinidentifyingbase

formsandusingorderedrules.Themaindifferencebetweenpost-Bloomfieldian

morphophonemicsandearlygenerativephonologyconcernedthetheoretical

statusoftheelementsmanipulatedintheseanalyses,notactualdescriptive

practices.ForsomediscussionofthecontinuityinvolvedhereseeKilbury1976.

16.3.4‘Grammaticalprerequisites’

Oneconsequenceoftheradicalseparationoflevelsespousedbythepost-

Bloomfieldiansisthattherearenowordsinthephonology.Phonemiccontrasts

servetodistinguishoneutterance(or‘utterancefraction’)fromanother;words

arepartofgrammar.BlochbuiltthisassumptionintohisPostulates(especially

§2)andthisiswhy,forexample,hethoughtitrelevantandimportantto

comparepodwithPa’dinhisessayonphonemicoverlapping.Sowhatdowedo

whenwefinddirectphoneticevidenceforgrammaticalboundaries?

Themostobviouscasesofthissortinvolveallophonicvariation

19

apparentlyconditionedbypositioninmorphologicalstructure.Thestandard

exampleatthetimewasthedifferenceinpronunciationbetweennitrateand

nightrate,wheretherearetwodifferentallophonesofthephoneme/t/.Sinceit

wastheoreticallyoutofboundstodefinetheconditioningfactorsforthis

allophonicdifferenceintermsofgrammaticalfactslikewordboundaries,the

solutionwastoposittheexistenceofa‘juncture’phonemebetweenthe/t/and

the/r/innightrate.Thatis,aphenomenonthatmightreasonablybeanalysedas

thephoneticeffectofagrammaticalboundarywasrecastasordinaryallophonic

variationconditionedbythepresenceorabsenceofaphonologicalentity,a

‘phoneme’usuallysymbolisedby/+/andreferredtoas‘plus-juncture’.Thisidea

wasfirsttentativelyproposedbyTrager&Bloch(1941:§4)andwaseventually

widelyadopted,thoughreluctantlybysome(e.g.byWells,whonotedthat‘the

validityofjuncturephonemesisopentogravedoubtsonphoneticgrounds’

1947a:§64).

Forexample,plus-junctureplayedacrucialroleinthestandardpost-

Bloomfieldiananalysis(Moulton1947)oftheGermandiminutivesuffix–chen

([çən]).Ingeneral,[x](or[χ])and[ç]areincomplementarydistribution,the

formeroccurringafterbackvowelsandthelatterelsewhere,including(rarely)

word-initially.Thediminutivesuffixposedatheoreticalproblembyusingthe

palatalallophone[ç]evenafterbackvowels,inawordlikeFrauchen‘mistress’

[inthesenseof‘femaledogowner’].Plainly,theexistenceofthemorphological

boundarybetweenstemandsuffixisrelevantinsomeway,butthiscouldnotbe

acknowledgedindirectmorphologicalterms;instead,aplus-juncturephoneme

wassaidtooccurbetweenthe/au/diphthongandthedorsalfricativephoneme,

conditioningthepalatalallophone[ç].Moulton’sanalysisdrewimmediate

criticalcomment(Leopold1948),andthetwopapersarereprintedtogetherin

Joos(1957),butJoos’sowneditorialcomments(1957:216)makeclearthathe

regardsthejuncturalanalysisascorrect.

Analysesofthissort–andwiththem,thewholedoctrineofthe

separationoflevels–werecalledintoquestionbyPikeintwoarticlesonwhathe

called‘grammaticalprerequisites’tophonologicalanalysis(Pike1947band

1952).Pike’sargumentwasthat‘whenphonologicalandgrammaticalfactsare

20

mutuallydependent,thetreatmentofphonologywithoutreferencetogrammar

isaconcealmentofpartofamostimportantsetofstructuralfactspertinentto

phonology’(1947b:§0).10Heemphasizedthatinpracticetheclassicalminimal-

pairtestpresupposedlexicalorgrammaticalunits;hepointedoutthatby

focusingonutterance-initialcontrasts,asfieldworkersoftendo,‘theanalystcan

becertainthatheisatthebeginningofaphoneme,ofasyllable,ofastressor

rhythmgroup,ofanintonationcontour,ofaphonologicalsequenceofsometype’

andthat‘soundsatthebeginningofutterances…aresimultaneouslyatthe

beginningofaword,andatthebeginningofaconstruction.’(§3)Specifically

withregardtojuncturephonemes,heposedseveralquestionsthatnever

receivedsatisfactoryanswers:‘Ifajunctureisaphoneme,canonedescribeits

variantformsorindicationsasallophones?Andhowwillonetreatallophonesof

ajuncturephonemeiftheyhavenothingphysicallyincommonwitheach

other…?’(§4)Hecitedanumberofpapersinwhichanalystspositedjuncture

phonemes,andhedrewattentiontocontradictionsbetweentheirsupposed

theoreticalbasisandthewaytheywereactuallydeployedintheanalysis.

ManyofPike’sspecificcriticismsofjuncturephonemeswereraisedby

others,andtherelianceonmeaningasa‘shortcut’todeterminephonemic

contrastwasgenerallyrecognizedassomethingofaproblem.Buthisexplicit

rejectionoftheseparationoflevelsmadehimahereticratherthanjustacritic.

Bloch,aseditorofLanguage,rejectedthefirstgrammaticalprerequisitespaper

(seeLadd2015:133).Pike’sworkwascompletelyexcludedfromtheselectionof

papersinReadingsinLinguistics(Joos1957)and,aswesawabove,Joos

lamentedthefactthatthenotionofgrammaticalprerequisitescontinuedto

‘plaguethecommunityoflinguists’11.Infact,whilePikecalledformoreexplicit

recognitionoftheroleofgrammaticalfactorsinphonemicanalysis,therewere

othervoicescallingforanevenmoreradicallimitationofphonemicanalysisto

whatwasconveyedbythesoundsalone.10EssentiallythisviewlayatthefoundationofChomsky,HalleandLukoff’spaper(1956)onthephonologyofEnglishstress.ForfullerdiscussionseeDresherandHall(thisvolume).11ItseemspossiblethatPikewasmarginalizedinpartbecauseofhiscommitmenttoChristianmissionarywork(Murray1994:174,189f),butcommentsIheardasastudentsuggestthathewasalsoregardedasratherunsophisticated;amongotherthings,hisprosewasinelegantandpronetooccasionalmalapropisms.

21

Specifically,somescholarsdrewadistinctionbetween‘wordphonemics’

and‘utterancephonemics’,implyingthatbyfocusingoncontrastsbetween

wordsphonologistswerenotfulfillingthepromiseofBloch’spostulates.There

wereneverclearlylaid-outcompetingtheoriesofwordphonemicsandutterance

phonemics,andpublishedreferencestothedistinctionarerare12:forthemost

part,everyonetheoreticallybelievedinutterancephonemicsbutinpractice

workedmostlywithcontrastsbetweenwords.Thistheoreticaldisconnectwas

whatledPiketoargueforacceptingthetheoreticallegitimacyofword-level

phonology,butitalsoencouragedafundamentalistcontraryviewthatsawword

phonemicsas,atbest,apreliminarysteponthewaytotrueunderstanding,and

atworstabetrayalofbasicprinciples.Trager,forexample,grumbledthat‘many

linguistshaveremainedcontenttodowordphonemics’(1962:13).

16.3.5DualityofPatterning

Somewherebehindthepost-Bloomfieldians’insistenceontheseparationof

levelslaythenotionofdualityofpatterning.Thiswasoneoftheseveral‘design

features’thatHockettlater(Hockett1958,ch.64;Hockett1960;Hockett&

Ascher1964)identifiedascharacteristicofhumanlanguage,andasaproperty

thatdistinguisheslanguagefrommostorallothercommunicationsystemsinthe

naturalworld.Thekeyideaisthatallutteranceshavebothagrammatical

structureandaphonologicalstructure,andthatthesestructuresareinherently

distinctandevenincommensurate.Inthisconception,anutterancecanbe

studiedeitherasastringofwords(ormorphemes,orgrammaticalformativesof

somesort)orasastringofphonemes.AlthoughHockett’sworkondesign

featuresappearedsometimeafterthedebatesovergrammaticalprerequisites

andtheseparationoflevels,thereisplentyofreasontobelievethathewas

thinkingaboutsuchissuesearlier(Radick2016),andplentyofreasontobelieve

thathehelpedleadthepost-Bloomfieldianstotheconvictionthatphonological

andgrammaticaldescriptionmustbeentirelyindependentofoneanother(cf.

12Probablythemostthoroughdiscussionofthisissueinprintappearedmanyyearslater(Hockett1987,esp.section5.3).

22

theclearearlystatementofthisprincipleinHockett1942,andHockett’sown

opinion,citedearlier,thathehadbroughtTragerroundtothispointofview).

Treatingtheseparationofgrammarandphonologyasafundamental

designfeatureortheoreticalpreceptwasalsounderdiscussioninEurope,inthe

formofHjelmslev’sdistinctionbetweenthe‘contentplane’andthe‘expression

plane’(Hjelmslev1935,1975)andMartinet’snotionof‘doublearticulation’

(Martinet1949,1960).AlthoughHjelmslev’sworkwasinfluentialprimarilyin

hisnativeDenmark,itdefinitelyinfluencedHockett’sthinkingaboutdualityof

patterning(Ladd2014:108f).Martinet’s‘doublearticulation’andHockett’s

‘dualityofpatterning’arebothnowwidelyunderstoodtorefertothesame

propertyoflanguage,andarestillwidelytakenforgranted,thoughseldom

consideredinanydepth.Itisobviousthatifdualityofpatterningisa

fundamentaldesignfeatureoflanguage–thatis,ifgrammaticalstructureand

phonologicalstructurearecompletelydistinctandincommensurateaspectsof

anutterance–thentherequirementofseparatinglevelsinalinguistic

descriptionfollowslogically.

However,closerconsiderationoftheconceptofdualityofpatterning

(Ladd2014,ch.5)suggeststhatthetwotypesofstructureareactuallynot

completelydistinctandincommensurate.Rather,Ihavearguedthatthereisan

intrinsicallyhierarchicalrelationbetweenthem,whichisimplicitinMartinet’s

term‘doublearticulation’butnotinHockett’sorHjelmslev’sversionsofthe

samegeneralidea:inthe‘primaryarticulation’,utterancescanbesegmented

into(orbuiltupfrom)words,andinthe‘secondaryarticulation’wordsarethen

segmentedinto(orbuiltupfrom)phonemes.Thatis,itmaybepossibleto

describewholeutterancesassequencesofphonemes,butourdescriptionis

simplerandmoreinsightfulifwetreatwordsassequencesofphonemesand

utterancesassequencesofwords.Ifwedothat,weimplicitlyacceptPike’s

argumentsfor‘grammaticalprerequisites’:forexample,wehavenodifficulty

talkingaboutword-initialorword-finalallophones;wehavenoneedfor

‘juncture’phonemes;andwehavenoproblemdescribinginternalsandhiand

externalsandhiasinherently‘ordered’.

23

Solongasdualityofpatterningisunderstoodasinvolvingcompletely

parallelandindependentstructures,thenTrager’slackofregardforthosewho

‘haveremainedcontenttodowordphonemics’isjustified;butifwe

acknowledgetheinherentlyhierarchicalrelationshipbetweengrammatical

structureandphonologicalstructure,then‘wordphonemics’maybenotonly

legitimatebutalsoappropriate.Attheveryleast,itseemsclearthattheissuesof

separationoflevels,grammaticalprerequisites,andwordphonemicsare

ultimatelyrelatedtothequestionofwhether‘phonology’isprimarilyabout

perceptiblydifferentsoundsinutterancesoraboutnetworksofcontrastand

generalizationsovertheformsofwords.Thepost-Bloomfieldianstookthefirst

view,andmostofthedetailsoftheirtheoryfollowedfromthat.

16.4Postscript

Ifpost-Bloomfieldianphonemicsemergedfairlyrapidlyaround1940,therewas

neverthelessnodecisivebreakwiththedevelopmentsthatprecededit.Wecould

citeTrager&Bloch1941orBloch1941asthestartingpoint,butthatwould

ignoretheextenttowhichlinguistsinthe1920sand1930s,onbothsidesofthe

Atlantic,wereallactivelyengagedincomingtogripswiththeconceptofthe

phoneme.Bloch(1948)listedanumberofworksthathis‘postulates’attempted

tosynthesize;theseincludednotonlyseveralfromwithinthepost-

Bloomfieldianfold,butalsoseveralnotablepredecessors(e.g.Sapir1933,Chao

1934,Swadesh1934,Twaddell1935)andtwoworksbyPike(1945anda

preliminaryversionof1947a).

Theendofthepost-Bloomfieldianperiodwasmoreabrupt.Blochdied(at

only58)in1965,andTragereffectivelywithdrewfromtheoreticallinguisticsin

themid-1960s(Hockett1993:786).AsforHockett,hispresidentialaddressto

theLinguisticSocietyofAmericainDecember1964(publishedas‘Soundchange’

inLanguagein1965)madeonelastattempttoovercomethebitternessofthe

yearsthatfollowedthepublicationofChomsky’sSyntacticStructures(1957)13.

13Inhispresidentialaddress,Hockettdrewacomparisonbetweentheatmosphereoftheearly1960sandthatofthe1870s,whentheneogrammarianswereexpoundingtheirideas.Hemadeit

24

Heidentifiedfourkeybreakthroughsthatdefinemodernlinguistics,thethird

andfourthbeingroughlythephonemicprincipleandthemathematical

formalizationoflinguistictheory;thetalkseemstohavebeenintendedasan

olivebranchtothegenerativists,acknowledgingthattheirworkhadledto‘the

firstnontrivialmathematizingoflinguistics’,butalsopleadingforrecognitionof

theimportanceofwhathadbeenachievedinphonologyinthe1940sand1950s.

Ifthiswasindeedtheintention,itfailed,andonlyafewyearslaterHockett

(1968:3)burnedhisbridges,dismissing‘Chomskyan-Hallean“phonology”’

[scarequotesintheoriginal]as‘completelybankrupt’.Afewyearslaterhe

movedhisCornellofficefromthelinguisticsdepartmenttotheanthropology

department(hehadalwayshadajointappointment),andturnedhisattentionto

otherprojectssuchasanintroductoryanthropologytext(1973)andothertopics

suchastheevolutionoflanguage(e.g.Hockett1978).

Nevertheless,hispresidentialaddresssuggeststhathewasreadyto

abandonsomeofthedogmasofthepost-Bloomfieldianyears.Heconcedesthat

weneedtworepresentations,onerespectinglexicalidentityandtheother

respectingperceptualidentity,andsaysthatitisofnoconsequencewhetherwe

callthemappingbetweenthetwo‘phonology’or‘morphophonemics’.Healso

suggeststhattherepresentationrespectingperceptualidentityneedstobe

expressedintermsoflocalfrequencymaximainamultidimensionalphonetic

space,implyingasignificantshiftawayfromthephone-basedstringsofthepost-

Bloomfieldianyearsandtowardarepresentationthatcanmorereadily

accommodatetherelationshipbetweenthesurfacecategoriesandthe

continuoussignal.Intheend,hecouldnotovercomethebitternessthatgrewout

ofthetransitiontothegenerativeascendancy,ortheindifferenceofgenerative

phonologiststothequestionofhowphonologicalcategoriesrelatetothephysics

ofspeech.Buthisfaiththatprogresswaspossiblemayyetbevindicated.

clearthatheobjectedtoboththetoneandthecontentofsomeoftheearlygenerativework,butatthesametimeheacknowledgedthat‘theattackonthenewdispensationfromsomequartersisviciousindeed’.Hedeclinedtorepeatthesubstanceoftheseattacksonthegroundsthatthey‘werelargelymadeininformalconversation’.Adoptingthesamepolicyhere,Inoteonlythatthetemperofthetimeswassufficientlypolarizedthateminentprofessorsfeltitappropriatetosharescurrilousanecdoteswithundergraduates.

25

References

Bloch,Bernard.1941.Phonemicoverlapping.AmericanSpeech16:278-284.

ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.93-96andinMakkai1972,pp.66-70.

Bloch,Bernard.1948.Asetofpostulatesforphonemicanalysis.Language24:3-

46.ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.167-199.

Bloomfield,Leonard.1933.Language.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.

Bloomfield,Leonard.1939.Menominimorphophonemics.Travauxducercle

linguistiquedePrague8:105-115.ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.58-64.

Browman,CatherineP.&LouisM.Goldstein(1986).Towardsanarticulatory

phonology.PhonologyYearbook3:219-252.

Browman,CatherineP.andLouisM.Goldstein(1989).Articulatorygesturesas

phonologicalunits.Phonology6:201-251.

Chao,Yuen-ren.1934.Thenon-uniquenessofphonemicsolutionsofphonetic

systems.BulletinoftheInstituteofHistoryandPhilology,AcademiaSinica4:363-

397.ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.38-54.

Chomsky,Noam.1957.Syntacticstructures.TheHague:Mouton.

Chomsky,Noam.1964.Thenatureofstructuraldescriptions.CurrentIssuesin

LinguisticTheory,Chapter4.TheHague:Mouton.ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.

401-423.

Chomsky,Noam,MorrisHalle,andFredLukoff.1956.Onaccentandjuncturein

English.InMorrisHalle,HoraceG.Lunt,HughMcLean,andCornelisH.van

Schooneveld(eds.),ForRomanJakobson:Essaysontheoccasionofhissixtieth

birthday,11October1956,65-80.TheHague:Mouton.

Cutler,Anne.2012.Nativelistening:languageexperienceandtherecognitionof

spokenwords.CambridgeMA:MITPress.

26

Gleason,HenryAllan,Jr.1955a.(Revisededition1961).Anintroductionto

descriptivelinguistics.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart,Winston.

Gleason,HenryAllan,Jr.1955b.Workbookindescriptivelinguistics.NewYork:

Holt,Rinehart,Winston.

Hall,RobertA.,Jr.1991.156Broadway:AcrucialnodeinAmericanstructural

linguistics.Historiographialinguistica18:153-166.

Halle,Morris.1959.ThesoundpatternofRussian.TheHague:Mouton.

Harris,ZelligS.1942a.Morphemealternantsinlinguisticanalysis.Language18:

169-180.ReprintedinJoos1957,pp109-115.

Harris,ZelligS.1942b.ReviewofL.Spieretal.(eds.),Language,culture,and

personality:EssaysinmemoryofEdwardSapir.Language18:238-245.

Harris,ZelligS.1944.Simultaneouscomponentsinphonology.Language20:

181-205.ReprintedinJoos1966,pp.124-138andinMakkai1972,pp.115-133.

Haugen,Einar.1938.Noteson‘voicedT’inAmericanEnglish.DialectNotes6:

630-631.

Hjemlslev,Louis.1935.Ontheprinciplesofphonematics.InProceedingsofthe

SecondInternationalCongressofPhoneticSciences,London,pp.49-54.

Hjemlslev,Louis.1975.Resuméofatheoryoflanguage(translatedandeditedby

FrancisJ.Whitfield).Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.

Hockett,CharlesF.1942.Asystemofdescriptivephonology.Language18:3-21.

ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.97-108andinMakkai1972,pp.99-112.

Hockett,CharlesF.1949.Twofundamentalproblemsinphonemics.Studiesin

Linguistics7:29-51.ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.200-210.

Hockett,CharlesF.1955.Amanualofphonology.Baltimore:WaverleyPress.

27

Hockett,CharlesF.1958.Acourseinmodernlinguistics.NewYork:Macmillan.

Hockett,CharlesF.1960.Theoriginofspeech.ScientificAmerican203:88-111.

Hockett,CharlesF.1961a.Grammarforthehearer.InR.Jakobson(ed.)Structure

oflanguageanditsmathematicalaspects(Proceedingsofsymposiainapplied

mathematics,vol.XII).Providence,R.I.:AmericanMathematicalSociety.

Hockett,CharlesF.1961b.Linguisticelementsandtheirrelations.Language37:

29-53.

Hockett,CharlesF.1965.Soundchange.Language41:185-204.

Hockett,CharlesF.1968.Thestateoftheart.TheHague:Mouton.

Hockett,CharlesF.1973.Man’splaceinnature.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Hockett,CharlesF.1978.InsearchofJove’sbrow.AmericanSpeech53:243-313.

Hockett,CharlesF.1987.Refurbishingourfoundations:Elementarylinguistics

fromanadvancedpointofview.Amsterdam:JohnsBenjamins.

Hockett,CharlesF.1993.GeorgeLeonardTrager(obituary).Language69:778-

788.

Hockett,CharlesF.&RobertAscher.1964.Thehumanrevolution.Current

Anthropology5:135-168.

Joos,Martin.1948.Acousticphonetics(LanguageMonograph23).Baltimore:

WaverleyPress.

Joos,Martin.1950.Descriptionoflanguagedesign.JournaloftheAcoustical

SocietyofAmerica22:701-708.

Joos,Martin(ed.).1957.ReadingsinLinguisticsI.Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press.Republishedwithcorrections,1966.

Joos,Martin.1967.BernardBloch(obituary).Language43:3-19.

28

Kaisse,Ellen.1985.ConnectedSpeech:Theinteractionofsyntaxandphonology.

NewYork:AcademicPress.

Kilbury,James.1976.Thedevelopmentofmorphophonemictheory.Amsterdam:

JohnBenjamins.

Ladd,D.Robert.2011.Phoneticsinphonology.InJ.Goldsmith,J.Riggle,A.Yu

(eds.)Thehandbookofphonologicaltheory,secondedition.Wiley-Blackwell.

Reprintedaschapter2ofLadd2014.

Ladd,D.Robert.2014.Simultaneousstructureinphonology.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Ladd,D.Robert.2015.TheAmericanfour-levelanalysisofintonationcontours:

Historicalpostscript.Historiographialinguistica42:119-137.

Makkai,ValerieBecker(ed.).1972.Phonologicaltheory:Evolutionandcurrent

practice.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston.

Martinet,André.1949.Ladoublearticulationlinguistique.TravauxduCercle

LinguistiquedeCopenhague5:30-37.

Martinet,André.1960.Élémentsdelinguistiquegénérale.Paris:ArmandColin

Merriam-Webster.1961.Webster’sThirdNewInternationalDictionary.

SpringfieldMA:G.&C.Merriam.

Moulton,WilliamG.1947.JunctureinmodernstandardGerman.Language23:

212-226.ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.208-215.

Murray,StephenO.1994.TheorygroupsandthestudyoflanguageinNorth

America.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Nespor,Marina&IreneVogel.1986.Prosodicphonology.Dordrecht:Foris

Publications.

29

Nida,Eugene.1948.Theidentificationofmorphemes.Language24:414-441.

ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.255-271.

Oswald,VictorA.,Jr.1943.‘VoicedT’:Amisnomer.AmericanSpeech18:18-25.

Pierrehumbert,Janet&MaryE.Beckman.1988.Japanesetonestructure.

Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Pike,KennethL.1943.Phonetics:Acriticalanalysisofphonetictheoryanda

technicforthepracticaldescriptionofsounds.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichigan

Press.

Pike,KennethL.1945.TheintonationofAmericanEnglish.AnnArbor:University

ofMichiganPress.

Pike,KennethL.1947a.Phonemics:Atechniqueforreducinglanguagestowriting.

AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Pike,KennethL.1947b.Grammaticalprerequisitestophonemicanalysis.Word

3:155-172.ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.153-165.

Pike,KennethL.1952.Moreongrammaticalprerequisites.Word8:106-121.

ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.211-223.

Pike,KennethL.1958.Ontagmemes,néegramemes.InternationalJournalof

AmericanLinguistics24:273-278.

Radick,Gregory.2016.Theunmakingofamodernsynthesis:NoamChomsky,

CharlesHockett,andthepoliticsofbehaviorism,1955–1965.Isis107:49-73.

Sapir,Edward.1933.Laréalitépsychologiquedesphonèmes.Journalde

psychologienormaleetpathologique30:247-265.Reprintedintranslationas

‘Thepsychologicalrealityofphonemes’inD.G.Mandelbaum(ed.),EdwardSapir:

Selectedwritingsinlanguage,culture,andpersonality,Berkeley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress,1949,pp.46-60.TranslationreprintedinMakkai1972,pp.22-

31.

30

Schane,SanfordA.1971.Thephonemerevisited.Language47:503-521.

Selkirk,ElisabethO.1984.Phonologyandsyntax:Therelationbetweensoundand

structure.CambridgeMA:MITPress.

Swadesh,Morris.1934.Thephonemicprinciple.Language10:117-129.

ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.32-37andinMakkai1972,pp.32-39.

Trager,GeorgeL.1950.ReviewofPike1947a.Language26:152-158.

Trager,GeorgeL.1962.Somethoughtson‘juncture’.StudiesinLinguistics16:11-

22.

Trager,GeorgeL.&BernardBloch.1941.ThesyllabicphonemesofEnglish.

Language17:223-246.ReprintedinMakkai1972,pp.72-89.

Trager,GeorgeL.&HenryLeeSmith,Jr.1951.AnoutlineofEnglishstructure.

Republishedwithcorrections1957.Washington:AmericanCouncilofLearned

Societies.

Twaddell,W.Freeman.1935.Ondefiningthephoneme.Languagemonographno.

16.ReprintedinJoos1957,pp.55-79.

Wells,RulonS.1947a.Immediateconstituents.Language23:81-117.Reprinted

inJoos1957,pp.186-207.

Wells,RulonS.1947b.ReviewofPike1945.Language23:255-273.