Prague School Phonology

Prague School Phonology

I. The History of the Prague School Phonology

1. Forerunner:

The forerunner of the Prague School was the Moscow Linguistic Circle founded
in 1915. It is a circle consisted of a group of young scholars such as Trubetzkoy
(25yr) and Jakobson (20yr), who is the president from 1915-1920. The issues
that this circle concerns are of both language and linguistics including problems
of poetics, literature analysis, and general artistic structure under the influence
of Slavic and historical linguistics. The sources of their study are based on
Saussure and Baudouins works. When the Revolution broke out on October
1917 the members of this circle fled and this circle nearly dismissed.

2. Foundation:

By the 1920s, the terms phoneme and phonology were well known to
European linguistics. More importantly, de Saussure had left a legacy of modern
structuralism which greatly influenced linguistics in general. Working within
this structuralist tradition were, among others, a group of scholars known from
1926 as the Linguistic Circle of Prague. In phonology, two members of the Circle
stand out: Roman Jakobson (1896-1982), who began his career in Moscow but
moved to Czechoslovakia and worked there in the 1930s before fleeing via
Scandinavia to the USA; and Nikolai S. Trubetzkoy (1890-1938), also of Russian
origin, who was a professor in Vienna from 1923 until his death.

3. Chronicle of the Prague School Phonology

a. 1915. The foundation of the Moscow Linguistic circle, Jakobsons being the
president

b. 1917 Members fleeing Moscow due to October Revolution

c. 1926 The foundation of the Prague School Linguistic Circle, Jagobsons

being the vice president

d. 1928 Presenting the Prague Circle manifesto( drafted by Jakobson and

cosigned by Trubetzky and Karcevskij) at the first International Congress of
Linguistic at Hague.

e. 1938 Trubetzkoy died.

f. 1982 Jakobson died in Massachusetts.

II. The Representative Characters

1. Roman Jakobson (1896-1982)

From left to right: R. Jakobson (L1),

N. S. Trubetzkoy (L2)

1.1 Contribution:

Jakobsons contribution to linguistics can be represented as the concept such as

feature, binary opposition, markedness, redundancy, and universals. He also
focuses the importance of linguistics on language acquisition, aphasia, act of
communication, meaning in grammar, poetry, and the systematicity of
language change. Jakobsons greatest insight, distinctive feature, (after the
phoneme) belongs to the (Functional) Structuralist Phonology. So, for more
information, you may consult functional phonology. Jakobsons contribution in
the Prague school phonology can be represented as the Prague Circle manifesto,
which changes the direction of the development of the European phonology. (see
the main theories for more details)

1.2 Chronicles of Roman Jakobson (1896-1982)

Age Year Event

1 1896 born in Moscow, Russia on October 11

24 1920 going to Prague, Czechoslovakia

30 1926 helping to found and be vice-president of the Prague Linguistic

Circle.

43 1939 fleeing the Nazis, going to Scandinavia

45 1941 going to the USA

46 1942 teaching in New York (-1946)

47 1943 teaching at Columbia University

53 1949 obtaining a professorial Chair at Harvard University,

also be an Institute Professor at MIT.

60 1956 be president of the Linguistic Society of America

84 1980 receiving the international Prize for Philology and

Linguistics.

86 1982 receiving the Hegel Prize

86 1982 died in Cambridge, Massachusetts on July 18

1.3 Chronicles of Roman Jakobsons Writings

This part can be found in the book, Roman Jakobson: A Bibliography of His
Writings, which contains 484 items of his writing from 1916 to 1971.
2. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeyevi (1890-1938)

2.1 Contribution

Trubetzkoys chief contribution in phonology was taken in the sense of

functional phonology. (So, for more information, see the functional
(structuralist) phonology. Trubetzkiys notable contributions made to
phonological theory are as follows:

b. Clarifying the distinction between phonetics and phonology by the criterion

of function

c. Investigating insistently on phonic substance in terms of its various

functions in individual languages

d. Emphasizing on the concept of phonological opposition (primary) over

phoneme (secondary)

e. Classifying phonological oppositions typologically instead of binaristic

2.2 Chronicle of N.S. Trubetzkoy

Age Year Events

1 1890 born in Moscow

13 1903 studying ethnography and ethnology

15 1905 publishing Finno-Ugric Folklore

18 1908 graduated from high school, entering Moscow University.

23 1913 graduated from Moscow university with a M.A. Studying at Leipzig

for PhD

27 1917 October Revolution occurred. Fleeing Moscow to Caucasus

28 1918 be a temporarily professor of comparative linguistics and Slavic

philosophy at Sodia University, Bulgaria

32 1922 be the chair in Slavic philosophy department at Vienna university.

36 1926 joining the Linguistic Circle of Prague

42 1932 be the president of the International Phonological Association

48 1938 died of a heart attack.

 2.3 Chronicles of N. C. Trubetzkoys Writings

The detailed recordings of the articles written by N. C. Trubetzkoy were

compiled in Principles of

Phonology. The content includes about 140 articles/books published before his
death and 7 posthumous

publications and translations of his works. Most of his articles can be found in
the following publication:

* Bulletin de la socit de Linguistique (Paris)

* asopis pro slovanskou filologii (Prague)

* Jevrazijskaja Chronika (Verlil-Paris)

* Slovo a slovesnost (Prague)

* Mmoires de la socit de Llinguistique (Paris)

* Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague (Prague)

* Revue des tudes slaves (Paris)

* Zeitschrift fr slavische Philologie (Berlin)

The posthumous publications and translations of Trubetzkoys works are as

follows:

1949 Principes de Phonologie. trans. J. Cantinean. Paris: C. Klincksieck

1952 The Common Slavic Elecment in Russian Culture. ed. Leon Stilman.
trans. by a group of graduate students of the Department of Slavic Languages,
Columbia University. New York: Columbia Univ.

1954 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, Schrift-, Laut- und Formensystem,

von Nikolaus S. Trbetzkoy. Im Auftrage der Akademie hrsg. Bon Rudolf
Jagoditsch. Vienna: In Kommission bei R. M. Rohrer.

1956 Die russischen Dichter des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Abriss einer
Entwicklunsgeschichte. Nach einem nachgelassenen russiscfhen Manuskript
hrsg. Rudolf Jagoditsch, Graz, H. Bhlaus Nachf.

1960 Translation of Grundzge into Russian: Osnovy fonologii, tr. A.

A. Xolodovia, ed. S. D. Kacnelsona. Postscript by A. A. Reformatskogo.
Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

1964 Dostoevskij als Kunstler. The Hague: Mouton

1968 Introduction to the Principles of Phonological Descriptions. The Hague:

Martinus Nijhoff.

2.4 Representative Writing

* Grundzge der phonologie (1939) by Trubetzkoy

( * Principles de Phonologie [French translation] 1949)

( *Principles of Phonology [English translation] 1969)

This book has the following three characteristics:

1. Discussing the nature of distinctive oppositions in theoretical, terms

2. Surveying analytical procedures, i.e., rules for determining the phonemic

system of a language, and

3. Giving extensive examples of the different oppositions of various

languages.

III. Main Theories and Tasks

1. Main Theory

Following de Saussures emphasis on the differential function of linguistic

elements, both Jakobson and Trubetzkoy attached great importance to the
oppositions among phonemes rather than to the phonemes themselves. Thus to
say that English has phonemes /s/ and /z/ is a statement about a distinction
which English speakers make and recognize rather than a claim about phonemes
as mental images or phonetic entities. This was a significant insight, which
seemed to accord with linguistic experience. By the very nature of spoken
language, a speaker is aware of differences and reacts to mispronunciation or
interference with the system of oppositions. But the isolation of individual
phonemes from their spoken context is neither a typical nor an easy task. Most
speakers seem incapable of doing it in any systematic way, and, in literate
societies, usually resort to naming letters and spelling out a word rather than
attempting to articulate separate phonemes.
 Jacobson (and others of the Prague School) published actively during the
1920s and 1930s, but it was Trubetzkoy who provided the Schools most
comprehensive and widely consulted work on phonology, Grundzge der
phonologie (Principles of Phonology), which first appeared in 1939, the year
after his death. Besides discussing the nature of distinctive oppositions in
theoretical terms, Trubetzkoy also surveys analytical procedures and gives
extensive examples of the different oppositions of various languages. He follows
through the implications of the structural approach in a number of ways,
particularly in the classification of oppositions. He is also responsible for the
concepts neutralization and archiphoneme which are consistent with a
functional view of the phoneme.

Jacobson and Trubetzkoy also initiated modern distinctive feature theory. The
notion of component features is already implicit in the idea of opposition. The
notion was made explicit by Jakobsons and Trubetzkoys recognition of such
features as differential qualities or relevant properties. This further
strengthened their point that phonemes represented points in a system rather
than physical or mental entities.

2. The Prague Circle manifesto, which changes the character of the European
phonology, points out the tasks of phonology are as follows:

a. To identify the characteristics of particular phonological system, in terms of

the language particular range of significant differences among acoustico-motor
images

b. To specify the types of differences that can be found in general, and in

characterize multiple pairs of elements (e.g., voicing separates p from b)

c. To formulate general laws governing the relations of these correlations to

one another within particular phonological systems

d. To account for historical change in terms of the phonological system

(rather than the individual sound) which undergoes it, and to construe such
changes as teleologically governed by considerations of the system

e. To found phonetic studies on an acoustic rather than an articulatory basis,

since it is the production of sound that is the goal of linguistic phonetic events
and that gives them their social character.

IV. Important Concepts of Prague School

1. Distinctive Features:
 Jakobson (1939, 1949) drawing on earlier phonological concepts of de Saussure
and Hjelmslev, pointed to the limited number of differential qualities or
distinctive features that appeared to be available to languages. Jakobsons
interest was in showing hoe oppositions as the constitutive features of
relations among phonemes reflected a hearers response to an acoustic signal.
Just as this signal contains a limited number of variables, so perceptual response
to it operates with a limited number of categories.

The most famous elaboration of this approach is clarified in works by

Jakobson, Fant and Hlle (1952) and Jakobson and Halle (1956). This scheme
uses perceptual terms which reflect acoustic cues rather than articulatory
mechanics. In 1939, Jakobson took Grammonts terms acute and grave
representing opposite ends of a scale that measures the predominance of upper
or lower components of the acoustic spectrum. The acute-grave feature
distinguishes both high front vowels (i, y) from back vowels (u, o, a) and
palatal consonants from velar consonants.

Jakobson and Halle employed only 12 features, which were listed with
articulatory correlates as well as acoustic cues. All of the features are polar
oppositions, allowing relative values. So the acute vowels of one language need
not to be identical in nature with the acute vowels of another, provided that they
are more acute than the grave vowels to which they are opposed. Moreover, the
same acoustic effect can be achieved by different articulatory means. Lip
rounding, pharyngealization and retroflexion, for instance, may all be covered
by the one distinctive feature of flatness. Each feature is binary, with only two
opposed values along a single dimension.

Distinctive Features

Distinguishes vowels and vowel-like sounds

1. Vocalic/Nonvocalic from nonvocalic sounds like stops and
fricatives.
Distinguishes sounds with low energy and
relatively substantial obstruction in the vocal
2. Consonantal/ tract from nonconsonantal sounds; thus, for
example, a typical vowel can be considered
Nonconsonantal
vocalic and nonconsonantal, an approximant
such as lateral both vocalic and consonantal.
Refers to the acoustic spectrum and
distinguishes sounds with energy concentrated
3. Compact/Diffuse
in the central region of the spectrum from those
with a more diffuse spread of energy.
4. Tense/Lax
5. Voiced/Voiceless
 6. Nasal/Oral
7. Discontinuous/

Continuant
Distinguishes noisy sounds like sibilant [s]
8. Strident/Mellow
from more mellow fricatives.
Refers to the higher rate of energy discharge in
9. Checked/Unchecked glottalized sounds and therefore distinguishes
ejectives from pulmonic sounds.
Refers to the acoustic spectrum and
distinguishes sounds with more energy in the
10. Grave/Acute lower frequency ranges from those with greater
concentration of energy in the upper
frequencies.
Refers to the lowering or weakening of upper
frequencies created by some kind of narrowed
aperture: distinguishes lip rounded sounds
11. Flat/Plain from nonrounded, as well as other articulations
with comparable acoustic consequences,
notably pharyngealized consonants from their
plain counterparts.
More or less the opposite of flat/plain and
12. Sharp/Plain refers to the upward shift of upper frequencies
characteristic of palatalized consonants.

(Clark and Yallop 1996)

2. Neutralization:

For any particular system, biuniqueness is a requirement that phonemes and

allophones can be unambiguously assigned to each other. A problem in this
connection is that contrastive systems are often unequally exploited. This
means, for example, that two phonemes may be distinguished in some
structures but not in others. Following Trubetzkoy (1939) we may say that some
phonemic oppositions are suspended or neutralized under certain conditions.
Trubetzkoy distinguishes three kinds of neutralization.

Firstly, a language has a contrast but only one of the relevant phonemes occurs
under neutralization. Suppose a language has a contrast of voiced and voiceless
plosives in word-initial and word-final positions, nut only voiceless plosives
occur word-finally. Since the word-final plosives are not in contrast with voiced
plosives, the contrast of voicing is inoperative or neutralized word-finally.

Secondly, neutralization may be represented by some kind of variation or

alternation among the otherwise contrasting phonemes. For example, in
Indonesian, there are four nasal consonant phonemes (bilabial, alveolar, palatal
and velar). But sequences of nasal plus other consonants are homorganic, that is
the nasal and following consonants are at the same point of articulation. So, we
can find clusters such as /mb/ and /nd/, but not /md/ and /nb/.

Thirdly, neutralization may be represented by a sound which is distinct from

both of the otherwise contrasting phonemes. One of the most common instances
of this kind of neutralization is where vowel contrasts are reduced under certain
conditions.

V. Historical Status and Influence

1. Historical Status:

a. Prague school linguistics success essentially changed the character of

European linguistics.

b. Trubetzkoys contributions were inherited and further elaborated by Martinet

and his associates who

found the Functionalist School, i.e., Prague School is the cradle of

Structuralism.

2. Influence:

The concept of neutralization and the theory of markedness is expanded in

generative grammar as well as nowadays.

VI. Related Websites

1. Roman Jakobsons website:

http://www.heartfield.demon.co.uk/jakobson.htm

2. About distinctive features:

http://www.shlrc.mq.edu.au/~rmannell/ling210/features/jakobson.
shtml

3. Trubetzkoys contribution in phonology:

http://www.shlrc.mq.edu.au/~rmannell/ling210/features/trubetzko
y.shtml

VII. References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century: Theories of

Rules and Theories of Representations. Chicago: Chicago UP.

Asher. 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.

Clark, John. and Colin Yallop. 1996. An Introduction to Phonetics and

Phonology. 2nd ed. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Gribble, Charles E. (Ed). 1968. Studies Presented to Professor Roman Jakobson

by His Students. Cambrideg, Mass.: Slavica

Toman, Jindich. 1995. The Magic of a Common Language. Cambridge: the

MIT Press.

Trubetzkiy, N. S.1969. Principles of Phonology. Christiane A. M. Baltaxe trans.

Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

Schooneveld, C. H. Van. (Ed). 1971. Roman Jakobson: A Bibliography of His

Writings. The Hague: Mouton.

Tobin, Yishai. 1997. Phonetics versus Phonology: The Prague School and
Beyond in Phonology as Juman Behavior: Theoretical Implications and
Clinical Applications.