Word

ISSN: 0043-7956 (Print) 2373-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwrd20

Aspects of Linguistic Theory in Firthian Linguistics

Olasope O. Oyelaran

To cite this article: Olasope O. Oyelaran (1967) Aspects of Linguistic Theory in Firthian
Linguistics, Word, 23:1-3, 428-452, DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1967.11435497

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1967.11435497

Published online: 16 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2871

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwrd20
OLASOPE O. O Y E L A R A N - - - - - - - - -

Aspects of Linguistic Theory

in Firthian Linguistics

1 In.troduction
The history oflinguistics in Western thought shows two major traditions:
the Graeco-Roman, and the Indian tradition. The former bas always been
the philosophical, the theoretically oriented, the latter the empirical. But
there the balance begins to tilt. For the empirical has until recently been
drowned in the din generated by the theoretical. This is not to say that the
empirical is not founded on theory, quite the contrary; only, theory is less
central to it. The position of Firthian Linguistics in the 20th century is
analogous to this historical position of Indian Linguistics, to which it is
also characteristically doser. Perhaps a brief discussion of the two major,
older traditions will be illustrative.t
It would be easy to trace the conflicting philosophical doctrines of 20th
century linguistics back to Graeco-Roman origins without being overly
literai. "The study of grammar started among the Pre-Socratics as part of
the wider study of the nature of speech, and this in turn was conditioned
by the sort of questions and speculations that were current in philosophical
circles at this time. One of the most prominent questions raised by these
thinkers was to what extent human institutions of ali kinds were natural
and to what extent conventional" (R. H. Robins).2 In time, the con-
troversy narrowed clown to the more grammatical question of regularity
(ana/ogy) versus irregularity (anomaly) in speech forms. The Analogists
(naturalists) were concerned with the "discovery" of patterns by which
items of language should be classified. Hence their emphasis on

1 R. H. Robins, Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe with Particular

Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine, 1951.
Also lecture notes based on "History of Linguistics." Course given by John Lyons, of
Edinburgh University, G.B. (Summer, 1966 Linguistic Institute).
This introductory discussion is based Iargely on these two sources.
2 P. 6.
428
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 429
paradigm. 3 The Anomalists (conventionalists), on the other band, while not
denying analogy, pointed out the numerous instances in language where
analogies were of no avail; for example, cases of synonymy (two or more
forms to one meaning), homonymy (one form to different meanings).
Further exemplification of the point the anomalists were trying to drive
home can be taken from modern languages. Thus, in German Miidchen,
a neuter noun, is semantically feminine, and in English, Greek, and Latin,
Athens, a plural form, is singular in meaning, being the name of a city.
Varro, a Roman grammarian of the first century B.C., acknowledges the
difference between the two warring camps, but seeks to demonstrate that
both have sorne right on their side. 4 In his opinion, "Analogia est ver-
borum similium dec/ination similis non repugnante consuetudini communi
(Anal ogy is like grammatical behaviour of like words where normal usage
does not disagree with this)." This, in modern descriptive grammar, means
that the grammar must discover but not impose regularity in the structure
of language.
More interesting, however, are the vicissitudes through which the Graeco-
Roman tradition oflinguistic theory bas gone since Varro. There is a great
temptation to describe its his tory in terms of the Heglian triad: thesis, anti-
thesis, synthesis. But such a description would be a bold overstatement.
Briefly, the Stoics freed grammar from the main trend of philosophical
speculation in which it had been entrenched since the Pre-Socratics. It en-
joyed this independence until the middle ages, when the Modistae, in search
of universal principles, reincorporated it as part of universal inquiry. The
Renaissance however, looked back to the Latin grammarians, and pro-
duccd grammars of particular languages; and the triumph of reason during
the 17th century produced speculative grammar, which again was a sort
ofsynthesis. lt seems safe to say that out of the Renaissance's "humanitas"
and the 17th century rationalism, or in reaction to the latter, grew the
exclusively transcendental 19th century philological pursuit. The 20th
century structuralism which followed is unlike its immediate predecessor
as we shall see presently.
By contrast, the Indian tradition does not exhibit any of the "neurotic
personality" of the Graeco-Roman tradition. lt was from the beginning
J Lyons. Exploiting the notion of Analogy, Varro proposed the first generative
principle (first, at !east in the sense of being the earliest recorded generative principle)
based on the concept of mathematical proportion. He claimed that if we can solve the
equation "6:3 ::4:x," then, we ought to be able to solve "boy: boys ::cow:x."
Lyons makes the felicitous observation that Varro's generative principle differs from
Chomsky's only in the sense that Varro's generated words, while Chomsky's generates
sentences.
4 Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory, p. 44.
430 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

data-oriented. As Lyons put it, "it was earlier and more diverse, and rather
manifestly superior in achievement." lts leading grammarian, Panini
(circa 4th century B.C.) worked in a tradition already centuries old. His
works are said to be characterized by "exhaustiveness, internai consistency,
and economy of statement; 4000 rules, many short; list of basic forms;
ordered rules; abbreviations and symbols." 5 His superior achievement
lies in two areas: in phonetics, by which he wanted to keep intact the pro-
nunciation of the Vedic Hymns through an accurate and empirical
classification of speech sounds; in a study of internai structure of words
so thorough that his works are now regarded as a science by themselves.

This introductory excursion has heen undertaken primarily to provide a

wider perspective for the main subject of this paper: a characterization of
Firthian Linguistics in terms of its philosophical commitment, and in
relation to other leading schools of thought. Our modus describendi will be,
first, to give a summary of a view of general linguistic theory, and of the
fundamental options it involves, as a background against which one might
project each school of thought in modern linguistics; then, to describe
Firthian theory (in whatever guise it may exist), and to make explicit the
consequences of its philosophical commitments as may be exemplified in
the body of the theory itself.

2 Theory of Linguistics 6
Linguistics is an inquiry on an aspect of reality. Like any other such
inquiry therefore, the theory of lin guis tics "must pro vide about its objects:
a theory of being, or ontology (... ), a theory of knowledge, or epistem-
ology (... ),and a theory of value, or axiology (... ) ... " (1, 5). The object
of linguistics being language, the theory of linguistics ought to provide,
then, a theory of language (ontology), a theory of linguistic analysis
(epistemology), and a theory of linguistic description (axiology) "which
concentrates among others, on the means for evaluating alternative
statements about language and for choosing between them."
Before going further, let us recognize with A. G. Juilland a higher Ievel
of abstraction: that of a metatheory. The motivation for recognizing this
level is the admission of the possibility of more than one version of any one
of the aspects of linguistic theory mentioned so far. lt is the function of
a metatheory, therefore, to formulate the relationship which obtains
among theories, "to establish the similarities and the differences whereby
s Lyons: Notes.
6 This section is based on the mimeographed text of lectures of Juilland, for which, see
Bibliography.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 431
they can be characterized, classified, and explained in terms of the criteria
and relative to the conditions under which the scholar can meaningfully
choose between alternative theories and/or their parts." (1, 7).
The first aspect of a linguistic metatheory (henceforth, theory of linguis-
tics) is a theory of language (linguistic ontology). As a set of hypotheses
about the nature of language it has two major objectives: "an external ob-
jective which concentra tes on those features which certain systems of com-
munication share in common and whereby they are assigned to the
subclass of semiotics called 'natural' languages, and from which other
systems of communication are excluded; and, an internai objective which
concentrates on the fundamental features which distinguish natural
languages from one another and whereby they can be further assigned to
subclasses of the semiotic class wh ose members are natural languages."
(III, 3)
A theory of linguistic analysis (linguistic epistemology), for its part,
"deals essentially with the criteria which exploit the relevant properties of
language; it deals with the operations or procedures followed in deter-
mining th ose properties; and with the relations that ho id between criteria
and operations relative to a number of factors to be specified in the
theory" (sic). (IV, 3) The analyst's choice of criteria, and of procedures is
a direct result of the assumption he may have made as regards the nature
of language. As far as criteria are concerned, depending on the analyst's
ontological commitments, he can make his choice from the following
"general framework of linguistic relations": 7
1. Relations of occurrence (functional and distributional)
2. Relations of constituency (analytic and synthetic)
3. Relations of presupposition (syntagmatic and paradigmatic)
4. Physical relations (of length and prominence)
5. Statistical relations (of frequency and dispersion).
Apparently, the analyst can also opt. for any combination of any number
of the following operations and procedures to suit the relations he may
have chosen: segmentation, identification, classification, and systematiza-
tion (V, 9-12). However, "regardless of the criteria and operations a
linguist may recognize as valid, they do not apply in the same way at
different Ievels of the same language or at the same leve! of languages of
different types." (IV, 12) So, again, the analyst's choice of operation can
only be predicated to his choice of language type and leve!.
The third aspect, linguistic axiology, or a theory of linguistic des-
cription has as its objectives theory of means, theory of ends, and theory
7 Alphonse Juilland, Structural Relations, p. 23.
432 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

of the relations which obtain between ends and means. Let us consider
these in order.
A theory of means "examines alternative means for conveying the fact
ascertained through analyses and performed in agreement with postulates
in theories of linguistic analysis, and based upon assumptions made in a
theory of language." (V, 4) In short, this part of the theory of linguistic
description deals with "models of grammar," of which the fundamental
choice includes the static or the dynamic, the taxonomie or the generative,
the paradigmatic or the syntagmatic, the terminal or the relational. (V, 5)
A theory of ends "ought to provide an inventory, if not a hierarchy, of
the ends of linguistic descriptions, and of the various uses to which they
can be put." (V, 52) And this undoubtedly presupposes evaluation. As a
rule, ends are either immanent (intra-linguistic), or transcendent (extra-
linguistic). It is the latter, as Juilland emphasizes, that allows for a pos-
sibility of evaluation, because "it does not seem possible to operate such
choices s without reference to sorne matrix in which the facts described are
imbedded and relative to which the adequacy of descriptive alternatives
can be measured." (V, 21) The choice of evaluative criteria turns out to be
highly controversial. Since any consideration of evaluation is a con-
sequence of a certain fundamental option, we shall not discuss these
criteria in this section.
It is important to realize that no one, or part of any one aspect of the
theory of linguistics can be successfully isolated by studying exclusively
the works of any one scholar, or even of any one school of thought.
Rather each aspect stands out as it is exemplified by one school and neg-
lected or subordinated to another aspect in the works of another school.
And just as the idiosyncrasies of one epoch become isolable only when
considered in perspective with other epochs, so characteristics of objects
in the same era become substantial only when the objects are viewed in
perspective with one another. In the next section then we shall charac-
terize the 20th century structuralism, and discuss the Firthian theory in the
light of such characterization.
3 Twentieth Century Structuralism
In the first sections of this paper, we mentioned the excessive philo-
logical pre-occupation of 19th century linguistics. Another facet of the
linguistics of that era is the ancillary position it seemed to have held in
relation to other sciences of man: sociology, philosophy, psychology,
biology, anthropology, history, physics, and the Iike. Modern struc-
turalism, on the other band, founded on the Saussurean dictum: La
s That is, between ends and means.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 433
linguistique a pour unique et véritable objet la langue envisagée en elle-même
et pour elle-meme (Cours, 1927, p. 317), rejects 19th century transcendenta-
lism. In an effort "to secure a dignified status among independent scholarly
disciplines, modern linguistics had to disengage itself from the so-called
Geisteswissenschaften and seek closer association with Naturwissen-
schaften, to step back from overbearing humanities and closer to the more
neutral sciences." (I, 2) To achieve its goal, "linguistics had to stress the
specificity of its object, and the non-specificity of its method." (1, 3) The
former is exemplified by Hjelmslevian immanentism, the latter by
Bloomfieldian "scientism." ln summary, as Hjelmslev himself has had
occasion to remark:
La théorie linguistique de nos temps ne se confond avec la philosophie du langage de
l'anitquité ni avec la grammaire générale du moyen-âge et de l'époque du ration-
alisme; elle en diffère par le fait d'être bâtie empiriquement sur l'observation d'un
très grand nombre de langues. Elle n'est pas une théorie a priori. De plus, le problème
qu'elle pose n'est pas celui du quoi ni du pourquoi; c'est celui du comment: La théorie
est bâtie exprès pour fournir aux recherches la méthode et la technique nécéssaire
pour assurer aux résultats cette constance qui est la condition indispensable de toute
comparaison.9
It is significant that, in almost ali his works, Firth deplores both the
immanentistic and scientistic tendency of modern linguistics.
4 Firthian Linguistics
4.1 Firth and Structuralism
One characteristic that immediately sets British linguistics apart from
ali other schools of Modern linguistics is its strong tradition in phonetics.
Whether or not this is a result of British Colonial experience in India is not
of particular relevance here, although the parallel, as mentioned earlier, is
suggestive.
The most important names in English phonetics are those of Henry
Sweet and Daniel Jones. But J. R. Firth is the founder of British linguistics
as it is known today. "Firth began his academie career as historian and
served for many years in India. . . . In 1944, a chair in Generallinguistics
in the University of London tenable at the School of Oriental and African
Studies was created with Firth as the first occupant. He held this chair until
his retirement in 1956."10 London, as it turned out, was the only center of
linguistic studies in the British Isles. As a result, most of the first generation
of British linguists were directly influenced by Firth, and the second genera-
tion at least by Firth's own students. Hence the identification of the name
9 Passage cited in J. R. Firth's "General Linguistics and Descriptive Grammar,"
Papers . .. , p. 221.
IO From Firth's obituary in the Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1960.
434 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

"Firthian Linguistics" with the London school of linguistics, or, in sorne

cases, with British linguistics as a whole.
Firth himself believes his theory to be "a general linguistic des-
cription, not a theory of universals for general linguistic description." 11
There are two major aspects to the theory: "Contextual Theory of Mean-
ing," and "Prosodie Phonology." The first bears the imprint of Malinow-
ski's works, and is fully exploited in T. Mitchell's "The Language of
Buying and Selling in Cyrenaica." 12
lt is instructive to compare Firthian theory with those of other schools.
It becomes immediately apparent that white ail others fit in as part of
modern "structural" linguistics narrowly characterized above in terms of
the Saussurean dictum, Firthian theory does not. Meillet, an early
structuralist, reemphasizes the Saussurean conception of language when
he asserts that "la langue est un système où tout se tient," a system
characterized by two types of relations: by "rapports syntagmatiques" and
"rapports associatifs." The former refers to the relations obtaining
between elements in parallel to the stream of speech ("in praesentia"), the
latter to the relations ("in absentia") between different elements in the
language that are associated in sorne way with the items at various points
in stretches of speech. This latter set of relations was more appropriately
designated Paradigmatic by Hjelmslev (Actes du Quatrième Congres
International de Linguistes (1949), thereby avoiding the latent psycho-
Iogism of de Saussure's term.B
The claim is not that Firthian Linguistics has not been influenced by
de Saussure. That would be far from the truth in spite of ail disclaimer by
scholars in this school. Firth himself, for example, in trying to distinguish
between "structural" and "structuralist" Iinguistics prefers to attribute his
own ("structural") concept to the English scholar Henry Sweet. 14 Among
the other early structural Iinguists Firth recognizes Edward Sapir,ts
Daniel Jones,t6 and Leonard Bloomfield,l7 But in contradistinction to
the concept of "phonetic structure" which features in the theories of these
scholars, and to de Saussure's concept, Firth says: "The expression
'phonetic structure' has no place in my own theory, since elements of
structure are mutually interrelated abstract categories set up by the
11 Firth, "A synopsis ... ," in Studies in Linguistic Ana/ysis, p. 1.
12 Hesperis J, n.d.
13 Robins, "Aspects ... ," in Proceedings of tlze University of Durham Philosophica/
Society, p. 1.
14 "Structural Linguistics," TPhS (1955), 83-103.
15 "The Status ofLinguistics as a Science," Language (Dec., 1929).
16 "The Phonetic Structure of the Sechuana language," TPhS (1917-1920).
17 "Phonetic Structure," Language (1933), Chapter VIII.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 435
linguist, and are timeless and ineffable. Even Aristotle stated quite ex-
plicitly in his remarks on quantity that syllables could not be regarded as
co-terminous." 18 He agrees with Paul Menzerath 19 (whom he quotes)
that "The conception of a word as a series of sounds resembling a 'chain'
of phonetic elements independent of one another could be proved er-
roneous. As a matter of fact, there can no longer be any question of single
speech elements in a word; the sound of a word run together, the word it-
self being intended as a unit." Then Firth himself con eludes: "lt is just
possible that a tentative parallel (to Aristotle's dictum) 20 may be drawn
with my own approach which recognizes that the stream of speech flows in
time and that temporal sequence can be recognized in the phonie material
as such, but that is ail. Ail other interrelations of parts within larger
whole subsist, not in the phonie material, but in the structures and systems
set up by the linguist at the phonological and grammatical leve/." 2 1
Firth classifies existing approaches to linguistic analysis into:
1. The postulational approach
2. The procedural approach
3. The theoretical approach, and
4. A combinational approach subsuming the theoretical and the
empirical.
The postulational method, identified with Bloomfield 22 and Bloch, 23
involves strict definitions of terms. lt holds that "any procedure for
which no tenable assumption can be found is for that very reason open to
the gravest suspicion." 24 The procedural approach (identified with
Zellig Harris, and Kenneth Pike) equates analysis with a set of operations.
"It is ... a discussion of the operations which the linguist may carry out in
the course of his investigations, rather than a theory of structural analyses
which result from these investigations .... "25 This is the approach that
Firth calls 'structuralist,' a set of descriptions limited to collections of
utterances which can be phonemiciied by segmentation. "Such des-
criptions may be valuable, but they form only one part of one branch of
what might be properly called 'structural' linguistics." 26
18 "Structural Linguistics."
19 Acta Psycho/ogica (1935).
20 Parentheses are mine.
21 "Structural Linguistics," p. 89. Emphasis mine.
22 "A set of postulates for the science of language," Language II (1926), 153-164.
23 A set of postulates for phonemic analysis," Language XXIII (1947), 3-46.
24 "Structural Linguistics," p. 94.
2s Ibid.
26 Ibid. Emphasis mine.
436 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

The third method, the theoretical approach to linguistic analysis, is

identified with Hjelmslev. It holds that
1.... the real units of language are not sounds, or written characters, or meanings;
the real units of language are the relata which these sounds, characters, and meanings
represent .... These relations make up the system of a language as opposed to other
languages.
2. . .. linguistics describes the relational pattern of language without knowing what
the relata are, and ... phonetics and semantics do tell what those relata are but only
by means of describing the relations between their parts and part of their parts. This
would mean, in logistic terms, that linguistics is a metalanguage of the first degree,
whereas phonetics and semantics are metalanguages of the second degree.27

Firth raises two objections to aU these three approaches: First, against

the emphasis on segmentation and phonemicization with the so-calied
exclusion of meaning; secondly, against the attempt to frame a sort of
linguistic mathematics (Hjelmslev), or a completely axiomatized science
(Bloch). "In my opinion," he declares, "any fuliy axiomatized mathe-
maticallinguistics will not be found workable in a truly empirical science,
and will, as Martinet says, become a dead technicallanguage perhaps only
applicable to dead languages, and perhaps not even with any effective
result." With regard to the first objections: "In my view, there can be no
unity of linguistics, if that is considered desirable (and certainly no
synthesis of ali the approaches here reviewed), unless we ali turn to what
Roman Jakobson has described as the 'second front,' or the application of
our discipline and techniques to statements of meaning at ali levels." 28
It would be noticed that these two objections are against the two charac-
teristics of Modern linguistics, namely, immanentism and scientism, and
by implication, against preoccupation with Iinguistic ontology (Hjelmslev)
and epistemology.
Apparently Firth himself subscribes to the fourth approach. If so, its
claim of subsuming both the theoretical and the empirical is note-worthy
in terms of what we have discussed earlier with regard to the two older
grammatical traditions. It is this approach that Firth calls "structural" as
opposed to "structuralist." It aims "at employing ali our technical
resources systematicaliy for multiple statements of meaning in the appro-
priate Iinguistic terms. Structural linguistics, therefore, deals with
meaning throughout the whole range of the discipline, but it only does so
within its own circumscribed fields and exclusively in its own terms. The
question, therefore, is not how much meaning can be excluded, but how
2 7 "StructuralAnalysis of Language." Supplement to IJAL XIX, 1 (1953).
28 "Structural Linguistics," p. 99.
29 See above.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 437
much meaning can legitimately be included. lt might even be said that
meaning must be included as a fundamental assumption." 30 This same
approach bas been dubbed "nominalist" by Robins 31 in contradistinction
to the theories of the "Realists" (Pike and others) and the "Conceptualists"
(e.g., Trubetskoy) who adhere in one form or another to the reality of
linguistic units, especialiy of elements of the "phonetic structure." Of the
nominalist school Robins says:
ali the adherents of this view of the subject would claim is that existence or reality are
not properly predicable of anything other than the actual phenomena or data under
observation. Terms and concepts used in analysis are in the nature of a set of words,
and no more, employed by the analyst to talk about his data, and in so talk.ing to
make summary statements and analyses which account for and explain not only the
data from which they are made, but also further data from the same field, in the case
of the linguist, from the same language ... "32

This is the crux of Firthian monism, structural linguistics in the Firthian

sense, which does not recognize the dichotomies: langue-parole, mind-
body, form-substance, text-system, ali ofwhich variously characterize other
schools of thought. Quoting Firth himself, Robins summarizes thus: "In
the most general terms we study language as part of the social process, and
what we may cali the systematics of phonetics and phonology, of gram-
matical categories and of semantics, are ordered schematic constructs,
frames of reference, a sort of scaffolding for the handling of events .
. . . Such constructs have no ontological status and we do not project
them as having being or essence. They are neither immanent nor trans-
cendent, but just language turned back on itself." 33 Whether such a
doctrine is the result merely of Malinowski's influence or fundamentaliy
based on it, a program for its implementation is provided by the thoroughly
Malinowskian "Conceptual Theory of Meaning," and the "Prosodie
Analysis," for which Firthian linguistics is known today.

4.2 Contextual Theory of Meaning

The most important thing to bear in mind here is that speech is part of
the total complex of social process which in turn does not take place in a
vacuum. "The central proposai ofthe theory," as Firth puts it, "is to split
up meaning or function into a series of component functions. Each
function will be defined as the use of sorne language form or element in
relation to sorne context. . . . Meaning then, we use for the whole complex
JO Ibid., p. 102.
JI "Aspects ... ," p. 3 f.
32 Ibid.
JJ Ibid. See also Firth's "Synopsis ... ,"pp. 2 tf.
438 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

of functions which a linguistic form may have. The principal components

of this whole meaning are phonetic function, which 1 cali a mi nor function,
the major functions-Iexical, morphological, and syntactical (to be the
provinces of a reformed system of grammar), and the function of a com-
plete locution in the context of situation, or typical context of situations." 34
The matrix of experience, given a text, includes
A. Interior relations:
(a) The syntagmatic relations between elements of structure considered at
various levels, e.g., elements of grammatical structure in co/ligations, and
phonological structure.
(b) The paradigmatic relations of terms or units which commute within systems
set up to give values to the elements of structure.
B. Situational Relations
(a) The interior relations within the context of situation, the focal constituent
for the Iinguist being the text.
(b) Analytic relations set up between part of the text (words, or parts of words,
and indeed, any 'bits' or 'pieces') and special consituents, item, objects,
persons, or events within situation.JS

In detail, "Context of Situation" in which relations of B (above) inhere

is set up as follows:
I. Interior Relations
A. Relevant features of participants:
1. Verbal action of participants (i.e., the text)
2. non-verbal action of participants
B. Relevant objects
C. Effect of verbal action
II. Exterior Relations
A. Economie, religious, social structures to which participants belong;
B. Types of discourse-monologue, narrative.
C. Persona! interchanges,-age, sex of participants.
D. Types of speech-social flattery, cursing.

By definition, however, the context of situation must only be considered as

"the means of isolating text; it also serves to establish a group of related
categories at a different leve] from grammatical and other Iinguistic
categories, and these categories must be stated before the analysis of the
linguistic categories can begin. In a word, the context of situation is the
means of assuring the renewal of connection between the text, which is in
34 "Synopsis," p. 5.
35 Ibid., p. 3. Terms underscored are technical terms in Firthian Iinguistics, and wiii be
defined below. Emphasis mine.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FJRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 439
itself an abstraction, and observable events in experience." 36 Using this
means, the analyst proceeds through collocation, through syntax, to
phonology and phonetics, and sometimes in the opposite order.37 The
following diagram shows Firth's conception of the network of relations
within the context of situation. It should be noted that there is no question
of hierarchy here, and that from any given leve], there is contact with any
describable situation, as Firth puts it, to ensure meaning.

G: grammar
P: phonology
M: phonetics
L: Iexicology
C: colocation

FIGURE 1. The text in context of situation

4.3 Prosodie Analysis

In this subsection we shall focus on Firth's theory of phonological and
grammatical analyses. The main characteristics of the Prosodie Approach
are its rejection of uni-dimensionality, its acceptance of polysystemic
approach, and its full acceptance of grammatical pre-requisite in phono-
logical analysis.
At first, "rejection of uni-dimensionality" and "acceptance of poly-
systemic approach" would sound like a contradiction of Firth's monism.
However, we should notice that while the latter (i.e., "monism") is a view
of the nature of language (see above), the prosodie approach (hence, its
principles) is an analytical method. The choice of one presupposes the
choice of the other as we shall see below.
Rejection of uni-dimensionality is immediately relevant to phonological
analysis. The controversy involves a basic attitude towards the status of
phonetic elements in linguistic analysis. The study of the phonological

36 G. L. Bursill-Hall, "Levels Analysis: J. R. Firth's Theories of Linguistic Analysis,"

The Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association VI (1960), p. 130. Emphasis is mine.
We shall have occasion to recall this passage below.
37 Emphasis is mine. This is also important for later discussion.
440 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

structure (notice, not phonetic structure) ofwords or utterances in a partic-

ular language, in Firthian theory, must be based on the findings of phon-
etics. The phonetic and phonological analysis of the word can be grouped
under two headings: sounds, and prosodies.3B Sounds, or "phonematic
units" refer to those features or aspects of the phonie material which are
best regarded as "referable to minimal segments, having seriai order in re-
lation to each other in structures."39 In the most general terms such units
constitute the consonant and vowel elements or C and V (canonical) units
of phonological structure systematically stated ad hoc for each language.
Prosodies are, "by definition, of more than one segment in scope or domain
of relevance, and may in fact belong to structures of any length, though in
practice no prosodies have yet been stated as referring to structures longer
than sentences." 40 A phonological structure is thus a syntagmatic entity
comprising phonematic units C and V, and one or more prosodies belong-
ing to the structure as a whole. Within such structures, elements can be
replaced by or substituted for other elements at the same level of abstrac-
tion; systems of units or terms commute to give values for the elements of
structure, so that CVCVCV can result in a possible CVrCVk-CV1•
Firth's "prosodies" reminds one of Harris's "long components," with the
exception that the latter are given a phonernic status in keeping with
American tradition (for which, see below). To illustrate how the prosodie
approach applies to a language, we re-present Henderson's scheme for the
application of Prosodie analysis to Siamese, as quoted by Robins. 41
Sentence Prosody: Intonation
Prosodies of Sentence pieces: length, stress, and tone relations between component
syllables.
Syllable Prosodies: length, tone, stress, palatalization, labiovelarization.
Prosodies of Syllable parts: aspiration, retroflexion, plosion, unexploded closure.
Phonematic Consonant and vowel units in such classes as velar, dental, bilabial, nasal,
front, back, rounded, unrounded.

The difference between the Firthian and other linguistic theories (es-
pecially American phonemics) lies in their conception of non-segmentai
features, and of juncture. The phonemicists recognize on! y three elements
as non-segmentai: pi teh, stress, and length, and, in contradistinction to the
CV or "sounds," they prefer to cali these suprasegmentals. However, the
Firthians believe that "suprasegmental, is simply non-segmentai, with the
implied domain of the sylla ble; a syllable prosody is an abstraction of a

38 Adapted from Bursill-Hall, p. 167.

39 Robins, "Aspects," p. 3.
40 Ibid.
41 Robins, "Aspects," p. 4.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTffiAN LINGUISTICS 441
specifie arder in a separate dimension (the syntagmatic), taking its place in
a system of prosodies intended to caver the analysis of syntagmatic
relations generally, within linguistic structures." 42 Of the consequences
of the second problem, Robins observes, with characteristic Firthian dis-
approval, that "in general, juncture phonemes tend to be associated with
ward and morpheme boundaries in American phonemics just as sup-
rasegmental phonemes are generally confined to the domain of the
syllable. In this way junctures have a particular relevance to current
American linguistic theory, which holds that grammatical features and
grammatical units cannat be used as part of the defining environment of
phonemics." 43
Such a view of phonological analysis as is held by the Firthians makes it
almost imperative to espouse the view that language may be considered as
"un ensemble de plusieurs systèmes partiels," and to agree with Trubetskoy
that la langue étant un système il doit y avoir un lien étroit entre la
structure grammaticale et la structure phonologique de la langue. 44 This is
the polystemic approach, an "integrationist" view, as opposed to the
American compartmentalist view to which Robins refers rather obliquely
in the preceding paragraph. A significant consequence of the Firthian
tenet, is that although Firth believes ideally that not only is there no
hierarchy among levels, but also that analysis could be in any direction,
beginning with any level, in prosodie analysis, one of the strongest features
of bis "theory is the descending arder of analysis, which begins with the
larger, moving downwards to the smaller units."45
In grammatical analysis, "Firth and his associates have dispensed with
the morphology-syntax division on the same ground that Hjelmslev has
dispensed with it, i.e., on the ground that 'every fact of morphology is a
fact of syntax because it only rests on a syntactical relation between the
grammatical elements in question'." 46 ln grammar, as in phonology, the
first Firthian principle of analysis is to distinguish between structure and
system. A syntagmatic relation obtains among elements of a structure, so
that in grammar, the elements share a mutual expectancy in an arder which
is not a mere sequence. "And quite similarly a system is restricted to a set
of paradigmatic relations between commutable units or terms which
42 Ibid,. p. 8.
43 Ibid., p. 9. This is the well-known "compartmentalist approach" against which
Kenneth Pike bas been battling since 1948, and which, probably, encouraged his multi-
volume work, An lntegrated Approach ...
44 Firth, "Structural Linguistics," p. 93.
•• Bursill-Hall, p. 108. This analytic approach seems adequate for taking cognizance
of grammatical criteria at this leve!.
46 Ibid., p. 176.
442 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

pro vides values for the elements of structures." 47 Operationally, attention

must first be paid to the longer elements of text, such as the paragraph, the
sentence and its component clauses, phrases, pieces, and Iastly words if
they are institutionalized or otherwise established for the language being
analyzed. 48
A set of categories are accordingly set up to handle the data depending
on the need of the investigator. The following are usually identified with
Firth's theory: Unit, structure, class, system. The Unit as a component is a
function of the nature of the particular language. For English, sentence,
clause, phrase (group), pieces, and words prove convenient. The unit,
then, is the category set up to account for stretches that carry gram-
matical patterns. Certain scales of abstraction are also set up to further
the analysis; namely, Rank, exponence, and delicacy, of which the scale
types are hierarchy, taxonomy, and cline, respectively. The concept of
delicacy is the most controversial point in Firthian linguistics, and has not
been quite understood, nor can we claim to comprehend its import. So,
we shall not attempt to defi ne it here. Of the others, 'Rank' is the scale on
which the units are ranged th us:

. Unit
--+----- ~

Sentence
Clauses
~ Phrases
c
.!'S Pieces
'""' Words

Exponence links the phonie data with categories of phonology and gram-
mar, and ensures analysis at congruent levels so that the phonie material
at one leve) is always available for analysis at the next Ievel. "At the
phonological level, this means that certain phonie data are selected (and
phonetically described) as characterizing the various phonological units,
of which they are termed exponents and to which they may be said to be
allowed: These exponents may be cumulative or discontinuous." 4 9 (See
Table l) 1t becomes clear why Firth insists on the descending order of
47 Firth, "Synopsis," p. 17.
48 Ibid., p. 18.
49 Bursill-Hall, p. 131.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 443
operation: this avoids the problem of residues which still plagues phonemic
analysis, and in addition ensures a workable concept of the prosodie
analysis.

Table 1

Exponents

Categories

Major Subcategories

masculine a, d, e, f
Gender
{ feminine
neuter
b,a
c, d, e

singular a, b, c, d, e, f
Number { plural b, a, f

nominative a, b,c
Case
{ genitive
dative
accusative
d,a
a, e, f
f, c, b

German defini te articles:

Forms: der die das des dem den
a b c d e f

Having considered the contextual, the phonological and the gram-

matical levels, we might have a word about the two other levels
which Firth includes as part of Context of Situation: lexicology, and
collocation.
Lexicology does not need to be defined. But collocation is not so easy a
concept to grasp. In order to understand what is involved, it seems neces-
sary to introduce here the additiona:l concept of col/igation. At the
grammatical leve!, "syntactical analysis must generalize beyond the leve!
of the word isolate since in many languages the exponents of the gram-
matical categories may not be words or even affixes." so This generaliza-
tion is ensured by colligations. They "do not refer to relations between
classes as such but between grammatical abstractions: In je mange une
pomme, we do not at this leve! concern ourselves about the relations
between 'mange' and 'une pomme' but between persona! pronoun,
first person singular, present tense of a transitive verb, the indefinite

so Ibid., p. 178.
444 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

determinative and the substantive, etc." 51 Now, collocation, like colli·

gation, is a syntagmatic abstraction. Once again, as Bursili-Hall puts it,
A collocation is the habituai company of a word, but this does not mean that the
word must be placed in any specifie contextual or grammatical order, nor does it
mean that collocation means a juxtaposition of words; but it represents an order of
mutual expectancy, ... In French, for example, for the words "belle," and "maison,"
we can establish the colligation in the nominal piece of Deterrnined-Attributive-
Substantive, so that "une belle femme" and "une belle maison" are grammatically
feasible and collocationally acceptable: 'Jeune' and 'maison' exist at the grammatical
leve! and can function as the exponents of grammatical abstraction in the colligation
Det.-Att.-Sub., but are not collocationally acceptable in "une jeune maison." 52
In summary one might say with Robins that the prosodie approach to
linguistic analysis "and its app!Îcations to parts of the phonology of
various languages involved a break with a number of features charac-
teristic of phonemic phonology as it had so far been developing; in par-
ticular, it rejected the separation levels in so far as this meant a refusai to
admit grammatical divisions, classes, and categories as part of the context
for the delimitation and establishment of phonological elements. Indeed,
part of the polysystemicity proclaimed as one apsect of prosodie phonology
lies in its assertion that different phonological systems may be applicable
to different places in grammatical structure and to grammatically different
word classes in language." 53
Robins, writing in 1964, regretted that the theory still Iacked "the full
exposition that must be Iooked for." The only attempt to the best of our
knowledge to provide an exposition of part of Firth's theory of Iinguistic
analysis is by M. A. K. Halliday.54 It therefore deserves a brief
consideration.
4.4 Halliday's Grammar
Table 2 shows a schematic representation of Halliday's Grammar as
interpreted by Postal. 55 Halliday daims to pro vide a theoretical foundation
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid. This is one of the points of similarity between the fundamental principle of
Firthian theory and Chomsky's which one can fi nd hard to resist pointing out, but about
which one is almost al ways compelled to be silent, because of the dissimilarity in presen-
tation. Collocation and Colligation would undoubtedly be a leve! of grammaticality in
the transformational generative theory each with its own characteristic restrictional
features (cf. Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, pp. 75 ff.).
53 "Grammar, meaning, and the Study of Language," JCLA (Spring, 1964), p. 101.
54 "Categories of the theory of Grammar," Word XVII (1961); Also, Dixon's Lin-
guistic Science and Logic (The Hague, 1963), for an attempt to forrnalize Halliday's
theory.
5S "Halliday's 'Categories of the Theory of Grammar'," an appendix to Constituent
Structure, by Postal (Bloomington, 1964).
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 445
for the description of natural language. His theory, however, shows
several points of difference from the Firthian theory outlined above, so
much so that one cannot help agreeing with Postal in reducing it to another
type of Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG), and showing that it is even less
adequate for the description of natural language than sorne of the others
he claims to have proved inadequate.

Table 2

(1) Sentence Unit Sentence

1
Declarative Sentence = one place in
primary sentence structure

(2) Clause Unit

Main Clause = one occurrence of primary c/ass of

1\
unit clause = exponent of element
Declarative Sentence

S P = two place primary structure of Main

Clause
S, P = elements of this struclllre

(4) Word Unit ' \ ""'

Prenoun Noun = occurrences of primary classes of unit
/ \ word operating at M and H

Stem Number = two place structure of Noun

(5) Morpheme Unit

perhaps certain classes here
boy plural

Halliday is in agreement with the theoretical postulates set out in

another section of this paper when he says that "one part of General
Linguistic theory is a theory of how language works. lt is from this that
the methods of Descriptive Linguistics are derived." 56 He believes,
however, that the relevant theory (of how language works) consists of a
scheme of interrelated categories which are set up to account for the data,
and a set of scales of abstraction which relate the categories to the data and
S6 "Categories," p. 242.
446 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

to each other; 57 and that description consists in rel ating the text to the
categories of the theory. He further believes that "since the theory is a
theory of how language works, it does not matter whether the levels are
considered levels of language or Jevels of linguistics (theory or description):
lt cornes to the same thing." 58 Thus, he grants ontological reality to
"theory," which he has already defined as a system of abstraction, as weil
as to linguistic data, the source of the abstractions. Or else, he confuses
"language," and "linguistics." Table 3 shows Halliday's conception of
what he calls "the Linguistic Sciences," 59 which by implication would also

Table 3
LINGUJS"r!C SCIENCES

Phonetics

Linguistics

SUBSTANCE FORM -<-? SITUATION

Phonie
Subst.
Phoool\ Context- - (Extra-textual
features)

Grammar l
.l>exis J
Graphie Ortho-/
Subst. graphy

be his conception of language. In departure from the main current of

Firthian theory, Halliday adroits that there is hierarchy among linguistic
levels. He argues that since an item enters into relation with extra-textual
features only through its Iinguistic form, contextual meaning logically
depends on formai meaning. "lt follows ... that, in description formai
criteria are crucial, taking precedence over contextual criteria; and that
the statement of formai meaning logically precedes the statement of con-
textual meaning." We must a Iso notice (Table 3) specifically that, contrary
to Firth's monism, Halliday recognizes the "form-substance" dualism.

57 See Table 2, and the account of categories given above.

58 Ibid., p. 243. Quotation is fn. 8. Since this is also Firth's view, it becomes sig-
nificant in the consideration of the Firthians' philosophical commitment as we shall see
below.
59 Ibid., p. 244.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 447
Another radical departure from Firth's theory which, although not
immediately evident, inheres in Halliday's assertion that "in grammatical
theory, ali languages have at !east two units; in description, ali languages
have sentences and ail languages have words-but the 'sentenceness' of
the sentence and the 'wordness' of the word do not derive from the theory
of grammar."60 Since the two units he considers universal do not derive
from description, they must be part of the nature of language; but we
know that Firth states explicitly that units are no more than sc hematie con-
structs which the analyst uses to account for his data.
Another departure from Firthian doctrine concerns the question of
relation between levels. Halliday holds that, whatever is decided for
presentation, which will vary with purpose, both in theory and in des-
cription, it is essential to separate the levels first and then relate them.
"The theoretical reason is that different kinds of abstraction are involved,
and therefore different categories. In description the attempt to account
for the data at ali levels at once results in a failure to account for them fully
at any level. If one rejects the separation of levels and wishes, for example,
to combine grammatical and phonological criteria to yield a single set of
units, the description becomes intolerably complex." He continues that
"though there is no precedence or priority, there is of course order among
the levels, as determined by their specifie interrelations; and in the study of
language as a whole form is pivotai, since it is through grammar and lexis
that language activity is-and is shown to be-meaningful."61 We have
noted that even for practical purposes, Firth himself does not opt rank
among levels (since it belongs to Context of Situation), but (only in the
analysis of text) for operation to be carried from the larger to the smaller
units (grammatical categories), and insists that separation of levels tempor-
arily or permanently would not lead to adequate description.6 2 lt may be
that Halliday a gain confuses grammatical categories with categories of the
Context of Situation!
In spi te of ali these differences, however, Halliday's theory remains sub-
stantially Firthian. But by virtue of the differences, we shall find it
difficult to consider him thoroughly Firthian as regards philosophical
commitment, which is the subject of the next section.
60 Ibid., p. 252.
61 Ibid., p. 268.
62 See above. The formalized approach of the transformational-generative mode! of
linguistic description seems to be on Firth's side. ln fact, Halliday's basic assumption
contributes to the inadequacy of his mode! as Postal demonstrates. It almost reduces his
mode! to the taxonomie type. We might also note thal while Firth's theory has a built-in
semantic theory, and the generative grammar considers such a theory desirable, in fact,
imperative, Halliday seems to exclude such a theory from any formai consideration.
448 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

5 Philosophical Commitment
5.1 From what we have discussed so far, it is clear that an explanation
which seeks to account for differences between Firthian Linguistics on one
hand, and other schools of Modern Structuralism on the other solely on
the basis of external circumstances will be found grossly inadequate. For
if we choose the fact that British linguistics was from its conception data-
oriented, and pre-occupied with field-work, so was Bloomfieldian lin-
guistics in America; yet both are very different. On the other hand, the
Transformational Generative theory was classroom "generated," and is
much younger than Firthian theory, yet both show striking similarity in
their fundamental assumptions. (Not similarity in language, which is
merely a question of presentatioE.)
For this reason we submit, with Juilland, that a correct understanding
of such differences and similarities "must be sought in the direction of
certain basic philosophical options, disagreements between doctrines
being partly justified by the way in which their advocates tilt the
cognitive balance toward subject or object, method or fact, reason or
senses." 63
Of the three aspects of Linguistic Theory, we have stated earlier in this
paper that one's choice as regards the theory of language (linguistic theory
of being, or ontology) determines the choice one makes about linguistic
analysis, and about linguistic description. The fundamental options
about the nature of language are two: One may hold to the view that "the
object of knowledge (language, in this case) determines the method of
knowledge by selecting the cognitive means to which it 'chooses' to lend
itself" {VI); 64 or the view that the "method of knowledge determines the
object, the structure of the cognitive apparatus selecting the features it
chooses to recognize." {VI) However, even this choice seems to be
dependent on whether one is a subjectivist, or an objectivist. {lt is difficult
to decide whether Juilland wants these last two to be mere classificatory
terms, or to belong to a second degree of fundamental option. If the
latter, then we can only appeal to human nature for help!)65

63 Chapter VII. This part of the manuscript is still in rough draft, so there may be no
accurate references. We shall offer only a summary here, since the bulk of our argument
has been presented above.
64 Parentheses are mine.
65 Since this was written, Juilland bas bad occasion (in persona! communication) to

remove our doubt. He holds that subjectivism, or objectivism, is a persona! attitude, or

if you like, a theoretical bias stemming from human nature. It is an option which the
analyst makes whether or not he is conscious of it. We see here a danger of theoretical
circularity, to get off of which one needs a "leap of faith"!
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 449
Even though there is no pure subjectivist or objectivist type in that, as
Juilland puts it, "no existing approach perfectly conforms to either per-
spective, as none holds consistently to one outlook and exhaustively traces
its implications," (VI), we shaH dub Firthian Iinguistics subjectivist. We
shaH avoid a comparative taxonomy of options that characterize both
perspectives, and state only why one would caii the Firthians subjectivists.
We would daim that the Firthians are objectivists only to the extent
that they are empiricists. For the rest, they are more purely subjectivist
than not. Instrumentation has a high priority in their search to account for
the phonie material of language: And instruments for research purposes
are nothing more than an extension of human senses, of human cognitive
apparatuses. As nominalists (as Robins defines that term), Firthians have
been shown above to subscribe to the view that language is the "con-
ventional phenomenon through which an active subject 'articulates' an
essentiaiiy amorphous medium by projecting on it his own network of
formatives." (VI) As subjectivists, they would rather argue about how
best to account for the data than about the nature of levels, or the number
of the units, and layer of structuration. (Halliday, as is shown above, is
one of the few who begin to show a difference of opinion in this respect.)
This means a concern for operation, for systematicity of statement and for
use of criteria for operations and/or procedures. The Firthians favor the
analytic method, and a descending order of operation, as has been dis-
cussed earlier. True to their subjectivist commitment they generaiiy
distrust statements of Iinguistic universals. Illustrative of this commit-
ment and sorne of those already mentioned in this paragraph is Firth's
declaration: "1 do not propose an a priori system of general categories by
means of which the facts of ail languages may be stated. Various systems
are to be found in speech activity, and when stated must adequately
account for such activity. Science should not impose systems on lan-
guages, it should look for systems in speech activity, and, having found
them, state the facts in a sui table language." 66
5.2. Consequences
The most important consequence of the philosophical commitment of
the Firthians is that they have successfully subordinated theory of lan-
guage and theory of linguistic analysis to theory of Iinguistic description.
In this respect, they are in the good company of the proponents of the
transformational-generative approach to Grammar, since a grammar of a
language is ipso facto a description of that language. The Firthians not
only talk about differences among languages, but also about differences
66 "The Semantics of Linguistic Science," in Papers in Linguistics, p. 144.
IS+F. 1
450 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

among means, or models of conveying facts of description, and definitely

not about the isomorphism and mutual convertibility of such models,
except insofar as those are related to how adequately the models account
for the data on hand. In their theory there is no knowledge of language
outside description. They place a very high premium on verification. They
insist on "description on congruent Ievels" in order to ensure a renewal of
connection with experience. Halliday states emphatically that "Theore-
tically, validity implies making maximum use of the theory (... ). It is not
necessary to add a separate criterion of 'simplicity,' since this is no use
unless defined; and it would then turn out to be a property of maximally
grammatical description, since complication equals a weakening of the
power of the theory and hence ·Jess grammaticalness. It should perhaps
also be mentioned here that the distinction between methods of des-
cription and discovery procedures is here taken for granted throughout.
We are not concerned with how a linguist 'finds out' an event that is to be
described. This is no more capable of scientific exposition than are the
steps by which the theory was arrived at in the first place-in fact, Jess,
since the latter can at !east be formulated, while the former can only be
summed up in the words of the song: 'I did what I could'."67
To talk about use at ali, of course, implies the possibility of sorne extra-
linguistic ends which are to be served by any description, and also of the
possibility of evaluating the means, or models of description relative to
those end s. In short, Firthian linguistics, within the context of the theory
of linguistic description, not only addresses itself to the question of "quoi"
and "comment," but also of "pourquoi."
If in the foregoing we seem to have suggested that ali is smooth within
Firthian linguistics, it is not intentional. However, it may be suggested
that the theory deserves more attention than has been given to it. Its
neglect so far is due undoubtedly to the effect of a problem which Paul
Postal touches upon in his consideration of Halliday's theory of grammar,
but which goes deeper than even Postal himself believes: that is, the
problem of the inadequacies of unformalized language. Or, is the cause of
this neglect to be sought in the selfsame ignorance on the part of non-
partisans that led to the neglect of the Indian Linguistic tradition for so long?
Stanford University

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Firthian Linguistics
BURSILL-HALL, G. L. "Levels of Analysis: J. R. Firth 's Theories of Linguistic Analysis,"
The Joumal of the Canadian Linguistic Association (1960).
67 "Categories," p. 246.
 ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC THEORY IN FIRTHIAN LINGUISTICS 451
FIRTH, J. R. "Structural Linguistics," TPhS (1955).
- - , "A Synopsis of Lioguistic Theory, 1950--1955," Studies in Linguistic Analysis
(Oxford, 1957).
- - , Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951 (Oxford University Press, 1964).
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. "Grammatical Categories in Modern Chinese," TPhS (1956).
--,"Categories of the Theory of Grammar," Word XVII (1961), 241-292.
JONES, DANIEL. The Phoneme (Cambridge, 1950).
LANGENDOEN, T. "Modern British Linguistics: a Study of its Theoretical and Sub-
stantive Contributions." Ph.D. Dissertation (M.l.T., 1964).
MITCHELL, T. "The Language of Buying and Selling in Cyrenaica," Hesperis 1 (n.d.).
ROBINS, R. H. "Aspects of Prosodie Analysis," Proceedings of the University of Durham
Philosophical Society, I, Series B, 1 (1 957).
- - - , "Sorne Considerations on the Status of Grammar in Linguistics," Archivum
Linguisticum II (1959), 91-114.
- - - , "Obituary of J. R. Firth," Language XXXVII (1961), 191-200.
- - , "On the London School of Linguistics," in Thomas Sebeok, et. al., ed., Cur-
rent Trends in Linguistics (The Hague, 1963).
- - - , "The Study of Language," The Canadian Journal of Linguistics (Spring 1964).
---,General Linguistics: An 1ntroductory Survey (London, 1964).

General
BAZELL, C. E. "The Correspondence Fallacy in Structural Linguistics." Studies by
Members of the English Department (Istanbul University, VIII, 1952), 41.
- - - , Linguistic Form (Istanbul, 1953).
BLOCH AND TRAGER. Out/ine of Linguistic Ana/ysis. (LSA) (1942).
BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. Language (New York, 1933).
- - , "A set of postulates for the science of language," Language II (1926), 153-164.
Reprinted in Sol Saporta, ed., Psycholinguistics (New York, 1961).
CHOMSKY, NOAM. "Explanatory Models in Linguistics," in E. Nagel, P. Suppes, and
Tarski, Logic, Methodo/ogy, and Plzilosophy of Science (Stanford, 1962).
- - - , Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (The Hague, 1964).
- - , Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, 1965).
HALLE, MoRRIS. "On the Role of Simplicity in Linguistic Description," in Jakobson,
ed., Structure of Language and its Matlzematical Aspects. Proceedings of the 12th
Symposium in App/ied Mathematics (Provirlence, 1961).
HARRIS, ZELLIG. Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951).
HJELMSLEV, Loms. "Structural Analysis of Language," Studia Linguistica 1 (1947), 69-
78.
HOCKETI, CHARLES. A Manual of Phono/ogy. IJAL Memoir, XI (1955).
- - - , "Linguistic Elements and their Relations," Language XXXVII (1961), 29-53.
JONES, DANIEL. The Phoneme (Cambridge, 1950).
JUILLAND, A. G. Structural Relations (The Hague, 1961).
- - , "Seminar on Structural Linguistics" (Stanford University, 1967). (Text of
lectures.)
LYONS, JoHN. "History of Linguistics," Linguistic Institute, UCLA (Summer 1966).
(Notes from course.)
PIKE, KENNETH. Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Language to Writing (Ann Arbor,
1947).
452 OLASOPE O. OYELARAN

- - - , Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior.

Summer lnstitute of Linguistics (Glendale, California: 1, 1954; Il, 1955; III, 1960).
PosTAL, PAUL. "Halliday's 'Categories of the Theory ofGrammar'." Appendix toPos-
tal's Constituent Structure, IJAL XXX, Part 3 (January 1964).
ROBINS, R. H. Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe with Particular
Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine (London, 1951).
SAPIR, EDWARD. "The psychological reality of phonemes," Selected Writings of
Edward Sapir (University of California Press, 1949), 46 ff.
DE SAUSSURE, FERDINAND. Cours de linguistique generale, 1916.
TRAGER, GEORGE L., AND SMITH, HENRY LEE. An Out fine of Eng/ish Structure (Washing-
ton, D. C., 1957).
TRUBETSKOY, N. S. Principes de phonologie. Tr. by J. Cantineau (Paris, 1949).
TWADELL, W. FREEMAN. "On defining a phoneme," in Martin Joos, ed., Readings ln
Linguistics. American Council of Learned Societies (Washington, 1957) 55-80.