You are on page 1of 9

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) 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 46 47 53 60 84 86 86

1941 1942 1943 1949 1956 1980 1982 1982

going to the USA teaching in New York (-1946) teaching at Columbia University obtaining a professorial Chair at Harvard University, also be an Institute Professor at MIT. be president of the Linguistic Society of America receiving the international Prize for Philology and Linguistics. receiving the Hegel Prize 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


born in Moscow studying ethnography and ethnology publishing Finno-Ugric Folklore graduated from high school, entering Moscow University. graduated from Moscow university with a M.A. Studying at Leipzig for PhD October Revolution occurred. Fleeing Moscow to Caucasus 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) 1 13 15 18 23 27 28 1890 1903 1905 1908 1913 1917 1918

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
1. Vocalic/Nonvocalic Distinguishes vowels and vowel-like sounds from nonvocalic sounds like stops and fricatives. Distinguishes sounds with low energy and relatively substantial obstruction in the vocal tract from nonconsonantal sounds; thus, for example, a typical vowel can be considered vocalic and

2. Consonantal/ Nonconsonantal

nonconsonantal, an approximant such as lateral both vocalic and consonantal. Refers to the acoustic spectrum and distinguishes sounds with energy concentrated in the central region of the spectrum from those with a more diffuse spread of energy.

3. Compact/Diffuse

4. Tense/Lax 5. Voiced/Voiceless 6. Nasal/Oral 7. Discontinuous/ Continuant 8. Strident/Mellow Distinguishes noisy sounds like sibilant [s] from more mellow fricatives. Refers to the higher rate of energy discharge in glottalized sounds and therefore distinguishes ejectives from pulmonic sounds. Refers to the acoustic spectrum and distinguishes sounds with more energy in the 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 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 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.

9. Checked/Unchecked

10. Grave/Acute

11. Flat/Plain

12. Sharp/Plain

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.

Prague Linguistic Circle


The Prague Linguistic Circle (French: Cercle linguistique de Prague; Czech: Prask lingvistick krouek) or Prague school was an influential group of literary critics and linguists who came together in Prague with the common desire to create a new approach to linguistics. The most well-known period of the Circle is between 1926, its official launch, and the beginning of World War II, the time when Prague offered hope of freedom anddemocracy for artists and scholars in Central Europe. Their spirit of collective activity, vision of a synthesis of knowledge, and emphasis on a socially defined commitment to scholarship defined and motivated the Prague Circle. Along with its first president, Vilm Mathesius, they included Russian migrs such as Roman Jakobson, Nikolai Trubetzkoy, and Sergei Karcevsky, as well as the famous Czech literary scholars Ren Wellek and Jan Mukaovsk. Their work constituted a radical departure from the classical structural position of Ferdinand de Saussure. They suggested that their methods of studying the function of speech sounds could be applied both synchronically, to a language as it exists, and diachronically, to a language as it changes. The functionality of elements of language and the importance of its social function were key aspects of its research program. They developed methods of structuralist literary analysis during the years 19281939. After the war, the Circle no longer functioned as a meeting of linguists, but the Prague School continued as a major force in linguistic functionalism (distinct from the Copenhagen school or English linguists following the work of J. R. Firth and later Michael Halliday). It has had significant continuing influence on linguistics and semiotics.

History
A diverse group of Czech, Russian, Ukrainian, and German scholars in the mid-1920s found themselves together in Prague, Czechoslovakiathe "isles of freedom and democracy in Central Europe" (Doubravov 1999). They came together with the common desire to create a new approach to linguistics. Their collaboration was the foundation of the Prague Linguistic Circle. In 1920, Roman Jakobson moved from Moscow to Prague to continue his doctoral studies. There he met Vilem Mathesius and other Czech and Russian linguists, including his colleague, Nikolai Trubetzkoy. Also among them was Sergei Kartsevsky, a professor of Russian at Geneva University who introduced the work of influential Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure to Prague. These linguists were soon joined by others including Jan Mukarovsky. They decided to establish a discussion group and, on October 26, 1926, following a lecture by Henrik Becker entitled Der europaische Sprachgeist, the Prague Linguistic Circle held its first official meeting (Doubravov 1999). Their meetings began irregularly, but soon developed into a consistent schedule of lectures and discussions. Their first public presentations were in 1929 at the First International Congress of Slavicists held in Prague, published in the first volume of the series Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Later lectures included presentations by such scholars as Edmund Husserl and Rudolf Carnap. Altogether, the Circle members included eight Czech, five Russian, two French, and one German, with one Englishman who was teaching at the University of Brno loosely connected (Doubravov 1999). The Circle concerned itself not only with linguistics but also with aesthetics, literary theory, ethnography, and musicology. In 1935 they began publication of a magazine entitled Le mot et l'art du mot (Word and Art of the Word). The ideal of collective activity, the vision of a synthesis of knowledge, and an emphasis on a socially defined commitment to scholarship which were part of "the spirit of the age" became the foundation of the Prague Circle's program (Toman 1995). Their continued presentations at conferences and publications made it one of the most influential schools of linguistic thought of the twentieth century. However, the occupation of Czechoslovakia was almost the death of the Circle: Jakobson emigrated to the United States, Trubetskoy died in 1942, and Malthesius died in 1945.

Vilm Mathesius
Vilm Mathesius (August 3, 1882 April 12, 1945) was a Czech linguist, who lived and worked in Prague during the early part of the twentieth century, when the city, and indeed the nation of Czechoslovakia, functioned as a haven for intellectuals in Central Europe. His early work pioneered the synthesis of the synchronic approach to studying a language as it exists at one point in time, and the diachronic approach studying the history and development of a language over time. In this way, Mathesius was able to maintain the importance of function in communication, and was not limited to Ferdinand de Saussure's static structural model of language. In 1920, Mathesius met Roman Jakobson and other Russian migrs and came into contact with a different tradition. Together with other linguists including Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Mathesius developed "topical structure analysis" as a method of studying the semantic relationships between sentence topics and the overall topic of the discourse. In this way Mathesius' work maintained a dynamic, or interactive, component, as the listener or reader is in a continuous relationship with the text, interpreting each individual sentence or unit in the context of the whole discourse.

Roman Jakobson
Roman Osipovich Jakobson (Russian, ) (October 11, 1896 July 18, 1982), was a Russian linguist and literary critic, one of the most important intellectuals in the humanities during the twentieth century. He began as a founding member of the Moscow Linguistic Circle, one of two groups responsible for the development of Russian Formalism, which influenced the entire field of literary criticism. Jakobson then moved to Prague, where he became a co-founder of the Prague Linguistic Circle. One of his most enduring contribution was his development of the model of the communication theory of language based on his delineation of language functions.

Nikolai Trubetzkoy
Prince Nikolay Sergeyevich Trubetskoy (Russian: (or Nikolai Trubetzkoy) (April 15, 1890 June 25, 1938) was a Russian linguist whose teachings formed a nucleus of the Prague School of structural linguistics. Having graduated from Moscow University (1913), Trubetskoy delivered lectures there until the revolution in 1917. He left Moscow, moving several times before finally taking the chair of Slavic Philology at the University of Vienna (19221938). On settling in Vienna, he became a geographically distant yet significant member of the Prague Linguistic School. Trubetzkoy's chief contributions to linguistics lie in the domain of phonology, particularly in analyses of the phonological systems of individual languages and in search for general and universal phonological laws. His magnum opus, Grundzge der Phonologie (Principles of Phonology), issued posthumously, was translated into virtually all main European and Asian languages. In this book he famously defined the phoneme as the smallest distinctive unit within the structure of a given language. This work was crucial in establishing phonology as a discipline separate from phonetics. He is widely considered to be the founder of morphophonology.

Ren Wellek
Ren Wellek (August 22, 1903 November 10, 1995) was a Czech-American comparative literary critic. Wellek, along with Erich Auerbach, is remembered as an eminent product of the Central European philological tradition. He studied literature at the Charles University in Prague, and was active among the Prague School linguists, before moving to teach in the School of Slavonic and East European Studies in 1935, later part of University College, London.

Jan Mukaovsk
Jan Mukaovsk (November 11, 1891 February 8, 1975) was a Czech literary theoretician and aesthetician. During his time as professor at the Charles University of Prague he became well known for his association with early structuralism as well as with the Prague Linguistic Circle, and for his development of the ideas of Russian formalism. Mukaovsk had a profound influence on structuralist theory of literature comparable to that of Roman Jakobson.

You might also like