l.v. shcherba and the concept of linguistic experimental phonetics

Journal of Voice Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 257-269 © 1993 Raven Press, Ltd.,-New York

L . W .

Voice: A Historical Perspective

Shcherba and the Concept of Linguistic Experimental Phonetics

Donald S. Cooper

Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

A distinguished phonetician and historian of phonetics, G. Panconcelli-Calzia (1878-1966), ended a sketch of the history of phonetics with the dictum that instead of being an ancillary part of linguistics, "The facts are rather (1) that phonetics takes its origin from the magic-mystical and partly religious mental world of mankind in a time, moreover, when there were neither grammarians nor linguists, and (2) that it owes its development chiefly to scientists and physicians" (1).

One must distinguish here between at least two possible claims. First is the paradoxical straw-man claim rejected by Panconcelli-Calzia, that the study of speech production and speech acoustics, a field with strong bases in the biological and physical sciences, is necessarily a subdepartment of linguistics, a diffuse discipline with connections extending from anthropology to mathematical logic. Second is the more modest observation that important perspectives, limiting and defining the questions proposed to the physical and biological sciences by specialists in the study of human speech, stem from specific observations of the existing nature of human speech rather than from the more general perspectives of biology and physics. This discussion considers the question of the relations between the study of sound patterns in language and speech science/experimental phonetics by following one thread of their development during this century. Thus the objec-

Accepted January 3, 1992. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. D. S.

Cooper, at Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Sur- gery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, U.S.A.

tive is closer to a parable than to a history of either phonology or phonetics.

The discussion will take as its starting point the work of a Russian phonetician, Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba (1880-1944), one of the founders of experimental phonetics in the Soviet Union. Shcherba's mediating influence draws many of these themes together, in terms of his own teachers and students and others whom he influenced indirectly. The development will suggest that as soon as we ask about the client or patient, "What did he say?", or design an experimental protocol including speech tokens, linguistic elements minimized by Panconcelli-Calzia must be considered in order to evaluate voice and speech as components of language.

Shcherba was born in 1880 in the city of Igumen near Minsk, the capital of Belorussia, to parents raised in St. Petersburg. He finished his secondary education in Kiev in 1898 and began his university studies in the scientific track at Kiev University. After a year, he moved to the historical-philological faculty of St. Petersburg University, with the initial wish to become a teacher of Russian language and literature (2,3). This esthetic and pedagogical direction reappears in his later work. In St. Petersburg he studied under the Polish linguist Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), and when Shcherba completed his undergraduate work in 1903, Baudouin permitted him to continue his graduate training in linguistics. During this period (1903-1906) Shcherba also taught Russian to the First Cadet Corps and in the St. Petersburg Pedagogic Institute, and worked at a project on the reform of Russian orthography organized by the Academy of Sciences. The princi-

257

258 D. S. COOPER

ples of Russian spelling, which emphasize maintain- ing a unitary orthographic representation of the meaningful linguistic unit in a script from which pronunciation can be easily predicted, make this task closely related to the systematic analysis of sound patterns in language. So far his path did not differ from that of many conscientious teachers whose accomplishments went little further than in- structing the multiethnic citizenry of the Russian empire in the glories of language and literature.

However, in 1906 Shcherba went on the "foreign mission" during which outstanding Russian doctoral candidates were able to work for some period with the greatest figures in their fields in Western Europe and sample the teaching of various Western universities. For linguists, this often included both study with outstanding Western scholars and field studies of the Slavic dialects of Western and South- ern Europe. Just as his teacher Baudouin had studied the Slovenian dialects of Italy about which he wrote his doctoral dissertation, Shcherba studied the Slavic dialects of Germany.

However, Baudouin recognized the new possibil- ities of scientific rigor opened by the founding of laboratories for speech research. He wrote to Shcherba, "I ascribe paramount importance to the study of experimental phonetics, even if only from the methodological aspect. It is really a rigorously scientific discipline, in which subjectivism is re- duced to a minimum" (Oct. 26, 1907; cited by Le- ont'ev, 4).

In Paris, Shcherba spent time during 1907 and 1908 with Jean-Pierre Rousselot (1826-1924), the French founder of experimental phonetics as a direction within linguistics, at the Coll~ge de France and acquired a precise knowledge of French, which was a focus of the experimental work in Rousselot's laboratory. His practical mastery of French pronunciation was improved in Paul Passy's course on French phonetics at the l~cole Pratique des Hautes ]~tudes; the results of these studies were later (1937) crystallized in Shcherba's comprehensive monograph on French phonetics (5), which has gone through many editions.

Thereafter he travelled to Prague, where he learned Czech. Returning to St. Petersburg in 1909, he first completed his master's thesis, Russian vowels in quantitative and qualitative respects, defended in 1912, and then his doctoral dissertation on a Slavic dialect of eastern Germany, defended in 1915 (6). A year later he became professor of Petrograd University. The alteration from the Ger-

man to the Slavic form of the name of Russia's northern cultural capital, which followed the onset of the First World War, marks the beginning of the eclipse that the Russian poet Osip Mandel' shtam (7) would lament in a poem published in 1923 in Berlin: "We shall meet in Petersburg again/As if we had buried the sun in i t . . . "

The rest of Shcherba's life until his death in 1944 ran a respected course of administrative and pedagogical work as a professor, member of the Soviet Academy, etc. in Leningrad, as his city was called from 1924 until 1991, when the city's older name was restored in many applications to reflect the honor of its founder, Peter the Great. Occasionally Shcherba was to return to the relations of phonology and phonetics on which his earlier work focused, and these works will be noted later. He re- tains a solid place in the histories of Soviet phonetics and phonology (8,9). Because the phonetics laboratory of V. A. Bogorodickij (1857-1941) in Ka- zan and that of A. I. Thomson (1860-1935) in Odessa ceased their existence after the deaths of their founders, Shcherba's Leningrad laboratory, founded before the revolution, is the senior surviv- ing phonetics laboratory of the Soviet Union, and has been the source of an influential tradition on the relations between phonology and phonetics (9).

The text on which we will focus here is Shcherba's master's thesis, which was published in the Notes of the Historical-Philological Faculty of the Imperial St. Petersburg University in 1912 (3), and soon became well known. When the young linguist Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) entered the Uni- versity of Moscow, he included Shcherba's study of Russian vowels in his first reading list submitted to his teacher, the dialectologist and lexicographer D. N. Ushakov (1873-1942). Although Ushakov, as an orthodox Moscow linguist, immediately rejected this St. Petersburg item, Jakobson would narrate nearly half a century later that, "Naturally it was just this forbidden book which I read first, and I was captivated at once by its challenging introductory glosses to the concept of the phoneme" (10). The chapter containing these glosses is the portion selected for translation here; it has been reprinted separately in two Soviet collections of Shcherba's selected writings (11,12), suggesting some agreement as to its separate and seminal character, and the whole treatise was reprinted in facsimile form in 1983 with an introduction and notes by L. R. Zinder and L. V. Bondarko (3), who are among Shcherba's successors in his Leningrad laboratory. Zinder him-

Journal of Voice, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1993

S H C H E R B A A N D L I N G U I S T I C E X P E R I M E N T A L P H O N E T I C S 259

self is the author of a major treatise of general phonetics (13) that partly represents the maturation of the Leningrad school.

Shcherba's text is preceded by a brief preface written in March 1912, which is cited here for the light it sheds on his acknowledged intellectual debts.

P R E F A C E

The present investigation arose to a certain degree ac- cidentally (as is indicated in §19); nevertheless it is organ- ically connected with the work which I had already begun in the University at the initiative and under the direction of J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay (see the appendix to the Report on the State and Activity of the Imperial St. Petersburg University for 1902, p. 29). In any case, it reflects in toto that understanding of linguistic phenomena which grew up in me under the influence of a long-lasting close interaction with J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay at his Sunday private lectures,

This understanding was considerably reinforced in me and developed under the influence of the lectures and discourses of A. Meillet, during my stay in Paris, where I was able to ascertain with considerable interest, how two scholars, on different parts of the globe, working on different material, entirely independently came to a largely identical view of linguistic phenomena.

As regards "experimental phonetics," the methods of which have found such a broad application in the present investigation, for this I am entirely indebted to P. Rousselot, who gave me a more than kind welcome during my stay in Paris during the years 1907-1908. It was he who helped me understand and assimilate the mecha- nism of French pronunciation, which was the basis of my knowledge of phonetics.

Furthermore, I take the liberty of expressing deep thanks to S. K. Bulich, who directed me towards work in experimental phonetics, and also to the Historical- Philological faculty of the Imperial St. Petersburg Univer- sity, which accepted the present work for printing in its "Notes."

Shcherba appends a brief list of relevant phonetic studies which had appeared so recently that they could not be taken account of in his book, and remarks on the phonetic transcription used, with phonetic tables of special symbols. I will insert corre- sponding notes for clarity where they are required for the section of the work translated, since the emphasis of the section translated is not on phonetic details, but on theoretical notions regarding sound systems.

Shcherba notes at the end of his first chapter (§19) that the experimental work underlying his little book was carried out in Rousselot's laboratory

at the Coll~ge de France during 1908, without the expectation that it would assume its eventual form as a master's thesis. The quantitative analysis began in 1910, after he returned to St. Petersburg, together with the addition of some further experimental observations, and the written version of the text reached its final form only in the summer of 1911.

The site of Shcherba's laboratory research and his expression of indebtedness to Rousselot, and also the frequent citation of observations of his own dialectological research in the Slavic-speaking region of eastern Germany (which soon became his doctoral dissertation), merit comment. In the late 19th century, dialectological research was a frequent specialty for young scholars who wished to pursue more rigorous research than they perceived possible in the pursuit of linguistic history on the basis of old texts. So it was for Shcherba's mentor Baudouin, who wrote a dissertation on the Slove- nian dialects of Italy after carrying out a philological master's thesis under the Russian philologist I. I. Sreznevskij (1812-1880).

The shift went even further with the young French linguist Rousselot in the last quarter of the century, who told his professor, the Romance philologist Gaston Paris (1839-1903), of the difficulty of phonetic precision in dialectological studies. He received the reply, "Only mechanical experimenta- tion can provide security: they are doing experi- ments in the laboratory of Marey. See . . ." (14). The physiologist E. J. Marey (1830-1903) was the advocate in France of the graphic methods (kymo- graph, etc.) for the study of dynamic physiological processes adapted by the German physiologist K. Ludwig (1816-1895).

So the priest Rousselot learned physics from A. Becquerel and E. Branly, acoustics from R. Koenig, physiology from J. D6j6rine and E. J. Marey, and went on to found a great laboratory of experimental phonetics at the Coll6ge de France (1897). His laboratory became a Mecca for many young researchers (many are listed by Millet, 14), including Pan- concelli-Calzia and many others not only from Western but also from Eastern Europe such as Shcherba, the Polish dialectologist/linguist K. Nitsch (1874-1958; 15), and an outstanding Czech phonetician, Josef Chlumsk~ (1871-1939), whose justified hopes to succeed to Rousselot's professorship were disappointed (16).

Rousselot's great 1,250-page treatise of experimental phonetics (17) is still a stunning summary of


260 D. S. COOPER

the knowledge of the turn of the century. Others also followed this full circle, as in the application of the techniques of experimental speech physiology developed by the physiologist H. Zwaardemaker (1857-1930) of Utrecht to Dutch dialectological studies (18).

The other important aspect in terms of which Shcherba repeatedly cites dialectological studies is what may be called the evidence of the psychological reality of phonological processes, where he cites the work of the Leipzig psychologist Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) on perception and cognitive processes (19). Here there is a more distant but important parallel in the work of such American linguists as Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949) and Ed- ward Sapir (1884-1939). These contemporaries of Shcherba, trained in traditional historical linguistics, turned to the field study of American Indian languages in the same search for rigor as the Euro- pean dialectologists.

Sapir in particular was struck by the evidence of the psychological reality to the native speakers of the phonological units that the linguist had set up on a purely linguistic basis, particularly to the extent that, as in Russian orthography, the writing system was devised to maintain the unity of the meaningful linguistic unit, or morpheme (20).

Without seeking to deny the reality of such observations, subsequent linguistic researchers have focused instead on the more directly accessible evidence of the distributional patterns of sounds in language as a basis for the understanding of sound systems. However, research in recent decades has revived the important topic of the psychological di- mensions of the sound system both from cognitive and psychophysical points of view.

The very term "morpheme" used earlier was devised by the Polish linguist J. Baudouin de Courte- nay, Shcherba's teacher, to whom Shcherba pays his respects both in the introduction cited above and in the first chapter of his book, translated be- low. Later he would do so again in an obituary of Baudouin (1930; 21), in a survey of Baudouin's contributions published in a pedagogical journal (22), and in a more specialized essay on the psychological aspects of language processes, dedicated to the memory of Baudouin (1931; 23). In an article in ~French which appeared the same year, a fellow countryman of Baudouin' s, the linguist Witold Dor- oszewski (1899-1976), wrote that "In initio erat ver- bum de Baudouin de Courtenay . . . " (1931; 24). His pun (Baudouin's given name Jan corresponds to

John, the beginning of whose gospel is paraphrased) indicates the historically seminal character of the theoretical views of Baudouin on the sound seg- ments composing morphemes and their patterns in language.

Strictly, adumbrations of modern views in these matters extend at least as far back as the ancient Indic phoneticians (25), in some respects further, as Panconcelli-Calzia observed. European and Amer- ican linguistic scholars of the 19th century who knew the Indic work at first hand, such as W. D. Whitney (1827-1894), integrated parts of these doctrines into more modern phonetic doctrines.

However, one of the most important stimuli to modern developments can be found in the work of Baudouin and his successors. Shcherba himself, who focused on linguistic theory and applications in the context of modern languages, did not have as broad a perspective as these scholars. Thus it is clear from the passage quoted earlier that he was unable to see the basis of the convergence of views of his own teacher Baudouin, who was well trained in the history of the earlier Indo-European languages and specialized in Slavic and general linguistics, with the views of the French linguist Antoine Meillet (1866-1936), who although specializing in the history of the earlier Indo-European languages was also deeply versed in Slavic linguistics as well as a contributor to general linguistics.

There is also evidence of meeting, interactions, and mutual regard between Meillet's own mentor, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857- 1913), a genial specialist in historical Indo- European and general linguistics, and Baudouin, which are reflected in their own work and that of their students. Many of these independent and parallel currents are discussed by E. Fischer-JCrgensen (26) from a point of view in which the integration of phonological and phonetic concepts is always a fundamental concern.

Baudouin was born near Warsaw in the Russian part of Poland during the period of the partition of Poland between the Russian, Prussian, and Aus- trian empires, and received much of his advanced scholarly training in Russian and German universities. His professorial activity occurred in Russian and Polish universities, particularly in Kazan (1875- 1883), Tartu (Estonia; 1883-1893), Krak6w (1893- 1899), and St. Petersburg (1900-1918). In Russia he trained a series of outstanding students (M. Krus- zewski, V. A. Bogorodickij, S. K. Bulich in Kazan; and Shcherba, M. Vasmer, K. Buga, E. D. Poli-


SHCHERBA AND LINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 261

vanov, L. P. Jakubinskij, B. V. Tomashewskij, V. V. Vinogradov, S. I. Bernshtejn, and many others in St. Petersburg; 22), while he had fewer, although noteworthy, students in Poland (e.g., Dor- oszewski, Nitsch, H. Utaszyn). Consequently his inheritance in this sense has been carried as much by Soviet as by Polish hands; the first modern edition of his writings was a Russian one (27; in En- glish compare 28), although the recent multivolume Polish edition (29), with Doroszewski as editor-in- chief, finally republishes his main writings in the original languages.

The life of a Polish scholar in the Russian empire was not easy: while a professor in St. Petersburg, Baudouin lived in such privation that he wrote to the Russian Slavist A. A. Shakhmatov that, "I am coming to the conclusion that the founding of a fam- ily was a crime on my part" (Sept. 5, 1906; 4). Re- turning to the newly resurrected Poland in 1918, Baudouin assumed the chair of comparative Indo- European linguistics in Warsaw that same year, continuing his scholarly and scientific activity inter- spersed with publicistic and political writings of a sort for which he had been imprisoned for several months in St. Petersburg by the Tsarist government during 1914 (4). The recognition of these contributions and his status among his contemporaries are indicated by the fact that in the restored Poland of 1922, he was nominated to become president of Po- land by the national minority parties whose rights he had defended (27). His scholarly, scientific, and publicistic activities continued until his death in No- vember 1929.

Although there were numerous parallels between the general views of Baudouin and those of Saus- sure, it appears that it was Baudouin who originated the modern notions of the sound system of language, both in the works cited by Shcherba at the beginning of his chapter, and in many other writings and lectures. Baudouin took over from Saussure the term phoneme for a phonological unit, a term which had been originated by the minor French scholar A. Dufriche-Desgenettes (1804 to about 1885) in 1873 and was picked up in 1874 by the philologist Louis Havet (30,31); the term was not used by Saussure or Meillet in the systematic sense with which the theories of Baudouin imbued it, although Saussure's us- age has its own systematic character (32).

Probably a fundamental reason for this is the fact the research of Saussure and Meillet focused on the reconstruction and history of earlier stages of languages rather than on the living languages to which

Baudouin preferred to look as evidence for language processes. Although they thus had no access to the strictly phonetic evidence that could come only from living speakers, much of Saussure's work depended on the analysis of the systematic relations of phonemes and the morphological alternations in which they were observed (e.g., the alternation of /e/ with /o/ within the root of the Greek verb stem "pher-," or "carry," versus the noun stem "phor-," or "carrier").

The classic monograph on the Indo-European vowel system of 1878 (33) in which Saussure adopted the term "phoneme" was the springboard for a master's thesis by Baudouin's student Mikotaj Kruszewski (1851-1887), who published in 1881 an analysis of the implications of Saussure's study for the Slavic languages; in this work he in turn bor- rowed the term, in application to phonetic units in- volved in morphological alternations (34).

In the introduction to a Polish selection of Kruszewski's writings (35) and elsewhere, Jakob- son was an advocate of the original contribution of Kruszewski, an outstanding Polish student of Bau- douin's who died tragically young of a degenerative neurological disorder ("Oh, how quickly I crossed the stage!" he said to his wife after being forced by his poor health to resign from his professorship; 35,36).

The contributions of the student and teacher are not always clearly distinguishable, although Bau- douin provided some demarcation in the disturb- ingly severe survey of Kruszewski's work he published the year after the latter's death (1888; 36). Kruszewski's publications were meager, while the theoretical views of Baudouin in the area of phonology are quite broad and developed in over- whelming detail, so that part of the contribution of Shcherba can be said to have been the extraction from Baudouin's writings and exemplification of a subset of phonological notions which are applicable to synchronic linguistic description, with some hints at their application to linguistic change.

Baudouin's views changed over his lifetime, and later phonologists have pointed out divergences of detail between the views of Baudouin and those promulgated by Shcherba (9). Because of the un- availability of many of Baudouin's scattered publications, however, Shcherba's formulations to some extent provided a surrogate epitome of Baudouin's views on phonology.

Many other points of Baudouin's views are ex- panded in more accessible form in Shcherba's writ-


262 D. S. COOPER

ings. One fundamenta l point emphas ized by Shcherba in his 1929 essay that is still quite relevant is Baudouin's opposition to the hypostatization of language as if it existed independently of its speakers, a view championed by one of his own teachers, August Schleicher (1821-1868), and implicit in the work of many of Baudouin's contemporaries as well as today. In Schleicher's writings, this view took the form of the description of language as an organism, with explicit comparison to Darwinian natural- ism. Baudouin wrote of this opinion that " a l l . . . the contradictions vanish, if instead of the person- ifying word organism . . . we put funct ion o f an organism (that is, a consequence of the action of organs)." (1870; 37).

In Baudouin's emphasis on language as both a social and an individual phenomenon lies one of the parallels to the Franco-Swiss (Geneva) school of the followers of Saussure which struck Russian linguists when Saussure's lectures on general linguistics (38) were published posthumously from the notes of his students, reaching Leningrad in 1923 (22).

Baudouin, however, also emphasized the individual psychological processes of language and was aware of contemporary studies in phonetics and speech physiology, although he was not an experi- mentalist. This "psychologism" was a point of criticism of Baudouin by later linguists, in a shift that can be typified by the American linguist Bloom- field, who moved from a presentation of the views on language of the German psychologist Wundt (also cited by Shcherba) in the 1914 edition of his textbook on language (39) to behaviorist views in a classic second edition in 1933 (40). The reader will note the occasional suggestions by Shcherba in the chapter translated here, in this tradition, of the psychological processes which must be inferred from the speech evidence, rather than a reduction of the phenomena of speech to pure acoustics and motor physiology.

As various scholars have noted, the works of Baudouin were published in such scattered form that they were freely accessible to few, even of those most important in developing the ideas contained in them. This problem was partly obviated by the flight of Russian scholars familiar with these notions from the Soviet Union after the Russian revolution. The Russian linguist Roman Jakobson, introduced earlier, continued in his energetic and charismatic manner to become a theoretical and or- ganizational center of Moscow studies in linguistics and poetics (41) until his departure in 1920 to finish

his doctoral studies at the University of Prague (1930), followed by a teaching position at Masaryk University (whilom Purkyn6 University) in Brno (1933-1939). Now, Prague and Vienna became important new foci of phonological studies. In Czechoslovakia, Jakobson's conceptual and organi- zational activity and that of other Russian 6migr6 scholars joined with a distinguished native tradition in linguistic scholarship and phonetics (e.g., Chlum- sk~ and his student and successor, B. Hfda, (1894- 1970)) to energize the Linguistic School of Prague, with its polyglot journal the Travaux du Cercle Lin- guistique dePrague (TCLP).

In Vienna, another Russian linguist, Prince Niko- laj Trubetzkoy (1890-1938), son of the liberal rector of the University of Moscow, assumed the university chair of Slavic philology in 1922 (42), to the disgust of traditional scholars such as V. Jagid (1838-1923; 43), the Nestor of Slavic studies. Dur- ing the following years, Trubetzkoy progressively focused more on the revision and extension of phonological concepts. He acknowledged his debt to the school of Baudouin in a rather guarded letter to Doroszewski in October 1931. Noting differences between his own theoretical developments and the views of Baudouin, he continued, "It seems to me, however, that if one leaves aside the formulations of Baudouin and Shcherba, which, perhaps, are not always successful and adequate, and if one were to take the essentials of their systems, i.e. as they ap- ply these systems in practice, then one would see that our present-day conceptions (those of Jakob- son and myself) further develop the systems in question, rather than refute them" (44). H~tusler (45) has examined the gradual individuation of Tru- betzkoy's phonological notions from those of Bau- douin; remarks in Trubetzkoy's published letters indicate awareness of divergences of detail between his views and those of Shcherba (44).

Trubetzkoy's work may also be considered as disagreeing with the views of Shcherba in the sense of the theoretical separation that Trubetzkoy advocated between experimental phonetics, which studied the events of speech on a physical and physiological level, and phonological concepts, which are concerned with the role of sounds in linguistic structure. This division, which was more rigid in theory than in practice, was advocated in Trubetz- koy's papers and in the great monograph Founda- tions o f phonology (42), which lay almost completed at his death in 1938 and was soon published as the seventh volume of the TCLP (1939). In the



prospectus of the first international congress of phonetic sciences in Amsterdam in 1932, this aspect of the new direction was noted: "At first sight phonologists seem to be inclined to have no great re- spect for the work of experimental phoneticians, as this work deals with the apparently irrelevant phonetic realisations and never comes to the properly intended phonems (sic) (to use the new Prague terms)," although the authors (J. van Ginnekens, L. Kaiser, A. Roozendaal) argue that this is an ex- treme view (46). By the end of the 1932 conference, the Prague group had won the goodwill and interest of many Western phoneticians, building on recognition established at the first international congress of linguists in the Hague in 1928, the phonological congress held in Prague in 1930, and the second international congress of linguists in Geneva in 1931 (42).

This productive interwar period ended when Tru- betzkoy, suffering from angina pectoris, died in 1938 after brutal interrogations by the Gestapo, which arrived in Vienna with the Anschluss (42,44). In 1939, Jakobson fled first to Copenhagen, then to Oslo and Uppsala, and finally departed for New York on the last Swedish ship to transport civilians across the Atlantic (47); during the trip he engaged in a philosophical dialogue with a distinguished fellow passenger, the neo-Kantian Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945). However, Central Europe, and in particular Czechoslovakia, continued in the long run as a productive center of phonological and phonetic studies (surveys 48,49). Although Jakobson found limited interest in phonological theory in Scandina- via at the time of his peregrinations described here, Scandinavian specialists whom he did not meet until later such as B. Malmberg and especially the linguist-phonetician Fischer-JCrgensen, whose plan to study with Trubetzkoy in 1938-1939 had been cancelled by his death (44), continued to make fundamental contributions to the study of the relations between phonetics and phonology (50,51).

As in Czechoslovakia, there existed in Scandina- via distinguished traditions in linguistic scholarship, general linguistics, and phonetics (even Slavic phonetics, as in the work of Olaf Broch in Norway and J. A. Lundell in Sweden), which there is no intent here to minimize. Rather, the point is the productive impetus of the merger of experimental phonetic research with the theoretical phonological formulations of the Prague school (as the phonological views emanating from Eastern Europe had come to be labelled, from a short-sighted retrospect), an ef-

fective counterargument to Trubetzkoy's separation of the two disciplines.

In the postwar period this Prague tradition was embodied in the West especially by the linguist and Slavist Jakobson who, first at a sequence of posi- tions in New York City (47) and later at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), succeeded in inspiring successive groups of linguists and a few phoneticians. In America, the interwar period had brought a succession of developments in communications engineering that had laid the groundwork for the wartime development of the sound spectrograph, followed by a postwar stream of studies on speech acoustics, especially from Bell Laboratories, Haskins Laboratories , M.I.T., and the University o f Michigan (52-54).

Noteworthy during this period was and still is the contribution of the Swedish engineer Gunnar Fant. In later years, Jakobson would tell of how he first heard Fant, who visited M.I.T. from Sweden in 194%1951, describe the research on acoustic phonetics he had undertaken in the framework of communications engineering (summary 55,56), and how Jakobson realized the importance of the fact that this research was couched in purely physical terms, entirely free from the unconscious mixture of phonological and phonetic concepts that obscured much traditional work in phonetics. Jakobson en- listed Fant as an associate, with the linguist M. Halle, in developing a physically, physiologically, and perceptually based theory of distinctive features, simultaneous components of phonemes (1952; 57). It is worthwhile to recall that Baudouin had specified such concepts in an article in 1910 (58), in which he had distinguished the kinema, or physiological feature, from the akousma, or percep- tual feature, and by 1915 he had joined the two into a complex feature, kinakema (59); West European phoneticians such as F. Techmer and O. Jespersen also had used such concepts (45,60,61, with further references).

Quite parallel concepts had been developed, pri- marily on an articulatory level, in the work of American linguists before, during, and after World War II such as Bloomfield (40), Hockett (62,63), Pike (64), Harris (65,66), and Bloch (67), as well as in the work of some Soviet linguists (9), sometimes with more or less awareness of Prague school work. Nevertheless the specificity of this 1952 formulation by Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, partly embodying and revising important aspects of Trubetzkoy's system, went far beyond these notions. Some subse-


264 D. S. COOPER

quent distinctive feature systems have tended at times to lose some of the salutary physical and physiological specificity of the initial formulation; a different point of view would suggest that more abstract formulations have been perceived to be necessary. Fant has offered examples of appropriate acoustic-based procedures in such analysis (68,69).

A closely related contribution of this period, which, although it has been revised in subsequent research, has lost none of its stature, is the acous- tical theory of speech production in the form of an analysis of the generation of Russian speech sounds by Fant (68), partly inspired by Jakobson and par- alleled on a descriptive level by dissertations of Ja- kobson's students L. Jones on Russian vowels (70) and Halle on Russian consonants (71), work sum- marized by Halle (72). Flanagan has recorded the epochal character of this work of Fant in his remarks on its defense as a doctoral dissertation in 1958 (73), published in a symposium for Fant two decades later.

The confluence of this technical aspect of phonetics with the linguistic aspect was embodied in the proceedings of the Eighth International Con- gress of Linguists in Oslo in 1957, only 25 eventful years after the first international congress of phonetic sciences in Amsterdam in 1932, noted earlier. The honorary president of this 1957 conference was Olaf Broch of Oslo, who in 1911 had published a classic treatise on Slavic phonetics (74). The proceedings (1958) contain long reports by Fischer- JCrgensen (75) and Fant (76), emphasizing respec- tively the contribution of acoustic phonetics to linguistics and measurement techniques and results. Although these reports are based for the most part on analog techniques, they are still stimulating overviews of much knowledge in acoustic phonetics and its relation to phonological concepts.

COMMENTS ON THE TEXT

Some terminology of the chapter translated be- low calls for special information. When Shcherba speaks of Great Russian, this is the language of the northern and central part of European Russia, which is the basis for standard literary Russian. On the other hand, the dated terms Little Russia and Little Russian refer to the Ukraine, an area of southwest European Russia approximately the size and population of France, and its language. Ukrai- nian has a common origin with Great Russian, and bears approximately the relationship to it that

Scots English does to southern British English; that is, there are substantial linguistic divergences but a fair degree of mutual intelligibility. Shcherba quotes important observations from his field studies of the archaic language of the Lusatian Serbs, also known as Sorbs or Wends. This group is a West Slavic minority within Germany. They are located in set- tlements east of Dresden in the corner of eastern Germany that lies between northwestern Czecho- slovakia and southwestern Poland, and speak a series of dialects, some of which share features with Polish, while others share features with Czech. The East Lusatian dialect of Muskau was studied by Shcherba in the eastern part of this region, close to the River Neisse.

At the end of §17, Shcherba notes the divergences between Great Russian dialects with "strong akan'ye" and "okan 'ye ." These specialized terms of dialect geography refer to the differences in the treatment of the vowels in unstressed (especially pretonic) syllables, which define important distinctions among Great Russian dialects (77). Shcherba suggests that his analysis should be gen- eralized to other major Great Russian dialects than the St. Petersburg pronunciation (his own) he studied.

Since both the theoretical contents and the examples employed may be somewhat unfamiliar in nature, an outline of the main points of the theoretical section of the chapter translated may be useful. In § 1, Shcherba emphasizes that his theoretical views stem from those of Baudouin, which he finds necessary to develop in some details, particularly regarding psychological aspects of the phoneme concept. However (§2), some factors, such as the lack of objective identity even of consecutive repetitions of the same meaningful utterance, or cases of incor- rect perception, imply an active preliminary stage of cognitive processing of auditory data (assimilation) in order to explain why they are perceived as the same. Random, normally subthreshhold variations of the realization of phonetic word types are observed; they are the result of learning, and the nature of such variations varies from one language to another (§3). Prosodic contrasts show that sound variations can be independent and distinguish meaning (§4); this argument is extended to the independence of segmental units such as vowels and consonants. The isolation of segmental units can be demonstrated by such procedures as contrast and minimal pairs (e.g., Russian/son/"s leep" vs . /san/ " rank," where the slanted brackets indicate that


SHCHERBA A N D LINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 265

the transliteration is in terms of phonologically distinctive units rather than phonetic units), auditory misperception, and rhymes, and is presupposed by the possibility of literacy with an alphabetic script (§5). Such segmental units are usually embedded in meaningful units (morphemes) of various lengths from which they are not necessarily isolated as such. However, analogic historical changes of seg- ments within morphemes demonstrate their func- tional independence.

In §6 the term "phoneme" is introduced and de- fined as the shortest abstract acoustic unit that can be associated with meaning in the given language. Although each phoneme has multiple different real- izations, the number of phonemes and their variants in a given language is finite, and sets of such variants are associated in groups, each of which constitutes a subjective unity (§7), which the process of assimilation underlies. In §8, Shcherba distinguishes between the predictable distribution of similar sounds as members of one phoneme and the distinctive application of the same similar sounds, e.g., in a different language where no rule allows prediction of which of a set of similar sounds will occur in a given case, so that the sounds can be used to distinguish meaningful linguistic forms. §9 points out the effects of formant transitions and contextual effects in producing unavoidable variation of phonemes even within a given segment. From this effect, Shcherba formulates another defining aspect, that those variants which stand in the least dependence on their context are phonemes, e.g., the formant frequencies of that section of a vowel that deviate most from the formant transitions determined by its consonantal context are characteristic of the vowel.

§10 brings up the thorny problem of determina- tion of whether a sequence such as a diphthong or affricate constitutes one or more phonological units. § 11 provides a redefinition of the phoneme: it is the shortest unit of the sound system of a given language that can be associated with meaning, dif- ferentiate words, and be singled out in speech without distortion of the word. In §12, Shcherba points out that the objectively different variants of a given phoneme are subjectively identical to the naive speaker, with the important addition that " the searching out of these shades into which phonemes are decomposed, and also the explanation of the causes of the appearance of each of them, are the basic tasks of phonetics." §13 takes up a series of problems, mainly the existence of both language-

dependent and physiologically required variants, and the possibly graded degree of independence of phonemes. Morphological factors and morpheme boundaries are cited as explicitly relevant to the analysis of phoneme sequences. Historical change may alter the distinctive status of variants. This may occur with a change in their objective character, e.g., where a phonemic distinction is lost and a single sound replaces two or more others. It may also occur without such a change in their objective character, e.g., by the removal of contextual con- ditioning factors so that previously predictable contextual variants of a given phoneme become distinctive. The perception of the native speaker, who easily distinguishes different phonemes, differs from that of the analyst of the language in question; for the analyst, recognition of the nature of the distinctions made by the native speaker may be the most difficult and probably is the most important thing to manage (§14). A number of further complications exist, for instance where sounds that contrast in some conditions do not contrast in others (§15) and in cases of predictable morphological alternations of phonemes, a situation Baudouin has considered in his theory of divergences.

The set of problems raised here by Shcherba, mostly following Baudouin, have subsequently been and still are the subject of wide theoretical development and experimental research. Although the views of Shcherba were seminal, they were not definitive, and definitions of crucial concepts were not always well expressed (as noted above by Tru- betzkoy, 44). At the time of publication they aroused some criticism; while the thread of events followed here has unwound mostly beyond Soviet borders, more recent Soviet publications have placed Shcherba's work in terms of its subsequent influence on Soviet phonology (8,9).

The reader to whom some of Shcherba's concepts are unfamiliar may sympathize with the able, sober, and intentionally fair linguist/phonetician to whom fell the task of reviewing Shcherba's monograph. Even before publication of his master's thesis, Shcherba had come into conflict with the distinguished Russian scholar A. I. Thomson, who had been a student of the Moscow linguist F. F. Fortu- natov (1848-1914) and then became the director of the Odessa phonetics laboratory. Thomson, the author of a remarkably accurate study of the formant frequencies of Russian vowels analyzed by ear (78; compare 72), had already criticized Shcherba's article "Subjective and objective method in phonet-


266 D. S. COOPER

ics" (1909; 79) in an article published in the same academic proceedings 2 years later (80). In this article Shcherba emphasized the effect of (subjective) phonological factors on phonetic observations, in contrast to instrumental (objective) techniques, avoiding any abstract phonological treatment. In his response, Thomson did not recognize the specific question of the effects of learning of a specific language (formalized in phonology) on the listener's perception of speech sounds.

Indeed, Thomson was explicitly opposed to phonological views, but M. V. Panov (1967), the author of a richly documented survey of Russian phonetics (8), has argued that the factual precision of Thom- son's critique of phonology paradoxically contained the nucleus of profound phonological conclusions. For his 1913 critique of Shcherba's 1912 monograph on the phonetics and phonology of Russian vowels, Thomson found access to the pages of a prominent German journal of Slavic philology edited by the same conservative scholar (Jagi6) whose later neg- ative response to Trubetzkoy's phonological studies was noted above.

Thomson's comments (81) and Shcherba's reply (82) more often touch on the experimental than the theoretical aspects of the work, but Shcherba provides several useful expansions and alternative statements of his initial theoretical formulations. Shcherba notes the close relationship between the phoneme concept and the traditional one of a speech sound, with the principal additional consid- eration of the systematization and explanation of the (usually unconscious) contextual variation of the realization of the phoneme, which the naive speaker conceives himself to produce identically in all circumstances. Shcherba points out that even Thomson was in fact guided by such concepts in formulating his speech sample for studying the effects of contextual variation on vowels, and con- cludes, "The real task of phonetics consists of the investigation of the influence of these various circumstances" which produce systematic variation of the realization of individual phonemic units. Thom- son himself preferred to study speech sounds in sentence context, and he rejected those measuring instruments used by Shcherba that were applicable only for isolated sounds. Although Thomson himself was outstanding in his instrumental observations, his final reply to Shcherba (83) may draw some agreement from modern workers who find instrumental methods onerous. They are entitled to quote his reply in this sense if, like Thomson, they

can analyze formant frequencies precisely by ear alone:

I must concede that Shcherba is right, if he finds my views too subjective. However, it is not my fault. One can discover fine distinctions by means of one's hearing, which one cannot always keep up with even by means of the most laborious and precise, but relatively clumsy research techniques, and consequently I am not always successful in making comprehensible to others much that is audible quite precisely and without doubt.

The Polish scholar Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935) commented in 1929 over the fresh grave of his friend of 30 years, Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, that "he embraced the wide horizons of his science, and also in general of science and life" (84). In the early 1960s, Jakobson reflectively answered the inquiry of an elderly Russian economic geographer as to why he thought the young Americans showed such interest in Eastern Europe, "In the air it smells of the horizon" (T. V. Butoff, personal communication), a statement even truer today. Shcherba had narrower horizons both in terms of the constricted political world in which he lived and in terms of his scientific views, but he did provide an important pioneering formulation and experimental exemplification of basic concepts of sound systems in language. Summarizing his research stance in the next to last paragraph of the chapter translated, he says, " I approached the matter as a linguist, who has recourse to the already existing and more or less generally available methods of phonetics in order to obtain the answer to definite linguistic questions. The tasks of the present investigation are definitive- ly determined and limited by this circumstance" (3). Although the limitations of this stance are fundamental, so are its contributions.

The physiology and acoustics of speech present quite a different face now from when Baudouin developed the concepts of phonology at the Russian provincial University of Kazan in the late 1870s, but the basic concepts developed by Baudouin and his students such as Kruszewski and Shcherba, in their later development, underlie many aspects of behavioral or clinical research in speech and voice. This thread has been followed down through the classi- cal post-World War II period in acoustic phonetics to provide a glimpse of the process through which the phonological notions of Baudouin, crystallized and developed by being brought into contact with the results of experimental study in the work of


S H C H E R B A A N D L I N G U I S T I C E X P E R I M E N T A L P H O N E T I C S 267

Shcherba, have become part of the recognizable landscape of the study of speech in both its analytic and its technical aspects; more recent developments are a different story. The figure of Jakobson ties together parts of this chronological development, as it did in fact substantially contribute at several points to what he spoke of as the inevitable synthesis of phonology and phonetics. As suggested earlier, he would probably disagree with some aspects of the view of that development taken here.

Although it is necessary to continually refresh the nature of this synthesis by contact with basic scientific and technical fields, and it has had other important formulations (e.g., 85-89), an important part of the logical shape of the inquiry is provided by these phonological (linguistic) notions. When we ask, "What did he say?" or design a speech protocol or consider the distortion of vowels at high pitches in singing, these notions structure the logical form of the questions, even when, as suggested by Panconcelli-Calzia, they cannot always provide the answers. Practical needs such as clinical treatment by surgical or behavioral techniques may mo- tivate these questions or research designs, but con- siderations of the observed sound patterns of language (90) constitute an indispensable part of the research design. Although Panconcelli-Calzia was well qualified to widen the sphere of the view of speech in his remarks quoted at the opening of this discussion, much would be lost without acknowl- edging the contributions of other groups than those he was willing to recognize.

Acknowledgment: The foreign language quotes in the introduction were translated into English by Donald S. Cooper. The author is grateful to Henning Andersen of U C L A and June Shoup, formerly director of the Speech Communication Research Laboratory, for their comments from the respective points of view of phonologist and phonetician. Discussions with Bertil Malmberg of the University of Lund and with Eli Fischer-JCrgensen of the University of Copenhagen, kindly facilitated by Peter Kitzing, have contributed to both the theoretical and historical viewpoints.

REFERENCES

1. Panconcelli-Calzia G. Earlier history of phonetics. In: Kai- ser L, ed. Manual of phonetics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1957:3-17.

2. Shcherba LV. lzbrannye raboty po russkomu jazyku. Mos- cow: Gosudarstvennoe uchebno-pedagogicheskoe izdatel'stvo ministerstva prosveshchenija RSFSR, 1957.

3. Shcherba LV. Russkie glasnye v kachestvennom i kolichestvennom otnoshenff. St. Petersburg: Zapiski Istoriko- Filologicheskago Fakul'teta Imperatorskago S. Peterburg- skago Universiteta, Chast' CVII, 1912. Facsimile reprint

with introduction and notes by L. R. Zinder and L. V. Bondarko. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Nauka, 1983.

4. Leont'ev AA. Tvorcheskij put' i osnovnye cherty lingvis- ticheskoj konceptcii I. A. Boduena de Kurtene. In: Bern- shtejn SB, ed. I. A. Boduen de Kurtene (k 30-1etiju so dnja smerti). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1960.

5. Shcherba LV. Fonetika francuzskogo jazyka. 7th ed. Mos- cow: Vysshaja Shkola, 1963.

6. Shcherba LV. Vostochno-luzhickoe narechie [Dissertation]. T.1. Vol. CXXVIII. Petrograd: Istoriko-filologicheskij fakul'tet Petrogradskogo Universiteta, 1915.

7. Mandel'shtam O. Sobranie sochinenij. Vol. I. Washington: Inter-Language Literary Associates, 1964.

8. Panov MV. Russkaja fonetika. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1967.

9. Reformatskij AA. lz istorii otechestvennoj fonologii. Mos- cow: Izdatel'stvo Nauka, 1970.

10. Jakobson RO. Retrospect. In: Selected writings. Vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton and Co, 1962:631-58.

11. Shcherba LV. Izbrannye raboty po jazykoznaniju i fonetike. Vol. I. Leningrad: lzdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Univer- siteta, 1958.

12. Shcherba LV. Jazykovaja sistema i rechevaja dejatel'nost'. Zinder LR, Matusevich MI, eds. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka," 1974.

13. Zinder LR. Obshchaja fonetika. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1960.

14. Millet A. Prrcis d'exprrimentation phon~tique. La physio- logie des articulations. Paris: Didier, 1926.

15. Nitsch K. Ze wspomnien' jqzykoznawcy. Krak6w: Pafist- wowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1960.

16. H~ila B. JosefChlumsl~. Prague: N~ikladem 6esk6 akademie v~d a umrnf, 1940.

17. Rousselot PJ. Principes de phonOtique exp~rimentale. Vols. I, II. Paris: Didier, 1897, 1924.

18. Meinsma GL. Phonetics in the Netherlands until 1932. Some highlights. In: de Graaf T, ed. Phonetic science in the Neth- erlands. Past and present. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris Publications Holland, 1983.

19. Wundt W. Grundriss der Psychologie. 7th ed. Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1905.

20. Sapir E. La rralit6 psychologique des phonemes. J Psychol Normale Pathol 1933 ;30:247-65. In English in: Mandelbaum E, ed. Selected writings. Berkeley: University of California, 1949:46-60.

21. Shcherba LV. IA Boduen de Kurtene. Nekrolog. Izv po Russkomu Jazyku Slovesnosti 1930;25:311-26.

22. Shcherba LV. IA Boduen de Kurtene i jego znachenie v nauke o jazyke. Russkij Jazyk v Sovetskoj Shkole 1929;6: 63-71. (Reprinted in 2.)

23. Shcherba LV. O trojakom aspekte jazykovyx javlenij i ob eksperimente v jazykoznanii. Izv Akad SSSR (Otdelenie ob- shchestvennych nauk) 1931:113-29. Reprinted in: Zvegincev VA, ed. Istorija jazykoznanija XIX i X X vekov v ocherkax i izvlechenijax. Vol. II. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe uchebno- pedagogicheskoe izdatel'stvo minsterstva prosveshchenija RSFSR, 1960:301-12.

24. Doroszewski W. Autour du phoneme. Travaux Cercle Lin- guistique Prague 1931;4:61-73.

25. Allen WS. Phonetics in ancient India. London: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1957.

26. Fischer-JCrgensen E. Trends in phonological theory. Copen- hagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1975.

27. Baudouin de Courtenay J (Boduen de Kurtene IA). lzbrannye trudy po obshchemu jazykoznaniju. I, II. Moscow: Iz- datel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963.

28. Baudouin de Courtenay J. A Baudouin de Courtenay anthol- ogy. Stankiewicz E, ed. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 1972.


268 D. S. COOPER

29. Baudouin de Courtenay J. In: Doroszewski W e t al, eds. Dzieta wybrane. Six volumes. Warszawa: Pafistwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1974-1990.

30. Kr~msk3~ J. The phoneme. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1974.

31. Koerner EFK. A minor figure in 19th century French linguistics. Phonetica 1976;33:222.

32. Wells RS. De Saussure's system of linguistics. Word 1947; 3:1-31.

33. Saussure F de M~moire sur le syst~me primitif des voyelles en les langues indo-europdennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1878.

34. Kruszewski M. K voprosu o gune. Issledovanie v oblasti staroslavjanskogo vokalizma. Russkij Filologieheskij Vestn 1881;5:1-109.

35. Kruszewski M. Wyb6rpism. Kurytowicz J, Jakobson R, in- troductions. Wroctaw: Wydawnictwo polskiej akademii nauk, 1967.

36. Baudouin de Courtenay J. Mikotaj Kruszewski, jego 2ycie i prace naukowe. Prace filologiczne 1888 ;2:837--49; 3:116-75. In: Baudouin de Courtenay J. Szkicej~zykoznawcze 1. War- saw: Laskauer, 1904:96-175.

37. Baudouin de Courtenay J. August Schleicher. In: Boduen de Kurtene IA. Izbrannye trudy po obshchemu jazykoznaniju. Vol. I. Moscow: Izdatel 'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963: 33--44.

38. Saussure F de Cours de linguistique g6n~rale, de Mauro T, ed. Paris: Payot, 1973. (Original edition, 1916.)

39. Bloomfield L. An introduction to the study of language. New York: Holt, 1914.

40. Bloomfield L. Language. New York: Holt, 1933. 41. Erlich V. Russian formalism. 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton

and Co, 1965. 42. Trubetzkoy NS. Grundz~ige der Phonologie. In: Travaux du

Cerele Linguistique de Prague. Vol. VII. Prague: Jednota 6eskoslovensk3~ch matematikfi a fysikfi, 1939. Reprint, G6t- tingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962.

43. Jagi6 V. Korespondencija Vatroslava Jagi6a. Vol. 1. Za- greb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti , 1953:300.

44. Trubetzkoy NS. N. S. Trubetzkoy's letters and notes. Ja- kobson R et al., eds. The Hague: Mouton and Co, 1975.

45. Haiisler F. Phonetik und Phonologie bei Baudouin de Courtenay und seiner Nachfolge. Halle, F.R.G.: VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1968.

46. De Graaf T. The development of phonetic sciences in the Netherlands and the First International Congress of Pho- netic Science. In: de Graaf T, ed. Phonetic sciences in the Netherlands. Past and present. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris Publications Holland, 1983:10-22.

47. Fermi L. Illustrious immigrants. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press, 1968.

48. Vachek J. The linguistic school of Prague. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1966.

49. H~ila B. Uvedeni do fonetiky (e,(tiny na obecn~ fonetick~m z(tkladO. Prague: Nakladatelstvi ~eskoslovensk6 akademie v6d, 1962.

50. Hammerich LL, Jakobson R, Zwirner E, eds. Form and substance. Phonetic and linguistic papers presented to Eli Fischer-JCrgensen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1971.

51. Malmberg B. The linguistic basis of phonetics. In: Malmberg B, ed. Manual o f phonetics . Amste rdam: Hol land, 1970:1-16.

52. Cooper FS. Some reflections on speech research. In: Mac- Neilage PF, ed. The production of speech. New York: Springer, 1983:275-90. "

53. Flanagan JL. Communication Acoustics. In: Millman S, ed. A history of engineering and science in the Bell system.

Communication Sciences (1925-1980). AT&T Bell Labora- tories, 1984:93-140.

54. Lehiste I. Readings in acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts: M.I.T. Press: 1967.

55. Fant G. Acoustic analysis and synthesis of speech with applications to Swedish [Reprint]. Ericsson Technics No. 1. 1959.

56. Jakobson R, Pomorska K. Dialogues. Cambridge, Massa- chusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1983.

57. Jakobson R, Fant CGM, Halle M. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Technical report no. 13 of M.I.T. Acoustics Lab- oratory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1952 (1961).

58. Baudouin de Courtenay J. O prawach glosowych. Rocznik slawistyczny 1910;3:1-57.

59. Baudouin de Courtenay J. Charakterystyka psychologiczna jqzyka polskiego. In: J¢zyk polski i jego historja z uwzl#d- nienem innych jqzyk6w na ziemiach polskich. Part 1. Kra- k6w: Akademia Umiej~tnosci, 1915:154-226.

60. Mugdan J. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), Leben und Werk. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1984.

61. Sharadzenidze TS. Lingvisticheskaja teorija IA Boduena de Kurtene iee mesto v jazykoznanii XIX-XX vekov. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka ," 1980.

62. Hockett CF. A system of descriptive phonology. Language 1942;18:3-21.

63. Hockett CF. A manual of phonology. Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics. Vol. XI. Bal- timore: Waverly Press, 1955.

64. Pike KL. Phonetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1943.

65. Harris Z. Simultaneous components in phonology. Lan- guage 1944;20:181-205.

66. Harris Z. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1951.

67. Bloch B. Studies in colloquial Japanese IV. Phonemics. Lan- guage 1950;26:86-125.

68. Fant G. The acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague: Mouton and Co, 1960.

69. Fant G. Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, Massachu- setts: M.I.T. Press, 1973.

70. Jones LG. Acoustic patterns of the Russian vowels [Disser- tation]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1952.

71. Halle M. The Russian consonants. A phonemic and acous- tical investigation [Dissertation]. Cambridge, Massachu- setts: Harvard University, 1954.

72. Halle M. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton and Co, 1959.

73. Flanagan JL. From the doctoral thesis defense of C. Gunnar M. Fant. Verbatim remarks of the principal opponent, in: Lindblom B, Ohman S, eds. Frontiers of speech communication research. London: Academic Press, 1979:3-15.

74. Broch O. Slavische Phonetik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter 's Universit~itsbuchhandlung, 1911.

75. Fischer-JCrgensen E. What can the new methods of acoustic phonetics contribute to linguistics? In: Sivertsen E, ed. Pro- ceedings o f the Eighth International Congress o f Linguists. Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1958:433-78.

76. Fant CGM. Modern instruments and methods for acoustic studies of speech. In: Sivertsen E, ed. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists. Oslo: Oslo Uni- versity Press, 1958:282-358.

77. Avanesov RI. Ocherki russkoj dialektologii. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1949.

78. Thomson AI. Foneticheskie etjudy. Russkij Filologicheskij Vestn 1905;54:199-244.

79. Shcherba LV. Sub'ektivnyj i ob'ektivnyj metod v fonetike. Izv Otdelenija Russkago Jazyka Slovesnosti lmperatorskoj



Akademii Nauk 1909;XIV:4. Reprint in: Shcherba LV. lzbrannye raboty po jazykoznaniju i fonetike. Vol. I. Lenin- grad: Izdatel 'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1958:110-6.

80. Thomson AI. Po povodu stat'ji L. V. Shcherby "Sub'jektivnyj i ob'jektivnyj metod v fonet ike." Izv Otdelenija Russkago Jazyka Slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk 1911 ;XVI(3/4): 143-50.

81. T h o m s o n AI. L. V. S h c h e r b a , Russk ie g lasnye v kachestvennom und kolichestvennom otnoshenii . . . IRe- view]. Arch Slavische Philol 1913;34:560-78.

82. Shcherba LV. Einige Bemerkungen zu Scerba's "Russische Vokale," veranlasst durch die Rezension von A. Thomson. Arch Slavische Philol 1914;35:563-74.

83. Thomson AI. Reply to Shcherba 1913. Arch Slavische Philol 1914;35:574-7.

84. Rozwadowski J. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay. Jqzyk Polski 1929;14:164-70. J. Rozwadowski: Wyb6r pism [Reprint].

Vol. 3. Warszawa: Pafistwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1960: 260-5.

85. Peterson GE, Shoup JE. A physiological theory of phonetics. J Speech Hear Res 1966;9:5-67.

86. Peterson GE, Shoup JE. The elements of an acoustic phonetic theory. J Speech Hear Res 1966;9:68-99.

87. Peterson GE, Shoup JE. Glossary of terms from the physiological and acoustic phonetic theories. J Speech Hear Res 1966 ;9:100-20.

88. Fischer-JCrgensen E. Phonometry. Phonetica 1964;11:144- 54.

89. Fischer-JCrgensen E. Review of E. and K. Zwirner Grund- lagen der phonomet r i schen Linguis t ik . Phone t i ca 1985;42:198-213.

90. Sapir E. Sound patterns in language. Language 1925;1:37- 51. In: Mandelbaum E, ed. Selected writings [Reprint]. Berkeley: University of California, 1949:33--45.


l.v. shcherba and the concept of linguistic experimental phonetics

Documents