3.

Edward Sapir1

3.1 Like Saussure's Cours, Sapir's Language, first published in 1921, seeks to stake out the overall field of language study. The !ain purpose is to sho" "hat# Sapir $on$eives language to be, "hat is its variability in pla$e and ti!e, and "hat are its relations to other funda!ental hu!an interests %% the proble! of thought, the nature of the histori$al pro$ess, ra$e, $ulture, art# &SL v'.2 (e stresses that the $ontent of language is inti!ately related to culture#, the latter defined as the so$ially inherited asse!blage of pra$ti$es and beliefs that deter!ines the te)ture of our lives# &SL 219, 2*+'. The history of $ulture and the history of language !ove along parallel lines# &SL 219'. 3 ,ndeed, the superfi$ial $onne$tions# bet"een spee$h# and other histori$al pro$esses are so $lose that it needs to be shaken free of the! if "e are to see it in its o"n right# &$f. -.2. /./. 12.9. 13.1'. Language# is thus an a$0uired $ultural# fun$tion# rather than an inherent biologi$al fun$tion# "ith an instin$tive basis# &SL 3f' &$f. 3.11. -.2. 2.2/, -2, --, 91. 9.1f, /ff, 12, 22f, 1*+. 13./2'. 3li!inate so$iety#, and the individual# "ill never learn to talk, that is, to $o!!uni$ate ideas a$$ording to the traditional syste! of a parti$ular so$iety#. Language# has an even greater universality# than religion# or art#4 "e kno" of no people that is not possessed of a fully developed language# &SL 22'. ,ndeed, language# !ay have antedated even the lo"liest develop!ents of !aterial $ulture#, "hi$h "ere not stri$tly possible until language# had taken shape# &SL 23' &$f. -.1*. 2.22. 9.+'. 3.2 Su$h theses pro5e$t a vast s$ope for the study of language, in pointed $ontrast to the narro"er pursuits of the ti!e &$f. 13.3'. Sapir hopes to provide a sti!ulus for the !ore funda!ental study of a negle$ted field# &SL vi'. (is book $ould be useful# both to linguisti$ students and to the outside publi$ that is half in$lined to dis!iss linguisti$ notions as the private pedantries of essentially idle !inds# &SL v. $f. 2.22'. 6no"ledge of the "ider relations of their s$ien$e is essential to

professional students of language if they are to be saved fro! a sterile and purely te$hni$al attitude#. 7e should avoid !aking too !u$h of ter!inology#, taking too !u$h a$$ount of te$hni$al e)ternals#, or parading the te$hni$al ter!s# and te$hni$al sy!bols of the linguisti$ a$ade!y# &SL 1-*, 132, vi'. 7e should also resist su$h tenden$ies as the in$lination to "orship our s$he!es# as fetishes#. the strong $raving for a si!ple for!ula# "ith t"o poles# that has been the undoing of linguists#. and the evolutionary pre5udi$e# $arried over fro! 19th%$entury so$ial s$ien$es# that has been the !ost po"erful deterrent of all to $lear thinking# &SL 122f' &$f. 3.-9. 2./. 13.1-'. 3.3 Sapir's $hara$teristi$ stan$e is a striking !i) of sobriety and e)uberan$e. (is portrayals of language, for e)a!ple, range fro! staid abstra$tions of a Saussurian $ast over to e)travagant panegyri$s. 8t the sober end, Sapir des$ribes language# as a $onventional#, arbitrary syste! of sy!bolis!s# &SL -, 11'. 9r, less abstra$tly, it is a purely hu!an and non%instin$tive !ethod of $o!!uni$ating ideas, e!otions, and desires by !eans of a syste! of voluntarily produ$ed sy!bols# &SL 2'. 8t the e)uberant end, language# is de$lared the !ost signifi$ant and $olossal "ork that the hu!an spirit has evolved#. the !ost self% $ontained# and !assively resistant of all so$ial pheno!ena#. the finished for! or e)pression for all $o!!uni$able e)perien$e#. and the !ost !assive and in$lusive art "e kno", a !ountainous and anony!ous "ork of un$ons$ious generations# &SL 22*, 2*/, 231' &$f. /.2. 13.22'. :oreover, language# is the !ost fluid of !ediu!s# and a su!!ary of thousands upon thousands of individual intuitions#. the possibilities of individual e)perien$e are infinite# &SL 221, 231' &$f. 3.13, +*. -.31. 1.21, 22. 2.-2'. (en$e, languages are !ore to us than syste!s of thought transferen$e. They are invisible gar!ents that drape the!selves about our spirit and give a predeter!ined for! to all its sy!boli$ e)pressions# &SL 221'.

3.- ,n Sapir's vie", 0uite unlike Saussure's, language e)ists only in so far as it is a$tually used %% spoken and heard, "ritten and read# &SL 11-f' &$f. 13.3/'. ;ut this $lai! is addressed !ainly to the pedagogue# "ho struggles against# <in$orre$t= usage and insists on !aintaining $aste# and $onserving literary tradition# &SL 11/f' &$f. 2.1, 2-, 2 9. -.-*, 2+. 2.2/'.1 The logi$al or histori$al argu!ent# of su$h pedagogues is often hollo"# or psy$hologi$ally shaky#, la$ks vitality#, or pro!otes false# $orre$tness# &SL 11/ff'. ,nstead, "e !ust look to# the un$ontrolled spee$h of the folk# and e)a!ine the general linguisti$ !ove!ent# and the a$tual drift of the 3nglish language# &SL 11/, 1/+'. The folk !akes no apology# and feels no t"inge of $ons$ien$e# about usage, yet has a !ore a$ute flair for the genuine drift of the language than its students# do &SL 11/, 1/1'. So "e should e)plore ho" a syste! pro$eeds fro! the un$ons$ious dyna!i$ habit of the language, falling fro! the lips of the folk# &SL 23*'. 3.1 (o"ever, $aution is needed be$ause the !an in the street does not stop to analyse his position in the general s$he!e of hu!anity# and !ay $onfuse ra$ial, linguisti$, and $ultural# $lassifi$ations# or see e)ternal history# as inherent ne$essity# &SL 2*2'. 3ven linguists !ay be so a$$usto!ed to our o"n "ell%"orn grooves of e)pression that they have $o!e to be felt as inevitable# &SL 29' &$f. 3.1*. -.-, +2. 1.11. 2.1-'. (en$e, a destru$tive analysis of the fa!iliar is the only !ethod of approa$h to an understanding of funda!entally different !odes of e)pression#. 3./ ,n Sapir's e)uberant outlook, the funda!ental ground"ork of language# !eets us perfe$ted and syste!ati>ed in every language kno"n to us# &SL 22'. ?et he is e0ually i!pressed by the in$redible diversity# of spee$h#. ,ndeed, the total nu!ber of possible sounds is greatly in e)$ess of those in use# &SL --'. @ro! a!ong the indefinitely large nu!ber of arti$ulated sounds available#, ea$h language !akes use of an e)pli$it, rigidly e$ono!i$al sele$tion# &SL -/'. ,n gra!!ati$al

notions# too, the theoreti$al possibilities# are indefinitely nu!erous#. it depends entirely on the genius of the parti$ular language "hat fun$tion is inherently involved in a given se0uen$e of "ords# &SL /3'. 3.+ 3)uberan$e and sobriety are again !i)ed in Sapir's $hara$teri>ation of language as a syste!. 8n e)uberant $on$eption &5ust $ited' is the genius of language#4 the type# or basi$ plan#, !u$h !ore funda!ental, !u$h !ore pervasive, than any single feature# or any fa$t# of gra!!ar# &SL 12*' &$f. 3.32, -/, 11, /3, /2'. This genius# is variously $lai!ed to affe$t the possibilities of $o!bining phoneti$ ele!ents#. the interdependen$e of syllables#. the a!ount of $on$eptual !aterial# taken in# by the individual "ord# &3.32'. the out"ard !arkings# of synta$ti$ e0uivalents# "ith fun$tionally e0uivalent affi)es#. the fun$tions# of se0uen$es of "ords#. the sele$tion of $onventional inter5e$tions#. and even the effe$ts# a literary artist# $an dra" fro! the $olour and te)ture# of the language's !atri)# &SL 1-, 31, 32, 111, /3, 1, 222'. 9nly in regard to ra$e# does Sapir dis!iss the notion of genius# as a !ysti$ slogan# or a senti!ental $reed# &SL 2*2f, 212'. 3.2 8 sober $on$eption, on the other hand, is the economy# of a language. This $on$eption is applied to the sele$tion# of arti$ulated sounds#. the alternations bet"een long and short syllables#. the availability of rhy!e#. and the relative i!portan$e of "ord order# versus $ase suffi)es# &SL -/ 229f, /-'. The e$ono!y# also irons out# the less fre0uently o$$urring asso$iations# bet"een radi$al ele!ents, gra!!ati$al ele!ents, "ords#, or senten$es# on one side, and $on$epts or groups of $on$epts# on the other &SL 3+f'. This pro$ess li!its the rando!ness of asso$iation# and thereby !akes gra!!ar# possible &$f. 2.29'. 3ven the single senten$e is said to have a lo$al e$ono!y# of its ter!s# &SL 21'. 3.9 ,f "e a$$ept language as a fully for!ed fun$tional syste! "ithin !an's psy$hi$ or <spiritual= $onstitution#, then "e $annot define it as an entity in psy$ho%physi$al ter!s alone# &SL 1*f'. 7e should dis$uss

the intention, the for!, and the history of spee$h# as an institutional or $ultural entity# and take for granted# the organi$ and psy$hologi$al !e$hanis!s ba$k of it#. Sapir is thus not $on$erned "ith those aspe$ts of physiology and physiologi$al psy$hology that underlie spee$h# &$f. 2.31'. (e alludes only in passing to the vast net"ork of asso$iated lo$ali>ations in the brain and lo"er nervous tra$ts# &$f. -.1*, 1-, 12f. 2.21, 23'. Language# $annot be definitely lo$ali>ed# in the brain#, for it $onsists of a pe$uliar sy!boli$ relation %% physiologi$ally an arbitrary one %% bet"een all possible ele!ents of $ons$iousness on the one hand, and $ertain sele$ted ele!ents lo$ali>ed in the auditory, !otor, and other $erebral and nervous tra$ts on the other# &$f. 2.1/, 31, //. +.31, 93, + -3. 21/'. 3.1* 8lthough Sapir vo"s he has little to say about the ulti!ate psy$hologi$al basis of spee$h#, he believes that linguisti$ for!s# have the greatest possible diagnosti$ value# for understanding# proble!s in the psy$hology of thought and in the strange, $u!ulative drift in the life of the hu!an spirit# &SL vf' &$f. 1./9. /.2, /. +.1*. 2.2-. 12.1+ff, 22, /2. 13.1*'./ Language and our thought grooves are ine)tri$ably interrelated, are in a sense, one and the sa!e# &SL 21+f'. Linguisti$ !orphology is nothing !ore or less than a $olle$tive art of thought, an art denuded of the irrelevan$ies of individual senti!ent# &SL 212'. :oreover, all voluntary $o!!uni$ation of ideas, aside fro! nor!al spee$h, is either a transfer, dire$t or indire$t, fro! the typi$al sy!bolis! of language as spoken and heard, or, at the least, involves the inter!ediary of truly linguisti$ sy!bolis!# &SL 21'. 3ven those "ho# think "ithout the slightest use of sound i!agery are at last analysis, dependent upon it#, the auditory%!otor asso$iations# being un$ons$iously brought into play# &SL 2*'. 8s proof, Sapir $ites the fre0uent e)perien$e of fatigue in the spee$h organs# after unusually# intensive thinking# &SL 19'. + Aesture languages# too o"e their intelligibility# to their auto!ati$ and silent translation into the ter!s of a fuller flo" of spee$h# &SL 21'.

3.11 Conse0uently, the feeling entertained by so !any that they $an think, or even reason, "ithout language is an illusion# &SL 11'. Thought !ay be no !ore $on$eivable, in its genesis and daily pra$ti$e, "ithout spee$h than is !athe!ati$al reasoning pra$ti$able# "ithout a !athe!ati$al sy!bolis!#. 8n evolutionary $onne$tion is propounded4 that language is an instru!ent originally put to uses lo"er than the $on$eptual plane and that thought arises as a refined interpretation of its $ontent# &$f. -.3-. 2./'. The produ$t gro"s# "ith the instru!ent#, and the gro"th of spee$h# is dependent on the develop!ent of thought# &SL 11, 1+'. ,n vie" of the un$ons$ious and unrationali>ed nature of linguisti$ stru$ture#, the !ost rarefied thought !ay be but the $ons$ious $ounterpart of an un$ons$ious linguisti$ sy!bolis!# &SL vi, 1/'. The idea that people# are in the !ain un$ons$ious# of the for!s# they handle#, regardless of their !aterial advan$e!ent or ba$k"ardness of the people# &SL 12-' &$f. 3./1', is favoured by other theorists as "ell &$f. 13.-9'. Sapir also sur!ises that the analysis# of for!s is un$ons$ious, or rather unkno"n, to the nor!al speaker#, i!plying that students of language $annot be entirely nor!al in their attitude to"ard their o"n spee$h# &SL 1/1, n' &$f. 13.1, -9'. 3.12 (o"ever, language and thought are not stri$tly $oter!inous#, and the flo" of language itself is not al"ays indi$ative of thought# &SL 1-f'. 8t best language $an but be the out"ard fa$et of thought on the highest, !ost generali>ed, level of sy!boli$ e)pression#, rather than the final label put upon the finished thought# &$f. +.21'. Conversely, fro! the point of vie" of language, thought !ay be defined as the highest latent or potential $ontent of spee$h#, its fullest $on$eptual value#. 9r, language, as a stru$ture, is on its inner fa$e the !ould of thought# &SL 22'. Still, the feeling of a free, non%linguisti$ strea! of thought# !ay be 5ustified# in $ases# "herein the sy!boli$ e)pression of thought# runs along outside the fringe of the $ons$ious !ind#. This vie" $on$urs "ith !odern psy$hology#, "hose re$ent# literature# has sho"n us ho" po"erfully

sy!bolis! is at "ork in the un$ons$ious !ind# &SL 1/, 12/n'. Berhaps a !ore general psy$hology than @reud's "ill eventually prove# the !e$hanis!s of <repression of i!pulse= and of its sy!pto!ati$ sy!boli>ation# to be as appli$able to the groping for abstra$t for!, the logi$al or estheti$ ordering of e)perien$e, as to the life of the funda!ental instin$ts# &SL 11+n'.2 3.13 8 spee$h sound# attains linguisti$ signifi$an$e# by being asso$iated "ith so!e ele!ent or group of ele!ents of experience#. this <ele!ent= is the $ontent or !eaning of the linguisti$ unit# &SL 1*'. (en$e, the ele!ents of language# are sy!bols that ti$ket off e)perien$e# &SL 12'. @or that purpose, the "orld of our e)perien$es !ust be enor!ously si!plified and generali>ed# into a sy!boli$ inventory#. The $on$reteness of e)perien$e is infinite, the resour$es of the ri$hest language are stri$tly li!ited# &SL 2-'. ;esides, the single e)perien$e lodges in an individual $ons$iousness and is, stri$tly speaking, in$o!!uni$able# &SL 12'. So "e !ust arbitrarily thro" "hole !asses of e)perien$e together as si!ilar enough to "arrant being looked upon %% !istakenly but $onveniently %% as identi$al#, in spite of great and obvious differen$es# &SL 13'. ,t is al!ost as though at so!e period in the past the un$ons$ious !ind of the ra$e had !ade a hasty inventory of e)perien$e# and saddled the inheritors of its language# "ith a pre!ature $lassifi$ation that allo"ed of no revision# &SL 1**'. Linguisti$ $ategories !ake up a syste! of surviving dog!a %% dog!a of the un$ons$ious#. 3.1- Sapir thus $on$ludes that the latent $ontent of all languages# is the intuitive s$ien$e of e)perien$e# &SL 212' &$f. 3.23. 12.12f. 13.2-'. The essen$e of language $onsists in assigning $onventional, voluntarily arti$ulated sounds# to diverse ele!ents of e)perien$e# &SL 11'. The <$on$ept= serves as a $onvenient $apsule of thought that e!bra$es thousands of e)perien$es# &SL 13'. The single i!pression# enters one's generali>ed !e!ory#, "hi$h is in turn !erged "ith the notions of all other individuals#. The parti$ular e)perien$e# gets "idened so as to

e!bra$e all possible i!pressions or i!ages that sentient beings !ay for! or have for!ed#. 3.11 Cespite his reveren$e for @reudian ideas and his e!phasis on e)perien$e, Sapir sho"s s$ant $on$ern for volition and e!otion#, albeit they are, stri$tly speaking, never absent fro! nor!al spee$h# &SL 39'. ,deation reigns supre!e in language#. volition and e!otion $o!e in as distin$tly se$ondary fa$tors# &SL 32' &$f. 9.11'. Their e)pression is not of a truly linguisti$ nature#. To support this outlook, Sapir 5udges the e)pression# of i!pulse and feeling# to be but !odified for!s of the instin$tive utteran$e that !an shares "ith the lo"er ani!als# rather than part of the essential $ultural $on$eption of language# &$f. 3.1'. Though !ost "ords# have an asso$iated feeling%tone# derived fro! pleasure or pain#, this tone is not an inherent value in the "ord itself#, but a senti!ental gro"th on the "ord's true body, on its $on$eptual kernel# &SL 39f'. Spee$h de!ands $on$eptual sele$tion# and the inhibition of the rando!ness of instin$tive behaviour# &SL -/n' &$f. 3.9'. ;esides, the feeling%tone# varies fro! individual to individual# and fro! ti!e to ti!e# &SL -*'. So desire, purpose, e!otion are the personal $olour of the ob5e$tive "orld#, and $onstitute non%linguisti$ fa$ts# &SL 39, -/n'. 3.1/ 3ven in its !ore rarefied do!ains, Sapir finds language far fro! ideal. (e notes a po"erful tenden$y for a for!al elaboration that does not $orrespond to $lear%$ut $on$eptual differen$es# &SL 92' &$f. 2.-9'.9 ,nstead, "e run up against for! for for!'s sake#, and a $urious la$k of a$$ord bet"een fun$tion and for!# &SL 92, 1**, 29' &$f. 3.22, 2-, 33. -.-+, -9. +./3. 2.12. 9.19. 12.21, 2+. 13.1-'. ,rrational for!# is as natural to the life of language as is the retention of !odes of $ondu$t that have long outlived the !eaning they on$e had# &SL 92'. Bhoneti$ pro$esses# favour non%signifi$ant differen$es in for!#. and gra!!ati$al $on$epts# tend to degenerate into purely for!al $ounters# &SL 1**. $f. SL /1'.

3.1+ 8gain like Saussure &$f. 2./2ff', Sapir de$lares that the !ere phonetic fra!e"ork of spee$h does not $onstitute the inner fa$t of language, and that the single sound of arti$ulated spee$h is not# a linguisti$ ele!ent at all# &SL -2. $f. 2./2. -.29. /.+'. The !ere sounds of spee$h are not the essential fa$t of language# &SL 22'. Language is not identi$al "ith its auditory sy!bolis!#, though it is a pri!arily auditory syste! of sy!bols# &SL 1/f'. Co!!uni$ation# is su$$essful only "hen the hearer's auditory per$eptions are translated into the appropriate and intended flo" of i!agery or thought# &SL 12'. 3.12 Devertheless, the $y$le of spee$h# as a purely e)ternal instru!ent begins and ends in sounds# &SL 12' &$f. 2.1+, /+. 13.2+'. Spee$h is so inevitably bound up "ith sounds and their arti$ulation that "e $an hardly avoid# the sub5e$t of phoneti$s# &SL -2' &$f. 2.+*f. 3.1-, 21. -.29. 1.-2. 2.+*. 13.2/'. Deither the purely for!al aspe$ts of a language nor the $ourse of its history $an be fully understood "ithout referen$e# to its sounds#. 8t one point, Sapir asserts that auditory# and !otor i!agery# are the histori$ fountain%head of all spee$h and of all thinking# &SL 21' &$f. 3.1*, 3+. 2./'. 3.19 ,n regard to sound syste!s, the feeling# of the average speaker# is not reliable, but largely illusory#, na!ely that a language# is built up# of a $o!paratively s!all nu!ber of distin$t sounds, ea$h of "hi$h is rather a$$urately provided for in the $urrent alphabet by one letter# &SL -2f' &$f. 2.22f. -.32. /.1*. +.-/, //. 2.11, 13, +1f. 13.2/'. Bhoneti$ analysis $onvin$es one that the nu!ber of $learly distinguishable sounds and nuan$es of sounds that are habitually e!ployed by speakers of a language is far greater than they the!selves reali>e# &$f. -.29'. 3.2* 7e should rather assu!e that every language# is

$hara$teri>ed# by its ideal syste! of sounds and by the underlying phoneti$ pattern# &SL 1/'.1* The a$tual ru!ble of spee$h# !ust therefore be tra$ed to an ideal flo" of phoneti$ ele!ents# &$f. 2./2. -.3*. 1.-2f.

13.2/'. ;a$k of the purely ob5e$tive syste! of sounds#, ea$h language has a !ore restri$ted <inner= or <ideal= syste!# that $an be brought to $ons$iousness as a finished pattern, a psy$hologi$al !e$hanis!# &SL 11'.11 The inner sound%syste!, overlaid though it !ay be "ith the !e$hani$al or the irrelevant, is a real and i!!ensely i!portant prin$iple in the life of a language#. Enless their phoneti$ <values= are deter!ined#, the ob5e$tive $o!parison of sounds# has no psy$hologi$al or histori$al signifi$an$e' 3.21 @or the organi$ $lassifi$ation of spee$h sounds#, Sapir offers four $riteria4 the position of the glottal $hords#. the passage of breath# through the !outh# or nose#. free# or i!peded# passage. and the pre$ise points of arti$ulation# &SL 12f'. This s$he!e should be suffi$ient to a$$ount for all, or pra$ti$ally all, the sounds of language#. 12 @or e)a!ple, ea$h language sele$ts a li!ited nu!ber of $learly defined positions as $hara$teristi$ of its $onsonantal syste!, ignoring transitional or e)tre!e positions#. 9r, the language pi$ks out its voi$ed sounds#, "hi$h, being the !ost $learly audible ele!ents of spee$h#, are $arriers of pra$ti$ally all signifi$ant differen$es in stress, pit$h, and syllabi$ation# &SL -9' &$f. -.3-'. The voi$eless sounds# serve to break up the strea! of voi$e "ith fleeting !o!ents of silen$e#. 3.22 ;esides the syste! of sounds#, a definite grammatical stru$ture# 13.1-'. $hara$teri>es# every language# &SL 1/'. <Ara!!ati$al= pro$esses# are the for!al !ethods e!ployed by a language# &SL 1+' &$f. Ara!!ar# indi$ates that all languages have an inherent e$ono!y of e)pression#, "herein analogous $on$epts and relations are !ost $onveniently sy!boli>ed in analogous for!s# &SL 32' &$f. 3.2'. 7ere language ever $o!pletely <gra!!ati$al=, it "ould be a perfe$t engine of $on$eptual e)pression. Enfortunately or lu$kily, no language is tyranni$ally $onsistent. 8ll gra!!ars leak# &$f. 13.19'. (en$e, "e should e)pe$t to find a relative independen$e#, or a la$k of a$$ord#, bet"een fun$tion and for!# &SL 12f, 29. $f. SL /-, /9ff. 3.1/'.

3.23 @or Sapir, our $onventional $lassifi$ation of "ords into < parts of speech is only a vague "avering appro)i!ation of a $onsistently "orked%out inventory of e)perien$e#, far fro! $orresponding# to a si!ple# analysis of reality# &SL 11+' &$f. 2.3*, /1. 3.13. -.11. 1.+2f. 9.2+. 13.+, 2-'. The <parts of spee$h= grade into ea$h other# or are a$tually $onvertible into ea$h other# &SL 112' &$f. 13.1-'. (en$e, they refle$t not so !u$h our intuitive analysis of reality as our ability to $o!pose that reality into a variety of for!al patterns#. @or this reason no logi$al s$he!e of the parts of spee$h %% their nu!ber, nature, and ne$essary $onfines %% is of the slightest interest to the linguist# &SL 119' &13.+, 1+'. 3.2- Taken by itself, every language# does have a definite feeling for patterning on the level of gra!!ati$al for!ation# &SL /1'. 8ll languages evin$e a $urious instin$t for the develop!ent of one or !ore gra!!ati$al pro$esses at the e)pense of others, tending al"ays to lose sight of any e)pli$it fun$tional value that the pro$ess !ay have had# and delighting, it "ould see!, in the sheer play of its !eans of e)pression# &SL /*' &$f. 3.1/'. The feeling for for! as su$h, freely e)panding along predeter!ined lines, and greatly inhibited in $ertain dire$tions by the la$k of $ontrolling patterns, should be !ore $learly understood than it see!s to be# &SL /1'. :ean"hile, a strong later trend in 8!eri$an linguisti$s "as foreshado"ed by Sapir's re$o!!endation that linguisti$ for! !ay and should be studied as types of patterning, apart fro! the asso$iated fun$tions# &SL /*' &$f. -.-9. +./3. 13.1-'. This $ounsel is o!inous if a linguisti$ pheno!enon $annot be looked upon as illustrating a definite <pro$ess= unless it has an inherent fun$tional value# &SL /2'. 3.21 The various gra!!ati$al pro$esses that linguisti$ resear$h has established# !ay be grouped into si) !ain types4 "ord order, $o!position, affi)ation#, internal !odifi$ation#, redupli$ation, and a$$entual differen$es# &SL /1'.13 9f these, word order is the !ost e$ono!i$al !ethod of $onveying so!e sort of gra!!ati$al notion# %% 5u)taposing t"o or !ore "ords in a definite se0uen$e# &SL /2'. ,t is

psy$hologi$ally i!possible to see or hear t"o "ords 5u)taposed "ithout straining to give the! so!e !easure of $oherent signifi$an$e#. 7hen t"o si!ple# "ords, or even !ere radi$als# &roots', are put before the hu!an !ind in i!!ediate se0uen$e it strives to bind the! together "ith $onne$ting values#. 3.2/ Composition# is the uniting into a single "ord of t"o or !ore radi$al ele!ents# &SL /-' &$o!pare Saussure's agglutination#, 2./-'. Bsy$hologi$ally, this pro$ess is $losely allied to "ord order in so far as the relation bet"een the ele!ents is i!plied, not e)pli$itly stated#. ;ut it differs# in that the $o!pounded ele!ents are felt as $onstituting but parts of a single "ord%organis!#. (o"ever, then, in its ulti!ate origins the pro$ess of $o!position !ay go ba$k to typi$al se0uen$es of "ords in the senten$e, it is no", for the !ost part, a spe$iali>ed !ethod of e)pressing relations# &SL /1' &$f. 13.1-'. 3.2+ Affixation is in$o!parably the !ost fre0uently e!ployed# of all gra!!ati$al pro$esses# &SL /+' &$f. 2./2'. 8 "ell%developed syste! of affi)es !ay allo" a language to be so!e"hat indifferent# about "ord order# by $o!pensating "ith differen$es# that are rhetori$al or stylisti$# rather than stri$tly gra!!ati$al# &SL /3' &$f. +.11'. 9f the three types of affi)ing %% the use of prefi)es, suffi)es, and infi)es %% suffi)ing is !u$h the $o!!onest# and !ay indeed do !ore of the for!ative "ork of language than all other !ethods $o!bined#. ,n so!e languages &e.g. Dootka of Fan$ouver ,sland', suffi)ed ele!ents# !ay have as $on$rete a signifi$an$e as the radi$al ele!ent itself# &SL //. $f. SL +1n'. ,n others &e.g. Latin and Gussian', the suffi)es alone relate the "ord to the rest of the senten$e# by de!ar$ating the less $on$rete, !ore stri$tly for!al, notions of ti!e,1- person, plurality, and passivity#, "hile the prefi)es# are $onfined to the e)pression of su$h ideas as deli!it the $on$rete signifi$an$e of the radi$al ele!ent# &SL /2'. Still, in probably the !a5ority of languages that use both types of affi)es, ea$h group has both deli!iting and for!al or relational fun$tions# &SL /9'.

3.22

Internal modification# entails

vo$ali$ or $onsonantal

$hange#, and is a subsidiary but by no !eans uni!portant gra!!ati$al pro$ess# &SL /1, +3'. ,n so!e languages, as in 3nglish#, it indi$ates funda!ental $hanges of gra!!ati$al fun$tion#. Consonantal $hange# is probably far less $o!!on than vo$ali$#, but not e)a$tly rare#, appearing pro!inently in Celti$ languages# for instan$e &SL +-f'. 3.29 Reduplication# is a natural# operation, na!ely the repetition of all or part of the radi$al ele!ent# &SL +/'. This pro$ess is generally e!ployed, "ith self%evident sy!bolis!, to indi$ate su$h $on$epts as distribution, plurality, repetition, $usto!ary a$tivity, in$rease of si>e, added intensity, $ontinuan$e#. The !ost $hara$teristi$ e)a!ples# repeat only part of radi$al ele!ent#, !ainly to signal repetition or $ontinuan$e# of an a$tion &SL ++f'. 3.3* Fariations in accent, "hether of stress or of pit$h#, are the subtlest of all gra!!ati$al pro$esses# &SL +2f'. 8$$ent as a fun$tional pro$ess# is hard to isolate#, being often $o!bined "ith alternations in vo$ali$ 0uantity or 0uality or $o!pli$ated by the presen$e of affi)ed ele!ents#. 3ven so, pit$h a$$ent# in parti$ular is far less infre0uently e!ployed as a gra!!ati$al pro$ess than our o"n habits of spee$h "ould prepare us to believe# &SL 21'.