Oldfich Le5ka (Prague)

Someremarkson semioticaspectsof
written language

At first glance a record of an utteranceusing a phonetic alphabetdoes nor

seem to pose any semiotic problems: everything looks crystal clear; every
utæredsoundhas its unequivocalcorrespondencein a transcriptionmark and
the adequacyof the record dependsonly on the acoustic/phonetictraining
of thc linguist engagedin field work.
I do not think it inappropriateto startwith this brief introductoryparagraph
becausea grcat deal of what has been said about the derivative characterof
written languageis rooted in a simplistic idea of a more or less systematic
transposition from one kind of medium into another - with transcription
representingan ideal of sucha medium swirching.Someof the proposalshow
to reform and thus improve existing writing systemsmay serveasa confirma-
tion of the indicated way of thought.
It was only natural that the idea of an autonomous,non derivativecharacter
of written language\pas put forward and elaboratedby ProfessorJosef Va-
chek, one ofthe prominentrepresentatives ofthe PraguianSchoolofphonolo-
gy (Vachek 1976).The aim of my sketchyremarksis very modesûI propose
to look at some well-known and sometimestrivial facts from the semiotic
point of view and by doing so to follow the line of thought initiated by
ProfessorVachek.
Let us come back to thc introductory paragraphconcerningphonetic tran-
scription. There is no questionaboutits usefulnessor the necessityof phone-
tic training. What I intend to stressis ttre fact that beneaththe simplicity of
the one-to-oneconespondencebetweena sound and the canscription mark
there are important differences when the problem is approachedfrom the
semiotic point of view. Let us take,e.g. a transcriptionmark like [o] conela-
ted with a narow mid-back rounded vowel. This mark may render, as the
case may be, a phoneme (as in some N Russiandialects with a phonemic
'tomcat' 'year';
difference betwecn [kgt] and [got] thus /o./ :: /o/), but a
conditioned allophone as well (as in some W Ukrainian dialects, e.g.
'full'
['powno] as contrastedwith ['dobroj] 'good' neuter).In the former case
lq] is a (graphic) sign of a phoneme/o./ which itself is a sign. As shown by
R. Jakobson(Jakobson1939, Holenstein1988) a phonemeis a sign sui
generis. The diffcrence betweenany two phonemesis just distinctiveness,
as formulaæd by de Saussure(de Saussure1916); if the relationshipof a
phoneme as a sign to its signifié (a sign) is consideredthen the phonemeis
q4
a sign of a sign and at the sametime - being a constituentcomponentof the
signifiant of this sign - a sign on this sign (Biihler 1934).
In the latter case - allophone [q] - the transcription mark is not simply
a (graphic) sign of a (sound) sign, but a (graphic) sign of a (sound) sign
which is a sign and at the sametime it is a positive (not just negative,diffe-
rential) sign on this sign as it refersto a given, definiæ conditioning environ-
ment. Thus - as we can see- there emerged semiotic complexities once we
had a look through the phonetic surface level into the structural make-up of
the language recordcd.
There hasbcen an opinion voiced that speakersdo not hearphonic features
characæristicof allophonic variety. If it were really so one should consider
as a real miraclc the fact that people are able to imitaæ "what they do not
heat'', becausetherc is no natural necessityfor allophonic variations of a
certaintype. Caseswhen allophonicsoundtypesmay passunnoticedby native
speakerscan be explained only by hypostasiswhich is responsiblefor the
unmistakably strong phonemic component in many writing systems (Pike
r97r\.
Now that we have clarified some basic semiotic relationships between
graphicsand sound let us have a look at some well-known facts of writæn
Russian.Writæn Russianis basedon well defined graphemics(ttre repertory
of Cyrillic letærs).It may be ærmeda closed syst€mif compared,e.g., with
what we can seein Czcch. Foreign natnescontaining adapædRoman letters
may be intnoducedinto a Czechtext in their original form even though they
may include elementsthat do not belong to the Czech graphic system (e.g.
François,Bufluel). Russianhasto haverecourse,in the caseof foreign names
to a very broad transcriptionin Cyrillic, e.g. Gjugo for (Victor) Hugo.lt is
inrcrestingto note that this graphicassimilationmay enhancccultural assimi-
lation; with some exaggerationone may say that words like blanmanle or
rejtink (i.e. rating) becameRussianwords at the moment they appearedin
Cyrillic script in a Russianphrase.
The projective rules of Russiangraphemicson the syntagmaticaxis con-
stiturc the basis of the Russiangraphic system. It tums out that the letærs
j and.a(the so-calledjer) arein complementarydistribution; this should make
it possiblcto economize(by excluding the letter), but taking into considera-
tion orthographicrules as well, this reduction would deprive the sysrcm of
a typical useful linear diacritic. The case of j and .a reprcsentsa graphic
analogy to the contextually conditioned variants analyzedin our discussion
of the transcription system.
Incaseof graphemicpairs a- ja,u- juthe graphemes a,uare unmarked
while the graphemes ja, ju aremarked; markd ja, ju are polyfunctional and
their functions are clearly defined in disributional terms (# ja, Vja, Ctja ::
Cja; V standsfor any vowel letter, C - for consonantletters).As anothercase
of contextualizcdgraphic variants,combinationsof the We tja (tja :: ta) are
405
of special inrcresq in ga the letæt ja is a sign of a sound (vowel) sign and
at the same time a sign (diacritic) of a distinctive feature of the prcceding
consonant(sharpncssftalatalization)just as .o is a diacritic of sharpnessin
'io drink'
caseslikepdtl ,Vanblca- a.hypocoristicderivationto lvan. Conson-
ant letærJare compleæly neutral as to the feature of sharpness:in this way
a cumulationlbundling of distinctive features in sharped phonemes (cumul
des signifiants) is being transformed inO a linear sequence.On the other
hand, phonemic sequenceslike liat, liûl are being substitutedby des cumuls
des signifiants in graphics.Theseexamplesillustrate that the written language
has cJnæxtual rules ôf its o*n that ensurea firm concatenationof expression
elementsinto higher units (i.e. its own prosody to use the unusualbut very
seminal ærm introduced in a generalizedsenseby J.R.Firth; Firth 1964).
In a closing remark I want to call attentionto someproblems concerning
Russianorthography.What is called the morphemic/morphologicalprinciple
(cf. differentiatingptot (Gsgplota)'raft' - plod (Gsgploda)'fruit', or - on
the other hand - stressingmorphemic identity like Nsg voda lva'dal'water' 'heel')' In
- Asg vodu l'vodal, piata lp,i'tal - diminutive piatka l'p,akal
semiotic terms thesecasesrepresenticonic diagrammatization:components
ttrat are paradigmatically identical have the same graphic shape (Jakobson
1971,19-85,Shâpiro1991).Iconicdiagrammatization is not an all-embracing
principle; besidèscaseslikc those quoæd above, it is easy to find others,e.g.
rgbenàk,which are arbitrary, i.e. dictatedby conventional orthographicrules
that must be memorized ((r)g- is a conventional component of the graphic
signifiant of a sign, thus a sign on this sign; (r)i - would serve the PurPose
as well as (r)g).
Of specialinærest - as an extention of graphic iconic diagrammatization
- areorthographicrules concerning,e.g.infinitive andimperativeforms: there
'tô bake' just as dclan 'to do, to make', imp. malt 'smear' just
is rnf peët
'mouse',roiA 'rye' just asltostl
as tronb'touch'. The sameobtainsin myJ.O
'bone', tetradn'exercise-book'. The difference betweenNsgfem myJr and
NsgmascJalaJ'straw hut' is constantanddefinite andconsequentlyis related
to the signifié (conænt).This possibility was developedinto an elaboraterich
systemI utilizing for work to this end the inheritedhighly redundantChurch
Siavonic graphemic system - in Modern Russian Church Slavonic texts
introduced in ttre tgttr century by the Orthodox Church of Byzantine rite.
Thus the overall visual impressionfrom a prinæd page in Modern Russian
Church Slavonic has not changedmuch if cornparedwith a much older
RussianChurch Slavonicmanuscripttext As thesetextsarc beingpronounced
in different ways in different countries (Russia.Ukraine, Bulgaria, ...), i.e.
according to the phonological structure of the respectivevernaculars,the
relationship betweenwritten (more precisely- printed) languageand sound
has been reversedto put it in a simplified way (Mathiesen 1972).
N6

If one takes into account the fact that - as regards its basic principles - Philip A. Luelsdorff (Regensburg)
the Russian graphic system has not changed much in the course of many Sergej V. Chesnokov(Moscow)
centuries so that afær a brief acquaintancewith a more dctailed and redundant
graphemicsof Old Russiana Russiancan read somepassageswritten in thc
Old Russian vernacular without much difficulty - one can undcrstand the
symbolic nanre (value) of the Cyrillic script for Russians:it relaæs the
present to the distant past, making almost palpable the idea of an undisruptcd
Determinacy '* ExPerience
continuity asset againstall the changeswhich havetakenplace on the surface
in thc flow of tiræ. A swirch !o Roman alphabet would be felt as a real
disasærin comparisonwith the hardshipsRussianshave been experiencing
rccently.
0. Introduction

A deærminacy grammaf (DG) consisS of a data matrix (DM) and a deærmi-

nacy analysis-@A). The DA is applied to the DM, producingdeterminacies
(D)-quantified for accuracy (I) and completeness(C). The subject of this
papd is detcrminacy experience @E), which we understandto mean both
Referencs:
furéaeærminacy of expèrience(D(E) and the experienceof determinacy
(E(D)).
-
Bthler, K. (1934):Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion
der Sprache.Jena:G.
Fischer. in iection I we offer a synopsisof tlre DG framework and its centerpiece,
Firth, J. R. (1964):Papersin LinguisticsI93I - /95/. Oxford UniversityPrcss. deærminacy form @F1. In section 2, we develop the notion of,determinacy
Holenstein,E. (ed.)(1988):RomanJakobson,Semiotik.Ausgewëhlte TexteI9I9 - cxperience @E) in ærms of D(E), the ordered movementsused !o compose
/9E2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. DË and E(D), the ordered movements used to evaluate a D, once obtained.
Jakobson,R.: Die eigenartigeZeichenstrukturdesPhonems(1939).In: Holensæin In section 3, we supplant priority with frequency, with ttre result that temporal
(1988),pp. 139-140:theeditor'simportantcommenton Jakobson's text.Reprint prioritiès, qua frequencics,ale directly accessibleto the frequency-
and spatial -Finally,
in SW I, pp. 28G310. UasedO.l. in section 4, we replace complexity with frequency as the
Jalcobson, R.: Questfor the essenceof language.In: SWII (1971),pp. 315-359.
Jakobson,R.: A few rcmarkson Peirce,pathfinderin the scienceof language.SW maior determinantof knowledge acquisition,attrition, and variation, sugge-
II (197r), pp. 345-359. sting that DE loss, gain, and variation arc frequency-driven.
Mathiesen,R. C. (1972):TheInflectionalMorphologyof theSynodalChurch Sla- In general,ttre deeperone delves into DE, the better one's understanding
vonic Verb. Ann Aùon Michigan. of knowledge as determinacy will be.
Pike, K. L. (19?l): Iangwge in Relationto a UnifiedTheoryof the Stucture of
Hwtun Behsviour.2nded.The Hague- Pàris.
Saussur€, F. de (1916):Coursde linguistiguegénérale.Lausanne. l. Determinacy grammarr
Shapiro,M. (l9l): The Sense of Change.l-anguage as History.IndianaUniversity
Press. "determina'
Vachek,J. (1976): SelectedWritings in English and GeneralLinguistics.Prague: Knowledge is comprisedof dynamic, functionalstructurescalled
Academia. cies," whose form-(DD is defined and exemplified for English readingand
SWI, SWII (1971):RomanJakobson,SelectedwritingsI, II. The Hague,Paris: spellingin (l.l).
Mouton.
SWVII (1985):RomanJakobson, SelectedwritingsVIL Berlin:Mouton- de Gruy-
tcr.

1 Determinacygrammrs @G) areuniversalin thaldetemrinacy folqr (DF)is universal.They

arein-ttre-wbr]din thattheyeffectivelycausetheworldto cohere.Somearepersonal,others
impersonal.
 '/::
À b D5 \Ê ôqrL: a-.)
|5

Dane5/
SvétlaômejrkovâI FrantiSek
Tr,ibinger
Beitrâgea)r Linguistik EvaHavlovâ(eds.)
herausgegeben
von GunterNarr

392
Writingvs Speaking
Communication
TeXt,Discourse,
Language,
proceedingsof the Conferenceheldat the Czech
Languagelnstituteof the Academyof Sciencesof the
Czeénnepublic,Prague,October14-16, 1992

/â\
l(}',.7i

d
Z ? 6 0 ç

É6*til3iI'lÙ,6.
1,,!'I i t) .*.) t
\ J - /

GunterNarrVerlag gen
i. i\,j('',5 5 227 B