Chapter 1. Analysis of Language as the Basis for Subdividing Grammar. (Cf. A Program of Readings for a General Course in Linguistics, p. 81).*
Step-by-step analysis of language. Definition of concepts: speech, sentence, word, expression. Morphological, etymological parts of the word: root, prefix desinence , etc. Phonetic elements of connected speech: syllable sound, etc. Words and expressions as syntactic atoms, units of the sentence and of connected speech. Roots in the broadest sense of the word as morphological atoms, units. Sounds as phonetic atoms, units of words.
The division of words from various points of view, phonetic and morphological.
The subdivision of grammar into phonetics, morphology and syntax. Etymology, semasiology and lexicology.
Chapter 2. The Science of Sounds—Phonetics. (Cf. PR, pp. 82-95, Program of 1876-1877, pp. 92-95).
Necessary preconditions for the precise investigation of sounds:
1) Distinction of letters and sounds.
2) Reduction of subjectivity to a minimum. What is the role of subjectivity in the investigation of sounds?
Breakdown of phonetics:
I. Physiology of sounds as applied to grammar (physiology of sounds from a linguistic, glottological viewpoint).
II. Phonetics in the narrow sense of the word: statics and dynamics of sounds . . .
. . . Definition of the discrete [Členorazdelnyj] sound.
Common properties of the sounds of language:
a) objective properties: (1) acoustic, (2) physiological;
b) subjective properties: (3) psychological.
What is sound as the smallest indivisible phonetic unit of Ianguage? The definition of the simple, single, discrete . . . sound from an acoustic, physiological, and psychological standpoint.
Comparison of the phonetic unit of language with the atom as the unit of matter and with the integer as the unit in mathematics. Acoustic, phonetic, indivisible (atoms). The relative magnitude of indivisible atoms. Cf. the indivisible units in anatomy, histology, chemistry, etc.
What three main aspects must be distinguished in each sound? ...
... The physiological explanation of sound changes. Nerve reflexes. Comparison of the assimilation of sounds, etc., with analogous phenomena in other areas of reflex motions of the nervous system. Theoretical and graphic interpretations [cf. PR, p. 82, Program of 1876-1877, p. 92]. Similar phenomena in writing; e.g., assimilation in spelling. Lapsus linguae and lapsus calami. Everyday occurrences of the same kind. What is here simultaneous and unique, etc. [cf. PR. p. 82].
Rapid and slovenly pronunciation enables us to observe the developing phonetic tendencies of language. . . .
Chapter 8. Phonetics as Distinct from the Physiology of Sounds. Phonetics as the study of the morphological and etymological aspect of sounds, as the application of the physiology of sounds to an examination of the sound structure (mechanism) of a given language. Phonetics = the applied physiology of sounds.
The distinction between the physiology of sounds and phonetics. The physiology of sounds concerns all sounds of human speech (sound units and their combinations) from an objective physical and physiological (natural and historical) point of view. Phonetics, or, more precisely, the grammatical part of phonetics, investigates (analyzes) the equivalents of sounds (sound units and their combinations) in terms of their specific properties, i.e., insofar as they play a role, for example, (as) soft and hard, simple and complex, consonantal and vocalic, etc., even though from a strictly physiological viewpoint, the phonetic equivalents of soft sounds may be hard, and vice versa, etc. The discrepancy between the physical nature of sounds and their role in the mechanism of language, as reflected in the feeling of native speakers.
Chapter p. The Distinction Between Statics and Dynamics of Sounds. . . . Sound Laws (Lautgesetze):
a) the laws of combination of sounds at a given stage of a Ianguage; laws of the equilibrium of language.
b) laws of the development of language; laws of the historical change of language.
The study of the laws of the equilibrium of language is the subject of statics; the study of the laws of development in time and of historical change of language is the subject of dynamics.
Branching (grouping) of sounds. On the one hand, paired sounds, and on the other, non-paired or isolated sounds. Examples. Correspondences and groupings of sounds: (a) purely static (staticphysiological), (b) dynamic and static (static-etymological).
a) Correspondences and groupings of sounds due to staticphysiological changes. Examples.
b) Correspondences and groupings of sounds due to dynamic changes. Examples.
The Ø (zero) sound as a minimal phonetic entity. As a result of the gradual decrease of a sound and then of its complete disappearance, there develop dynamic and static relationships (correspondences, groupings) of sounds in which one of the members has a certain magnitude and the other is infinitely small, or zero:
S : Ø (where S represents any sound).
Examples of the distinction between:
a) (static) relationships of sounds in a stable state, laws of simultaneity, and
b) (dynamic) laws of development in time.
Only the latter is based on the comparison of related languages and of different periods in the history of a single language.
Fusion of sounds in their origin.
The stability of sounds is twofold, static and dynamic.
Chapter 10. The Psychological Aspect of Phonetics.
. . . The psychological aspect in the life and development of the sounds of language. The psychological explanation of phonetic phenomena.
In examining the sounds of language one must distinguish two factors: (a) the physiological (physical) in the strict sense of the word, and (b) the physiological and psychological. . . .
The interaction of physical (physiological) and psychological factors of language statically and dynamically.
The psychological part of phonetics:
a) static factors: gradation, phonetic cement, etc.;
b) dynamic factors: sound analogy as a factor counteracting sound laws, etc. Sound analogy as a force in the statics and dynamics of sounds. ...<...>
THE CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES
Chapter 1. Genetic Classification in General.
The recognition of linguistic kinship is based not on chance similarity of entire, undivided words, but on the full etymological correspondence of both the main and secondary (subordinate) elements of words according to strictly defined sound laws. For this reason we must first divide words into their morphological parts and then establish their relationship with the same parts in other languages.
The identity or similarity of roots reduced to the simplest form. The identity or similarity of formal (word-forming) elements of the word. The identity or similarity of the functions of these elements. Grammatical identity or similarity.
Phonetic translation, or transposition of the sound-form of certain words of one language into the sound-form of another language according to strictly defined sound laws and sound correspondences. The possibility of phonetic translation is a reliable, unmistakable test of the generic kinship of languages, although the impossibility of phonetic translation is no proof of its absence. Cf. Program of 1876-1877 p. 108.
The kinship of languages is based on their provenience from one common language. Genetically related languages are, in other words, different variants of one and the same proto-language, of an original primary language.
Observance of geographic and chronological conditions. One cannot directly compare English words with Russian ones, Modern Greek words with Polish ones, etc., without reducing them first to older and, consequently, closer degrees of development. Cf. atavism in biology. The similarity between nephews and uncles is not explained by the descent of the former from the latter, but by their descent from the same grandparents or great-grandparents.
It is even more difficult to deduce the phenomena of one Ianguage from the phenomena of another cognate language (e.g., phenomena of Latin from Greek, English from Polish, Russian from Old (Church) Slavic).
Yet it is possible, and even necessary, to compare the relationship between languages related in an ascending and descending line. Thus, for example, it is instructive to compare the relationship between Prakrit and Sanskrit with the relationship between the Romance languages and Latin. . . .
The reasons for the disintegration of one language into several. Cf. Benfey, Nachr. Gött. 21, 1871, pp. 553-58.
The views of Max Müller and E. Renan. The appearance of dialects preceded the formation of one homogeneous, unified Ianguage (Dialekte sind überall vor der Sprache dagewesen).
Is it possible at the present state of our science, to have a generic classification of any particular branch of genetically related languages? For the time being, one cannot speak (in most cases) of a genetic classification in the strict sense of the word, but only of a scientific characterization of the various groups of languages and dialects. . . .
The requirements for a scientific classification of related languages.
The bases for a classification—
Not sporadic phenomena, but common tendencies determine the unique structure and composition of a given language. It is necessary to seek out those tendencies whose beginnings were present in the once unified, common, base language, and then to determine which tendencies (which aspects) came to predominate in the various groups and languages derived from the base language.
Common tendencies are established by generalizing individual facts and phenomena of the derived languages and by deductions concerning the base language. . . .
... From a scientific standpoint, two languages may be considered completely different entities if:
1) the morphological parts (morphemes) of their words, or their simple and indivisible words (which cannot be deduced from preceding forms) have nothing in common in either their phonetic material or their syllabic structure;
2) the laws of the original combinations of the simple words differ absolutely in the two languages being compared. The impossibility of phonetic translation, however, is not sufficient proof of the ultimately different origin of the two languages. . . .
Chapter 2. Principles of Morphological (Structural) Classification in General. (Cf. Program of 1876-1877 p. 108.)
Refutation of the theory which sees in separate groups only different degrees of perfection of a single principle (type) of morphological structure, and which considers inflection the apex of perfection, which is arrived at first, through monosyllabicity, and then through agglutination.
Can a morphological (structural) classification (characterization, description) of languages be based on their phonetic properties? The identity of partial phonetic processes and laws in languages of a totally different morphological and syntactic structure. Totally different morphological types of languages, languages with a completely different structure, may be phonetically identical, may share the same phonetic laws, changes, and correspondences both dialectally (geographically) and chronologically (temporally). Compare the sameness of chemical and physical processes in organisms of completely different morphological structure in biology. Animals and plants of different form, origin, and overall structure may share the same laws of blood circulation and feeding, may have the same tissues and perform the same functions.
Which morphological (pertaining to the structure of words) and syntactic (pertaining to the structure of sentences) features need be considered in a morphological (structural) classification of languages? Cf. Steinthal, Charakteristik . . .
Internal form (innere Form) as a basis of classification. The internal feeling of language (innerer Sprachsinn) determines the internal form, i.e., the actual system of grammatical categories of a given language.
Internal form simultaneous with phonetic form. However, one should define first the psychological character of language and then its external form as a reflection of internal (psychological) activity.
The definition of language: the form of language in general is defined by combining the two aspects of the internal relation to the psychological material (. Auffassungsweise) and the means of word formation. Consequently:
I. 1) The primary basis for a classification of languages should be the relationship of matter and form and its morphological manifestation.
2) The relation of subject and predicate. Etymological form:
a) Nomen, Nominativus,
b) Verbum finitum.
True nominatives and true finite verbs are alien to formless languages, to those that do not distinguish matter and form. II. Three morphological devices of word formation:
1) Immutability of words and simple juxtaposition;
2) Agglutination (adding on) of affixes;
3) Appending [priobrazovanie] (Anbildung, adaptado?). . . .
* Henceforth abbreviated as PR. Page numbers refer to the English text of the Programs.