William J.

Sullivan
University of Wrocaw
Maria Curie-Skodowska University, Lublin
wjsiii@uni.wroc.pl

Order
Abstract: Partly because of their interests, linguistic theories during the past three
centuries have generally failed to notice that the linear order in linguistic output
(texts) is a problem that requires explanation. Now that we know how non-linear
the neurocognitive store is, the problem is even more pressing. A black box analysis
of a problem of anataxis in Russian shows that a relational network approach solves
the problem within the linguistic system itself.

0. Introduction

The PhiLang2009 conference had an interesting dual focus: the

philosophy underlying various approaches to linguistic analysis and the
question of unresolved problems. The dual focus is most appropriate if
we consider a particular unsolved problem, the source of linear order in
speech and writing, and the different approaches to language description
that have been taken over the last three centuries. It is not at once
obvious why order should be a problem.
The evidence for the human linguistic system is schizophrenic. What
is produced by our mouths is a linear chain of syllables. What is
produced by our pens is a linear chain of letters and words. Yet if we
assume that the oral and written texts we produce are attempts to
communicate something we (think we) know, it is clear that the linear
order must have a source, simply because our cognitive store is not
linear. That is, all parts of it exist simultaneously, and many of its parts
are not linguistic but sensory. The logical inference here is that linear
order is provided by the linguistic system during the process of encoding
a particular message into a text.1 But during the 90s a colleague who

1
The only alternative is to assume a linearizer distinct from the linguistic system.
That is an unprovable additional complication, so I ignore it.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
316

was then a recent MIT graduate told me that it was still an unsolved
problem for generative linguistics, even in the minimalist era, and a
workshop on linearity is planned for 2010 (cf. Kremers 2009).
It is my contention that the two problems, i.e. the philosophy of
linguistic theories and the unknown source of linear order, are
inextricably intertwined. Only by unraveling them can we solve the
problem. In fact, the path has already been outlined, though few have
recognized it. I begin, therefore, with a sketch of linguistic philosophies
over the past three centuries to show why the problem of linear order has
not generally been recognized as a problem, let alone solved.
Then, using a problem of anataxis in Russian, I show how a pure
relational network (RN) approach imposes linear order on unordered
semantic input.

1. Linguistics as a parasite discipline

In every era there are fields of study that lead the way for other
disciplines. They steer the course of inquiry as pilots for other fields.
Those other fields of study follow their lead, becoming (in general
harmlessly) parasitic on some pilot discipline (Koerner 1979: 525-26).
Whatever the position of linguistics today (cf. Ducrot 1966, quoted in
Koerner 1979:525), it began its climb to its contemporary status in the
18th century as a parasite discipline seeking status as a science.
To begin with, linguistics as then understood had to distinguish itself
and its approach to the study of language from more traditional
associations with grammar based on Latin, etymology and philology,
dictionary compilation, logic, and other related fields of study. It has,
since the 18th century, looked to other disciplines as a source of
philosophical underpinnings in an attempt to transform itself from an art
(philology/etymology) into a science. The pilot discipline of choice in
the 18th century was classificational biology as developed by Linnaeus.
Linnaeus classified animals into larger and larger categories and defined
the relations between these classes on the basis of physical similarity.
After William Jones published his description of Sanskrit, he and others
noticed that it would be possible to classify languages into larger and
larger families of more and less closely related languages. Schlegel

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 317

developed the procedure, paralleling Cuviers comparative anatomy.

His work was based solely on the investigation of the (grammatical)
structure of language and the comparison of morphological entities
(Koerner 1979: 527). Linguistic classification, like biological
classification, was essentially a static, ahistorical field until the 1820s.
Biology in the 19th century saw a development of interest from
relations between classes of animals to the way these animals had
evolved (cf. Wallace and Darwin). Classificational biology slowly
developed into evolutionary biology. There was a parallel development
in linguistics in the thinking of the Grimms and Verner all the way down
to the Neo-Grammarians. Here, too, classification grew into evolution.
Saussures early work was appreciated more for its historical merit than
for its descriptive implications. In America during the early 20th century
the focus shifted from Indo-European languages to Amerindian tongues
(Boas 1911/1963). Linguistic research became distinctly anthropological
in nature. Bloomfield (1933), originally with anthropological training,
modified his approach with input from Watsonian behaviorism. So by
the mid-20th century linguistics had shifted from biology to social
science. Seeking greater structural precision, Chomsky (1957 and later)
redefined linguistics as syntax on a mathematical basis. This is almost
where we stand today,2 with one exception. That exception is pure
relational network linguistics, to which I return in section 3.
Up to Chomsky, no one seems to have noticed that linear order might
be a problem. As the biological classifiers focused on the number and
shape of body parts, a study they called morphology, the linguistic
classifiers focused on vocabulary and the precise differences in the shape
of words, leading to linguistic morphology and phonology. In both
disciplines, small changes in form over time led to theories of evolution,
resulting in several sound laws for Indo-European linguistics.3 The linear
2
Chomsky has seriously refined and extended his model many times, each time
changing some basic postulates and invalidating much if not all previous
generative work in the field, but his approach remains mathematical. I slight the
various cognitive schools, which have done good work, because it seems to me
that they are continuing to evolve too quickly to characterize at the present
moment and because they do not solve the problem of linearization in a general
way.
3
In fact, Darwins original theory suits languages better than it does biology.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
318

order of morphemes in words showed closely parallel patterns in Indo-

European languages and evidently caused little comment. It was simply
a fact, like the shape of a dogs legs.
The anthropological approach in the Americas did notice substantial
differences in morphological order and function, but anthropologists
generally focus on the physical and are in the habit of finding cultural
differences. Different linearizations were welcomed and recorded.
Watsonian behaviorism is also a materialist discipline (cf. the dispute
between Skinner and Chomsky), and its reaction to different
linearizations was the same: they are just facts.
Chomsky recognized that a difference in linearization was a problem
for two reasons. First, a major class of transformations, e.g. TPASS and all
other movement transformations, involve a change in linear order.
Second, his firm belief in the universals of language required an
explanation for the differences between, say, SVO and SOV languages.
His solution to the problem was typical: a decades-long search for
universal underlying word order, a search that continually failed.
During the Chomskyan era there have been many minor breaks with
his theoretical approach, all of which he has called notational variants,
and one or two major breaks. I define a minor break as one that accepts
his primary postulates (Universal Grammar, sentence-based syntax)
while disagreeing with secondary assumptions (e.g. various barriers or
the adoption of particular nodes). Breaks began appearing almost from
the start (e.g. the lexicalist vs. transformationalist approaches to English
nominalizations in the 60s). Some have been fairly tenacious, none
more so than G. Lakoffs insistence that the base of linguistics is
semantics, not syntax.4 Langacker (e.g. 1990), like Lakoff in his
semantic base to linguistics, has actively incorporated the findings of
cognitive psychology into his approach. In some cases he seems to
translate semantic hierarchy into syntactic order directly. Still, this by
itself has not yet provided a general solution to the source of linear order
and is unlikely to do so.
The other major break with Chomsky comes with Yngve (1996),
though Yngve was never a generative linguist. Yngves approach, called

4
Note, however, his continued focus on the sentence.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 319

hard science or human linguistics,5 is physics based. But Yngve does not
seem to be eager to incorporate the findings of cognitive psychology or
neurology into his approach, and the linear order that appears in speech
and writing is simply a datum for him. It is unlikely that Yngves current
approach will provide a solution to the problem, either.
A reasonable and realistic answer can be found via a RN approach, to
which I now turn.

2. Relational Network Theory

Relational network theory, though far from new, is relatively unknown

outside of Denmark and couple of academic islands in Canada and the
United States. But it is the only approach that fits all the known facts,
recognizes the problem, and provides a solution. Hjelmslev (1943/1953)
defined a linguistic system as a totality that consists of relationships, not
things. Each thing in such a totality is a relationship defined by the
relationships it contracts. Hjelmslev defined these relationships
algebraically. I define them logically. But work in neurology over the
past generation shows a great deal about how it may be effected in
reality in the brain (cf. Lamb 1999 and Paradis 2004 for detail).
The model I present herein is logically based but consistent with the
neurological findings, and when combined with them, predicts the
findings of cognitive psychology.
The overall structure of a linguistic system for which we have
evidence in Russian and some other languages is given in Figure 1.
There are five strata (hence the name neurocognitive stratificational
theory). Each stratum has a tactic pattern wherein the basic elements of
that stratum are defined and related to other elements of the same
stratum. Each stratum also has realizational relations to the two adjacent
strata. The cognitive store surrounds the linguistic system (not shown to
scale). During an act of communication, most input from cognition is
probably to the semology when a message is encoded linguistically.

5
Actually not as contradictory as it seems.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
320

But it is likely that there are direct relations between cognition and any
stratum.6

Cognitive Store

Semology

Syntax

Morphology

Phonology

Hypophonology

SOUND

Figure 1. Outline of the linguistic system, relative to the cognitive store.

To get some idea of how linguistic elements are defined by their

relationships, consider Figure 2. The little box in the center of the
diagram, usually called a diamond in the literature, represents the stress
phoneme in Russian. It is related downward to the acoustic
characteristics of stress and upward to those morphemes that are marked
for stress. Its domain is the syllable, to which it is related by the line to
the left, and its range is the phonological word, where it occurs once,
optionally preceded and succeeded by unstressed syllables.
6
For example, in the morphological environment of the Russian verb, Jakobson
used to say, the phonemic feature [labial] signals first person.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 321

This approach works analogously on each stratum, e.g. with cases in the
syntax.

to Morphemes
marked for stress

Syllable Pword

increased volume
increased length
change in pitch
etc.

Figure 2. RN definition of the stress phoneme in Russian.

3 . Semology and Syntax

The two strata at the top of Figure 1 are semology and syntax. The
basic elements of semology are called sememes and the basic elements
of syntax are called lexemes. Semology structures discourse blocks and
defines chunks of information. It relates sememes to each other in
groupings, some of which can be called predications, if a term is needed.
Functionally, predications are semantically cogent groupings of
sememes. The sememes are related to lexemes in the syntax, which
linearizes the lexemes. In some cases, more than one linearization is
possible.
Consider a case in which more than one syntactic order is possible.
A pre-Chomskyan structuralist approach to such a case accepts both
orders, identifying differences in meaning. A Chomskyan approach,
lacking semology, takes one order as basic and derives the other from it.
Traditionally this is called a case of metathesis, by extension from

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
322

historical linguistics. In stratificational theory, both orders are imposed

on an unordered input from semology by the syntax. To distinguish this
from historical metathesis, which is a real case of reordering over time,
we refer to it as anataxis.

4. Anataxis in Russian Number Phrases

The linear order problem we consider today involves Russian number

phrases, in which two linearizations are possible. Pjat rublej 5 rubles
is the normal, unmarked order. Rublej pjat about 5 rubles
communicates the same cost but the amount is only approximate.
That is, the actual amount needed may be a little more or a little less than
five rubles. Previous descriptions do not explain the different orders.
Older structuralist descriptions accepted both orders, each one connected
with one meaning. Chomskyan descriptions incorporated a version of the
Jakobson-Trubetzkoy concept of markedness: the base generates pjat
rublej (the unmarked order) and there is an optional approximative
transformation (e.g. TPRX) that produces the marked reordering. But none
explain the basic source of linear order. It is simply a given.
Again, we know that the cognitive store is hierarchically organized but
not linear. That is, what we know and want to communicate we know
now. We must linearize it during the process of encoding it into sound.
Clearly it must either be linearized in the linguistic system or we must
theorize a separate but related linearizing module. The latter choice
presents substantial, perhaps insoluble difficulties in addition to being an
added theoretical complexity. A better approach lets the linguistic
system handle it all. That is, the linguistic system can provide both
marked and unmarked linearizations and show the difference in
meaning.

5. Encoding Russian Number Phrases

An engineer by training, I approach this as a problem in black box

analysis (BBA). The gray box in Figure 3 presents the preliminary BBA.
Relations between semantics and semology are on the left, relations
between syntax and morphology are on the right. There are three

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 323

possible sememes: PRX, ruble, and 5. Only two lexemes are involved,
rubl and pjat, and in the outputs, both forms and meanings overlap,
i.e. they are similar or partly identical. The difference in meaning is
communicated by the difference in linearization. The fact that genitive
plural is required for rubl is ignored, as it involves a substantial amount
of morphology, which time and space considerations preclude. But both
linearizations must be provided by the network in the black box on the
basis of the occurrence or non-occurrence of PRX. Our task is to find
such a network.

sememe inputs (L)

PRX
pjat simultaneous
5 two output lexemes (R)
rubl in one of two orders
ruble Our task: find network
inside box that does
the job.
Cog Semology Syntax Morphology
Store

Figure 3. Preliminary BBA for Russian metathesis.

There are three distinct input relations from the cognitive store that may
participate in semologically well-formed combinations. The inputs are,
as indicated in Figure 3, ruble, 5, and PRX. The combinations are ruble
& 5 & PRX and ruble & PRX. We can combine them algebraically as
ruble & 5 & (PRX, ) or ruble & 5 & [PRX], i.e. the number and
the noun and PRX or nothing. PRX is, in short, optional here. But there are
contexts where its occurrence would be contradictory, e.g. in the
environment of rovno exactly. Russian permits rovno pjat rublej
exactly 5 rubles, but rovno rublej pjat exactly about five rubles
sounds a little strange. Such structures need not be provided in the
semology, leaving us with the two basic combinations: ruble & 5 &
[PRX]. The semolexemic relations between semology and syntax are one-
to-one in this simple example, so the syntax accepts both inputs (actually
either input) from the semology. The syntax of simplified number

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
324

phrases has two positions. A number phrase is related to a 1-2 sequence.

Position 1 is related to both noun and number by an ordered OR node.
But the noun is marked, occurring in position 1 if PRX is active. If PRX is
active, the number cannot be realized in position 1. If it is not active,
then the number is realized in position 1. Position 2 is related to both
noun and number via an unordered OR node. What is realized in position
2 is whatever was not realized in position 1.
Before providing a graphic description of the logic underlying the
verbal description, I give a summary of the four relationships that appear
in the description in Figure 4.

Type Unordered Ordered Purpose of order

AND Linearization

OR Marked-unmarked

Figure 4. Basic logical relationships

A graphic description of the network is given in Figure 5. What it says is

a pure relational network representation of the above verbal description.
Again, three sememes participate in two acceptable combinations: ruble
& 5 & [PRX]. Note that the order I write them in is not significant.
Again, the syntax accepts both combinations, putting out rublej pjat
if PRX is present and pjat rublej if it is not. There are no labels interior
to the network, no symbols requiring a homunculus in the brain to read
and interpret.
Figure 5 accepts an unordered input and puts out the syntactic order
appropriate to the context. This order problem is solved. My broader
claim is that all linearization problems can be solved in parallel fashion,
i.e. unordered on one stratum to ordered on another.
Experimental evidence for a system like that of Figure 1 in some
languages is not new. Indications for a stratal boundary between

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 325

phonology and hypophonology is in Dell and Reich (1977).

This evidence involves speech errors during encoding, including
anticipation, perseveration, and spoonerisms. Ongoing research by the
present author shows parallel error types between morphology and
phonology, syntax and morphology, and semology and syntax. The
theory of spreading activation introduced by Reich in his unpublished
dissertation, and developed in Dell & Reich (1977) and Dell (1986)
accounts for the appearance of correct linearizations (if everything works
correctly) and for speech errors (if interstratal coordination slips).

Cognitive Semology Syntax to Morphology

Store

PRX

5 pjat

ruble rubl

Figure 5. Anataxis in Russian number phrases

6. Conclusion

Most non-RN theoreticians did not notice that linear order in linguistic
output is a problem and hence, none faced or solved the problem.
No linear order can be shown to exist in the cognitive store, so
neurocognitive stratificational theory assumes none. In the case of
Russian number phrases, two linearizations appear in speech and
writing. The two linearizations show partial but not complete overlap in
the form and in the meaning. The difference in linear order

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
326

communicates the difference in meaning. The RN description accounts

for all this without false assumptions about underlying or semantic
linearization or assumptions of some universal underlying word order.
By extension, all linear ordering (of morphemes in a lexeme, phonemes
in a morpheme and across syllables, etc.) can be provided within the
linguistic system. Additionally, allowing loosely-yoked distributed
parallel processing with spreading activation across the strata (cf. Dell
1986) can account for the rate at which we speak and can even predict
those performance errors known as slips of the tongue. The potential of a
relational network approach has barely been tapped.

References

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Boas, Franz. 1911/1963. Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian
languages. (Reprint; original appeared in the first number of the Handbook in
1911, Washington: Government Printing Office.) Washington: Georgetown
University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence
production. Psychological Review 93(3): 283-321.
Dell, Garry and Peter A. Reich. 1977. A model of slips of the tongue. LACUS forum
III. 438-47.
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1943/1953. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Omkring
sprogteoriens grundlggelse, trans. by Francis J. Whitfield. Baltimore: Waverly
Press.
Hockett, Charles. 1983. The changing intellectual context of linguistic theory.
LACUS forum IX. 9-42.
Koerner,. Konrad E. F. 1979. Pilot and parasite disciplines in the development of
linguistic science. LACUS forum V: 525-34.
Kremers, Joost. 2009. Linearization workshop.
http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kremers/DGfS2010-Linearization.html
Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. Pathways of the Brain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Paradis, Michel. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 327

Robins, R. H. 1968. A Short History of Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.
Yngve, Victor H. 1996. From Grammar to Science: New Foundations for General
Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM
 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 7/11/16 8:37 PM