Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Hovy E, Ro sner D & Stock O (eds.) Aspects of automated natural language generation. Proceedings of the
6th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Trento, Italy, April 1992. Berlin: Springer.
199214.
Sacerdoti E (1973). Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction
spaces. Proceedings of IJCAI III: International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 412422.
Sanders T J M, Spooren W P M & Noordman L G M
(1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations.
Discourse Processes 15(1), 136.
Taboada M T (2004). Building coherence and cohesion:
task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taboada M & Mann W C (2005). Rhetorical structure
theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies (to appear).
Taboada M & Mann W C (2006). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies (8).
Vander Linden K (2000). Natural language generation. In
Jurafsky D & Martin J (eds.) Speech and language
processing: an introduction to speech recognition,
computational linguistics and natural language processing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 763798.
Webber B, Knott A, Stone M & Joshi A (1999). Discourse
relations: a structural and presuppositional account using
lexicalized TAG. ACL 99: Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Computational Linguistics. American Association for
Computational Linguistics, University of Maryland.
4148.
Relevant Website
http://www.sfu.ca/rst/ The RST website includes definitions of all the RST relations, many example analyses,
and translations of basic introductions in French and
Spanish.
Hovy E, Rosner D & Stock O (eds.) Aspects of automated natural language generation. Proceedings of the
6th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Trento, Italy, April 1992. Berlin: Springer.
199214.
Sacerdoti E (1973). Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction
spaces. Proceedings of IJCAI III: International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 412422.
Sanders T J M, Spooren W P M & Noordman L G M
(1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations.
Discourse Processes 15(1), 136.
Taboada M T (2004). Building coherence and cohesion:
task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taboada M & Mann W C (2005). Rhetorical structure
theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies (to appear).
Taboada M & Mann W C (2006). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies (8).
Vander Linden K (2000). Natural language generation. In
Jurafsky D & Martin J (eds.) Speech and language
processing: an introduction to speech recognition,
computational linguistics and natural language processing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 763798.
Webber B, Knott A, Stone M & Joshi A (1999). Discourse
relations: a structural and presuppositional account using
lexicalized TAG. ACL 99: Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Computational Linguistics. American Association for
Computational Linguistics, University of Maryland.
4148.
Relevant Website
http://www.sfu.ca/rst/ The RST website includes definitions of all the RST relations, many example analyses,
and translations of basic introductions in French and
Spanish.
or substitution is nowadays often criticized for mistakenly assuming that tropes are deviations from linguistic normality and can thus simply be replaced by
proper expressions or phrases. However, tropes are,
in fact, very common in everyday language, and
there is no such thing as an original verbum proprium
or substituendum that perfectly corresponds to the
trope (cf., among others, Kienpointner, 1999: 6668).
In contrast to other figures of speech (e.g., figures
of repetition like anaphora, epiphera, alliteration,
assonance, consonance, and parallelism), tropes are
said to be more closely related to content than to form
or structure. Concerning the relationship between
what is said or written and what is meant, Heinrich
Lausberg (1990a: 6479) distinguishes between two
types of tropes.
Tropes of shifting boundaries (Grenzverschiebungstropen) consist of moving the borders of neighboring
semantic fields or the borders within one and the
same semantic field. These tropes are determined by
a relationship of inclusion or (factual) contiguity between what is said or written and what is meant. They
are, accordingly, divided into two subcategories. Periphrasis, litotes, hyperbole, emphasis, antonomasia,
and synecdoche are assigned to the first subcategory.
They are constituted by shifting the boundary within
a semantic sphere. The second subcategory involves a
relationship of adjacency. It is prototypically represented by metonymy.
The second type of tropes is labeled leaping tropes
(Sprungtropen). In comparison to tropes that involve
shifting boundaries, leaping tropes are grounded on a
leap from one semantic sphere to another sphere
that is not adjacent to the first one. Traditionally,
metaphor, allegory, and irony are taken as leaping
tropes. Their intended meaning is to be found in a
semantic domain that clearly differs from what is actually said or written. In concrete rhetorical analyses,
a neat distinction between the two types of tropes as
well as between the single tropes allocated to these
two types is not always feasible, as simultaneous
tropic membership of specific linguistic realizations is
not unusual (see Fontanier, 1977; Morier, 1989;
Lausberg, 1990a, 1990b; Groddeck, 1995; Plett,
2001, for various proposals to classify tropes; see
Goossens, 1995, for multiple tropic membership,
discussed with the example of metaphtonymy,
the simultaneous combination of metaphor and
metonymy).
Antique rhetoric ascribes primarily an ornamental
function to tropes. It considers them to be deviations
from ordinary language for the sake of adornment.
This view of tropes as purely decorative linguistic
appendices that are added to the linguistic raw
material in the rhetorical production stage of
Political Discourses
The contention of the tropes pervasiveness in language holds also for the realm of political language,
which generally speaking evolves in a tension
between the preservation and transformation of
power relations, public decision making, and problem solving, as well as political order. Many names of
political institutions and collective political actors
have their origin in metaphorization and metonymization (e.g., government, parliament, minister,
and ministry). Political discourses are full of tropes
related to the three political dimensions of form (i.e.,
polity, the basic order related to political norms,
institutions, system, and culture), content (i.e., policy,
the policy-field-related planning and acting concerning
the identification of political problems, the development and implementation of political programs, and
the evaluation and correction of their implementation), and process (i.e., politics, the political competition related to the conflicts between political actors
and to the achievement of followers and power). In all
fields of political action within and across which
discourses manifest themselves politicians employ
these figures of speech as effective rhetorical means of
constructing, representing, and transforming political
reality, as well as a means of political persuasion.
Fields of action (cf. Girnth, 1996) may be understood as places of social forms of practice (Bourdieu,
1991: 74) or, in other words, as frameworks of social
interaction (Reisigl, 2003: 148). The spatiometaphorical distinction among different fields of action can
be understood as a differentiation between various
functions or socially institutionalized aims of discursive practices. Among the political fields are the lawmaking procedure; the formation of public attitudes,
opinions, and will; the party-internal formation of
attitudes, opinions, and will; the interparty formation
of attitudes, opinions, and will; the organization of
international and (especially) interstate relations;
political advertising; the political executive and
nation-state within a confederation of states); to promote in-group solidarity (e.g., via family or kinship
metaphors, such as the androcentric metaphor of
brotherhood), referring to the imagined community
of a nation or of politically united nations; to support
out-group segregation and discrimination (e.g., via
deprecating animalizing metaphors like parasite,
rat, and vermin); to create a feeling of security by
suggesting stability and order (e.g., via construction
metaphors like house, referring to a state); to create
a feeling of insecurity by suggesting chaos, disorder,
danger, and threat (e.g., via flood or wave metaphors
referring to immigrants); to justify, legitimize, or delegitimize specific political actions or their omission
(e.g., via metaphors of gain or cost relating to the
consequences of a specific action or omission of action); and to mobilize political followers to perform
specific actions which can culminate in physical or
military aggression, such as war (e.g., via instigating
militarizing metaphors or rape and monster metaphors relating to the enemy). Some of these functions will be elaborated on in greater detail in the
following section.
politolinguistics should build a tropology of the political (i.e., a theory of tropes that systematizes and
explains the political and linguistic functions or purposes of tropic language in polity, policy, and politics;
for a first sketch, see Reisigl, 2002, and Reisigl, 2003:
237258). In what follows, this tropology is outlined
with the example of three of the four so-called
master tropes (see Burke, 1969: 503517); that is
to say, with the example of metaphor (including
personification and allegory, the latter being conceived as continuous, expanded metaphor), metonymy, and synecdoche (including antonomasia as a
special form of synecdoche). The fourth alleged
master trope, irony, will be dropped, as its character
is very different from that of the three basic tropes. In
contrast to metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche,
irony is much more heterogeneous. It often involves
the prosodic, gestural, or facial-expressive dimension
of language, which enables one to recognize that
what has been said is not to be taken literally, but
ironically. To explicate the complex character of
irony would go beyond the scope of this introductory
article.
In addition, in the present context, for reasons of
limited space, no attention can be paid to other linguistic occurrences traditionally also apostrophized
as tropes. Periphrasis, litotes, hyperbole, and emphasis are as is irony much more heterogeneous
than metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche. As rhetorical phenomena, they do often derive from the
three basic tropes or manifest themselves in manifold
tropic ways. Periphrasis, for instance, can linguistically be realized as antonomasia (which is characterized as a descriptive phrase standing for an individual
to be identified with a proper name or, conversely, as
a proper name standing for a general character trait),
synecdoche, etymology (which is based on the principle of nomen est omen), metaphor, allegory, metonymy, euphemism, descriptio and definitio, and so
forth (Plett, 2001: 91). However, some of these
other tropes frequently involve linguistic dimensions
that are not genuinely related to tropes, such as the
so-called trope of emphasis, for example, which
comprises numerous phonological, morphosemantic,
and syntactic characteristics that are not to be seen as
tropic qualities (Reisigl, 1999: 197199). To take into
consideration all these various aspects and their complex interplay would be beyond the scope of this
overview.
Metaphors
Bibliography
Bo ke K (1997). Die Invasion aus den Armenha usern
Europas. Metaphern im Einwanderungsdiskurs. In Jung
M, Wengeler M & Bo ke K (eds.) Die Sprache des Migrationsdiskurses. Das Reden uber Auslander in Medien,
Politik und Alltag. Opladen: Westdeutscher. 164193.
Bo ke K (2002). Wenn ein Strom zur Flut wird. Diskurslinguistische Metaphernanalyse am Beispiel der
Gastarbeiter- und Asyldiskussion in Deutschland und
sterreich. In Panagl O & Stu rmer H (eds.). 265286.
O
Rhyme 605
Rhyme
K Hanson, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED)
defines rhyme as identity of sound between words
or verse-lines extending from end to last fully accented
vowel. The final words of the final couplets in (1) and
(2) from Shakespeares Sonnets are thus examples (1)
of a masculine rhyme because it involves just one
syllable, and (2) of a feminine rhyme because it
involves two (with three and even four syllable rhymes
also being possible, though unnamed by any gender):
(1) For thy sweet love remembred such
wealth brings,
That then I scorn to change my state with
kings. (29, 1314)
(2) But day doth daily draw my sorrows longer,
And night doth nightly make griefs length
seem stronger. (28, 1314)
Finally, the dictionary entry adds that in English prosody specifically, the identity cannot extend further
back from the end of the line than the last fully
accented vowel. However, that does occur in some
final couplets of Shakespeares Sonnets, as in (4):
(4) Then will I swear beauty herself is black,
And all they foul that thy complexion
lack. (132, 1314)
606 Rhyme
given by the AHD of rhyme as minimally a relationship of likeness between final linguistic melodies. So
far, however, this revision does little to address the
vagueness of the original. In fact, we will see that the
best way to do that seems to be not to define rhyme
more narrowly, but rather to articulate the specific
sources of the variation found in rhymes across languages and across individual poets practices. In a
useful article modestly purporting merely to bring
some order to the chaos of overlapping terminology
used for rhyme and other harmonic forms, Rickert
(1978) identifies three distinct sources of variation:
where the language involved in the relationship is
located in a text, exactly which segments in those
locations are constrained by the form, and exactly
what degree of similarity those constraints require.
The first two specifications, we will see, can jointly
answer the question of what exactly is meant by
final in our definition, and the third will answer the
question of what exactly constitutes a likeness, our
compromise between identity and correspondence.
Thus, the range of possible answers to these three
questions can generate a typology of rhyme, and it
is around them that the following discussion is
organized.
What makes these questions of particular interest
to linguists is the theoretical question to which we
referred briefly earlier, the question of the extent to
which the range of possible answers might itself be
constrained by linguistics. For example, building on
the perspective of Jakobson (1960), Kiparsky (1973,
1987) articulated a substantive hypothesis, already
latent in much inquiry into rhyme, that the structures
in terms of which poetic forms are defined are precisely those that also figure in grammar. In particular,
he suggested that rhyme bears significant resemblances to reduplication. If this is correct, we would
expect answers to our questions to make reference
to linguistic entities such as word boundaries, syllable nuclei or back vowels, but not, for example, to
important words, or even, as is often assumed to be
the case, to spelling. Of course, the issue is complicated by the fact that the hypothesis defines other
poetic forms too, such as metrical feet and lines,
which are likewise linguistic in the sense of being
defined in reference to linguistic entities but are not
part of ordinary language and to which descriptions
of rhyme must plainly make reference. Perhaps
more cautiously, then, we can say, especially in light
of the artistry with which rhyme is created as noted
above, that answers to our questions that refer to linguistic entities define rhymes that are natural, either
directly, referring to structures of ordinary language,
or indirectly, referring to specifically poetic forms
that themselves are natural in this way; poets may
Rhyme 607
608 Rhyme
Rhyme 609
(11a) For when these quicker elements are gone
In tender embassy of love to thee,
My life being made of four, with two alone
Sinks down to death, oppressed with
melancholy; (45: 6,8)
(11b) In tender embassy of love to thee,
w s w s w s w s w s
Sinks down to death, oppressed with melancholy;
w
s w s
w s
w s w s <>
(12a) Quite overcanopied with luscious woodbine,
With sweet musk-roses and with eglantine
(A Midsummer Nights Dream [italicized]
2.2.251-2)
(12b) Quite overcanopied with luscious woodbine,
w s wsw s
w s w
s <>
With sweet much-roses and with eglantine
w
s
w
s w s
w s w s
Instead, the syllable that the final one of the masculine line is like is the extrametrical syllable in the
feminine line. The meter thus defines what counts as
the line, but the end of it that is relevant to rhyme is
the end of the language mapped into the template and
not the end of the template itself.
Conversely, in another type of androgynous rhyme
sometimes called apocopated (but perhaps overdue
to be revised to something more like drag queen
rhyme so that the nameless adventurous structures
in (12), those feminine lines behaving as if they were
masculine, can be recognized as drag king rhymes),
it is the extrametrical syllable that does not figure in
the rhyme. The likeness holds instead between the
syllables in the final positions, regardless of what
follows them. An example (for which I am indebted
to Michael Ferguson) is the rhymes of the mixed
iambic pentameter and tetrameter couplets of James
Merrills The Octopus as in (13), scanned in (14) (on
the assumption that the iambic pentameter of this
poem differs from Shakespeares Sonnets in allowing
two unstressed syllables in a single weak position,
(see Meter):
(13) There are many monsters that a glassen surface
Restrains. And none more sinister
(14) There
are many monsters that a glassen surface
|{z}
w
s w s w s w s w s <>
Restrains. And none more sinister
w s
w s
w sws
610 Rhyme
Rhyme 611
612 Rhyme
Rhyme 613
614 Rhyme
Subsequence
A final complexity in rhyme also noted by Zwicky for
English rock rhymes, but seeming to have far wider
applicability as well as significant linguistic interest,
is subsequence. On Zwickys description, subsequence is the presence in one rhyme partner of a
segment not matched in the other; an example again
from Masters of War is the final [z] in eyes not present
in its rhyme partner fly in the abcbdefe scheme in
(28), while the extra [t] in fleetst compared to its
partner sweets in (29) shows a similar structure in
an abab quatrain from Shakespeares Sonnets:
(28) You that never done nothin
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like its your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
(29) Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleetst,
And do what eer thou wilt, swift-footed Time,
To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
But I forbid thee one most heinous
crime: (19, 58)
Resemblances to Reduplication
We have up to this point considered rhyme as a verse
form that both as a whole and in individual poets
practices seems to bear systematic relationships to the
phonology of ordinary language. Nothing in the description of the phenomenon we have developed so far,
however, confines rhyme to verse; in fact, neither does
either dictionary definition with which we began, because both allowed for rhyme simply at ends of
words. It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable to speak
even more generally of words whose syllables rhyme,
whether in the manner of full rhyme as in picnic or
claptrap, or slant rhyme in riffraff, or even of apocopated rhyme in, say, a phrase like a very married pair.
The relationship of rhyme to ordinary phonology
that has probably been of the most interest to linguists, however, is not sporadic rhymes, whether
Rhyme 615
Conclusion
The interest of rhyme for linguistics may be a matter
of its form alone, but the consequences of description and explanation of its forms reach beyond linguistics into literary criticism and theory. In the
interpretation of poetry, one of the most vexing questions is that of the nature of the contribution forms
make to meaning, or more generally to aesthetic effect not just the legitimacy of arguments from one to
the other, but even the legitimacy of positing the
existence of such forms to start with, especially in
the face of the evident variation they exhibit. While
linguistic investigation of rhyme by no means settles
these philosophical questions, attention to it expands
enormously our awareness of the range of phonology
that seems available to give rise to aesthetic effects,
both in modulation across obligatory rhyme schemes
(Lanz, 1931) and in relationships forged by optimal
ones (Wimsatt, 1954). The project should thus be of
interest to literary critics and linguists alike.
See also: Meter; Metrical Phonology; Poetry: Stylistic Aspects; Semantics of Prosody.
Bibliography
Berube M S (ed.) (1982). The American heritage dictionary.
(2nd college edn.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.
Borowsky T J (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of
English. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts.
Brogan T V F (1981). English versification 15701980: a
reference guide with a global appendix. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Chomsky N & Halle M (1968). The sound pattern of
English. Cambridge, MA/New York: Harper and Row.
616 Rhyme
Sykes J B (ed.) (1976). The concise Oxford dictionary of
current English (6th edn.) (1st edn., 1911). Oxford: The
Clarendon Press.
Stallworthy J (1983). Versification. In Allison A W et al.
(eds.) The Norton Anthology of poetry, 3rd edn. New
York: W. W. Norton. 14031423.
Steriade D (2003). Knowledge of similarity and narrow
lexical override. BLS 29.
Steriade D (Forthcoming). The phonology of perceptibility
effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint
organization. In Hanson K & Inkelas S (eds.) The nature
of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wimsatt W K (1954). One relation of rhyme to reason. In
Wimsatt W K (ed.) The verbal icon: studies in the meaning of poetry. Lexington, KY: Kentucky University Press.
153168.
Yip M (1999). Reduplication as alliteration and rhyme.
GLOT International 4, 17.
Zwicky A (1976). Well, this rock and roll has got to stop.
Juniors head is hard as a rock . Cls 12, 676697.
Rhythm
rhythmic structure. In spoken language, rhythm
also comes up in conjunction with rhythmic adjustments of different kinds (destressing, stress shift,
addition of stress). The pattern of regular alternation
is thought of as prototypically rhythmic, but the notion of rhythm is more inclusive than that in linguistics, especially when we extend the focus to verse
metrics. In meter, less symmetric patterns, such as
those found in the verse of Sappho, would also qualify as rhythmic, provided they occur with some
regularity. Thus, rhythm could be defined as an
arrangement of prominent and nonprominent prosodic elements that can be perceived as a regular
pattern.
Rhythmic structure is hierarchical and it has been
represented both as tree structure and grid structure
in the phonological literature. In the following grid
structure, hierarchy is coded as different heights of
the columns, reflecting level of prominence. This
would be a typical rhythm of a song or nursery
rhyme (example from Hayes (1995: 26)).
Definition
Rhythm is the perception of a pattern of alternation
between prominent and nonprominent prosodic elements. In a linguistic context, rhythm is mostly discussed in the domains of stress patterns and verse
metrics. Rhythm is deeply involved in the shape of
stress systems, stress being probably the only phonological category that has a rhythmic distribution
(Hayes, 1995: 25). The rhythmic character of stress
distribution is evident, for example, in six-syllable
words, in which stress will tend to occur on every
other syllable (sBsBssBss or sBssBssBs). No language
will assign stress to three adjacent syllables in such
a word (*sssBsBsBs or ssBsBsBss). Furthermore, it
is natural to view the categories of linguistic stress
(the binary prosodic feet) and their distribution
in words as part of the linguistic manifestation of
(1) x
x
x
x
This
he
knickthis
x
x
old
played
knack
old
x
x
x
man
knickpadman
dy
x
x
knack
wack,
came
x
x
x
x
he
on
give
rol-
your
x
x
played
my
dog
ling
x
x
x
one,
thumb,
bone,
home.
x
x
with
616 Rhyme
Sykes J B (ed.) (1976). The concise Oxford dictionary of
current English (6th edn.) (1st edn., 1911). Oxford: The
Clarendon Press.
Stallworthy J (1983). Versification. In Allison A W et al.
(eds.) The Norton Anthology of poetry, 3rd edn. New
York: W. W. Norton. 14031423.
Steriade D (2003). Knowledge of similarity and narrow
lexical override. BLS 29.
Steriade D (Forthcoming). The phonology of perceptibility
effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint
organization. In Hanson K & Inkelas S (eds.) The nature
of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wimsatt W K (1954). One relation of rhyme to reason. In
Wimsatt W K (ed.) The verbal icon: studies in the meaning of poetry. Lexington, KY: Kentucky University Press.
153168.
Yip M (1999). Reduplication as alliteration and rhyme.
GLOT International 4, 17.
Zwicky A (1976). Well, this rock and roll has got to stop.
Juniors head is hard as a rock . Cls 12, 676697.
Rhythm
rhythmic structure. In spoken language, rhythm
also comes up in conjunction with rhythmic adjustments of different kinds (destressing, stress shift,
addition of stress). The pattern of regular alternation
is thought of as prototypically rhythmic, but the notion of rhythm is more inclusive than that in linguistics, especially when we extend the focus to verse
metrics. In meter, less symmetric patterns, such as
those found in the verse of Sappho, would also qualify as rhythmic, provided they occur with some
regularity. Thus, rhythm could be defined as an
arrangement of prominent and nonprominent prosodic elements that can be perceived as a regular
pattern.
Rhythmic structure is hierarchical and it has been
represented both as tree structure and grid structure
in the phonological literature. In the following grid
structure, hierarchy is coded as different heights of
the columns, reflecting level of prominence. This
would be a typical rhythm of a song or nursery
rhyme (example from Hayes (1995: 26)).
Definition
Rhythm is the perception of a pattern of alternation
between prominent and nonprominent prosodic elements. In a linguistic context, rhythm is mostly discussed in the domains of stress patterns and verse
metrics. Rhythm is deeply involved in the shape of
stress systems, stress being probably the only phonological category that has a rhythmic distribution
(Hayes, 1995: 25). The rhythmic character of stress
distribution is evident, for example, in six-syllable
words, in which stress will tend to occur on every
other syllable (sBsBssBss or sBssBssBs). No language
will assign stress to three adjacent syllables in such
a word (*sssBsBsBs or ssBsBsBss). Furthermore, it
is natural to view the categories of linguistic stress
(the binary prosodic feet) and their distribution
in words as part of the linguistic manifestation of
(1) x
x
x
x
This
he
knickthis
x
x
old
played
knack
old
x
x
x
man
knickpadman
dy
x
x
knack
wack,
came
x
x
x
x
he
on
give
rol-
your
x
x
played
my
dog
ling
x
x
x
one,
thumb,
bone,
home.
x
x
with
Rhythm 617
Eurhythm
(. x)
ss
(x .)
ss
(. x)
ss
(x .)
ss
(. x)
ss
(x .)
ss
(. x)
ss
(x .)
ss
In the second example, the resulting rhythm ("tullpack-%hus-karl-s-%lag) is regularly alternating, by virtue of every other stress being retained. Lapse the
situation when the distance between stresses is too
great is resolved by the insertion of a rhythmic
prominence somewhere between the stresses, as in
the following example from Italian (Nespor and
Vogel, 1989: 86):
(4) Gia nni non ce lo da
! Gia nni non ce` lo da
Gianni does not give it to us.
Clash resolution by stress shift respects the hierarchical level at which stress clash occurs. This can
be brought out in a grid representation (Prince,
1983):
618 Rhythm
.
x . . .
.
x .
.
x
.
x
s | sss s
s |
s s s | s
s | s
Och | tjejerna kom och | skrek att det | brann som | fan
And the-girls came and shouted that it burnt like hell.
!
!
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Meter
In spoken language, rhythmic properties are essentially automatic. In poetic meter, prosodic properties of
the language become codified. Unmarked properties
may be enhanced, as in the isochrony of the nursery
rhymes shown in Examples (1) and (7). However, in
many styles of verse, it is considered crude to overstate the rhythmic pattern in the manner done in
nursery rhymes, and rhythm is instead signaled
more subtly. One exponent for this in the English
tradition is blank verse, in which none of the metrical
positions actually requires of the syllable filling it that
it be either stressed or unstressed. Similarly, meter can
be consciously made to deviate from the unmarked.
Indeed, any verse tradition containing more than one
meter must have less marked meters in it. Classical
Greek meter is traditionally considered a quantitative
system, based on long and short syllables, but it
explores arrhythmic properties such as clash and
lapse in the construction of meter. Thus, for dactylic
meter, the essential rhythmic property is one clash per
metron, and for iambic meter it is one lapse per
metron. Interestingly, clash and lapse are not very
strong constraints in the language, and it would
seem that this is what makes it possible to explore
these arrhythmies in the verse tradition (Golston and
Riad, 2000). For languages without stress, e.g.,
Japanese, we expect that they should have very little
in the way of rhythmic phenomena in both language
and verse. The verse types used in Japanese (haiku,
tanka), which count moras but exhibit no sensitivity
Bibliography
Abercrombie D (1967). Elements of general phonetics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dauer R M (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing
reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11, 5162.
Engstrand O (2004). Fonetikens grunder. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Rhythmic Alternations
D Zec, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Rhythmic alternation is a principle of linguistic organization that operates at the level of sound structure
and is rooted in the cognitive organization of auditory
events. As an organizing cognitive principle, rhythmic
alternation grants cohesion to temporal spans, by
virtue of propelling the regularity of event sequencing
from past to future. This general cohesive role also
characterizes rhythmic alternation in linguistic constituencies. Rhythm has a specific organization in
terms of beat structure, detected in language as well
as in other cognitive domains that are crucially dependent on the time dimension. According to studies
of the rhythmic structures in music (Cooper and
Meyer, 1960; Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983), as
well as investigations of linguistic rhythm (Liberman,
1975; Liberman and Prince, 1977; Hayes, 1995),
auditory stimuli are construed as beats, and a sequence of beats is further construed as a sequence of
groups of beats with recurring group internal structure. In its turn, group internal structure is manifested
as greater prominence conferred on one of the group
members, typically the first or last, thus yielding an
alternating pattern.
Studies of the cognitive properties of rhythm have
reported on the general conditions for the emergence
of rhythmic alternation (Fraisse, 1978; Woodrow,
1951). According to Woodrow (1951: 1232), [b]y
rhythm, in the psychological sense, is meant the perception of a series of stimuli as a series of groups of
stimuli. The successive groups are ordinarily of similar
(
(x
(x
x)
M ` s s i s s
x
x
(x
p p
)
)
x)
i
However, rhythmic alternation in language is constrained in several ways. Whereas domains such as
Bibliography
Abercrombie D (1967). Elements of general phonetics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dauer R M (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing
reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11, 5162.
Engstrand O (2004). Fonetikens grunder. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Rhythmic Alternations
D Zec, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Rhythmic alternation is a principle of linguistic organization that operates at the level of sound structure
and is rooted in the cognitive organization of auditory
events. As an organizing cognitive principle, rhythmic
alternation grants cohesion to temporal spans, by
virtue of propelling the regularity of event sequencing
from past to future. This general cohesive role also
characterizes rhythmic alternation in linguistic constituencies. Rhythm has a specific organization in
terms of beat structure, detected in language as well
as in other cognitive domains that are crucially dependent on the time dimension. According to studies
of the rhythmic structures in music (Cooper and
Meyer, 1960; Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983), as
well as investigations of linguistic rhythm (Liberman,
1975; Liberman and Prince, 1977; Hayes, 1995),
auditory stimuli are construed as beats, and a sequence of beats is further construed as a sequence of
groups of beats with recurring group internal structure. In its turn, group internal structure is manifested
as greater prominence conferred on one of the group
members, typically the first or last, thus yielding an
alternating pattern.
Studies of the cognitive properties of rhythm have
reported on the general conditions for the emergence
of rhythmic alternation (Fraisse, 1978; Woodrow,
1951). According to Woodrow (1951: 1232), [b]y
rhythm, in the psychological sense, is meant the perception of a series of stimuli as a series of groups of
stimuli. The successive groups are ordinarily of similar
(
(x
(x
x)
M ` s s i s s
x
x
(x
p p
)
)
x)
i
However, rhythmic alternation in language is constrained in several ways. Whereas domains such as
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
M ` s s i s s p p i
o)
o)
o)
o)
o)
(o )
(o o)
(o o) (o )
(o o) (o o)
(o
o
(o
o
(o
o)
(o
o)
(o
o)
o)
(o o)
o) (o o)
(o o) (o o)
in duration produces iambic grouping. These asymmetric grouping tendencies are evidenced in music
(Cooper and Meyer, 1960: 10) and, according to
Hayes (1995: 7982) and Prince (1990), are also
evidenced in rhythmic patterns in language.
Groupings in the two moraic systems exhibit a crucial asymmetry of the predicted sort: trochaic groupings, (o L oL), (o H), are even, and iambic groupings, (oL
o L), (o H), (oL o H), may be uneven (Hayes, 1995;
Kager, 1995; Prince, 1990). There is no (oH oL) trochaic grouping; in fact, systems of moraic trochees
exhibit so-called trochaic shortening, as in Fijian
(Hayes, 1995), reinforcing the strong preference for
even trochees. Moreover, (oL oH) appears to be the
preferred iamb, as evidenced by numerous cases
of iambic lengthening, the effect of which is to eliminate feet of the (oL o L) shape and reaffirm the preference for uneven iambs (Hayes, 1995). However, in the
syllabic systems, all syllables are treated as equals, and
as a result, all groups are even. Because of the preference for uneven iambic groupings, syllabic systems
are inconsistent with iambic grouping. The strong
theoretical position is that syllabic iambs are either
highly disfavored (Prince, 1990) or are eliminated
from the system (Hayes, 1995). It should be noted,
however, that Gordons (2002: 522) broad survey of
syllabic stress systems included eight cases of syllabic
iambic groupings, thus strengthening the empirical
basis for positing this type of stress alternation.
Other Alternating Patterns in Word Phonology
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
thirteen men!thirteen men
Crucially, stress shifts leftward only if there is an appropriate landing site: stress will only shift onto a syllable
with secondary prominence. However, rhythmic adjustments of this type are not mandatory, but, rather, point
at a strong tendency toward eurhythmy that is, toward
rhythmic alternation in phrasal domains. Comparable
rhythmic effects have been observed in German
(Kiparsky, 1966) and Dutch (Kager and Visch, 1988),
as well as in Polish, Italian, and Greek (Nespor and
Vogel, 1989) (for additional cases, see Hayes (1995)).
Bibliography
Abercrombie D (1967). Elements of general phonetics.
Chicago: Aldine Publ. Co.
Cohn A C (1993). The initial dactyl effect in Indonesian.
Linguistic Inquiry 24, 372381.
Cooper G W & Meyer L B (1960). The rhythmic structure
of music. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Dauer R (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11, 5262.
Donovan A & Darwin C J (1979). The perceived rhythm of
speech. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 611 August, 1979, Copenhagen, vol. 2. Copenhagen: Institute of Phonetics.
Elenbaas N & Kager R (1999). Ternary rhythm and the
lapse constraint. Phonology 16, 273329.
Fraisse P (1978). Time and rhythm perception. In
Carterette E C & Friedman M P (eds.) Handbook of
perception, vol. VIII: Perceptual coding. New York:
Academic Press. 203254.
Gordon M (2002). A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
20, 491552.
Halle M & Idsardi W (1995). General properties of stress
and metrical structure. In Goldsmith J (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Blackwell Publ. 403443.
Halle M & Vergnaud J-R (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Riau Indonesian
D Gil, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Riau Indonesian
D Gil, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Bibliography
Gil D (1994). The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 17, 179200.
Gil D (2001). Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian.
Linguistic Typology 5, 325371.
Gil D (2005). Isolating-monocategorial-associational language. In Cohen H & Lefebvre C (eds.) Categorization
in cognitive science. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lady Victoria Welby (Gregory) (18371912), an independent scholar. In the late 19th century, she published
papers on meaning, significs, in Mind and The
Monist. Lady Welby started the signific movement
especially through the Signifische Kring in The
Netherlands in 1917, when she met the Dutch poet
and psychotherapist Frederik van Eeden (1860
1932), and she would later announce a Welby prize
for original ideas on meaning that led to the development of Basic English. She was also active in the Vienna
Circle and, of necessity, was influenced by the ideas that
migrated to Vienna. Lady Welby also corresponded
with C. S. Peirce (18391914). Lady Welbys thoughts
influenced both Richards and Ogden.
In 1923, Ogden and Richards published The meaning of meaning. A study of the influence of language
upon thought and of the science of symbolism. This
work made the authors very famous. For example,
Bertrand Russell and Edward Sapir discussed and
adopted this book as standard university reading
text. In this work, they investigated the role that
words play on thought, the symbolic and emotional
functions of meaning, and they sought to improve the
incipient behaviorism. Their semiotic triangle
thought or reference, symbol, and referent has
been disseminated among the various language
sciences. The manner by which they described the
relation between symbol and referent has been criticized within the discussions of theory of meaning.
One of the perceived failures is that their model fails
to account for the cognitive component of human
communication. Richards also argued that human
thought is metaphoric in this work.
Bibliography
Gil D (1994). The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 17, 179200.
Gil D (2001). Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian.
Linguistic Typology 5, 325371.
Gil D (2005). Isolating-monocategorial-associational language. In Cohen H & Lefebvre C (eds.) Categorization
in cognitive science. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lady Victoria Welby (Gregory) (18371912), an independent scholar. In the late 19th century, she published
papers on meaning, significs, in Mind and The
Monist. Lady Welby started the signific movement
especially through the Signifische Kring in The
Netherlands in 1917, when she met the Dutch poet
and psychotherapist Frederik van Eeden (1860
1932), and she would later announce a Welby prize
for original ideas on meaning that led to the development of Basic English. She was also active in the Vienna
Circle and, of necessity, was influenced by the ideas that
migrated to Vienna. Lady Welby also corresponded
with C. S. Peirce (18391914). Lady Welbys thoughts
influenced both Richards and Ogden.
In 1923, Ogden and Richards published The meaning of meaning. A study of the influence of language
upon thought and of the science of symbolism. This
work made the authors very famous. For example,
Bertrand Russell and Edward Sapir discussed and
adopted this book as standard university reading
text. In this work, they investigated the role that
words play on thought, the symbolic and emotional
functions of meaning, and they sought to improve the
incipient behaviorism. Their semiotic triangle
thought or reference, symbol, and referent has
been disseminated among the various language
sciences. The manner by which they described the
relation between symbol and referent has been criticized within the discussions of theory of meaning.
One of the perceived failures is that their model fails
to account for the cognitive component of human
communication. Richards also argued that human
thought is metaphoric in this work.
resources to the teaching of English as a foreign language. His works represent an important chapter
in the history of language teaching methodology in
general and specifically in English.
See also: Literary Theory and Stylistics; Ogden, Charles
Kay (18891957); Peirce, Charles Sanders (18391914);
Russell, Bertrand (18721970); Sapir, Edward (18841939).
Bibliography
Eagleton T (ed.) (2001). I. A. Richards: selected works
19191938 (10 vols). London: Routledge.
Foss S K et al. (1991). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric (2nd edn.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Martins W (2001). A palavra escrita. Histo ria do livro, da
imprensa e da biblioteca. Sa o Paulo, Brazil: Editora
A tica.
Noordegraaf J (1991). Communication, significs and linguistics. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenshaft
1, 6973.
Ogden C K (1994). C. K. Ogden and linguistics. Gordon T
(ed.) (5 vols). London: Routledge/Thoemmes.
Ogden C K & Richards I A (1923). The meaning of meaning. A study of the influence of language upon thought
and the science of symbolism. London: Routledge &
Keagan Paul.
Peirce C S (1977). Semiotics and significs: the correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby
(edited by Hardwick C S). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Richards I A (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Richards I A (1965). Principles of literary criticism. London: Keagan Paul.
Schmitz H W (1985). Verstandigungshandlungen eine wissenschaftshistorische Rekonstruktion der Anfange der signifischen Bewegung in den Niederlanden (18921926).
Habitilationschrift Friedrich-Wlihelms-Universitat, Bonn.
Steiner G (1975). After Babel. Aspects of language and
translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verburg P A (1998). Language and its functions. A historicocritical study of views concerning the functions of language from the pre-humanist philology of Orleans to the
rationalist philology of Bopp (Salmon P, trans., in consultation with Klijnsmit A J). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Welby Victoria Lady (1893). Meaning and metaphor. The
Monist 3(4), 510525 (Reprinted 1911).
Welby Victoria Lady (1896). Sense, meaning and interpretation. Mind, 5:17 (1896), 2437 and Mind, 5:18
(1896), 186202. In Welby (1985).
Welby Victoria Lady (1897). Grains of sense. London:
Dent.
Welby Victoria Lady (1903). What is meaning. Studies in
the development of significance. London: Macmillan.
(Reprinted in 1983 by Benjamins, Amsterdam.)
Welby Victoria Lady (1911). Significs. In The encyclopaedia Britannica. A dictionary of arts, sciences, literature
and general information (11th edn., vol. 25). Cambridge,
Bibliography
Christmann H H (1980). Frau und Ju din an der Universita t. Die Romanistin Elise Richter (Wien 1865 Theresienstadt 1943). Mainz (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1980, 2) & Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Christmann H H & Hausmann F-R (eds.) (1989). In
Verbindung mit Manfred Briegel (1989). Deutsche
und o sterreichische Romanisten als Verfolgte des Nationalsozialismus. Mit einer bio-bibliographischen Dokumentation der verfolgten Romanisten (Romanica et
Comparatistica, vol. 10). Tubingen: Stauffenburg.
Meyer-Lubke W (18901902). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (4 vols). Leipzig: Fues/Reisland.
Bibliography
Christmann H H (1980). Frau und Judin an der Universitat. Die Romanistin Elise Richter (Wien 1865 Theresienstadt 1943). Mainz (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1980, 2) & Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Christmann H H & Hausmann F-R (eds.) (1989). In
Verbindung mit Manfred Briegel (1989). Deutsche
und osterreichische Romanisten als Verfolgte des Nationalsozialismus. Mit einer bio-bibliographischen Dokumentation der verfolgten Romanisten (Romanica et
Comparatistica, vol. 10). Tubingen: Stauffenburg.
Meyer-Lubke W (18901902). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (4 vols). Leipzig: Fues/Reisland.
Bibliography
Rickford J R (1974). The insights of the Mesolect. In
DeCamp D & Hancock I (eds.) Pidgins and creoles.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Rickford J R (1977). The question of prior creolization in
black English. In Valdman A (ed.) Pidgin and creole
linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Press.
Rickford J R (1985). Ethnicity as a sociolinguistic boundary. American Speech 60(3), 90125.
Rickford J R (1986). The need for new approaches to
social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and
Communication 6(3), 215221.
Bibliography
Rickford J R (1974). The insights of the Mesolect. In
DeCamp D & Hancock I (eds.) Pidgins and creoles.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Rickford J R (1977). The question of prior creolization in
black English. In Valdman A (ed.) Pidgin and creole
linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Press.
Rickford J R (1985). Ethnicity as a sociolinguistic boundary. American Speech 60(3), 90125.
Rickford J R (1986). The need for new approaches to
social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and
Communication 6(3), 215221.
The third argument is semantic in nature. It concerns the interpretation of traces. If RNR did involve
movement, the traces of the alleged raising operation
would be expected to be referentially identical. In
other words, the target should refer to one and the
same referent in both conjuncts. As Example (7b)
shows, this expectation is not borne out (the argument
is made for German in Klein (1993)):
(7a) What1 did Louise buy t1 and Sarah read t1?
(7b) Louise bought , and Sarah read [a novel].
Finally, Levine (1985: 496) pointed out that the ungrammaticality of Example (11) cannot be explained
if the target raises to some right-peripheral position,
thereby bleeding the illicit binding of the referential
expression Mary (contained in the target) by the
pronoun she. The phonetic analysis offers a natural
account for the ungrammaticality of Example (11),
assuming that the target does not move:
(11) *I know that she1 said and I happen to agree
[that Mary1 needs a new car].
straints.
Bibliography
Abbott B (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 639642.
Blevins J (1990). Syntactic complexity: evidence for discontinuity and multidomination. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
Fe ry C & Hartmann K (2004). The focus and prosodic
structure of German right node raising and gapping.
The Linguistic Review 22, 67114.
Gleitman L (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English.
Language 41, 260293.
Goodall G (1987). Parallel structures in syntax. Coordination, causatives and restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hartmann K (2000). Right node raising and gapping.
Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Johannessen J B (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Klein W (1993). Ellipse. In Jacobs J et al. (eds.) Syntax
Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgeno ssischer Forschung. 1. Halbband. Berlin/New York: Walter de
Gruyter. 763799.
Rigid Designation
S Predelli, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Rigidity is a semantic notion. Semantics studies the
relationships between expressions in a language and
(typically) extralinguistic items. Examples of semantically interesting features are the relationship
between the name George Bush and Bush, the individual to which it refers; the relationship between the
sentence George Bush is a liberal and falsehood, its
truth value; and, at least in some views, the relationship between the definite description the President of
the United States and Bush, the individual it denotes.
The task of a semantic theory is not that of immediately assigning the aforementioned features to the
appropriate expressions. For instance, that the sentence George Bush is a liberal is to be assigned
falsehood depends not only on the semantic traits of
the expressions under analysis, but also on obviously
extrasemantic facts having to do with Bushs political
convictions. By the same token, that the denotatum of
the President of the United States is George Bush,
rather than John Kerry or myself, also depends on
extrasemantic facts having to do with the results
of the latest presidential election. For this reason,
the aim of a semantic theory is that of presenting
relativized assignments of semantic features. For instance, what our theory may conclude is that George
Bush is a liberal is true with respect to all and only
those parameters that provide a positive reply to the
query about Bushs leftist tendencies, and that the
President of the United States denotes Bush with
respect to all and only those parameters with respect
to which Bush won the presidential elections. According to a customary approach, parameters of this type
may be understood as possible worlds. In a more
complex framework, the relata appropriate for semantic evaluation may include, together with possible worlds, a temporal parameter: for instance, the
President of the United States may denote Bush with
respect to a given possible world and a certain time,
but Bill Clinton with respect to that world and another time span.
Let me refer to the semantic features for the aforementioned expressions as their semantic value: so, the
semantic value of a sentence (with respect to a possible world and/or a time) is its truth value (with respect to that world and that time); the semantic value
of a definite description (with respect to a possible
world and/or a time) is its denotatum (with respect to
that world and that time); and so on. In general, and
leaving momentarily aside a few interesting complications, an expression is rigid with respect to a parameter k if it has the same semantic value across all
Rigid Designation
S Predelli, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Rigidity is a semantic notion. Semantics studies the
relationships between expressions in a language and
(typically) extralinguistic items. Examples of semantically interesting features are the relationship
between the name George Bush and Bush, the individual to which it refers; the relationship between the
sentence George Bush is a liberal and falsehood, its
truth value; and, at least in some views, the relationship between the definite description the President of
the United States and Bush, the individual it denotes.
The task of a semantic theory is not that of immediately assigning the aforementioned features to the
appropriate expressions. For instance, that the sentence George Bush is a liberal is to be assigned
falsehood depends not only on the semantic traits of
the expressions under analysis, but also on obviously
extrasemantic facts having to do with Bushs political
convictions. By the same token, that the denotatum of
the President of the United States is George Bush,
rather than John Kerry or myself, also depends on
extrasemantic facts having to do with the results
of the latest presidential election. For this reason,
the aim of a semantic theory is that of presenting
relativized assignments of semantic features. For instance, what our theory may conclude is that George
Bush is a liberal is true with respect to all and only
those parameters that provide a positive reply to the
query about Bushs leftist tendencies, and that the
President of the United States denotes Bush with
respect to all and only those parameters with respect
to which Bush won the presidential elections. According to a customary approach, parameters of this type
may be understood as possible worlds. In a more
complex framework, the relata appropriate for semantic evaluation may include, together with possible worlds, a temporal parameter: for instance, the
President of the United States may denote Bush with
respect to a given possible world and a certain time,
but Bill Clinton with respect to that world and another time span.
Let me refer to the semantic features for the aforementioned expressions as their semantic value: so, the
semantic value of a sentence (with respect to a possible world and/or a time) is its truth value (with respect to that world and that time); the semantic value
of a definite description (with respect to a possible
world and/or a time) is its denotatum (with respect to
that world and that time); and so on. In general, and
leaving momentarily aside a few interesting complications, an expression is rigid with respect to a parameter k if it has the same semantic value across all
ks. For instance, an eternally true sentence is temporally rigid: its truth value is constant across all times.
Since in what follows I leave temporal considerations
out of the picture, I employ the expression rigid tout
court as alluding to constancy of semantic value
across possible worlds.
Types of Rigidity
I wrote that typical definite descriptions behave nonrigidly. This does not entail that there may not be
rigid definite descriptions. For instance, the positive
square root of four denotes the number two with
respect to any possible world and is thus a rigid
designator. It seems clear that this expressions rigidity derives not directly from its semantic behavior, but
from the modal perseverance of the mathematical
world. The description the positive square root of
four interacts with the parameter with respect to
which it is evaluated as any other description would:
a certain condition is being put forth, in this case that
of being the positive square root of four, and an
individual is selected on the basis of its ability to
satisfy that condition. The description is, in a sense,
semantically available for a nonrigid profile. Its
Bibliography
Kaplan D (1977). Demonstratives. In Almog J, Perry J &
Wettstein H (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bibliography
Kaplan D (1977). Demonstratives. In Almog J, Perry J &
Wettstein H (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
contribution of form to function. The formal differences of ritual from ordinary language were described in great detail by Malinowski in his study of
Kiriwinian (Trobriand Islands) spells (Malinowski,
1935). These spells exhibited a coefficient of weirdness that came from their use of archaisms and
apparently meaningless forms, onomatopoeias, repetitive and rhythmic chanting, extensive metaphors,
and allusions to myth. Malinowski argued that
many magic words were meaningless, but also that
the various stylistic features of spells somehow supported the creative metaphor of magic, or the belief
that ritual is able to bring about its intended result.
Working in part from the same data, Tambiah (1985)
argued for the persuasive or performative function of
a number of these stylistic features. However, his
model emphasized the semantic figures, especially
the metaphors and metonyms, of ritual language,
rather than its rhythmic form. It is this latter feature
that raises what might be called the abracadabra
problem: how do we explain the prevalence in ritual
language of so many apparently nonsensical, repetitive sounds, as evidenced not only in numerous ritual
traditions (e.g., the Ephesian Words beginning aski
kataski. . . found in many Greek spells, and the Hindu
Tantric seed (bja) mantras such as hrm klm srm),
but also in pejorative terms such as mumbo jumbo?
The dismissal of such forms as meaningless (e.g., by
Staal, 1996) does not account for their frequency of
occurrence in ritual language. For any particular term
such as abracadabra or hocus pocus, one may be
able to provide a probable etymon of which the magical word is a corruption. However, this does not
explain how, as actually used in ritual discourse,
such magic words function.
One possible explanation for such stylistic features
is that they serve primarily to differentiate ritual from
ordinary language. This hypothesis accords with one
of the fundamental insights of linguistic structuralism: namely, that any distinction in the value of a
linguistic sign depends upon an associated distinction
in its form. The principle of binary opposition discovered by Saussure may also serve at the level of genres
to distinguish ordinary language, on the one hand,
from poetry, literature, or ritual discourse, on the
other. Indeed, the thesis that poetry represents simply
a deviation from ordinary language has been articulated within structuralist poetics. This thesis is
paralleled within ritual studies by Bells emphasis on
techniques or strategies of ritualization that serve to
differentiate ritual from ordinary discourse or behavior (Bell, 1992). These theories may account for the
fact that many forms of ritual language are incomprehensible to their hearers and even, on occasion,
their speakers. In such cases, it is not any semantic
Bibliography
Alper H (ed.) (1989). Mantra. Albany: SUNY Press.
Austin J L (1975). How to do things with words.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bell C (1992). Ritual theory, ritual practice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Betz H D (ed.) (1992). The Greek magical papyri in
translation (2 vols) (2nd edn.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bloch M (1989). Ritual, history, and power: selected papers
in anthropology. London: Athlone Press.
Bourdieu P (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Nice R
(trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim E (1965). The elementary forms of the religious
life. Swain J W (trans.). New York: The Free Press.
Eliade M (1954). The myth of the eternal return: or, cosmos
and history. Trask W (trans.). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Frazer J G (1951). The golden bough: a study in magic and
religion (1 vol. abridged edn.). New York: Macmillan.
Gluckman M (1954). Rituals of rebellion in south-east
Africa. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Goodman F (1972). Speaking in tongues: a cross-cultural
study of glossolalia. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Goody J (1977). The domestication of the savage mind.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grimm J (1957). Von der poesie im recht (reprint edn.).
Darmstadt: Hermann Gentner Verlag.
Havelock E A (1963). Preface to Plato. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Jakobson R (1960). Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok T (ed.) Style in language. Cambridge:
MIT Press. 350377.
Ritwan
of English William Bullokar, the 18th-century philosopher of language, E tienne Bonnot de Condillac,
the 18th-century orientalist Sir William Jones, and
the 19th-century Neogrammarians, as well as to
reflections on the nature of the subject itself. In his
last book (Robins, 1993) he returned to the classical
interests with which he started.
His research energies were not limited to the classical languages and the history of linguistics, however.
In 1951 he worked on the Californian language Yurok
and published on this language throughout his career
as well as on the Javan language Sundanese (Sunda).
His interest in endangered languages resulted in the
book Endangered languages (Robins and Uhlenbeck,
1991), published under the auspices of the Comite
International Permanent de Linguistes, of which he
was president. Alongside the Short history, the other
work with which Robinss name is particularly associated, is his General linguistics: an introductory survey (1964; 4th edn., 1989). As lecturer, then reader,
Ritwan
of English William Bullokar, the 18th-century philosopher of language, Etienne Bonnot de Condillac,
the 18th-century orientalist Sir William Jones, and
the 19th-century Neogrammarians, as well as to
reflections on the nature of the subject itself. In his
last book (Robins, 1993) he returned to the classical
interests with which he started.
His research energies were not limited to the classical languages and the history of linguistics, however.
In 1951 he worked on the Californian language Yurok
and published on this language throughout his career
as well as on the Javan language Sundanese (Sunda).
His interest in endangered languages resulted in the
book Endangered languages (Robins and Uhlenbeck,
1991), published under the auspices of the Comite
International Permanent de Linguistes, of which he
was president. Alongside the Short history, the other
work with which Robinss name is particularly associated, is his General linguistics: an introductory survey (1964; 4th edn., 1989). As lecturer, then reader,
1794); Modern Linguistics: 1800 to the Present Day; Neogrammarians; Western Linguistic Thought Before 1800.
Bibliography
Brown K & Law V (eds.) (2002). Linguistics in Britain:
personal histories. Oxford: Blackwell.
Law V & Hu llen W (eds.) (1996). Linguists and their
diversions: a festschrift for R. H. Robins on his 75th
birthday. Mu nster: Nodus Publikationen.
Robins R H (1970). Diversions of Bloomsbury: selected
writings on linguistics. Amsterdam/London: NorthHolland Publishing Company.
Robins R H (1993). The Byzantine grammarians: their
place in history. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Robins R H (1998). Texts and contexts: selected papers on
the history of linguistics. Law V (ed.). Munster: Nodus
Publikationen.
Robins R H & Uhlenbeck E M (1991). Endangered languages. Oxford/New York: Berg.
RRG rejects the standard formats for representing clause structure (grammatical relations, X-bar
1794); Modern Linguistics: 1800 to the Present Day; Neogrammarians; Western Linguistic Thought Before 1800.
Bibliography
Brown K & Law V (eds.) (2002). Linguistics in Britain:
personal histories. Oxford: Blackwell.
Law V & Hullen W (eds.) (1996). Linguists and their
diversions: a festschrift for R. H. Robins on his 75th
birthday. Munster: Nodus Publikationen.
Robins R H (1970). Diversions of Bloomsbury: selected
writings on linguistics. Amsterdam/London: NorthHolland Publishing Company.
Robins R H (1993). The Byzantine grammarians: their
place in history. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Robins R H (1998). Texts and contexts: selected papers on
the history of linguistics. Law V (ed.). Munster: Nodus
Publikationen.
Robins R H & Uhlenbeck E M (1991). Endangered languages. Oxford/New York: Berg.
RRG rejects the standard formats for representing clause structure (grammatical relations, X-bar
les gateaux.
the cakes
lack of it in Turkish core co-subordination and coordination, respectively. The term coordination here is
being used for an abstract linkage relation referring to
a relationship of equivalence and operator independence at the level of juncture. It is distinct from conjunction, which is a construction type of the general
form X conj Y, which may be one of the formal
instantiations of coordinate nexus (Figure 10).
(3a) Core co-subordination
Gid-ip
go r-meli-yiz.
go-CMPL see-MODAL-1pl
We ought to go and see.
(3b) Core coordination
Mu zik dinle-yerek, uyu-yabil-ir-im.
musiclisten-CMPL sleep-MODAL-AOR-1sg
While listening to music, I can sleep.
(4a) Coordination
Nipu pu-la
pare
3sg
come-3sg PRES but
n
paala
na-pa
1sg afraid NEG-be.1sg PRES
He is coming, but I am not afraid.
PIVOT
this is where the syntax ! semantics linking algorithm is required. The details of the linking
algorithms are given in Van Valin (2005).
Most of what counts as syntax in many theories,
e.g., case assignment, agreement, and WHmovement, is handled in RRG in terms of the syntactic phase of the linking. The analysis of reflexivization
in RRG follows the approach in Jackendoff (1992)
and states the constraints for core-internal (clausebound in other theories) reflexivization at the LS
level, not with respect to the syntactic representation.
RRG treats constructions as an important part of
syntax, and they are represented in terms of constructional schemas. Cross-constructional and crosslinguistic generalizations are captured in terms of
the general principles and constraints that constitute
the linking algorithms, e.g., the ActorUndergoer
Hierarchy, the layered structure of the clause, and
the PSA selection hierarchy. Only the idiosyncratic,
language-specific features of constructions are represented in constructional schemas, which include
syntactic, morphological, semantic and pragmatic
(focus structure) information.
The linking in a WH-question in English is illustrated in Figure 15; the subscripts ACV and ACS
stand for activated and accessible, and they refer
to different cognitive statuses that a referent of the
element may have; cf. Lambrecht (1994).
Constraints on WH-question formation and other
extraction constructions are explained in terms of the
interaction of focus structure and syntax, in particular in terms of restrictions on the potential focus
domain (Van Valin, 1995, 1998, 2005).
Bibliography
Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M & Van Valin R D, Jr. (2004).
Syntactic templates and linking mechanisms: a new
approach to grammatical function asymmetries. Poster
presented at 17th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence
Processing. [available on the RRG web site].
Relevant Website
http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/research/rrg.html the RRG
web site, which contains dissertations, theses and papers
in pdf format for downloading.
Bibliography
Nettle D & Romaine S (2000). Vanishing voices: The
extinction of the worlds languages. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rickford J R & Romaine S (1999). Creole genesis, attitudes
and discourse: studies celebrating Charlene J. Sato.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Romaine S (1984). The language of children and adolescents: the acquisition of communicative competence.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Romaine S (1988). Pidgin and creole languages. London:
Longman.
Romaine S (1989). Bilingualism (2nd edn., 1995). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Romaine S (1994). Language in society: An introduction to
sociolinguistics (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Romaine S (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
The Roman ars grammatica comprises Roman grammatical works written between the 3rd and the 6th
century A.D. They are all intended as textbooks in the
schools or as handbooks for teachers. The majority
Bibliography
Nettle D & Romaine S (2000). Vanishing voices: The
extinction of the worlds languages. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rickford J R & Romaine S (1999). Creole genesis, attitudes
and discourse: studies celebrating Charlene J. Sato.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Romaine S (1984). The language of children and adolescents: the acquisition of communicative competence.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Romaine S (1988). Pidgin and creole languages. London:
Longman.
Romaine S (1989). Bilingualism (2nd edn., 1995). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Romaine S (1994). Language in society: An introduction to
sociolinguistics (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Romaine S (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
The Roman ars grammatica comprises Roman grammatical works written between the 3rd and the 6th
century A.D. They are all intended as textbooks in the
schools or as handbooks for teachers. The majority
Background
The term ars grammatica means the art of grammar
and is a translation of Greek techne grammatike with
the same meaning. It is also likely that the Roman ars
grammatica originated from the Greek genre (see
Dionysius Thrax and Hellenistic Language Scholarship), but owing to the lack of surviving Greek grammatical texts and the dating problems within Greek
linguistics, the exact nature of the connection between the two grammatical traditions remains unclear.
Just as in the Greek world, the Roman grammatical
textbooks are designed for providing a metalanguage
and a method for analyzing those literary texts (mainly metrical texts like the works of Homer and Virgil),
which were used as the principal textbooks in the
schools. Gradually, however, the textbooks became
more linguistic, and literary considerations faded into
the background. There are two likely reasons for this
development:
1. The increasing divergence between the spoken and
written language created a need for teaching a
standardized literary language in the schools.
2. The establishment of an organized school system
combined with a professionalism among the teachers, who preferred a fixed curriculum.
The works labeled ars grammatica cover a wide
variety of subjects and approaches to language and
are, in comparison with the few reminiscences of
Greek school grammars from antiquity, impressive
both in quantity and quality. The extant grammatical
texts, however, represent but a part of the Roman
grammatical literature. We have numerous references in Roman literature to grammarians otherwise
unknown to us or to grammars now lost. Furthermore, the names of the authors of many of the extant
works are unknown or uncertain (cf. Kaster, 1988). In
some cases a grammar is falsely attributed to an otherwise famous person known to have written an ars
grammatica (e.g., Remmius Palaemon) or to a wellknown person (e.g., St Augustine). It was common for
the grammarians to copy each other extensively, often
without acknowledging their sources.
The most important aspect of the Roman ars grammatica is that it formed the grammatical metalanguage and, above all, the structural arrangement for
elementary and advanced grammars and textbooks
for language teaching in Western Europe for more
than 1000 years. Even today many grammars have
clear echoes of Donatus.
See also: Dionysius Thrax and Hellenistic Language
Scholarship; Priscianus Caesariensis (d. ca. 530).
Bibliography
Barwick K (1922). Remmius Palaemon und die ro mische
ars grammatica. Leipzig: Dietrich.
Romance Languages
R Wright, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Romance languages are those that have developed from the spoken Latin of the early Middle Ages.
In this sense one can claim that Latin is not dead;
about a quarter of the worlds population still speak
it; but it has acquired several new geographically
based names (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian,
Romanian, Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, Galician,
Rhaeto-romanic, here listed roughly in descending
order of number of speakers). These are for political
reasons considered to be separate Romance languages, but there is still essentially one dialect continuum overlaid by the several artificially extended
standards. Apart perhaps from Romanian, the location and history of whose earliest speakers is still
controversial, the definitive divergence into separately identifiable languages should be dated to no earlier
than the 9th century, and in several cases later.
Reconstruction
There are two main kinds of evidence for the
Romance (spoken Latin) that existed before the separate languages diverged: surviving written texts and
the results of reconstruction. Hall and others have
reconstructed a hypothetical Proto-Romance on the
basis of the later Romance languages; features they
have in common are taken to have existed in their
ancestors. As compared with classical Latin, this
Proto-Romance contains, for example, no neuter
nouns, no ablative cases, no datives and genitives
The most important aspect of the Roman ars grammatica is that it formed the grammatical metalanguage and, above all, the structural arrangement for
elementary and advanced grammars and textbooks
for language teaching in Western Europe for more
than 1000 years. Even today many grammars have
clear echoes of Donatus.
See also: Dionysius Thrax and Hellenistic Language
Scholarship; Priscianus Caesariensis (d. ca. 530).
Bibliography
Barwick K (1922). Remmius Palaemon und die romische
ars grammatica. Leipzig: Dietrich.
Romance Languages
R Wright, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Romance languages are those that have developed from the spoken Latin of the early Middle Ages.
In this sense one can claim that Latin is not dead;
about a quarter of the worlds population still speak
it; but it has acquired several new geographically
based names (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian,
Romanian, Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, Galician,
Rhaeto-romanic, here listed roughly in descending
order of number of speakers). These are for political
reasons considered to be separate Romance languages, but there is still essentially one dialect continuum overlaid by the several artificially extended
standards. Apart perhaps from Romanian, the location and history of whose earliest speakers is still
controversial, the definitive divergence into separately identifiable languages should be dated to no earlier
than the 9th century, and in several cases later.
Reconstruction
There are two main kinds of evidence for the
Romance (spoken Latin) that existed before the separate languages diverged: surviving written texts and
the results of reconstruction. Hall and others have
reconstructed a hypothetical Proto-Romance on the
basis of the later Romance languages; features they
have in common are taken to have existed in their
ancestors. As compared with classical Latin, this
Proto-Romance contains, for example, no neuter
nouns, no ablative cases, no datives and genitives
manuscript copies prepared by scribes who had specific instructions to correct their originals according
to the arcane and eventually archaic rigidities of the
Imperial grammarians. Texts without such distortions are few; Adams has published some letters and
drafts, and Vaananens study of the Pompeii Graffiti
revolutionized the discipline by showing how incorrectly nonscholars wrote in 79 A.D. Even these texts,
however, are obviously not phonetic transcriptions of
actual speech. From painstaking statistical analyses of
surviving inscriptions (mostly on tombstones), whose
textual details cannot be corrected, Herman has
concluded that Imperial spoken Latin was evolving
but also converging, with new features starting in one
place becoming eventually attested anywhere. Some
further progress is made by studying borrowings from
spoken Latin into, for example, Irish, Welsh, Berber,
Albanian, and Greek.
Divergence
Wide variation arose, but this need not imply mutual
unintelligibility. Many historians, textual critics, philologists, sociolinguists, and historical linguists currently view early Medieval Romance Europe as a
single lively speech community, where almost everyone could understand old-fashioned written texts
when read aloud (McKitterick, 1990, Wright, 1991).
These were not Dark Ages. Early Medieval speakers
rarely made metalinguistic distinctions that we take
for granted now, neither diatopic (between French,
Spanish, etc.) nor diastratic (between Romance and
Medieval Latin). The latter distinction was probably
imported from Germanic-speaking areas, where vernacular Germanic and official Latin grammatica
were unrelated and self-evidently different languages;
conscious distinctions between separate Romance
languages became widespread only after the fashion
for inventing distinctive writing systems in different
areas, which began experimentally in 9th-century
eastern France but generalized only in the 12th and
13th centuries. Indeed, to some extent the speech
of the central Romance area is still mutually intelligible, given goodwill and clarity from those in the
conversation; peripheral languages, such as Romanian, Portuguese, and French, are rarely intelligible
elsewhere.
See also: Catalan; French; Italian; Occitan; Portuguese;
Rhaeto Romance; Romanian; Spanish.
Bibliography
Adams J N (1977). The vulgar Latin of the letters of Claudius
Terentianus. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Adams J N (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banniard M (1992). Viva Voce: communication e crite et
communication orale du IVe au IXe sie`cle en Occident
latin. Paris: Institut des Etudes Augustiniennes.
Banniard M (ed.) (2002). Langages et peuples dEurope.
Toulouse-le-Mirail: CNRS.
Hall R A (1976). Proto-Romance phonology. New York:
Elsevier.
Harris M & Vincent N (eds.) (1987). The Romance languages. London: Croom Helm.
Herman J (1990). Du latin aux langues romanes. E tudes de
linguistique historique. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Herman J (ed.) (1998). La transizione dal latino alle lingue
romanze. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Herman J (2000). Vulgar Latin. Pennsylvania: Penn State
Press.
Janson T (1979). Mechanisms of language change in Latin.
Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
McKitterick R (ed.) (1990). The uses of literacy in early
Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Selig M (ed.) (1993). Le passage a` lecrit des langues
romanes. Tubingen: Narr.
Trotter D A & Gregory S (eds.) (1997). De mot en mot:
aspects of medieval linguistics. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press.
Vaananen V (1937). Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompe iennes. Helsinki: Academy.
Wright R (ed.) (1991). Latin and the Romance languages in
the early Middle Ages. London: Routledge.
Wright R (1995). Early Ibero-Romance. Newark, DE: Juan
de la Cuesta.
Wright R (2003). A sociophilological study of late Latin.
Turnhout: Brepols.
656 Romani
Romani
Y Matras, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Definitions
Romani (referred to by its speakers as romani chib
the Romani language or romanes in a Romani way)
is the only Indo-Aryan language spoken exclusively
in Europe, as well as by emigrant populations in
the Americas and Australia. The language is often
referred to as Gypsy; it is important, however, to
distinguish between Romani, which is the fully
fledged, everyday family and community language
spoken by the people who call themselves Rom, and
secret or in-group vocabularies employed in various
parts of the world, including in Europe, by other
populations of peripatetics or so-called servicenomads. There is nevertheless some interface between
the two phenomena: in some regions of Europe, especially the western margins (Britain, the Iberian peninsula, Scandinavia), Romani-speaking communities
have given up their language in favor of the majority
language but have retained Romani-derived vocabulary as an in-group code. Such codes, for instance
Angloromani (Britain), Calo (Spain), or Rommani
(Scandinavia) are usually referred to as Para-Romani
varieties.
In the absence of reliable census figures, the total
population of Romani speakers can only be estimated,
at anywhere upwards of 3.5 million. The largest concentrations of Romani speakers are in southeastern
and central Europe, especially Macedonia, Bulgaria,
Romania, and Slovakia. Romani has traditionally
been an oral language, and in more traditional communities there is even opposition to codification
attempts or other public use of the language, which
is viewed as having protective functions. The overwhelming trend, however, since the early 1990s has
been toward codification of the various dialects at
local or regional levels. The language is now used in
local media, on numerous Internet sites, as a medium
of correspondence (especially electronic), and in some
countries even as a medium of school instruction.
History
The earliest attestation of Romani is from 1542, in
Western Europe. Our understanding of the languages
historical development is therefore dependent on reconstruction and comparison with other Indo-Aryan
idioms as well as with the contact languages. In phonology, Romani shares a number of ancient isoglosses
with the Central branch of Indo-Aryan, most notably
(Sanskrit aks. i Romani j-akh eye). In contrast, however, to the other Central languages, Romani preserves
a number of dental clusters (Romani trin three,
phral brother; cf. Hindi tn, bhai). This led Turner
(1926) to assume a Central origin of Romani, with
subsequent migration to the Northwest before the
reduction of the relevant clusters took place. A northwestern migration is of course well in line with an
utlimate migration out of India and on towards
Europe. Further support for Turners theory comes
from the domain of verb morphology, where Romani
follows the exact same pattern as Northwestern languages such as Kashmiri or Shina in its renewal of
the past-tense conjugation through the adoption of
oblique enclitic pronouns as person markers (kerdo
done me me > kerdjom I did). Proto- or preEuropean Romani was thus a kind of Indian hybrid:
a central Indic dialect that had undergone partial
convergence with northern Indic languages. Although
the retention of dental clusters would suggest a break
with the Central languages during the transition
period from Old to Middle Indo-Aryan, the overall
morphology of Romani indicates that the language
participated in some of the significant developments
leading toward the emergence of New Indo-Aryan
(such as the reduction of the nominal case system to
a two-way opposition, nominative vs. oblique, and
grammaticalisation of new, postposed case markers).
It would appear therefore that Proto-Romani did not
leave the Indian subcontinent until late in the second
half of the first millennium CE. Romani is among
the most conservative New Indo-Aryan languages in
retaining a full consonantal present conjugation, as
well as consonantal oblique nominal case endings.
Typical phonological developments that characterize
Romani among the Indo-Aryan languages are the
devoicing of aspirates bh, dh, gh to ph, th, kh, the
shift of medial d, t to l, of short a to e, of inflectional
-a to -o, of initial kh to x, and of the retroflexes d. , .t,
d. d. , .t.t, d. h etc. to r and r.
The subsequent development of the language was
strongly influenced by its contact languages. Romani
borrowed lexicon and some grammatical vocabulary
from Iranian languages and Armenian. The heaviest
impact on Early Romani (European Romani, between
the 10th and 13th centuries C.E.) was of Byzantine
Greek. Apart from numerous lexical loans, phonemes,
and grammatical vocabulary, Romani adopted Greek
inflectional morphology in nouns and verbs, which
remain productive with loan vocabulary from subsequent European contact languages (see below). Greek
Romani 657
Morphology
Nominal forms
Masculines
in o
Masculines
in f
Feminines
in i
Feminines
in f
Sg.
nominative
Sg.
oblique
Pl.
nominative
Pl.
oblique
chav-o
chav-es-
chav-e
chav-en-
phral-es-
phral-a
phral-en
romn-ja-
romn-ja
romn-jen-
phen-a-
phen-a
phen-en-
boy
phral
brother
romn-i
woman
phen
sister
-ke/-ge (dative), -tar/-dar (ablative), -sa(r) (instrumental and comitative), and -ker-/-ger- (genitive). As in
other Indo-Aryan languages, the genitive agrees with
the head noun (c hav-es-ker-o phral the boys brother, c hav-es-ker-i phen the boys sister). The oblique
without a Layer II extension serves as the case of the
direct object (accusative) with animate nouns.
Adjectives usually take vowel endings that agree
with the vocalic case-endings of the noun (mir-o dad
my father, mir-i daj my mother). Demonstratives
usually show a four-term system, encoding both proximity/remoteness (or, rather, presence in the situation
vs. the discourse context), and general/specific (disambiguation), e.g., adava, akava, odova, okova.
Interrogatives are cognate with other Indo-Aryan languages (kon who, kaj where), with so what
serving as the base for several derived forms (savo
which, soske why, sode how many, etc.). Indefinite markers are often borrowed from the respective
contact languages.
Verbs
Valency is a central feature of Romani verb morphology. It is expressed through direct affixation to the verb
root. The productivity, however, of individual valency
markers varies among the dialects. Typical valencyincreasing markers are -av-, -ar-, -ker-, and valencydecreasing markers are -jov- and -av-. They derive
verbs from other verb roots, as well as from nouns
and adjectives. Borrowed verbs carry loan verb extension or adaptation markers, based on Greek-derived
tense/aspect affixes such as -iz-, -in-, -is-, sometimes in
combination with valency affixes (e.g., -is-ar-, -is-ker-).
The default stem (root with derivation marker)
serves as a non-perfective aspect. The plain form
of the nonperfective serves as a present/subjunctive.
A tense/modality extension -a marks the present/
indicative, the future, or conditional, depending
on the dialect. A perfective aspect (also aorist or
simple past) is formed by attaching a perfective
extension (derived from the Middle Indo-Aryan
participle extension -t-) to the root of the verb
658 Romani
Syntax
Romani stands out among the Indic languages
through its Europeanized, specifically Balkanized syntax. Word order is VO, with variation between thetic
(continuative) VS and categorical (contrastive) SV.
Local relations are indicated by prepositions. Adjectives and determiners generally precede the noun, as
does the definite article (which agrees with the noun
in gender, number, and case). Relative clauses are
postposed, and often introduced by a universal relativizer kaj < where. Clauses are generally finite.
Adverbial clauses are introduced by conjunctions,
usually derived from interrogatives. Romani distinguishes between factual and nonfactual complex
clauses. Modal, manipulation, and purpose clauses
are introduced by a nonfactual conjunction te, as are
conditional clauses. Epistemic complements are introduced by kaj, which is often replaced by a borrowing
from the respective contact language.
Dialect diversity
Dialect differentiation in Romani appears to have
emerged largely in situ, following the dispersal of
groups from the Balkans into western and northern
Europe, from around the 14th century onward, and
their settlement in their present locations, during the
16th-17th centuries. There are two major diffusion
centers of innovations: in the southeast, especially
the northern Balkans, and in western-central Europe,
especially Germany. Typical of the western-northern
dialects are prothesis of j-, simplification of ndr to r,
loss of adjectival past-tense in intransitives (gelo, geli
> geljas he/she went), and retention of -n in the
abstract nominalizer -ipen/-iben. In the central
regions, s in grammatical paradigms is often replaced
by h. Individual regions show distinct developments
in morphological paradigms, especially demonstratives, 2/3pl perfective concord markers, and loan
verb markers. Especially these latter isoglosses justify
the current classification into the following dialect
groups: Balkan (with a subgroup Black Sea Coast),
Vlax (Transylvannia and adjoining regions), Central,
Northeast (Baltic-Northrussian), and Northwest
(German-Scandinavian).
See also: Aelfric (fl. 987-1010); Armenian; Balkans as a
Linguistic Area; Domari; Dravidian Languages; Hindi;
IndoAryan Languages; Iranian Languages; Kashmiri.
Bibliography
Bakker P & Matras Y (2003). Bibliography of modern
Romani linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Els k V & Matras Y (eds.) (2000). Grammatical relations in
Romani: the noun phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matras Y (2002). Romani: a linguistic introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner R (1926). The position of Romani in Indo-Aryan.
Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 5(3), 145189.
658 Romani
Syntax
Romani stands out among the Indic languages
through its Europeanized, specifically Balkanized syntax. Word order is VO, with variation between thetic
(continuative) VS and categorical (contrastive) SV.
Local relations are indicated by prepositions. Adjectives and determiners generally precede the noun, as
does the definite article (which agrees with the noun
in gender, number, and case). Relative clauses are
postposed, and often introduced by a universal relativizer kaj < where. Clauses are generally finite.
Adverbial clauses are introduced by conjunctions,
usually derived from interrogatives. Romani distinguishes between factual and nonfactual complex
clauses. Modal, manipulation, and purpose clauses
are introduced by a nonfactual conjunction te, as are
conditional clauses. Epistemic complements are introduced by kaj, which is often replaced by a borrowing
from the respective contact language.
Dialect diversity
Dialect differentiation in Romani appears to have
emerged largely in situ, following the dispersal of
groups from the Balkans into western and northern
Europe, from around the 14th century onward, and
their settlement in their present locations, during the
16th-17th centuries. There are two major diffusion
centers of innovations: in the southeast, especially
the northern Balkans, and in western-central Europe,
especially Germany. Typical of the western-northern
dialects are prothesis of j-, simplification of ndr to r,
loss of adjectival past-tense in intransitives (gelo, geli
> geljas he/she went), and retention of -n in the
abstract nominalizer -ipen/-iben. In the central
regions, s in grammatical paradigms is often replaced
by h. Individual regions show distinct developments
in morphological paradigms, especially demonstratives, 2/3pl perfective concord markers, and loan
verb markers. Especially these latter isoglosses justify
the current classification into the following dialect
groups: Balkan (with a subgroup Black Sea Coast),
Vlax (Transylvannia and adjoining regions), Central,
Northeast (Baltic-Northrussian), and Northwest
(German-Scandinavian).
See also: Aelfric (fl. 987-1010); Armenian; Balkans as a
Linguistic Area; Domari; Dravidian Languages; Hindi;
IndoAryan Languages; Iranian Languages; Kashmiri.
Bibliography
Bakker P & Matras Y (2003). Bibliography of modern
Romani linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Elsk V & Matras Y (eds.) (2000). Grammatical relations in
Romani: the noun phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matras Y (2002). Romani: a linguistic introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner R (1926). The position of Romani in Indo-Aryan.
Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 5(3), 145189.
population (1977 census figures). The standard language is essentially uniform throughout the country,
having been established as a standard only in the 19th
century, though there is a fair amount of variation in
nonstandard rural speech. Standard Romanian is the
language of administration and virtually all higher education. During the Communist period, members of
the national minorities (referred to by the Romanian
phrase popoarele conlocuitoare, lit. co-inhabiting peoples) were expected to learn Romanian in school, and
virtually all did so. However, there were provisions for
the extensive use of minority languages in primary and
secondary education, publishing, broadcasting, and
the arts provisions comparable to those made by
other Communist governments in post-World War II
Eastern Europe. Wherever the ethnic composition of
the population warranted it, newspapers and books
were published in minority languages, and schools
and state-supported theatres in minority languages
were established.
Romanias current territory is traditionally divided
into three provinces: Wallachia (Rom. ara Roma neasca ) to the south, Moldavia (Rom. Moldova) to
the east, and Transylvania (Rom. Transilvania or
Ardeal, Hung. Erde ly, Ger. Siebenbu rgen) to the north
and west on the continental side of the Carpathian
Mountains. The two main groups of minority language speakers, Hungarians and Germans, are concentrated in Transylvania, which has a long history
as a semi-independent feudal state. As early as the
14th century, the Transylvanian nobility was almost
exclusively Hungarian, whereas the military and merchant classes in the developing cities were in many
cases German. The peasantry was by no means
entirely Romanian, but most Romanians were peasants. Romanian nationalist movements were active during the late 18th and 19th centuries, when
Transylvania was part of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire, and in 1920, the province was awarded to
Romania under the Treaty of Trianon. The catalogue
of wrongs arising from this complex history is both
substantial and tended carefully by all the groups
concerned.
There are Hungarians living throughout Transylvania. They represent some 8% of the population of
Romania as whole, but in certain areas of the province, they constitute a substantial majority. They do
not regard themselves as Romanian. Hungarian
remains in active use almost everywhere in the
officially supported contexts discussed above, and in
Bibliography
Grimes B (ed.) (2002). The ethnologue (14th edn.). Dallas:
SIL International.
Petyt K M (1975). Romania a multilingual nation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 4, 75101.
Posner R (1996). The Romance languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
660 Romanian
Romanian
J Augerot, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Table 1 Vowels
High
Mid
Low
Front
Central
Back rounded
i
e
(a) [i$]
a [e]
a
u
o
Table 2 Consonants
Bilabial
Stops
Affricates
Fricatives
Nasals
Lateral
Trill
Labiodental
pb
fv
m
Dental
Palatoalveolar
Dorsovelar
td
ch [k] gh
[g]
c [c] g [ ]
[s] j [z]
c [k] g
[c]
sz
n
l
r
Romanian 661
Table 3 Morphophonemics
underlying forms
mes- mes-e
fet- fet-e
mer-u mer-e
per-u per-i
1. breaking
2. backing
3. coalescence
4. drop final /u, i/
me9ase
me9ase
mase mese
fe9ate
feate
fate fete
meru
mer mere
peru
per per
normal spelling
masa mese
fata fete
mar mere
par peri
vad
vezi
vede
sa vada
nva
nve i
nva a
sa nve e
662 Romanian
Masculine
Neuter
o doamna a lady
doamna doamnele
o masa a table
masa mesele
o carte a book
cartea car ile
un domn a gentleman
domnul domnii
un pom a tree
pomul pomii
un perete a wall
peretele pere ii
un os a bone
osul oasele
un lucru a thing
lucruri lucrurile
un scaun a chair
scaunul scaunele
Table 6 Cases
Gender
Article
Nom-Acc Singular
Gen-Dat Singular
Nom-Acc Plural
Gen-Dat Plural
Feminine
Indefinite
Definite
Indefinite
Definite
Indefinite
Definite
casa house
casa
barbat man
barbatul
lemn wood
lemnul
case
casei
barbat
barbatului
lemn
lemnului
case
casele
barba i
barba ii
lemne
lemnele
case
caselor
barba i
barba ilor
lemne
lemnelor
Masculine
Neuter
Present
Imperfect
Simple perfect
Pluperfect
1st sing
2nd
3rd
1st plur
2nd
3rd
intru
fac
intram
faceam
intrai
facui
intrasem
facusem
intri
faci
intrai
faceai
intra i
facu i
intrase i
facuse i
intra
face
intra
facea
intra
facu
intrase
facuse
intram
facem
intram
faceam
intraram
facuram
intraseram
facuseram
intra i
face i
intra i
facea i
intrara i
facura i
intrasera i
facusera i
intra
fac
intrau
faceau
intrara
facura
intrasera
facusera
Bibliography
Agard F (1958). Structural sketch of Rumanian. Baltimore:
Waverly Press.
Augerot J E (1974). Romanian phonology. Moscow, ID:
Idaho Research Foundation.
Alexandrescu S (ed.) (1977). Transformational grammar
and the Rumanian language. Lisse, Netherlands: The
Peter de Ritter Press.
Chitoran I (2002). The phonology of Romanian: a constraint-based approach. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coteanu I & Danaila I (1970). Introducere n lingvistica s i
filologia roma neasca . Bucharest: Editura Academiei
Republicii Socialiste Romania.
Petrovici E (1934). Le pseudo i final du roumain. Bulletin
linguistique 2, 86.
Pop L & Moldovan V Grammaire du roumain/Romanian
grammar. Cluj: Echinox.
Relevant Website
http://www.racai.ro Romanian Academy Center for
Artificial Intelligence.
Romanian Lexicography
D Tufis, Romanian Academy Institute for Artificial
Intelligence, Bucharest, Romania
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
roma ne, containing words of Latin origin, and Glossariul, containing words of foreign form and of uncertain origin. The two volumes, with 50 000 entries,
appeared in 1873 and 1877 respectively, but were
roundly criticized for excessive Latinizing of the
Romanian language. However, this dictionary has the
undeniable merit of being among the first dictionaries
to use the principle of multiple etymologies. In 1884
editorship of the dictionary passed to B. P. Hasdeu,
who produced three volumes (1887 and 1893) of the
well-known Etymologicum magnum Romaniae, covering letters A and B (up to ba rbat). Continuation of
the task was assigned in 1897 to A. I. Philippide who,
with his team, completed the dictionary up to the
word de. When the Dictionary Commission of the
Romanian Academy asked for the removal of several
neologisms, Phillippide gave up the task (1905) and
his partial dictionary was never published.
The Dic ionarul limbii roma ne/Dic ionarul Academiei (DLR/DA) in its present form, was started by
S. Puscariu. He and his team in Cluj worked for 43
years and published, in several fascicles, the letters A,
B, C, D (up to de) F, G, H, I, I , J, and L (up to lojni a ),
altogether 3075 pages, containing about 60 000
words and variants. Puscariu died in 1948, but his
work was continued in Bucharest at the Institute of
Linguistics, headed by Iorgu Iordan. Unfortunately,
the work was interrupted in 1952 on the grounds that
a general dictionary for use by ordinary people was
Bibliography
Agard F (1958). Structural sketch of Rumanian. Baltimore:
Waverly Press.
Augerot J E (1974). Romanian phonology. Moscow, ID:
Idaho Research Foundation.
Alexandrescu S (ed.) (1977). Transformational grammar
and the Rumanian language. Lisse, Netherlands: The
Peter de Ritter Press.
Chitoran I (2002). The phonology of Romanian: a constraint-based approach. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coteanu I & Danaila I (1970). Introducere n lingvistica si
filologia romaneasca. Bucharest: Editura Academiei
Republicii Socialiste Romania.
Petrovici E (1934). Le pseudo i final du roumain. Bulletin
linguistique 2, 86.
Pop L & Moldovan V Grammaire du roumain/Romanian
grammar. Cluj: Echinox.
Relevant Website
http://www.racai.ro Romanian Academy Center for
Artificial Intelligence.
Romanian Lexicography
D Tufis, Romanian Academy Institute for Artificial
Intelligence, Bucharest, Romania
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
romane, containing words of Latin origin, and Glossariul, containing words of foreign form and of uncertain origin. The two volumes, with 50 000 entries,
appeared in 1873 and 1877 respectively, but were
roundly criticized for excessive Latinizing of the
Romanian language. However, this dictionary has the
undeniable merit of being among the first dictionaries
to use the principle of multiple etymologies. In 1884
editorship of the dictionary passed to B. P. Hasdeu,
who produced three volumes (1887 and 1893) of the
well-known Etymologicum magnum Romaniae, covering letters A and B (up to barbat). Continuation of
the task was assigned in 1897 to A. I. Philippide who,
with his team, completed the dictionary up to the
word de. When the Dictionary Commission of the
Romanian Academy asked for the removal of several
neologisms, Phillippide gave up the task (1905) and
his partial dictionary was never published.
The Dic ionarul limbii romane/Dic ionarul Academiei (DLR/DA) in its present form, was started by
S. Puscariu. He and his team in Cluj worked for 43
years and published, in several fascicles, the letters A,
B, C, D (up to de) F, G, H, I, I, J, and L (up to lojni a),
altogether 3075 pages, containing about 60 000
words and variants. Puscariu died in 1948, but his
work was continued in Bucharest at the Institute of
Linguistics, headed by Iorgu Iordan. Unfortunately,
the work was interrupted in 1952 on the grounds that
a general dictionary for use by ordinary people was
much more important. Dic ionarul limbii roma ne literare contemporane (DLRLC) was intended to
answer this demand and under the coordination of
D. Macrea and E. Petrovici it was compiled, based
on DLR/DA, and published in 19551957. The four
volume dictionary, containing 48 000 headwords,
hardly achieved its original goal of being an ordinary
peoples dictionary. A shorter version (all citations
removed, but about 1500 new entries added) was
published in 1958 as Dic ionarul limbii roma ne
moderne (DM).
DLRLC and DM were superseded by the
Dic ionarul explicativ al limbii roma ne (DEX) published in 1975, followed in 1988 by Supliment la
Dic ionarul explicativ al limbii roma ne (DEX-S).
This dictionary, containing 56 569 entries (words
and variants) is the bestselling Dictionary of Romanian (Vintila -Ra dulescu, 2002). The second edition
(1996), republished in 1998, eliminated some inconsistencies, corrected several definitions, and added
almost 9000 entries. Since August 2004 it has been
publicly available on line.
Compilation of the most representative Romanian
lexicographic work, represented by the DLR/DA,
was resumed in 1959 at the Linguistic Institutes
in Bucharest, Cluj, and Ias i and the new series of
DLR fascicles began to be published in 1965. By
2004 32 volumes had been published, listing more
than 175 000 headwords and variants, with more
than 625 000 meanings and about 3 200 000 citations. Between 2001 and 2004 DLR has been published in an updated and shortened version (only four
volumes) as Micul Dic ionar Academic (MDA). To
meet the size restriction, MDA discarded the citations
and sources, and used a very compact encoding of
lexical information.
See also: Academies: Dictionaries and Standards; Etymology; Lexicography: Overview; Romania: Language Situation; Romanian; WordNet(s).
Bibliography
Avram M, Sala M & Vintila -Ra dulescu I (1999). Institutul
de Lingvistica Iorgu Iordan din Bucures ti. 50 de ani
de existen a (19491999). Bucures ti: Editura Univers
Enciclopedic.
Sala M & Da naila I (1997). Lexicography at the Iorgu
Iordan Institute of Linguistics. In Tufis D & Andersen
P (eds.) Recent advances in Romanian language technology. Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing House.
9398.
Seche M (19661969). Schi a de istorie a lexicografiei
roma ne (2 vols). Bucures ti: Editura S tiintifica .
Relevant Website
http://dexonline.ro The second edition of DEX.
much more important. Dic ionarul limbii romane literare contemporane (DLRLC) was intended to
answer this demand and under the coordination of
D. Macrea and E. Petrovici it was compiled, based
on DLR/DA, and published in 19551957. The four
volume dictionary, containing 48 000 headwords,
hardly achieved its original goal of being an ordinary
peoples dictionary. A shorter version (all citations
removed, but about 1500 new entries added) was
published in 1958 as Dic ionarul limbii romane
moderne (DM).
DLRLC and DM were superseded by the
Dic ionarul explicativ al limbii romane (DEX) published in 1975, followed in 1988 by Supliment la
Dic ionarul explicativ al limbii romane (DEX-S).
This dictionary, containing 56 569 entries (words
and variants) is the bestselling Dictionary of Romanian (Vintila-Radulescu, 2002). The second edition
(1996), republished in 1998, eliminated some inconsistencies, corrected several definitions, and added
almost 9000 entries. Since August 2004 it has been
publicly available on line.
Compilation of the most representative Romanian
lexicographic work, represented by the DLR/DA,
was resumed in 1959 at the Linguistic Institutes
in Bucharest, Cluj, and Iasi and the new series of
DLR fascicles began to be published in 1965. By
2004 32 volumes had been published, listing more
than 175 000 headwords and variants, with more
than 625 000 meanings and about 3 200 000 citations. Between 2001 and 2004 DLR has been published in an updated and shortened version (only four
volumes) as Micul Dic ionar Academic (MDA). To
meet the size restriction, MDA discarded the citations
and sources, and used a very compact encoding of
lexical information.
See also: Academies: Dictionaries and Standards; Etymology; Lexicography: Overview; Romania: Language Situation; Romanian; WordNet(s).
Bibliography
Avram M, Sala M & Vintila-Radulescu I (1999). Institutul
de Lingvistica Iorgu Iordan din Bucuresti. 50 de ani
de existen a (19491999). Bucuresti: Editura Univers
Enciclopedic.
Sala M & Danaila I (1997). Lexicography at the Iorgu
Iordan Institute of Linguistics. In Tufis D & Andersen
P (eds.) Recent advances in Romanian language technology. Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing House.
9398.
Seche M (19661969). Schi a de istorie a lexicografiei
romane (2 vols). Bucuresti: Editura Stiintifica.
Relevant Website
http://dexonline.ro The second edition of DEX.
Bibliography
Ronjat J (1913). Le De veloppement du langage observe
chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion.
Ronjat J (19301941). Grammaire istorique des parlers
provenc aux modernes (4 vols). Montpellier: Socie te des
Langues Romanes.
Ronjat J (1937). LOurtougra`fi Prouvenc alo: pichot tratat a
lusage di Prouvenc au. (segoundo edicioun). Edicioun de
la Mantene`nc o de Prouve`nc o.
Bibliography
Ronjat J (1913). Le Developpement du langage observe
chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion.
Ronjat J (19301941). Grammaire istorique des parlers
provencaux modernes (4 vols). Montpellier: Societe des
Langues Romanes.
Ronjat J (1937). LOurtougra`fi Prouvencalo: pichot tratat a
lusage di Prouvencau. (segoundo edicioun). Edicioun de
la Mantene`nco de Prouve`nco.
Bibliography
Brandom R (ed.) (2000). Richard Rorty: the philosopher
meets his critics. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Rorty R (ed.) (1967/1992). The linguistic turn (with a
new introduction). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Rorty R (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rorty R (1991a). Objectivity, relativism and truth: philosophical papers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rorty R (1991b). Essays on Heidegger and others: philosophical papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rorty R (1998). Truth and progress: philosophical papers 3.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bibliography
Brandom R (ed.) (2000). Richard Rorty: the philosopher
meets his critics. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Rorty R (ed.) (1967/1992). The linguistic turn (with a
new introduction). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Rorty R (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rorty R (1991a). Objectivity, relativism and truth: philosophical papers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rorty R (1991b). Essays on Heidegger and others: philosophical papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rorty R (1998). Truth and progress: philosophical papers 3.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bibliography
Rosetti A (1926). Recherches sur la phone tique du roumain
au XVIe sie`cle. Paris: Champion.
Rosetti A (1947). Le Mot: Esquisse dune the orie ge ne rale.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Bibliography
Rosetti A (1926). Recherches sur la phonetique du roumain
au XVIe sie`cle. Paris: Champion.
Rosetti A (1947). Le Mot: Esquisse dune theorie generale.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
metaphors transform things and designations by adding new meanings. This paved the way for Humboldtian relativism.
The Discours de line galite had the provocative
sharpness of a reference pattern opposing ideal to
reality. The Essai produced a more complex picture
which introduced violence and economical rationality of history into the origins of language, lost some of
its critical power and left the genetic problem unsolved. It is understandable that Rousseau did not
publish his scribble (edited posthumously in 1781),
while he was personally experimenting with the failures and ambiguous nature of language, always oscillating between individual and community (Emile),
Bibliography
Porset C (1976). Linque tante e trangete de LEssai sur
lorigine des langues: Rousseau et ses interpre`tes. Studies
on Voltaire and the eighteenth century.
Starobinski J (1990). Pre sentation. In Rousseau J J (ed.)
Essai sur lorigine des langues. Paris: Gallimard.
Rousselot was born on October 10, 1846 in SaintClaude (Charente region) to a rural family. He
received a classical education at the seminary in
Richemont, then at Angoule me, and was ordained
priest in 1970. He first studied Latin and Greek phonetics before turning to dialectology. Planning to
complete a doctoral thesis under the supervision of
Gaston Paris, he conducted surveys in the Limousin
region in order to determine the borders of langue
doc and langue dol (names of the two principal
groups of medieval French dialects, named after
their respective words for yes), but suddenly fell
seriously ill. While he was being looked after, mainly
by his mother, in his village, he wrote down the
phonetic differences in the provincial dialect used by
the various members of his family. His observations,
combined with the laboratory methods of articulatory recording and acoustic analysis designed by physiologists Marey and Rosapelly, enabled him to
defend his thesis in 1891: Les modifications phone tiques du langage e tudie es dans le patois dune famille
de Cellefrouin (The phonetic modifications of language, studied in the provincial dialect spoken by a
family in Cellefrouin). This work is a diachronic
analysis of a variety of ol as spoken by three generations of the same family, from the point of view of
physiological phonetics and acoustics as far as those
perspectives are relevant to the description of language change. He advocates distance from written
language forms and urges dialectologists to study
metaphors transform things and designations by adding new meanings. This paved the way for Humboldtian relativism.
The Discours de linegalite had the provocative
sharpness of a reference pattern opposing ideal to
reality. The Essai produced a more complex picture
which introduced violence and economical rationality of history into the origins of language, lost some of
its critical power and left the genetic problem unsolved. It is understandable that Rousseau did not
publish his scribble (edited posthumously in 1781),
while he was personally experimenting with the failures and ambiguous nature of language, always oscillating between individual and community (Emile),
Bibliography
Porset C (1976). Linquetante etrangete de LEssai sur
lorigine des langues: Rousseau et ses interpre`tes. Studies
on Voltaire and the eighteenth century.
Starobinski J (1990). Presentation. In Rousseau J J (ed.)
Essai sur lorigine des langues. Paris: Gallimard.
Rousselot was born on October 10, 1846 in SaintClaude (Charente region) to a rural family. He
received a classical education at the seminary in
Richemont, then at Angouleme, and was ordained
priest in 1970. He first studied Latin and Greek phonetics before turning to dialectology. Planning to
complete a doctoral thesis under the supervision of
Gaston Paris, he conducted surveys in the Limousin
region in order to determine the borders of langue
doc and langue dol (names of the two principal
groups of medieval French dialects, named after
their respective words for yes), but suddenly fell
seriously ill. While he was being looked after, mainly
by his mother, in his village, he wrote down the
phonetic differences in the provincial dialect used by
the various members of his family. His observations,
combined with the laboratory methods of articulatory recording and acoustic analysis designed by physiologists Marey and Rosapelly, enabled him to
defend his thesis in 1891: Les modifications phonetiques du langage etudiees dans le patois dune famille
de Cellefrouin (The phonetic modifications of language, studied in the provincial dialect spoken by a
family in Cellefrouin). This work is a diachronic
analysis of a variety of ol as spoken by three generations of the same family, from the point of view of
physiological phonetics and acoustics as far as those
perspectives are relevant to the description of language change. He advocates distance from written
language forms and urges dialectologists to study
Bibliography
Asher R E & Henderson Euge nie J A (1981). Towards a
history of phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Auroux S (1979). La cate gorie duparler et la linguistique.
In Romantisme. Revue du dix-neuvie`me sie`cle, 2526.
Paris: C. D. U. et SEDES. 157178.
Baggioni D (1996). Rousselot, Abbe Jean-Pierre. In
Stammerjohann H et al. (eds.) Lexicon grammaticorum.
Whos who in the history of world linguistics. Tu bingen:
Niemeyer. 806.
Bergounioux G (1994). Aux origines de la linguistique
franc aise. Textes choisis et pre sente s. Paris: Pocket, coll.
Agora Les Classiques.
Bergounioux G (1996). Phone tique et dialectologie au XIXe
sie`cle. In Lanalisi linguistica e letteraria, anne e IV, 1.
Milan: Vita e Pensiero Publications de lUniversita`
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. 2746.
Boe L-J (2000). Notice 5404. Rousselot, Abbe Jean-Pierre,
Principes de phone tique expe rimentale. In Colombat B
& assiste de Lazcano E (eds.) Corpus repre sentatif des
grammaires et des traditions linguistiques, tome 2, Histoire Episte mologie Langage Hors se rie 3. Paris: SHESL.
509512.
Bronstein A J, Raphael L J & Stevens C J (1977). A biographical dictionary of the phonetic sciences. New York:
The Press of Lehman College.
Brunot F (1925). La phone tique expe rimentale. Le Monde
Illustre , 31 janvier 1925, 7273.
Carton F (1995). La phone tique expe rimentale, la phonologie, les archives sonores. In Antoine G & Martin R
(eds.) Histoire de la langue franc aise 19141945. Paris:
CNRS. 873894.
Gallazzi E (1995). Phone tique/Universite /Enseignement
des langues a` la fin du XIXe sie`cle. Histoire Episte mologie Language 17I, 95114.
product consists of two parts: a distinguishing component pertaining to its semantic aspect; and an identifying component pertaining to its formal aspect. Second,
he formulated the law of quantitative development of
a language, stating that the phonetic and semantic
difference between pairs of linguistic products must
present a constant quantity: when it diminishes under
this measure, one of the products, as independent,
disappears; when it augments above this quantity, a
new independent product comes into existence. Finally,
Rozwadowski formulated the law of disautomatization, stating that the principal cause of evolution in
linguistic creativity, just as in cultural creativity, is a
constant need for the refreshment of an emotional
factor being used up through automatization.
Widely recognized, Rozwadowski assumed a leading role in the organization of Polish institutions. The
Commission of Language of the Academy of Learning
was created in 1874; later, in 1898, he became its
second secretary. He then held the post of President
in the years between 1908 and 1935. In the meantime, he also fulfilled the duties of vice-president,
beginning in 1920, and afterwards president of the
Polish Academy of Learning from 1925 to 1929.
Since December 10, 1911, his name had been mentioned among the Corresponding Members of the
Division of Russian Language and Philology in The
Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (between
1917 and 1925); and after 1991, the Russian Academy of Sciences. On his initiative, on May 31, 1925,
the general assembly of Polish linguists gathered at
Lvov and decided to launch a society, which was to
meet annually and publish a journal devoted to general linguistics. Subsequently, he became elected as the
first and the fourth president of the Polish Linguistic
Society (19251928 and 19301931). Being at the
peak of his scientific accomplishment Rozwadowski
delivered a lecture before the Socie te de Linguistique
de Paris in 1925. He had regarded linguistics as in the
highest degree predestined to formulate generalizations about the mechanisms of human language and
mind; subsequently, he proposed, as the best way to
product consists of two parts: a distinguishing component pertaining to its semantic aspect; and an identifying component pertaining to its formal aspect. Second,
he formulated the law of quantitative development of
a language, stating that the phonetic and semantic
difference between pairs of linguistic products must
present a constant quantity: when it diminishes under
this measure, one of the products, as independent,
disappears; when it augments above this quantity, a
new independent product comes into existence. Finally,
Rozwadowski formulated the law of disautomatization, stating that the principal cause of evolution in
linguistic creativity, just as in cultural creativity, is a
constant need for the refreshment of an emotional
factor being used up through automatization.
Widely recognized, Rozwadowski assumed a leading role in the organization of Polish institutions. The
Commission of Language of the Academy of Learning
was created in 1874; later, in 1898, he became its
second secretary. He then held the post of President
in the years between 1908 and 1935. In the meantime, he also fulfilled the duties of vice-president,
beginning in 1920, and afterwards president of the
Polish Academy of Learning from 1925 to 1929.
Since December 10, 1911, his name had been mentioned among the Corresponding Members of the
Division of Russian Language and Philology in The
Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (between
1917 and 1925); and after 1991, the Russian Academy of Sciences. On his initiative, on May 31, 1925,
the general assembly of Polish linguists gathered at
Lvov and decided to launch a society, which was to
meet annually and publish a journal devoted to general linguistics. Subsequently, he became elected as the
first and the fourth president of the Polish Linguistic
Society (19251928 and 19301931). Being at the
peak of his scientific accomplishment Rozwadowski
delivered a lecture before the Societe de Linguistique
de Paris in 1925. He had regarded linguistics as in the
highest degree predestined to formulate generalizations about the mechanisms of human language and
mind; subsequently, he proposed, as the best way to
Bibliography
Adamska-Saaciak A (1996). Language change in the
works of Kruszewski, Baudouin de Courtenay and
Rozwadowski. Poznan : Motivex.
Man czak W (1960). Zagadnienia ogo lnoje( zykoznawcze
w pracach Jana Rozwadowskiego. In Rozwadowski J M
(ed.) Wybor pism III. Warszawa: Pan stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 517.
Wasik Z (2001). The development of general linguistics in
(
the history of the language sciences in Poland. In
Koerner E F K & Szwedek A (eds.) Towards a history of
linguistics in Poland. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 351.
Rule Borrowing
S Thomason, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Bibliography
Adamska-Saaciak A (1996). Language change in the
works of Kruszewski, Baudouin de Courtenay and
Rozwadowski. Poznan: Motivex.
Manczak W (1960). Zagadnienia ogolnoje( zykoznawcze
w pracach Jana Rozwadowskiego. In Rozwadowski J M
(ed.) Wybor pism III. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 517.
Wasik Z (2001). The development of general linguistics in
(
the history of the language sciences in Poland. In
Koerner E F K & Szwedek A (eds.) Towards a history of
linguistics in Poland. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 351.
Rule Borrowing
S Thomason, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
the native Yupik suffixes were dropped and NP coordination was expressed solely by the borrowed conjunction (1c) (all three sentences in example 1 mean
on the tundra live birds and beasts).
(1a) NunivaXmi
kijax. taqut
ti$X. iXat-lju
qawaXEt-lju.
birds-COM
on.the.tundra
live
beasts-COM
(1b) NunivaXmi kijax. taqut ti$X. iXat-lju $inkam qawaXEt-lju.
(1c) NunivaXmi kijax. taqut ti$X. iXat
$inkam qawaXEt.
the same source language to the same receiving language, borrowed morphemes would be unconnected
to the proposed transferred rule. In addition, the
proposed rule borrowing should result in identical
rules in source and receiving language. Fortunately,
the ideal case is not hard to find.
There are two main types of contact-induced structural change that frequently involve little or no lexical
transfer. First, in cases of language shift, the receiving
language is altered as a result of imperfect learning
of its structures by shifting speakers; in such a case,
especially if the shifting group has lower social, economic, and/or political status than the original targetlanguage speech community, lexical transfer may
be minimal. In any case, unless the shifting group
is especially prestigious, phonological and syntactic
interference features will predominate. By contrast,
when imperfect learning is not a factor, i.e., when the
initiators of the changes are fluent bilinguals in the
source and receiving languages, lexical borrowing is
(almost?) always by far the most common type of
interference. (For discussion of this distinction, see
Thomason and Kaufman, 1988; Van Coetsem,
1988; Thomason, 2001: Chap. 4.) Second, in dialect
borrowing, where both lexicon and structure of the
source and receiving languages overlap to a very great
extent, structure is often transferred without morphemes. The same is true of interference between
very closely related languages.
One example in the latter category is an innovative
phonological rule in dialects of certain Kichean languages of the Mayan family that are in intimate contact with Mayan languages of the Mamean branch of
the family. This is a dissimilation rule that palatalizes
velar stops when there is a uvular later in the word
(Campbell, 1998: 74). A morphological example that
also belongs in this category is found in the SerboCroatian dialect of Hvar, as described by Hraste
(1935: 1725). In the 1930s, elderly speakers of the
dialect still used their inherited pattern of syncretism in
the oblique plural noun cases of o-stem nouns, according to which the genitive/locative plural suffix -ih was
opposed to a dative/instrumental plural suffix -ima.
But under the influence of Standard Serbo-Croatian,
younger Hvar speakers had replaced this pattern with
the Standard one, in which the genitive plural suffix is
unique to the genitive and opposed to a single dative/
instrumental/locative plural suffix. But only the distribution of the suffixes changed; the original Hvar
suffixes remained -ih and -ima, in partial contrast
to the Standard Serbo-Croatian genitive plural -a: vs.
-ima. In other words, only the syncretism rule has been
borrowed.
A morphological example resulting from shiftinduced interference led to the emergence of the