AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE

E. F. K. KOERNER, General Editor

Series IV - CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY Advisory Editorial Board

Henning Andersen (Albany, N.Y.); Raimo Anttila (Los Angeles) Tomaz V. Gamkrelidze (Tiflis); Klaus J. Kohler (Kiel)

J. Peter Mäher (Hamburg);Ernst Pulgram (Ann Arbor, Mich.) E. Wyn Roberts (Vancouver, B.C.); Danny Steinberg (Honolulu)

Volume 1

E. F. K. Koerner, ed. The Transformational-Generative Paradigm

and Modern Linguistic Theory

THE

TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE PARADIGM

AND

MODERN LINGUISTIC THEORY

edited by E. F. K. KOERNER

with the assistance of

JOHN ODMARK and J. HOWARD SHAW

AMSTERDAM / JOHN BENJAMINS B.V. 1975

© Copyright 1975 - John Benjamins B.V. ISBN 90 272 0901 4/90 272 0902 2

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

C O N T E N T S

Preface v

I. SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

Dwight B o l i n g e r : M e a n i n g a n d F o r m : Some f a l l a c i e s o f a s e m a n t i c g r a m m a r 3

Adam Makkai: S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l S o l u t i o n s t o U n b r i d g e a b l e G a p s i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e G r a m m a r 37

Fred C. C. Peng: N o n - U n i q u e n e s s i n t h e T r e a t m e n t o f t h e S e p a r a b i l -i t y o f S e m a n t i c s a n d S y n t a x i n C o m p o u n d E x p r e s s i o n s 87

II. PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY

Hsin-I Hsieh: How G e n e r a t i v e i s P h o n o l o g y ? (On l i s t i n g p h o n o l o g -i c a l s u r f a c e f o r m s i n t h e l e x i c o n ) 109

Michael Kenstowicz: R u t e A p p l i c a t i o n i n P r e - G e n e r a t i v e A m e r i c a n P h o n o l o g y 145

Leonhard L i p k a : P r o l e g o m e n a to " P r o l e g o m e n a t o a T h e o r y o f W o r d -F o r m a t i o n " : , A r e p l y t o M o r r i s H a l l e 175

Royal Skousen: On t h e N a t u r e o f M o r p h o p h o n e m i c A l t e r n a t i o n . . .185

Danny D. Steinberg and Robert K. Krohn: T h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l V a l i d -i t y o f C h o m s k y a n d H a l l e ' s V o w e l S h i f t R u l e 233

III. LINGUISTIC THEORY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE

Raimo A n t t i l a : G e n e r a l i z a t i o n , A b d u c t i o n , E v o l u t i o n , a n d L a n -g u a g e 263

Bruce L. Derwing and Peter R. H a r r i s : W h a t i s a G e n e r a t i v e G r a m ­m a r ? 297

Edward R. Maxwell: On t h e I n a d e q u a c y o f t h e T r e e a s a F o r m a l C o n -c e p t i n L i n g u i s t i c A n a l y s e s 315

VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS

Walburga von R a f f l e r Engel: L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n a n d Common S e n s e 321

Uhlan V. S l a g l e : On t h e N a t u r e o f L a n g u a g e a n d M i n d 329

IV. EPISTEMOLOGY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS

L y l e Campbell: E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l D i l e m m a s a n d t h e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l -G e n e r a t i v e P a r a d i g m 351

Del l Hymes: P r e - W a r P r a g u e S c h o o l a n d P o s t - W a r A m e r i c a n A n t h r o -p o l o g i c a l U n g u i s t i c s 359

Esa Itkonen: T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G r a m m a r a n d t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i ­e n c e 381

Biographical Notes 447

Index of Names 457

PROLEGOMENA TO 1

PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY OF WORD FORMATIONf

A REPLY TO MORRIS HALLE

LEONHARD LIPKA

1.1. Research w i t h i n the TG Paradigm has c o n t r i b u t e d a g r e a t d e a l

to a new awareness of problems of methodology in l i n g u i s t i c s . Such a

Statement w i l l be disputed by nobody. I t seems, however, that c e r t a i n

methods of t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o l a r s h i p have been l a r g e l y abandoned bymany

researchers who work i n the TG framework, and have been replaced b y o t h -

er l e s s commendable procedures. I t used to be an accepted p r i n c i p l e

t h a t reading should come before w r i t i n g and P u b l i s h i n g , i . e . , one had

to make sure before c l a i m i n g to have discovered something, whetheroth-

e r s , working i n the same f i e l d , had not already come to the same or

s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s . Admittedly, t h i s i s much more d i f f i c u l t today than

i t was f i f t y years ago. But i t seems to me that i t i s even more impor-

ta n t now, at l e a s t to attempt to f o l l o w t h i s p r i n c i p l e , p r e c i s e l y be-

cause t h i s i s the only way to improve the q u a l i t y o f the t e r r i f y i n g

f l o o d of published and semi-published l i t e r a t u r e i n l i n g u i s t i c s , and

at the same time reduce i t s q u a n t i t y .

1.2. The purpose of p u b l i c a t i o n i s to prevent d u p l i c a t i o n of r e -

search and e f f o r t , but a l s o to allow f o r e q u a l l y p u b l i c c r i t i c i s m w h i c h

i d e a l l y should advance the progress of s c h o l a r s h i p and increase general

knowledge. To achieve t h i s e f f e c t c r i t i c i s m does not n e c e s s a r i l y have

to be sympathetic, but may a l s o c a s t doubt on very fundamental assump-

t i o n s . A case i n point i s the s o - c a l l e d Chomskyan r e v o l u t i o n i t s e l f .

S t r a n gely enough, however, once a r e v o l u t i o n has been s u c c e s s f u l , the

r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s turned establishment themselves r a r e l y accept basi c

176 LEONHARD LIPKA

c r i t i c i s m but only admit ' c o n s t r u c t i v e ' comments. The f o l l o w i n g remarks

may serve as an i l l u s t r a t i o n . An e a r l i e r and s h o r t e r version was sub-

mitted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n in L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y immediately a f t e r H a l l e ' s

(1973) a r t i c l e had appeared i n the same J o u r n a l . P u b l i c a t i o n was de-

c l i n e d - as an anonymous ref e r e e put i t - because: "This appeärs to be

inappropriate as a squib since i t i s i n d i r e c t l y an attack on the s i g -

n i f i c a n c e of H a l l e ' s work. The tone i s not a t a l l c o n s t r u c t i v e . "

2.1. A f t e r excludingand then r e i n t r o d u c i n g semantics i n i t s ear-

l i e r stage of development, TG theory l a t e r neglected the morphological

component ( c f . Kastovsky 1971:3), and now seems to be i n the process of

r e d i s c o v e r i n g another aspect of language: word formation. H a l l e ' s (1973)

a r t i c l e P r o l e g o m e n a to a T h e o r y o f W o r d F o r m a t i o n i s symptomatic of t h i s

phase. He b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s f i e l d "has been studied only to a very l i m ­

i t e d extent" and hopes "to a t t r a c t others i n t o research on t h i s t o p i c "

(p.3). One wonders i f t h i s i n v i t a t i o n i s addressed to c e r t a i n researchers

who have already accomplished a considerable amount of basic work i n the

f i e l d . Amongst those names which immediately spr i n g to mind i n t h i s con-

t e x t one might mention s e v e r a l , beginning with Botha, B r e k l e , C o s e r i u ,

i n c l u d i n g D o k u l i l , Erben, F l e i s c h e r , Gauger, Gruber, Hansen, Hatcher,

Henzen, Kastovsky, K o z i o l , Lees, Ljung, M a l k i e l , Marchand, M o r c i n i e c ,

Mötsch, Neuhaus, Rohrer, S t e i n , and f i n i s h i n g with Weinreich and Zimmer.

This research has been openly published i n book-form or Journals and i s

not confined to mimeographed papers which are only a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n a

closed c i r c l e . The above l i s t can e a s i l y be augmented from the exten­

s i v e b i b l i o g r a p h y i n Marchand (1969) and from S t e i n (1973). H a l l e only

mentions Chapin, Jespersen, and an unpublished paper by S i e g e l . Appar-

e n t l y , he completely ignores the f a c t t h a t Marchand (amongst others) has

developed a comprehensive theory of word-formation, and has a p p l i e d

t h i s theory to a f u l l - s c a l e d e s c r i p t i o n of E n g l i s h word-formation. The

f i r s t e d i t i o n of t h i s Standard work appeared i n 1960 and was reviewed

i n a number of Jour n a l s . Cf. Brekle-Lipka (1968), Marchand (1969), L i p -

ka (1971), Pennanen (1972), Kastovsky (1974).

PROLEGOMENA TO 'PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY OF WORD FORMATION 177

2.2.1, H a l l e S t a r t s o f f with the clan.m that Speakers of Engl i s h

know that a d j e c t i v e s such as t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l are "composed of the mor-

phemes" t v a n s - f o r m - a t - i o n - a l and that " f a c t s l i k e those" have

to be fo r m a l l y represented i n a theory of word-formation. The proposed

segmentation i s by no means a ' f a c t ' but must be based - e i t h e r i m p l i c -

i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y - on a theory, as i s the case with any a n a l y t i c a l

procedure i n l i n g u i s t i c s , of which segmentation of utterances or words

i n t o morphemes (morphs) i s one of the most important instances charac-

t e r i z i n g a whole era of l i n g u i s t i c s , v i z . s t r u c t u r a l i s m . For example

anyone only s l i g h t l y familiär with the methods of s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i v e

l i n g u i s t i c s would probably question t r e a t i n g - a t - i n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l

(or - i - i n s e r e n d i p i t y which H a l l e discusses l a t e r ) as a morpheme o r a n

allomorph 1 but would p r e f e r a segment - a t i o n as a l i n g u i s t i c s i g n . I t i s

t r u e , though, that " s t r u c t u r a l i s m " was not a mono l i t h i c block, and that

various " s t r u c t u r a l i s t s " held d i f f e r e n t views a t d i f f e r e n t times. This

i s a poi n t that i s often f o r g o t t e n when " t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s " t a l k

about 'taxonomic s t r u c t u r a l i s m 1 . Of course, i t a l s o a p p l i e s to unspeci-

f i e d general Statements about 'TG grammar'. Any improvement on Standard

work and the great mass of informed opinion i s c e r t a i n l y to be welcomed.

However, one might expect such developments to be j u s t i f i e d a gainst

other work i n the f i e l d . For a sketch of my views on the 'morpheme' ( c f .

3.2.2.). H a l l e f u r t h e r suggests t h a t , f o r example, the entry f o r w r i t e

must contain the information that i t belongs to the 'non-Latinate' part

of the vocabulary. This Observation i s handled on a higher l e v e l of

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n by Marchand's d i s t i n c t i o n between word-formation on a

native and on a f o r e i g n b a s i s .

2.2.2. The " i d i o s y n c r a t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l words"

are discussed a t length by H a l l e . This t o p i c i s the subject of a whole

book (Botha, 1968) on the f u n c t i o n of the l e x i c o n i n a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l -

Of course this is not to be confused with - a t e as in c o n s u l t a t e , p a s -s i o n a t e y a c e t a t e , h y p h e n a t e ; cf. Marchand (1969:254-59). For - a t i o n see Marchand (1969:259-61).

178 LEONHARD LIPKA

generative grammar. S t a r t i n g from Chomsky's hypothesis about t h e l e x i c o n

as "the füll set of i r r e g u l a r i t i e s o f the language". Botha t r e a t s nomi­

nal Compounds i n A f r i k a a n s i n great d e t a i l and postulates a phonologi-

ca l d i c t i o n a r y and a phonological matching r u l e . The t h e o r e t i c a l model

proposed by Botha i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by Weinreich's thought ( c f .

Botha 1968:245; Weinreich 1966:445; 1969:59, 74). H a l l e ( 4 f . ) d i s t i n -

guishes three types of id i o s y n c r a s y i n word-formation: a) semantic, b)

phon o l o g i c a l , and c) r e s t r i c t i o n s of p r o d u c t i v i t y , and suggests account-

ing f o r them with 'a s p e c i a l f i l t e r 1 through which words have to pass

a f t e r being generated by word-formation r u l e s . This S o l u t i o n e x a c t l y

corresponds 2 to the p o s t u l a t i o n of an 'idiom comparison r u l e ' ( l a t e r

'matching r u l e ' ) f o r a) i n Weinreich's 1969 model and the 'phonologi­

cal matching r u l e ' f o r b) i n Botha (1968). The r e s t r i c t i o n s under c) -

or more p r e c i s e l y a l l three types of r e s t r i c t i o n s on r u l e s : semantic,

p h o n o l o g i c a l , p r o d u c t i v i t y - can be accounted f o r i n another t h e o r e t i ­

c a l framework by Coseriu's concept of 'norm' ( c f . Marchand 1969:17,57;

S t e i n 1971; Neuhaus 1971). Although Weinreich does not c l a i m that h i s

theory, published i n 1969 but developed and proposed e a r l i e r ( l e c t u r e s

d e l i v e r e d during the 1966 L i n g u i s t i c I n s t i t u t e a t UCLA), solves a l l the

Problems of word d e r i v a t i o n , h i s concepts of a 'simplex d i c t i o n a r y ' , a

'complex d i c t i o n a r y ' , an 'idiom 1 i s t 1 , ' f a m i l i a r i t y r a t i n g s ' , and a

'matching r u l e ' seem to be extremely useful and important. They are

c a n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d i n Lipka (1972; esp.84ff., 1 2 8 f f . ) .

2.2.3. Discussing the d i s t i n c t i o n between " d e r i v a t i o n a l morpho-

logy" H a l l e (6) s t a t e s : "I know of no reasons why the l i s t ofmorphemes

should not inc l u d e a l s o the i n f l e c t i o n a l a f f i x e s " . At l e a s t two reasons

might have been found i n Mötsch (1962): the place of i n f l e c t i o n a l mor-

2 Cf. Weinreich (1969:74): "The role of the f i l t e r i n g d e v i c e is to differentiate, among possible words, those that are established from those that are not" [my emphasis, LL]. Cf. the notions 'possible lexical items' and 'gap in the lexicon', both used currently in Gen­erative Semantics.

PROLEGOMENA TO 'PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY OF WORD FORMATION' 179

phemes i n the c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e of comp!ex l e x i c a l items, and the

d i f f e r e n t degrees of combination p o t e n t i a l of l e x i c a l and grammatical

morphemes. I n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes i n E n g l i s h and German are u s u a l l y

placed at the end of words, a f t e r a l l d e r i v a t i v e morphemes have been

added. Combination with the former i s much l e s s r e s t r i c t e d than with

d e r i v a t i o n a l S u f f i x e s . Mötsch (1962:39) a l s o sets up r u l e s e x a c t l y l i k e

the "word formation r u l e s " suggested i n H a l l e (16). The r e l a t i o n s h i p

between i n f l e x i o n and word-formation i s treated i n great d e t a i l w i t h i n

the framework of Chomsky-Halle's S o u n d P a t t e r n o f E n g l i s h i n Wurzel

(1970:15-104). H a l l e mentions that word-formation r u l e s w i l l have to

include information on s e l e c t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s . He seems hardly aware of

the d i f f i c u l t i e s of e s t a b l i s h i n g the c o r r e c t s e l e c t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s

even f o r very simple everyday words, or of the problem whether 'se l e c ­

t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n ' as such i s a j u s t i f i a b l e concept i n l i n g u i s t i c s . See

the review of various l i n g u i s t i c judgments on the s e l e c t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s

of e a t i n Lipka (1972:48-51). The p o s s i b i l i t y of t r e a t i n g such r e s t r i c ­

t i o n s with the notion of 'presupposition' i s not mentioned by H a l l e .

3.1. A theory of word-formation must incl u d e an explanation of

the f a c t that complex l e x i c a l items d i f f e r s e m a n t i c a l l y from the sum of

t h e i r components. This could be done wi t h the concept of ' l e x i c a l i z a t i o n '

which e n t a i l s the a d d i t i o n of semantic f e a t u r e s . Such an approach i s

sketched i n Lipka (1971). The term i s not used here i n the way i t i s

used now w i t h i n the framework of Generative Semantics, i . e . f o r the

i n s e r t i o n of l e x i c a l items, or the surface r e a l i z a t i o n o f a c o n f i g u r a -

t i o n of atomic p r e d i c a t e s . I t i s r a t h e r meant to i n d i c a t e t h a t complex

l e x i c a l items, once they are created from sma l l e r elements and used r e -

peatedly, can become lexemes i n t h e i r own r i g h t , w ith a l o s s of motiva-

t i o n (and perhaps a l s o a n a l y s a b i l i t y ) , and acquire c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c se­

mantic f e a t u r e s . L e x i c a l i z a t i o n i s t i e d up very c l o s e l y w ith 'hypo-

s t a t i z a t i o n ' , but the l a t t e r process a l s o a f f e c t s simple l e x i c a l items.

The l e x i c a l item l e x i c a l i z a t i o n i t s e l f may serve as an example. As I

use i t here, I f o l l o w the t r a d i t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d i n Marchand's C a t e g o -

180 LEONHARD LIPKA

r i e s i n 1960. Both t h i s meaning of l e x i c a l i z a t i o n and the one found i n

Generative Semantics can be s a i d to go back to an underlying sentence

'Something becomes (a) l e x i c a l ( i tem)' or probably b e t t e r from i t s c a u s -

a t i v e d e r i v a t i v e 'Someone causes something to become (a) l e x i c a l ( item)'.

However, i n Generative Semantics, the underlying pro-form s o m e t h i n g r e ­

f e r s to p r e l e x i c a l elements, or atomic p r e d i c a t e s , w h i l e i n Marchand's

and my own one i t r e f e r s to the morphemes as elements of surface s t r u c -

ture which make up a new l e x i c a l item that becomes a semantic u n i t .

'Surface s t r u c t u r e ' i s not used here i n the s p e c i f i c t e c h n i c a l sense as

defined i n some tr a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e model, but r e f e r r i n g to any-

thing d i r e c t l y observable as opposed to a more a b s t r a c t 'underlying

s t r u c t u r e ' .

3.2.1. I t i s no s e c r e t that the process of l e x i c a l I n s e r t i o n i s a

mystery f a r from being solved i n the framework of I n t e r p r e t a t i v e or Gen­

e r a t i v e Semantics. Since McCawley's a r t i c l e " L e x i c a l I n s e r t i o n i n

a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar w i t h o u t Deep S t r u c t u r e " (1968) -

which despite i t s t i t l e does not c l a r i f y but only r a i s e s the issue -

r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e progress has been made. I suggest that the concept

of l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n should be supplemented or replaced by the notion

of MORPHEMIC INSERTION. For various reasons i t i s impossible f o r me to

describe here my views on t h i s problem, or to develop an a l t e r n a t i v e

theory of word-formation. A few h i n t s have been given above. As a Sketch,

I can add that I l a r g e l y agree with the conclusions drawn i n Kastovsky

(1973), and therefore - as i n Lipka (1972) - embrace many of the assump-

tions of Generative Semantics. I f , however, as Kastovsky and I b e l i e v e ,

p r e l e x i c a l semantic elements such as CAUSE DO BECOME NEG MILITARY are

converted i n t o complex l e x i c a l items such as d e m i l i t a r i z e , and the pre­

l e x i c a l element (or atomic p r e d i c a t e ) "MILITARY i s replaced by the ad-

j e c t i v e m i l i t a r y * the f e a t u r e BECOME NEG by the p r e f i x d e - 9 which i s

attached to m i l i t a r y , and the features CAUSE DO by the s u f f i x - i z e "

(Kastovsky 1973:290), then i t must be morphemes that are i n s e r t e d , not

PROLEGOMENA TO 'PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY OF WORD FORMATION' 181

l e x i c a l i t e m s . 3 T h i s , of course, means a ret u r n to surface s t r u c t u r e ,

although, not at the expense of ne g l e c t i n g underlying s t r u c t u r e ( c f .

Kastovsky 1971:8f.). As opposed to Chomsky and H a l l e , one need not re-

di s c o v e r surface s t r u c t u r e i f one has never given i t up.

3.2.2. At t h i s p oint I should l i k e to sketch b r i e f l y my views on

the 'morpheme'. I b e l i e v e that morphemes are the sma l l e s t l i n g u i s t i c

s i g n s , i . e . , meaningful observable segments i n which elements of con­

t e n t (e.g., semantic f e a t u r e s ) are r e l a t e d i n an a r b i t r a r y way to e l e ­

ments of expression. As opposed to some v a r i e t i e s of s t r u c t u r a l i s m I

do not r e q u i r e allomorphs, i . e . , p h o n o l o g i c a l l y or morphologically

conditioned v a r i a n t s of a morpheme, to have i d e n t i c a l or even s i m i l a r

phonic shape. Thus, / i z , z, s, an/, and $ are a l l considered allomorphs

of the same p l u r a l morpheme i n E n g l i s h ( c f . L i p k a , 1969). In my view

'morphemes' a r e , t h e r e f o r e , e s s e n t i a l l y semantic u n i t s . This also be­

comes evident from my adoption of the concept of 'zero' i n l i n g u i s t i c s ,

s i n c e 'zero-allomorphs' and 'zero-morphemes' have no phonic expression

at a l l ( c f . Kastovsky 1968, esp.31-53). Following Weinreich (1966:432f.),

I b e l i e v e i t i s useful and d e s c r i p t i v e l y adequate to d i s t i n g u i s h between

'major' and 'minor c l a s s e s of morphemes', which roughly corresponds to

the more t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n between ' l e x i c a l ' and 'grammatical'

morphemes. I disagree with Weinreich (1966:433) on the nature of cate-

g o r i a l f e a tures such as [+Noun, +Adjective] which he believes to be

"semantic i n the füll sense of the word". Both c l a s s e s of morphemes

then, i n my view, can be represented as a t r i p l e t of f e a t u r e s , which

could be termed 'phonological', ' c a t e g o r i a l ' ( a l s o i n c l u d i n g s y n t a c t i c

i n f o r m a t i o n ) , and 'semantic' f e a t u r e s . I am f u l l y aware of the f a c t

that t h i s i s not s u f f i c i e n t f o r a complete s p e c i f i c a t i o n of l e x i c a l

e n t r i e s f o r morphemes i n some type of d i c t i o n a r y or l e x i c o n .

Kastovsky's particular analysis in which d e - replaces BECOME NEGmay be questioned i f one believes that in the inchoatives b l a o k / e n , r e d d / en, w a r m / 0 (which are homonymous with the corresponding causatives) the suffix - e n and the zero-morpheme represent BECOME.

182 LEONHARD LIPKA

3.3. The d i s t i n c t i o n between the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t and the

l e x i c a l i s t hypothesis (not to mention Chomsky's conversion from the

former to the l a t t e r p o s i t i o n ) i s not mentioned once i n H a l l e ' s a r t i c l e .

This i s a l l the more s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e the reasons why Chomsky adopted

the l e x i c a l i s t p o s i t i o n f o r "derived nominals" (which are never e x p l i c -

i t l y defined) i n 1968 ( f i r s t i n p r i n t as Chomsky, 1970) are e x a c t l y t h e

same as those which l e d H a l l e to put forward i n h i s P r o l e g o m e n a : seman­

t i c and s y n t a c t i c i d i o s y n c r a s y and r e s t r i c t i o n s on p r o d u c t i v i t y . Chomsky's

a r t i c l e had c i r c u l a t e d i n mimeographed form as Chomsky (1968) but i s

l a b e l l e d Chomsky (1972) i n H a l l e ' s P r o l e g o m e n a , thus inducing the naive

reader to b e l i e v e t h i s to be a recent paper. While s t a t i n g t h a t word-

formation processes "are t y p i c a l l y sporadic and o n l y q u a s i - p r o d u c t i v e "

(Chomsky 1965:184f.), Chomsky i n A s p e c t s s t i l l d e r i v e s r e f u s a l , d e s t r u c -

t i o n from the r e s p e c t i v e verbs by a n o m i n a l i z a t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , be-

cause the process i s s a i d to be productive. This i s a S o l u t i o n which i s

t r u l y w i t h i n the g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l s p i r i t , as i t accounts both

f o r c r e a t i v i t y i n language and i r r e g u l a r i t y i n the s u p e r f i c i a l surface

s t r u c t u r e . I t shows the g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , and, at the

same time, assigns secondary importance to surface phenomena. But even

f o r "quasi-productive processes" such as the formation of h o r r i f y , t e r -

r i f y , t e l e g r a m , p h o n o g r a p h Chomsky i n A s p e c t s a r r i v e s a t the c o n c l u s i o n :

" i t i s c l e a r t h a t from the p o i n t of view of both the semantic and the

phonological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i t i s important to have INTERNAL STRUCTURE

[my emphasis, LL] represented i n these words" (186). In R e m a r k s o n Nom-

i n a l i z a t i o n , however, Chomsky abandons h i s e a r l i e r approach to "derived

nominals". H a l l e n e i t h e r mentions t h i s change of p o s i t i o n nor the Prob­

lems f o r the theory i n v o l v e d .

4.0. An explanation of the phenomena mentioned i n 3.1. and 3.2.1.

i s never s e r i o u s l y attempted i n H a l l e ' s a r t i c l e . The ambiguity of l e x i ­

c a l i z a t i o n , or r a t h e r , the d e r i v a t i o n of the two d i f f e r e n t , but c l o s e l y

r e l a t e d , l e x i c a l items by the same very general d e r i v a t i v e process

could never be explained by anything r e s u l t i n g from H a l l e ' s P r o l e g o m e n a ,

PROLEGOMENA TO 'PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY OF WORD FORMATION' 183

Ce r t a i n extremely productive word-formation processes are not even

touched upon i n h i s paper, such as compounding, p r e f i x a t i o n , and zero-

d e r i v a t i o n ( c f . Marchand 1969:11-127, 129-208, 359-89; Kastovsky 1968).

5. Two questions must be r a i s e d with regard to Ha l l e ' s a r t i c l e .

F i r s t l y , d i d he take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the large amount of basic r e ­

search which had p r e v i o u s l y been done on the subject of word-formation?

Secondly, has H a l l e brought up any problems which have not already been

treated, or proposed any Solution f o r such problems which have not been

of f e r e d elsewhere? I t seems that the answer to both these questions i s

no, and f o r t h i s reason H a l l e ' s remarks cannot be regarded as "Pro­

legomena to a Theory of Word Formation".

REFERENCES

Adams, Valerie. 1973. An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o M o d e r n E n g l i s h W o r d - F o r m a t i o n . (= E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e S e r i e s , 7.) London: Longman.

Botha, Rudolf P. 1968. T h e F u n c t i o n o f t h e L e x i c o n i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G e n e r a t i v e G r a m m a r . The Hague: Mouton.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. A s p e c t s o f t h e T h e o r y o f S y n t a x . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

. 1970. "Remarks on Nominalization". R e a d i n g s i n E n g l i s h T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G r a m m a r ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Ro­senbaum, 184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co. (Repr. in S t u d i e s o n S e m a n t i c s i n G e n e r a t i v e G r a m m a r by Noam Chomsky, 11-61. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.)

Halle. Morris. 1973. "Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation". L i n ­g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 4.3-16.

Kastovsky, Dieter. 1968. O l d E n g l i s h D e v e r b a l S u b s t a n t i v e s D e r i v e d b y M e a n s o f a Z e r o M o r p h e m e . Dissertation, Univ. of Tübingen. (Print-ed., Esslingen/Neckar: B. Langer, 1968.)

. 1971. S t u d i e s i n M o r p h o l o g y : A s p e c t s o f E n g l i s h a n d G e r m a n V e r b I n f l e c t i o n . (= Tübinger Beiträge z u r L i n g u i s t i k , 18.) Tübingen: G. Narr.

. 1973. "Causatives". F o u n d a t i o n s o f L a n g u a g e 10.255-315.

184 LEONHARD LIPKA

Kastovsky, Dieter, ed. 1974. S t u d i e s i n S y n t a x a n d W o r d - F o r m a t i o n : S e -l e c t e d a r t i a l e s o f H a n s M a r c h a n d . Munich: W. Fink.

Lipka, Leonhard. 1969. "Assimilation and Dissimiliation as Regulating Factors in English Morphology". Z e i t s c h r i f t für A n g l i s t i k u n d A m e r ­i k a n i s t i k 17.159-73.

. 1971. "Grammatical Categories, Lexical Items, and Word-Formation". F o u n d a t i o n s o f L a n g u a g e 7.211-38.

. 1972. S e m a n t i c S t r u c t u r e a n d W o r d - F o r m a t i o n : V e r b - p a r t i c l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n C o n t e m p o r a r y E n g l i s h . Munich: W. Fink.

Marchand, Hans. 1969. T h e C a t e g o r i e s a n d T y p e s o f P r e s e n t - D a y E n g l i s h W o r d - F o r m a t i o n : A s y c h r o n i c - d i a c h r o n i c a p p r o a c h . 2nd rev. & enl. ed. Munich: C. H. Beck. (First ed., 1960.)

McCawley, James D. 1968. "Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Gram­mar without Deep Structure". P a p e r s f r o m t h e F o u r t h R e g i o n a l M e e t i n g o f the C h i c a g o L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y ed. by B i l l J. Darden, Charles-James N. Bailey, and Alice Davison, 71-80. Chicago: Univ. of Chica­go; Dept. of Linguistics.

Mötsch, Wolfgang. 1962. "Zur Stellung der 'Wortbildung* in einem forma­len Sprachmodell". S t u d i a G r a m m a t i c a 1.31-50.

Neuhaus, H. Joachim. 1971. Beschränkungen i n d e r G r a m m a t i k d e r W o r t a b ­l e i t u n g e n i m E n g l i s c h e n . Diss., Univ. of Saarbrücken.

Pennanen, Esko. 1972. "Current Views on Word-Formation". N e u p h i l o l o g i ­s c h e M i t t e i l u n g e n 73.292-308.

Stein, Gabriele. 1971. %Primäre u n d sekundäre A d j e k t i v e i m Französischen u n d E n g l i s c h e n . Diss., Univ. of Tübingen. (Printed, Tübingen: Narr, 1971.)

. 1973. E n g l i s h W o r d - F o r m a t i o n o v e r t w o C e n t u r i e s : I n h o n o u r o f H a n s M a r c h a n d o n t h e o c c a s i o n o f h i s s i x t y - f i f t h b i r t h d a y . (= Tü­b i n g e r Beiträge z u r L i n g u i s t i k , 34.) Tübingen: G. Narr.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1966. "Explorations in Semantic Theory". C u r r e n t T r e n d s i n L i n g u i s t i c s ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.3.395-477. The Hague: Mouton. (Sep. ed., with a preface by William Labov, 1972.)

. 1969. "Problems in the Analysis of Idioms". S u b s t a n c e a n d S t r u c t u r e o f L a n g u a g e ed. by Jaan Puhvel, 23-81. Berkeley & Los An­geles: Univ. of California, Press.

Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1970. S t u d i e n z u r d e u t s c h e n L a u t s t r u k t u r . (= S t u d i a g r a m m a t i c a , 8.) Berlin: Akad.-Verlag.

INDEX OF NAMES

A.

Adams, V.: 183 Andersen, H.: 263, 267, 271-74,

276, 279, 293 Anglin, J . M.: 267, 272, 293 Anscombe, G. E. M.: 442, 445 Antti l a , R.: 263-96, 447 Apel, K. 0.: 385, 389, 429,

436n.l5, 439n.39, 440n.46+47, 441

Ardener, F.: 379 Aristotle: 332 Austin, J . L.: 436n.l5 Ayer, A. J.: 385

B.

Bach, E. W.: 38, 56, 84, 87, 105, 173, 424, 441

Bailey, C. J . N.: 141, 236, 357+ n.2

Baron, N.: 267, 271, 294 Bartsch, R.: 294 Beatty, J.: 26 Beck, L. W.: 339, 344 Becker, D. A.: 353, 357 Bergin, T. G.: 445 Berkeley, G.: 385 Berko, J.: 110, 141 Berne, E.: 38

Bever, T. G.: 147, 173, 266, 294, 308, 312

Bierwisch, M.: 265, 296 Bikson, K.: 263n.l Binnick, R. I.: 84 Birnbaum, H.: 59, 84

Bloomfield, L.: 87, 95, 104n.8, 105, 145-49, 152, 159, 172, 173, 361, 371

Boas, F.: 46, 360, 361, 378 Bogatyrev, P. G.: 360 Bolinger, D. L.: 3-35, 447-48 Borger, R.: 345 Botha, R. P.: 176-78, 183, 384,438 n.30, 439n.38, 441

Brame, M. K.: 30 Breal, M.: 267, 275-76, 279n4, 290 Brekle, H. E.: 176 Brentano, F.: 396 Brown, R. W.: 342, 344 Brugmann, K.: 341, 344 Bush, R. R.: 313, 442

C.

Campbell, L. R.: 351-58, 448 Carroll, J . B.: 235n.l Cassirer, E.: 341, 344 Cavell, S.: 395, 404, 441 Chafe, W. L.: 19, 87, 105 Chao, Y. R.: 105 Chapin, P» C.: 176 Charbonneau, R.: 295 Chen, M.: 109n.l Cheng, C. C : 141 Cheng, R.: 110, 139n.3, 141 Chomsky, C : 120, 141, 233, 256-57, 258

Chomsky, N.: 4, 38-42, 55, 73, 84, 87, 98, 104n.l0, 105, 178-79, 181-to 183, 185-86, 227n.l, 229+n.20, 233-58, 263, 264, 272-73, 278, 297-313, 320-23, 342-43, 344-45,

458 INDEX OF NAMES

Chomsky, N. (cont.): 359, 371-to 375, 378, 383, 388-89, 398-400, 404, 406-07, 409, 424, 428-29, 431, 435n.5, 436n.l5, 438-39n.33, 441

C i o f f i , F.: 345 Clark, E. V.: 120, 141, 264-67,

272-73, 294 Collinder, B.: 170, 173 Coseriu, E.: 176, 178 Crothers, J.: 109n.l Crutchfield, R. S.: 345, 346 Cust, Mrs. H.: 294

D.

Dahlstedt, K. H.: 294 Darnell, R. D.: 366 DeCamp, D.: 287, 294 Delbrück, B.: B.: 341. 345 Denison, N.: 281, 294 Descartes, R.: 385, 436n.8, 442 Derwing, B. L.: 297-314, 443 Dingwall, W. 0.: 21, 109n.l, 141,

173, 296 Dokulil, M.: 176

E.

Ehrenstein, W.: 332, 344n.3, 345 Erben, J.: 176

Ervin-Tripp, S. M.: 271, 294

F.

Feyerabend, P. K.: 440n.45, 442 Fisch, M. H.: 445 Fischer, K.: 324 Fishman, J. A.: 282, 284, 295,

378 Fleischer, W.: 176 Fodor, J. A.: 43, 84, 87, 93,

101, 104n.4, 105, 305, 307-08, 310, 313, 351, 436n.9, 441

Foster, G.: 169, 173 Foster, M.: 169, 173, 366 Fromkin, V. A.: 110, 142 Furth, H. G.: 427

G.

Galanter, E.: 313, 442 Garrett, M.: 305, 307-08, 310 Gauger, H. M.: 176 Gazzaniga, M.: 338, 345 Geach, P. T.: 442 Geis, M. L.: 34n.2, 35 Giannoni, C. B.: 427, 428, 445 G i g l i o l i , P. P.: 283, 284, 295 Gladwin, T.: 378 Goodenough, W.: 369 Goodman, N.: 277, 295, 315, 320 Grice, G. R.: 436n.l5, 440n.50, 442

Gross, M.: 315-16, 320 Gruber, F. C : 378 Gruber, J. S.: 176 Gumb, R. D.: 402, 438n.32, 442 Gumperz, J. J.: 379

H.

Habermas, J.: 389, 436n.l5, 442 Hakulinen, L.: 194, 200, 209, 213, 214, 221, 228n.8, 229n.l4

Haie, K. E.: 356 Halle, M.: 97, 105, 141, 175-83, 185-86, 227n.l, 229, 233-58, 297, 304, 306, 313, 357n.2,358, 400, 441,

Halliday, M. A. K.: 64 Hallowell, A. I.: 379 Halpern, A. M.: 167-68, 173 Hanna, J. F.: 419, 439n.40, 442 Hansen, B.: 176 Hare, R. M.: 395, 404, 442 Harms, R. T.: 170+n.4, 173, 229+ n.12

Harris, P. R.: 297-314, 448 Harris, Z. S.: 379 Hatcher, A. G.: 176 Hayes, D. G.: 357 Hayes, J. R.: 314 Heidegger, M.: 385 Hempel, C. G.: 382-83, 390, 408, 414, 435n.l, 2+4, 440n.52, 442

Henle, M.: 347

INDEX OF NAMES 459

Henze, D.: 385, 435n.7, 444 Henzen, W.: 176 Herder, J. G.: 361 Hertzler, J.: 286, 287, 295 Herzog, G.: 360, 367 Herzog, M. I.: 355, 358, 372, 380

Hi l l i a r d , R.: 334, 345 Hintikka, J.: 436n.l6, 437n.25, 438n.27, 442

Hjelraslev, L.: 372, 388, 436n.l3, 443

Hockett, C. F.: 87, 93, 94-96, 104n.6+8, 173

Hogan, H.: 366 Hoijer, H.: 173, 367 Hook, S.: 273, 278, 292, 295 Householder, F. W.: 438n.31 Houston, S. H.: 141, 295 Hsieh, H. I.: 109-44, 253, 258,

448-49 Humboldt, W. von: 279n.4, 361,

388, 399, 436n.l2, 443 Hume, D.: 271, 272, 385 Huxley, J.: 285, 286, 295 Hyman, L. H.: 141 Hymes, D. H.: 295, 359-80, 449 I.

Isard, S.: 437n.l8, 438n.32, 444 Itkonen, E.: 200, 202, 228n.8, 229

Itkonen, Esa: 263, 264, 275, 292, 293, 295, 381-445, 449-50

Itkonen, T.: 198, 230

J.

Jackendoff, R. S.: 38, 318, 320 Jackson, F.: 233n, 254n.2 Jacobs, R. A.: 183, 439n.34, 443 Jain, S.: 366 Jakobovits, L. A. : 320 Jakobson, R.: 362-64, 366, 368,

374, 379 James, W.: 332, 345 Jespersen, 0.: 23, 176 Jevons, W.: 332, 345 Johnson, C. D.: 228n.6, 230

Joki, A. J.: 200, 202, 228n.8, 229

K.

Kachru, B. B.: 173 Kanngiesser, S.: 384, 443 Kant, I.: 339-40, 344n.5, 345 Kastovsky, D.: 176, 180-81, 181n.3, 183

Katz, J. J.: 38, 43, 87, 91, 93, 101, 104n.4, 105, 301, 313, 351, 358, 409, 428-29, 438n.30, 443

Keenan, E.: 366 Kendon, A.: 324 Kenstowicz, M. J.: 145-74, 450 Kettunen, L.: 206, 215, 228n.l3, 230

Key, M. R.: 324 Keyser, S. J. : 254, 258, 353, 358 Kim, C. W.: 109n.l King, R. D.: 353, 355, 358 Kiparsky, P.: 142, 143, 147, 156,

158, 159, 228n.6, 256,259, 267, 352, 358

Kisseberth, C. W.: 146, 158, 170+ n.4, 173, 186

Klima, E. S.: 259, 353, 358 Kloss, H.: 282, 284, 295 Kluckhohn, C.: 368 Knight, T. S.: 268-69, 291-92, 295 Kobayashi, L.: 233 Köhler, W.: 330, 332-33, 343n.l+2 Koerner, E. F. K.: 450 Körner, S.: 339, 345 Koffka, K.: 343n.2, 345 Koutsoudas, A.: 142, 153, 173, 230 Koziol, H.: 176 Krech, D.: 335, 343n.2, 344n.4,

345, 346 Kroeber, A. L.: 367 Krohn, R. K.: 109n.l, 142, 233-59,

450-51 Kuhn, T. S.: 440n.45, 443

L. Labov, W.: 30, 35, 142, 352, 355,

358, 372, 380 Ladefoged, P.: 110, 141

460 INDEX OF NAMES

Lakatos, I.: 442 Lakoff, G.: 38, 317, 320, 389,

443 Lakoff, R.: 30, 35 Lamb, S. M.: 66, 77, 84, 310,

313 Lance, D. M.: 357 Langendoen, D. T.: 266, 294 Lees, R. B.: 74, 173, 176 Lehmann, W. P.: 358, 380 Lehrer, A.: 88, 105 Leibniz, G. W.: 340-41, 346 Lenneberg, E.H.: 294 Lentin, A.: 315-16, 320 Levi-Strauss, C.: 362, 363, 368,

369, 379 Levy, J.: 338, 346 Liao, C. C.: 110, 142 Lieberson, S.: 295 Liljencrantz, J.: 276, 279, 295 Lindblom, B.: 276-77, 295 Lipka, L.: 175-84, 451 Ljung, M.: 176 Locke, J.: 385 Lockwood, D. G.: 38, 54, 57, 60,

66, 84 Lorenzen, P.: 397, 398, 428, 443 Lowie, L. C.: 367, 379 Lowie, R. H.: 367 Luce, R. D.: 313, 442

M.

Maas, U.: 445 Mackey, W. F.: 294 Mäher, J. P.: 110, 142, 252, 259,

263, 271, 290, 295, 296, 451-52 Makkai, A.: 37-85, 259, 452 Makkai, V. B.: 85 Malkiel, Y.: 176, 358, 367, 380 Mandelbaum, D.: 375, 379 Marchand, H.: 176, 177n.l, 178-79,

180, 183 Marshall, J. C.: 296 Maxwell, E. R.: 315-20, 452 McCawley, J. D.: 38, 87, 91, 97-102,

104n.10+11, 105, 164, 165n.3, 173, 180, 184, 186, 227-28n.5, 6, 7 +9, 317

McNeill, D.: 267, 273, 274, 296, 409, 443

Mead, G. H.: 385, 436n.l4, 436n. 15, 443

Mehtonen, L.: 438n.29, 444 Mihailovic, L.: 26, 35 M i l l , J. S.: 332 Miller, G. A.: 301, 302-04, 307,

437n.l8, 438n.32, 441 Milmed, B.: 339, 346 Mohrmann, C.: 379 Moravcsik, J. M. E.: 388, 389,

444 Morciniec, N.: 176 Moser, H.: 441 Moskowitz, B. A.: 109n.l, 110,

235, 263n. Mötsch, W.: 176, 179, 184 Mott, E.: 233n. Musgrave, A.: 442

N.

Nadzhip, E. N.: 171, 172, 174 Nagel, E.: 435n.l, 444 Neisser, U.: 337, 346 Neuhaus, H. J.: 176, 178, 184 Newman, S. S.: 379 Newmeyer, F. J.: 77, 85 Noll, C. A.: 142, 153, 173

0,

Ogden, C. K.: 279n.4 Ohala, J. J.: 109n.l, 110, 142,

189, 229n.l7, 230, 259, 356, 358

Ohala, M«: 109n.l, 110, 142 Ohnesorg, K.: 328 Oldfield, R. C.: 296 Oppenheim, F.: 435n.2 Ornstein, J.: 294 Osgood, C. E.: 324

Pap, A.: 417, 418, 419, 426, 437n. 42, 444

Paton, H. J.: 339, 346 Peirce, C, S.: 268, 271, 272, 275,

INDEX OF NAMES 461

Peirce, C. S. (cont.): 290, 429, 436n.l5,

Peng, F. C. C.: 87-106, 453 Pennanen, E.: 176, 184 Penttilä, A.: 198, 230 Peters, P. S.: 38, 299, 313 P h i — i p s , S.: 366 Piaget, J.: 427 Pike, K. L.: 369, 370, 379 Plath, W. J.: 312 Popper, K. R.: 412 Postal, P. M.: 43, 85, 150, 174,

185, 230 Posti, L.: 193, 194, 212, 214,

221, 230 Pribram, K.: 331, 337, 346 Prideaux, G. D.: 299, 314

Q.

Quine, W. V. 0.: 437n.26, 444

R. Radnitzky, G.: 429, 430, 435n.

6, 444 Raffler-Engel, W. von: 263, 266,

271, 296, 321-28, 453-54 Rapola, M.: 198, 206, 207, 212,

215, 217, 221, 228n.l2, 231 Raun, A.: 193, 231 Reilly, F. E.: 268, 269, 270,

296 Restorff, H. von: 332, 333, 345 Richards, I. A.: 279n.4 Rigault, A.: 295 Ritchie, R. W.: 38 Robinson, J.: 235, 259 Rohrer, C.: 176 Rosenbaum, P. S.: 439n.34, 443 Ross, J. R.: 38 Rossi, S.: 385, 444 Russell, B.: 340, 346, 385

S.

Saareste, A.: 193, 231 S a l t a r e l l i , M.: 353, 358 Sanders, G. A.: 141, 153, 173 Sapir, E.: 150-56, 158, 163-64,

174, 252, 259, 361+n.l, 366n.2,

Sapir, E. (cont.): 367-77, 379 Saporta, S.: 353, 358 Saunders, J. T.: 385, 435n.7, 444 Saussure, F. de: 185, 222, 223,

229n.l6, 231, 354, 371, 429 Schane, S. A.: 227n.l, 231, 233 Scheffler, I.: 435n.2, 444 Schiller, P. von: 330, 333, 343n.2, 346

Schlachter, P.: 30, 35 Schreiber, P. A.: 27, 35 Schutz, A.: 400, 404, 432, 436n.l4, 437n.26, 438n.31, 444

Schwarcz, R. M.: 311, 314 Schwartz, A.: 19, 20, 35 Searle, J. R.: 436n.l5, 440n.50+51, 444

Sebeok, T. A.: 360, 362, 379 Seitel, P. and S.: 366 Shapiro, M.: 263n., 289, 296 Shaw, J. H.: 454 Sherzer, J.: 356, 358, 366, 379 Shibatani, M.: 109n.l Siegel, F. M.: 176 Skousen, R.: 185-228, 454 Slagle, U. V.: 329-47, 454 Sledd, J. H.: 353, 358 Slobin, D. I.: 246, 265, 271, 399, 444

Smart, H.: 344n.5, 346 Smith, H. L.: 369 Smith, N. K.: 344n.5, 347 Specht, E. K.: 397, 403, 444 Sperry, R. W.: 338, 346 Spier, L.: 369, 379 Stampe, S.: 229n.l9, 231 Stegmüller, W.: 435n.l Stein, G.: 176, 178, 184 Steinberg, D. D.: 109n.l, 110, 142,

233-59, 309, 314, 454-55 Steinthal, H.: 361 Stevens, K. N.: 304, 313 Strauss, A.: 366 Strawson, P. F.: 432, 436n. 104-15, 440n.50, 444, 445

Stroud, B.: 439n.44, 445 Sturtevant, E. H.: 274, 278, 285,

287, 288, 296 Sturtevant, W. C.: 378

462 INDEX OF NAMES

Süllwold, F.: 332, 346 Swadesh, M.: 156-67, 174, 367, 368, 379

T.

Taylor, C : 436n.9, 437n.26, 440n.50, 445

Teilhard de Chardin, P.: 285, 289

Thurstone, L. L.: 335, 344n.4, 346

Tiwary, K. M.: 366 Toivonen, Y. H.: 198, 200, 228 n.8, 229n.l4, 231

Topping, D.: 233n Trager, G. L.: 369 Traugott, E.: 273n.3 Trevarthen, C : 338, 346 Trnka, B.: 367, 379 Troike, R. C : 357n.2, 358 Trubetzkoy, N. S.: 363 Tuomi, T,: 191, 231

U.

Uhlenbeck, E. M.: 366, 379

V.

Vachek, J.: 367, 379, 380 Vaihinger, H.: 344n.5, 346 Vasiliu, E.: 353, 358 Velten, H.: 360, 362 Vendryes, J.: 279n.4 Vennemann, T.: 142, 294 Vico, G.: 437-38n.27, 445 Voegelin, C. F.: 156-67, 174,

360, 362, 367, 379

W.

Wardhaugh, E.: 233, 259 Wartofsky, M. W.: 344 Watt, W. G.: 308, 314 Weinreich, U.: 101, 106, 176, 178+n.2, 181, 184, 355, 358, 372, 380

Wertheimer, M.: 330, 332, 343n. 1, 347

Wescott, R. W.: 272, 284, 285, 287, 288, 296

Whatmough, J.: 294 Wheeler, B. I.: 279n.4 Whinnom, K.: 287-88, 296 Whitney, W. D.: 341, 347 Whorf, B. L.: 361, 370 Wiik, K.: 228n.6, 7 + 9, 231 Winch, P.+ 396-98, 427, 429,

430-31, 438n.29, 445 Wittgenstein, L.: 264, 385, 387,

413, 427, 428, 436n.9+15, 440 n.45-47, 445

Wolff, R.: 344n.5, 347 Wright, H. G. von: 405, 435n.6,

436n.l7, 437n.26, 440n.49, 445 Wunderlich, D.: 389, 440n.51,

445 Wundt, W.: 341, 347 Wurzel, W. U.: 179, 184

Y.

Yngve, V. H.: 39-40, 45, 65, 85

Z. Zimmer, K. E.: 142, 176

Walford, D. E,: 444 Wallach, H.: 332, 346-47 Wang, W. S. Y.: 109n.l, 120

* * * * *