Lous Hjelmslev PDF

Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2007

For Evaluation Only.
11 Louis Hjelmslev
11.00 Hjelmslev's early interest in languages developed into a desire to
assure the scientific study of Language. Part of that maturation was a concern
for the study of General Grammar at a time when this was regarded as
unscientific: his thesis on the universal category of case was rejected by the
University of Paris as nonlinguistic. That investigation showed his preference
for the clarity of deductive generalizations over what he saw as the increasing
dilution of inductive ones.
In the meantime, he was sketching out a general linguistic theory that
would take syntagmatic relations into account more than the usual focus on
word-morphology. In 1928 he published his Principes de Grammaire Generate,
and in 1935-7, the semantic study, La Categorie des cas. He mentions no
distinct turning point in his thinking, but named Wivel, Sapir, Fortunatov and
Saussure as providing confirmation of his own ideas, and Uldall as all but a
later twin in his development of them.
11.1 The Autonomy of Linguistics, His Prolegomena record dissatisfact-

ion with the status of Linguistics as an autonomous science, and sketched how
autonomy might be approached. The prestige of Logical Positivism,
exemplified in the Wiener Kreis and the writings of Rudolf Carnap, is evident.
The Prolegomena is generally reckoned the most important of his publications,
and his other works as preparatory for and consistent with it. Some read the
Prolegomena as a logical development of de Saussure's basic ideas and of what
Structuralism implies. Others saw it as a justification for practical techniques
they had developed, and a codification of what they had been aiming at. Its
perspective helps make approaches like Stratificational and Systemic Grammar
more intelligible, and clarifies structural bases of Chomsky's work.
Hjelmslev's own views of how his thought compared with de Saussure's are
also relevant to evaluating directions in linguistic study.
11.2 Glossematics. Isidore of Seville's 'etymologies' had little to do with

the real history of words, but did contribute to mnemonics. How could
anyone forget the 'meaning' of cadaver if its etymology were first proposed as
CAro DAta VERmibus (flesh given to the worms') The term Glossematics was
coined by Hjelmslev and Uldall. Whatever the real reasons for their choice,
an Isidoran etymology of it might serve to situate it more memorably in
linguistic theory.
340 / GENERAL LINGUISTICS
Glosse- in Greek matches the Romance root for tongue in the word
language; -modes suggests a study with mathematical abstractness and rigor.
It resembles the logistical study of language by Carnap and others, but without
their neglect of the dual nature of the linguistic sign (Hjelmslev 1947:76). It
also suggests how that degree of abstractness is attained, and its consequent
power: computability free of subjective connotations, or even of objective
denotations, which Bloomfield found a mark of scientific discourse.
Mathematics and logistic deal objectively with quantity undistracted by
differences in quality. Judgements about identity or difference in qualities
remain clearly and nobly subjective, but once identified for the mathematician,
relations among objects of even debatable qualities can be calculated, and all
possible permutations computed.
Glossematics ignores the peculiarities of concrete languages to establish
a calculus of possible linguistic form upon which individual languages draw.
For example, if language-as-system were Column A, then a language-as-
process could be illustrated under Columns I to IV. Glossematics, of course,
is not as simple as A, and real languages are more complex than I to IV.
Column A is a calculus of all possible combinations for A and B.

Glossematics is to be a calculus of all possible combinations in Language.
Columns I through IV show actual combinations in a language. All the
Columns from A through IV are independent of interpretations that exemplify
them (phonetics, semantics, games, decisions, music, heads-or-tails, sentences,
etc.). Yet Columns I to IV have the premised nature Hjelmslev proposes for
an object to be considered a language (Hjelmslev 1947:78):
1. Content and expression

2. Succession (text) and system
3. Content and expression are linked by commutation
4. Constraints within succession and system
5. Lack of isomorphism between content and expression, and non-
expressive constituents of expressions.
Columns I-IV meet these requirements, as do Hjelmslev's examples from

traffic lights, Morse code, or chiming clocks. (1) They have expressions like
11 Louis Hjelmslev / 341
A, +A or -A, and interpretations like head-or-tail, odd-or-even can be their

content. (2) Drawn exclusively from (what Firth also called) the System (A,
B), successive Structures are ±A, ±A ±B, ±B, or ±B ±A, and 0. (3) These
structures contrast as minimal pairs. (4) Dotted lines in Columns I-IV show
structures excluded (Constraints), and the absence of С is a Constraint upon
the System (A, B). (5) Since head or tail, odd or I'm a monkey's uncle are
possible contents, there is no isomorphism between content and expression,
and the non-expressive constituents of A and В are these visual features of
how those expressions are drawn or printed—(a) the slanted lines of the
printed letter A, (b) the horizontal line [-] of A, (c) the straight line of B, and
(d) the curved upper and lower elements of B.
Glossematics and Column A are also alike in not being falsifiable by
applications (like coins standing on edge in heads-or-tails). They are just
shown to be inappropriate for that particular interpretation. Here we find a
challenging example of how abstract Linguistics can afford to be without being
irrelevant, compared to how concrete it can afford to get without getting lost
in concrete detail.
11.04 The Prolegomena and the Empirical Principle. This is Hjelmslev's

concern: linguistic theory has suffered from premature and irrelevant involve-
ment with uses to which Language can be put. While intimately involved with
culture, psychology, logic, and so on, Language is definable without reference
to those studies and autonomously investigable apart from them. Language as
System is logically prior to, and independent of, Language as Process. It is 'a
self-sufficient totality, a structure sui generis.' (РТА 1961:5-6). Its study should
be immanent, not based on derivative or associated factors; it should be exact,
with each succeeding step defined on the preceding step; and it should be
appropriate, based on, and applicable to, experience.
The title, Prolegomena, says this work is not the theory, but a preface
concerned with the properties such a theory should have, how the theory
ought to proceed, and how immanent study relates language to social
phenomena. That such a preface is required is direct criticism of other
linguists. Hjelmslev thinks that there is little of value he can extract from the
work of his predecessors: he acknowledges resonance between his own
thought and what he found later in Saussure, as well as direct indebtedness
to contemporaries in the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle, especially to Hans
J0rgen Uldall. For a while, he and Hjelmslev formed a complementary unity
like the Chesterbelloc, of content and expression. Hjelmslev's forte was a
broad linguistic base and IndoEuropean content. Uldall had done phonetics
under Daniel Jones, anthropology and Amerindian with Boas, and recorded
Maidu texts, one of Malinowski's early interests.
11.05 Practical Problems. Development of Glossematics was impeded

during the Second World War, since Uldall's absences made direct
collaboration impossible. In preparing to present a version of Glossematics
at the 10th Anniversary of the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle in 1941,

Hjelmslev outlined it (translated 1973), wrote Language (1963 [1970]), then
Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlaeggelse (1943). It was translated into English
by Francis Whitfield as the Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (abbreviated
here as PTL) in 1953 and revised in 1961.
Uldall's algebraic version in Part I of a projected Outline of Glossematics
(1957) was an awkward base for Hjelmslev. He preferred his original verbal
formulations: his own Part II of the projected Outline did not appear.
11.06 Prediction and Explanation. Hjelmslev mentions a barrier to

progress: the a priori assumption of humanists that human acts are not
amenable to scientific study, that such acts can only be described, not
explained, and only inexactly described at that, because human acts are not
recurrent like natural events. On the contrary, he finds it a priori reasonable
to assume—and this is the core of his approach-that
...any process can be analyzed into a limited number of elements recurring in various
combinations. Then, on the basis of this analysis, it should be possible to order these
elements into classes according to their possibilities of combination. And it should be
further possible to set up a general and exhaustive calculus of the possible combinations.
(PTL .9)
On such assumptions, history could change from a discipline working at

the level of mere primitive description to a generalizing science where all
events and combinations would be foreseen, and their conditions established.
He sees only two options open to the humanities: to remain on the level of
poetry, or to combine poetic and scientific treatment as two coordinate forms
of description. Linguistic theory aims at testing the thesis that every process
has an underlying system.
11.07 The Empirical Principle. This goal leads to his version of the
Empirical Principle:
The description shall be free of contradiction (self-consistent), exhaustive, and as

simple as possible. The requirement of freedom from contradiction takes precedence over
the requirement of exhaustive description. The requirement of exhaustive description takes
precedence over the requirement of simplicity. (PTL 11)
Hjelmslev distinguishes this from induction. He defines that as proceeding

from component to class: his approach proceeds from class to component,
structurally. He says that induction results only in vague reifications incapable
of generalization beyond a single language, e.g. constructs like subjunctive
mood common to Latin and Greek (Latin distinguishes indicative from
subjunctive, Greek opposes both to an optative, etically and emically).
11.08 Text is the sole given. So the Empirical Principle demands that text
be taken as a class analyzed into components. These components themselves
can be hierarchies—classes analyzable into components which are classes of
components, etc.—until analysis terminates in what he calls entities. Though

recognizing that the term is debatable, he says linguistic method must be
deductive, proceeding from class to component, structurally:
Scientific statements must be structural statements in this sense of the word... a

scientific statement must always be a statement about relations without involving knowledge
or a description of the relata themselves. (Hjelmslev 1947:75, quoting Carnap 1928)
That quasi-mathematical perspective is what he found even in Saussure's

1879 Memoirs. That established him as a linguist, rather than a philologist:
At the outset, Saussure arrived at this view through a consideration of the
IndoEuropean vowel system. As early as 1879, the analysis undertaken by Saussure of that
system in his famous Memoire had shown him that in some cases the so-called long vowels
can be conveniently reduced to combinations of a simple vowel plus a particular unit which
by Saussure was symbolized by *A. The advantage of such an analysis over the classical
one was that of furnishing a simpler solution, the so-called long vowels being discarded as
such from the system, and of revealing a striking analogy between ablaut series which had
been considered up till then as radically different. But interpreting, e.g. tithemi : thomos :
thews as *dheA : dhoA : *dhA, this ablaut series reveals itself as fundamentally the same
as that of derkhomai, dedorka, edrakon, which is equal to derk,: dork,: drkv Thus, *eA is to
*oA what *er is to *or, and A plays the same role in the ablaut series as the *r of *drkv This
analysis was carried out for internal reasons only, in order to gain a profounder insight into
the fundamental system; and it was not based on any evidence available in the languages
compared; it was an internal operation within the Indo-european system. Direct evidence
for the existence of *A has later on been furnished by Hittite, but not until after
Saussure's death. The unit *A has been interpreted, from the phonetic point of view, as a
laryngeal. But it is well worth noting that Saussure himself would never have ventured
any such phonetic interpretation. To him the *A was not a sound, and he took care not to
define it by any phonetic properties, this being immaterial to his argument: his concern
was the system only, and in this system, * A was defined by its definite relations to the other
units of the system, and by its faculty of taking up definite positions within the syllable.
This is expressly stated by Saussure himself, and this is the famous point where he
introduces the term phoneme to designate a unit which is not a sound, but which may be
represented or manifested by a sound. (1947.71-2)
11.09 Langue as Pure Form. Hjelmslev found more than one sense for
langue in Saussure's pioneer work. He
...endeavored to disentangle, as far as it goes, the various layers or strata which can be
observed in Saussure's meditations, and to lay bare what to my mind is the entirely new
and really profitable idea in his work. This is, if I am not mistaken, the conception of
language as a purely relational structure, as a pattern as opposed to the usage (phonetic,
semantic, etc.) in which this pattern is accidentally manifested. [Cahiers Ferdinand de
Sausswe.(1943:2.29-44)}
He believed others could only grasp Saussure's insights when 'langue is

not identified with pure form, but where language is conceived as a form
within the substance, and not independent of the substance' (PTL 1947:70).
This was a fault he found in the Prague School's definition of Phoneme.
Such a view did not agree with the last line of the Cours:
Linguistics has as its unique and true object la langue envisaged in and for
itself.
Where de Saussure only spoke of la langue as form generically, Hjelmslev will
list its specific logical forms. Where Saussure assumed la langue was a single
form unifying two substances (amorphous ranges of experience and sound),
he posits two: content-form and expression-form.
11.10 Logical Implication. This perspective identifies part of the unity

of Unified Science: independent of the content of particular sciences, it
involves an implicit definition of description and explanation, and the relation
between them. Hjelmslev prefers an intra-, not an extra-linguistic account. Its
procedure relies on formal logic, particularly logical implication. He takes the
form of all scientific theorems to be the 'If., then' expression of implication,
or transposable into it. Such theorems, he says, assert only that 'if a condition
is fulfilled, the truth of a given proposition follows' (PTL 14).
11.11 Valid vs. True. This ignores the distinction between valid and true.
That difference is obvious in the rules defining Material Implication in
Symbolic Logic. If that's IE, I'm an allophone is a valid2 Material Implication.
Strict Implication, where conclusions involve causal connections (in his terms,
appropriate—more or less 'verifiable in the real world'), involves factors
irrelevant to formal logic's definition of truth-conditions. Formal logic only
studies valid connexity among assertions relative to each other. The logician
accepts truth-values of individual assertions as presented by a science, or
assigns them arbitrarily for computation, as in Columns A-IV. That formally
valid conclusions can be nonsense shows that a different point of view is
involved. Total population divided by the number of families says 2 parents
+ 2.5 children are the average family, validly - but inappropriately.
11.12 Arbitrary vs. Appropriate. Hypotheses can be formed on the basis

of theorems. But hypotheses (as Hjelmslev uses the term) are subject to
verification while theorems are not. He discusses neither axioms nor
postulates, since he finds them more primitive than linguistic theory. So
glossematic theory is arealistic (as Firth said) by being arbitrary, realistic in
its appropriateness (as in Firth's 'renewal of connection'). Its aim is 'self
consistent and exhaustive description':
Such a self-consistent and exhaustive description leads to what is usually called a

knowledge or comprehension of the object in question. (PTL 15)
Description and explanation are thus identified, or the difference

neutralized, on Hjelmslev's premises (cf. 1961:78f., 1947:75, where description
of substance presupposes description of form). It was in this sense that it was
suggested above that a description is an implicit explanation.
11.13 Text as System-and-Process. The procedure must be illustrated in

analyzing a text. Any text is only an instance of the System-and-Process
organization the theory assumes, and any analysis is only an instance of the
method the theory dictates. If both are appropriate, we can construct any
possible text in the language analyzed, and extrapolate that analysis/synthesis
to any language whatever (PTL 1961:16-17). That is why all conceivable
possibilities must be foreseen, and why Hjelmslev does not offer either a
practical discovery procedure or the theory demanding it, only a prefatory
discussion of what the theory will have to be like (PTL 17).
11.14 Principle of the analysis: Hierarchic relations. Column A is

logically faultless but cannot not handle contingencies like those which come
up when we actually toss real coins. Saussure said the investigator's point of
view creates his object; Hjelmslev notes that naive realism assumes there is an
object to partition. But for science as he conceives it, there are no things:
science discusses (Firth says 'makes statements about') intersections of
relations of three principal kinds. These relations are Interdependence (both
terms presuppose each other), Determination (only one term presupposes the
other) and Constellation (terms are compatible, but neither presupposes the
other). Subdesignations for these relations are appropriate in System and
Process:
Interdependence Determination Constellation

(Two CONSTANTS) (ONE CONSTANT, (TWO VARIABLES)
ONE VARIABLE) In
Process:
a BOTH-AND Solidarity Selection Combination
function
In System:
an EITHER/OR Complementarity Specification Autonomy
function
Since parts of a text 'have existence precisely by virtue of these

dependencies', Analysis is formally defined 'as description of an object by the
uniform dependencies of other objects on it and on each other.' (PTL 28-29)
Hjelmslev calls the Aristotelian category Relation a function and a term in a
relation, a functive. In a hierarchy (a class of classes), a functive can itself be a
function. If it is not, the Analysis terminates in an entity.
11.15 Translating Metalinguistic Terms. Compare this terminology with

(a) Bloomfield's free/bound, endo-/exocentric distinctions, (b) Hjelmslev's use
of the notions of Constant and Variable, and (c) a Syntactic Structures-type of
Chomskyan tree.
(a) In Poor John runs away, Bloomfield would call Poor, John, run and
possibly way 'free forms'. Bound forms are -s with runs and a- in away. The
constructions Poor John and runs away are endocentric: if John and runs are
obligatory heads, Poor and away are respectively optional expansions of them:
Poor John as a construction behaves syntactically like its member John, and
runs away like its defining member, runs. The construction John runs is
exocentric, because its syntactic behavior is autonomous, not like that of either
member, John or runs (Bloomfield 1933. Ch. 10).
(b) Expressed as a relation between constants and variables, heads and

free forms are constants (presupposed but not presupposing); optional
expansions and bound forms are variables (presupposing, but not
presupposed). The relation between expansions independent of each other
like Poor and away (for which Bloomfield has no designation) is between two
variables. Exocentric constructions have no Head: the grammatical behavior
of John runs is not in parallel distribution with either John nor runs. That
relation is a relation between two constants.
(c) In a slightly different example, but one that can highlight some
problems in Hjelmslev's approach, consider this display of the sentence The
Romans destroyed Carthage, where each categorial constituent of Sentence
(labelled S1) has its own numerical identification:
In Hjelmslev's terms, S1 (Sentence) is a function, whose functives are

NP (Noun phrase) and VP3 (Verb phrase). But (2) and (3) are not only
2
functives of (1), but are themselves functions. The functives of (2) are d6
(determiner) and N7 (Noun), while the functives of function (3) are the
functives V4 (Verb) and NP5 (Noun phrase), and (4) and (5) too, are both
functives that are functions. While (6) and (7) are functives in the function
between the classes (determiner) and (Noun), the functives of (6) and (7) are
entities (The and Romans), which are not functions, as this analysis presents
them.
(4) as a functive is on a par with (6) or (7), a function whose functive is

an entity, destroyed. But NP5 is a function whose functives are also functions
on a par with (4) (6) and (7): its functives are the entities 0 and Carthage.
Hjelmslev calls the relation of a functive to its function derivation. In that
relation, the functive is called a derivate. S is not presented as a derivate, but
every other functive is. Porphyry's Tree has Substance as supreme genus,
from which other genera and species (functives that are functions) are derived,
until derivation terminates in individuals (entities). Others use labels like
class, set, or category vs. subclass, subset, or subcategory: these are relations
(functions) between terms (functives), terminating in elements, individuals, or
entities. Firth's relationship of exponence of a category shifts the criterion
from member of to manifested by, a point of view which is one reason for
saying morphemes cannot be composed of phonemes.
Degrees of derivation can be assigned on such trees. Assigning grade 0
to S1, to which derivates show a dependence, we compute (2) and (3) as both
degree 1 derivates; (6) and (7) are degree 2 derivates, as are (4) and (5). But
(8) and (9) are degree 3 derivates, compared to (6) and (7).
11.16 'What is a' and 'What functions as a'. Labels for different degrees
of derivation, as well as for derivations on different norms—like exponence—
should correlate. Hispanus, for instance, distinguished between Subject-as-
Subject or Predicate-as-Predicate ('functions') and what-is-Subject or what-is-
Predicate ('functives') as Hjelmslev distinguishes among function, functive, and
entity. Or, as we shall see, Fillmore noted that grammatical Subject and
Object are not appropriately identified by immediate derivation of NP2 from
S1, compared to the immediate derivation of NP5 from VP3, or NP5,s
derivation from (or, as Hjelmslev calls it, dependence on) S1. This kind of
tree-display has only two dimensions (like circular figures). To include multi-
dimensional factors in a two-dimensional representation is a challenge.
Alternatively, the differences can be incorporated into conventions for reading
trees or other representations, which are not explicitly represented in the
models, as in columns I-IV. Bloomfield noted the importance of the
convention that presented signs in the order of speech, in his account of the
development of writing.
11.17 Exclusion. Define system as a finite number of units, in a defmable

totality, constrained in a finite number of ways. To paraphrase Hjelmslev, it
would seem a priori reasonable to assume that the description of a System like
I-IV vs. A, should answer about the Structures derivable within it: 'Given X,
what does it demand, exclude or tolerateV. A structural description should do
that. But there is no provision for exclusion in Hjelmslev's Interdependence,
Determination, or Constellation. It might be argued that it is there implicitly,
since exclusion is the opposite of demand.
In The Romans destroyed Carthage, The Romans is neither obviously
endocentric (determination) nor exocentric (interdependence): with Romans
as constant and the as variable, it is endocentric or determination; with both

the and Romans as constants, it is interdependent. In English, the absence
(Firth's exponence') of the category determiner with Carthage could be
described as a subcategory proper noun demand for the absence of an article,
or exclusion of articles.
Hjelmslev is specifying de Saussure's generic/o/ra in logical terms, but he
does not deal with a standard logical relation: Constellation does not
distinguish exclusive disjunction (where only one option is valid) from
inclusive disjunction (where either of two options are valid). In this example,
Poor or away are inclusively disjunctive (either can freely ± occur). No
example is given of what Firth's Colligations or Collocations where one form
might exclude the other.
11.18 Langue, Text and Context De Saussure insisted on the centrality

of la langue (not parole or langage) for a linguistic discussion of language and
Hjelmslev presents text as the sole given. Missteps in linguistic study result
from the admixture of concerns like logic, message, or nonlinguistic
consequences other than System determining text as Process. For some
linguists, the Prolegomena clarified the dimly perceived unity of what they had
been doing; for others, its degree of abstraction foredoomed Glossematics.
A simple example like Poor John ran away suggests that one root of both
reactions correlates with willingness to entertain different degrees of
abstraction. It also is a function of what is considered relevant in linguistic
analysis. Is analysis to terminate in categories, subcategories, or entities? Are
there demonstrably linguistic criteria omitted in this analysis? Are
Glossematics' limitations in its theory, or in its Porphyrian lineage? Hjelmslev
preferred his verbal approach to Uldall's algebraic formulations and did not
use the tree representations common in linguistics since Chomsky's 1957
Syntactic Structures.
11.19 Signs and figurae. Signs have been said to represent, or be the
exponents of, or to realize content. Sign expressions are readily analyzed into
nonsign components like phonemes, clusters, syllables, or phonematic units.
What, if anything, is the composition of content? As formed in the
Porphyrian Tree, a Western logical tradition defines all but primitives vertically
through the genus and species to which they belong, and horizontally through
their peculiar way of belonging to a class. Man is defined generically as a
rational species of the genus animal. Specific differences proposed as peculiar
to man have been the ability to laugh, or as 'the only animal that can blush—
and needs to* (Mark Twain), or as 'the ungrateful animal (Dostoyevsky).
Descriptive (or accidental) definitions include the negative Jeatherless biped"
or the positive anthropological description, 'the tool-making animal.
Dissecting men phonetically isolates the components [m] [e] and [n]:
Hjelmslev calls these expression figurae. Analyzed morphologically, we
distinguish root and infix, or base and phonetic modification, with contents
like man and PLURAL; we can isolate some sense-elements he calls content
figurae from the definitions given above such as:
1120 Meaning is Contextual. Essential to Hjelmslev's conception of

content is that all meanings are contextual-including the content of the term
content itself in his own vs. de Saussure's use of it~and that absence of
meaning is not lack of content:
If we think without speaking, the thought is not a linguistic content and not a functive
for a sign function. If we speak without thinking, and in the form of series of sounds to
which no content can be attached by any listener, such speech is an abracadabra, not a
linguistic expression and not a functive for a sign function. Of course, lack of content must
not be confused with lack of meaning: an expression may very well have a content which
from some point of view (for example, that of normative logic or physicalism) may be
characterized as meaningless, but it is a content. (PTL.49)
Content is relatively determined, e.g. John Ciardi: nine is the number of

fingers you have after stopping a hole in the dike; Ambrose Bierce: edible is
good to eat, and wholesome to digest, as a worm to a toad, a toad to a snake,
a snake to a pig a pig to a man, and a man to a worm. These suggest
differences among meanings as content, sense or reference, paralleling
Saussure's distinctions among signification, value and content. Sense or
content here can be the contextualization of a certain number of content
figurae which sufficiently overlap for speakers to agree on the referent, even
though senses are not identical. Registering an inventory of content figurae
in systems and processes should be part of linguistic analysis as Hjelmslev sees
it.
Some English speakers link exit with its Latin function as a 3rd person,
indicative, verb. For others, exit is just like other root-words, so they find no
anomaly in a sign that orders Exit right, though they might in Adit right. The
content figurae of the verbs loom and forebode are as distinct as those for
appear and predict, but share a connotation, ominous, accounting for
anomalies many found in A silence looms or A derrick forebodes over the
campus in student publications.
1121 Content: Purport, Schema, and Usage. Once granted contextualiz

ation and its implications, several consequences follow in Hjelmslev's
approach. (1) A principle of generalization suggests to him the elimination
of what he labels variants, like ram, ewe, mare, stallion, man, woman, boy, girl
for invariants like he, she, sheep, horse, human being child of which they can
be said to be composed. (2) By distinguishing forms of opposition or
contextualization from what happens to fill such patterns, he defines a
linguistic schema as a pattern to be filled, while a linguistic usage focuses on

fillers of that formal pattern. (3) Bound expression-level variants (like
allophones) are varieties, determined by pattern, not phonetic similarity
(unlike allophones). (4) This prepares for acceptance of purport as an
unorganized, or as yet unformed, aggregate of what content figurae are
actually about or might have connection with. This is like traditional matter
as opposed to form: he adopts de Saussure's gaffe of calling it substance.
Succinctly:
We thus recognize in the linguistic content, in its process, a specific form, the content-
form, which is independent of, and stands in arbitrary relation to, the purport, and forms
it into a content-substance.
This parallels distinction of expression purport from its expression-form and

expression-substance. If purport is the indefinite range of articulatory
possibilities, expression-form involves the number and type of distinctive
oppositions, and expression-substance concerns particular articulations
realizing it. In a language with three phonemic vowels, the contrastive pattern
could be represented as /i/, /a/, and /u/, even though dialects consistently
produce them phonetically as [e], schwa and [o]. Syncretisms are also found
in content-expression relations, in German, the voiced vs. voiceless contrast
in stops is neutralized in word finals: leiden ('suffer') and leiten ('lead') show
the contrast, but phonetic [lait] in standard Leid ('sorrow'), Austrian colloquial
Leut for Leute (people) or colloquial standard Leit' for Leiter ('ladder') do not.
Some Latin masculines contrast -us vs. um for nominative vs. accusative, while
neuters have -um for both, by syncretism.
1122 Catalysis. One term in an interdependent relation may be

unexpressed. For instance, in a fragment of a Latin manuscript showing the
preposition ad, the unattested term can be confidently supplied — ad always
govern the accusative case, no matter what the lexical form may be.
Hjelmslev calls the process catalysis. The analysis of text in general, then, can
be understood as a form of catalysis,
...through which the form is encatalyzed to the substance, and the language encatalyzed to
the text. (PTL 96)
This is how codes are broken: a consistent principle of deformation

conceals normally formed messages. We guess what that principle is and apply
it to the text. If correct, we have encatalyzed form to substance. That is, we
have imposed or discovered its structure, as in the case of Linear B: once it
was assumed to be Greek, its anomalous purport was seen to be structured.
So it follows that neither phonetic nor semantic substance can, of themselves,
be defining of Language. Hjelmslev gives a taut summary of all this in his
novel terminology:
...if the form is a language, we call it the linguistic schema. The variable in a manifestation
(the manifesting) can, in agreement with de Saussure, be called the substance; a substance
which manifests a linguistic schema we call a linguistic usage. From these premises, we are
led to the formal definition of a semiotic as a hierarchy, any of whose components admits
of a further analysis into classes defined by mutual relation, so that any of these classes
admits of an analysis into derivates defined by mutual mutation. (PTL 106)
11.23 'Meaning' Systems. Games like chess fit this description. They
differ from languages by functioning without the need of two planes
(expression [a pawn's shape] and content [a pawn's moves]) which are not
isomorphic: when there is a one-to-one correspondence between expression
and content, Hjelmslev calls it a symbolic, not a semiouc system. For example,
flag semaphores, Morse code, or the language of flowers are symbolic systems;
English is a semiotic system.
There are further differences: languages involve, not merely a semiotic
system, but a connotative semiotic, distinct from the denotative one. In a
denotative semiotic, no plane is a semiotic: flag systems and Morse code do
not, like languages, provide for the affective use of expression figurae. To say
that languages permit the use of denotative expressions for affective purposes
is to define what Bloomfield called connotations in another way.
1124 Cognitive Systems. Symbolic systems make only denotative

(cognitive) distinction. Morse . . . - - - ... stands for SOS ('save our ship' in
English). It cannot connote a stress on our, if one of a convoy pleads for
special consideration. Our is not even involved when SOS is verbalized in
other languages. Within a semiotic denotative of cognitive distinctions,
meaningful elements can be used as meaningless bearers (expression figurae)
of connotations absent from the denotative convention. Length is not
phonemic in English but can connote strong emotional 'content'. From
distinctions like these, the langue-like centrality of Glossematics emerges, since
Hjelmslev saw no nonsemiotics that are not components of semiotics, and no
object unillumined from its perspective, '... a stand from which all scientific
objects can be viewed' (PTL 127). Any sign-system whatever can be
translated into the system of ordinary language. (1961.46ff, 108ff; 1970.104).
Whitfield's preface to Hjelmslev's Resume of a Theory of Language (1975)
diagrams the relationships as:
OBJECTS
SEMIOTICS'
DENOTATIVE
SEMIOTICS -NON-SEMIOTICS
NON-DENOTATIVE SEMIOTICS
LANGUAGES DENOTATIVE SEMIOTICS that

AND TEXTS are non-Languages and
non-texts C0NN0TATIVE
SEMIOLOGIES
METASEMI
OLOGIES
SEMIOTICS
META-SCIENTIFIC INTERNAL EXTERNAL
SEMIOTICS that are S E M I O L O G I E S
not meta-semiologies
INTERNAL M E EXTERNAL
TAs EMI О L О О I E S
So the degree of abstraction Glossematics requires by its immanent

method is defensible (PTL 127):
Linguistic theory is led by an inner necessity to recognize not merely the linguistic
system, in its schema and in its usage, in its totality and in its individuality, but also man
and human society behind language, and all man's sphere of knowledge through language.
At that point linguistic theory has reached its prescribed goal: humanilas et universilas.
1125 STRATIFICATIONAL GRAMMAR. Several themes found in Hjelmslev's

Glossematics are developed in Stratificational Grammar. Its principal
theoretician is Sydney Lamb, and given his concern for keeping continuity in
technical terms, it could have been called Levels Grammar. A stratum is a
natural or artificial layer; strata parallel levels above and below them, defining
them and being defined by them. Layers of sedimentary rocks form geological
strata, tide or temperature ranges are oceanic strata, educational or economic
levels are social strata, and the process of formation or the resultant state is
stratification. Firth's image of spectral diffusion makes a similar point: light
can be examined artificially as discrete bands without being confused about its
unitary nature. Stratificational Grammar seeks to isolate elements, but
reintegrate the contribution and interdependence of linguistically distinct levels

of analysis to the integrity of text.
1126 Stratificational Texts. The most accessible sources are Lamb's 1966
Outline of Stratificational Grammar, Lockwood's 1972 Introduction to
Stratificational Linguistics and the 1973 Readings in Stratificational Linguistics
edited by Makkai and Lockwood. In Readings, John Algeo's Stratificational
Grammar (4-11) is a graceful and intelligible overview. Lamb's 1971 Crooked
Path of Progress in Cognitive Linguistics accepts Ilah Flemming's 1969
assignment of four stages of adjustment within the theory. In the bibliography
of Makkai's Readings, Lamb marks his unpublished 1957 thesis on Northfork
Mono Grammar as stage 1 and a 1962 version of the Outline of Stratificational
Grammar as stage 2. Stage 3 opens in 1965 with Kinship Terminology and
Linguistic Structure, while his 1966 Outline of Stratificational Grammar starts
stage 4. Accounts of applied and theoretical developments have appeared in
the Forum of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States
(LACUS), published yearly since 1973.
1127 The Stratificational Approach. Following Algeo's order of

presentation, Stratificational Grammar (SG) is said to study language as
consisting of a number of strata or levels, and finds other grammars deal with
it in simpler terms, e.g. by describing morphemes as consisting of phonemes.
In SG, the relation between the morpheme and phoneme levels is not
membership, but realization (cp. Firth's exponence). Although recognition of
levels entails stratification, other grammars can be inexplicit about how many
strata they recognize, what relations within strata are, and how relations
between strata are defined. The number of strata required has varied in SG
(cf. Lamb 1983:189 ff). In 1979, Lamb and Gleason recognized six strata in
three areas:
semology: hypersememic
sememic
grammar, lexemic
morphemic
phonology: phonetic
hypophonemic
1128 'Higher' and 'lower' Strata. The distinction of strata as higher or

lower expresses a diffuse agreement that the linguist's task is to relate
semantic contents and phonetic signals. So highest involves meaning, and
lowest, phonetics. Intermediate levels (just like genera and species) have both
upward relations (by being defined) and downward (by defining) relations.
But the highest must define without being defined, the lowest must be defined
without defining: in Hjelmslev's terms, there are functives which are also
functions, but they differ from functives which are only entities.3
11.29 Strata! Composition, Distribution and Function. Each stratum is

described in terms of its elemental composition, distribution and function.
Elemental units of composition are genetically emes, designated by an -erne
compound label appropriate to each level on which they function as distinctive
features of meaning or sound. In expression, some 12 to 15 hypophonemes
(phonic features like plosion, spirancy, or nasality) are mentioned. Content
emes are much more numerous, e.g. hypersememes like entity, process,
animate, abstract, human, male, female, etc., comparable to Hjelmslev's
invariants he and sheep for their variant ram. Kinship terms, or elaborate
forms of polite and familiar address in languages show the value of this sort
of componential analysis.
1130 Interstratal Relations. Relations between strata can be illustrated

in idioms analyzed into sememes, realized on lower strata as phrases (bull in
a chinashop, put up with), complex words (refer, housewife) or single
morphemes (fox, pup), like the sign in de Saussure's twin-sided definition of
it, sememes cannot be divided mto segments without losing all or some of
their meaning: so a sememe is the smallest integral unit of meaning.
The lexemic stratum handles much of what we saw in Chapter III as
surface syntactic relations among free forms. The erne here is a lexeme, the
smallest unit that forms syntactic combinations, realized on the next lower
stratum as a morpheme (bull, put, with, plural s) or morpheme constructions
(housewife) whose internal construction does not involve syntactic relations.
Lamb's morpheme compares in size to what had the same label in
Chapter 3 above, but is more like a lexically conditioned allomorph (go and
the wen of went, or the plural s of hats vs. the en of oxen). His phoneme
resembles post-Bloomfield morphophonemes, but is close as well to Firth's
polysystemic phonematic unit: the n of an, because prevocalic and never
preconsonantal, must be a different Lamb-phoneme from the n of than.
Although different in distribution, both n's have the same realization (cp.
Firth's exponence) and so are identical on the hypophonemic stratum.
A stratum's function defines its emic status; a stratum's composition is its
inventory of emes; the distribution of emes is stated in tactic rules. Realization
rules connect strata with those higher or lower than themselves. For example,
the morpheme blue is related to various lexemes above it such as bluebird, sky-
blue, blues, and simple blue, as well as to the phonemes below it, e.g. /b/, /1/,
/uw/, in the symbols used in Chapter II.
1131 Stratal Realizations. Realization rules are of three kinds: (1) a

pattern of alternation, connecting upward to a higher stratum, e.g. accounting
for conditioned alternation; (2) a lower alternation pattern, connecting
downward to a lower stratum, e.g. accounting for free variation), and (3) the
sign pattern, connecting downward to a lower stratum. The totality is

connected top and bottom to nonlinguistic reality, at the top through thought,
and at the bottom through vocal-acoustic phenomena, (cp. Firth's renewal of
connection with experience, and the medieval modes of being, signifying, and
understanding).
1132 Text The totality of strata is text. A text exists on all strata
simultaneously. Each stratum may (but need not) have its own tactic rules,
as each may have a different structure, providing different ways of regarding
the same text. The semological stratum is like a network where a unit has
many connections, e.g. To be safe on the Fourth, don't buy a fifth on the third,
a text that few nonAmerican native speakers of English could analyze beyond
the obvious grammatical level. Grammatically, text is representable in a
constituent tree, phonologically, as a string or chain of elements. But text is
all these things at once: network, tree, and string. Text is a complex of
relations linking man to bits of experience, its meaning, and to sound waves
(or in Pike's more suggestive analogy, can be viewed as particle, wave, or field,
like entities in physics).
So a pair of texts may be identical except for one stratum: the texts, The
sun's rays meet and The sons raise meat differ lexically, and grammatically, but
overlap on the phonological level, a phenomenon called homonymy by some
{amphiboly by Hispanus following Aristotle). Bloomfieldians dealt with
signals, not what was signalled, so the explanation of homonymy, rather than
its description, was a problem relegated to some nonlinguistic discipline.
Paraphrasing an ancient example, the phrase his picture can have to do with
a picture of him, a picture he produced or a picture belonging to him.
Stratificational Grammar deals with homonymy as well as synonymy.
Expressions like I'll miss you or allmishya and even his arrival, compared to
he arrives and for him to arrive, are accounted for explicitly as phonological or
grammatically different realizations of the same semological structure.
11.33 Arrangement vs. Process. Strata dispense with the need of process
terms which empiricists find dubious in synchronic accounts. In SG, no
linguistic item X ever appears, then disappears, is replaced by, or changes
into, anything else: a semological unit WX (e.g. become dead) can be a unit
x die on one stratum realized as у bite the dust on another, unchanged and
unchangeable.
But Stratification finds nothing intrinsically wrong with process
terminology. Linguists are free to create an imaginary time dimension along
which they move units, or an imaginary space for storing things, describing
only their respective arrangements. Both item-and-arrangement (IA) and
item-and-process (IP) ways of talking about linguistic structures are
metaphors-one might be preferred over the other, but not on the basis of
linguistic reality. Lamb, however, believes his stratal account is more than
metaphoric; he believes it is an analog of structural differences in the brain

involved in speech production and perception.
1134 Text vs. Sentences. Among the advantages claimed for

Stratificational Grammar are: (1) SG does not suffer from the limitations of
Phrase Structure Grammar which Transformational Grammar was supposed
to amend, to make them adequate for dealing with natural languages. So SG
is an alternative to TG on that basis; (2) SG aims at text, not sentences alone:
it is concerned with anything that has that kind of formal unity, (3) SG claims
to be not only a model of the abstract system behind production and
comprehension, but a model of the process itself: an analogical model for the
production and comprehension of speech; not only how text is produced, but
how it is understood.
Expressed in Chomskyan terms we will examine shortly, SG claims to
model competence as well as performance. In terms used earlier, it should
therefore claim to present Language Itself (a) as all options accessible to
speaker(s) or hearer(s), (b) as those options speaker(s) chose and those
excluded, and (c) as (i) hearer's account of (ii) speaker's choices.
Lamb's Crooked Path labels his work cognitive (Hjelmslev's denotative
semiotic). So some of the uncertain singulars vs plurals in the last paragraph
may not be needed, if one kind of connotative semiotic is excluded, e.g.
personal, instead of the institutional connotations Bloomfield (1933.149 ff)
discussed. The difference involves what is understood to pertain to
competence vs. performance, both expressions ambiguously interpretable as
referring either to group or an individual's capacities and activities.
1135 Group vs. Individual Abilities. It also has to do with the number
of levels of analysis relevant in a cognitive theory, levels Lamb calls strata4.
following Hjelmslev. For example, the words Irish or Italian, Mick or Dago
may denote identically, but connote differently, for speaker or hearer. But
knowledge that Mick and Dago are pejoratives is part of competence in the
English language. A speaker's choice or a hearer's interpretation of either
pair may be acts, part of performance. The distinction can be correlated with
behavior, but cannot be accounted for in Bloomfieldian linguistics as Lamb
presents it.
1136 Strata and Elements. In that approach, fie and vie establish /f/
and /v/ as phonemes. If wife's and wives have the same free morpheme base
and differ only in bound morphemes of possession and plurality, how is the
otherwise distinctive contrast of /f/ and /v/ to be accounted for? Different
answers have been proposed: a morphophonemic level between morphemes
and phonemes (Hockett 1961.27-53); distinguish morpheme and morph; speak
of morpheme1 aod morpheme2; or call morpheme1 a lexon and a
morphologically (lexically) conditioned morpheme2 simply morpheme.
If the elements of morphemes are phonemes, there are only two levels or
strata to describe, and only one source of generalization or explanation.
Phonology as a higher level can be said to explain a lower level that phonetics
describes: postulating /p/ because of its contrast with /b/ explains why [p],
[ph], [pw], [py] etc. are not phonemic differences in English. If a level of
morphophonemes is added, there are three strata to describe, and two sources
of explanation.
As expressions increase in complexity, the need for explicit terms with
refined coverage becomes clearer. Saussure's distinction of negative value,
positive signification, and positive-negative content demonstrate how vague a
single term like meaning is: some expressions as isolates can be described as
overt signals of a signification (love), others of covert values (I love vs. you
love), and others overtly contrastive (he loves vs. I or you love). These
distinctions remind us that Bloomfield's definitions of simple, complex and
compound forms concern signals, not what is signalled. They may help clarify
Hjelmslev's assertion that lack of meaning (signification?) is not the same as
absence of content, since every linguistic element is defined by its value in any
structural approach.
For instance, one English equivalent to the Latin single, free, complex,
form amabatur is he was being loved - four free forms [one simple (he) and
three complex (was, be-ing, and lov-ed)]. The signals -f-and he coincide in
signification, as do am- and love. But -b- covers both was and -ing, Latin -ur
alone correlates with passive, where English uses the discontinuous signals be-
...-ed. Without a fourth level, where each element of content is represented
discretely, the signals can be described explicitly, but not explained explicitly.
Anyone competent in the two languages intuits the elementary difference. But
Linguistics requires explicit technical terms or rules of interpretation,
applicable to the pair, to pick out where contrasts in Language (like Column
A) are realized or nonexistent in a language (like Columns I-IV).
That is, from one gender System, where English demands an overt
expression in Process as he, she, or it, Latin Process tolerates ambiguous
expression of the Systemic options in -t-. Saussure could say that amabatur
and he was being loved may share signification, but their values differ, so their
content does as well; Firth could have applied identical colligations to System,
but have different exponence in Structure; Hjelmslev distinguished
Interdependence in System as complementarity ('either-or') and Determination
in Process as selection, one of four terms central to Bloomfield's account of
syntax. (1933.164-169 et passim)
1137 Examples vs. Formalization. One complaint about Hjelmslev's

Prolegomena was its lack of examples. Works claiming a basis in his point of
view (e.g. Togeby 1951) have been received cautiously by Glossematic
adherents and critics alike. But when examples of Stratificational analysis are
published, its peculiar notation occasions complaint. This is based mainly on
its unfamiliar stratal coverage, the patience needed to master the notation and
then verbalize it by isolating elements and interpreting their connections above

and below strata. The problem is not peculiar to SG, as difficulties with
previous notation show. It is one thing to welcome a disciplined treatment of
a complex matter, and another to so master its presentational peculiarities as
to find it as intelligible as ordinary language. There are few native speakers
of a new metalanguage: if novel insights are obscure, or terminology
discontinuous with formulations it promises to clarify, it can be rejected as just
a new jargon.
1138 Stratificational Notation. Stratificational Grammar developed

predecessors' terms but has its own system of notation for making linguistic
statements. Three such systems are currently available: Algebraic notation
(like Schleicher-Sapir's older one for morphology, Chomsky's newer S ->
NP, etc. for syntax); rigorous prose (like Hjelmslev's novel vocabulary, for
which most need ordinary language equivalents or examples to judge its
relevance); or circuit diagrams such as Lamb uses. The diagrams are not an
indispensable part of the theory, but for now, are characteristic of its
perception and presentation of linguistic relations, some of which are not
treated explicitly by others.
So Geoffrey Sampson's 1970 stratificational study of English numerals has
advantages as a sample at this stage of our study: it exemplifies some strata
and their relations, SG concepts and mechanisms; Bloomfield said numbers
denote without connoting, so as a Hjelmslevian denotative semiotic it may
eliminate a stratum; it is what Firth could call a restricted language, but its
exclusion of a phonological stratum raises doubt about the validity of the
notion restricted language; it involves a small well-defined subset of semantic
units, while the higher stratum is ill-defined in nature and extent. The subset
can be well-defined because its numerical elements are structurally defined
independent of any denotation.
1139 English Number Stratification. Sampson presents the restricted

language of English cardinal, ordinal, and fraction denominator (reciprocal)
expressions as represented on the sememic, lexemic, and morphemic strata of
SG. He excludes a hypersememic stratum since
...such a stratum, being composed largely of the speaker's knowledge of

the world, should be considered as outside linguistic structure. I therefore
regard English as having five strata, from top to bottom, the sememic,
lexemic, morphemic, phonemic and hypophonemic strata. (45)
Sampson excludes a phonological stratum because he could not deal with

numericals at that level without an analysis of English phonology as a whole,
and there is none at present (36). His analysis is given in graphic and
algebraic form (samples appended), and discussed in more ordinary terms.
He justifies SG in terms of general linguistic interest. He assumes

traditional grammar, older linguists, and current consumers want accounts that
even-handedly assist us both in producing sentences and in analyzing what
others say. He finds Transformational Grammar does not address that
problem, and so distinguishes between a generative and a communicational
description. The theoretical contrast is neither one of conflict nor
contradiction, just disagreement about what is worth doing, commonly called
relevance. (7-12)
11.40 Generation and Communication. For communication, descriptions

must be reversible; for generation, they need not be. If structure is order
and constituency of elements, then different structures can be assigned at
different levels by Tactic Rules peculiar to each.4 Sampson suggests that SG
does that on levels called strata, while TG assigns it in the Base, then alters
or interprets it at levels called components (13).
SG notational changes should incorporate more inclusive insights, and
Sampson presents a neat account of one such innovation to show how
relations between strata can either be upward, downward, both, or neither.
Letters can be assigned to the four sides of a diamond, from which lines can
be drawn to another stratum (19):
Algebra of diamonds:
(a) line to higher in Realization

(b) line to higher in Tactics
(c) line to lower in Tactics
(d) line to lower in Realization
11.41 Exclusion. In passing, Hjelmslev notes that he did not treat an
exclusion-relation. That is relevant to the empirical accessibility of syntagmatic
vs. paradigmatic items, and to the determination of what object linguists might
study:
I did not aim in the present paper to provide a mechanism for

eliminating branches from the decision-tree of choices in applying the
rewrite rules, before this tree is complete (which is what is required for
a performance model). (31)
11.42 Morphemic, Sememic and Lexemic Strata. Numerical expressions

at the morphemic stratum are familiar to us, e.g. five, fifth, fifteenth, nineteen
fifty-fifths). Less familiar is the representation of the identical data on the
sememic and lexemic strata, of which it is asserted that their emes are the
system from which we as speakers choose to form structures, and those in
terms of which we as hearers analyze the options others have elected.
The sememic structures the grammatical system permits are strings of:
content units (the integers 1 to 10); operators sum-of, times, power-of, ordinal,
reciprocal, and left- and right-brackets (American parentheses). Parentheses
lack content, but indicate constituency relations among elements in structures
by defining the domain of the operators.
Sampson points out three factors that call for comment: the use of
portmanteau units, the dubiety of string representation of semantic content,
and the fact that trillion is the upper numerical limit of his presentation. The
last is easily remedied by rewrite rules; the second is more serious as implying
linearity or temporality instead of neutral order-as-dependency in networks;
the first seems to favor too much, rather than too little structure, but
simplifying it is easy enough. Hundred is a portmanteau for what could be
represented as HN/ten times ten/ (superscript HN is read Hypersemon). Units at
the top of an alternation pattern are named after the stratum above it,
though Sampson excludes that level as outside linguistic structure, since it
involves knowledge of the world rather than language, as mentioned above.
An often used example of a portmanteau item is French au instead of the
particle a and article le. Its occurrence is determined by French grammar, not
by facts about the world. What it abbreviates or leaves out is readily
recoverable on the basis of linguistic, rather than other kinds of knowledge.
This can be appreciated by contrasting abbreviation with ellipsis. An English
portmanteau baptize can be sememicallypu/ into water от put water on. The
difference is abbreviation of facts about the world users may or may not know.
Bloomfield describes sentences like / couldn't have helped you, even if I had
known her to be a friend of his, and neither could you as involving zero
anaphora (1933.249 ff): the zero-forms, supplied on the basis intralinguistic
convention alone, could be neither could you have helped me, even if you. had
known she was a friend of his.
11.43 Strata Mutually Define and Are Defined by each other. Intermedi-
ate strata, e.g. social levels, define those below them and are defined by those
above. On the lexemic stratum,
A string of downward sememes has as its realization a string of upward lexemes. The
upward sememes ""/power-of, times, sum-of, (,), ten-z/ are determined: they have no
lexemic realization, and their occurrence is in all cases fully determined by the semotactics.
Several downward sememes have alternate realizations: for instance, "/ten/ is realized as
will be realized as zero when used as a multiplier of ten.
In all cases choices will be determined by the lexotactics, which accepts some strings of
lexemes but not others. (55)
French cousin, cousine or German Vetter, Base might be analyzed as lower

lexemic UL realization of higher downward semes DS involving something like
/son, daughter, uncle, aunt/, and the latter perhaps into upper semes US for
vertical and lateral relationships. The lexotactics of English do not allow the
distinctions in cousin. There is no alternation pattern, i.e. no systemic English
option from which structures like French cousin, cousine are chosen.
Similarly*.
In the lexotactics, the lexemes ordinal and reciprocal must still be kept apart, although
most instances of either will eventually be realized phonetically as [0], because the
reciprocal of two, half, differs from the ordinal second (note however that, e.g. twenty-
second is both ordinal and reciprocal); and the reciprocal of four may optionally be quarter
rather than fourth)... (55)
11.44 Stratal Representation. Representation on the morphemic stratum

is by morpheas. This SG term has already been compared to Firth's
phonematic units and American morphophonemes and might be comparable
as well to Praguian archiphoneme. Since Firth's unit can be represented
directly by ordinary IPA symbols, while phonemes are only represented
indirectly by them, it is not the systematic abbreviation phonemes can be
taken to be. A Prague School archiphoneme is phonetic, but more
importantly, a phonological opposition, often represented by a capital letter
to stress its distance from phonetic fact. It stands for a factor common to
several articulations opposable in general, but neutralized in a particular place
in a language, e.g. nasality in bilabials, alveolars or velars. Morphophonemes
have been variously presented as bundles of such factors or oppositions, also
by capitals between curly brackets rather than phonemic slanted lines. At
Stage II (1971) Lamb said 'a morphon is a component of a morpheme; and
the term may be considered a shortening of morph(oph)on(eme). (Readings
21), where morpheme was distinguished from morpheme2 (c.f. Readings 146).
Although a complete SG phonology of English has not been forthcoming, the
details are not expected to be complicated:
Despite their different backgrounds and points of departure, the linguistic

theories of Firth, Hjelmslev and Lamb 'translate' into each other fairly well.
Notes
1. Rudolf Carnap, Der Logische Aufbau der Welt (Berlin, 1928) quoted in Hjelmslev's 'Structural
Analysis of Language, Studia Unguistica 1.2.75.1947.
3. Whitfield 1961 appends 108 definitions referring to 'other, explicitly premised definitions' (131-8).
Many are mutually defining, i.e. structural definitions: Hjelmslev's Interdependence); some are
definitions through genus, species, and specific difference (like rational animal for man :
Hjelmslev's determination). That is why he called attention to his 'peculiar' use of terms like
deductive and empirical.
4. That the resulting tactics (or arrangements) differ is clear from the non-conformity of morphemic
and syllabic structures: basks is a single syllable; it could be analyzed into three morphemes, if к
is recognized as an old Scandanavian reflexive.
Reading
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, tr. Francis Whitfield. Madison.
University of Wisconsin Press, pp 144.
_____1970. Language /An Introduction, tr. Francis Whitfield. Madison. University of Wisconsin
Press, pp xiii 144 (Sproget)
_____1975. Resume of a Theory of Language, ed., tr. Francis Whitfield. Madison. University of
Wisconsin Press, pp 280. Whitfield, Francis J. 1954. Glossematics. In Linguistics Today.
New York. WORD. pp. 250-258.
Stratificational grammar Lamb, Sydney. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar.

Revised Edition. Washington, D.C.
Georgetown University Press. Lockwood, David G. 1972. Introduction to Stratificational
Linguistics. New York. Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich. pp. 365. bibliog 351-358 [admirable text for self-instruction of linguists]
Makkai, Adam and D. Lockwood, eds. 1973. Readings in Stratificational Linguistics. University
of Alabama Press, pp. vi-331, bibliog 316-329. [Section I theory (1-116), П application: SG
with best foot forward: must reading]
Supplementary reading
Hjelmslev
Fischer-Jergensen, Eli. 1943. Review of Hjelmslev's OSG. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Tale og Stemme.
7.81-96.
_____1965. Louis Hjelmslev, October 3, 1899-МауЗО, 1965. ActaLinguistica HafniensiaX.l-33.
_____1967. Introduction, 2nd. ed. of Uldall's Outline of Glossematics. Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Copenhague X.
_____????. Trends in Phonological Theory. Copenhagen: Adademisk Forlag. [Chapters 7
(Glossematics) and 10 (Stratificational Theory)] Garvin, Paul. 1954. Review of
Hjelmslev's Prolegomena. Lg. 30.1.69-96. Haugen, Einar. 1954. Review of Hjelmslev's
Prolegomena. UAL 20.247-51. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1932-37. Rask, Rasmus Kristian (1787-1832).
Ausgewuhlte Abhandlungen.
Einleitung von Holger Pedersen. Kopenhagen: Levin und Munksgaard.
_____1943. Omkring Sprogteoriens grundlaeggelsae of Louis Hjelmslev. Kobenhavn: B. Lunos.
_____1949. Recherches Structurales. interventions dans le debat glosseinatique, publiee a
Г occasion du cinquantenaire de M. Louis Hjelmslev. Copenhague: Nordisk Sprogog
Kulturvorlag. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague. pp 307. bibliog 305-307.
_____1968. Langue et Parole. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 2.29-44.1959. also 69-81.
_____1968. ProUgomines a une Thiorie du Langage. tr. du danois par un equipe de linguistes.
Avec: Structure fondamentale du langage. tr. de l'anglais par Anne-Marie Leonard. Paris.
Editions de Minuit. pp 231.
_____1971. Prolegomenos a una theorla del Lenguaje. Version espanol de Jose Luis Diaz.
Madrid. Gredos. pp 198.
_____1968. Die Sprache. Eine Einfiihrung. tr. Otmar Werner. Darmstadt. Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft. pp 183.
_____1976. Principios de gramdtica general, tr. Felix Torre. Madrid. Gredos. pp 383.
_____1972. La Caligorie des cos; etude de grammaire generate. 2. Verbessert und mit den
Korrekturen des Autors versehen. Auflage der Ausgabe Kopenhagens 1935-37. Mit einer
bibliographischen Notiz von Eli Fischer Jergeneen. Munchen. Fink. Text franzosisch.
_____1978. La Categoria de los casos: estudio de gramatica general, tr. Felix Pifiero Torre.
Madrid. Gredos. pp. 345. bibliography 335-41.
____ 1976. Sistema Unguisaco у cambio linguistico de Louis Hjelmslev, tr. Berta Pallares de R.
Arias of Sprogsystem og Sprogforandring. Madrid. Gredos. pp 262.
____ 1959. Essais Linguistiques. Copenhague, Nordisk Sprog og Kultursvorlag. pp 271. bibliog
251 -81. Japanese translation.
____ 1971. Essais Linguistiques. Ratier Nourelle ed. Paris. Editions de Minuit. pp 284.
______ . 1972. Ensayos linguisticos. tr. Elena Bombon, Felix Torre. Madrid: Gredos. pp 358.
Lamb, Sydney. 1966. Epilegomenato atheory of language. Romance Philology 19.531-73. [Review
of Hjelmslev: contemporary with Lamb's Outline] Malmberg, Bertil. 1964. New Trends in
Linguistics. Stockholm, pp 140-157. Martinet, Andre. 1946. Au sujet des fondementsde la theorfe
linguistique de Louis Hjelmslev.
Bulletin de la Sociiti Linguistique de Paris. 42.19-42. Sechehaye, Albert. 1909. Programmes et
methodes de la Umguistique thiorique. Paris. Siertsema, Berta. 1954, 1965. A Study of Glossematics:
critical survey of its fundamental concepts.
2nd edition, the Hague: Nijhoff. bibliog. 270-284. [readable preChomskian perspective] Spang-
Hanssen. 1962. Glossematics. In Trends In European and American Linguistics.
pp. 129-164.
Togeby, Knud. 1949. Linguistics in Denmark: 1940-1948. Symposium Ш.2.226-237.
____ 1951 Structure immanente de la langue francaise. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Copenhague VI. [Reviews: A. Martinet. Word 9.78-82.1953; M. Fowler, Lg. 29.165-
175.1953]
____ 1965. Louis Hjelmslev, Oktober 3, 1899-Maj 30 1965. Kobenhavns Vniversitets Festskrift
November 1965.159-68. Trabant, Jurgen. 1970. Zur Semiologie des titeraristhen
Kunstwerkes: Glossematik und
Literaturtheorie. Munich: Fink.
____ 1975. Semiologia de la obra titeraria. version espanol de Jose Saez.
Madrid. Gredos. pp 370. Uldall, Hans Jergen. 1957. Outline of Glossematics; a study in the
methodology of the humanities,
with special reference to linguistics. Part I: General Theory. Travaux de Cercle Linguistique
de Copenhague. X,.1957. 2nd ed„ Copenhagen: Nordisj Sprog og Kulturvorlag 1967. pp xxii
87. TLCC. Whitfield, Francis J. 1956. Linguistic usage and glossematic analysis. For Roman
Jakobson. The
Hague. Mouton. pp 670-675.
Stratifications! grammar
Algeo, John. 1973. Stratificational Grammar. Journal of English Linguistics 3.1-7 and in Makkai,
Lockwood. Chafe, Wallace. 1968. Review of Lamb 1966. Language 44.593-603. Fleming,
Uah. 1969. Stratificational theory: an annotated bibliography. Journal of English
Linguistics 3.37-65. [Stratified account of progress: readable on its own]
Gleason, Henry A. 1964. The organization of language: a stratificational view. GURP 17.75-95.
____ 1968. Contrastive Analysis in Discourse Structure. QURP 21.39-63 and in Makkai and
Lockwood, 258.276) Hajicova, E., and P. Pitha. 1968. Review of Lamb 1966. Prague Bulletin
of Mathematical
Linguistics. 8.71-76. [mathematically pointed; a quick: read, long thought]
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modem Linguistics. New York. Macmillan.
____ 1966. Language, mathematics and linguistics. The Hague. Mouton Series Minor 60.
____ 1968. Review of Lamb 1966. UAL 34.145-153. [Umb's work a noble scientific failure]
Huddleston, Rodney. 1968. Review of Lamb 1966. Lingua 22.362-73.
Lamb, Sydney. 1965. Kinship Structure and Linguistic Structure. American Anthropologist
Pt. 2.37-64. (In Makkai and Lockwood, 229-257)
___ 1971. The Crooked Path of Progress in Cognitive Linguistics. Washington, D.C. GURP
24.99-123. (In Makkai and Lockwood 1973.12-33)
____ 1983. On Determining the Number of Strata in Linguistic Structure. Ninth LACUS Forum
1982. 189-203. Columbia, South Carolina. Hornbeam Press. Palmer, F.R. 1968. Review of
Lamb 1966. Journal of Linguistics 4.287-95. Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Language in Relation to A
Unified Theory of the Structure of Human
Behavior. Second edition. The Hague. Mouton.
____ and Evelyn G. Pike. 1983. Text and Tagmeme. Norwood: Ablex.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1970. Stratificational Grammar: a Definition and an Example. Janua
Linguarum Series Minor 88. The Hague. Mouton.
____ 1980. Schools in Linguistics. London. Hutchinson, pp. 283. bibliog. 259-273.
[Chapter 7: Relational Grammar: Hjelmslev, Lamb, Reich, pp. 166-186]. White, John. 1969.
Stratificational grammar: a new theory of language. College Communication and
Composition 20.191-197.
Appendix 2. Part of Sampson's Algebraic Representetioa
THE NUMERAL SYSTEM

Lous Hjelmslev PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lous Hjelmslev PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited by Foxit Reader

Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2007

11.1 The Autonomy of Linguistics, His Prolegomena record dissatisfact-

11.2 Glossematics. Isidore of Seville's 'etymologies' had little to do with

Column A is a calculus of all possible combinations for A and B.

1. Content and expression

Columns I-IV meet these requirements, as do Hjelmslev's examples from

A, +A or -A, and interpretations like head-or-tail, odd-or-even can be their

11.04 The Prolegomena and the Empirical Principle. This is Hjelmslev's

11.05 Practical Problems. Development of Glossematics was impeded

at the 10th Anniversary of the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle in 1941,

11.06 Prediction and Explanation. Hjelmslev mentions a barrier to

On such assumptions, history could change from a discipline working at

The description shall be free of contradiction (self-consistent), exhaustive, and as

Hjelmslev distinguishes this from induction. He defines that as proceeding

components, etc.—until analysis terminates in what he calls entities. Though

Scientific statements must be structural statements in this sense of the word... a

That quasi-mathematical perspective is what he found even in Saussure's

He believed others could only grasp Saussure's insights when 'langue is

11.10 Logical Implication. This perspective identifies part of the unity

11.12 Arbitrary vs. Appropriate. Hypotheses can be formed on the basis

Such a self-consistent and exhaustive description leads to what is usually called a

Description and explanation are thus identified, or the difference

11.13 Text as System-and-Process. The procedure must be illustrated in

11.14 Principle of the analysis: Hierarchic relations. Column A is

Interdependence Determination Constellation

Since parts of a text 'have existence precisely by virtue of these

11.15 Translating Metalinguistic Terms. Compare this terminology with

(b) Expressed as a relation between constants and variables, heads and

In Hjelmslev's terms, S1 (Sentence) is a function, whose functives are

(4) as a functive is on a par with (6) or (7), a function whose functive is

11.17 Exclusion. Define system as a finite number of units, in a defmable

as constant and the as variable, it is endocentric or determination; with both

11.18 Langue, Text and Context De Saussure insisted on the centrality

1120 Meaning is Contextual. Essential to Hjelmslev's conception of

Content is relatively determined, e.g. John Ciardi: nine is the number of

1121 Content: Purport, Schema, and Usage. Once granted contextualiz

linguistic schema as a pattern to be filled, while a linguistic usage focuses on

This parallels distinction of expression purport from its expression-form and

1122 Catalysis. One term in an interdependent relation may be

This is how codes are broken: a consistent principle of deformation

1124 Cognitive Systems. Symbolic systems make only denotative

LANGUAGES DENOTATIVE SEMIOTICS that

So the degree of abstraction Glossematics requires by its immanent

1125 STRATIFICATIONAL GRAMMAR. Several themes found in Hjelmslev's

reintegrate the contribution and interdependence of linguistically distinct levels

1127 The Stratificational Approach. Following Algeo's order of

1128 'Higher' and 'lower' Strata. The distinction of strata as higher or

11.29 Strata! Composition, Distribution and Function. Each stratum is

1130 Interstratal Relations. Relations between strata can be illustrated

1131 Stratal Realizations. Realization rules are of three kinds: (1) a

sign pattern, connecting downward to a lower stratum. The totality is

metaphoric; he believes it is an analog of structural differences in the brain

1134 Text vs. Sentences. Among the advantages claimed for

1137 Examples vs. Formalization. One complaint about Hjelmslev's

then verbalize it by isolating elements and interpreting their connections above

1138 Stratificational Notation. Stratificational Grammar developed

1139 English Number Stratification. Sampson presents the restricted

...such a stratum, being composed largely of the speaker's knowledge of

Sampson excludes a phonological stratum because he could not deal with

He justifies SG in terms of general linguistic interest. He assumes

11.40 Generation and Communication. For communication, descriptions

(a) line to higher in Realization