Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
This paper should be considered a sequel to the paper read at the meetings of the Canadian Linguistic Association at Kingston in June 1960 and to be published in the Proceedings of the Learned Societies of Canada; in the first paper, the linguistic theories of J. R. Firth (and which are summarised in section 1.0. 1.1, and 1.11 of this paper) were outlined, and in this article the procedures at the different levels (Firth himself has used the term “spectrum analysis”) of the analysis of a text are described and copiously illustrated from the works of Firth and his associates. These methods have been developed by Professor Firth and his colleagues in London on the lines of the linguistic theory promulgated by Professor Firth and adumbrated in the original paper. This article concludes with a detailed bibliography of the writings of Firth and his colleagues; reference is also made to the work of other scholars who have discussed Firth’s linguistic theories.
1 J. R. Firth was the first holder of the Chair of General Linguistics tenable at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London until he retired in 1956; he is now Professor Emeritus.
2 Firth, J. R., Atlantic Linguistics, Papers, p. 170–1 Google Scholar. The following abbreviations are used in this paper Papers - Firth, J. R., Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951, (London, 1957)Google Scholar; SLA - Studies in Linguistic Analysis, (Oxford, 1957); TPS - Transactions of the Philological Society; BSOAS - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
3 Professor A. W. de Groot once likened the central position of Linguistics in the curriculum of the modern university to that of Philosophy in the mediaeval university.
4 Firth, J. R., Personality and Language in Society, Papers, p. 180–1 Google Scholar.
5 Firth, J. R., Applications of General Linguistics, TPS (1957), 2–4 Google Scholar.
6 These are generalisations but the author has used them deliberately to indicate certain directions in linguistic theory: it is after all a wellknown fact that Bloomfield and his followers rigorously excluded “meaning” from their analyses, and Firth is equally severe on dichotomies in linguistic theory, cf. Firth, J. R., General Linguistics and Descriptive Grammar, Papers, p. 227 Google Scholar.
7 Pike, K. L., Interpenetration of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (1958), pp. 363–87 Google Scholar.
8 Hockett, C. F.. A System of Descriptive Phonology, Language 18 (1942), p. 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Pike, K. L., Op. cit., p. 365 Google Scholar.
10 Cf. the criticism of the theory of distribution in linguistic analysis: Paul Diderichsen, The Importance of Distribution versus Other Criteria in Linguistic Analysis, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (1958), pp. 156–82.
11 Pike, K. L., Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour, Glendale, 1954–5 Google Scholar. Chap. 7.
Pike, K. L., Grammemic Theory in Reference to Restricted Problems of Morpheme Classes, IJAL 23 (1957) pp. 119–28 Google Scholar.
12 Pike, K. L., Tagmemes, On, Née Gramemes, IJAL 24 (1958). 273–78 Google Scholar.
13 Pike, K. L., Interprenetration of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, p. 369 Google Scholar.
14 Firth used the term “monistic”.
15 Palmer, F. R., Linguistic Hierarchy, Lingua VII (1958), p. 225 Google Scholar.
16 Palmer, F. R., Comparative Statement and Ethiopian Semitic, TPS (1958) p. 122 Google Scholar: ‘The vast complexity of language requires a polysystemic approach. Different phonological statements may be required, for instance. for the verbal and nominal forms of a language, or even for the stems and endings of morphologically related words.”
17 Bazell, C. E, Linguistic Typology, (London, 1958), p. 4 Google Scholar.
18 Halliday, M. A. K., The Language of the Chinese “Secret History of the Mongols”. (Oxford, 1959), pp. 42–3 Google Scholar.
19 Robins, R. H., Formal Divisions in Sundanese, TPS (1953), pp. 111–12 Google Scholar.
20 The bibliography at the end of this paper includes the works of Malinowski relevant to Firth’s linguistic theories.
21 Robins, R. H., op. cit., p. 110 Google Scholar.
22 Firth, J. R., Personality and Language in Society, Papers, p. 182 Google Scholar.
23 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, pp. 7–8 Google Scholar.
24 Firth, J. R., Ethnographic Analysis and Language, p. 113 Google Scholar. Robins, R. H., op. cit., p. 110 Google Scholar. Halliday, M. A. K., Systematic Description and Comparison in Grammatical Analysis, SLA, p. 58 Google Scholar.
25 Firth, J. R., Personality and Language in Society, Papers, p. 182 Google Scholar.
26 Ibid, p. 183.
27 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 9 Google Scholar.
28 Firth, J. R., Personality and Language in Society, Papers, p. 182 Google Scholar.
Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, pp. 9–10 Google Scholar.
29 Ibid, p. 10.
30 I am not attempting to give an exhaustive statement of the Context of Situation but merely certain indications of its application.
31 Mitchell, T. F., The Language of Buying and Selling in Cyrenaica: a Situational Statement, Hespéris (Archives berbères et Bulletin de l’Institut des Hautes Etudes Marocaines, 1957), 31–71 Google Scholar.
32 Mitchell, T. F., The Language of Buying and Selling, p. 32 Google Scholar.
33 Cf. 2.01 et seq
34 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 8 Google Scholar.
35 Allen, W. S., Aspiration in the Harauti Nominal, SLA, p. 68 Google Scholar.
36 “Meaning” is here used as a technical term.
37 Cf. 1.112.
38 Cf. 1.112.
39 Cf. 1.111.
40 Firth, J. R., Modes of Meaning, Papers, p. 192 Google Scholar.
41 Firth, J. R., The Semantics of Linguistic Science, Papers, p. 140 Google Scholar.
42 Robins, R. H., Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe, London, 1951, p.2 Google Scholar.
43 Firth, J. R., Modes of Meaning, Papers, p. 190 Google Scholar.
44 Hamp, E. P., A Glossary of American Technical Linguistic Usage. (Utrecht, 1957)Google Scholar.
45 Allen, W. S., Retroflexion in Sanskrit: Prosodic Technique and its Relevance to Comparative Statement, BSOAS 16 (1954), p. 558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fn. 2.
46 Firth, J. R., Sounds and Prosodies, Papers, pp. 121–38 Google Scholar.
47 Robins, R. H., Aspects of Prosodic Analysis, Proceedings of the University of Durham Philosophical Society 1 (1957), p. 3 Google Scholar.
48 Firth, J. R., op. cit., pp. 122–3 Google Scholar.
49 Robins, R. H., op. cit. p. 4 Google Scholar.
50 Robins, R. H., Formal Divisions in Sundanese, TPS (1953), p. 109 Google Scholar.
51 Robins, R. H., The Phonology of Nasalised Verbal Forms in Sundanese, BSOAS 15 (1953), p. 140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Substitution here is not the same as substitution used in North American linguistic writings, cf. Harris, Z. S., Methods in Structural linguistics, p. 31 Google Scholar.
52 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 5 Google Scholar.
53 Statements in terms of systems enable the analyst to dispense with a separate morphological analysis as is required in traditional descriptions; the paradigmatic consideration of morphology has thus value when considered as part of the system which must be considered in terms of its commutation. Such an analytical procedure requires the analyst to state some of the formal “scatter” of the element at this level of analysis in terms of the structure to which it belongs: cf. Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 4 Google Scholar: Firth insists - Ibid. p. 20, - that the “paradigmatic hyphenated lists of orthographic forms of individual words can and generally do obscure the analysis of the elements of structure in the syntagmatic inter-relations of grammatical categories.” Cf. also Halliday, M. A. K., The Language of the Chinese “Secret History of the Mongols”, p. 7 Google Scholar.
54 Robins, R. H., The Phonology of the Nasalised Verbal Forms in Sundanese, p. 140 Google Scholar.
55 Cf. 2.2.
56 Firth’s theory of exponency is treated in much greater detail in my paper mentioned in the summary at the head of this paper.
57 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 15 Google Scholar.
58 Ibid, p. 15.
59 Mitchell, T. F., Long Consonants in Phonology and Phonetics, SLA, p. 183 Google Scholar.
60 Cf. Palmer, F. R., The Verb in Bilin, BSOAS 19 (1957). p. 140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
61 Firth, J. R.. Personality and Language in Society, Papers, p. 183 Google Scholar.
62 Cf. 1.01, 1.011, 1.012, and 1.013.
63 Cf. 2.0 et seq.
64 Cf. 1.011.
65 Firth, J. R., A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, SLA, p. 10 Google Scholar.
