1

LECTURE 2-4

PHONOLOGICAL SCHOOLS
1) Phonological Schools in Russia
(a) Bodouin de Courtenay
(b) L. V. Scerba
(c) The Leningrad Phonological School (LPS)
(d) The Moscow Phonological School (MPS)
(e) Compromise Phonological Theories
(f) 2-step Phonological Theory
2) Phonological Schools Abroad
(a) Ferdinand de Saussur
(b) Leonard Bloomfield
(c) Edward Sapir
(d) Generative Phonology
(e) Structuralist Phonological schools
1) Glossematics
2) the Prague School
3) Descriptive Linguistics
(f) London Phonological School

1. PHONOLOGICAL SCHOOLS IN RUSSIA

Phonology is a general system within the language. Phonology or Functional Phonetics

is a purely linguistic branch of Phonetics. It covers all segmental and prosodic features
which possess a distinctive value in the language. It establishes the system of phonemes
and prosodic units (prosodemes). The basis of Phonology is the phoneme. The theory of
phoneme was introduced by Bodouin de Courtenay and later developed by his followers
such as L.V. Scerba and others.

(a) Ivan Alexandrovich (Jan in Western Linguistics) BODOUIN DE COURTENAY

(1845-1924) is an outstanding Russian philologist of Polish origin who started and
developed his career in St. Petersburg but his last (10 years) were spent in Poland.
1. Bodouin de Courtenay was the first to formulate the phoneme theory.
The definition of the phoneme and different other notions involved are determined by
his approach towards handling the phoneme which can be called "mentalistic" or
'psychological' view on the phoneme. B/K phoneme as a psychological unit, a 'mental
image', as an ideal sound , the target at which the speaker aims. It doesn't exist in
reality.
B/K : "THE PHONEME is a complex perception of the articulatory movements and
muscular sensations which result in acoustic impressions and they react on mind
simultaneously" .
2. "The relations between phonemes and sounds are the relations between phonetic
intention and phonetic realization". So the allophones of the phoneme are its
varying materializations. The allophone as a speech sound (unit) or the phonation
belonging to the physiological level is opposed to the phoneme as a linguistic unit
belonging to the psychic level.
3. Accordingly, B/K distinguishes 2 types of Phonetics :
 2
- Physio-phonetics ('anthropo-phonetics) "in the meaning of physiology of
speech, studying sounds actually uttered
- Psycho-phonetics "dealing with the linguistic aspect of sounds (its phonemic
level), studying phonemes as mental images.
It must be noted here that B/K employs the terms 'Phonetics" and "Phonology"
synonymously which does not correspond to the contemporary, commonly accepted
opposition. Thus we can say, that on the one side B/K singles out phonetics (or
phonology or physio-phonetics) rigidly limited to mechanics (dy'namics) and physics
(acoustics, optics), on the other side he distinguishes psycho-phonetics as a
humanitarian field linked to psychology and sociology.
4. But with time when turning to the practical description of historic Slavonic
alternations, to establish correlations either within one language or between different
languages B/K employs the morphological criterion toward analyzing
linguistic facts and treats the phoneme as "variable components of morpheme and the
manifestation of a certain morphological category".
At this point confusion tends to arise: Did B/K approach the phoneme analysis on the
psychological or morphological grounds? We rather think that for B/K both above
mentioned notions are phonemes but applied to different spheres of investigation : for
the purpose of analyzing language as a system, the balance of its materialistic and ideal
aspects, phoneme is treated by him as a 'psychological unit' ; and for the purpose of
conducting the practical analysis of the language data and building the hierarchal
/'hai'ra:kl/ relations between linguistic units phoneme is regarded as "part of morpheme".
5. B/K was a prolific scholar; his research and work abound in valuable ideas which
did not lose their significance in modern times. "B/K's merit consists in his providing a
beachhead (плацдарм) which gave rise to a number of contemporary Phonological
schools " (Реформатский)

(b) Lev Vladimirovich SCERBA (1880 – 1944)

LV. Scerba was the pupil and the follower of I.A. Bodouin de Courtenay and adopted
and appreciated many ideas of his teacher; on the other side Scerba had an independent
mind who never followed any authority blindly, possessed wide linguistic outlook and
research interests which resulted in essential original theories and conception.
Scerba's development of the phonemic theory can be schematically divided into 2
directions roughly corresponding to two periods in his research.
1. a) In the early years of the 20 th c. Scerba, like B/K, primarily regards phoneme
from the psychological viewpoint. He stated more than once that "Due to the intrinsic
human disposition (склонность) to analysis …, inseparably connected with other functions
of human psychic in general, we compare sound images (представления) and observe their
likeness and differences."
b) One of Scerba's major contributions is that he pioneered the advancement of
functional aspect of the phoneme and particularly the distinctive function of the
phoneme – the ability to differentiate between meaningful words and wordforms.. To
understand how the phonemes perform this function, the phonemes have to be opposed
 3
to each other in sequences where they differ in one phoneme only – minimal pairs (bet-
bat-but-boot …)
2. With course of time, in the later period of his career, Scerba eventually gave up his
psychological viewpoint in favour of the called materialistic or physical
interpretation of the phoneme. According to him, the phoneme is a real distinctive
unit which exits and manifests itself in allophones. "In human speech the sounds… are
united into a comparatively small number of sound types capable of differentiating
words and their forms serving the aims of human communication…. We will call them
phonemes." As we can see, though being treated as physical matter sound types
(phonemes) are singled out by Scerba on the linguistic basis, with the distinctive
function of the phoneme coming to the forefront.
3. The allophones are the representatives of the phonemes, their realizations in
speech. Among them Scerba distinguishes typical allophones which are least dependent
on the surrounding conditions ( phonemes) and can differentiate words and their
forms.
4. As a phonologist Scerba developed a method of phonological analysis, which
rejects any involvement of morphological criterion in defining s phoneme, and
proclaimed the autonomy or independence of the phoneme from morpheme.
5. L.V. Scerba tackled many problems which are principally important for linguistics
in general and phonology in particular. He determined the place of phonetics amongst
other linguistic branches and outlined the relations between phonetics and phonology
as being inseparable and interdependent. At St. Petersburg he sat up an experimental
phonetic laboratory which is the largest in the country.

(c) The LENINGRAD Phonological School (LPS)

The phonological views of L.V. Scerba were developed by numerous scholars

belonging to LPS, such as L.V.Bondarko, L.A.Verbitskaya, M.V.Gordina,
A.N.Gvozdev, V.I.Litkin etc. But 2 names certainly stand out as the most consistent
followers and ardent apologists of Scerba and his phonological theory. These are L.R.
Zinder and M.I.Matousevich
1. One of the basic concepts of this approach is Scerba's opinion that it's impossible
to separate Phonology from Phonetics. According to Zinder, the sound dealing with
the sound aspect of the language is a single discipline which cannot be split into two
branches. Under the term "Phonetics" the LPS scholars unite linguistics (phonology)
and anthopophonics (phonetics) which are interrelated and interdependent. "Phonetics
has sense only if it studies a speech sound as a language phenomenon".
2. Segmenting speech continuum takes place purely on linguistic grounds with
special reference to meaning. It's impossible to determine a discrete speech sound only
on the acoustic basis – sounds can potentially possess meanings of their own or rather
coincide with language meaningful units. "It is the possibility to appear as a meaningful
unit that singles out a discrete sound in speech continuum" (Zinder, p.35)
3. The central position in the phonological concept of LPS is taken belongs to the
materialistic approach to the phoneme which they regard as a real unit. "Speaking
about the reality of the phoneme we mean, first, that it really exists in the language as a
 4
specific unit different from other language units; second, the phoneme, being the unit of
the sound aspect of the language, possesses, through the speech sounds representing it,
some definite though very complicated phonetic characteristics" (Zinder, p.56)

4. Constituting morphemes and words, phonemes possess certain autonomy or

independence from the phonetic position and potential connection with meaning – the
possibility to represent a sound form of morphemes. EX., in a phonologically neutral
position a speech sound (allophone) belongs to the phoneme with whose principal
allophone it completely or nearly coincides. ACT / k t / - ACTIVITY /  k ' tiviti/ -
According to LPS the neutral vowel /  / is not the allophone of the phoneme / / but
the allophone of the phoneme /  /.

5. The scholars of LPS distinguish 4 functions that the phoneme performs in the
language: constitutive, identificatory, delimitative and distinctive, the last being of
primary importance and resulting from the fact that the phonemes differ and each of
them is opposed to all other phonemes of the language.

6. Though the phonemes as minimal segmental units cannot be further split linearly,
they can be opposed to each other because they possess certain inner properties –
features. The LPS phonologists distinguish between relevant features (significant for
opposing phonemes) and irrelevant features.

7. The phoneme is expressed in speech by various allophones which are different

from the acoustic - physiological point of view which can be subdivided into
optional/free variants, when the same phoneme in identical phonetic conditions can be
pronounced differently (/r/ can be forelingual or backlingual) , and compulsory variants, when
the same phoneme occurs in different phonetic conditions its sound representation may
change (lamp-light).

(d) The MOSCOW Phonological School (MPS)

MPS sprang up as a result of the research of the group of Moscow linguists which
includes such names as N.F. Yakovlev, P.S.Kuznetsov, A/M/Sukhotin,
A.A.Reformatsky, R. I. Avanesov, V.N.Sidorov and others. The scholars who entered
the group are talented and creative researchers, eventually the phonological theories of
many of them fanned out and developed independent concepts, still basically they all
can be attributed to MPS on such principal issues as the morphological criterion
towards phoneme understanding, more or less identical interpretation of certain
alternations, envisaging a new type of phonological analysis which includes 3 stages
instead of traditional two.

1. The terms "phonetics" and " phonology" in MPS acquire special implication:
"phonetics" tackles both physiological and some functional peculiarities of sound units,
i.e. it covers the issues which are traditionally distributed between phonetics and
 5
phonology, whereas the MPS "phonology" considers exclusively alternating speech
sounds which perform the morphological function.

2. The phoneme interpretation of MPS is based on the hierarchal organization of the

language. According to it the phoneme simultaneously enters 2 levels: the phonic – as
the highest unit and the morphological – as the lowest unit. To define a phoneme, a
scholar should posit from morphemes, which means that phonemes depend on
morphemes, they do not exist as independent units outside morphemes, all their
functions are ruled and controlled by morphemes. The phoneme is a "minimal unit of
the sound structure of the language serving for combining and differentiating
meaningful language units: morphemes, words, sentences" (Reformatsky, p.17)

3. Which features are important for opposing phonemes and which are not is
determined when phonemes are compared in equal conditions, e. i. in the same position.
which is the basic in phonology. According to the character of realization the positions
can be strong and weak. The phoneme is in strong position when it is least conditioned
by the neighbouring phonemes. It is in the weak position when the adjacent phonemes
affect its characteristics. In the strong positions phonemes appear. In the weak –
variants and variations.

4. Among the oppositions, probably, the most interesting are the cases of
neutralization which is "the coincidence of 2 phonemes in one variant" (Reformatsky),
compare: коз – кос  /кос/; сома - сама  /с'ма/. In English it can be illustrated by
the following: in a phonologically neutral position a speech sound (allophone), as part
of the morpheme, belongs to the phoneme which, in the same morpheme, stands in the
strong position. ACT / k t / - ACTIVITY /  k ' tiviti/ - According to MPS the neutral
vowel /  / is not the allophone of the phoneme // but the allophone of the
phoneme //, because the allophone // is part of the same morpheme (stem) : act –
activity.

5. This leads us to the notion of hyperphoneme in which phonemes differ in one

feature only, other features being common, and which in some phonetic surroundings
do not differ from each other: see: столб – столп  /столп/.

6. Moscow linguists worked out a 3-stage method of phonological analysis opposed

to the traditional 2-stages: syntagmatic segmentation (differentiation) as the first stage
and identification among other language units. MPS followers introduced the third
intermediated stage –paradigmatic viewing phonemes primarily as parts of morphemes.

e) COMPROMISE Phonological Theories

There were several attempts to bridge a gap between LPS and MPS

1. As, for instance, R.I. Avanesov states that the two viewpoints do not contradict
each other and are quite compatible. The shortest sound units are defined by him as "
 6
minimal articulatory-auditory elements distinguished while segmenting speech linearly.
Those properties are to some extent independent and at the same time dependent on
their position in the word.

2. M.V. Panov put forward the theory of two phonetics: the Phonetics of
Combinations and the Phonetics of Alternations which have different laws. The laws of
combinations are studied in Syntagmatic Phonetics, while the laws of alternations – in
the Paradigmatic Phonetics. Panov restricts the influence of morpheme upon phoneme
to the paradigmatic phonology.

3. According to S.V.Bernstein , Phonemes can be different: the phonemes of the 1st

degree are direct identificatory signs and the smallest potential differentiators of words
(the !st degree phonemes are close to the interpretation of LPS) And the phonemes of
the 2nd degree which are sound differentiators, realized in morphemes and words in
certain positions (which majorly corresponds to the viewpoint of MPS).

(f) The 2-STEP Phonological Theory

The 2-step Theory was pioneered by S. K. Shaumyan. The characteristic feature of

the theory is the approach towards treating linguistic facts, which consists in extending
principles and methods used in the exact sciences, to analysing the sound matter of a
language. The author claims that his methods makes up "the foundation of introducing
formal descriptive methods into linguistics" as it observes strict logical determination of
phonological notions and creates the methodological complex of proofs universal for all
sciences.

- The process of linguistic cognition is compared by Shaumyan with the "black

box" theory employed in cybernetics to denote " a system, inaccessible for direct
observation, which is cognized through the analysis of facts that are directly observed"
(p.5) The entrance to the black box is represented by the operations conducted by the
experimentalist over the object and the exit – by the analysis of the results of these
observations. The basis of any science, including phonology, is to register entrance and
exit conditions –the protocol – which is the ground for understanding elements and their
properties inaccessible for direct observation.

- Applying this method, Shaumyan distinguishes 2 steps of abstraction in

phonology: 1) the step of phonological observation – the physical step; 2) the step of
phonological constructs - the semiotic step. The Constructs (конструкты) are the
concepts about objects that cannot be observed directly, they are "introduced to explain
facts which can be observed".

- Taking into account the above said, Shaumyan assumes the " the correct
description of phonological reality must not include anything other than the systematic
description of abstract operations over symbols… This is the essence of structural
description and " it lies in the basis of the 2-step phonological theory.
 7

2. PHONOLOGICAL SCHOOLS ABROAD

We must state here that the development of the Phonemic theory or Phonology
abroad has been progressing in a way, different from its development in Russia. The
foreign and Russian scholars quite independently have been working over the notion of
phoneme and its place in the system of language. The most prominent research was
conducted by foreign linguists in methods of distinguishing and describing phonemes.

(a) The priority in differentiating between the notions of Language and

speech (langue vs parole) belongs to the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de SAUSSUR
(1857-1913) . Language is a social phenomenon independent of an individual speaker,
the system. People use the same system that is understood by all the members of the
linguistic community. This system accumulates the whole linguistic experience in its
diachronic development – every following generation uses the previous experience to
develop it. Language is a system based on the oppositions, sameness and otherness. So
Language is purely psychic. This forms the basis of the Abstract(ional)
Conception of the phonemic structure of the language. On the other side, when
people communicate, their speech is spontaneous, perceived at a given moment,
synchronically. It belongs to an individual and reflects the individual aspect of human
linguistic activity. Speech is physio-psychic.

- The opposition of language to speech is developed by F de S into the opposition

of synchrony to di'achrony. Language is viewed diachronically, in its historic
development. Speech, as spontaneous realization, is treated synchronically as statically
fixed at a chosen moment.

- The concept of Phoneme was not explicitly elaborated by Ferdinand de Saussur .

The notions of phoneme and sound, on the synchronic level, are used by him
synonymously. Though the scholar was the first to introduce the term "phoneme" into
Linguistics, he understands by it quite an opposite notion, which is now universally
treated in contemporary Linguistics as "a sound". According to him, a phoneme is a
speech sound regarded in its acoustic-biological aspect, outside its meaningful, i.e.
social function in the language.

- Accordingly, pioneering the term "Phonology" as a science studying phonemes,

F. de S. considers it a science about physiological sounds of human speech outside their
social aspect (synchronic description of sound matter), whereas "Phonetics" is
approached as a historical science about the evolution of sounds (diachronic description
of sounds)."Phonetics is a historical science…Phonology is timeless, because the
articulation mechanism is always selfsame (тождественен самому себе) " (Соссюр,1977,с.70)
With time the term "Phonology" eventually started to be used for the linguistically
functional description of sounds, which, in contemporary Linguistics, is opposed to
"Phonetics" tackling only physical or physiological properties of sounds.
 8
th
- At the beginning of the 20 century several leading scholars on both sides of the
Atlantic – including Leonard Bloomfield and Edward Sapir in America – came, largely
independently of each other, to realize that, in the phonology of a language, it's more
important to identify the functional units of sound, the phonemes, and their relation to
each other, than to attain the utmost detail in describing every single speech-sound
which its speakers may use; on the contrary, for every given language, it is necessary
only to identify the phonemes which the speakers use to establish meaningful contrasts
within the system itself. This approach does not deny the importance of phonetics as a
technique of analyzing the raw material of speech-sounds; such a study is indispensable
as a basis for further analysis on a higher level. However, the main task of a linguistic
analyst lies beyond the phonetic level, in determining the contrastive phonological units
of the language. (R.A.Hall "Introductory Linguistics", p.77)

(b) Leonard BLOOMFIELD (1887-1949) , the pre'cursor (предтеча) of the

American structuralism, is one of the founders of the so called functional
view upon the phonemic system of the language. Bloomfield regards the phoneme,(
from the angle of its functioning in syntagmatics), as a certain distinctive sound, a
certain material-substant notion directly connected with meaning.  "as the minimal
sound unit by which meanings can be differentiated, meaning differentiation being a
defining characteristic of phonemes" (1933, p.79). Moreover, in every sound, only a
certain number of the phonetic features are involved in the differentiation of meanings –
distinctive features of the sound - and only these features make up the phoneme
corresponding to this sound. To distinguish such distinctive feature Bloomfield employs,
but does not thoroughly develop, the method of opposing minimal pairs.

- Bloomfield opposes describing physiological characteristics of the speech-sounds

to analyzing the functions performed in the language by phonemes as structural
language units. Consequently, to denote the branches dealing with the above, he
introduces a certain linguistic trine (триада) "experimental phonetics – practical
phonetics – phonology" where "experimental phonetics" give a "purely acoustic or
physiological description of sounds. It determines only general acoustic features"
(Bloomfield, 1968,p.141). While "Phonology" tackles meaningful units speech units and
"presupposes the analysis of meanings."(p.76) as well as "practical phonetics" which
also implies the knowledge of meanings. Practical phonetics differs from phonology in
the way the concrete (special) phonology differs from general phonology in
contemporary linguistics. The last two notions are opposed to experimental phonetics as
they take into account a semasiological (semantic) factor .

(c) Edward SAPIR ('sp) (1884-1939) is another prominent American linguist

whose research gave rise later to several directions in phonology. E.Sapir appears to
have adopted the mentalistic or psychological view originated
with Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, which regards the phoneme as an ideal sound at
which the speaker aims; the speaker deviates in speech from this ideal sound partly
because it is difficult to produce an identical repetition of a sound, and partly because of
the influence exerted by the neighbouring sounds. "The purely phonetic frame of speech
does not refer to the inner substance (сущность)of the language and a discrete sound of the
 9
articulated speech is not at all a language element" (1934, p.34). And further "Behind a
purely objective system of sounds immanent (свойственный) to a given language…there
exists a more limited "inner" or "ideal" system… which is represented in the native
speaker's mind as an acting psychological mechanism" (1934, p.44).

But it s not an easy matter to devise operational tests for establishing such ideal
sounds, and in his practical analysis Sapir trans'cended (превосходить) the mentalistic view.
The significance of Sapir's theory lies not so much in the psychological interpretation of
the phoneme, but the separation of the two notions: the sound and the phoneme.

(d) GENERATIVE Phonology, the most recent attempt at a grammatically oriented

phonology, owes much to E. Sapir, as is expressly indicated by its leading proponents
Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle / h:l/ . In contrast to many approaches
generative treatments begin by stating syntactic structure and only
then pass on to phonology, which can thus make use of any syntactic facts which are
relevant: ex., Knowledge of constructions and part-of-speech allocations are both
needed to state the rules of stress in English.

The approach is also called Transformational Grammar which has sprung up as the
reaction to / opposition to the preceding traditional or, according to Chomsky,
'taxo'nomic phonemics which is defined as based exclusively on segmentation, on
classification and on observable adequacy ( though when criticizing taxonomic
approaches Chomsky actually means the American descriptive structural theory).
Instead, the scholar seeks to introduce a theory which would belong to a higher
theoretical level and would permit to build more abstract counterparts (аналоги) for the
generalizations that are derived from the actual sound signals or actual articulatory
movements.

The followers of the Generative Phonology reject the analysis ("discovery

procedure") that begins with establishing the smallest linguistic units (phonemes) and
goes on through the morphemic stage, which allows them to miss these stages and to go
from syntax directly to phonology, with the priority given to syntactic linguistic
analysis The phonemic structure should be established in the reverse order : going from
the sentence to the phoneme.

Most generative treatments have taken some form of phonetic distinctive features as
their basic elements. They are used not only for the phonetic representation of a
sentence ( a specification of its pronunciation) but also at the phonemic level to give the
sentence what is usually called its phonological representation, which has no
necessary link with actual pronunciation. The link between the two representations –
phonological and phonetic – is established by a set of 'rules' which operate in a fixed
order, adding, deleting or modifying distinctive features. The rules are necessary in
order to generate potential language realities, pertaining to the inner structure, into
actual language realities, pertaining to the surface structure.  According to Generative
approach, both Phonological and phonetic level possess linguistic status. Phonology
 10
reflects the language reality allegedly existing in the native speaker's mind
(unobservable by any method). The speaker turns this language reality into other
language reality which lies on the surface (directly observable) and is called a Phonetic
level. The Phonetic level further splits into phonetic level proper and physical or
physiological level.

Accordingly, for Chomsky, Language is a system of rules, which determines the

correspondence between sound and meaning and which is used for constructing
sentences, while Speech (or performance) is the actual employment of the language in
particular situations.

The Chomsky and Halle model is expounded in more detail by such scholars as
Langacker, Fodor, Katz, Harms etc.

(e) STRUCTURAL(IST) Phonological Schools From the historical viewpoint, in

the development of Western Phonology we can distinguish three main directions which
correspond to 3 branches of structuralism: Glossematics, the Prague school, Descriptive
linguistics.

1) Glossematics was pioneered by the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev

(1889-1965) and his associates in the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle (notably H.J.
Uldall /'ld l/ and K.Togeby /'togbi/. The Glossematic School arose as the development
of the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussur and his abstract approach towards treating a
phoneme. Phonetic properties are not involved at all in the way phonemes are specified
or grouped into classes and phonemes are treated as abstract, fictitious unit, not existing
in reality.

Language is studied only synchronically and presents an abstract system of pure

relations. Ferdinand de Saussur's thesis, that language consists only of differences and
similarities, is logically developed by glossematicians claiming that every totality / set
(совокупность) consists not of the objects but of the relations among them. A researcher
should ignore really existing languages and the interrelations of their real elements, but
should concentrate on the structure of the relations inside the language. The elements of
the language, by Hjelmslev, are bundles of functions, and Language itself is a network
of functions for which "material realities are indifferent, because the substance /суть/ of
the language lies not in sounds, signs or meanings but in mutual correlations in sound
chain or paradigms" (1960, p.49) And further, " it is theses relations that make up the
structure of the language, and it is the system of these relations that differs one language
from another." (p.49)

Interpreting Saussur's notion of "lange-parole" in three ways, L. Hjelmslev

distinguishes: the scheme language, independent of social realization and material
manifestation; the norm-language as a material form existing in a given social reality
but independent of the manifestation details; and the usage (узус)-language as a set of
habits which are determined socially and by manifestation.
 11
Glossematicians state, that neither physical, nor physiological nor psychological
criteria can be employed in determining a phoneme, it is determined only with the help
of a linguistic criterion only – its function in the language (Hjelmslev, 1946, p.49) Thus,
unlike all other phonological approaches where phoneme is connected with material
substance in one way or another, glossematicians treat phoneme (or taxeme or ceneme
(кинема) , phonemaneme) as independent of its material realizations, as a junction (точка
пересечения) bunches of network functions. The manifestation of the glossematic phoneme
(ceneme, taxeme etc) occurs through invariants (roughly corresponding to traditional
phonological phonemes) and variants (corresponding to allophones), which are
differentiated on the basis of commutation and substitution tests: Commutation test is
employed to distinguish invariants, and Substitution test single out variants.

Glossematicians treat language as a semiotic structure, like any other semiotic

structure consisting of signs, a code employed by human community. Hence, linguistic
theories are based not on language, but are built analytically applying purely deductive
methods. Linguistics, thus, approaches mathematical sciences and is connected with
the mathematical theory of sets (множеств) – Hjelmslev uses the term "immanent algebra
of the language. Ahmanova calls this approach Algebraic " based on the maximal and
deliberate estrangement (разобщение) of phonology (phonemics) and phonetics ( "Фонология,
морфонология, морфология", с.14) ". Any method, involved in describing language, should
satisfy the criteria, characteristic for all the analytical systems, : 1) to be free from
contradictions 2) to be maximally simple 3) to be exhaustive.

Accordingly, the sciences dealing with phonological structure of the language are
divided into Phonetics – the science tackling the sound matter on the basis of material-
substance realities -; and Phonematics (cenematics) – the science about the structural
form of the language where material-substance reality is irrelevant. Phonology is
regarded not as the analysis of the language structure but as a disguised method
'covertly (завуалированный) based on the analysis of the real sound matter like the approach
of Daniel Jones.

2) The Prague Phonological School

The activity of the Prague Phonological Circle is connected with the names of such
linguists as R. O. Jacobson, S. O Kartsevsky, B. Matesius, B. Tranka, J. Vahek and
others. But the most prominent among them, who can be considered the founder and the
head of the school, is Nikolay Sergeevich (Prince Nicolas) TRUBETSKOY. The Prague
approach is based on the interpretation and development of the theory put forward by
Ferdinand de Saussur (though in a different direction than in the Danish glossematics),
besides the influence of Baudouin de Courtenay's ideas on the approach seems quite
profound.

- The linguistic conception of the Prague school can be characterized as having two
specifications. First and foremost, it is a structural approach : the problem of the
structural character of the language and the interdependence of its elements is
introduced into linguistics. And, second, the approach is functional. Language is
declared a functional system in which sounds are distinguished both as objective
 12
physical facts and as elements of a functional system. It must be noted here that the
notion of "FUNCTION" is regarded by the Prague phonologists in a different way
than it is understood by glossematicians: if for L. Hjelmslev "function" is certain
dependence and the network of relations, by the Prague school it is defined as a goal,
an objective. In a narrower meaning, i.e. applied for the phonological aspect of the
language, the term "function" is employed in the sense of "differentiating meaning",
"distinction" of meaningful language units. Parallelly, N.S. Trubetskoy distinguishes
delimitative and culminative functions.

- Trubetskoy differentiates between Phonetics and Phonology: Phonetics studies the

actually pronounced speech sounds as physical phenomena, it is a purely
phenological /'fi:n'logikl / analysis of sounds, it's a biological science, employing the
methods characteristic of natural sciences; Phonology is a linguistic science which
studies the functioning of the phonemes in the language when they are opposed to each
other and which employs linguistic methods.

- The distinctive function of the phoneme is interpreted as a direct dependence of

anthropophonic characteristics on their meanings which are determined through
binary distinctive oppositions. "In phonology the main role belongs not to phonemes
but to distinctive oppositions"("The foundation of Phonology",p.74). These binary oppositions of
phonemes pose the foundation of the functional interpretation of the phoneme,
including its segmentation and identification. And they constitute the basis of the
Commutation test or the Method of Minimal pairs – The units differentiating meanings
are opposed to each other. Every member of such oppositions (including phonemes) is
viewed as a distinctive unit. Since the phoneme is the smallest segmental unit, which
cannot be further split, Phonemes are regarded as "minimal segmental elements of the
language capable of distinguishing one word from another". And the system of
phonemes in a language is primarily the system of phonological oppositions.

- The functionality of the phoneme is understood by the Prague philologists in a

different way than it is understood by American structuralists who treat it as the
functionality of the phoneme as an integral (цельный) inseparable unit. The Prague
linguists view it as the functionality (relevance) of separate sound characteristics of the
phoneme which are called differentiating (distinctive) features. The procedure of
determining distinctive features is first developed by Trubetskoy. The phoneme, though
indivisible linearly, consists (simultaneously) of different features which characterize it
and are distinguished when the phonemes are opposed to each other. Such features can
be distinctive or functional - relevant for differentiating between the meanings of the
words and non-distinctive or non-functional – irrelevant for the purpose. And as a
phonologist "should consider only those things in the sound which perform a certain
function in the system of the language"(Trubets, 1960,18), the Phoneme is defined as a
bunch of distinctive features.

- Phonemes are manifested or realized in speech in their variants (speech sounds).

The rules of distinguishing phonemes, which are the basis of the Commutation Test,
include: 1) if two sounds can substitute each other without changing the meaning of
 13
the word (in a minimal pair) they are the variants of the same phoneme. 2) If two
sounds are used in the same position and the result of it is changing the meaning of
words, these variants belong to different phonemes.

-In certain phonetic condition - the position of neutralization one variant can manifest
two phonemes which are perceived as different in other positions. To explain the fact
N.A. Trubetskoy introduces the notion of archi-phoneme /'a:ki'founi:m/ which is a specific
phonological unit and which is understood as a complex of relevant features common
for both "neutralized" phonemes, being, in fact, the relations between the phonemes.
EX. In Russian, consonantal pairs in final positions are neutralized and pronounced
similarly: "суп" –"суб-" /п/- the consonants /п/ and /б/ share the following relevant
features: labiality, occlusiveness, hardness – accordingly, the archi-phoneme,
representing them can be described as a "labial, occlusive, hard" consonant, the
opposition of the features "voiced – voiceless" being neutralized. Thus the variants п
and б will represent not the corresponding phonemes |п/ and /б/, but the archi-
phoneme /п-б/. The notion of the archi-phonemein the Prague School is close to the
notion of hyperphoneme of MPS with the difference that according to Trubetskoy, in the
end of the word /stok/ there will always stand the phoneme /k/ regardless of whether it
ends the word "сток"or "стог".

- Phoneme consists of functional, i.e. linguistically relevant, characteristics; whereas

Sound comprises both functional and non-functional, i.e. linguistically irrelevant,
characteristics. The phoneme as a schematic and, consequently, "abstract" sound (i.e.
the element represented as some "abstract" materiality) becomes the paradigmatic unit,
while the sound enters exclusively syntagmatic level. The sound presents a material-
substance reality in which the phoneme is manifested. Though we must mention that
Trubetskoy doesn't specify whether phonemes belong to the language and sounds – to
speech.

3) Descriptive Linguistics
The Descriptive Linguistics is the leading direction in investigating Linguistics in
general and Phonetics/Phonology in particular in the USA. It arose as the development
of concepts and theories put forward by outstanding American linguists L. Bloomfield
and E. Sapir and employs practically all their basic notions and methods of analysis.
Very often L. Bloomfield is called an 'ante'cessor or pre'cursor (предтеча) of American
Structuralism and the followers of Descriptive Linguistics are correspondingly referred
to as .

- The Descriptive Linguistics is primarily known in Philology as a complex of

detailed and thoroughly elaborated methods of phonological description,
concentrating mainly on the mechanism of analysis. "Descriptive phonology is not a
theory of phonological reality, but a methodic discipline which systematizes technical
methods of describing specific phonological systems" (Шаумян,1962,с/3-4) Hence the name
– descriptive. It is majorly considered an empirical system without strict theoretical
 14
ground. When being compared to European structuralism, the American approach is
defined as the methods of research, while the latter is treated as an abstractional
theoretical hypothesis which forms the basis for any method of investigation.
S.V.Protogenov writes: "In practice we very often encounter a certain symbiosis
/'simb(a)i'ousis/ which employs the rules of N.S.Trubetskoy and the terms of the Descriptive
Linguistics."(The history of the phoneme study,p.85) Certainly, the contribution of the American
structuralists cannot be confined just to envisaging methods of analysis and specifying
certain theoretical principles. They introduced a great number of original ideas and
approaches for investigating the sound structure of numerous languages of the world
which they studied. Among their achievements we can mention: a substitution method
(M. S wadesh), the famous pair test and componental analysis (Z.Harris), the analysis of
constituents (анализ по непосредственно составляющим) , the supersegmental analysis, the
concept of a syllable, morphophoneme etc.

- Sometimes the contemporary linguistic analysts find it difficult to attribute all the
followers of the Descriptive Linguistics to one and the same school on the grounds that
the notions and method applications, employed by the scholars, differ in certain details
and treatment. Some Russian linguists (Арутюнова, Климов, Кубрякова, 1964, с.191) class them
into two groups: the Yale Group (Z.Harris, L.Trager, Bloch, Ch. Hockett, G.Glison)
and the Ann-Arbor Group (K.Pike, Nida, Friese, Wonderly). But we would rather share
the opinion of G.V. Voronkova who maintains that "the differences are not as striking
as they first appear. All the variations in description are united by one
method, in which the factor of meaning is less significant than the factor of 'sequent
(последовательный) description and classification of phonemes and their elements." ( "Problems
of Phonology", p.86) All the followers of Descriptive Phonology do not only employ a similar
technique of phonological analysis but they similarly interpret the organization of the
phonological system of the language. Their method is conditioned by approaching the
phonological system as the procedure of establishing the units of the system - from
stating the material-substance facts  to linguistic facts on a higher level of the
hierarchic step of the language.

- The distinction between language and speech in this school is not clear-
cut due to differences in analyzing procedures and the ambiguous relations between the
notions of "phoneme" and "sound". More often than not the descriptivists claim that
only speech belongs to linguistics while language is rather referred to semiotic
structures and is treated as one of semiotic codes. Language exists in human minds, not
in reality, and is shared by all the members of the language community; it is social,
dynamic and exists historically (diachronically) – thus, it is a structural system which is
not used in immediate human communication – when people communicate they
employ speech, so speech acts, but not language acts, should be studied as linguistic
phenomena. Adhering to the principles of behaviourism, descriptivists avoided all but
empirical analysis, stating that our only information about the linguistic process of mind
is derived from the behavior of an individual. As speech is always spontaneous and
individual, linguists should study its static characteristics in their syntagmatic relations
on the synchronic level .
 15
- It should be noted that American structuralists were somewhat inconsistent in
providing a clear-cut basis for distinguishing between the notions of "phoneme"
and " sound" . Very often these two notions are confounded (смешивать) even
within the works of one author. Such indistinct opposition of phoneme to sound,
absence of any stable position as to how phonemes function in language and speech and
withdrawing these basic concepts from the phonological analysis led to developing
phoneme definitions that are not quite compatible. (G.V.Voronkova,p.22). The differences can
be partly due to the terminological character, partly to the practical aims of analysis.
Generally , the phoneme is understood by descriptivist scholars as the sound which
differentiates the meaning, i.e. a distinctive sound which differentiates between the
meaning of acts of speech (not language!) EX., Hockett writes that, in the phrases
"That's a nice pin" –"That's a nice bin", the sounds (!) 'p' and 'b' differentiate between
acts of speech (Hockett,1955,p.16) "Phoneme is a class of sounds pronounced in a given
dialect" (Bloch,1948,p.5) "Phoneme is a sound (p.67) …but at the same time a meaningful
unit (Pike,1947,p.63) but further, "Phoneme is not a language entity but a result of
phonological analysis" (Pike,1947,p.74) Thus, treating the phoneme as a sound, the
descriptivists consistently remain within the syntagmatic analysis referring both to
syntagmatic level and assigning the distinctive function not to the phoneme but to the
sound (which has , tackled traditionally quite different functions in the language). But
the incoherence of the phonologists in establishing the balance and relations between
material and linguistic sides of the phoneme led some descriptivists to denying the
phoneme as a linguistic reality. See, Phoneme is an exclusively logical symbol and
should be analysed with the help of mathematical logics (Harris,1951,p.18); and Phoneme is
an "abstract fictitious unit (Twaddell,1958,p.67). Summarising, we can say that mixing up
two units (phoneme and sound) belonging correspondingly to different spheres (
language and speech) explains the ambivalence of the descriptivist "phoneme-sound" ,
in which the material reality is not separated from linguistic reality (Voronkova,p.24).

- In regarding the phoneme, the relations with meaning present a

sensitive point in Descriptivist theory. It is generally accepted that analyzing sound
matter as spontaneous speech tackled synchronically, descriptivists characteristically
employ a purely syntagmatic phonological analysis without any reference to semantic
relations (presuming the paradigmatic approach). But in practical description of sound
systems of languages under analysis it turned out very difficult for the scholars to
exclude semantics altogether. Ch.Hockett and Bloch, for example, not only base their
analysis for establishing the language phonemic inventory on paradigmatically
contrasting meaningful units (but-bat-bet…) but introduce the aspect of meaning into
their definitions of the phoneme. Often a certain compromise is involved claiming that,
though the aspect of meaning is important for linguistic description, it should be derived
from non-semantic factors and should be excluded from determining the phonemic
structure of the text. (G.Glisom, Ch.Friese- "новое в лингвистике", вып.4, с.268-275)

- Regarding the phoneme as a sound, the American descriptivists, however,

acknowledge the existence of allophonic variation of the
phonemes using it as the basis for establishing the phonemic inventory of a
 16
language and employing for the purpose the terms "variant, allophone, phone,
component"

-Among the most prominent achievement of Descriptivist Linguistics we can single

out their methods of establishing the language phonemic
inventory and descriptive analysis (see the above). The
substitution method or minimal pairs can be already found in the works of
L.Bloomfield and later on developed in the research of his associates and followers,
such as Zellig Harris, G. Glisson, Bloch, Pike etc. It can be 'recapped (резюмировать) as
undergoing two stages:

1) Speech continuum is investigated and segmented into the minimal sound units, then
the segmented text is notated with the help of transcription which possess special rules
and should be performed thoroughly as it is given primary importance. While
transcribing the text the analyst should avoid some characteristic mistake which include
excessive detailization, insufficient detailization, incorrect segmentation.

2) To verify the correctness of segmentation results, the scholar should check the
distributional models in three steps: picking out probable pairs (with sounds that can
be allophones of one phoneme), putting forward a hypothesis (whether these allophones
belong to one or different phonemes) and verifying the results. For the second step the
distribution of each probable pair, which is conditioned by the adjoining or
neighbouring phonemes, is analysed. The verification consists in charting distribution
tables or schemes for each sound considering all available facts.

The phones, representing one phoneme, are called allophones – they are in
complementary distribution, i.e. do not occur in the same position. The phones,, which
are in free variation and which occur in the same position, are called phonemes.
Applying the substitution method the descriptivists seek not only to segment a phoneme
(which in practice equals a segmented sound) but to determine material-substance
characteristics of phonemes in oppositions (however, in practical analysis they
distinguish only material-substance characteristics of allophone).

One thing should be taken into account – these methods of phonological analysis are
employed with the aim of establishing the phonemic inventory of a foreign language
under research, whereas the identification of the phonemes of the native tongue does
not possess any such procedure because "the sounds of the (native) tongue are
automatically and subconsciously organized by a native speaker into the structural units
which we call phoneme (Pike, 1947, p.57) i.e. the native speaker intuitively establishes for
himself the phoneme of the native tongue.

- The proponents of Descriptivism handle the terms "Phonology", "Phonemics" and

"Phonetics" quite erratically (беспорядочно) and ambiguously which logically arises from
their treatment of the "phoneme" notion .
 17
(f) LONDON Phonological School Daniel Jones (1881-1967)

The London Phonological school is in the first place connected with the name of the
prominent British linguist Daniel Jones. As the scholar concentrated his effort
primarily on producing transcriptions for the languages without writing traditions on the
one side, and on developing approaches to English orthographic reforms on the other,
he seeks to create a phoneme theory which could be applied to practical research of
languages. "… phonetics can be neither studied nor applied without using phonetic
transcription,… adequate transcription systems require, for their construction, the
phoneme theory" ("Phoneme: Its nature and usage" ,1950 ,p. VII).

- D.Jones's approach to the phoneme can be characterized as physical which

regards the phoneme as a 'family' of sounds "A phoneme is a family of sounds in a
given language which are related in character and are used in such a way that no one
member ever occurs in a word in the same phonetic context as any other member".( Jones,
1948, p.48). So, the phoneme is a class of sounds, and to identify it one should posit from
the principle of uniting all its realizations taken from the syntagmatic chain on the basis
of their purely phonetic similarity. It must be noted here that initially, Daniel Jones was
basically favourable to the mentalistic or psychological view upon the phoneme, but
eventually rejected it as un'tenable (несостоятельный) and preferred in practice to take a
'physical approach'.

The phoneme as a family of sounds should satisfy certain conditions, notably:

a)The various members of the 'family' must show phonetic similarity to one another,
i.e. must be related in character (Jones,1950,p.10)
b) No member of the 'family' may occur in the same phonetic context as any other. This
condition is often referred to as the requirement of complementary distribution.

The 'Physical view' excludes all reference to non-phonetic criteria in the grouping of
sounds into phonemes. Furthermore, the fact that members of different phonemes are
capable of differentiating meanings whereas members of the same phoneme are not, is
said to be a result (consequence) of the definition of the phoneme, and not its basis.

- Though D.Jones treats semantic differentiation as secondary (see the above), he does
not reject the functional role of the phonemes altogether and admits that the phoneme
can perform a distinctive function in oppositions. "The sounds of a single phoneme do
not obligingly differentiate words, but they are capable of doing it" ( 1950,p.13-14).
However, in some cases of the distributional analysis, which determines the distinctive
function of the phoneme exclusively on the basis of binary oppositions employing the
method of substitution, D. Jones singles out such pairs of sounds that cannot be opposed
in their distribution (EX., /h/ and//), accordingly he concludes that the distinctive
function of these phonemes cannot be possibly determined. It can be stated that D.Jones
is certainly right registering this weak point of the distributional analysis though he does
not attempt to explore it, which can be presumably explained by the fact that D.Jones
does not generally differentiate between the semantic function of the phoneme and the
functional relevance of the sound and assigns the role of the semantic differentiator to
 18
the sound but not to the phoneme, maintaining that the sound can directly perform a
linguistic ( ex., distinctive) function thus becoming semantically functional. All the
above said testifies to the fact that the notions of the sound and the phoneme in the
'physical phoneme theory' are not consistently differentiated.

- D. Jones restricts his phoneme theory to sounds of a single language, where a

"'language' is to be taken to mean the speech of one individual pronouncing in a definite
and consistent style" (Jones "Phoneme: Its nature and Usage, 1950, p.193-205) . We would rather share
the view of John Lyons that "This is a legitimate restriction to impose on a technical
term, but it means that Jones's theory cannot account for the fact that people who speak
very differently from each other may yet be said to 'speak the same language' in the
generally accepted sense of the term language." ("New horizons in Linguistics", p.80).
Specifically the identification of the phoneme is delegated by D.Jones, to a native
speaker.

- The view upon the phoneme, advocated by D.Jones, may be characterized as the
extreme form of the 'physical' concept of the phoneme as his thesis that "the phoneme
is a family of sounds" is the keynote of his phoneme theory. Yet in the world
phonological research there exist phoneme interpretations which, in one way or another,
take into account the physical/material characteristics of the phoneme.

a) In Russia the materialistic approach towards the phoneme analysis was taken up by
L.V.Scerba who treated it as a sound type. But, unlike D.Jones, Scerba emphasized that
the integrity of this material unit is ensured by its functional relevance.

b) The phoneme theory put forward by L. Bloomfield, on the one side, is close to
Jones's concept, since the former defined the phoneme as a distinctive sound, but
Bloomfield was the first to assign the structural validity to it.

c) The practical analyses of both British scholars and American Structuralists are of
pragmatic character involving the description of different languages and employing the
physical interpretation of the phoneme. But they differ in the goals of their research. If
for the London school pragmatics determines the theoretical direction of analysis, for
American descriptivists the theory conditions the practical investigation and the
structural analysis of the phonetic phenomena becomes, to a large extent, the goal in
itself самоцель).