Table Of ContentSyntactic Patterns in Navaho and Huichol
Author(s): Herbert Landar
Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 1967), pp. 121-127
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263956
Accessed: 18-08-2014 18:54 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal
of American Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYNTACTIC PATTERNS IN NAVAHO AND HUICHOL
HERBERT LANDAR
CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES
0. Introduction an approach that is not so much a tool as a
1. Navaho patterns well-integrated theory.
2. Huichol patterns While much of Kelley's criticism of Nav-
3. Evaluation aho Syntax is appropriate, I am impressed
by my reluctance to dismiss further explora-
0. The striking similarity between tion of what might be styled 'phrase struc-
Grimes's Huichol Syntax and my Navaho tural transformations'. The implications of
Syntax (reviewed by Mary L. Foster and the theoretical point to which Kelley has
Kalon Kelley, IJAL 32.290-91, 291-94) re- objected, as applied to Navaho and in a
sults not simply from the rather obvious small way to Huichol, are the major concern
influence that Hockett's work has had on of this paper. After an extensive explication
both. It results also in no small measure of Navaho syntax in this context, and an
from efforts to explore the relationship of attempt to reinterpret some of Grimes's
pattern analysis (hierarchies of immediate Huichol data, I shall return to the question
constituents) to transformational analysis. of why one might be motivated to persist in
Grimes regards transformational theory as studying the various dimensions of phrase
a tool in 'the linguist's toolbox' (p. 5). He structural descriptions.
describes Huichol immediate constituents The Navaho patterns which will be de-
without assigning cut numbers to indicate scribed in detail are those of interrogative
hierarchical rankings, and he interprets as sentences (1.1), negative sentences (1.2),
transformations certain combinations of con- and miscellaneous sentences, including many
stituents which would, in the light of present- with nominalizations (1.3). Finally, forty-
day theory, be assigned to the phrase struc- one patterns, a fair sample of a larger num-
ture component of a grammar. Some of the ber that could be identified for Navaho, will
transformations which he identifies, how- be tabulated (1.4). The discussion of Huichol
ever, would not be objected to by propo- patterns will center on phrasal and conjunct
nents of generative theory. transformations.
In this respect, I think, Grimes's treat-
ment is more sophisticated than my own. 1.1. Many interrogative sentences have
The implications of my definition of trans- the enclitic is is it? after one or more ICs
formation as any function or mapping, which within the sentence. A simple case is yitzaaz
Kelley objects to as a deviant definition but it snowed with is: yitzaaz if did it snow?
which I think is the commonly accepted one Such a sentence may have ta? query as its
in mathematics, the implications of my initial IC: ta? 1 yitzaaz 2 is query: did it
definition do in fact meet the requirement snow? With t1P6 t44? last night compare
that structures of one type be mapped into ta? 1 tl?66 4 t44? 8 is 2 yitzaaz query: is it
those of another type, as will be shown be- last night that it snowed?
low. There are restrictions upon such map- Another type of interrogative sentence
pings, however, as is now clear to me, which has a? I'd like to know about it after one of
make it futile to hope to reconcile an ap- its ICs: with si I compare si a4?w hat about
proach which emphasizes the hierarchical me? In sentences with sa?, ta? does not occur
organization of immediate constituents with but is may occur.
121
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. XXXIII
A type of interrogative sentence connoting too 1 yA?at?6eh 2 ta it is not good. The ta
concern about a possible situation is charac- may be deleted: too yA?at?6h it is not good.
terized by the concatenation of the enclitic It must be deleted after ikfi the (particular)
s7 with a verbal whose second member is one (who or which... ); cf. lizin it is black,
the enclitic ko being thus. Compare yitzaaz too 1 1iiin 2 ta it is not black, too 1 lizin 2
2 ko 1 q4?w hat if it snowed? ikif it is not the black one. It must also be
Yet another type of interrogative sentence deleted before the operators -ii la i t44? in
includes a determiner with or without is or case I find (that ... ); cf. nahalthin it's rain-
Wsa. Thus with haa how?; what? [a deter- ing, teeaail I'll go, nahalthiin 3 la 2 t44? 1
miner], ?Aniltso it is large, we have haa too 2 tee&sal3 ta in case I find that it's rain-
?anftso how large is it?; with haa where ing, I won't go, too 2 nahalthin 4 la 3 t44? 1
(far)? [a determiner], te? from, we have teesai in case I find that it's not raining,
haa te?7 from where?; haa 2 t4? 1 s?7 I'd I'll go.
like to know, wheref rom? A negative interrogative sentence is
A transform which connotes self-question- formed with too not and is is it? [alternant
ing involves an enclitic phrase whose second 6s]. Thus yitzaaz is did it snow?, too 2 6s 1
member is ni? in memory. The relatum of yitzaaz (2 ta) didn't it snow? Negative inter-
this phrase is composed of a verbal in con- rogative sentences and even some ostensibly
struction with the prior relational expression negative sentences in a context of question-
taa ?6iya just by itself, in construction ing prompt a 'yes' answer if the hearer
with a prior nominal expression which in- agrees that something is not the case.
cludes the determiner haa, and the enclitic To indicate lack of experience one uses the
la I find. The operators are conveniently adverb t?ah still, yet in construction with
shown as follows, with relative rank marked too not as a constitute before an enclitic
by lower case roman numerals: haa iii la ii phrase whose second member is ta and
t?aaai v ?6iya iii-. ..-i ni? now let's see, how whose relatum is a verbal with an imperfec-
(or what) ... ? Compare yit?6 it is (of a tive verb. The operators are t?ah ii too
certain description), haa 3 la 2 t?aa 4 ?6iya 3 i-...-ii ta never. Compare yiA4, I eat it,
yit?7e 1 ni? now let's see, how did it look (or yiy4 he eats it, 166? fish, ft?e66 was thus,
what was it like)? Note that the set of opera- t?ah 2 too 1 166? 3 yiA4a 2 ta I have never
tors is mapped into a matrix sentence of any eaten fish, t?ah 3 too 166? 4 yiy44 3 ta 1
given order of complexity. In terms of the ft?66? he had never eaten fish.
ordering of rules, priority is given to the Wonder, interest, and concern are con-
generation of the matrix. noted when the verbal includes a verb with
Another type of interrogative transform naa- again, some more, and the enclitic la?
involves a nominal topic which is optionally golly stands in construction with t?ah too
a determiner, and a following verbal com- still not, not yet: t?ah iii too ii la? i-.. .-i ta
ment. The nominal is a relatum ending with wonder why (something) never (happens) any
ta for example, in construction with 94?; the more. Compare naan6it4 he eats it some more,
nominal ends, in other words, with the tVah 3 too 2 la? 1 166? 3 naaneita4 2 ta I
operators -ii ta i s? I wonder (about ...). wonderw hy he nevere ats fish any rore.
Compare h& where? [a determiner], ti at, If t?ah too still not occurs initially in an
?st?i I'm doing or acting (participatingi n an enclitic phrase whose graduated string is
event), haa 4 ti 3 ta 2 s? 1 ?6at?i I wonder -ii yQ i t44 when (yeQ as was mentioned
where I am? [q after a syllable ending with a front
1.2. Many negative sentences have too vowel plus a consonant], t44? in time past),
not before an IC (or matrix) which ends ta is deleted from the string. A construction
with the enclitic ta: yaa?t?f6h it is good, with the operators t?ah iv too iii-.. .-ii ye i
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 2 SYNTACTIC PATTERNS IN NAVAHO AND HUICHOL 123
t449 before (when still not), however, is fol- who is pounding now, ?atsit ii the one who
lowed optionally by a construction which pounds, the smith.
includes too not. Transforms with t?ah ia Alone of relative enclitics, i occurs in cer-
too iii-. . .-ii yQ i t44? before (when still not) tain negative imperative constructions. Sec-
include a verbal with an imperfective verb ond person future, imperfective, progressive
and occur either before a verbal with a per- or optative verbs sometimes serve as im-
fective verb or an enclitic phrase whose peratives. The second person optative with
second member is hit?6? was thus. Compare lako let it be not serves as a negative impera-
tg?il plant, litsii? it is red (neuter imperfec- tive. A more pressing negative imperative
tive), tg?il 4 liti? 3 eQ 2 t44? 1 niz6ni 2 requires a relative expression consisting of a
fit?66 when the plant was red it was pretty; verbal with a second person continuative
yiists66h I see it (imperfective), 7yoo1tl4I imperfective, progressive or iterative verb
believei t (continuative imperfective), t?ah 5 and i. This relative expression follows t7V
too 4 yiists6h 3 Q2 t44 1 too 3 'yootl1444 (alternant t?aa) just and too not. Compare
ta 2 Ait66? beforeI saw it I didn't believei t; nitsiits?iin your head, nilmaz you (sg.) are
titsin hunger, nileeh you (sg.) become (im- shaking it, nitsiits?iin 2 nilmaz 1 i you're
perfective), sinilf? you (sg.) became (per- the one who's shaking your head, t?aa 2 too 1
fective), tipe sheep, la? one, some, sits?44 nitsiits?iin 3 nilmaz 2 i don't shake your
away from me, yinilyal you (sg.) ate meat head! A related pattern involves verbals
(perfective), titsin 3 sinili? 2 e 1 t44? when which include a first person sg. imperfective
you became hungry, t?ah 5 too 4 titgin 5 verb and a following verbal with a perfective
nileeh 3 e 2 t44? 1 tipe 3 a? 2 sits?44 3 verb. Compare nisaah I go (move as a single
yinilyal beforey ou becameh ungry you ate one entity), ni?ah i I am one who goes, t?aa 2
of my sheep; ?aw6d? baby, haleeh it comes too 1 niMah2 i without my being one who
into existence (imperfective),pamA its mother, goes, ts'?ili Chinle, ti at, gee with me, nikhi-
taazts4 she has died (perfective), t?ah 5 too 4 honilth4 it started to rain, t?aa 3 too 2
?awee? 5 haleeh 3 e 2 t44? 1 pama 2 taazts4 tW?iflfi5 ti 4 niah 3 i 1 see 2 nikhihonilth4
beforet he baby was borni ts motherd ied. before I could get to Chinle, I got caught in
1.3. Miscellaneous patterns include many the rain.
with relative enclitics. The commonest rela- In patterns where ta follows a negated
tive enclitics are ikff, i and ii, all meaning nominalized optative with i, the ta is deleted
the one (who or which... ). Verb stems of the before t44? if. Compare t6ya? I wish he
type -CVVC alternate with -CVVC before could start going along (-ya? [one] move [opta-
ii and -CVC before i and ikii. Whereas tive]), pee with them, t?aa 2 too I pee 4
nominalizations in some languages require t6ya? 3 i 2 ta he is just not the one who could
double base transformations, the matter is start going along with them (he has no way of
much simpler in Navaho (and, for that going), t?Va 3 too 2 pee 5 t6ya? 4 i 3 t44? 1
matter, Huichol), witness tA?itinistl66h I titeesaal if he has no way of going along with
am about to smile, ts?itinistl6h i I am the one them, I'll go.
who is about to smile (note that ikii and ii In a warning or stipulation against an
undesirable condition, a negated nominalized
are not used with the first person sg. verbal
imperfective or other verb in i is followed
subject); ts?iteeltl6h ikii, ts?iteeltl6oh ii and by ko being thus and t?eiya only: t?ia iv too
tP?iteeltl6h i he is the one who is about to
iI-.. .-iv i ii ko i t?eiya only on condition
smile, and so on for other subjects. In many that (something) will not (be done). Compare
cases there is a differentiation of meaning; ?atatUitl66h they [distant] laugh, ?azata?-
cf. ?atsit he pounds it, ?atsit ikii the particu- toonil he will carry on a test ceremony,t Vaa 5
lar thing which he pounds, ?atsit i the one too 4 ?atatUitl6h 5 i 3 ko 2 t?6iya 1 ?azata?-
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. XXXIII
toonil only if they don't laugh will he carry on ht? 2 nfti 1 yitl6oh 2 ta he obviously isn't
a test ceremony.T he verb is not nominalized even feeling cold. The enclitic hanii nay that
unless negated. Thus tipe sheep, naakhi generally indicates a condition contrary to
two, paa to him, yininil you gave him several fact and is not restricted to constructions
objects, tip6 5 naakhi 4 paa 5 yininil 3 ko 2 with too not, such as too 2 hanii 1 yitl6oh 2
t?6iya I ?azata?toonil he will hold a test ta nay that he is not feeling cold; cf. si 2 hanii
ceremonyo nly if you give him two sheep. 1 S?6t?i I'm not the one who's doing it.
As noted above, too not figures in some The enclitic hti is common in concessive
negations but not in others. With optatives transforms with a construction of the pro-
one can use t?a just and the adverb kha clitic ?az4 granted and a verbal (or ?a,aan
against [khaa before ta]. Compare hooyan nee?, with nee? poor me, and a verbal).
hogan, dwelling, k6 ne? back there, inside, Compare i"? 1 tah 2 tiilyot the horse ran off,
ha66tziih I wish you would speak out (-tziih tin6 1 t?66 2 neezta the man merely sat,
breatheo r speak out, optative), tOaa 2 kha 1 ?ai4 3 l1f?4 tah 5 tiilyot 2 nti 1 tin6 2 t?66 3
hooyan 3 k6 4 ne? 2 hati6tziih see that one neezta even granted that the horse ran off, the
doesn't say anything inside the hogan [hat- man merely sat, ?aiaan 4 nee? 3 lii? 4 tah 5
M6tziihI wish that one would speak out], t?a& tiilyot 2 hti 1 tine 2 t766 S neezta even
2 kha 1 hooyan 3 k6 4 ne? 2 ha66tziih see that granted, woe is me, that the horse ran off, the
you don't say anything inside the hogan. man merely sat.
A further case of too with a nominaliza- Patterns with numerals, with particular
tion in i is used in angry or resentful ad- verbs, and in the posing of alternatives
monitions; the nominalization follows too might also take up our attention, but I
not and y6e emphasis. Compare niilts4 I think that a sufficient sample of what is
saw you, niiltsan i I am the one who saw you, implicit in pp. 48-9 of my Navaho Syntax
too 2 y6e 1 niiltsan 2 i it's a lucky thing for has been given to clarify what is at issue.
you that I didn't see you! 1.4. Transformational operators follow in
The idiomatic nature of many patterns tabular form (p. 125).
which I have characterized in terms of
transformational sets should be apparent by 2. The foregoing patterns cannot be iden-
now. The patterns relate to pragmatic situa- tified by scanning a corpus. Informants
tions in an interesting way. We will look at must make judgments about them and the
some more patterns and then will summarize size and internal variety of the string classes
in tabular form those we have seen and some with which they are used. Grimes's Huichol
which space does not permit us to give in Syntax, corpus oriented and without IC
detail. rankings, offers the added difficulty for one
Several transforms with too not as the intent on finding Huichol transformational
head of an enclitic phrase connote persuasive sets in the sense in which the term is used
negation. In one of these, the enclitic is here that while it contains by far the best
ht6? obviously, as everybodyk nows, as is in description of the Huichol verb yet pub-
evidence, in another hti even, in another the lished, it confronts one with puzzles of verbal
string ht6? nti, in another hanii nay that. morphology. It is possible, nevertheless, to
These constructions pattern with an enclitic suggest that certain Huichol operators in
phrase whose relatum is a verbal and whose Grimes's treatment of transformations (pp.
second member is ta for example. Compare 54-69) are phrase structural. Some are as
yitl66h he is feeling cold, too 1 yitl6oh 2 ta simple as tiita i- what? Compare (p. 57)
he is not feeling cold, too 2 it6? 1 yitl6oh 2 ta tiita 1 tiyXane 2 ?uuma what is moving
he obviously is not feeling cold, too 2 hti 1 over there? Some are of greater complexity.
yitl6oh 2 ta he is not even feeling cold, too 3 And there are ambiguous cases.
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 2 SYNTACTIC PATTERNS IN NAVAHO AND HUICHOL 125
Constituents which function as operators Approximatem eaning
1. haah iii la ii ye6 i- don't dare
2. haa iii 16i i t?aa iv ?eiya iii-...-i ni? now let's see, how (what)?
3. -iii ki ii le? i ?at?e easily, effortlessly
4. -iii ki ii ?at?6e i ko alike, just as
5. -ii k6 i ne? behind there
6. -ii ko i sa? what if?
7. -iii ko ii ta i ?at?e possibly
8. -ii ko i t?6iya only if
9. -ii l i t44? in case I find
10. -ii la i tiini let's pretend
11. -iii le? ii ?At?66i k66 so that nothing could happen
12. la? i ii-...-lia one..., another...; some..., others...
13. -iii nti ii too iii ta i-...-iii nti ii too iii ta neither...nor...
14. -ii ta i sa? I wonder
15. -ii ta i-...-ii ta either........; for example..., or for example...
16. ta? i-...-ii is query: is it?
17. -ii tifni i nisin I mean
18. too i-...-ii ta not
19. too ii hanii i-...-ii ta nay that not
20. too i-...-iii 1 ii t44? in case I find that not
21. too v 1a iv t6? iii-...-ii ta i la it certainly is...; my but it's...
22. too iii nti i-...-ii ta not even
23. too iii t6? i-...-ii ta obviously not
24. too iii it6? ii nti i-...-ii ta obviously not even
25. too ii 6? i-...-ta is it not?
26. -i t66 iii pa?aan ii- and in addition
27. too iii 4? ii-...-i 1la I'll make sure that not
28. too ii y6 i-...-ii i it's lucky for you!
29. t?aa ii kha i- take care against
30. t?Aa ii too i-...-ii i don't!
31. t?da iv too iii-...-iv i ii ko i t?6iyg only on condition that not
32. t?aa ii too i-...-iii i ii ta just not the one (who could)
33. t?aa ii too i-...-iii i ii t44? if just not the one (who could)
34. t?aa iii too ii-...-iii k66 i ko unless
35. t?ah ii too i-...-ii ta never
36. t?ah iii too ii la? i-...-ii ta wonderw hy never
37. t?ah iv too iii-...-ii y4 i t44? before (when still not)
38. t?ah v too iv-...-iii ye ii t44 i-...-ii At?66? before...it was thus; when not...then...
39. -ii y4e i t44? when (in time past)
40. ?a4 ii-...-i nti even granted
41. ?aaan iii nee? ii-...-i nti even granted, woe is me
One ambiguous case involves phrasal live there (with pA assertive mode). It is im-
transforms. These function as nominals. possible, however, to posit an operator
The prefix mx phrasal mode appears to be a mA i- (the one) who (...) on the basis of
nominalizing operator (despite the fact that present knowledge.'
it is found in independent clauses). Grimes
1 There is a parallel in Crow i (the instrument)
contrasts t6wi w6na muu+y6ikaakai person
which (...), apparently used for instrumental
there who-used-to-live[ perhaps: he who used nominalizations: kussAzee it adheres to, i-klissaz6
to go, with the stem y6ika go, intr., kai past cork, biria door, rushzi to open, i-biria-rushtua
durative, and zero third person subject] and key. Examples from Fr. John Boschi, S.J., [Gram-
t6wi wana puu+y6ikaakai the person used to matical notes on the Crow language], p. [9], Ms.
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. XXXIII
A case of some complexity involves con-
S
junct transformations. Grimes notes that
one must decide if the subject of the main
clause and that of the subordinate clause
are identical or different, and use a proxi-
mate or obviative suffix accordingly. One
must also decide if the conjunct action takes
place before the action of the main clause,
antecedently (and then whether the action
is under way of finished [factual] or not yet
begun [potential]); or if the time relation is
concurrent; or if the conjunct action results
from that of the main clause. The suffixes
(class E4-5) can be characterized by rather
formidable labels, e.g. yu obviativep otential
antecedent subject, me proximate potential
antecedent subject, etc., but short tags will
serve as well: ta as, AA (as Joe does this...
Joe does that. .), kaaku as, AB (as Joe etc.,
May etc.), ka after, AA, ku after, AB, me
after, AA (unreal), yu after, AB (unreal),
ke so that. Grimes's sample sentences, in FIG. 1
which I have detached these suffixes as en-
clitics (which they may or may not be) and that. Taking ni simple future (in the main
have inserted IC rankings, are: clause of 5 and 6) as an enclitic, we can
1. kuuyei + ka 2 tA 1 pAneci + ?uzei as posit -ii me i-. ..-ii ni after, AA (unreal)
he (A) was walking along, A saw me, and -ii yu i-. . .-ii ni after, AB (unreal).
2. kuuyeikaa 2 +kaaku 1 pAneci +
?uzei as A was walking along, B saw me, 3. Kelley finds it unclear "why a gram-
3. nua 2 ka 1 pAn6ci + ?uzei after A ar- mar should be motivated to emphasize ele-
rived, A saw me, ments that form constructions with large
4. nua 2 ku 2 pAn6ci + ?uzei after A ar- classes over those which form constructions
rived, B saw me, with small classes" (loc. cit., p. 294). It
5. nua 2 me 1 pAneci + z6iyani after A might be asked why a GRAMMARIsAhNou ld
arrives, A will see me, not be so motivated, as long as he does not
6. nua 2 yu 1 pAneci + zeiyani after A thereby discard or ignore more general theo-
arrives, B will see me, retical considerations. It has long been
7. ne?unua 2 +ke 1 pAneci + wiitA that I recognized that a structural description has
may arrive, A guides me. the property of tridimensionality. Why this
Since the selection of the conjunct opera- property should not be exploited in descrip-
tors is perhaps-except for the potentials-a tive and typological work is difficult to see.
pragmatic affair and independent of any The tridimensionality of a structural de-
verbal element, it is easy enough to posit scription can be illustrated with a diagram.
-ii tA i- as, AA, -ii kaaku i- as, AB, -ii ka For the sake of illustration we will assume
i- after, AA, -ii ku i- after, AB, -ii ke i- so that Huichol has these rules, admittedly
imperfect:
in the Archives, Crosby Library, Gonzaga Uni- CS 1 S -VP + VP2
versity, Spokane, Washington. CS 2 VP, - V1 + E.
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 2 SYNTACTIC PATTERNS IN NAVAHO AND HUICHOL 127
CS3 VP2 - V2 + E2 One cannot easily say whether the re-
CS 4 V, - nda he arrive, ... wards of such attention will relate more to
CS 5 V2 - pAsnmecail l(+? )-zse6eiy, , . h.e .- fact-me- the theory of competence or the theory of
CS 6 E, -> me after, AA (unreal) performance, but in any case I can see little
CS 7 E2 - ni future justification for ignoring the typological
implications that follow from the fact that
These rules give us sentence 5 of section 2.
The diagram directs attention to the sharp alternatives diminish from many to zero as
reduction of alternatives in two places, as a sentence is generated. When nia appears
this Huichol sentence is generated by the in a Huichol sentence, very little can be pre-
rules. dicted about the sequel. When the me ap-
Points of redundancy in grammatical struc- pears, the E1 of the diagram, it may well be
that the ni or E2 is unavoidable. Those who
tures have long been of interest to linguists.
A major focus of attention at present is have thought of bringing game theory into
the extent to which economies in describing the study of cultural systems would speak
phonemes and morphemes can be effected here of 'pattern velocity'. The pattern veloc-
by exploiting redundancies. In one genera- ity of some games differs markedly from that
of some others. Whether and to what extent
tive phonological view, for example, a seg-
ment structure rule gives a constraint on pattern velocity will figure in linguistic
feature composition of a segment, aiming to studies obviously is a function of how care-
produce a redundancy-free segment. And a fully the various aspects of patterns in syn-
tax are investigated.
sequence structure rule predicts features of
phonemes from features in surrounding pho- There are, then, descriptive and typologi-
cal reasons for the continued study of the
nemes, exploiting sequential constraints. The
set of segment structure rules and sequence phrase structural components of grammars.
Kelley is quite right when he insists that cer-
structure rules comprises the set of mor-
pheme structure rules. The dictionary matrix tain mappings of structures into structures
of a morpheme is free of redundancies. It are ignored in the sort of analysis which has
presents only what is idiosyncratic about been presented above. And it is quite true
that immediate constituent analysis has its
the morpheme, beyond what is predicted by
limitations. One can analyze the constitu-
general rule. The morpheme structure rules
ency of The men saw the wood and still leave
apply to the dictionary matrix to produce
unsaid whether the sentence derives from
the systematic phonemic matrix of the
morpheme. The morpheme enters the set P The man saw the wood where saw can replace
of rules which map representations of sen- sees, and relates to the passive The wood was
tences onto the representations of the pho- seen by the men; or the sentence implies not
netic level, once the morpheme structure see:saw but saw:sawed and the passive The
wood was sawn by the men. This does not
rules have been used. Attention to the dis-
tribution of grammatical properties in this mean, however, that continued study of the
and other generative phonological views patterns of phrase structural transforma-
tions is bound to be fruitless.
leads one to suppose that perhaps similar
attention to the properties of phrase struc-
view of morpheme structure rules. Still in Ms.
tural descriptions would be rewarding.2
form is an important discussion and criticism of
2 See Morris Halle, The Sound Pattern of Rus- such rules, Richard Stanley's Redundancy rules
sian (The Hague, 1959), pp. 19-78, for an early in phonology (Cambridge, 1966).
This content downloaded from 86.177.102.88 on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:54:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
