1 Firth, J. R., Personality and Language in Society. Papers, p. 183 Google Scholar.

2 Sprigs, R. K., Junction m Spoken Burmese, SLA, p. 135 Google Scholar.

3 Allen, W. S., Structure and System in Abaza. TPS (1956), p. 145 Google Scholar.

4 Palmer points out that Firth’s view differs from Allen’s view and that Firth recognises the interdépendance of levels, cf. Palmer, F. R., Linguistic Hierarchy. Lingua VII (1958), p. 231, fn. 24 Google Scholar.

5 Ibid, pp. 240–1.

6 Ibid, p. 241.

7 Firth, J. R., General linguistics and Descriptive Grammar. Papers, p. 226 Google Scholar.

8 I am indebted to my colleague, Professor R. J. Baker, for these examples.

9 These examples are taken from Mitchell, T. F., Syntagmatic Relations in Linguistic analysis. TPS (1958), 101–18 Google Scholar.

10 Firth, J. R., General Linguistics and Descriptive Grammar. Papers, p. 228 Google Scholar.

11 Firth, J. R., The Techniques of Semantics. Papers, p. 13 Google Scholar.

12 Mitchell, T. F., Syntagmatic Relations in Linguistic Analysis, p. 108 Google Scholar.

13 Palmer, F. R., Linguistic Hierarchy, pp. 240–1 Google Scholar.

14 Palmer makes no actual mention of these levels, so that it would be wrong to say that he excludes them from his hierarchy.

15 Ibid, p. 231.

16 This was presumably Pike’s point, cf. K. L. Pike, Interpenetration of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, p. 367.

17 This is of course inevitable when every-day terms are applied to technical language; the term is quite appropriate for a theory which rigorously insists on the hierarchical relationship of the levels of analysis, but it does not seem quite so suitable for a theory which denies the existence of a hierarchy in the strict sense of the term. This is not the place to discuss terminological matters at length, but if we accept the metaphor of a “spectrum analysis” and this we must do, terms such as “mode” (which Firth on one occasion uses, cf. Synopsis, p. 6), “sequence”, or even “class” (in the sense that Hjelmslev implies “solidarity” or mutual determination between the “classes”) would perhaps be more appropriate. “Sequence” suggests direction, which, as we have suggested, will depend on the text, but without any priority.

18 Robins, R. H., Formal Divisions in Sundanese. TPS (1953), 109–42 Google Scholar. Halliday, M. A. K., Grammatical Categories in Modern Chinese. TPS (1956), 177–224 Google Scholar.

19 Halliday, M. A. K., The Language of the Chinese “Secret History of the Mongols”, Oxford, 1959 Google Scholar: it is interesting to note his scheme of categories for analysis at the grammatical level, reproduced here in abbreviated form. It must be remembered that this is a scheme for the analysis of a Chinese text and will not necessarily apply to other texts.

• (A.)

  (A.) Units:

  • (a)

    (a) Graphic: Chapter-Paragraph-Piece-Character (Graphic).

  • (b)

    (b) Linguistic: Sentence-Clause-Word-Character (Linguistic).

• (B.)

  (B.) Classes: (systemic):

  • (a)

    (a) Sentence classes: Compound/simple.

  • (b)

    (b) Clause Classes:

    • (1)

      (1) Free/Bound.

    • (2)

      (2) Verbal/Nominal.

    • (3)

      (3)

      • (α)

        (α) Voice: Passive/Ergative/Active.

      • (β)

        (β) (β) Aspect: Perfective/Imperfective Non-perfective.

      • (γ)

        (γ) (β) Aspect: Perfective/Imperfective Non-perfective.

  • (C)

    (C) Word classes:

    • (1)

      (1) Free/Bound.

    • (2)

      (2) Verbal/Nominal/Adverbial (Particle)

      • (α)

        (α) Verbal word classes.

      • (β)

        (β) Nominal word classes.

      • (γ)

        (γ) Adverbial, (Particle) word classes.

  • (d)

    (d) Character (= Syllable) Classes: Free/Bound.

• (C.)

  (C.) Functions (structural) =

  • (a.)

    (a.) Free clause functions.

  • (b.)

    (b.) Free word functions.

cf. also M. A. K. Halliday, Systematic Description and Comparison in Grammatical Analysis, SLA, p. 60.

20 Robins, R. H., Some Considerations on the Status of Grammar in Linguistics. Archivum- Linguisticwm 11 (1959), pp. 104–5 Google Scholar.

21 Halliday, M. A. K., Secret History, pp. 11–12 Google Scholar.

22 Palmer, F. R., Linguistic Hierarchy, p. 241 Google Scholar.

23 It would seem that we can very properly speak of priority with reference to the Context of Situation and its categories; these must be established before we can make statements about the other levels.

24 Ibid, p. 241.

25 Ibid, p. 232.

26 cf. 1.01 et seq.

27 Allen, W. S., Aspiration in the Harauti Nominal. SL, A, p. 71 Google Scholar.

28 Robins, R. H., Some Considerations on the Status of Grammar in Linguistics. Archivwm, Linguisticum 11 (1959), 91–114 Google Scholar.

29 This should not be confused with Firth’s use of the term “meaning” in linguistic analysis.

30 Robins, R. H., Status of Grammar in Linguistics, p. 103–4 Google Scholar.

31 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory. SLA, p. 32 Google Scholar.

32 Springg, R. K., Junction in Spoken Burmese, SLA, p. 135 Google Scholar.

33 cf. 2.031.

34 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies. Papers, pp. 121–38 Google Scholar.

35 Robins, R. H., Aspects of Prosodic Analysis, p. 3 Google Scholar.

36 Firth rejects especially the whole idea of a monosystemic phonemic analysis based on Meillet’s dictum that “chaque langue forme un système où tout se tient”. Phonemic theory insists on thrusting everything into a Procrustean bed, whereas prosodic theory, because of the plurality of systems and the need for congruence of statement at the phonological and grammatical levels (and because of the vast complexity of language), requires a poly-systemic approach. It is entirely reasonable to require different phonological statements e.g. for the nominal and verbal forms of a language. Cf. also Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, pp. 22–5 Google Scholar.

37 Firth, J. R., The Semantics of Linguistic Science, p. 146 Google Scholar.

38 cf. 2.01 and 2.02.

39 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies. Papers, pp. 121–38 Google Scholar, originally published in the TPS (1948) pp. 127–52.

40 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies. Papers, pp. 122–3 Google Scholar.

41 Ibid, p. 123.

42 Ibid, p. 128.

43 An interesting feature of prosodic analysis is the use of the techniques of observation at the phonetic level in the form of kymograms and palatograms; these are however keyed to linguistic analysis, and in many instances Firth and his associates have appended the result of kymographic and palatographic work to support their phonological arguments, e.g. no fewer than four of the papers in the Studies In Lingulstic Analysis produce this kind of evidence. Firth described it modestly as “Linguistics in the laboratory”; this instrumental support to linguistic theory should not be confused with experimental phonetics nor should this remark be taken as any animadversion of experimental phonetics. It is merely that prosodic theory finds the traditional phonetic categories and transcriptions inadequate and therefore looks for support from newer techniques in instrumental phonetics as well as newer methods of notation. It cannot be sufficiently stressed that these techniques are used only to confirm findings by more direct observation.

It is interesting to note the use of direct palatography in this type of phonological analysis; this enables the analyst to be in certain instances his own informant, cf. Abercrombie, D., Direct Palatography. Zeitschrift fiir Phonetik 10 (1957), 21–5 Google Scholar. This article does not so much describe direct palatography as suggest its implications in linguistic analysis, and gives further references to actual descriptions of these techniques.

44 Robins, R. H., Aspects of Prosodic Analysis, pp. 3–4 Google Scholar.

45 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies. Papers, p. 130 Google Scholar. — Firth lists some of the prosodie features of a word:

• a)

  a) The number of syllables.

• b)

  b) The nature of the syllables — open or closed.

• c)

  c) The syllabic quantities.

  

• g)

  g) The position, nature, and quantity of the prominent.

• h)

  h) The dark or clear qualities of the syllables.

• i)

  i) Vowel or consonant harmony.

46 Robins, R. H., op. cit., p. 4 Google Scholar.

47 Henderson, E. J. A., Prosodies in Siamese. Asia Minor (1949), 189–215 Google Scholar.

48 In prosodic theory, all the material must, by definition, he considered relevant, and the statement must be so organised as to permit inclusion of all the material.

49 Haugen describes (cf. E. Haugen, Review of: J R. Firth, Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. language 34 (1958), 498–502) phonematic units and prosodies as segmental vs. suprasegmental phonemes. Haugen demonstrates clearly, in his attempts to phonemicise some of Firth’s prosodie states, that such a translation is not possible, cf. also 2.12.

50 Robins, R. H.. Aspects of Prosodie Analysis, p. 4 Google Scholar.

51 Ibid.

52 Waterson, N., Some Aspects of the Phonology of the Nominal Forms, of the Turkish Word. BSOAS 18 (1956), 578–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Pike, K. L., Tone Languages. Ann Arbor, 1943 Google Scholar.

54 Hamp, E. P., A Glossary of American Technical Linguistic Usage. Utrecht, 1957 Google Scholar.

55 Henderson, E. J. A., Prosodies in Siamese, pp. 189–95 Google Scholar.

56 Robins, R. H., Aspects of Prosodic Analysis, p. 8 Google Scholar, quoting- K. L. Pike.

57 bid, p. 8.

58 Firth is severely critical of phonemic approaches to problems of juncture and zero, cf. J. R. Firth, Applications of General Linguistics. TPS (1957), p. 6: “When phonemicists have cleared up the mess that has been made of juncture and of zero, they can begin afresh with a much wider range of abstractions, and a more clearly defined nomenclature.”

59 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies, Papers, p. 132 Google Scholar.

60 Ibid, p. 134.

61 Ibid, p. 132–3.

62 Martinet, A., Phonology as Functional Phonetics. Publications of the Philological Society, London (1949), p. 31 Google Scholar.

63 Allen, W. S., Some Prosodic Aspects of Retroflexion and Aspiration in Sanskrit, BSOAS 13 (1951), 939–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies. Papers, p. 132 Google Scholar: “Even if ’s true and strew should happen to be homophonous, the two structures are different: c’cvw and ’cvw”.

65 Allen, W. S., op. cit., p. 945 Google Scholar: “The prosodic treatment does not answer problems of phonetic “action at a distance” (i.e. assimilation); rather like the theory of relativity, it adds a new dimension to the framework within which phenomena are studied and described, and within this framework these problems are found no longer to exist.”

66 Ibid, p. 946: “in Western Hindustani we may observe a prosody of aspiration realised as a breathiness of the vowel, e.g. in the word traditionally bahwt, suggesting a structure CVCVC, but in fact standing for bawt (CVVC) with prosodic aspiration (ba^Hwt).

67 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory. SLA, p. 22 Google Scholar.

68 Allen, W. S., Retroflexion in Sanskrit: Prosodic Technique. BSOAS 16 (1954), p. 562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Firth, J. R., Applications of General Linguistics, p. 5 Google Scholar.

70 Allen, W. S., op. cit., pp. 556–7 Google Scholar.

71 Siertsema, B., A Study of Glossematics. The Hague (1955), p. 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoting Hjelmslev; cf. also 1.112.

72 Robins, R. H., Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe, (London (1951))Google Scholar, Chapter 3; cf. my The Doctrine of Partes Orationis in the Speculative Grammars of the Modistae (London thesis, 1959).

73 Robins, R. H., The Status of Grammar in Linguistics, p. 91 Google Scholar.

74 Trubetzkoy, N. S., Grundzüge der Phonologie.TCLP VII, 1939 Google Scholar.

75 Wijk, N. Van, Phonologie. The Hague, 1939 Google Scholar.

76 Hockett, C. F., A Manual of Phonology. IJAL Memoir 11, 1958 Google Scholar.

77 Halliday, M. A. K., Secret History, p. 43–6 Google Scholar.

78 Ibid., p. 46. Extensive use has been made of this work in compiling this section: the bibliography at the end of this paper is very revealing of the vast amount of work done on phonology in contrast to the relatively small number of works devoted to grammar. Notable exceptions to this are:

Allen, W. S., A Study in the Analysis of Hindi sentence structure. Acta Linguistica VI (1950–1), 68–86 Google Scholar.

Robins, R. H., The Status of Grammar in Linguistics. Archivum Linguisticum 11 (1959), 91–114 Google Scholar.

Sprigg, R. K., Verbal Phrases in Lhasa Tibetan. BSOAS 16 (1954), 134–56: 320–50: 566–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Simon, H. F., Two Substantival Complexes in Standard Chinese. BSOAS 15 (1953), 327–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 cf. 2.04 for an outline of Halliday’s scheme of Grammatical Categories.

80 cf. 1.112 for a description of these technical terms.

81 cf. 1.112 for a description of these technical terms.

82 cf. 2.05 and 2.051.

83 Halliday, M. A. K., Secret History, pp. 49–50 Google Scholar.

84 cf. 2.3.

85 Simon, H. F., Two Substantival Complexes in Standard Chinese, BSOAS 15 (1953), 327–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “the term “colligation” is applied to describe the syntactic juxtaposition of two or more categories… Thus the technique is parallel — and indeed owes its existence — to that employed by J. R. Firth in “Modes of Meaning”, where collocation and the test of collocability are advanced as a technique of stating the meaning of words without reference to shifted terms. Just as one of the meanings of night is its collocability with dark, and of dark its collocation with night, so one of the meanings of the category noun in Standard Chinese is its colligability with the category determinator, and of determinator its colligation with noun.”

86 Firth, J. R.. A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, pp. 13–14 Google Scholar.

87 Ibid., p. 19.

88 Firth draws attention, cf. his Synopsis, p. 13, to the fact that in English the exponents of the colligation operator-negative cannot be divided with reference to the affirmative forms.

89 Halliday, M. A. K., Secret History, p. 50 Google Scholar.

90 Robins, R. H., Formal Divisions in Sundanese, p. 125 Google Scholar.

91 Simon, H. F., Two Substantival Complexes in Standard Chinese, pp. 327–8 Google Scholar.

92 Mitchell, T. F., Syntagmatic Relations in Linguistic Analysis, TPS (1958), pp. 101–18 Google Scholar.

93 Ibid., p. 103.

94 Ibid., pp. 103–8.

95 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, pp. 13–14 Google Scholar.

96 But as Mitchell points out, colligations and collocations are both included in the term “syntagm”, and that the difference between them correlates with the degree of generalisation possible for textual elements. Mitchell, however, suggests that relations of a collocational order might well refer to elements of supra—and infra—word size, cf. T. F. Mitchell, Syntagmatic Relations in Linguistic Analysis, p. 109. It would seem pertinent in this context to point out here that in French liaison is obligatory in colligations and is thus a grammatical feature; it is also obligatory within closed collocations which are pieces, the whole structures of which do not permit of any substitution, but liaison is not obligatory within open collocations. An interesting question is how do we, in these terms, explain the absence of liaison in “vin ordinaire”?

97 Firth, J. R., op. cit., p. 14 Google Scholar.

98 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory. SLA, p. 14 Google Scholar.

99 cf. 1.1.

100 Firth, J. R., Modes of Meaning, Papers, pp. 190–215 Google Scholar.

101 Simon, H. F., Two Substantival Complexes in Standard Chinese,. pp. 327–8 Google Scholar.

102 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 11.Google Scholar

103 The term “collocation” as used by Firth is quite different from Trager’s use of the term.

104 Firth, J. R., Modes of Meaning, Papers, p. 196 Google Scholar: ‘One of the meanings of night is its collocability with dark, and of dark, of course, with night. This kind of mutuality may be paralleled in most languages and has resulted in similarities of poetic diction in literature sharing common classical sources”.

105 Ibid., p. 12. My colleague, Professor R. J. Baker, informs me that in the language of Time Magazine, in the International Section, there is a,. mutual expectancy of the words America, Great Britain, France within a short space, when any of these terms is mentioned. Thus one of the collocations of America is Great Britain and France within this Context of: Situation.

106 Ibid., p. 11.

107 Ibd.

108 Halliday, M. A. K., Secret History. Chapter VII Google Scholar.

109 Mitchell, cf. T. F., Syntagmatic relations, pp. 108–12 Google Scholar: Mitchell shows that parallel collocations could be generalised in separate grammatical subcategories. Remarks in Mitchell’s paper suggest further uses of collocational analysis, e.g. he points out that the collocation “dull as ditchwater” is normal. in English; it is in fact normal in British English but is not normal in Canadian English, and one means of establishing a standard form of a language or of distinguishing between two brands (i.e. dialects) of the same language is by means of collocation.

110 Firth, J. R., op. cit., p. 12 Google Scholar.

111 cf. 2.031.

112 Firth, however, suggests that the collocational study of very common terms will be of profit by showing the necessity of a more generalised treatment of words and of a general and a grammatical classification of words.

113 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 13 Google Scholar: “In the study of selected words, compounds and phrases in a restricted language for which there are restricted texts, an exhaustive collection of collocations must first be made. It will then be found that meaning- by collocation will suggest a small number of groups of collocations for each word studied”.

114 Firth has suggested a number of important uses of the study of collocations, not least in stylistic analysis and the study of poetic diction; cf. J. R. Firth, Modes of Meaning. Papers, p. 195: “the study of the usual collocations of a particular literary form or genre or of a particular author makes possible a clearly defined and precisely stated contribution to what I have termed the spectrum of descriptive linguistics”. Firth in this paper does in fact apply his theory of collocation to a study of Swinburne’s poetic diction, and to letters of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

115 In the first instance, “word” is used as a “lexicographical” element, but in the second instance, it is used as a “grammatical” element. It has already been pointed out, cf. 2.222, that in a language possessing “institutionalised” words, the word as lexicographical unit may not correspond with the word set up in the grammatical analysis, Halliday, cf. M. A. K., Secret History, p. 50, fn 2 Google Scholar.

116 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 26 Google Scholar.

117 Ibid., p. 27.

118 Ibid., p. 26.

119 Bazell, C. E., The Correspondence Fallacy in Structural Linguistics, Studies by Members of the English Dept., Istanbul University 8 (1952), 41. (Quoted by Allen, W. S., Retroflexion in Sanskrit, p. 562, n.2)Google Scholar.

120 Pike, cf. K. L., Interpenetration of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, p. 365 Google Scholar.

121 Firth, cf. J. R., Sounds and Prosodies, Papers, p. 137 Google Scholar: “The suggested approach will not make phonological problems appear easier or oversimplify them. It may make the highly complex patterns of language clearer both in descriptive and historical linguistics”.

122 cf. 1.112 for these technical terms.

123 Allen, W. S., Phonetles and Comparative Linguistics, Archivum Linguisticum 3 (1951), 126–36 Google Scholar, and Relationship in Comparative Linguistics, TPS (1953), 52–108.

124 Allen, W. S., Retroflexion in Sanskrit: Prosodic Technique and its Relevance to Comparative Statement. BSOAS 16 (1954), 556–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 Palmer, P. R., Comparative Statement and Ethiopian Semitic, TPS (1958), 119–43 Google Scholar.

126 lbid., p. 123.