The linguistic theory of relativity

HAL Id: hal-03159083

https://hal.univ-reunion.fr/hal-03159083

Submitted on 4 Mar 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

The linguistic theory of relativity

Jean-Philippe Watbled

To cite this version:

Jean-Philippe Watbled. The linguistic theory of relativity. Quinquereme, new studies in modern languages, University of Bath, 1981, 04 (02), pp.236-239. �hal-03159083�

QUT}IdUUREME TV, ²

THE LINGUTSTTC THEORY OT' RELATIVITY

by

J.-P.

WATBLED

University

of

^Bath

.I't]E _SOUND SHAPE OF LANGUAGE.

(assisted by Marbha Taylor).

1979. xi.i +

308

pp.

O 85127

By Roman Jakobson Hassocks, Sussex, 926

'.

and Linda Waugh

Harvester Press,

In spite of his

impressive number

of

contributions

to

^general

and applied

linguistics,

Jakobson has not previously prod.uced. a vork

of

synthesis,

a sort of

gener.al introduction

to his linguistic

thought and

philosophy.

The

task

seems

to

have been achi.eved

vith his

recent The Sound Shape

of

^Language,

vritten in

collaboration

vith

Linda Waugh.

One

of

the main

qualities of

the book

is its style,

both

attractive

ancl

stimulating,

vhich ma-kes

it

accessible

not

only to

the

professional

linguist, but

also

to the

^educated read.er, to

t1'honnête hommet. The

inflation of notational

devices

is

caref'ully avoided.;

the

reader vho

is

more

famifiar vith the

generative school

will

be surprised., especially

if

he forgets

the historical

situation

of

Jakobsonrs

cloctrine.

A

superficial

and- condescending ^judgement might be passed ^ancl the work might be

fabelfed

rtaxonomistr,

tstructural-istr,

rd.escriptiver,

or

rpre-generativer

- lhs

^problem

is that

d.ivisions and cl-assifications are

not

so cl-ear*cut ancl,

although

there is

no

reaf

novelty

in

the book (and.,

in this, it is

ctisappointing),

the

authors'

insights

are

certainly

most valuable.

As

their

theory ancl methodology are

specific,

they shoufd not be

criticized in strictly

Chomskyan

terms.

For example, .Takobsonls most notable achievement

is his strict d.efinition of

ttre ^phoneme

(vhich _l-inks

his

^name

to all

subsequent vorks

in

phonologv) and. his clemonstration

that, far

from being a mere

theoreticaf construct, it

has an

ontological status,

Whilst ^Chomsky and Halle rejected the concept

of

^phoneme

in their

monumental

vork,

The Sound Pattern of

Engtish,l

the paradox

is that

some post-Cfromsi<yan pfronofÇists frave

iê-lnlioauced it

because, they c1aim, no serious argument has been

put

forward against

it!2

^We must therefore be cautious when ve

criticize

a precursor:

for

example, vhat

is

nov being re-discovered

as

rsubstantiver

or rexternalt

evidence has never been ignçrred. by Jakobson (hence

his interest in

pathology, chilcl language,J spoonerisms, speech

errors, poetical

d.evjces, language

variation,

23t

252 J.

-P.

^Watb1eil

speech

styles, explicit

and

elliptical

cod.es, and. so

on); of

^course, he

is in

favour

of

autonomous phonology, another

pejorative

1abel;

for

Chonsky and

his followers,

phonological-

rules

merely convert

syntactic

structures

into

a phonetic representation, and phonology

is

only a peripheral

rinterpretive?

component, because

of

the prececlence

of syntax.

For Jakobson, phonology

is

a

relativefy

autononous science, dealing

vith

speakersr phonetic _{(and not} morphophonemic) competencel

the

authors are

primarily

concerned.

with

the perceptual aspects

of

speech and Jakobsonts abstraet features are supposed.

to refer to rel-ative, but uliversal,

acoustic

properties,

and not

to

physical

absolutes.

His theory might be

defined as a general theory

of linguistj.c relativity

^(compare the

central

id.ea

of rrelational

invari.ance' (pp. 80,

83,

93,

etc.)).

The features,

or ultimate

components

of

speech, are phonological, and are

not

d.esigned

to

be used

for

r:ufes

of

^phonetic,

articulatory detail

^(the omission

of this fact viti.ates

current

criticism);

^by atiopting

this point of

vievo Jakobson and llaugh

implicitly

assume

that

one phonological framework cannot be used on

tvo different

1eve1s; binary features can have only ^phonemic values;

the

confusion

of

^phonemic statements and

of

sub-phonemic, allophonic

rules in

Generative Phonology, vhich uses

the

same

entities

on both Ieve1s, has been

a

source

of

frequent misunderstand.ings

in

copparative stud.ies dealing

with different

theories

of

phonology.4

However, other

criticisms

are more serious, as the most

debatabfe

point in

the book

is of

course

the

defence

of the

'd"yatlic

principlet

(see,

for

instance,

the

quotation from Balzac,

p,

^8O).

A binary framevork

is

very

practical for the

eval-uation

of

the eomplexity

of a

system,

or for the quantification of

information (and

let

us

recall that

Jakobson r"ras srurongly influenced by

information

theory):

the problem

is that the authors'point of

viev

is

not purely method.ological,

but is

also

ontological.

For them,

the

binary

system has a

biological,

perceptual

basis;

hovever, in

the field. of

diachrony,

for

example, Trubetzkoyrs theory

of

^grad.ua1, equipollent and

privative

oppositions

is

apparentfy more

fruitful:5

one

of

the main causes

of

^phonetic change

is certainly articulatory inertia

i.n

conflict vith

perceptual necessities, ancl indeeti

specialists in the

fiel-d, have repeated.ly accused Jakobson

of

a

recluetioni.st

attitude.

Regard.ing phonemic systems, Jakobsonrs vievs are

likely to

oversi.mplify

the facts, in

as much as he red.uces

afl

oppositions

to

the

privative type,

which l-eads him

to

^{anal-yse systems} as netvorks

of

correlations and.,

controversially, to

extend the

principle of

complementary

clistribution to interlinguistic

eomparisons. _. An epistemological question must also be

raised:

the authorsr claims about binary

features,

defineci on a perceptual_ basis, can hardly be proved

or

d.isprovecl,

in spite of the

development

of

research ancl current progress

in the

fiel_ds

of

neurol_inguistics, speech

recognition,

and speech synthesis:

the

hypothesis

is

there-

fore

exempt from possible

falsification.

The second

part of

the book,

entitl-ed

^tThe Spe11

of

Speech Sound.sr reminds the reader

that

Jakobson has never separated

Linriuistic

^theory

of Relativity

^23'

r

irrli,istics

^and

poetics, that

^ire !e]3r-rsed

to

the

l'":lil,formarist

, v,,n,cnL. and ^has_

;i;;:

l,.,ppo't"a

tt"là;: l,irlïl'îTtï;Ïll:i:ï,

il:,1

,;;;;.;;;. ^rhis

oPen-minded ^schor

.t'

^I

inguisti"=t nu'i"ïË;;t-;;;'gaq

betveen European' ^Praguran

r i rry'.rristics

t'd A'-";i;;;-î:"e'iIti".'";;";"; à ro"'ai"g'

^{rather or}

rrr.,lr'I'II

linguistics;';;;-'t;; iiorio*t*oni oi ^tr'e

so"nq gt'"pe or

t,,r.r,',Lage arso

contài;""-t*; '""t"tiy

plr"lri-unuE-

*tterial'

^{I,Je vouLct}

,,,;lîl-v

^contend'

tr'îi^'ii'"

^man

is

^a,

g"t'i-'"!

^{even r^rhen he}

is

^trong'

N- Chomsky and M'

Halle' Ïlt S"t-d P"tt""" "f E

^{(Nev York}

':;":',"r;;;"i"à'a no''

^{1e68) '}

s ee

p. Line,1,'={euit::t ii'"îeÉàï:tr:: E!"TËmi.ËiH:"'t'"'

=trar'

Cambridge St

î6iâ-on, ^{cUP, t979) '}

R. Jakobson, Selected tr^lritings

1

(The Hague' Mouton' 1971)'

J.

McCavley, 'The

role of

phonological feature ^systems

in

^any theory

or ranguageïl;LT+i:a ,'-Wsrs),

_I

ii;' ;.ffi

^u'

ËàiI"i.""i-""u"'

(ctricaso' universrt

20.-29.

-'À

^{anâ'lvsis (Nev York'}

Holt' L.

Hynan, Phonotogv: ^T1]99IY

ald

4441i

Rinehart ^and \^linston'

19'f))' P' ))'

5.

ÿ

1.