[ferenc kiefer] hungarian linguistics

8/10/2019 [Ferenc Kiefer] Hungarian Linguistics

1/608


2/608

HUNGARIAN LINGUISTICS


3/608

LINGUISTIC & LITERARY STUDIES IN EASTERN EUROPE (LLSEE)

The emphasis of this scholarly series is on recent developments inLinguistic and Literary Research in Eastern Europe; it includes analysis,

translations and syntheses of current research as well as studies inthe history of linguistic and literary scholarship.

Founding Editor: John Odmark

General Editor: Philip A. Luelsdorff

Volume 4

Ferenc Kiefer (ed.)

Hungarian Linguistics


4/608


5/608

Copyright 1982 - John Benjamins B.V.ISSN 0165 7712 / ISBN 90 272 1508 1

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.


6/608

CONTENTS

I nt r oduct i on 1

Mar i anne Bakr - Nagy

On t he r econst r uct i on of pr oto- meani ngs 7

I van Fnagy

He i s onl y j oki ng ( J oke, metaphor and l anguage devel op

ment ) 31

Pt er Haj dOn t he synt ax of t he negat i ve auxi l i ar y i n Samoyed. . . 109

Robert Hetzr on

Non- appl i cabi l i t y as a t est f or cat egor y def i ni t i ons. 131

Sndor Kr ol y

I nt r ansi t i ve- t r ansi t i ve der i vat i onal suf f i xes i n Hunga

r i an 185

J nos Kel emen

Lukcs' s i deas on l anguage 245I st vn Kenesei

The r ei ncarnat i on of r ai si ng (or how t o r ai se NPs wi t h

out a r ai si ng r ul e) 269

Fer enc Ki ef er

The aspect ual syst em of Hungar i an. 293

Kat al i n E. Ki ss

Samuel Br assai ' s t heor y of t he sent ence 331

Andr s Koml sy

Deep st r uct ur e cases r ei nt er pr et ed 351

I l ona Mol nar

Exi st ent i al r el at i ons i n "hogy" - sent ences i n Hungar i an

387


7/608

Ferenc Papp

For ei gn l anguage envi r onment and l i ngui st i c change: t wo

exampl es 427

Csaba Pl h

Subj ect and topi c i n Hungar i an: some psychol i ngui st i c

evi dence t o i ncr ease t he conf usi on 447

Kat al i n Radi cs

Af f i xed person- mar ki ng par adi gms - a hi st or y and t ypol o

gy 467

Anna Szabol csi

Model t heor et i c semant i cs of perf ormat i ves 515Zsi gmond Tel egdi

On t he f or mat i on of t he concept of ' l i ngui st i c s i gn' and

on St oi c l anguage doctr i ne 537

Rober t Vago

Abst r act / w/ i n Hungar i an 589


8/608

LI ST OF CONTRI BUTORS

Mar i anne Bakr- Nagy, I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Acade

my of Sci ences, 1014 Budapest , Szent hromsg u. 2.

I van Fnagy, CNRS- Par i s , 1, squ. Cl aude Debussy, 9 2160 Ant ony,

France and Uni ver si t y of Szeged, Hungary.

Pet er Haj d, I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Academy of

Sci ences, 1014 Budapest , Szent hromsg u. 2.

Robert Het zr on, Depart ment of Germani c and Sl avi c Languages, Uni

ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a, Sant a Bar bar a, CAL 93106.

Sandor Kar ol y, Depar t ment of Gener al Li ngui st i cs, Uni ver si t y ofSzeged, Hungar y and I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Aca

demy of Sci ences, 1014 Budapest , Szent hromsg u. 2.

J anos Kel emen, I nst i t ute of Phi l osophy, Hungar i an Academy of

Sci ences, 1054 Budapest , Szemere utca 10.

I st vn Kenesei , Depar t ment of Engl i sh, Uni ver si t y of Debr ecen,

Debr ecen.

Fer enc Ki ef er , I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Academy of


Kat al i n E. Ki ss, Depar t ment of Engl i sh, Uni ver si t y of Budapest ,

1054 Budapest , Pest i Bar nabs u. l .

Andr s Koml sy, I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Academy of


I l ona Mol nr , I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Academy of


Fer enc Papp, Depar t ment of Sl avi c Languages, Uni ver si t y of Deb

r ecen, Debr ecen, Hungar y.

Csaba Pl h, Depar t ment of Psychol ogy, Uni ver si t y of Budapest ,1054 Budapest , Pest i Bar nabs u. l .

Kat al i n Radi es, I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Academy of


Anna Szabol csi , I nst i t ut e of Li ngui st i cs, Hungar i an Academy of


Zsi gmond Tel egdi , Depar t ment of Gener al Li ngui st i cs, Uni ver si t y

of Budapest , 1054 Budapest , Pest i Bar nabs u. l .

Rober t Vago, Depar t ment of Li ngui st i cs, Queens Col l ege, The Ci t y

Uni ver si t y of New Yor k, Fl ushi ng, New York 11367.


9/608


10/608

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Thi s vol ume cont ai ns papers on gener al l i ngui st i cs

wr i t t en by Hungar i an schol ar s. The t er m ' gener al l i ngui st i cs'

i s not easy t o def i ne. I s a paper on Hungar i an at t he same

t i me a study i n gener al l i ngui st i cs? Cer t ai nl y not . But i t

coul d be consi dered so i f i t cont ai ned some general concl u

si ons concer ni ng the st r uct ur e of l anguage. I n gener al , ast udy i n gener al l i ngui st i cs shoul d t el l us somet hi ng novel

about t he st r uct ur e of l anguage. Evi dent l y, t hen, my pr i ma

ry concern has been to sel ect papers whi ch cont ai n, beyond

t he descr i pt i ve aspect , some gener al l i ngui st i c i nsi ght s as

wel l . Of cour se, var i ous l i ngui st i c school s may requi r e di f

f er ent degr ees of expl i ci t ness. Thi s i s t r ue of Hungar i an l i n

gui st i cs as wel l . I t shoul d not be sur pr i si ng then t hat t he

gener al l i ngui st i c aspect s ar e not al ways made f ul l y expl i ci ti n t he papers of t he pr esent vol ume.

Gener al l i ngui st i cs does not mean t heor et i cal l i ngui s

t i cs. Not al l l i ngui st i c school s or t r ends can be sai d t o have

al r eady acqui r ed the st at us of a t heor y. Al t hough t he ul t i mat e

goal of l i ngui st i c r esear ch i s (or shoul d be) t he const r uct i on

of an appr opr i at e t heory, t hi s goal cannot be achi eved but

gr adual l y. Pr esent - day gener al l i ngui st i cs i ncl udes t her ef or e

t heor et i cal appr oaches as wel l as descr i pt i ve ones. Gi ven

t hi s st at e of t he ar t i t does not come as a sur pr i se that t hepaper s of t he pr esent col l ect i on show an unequal degr ee of


11/608

2 HUNGARI AN GENERAL LI NGUI STI CS

t heor et i cal or i ent at i on. Some of t hem have been concei ved

of i n a mor e descr i pt i ve spi r i t , ot her s have put mor e emphasi s

on t heor et i cal i ssues.

I t i s perhaps wor t hwhi l e t o poi nt out t hat none of t he

paper s of t hi s vol ume repr esent s Hungar i an l i ngui st i c t r adi

t i on, that i s , gi ven t he Hungar i an l i ngui st i c cont ext , none of

t hem can be t er med t r adi t i onal . I n order t o provi de some back

gr ound agai nst whi ch t hese papers shoul d be eval uated, l et me

br i ef l y evoke some of t he most sal i ent f eat ur es of Hungar i anl i ngui st i c t radi t i on. (Thi s t radi t i on was predomi nant between

t he t wo Wor l d War s but f or var i ous r easons i t was rather i n

f l uent i al unt i l qui t e r ecent l y. )

( i ) The Neogr ammar i an school ' s' i nf l uence on Hungar i an

l i ngui st i cs was more l ast i ng than i n t he nei ghbor i ng coun

t r i es ( especi al l y Czechosl ovaki a and Rumani a) or i n West er n

Eur ope. The st udy of contempor ary l anguage was a r el at i vel y

l at e achi evement . Unt i l r at her r ecent l y (the l at e f i f t i es) des

cri pt i ve studi es wer e not consi der ed t o be a wor t hy schol ar l y

ent er pr i se. Hence no descr i pt i ve t r adi t i on coul d devel op i n

Hungar y. Resear ch i n l i ngui sti cs f ocused on et ymol ogy, hi st o

r i cal phonet i cs, mor phol ogy and (to a l esser ext ent ) on hi st o

r i cal synt ax.

( i i ) Li ngui st i cs was part of cul t ur al hi stor y. Cul t ur al

hi stor y al so i ncl udes l i t er at ur e. Li ngui st i cs and l i terature

wer e t hus cl ose al l i es i n Hungar i an t r adi t i on. To st udy t he

l anguage of wr i t er s and poet s was one of t he f avor i t e r esear cht opi cs. Ever yday l anguage was not even envi saged ( except for

di al ect s) as a possi bl e subj ect of i nvest i gat i on.

( i i i ) The descr i pt i on of t he Hungar i an di al ect s was con

si der ed as one of t he mai n t asks of l i ngui st i c schol ar shi p.

However , i t was not t he descr i pt i ve aspect per se t hat was i m

por t ant si nce di al ect ol ogy, t oo, ser ved hi st or i cal pur poses.

The descr i pt i on of di al ect s was ut i l i zed f or maki ng i nf erences

about ear l i er st ages of l anguage devel opment ( ' geographi c


12/608

I NTRODUCTI ON 3

mappi ngs' ) .

( i v) I n gr ammar s whi ch, of cour se, exi st ed but were

wr i t t en most l y f or el ement ar y and secondar y educat i on, l i ngui st i c

exampl es woul d excl usi vel y be taken f r om l i t er ar y

wor ks. J ohn Lot z whose Hungari an gr ammar was t he f i r st descr i pt i ve

gr ammar of Hungar i an concei ved of ' out si de of ' Hungar i an

l i ngui st i c t r adi t i on ( publ i shed i n St ockhol m i n 1938)

had t o poi nt out cl ear l y and r esol ut el y t hat he had i nvent ed

al l hi s exampl es but t hese exampl es were as good Hungar i an asci t ed exampl es woul d have been si nce he was a nat i ve speaker

of Hungar i an. Ot her Hungar i an gr ammar s were def i ni t el y pr escr i p

t i ve r at her t han descri pt i ve.

(v) Fr om what has been sai d so f ar t he next f eat ur e of

Hungar i an t r adi t i onal l i ngui st i cs al r eady f ol l ows: i t was al

most excl usi vel y dat a- or i ent ed. I t pr oduced a ser i es of i mpor

t ant di ct i onar i es: et ymol ogi cal di ct i onar i es, wr i t er s' di ct i o

nar i es, expl anat or y di ct i onar i es, di ct i onar i es of pl ace names,descr i pt i ons of di al ectal wor ds, et c.

(vi ) Hungar i an l i ngui st i cs was not compl et el y f r ee f r om

cer t ai n nat i onal i st i c t r ai t s. Ther e ar e mul t i f ar i ous soci al and

pol i t i cal r easons whi ch may expl ai n nat i onal i sm i n schol ar shi p

and even j ust i f y i t t o some extent . At t hi s pl ace, however , I

cannot go i nt o t he det ai l s of t hi s quest i on. To be sure, t o

i nqui r e i nt o t he past of t he Hungar i an peopl e meant t o f ur t her

nat i onal consci uosness. Li ngui st i cs bei ng par t of hi st or y had

t o t ake i t s shar e i n t hi s wor k. The hi st or i cal - cul t ur al t r adi t i on was soon l abel l ed Hungar i an t r adi t i on and l i ngui st i c t r ends

comi ng f r om abr oad i n moder n t i mes were al i en t o t hi s t r adi t i on

and t hus t hey were l ooked upon wi t h suspi ci on. (Nota bene: Hun

gar i an l i ngui st i cs was qui t e open t o f or ei gn i nf l uence i n t he

19t h cent ur y and dur i ng the f i r st t wo decades of t he 20t h cen

tury) . Two out st andi ng except i ons shoul d however be r emember ed:

Gyul a Lazi czi us and Zol t n Gombocz, pr of essor s at Budapest Uni

ver si t y. Unf or t unat el y, t hei r i nf l uence on Hungar i an l i ngui st i cs


13/608


r emai ned r at her spor adi c.

(vi i ) Unt i l the l at e f i f t i es Hungar i an l i ngui s t i c l i f e

coul d go on accor di ng to t r adi t i on. The Pr ague school , i n spi t e

of t he geogr aphi cal nearness, had pr act i cal l y no i nf l uence on

i t . De Saussur e' s or Hj el msl ev' s works were compl et el y unknown.

Psychol ogi cal t heor i es of by- gone t i mes have l i ved a l ast i ng

and secret l i f e i n t he vi ews of many Hungar i an l i ngui st s. These

vi ews t oget her wi t h t he al l i ance wi t h hi st or y and l i t er at ur e

meant a def i ni t e ref usal of any l ogi cal ( exact , f or mal ) appr oacht o l anguage st udy.

( vi i i ) At t he end of t he f i f t i es t he si t uat i on began t o

change. Descr i pt i ve st udi es wer e f ur t her ed and appr eci at ed.

One coul d of t en encount er t he names of Bl oomf i el d, Sapi r ,

Har r i s, and de Saussur e i n l i ngui st i c wr i t i ngs, t hough, of cour se,

t her e was no quest i on of a descr i pt i ve br eakt hrough. Mat hema

t i cal met hods, t oo, became popul ar and i n t he ear l y si xt i es

sever al r esear cher s wer e worki ng i n t he ar ea of comput at i onal

l i ngui st i cs. By t he mi d- si xt i es t he f i r st gener at i ve st udi es

on Hungar i an appear ed. Hi st or i cal l i ngui st i cs, especi al l y Ur a-

l i s t i c s , became more r ecept i ve t o new i deas. Qui t e a f ew l i n

gui st s got i nt er est ed i n pr obl ems of t he phi l osophy of l anguage,

psychol i ngui st i cs and l anguage t ypol ogy. I n sum, Hungar i an l i n

gui st i c l i f e has became mor e di ver si f i ed and mor e i nt er nat i onal ,

My char act er i zat i on of Hungar i an t r adi t i onal l i ngui st i cs

i n no way i mpl i es t hat I do not acknowl edge t he resul t s obt ai ned

by t hi s school . Tr adi t i onal l i ngui st i cs di d a good deal of i mpor t ant wor k i n var i ous f i el ds. I have al r eady ment i oned the

l ar ge number of di ct i onar i es compi l ed whi ch ar e undoubt edl y i n

di spensabl e f or most ( i ncl udi ng, of cour se, descri pt i ve) l i n

gui st i c wor k. The r ecor di ng and t he descri pt i on of hi st or i cal

document s, t oo, wer e i mpor t ant achi evement s. But t r adi t i onal

l i ngui st i cs was def i ni t el y one- si ded and bi ased i n many res

pect s and i t was t oo ' nat i onal ' i n i t s met hodol ogy and phi l o

sophy.


14/608

I NTRODUCTI ON 5

I t shoul d be cl ear by now why t he papers i n t hi s ant hol ogy

ar e not t r adi t i onal : t hey ar e not t r adi t i onal because nei t her

descr i pt i ve nor t heor et i cal or i ent at i on bel onged t o t r adi t i on.

The present ant hol ogy i s t hus not meant t o provi de a

compr ehensi ve over vi ew of Hungar i an l i ngui st i c l i f e. Li ngust i c

wor ks concei ved i n t he spi r i t of Hungar i an t r adi t i on have

not been i ncl uded i n thi s vol ume. Nei t her have been works i n

t he f i el ds of aDpl i ed and comput at i onal l i ngui st i cs. On t he ot her

hand, however , t he pr esent col l ect i on i s meant t o be repr esent at i ve wi t h r espect t o Hungar i an gener al l i ngui st i cs. Most of

t he appr oaches ar e repr esent ed i n t hi s vol ume. Thus, t he paper s

may gi ve t he reader an i dea of what ki nd of t opi cs are deal t wi t h

i n pr esent - day Hungar i an gener al l i ngui st i cs. The t opi cs i ncl ude

t he phi l osophy of l anguage ( J . Kel emen) , psychol i ngui st i cs (Cs.

Pl h) , gener at i ve synt ax ( I . Kenesei ) , hi st or i cal l i ngui st i cs

( M. Bakro- Nagy and t o some ext ent F. Papp) , t he hi stor y of l i n

gui st i cs ( Zs. Tel egdi ) , the hi st or y of Hungar i an l i ngui st i cs

( K. E. Ki ss) , l anguage t ypol ogy ( A. Koml sy and K. Radi es) , gener a

t i ve phonol ogy ( r epr esent ed here by a paper by R. Vago who l i ves

i n t he U. S. A. ) , Mont ague gr ammar ( A. Szabol csi ) , more or l ess t heo

r et i cal l y or i ent ed descr i pt i ve studi es of var i ous l i ngui st i c

phenomena as negat i on, suf f i xat i on, aspect , f ocus, exi st ent i al

sent ences ( P. Haj d, R. Het zr on (U. S. A. ) , I . Mol nr , F. Ki ef er , S.

Kar ol y) and ' i nt er di sci pl i nar y' ( I . Fnagy) . Of cour se, t hese

l abel s ar e not excl usi ve, sever al ar t i cl es coul d be cl assi f i ed

accor di ng t o more t han one l abel .As to t he qual i f i cat i on ' Hungar i an' i t shoul d be not ed

t hat i t does not mean ' l i vi ng i n Hungar y' . But i t cer t ai nl y

means t hat t he person' s work ei t her cent ers ar ound the Hungar i an

l anguage or i t has cl ose t i es t o pr esent - day Hungar i an l i ngui s

t i cs, or bot h. The study of t he par t i cul ar f eat ur es of Hungar i an

may pr ovi de i mpor t ant cont r i but i ons t o gener al l i ngui st i cs. And

t he l abel ' Hungar i an gener al l i ngui st i cs' shoul d cover t hi s as

pect as wel l . I n t hi s sense Hungar i an gener al l i ngui st i cs canbe done anywhere i n the wor l d: i n Par i s and New Yor k, i n Sant a


15/608


Bar bar a and St ockhol m j ust as wel l as i n Hungar y.

Most of t he paper s wer e or i gi nal l y wr i t t en i n Hungar i an.

I wi sh to expr ess my gr at i t ude to Far r el Acker man ( Ber kel ey)

who took upon hi msel f t he l abor i ous work of checki ng the Engl i sh

of t he t r ansl at i ons. Wi t hout hi s hel p t hi s ant hol ogy woul d con

t ai n even mor e f l aws. I hope t hat t he Engl i sh reader wi l l f or

gi ve t he r emai ni ng styl i st i c bl under s and cl umsy f or mul at i ons.

Par i s , September 1979

Fer enc Ki ef er


16/608

ON THE RECONSTRUCTI ON OF PROTO- MEANI NGS

Mar i anne Sz. Bakr- Nagy

1. 0. The ai m of t hi s paper i s t o show how component i al anal ysi s

can be made use of i n di achr oni c semant i c anal ysi s,

more exact l y, i n determi ni ng meani ngs of l exemes bel ongi ng

t o a r econst r uct ed pr ot o- l anguage, t hat i s, pr ot o- meani ngs.What I am goi ng to say at t hi s pl ace wi l l excl usi vel y appl y

t o unwr i t t en l anguages and f ami l i es of l anguages i n par

t i cul ar , t he Ur al i c f ami l y. I n or der t o r econst r uct t he or i

gi nal ( prot o- ) l anguage(s) of such f ami l i es, some met hods

t hat woul d possi bl y be di scarded el sewhere may be cal l ed f or .

I t ake component i al anal ysi s t o be one such method, f i t

f or t he semant i c i nvest i gat i on of t he or i gi nal , common wor d

st ock of l anguages l acki ng wr i t t en document s. My r easons f ort hi s ar e as f ol l ows:

(a) Resear ch i n hi st or i cal semant i cs t r i es t o t hr ow

l i ght on r el at i ons of known ( document ed) meani ngs. "Wi t h

wr i t t en l anguages of di f f er ent l evel s schol ar s can check hy

potheses i n t wo di r ect i ons because t hey have document ed ver i

f i cat i on whi ch pr ovi des r el at i ve chr onol ogy. Schol ar s who

work wi t h unwr i t t en l anguages cannot do t hi s i n qui t e the same

way si nce they have onl y one DOCUMENTED t i me- poi nt , namel y

t he pr esent . " (Haas 1970: 116) The t ask of r econst r uct i on,t her ef or e, i s, by expl or i ng common f eat ur es of pr esent - day,


17/608


known meani ngs, t o t ry t o set up t he or i gi nal , or pr i mar y,

meani ng( s) , out of whi ch t he daughter l anguage meani ngs can

be deduced.

(b) Accor di ng t o cur r ent pr act i ce - at l east as f ar as

Ur al i s t i cs i s concer ned - meani ngs r econst r uct ed f or t he pr ot o-

l anguage ar e gi ven i n some nat ur al l anguage, whi ch i s wr ong i n

t wo r espect s. On t he one hand, i f we t ake our pr ot o- l anguage

t o be a hypot het i cal , met al i ngui st i c syst em t hat was never

spoken as a nat ur al l anguage i n t he f orm we r econst r uct ed i t ,t hen each i t em of t hi s met al i ngui s t i c sys t em i s necessar i l y

met al i ngui st i c . On t he ot her hand, i f we c l ai m t hat al l seman

t i c f eat ur es whi ch we use t o desc r i be meani ngs i n daught er l an

guages ar e i t ems of a met al anguage, t hen i n post ul at i ng a pr ot o-

meani ng we cannot ' t r ansl at e' a cl ust er of t hese f eat ur es, or

der ed i n some hi er ar chy, i nt o any nat ur al l anguage, even i f

t her e happens t o be a nat ur al l anguage i n whi ch t he meani ng

concer ned i s absol ut el y i dent i cal wi t h t he r econst r uct ed met a

l i ngui s t i c ( pr ot o- ) meani ng. Mor eover , i t i s hi ghl y i mpr obabl e

t hat a nat ur al l anguage coul d be f ound i n whi ch f or any l exeme

al l meani ngs coul d be mat ched exact l y, say, wi t h t he cor r espon

di ng pr ot o- meani ngs r econst r uct ed f or Pr ot o- Fi nno- Ugr i c ( hence

f or t h PFU) ( cf . t he f eat ur es of t he pr ot o- meani ng r econst r uct ed

bel ow, e. g. wi t h t hose of h i t ) .

(c) The i nqui r y i nt o semant i c changes may r eveal i nt er

medi at e l evel s t hat may have exi st ed bet ween t he l evel of pro

t o- meani ngs and t he l evel of pr esent - day meani ngs ( cf . t het abl es depi ct i ng t he di r ect i on of semant i c changes bel ow) . Con

sequent l y , t her e r emai ns l ess poss i bi l i t y of expl ai ni ng changes

i n mat t er s and t hi ngs by vi r t ue of semant i c changes.

1. 1. The f i r st st ep t owar ds t he r econst r uct i on of a pr o-

t o- meani ng i s an anal ysi s of t he semant i c f eat ur es of r el at ed

l exemes . As i s known, t he onl y t ype of meani ng t hat can be ana

l ysed by means of component i al anal ysi s i s denot at i ve ( or cog

ni t i ve) meani ng. Not i ce. t hat t hough an et ymol ogi st , i n set t i ngup meani ng cor r espondences, has t o consi der al l meani ngs of a


18/608

ON THE RECONSTRUCTI ON OF PROTO- MEANI NGS 9

part i cul ar wor d at t he begi nni ng, when he i s conf r ont i ng mean

i ngs i n var i ous l anguages; he can onl y wor k wi t h one t ype of

meani ng, namel y denot at i ve meani ng. He f i l t er s out of t he t o

t al meani ng at hi s di sposal ( r epr esent i ng di ver se t ypes of

meani ng) j ust what i s i dent i cal i n al l i ndi vi dual senses, what

i s r el at i vel y const ant , t hat i s, t he cor e meani ng. Of cour se,

t he i nvest i gat i on of semant i c changes i s anot her mat t er , si nce

such changes can be i nduced by connot at i on. I n sum, t hen, we

can st ate that i n set t i ng up semant i c cor r espondences we canonl y work wi t h a t ype of meani ng t hat can be descr i bed i n ter ms

of semant i c f eat ur es.

1. 2. Feat ur e anal ysi s may be connect ed wi t h cer t ai n t ech

ni cal pr obl ems. Let me ment i on but one of t hese pr obl ems here.

I t i s wel l - known, at l east f or Ur al i st s, t hat our dat a about

Ur al i c l anguages di f f er wi del y bot h f r om a qual i t at i ve and a

quant i t at i ve poi nt of vi ew. Ther e ar e l anguages and di al ect s

about whi ch we have pl ent y of r el i abl e mat er i al but t her e ar e

al so some ot her s of whi ch we know qui t e l i t t l e. I n many cases

we have at our di sposal one di ct i onary meani ng onl y f or a gi ven

l exi cal i t em. Thi s uneven suppl y of data may make anal ysi s and

r econst r uct i on uncer t ai n. However , Ur al i st i cs al ways had t o put

up wi t h scant y i nf or mat i on. Our r esul t s can be easi l y modi f i ed as

soon as new data become avai l abl e. "But more evi dence, or di f

f er ent evi dence - t he di scover y of a new daugt her l anguage, f or

i nst ance - can br i ng new i nsi ght s whi ch may at any t i me make

i t necessary to change t he r econst r uct i on. . . " (Haas 1970: 130) .1. 3. I cl ai m t hat i n anal ysi ng meani ng we have t o f i r st

def i ne the semant i c f i el d t o whi ch t he gi ven meani ng bel ongs

(cf. Bakr 1978: 388) . Thi s cl ai m needs j ust i f i cat i on. Semant i c

f i el ds and semant i c f eat ur es ar e ver y cl osel y i nt er r el at ed (c f .

e. g. A. Lehr er 1974: 66- 72, Ni da 1975: 174- 193, but cf . al so Lyons:

326 f or t he opposi t e vi ew) . Lexemes bel ongi ng t o t he same f i el d

wi l l exhi bi t some common f eat ur es and whet her cer t ai n l exemes

bel ong t o t he same f i el d or not can onl y be deci ded on the ba

si s of shar ed f eat ur es. Whi ch i s pr i mar y t hen: t he i nvest i gat i on


19/608


20/608


more t hat t hi s l exeme has et ymol ogi cal cor r espondences i n ge

net i cal l y r el at ed l anguages wi t h the meani ng ' cut 1. By appl y

i ng t he i nt er nal r econst r uct i on of meani ngs f or ' hi t ' , ' ki l l '

and ' r esembl e' t he onl y common f eat ur e woul d be [ Event ] . ( ' hi t '

and ' ki l l ' have addi t i onal f eat ur es i n common as [Change] ,

[ Act i vi t y] , e t c but . t hese do not appear i n ' r esembl e' si nce

t hi s l exeme cont ai ns [State] , et c. ) I t i s qui t e evi dent t hat

t he f eat ur e [ Event ] i s not suf f i ci ent i n or der t o r el at e our

l exemes t o ' cu t ' . I f , however , we t r eat ' hi t ' , ' ki l l ' and ' r esembl e' separ atel y by compar i ng each of t hemwi t h ' cut ' , i t can

be seen t hat one get s a sat i sf act or y match between ' hi t ' and

' cut ' whi l e ' ki l l ' and ' r esembl e' can be t r aced back t o ' hi t '

as secondary meani ngs.

I n sum, t hen, I shal l set out t o anal yse t he denot at i ve

meani ngs of t he cor r espondi ng words i n each rel ated l anguage

i n t er ms of semant i c f eat ur es. Next , t hese f eat ur es wi l l be exa

mi ned wi t hi n the appr opr i at e semant i c f i el ds.

2. 0. Let me st ar t wi t h some pr el i mi nar y r emarks.

(1) I n t he anal ysi s bel ow I shal l not pr esent i n t hei r ent i r et y

t he f i el d to whi ch t he par t i cul ar meani ngs under di scussi on be

l ong; t he enumer at i on of al l t he dat a and al l t he sour ces woul d

be a l engt hy ent er pr i se. But i n or der t o j ust i f y the sel ect i on

of a f eat ur e I shal l i n each case speci f y whi ch ot her meani ngs

mot i vat e the t ype of opposi t i on expr essed i n t hat par t i cul ar

f eat ur e. I n t he sel ect i on of f eat ur es, t hat i s, i n t he set t i ngup of opposi t i ons I have t aken Leech ( 1974: 95- 125) as a poi nt

of depar t ur e. For t he sake of i l l ust r at i on consi der t he f ol l ow

i ng exampl e. Number s are used to f aci l i t at e r ef er ence.

Vogul ( Nor t hern di al ect s) ' ki ck'

Opposi t i ons

(1) [ +Event ] [ - Event ] : ( i ) [+Enti ty ]


21/608


( 2) [ +Change] [ - Change] : ( i i ) [ +St at e]

( 3) [ +Act i vi t y] [ - Act i vi ty] : ( i i i ) [ +Process]

(4) [ +Phys i cal ac t i v i t y ] : ( i v)

(v)

( v i )

(5) [+Contact] [-C ont act ] : ( v i i ) [+Communication]

(vii i) [+Motion]

( i x) [ +Tr ansf er ]

(x) [ +Physi ol ogi cal ]

( x i )

(6) [+Animate] (x i i ) [+Inanimate]

(7) [+Human] [-Human] : ( x i i i ) [+Animal]

(xiv) [+Plant]

(8) [ +wi t h par t of body] [- wi th part of body] :

( xv) [ +wi t h whol e body]

( 9) [ +wi t h f oot ] [ - wi th f o o t ] :

( xvi )

( 10) [ +I nani mat e obj ect ] ( xvi i ) [ +Ani mat e obj ect ]

( 11) [ +Di scr et e] [ - Di scr et e] : ( xvi i i ) [ +Cont i nuous]

( 12) [ +For cef ul l y] [ - For cef ul l y] : ( xi x) [ +Sof t l y]

Features (1)-(12) are the semant i c f eat ur es of ' ki ck' , whi l e

f eat ur es ( i ) - ( xi x) ar e t he f eat ur es t hat ar e i n oppos i t i on t ot he f eat ur es ( 1 ) - ( 1 2 ) . Let me ment i on a f ew exampl es f or f eat ur es

( i i ) - (xi x) :'


22/608


(i i ) [+State] : ' f eel col d' [ +Physi cal ] ; ' know' [ +I ntel l ec-

t ual ] ; ' f ear' [ +Emot i ve] , et c.

( i i i ) [+Process] : ' f r eeze' [ +Physi cal ] ; ' t hi nk' [ +I nt el l ec-

t ual ] ; ' come t o hat e' [ +Emot i onal ] ; ' see'

[ +Sensoryl , et c.

( i v) [+I ntel l ectual act i vi t y] : ' l earn' , ' deci de' , et c.

(v) [ +Emot i ve act i vi t y] : ' mour n' , et c.

(vi ) [+Sensory act i vi t y] : ' l ook' , ' l i sten t o' , et c.

( vi i ) [ +Communi cat i on] : ' t al k' , ' show' , et c.(vi i i ) [+Mot i on] : ' take f l i ght ' , ' di ve' , et c.

( i x) [ +Transf er ] : ' get ' , ' st eal ' , et c.

(x) [ +Physi ol ogi cal ] : ' dr i nk' , ' eat ' , et c.

(xi ) [+Compl ex act i vi t i es] : ' bui l d' , ' cook' , et c.

(6) and (xi i ) ar e f eat ur es descr i bi ng t he agent of t he act i vi

t i es. Ver bs havi ng an agent [ +I nani mate] cannot be descr i bed

by t he f eat ur es [ +Pr ocess] or [ +Act i vi t y] . For exampl e,

' f r eeze' i s [ +Process] when speaki ng of humans or ani mal s but

+Change ] when speaki ng of i nani mat es ( e. g. water ) because i n

t he f ormer cases [- (-Process] can be opposed t o somethi ng el se

- [ +Acti vi t y] - but i n t he l at t er one i t cannot be opposed

t o anythi ng. The same appl i es t o pl ant s t oo (see bel ow) .

( xi i i ) [+Ani mal ] : ' st amp ( horse) ' , ' swoop ( k i t e ) ' , e tc .

(xv) [+wi th whol e body] : ' l ean on' , ' kock agai nst ' , ' push' ,

etc .

(xvi ) [f wi th ot her par t s of body] : ' gr asp' , ' bi t e' , ' t ouch' ,

etc .

( xvi i ) [ +Ani mate obj ect ] : a f eat ur e descr i bi ng t he obj ect of

t he acti vi t y, e. g. ' bri ng down' , et c.

( xvi i i ) [ +Cont i nuous] : ' cat ch' , ' smoot h' , ' t r ampl e' , et c.

( xi x) [ +Sof t l y] : ' smoot h' , ' t ouch' , et c.

(2) Si nce onl y denotat i ve meani ngs can be t aken i nt o account

i n set t i ng up cor r espondences, I shal l di spense wi t h the pr esent a

t i on of any nondenotat i ve meani ng i n my dat a.


23/608


(3) I n an etymol ogy ( whenever possi bl e) onl y root st ems are t o

be consi der ed. I n f i el d i nvest i gat i on, however , meani ngs of

der i vat i ves nave t o be t aken i nt o consi der at i on as wel l .

2. 1. I n sel ect i ng my exampl e i t was not my ai m t o f i nd

an etymol ogy i nvol vi ng many l anguages, r eveal i ng ver y compl i

cat ed semant i c r el at i ons and l eadi ng to a pr oto- meani ng whi ch

i s har d t o r econst r uct . On t he cont r ar y, I have t r i ed t o f i nd

an exampl e whi ch can al so i l l ust r at e t he t heor et i cal pr obl ems

r ai sed i n t he f i r st par t of t hi s paper (see al so Bakr 1978) ,and one whi ch we do not encount er so f r equent l y i n t he l i t er a

t ur e.

PFU *ca3- ' hi t '

Mordvi n Er za di al , avo- , Moksha di al , avo- ' hi t ' , ' beat ' ,

' st r i ke/ beat sy dead' ( Erza and Moksha di al s. ) ; ' ki l l ' ( Moksha

d i a l . ) ~ Cher emi s Mount ai n di al , an e- , Ur um di al , oe- ,

Bi ask oe, f er i e- ' make a cut ' , ' car pent er a bl ockhouse'

( Mount , di al . , Ur um di al . ) ; ' carve (a cut t i ng i n) ' (Bi ask

di al . ) ~ Ost yak Vah- Vasyugan di al , o - , Tremyugan di al .

ok- , Demj anka di al , on , Ni sj am di al , un _, Kasi m di al .

oObdorks di al , so ' ki ck our ( hor se) , ki ck, t r i p sy up,

swoop ( up) on sg, sy ( ki te) ' ~ Vogul Tavda di al , ak- , Lower -

Losva di al . sanV- , Mi ddl e- Losva di al , sk- , Pel ym di al , sank- ,

Nort hern di al , san w- ' ki ck, ki ck out ( horse) ' .

These cor r espondences wer e f i r st set up by L. Hont i ( 1978: 370) .

I t may seem cur i ous t hat I have chosen an etymol ogy t hat con

t ai ns t he reconst r uct ed pr ot o- meani ng as wel l - but at t he end

of t he anal ysi s i t wi l l be shown why and i n what way t hi s pro

t o- meani ng i s i n need of cor r ect i on.

I n my anal ysi s I shal l not di st i ngui sh bet ween ' semant i c

mar ker s' and ' di st i ngui sher s' ( cf . Fodor - Kat z 1964: 497) , that

i s, I subscr i be t o Wei nr ei ch' s ( 1971) and Bi er wi sch' s ( 1969)

vi ew t hat such a di st i nct i on i s unwar r ant ed.Nor shal l I cat egor i ze f eat ur es i n any ot her way, cont r ar y


24/608


t o e. g. Ni da' s ( 1975: 32- 87) concept i on. I have dr awn l ar gel yon t he paper s by Voyl es ( 1973) , Fi l l more ( 1971) and Gul st ad( 1974) . Let us pr oceed i n t he or der of l anguages as gi ven i nt he etymol ogy above. Al l f eat ur es shoul d be taken to have t hespeci f i cat i on ' +' .

Mordvi n

As we saw above, both di al ect s shar e the meani ngs I . ' hi t ' , I I .' str i ke dead' and I I I . ' beat ' , whi l e t he Er za di al ect al so has

t he meani ng I V. ' ki l l ' .

I . ' hi t '

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi cal

Cont actHuman

wi t h hand/ t ool

Obj ect

Di scr et e

For cef ul l y

The verb r ef er s t o a [ Physi cal act i vi t y] , as opposed t o al l

ver bs denot i ng an i nt el l ect ual , emot i ve and sensor y act i vi t y.

The agent of t he act i on i s [ Human] as opposed t o act i vi t i es

done by ani mal s ( t hough t hese can i n many cases coi nci de wi t h

act i ons done by humans) . The f eat ur e [ Cont act ] opposes t hi s

ver b to ot her meani ngs such as communi cat i on, mot i on, et c. The

f eat ur e [ wi t h hand] r ef er s t o t he i nst r ument of t he act i on.

Thi s l at t er f eat ure opposes our verb t o ot her s havi ng [ Cont act ]

whi ch have t he f eat ur e [ wi t h whol e body] , ' push' , ' t hr ust ' ,

or wher e t he cont act i s carr i ed out by some ot her par t of t he

body, e. g. [ wi t h f oot ] : ' t read' , ' ki ck' ; [ wi t h f i nger] :' knock' , et c. The f eat ur e [ wi t h t ool ] f i gur es opt i onal l y i n


25/608


connect i on wi t h the f eat ur e[ wi t h hand] , f or i n bot h Mor dvi n

di al ect s t her e ar e ot her meani ngs i n whi ch [ wi t h hand] and

[ wi t h t ool ] go t oget her , but we al so f i nd meani ngs wher e thi s

i s not t he case, f or exampl e, when we have t o do wi t h t he mean

i ng ' comi ng i nt o cont act wi t h some par t i cul ar i nst r ument , e. g.

wi t h a st i ck as i n ' str i ke' , ' s l ash' , ' stab' , et c. The f eat ur e

[ Di scr et e] st ands i n cont r ast wi t h meani ngs denot i ng cont i

nuous act i on, e. g. ' pr ess' , ' smoot h' , et c. , t he f eat ur e [ For ce

f ul l y] i s needed i n or der t o keep apar t ' hi t ' f r om act i vi t i esi nvol vi ng compar at i vel y l esser f or ce, e. g. ' t ouch' , ' f e e l ' ,

' st roke' , et c. Fi nal l y, t he f eat ur e [ obj ect] r ef er s t o t he

t hi ng whi ch under goes, or i s af f ected by, t he act i on (i t can

be bot h ani mat e and i nani mat e) .

Ot her f eat ur es come readi l y t o mi nd as wel l , e. g. a f ea

t ur e speci f yi ng t he speed of hi t t i ng si nce t he semant i c f i el d

i n quest i on al so i ncl udes meani ngs r ef er r i ng to qui ck hi t t i ng.

On t he other hand, t her e ar e no l exemes r ef er r i ng t o sl ow

hi t t i ng. I t i s qui t e possi bl e, however , t hat t he neut r al

' hi t ' st ands f or sl ow hi t t i ng. Si nce, however , we do not want

t o al l ow f or f eat ur es t hat are used mer el y t o di st i ngui sh

t he meani ng of t wo l exi cal i t ems, t he f eat ur e about speed wi l l

not be i ncl uded among the semant i c f eat ur es.

Anot her candi dat e i s the sound or l oudness of hi t t i ng:

we can f i nd l exemes wi t hi n the semant i c f i el d of hi t t i ng whose

meani ngs can di f f er i n t hi s r espect {'e.g. swi sh, crack,

et c. ) but , once agai n, t her e ar e no l exemes r ef er r i ng t o ' hi t -t i ng wi t hout sound' and i t woul d seem t hat f r om a semant i c

poi nt of vi ew t he i nf or mat i on about t he l oudness of hi t t i ng

seems t o be i r r el evant f or t he descr i pt i on of ' hi t ' . I t seems

t o be equal l y i mpl ausi bl e to post ul at e a f eat ur e f or t he r e

sul t of hi t t i ng i n or der t o account f or t he r esul t s of act i

vi t i es such as t hose denot ed by the Engl i sh ver bs ' st r i ke down' ,

' st r i ke i nt o' , ' st r i ke of f ' , ' st r i ke through' , et c .

I I . ' st r i ke/ beat dead'


26/608


Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi cal

Cont act

Human

wi t h hand/ t ool

Human/ Ani mal

Cont i nuousFor cef ul l y

Cause- not - l i vi ng

The f i r st si x f eatures are t he same as above, t he f eature [ Human/

Ani mal ] cont r ast s wi t h al l meani ngs denot i ng an act i vi t y t hat r e

f er s t o hi t t i ng an [ I nani mat e obj ect] or [ pl ant ] , whi l e t he

f eat ur e [ Cause- not - l i vi ng] st ands i n opposi t i on t o t he f ea

t ur e [ Cause- l i vi ng] .

As we can see, t wo f eat ur es shar pl y di st i ngui sh ' hi t ' and

' st r i ke/ beat dead' f r om each ot her . The l ast f eat ur e speci f i es

t he meani ng i n quest i on i s bel ongi ng t o a separ at e semant i c

f i el d i n t he Erza di al ect .

I I I . ' beat , t hr ash'

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi cal

Cont act

Human

wi t h hand/ t ool

Ani mat e obj ect

Cont i nuous

For cef ul l y

Most of t hese f eat ur es are t he same as above, t he f eat ur e [ Ani -


27/608


28/608


some comment s. I t seems t o be evi dent t hat t hi s meani ng i n

vol ves t he const r uct i on of a r oughl y car pent ered wooden bui l

di ng. We know t hat t he Cheremi s l i ved i n bl ockhouses. These

houses as wel l as other bui l di ngs were car pent er ed out of

l ogs. Not i ce t hat Meani ng VI I . i n di al ect Mount ai n al so

r ef er s t o car pent er i ng bl ockhouses. Logs wer e f i t t ed toget her

accor di ng to a cer t ai n system ( bond) . To make t hem j oi n they

were car ved i n t he appr opr i ate pl aces. Hence we have to do

wi t h t he meani ng ' carve a cut t i ng (i n a l og) ' i n t hi s case.

V. ' make a cut '

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi cal

Cont act

Humanwi t h t ool

Cause- ent er

I nani mat e obj ect

Di scr et e

Agai n, t he f i r st si x f eat ur es coi nci de wi t h t hose of ' hi t ' .

The f eat ure [ wi t h t ool ] cont r ast s t hi s meani ng wi t h al l mean

i ngs i n whi ch t he f eat ur e [ wi t h par t of body] occur s . The f ea

t ur e [ Cause- ent er ] can al so appear i n t he meani ngs of ' c u t ' ,

' sl ash' , ' cl eave' , ' sever ' , ' peel ' , ' f l ay' , ' car ve' , ' pr i ck' ,

' stab' and ot her s.

VI . ' car pent er (a bui l di ng) '

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi cal

VI . ' car pent er (a bui l di ng) '


29/608


The f eature [ Compl ex act i vi t y] i s i n opposi t i on t o t he f ea

t ur es [ Contact] , [ Movement ] , et c. , t he f eat ur e [ creat i on] t o

t he f eat ur es [ Cooki ng] , et c. , t he f eat ur e [ Bui l di ng] ( descr i bi ng t he r esul t of creat i on) t o t he f eat ur es [ Furni t ure] ,

[ vehi c l e] et c.

VI I . ' Carve (a cut t i ng i n a l og) '

Al l f eat ur es coi nci de wi t h t he f eat ur es of meani ng V. ' make

a cut ' except f or t he f eat ur e [ Cause- not - cont i nuous] . Thi sf eat ur e i s opposed t o [ Cause- cont i nuous] whi ch occur s, f or

exampl e, i n t he meani ng of ' pl aster up' .

Ost yak

I n Ost yak we encounter f our meani ngs: VI I I . ' ki ck out

( hor se) ' , I X. ' ki ck' , X. ' tr i p sy up' and XI . ' swoop ( k i t e ) ' .

Thi s t i me we shal l depar t f r om t hi s or der of t he meani ngs andstar t wi t h t he descri pt i on of meani ng I X. ' ki ck' si nce t hi s


30/608


wi l l make the anal ysi s of meani ng VI I I . eas i er .

I X. ' ki ck'

Her e we have t o posi t t he f eat ur e [ Human] si nce - at l east

as f ar as t he Ost yak mat er i al i s concer ned - t he agent can

onl y be a human bei ng. We al so encount er here t he f eat ur e [ Cont act ] but , unl i ke i n t he case of ' hi t ' , i t i s not associ at ed

wi t h t he f eat ur e [ wi t h hand] or wi t h t he f eat ur e [ wi t h t ool ]

but r at her wi t h the f eat ur e [ wi t h f oot ] . The f eat ur e [ Di s

cr ete] opposes t hi s meani ng t o meani ngs wi t h [ cont i nuous]

such as ' t r ead' and t he f eat ur e [ For cef ul l y] t o meani ngs con

t ai ni ng t he f eat ur e [ Sof t l y] such as ' smoot h' , ' t ouch' , et c.

I t i s easy to see t hat t he onl y i mpor t ant f eat ur e of I X. not

shar ed by ' hi t ' i s [wi th f oo t ] .

VI I I . ' ki ck out ( hor se) '


31/608


The meani ng VI I I . t hus di f f ers f rom t hat of ' ki ck' i nsof ar

as i t cont ai ns t he f eat ur es [ Mot i on] and [Ani mal ] . On t he

ot her hand, t her e i s no need of f ur t her speci f i cat i ons wi t h

r espect t o what ki nd of ani mal per f or ms t he act i on si nce f r om

t he poi nt of vi ew of semant i c descr i pt i on i t i s i mmat er i al

whet her we have knowl edge of other ani mal s t hat can ki ck outl i ke a hor se. The f eat ur e [ Ani mal ] i s suf f i ci ent i n or der t o

keep apar t t hi s meani ng f r om si mi l ar meani ngs r ef er r i ng to a

[ Human] act i vi t y.

X. ' t r i p sy up'

The f i r st seven f eat ures i n X. are t he same as i n ' ki ck' . No

t i ce t hat t he f eat ur e [ wi t h f oot ] must be posi t ed her e because

a per son can be hamper ed i n movi ng i n ot her ways, wi t h ot her

par t s of t he body as wel l , e. g. [ wi t h hand] : ' hol d' , ' grasp' ,

' cl ut ch' , et c . , [ wi t h t ool ] : ' bi nd' , ' t rap' , et c. The f ea

t ur e [ Cause- not - move] i s necessar y i n or der t o cont r ast t hi s

meani ng wi t h ot her meani ngs cont ai ni ng t he f eat ur e [ Cause- move] ,

e. g. ' t hr ow' , ' shoot (an ar r ow) ' or ' ki ck away' whi ch may, of


32/608


cour se, have any one of t he f eat ur es [wi th hand] , wi t h

t ool ] and [ wi t h f oo t ] . One may wonder whet her t r i ppi ng

somebody i n f act st ops hi m f r om movi ng. From a semant i c poi nt

of vi ew, however , i t i s compl et el y i r r el evant what happens t o

t he per son who i s t r i pped.

XI. ' swoo p ( k i t e ) '

The f i r st f i ve f eatures are t he same as i n t he meani ng of

' ki ck' , t he l ast t hr ee ar e shar ed by t he meani ng of ' t r i p sy

up' . The f eat ur e [ wi t h whol e body] , however , i s not pr esent

i n t he meani ngs di scussed t husf ar . Ot herwi se, i t woul d be

super f l uous t o speci f y - i n t er ms of f eat ur es - whet her t he

ki t e r eal l y per f or ms t he act i on wi t h i t s whol e body or j ust

wi t h i t s wi ngs, t al ons, et c. , si nce t her e ar e no ot her l exemes

whi ch woul d di f f er f r om XI . or f r om each ot her i n t hi s r espect .

Vogul

We ar e f aced wi t h t wo meani ngs her e: Meani ng XI I . ' ki ck

out (horse)' and' Meani ng XI I I . ' ki ck, keep on ki cki ng' . Bot h

meani ngs al so occur among t he meani ngs f ound i n Ost yak; nencet hey need not be anal ysed her e.


33/608


2. 2. On thebasi s of t he above anal ysi s t he f ol l owi ng seman

t i c f i el ds emer ge: al l meani ngs bel ong t o t he f i el d ofphysi

cal acti vi t y. Wi t hi n t hi s f i el d f our maj or subf i el ds can be

di scer ned: t he f i el d of contact, t he f i el d of ki l l i ng, t he

f i el d of mot i on and t he f i el d of compl ex act i vi t y ( creat i ngi n

vol ved) . Wi t hi n t he f i el d of cont act f ur t her subf i el ds can be

det er mi ned: hi t t i ng ( ' hi t ' , ' beat ' , ' st r i ke dead' ) , ki cki ng

( ' ki ck' ) , hamper i ng ( ' t r ip UP ' , ' swoop' ) and cut t i ng ( ' make

a cut ' , ' carve' ) .2. 3. Thenext st ep consi st s i n t he sel ect i on of common f ea

tures. The f eat ur es and t hemeani ngs di scussed are summar i zed

i n Appendi x 1 i n order t o faci l i t at e survey.

Appendi x 1 cl ear l y shows whi ch f eat ur es occur most f re

quent l y i n t he 13meani ngs. These meani ngs have t he f ol l owi ng

f our common f eat ures: [ Event ] , [ change] , [Act i vi ty] , and

[ physi cal J . The f eat ur es [ cont act ] and [ Human] occur t en

t i mes, t he f eat ur e [ Di scr et e] ni ne t i mes, t he f eat ur e [ Forcef ul l y] seven t i mes, t he f eat ur es [ Ani mat e obj ect ] and [ i nani

mate obj ect ] si x t i mes. A f eat ur e whi ch descr i bes t he i nstr u

ment of t he act i on occur s 17 t i mes. I want t o st i pul at e t hat

i t i s f r om t hese f eat ur es t hat t hepr ot o- meani ng shoul d be

const r uct ed.

2. 4. Bymaki ng use of t hemost f r equent f eat ur es i n t he des

cr i pt i on of t hemeani ngs I . - XI I I . , we end upwi t h t he f ol l ow

i ng speci f i cat i on of t he pr oto- meani ng at hand: x' a physi cal ac

t i vi t y dur i ng whi ch a per son comes i nt o cont act wi t h somebodyor somet hi ng once, f or cef ul l y, andwi t h some i nst r ument ' . As

can be easi l y seen, t hi s def i ni t i on r oughl y cor r esponds t o

t he meani ng of t heEngl i sh ver b hi t . Hence we are ent i t l ed

t o posi t PFU* a3- ' hi t ' .

I n an et ymol ogi cal di ct i onar y i nwhi ch wewant t o i ncl ude

t he ent i r e common wor d st ock of a f ami l y of l anguages such

l engt hy, i nf er r ed def i ni t i ons woul d cer t ai nl y i mpai r i nt el l i

gi bi l i t y. Once we r eal i ze, however , t hat (a) pr ot o- meani ngs ar enot el ement s of a nat ur al l anguage but hypot het i cal const r uct s


34/608


and t hat (b) t he meani ng of a l exeme taken f r om a nat ur al l an

guage, however st r ongl y we t ry to abst r act f r om our knowl edge

of t hat meani ng, wi l l i nf l uence our t hi nki ng, el i mi nat i ng

such def i ni t i ons does not seem at al l expedi ent . For not hi ng

can assur e us t hat i n t he semant i c st r uct ur e of t hat hypot het i

cal pr oto- l anguage hi t woul d assume t he same posi t i on as i t does,

f or exampl e, i n Engl i sh. Ther ef or e, we ar e not al l owed to t r ans

gr ess t he l i mi t s of a met al anguage, f or i f we do t hat , t he r e

sul t s of our i nvest i gat i ons become at once dubi ous and uncer t ai n. Consequent l y, i t i s bet t er t o r epl ace t he or i gi nal l y r e

const r uct ed pr oto- meani ng * ' h i t ' wi t h t he def i ni t i on (or wi t h t he

set of i t s component s) pr oposed above.

3. 0. The r el at i onshi p bet ween t he r econst r uct ed pr ot o- meani ng

and the meani ngs i n the daught er l anguages, as wel l as t he pro

babl e di r ect i on of semant i c changes can be seen i n t he char t s of

Appendi x 2.xM1 compr i ses t he most f r equent common f eat ures, t hat i s,

t he f eat ur es of t he supposed PFU pr ot o- meani ng, xM2 ref l ect s a

l at er l evel , r eal i zed i n t he meani ng ' hi t ' t hat can be documen

t ed i n Mor dvi n but whi ch r epr esent s a deduci bl e i nt er medi at e

l evel onl y whi ch i s pr i or t o document ed meani ngs i n Cher emi s.

Thr ough t hi s l evel , l abel l ed xM2 al l Mordvi n and Cheremi s

meani ngs can be appr opr i at el y der i ved. For Ost yak and Vogul , i t

i s t he meani ng ' ki ck' t hat r epr esent s t hi s document ed i nt er me

di ate l evel . As shown by t he char t s, Mordvi n and Cheremi s meani ngs ar e cl oser t o each ot her wi t h respect t o t he f eat ur e

[ wi th hand] / [ wi t h t ool ] , whereas Ost yak and Vogul meani ngs

ar e cl oser t o each ot her wi t h r espect t o t he f eat ur e [ wi t h f oot ]

Thi s bi f urcat i on of t he pr i mary meani ng i s l i kel y t o have occur

r ed pr i or t o t he desi nt egr at i on of PFU.

Not i ce t hat t he pr oto- meani ng of t he etymol ogy at hand

r econst r uct ed by Hont i accor di ng t o t r adi t i onal compar at i ve

met hods, i s al so * ' h i t ' , a f act t hat l ends f ur t her suppor t t o

our anal ysi s.


35/608


APPENDI X 1

I . I I . I I I . I V. V. VI . VI I . VI I I . I X. . XI . XI I . XI I I .

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi calMot i on

Cont act +

Compl ex

act i on

Cr eat i on

Human +

Ani mal

Bi r dwi t h hand +

wi t h t ool +

wi t h f oot

wi t h body

Ani mat e

obj ect +

I nani mate

obj ect +

Di scret e +

Cont i nuous

For cef ul l y +

Cause- not -

move

Cause- not -

l i vi ng

Cause- not -

cont i n.Cause- ent er

Bui l di ng

+

+

+

+

+ + + + + + + + + + + 13

+ + + + + + + + + + + 13

+ + + + + + + + + + + 13

+ + + + + +

+

+ + + +

+

+ 13

2

+ + +

+

+

+ + + + + l o

1

1

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

l o

3

1

+ + 4

+ + + + 6

+ + + +

+

+ + 6

1

+ ++

+

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+

+


36/608


APPENDI X 2

1

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi calCont act

Human

Ani mat e Obj ect

I nani mateObj .

I nst r ument

Di scret e

For cef ul l y

Mordvi n

( XM2

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

wi t h hand

wi t h t ool+

+

-> I I I .

+

+

+

++

+

+

-* I I .

+

+

+

++

+

+

+ +

+ +

Cont i nuous +

+ +

Cause- not -l i vi ng

-> I V.

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

+

Cher emi s

Ml

Event

Change

Act i vi t yPhysi cal

Cont act

+

+

++

+

Human + +Ani mat e Obj ect + -

I nani mateObj . + +

I nst r ument wi t h hand -

wi t h t ool +Di scret e + +

For cef ul l y + -

VI I . VI .

+

+

++

+

++

+

+

++

Compl exact i vi t y

Cr eat i on

+

Cont i nuous

Cause- ent er

Cause- not -


37/608


Ml

Event

Change

Act i vi t y

Physi cal

Cont actHuman

Ost yak

. I I I . -

+

+

+

+

+

Vogul

Ani mat e Obj ect

I nani mat e Obj ect +

I nst r ument wi t h f oot

Di scr et e +

For cef ul l y +

> VI I I . XI I .

+

+

+

+

Mot i onAni mal

X.

+

+

+

+

++

wi t h f oot

+

+

Cause- not

move

> XI .

+

+

+

+

+Ani mal

Bi r d

+

+

wi t h body

+

+


38/608


Ref erences

Bakr - Nagy, M. ( 1978) , Az al apj el ent s r ekonst r ukci j nak kr d-

sr l (On t he quest i on of pr ot o- meani ng r econst r uct i on) ,

Pa r t I . Nyel vt udomanyi Kzl emnyek 80: 381- 389.

Bi er wi sch, M. ( 1969) , On cer t ai n pr obl ems of semant i c r epr esent a

t i on, Foundat i ons of Language 5: 153- 185.

Fi l l mor e, C. J . ( 1971) , Types of l exi cal i nf or mat i on, Semant i cs

( D. D. St ei nber g, L. A. J akobovi t s, eds . ) , London & New Yor k:Cambr i dge Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 370- 392.

Fodor , J . A. & J . J . Kat z , ( 1964) , The st r uct ur e of a semant i c t heor y,

The St r uct ure of Language: Readi ngs i n t he Phi l osophy of Lan

guage , Engl ewood Cl i f f s, N. J . : Pr ent i ce Hal l .

Gul st ad, D. E. ( 1974) , Reconst r ucti on i n synt ax, Hi st or i cal Li n

gui st i cs ( J . M. Ander son, C. J ones, eds. ) , Amst er dam: Nor t h-

Hol l and Li ngui st i c Ser i es Vol . 12, 117- 158.

Haas, M. R. ( 1970) , Hi st or i cal l i ngui st i cs and t he genet i c r el at i onshi p of l anguages, Cur r ent Tr ends i n Li ngui st i cs Vol . 3. ( Th.

Sebeok, ed. ) , Theor et i cal Foundat i ons, The Hague: Mout on,

113- 153.

Hont i , L. ( 1978) , Et i mol ogi ai adal kok ( Et ymol ogi es) , Nyel vtudo

mnyi Kzl emnyek 80: 370.

Leech, G. N. ( 1974) , Semant i cs, Harmondswor t h: Pengui n.

Lehr er , A. ( 1974) , Semant i c Fi el ds and Lexi cal St r uct ur e, Amst er

dam: Nor t h- Hol l and Publ i shi ng Co.

Lyons, J . ( 1977) , Semant i cs, London: Cambr i dge Uni ver si t y Pr ess.Ni da, E. A. ( 1975) , Component i al Anal ysi s of Meani ng, The Hague:

Mout on.

Ni da et al . ( 1977) , Ni da, E. . & J . P. Louw & R. B. Smi t h, Semant i c

domai ns and component i al anal ysi s of meani ng, Cur r ent I ssues

i n Li ngui st i c Theor y ( R. W. Col se, ed. ) , Bl oomi ngt on & London:

I ndi ana Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 139- 167.

Voyl es, J . B. ( 1973) , Account i ng f or semant i c change, Li ngua 31:

95- 124.Wei nr ei ch, U. ( 1972) , Expl orat i ons i n Semant i c Theor y, The Hague:

Mout on.


39/608


40/608

HE I S ONLY J OKI NG

( J oke, met aphor and l anguage devel opment )

I van Fonagy

I f we do not r egar d chi l dr en as l i t t l e adul t s, and i f

we acknowl edge t hei r pr esence i n our conver sat i ons, we unwi l l i ngl y change our manner of speaki ng, and become somewhat mor e

ser i ous t han usual . I r eal i sed t hi s, when, f or t he sake of

chi l dr en, I of t en needed to f ol l ow my chi l dl ess f r i end' s r e

mar ks wi t h t he comment : "Dont ' wor r y, he i s onl y j oki ng" , or

"He di dn' t mean i t " . There may have been an occasi on, when my

t wo year - ol d son was i n t he mi ddl e of di nner , f ocusi ng hi s

at t ent i on on a bowl of spi nach, t he si gns of whi ch wer e al l

over hi s hands and f ace. A f r i end of our s ar r i ved, wentt hr ough t he chi l dr en' s r oom and sai d t o my son: "I t ' s a good

t ni ng i f one f i r st put s one' s hand i nt o t he spi nach and t hen

wi pes t hem on Daddy' s book. Li ke t hi s ( maki ng t he appr opr i ategesture). I t woul d make a ni ce i l l ust r at i on" . The book was

actual l y a hal f - f i l l ed di ar y about t he chi l dr en' s ver bal and

cogni t i ve devel opment cont ai ni ng al so t hei r dr awi ngs. On an

other occasi on my f r i end L. B. came i nt o my r oomwher e I was

at t empt i ng t o add the words t o an ext r emel y l ong r eel of

soundpr essur e measurement s: "You ar e bei ng l azy agai n", hesai d. Our f our year - ol d daught er was present , so my wi f e


41/608


42/608

HE I S ONLY J OKI NG 33

par t i es? Ar e t her e ot her st r uct ur al l y si mi l ar phenomena i n

l anguage? What i s t he cause of t hei r popul ar i t y and aest het i c

power ?

I mpl i ci t j oke mar ks

A f unny r emark can be r egarded as a verbal act i mmedi -

at l y f ol l owed by i t s i nval i dat i on: "I di dn' t mean i t , I am

onl y j oki ng" . Bot h phases may be cont ai ned i n a si ngl e speechact, and such cases r epr esent t he basi c f or m of t he f unny r e

mar k: t he asser t i on i nval i dat es i t sel f t hr ough exagger at i on.

Absur di t y f unct i ons as an i mpl i ci t j oke mar k, a si gnal t hat

i mpl i es t he asser t i on i s not t o be t r eat ed ser i ousl y. The

process may be seen as an i nverse of euphemi sm. I n the case

of bot h t he f unny r emar k and of euphemi sm a shi f t al ong the

di mensi on of decency and soci abi l i t y accompani es t he change

i n i nt ensi t y ( dampi ng vs. ampl i f i cat i on) . Wi t h euphemi sm t heshi f t i s f r om i ndecent t o mor e decent , wher eas wi t h t he f unny

r emar k t he opposi t e shi f t occur s, f r om decent t o scandal ous

and unsoci al . (I n t he absence of a qual i t at i ve, eval uat i ve

shi f t , exagger at i on woul d s i mpl y r esul t i n hyperbol e, and di mi

nut i on woul d gi ve r i se t o l i t ot es. )

I n t er ms of Bhl er ' s t heor y of l anguage ( Spr ach t heor i e

1933) , t he asser t i on i s i nval i dat ed, si nce i t i s cont r adi cted by

t he si t uat i on or t he dei ct i c f i el d whi ch under nor mal ci r cum

st ances woul d serve to compl ete t he message and make i t concrete, act ual and expl i ci t . The chi l d has t o l ear n how t o use

t hi s dei cti c f i el d. I ni t i al l y he of t en does i t i n an i nappr o

pr i at e way. He may f ai l t o real i se t hat a si mpl e " I " or " me"

i s much l ess ef f ect i ve over t he tel ephone than i n nor mal f ace-

t o- f ace communi cat i on. The j oker ar t i f i ci al l y cr eat es a con

f l i ct bet ween t he dei ct i c f i el d and t he ver bal f i el d ( Sprach-

f el d) . Hi s st at ement i s pur posel y cont r adi ct ed by the si t ua

t i on ( whi ch i n t hi s case may be br oadened to i ncl ude generalbel i ef s and moral pr i nci pl es ) . Thi s ar t i f i ci al conf l i ct be-


43/608


t ween t he t wo f i el ds i s t he basi c st r at egy of f unny r emar ks

and par adoxi cal st at ement s i n ever yday l i f e, as wel l as at a

hi gher l i terary l evel :

"I f t her e i s anybody a young Engl i sh gi r l hat es even

mor e t han her mot her , i t i s her el der si st er " ( G. B. Shaw)

The quest i on ar i ses what can be t he pur pose of maki ng

an asser t i on i f i t i s i mmedi at el y deni ed. I t seems, t hat , al

t hough deni ed, t he st atement ' on some l evel must st and.

Ver bal st r uctur e of j okes

The conf l i ct between t he dei ct i c f i el d and verbal f i el d

whi ch gi ves r i se t o absur di t y i s the basi c component of al l

ver bal humour . I t i s a necessar y but not a suf f i ci ent condi

t i on of j okes as ar t i st i c pr oduct s. J okes f ol l ow t he str at egy

of t he f unny r emar ks, and compl y moreover wi t h a number of

const r ai nt s oper at i ng on t he l evel of f orm and cont ent .I n cont r ast t o t he st r uctur al and f uncti onal di ver si

t y of j okes t he behavi our al r esponse el i ci t ed i s uni f or m: a

smi l e or l aught er . Var i ous expl anat i ons have been pr of f er ed

over t he year s, t wo, mi l l eni a i n f act , and di f f er ent common

denomi nators have been suggest ed. Notwi t hst andi ng r ecent l i ngui st i c and semi ot i c appr oaches t o t he subj ect , I t hi nk t hatt he most adequat e and compr ehensi ve st r uct ur al and f unct i onalanal ysi s of j okes i s t hat of Freud publ i shed i n 1905 ( St and

ard Edi t i on Vol . VI I I ) . Thi s appear s t o be t he onl y account i n

For mor e or l ess det ai l ed revi ews of cl assi cal and modern

l i t er at ur e see: Freud, ( 1905) , Gr ei g, ( 1923) , Gr egory, ( 1924) ,

Mi l ner , ( 1972) , Fonagy P. ( 1974) , J ohnson, ( 1975) , ( 1976) .2

A syst emat i c l i ngui st i c anal ysi s of puns has been pr oposed

by Duchaek ( 1970) . Mi l ner ' s semi ot i c t heor y of humour ( 1972)

i s based on t he rol e of i nver si on i n humour on both t he f or maland t he soci al l evel , ( f oot not e 2 cont i nued)


44/608


whi ch causal connect i ons bet ween t he f orm and f unct i on of

j okes ar e est abl i shed and where l i nks are made between mech

ani sms r esponsabl e f or humour and ot her psychol ogi cal pr oc

esses such as t hose i nvol ved i n dreami ng, parapr axi s and neu

r ot i c sympt omatol ogy. I n t hi s way, t he mechani sm of humour i s

pl aced wi t hi n a br oad f r amewor k of psychol ogi c st r uct ur es,

uni t ed by anal ogous or gani sat i onal pr i nci pl es. Freud' s t heor y

has wi t hst ood t he test of t i me a good deal bet t er t han hi s3

sampl e of t ur n- of - t he- cent ur y Aust r o- Hungar i an humour .Freud enumerat ed most t ypes of j okes, and upon detai l ed

anal ysi s f ound t hat economy of ment al expendi t ur e pl ayed a

cent r al r ol e i n t he t echni que of j okes. Thi s savi ng of ment al

ef f or t f unct i ons as an i ncent i ve ( Ver l ockungspr mi e) f or f ur

t her and gr eat er savi ng t hr ough t he r el ease of energy devot ed

( f oot not e 2 cont i nued) He ref er s t o Freud' s wor k on j okes, t hesyst em of cl assi f i cat i on devel opped by Mi l ner i s never t hel ess

i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he Freudi an vi ew. He di st i ngui shes t hr eet ypes of r ever sal : synt agmat i c, paradi gmat i c and par agr ammat i cr ever sal s. Pur el y synt agmat i c r ever sal s cannot be vi ewed i nt he f r amewor k pr oposed by Fr eud, si nce the sequent i al di sposi t i on al one does not al l ow f or savi ng of ment al ef f or t t hr oughcondensat i on of di f f er ent , mani f est and l at ent , messages. J ohnson ( 1976) cri t i ci sed Mi l ner f or t he ar bi t r ar i ness of hi s cl assi f i cat i on. I ndeed hi s exampl es i l l ust r at i ng synt acti c r ever sal s coul d bet t er f i t i nt o hi s par adi gmat i c cat egor i es. Hi sexampl e of synt agmat i c mor phol ogi cal r ever sal :

"I assur e you that you ar e, si r , my obedi ent ser vant "i mpl i es t he convent i onal , somewhat ol df ashi oned, cl osi ng of al et t er , and al so al l udes t o t he change of r ol es bet ween el ec

t or and repr esent at i ve i n t he per i od pr ecedi ng par l ament ar yel ect i ons.I n an unpubl i shed manuscr i pt Mi chel Mart i ns Bal t ar

at t empt s a det ai l ed l i ngui st i c cl assi f i cat i on of t he cor pusof Freud' s j okes, whi ch I hope wi l l soon be mor e gener al l yavai l abl e.3

I n t hi s paper I r et ai ned the same cul t ur al cont ext f or t he

exami nat i on of t he str uct ur e and f unct i on of j okes. I t shoul d

be noted, however , t hat ethnogr aphi c st udi es have shown var i a

t i ons i n humour accr oss soci et i es ( cf . Dougl as 1968, Mi l ner1971, 1968, J ohnson 1976) .


45/608


t o t he suppr essi on of conf l i ct i ng sexual and aggr essi ve con

t ent .

I n t he chapt er on t he techni que of j okes, he descr i bes

t he mechani sms whi ch i nsure t he savi ng of ment al expendi t ur e,

Fol l owi ng hi s appr oach, but t aki ng i nt o account pr esent day

l i ngui st i c and semi ot i c concept ual f r amewor k, I wi l l at t empt

t o out l i ne t he most t ypi cal ver bal and l ogi cal st r uctur es

i nvol ved i n j okes, and al so t he st r uctur e of cont ent i n j okes.

J okes can be cl assi f i ed accor di ng t o t he way i n whi cht he savi ng of expendi t ur e has been achi eved. Two f undament al

pr i nci pl es seem t o be i nvol ved: (a) condensat i on of t wo di f f er

ent , cont r ast i ng messages ( bi - soci at i on accor di ng t o Koest l er

( 1964) , superposi t i on of t he expected and the unexpected i n

J anet Hol mes' wor di ng, ( 1973) ; (b) preval ence of more pr i mi

t i ve, l ess demandi ng manners of pr ocessi ng exper i ences. The

t wo t endenci es are i nt i mat el y i nt er r el at ed.

Doubl e meani ng i s achi eved ver bal l y i n di f f er ent ways.1. The most di r ect but hi ghl y agr ammat i cal pr ocedur e i s t he

mi xi ng up of t wo words bel ongi ng t o t he two cont r ast i ng mes

sages.(1) Hei ne, i n t he "Rei sebi l der " i nt r oduces t he l ot t er y agentHi r sch- Hyaci nt h who boast s t o t he poet of hi s r el at i ons wi t hBar on Rotschi l d: "And, as t r ue as God shal l gr ant me al l goodt hi ngs, Doct or , I sat besi de Sal omon Rot schi l d and he t r eat edme qui t e as hi s equal - qui t e f ami l i onai r el y" ( ci t . Fr eud,SE = St and Edi t i on VI I I , 16)

Freud gi ves a di agr ammat i cal pi ct ur e of t he composi t e st r uc

ture " f ami l l i onnai r el y", f ami l l i onr i n Ger man:

FAMI LI AR

MI LI ONR

FAMI LI ONAR

The component s are key- wor ds of t he t wo opposi t e messages:

R. t r eat ed me qui t e f ami l i r

he t r eat ed me as a Mi l l i onr

(Freud op. ci t . 19) .


46/608


2. Two ci r cl es of i deas can be br ought t ogether by t he same

wor d, maki ng use si mul t aneousl y bot h of i t s pr i mary and sec

ondar y meani ng (use or abuse of pol ysemy) . Fr eud ( op. ci t .

120) and l at er on Koest l er ( 1964, 85) compar e t he pr ocedur e

t o shor t - ci r cui t i ng.

(2a) I n Vi enna bef or e t he f i r st wor l d war , a dashi ng youngAust r i an of f i cer t r i ed t o obt ai n t he f avour s of a f ashi onabl e cour t esan. To shake of f t hi s unwant ed sui t or , she decl ar ed that "her hear t was, al as, no l onger f r ee" . He repl i ed

pol i t el y: "Mademoi sel l e, I never ai med as hi gh as t hat " .Koest l er ( op. ci t . 36) comment s: "Hi gh i s bi - soci at ed wi t h a

met aphor i cal and a t opogr aphi cal cont ext . The coat i s t ur ned

f i rst met aphor i cal l y, t hen l i t er al l y" .

The ef f ect may be r ei nf or ced by a chi asmat i c doubl e r e

ver si on:

(2b) I n Vi enna, dur i ng t he same per i od, Mr . and Mr s. X l i vei n f ai r l y gr and st yl e. Some peopl e t hi nk t hat t he husband hasear ned a l ot and so has been abl e t o l ay a bi t away ("si ch et waszur ckl egen" ) , ot her s agai n t hi nk t hat t he wi f e has l ai n back

a bi t ("hat si ch etwas zur ckgel egt " ) and so has been abl e toear n a l ot ( ci t . Fr eud SE VI I I , 33)

A sl i ght vi ol at i on of a semant i c r ul e mi ght equal l y enhance

t he humor ous ef f ect :

(2c) - Do you l i ke your Mummy?- Oh yes!- Then have some mor e.

A [ +human] subst ant i ve i n t he pl ace of an obj ect pr e

cl udes the i nt er pr et at i on ' to l i ke eat i ng' , especi al l y i f a

possessi ve pr onoun pr ecedes t he subst ant i ve.

3. Bi - val ence may be the resul t of an acci dent al f or mal i den

t i t y, i . e. t he homonymy of t wo expr ess i ons:

(3) Oyst er : a l i f t i n East London ( ci t . Hol mes 1973)

The opposi t i on of hoi st er and oyst er i s neut r al i sed i n

cockney Engl i sh. Thus, t he r eader may enj oy at t he same t i me

hi s soci al super i or i t y, af t er havi ng enj oyed the pl easur e of

mi shandl i ng l anguage ( Hol mes) .


47/608


4. Doubl e meani ng may be the consequence of a si mul t aneous

synchr oni c and di achr oni c ( et ymol ogi c) anal ysi s of an expr es

si on. The f i r st r eadi ng i s based on t he act ual semant i c val ue

of t he expr essi on, i t i s f ol l owed by a second r eadi ng whi ch

r eeval uat es t he or i gi nal meani ng of t he component s.

(4) The f i r st J ew asks: - Have you taken a bat h?The second r epl i es aski ng t he ot her i n r et ur n:- Why? i s t her e one mi ssi ng? ( ci t . Fr eud SE VI I I , 49)

Freud poi nt ed out a si mul t aneous shi f t of emphasi s: bat h i sst r essed i n t he f i r st quest i on, whi l st t he str ess i s shi f t ed

on t aken i n t he second (SE VI I I , 50 f . ) .

5. The et ymol ogi c i nt er pr et at i on may be ar bi t r ar y, f act i t i ous:

(5) A young man was i nt r oduced i nt o a Par i s sal on, who was ar el at i ve of J ean- J acques Rousseau and bor e hi s name. Moreoverhe was r ed- hai r ed. He behaved so awkwar dl y t hat t he host essr emar ked cr i t i cal l y t o t he gent l eman who i nt r oduced hi m:- Vous m' avez f ai t conna t r e un j eune homme r oux et sot , mai s

non pas un Rousseau ( ci t . Fr eud SE VI I I , 30) .

6. The ambi gui t i es of gr ammat i cal sur f ace st r uct ur e ar e a per

manent pot ent i al sour ce of doubl e meani ng pr ovi ded t hat t he

cont ext does not excl ude ei t her of t he t wo possi bl e i nt er pr e

t at i ons.

(6) Once agai n a j oke presented and anal ysed by Freud takesus back to t he f i r st decade of t he t went i et h cent ur y. A l i eut enant i n t he Aust r o- Hungar i an army asks a pr i vat e;- Now t el l me, , Bachar ach, why shoul d a sol di er gl adl y of f er

up hi s l i f e f or hi s ki ng?- You' r e absol ut el y r i ght , Si r ! Why shoul d he? ( Rei k, 1929,10)

The sur f ace st r uct ure of f ers t wo possi bl e modal i nt er pret a

t i ons of t he sent ence, one of whi ch coul d be i nt ended (and

i ndeed was meant ) as a r eal wh- quest i on; and the ot her of

whi ch coul d be (and i ndeed has been) i nt er pr eted as a r het o

r i cal quest i on, i . e. a negat i ve asser t i on ("It i s cer t ai nl y

not a pl easur e t o of f er hi s l i f e " ) . I n f act , t he l i eut enant ' s

quest i on was much more l i ke a pr of essor i al exami nat or y quest i on, and consequent l y i t s pr agmat i c mat r i x of t he t ype sug-


48/608


gest ed by Pet er Ladnyi ( 1965) comes cl ose t o t hat of a rhe

t or i cal quest i on:

Knowl edge of answer i n quest i oner

and r esponder

Quest i oner Responder

knows t he answer

True quest i on - +

Exami nator y quest i on + ?( +/ - )Rhet or i cal quest i on + +

7. Cer t ai n mi nor vi ol at i ons of gr ammat i cal r ul es may r ef l ect

i nt erf erence between t wo si mul t aneous and cont r adi ct ory se

mant i c i nt er pr et at i ons. Thus f or i nst ance, Hei nr i ch Hei ne

f r equent l y and succesf ul l y vi ol at es t he (as yet unwr i t t en)

r ul es gover ni ng enumerat i on.

(7) I n a passage of t he Harzr ei se Hei ne r emembers t he schooli n whi ch he had t o put up wi t h: "so much Lat i n, cani ng andgeography)" ( ci t . Freud SE VI I I , 69) .

Si nce a wr i t er i s not supposed to swi t ch dur i ng enumerat i on4

f rom one semant i c cat egor y t o another , we are apt t o consi der cani ng as a r egul ar subj ect of t he school cur r i cul um.I n such cases i t i s the sudden f al l i n t r ansi t i on pr obabi l i t yt hat pr ompt s t he reader t o r econsi der hi s f i r st semant i c i n-t er pr et at i on.

8. I n other exampl es ment i oned by Fr eud t hi s unexpected i n

crease i n i nf or mat i on i s not associ at ed wi t h any vi ol at i on of

gr ammat i cal r ul es. We are si mpl y r emi nded of anot her , under

l yi ng sequence char act er i zed by a very hi gh t r ansi t i on pr ob

a b i l i t y.

4I n pr evi ous papers I at t empt ed to def i ne semant i c cat egor i es

t hat must not be t r ansgressed i n di scur si ve enumerat i ons, andother r ul es gover ni ng enumerat i on ( Fonagy 1975b, 1975e) .


49/608


( 8) "Ei n j unges Mdchen kaum zwei Moden al t " ( L i cht enber g) .(A gi r l scarcel y t wel ve modes ol d. )

The Ger man r eader wi l l aut omat i cal l y susbt i t ue Monde ( moons)

f or Moden ( modes) , and wi l l i nt er pr et "z wl f Moden al t ( t wel ve

modes ol d) " as an al l usi on t o "zwl f Monde al t ( t wel ve moons

o l d) " , suggest i ng t hat t he changi ng f ashi on mi ght be used as

a met hod of det er mi ni ng a woman' s age ( Fr eud SE VI I I , 76) .

Moden, i s a per f ect anagr am of Monde. The humor ous ef f ect

coul d be di r ect l y pr opor t i onal t o t he phonet i c di st ance:

semant i c di st ancehumor ous ef f ect

phonet i c di st ance

9. A sent ence wi t hout bei ng i di omat i c may have bot h a gen

er al meani ng and r est r i ct ed meani ng, t hi s l at t er due t o the

f r equent use of t he sent ence i n a t ypi cal , r ecur r ent s i t ua

t i on ( Fonagy 1971c) . The l at ent doubl e sense may become

appar ent i n j okes pl ayi ng on t he cont r ast of t he r est r i ct ed

and t he gener al meani ng of a s t at ement such as I ch kann mi ch

ni cht bekl agen, On peut pas se pl ai ndr e (I cannot compl ai n) ,

i mpl yi ng ei t her t hat one has no r eason t o compl ai n ( r est r i ct ed

meani ng) or t hat one must not compl ai n ( gener al se n se ) .

( 9) An i mmi gr ant has come t o Fr ance f r om a count r y havi ng at ough di ct at or i al r egi me. Her e i s why he emi gr at ed:

- Was t he l i vi ng st andar d so l ow?- No, I coul dn' t compl ai n.

- Wer e t he housi nq condi t i ons so bad?- No, I coul dn' t compl ai n.- Was unempl oyment so hi gh?- I coul dn' t compl ai n.- Why di d you come t o Fr ance t hen?

- Because her e I can compl ai n.

10. A per f ect l y gr ammat i cal sent ence can be "out of cont ext "

even wi t hout havi ng a speci al r est r i ct ed meani ng. The sent ence

spoken i n t he i nappr opr i at e s i t uat i on evokes t he s i t uat i on

t o whi ch i t bel ongs. Thus t wo si t uat i ons ar e super i mposed much

i n t he way an i mpr oper t er m evokes i t s pr oper cont ext ( c f . 8 ) .


50/608


J anet Hol mes (19 73) i nt er pr et s such j okes i n t erms of i ncongr u

ous physi cal set t i ng. She quot es t he f ol l owi ng anecdot e:

(10) Many peopl e are l eavi ng Seat t l e t o l i ve el sewher e because of t he f i nanci al har dshi p due t o cuts i n t he space Progr amm. Two young busi nessmen erect ed a huge bi l l boar d on t heHi ghway f or mot or i st s headi ng out of t he ci ty. I t s messagereads: WI LL THE LAST PERSON LEAVI NG SEATTLE TURN OUT THE LI GHTS- UPI

Thi s i s a sent ence t hat we woul d nor mal l y f i nd as a si gn on

t he wal l i n a f l at pl aced t her e by a person who l ef t ear l i er

t han t he others, and, consequent l y, coul d not be r esponsi bl ef or t ur ni ng of f t he l i ght . As a r esul t , we are i ncl i ned t o

conf use t he ci t y Seat t l e wi t h a f l at i nhabi t ed by three or

f our per sons. Thi s sudden shr i vel l i ng of t he t own, due t o a

pr agmat i c t r ansf er of a sent ence may gi ve ri se t o a mi l d comi c

ef f ect .

11. On t he basi s of cont r ar y pr esupposi t i ons t he speaker and

t he hear er may i nt er pr et t he same unequi vocal sentence i n t wowi del y di f f er i ng ways.

(11) A gover ness t el l s her young char ge:- J ust i magi ne, Fr anzi , l ast ni ght , when I st ar t ed home sol at e, there was a suspi ci ous- l ooki ng man st andi ng by thehouse! Oh how I started t o r un!Franzi :- Wel l , di d you manage t o cat ch hi m?

The presupposi t i ons were obvi ousl y di f f erent f or Franzi and

t he governess. The gover ness, pr over bi al l y an unmar r i ed woman

( "Frul ei n", "Mademoi sel l e") mi ght be i ncl i ned t o see an aggressor i n any man she shoul d happen t o meet i n t he dark, and

t o t hi nk "thewor st "; Franzi , as an adol escent , mi ght t hi nk

qui t e di f f erent l y of t he at t i t ude of hi s governess t owards

For a det ai l ed anal ysi s of t he theory of pr esupposi t i ons, cf .

Ki ef er 1978. I n t he case of Franzi and t he governess we must

consi der awhol e set of pr esupposi t i ons const i t ut i ng t wo di f

f er ent f r ames of r ef er ence.


51/608


52/608


however , consi st ent wi t h t he obser vat i on t hat t he par aphr as

i ng of a j oke compl et el y el i mi nat es i t s humor ous cont ent . 0

Ther e i s exper i mental evi dence t o show t hat t he amount of

par aphr asi ng needed to expl ai n a humor ous i t em i s posi t i vel y7

cor r el at ed wi t h "i ts humor ous ef f ect .

Devi ant semi ot i c st r at egi es

Anecdot es char act er i zed at t he psychol ogi cal l evel by

a "di spl acement of accent " ( Freud, SE VI I I , 50- 56) al waysi nvol ve a shi f t i n semi ot i c i nt er pr et at i on.

(14) A car deal er boast i ng about a new spor t s model t o a prospect i ve cl i ent :

- You get i nt o t hi s car at mi dni ght and at 4 o' cl ock youare i n Gr i msby.

The cust omer i s i ndi gnant :- What shoul d I be doi ng i n t he mi ddl e of t he ni ght i n

Gr i msby?( Koest l er ' s moder ni sed ver si on ( 1964) of Freud' s hor se- deal er

j oke (SETVI I I , 54)

Ther e i s obvi ousl y a "shi f t of emphasi s f r om t he essent i al t oa det ai l " ( Freud op. ci t 50- 56, 156 f . , 165 f . ) . We coul d add,

however , t hat t hi s shi f t of emphasi s i s based on a semi ot i c

mi si nt er pr et at i on of an exampl e. Exampl es are ar bi t r ar i l y cho

sen i l l ust r at i ons i l l umi nat i ng a st at ement . They ar e i magi nar y

phenomena, onl y i ndi r ect l y r el at ed to real event s, j ust as

l i ngui st i c si gns ar e. The cust omer put s t he f act and the ex

ampl e on the same l evel and that enabl es hi m t o creat e a causal

J ohn Locke was per haps t he f i r st aut hor who compar ed j oke,

metaphor and consci ous t hought f r om t he poi nt of vi ew of men

t al economy. J udgement has t o "separ at e car ef ul l y one f r om

anot her i deas wher ei n can be f ound the l east di f f er ence" ,

whereas "no l abour of t hought " i s requi r ed i n met aphor , al l u

si on and wi t (Essay ( 1960) 1924, 85 f . ) .

Pet er Fnagy (19 74) measur ed t he ext ent of condensat i on by

aski ng subj ect s t o expl ai n t he sour ce of humour i n var i ous

( f oot not e 7 cont i nued)


53/608


r el at i on between the pur chase of t he car and t he noct ur

nal t r i p t o Gr i msby ("I f I buy t he car , I wi l l have t o dr i ve

t o Gr i msby t hi s ni ght " )

A st i l l mor e str i ki ng semi ot i c er r or whi ch r ar el y

occur s i n normal adul t s i s t he conf usi on bet ween dr eam and

real i t y.

(15) A young l ady not i ces f r om her bed t hat a st r ongl y bui l tnaked bl ack gent l eman i s cl i mbi ng t hr ough t he wi ndow. Hecomes cl oser and cl oser , wher eupon she excl ai ms:

- What do you want wi t h me?The st r anger answers:- Sor r y, i t ' s your dr eam.

The f r i ghtni ng per secut or appear s concur r ent l y at t wo semi ot

i c l evel s: i n t he dr eam and out si de t he dr eam. He i s a char

acter i n t he l ady' s dream, and a spectator who comment s on

t he dr eam. I n t he l at t er case he assumes al most t he rol e of

t he psychoanal yst r emi ndi ng the dr eamer t hat i t i s her f ant asy

whi ch may repr esent a wi sh f ul f i l l ment . ( Actual l y, t he f r i ght

eni ng per secut or coul d be t he anal yst on a t hi r d l evel : t hatof t he l at ent dr eamt hought . )

Faul t y thi nki ng as a st r uctur al pr i nci pl e

Nonsensi cal j okes are based ei t her on semi ot i c er r or s

( l i ke 13, 14) or on f aul t y r easoni ng. I n bot h cases economy

of ment al expendi t ur e i s due t o a mor e pr i mi t i ve pr ocessi ng

of human exper i ence. I n most of Fr eud' s exampl es "f aul t y r ea

soni ng can be descr i bed as ' aut omat i c' " ( Freud SE VI I I , 64) .

A human act i vi t y i s ' aut omat i c' i f i t i s cont r ol l ed by a non-

suf f i ci ent l y speci f i ed pr ogr am whi ch has not been adapt ed t o

t he concret e si t uat i on a per son wi l l have to f ace.

( f oot not e 7 cont i nued) j okes. A hi ghl y si gni f i cant cor r el a

t i on (r = . 90) was f ound between f unni ness r at i ngs and t he

number of words used by subj ect s t o expl ai n a j oke.


54/608


(16) When . . Lawr ence j oi ned t he ranks as pr i vat e Shaw, NoelCoward wr ot e a l et t er t o hi m whi ch began: "Dear 338171 (may Ical l you 338?) " (c i t . Koest l er 1964, 67) .

The f aul t y i nf erence under l yi ng t hi s j oke may be paraphr ased

i n t he f ol l owi ng f or m: "I f we may cal l Freder i c si mpl y Fred,

or Susanna si mpl y Sue, we may al so cal l t he pr i vat e 338171 by

hi s f i r st 2 or 3 number s i n or der t o est abl i sh i nt i macy. The

aut omat i c t hi nki ng here i s obvi ousl y meant t o parody mechani

sat i on of human l i f e i n t he ar my. "I f i t i s admi ssi bl e to cal l

a human bei ng 338171, we al so have to accept 338 as a petname. " Si nce t hi s woul d be absur d, t he mi l i t ar y or gani sat i on

t hat r educes . . Lawr ence t o a si x- pl ace number i s j ust as

absur d. The appar ent l ogi cal er r or i s a condensed ( el l i pt i c)

expr essi on of t he evi dent i ar y r ul e cal l ed apagoge ( deduct i o,

r educt i o ad absur dum) .

Fal se syl l ogi sm i s gr af t ed on aut omat i c t hi nki ng i n a

wel l - known ant i - cl er i cal anecdot e.

(17) A mour ner commands a f uner al or at i on f r om t he pr i est .- I ' 11 del i ver an or at i on that wi l l make even t he gr ave- di ggerweep f or $ 300.

- Wel l , as you see I am a poor man, I don' t car e about t hegr ave- di gger s.

- O. K. I wi l l make a speech f or $ 200. I t ' l l move t he mour ner s.- Sorry, $ 200 i s t oo much. Peopl e' s f eel i ngs don' t bot her me.- What ever you l i ke. I ' l l del i ver one f or $ 100. The f ami l y

wi l l st i l l weep.- We have wept enough. I ' l l gi ve you $ 50.- Al l r i ght , I have an or at i on f or $ 50 t oo, but i t has a

t ouch of humour i n i t .

A cor r el at i on i s i mpl i ci t l y est abl i shed her e bet ween degr eesof an emot i onal and a f i nanci al scal e:

Weepi ng Laugni ng1 1/ 2 1/ 4 0 1/ 4 1/ 2 1

300 200 150 100 50 25 0

The swi t ch f r om weepi ng t o l au

[ferenc kiefer] hungarian linguistics

Documents