Rule borrowing and language contact

674 Rule Borrowing
whose speakers shifted in large numbers to Semitic

provide two relevant instances of morphosyntactic
borrowing. The Semitic languages that were most
heavily influenced by Cushitic have replaced the
inherited Semitic rules for expressing two morphosyntactic categories by Cushitic rules, but only partly.
In both cases, the grammatical morphemes themselves do not change; they were and are native Semitic
affixes. First, the inherited Semitic formation of the
nagative perfect consisted of a verbal prefix; Cushitic,
in sharp contrast, expresses the negative perfect by
means of a verbal suffix. Ethiopic Semitic uses a
prefix-Verb-suffix construction, combining the Semitic prefix with a copy as a suffix. The resulting
construction is neither purely Semitic nor purely
Cushitic. The addition of the suffix to the negative
perfect construction is obviously due to Cushitic
influence (and this analysis is supported by the existence of a wide range of Cushitic features introduced
into Ethiopic Semitic), but the end result is not identical to the equivalent Cushitic construction. Second,
the inherited Semitic formation of the causative also
consists of a verbal prefix. The relevant Cushitic languages form the causative with a doubled verbal suffix. Ethiopic Semitic forms the causative with a
doubled prefix maintaining the placement of the
causative affix but adopting the Cushitic pattern of
doubling the affix.
Examples of this general type, where the end result
of interference (especially in typologically congruent
grammatical subsystems) differs both from the original receiving-language structure and from the
corresponding source-language structure, are easy to
find in phonology. One striking example is the development of a stress pattern, in a dialect of Croatian
spoken near the Hungarian border, that is unique in
all of Serbo-Croatian. According to Pavle Ivic (1964),
the fixed penultimate stress rule of this dialect arose
when Hungarian speakers shifted to the local Croatian dialect and failed to acquire the complex prosodic system, including its free (phonemic) stress,
Instead, they apparently assumed that stress was
fixed, as it is in Hungarian. But, realizing that it was
not fixed on the first syllable, as in the Hungarian
rule, they settled on a kind of average stress placement, on the penult. As in the Ethiopic Semitic example, here too there is no doubt that interference
brought about the change; but the result, though
clearly the adoption of a rule, is not the adoption of
the same rule as in the source language.
All these indeterminate examples provide a rather
clear indication of what sort of example would be a
noncontroversial instance of rule borrowing. The
ideal example would involve no lexical transfer
that is, although there might be lexical transfer from
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
Rule Borrowing 675
so-called second genitive, a partitive case, in

Russian. Although old interference from Uralic languages in Proto-Slavic is controversial, in part because of the paucity of Uralic loanwords (which,
however, is actually characteristic of shift-induced
interference; see Thomason and Kaufman, 1988:
238251 for discussion of Slavic/Uralic contact),
more recent shift-induced interference from shifting
Uralic (probably Finnic) speakers to Russian is not.
One generally agreed-on instance is the development,
in the singular of o-stem nouns, of a partitive construction alongside the inherited genitive construction. The partitive, or second genitive, case suffix -u
is native to Russian; it was originally the genitive
singular suffix of a now-vanished noun class that
was parallel to the o-stems. The genitive case suffix
-a, which used to fulfill partitive as well as other
genitive functions in the o-stems (as did -u in the
other noun class), is also native. The preservation of
the -u suffix and its restructuring into a partitive
suffix is due to imperfect learning of Russian by shifting Uralic speakers whose native language(s) had
such a distinction. As a result, Modern Russian distinguishes phrases such as c as ka c aj-u cup of tea
(literally cup tea-PARTITIVE) from phrases like cena
c aj-a price of tea (literally cup tea-GENITIVE).
Examples of this general type can easily be multiplied. Another typical set of examples comes from the
Indic language Shina, which has acquired a sizable
number of morphosyntactic features from shifting
Burushaski speakers (the examples in this paragraph
are all from Lorimer (1937), and other examples may
also be found there). No transferred morphemes relevant to these constructions are found in Shina; the
patterns must therefore have entered Shina as patterns, not via abstraction from lexical items. Among
Lorimers examples are plural verb agreement with an
interrogative pronoun; a singulative suffix derived
from the numeral for one and ordered in a suffix
string as in Burushaski; and a discourse feature, used
in narratives, in which a sentence begins with the verb
of the preceding sentence, in the infinitive form and
with an oblique case suffix (dative in Burushaski and
the accidentally homophonous locative in Shina).
All the evidence that rules can be transferred
from one language to another leaves a vital question
unanswered: by what process(es) is rule transfer
implemented? Crucially, this question pertains to
the innovation itself, not to the spread of an innovation through a speech community. A focus on the
individuals innovation rather than the groups adoption of an innovation separates the analytic issues
addressed here from issues typically studied in
(socio) historical linguistic investigations, e.g., those
of Labov (1994: 45) and Hopper and Traugott (1993:
38); both of these passages are cited in Hale, 2003).

Of course both the innovation and the spread of a
change must fit into a single overall picture of linguistic
change; but the innovation seems a reasonable place to
start, because all the proposed constraints on rule borrowing (and other kinds of contact-induced change)
are aimed, ultimately, at the issue of (im)possible
innovations, not of (im)possible spread.
A focus on the individuals innovation in accounting for linguistic change is preferred by many
historical linguists, but it is especially prevalent
among generativists. If, as generative historical linguists tend to believe (see, e.g., Hale, 2003; Lightfoot,
2003), children are the sole agents of language
change, and if all change occurs during first-language
acquisition as the result of a difference between the
grammar generating the primary linguistic data
(PLD) used by an acquirer and the grammar ultimately constructed by that acquirer (Hale, 2003: 345),
then it is difficult to see how most kinds of contactinduced change in particular shift-induced interference, which requires imperfect second-language
learning could occur at all. This is especially true
given another assumption common among generativists, namely, that adults cannot change the grammar
they internalized during first-language acquisition.
There is good evidence that children who are growing up bilingual create grammatical constructions
that fall under the rubric of rule borrowing, at least
from a retrospective viewpoint. One of the most striking examples in the literature is in Queens research
on a group of schoolchildren who grew up bilingual
in Turkish (their parents language) and German (the
main language of the community) (Queen, 1996,
2001). These children received input from both languages for first-language acquisition, and that input
included a Turkish clausal intonation pattern and a
German clausal intonation pattern that performed
the same syntactic function. Queen found that the
children dealt with the competition between these
patterns by incorporating both of them into both
their languages and introducing a functional distinction between them analogous to the preservation
in English of the old past tense hung of the verb hang
after the appearance of the analogically formed innovative past tense hanged, with a novel semantic distinction introduced between the two past tense forms
(roughly, hanged for executing people by hanging,
hung for hanging anything other than a person). Significantly, neither Turkish- nor German-speaking
adults in the community noticed the innovation in
either language, which suggests that the innovations
were nonsalient. The process itself seems akin to rule
borrowing, but with a difference: cases of rule borrowing, both the clear ones and the indeterminate ones,
676 Rule Borrowing
involve one-way transfer of rules from one language to

another, not a process through which competing structures are retained in both languages. And childrens
bilingual first-language acquisition per se is very
unlikely to lead directly to anything that looks like
shift-induced interference, because failure to learn
target-language structure is characteristic of secondlanguage acquisition, not of first-language acquisition.
In other words, adults, or at least people beyond
the age of first-language acquisition, must play a role
in rule borrowing. Some generativists have claimed
that adults can only add a few minor rules or other
features to their language (e.g., Chomsky and Halle,
1968: 251), and that the grammar internalized in
early childhood does not change at all. Aside from
Queens results, many, most, or all of the innovations
discussed in this article first arose in adults speech.
The status of innovations in adults speech is a matter
of vigorous debate, but this issue need not be settled
here. Whatever the status of borrowed rules may be in
an innovating adults speech, they must comprise part
of the adults linguistic knowledge, because they are
used systematically. They will therefore form part of
the input to the next generation of language acquirers
in the speech community, and so the innovation is
integrated into the communitys language. But the
innovators are not the first-language acquirers but
the adults who implement the borrowing. Rule borrowing proceeds, then, either as partial activation of
one of a bilingual adults languages while he or she is
speaking the other language (see, e.g., Grosjean and
Soares, 1986) or as a carryover from the first language of someone who is trying to learn, because he
or she is shifting to, a target language. (This set of
options is oversimplified, but space does not permit
exploring more subtle distinctions here.) In all cases,
of course, the innovation will not become a change in
the language until and unless other speakers innovate
in the same way and, eventually, learn the innovation
from the original innovators. But the innovation itself, in this as in most cases of contact-induced language change, appears to originate in adult speech.
Finally, a bibliographical note. The literature on
rule borrowing is not rich or rather, many examples
are discussed in the literature, but the topic of rule
borrowing itself is not often addressed directly. The
present article is based largely on Thomason (in
press); other treatments of the topic are Campbell
(1976), for phonology, and Harris and Campbell
(1995: Chap. 6), for syntactic borrowing.
Bibliography
Campbell L (1976). Language contact and sound change.
In Christie W M (ed.) Current progress in historical
linguistics: proceedings of the second international

conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North
Holland. 111194.
Campbell L (1985). The Pipil language of El Salvador.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Campbell L (1987). Syntactic change in Pipil.
International Journal of American Linguistics 53,
253280.
Campbell L (1998). Historical linguistics: an introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chomsky N & Halle M (1968). The sound pattern of
English. New York: Harper and Row.
Comrie B (1981). The languages of the Soviet Union.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins R M (1916). Modern Greek in Asia Minor: a
study of the dialects of Slli, Cappadocia and Pha rasa
with grammars, texts, translations, and glossary.
Grosjean F & Soares C (1986). Processing mixed language:
some preliminary findings. In Vaid J (ed.) Language
processing in bilinguals: psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
145179.
Hale M (2003). Neogrammarian sound change. In Joseph
B D & Janda R D (eds.) The handbook of historical
linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 343368.
Harris A C & Campbell L (1995). Historical syntax in
cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hopper P J & Traugott E C (1993). Grammaticalization.
Hraste M (1935). C akavski Dijalekat Ostrva Hvara.
Juz noslovenski Filolog 14, 159.
Ivic P (1964). Balkan linguistics (a lecture course taught at
the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, Indiana University, June-August 1964).
Labov W (1994). Principles of linguistic change: internal
factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lightfoot D (2003). Grammatical approaches to syntactic change. In Joseph B D & Janda R D (eds.) The
handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
495508.
Lorimer D L R (1937). Burushaski and its alien neighbors:
problems in linguistic contagion. Transactions of the
Philological Society, 6398.
Menges K H (1945). Indo-European influences on UralAltaic languages. Word 1, 188193.
Menovs c ikov G A (1969). O nekotoryx socialnyx aspektax e`voljucii jazyka [On some social aspects of the evolution of language]. In Voprosy socialnoj linguistiki.
Leningrad: Nauka. 110134.
Queen R M (1996). Intonation in contact: a study of
Turkish-German bilingual intonation patterns. Ph.D.
diss. University of Texas.
Queen R M (2001). Bilingual intonation patterns: evidence
of language change from Turkish-German bilingual
children. Language in Society 30, 5580.
Thomason S G (2001). Language contact: an introduction.
Edinburgh/Washington, DC: Edinburgh University Press/
Georgetown University Press.
Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology 677

Thomason S G (in press). Can rules be borrowed? In
Smith-Stark T & Zavala R (eds.) Festschrift for
Terrence Kaufman.
Thomason S G & Kaufman T (1988). Language contact,
creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Trask R L (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in

linguistics. London: Routledge.
Van Coetsem F (1988). Loan phonology and the two
transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.
Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

J Rubach, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The goal of phonological theory is the discovery of

generalizations. In classic generative phonology, generalizations are stated as rules, which are formalized
in terms of distinctive features. Rules derive surface
(phonetic) representations from underlying representations. This process, called derivation, will be illustrated by looking at a fragment of Polish phonology.
The idea is to discover several different rules and to
see how they interact with each other.
At the level of phonetic representation, Polish is
known to have the so-called nasal diphthongs,
which are sequences of a nasalized vowel followed
by a nasal glide. For instance, the word wa sy
D $], where the mamoustache is pronounced [v OD wsi
cron over the vowel and the glide means [nasal].
Nasal diphthongs occur only before fricatives. This
distributional generalization must be somehow
reflected in the grammar of Polish. A widely accepted
analysis (see, for instance, Gussmann, 1980, and
Rubach, 1984) is to treat nasal diphthongs as derivable from underlying oral vowels and the nasal
consonant //n//. (Note: I use double slashes for underlying representations, single slashes for intermediate
stages, and square brackets for phonetic representations.) In this analysis, wa sy comes from the underlyD by Nasal
ing //vOnsi$//. The //n// is turned into [ w]
Gliding.
D before fricatives.
(1) Nasal Gliding: n ! w
Note: this and the other rules below are stated

schematically in an informal way in order to sidestep
the problem of which of several existing distinctive
feature theories should be used.
Nasalized vowels are also limited distributionally:
D and [Dj]. (The
they occur before the nasal glides [ w]
latter will not be discussed here.) This generalization
is captured by Vowel Nasalization.
D before nasal glides.
(2) Vowel Nasalization: V ! V
The underlying //vOnsi$// is turned into the phoD $] by applying Nasal Gliding and Vowel
netic [v OD wsi
Nasalization.
(3) //vOnsi$//
D $
vOwsi
D $
vODwsi
D $]
[vODwsi
Nasal Gliding
Vowel Nasalization
This derivation is completed by applying Stress Assignment, a rule of Polish that puts stress on the
penultimate vowel of the word. The phonetic repreD $], where the stressed vowel
sentation is thus [v OD wsi
has been bolded.
D $]
Let us now analyze how the rules deriving [v OD wsi
are related to each other. Notice that the stage in the
derivation at which Stress Assignment applies is irrelevant: Stress Assignment could apply as the first or as
the second or as the last rule in (3). Such ordering
relations between rules are termed nonaffecting, i.e.,
the rules are in a nonaffecting order. The relation
between Nasal Gliding and Vowel Nasalization is
different. If the rules applied in the reverse order, the
D $], with the
surface output would have been [v OD wsi
vowel being oral rather than nasal, which is incorrect.
(4) //vOnsi$//
D $
vODwsi
D $]
*[vODwsi
Vowel Nasalization
Nasal Gliding
Vowel Nasalization cannot have an effect in (4)

because the vowel is not followed by a nasal glide at
the stage of the derivation at which Vowel Nasalization has been assumed to apply. Because only the
result in (3) is correct, we have evidence for the fact
that Nasal Gliding and Vowel Nasalization need to be
ordered. The question is whether ordering can follow
from some general principle or whether it must be
stipulated for individual rules.
Notice that the ordering of Nasal Gliding before
Vowel Nasalization can be assumed to be natural
since otherwise Vowel Nasalization could never
apply in any derivation because nasal glides are not

Thomason S G (in press). Can rules be borrowed? In
Smith-Stark T & Zavala R (eds.) Festschrift for
Terrence Kaufman.
Thomason S G & Kaufman T (1988). Language contact,
creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Trask R L (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in

linguistics. London: Routledge.
Van Coetsem F (1988). Loan phonology and the two
transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.
Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

J Rubach, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
The goal of phonological theory is the discovery of

generalizations. In classic generative phonology, generalizations are stated as rules, which are formalized
in terms of distinctive features. Rules derive surface
(phonetic) representations from underlying representations. This process, called derivation, will be illustrated by looking at a fragment of Polish phonology.
The idea is to discover several different rules and to
see how they interact with each other.
At the level of phonetic representation, Polish is
known to have the so-called nasal diphthongs,
which are sequences of a nasalized vowel followed
by a nasal glide. For instance, the word wasy
D $], where the mamoustache is pronounced [v OD wsi
cron over the vowel and the glide means [nasal].
Nasal diphthongs occur only before fricatives. This
distributional generalization must be somehow
reflected in the grammar of Polish. A widely accepted
analysis (see, for instance, Gussmann, 1980, and
Rubach, 1984) is to treat nasal diphthongs as derivable from underlying oral vowels and the nasal
consonant //n//. (Note: I use double slashes for underlying representations, single slashes for intermediate
stages, and square brackets for phonetic representations.) In this analysis, wasy comes from the underlyD by Nasal
ing //vOnsi$//. The //n// is turned into [ w]
Gliding.
D before fricatives.
(1) Nasal Gliding: n ! w
Note: this and the other rules below are stated

schematically in an informal way in order to sidestep
the problem of which of several existing distinctive
feature theories should be used.
Nasalized vowels are also limited distributionally:
D and [Dj]. (The
they occur before the nasal glides [ w]
latter will not be discussed here.) This generalization
is captured by Vowel Nasalization.
D before nasal glides.
(2) Vowel Nasalization: V ! V
The underlying //vOnsi$// is turned into the phoD $] by applying Nasal Gliding and Vowel
netic [v OD wsi
Nasalization.
(3) //vOnsi$//
D $
vOwsi
D $
vODwsi
D $]
[vODwsi
Nasal Gliding
Vowel Nasalization
This derivation is completed by applying Stress Assignment, a rule of Polish that puts stress on the
penultimate vowel of the word. The phonetic repreD $], where the stressed vowel
sentation is thus [v OD wsi
has been bolded.
D $]
Let us now analyze how the rules deriving [v OD wsi
are related to each other. Notice that the stage in the
derivation at which Stress Assignment applies is irrelevant: Stress Assignment could apply as the first or as
the second or as the last rule in (3). Such ordering
relations between rules are termed nonaffecting, i.e.,
the rules are in a nonaffecting order. The relation
between Nasal Gliding and Vowel Nasalization is
different. If the rules applied in the reverse order, the
D $], with the
surface output would have been [v OD wsi
vowel being oral rather than nasal, which is incorrect.
(4) //vOnsi$//
D $
vODwsi
D $]
*[vODwsi
Vowel Nasalization
Nasal Gliding
Vowel Nasalization cannot have an effect in (4)

because the vowel is not followed by a nasal glide at
the stage of the derivation at which Vowel Nasalization has been assumed to apply. Because only the
result in (3) is correct, we have evidence for the fact
that Nasal Gliding and Vowel Nasalization need to be
ordered. The question is whether ordering can follow
from some general principle or whether it must be
stipulated for individual rules.
Notice that the ordering of Nasal Gliding before
Vowel Nasalization can be assumed to be natural
since otherwise Vowel Nasalization could never
apply in any derivation because nasal glides are not
678 Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology
members of the underlying inventory of Polish, i.e.,

they all come from the application of Nasal Gliding.
Consequently, the ordering of Vowel Nasalization
before Nasal Gliding would be tantamount to saying
that Vowel Nasalization does not exist as a rule of
Polish. But Vowel Nasalization does exist in Polish, so
the only possible ordering is the one that will permit
Vowel Nasalization to apply, i.e., after Nasal Gliding.
To put it differently, these rules order themselves
automatically, a situation that is termed intrinsic
ordering.
Not all the rules of the grammar order themselves
intrinsically. Some rules require special stipulations
that do not follow from any general principle (but
see, for example, Kiparsky, 1971). Such stipulations
are called extrinsic ordering. Extrinsic orders are
of four basic types: feeding order, counterfeeding
order, bleeding order, and counterbleeding order
(Kiparsky, 1968, 1971). Each of these types is
discussed separately below.
In Polish, the dental nasal //n// assimilates to the
place of articulation of the following stop consonant,
as shown in (5).
(5) se( p //sEnp//
pre( t //prEnt//
bak //bOnk//
!
!
!
[sEmp] vulture
[prEnt] rod
[bONk] gadfly
The relevant rule is Nasal Assimilation.

(6) Nasal Assimilation: n assumes the place of
articulation of the following stop consonant.
Furthermore, Polish has a pattern of alternations

between [E] and zero, as in bez lilac NOM SGbz-y
NOM PL and oset thistle NOM SGost-y NOM
PL. The e that deletes is called a yer. An analysis of the
behavior of yers is a matter of much controversy in
the literature and will not be presented here (see, for
example, Gussmann, 1980; Rubach, 1984, 1986). In
a simplified way, Yer Deletion can be stated as the
following rule.
(7)
Yer Deletion:
E!
before a single consonant

followed by an inflectional
vowel ending.
Consequently, //E// deletes in the plural forms bz-y

and ost-y but not in the singular forms bez and oset
cited earlier.
With this background, we look at the assimilation
facts in (8). The examples are nouns in the LOC SG
form.
(8) bank-u bank:
//bank-u//
pak-u bud:
//pOnk-u//
!
!
[baNk-u]; Nasal
Assimilation applies;
[pONk-u]; Nasal
Assimilation applies;
BUT gank-u porch: [gank-u]; Nasal

Assimilation does not apply.
The question is why Nasal Assimilation fails

to apply to gank-u. The reason becomes clear when
we look at the NOM SG forms of the words in (8):
bank [baNk], pa k [pONk] and ganek [ganEk]. Only
the last word has [E] between the nasal and the stop
in the NOM SG. This e must be a yer at the underlying level because it deletes when the ending -u
is added in the LOC SG: gank-u. The underlying
representation of gank-u is therefore //ganEk-u//.
The yer blocks Nasal Assimilation, so the order
of the rules must be Nasal Assimilation before
Yer Deletion, as shown by the derivation in (9),
which represents the facts of the Warsaw dialect of
Polish.
(9) Warsaw Polish:
//bank-u// //pOnk-u// //ganEk-u//
baNk-u
pONk-u
[baNku]
[pONku]
gank-u
[ganku]
Nasal
Assimilation
Yer Deletion
The order in (9) must be stipulated, so it is extrinsic

rather than intrinsic.
Interestingly, the nasal assimilation facts are different in the Cracow dialect of Polish. In this dialect, we
witness assimilation not only in bank-u [baNk-u] and
pa k-u [pONk-u] but also in gank-u [gaNk-u]. The analysis is that Cracow Polish reverses the order of the
rules in (9).
(10) Cracow Polish:
//bank-u// //pOnk-u// //ganEk-u//
gank-u
Yer Deletion
baNk-u
pONk-u
gaNk-u
Nasal
Assimilation
[baNku] [pONku] [gaNku]
The interaction between Yer Deletion and Nasal

Assimilation in Cracow Polish is such that Yer Deletion creates the environment for the application
of Nasal Assimilation to gank-u: after the deletion of the yer E, the nasal stands next to the stop, so
Nasal Assimilation can apply. We say that Yer Deletion and Nasal Assimilation apply in a feeding order
in Cracow Polish, i.e., Yer Deletion feeds Nasal
Assimilation.
The analysis of Warsaw Polish in (9) is different.
The ordering of Nasal Assimilation before Yer Deletion makes the former rule inapplicable to gank-u
//ganEk-u//, which decreases the number of inputs to
Nasal Assimilation. We say that Yer Deletion counterfeeds Nasal Assimilation in Warsaw Polish: the rules
apply in a counterfeeding order.
To summarize, rules X ordered before Y are in a

feeding order if X changes inputs in such a way that Y
becomes applicable, as in (10). The opposite order is
counterfeeding. If Y is ordered before X and attempts
to apply but cannot do so because X has not applied
yet, then X counterfeeds Y, as in (9).
A bleeding relation between rules is illustrated by
the interaction of Fricative Devoicing and Voice Assimilation. Obstruent clusters in Polish must agree
in voicing, i.e., they are either voiceless or voiced.
This surface-true generalization is an effect of either
of the following rules: Voice Assimilation, which applies regressively, or Fricative Devoicing, which applies
progressively.
Voice Assimilation is a general rule that affects
all obstruents and causes either voicing or devoicing.
The decision of whether we have voicing or devoicing rests with the obstruent on the right, i.e.,
the obstruent that follows. Thus, the rule applies
regressively, as shown in (11).
(11) a. Devoicing:
wesz [vES] louse NOM SG wsz-y [fS-i$]
NOM PL, hence //vES-i$// ! [fS-i$]
b. Voicing:
liczeb-n-y [litSEb-n-i$] numerous liczb-a
[lidZb-a] number; the underlying
representation of liczb-a is //litSEb-a//
containing //tS//and the yer //E//, both of
which occur on the surface in the
adjective liczeb-n-y, where the -n is the
adjectivizing morpheme and the y is
the NOM SG ending of the adjective
declension. The noun liczb-a undergoes
Voice Assimilation: //litSEb-a// !
[lidZb-a]. (Consonants before i are soft,
that is, palatalized, but I suppress this
allophonic detail here and below.)
Voice Assimilation is stated informally as follows.

(12) Voice
Assimilation:
An obstruent assumes the

feature [voice] or [voice]
from the obstruent that
follows.
Clusters of a voiceless obstruent followed by a

voiced fricative behave differently from the way predicted by Voice Assimilation: the voiced fricative
devoices under the influence of the preceding voiceless obstruent, i.e., the direction of assimilation is
progressive rather than regressive. This observation
is illustrated by words such as bitw-a [bitf-a] battle,
whose underlying representation is //bitEv-a//. Both
the yer and the voiced fricative //v// are motivated
by the alternations in the adjective bitew-n-y [bitEvn-i$] warlike. (Here, unlike in bitw-a, Yer Deletion
is inapplicable, as the yer is separated from the
following vowel suffix by two consonants.) In the

noun bitw-a //bitEv-a//, the two obstruents come together after the yer has been deleted: //bitEv-a// !
/bitv-a/. The /tv/ is devoiced to [tf] by Fricative Devoicing, a progressive assimilation rule.
(13) Fricative
Devoicing:
Fricatives become voiceless after

a voiceless obstruent.
Notice that the intermediate derivational stage /bitva/ could potentially be an input to either Voice Assimilation or to Fricative Devoicing. In the former case,
we would obtain a voiced cluster, which is incorrect:
/bitv-a/ ! *[bidv-a]. The attested output [bitf-a] is
derived by applying Fricative Devoicing: /bitv-a/ !
[bitf-a]. This result is delivered by the ordering of
Fricative Devoicing before Voice Assimilation. The
derivations of bitw-a as well as of wsz-y lice and
liczb-a number cited in (11) are as follows.
(14) //vES-i$//
vS-i$
//litSEb-a// //bitEv-a//
litSb-a
bitv-a
bitf-a
fS-i$
lidZb-a
[fS-i$]
[lidZb-a]
Yer Deletion
Fricative
Devoicing
Voice
Assimilation
[bitfa]
Fricative Devoicing applies only to /bitv-a/ because

this is the only word that meets the rules environment: a voiced fricative is after a voiceless obstruent.
(In /litSb-a/, the obstruent after /tS/ is voiced but it is a
stop /b/ and not a fricative, so Fricative Devoicing
cannot apply.)
The relation between Fricative Devoicing and Voice
Assimilation reveals a new type of extrinsic ordering: a bleeding order, which is defined as an ordering
relation under which the application of one rule
destroys the environment for the application of another rule. (The ordering of Yer Deletion before Fricative Devoicing is feeding because the deletion of the
yer provides a context for the application of Fricative
Devoicing.) The application of Fricative Devoicing in
(14) removes /bitv-a/ from the list of inputs to Voice
Assimilation (more accurately: to its part that is responsible for voicing). After the /tv/ has been changed
into [tf], the voicing, /tv/ ! [dv], is no longer possible:
Fricative Devoicing and Voice Assimilation are in a
bleeding order, i.e., Fricative Devoicing bleeds Voice
Assimilation. (Actually, if Voice Assimilation applied
before Fricative Devoicing turning /tv/ into [dv], Fricative Devoicing also would have been bled, so in fact
Fricative Devoicing and Voice Assimilation stand in a
mutually bleeding relation.)
Finally, rules may stand in a counterbleeding order,
which is the reverse of the bleeding order. Rules X and
Y are in a counterbleeding order if rule X applying
before Y fails to destroy the context for the application of rule Y. That is, Y would have bled X if the
order were Y before X. This rather complex relation
is illustrated by the interaction between Yer Deletion
and Velar Palatalization.
Velar consonants //k g x// change into postalveolars
[tS dZ S] before front vowels, a process that is known
as Velar Palatalization.
(15) Velar Palatalization k g x ! tS dZ S before front
vowels.
The operation of this rule is illustrated in (16), where

we look at the alternations triggered by the diminutive suffix ek.
(16) krok step krocz-ek [krOtS-Ek] NOM SG
krocz-k-u [krOtS-k-u] LOC SG
mo zg brain mo z dz -ek [muZdZ-Ek] NOM SG
mo z dz -k-u [muStS-k-u] LOC SG
groch (ch stands for [x]) pea grosz-ek [grOSEk] NOM SG grosz-k-u [grOS-k-u] LOC SG
A comparison of the diminutive forms in the NOM

SG and LOC SG shows that the e of the suffix ek is
a yer because it deletes when a vowel ending is added
to the stem, as in the LOC SG. The point of interest
is that Velar Palatalization takes effect not only in the
NOM SG, where the front vowel e, a trigger of the
rule, is present overtly on the surface but also in
the LOC SG, where //E// has been deleted by Yer
Deletion. Clearly, the ordering of Velar Palatalization
and Yer Deletion must be such that Velar Palatalization applies at the stage when //E// is still present, i.e.,
before Yer Deletion can have an effect. In (17), we
look at the derivation of the LOC SG form grosz-k-u
pea, whose underlying representation is //grOxEk-u//, with //x// being motivated by its occurrence
in the nondiminutive form groch [grOx].
(17) //grOx-Ek-u//
grOS-Ek-u
grOS-k-u
[grOSku]
Velar Palatalization
Yer Deletion
Velar Palatalization and Yer Deletion apply in a counterbleeding order, which is the opposite of the bleeding order. Notice that if Yer Deletion were ordered
before Velar Palatalization, then Velar Palatalization
would have been bled (i.e., blocked) in its application
to grosz-k-u, as shown in (18).
(18) //grOx-Ek-u//
grOx-k-u
*[grOxku]
Yer Deletion
To summarize, a bleeding order is one in which

the application of one rule destroys the environment for the application of another rule. We saw
this in (14), where Fricative Devoicing made the

application of Voice Assimilation impossible. The
opposite relation where the order could have been
bleeding but actually is not is called counterbleeding.
This was illustrated in (17): the ordering of Yer Deletion after Velar Palatalization made the latter rule
applicable.
Derivations can be long and complex. Such is the
D
case for the LOC SG form dra z -k-u [dr OD wS-k-u]
pole (diminutive). The underlying representation
here is //drOng-Ek-u// and it is motivated as follows.
As noted earlier, the diminutive suffix has a yer
because it shows an e zero alternation seen in (16).
Actually, this alternation is found also in the example
under discussion because the NOM SG of dra z -k-u is
D
D
dra z -ek [dr OD wZ-Ek].
A comparison of [dr OD wS-k-u]
D
LOC SG and [dr OD wZ-Ek]
NOM SG shows that the
root-final consonant must be voiced at the underlying
D
level: we see the voiced [Z] in [dr OD wZ-Ek].
The voiceD
less [S] in the LOC SG [dr OD wS-k-u]
must therefore be
due to Voice Assimilation: the devoicing of /Z/ to [S]
before the voiceless obstruent [k].
However, z is not the underlying segment in the
root morpheme, because we see [g] in the non-diminutive LOC SG form dra g-u [drONg-u]. That is, the [Z]
D
of dra z -ek [dr OD wZ-Ek]
DIMIN NOM SG alternates
with the [g] of dra g-u [drONg-u] LOC SG. Polish has a
rule that derives [Z] but this rule, known as Spirantization, applies to /dZ/ and not to /g/.
(19) Spirantization: dZ ! Z after sonorants.
The rule is restricted to the context of sonorants,

because it does not apply if the preceding consonant
is an obstruent. Consequently, there is not spirantization of dz to z in mo zg brain mo z dz -ek [muZdZEk]. (The [Z] in [muZdZ-Ek] is of a different origin: it is
an effect of assimilation of /z/ to [Z] before [dZ].)
Returning to dra z -k-u, we note that the derivation
of /Z/ from //g// is possible if //g// is turned into /dZ/
because then Spirantization becomes applicable.
What we need is to find a way of changing the
underlying //g// into /dZ/. The solution is simple:
the yer of the diminutive suffix //Ek// triggers Velar
Palatalization, hence //g// ! /dZ/.
D is derived from //n// by Nasal
Finally, the glide [ w]
Gliding, rule (1) discussed earlier. The derivation is
completed by applying Vowel Nasalization (2) that
nasalizes vowels before nasal glides.
In sum, the derivation for the LOC SG form
D
//drOng-Ek-u// ! [dr OD wSku]
is as follows. (Stress Assignment is ignored.)
(20) //drOng-Ek-u//
drOndZ-Ek-u
drOnZ-Ek-u
Spirantization

drOnZ-k-u
D
drOwZ-k-u
D
drODwZ-k-u
D
drODwS-k-u
D
[drODwSku]
Yer Deletion
Nasal Gliding
Vowel Nasalization
Voice Assimilation
This derivation presents an array of various ordering relations between rules.

i. Some rules are nonaffecting, i.e., they are not
related, so their ordering is irrelevant. This is
true for Spirantization and Yer Deletion as well
as for Voice Assimilation and Nasal Gliding or
Vowel Nasalization.
ii. The ordering of Vowel Nasalization after Nasal
Gliding is intrinsic. That is, if the order were reversed, then Vowel Nasalization would never have
a chance to apply in Polish because all nasal glides
are derived by Nasal Gliding and none exist in the
underlying representation of Polish morphemes.
Similarly, if Polish has no underlying //dZ// (this
is not fully accurate but let us ignore it here),
the ?show =x(100)?> ordering of Spirantization
after Velar Palatalization is intrinsic because this
is the only imaginable order that would give Spirantization a chance to apply and hence document
its presence in the grammar of Polish.
iii. Velar Palatalization and Yer Deletion stand in a
counterbleeding relation: if the latter applied first,
Velar Palatalization would have been bled since its
trigger, the front vowel, would have been deleted.
Counterbleeding is also true for Voice Assimilation and Spirantization: if Voice Assimilation
were to apply before Spirantization, then Spirantization would have been bled because the intermediate /dZ/would have been turned into /0/, and
Spirantization works on /dZ/ and not on /tS/.
iv. The relation between Yer Deletion and Voice Assimilation is feeding since the deletion of the /E/
brings together a voiced obstruent (here /Z/) and a
voiceless obstruent (here /k/), which makes Voice
Assimilation applicable. Similarly, Spirantization
feeds Nasal Gliding because the latter applies
before fricatives, so it becomes applicable only
after /dZ/ has been turned into /Z/.
Rules and their application in derivation can be
evaluated from the perspective of transparency
and opacity, the concepts introduced by Kiparsky
(1971, 1973). Judgments regarding transparency
and opacity are formed on the basis surface phonetic
facts. A rule is transparent if its application can be
understood by inspecting surface representations
alone, without recourse to intermediate derivational
stages. Opacity is the reverse of transparency. If
no rationale for the application of a certain rule can
be found in the surface structure, then the rule is
opaque. The fragment of Polish phonology presented

in the preceding paragraphs bears witness to both
transparent and opaque rules.
Vowel Nasalization stated in (2) is a classic example of a transparent rule. Recall that vowels are nasalized before nasal glides and that Vowel Nasalization
is the only source of nasalized vowels. That is, nasalized vowels do not exist in the underlying representation and they do not come from any other rule. The
situation is simple: if we see a nasalized vowel, then it
is always followed by a nasal glide, and there are
no exceptions to this generalization. Thus, we can
always see in the surface representation the rationale
for the occurrence of nasalized vowels. To put it
differently, the trigger of the rule, a nasal glide, and
the effect of the rule, a nasalized vowel, are always
visible in the surface representation. Since Vowel
Nasalization is ordered intrinsically after Nasal Gliding (1), the generalization is that intrinsic order leads
to transparency. Transparency is also the property of
the rules that stand in two other ordering relations:
feeding and bleeding.
The feeding order between Nasal Assimilation
and Yer Deletion in Cracow Polish makes Nasal
Assimilation a fully transparent rule. This is documented by the fact that all surface occurrences of
[N] before stops are due to Nasal Assimilation.
We see [N] not only in bank [baNk] bank but also
in gank-u [gaNk-u] porch LOC SG; recall the
derivation in (10).
The bleeding order between Fricative Devoicing and
Voice Assimilation makes Fricative Devoicing transparent. First, there are no surface representations that
would contradict the operation of Fricative Devoicing
because clusters of obstruents are always uniform in
their value for [voice]. Second, the trigger of devoicing, a voiceless obstruent preceding the fricative, is
always present in the surface representation.
Whereas feeding and bleeding orders lead to transparency, counterfeeding and counterbleeding orders
cause opacity. A rule is opaque if we find derivations
in which the application of this rule cannot be
explained by looking at surface representations. The
counterfeeding relation between Nasal Assimilation
and Yer Deletion in Warsaw Polish is an example in
point. The occurrence of [nk] rather than the expected
[Nk] in gank-u [gank-u] porch LOC SG is not understandable from the point of view of surface representations. There is no answer to the question of why
Nasal Assimilation has not applied to gank-u, given
that the task of the rule is to assimilate /n/ to the
following stop and [n] is followed by [k] in this example. The reason for the failure of Nasal Assimilation to
apply to gank-u is hidden at an intermediate derivational stage. Recall Nasal Assimilation applies in
Warsaw Polish at the stage at which the underlying yer

of //ganEk-u// has not been deleted yet by Yer Deletion.
Consequently, the nasal and the stop are not adjacent
when Nasal Assimilation applies: Yer Deletion counterfeeds Nasal Assimilation. Later the yer deletes,
yielding the unassimilated cluster [nk]. The absence
of assimilation makes Nasal Assimilation opaque.
The counterbleeding order between Velar Palatalization and Yer Deletion in (17) shows that Velar
Palatalization is opaque. The reason is that the
change of the underlying //x// into [S] in grosz-k-u
pea DIMIN LOC SG, //grOx-Ek-u// ! [grOS-k-u],
makes no sense from the point of view of the surface
representation. Since the trigger of Velar Palatalization, the yer e, is not present on the surface, we find
no answer to the question of why Velar Palatalization
has applied here.
McCarthy (1999) clarifies the concepts of transparency and opacity by evaluating phonological generalizations in terms of whether they are surface-true
and surface-apparent. A rule is surface-true it is
not violated in any regular way in surface representations. For example, Vowel Nasalization is surfacetrue because there are no instances of oral vowels
before nasal glides in Polish. That is, Vowel Nasalization applies to vowels before nasal glides in
an entirely exceptionless manner. The rule is also
surface-apparent because its trigger, a nasal glide, is
always present in the surface representation. More
generally, a rule is surface-apparent if the reason for
its application can be discovered by inspecting surface
representations. Transparent rules are both surfacetrue and surface-apparent. In contrast, opaque rules
fail on these criteria.
Nasal Assimilation in Warsaw Polish is not surfacetrue because it regularly fails to apply to words
such as gank-u porch LOC SG. The reason for this
failure the occurrence of a yer is not visible in
the surface representation because the yer has been
deleted. That is, judging from the point of view of
surface representations, Nasal Assimilation has a regular class of exceptions. The generalization is that
not-surface-true rules are opaque.
Velar Palatalization is not surface-apparent. The
evidence comes from words such as grosz-k-u pea
DIMIN LOC SG. Notice that the situation here is
different from that found in gank-u. The word
grosz-k-u [grOS-k-u] is not a surface exception to
Velar Palatalization because it does not have a velar
consonant before a front vowel. That is, its surface
representation is not *[grOx-Ek-u]. Rather, the problem is that we see no reason in the surface representation for why Velar Palatalization has applied
here changing the underlying //x// into the surface
[S]: there is no front vowel in [grOS-k-u] that could

have triggered Velar Palatalization. A rule is notsurface apparent if its trigger is not visible in
the surface representation. Such a rule is opaque. To
conclude, opacity is the property of rules that are
either not-surface-true or not-surface-apparent.
Finally, let us look at the relation between the
domain of rules and extrinsic ordering. The point is
that some (but not all) extrinsic orders can be predicted from the domain in which rules apply. This
idea is best expressed in the model of Lexical Phonology, which draws a distinction between lexical and
postlexical rules (Kiparsky, 1982; Booij and Rubach,
1987).
Lexical rules apply in the domain not larger than
words because words and not phrases are derived in
the lexicon. Postlexical rules are not limited in this
way. They apply after the syntactic component of the
grammar has put words together to form phrases and
sentences, so postlexical rules use phrases and sentences as their domains. To put it differently, postlexical rules apply not only inside words but also
across word boundaries. The distinction between lexical and postlexical rules is illustrated by the operation of Fricative Devoicing (13) and Voice
Assimilation (12).
Recall that Fricative Devoicing must apply before
Voice Assimilation (see (14)). This fact coincides
with the observation that all instances in which Fricative Devoicing applies are strings that are wholly
contained within the word. Consequently, Fricative
Devoicing is a lexical rule. In contrast, Voice Assimilation cannot be regarded as lexical because we see it
operating in phrase phonology.
(21) brat brother NOM SG brat-[brat-a] GEN
SG, hence //brat//
BUT brat Barbabry [brad barbari$] Barbaras
brother: /t#b/ ! [d#b]
kod code NOM SG kod-u [kOd-u] GEN SG,
hence //kOd//
BUT kod pocztowy [kOt pO0tOvi$] postal code:
/d#p/ ! [t#p]
We conclude that Voice Assimilation is a postlexical rule.

The ordering of Fricative Devoicing before Voice
Assimilation is now predicted correctly by the model
of Lexical Phonology, whose tenet is that the lexical
component of phonology (and hence the rules that
constitute it) precedes the postlexical component (and
hence the rules that constitute it).
The analysis of Fricative Devoicing and Voice
Assimilation in terms of the lexical-postlexical distinction is corroborated by phrases that contain a
word-final voiceless obstruent followed by a wordinitial voiced fricative, for instance, brat wasz //brat
vaS// ! [brad vaS] your brother. According to Lexical Phonology, the phrase brat wasz does not exist in
the lexical component in which lexical phonological
rules apply. Rather, what we have is two separate
words: brat and wasz. These words are processed
separately by lexical rules. The consequence of this
analysis is that the final /t/ of brat and the initial /v/ of
wasz do not form the cluster /tv/ in the lexical component. In contrast, the /tv/ of bitw-a battle is visible
to lexical rules because the cluster is contained wholly
within one word (recall the derivation in (14)). Fricative Devoicing, a lexical rule, takes effect, yielding
[tf]. In the postlexical component, inputs are the
structures derived by the syntax, hence phrases and
sentences. It is there that brat wasz occurs as a phrase
for the first time. (Let us assume that bitwa does not
enter into any larger syntactic structure, hence it is a
phrase itself.) Voice Assimilation, a postlexical rule,
applies and voices the final /t/ of brat to [d], the
correct result.
(22) Lexical component:
//bitEv-a// //brat//
bitv-a
bitf-a
//vaS//
Postlexical component:
/bitfa/ /brat
vaS/
brad
vaS
[bitfa] [brad
vaS]
Yer Deletion
Fricative
Devoicing
Voice Asssimilation
To summarize, the word-internal /tv/ in bitwa and

the phrasal /t v/ in brat wasz follow contradictory
strategies in achieving the goal of making the cluster
uniform with regard to the feature [voice]: we see
devoicing word-internally, /tv/ ! [tf], and voicing in
phrasal phonology, /t v/ ! [d v]. These contradictions
are reconciled by Lexical Phonology because, for independent reasons, Fricative Devoicing is a lexical
rule, whereas Voice Assimilation is a postlexical
rule. Because by definition lexical rules must precede
postlexical rules, the extrinsic ordering between Fricative Devoicing and Voice Assimilation does not have
to be stipulated any longer.
The final question is whether the concepts of ordering and derivation exist in the most recent version
of generative phonology called Optimality Theory
(Prince and Smolensky, 1993; McCarthy and Prince,
1995). The answer is that they exist, but the notion of
derivation is highly controversial. Ordering appears
in Optimality Theory as ranking, but it is the ranking
of universal constraints and not the ordering of language-specific rules. Standard Optimality Theory
rejects derivation and claims that phonological processing is carried out in a fully parallel (simultaneous)
fashion, but there are researchers who claim that the
rejection of derivation is an error (see, for example,
Kiparsky, 2000; Rubach, 2000a, 2000b, 2003). The
view of these researchers is that Optimality Theory
should build on Lexical Phonology and admit three
derivational levels: the stem level, the word level, and
the postlexical level. Phonological processing within
a level is fully parallel, as in standard Optimality
Theory. However, the output of the stem level is the
input to the word level, and the output of the word
level is the input to the postlexical level, so we have
derivational steps.
See also: Generative Phonology; Lexical Phonology and
Morphology; Polish: Phonology; Pragmatics: Optimality
Theory.
Bibliography
Booij G E & Rubach J (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry
18, 144.
Gussmann E (1980). Studies in abstract phonology: Linguistic Inquiry monograph 4. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kiparsky P (1968). Linguistic universals and language
change. In Bach E & Harms R (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
191212.
Kiparsky P (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall W
(ed.) A survey of linguistic science. College Park: Linguistics Program. 576649.
Kiparsky P (1973). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules.
In Fujimura O (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory.
Tokyo: TEC. 5786.
Kiparsky P (1982). From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology. In
Hulst H van der & Smith N (eds.) The structutre of
phonological representations. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris.
131175.
Kiparsky P (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic
Review 17, 351365.
McCarthy J J (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity.
Phonology 16, 331339.
McCarthy J J & Prince A (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman J N, Dickey L W &
Urbanczyk S (eds.) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18. Amherst, Massachusetts:
GLSA Publications. 249384.
Prince A & Smolensky P (1993). Optimality Theory:
constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms.,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ & University of
Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Rubach J (1984). Cyclic and lexical phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.

Rubach J (1986). Abstract vowels in three-dimensional
phonology: the yers. The Linguistic Review 18,
247280.
Rubach J (2000a). Backness switch in Russian. Phonology
17, 3964.
Rubach J (2000b). Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic

languages: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31,
271317.
Rubach J (2003). Duke-of-York derivations in Polish.
Linguistic Inquiry 34, 601629.
Rules and Principles

H van de Koot, University College London,
London, UK
Figure 1 A simple verb phrase.
The notions rule and principle lie at the heart of the

generative approach to linguistics. A grammar in this
tradition is not prescriptive but rather is a finite,
mentally represented system of rules that specifies a
native speakers knowledge about the mapping between linguistic expressions and their meaning. The
rules that make up this system fall in two types.
The first define the set of well-formed phonological, morphological, syntactic, or semantic structures
for the language. It is often assumed that each of these
subdomains has its own dedicated generative rule
system, although there is no universal agreement on
the matter.
The second type of rule maps between linguistic
objects that are constructed by different generative
rule systems. For example, if it is assumed that syntactic and phonological structures are generated by
dedicated rule systems, then there must be mapping
rules that determine which phonological structures
may be associated with which syntactic structures.
Let us consider generative rule systems first. Proposing a linguistic rule is not a matter of stating an
inductive generalization (that is, a generalization
based on the observation of repeated patterns in the
data). The formulation of a rule invariably depends on
previous hypotheses about the domain under investigation, namely concerning the inventory of primitive
objects that rules can be defined over. To give an
example from syntax, rules for sentence structure
rely on the hypothesis that words are specified for
syntactic category (a label taken from a small set
such as {V,N,A,P}). Once that much has been assumed,
it becomes possible to state a rule like (1), which says
that a V (such as reads) and an N (such as books) form
a verbal category called a VP (verb phrase).
(1) VP
VN
Traditionally, a linguistic rule maps one object

to another. A typical example is the rewrite rule described earlier, which maps the category VP to a
string consisting of two categories, namely V and
N. However, such a rule can also be interpreted as a
well-formedness constraint. Thus, (1) can be read
as a principle licensing the partial tree structure
(Figure 1), in which a VP has a V and an N as its
daughters. As a result, in modern linguistics the
words rule and principle (or constraint) are often
used synonymously.
The second type of rule identified earlier relates
linguistic objects of different types. Such mapping
rules allow for various kinds of mismatches between
the structures they relate. To see this, consider an
example like John expects Mary to win, in which
the syntactic phrasing groups Mary together with to
win (as in [2]), while the prosodic structure groups
Mary together with expects, so that Mary precedes a
prosodic boundary (as in [3]).
(2) [[John] [expects [[Mary] [to [win]]]]]
(3) [John]j [expects Mary]j [to win]j
This mismatch falls into place if the mapping rules

that relate syntactic and prosodic structures determine that right edges of prosodic phrases coincide
with right edges of syntactic phrases.
See also: Fanagolo; Generative Phonology; Generative
Semantics; Lexicon, Generative.

Rubach J (1986). Abstract vowels in three-dimensional
phonology: the yers. The Linguistic Review 18,
247280.
Rubach J (2000a). Backness switch in Russian. Phonology
17, 3964.
Rubach J (2000b). Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic

languages: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31,
271317.
Rubach J (2003). Duke-of-York derivations in Polish.
Linguistic Inquiry 34, 601629.
Rules and Principles

H van de Koot, University College London,
London, UK
Figure 1 A simple verb phrase.
The notions rule and principle lie at the heart of the

generative approach to linguistics. A grammar in this
tradition is not prescriptive but rather is a finite,
mentally represented system of rules that specifies a
native speakers knowledge about the mapping between linguistic expressions and their meaning. The
rules that make up this system fall in two types.
The first define the set of well-formed phonological, morphological, syntactic, or semantic structures
for the language. It is often assumed that each of these
subdomains has its own dedicated generative rule
system, although there is no universal agreement on
the matter.
The second type of rule maps between linguistic
objects that are constructed by different generative
rule systems. For example, if it is assumed that syntactic and phonological structures are generated by
dedicated rule systems, then there must be mapping
rules that determine which phonological structures
may be associated with which syntactic structures.
Let us consider generative rule systems first. Proposing a linguistic rule is not a matter of stating an
inductive generalization (that is, a generalization
based on the observation of repeated patterns in the
data). The formulation of a rule invariably depends on
previous hypotheses about the domain under investigation, namely concerning the inventory of primitive
objects that rules can be defined over. To give an
example from syntax, rules for sentence structure
rely on the hypothesis that words are specified for
syntactic category (a label taken from a small set
such as {V,N,A,P}). Once that much has been assumed,
it becomes possible to state a rule like (1), which says
that a V (such as reads) and an N (such as books) form
a verbal category called a VP (verb phrase).
(1) VP
VN
Traditionally, a linguistic rule maps one object

to another. A typical example is the rewrite rule described earlier, which maps the category VP to a
string consisting of two categories, namely V and
N. However, such a rule can also be interpreted as a
well-formedness constraint. Thus, (1) can be read
as a principle licensing the partial tree structure
(Figure 1), in which a VP has a V and an N as its
daughters. As a result, in modern linguistics the
words rule and principle (or constraint) are often
used synonymously.
The second type of rule identified earlier relates
linguistic objects of different types. Such mapping
rules allow for various kinds of mismatches between
the structures they relate. To see this, consider an
example like John expects Mary to win, in which
the syntactic phrasing groups Mary together with to
win (as in [2]), while the prosodic structure groups
Mary together with expects, so that Mary precedes a
prosodic boundary (as in [3]).
(2) [[John] [expects [[Mary] [to [win]]]]]
(3) [John]j [expects Mary]j [to win]j
This mismatch falls into place if the mapping rules

that relate syntactic and prosodic structures determine that right edges of prosodic phrases coincide
with right edges of syntactic phrases.
See also: Fanagolo; Generative Phonology; Generative
Semantics; Lexicon, Generative.
Rules and Rule-Following 685
Rules and Rule-Following

A Miller, Macquarie University, Sydney,
NSW, Australia
Why are the notions of rules and rule-following of

significance to the philosophy of language and linguistics? Inspired by the discussions of rule-following
in Wittgensteins Philosophical investigations (sections 138242) and Remarks on the foundations of
mathematics (section VI), Saul Kripke and Crispin
Wright independently developed arguments that
challenged our intuitive conception of meaning as
both factual and objective (see Wright [1980], Chapters 2 and 12, and Kripke [1982]). In this article,
we will focus on the rule-following issue as presented
by Kripke.
Rule-Following and Meaning

Suppose that Jones intends to follow the rule Add 2
in continuing the series: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, . . . . Jones can
continue the series in ways that accord or fail to
accord with the requirements of the rule. For example, the continuation 12, 14, 16, . . . would accord
with the rule (as standardly understood), whereas
the continuation 12, 13, 14, . . . would fail to accord
with the rule (as standardly understood). In other
words, the former continuation would be correct by
the lights of the rule, whereas the latter would be
incorrect by the lights of the rule: the rule provides
a normative standard against which particular continuations can be assessed as correct or incorrect.
Intending to follow a rule is analogous in certain
respects to meaning something by a linguistic expression. The meaning of a linguistic expression provides
a normative standard against which the uses of that
expression can be assessed as correct (or incorrect), as
according with that meaning (or failing to accord
with that meaning). Thus, for example, given the
usual meanings of the numerals and signs involved,
and given the arithmetical fact that the sum of 68 and
57 is 125, the answer 125 to the query 68 57 ?
will be correct by the lights of those meanings, whereas the answer 5 will be incorrect by the lights of
those meanings.
Suppose that Jones has laboriously written out the
series 2, 4, 6, 8, . . . , 996, 998. Is there a fact of
the matter as to what rule hes been following in
writing out this sequence? Ordinarily, wed be inclined to say that there is a fact of the matter, and,
that, in all likelihood, hes been following the rule
Add 2 (and not, say, the rule add 3, or not following any rule at all but simply writing down numerals
at random). According to Kripkes Wittgenstein

(hereafter KW), this is an illusion: there is no fact
of the matter as to what rule Jones has been following, and indeed no fact of the matter as to whether
Jones has been following any rule at all. In similar
fashion, we can ask whether there is a fact of the
matter as to what meaning Jones associates with
the sign. Assuming that Joness uses of the
sign have been roughly similar to our own, wed be
inclined ordinarily to say that there is a fact of the
matter, and, that in all likelihood, he understands
to mean the addition function (and not, say, the multiplication function or no function whatsoever). As in
the case of rules, KW claims that this is an illusion:
there is no fact of the matter as to what Jones means
by , and indeed no fact of the matter as to whether
he means anything at all by .
Constitutive and Epistemological

Skepticism
Before turning to KWs argument, we need to note a
distinction between two types of skepticism. An epistemological skeptic about a particular area claims that
we are not entitled to the knowledge claims that we
typically make within it. Thus, for example, an epistemological skeptic about the external world (such
as the skeptic who is Descartess protagonist in his
Meditations) would argue that I am not entitled to
claim that I know that I am currently awake and
sitting at a computer writing a philosophy essay.
The epistemological skeptic doesnt question whether
there is a fact of the matter as to whether Im currently awake: hes happy to concede that there is a fact of
the matter (either Im awake, etc., or Im not), and
questions only whether Im entitled to say that I know
which of the two relevant possibilities is actually the
case. KWs skepticism about rule-following and
meaning is not only epistemological skepticism. KW
argues, not only that we dont know whether we
mean addition by , or intend to follow the rule
Add 2, but also that there may not be anything to
know. That is, not merely are we ignorant about what
means; there is no fact of the matter as to what it
means there is nothing for meaning facts to consist
in or to be constituted out of. KW is thus a constitutive skeptic about rule-following and meaning. But as
well see, KW takes an epistemological route to his
constitutive skepticism.
KWs Skeptical Argument

Suppose that, in the examples above, Jones has never
previously gone beyond 996 in his apparent attempts
686 Rules and Rule-Following
to continue the arithmetical series generated by the

rule Add 2, and has never performed arithmetical
calculations with numbers greater than 57 (the fact
that Jones is a finite creature ensures that we can
always set up this sort of scenario simply by choosing
numbers that are large enough). If there were a fact of
the matter as to what rule Jones is trying to follow, or
a fact of the matter as to what meaning he associates
with the sign, there would be a fact of the matter
as to how he ought to continue the number series (if
he is to accord with the relevant rule), and a fact of
the matter as to how he ought to answer the query
68 57 ? (if his practice is to accord with the
relevant meaning). KW argues that there is no fact
of the matter as to how he ought to continue the
number series, and no fact of the matter as to how
he ought to answer the query 68 57 ?. Who is to
say that Jones does not, in the case of the number
series, intend to follow the rule Zadd 2, in which the
result of zadding 2 to a number is the same as the
result of adding 2 to a number for numbers less than
1,000 and the same as the result of adding 4 to a
number for numbers greater than or equal to 1,000?
If Jones intended to follow this non-standard rule in
continuing the series, he ought to continue the series
998, 1000, 1004, 1008, . . . and not as wed expect,
namely 998, 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006 . . . and so on.
Likewise, who is to say that Jones does not, in the case
of the arithmetical calculation, understand to
mean, not the addition function but, rather, the quaddition function, in which the result of quadding two
numbers x and y is the same as adding them when
both x and y are less than 57 but, rather, 5, when
either x or y is greater than or equal to 57? If Jones
meant the quaddition function by the sign, he
ought to answer 5 to the query 68 57 ?, and
not, as wed expect, 125.
KWs argument proceeds by allowing us unlimited
and omniscient access to two broad categories of fact,
and invites us to find the fact that constitutes Joness
intending to follow the Add 2 rule as opposed to the
Zadd 2 rule, or Joness meaning addition as opposed
to quaddition by : facts about Joness previous
behavior and behavioral dispositions and facts
about Joness mental history and mental states. The
assumption is that if facts about rule-following and
meaning are to be found anywhere, they will be found
within these two kinds of fact. So, if unlimited and
omniscient access to these two classes of fact fails to
turn up a fact that constitutes Joness intending
to follow one rule rather than another, or meaning
one thing rather than another, it will follow that there
is simply no such fact to be found. This is why we said
above that KWs argument for constitutive skepticism
proceeds via an epistemological route: KW argues
that even given unlimited and omniscient access

to facts about Joness behavior and behavioral dispositions and facts about Joness mental life, we
still couldnt claim to know, or justify, a particular
hypothesis about how Jones ought to continue the
arithmetical series or answer the arithmetical query.
Facts about Joness previous behavior wont do the
trick, as all of that behavior is consistent with Joness
intending to follow the Zadd 2 rule or meaning
the quaddition function by the sign: ex hypothesi,
he had never previously dealt with cases in which the
numbers were large enough for Add 2 and Zadd 2,
or meaning addition and quaddition, to demand different responses (Kripke, 1982: 715). Facts about
how Jones is disposed to continue the series, or answer arithmetical queries, wont turn the trick either.
Even if it was true that if Jones had reached 1000,
he would have continued 1004, 1008, and so on, or
true that if hed been asked 68 57 ? he would
have answered 125 and not 5, neither of these facts
could plausibly be said to constitute his intending to
follow one rule rather than another, or mean one
function rather than another. Facts about the rule
he intended to follow, or the meaning he attached,
are normative facts, facts about how he ought to
continue the number series or answer the arithmetical
query. But the dispositional facts canvassed tell us at
most what he would do in certain situations, as opposed to telling us what he ought to do in those
situations (Kripke, 1982: 2238). KW also rules out
the following as facts constitutive of rule-following
and meaning: general thoughts or instructions (1982:
1517); relative simplicity of hypotheses about rulefollowing and meaning (1982: 3840); qualitative,
introspectible, irreducibly mental states (such as
mental images) (1982: 4151); sui generis and irreducible mental states (1982: 5153); relations to
objective, Fregean senses (1982: 5354). Thus,
according to KW there are no facts about rulefollowing and meaning, and these notions vanish
into thin air(1982: 22).
KWs Skeptical Solution

KW describes this result as a sceptical paradox, and
attempts to avoid the insane and intolerable (1982:
60) conclusion that all language is meaningless
(1982: 71) via a sceptical solution. The main idea
of the skeptical solution is that judgments about rulefollowing and ascriptions of meaning can be viewed
as possessing a non-fact-stating role, so that the practices of ours involving the notions of rule-following
and meaning avoid the worries associated with the
skeptical paradox. If the function of judgments about
meaning is not to describe facts, the discovery that
Rules and Rule-Following 687
there are no facts about meaning no longer threatens

our practice of making such judgments. It emerges as
a consequence of the detail of the skeptical solution
that the notions of rule-following and meaning only
have application relative to communities of rulefollowers or speakers, not absolutely. In particular,
it follows that solitary language is impossible.
(This is KWs take on Wittgensteins famous private
language argument.)
Significance of the Issue

Unless it is blocked, the skeptical paradox threatens
to undermine the idea that we can give a cognitivepsychological explanation of, for example, semantic
creativity: the capacity speakers have to understand
novel utterances. One way of essaying such an explanation would be in terms of speakers knowledge of
the meanings of the familiar constituents of the novel
utterance and their proceeding from this to knowledge of the utterances meaning in a way that mirrors
the compositional route to the meaning of the utterance from the meanings of its constituents and their
mode of syntactic combination. Clearly, if there are no
facts about meaning there will be no facts about the
meanings of novel utterances or their constituents, so
that the whole project of cognitive-psychological
explanation of semantic creativity will be undermined. That would be a consequence of the skeptical
paradox about meaning. But the skeptical paradox
about rule-following in general would have even
more destructive consequences: one way of attempting to explain the capacity speakers have to distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical strings
would proceed in terms of their implicit grasp of
grammatical rules governing the language in question. Clearly, if there are no facts of the matter as to
whether these rules classify a given novel string as
grammatical or not, this whole project, too, will be
thrown in jeopardy. For a particularly clear exploration of these issues, see Wright (1989). See also Baker
and Hacker (1984).
Responses to the Skeptical Paradox and

Skeptical Solution
For defenses of dispositionalist, or otherwise naturalistic, solutions to KWs skeptical paradox, see Forbes
(1984), Fodor (1990), Millikan (1990), and Horwich
(1998). For further discussion of dispositionalism,
see Boghossian (1989: Section V), McManus (2000),
and Miller (2003). For non-reductionist responses
(according to which facts about meaning are
not reducible to facts about non-semantically and
non-intentionally characterized behavior or states),

see McDowell (1984), McGinn (1984), Wright
(1989), Boghossian (1989: Section VI), and Pettit
(1990). Wright takes the rule-following arguments
to threaten, not the factuality of meaning but, rather,
the objectivity of meaning: see the Introduction to
Wright (1993). For discussion of the skeptical solution and the argument against solitary language, see
Blackburn (1984), Wright (1984), and Boghossian
(1989: Sections IIIV). KWs skeptical solution was
characterized above as a version of non-factualism
about ascriptions of meaning, but this interpretation
has been challenged by a number of philosophers: see,
e.g., Wilson (1994) and Kusch (in press). For a searching examination of the normativity of meaning, see
Hattiangadi (in press). For a reaction to KW from the
perspective of a linguist, see Chomsky (1986). For an
introductory survey and overview, see Miller (1998:
Chaps. 5 and 6).
See also: Indeterminacy, Semantic; Normativity; Private
Language Argument; Radical Interpretation, Translation
and Interpretationalism; Use Theories of Meaning.
Bibliography
Baker G & Hacker P (1984). Language, sense and
nonsense. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blackburn S (1984). The individual strikes back. Synthese
58, 281301. Reprinted in Miller and Wright (2002).
Boghossian P (1989). The rule-following considerations.
Mind 98, 507549. Reprinted in Miller and Wright
(2002).
Chomsky N (1986). Knowledge of language. New York:
Praeger.
Fodor J (1990). A theory of content and other essays.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forbes G (1984). Scepticism and semantic knowledge.
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary
Volume, 223237. Reprinted in Miller and Wright
(2002).
Hattiangadi A (in press). The normativity of meaning.
Mind and Language.
Horwich P (1998). Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kripke S (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kusch, M. (in press). A defence of Kripkes Wittgenstein.
Chesham: Acumen.
McDowell J (1984). Wittgenstein on following a rule.
Synthese 58, 325363. Reprinted in Miller and Wright
(2002).
McGinn C (1984). Wittgenstein on meaning. Oxford:
Blackwell.
McManus D (2000). Boghossian, Miller, and Lewis on
dispositional theories of meaning. Mind and Language
15, 393399.

Miller A (1998). Philosophy of language. London: UCL/
Routledge.
Miller A (2003). Does belief-holism show that reductive
dispositionalism about content could not be true?
Volume, 7390.
Miller A & Wright C (eds.) (2002). Rule-following and
meaning. Chesham: Acumen.
Millikan R (1990). Truth rules, hoverflies, and the
Kripke-Wittgenstein paradox. The Philosophical
Review 99, 323353. Reprinted in Miller and Wright
(2002).
Pettit P (1990). The reality of rule-following. Mind 99,
121. Reprinted in Miller and Wright.
Wilson G (1994). Kripke on Wittgenstein on normativity.
Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19, 366390. Reprinted
in Miller and Wright (2002).
Wittgenstein L (1953). Philosophical investigations.

Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein L (1974). Remarks on the foundations of
mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wright C (1980). Wittgenstein on the foundations of mathematics. London: Duckworth.
Wright C (1984). Kripkes account of the argument against
private language. Journal of Philosophy 81, 759778.
Reprinted in Wright (2001).
Wright C (1989). Wittgensteins rule-following considerations and the central project of theoretical linguistics.
In George A (ed.) Reflections on Chomsky. Oxford:
Blackwell. 203239. Reprinted in Wright (2001).
Wright C (1993). Realism, meaning and truth (2nd edn.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Wright C (2001). Rails to infinity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Runes
K A Lowe, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Transliteration and Terminology
Bold letters are generally used for the transliteration

of Continental and Scandinavian inscriptions. Practice varies with Anglo-Saxon inscriptions, but the
system devised by Dickins (1932) and adapted by
Page (1984; reprinted 1995 with postscript), using
spaced letters within inverted commas, has much to
commend it.
Runic inscriptions may occasionally be written
right-to-left (retrograde) or boustrephedon (with
lines written in alternating directions). Normally
there is no word separation, and geminates are simplified.
Occasionally rune cutters ligatured two runes together, perhaps on account of space considerations.
The result is a bind rune and may be signaled in
transliteration by linking the letters with a superscript
curve.
From an early period the futhark was divided into
three groups (known as ttir) of eight letters each;
this led later to the invention of elaborate codes in
which a rune is obliquely represented using numbers
relating to the group within which it appears and its
position there. These numbers may be indicated in
a variety of ways, often by a series of offshoots from
a central stem or even (more inventively) by fins on
one or other side of a fish. Cryptic rune types are
most frequently found in manuscripts, but are also
used in inscriptions, particularly in Scandinavia.
Scandinavian runic inscriptions are cited using the
number accorded them by the institute responsible
for their registration in each country.
Runes are characters of the runic alphabet, a writing

system employed by all Germanic peoples. Different
runic scripts are used for different languages. Sweden
has the largest number of runic inscriptions (over
3000), followed by Norway and Denmark. Iceland
has surprisingly few, given the frequency of references
to runes in its literature. Significant numbers of runic
inscriptions also survive from Greenland, Germany/
Austria, the Isle of Man, Orkney, and England.
The earliest runic inscriptions date from the
late 2nd century A.D. Runes continued in use in
Scandinavia until well into the medieval period, elsewhere not long after the 11th century. The origins of
the runic alphabet, or futhark (named after the value
of its first six letters, with th represented by ) are
unclear. Three main theories still attract support: that
the futhark was developed ultimately from the Greek,
the Northern Italic, or the Roman alphabets.
Runes provide us with much of our earliest evidence concerning the languages of the Germanic
peoples, and valuable information about their social
history and societal structure. Runes and runic
inscriptions are preserved on materials such as
stone, wood, metal, and bone. They also appear in
manuscripts. Runes were originally designed for inscriptional use, primarily for cutting on wood; hence,
the shape of early runes, which avoid curved and
horizontal lines.

Miller A (1998). Philosophy of language. London: UCL/
Routledge.
Miller A (2003). Does belief-holism show that reductive
dispositionalism about content could not be true?
Volume, 7390.
Miller A & Wright C (eds.) (2002). Rule-following and
meaning. Chesham: Acumen.
Millikan R (1990). Truth rules, hoverflies, and the
Kripke-Wittgenstein paradox. The Philosophical
Review 99, 323353. Reprinted in Miller and Wright
(2002).
Pettit P (1990). The reality of rule-following. Mind 99,
121. Reprinted in Miller and Wright.
Wilson G (1994). Kripke on Wittgenstein on normativity.
Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19, 366390. Reprinted
in Miller and Wright (2002).
Wittgenstein L (1953). Philosophical investigations.

Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein L (1974). Remarks on the foundations of
mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wright C (1980). Wittgenstein on the foundations of mathematics. London: Duckworth.
Wright C (1984). Kripkes account of the argument against
private language. Journal of Philosophy 81, 759778.
Reprinted in Wright (2001).
Wright C (1989). Wittgensteins rule-following considerations and the central project of theoretical linguistics.
In George A (ed.) Reflections on Chomsky. Oxford:
Blackwell. 203239. Reprinted in Wright (2001).
Wright C (1993). Realism, meaning and truth (2nd edn.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Wright C (2001). Rails to infinity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Runes
K A Lowe, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Transliteration and Terminology
Bold letters are generally used for the transliteration

of Continental and Scandinavian inscriptions. Practice varies with Anglo-Saxon inscriptions, but the
system devised by Dickins (1932) and adapted by
Page (1984; reprinted 1995 with postscript), using
spaced letters within inverted commas, has much to
commend it.
Runic inscriptions may occasionally be written
right-to-left (retrograde) or boustrephedon (with
lines written in alternating directions). Normally
there is no word separation, and geminates are simplified.
Occasionally rune cutters ligatured two runes together, perhaps on account of space considerations.
The result is a bind rune and may be signaled in
transliteration by linking the letters with a superscript
curve.
From an early period the futhark was divided into
three groups (known as ttir) of eight letters each;
this led later to the invention of elaborate codes in
which a rune is obliquely represented using numbers
relating to the group within which it appears and its
position there. These numbers may be indicated in
a variety of ways, often by a series of offshoots from
a central stem or even (more inventively) by fins on
one or other side of a fish. Cryptic rune types are
most frequently found in manuscripts, but are also
used in inscriptions, particularly in Scandinavia.
Scandinavian runic inscriptions are cited using the
number accorded them by the institute responsible
for their registration in each country.
Runes are characters of the runic alphabet, a writing

system employed by all Germanic peoples. Different
runic scripts are used for different languages. Sweden
has the largest number of runic inscriptions (over
3000), followed by Norway and Denmark. Iceland
has surprisingly few, given the frequency of references
to runes in its literature. Significant numbers of runic
inscriptions also survive from Greenland, Germany/
Austria, the Isle of Man, Orkney, and England.
The earliest runic inscriptions date from the
late 2nd century A.D. Runes continued in use in
Scandinavia until well into the medieval period, elsewhere not long after the 11th century. The origins of
the runic alphabet, or futhark (named after the value
of its first six letters, with th represented by ) are
unclear. Three main theories still attract support: that
the futhark was developed ultimately from the Greek,
the Northern Italic, or the Roman alphabets.
Runes provide us with much of our earliest evidence concerning the languages of the Germanic
peoples, and valuable information about their social
history and societal structure. Runes and runic
inscriptions are preserved on materials such as
stone, wood, metal, and bone. They also appear in
manuscripts. Runes were originally designed for inscriptional use, primarily for cutting on wood; hence,
the shape of early runes, which avoid curved and
horizontal lines.
Runes 689
Runic Alphabets
Futharks survive from the 5th century, although those
from this early period are very rarely complete. They
show some diversity of form, but comparison permits
reconstruction of the likely shape of the common
(older) Germanic futhark (Figure 1). It contained 24
letters and was employed in Scandinavia until c. 700
A.D. The order of letters was fixed.
Each rune appears to have had a name as well as a
sound value, which generally began with the sound
the rune represented. The names are only given in
later manuscript sources, in some cases after the alphabet had been reduced and remodeled (see section
on Scandinavian alphabets). Some names and meanings are common across all manuscript accounts. So,
for example, the name of the L rune is recorded as
lagu in Old English and l gr in the Norwegian
Rune Poem. Its reconstructed primitive Germanic
form is therefore *laguz water. However,
is
thorn in Old English, but seems to be a word meaning giant, monster, or demon elsewhere. The
meaning of some runes is unclear.
The Scandinavian Runic Alphabets
From around the 7th century A.D., the common

Germanic futhark was extensively remodeled, perhaps first in Denmark. It was reduced from 24 to 16
letters. This alphabet, generally known as the younger
futhark (properly futhark), comprises two basic types:
(
the Danish (or common) runes (Figure 2) and the
Swedo-Norwegian (or short-twig) runes (Figure 3).
Some inscriptions use an admixture of forms from the
two varieties (a practice that led to the development of
a distinctive futhark in Norway), and there are also
variant forms of certain letters within each type. The
reasons for the change must in part have been phonetically motivated following a series of sound changes
within Old Norse. The resulting system, with no
runes for p, d, g, e, or o but two for closely similar

pronunciations of /a/ and /r/, does not appear an obvious improvement. Occasionally the initial sound of the
rune itself was affected prompting a change: thus, the j
rune, primitive Germanic *je ra, became Old Norse ar
around the 6th century and therefore came to denote
[a]. The a rune, , represented instead nasalized a [a]
following the development of primitive Germanic
*ansuz god to Old Norse ss (with loss of n, nasalization, and compensatory vowel lengthening), but
retained its place in the futhark, transliterated as a.
(
The development of primitive Germanic z ( ) into a
strongly palatalized r led to a second rune representing
r, transliterated R.
Around 1000 A.D., further modifications to the futhark began, with some attempt to address these phonetic inadequacies by a system of dots or points and
with a new, Roman alphabetic order to the runes.
The Old English Runic Alphabet
The Old English runic alphabet is known as the futhorc (Figure 4). It contains 31 runes. Of these, two
are connected with sound changes common to Old
English and Frisian. In the case of *ansuz, rounding
took place in Old English and Frisian following the
nasalization referred to above, resulting in o (thus
*ansuz ! OE o s). In other environments in those languages, West Germanic a was fronted to e ( in West
Saxon). As a result of later sound changes and the
development in Old English of West Germanic ai, a
rune for a was still required. The old rune was
subsequently adopted for (with a new name sc,
ash-tree), and two new runes, found only in Frisian
and Old English, introduced: for a (ac oak) and
for o (o s). Whether this means that a modified alphabet common to these two peoples was developed
on the European continent (as traditionally believed)
or whether these similarities resulted instead from
Figure 1 The common Germanic futhark.
Figure 2 The younger futhark: The Danish (common) runes.
Figure 3 The younger futhark: The Swedo-Norwegian (short-twig) runes.
690 Runes
Figure 4 The Anglo-Saxon futhorc.
trading contacts between England and Frisia

has recently been debated following new theories
concerning the relationship between the two languages. Other additions to the Old English runic
alphabet (some found only rarely) are the consequence of later sound changes or attempts to
represent allophonic variation.
Runic Inscriptions
Surviving runic inscriptions are found on a variety of
objects, from large, decorated memorial stones recording the achievements and passing of men and
women, to the name of an owner or maker roughly
cut on a comb, legends on coins, and graffiti. Early
inscriptions employing the common Germanic
futhark are generally found on portable objects.
Stone Monuments
One of the best known of all runestones is that at

Jelling, Denmark, which was commissioned by King
Haraldr Gormsson (Bluetooth). This large 10thcentury stone commemorates the kings parents and
lists his own achievements. The Karlevi stone on the
land celebrates achievements in
Swedish island of O
skaldic verse, requiring knowledge of both runes and
the kennings and mythological allusions characteristic of that poetic style to understand its message.
Runes would probably have been colored to help
them stand out from their background.
In England, the most famous runestone is
undoubtedly the Ruthwell Cross (8th century,
Northumbrian). It contains extracts, inscribed in
runes, from a version of a poem that survives in
11th-century manuscript form as The Dream of the
Rood. The runes themselves, filling the borders of
the two narrow sides of the cross, form part of a
complex design involving both runic and roman
script, decoration, and carved scenes.
Other Runic Objects
Some runic objects are undoubtedly high status.

The 5th-century Gallehus gold horn (one of a pair;
now destroyed) recorded the name of its maker in
runes around its top. The 8th-century whalebone
Franks/Auzon casket from England is composed of
intricately carved panels featuring a series of scenes
with accompanying runic texts often difficult to
interpret.
One finding, however, gives an indication of the

quotidian nature of most runic inscriptions. Excavations of the Bryggen district of Bergen, Norway, following a fire in 1955 led to the discovery of over 500
runic inscriptions dating from about 1150 to about
1350, mostly on wood. They include ownership tags,
accounting records, poetry, business letters, and personal messages, the most celebrated of which is one
that resonates through the ages, apparently from a
woman to her mate: Gya says you are to go home.
Runes and Magic

The association of runes with magic is long-lived,
although the evidence for rune-magic is supported
far more by literature than by the inscriptions themselves. An unfortunate tendency to assign as magical
any inscription that is (or appears) meaningless persists. However, the etymology of Old English ru n and
its cognates associates the noun with secrecy and mystery, although not necessarily with magic. We learn
inn
from the Eddic poem Ha vama l that the god O
was prepared to sacrifice himself by hanging from a
tree for nine days and nights to acquire runic knowledge. A tradition of runic magic is alluded to in many
sagas, which show runes being used at times benignly
for healing purposes (for example, by the eponymous
hero of Egils saga in unusually benevolent mood) or
with maledictory intent (as in the runes carved by the
witch urr, which lead to the outlaw Grettirs death
in Grettis saga). Futharks inscribed on personal
objects such as amulets or weapons may also have
had magical significance, particularly as they sometimes appear in combination with words strongly
associated with magic, such as alu (luck), and laukaR
(literally leek, and perhaps prosperity or fertility).
Runes and their Interpretation

Runes present many difficulties of interpretation. It is
clear that we must have lost the majority of inscriptions. Those that survive are unlikely to be representative, given the readiness with which wood rots and
stone survives.
It can be difficult to distinguish between runes and
accidental marks or scratches. Inscriptions on stone,
once exposed to the elements, soften and become
indistinct; those on other mediums similarly can
fracture or become abraded. Our ignorance of the
Russell, Bertrand (18721970) 691
circumstances (social, individual) leading to the

production of an inscription can lead to a multiplicity
of interpretations, each of which is necessarily
speculative.
Nonspecialists should be encouraged to look at the
runes themselves, rather than their transliteration;
much can be learned from layout, and certain peculiarities may result from (for example) considerations
of space or aesthetics that are not apparent from a
printed text. Collaboration between scholars working
in various disciplines is vital; numismatists, philologists, art historians, and archaeologists have much to
contribute to runic studies, and the best work has
been produced by those prepared to consult or collaborate with experts outside their own research area.
See also: Germanic Languages.
Bibliography
Dickins B (1932). A system of transliteration for Old
English runic inscriptions. Leeds Studies in English 1,
1519.
Elliott R W V (1990). Runes: an introduction (2nd edn.).

Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Jacobsen L R, Moltke E & Bksted A (eds.) (1941
1942). Danmarks runeindskrifter. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Jansson S B F (1987). Runes in Sweden (2nd edn.). Foote P G
(trans.). Stockholm: Gidlunds.
Moltke E (1986). Runes and their origin: Denmark and
elsewhere. Foote P G (trans.). Copenhagen: National
Museum of Denmark.
Musset L (1965). Introduction a` la runologie. Paris: AubierMontaigne.
Norges Innskrifter med de yngre Runer 1 (1941).
Nytt om runer (1986). [Contains annual bibliographies.]
Page R I (1987). Reading the past: runes. London: British
Museum Publications.
Page R I (1995). Runes and runic inscriptions: collected
essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking runes. Parsons D
(ed.). Woodbridge: Boydell.
Page R I (1999). An introduction to English runes
(2nd edn.). Woodbridge: Boydell.
Sveriges Runinskrifter 1 (1900 ). Stockholm: various
publishers.
Russell, Bertrand (18721970)

L C Badon and J W Oller Jr., University of Louisiana,
Lafayette, LA, USA
Bertrand Russell was born May 18, 1872, in

Ravenscroft, Wales, and died February 2, 1970, in
Penrhyndeudraeth, Wales. He received his bachelors
degree in mathematics from Trinity College at Cambridge in 1893. He was elected Fellow of the Royal
Society in 1908, but in 1916 he was fined 100 and
dismissed from Trinity for protesting World War I. He
remained a dedicated pacifist throughout his life,
though he would deny (Russell, 1951: 35) that this
term was an appropriate descriptor. Near the wars
end, he was jailed for 5 months for refusing to join the
military but was released in September, about
2 months before Armistice Day, November 11,
1918. Russell described his state of mind after the
armistice: Late into the night, I stayed alone in the
streets, watching the temper of the crowd .... I felt
strangely solitary amid the rejoicings, like a ghost
dropped by accident from some other planet .... Always the skeptical intellect, when I have most wished
it silent, has whispered doubts to me, has cut me
off from the facile enthusiasms of others, and has
transported me into a desolate solitude (1951: 35).

Throughout his life Russell (from 1931, the third Earl
Russell) remained an elitist, a pacifist, an atheist, and
a cynic of wry wit. He received the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1950 and, along with Einstein, advocated unilateral disarmament. He was dismissed
twice more after the Trinity firing in 1916, once
from City College of New York in 1940 and then
from the Barnes Foundation in Pennsylvania in
1943. At age 89, in 1961, he was imprisoned for
antinuclear protests for a week, and subsequently he
became a vigorous opponent of Americas involvement in Vietnam.
Russells most important contributions to the study
of language, and indirectly to linguistics, were
grounded in logic and mathematics. In 1901 he
discovered what appeared to be a genuine antinomy,
that is, an inevitable mathematical paradox. It would
become known as Russells paradox and assured him
a place in the history of ideas. It also helped to crystallize his lifelong skepticism. Although he was
convinced by his senses that the material world is
real, he argued that his faith in the existence of this
same world was logically without sufficient justification. In particular, he found fault with the chain of
representations and abstractions linking any object of
circumstances (social, individual) leading to the

production of an inscription can lead to a multiplicity
of interpretations, each of which is necessarily
speculative.
Nonspecialists should be encouraged to look at the
runes themselves, rather than their transliteration;
much can be learned from layout, and certain peculiarities may result from (for example) considerations
of space or aesthetics that are not apparent from a
printed text. Collaboration between scholars working
in various disciplines is vital; numismatists, philologists, art historians, and archaeologists have much to
contribute to runic studies, and the best work has
been produced by those prepared to consult or collaborate with experts outside their own research area.
See also: Germanic Languages.
Bibliography
Dickins B (1932). A system of transliteration for Old
English runic inscriptions. Leeds Studies in English 1,
1519.
Elliott R W V (1990). Runes: an introduction (2nd edn.).

Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Jacobsen L R, Moltke E & Bksted A (eds.) (1941
1942). Danmarks runeindskrifter. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Jansson S B F (1987). Runes in Sweden (2nd edn.). Foote P G
(trans.). Stockholm: Gidlunds.
Moltke E (1986). Runes and their origin: Denmark and
elsewhere. Foote P G (trans.). Copenhagen: National
Museum of Denmark.
Musset L (1965). Introduction a` la runologie. Paris: AubierMontaigne.
Norges Innskrifter med de yngre Runer 1 (1941).
Nytt om runer (1986). [Contains annual bibliographies.]
Page R I (1987). Reading the past: runes. London: British
Museum Publications.
Page R I (1995). Runes and runic inscriptions: collected
essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking runes. Parsons D
(ed.). Woodbridge: Boydell.
Page R I (1999). An introduction to English runes
(2nd edn.). Woodbridge: Boydell.
Sveriges Runinskrifter 1 (1900 ). Stockholm: various
publishers.
Russell, Bertrand (18721970)

L C Badon and J W Oller Jr., University of Louisiana,
Lafayette, LA, USA
Bertrand Russell was born May 18, 1872, in

Ravenscroft, Wales, and died February 2, 1970, in
Penrhyndeudraeth, Wales. He received his bachelors
degree in mathematics from Trinity College at Cambridge in 1893. He was elected Fellow of the Royal
Society in 1908, but in 1916 he was fined 100 and
dismissed from Trinity for protesting World War I. He
remained a dedicated pacifist throughout his life,
though he would deny (Russell, 1951: 35) that this
term was an appropriate descriptor. Near the wars
end, he was jailed for 5 months for refusing to join the
military but was released in September, about
2 months before Armistice Day, November 11,
1918. Russell described his state of mind after the
armistice: Late into the night, I stayed alone in the
streets, watching the temper of the crowd .... I felt
strangely solitary amid the rejoicings, like a ghost
dropped by accident from some other planet .... Always the skeptical intellect, when I have most wished
it silent, has whispered doubts to me, has cut me
off from the facile enthusiasms of others, and has
transported me into a desolate solitude (1951: 35).

Throughout his life Russell (from 1931, the third Earl
Russell) remained an elitist, a pacifist, an atheist, and
a cynic of wry wit. He received the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1950 and, along with Einstein, advocated unilateral disarmament. He was dismissed
twice more after the Trinity firing in 1916, once
from City College of New York in 1940 and then
from the Barnes Foundation in Pennsylvania in
1943. At age 89, in 1961, he was imprisoned for
antinuclear protests for a week, and subsequently he
became a vigorous opponent of Americas involvement in Vietnam.
Russells most important contributions to the study
of language, and indirectly to linguistics, were
grounded in logic and mathematics. In 1901 he
discovered what appeared to be a genuine antinomy,
that is, an inevitable mathematical paradox. It would
become known as Russells paradox and assured him
a place in the history of ideas. It also helped to crystallize his lifelong skepticism. Although he was
convinced by his senses that the material world is
real, he argued that his faith in the existence of this
same world was logically without sufficient justification. In particular, he found fault with the chain of
representations and abstractions linking any object of
692 Russell, Bertrand (18721970)
perception with an abstract conception, or a symbol,

of that object.
The widening waves of skepticism owed to Russells
antinomy were to be felt in every field dealing with
language, meaning, and truth. The paradox arose
from the consideration that some classes seem to contain themselves as members, while others do not. For
instance, the class of dogs is not a dog, but the class of
classes is certainly a class. A linguistic parallel can be
seen in the fact that the word dog is not a dog, but the
word word certainly is a word. By defining a set of all
those sets that do not contain themselves as members,
Russell came to a mathematical result that turned out
upon inspection to be self-contradictory: the defined
set could contain itself only if it did not contain itself,
but if it contained itself, it could not contain itself. The
problem nearly drove a stake in the heart of mathematics. It challenged the hope that reasoning itself can
be consistent. It rocked the foundations of epistemology and threatened to topple theories of meaning,
reasoning, and language acquisition.
It turned out that Russells paradox had a linguistic
interest, because it was an oblique and austere summary of the language acquisition riddle. How is it
possible for an infant to understand words that the
infant has not yet learned? Must the infant, like the
Baron von Mu nchhausen, raise itself by its own bootstraps? Is there no logically consistent (non-self-contradictory) escape from the paradoxical fact that
language acquisition is evidently possible for nave
infants? How do they do it?
One proposed solution to Russells paradox was his
own, the theory of types. Though criticized as ad hoc,
it noted that construing a sign as referring to some
object or system of objects is a step in a process. If
so, a sign under construction can hardly refer to the
incomplete system of objects of which it is to be part.
For instance, an ordinal number cannot be assigned
to the whole system of ordinal numbers, because
there is no last or greatest ordinal. Leibniz (1953
[1710]) anticipated this argument in part when he
observed that there cannot be a greatest ordinal or a
largest figure. Leibnizs extension had to do with the
absurdity of applying finite concepts to Almighty
God. To pretend to designate any ordinal number as
one suited to refer to all ordinals would require reference to the whole set by a sign that is a component of
the unfinished construction. The problem resembles
the difficulty of meeting yourself on the street before
you were born. While writers of fiction can conjure
such fantastic self-contradictions, Russells mathematical objective was to try to find a consistent and
complete system of thought that would avoid any
such contradictions. The remaining question is
whether any such system is possible. Russell noted
that the set of all possible ordinals can be referred to

from a position above that set, i.e., from a higher level
of abstraction. His solution was a hierarchy of distinct types, and it resonated with many logicians,
including his student Ludwig Wittgenstein (1918/
1922) and, later, P. F. Strawson (1959), Willard van
Orman Quine (1960), and other logicians. Though
never fully accepted, Russells solution harmonized
with the constructivist approaches to psychological
and social theories of cognition as proposed by John
Dewey (1938), Jean Piaget (1947, 1981), and Lev
Vygotsky (1934/1962).
Russells theory of types suggested a system of signs
built up through layers of abstraction. Chomskys
kernel sentences (1957), used as building blocks for
more complex structures, were layered in a sense, and
the stratificational models proposed by Lamb (1999)
and others were even more so. They were distant
theoretical kinfolk, if not direct descendants, of Russells theory of types. Suppose that an infant begins
with basic signs for bodily things and persons and
from these basic signs builds layer upon layer to
attain higher and more abstract representations. If
the higher systems can be shown to have been built
up from the more basic signs through a series of layers
of increasing abstractness, the language acquisition
problem becomes solvable (Oller, 2005).
Related to his contributions to logic and mathematics were Russells more speculative philosophical
writings. In contrast to Reichenbach (1938), who
argued that the discovery of meaning depends on
the prior discovery of at least some empirical truths,
Russell (1940) contended that empirical truths must
be based on prior meanings. It was odd that Russell
ended up being a materialistic realist in view of the
fact that he continued throughout his life to hold that
there was by all accounts no logically adequate basis
for his faith in the existence of the real world. Russells problem along that line was first laid out in
1914, when he argued that the existence of the common world cannot be certainly known or inferred
from perceptual evidences. This idea was first demolished by John Dewey in 1916 in a book that answered
Russells. Yet Russell clung to the untenable argument
and repeated it in his book Human knowledge
(1948). He supposed that the percept of any object
or event is so far removed from its object, and so
unlike it in character, as to make the object or event
itself problematical.
Dewey followed C. S. Peirces approach in taking
Russells argument apart piece by piece. Dewey
showed that Russells skepticism was pretentious. In
particular, there is no way, Dewey pointed out, to
construe a percept or a demonstrative of any kind in
a way that would allow the construction of Russells
problem without presupposing the whole of the

material world. In fact, C. S. Peirce (1908) had
independently refuted Russell in his argument
against the skepticism of David Hume. Peirce showed
that if Hume had been merely consistent in his attempt to outlaw metaphysical constructs, Hume
would have had to outlaw all reasoning as intrinsically unreasonable. Einstein (1944) independently
reached the same conclusion. According to Einstein,
Humes critique if only carried through consistently,
absolutely excludes thinking of any kind (1944:
289). Einstein also rejected Russells skepticism
about the existence of real objects. Einstein wrote:
I see no danger in taking the thing (the object in
the sense of physics) as an independent concept into
the system together with the proper spatio-temporal
structure (1944: 291). Einstein agreed with the
American pragmatists in their conclusion that all
knowledge about things is exclusively a workingover of the raw-material furnished by the senses
(1944: 283).
Nonetheless, Dewey was solidly among Russells
admiring critics. When they met at Harvard in
1914, Russell said, To my surprise I liked him very
much (Clark, 1976: 232). In 1916, however, after
Dewey demolished Russells supposedly logical skepticism about the material world, Russells opinion of
Dewey plummeted to something resembling contempt. In 1921 Russell wrote: In 1914 I liked
Dewey better than any other academic American;
now I cant stand him (Clark, 1976: 387). Dewey
had become a man of a large slow-moving mind ... a
good man but not a very clever one (Clark,
1976: 232). When Russell lay nearly dying in
Peking, however, it was Dewey, the very man whose
righteousness Russell detested, who came to his
aid (Clark, 1976: 387) and may well have saved
his life.
See also: Einstein, Albert (18791955); Leibniz, Gottfried
Wilhelm (16461716); Peirce, Charles Sanders (1839

1914); Piaget, Jean (18961980); Quine, Willard van
Orman (19082000); Reichenbach, Hans (18911953);
Strawson, Peter Frederick (b. 1919).
Bibliography
Chomsky N (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague:
Mouton.
Clark R W (1976). The life of Bertrand Russell. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf.
Dewey J (1938). Logic: the theory of inquiry. New York:
Holt.
Einstein A (1944). Remarks on Bertrand Russells theory of
knowledge. In Schilpp P A (ed.) The philosophy of Bertrand Russell. New York: Tudor. 279291.
Lamb S (1999). Pathways of the brain. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Leibniz G W (1953). Discourse on metaphysics. Montgomery
G R (ed.) La Salle, IL: Open Court. [Original work in
German, c. 1710.]
Oller J W Jr. (2005). Common ground between form and
content: the pragmatic solution to the bootstrapping
problem. Modern Language Journal 89, 92114.
Peirce C S (1908). A neglected argument for the reality of
God. Hibbert Journal 7, 90112. [Also in Hartshorne C
& Weiss P (eds.) (1935). Collected papers of C. S. Peirce,
vol. 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
311339.]
Piaget J (1947). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa,
NJ: Littlefield Adams.
Piaget J (1981). Genetic epistemology. Duckworth E
(trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Quine W v O (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Reichenbach H (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Russell B (1905). On denoting. Mind 14, 479493.
Russell B (1908). Mathematical logic as based on the
theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics 30,
222262.
Russell B (1910). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society 11, 108128.
Russell B (1914). Our knowledge of the external world: as a
field for scientific method in philosophy. Chicago and
London: Open Court.
Russell B (1921). The analysis of mind. London: George
Allen and Unwin; New York: Macmillan.
Russell B (1940). An inquiry into meaning and truth. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Russell B (1948). Human knowledge: its scope and limits.
London: George Allen and Unwin.
Russell B (1951). The autobiography of Bertrand Russell.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Strawson P F (1959). Individuals: an essay in descriptive
metaphysics. London: Methuen.
Vygotsky L (1962). Thought and language. Hanfmann E &
Vakar G (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Original
work published in Russian in 1934.]
Wittgenstein L (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
New York: Harcourt, Brace. [Original work published
c. 1918.]
694 Russenorsk
Russenorsk
E H Jahr, Agder University, Kristiansand, Norway
The Arctic pidgin Russenorsk (RN), which developed

from Norwegian and Russian during the second half
of the 18th century, was used in barter trade in northern Norway for around 150 years. RNs main period
of use was the 19th century when trading reached
large proportions. The sociolinguistic situation in
northern Norway during the 19th century was multifaceted and complex, involving many different
languages.
RN, now extinct, exhibits several features that
make it theoretically interesting. In spite of being
formed as a dual-source pidgin from two IndoEuropean languages it shows most of the features
common to all pidgin languages. To a stabilized
grammatical and lexical core, a variety of lexical
items could be added when the situation called for
it. It also is noteworthy that RN, unlike most pidgins,
was created by socially equal groups of speakers.
Until around 1850, RN enjoyed a high social status, as both fishermen and merchants had to use the
pidgin when dealing with the Russians. After 1850,
the use of RN was restricted mostly to common fishermen, because the merchants who constituted the
local upper classes began to spend longer periods of
time with colleagues in northern Russia and subsequently developed their own grammatically simplified variety of Russian. As a consequence, RNs
social status was devalued.
Today, we have to rely on written material in our
study of RN. However, the available texts allow for
studies of both lexicon and grammar. They consist of
isolated sentences, word lists, and conversations in
dialogue form. Altogether, they include some 400
different words, with a core of 150200 lexemes.
Most of them are related to the barter trade. This
trade constituted the socioeconomic basis for RN,
and when it gradually gave way to cash trade early
in the 20th century, the language lost ground and
disappeared.
The characteristic features of RN can be summarized as follows:
a. The phonology reflects Norwegian and Russian
however, sounds and consonant clusters not found
in both languages are avoided or simplified.
b. 1st and 2nd personal/possessive pronouns are

moja and tvoja.
c. po on is the only preposition.
d. -om is the general verbal marker (e.g., kopom
buy), although not always used. Verbs exhibit
no markers for tense or person. A special poV
construction represents a possible TMA (Tense,
Mood, Aspect) device.
e. -a tends to mark nouns (e.g., fiska fish), which are
not inflected and have no plurals.
f. There is no copula.
g. The vocabulary derives mostly from Norwegian
and Russian, but contains a number of lexical
items from other European languages (e.g., slipom
sleep, from English).
h. RN has SVO syntax. Sentences with adverbial(s)
are, however, verb final (e.g., moja kopom fiska I
buy fish; moja po tvoja fiska kopom I buy fish
from you). Most sentences are combined paratactically, but embedding is attested. The syntactic
possibilities are quite restricted. Most syntactic
variation is found in interrogative sentences, RN
was used mainly to make inquiries about prices
and barter for merchandise.
See also: Jargon; Language Change and Language Contact; Morphology in Pidgins and Creoles; Pidgins and
Creoles: Overview; Variation in Pidgins and Creoles.
Bibliography
Broch I & Jahr E H (1981). Russenorsket pidginsprak i
Norge. Oslo: Novus. (2nd edn. 1984).
Broch I & Jahr E H (1984). Russenorsk: A new look at the
Russo-Norwegian pidgin in northern Norway. In
Ureland P S & Clarkson I (eds.) Scandinavian language
contacts. Cambridge: CUP. 2165.
Jahr E H (1996). On the pidgin-status of Russenorsk. In
Jahr E H & Broch I (eds.) Language contact in the Arctic:
Northern pidgins and contact languages. Berlin-New
York: Mouton de Gruyter. 107122.
Jahr E H (2003). The emergence of a TMA grammatical
device in a stable pidgin: The Russenorsk preverbal po
construction. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
18, 121130.
Lunden S S (1995). The Vard Merchants reduced Russian:
A. Hansens Norwegian-Russian vocabulary (1862).
Oslo: Solum.
Russian 695
Russian
D Ward, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
The Written Language

Diglossia
The adoption of Eastern Christianity in the 10th century brought to the East Slavs the religious language
of the Slavs, Old Church Slavonic (OCS), written in
Cyrillic.
Syntax, phraseology, and much of the word formation of OCS owed much to Byzantine Greek. In a
russified form, OCS served for centuries as the language of culture of the Russians. The earliest extant
text is an aprakos Gospel compiled in 10561057 by
Deacon Grigorij for Prince Ostromir (Ostromir
Gospel). Secular works writs, treaties, codes of
law (e.g., Russkaja Pravda Russian Law, mid-11th
century, earliest extant copy 1282), etc. were
written in vernacular Russian.
18th Century
Church Slavonic (CS) and Russian now merged to

provide the foundation for the modern literary
language. Though the everyday language that V. K.
Trediakovskij (17031769) advocated as a literary language cannot be found in his own writings, he amply
demonstrated the word-forming capabilities of CS elements and processes. M. V. Lomonosov (17111765)
wrote the first complete grammar of Russian as
Russian (1757), distinguishing high style forms (i.e.,
of CS origin) from the rest and insisting elsewhere that
CS words were an ineradicable part of Russian.
Writers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries,
e.g., N. M. Karamzin (17661826) and others,
created a new style (novyj slog), in which clarity
and straight-forwardness were fundamental criteria,
eradicating the ponderous, convoluted earlier 18th
century prose style. French provided a model for
sentence structure and element order. Karamzin himself produced many new words straight loans, calques (many based on French) and new creations using
the resources of Russian.
Thus, modern literary Russian may be said to be
at base a blend of a Graecized Church Slavonic,
vernacular Russian, and French syntax and order.
Church Slavonic Features

Almost any printed page of modern Russian
reveals numerous elements of CS origin. Such are
the nominative singular masculine ending of the
adjective -yj/-ij, the present active participle in

-ushchij, etc., (and in general the use of participles),
suffixes such as -ie, -stvo/-estvo, -tel, and compound
suffixes such as -enie/-anie/-janie.
Some morphophonemic alternations show CS
origin. For example, CS are d zhd, t shch against
Russian d zh, t ch. Compare pobedit (PRFV)
pobezhdat (IMPFV) to conquer with brodit to
ferment brozhenie fermentation, and obet promise obeshchat to promise with otvetit
(PRFV) otvechat (IMPFV) to answer. In the striking
alternation of pleophonic (polnoglasnyj) forms, of
Russian origin, and apleophonic (nepolnoglasnyj)
forms, of CS origin, a vowel o or e flanks both sides
of l or r in pleophonic forms, whereas a single vowel a
or e follows l or r in apleophonic forms. Thus, moloko
milk mlekopitajushchij mammalian, Mlechnyj put
Milky Way; korotkij short, ukorotit to shorten
kratkij brief, prekratit to curtail; golos voice, golosovye svjazki vocal cords glasnyj vowel, soglasnyj
consonant; bereg bank bregoukre- plenie reinforcement of banks, bezbrezhnyj boundless. Pleophonic forms are concrete, mundane; apleophonic
forms are abstract, learned, technical.
Phonetics
Old Russian had 12 vowel phonemes and some two
dozen consonant phonemes, with open syllables and
few clusters. The lapse, from the 12th century, of two
ultrashort vowels in certain positions initiated the
development toward a language with five vowel phonemes, many more consonant phonemes, many clusters and closed syllables, and a system in which
palatalization is largely independent of the following
vowel, i.e., is largely phonemic.
The vowels /i, e, a, o, u/ have several allophones
each, depending on location of stress, consonantal
environment, or the two combined. For example, /a/
dast [dast] he will give, dal [dA l] gave MASC,
pjat" [ ] five, dala [dQ"la] gave FEM, uydat" ["vi$de ]
to give out.
The accent is not fixed and is mobile, shifting in
regular patterns in both declension and conjugation,
e.g., storona side, ACC sto ronu, GEN storony, NOM PL
sto rony, GEN PL storo n, DAT PL storona m, etc.
Except as described below, /o/ is replaced in
unstressed syllables by /a/, in a system known as
akane a-saying (operating also in southern dialects
and Belorussian but not in northern dialects or
Ukrainian). Thus town appears as gorod /"gorat /
NOM SING, goroda / gara"da/ NOM PL, mezhdugorodnyj
/ iZduga"rodnij/ interurban. The last example also
696 Russian
illustrates ikane i-saying, in which /e/ is replaced in

unstressed positions by /i/ (cf. mezhdu /" eZdu/
among, between). Ikane also affects, in pretonic positions, /a/ after palatalized consonants and /j/, and /o/
after palatalized consonants, /j/ and the palatals /S/ and
/Z/. Thus, pjat" / a / five pjati / i" i/ GEN, let / ot/
flight letat / i"ta / to fly, zheny /"Zoni/ wives
zhena /Zi"na/ wife. The orthography ignores both
akane and ikane.
There are 13 pairs of distinctively nonpalatalized/
palatalized consonants: /p /, /b /, /m /, /f /, /v /,
/t /, /d /, /s /, /z /, /n /, /l /, /r /, /k /.
Consonants /g/ and /x/ have palatalized allophones;
/tS/ and / / (realized as [ ]) are nondistinctively
palatalized. In addition, there are /ts/, /S/, /Z/, and /j/.
Voiced consonants except sonants are devoiced
word-finally and before voiceless consonants.
Conversely, voiceless consonants are voiced before
voiced consonants except sonants, /v/ and / /. Nonpalatalized consonants are frequently replaced by
corresponding palatalized consonants before palatalized consonants, especially homorganic ones. Apart
from a very few items and the devoicing of /z/ in
prefixes, (e.g., raz- ras-, iz- is-), the orthography
entirely ignores the various consonant assimilations
and final devoicing. Thus, otdat /ad"da / to give
back, sdelat /" ela / to do, gorod /"gorat/.
Grammar
Nouns
The Old Russian system of eight declensions, three

numbers, and seven cases has been simplified into a
system of three principal declensions and a vestigial
consonant-stem declension, two numbers, and six
cases, the dual number and the vocative case having
been discarded.
The feminine declension in -a/-ja declines in the
singular thus: NOM komnata room, GEN komnaty,
DAT komnate, ACC komnatu, INSTR komnatoj, PREP (v)
komnate. A few masculine nouns are found in this
declension. A typical noun of the masculine declension is stol table, stola, stolu, stol, stolom, (na) stole.
Neuters decline as masculines except for nominative
and accusative, e.g., okno window, PL okna (cf.
stoly) and, usually, GEN PL cf. stolov okon. One
masculine noun is still found in the declension that is
now otherwise feminine, illustrated by chast part,
chasti, chasti, chast, chastju, (o) chasti.
Nouns of the masculine declension denoting
animate beings use the genitive as an accusative,
thus muzh husband, GEN and ACC muzha. The
genitive-accusative also applies to all nouns denoting
animate beings in the plural, of whatever gender:

zhena GEN ACC PL zhen (/Zon/).
Remnants of old declensions include an additional
genitive in -u of some masculine nouns (usually partitive in function): kilo sakharu a kilo of sugar, cf.
vkus sakhara taste of sugar; and an extra PREP case in
-u of some masculine nouns, having purely locative
function: v lesu in the wood (cf. o lese about the
wood).
A vestige of the dual probably explains the NOM PL
instead of -y, e.g., goroda, cf. stoly. The
MASC in -a
graphic identity of the old NOM dual MASC in -a with
the GEN SING in -a of the same declension has led to the
use of the GEN SING of a noun of any gender with
the numerals dva two, tri three, chetyre four,
and higher numerals ending in these elements.
Numeral syntax is further complicated by the use of
NOM SING with all numerals ending in odin one and
GEN PL with all other numerals: dva stola two tables,
tridtsat tri stola 33 tables, sorok chetyre stola 44
tables, sto odin stol 101 tables, pjat stolov five
tables.
The genitive not only is obligatory in negative partitive expressions Net otveta (GEN SING) There is no
reply, Deneg (GEN PL) ne khvataet There isnt enough
money but also is more frequent than the accusative with negated transitive verbs Shkoly (GEN SING)
ona ne brosit/Shkolu (ACC SING) ona ne brosit She will
not give up school.
Syntactically interesting too is the predicative
instrumental, standard with certain copula-like
verbs and the future of byt to be: Ona okazalas
/stala/ budet sirotoj She turned out to be /became/
will be an orphan. With the past tense of byt both
the instrumental and the nominative are found: V to
vremja ja byl student(om) At that time I was a
student, the nominative being more colloquial.
Byt has no present tense: Ona sirota She (is) an
orphan.
There is no article, definite or indefinite. The long
form of the adjective, with a declension different from
that of nouns, originally expressed definiteness but
is now simply the basic form of the adjective and the
only attributive form. The short form no longer
declines and is restricted to predicative function,
where it simply assigns a property to a subject
Solntse velika, a Zemlja mala The Sun is big but the
Earth is small. The long form is also used predicatively, assigning the subject to a class of like entities.
Compare Vera ochen umna (short form) Vera is very
clever to Vera ochen umnaja (long form) Vera is (a)
very clever (person). This distinction, while still active, is being eroded, especially in colloquial Russian,
in favor of the long form.
Russian 697
Verbs
The aspect system of imperfective versus perfective,

already active in Old Russian, has led to the reduction
of the multiple tenses of Old Russian to just three:
past, IMPFV or PRFV, present, IMPFV only, and future,
IMPFV or PRFV. The past, originally a periphrastic
participial form, is now reduced to what was the
participle and so changes according to gender and
number, while present and future have true conjugations of three persons and two numbers, the future
imperfective being periphrastic. Thus, to infringe
IMPFV narushat, PRFV narushit: past MASC narushal/
narushil, FEM narushala/narushila, NEUT narushalo/
narushilo, PL narushali/narushili, present narushaju,
narushaesh, narushaet, narushaem, narushaete,
narushajut: FUT IMPFV budu/budesh/budet/ budem/
budete/budut narushat, FUT PRFV narushu, narushish,
narushit, narushim, narushite, narushat. The two
aspects are differentiated formally by prefixation,
suffixal changes, or a combination of the two and
occasionally by suppletion. A complication is the existence of many verbs that are not members of minimal pairs, distinguished only by aspect. These form
the groups known as sposoby dejstvija, Aktionsarten,
modes of action. While associated with a base verb,
each Aktionsart, appearing in one aspect only, adds a
nuanee to the base verb, without forming a plain
aspectual counterpart. For instance, stuchat to
knock is IMPFV and has no plain PRFV counterpart;
postuchat PRFV is diminutive or attenuative to
knock a little / for a short time and may have to
serve in lieu of a plain PRFV; stuknut PRFV is semelfactive to give a single knock; zastuchat PRFV
is inceptive to start to knock; prostuchat PRFV is
perdurative to knock for a certain period of time;
postukivat IMPFV is intermittent (-diminutive) to
knock (a little) from time to time.
The dozen or so pairs of verbs of motion, while
participating in the aspect system, also distinguish
between determinate (motion in a single direction)
and indeterminate (motion not restricted so):
On letel v Moskvu He was flying to Moscow On
letal v Moskvu He flew to Moscow (and back, or
several times).
There are five participles: PRES ACT narushajushchij
infringing, PRES PASS narushaemyj being infringed,
PAST ACT IMPFV narushavshij were infringing, PRFV
narushivshij having infringed, and PAST PASS
PRFV narushennyj infringed. They decline as adjectives and the two passive ones have short forms, the
PRFV PASS short form being an indispensible component
of the passive voice: Zakon byl narushen. The law
was infringed. The two indeclinable adverbial
participles, often called gerunds, are, for example,
IMPFV narushaja infringing and PRFV narushiv (sh)

having infringed. Subordination by means of participles and gerunds, instead of relative and adverbial
clauses, is common.
Lexis
While the bulk of the lexis is Slavonic, Russian has not
been averse to borrowing at all periods. From Western
European languages Dutch has provided nautical terminology: botsman bosun, kilvater wake; German
military and other terminology: lager camp, landshaft landscape, buterbrod sandwich; French military, mundane and cultural vocabulary: batalon
batallion, palto overcoat, rezhisser producer;
English nautical terms: michman midshipman,
mundane: bifshteks steak, industrial: relsy railway
lines, sociopolitical: bojkot boycott, khuligan hooligan, and in the 20th century, sport: futbol football,
vindsorfing windsurfing, and technical: buldozer
bulldozer, kompjuter computer.
Naturally, Russian has gone on exploiting its
historically established word-forming processes, but
it has also exploited less traditional ones. In this
respect, notable are appositional compounds such as
raketa-nositel carrier rocket, dom-muzej home
(which is also a) museum, and above all acronyms
and various other accreted abbreviations vuz
(vysshee uchebnoe zavedenie) higher educational institution, GUM (Gosudarstvennyj Universalnyj
Magazin) State Department Store, ROSTA (Rossijskoe Telegrafnoe Agentstvo) Russian Telegraph Agency, kolkhoz (kollektivnoe khozjajstvo) collective
farm, univermag (universalnyj magazin) department store, zarplata (zarabotnaja plata) wages,
fizkultura (fizicheskaja kultura) physical training.
Influence of Russian
In varying degrees, Russian has provided loanwords,
especially relating to 20th century life, of technological and cultural significance for many non-Slavonic
languages of the former Soviet Union. An extreme
case of such borrowing from Russian is provided
by Chukchi. In Altaic, North Caucasian, and easterly Uralic languages, subordinating constructions
on the Russian model have become common.
The languages of many small speech-communities
(Ingrian, Veps, Vot, Mordvinian, Siberian languages,
etc.) have retreated or are retreating in the face of
Russian.
See also: Armenia: Language Situation; Azerbaijan: Language Situation; Belarus: Language Situation; Estonia:
Language Situation; Georgia: Language Situation;
698 Russian
Kazakhstan: Language Situation; Latvia: Language Situation; Lithuania: Language Situation; Moldova: Language
Situation; Old Church Slavonic; Russian Federation: Language Situation; Russian Lexicography; Slavic Languages; Tajikistan: Language Situation; Ukraine:
Language Situation; Uzbekistan: Language Situation.
Bibliography
Isacvenko A V (1962). Die russische Sprachen der Gegenwari, Teil I Formenlehre. Halle: Niemeyer.
Issatschenko A (19801983). Geschichte der russischen
Sprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Unbegaun B (1960). Russian grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ward D (1981). Loan-words in Russian. Journal of
Russian Studies 41, 314, 42, 514.
Comrie B & Stone G (1978). The Russian language since

the Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russian Federation: Language Situation

C Moseley, Caversham, UK
The Russian Federation, reconstituted as a state since

the collapse of the USSR in 1991, is the homeland of a
plethora of languages, but among these Russian itself,
the language of the administrative center, occupies
an unassailable, dominant position. This was true
even when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
was run from Moscow to administer the 15 individual republics. From its position at the center, the
Russian language has bestowed on the minor languages within the Federations borders a centrally
organized education system, literacy, in most case
the Cyrillic alphabet itself, and printing facilities
all the accoutrements for the successful propagation
of language.
An inherent factor in the Russian language, which
favored its propagation, was the relatively small dialect variation within the language. Considering the
vast area it covers, Russian has always been at
least since the start of printing in the language a
remarkably homogeneous tongue, so that speakers
from Vladivostok in the east and St. Petersburg in
the west can readily understand one another. Such
dialect variation as exists within Russian can be
broadly divided into northern and southern variants. The northern variant grew out of the cultural
center of Novgorod, the southern across an area
incorporating Tula, Ryazan, and Voronezh.
The Russian language is the most widely spoken
representative of the East Slavonic subbranch of the
Slavonic branch of the IndoEuropean language family. The other two members of this branch are Ukrainian and Belarusian (Belarusan). By the 9th century
A.D., we can assume that Russian was a distinctive
language within this subbranch, but the written language of Kievan Rus was, up to the 14th century, Old
Church Slavonic (Slavonic, Old Church), which
stemmed from South Slavonic languages. The Cyrillic

alphabet as used in that language, though it did not
correspond well with the divergent sound system of
East Slavonic, remained in use as the standard orthography from the beginnings of recorded writing in
Russian, which coincided with the countrys conversion to Christianity around the year 988, right up to
the time of Peter the Great (16721725).
The first writings of the medieval period were
translations from Greek liturgy and scripture into
Old Church Slavonic. The centers of learning were
mainly Kiev and Novgorod at first, but the creation of
literature spread to such centers as Pskov and Ryazan
and, after the introduction of printing, primarily to
Moscow. The first homegrown printed book known
in Russia is a book of religious epistles dated 1564.
Russian has not, however, had an entirely phonetic
spelling system, despite a process of orthographic
simplification; for instance, the phenomenon of akanye or reduction of [o] to a schwa or [a] in unstressed
syllables is a feature whose general spread within
Russian predates the simplification of the Cyrillic
alphabet as adapted to Russian use. This process
began with the civic alphabet introduced under
Tsar Peter I in 1710.
Codification of the modern Russian language
may be said to have really begun with the Russian
Grammar by the great scholar Lomonosov, published
in 1755. Within two generations of this, the great
flowering of classical Russian literature had begun,
Pushkin being the earliest acknowledged master. The
alphabet was further simplified away from the conservative Old Church Slavonic script by the abolition
of some redundant letters in 19171918 (Figure 1),
in the first year after the October Revolution though
not as a result of it, but rather as the outcome
of reforms proposed by an imperial orthographic
commission.
The Cyrillic alphabet does adequately and systematically reflect the extensive phenomenon of
698 Russian
Kazakhstan: Language Situation; Latvia: Language Situation; Lithuania: Language Situation; Moldova: Language
Situation; Old Church Slavonic; Russian Federation: Language Situation; Russian Lexicography; Slavic Languages; Tajikistan: Language Situation; Ukraine:
Language Situation; Uzbekistan: Language Situation.
Bibliography
Isacvenko A V (1962). Die russische Sprachen der Gegenwari, Teil I Formenlehre. Halle: Niemeyer.
Issatschenko A (19801983). Geschichte der russischen
Sprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Unbegaun B (1960). Russian grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ward D (1981). Loan-words in Russian. Journal of
Russian Studies 41, 314, 42, 514.
Comrie B & Stone G (1978). The Russian language since

the Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russian Federation: Language Situation

C Moseley, Caversham, UK
The Russian Federation, reconstituted as a state since

the collapse of the USSR in 1991, is the homeland of a
plethora of languages, but among these Russian itself,
the language of the administrative center, occupies
an unassailable, dominant position. This was true
even when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
was run from Moscow to administer the 15 individual republics. From its position at the center, the
Russian language has bestowed on the minor languages within the Federations borders a centrally
organized education system, literacy, in most case
the Cyrillic alphabet itself, and printing facilities
all the accoutrements for the successful propagation
of language.
An inherent factor in the Russian language, which
favored its propagation, was the relatively small dialect variation within the language. Considering the
vast area it covers, Russian has always been at
least since the start of printing in the language a
remarkably homogeneous tongue, so that speakers
from Vladivostok in the east and St. Petersburg in
the west can readily understand one another. Such
dialect variation as exists within Russian can be
broadly divided into northern and southern variants. The northern variant grew out of the cultural
center of Novgorod, the southern across an area
incorporating Tula, Ryazan, and Voronezh.
The Russian language is the most widely spoken
representative of the East Slavonic subbranch of the
Slavonic branch of the IndoEuropean language family. The other two members of this branch are Ukrainian and Belarusian (Belarusan). By the 9th century
A.D., we can assume that Russian was a distinctive
language within this subbranch, but the written language of Kievan Rus was, up to the 14th century, Old
Church Slavonic (Slavonic, Old Church), which
stemmed from South Slavonic languages. The Cyrillic

alphabet as used in that language, though it did not
correspond well with the divergent sound system of
East Slavonic, remained in use as the standard orthography from the beginnings of recorded writing in
Russian, which coincided with the countrys conversion to Christianity around the year 988, right up to
the time of Peter the Great (16721725).
The first writings of the medieval period were
translations from Greek liturgy and scripture into
Old Church Slavonic. The centers of learning were
mainly Kiev and Novgorod at first, but the creation of
literature spread to such centers as Pskov and Ryazan
and, after the introduction of printing, primarily to
Moscow. The first homegrown printed book known
in Russia is a book of religious epistles dated 1564.
Russian has not, however, had an entirely phonetic
spelling system, despite a process of orthographic
simplification; for instance, the phenomenon of akanye or reduction of [o] to a schwa or [a] in unstressed
syllables is a feature whose general spread within
Russian predates the simplification of the Cyrillic
alphabet as adapted to Russian use. This process
began with the civic alphabet introduced under
Tsar Peter I in 1710.
Codification of the modern Russian language
may be said to have really begun with the Russian
Grammar by the great scholar Lomonosov, published
in 1755. Within two generations of this, the great
flowering of classical Russian literature had begun,
Pushkin being the earliest acknowledged master. The
alphabet was further simplified away from the conservative Old Church Slavonic script by the abolition
of some redundant letters in 19171918 (Figure 1),
in the first year after the October Revolution though
not as a result of it, but rather as the outcome
of reforms proposed by an imperial orthographic
commission.
The Cyrillic alphabet does adequately and systematically reflect the extensive phenomenon of
Russian Federation: Language Situation 699
Figure 1 The Cyrillic alphabet as used in modern Russian (abolished redundant letters in brackets) with their phonetic values.
palatalization in the language, with separate sets of

palatalized and unpalatalized vowels, and predictable rules for palatalizing after particular consonants,
but it hardly reflects the stress pattern at all. Stress in
Russian is unpredictable, with emphasis occurring on
any syllable (even varying among different inflections
of the same word) and implying the reduction of
unstressed vowels in neighboring syllables.
Features of the Language

As mentioned, dialect variation within Russian is
not great, and grammatical and pronunciation differences from the standard language tend to be
minor. Differences are mainly lexical and are chiefly
associated with cultural, mainly agricultural and
domestic, terminology (for example, northern boronovat, southern skorodit harrow (v.), northern
kuznets, southern koval smith). The grammatical
structure of Russian varies little from the standard
across the country.
Russian is typical of the Slavonic languages in having three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter)
and an extensive noun case system by IndoEuropean
standards. Six cases are in active use: nominative,
accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, and prepositional. Also characteristic is the partitive genitive
formation used for negating the verb to be (in a
location or in possession). The pronoun system is
fully declinable in the six cases as well.
Another typical Slavonic feature is the aspectual
system of verbs. While there are only two simple
synthetic tenses (present and past, or more accurately,
nonpast and past), there are also two aspects: perfective and imperfective. Perfective forms of the verb are
used to indicate completed or finite single actions,
whereas the imperfective forms tend to indicate
continuing or repeated action (prinimat (impf.) to
receive ( be receiving), prinyat (pf.) to receive (
have received). Perfective forms are mostly created by
adding prefixes to the verb stem, but with some verbs,
an imperfective form is created by adding a suffix to a
basic (perfective) stem, or by altering the final vowel
of the stem.
Characteristic of Russian and East Slavonic is
the use of participles to replace relative pronouns in
relative clauses (vvidu nravov, tsarivshikh . . . in view

of the customs [that were] prevailing . . .).
As with many other IndoEuropean languages, the
prepositions take a range of specific cases, for example, zhena wife (nom.), o zhene (locative/prepositional) about the wife.
Russian word order within the clause is very free
and is adaptable for different nuances of emphasis.
SubjectVerbObject is common, but any variation
on these is possible, owing to the relations within the
clause or phrase being shown by the case-agreement
system.
Language Policy in Russia

The pre-Revolutionary Russian Empire actively suppressed the use of minority languages (with the exception of Finland, Russian Poland, and the Baltic
provinces (where German (German, Standard) was
the medium of educated and official intercourse).
Even nations with sizeable populations were forbidden
the official use of their native tongues Ukrainian
was banned in Ukraine from 1876 to 1905, for fear of
secessionism. Among the smaller non-Christian
peoples of the Empire, Russian was also a medium
of missionary expansion, though to some extent Bible
translation and literacy were permitted among nonOrthodox nations.
After 1917, and the creation of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the central policy changed markedly. Equality of languages within the new union, with
no position of primacy accorded to Russian, was the
lofty stated aim of Lenins early administration, but
the practical problems of providing teaching and literature and real official support for the languages of
the smaller minorities led to certain inevitable compromises with this ideal. For a start, centralization of
the new state in the Russian capital, the administrative center of a command economy, meant that, in
effect, Russian became the lingua franca of the Soviet
Union.
Nevertheless, the early years of the Soviet state
saw energetic campaigning for Union-wide literacy
and all that this implied. It was a stimulus for linguistic research, especially among the languages of
the far North, in order to create viable orthographies.
700 Russian Federation: Language Situation
The Russian orthography was itself simplified after

1918, with the removal of letters which no longer
served a phonetic function. For languages Turkish,
Caucasian, and IndoAryan of the Islamic peoples
of the USSR, at first a modified Arabic script was
devised, but this was abandoned within a few years
in favor of a Latin-based model, as a compromise
between Cyrillic and Arabic. Such scripts were devised even for very small languages of the union,
such as the tiny FinnoUgrian Veps community. Devising orthographies often meant an arbitrary choice
of a particular dialect as the standard, especially
among sparse, widely scattered speech communities.
This policy of standardizing languages within
the Soviet Union was a selective one. Some smaller
languages remained unwritten some languages of
the Caucasus and Pamirs, for instance. Such situations
were usually accompanied by widespread bilingualism or multilingualism on the part of the speakers,
and an assimilationist policy by the authorities.
Assimilation in Soviet times was to some extent a
relative term, and in the later years was less aggressively pursued than in the Stalin era and the decade
thereafter. Ethnic assimilation, or dilution, was
effected as part of the mass migration policies (the
deportations under Stalin of large portions of, or virtually entire, ethnic groups; immigration of Russian
laborers and their families into republics undergoing
heavy industrialization). While on the one hand, the
proportion of native speakers of a minority language
might be heavily diluted, an education policy was
widely pursued that, at least nominally, offered a
choice between a Russian- and a native-language education. Literacy, in both Russian and non-Russian
languages, made huge strides forward under the
Soviets compared with Tsarist times. Whereas
28.4% of the Russian Empires population of school
age and beyond was literate in 1897, by 1970 the
figure was 99.7%, according to census figures.
Within the borders of the present-day Russian Federation there is a wide proliferation of languages
belonging to several different linguistic families:
IndoEuropean, Altaic, Uralic and Caucasian at
least 70 distinct languages in all. The present Russian
Federation has inherited the legacy of the Soviet
Union as regards the language policy of its constituent
republics. The Russian language has left a heavy imprint on the lexical content, syntax, and grammar of
these languages, regardless of how divergent they are
from Slavic structure. Furthermore, although Soviet
policy had set so many of the minority languages on
the path to literacy, the infrastructure to implement
it was not uniformly applied throughout the USSR,
and now such infrastructure as there is has been
left to its own devices or to the legislatures of the
constituent republics. Objective factors such as remoteness from Moscow and sparseness of population
(such as Yakutia) and proportions of Russians to
natives (for example, Chuvashia, nearly entirely Chuvash, or Karelia, predominantly Russian), have an
important part to play. Then there is the problem of
dialect diversity in nonstandardized languages. For
example, although the 318 000 speakers of Buryat
(Buriat, China) make up 90% of the population of
the titular Buryat republic, the language is spoken in a
range of variants beyond its borders, in Mongolia and
China, which differ from the literary language of
the Irkutsk area. The spoken language is the Khori
dialect, but even in Ulan-Ude, the capital, Russian has
a cohesive role to play as a common second language.
And Buryat is by no means the most diverse language
in Russia in terms of dialects.
Outside the borders of the present-day Russian Federation, Russian speakers can primarily be counted
among the descendants of Russian populations who
migrated to neighboring republics within the USSR
in Soviet times or were already settled there. According to Ethnologue (2000), the current numbers of
Russian speakers in former republics of the USSR,
now the Confederation of Independent States (CIS),
plus the Baltic republics are as follows (rounded off to
the nearest thousand):
Armenia: 70 000 out of 3 536 000
Azerbaijan: 475 000 out of 7 669 000
Belarus: 1 134 000 out of 10 315 000
Estonia: 468 000 out of 1 476 000
Georgia: 372 000 out of 5 059 000
Kazakhstan: 6 227 000 out of 16 219 000
Kyrgyzstan: 1 409 000 out of 4 643 000
Latvia: 862 000 out of 2 424 000
Lithuania: 344 000 out of 3 694 000
Moldova: 562 000 out of 4 378 000
Tajikistan: 237 000 out of 6 015 000
Turkmenistan: 349 000 out of 4 309 000
Ukraine: 11 335 000 out of 50 861 000
Uzbekistan: 1 661 000 out of 23 574 000
Thus it can be seen that the numbers of Russians
outside the immediate borders of Russia are sizeable.
In absolute terms, the greatest number is found in
Ukraine, followed by Kazakhstan; in terms of proportions, Russians are found in greatest numbers in
Latvia and Estonia. Their influence on the economic
and social life of those countries is strong enough for
the present Russian government to use them as a
powerful bargaining lever in intergovernmental relations, in defense of their ethnic institutions, their
economic power base, and notably the maintenance
of the Russian language in education and public life,
acutely at loggerheads with the nation-building
Russian Formalism 701
efforts of newly independent states. Russian influence

is less marked in the Central Asian republics, with
the notable exception of Kazakhstan, a nation which
was heavily industrialized and exploited during the
Soviet period.
Russian diaspora are found, generally in much
smaller numbers, further abroad. Jewish emigration
to Israel from Russia in the later decades of the Soviet
period and subsequently has resulted in a very
sizeable Russian-speaking population of 750 000
(Ethnologue, 2000). It was for religious reasons, too,
that some of the smaller and older-established
Russian-speaking populations emigrated to the New
World such as the Doukhobors, a conservative
Orthodox sect which left for the United States and
Canada over a century ago. But these Russian populations in North America are dwarfed in size by the
considerable waves of more recent emigrants.
See also: Language Education Policy in Soviet Successor

States.; Russian
Language Maps (Appendix 1): Maps 117122, 142, 143.
Bibliography
Auty R & Obolensky D (1977). An introduction to Russian
language and literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett G. Russian.
Vlasto A P (1988). A linguistic history of Russia to the end
of the eighteenth century. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wade T (1992). A comprehensive Russian grammar.
Oxford 1992: Oxford University Press.
Russian Formalism
R Le Huenen, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Formalism emerged from discussions between two

small groups of young Russian scholars: the Moscow
Linguistic Circle, which was founded in 1915 by
Roman Jakobson, Grigorii Vinokur, and Petr
Bogatyrev, and the OPOIAZ (Society for the Study
of Poetic Language), which was established 1 year
later in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) by literary scholars,
including Victor Shklovskii, Iuri Tynianov, Boris
Eikhenbaum, Boris Tomashevskii, Lev Iakubinskii,
Osip Brik, and Victor Vinogradov. The term Formalist was coined by opponents to the movement. Formalists themselves, especially Eikhenbaum (The theory
of the Formal method, 1927), expressed strong
opposition at the time about what they perceived to
be a reductive appreciation of their work. On the
contrary, they subscribed to a dynamic approach to
literature, emphasizing a commitment to a science of
literature rather than a concern for methodology
alone. Between 1916 and 1923, the activities of the
two groups led to the publication of six volumes of
Studies on the theory of poetic language (Sborniki po
teorii poeticheskogo iazyka).
Literary Criticism in Russia at the Time

of the Formalists
Russian Formalism was a reaction against academic
research, which used antiquated aesthetic, psychological, and historical axioms and had lost sight, in the
words of Eikhenbaum (Theory), of its own subject

and was unable to renew itself through a real understanding of theoretical problems. The Formalists were
also united against the type of impressionistic criticism
produced by journalists insofar as journalism had
appropriated, during the last decades of the 19th century, the field of literary criticism ignored by unproductive scholars only concerned with sociopolitical
issues. The Formalists insisted on the specific character
of the literary text and on the need to examine it solely
on literary grounds, without having to take into account the external conditions, biographical, psychological, or historical, that prevailed at the time of
creation. On the other hand, most literary journalists
were followers of the Symbolist movement and
resorted to a kind of aesthetic subjectivism that the
Formalists found unsuitable and ineffective in comparison with the diversity of the historical facts and the
complexity of the stylistic devices displayed in a literary work. In addition, the Formalists were critical of
the philosophical and religious language used by the
Symbolists and opposed the theory, supported by
the latter, of harmonizing form and content.
Although they remained indebted to literary and
linguistic theoreticians such as Aleksandr Veselovskii
(18381906) and Aleksandr Potebnia (18351881),
the Formalists dismissed the ethnographic character
of the genetic approach developed by the former, and
the well-known view of the latter that art is thinking
in images. Genetic interpretations may throw light
on the origin of a literary phenomenon, but they fail to
account for the specific use of techniques and devices
efforts of newly independent states. Russian influence

is less marked in the Central Asian republics, with
the notable exception of Kazakhstan, a nation which
was heavily industrialized and exploited during the
Soviet period.
Russian diaspora are found, generally in much
smaller numbers, further abroad. Jewish emigration
to Israel from Russia in the later decades of the Soviet
period and subsequently has resulted in a very
sizeable Russian-speaking population of 750 000
(Ethnologue, 2000). It was for religious reasons, too,
that some of the smaller and older-established
Russian-speaking populations emigrated to the New
World such as the Doukhobors, a conservative
Orthodox sect which left for the United States and
Canada over a century ago. But these Russian populations in North America are dwarfed in size by the
considerable waves of more recent emigrants.
See also: Language Education Policy in Soviet Successor

States.; Russian
Language Maps (Appendix 1): Maps 117122, 142, 143.
Bibliography
Auty R & Obolensky D (1977). An introduction to Russian
language and literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett G. Russian.
Vlasto A P (1988). A linguistic history of Russia to the end
of the eighteenth century. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wade T (1992). A comprehensive Russian grammar.
Oxford 1992: Oxford University Press.
Russian Formalism
R Le Huenen, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Formalism emerged from discussions between two

small groups of young Russian scholars: the Moscow
Linguistic Circle, which was founded in 1915 by
Roman Jakobson, Grigorii Vinokur, and Petr
Bogatyrev, and the OPOIAZ (Society for the Study
of Poetic Language), which was established 1 year
later in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) by literary scholars,
including Victor Shklovskii, Iuri Tynianov, Boris
Eikhenbaum, Boris Tomashevskii, Lev Iakubinskii,
Osip Brik, and Victor Vinogradov. The term Formalist was coined by opponents to the movement. Formalists themselves, especially Eikhenbaum (The theory
of the Formal method, 1927), expressed strong
opposition at the time about what they perceived to
be a reductive appreciation of their work. On the
contrary, they subscribed to a dynamic approach to
literature, emphasizing a commitment to a science of
literature rather than a concern for methodology
alone. Between 1916 and 1923, the activities of the
two groups led to the publication of six volumes of
Studies on the theory of poetic language (Sborniki po
teorii poeticheskogo iazyka).
Literary Criticism in Russia at the Time

of the Formalists
Russian Formalism was a reaction against academic
research, which used antiquated aesthetic, psychological, and historical axioms and had lost sight, in the
words of Eikhenbaum (Theory), of its own subject

and was unable to renew itself through a real understanding of theoretical problems. The Formalists were
also united against the type of impressionistic criticism
produced by journalists insofar as journalism had
appropriated, during the last decades of the 19th century, the field of literary criticism ignored by unproductive scholars only concerned with sociopolitical
issues. The Formalists insisted on the specific character
of the literary text and on the need to examine it solely
on literary grounds, without having to take into account the external conditions, biographical, psychological, or historical, that prevailed at the time of
creation. On the other hand, most literary journalists
were followers of the Symbolist movement and
resorted to a kind of aesthetic subjectivism that the
Formalists found unsuitable and ineffective in comparison with the diversity of the historical facts and the
complexity of the stylistic devices displayed in a literary work. In addition, the Formalists were critical of
the philosophical and religious language used by the
Symbolists and opposed the theory, supported by
the latter, of harmonizing form and content.
Although they remained indebted to literary and
linguistic theoreticians such as Aleksandr Veselovskii
(18381906) and Aleksandr Potebnia (18351881),
the Formalists dismissed the ethnographic character
of the genetic approach developed by the former, and
the well-known view of the latter that art is thinking
in images. Genetic interpretations may throw light
on the origin of a literary phenomenon, but they fail to
account for the specific use of techniques and devices
702 Russian Formalism
that organize, for instance, the basic raw material of a

narrative (its contingent events) into a formal and
artistic construct, insofar as a work of literature is
not a mere accumulation of devices but an organized
whole. Shklovskii rejected Potebnias contention that
without imagery there is no art, arguing that images
change little, that the same image can be found from
century to century, from nation to nation, from poet
to poet (Art as device, 1917), and that images alone
are less important than the techniques used by writers
to produce them. Shklovskii also pointed out that
images are common in both everyday and poetic language, and stressed Potebnias unawareness of two
aspects of imagery: imagery as a practical means of
thinking . . . and imagery as poetic, as a means of reinforcing an impression.
In its early stage, Russian Formalism was closely
linked to the Futurist avant-garde movement
(Vladimir Mayakovsky, Victor Khlebnikov, Aleksei
Kruchenykh, and David Burlyuk, among others).
Experimenting with language and especially the texture of sound, the Futurists attempted to create a new
form of poetry directed against the Symbolist commitment to subjectivism. The notion of how form in
itself can be expressive or meaningful, even in the
absence of verbal meaning, was particularly appealing to the Formalists (Shklovskiis On poetry
and trans-sense language, 1916, and Jakobsons
Khlebnikovs Poetic language, 1919). The Formalists did not endorse the traditional dichotomy
between content and form in the literary work, because they viewed content as expressed only through
a certain formal arrangement, which becomes identified with it. Instead, they emphasized the difference
between material and device that is, between the
protogenetic stage of the literary process and its constructive or creative stage. The organizational principles of that process transform the raw material into
an aesthetic work through such devices as sound
texture, rhythm, syntax, and plot features.
Literariness
Literariness (literaturnost), a key concept for the
Formalists, laid the ground for a science of literature.
The object of study in literary science is not literature but literariness, that is, what makes a given
work a literary work. [. . .] The historians of literature
have helped themselves to everything environment,
psychology, politics, philosophy. Instead of a science
of literature, they have worked up a concoction of
homemade disciplines. They seem to have forgotten
that those subjects pertain to their own fields of study
(R. Jakobson, Modern Russian poetry, 1921). Eikhenbaum stressed the importance of acknowledging the
specific features of the literary object and its uniqueness in comparison with all other cultural or artistic
products. According to Shklovskii, literariness was an
effect resulting from the process of defamiliarization
(ostranenie). Claiming that art is a way of perceiving
the artfulness in an object, Shklovskii inferred that the
object alone is not important, that the aim of art is to
make objects unfamiliar by increasing the difficulty
and duration of perceptual effect and thereby hindering the readers ability to relate to objects, situations,
and texts in a familiar and automatic manner. Tolstoy,
for instance, created an effect of defamiliarization by
not naming the familiar object: in Shame, he did not
use the word flogging but instead provided a full
description of the act as if it were an extraordinary
and unprecedented event. In his study of Lawrence
Sternes Tristram Shandy, Shklovskii associated with
defamiliarization the laying bare of the literary techniques the narrators commentaries on the structure
of the novel.
Poetic and Everyday Language

In attempting to define literariness, the Formalists
established a clear distinction between poetic and
practical language (or everyday usage) and attached
to the former the essential property of art. Concentrating on the analysis of the phonic texture of
poems, they followed the Futurists in arguing in
favor of the primacy of sound over meaning in poetry.
In addition, rhythm became, for Tomashevskii
(Eikhenbaum, Theory), the foundation for a theory
of verse that would regulate the other formal components of poetic discourse, be it classical metrics or any
rhythmic pattern. Whereas everyday language aims at
efficient communication, poetic language emphasizes
artistic self-consciousness, refers to its own composition rather than to objects or signifieds. In the words
of Jakobson, it exerts an organized coercion on the
mind of the reader, whose attention is drawn to the
constructed formation of the poem. However, during
the middle phase of Russian Formalism (19191924),
the realization that poetry could not be reduced to
its phonic features led the Formalists to reevaluate
their views on verse and to reintroduce in their analysis considerations related to syntax and semantics
(Eikhenbaum, Melody of Russian lyric verse, 1922;
Tynianov, The problem of verse language, 1924; Brik,
Rhythm and syntax, 1927).
Story and Plot

The Formalists distinguished between two levels
of narrative: story (fabula) and plot (siuzhet).
Story defines a series of events connected through
chronological and causal links, whereas plot consists

of the narrators rearrangement of them without necessarily observing such determining factors. Plot
includes other elements as well, such as comments
and digressions. In fact, the plot, or siuzhet construction, is the defamiliarizing narrative counterpart of
the story (fabula). According to Shklovskii, typical
categories of plot composition are the staircase (repetition and parallelism are used in relating events), the
hooklike structure (where contrast and opposition
prevail, leading to a false ending), and double plotting
(a combination of heterogeneous components). Plot
construction is generally realistically motivated, or
unmotivated, laid bare, as in Sternes Tristram
Shandy, impeding the readers expectations by
means of continuous interruptions of the action,
delays, authorial digressions, and various types of
chronological shifting (Shklovskii, Sternes Tristram
Shandy, 1921). Ge rard Genettes more recent narratological distinction between die ge`se and re cit is
clearly based on the fabula/siuzhet dichotomy.
Literary Evolution
In the late period of Russian Formalism (19241930),
there emerged the realization that literature and
language should be examined not simply on synchronic grounds as poetic devices but within their
diachronic developments as well. It became clear
to Tynianov (On literary evolution, 1927) that the
very existence of a literary fact owes much to the
interaction of both literary and nonliterary systems,
and how important it is to stress the link between
literature and social conventions (byt). In a 1928
article, Problems in the study of literature and language, written jointly with Jakobson, Tynianov
returned to the question of literary evolution by arguing that literature is part of a complex network of
interrelated systems, each of which is regulated by its
own internal laws and correlated to other systems
through a finite series of structural laws. Therefore,
the study of literature as a dynamic process entails
two consecutive moves: the need to establish the
specific laws that govern the literary text conceived
as an immanent structure, followed by the analysis
of possible correlations between literature and
other systems of meaning. However, Tynianov and
Jakobsons views were generally seen as isolated
attempts to connect literature and culture, whereas
Russian Formalism by and large remained committed
to the notion of literariness and to literature as
holding a unique place among cultural and artistic
objects.
The Critique, Suppression, and Influence

of Russian Formalism
In 1928 Formalism faced a serious critique in the
form of an article, The formal method in literary
scholarship, that was signed by Pavel Medvedev but
is now attributed to Mikhail Bakhtin. Formalists
were attacked for providing neither a sociological
nor a philosophical justification for their theories and
for not addressing social and ideological issues. This
criticism was echoed by the Soviet regime, namely
by Leon Trotsky in his book Literature and revolution (1923) and by Anatolii Lunacharskii in an essay
titled Formalism in the theory of art (1924). As the
attacks intensified, Shklovskii was forced to yield to
political pressure and in 1930 produced a self-critical
statement, A monument to a scientific error, that
harshly criticized the assumptions of Formalist theory. However, the Formalist movement had lost its
momentum by that time: the Moscow Linguistic
Circle had been dissolved in 1920 after the departure
of Roman Jakobson and Petr Bogatyrev for Prague,
and OPOIAZ had broken up in 1923.
Russian Formalism continued to exert influence
abroad, through the Prague Linguistic Circle
(Roman Jakobson, Petr Bogatyrev, Vile m Mathesius,
Jan Mukarovsky), the Polish integral school in the
1930s (Manfred Kridl), and the French Structuralist
school in the 1960s (Greimas, Genette, Barthes,
Todorov, Bremond), which became acquainted
with Formalist principles through the publication of
Tzvetan Todorovs anthology The orie de la litte rature: textes des formalistes russes (1965), with a preface by Roman Jakobson. The French Structuralists
shared with the Russian Formalists the view that the
study of literature had to be conducted in accordance
with linguistic principles and methodology and that
the literary text was an autonomous system to be
apprehended only through an immanent process of
reading.
In the early 1960s, some of the earlier Formalist
studies were republished in the Soviet Union, and
the appearance of the Moscow-Tartu School of
Semiotics (Viacheslav Ivanov, Iurii Lotman, Boris
Uspenskii), with its emphasis upon language and
meaning generated as sign systems, may be seen as a
new and revitalized brand of both Formalism and
Structuralism.
Bibliography
Bann S & Bowlt J E (eds.) (1973). Russian Formalism: a
collection of articles and texts in translation. Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.

Erlich V (1955). Russian Formalism: history, doctrine. The
Hague: Mouton.
Jackson R L & Rudy S (eds.) (1985). Russian Formalism:
a retrospective glance. New Haven: Yale Center for
International and Area Studies.
Jameson F (1972). The prison-house of language: a
critical account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lemon L T & Reis M J (eds. and trans.) (1965). Russian
Formalist criticism: four essays. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Matejka L & Pomorska K (eds.) (1978). Readings in
Russian poetics: Formalist and Structuralist views.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
OToole M & Shukman A (1977). Formalist theory.
Oxford: Oxon Publishing.
Russian River Pomo
OToole M & Shukman A (eds.) (1978). Formalism:

history, comparison, genre. Oxford: Oxon Publishing.
Pike C (ed. and trans.) (1979). The futurists, the Formalists,
and the Marxist critique. London: Ink Links.
Pomorska K (1968). Russian Formalist theory and its poetic
ambience. The Hague: Mouton.
Steiner P (1984). Russian Formalism: a metapoetics. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Striedter J (1989). Literary structure, evolution, and
value: Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism
reconsidered. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Todorov T (ed.) (1965). The orie de la litte rature, textes des
formalistes russes. Paris: Seuil.
Todorov T (1971). Poe tique de la prose. Paris: Seuil.
Trotsky L (1960). Literature and revolution. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
See: Pomoan Languages.
Russian Lexicography
O Karpova, Ivanovo State University, Ivanovo, Russia
Origins of Russian Lexicography

Lexicography in Russia, as in many other European
countries, originated in the Middle Ages (Kovtun,
1963).
Glossaries in the 13th century were mainly collections of difficult words, very often including proper
names from the Bible and ancient Russian manuscripts. Strictly speaking, they were lists of difficult
words called apbyrodybr alphabetic lists. In the
16th17th centuries they were frequently revised
and laid the basis for more profound lexicographic
projects (Kovtun, 1977). In the 18th century, A.
Schichkov and A. Vostokov made significant attempts
to undertake dictionary making as a serious scientific
process (Bogatova, 2000).
Major Dictionaries of the 18th, 19th, and

20th Centuries
The Pre-Revolutionary Period
The end of the 18th century was marked by growing interest in vernacular languages, and Russian
philological studies focused on creating a serious dictionary of Russian as a literary language. When in
1783 the Russian Academy was established, the first
large dictionary of the contemporary language, in six
volumes, was compiled (RAD), which appeared in
1789 (Clodapm Pyccroq AralEvbb (Dictionary of
the Russian Academy), 17891794).
It was aimed at revealing the system of the language, but the Russian written language had two
forms: Russian itself and Old Church Slavonic.
Therefore an entry in RAD had certain essential peculiarities: Its lexicosemantic abstraction covered the
semantic units of both Russian and Old Church Slavonic. The Slavonic vocabulary in RAD exceeds the
number of Slavonic words (and meanings) that circulated in the high and middle levels of the Russian
written language. At the end of the 18th century,
Russian and Slavonic were still united in the linguistic
consciousness of their speakers. The notion of exemplary language and correct literary word use was
traditionally associated with the books of the Old
Church Slavonic written language.
RAD was revised in 18061822, based on a new
alphabetical order. Although revised, it did not reflect
changes in the living language. This scholastic feature
was typical of all early academic dictionaries,
although they played an important role in society.

Erlich V (1955). Russian Formalism: history, doctrine. The
Hague: Mouton.
Jackson R L & Rudy S (eds.) (1985). Russian Formalism:
a retrospective glance. New Haven: Yale Center for
International and Area Studies.
Jameson F (1972). The prison-house of language: a
critical account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lemon L T & Reis M J (eds. and trans.) (1965). Russian
Formalist criticism: four essays. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Matejka L & Pomorska K (eds.) (1978). Readings in
Russian poetics: Formalist and Structuralist views.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
OToole M & Shukman A (1977). Formalist theory.
Oxford: Oxon Publishing.
Russian River Pomo
OToole M & Shukman A (eds.) (1978). Formalism:

history, comparison, genre. Oxford: Oxon Publishing.
Pike C (ed. and trans.) (1979). The futurists, the Formalists,
and the Marxist critique. London: Ink Links.
Pomorska K (1968). Russian Formalist theory and its poetic
ambience. The Hague: Mouton.
Steiner P (1984). Russian Formalism: a metapoetics. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Striedter J (1989). Literary structure, evolution, and
value: Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism
reconsidered. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Todorov T (ed.) (1965). Theorie de la litterature, textes des
formalistes russes. Paris: Seuil.
Todorov T (1971). Poetique de la prose. Paris: Seuil.
Trotsky L (1960). Literature and revolution. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
See: Pomoan Languages.
Russian Lexicography
O Karpova, Ivanovo State University, Ivanovo, Russia
Origins of Russian Lexicography

Lexicography in Russia, as in many other European
countries, originated in the Middle Ages (Kovtun,
1963).
Glossaries in the 13th century were mainly collections of difficult words, very often including proper
names from the Bible and ancient Russian manuscripts. Strictly speaking, they were lists of difficult
words called apbyrodybr alphabetic lists. In the
16th17th centuries they were frequently revised
and laid the basis for more profound lexicographic
projects (Kovtun, 1977). In the 18th century, A.
Schichkov and A. Vostokov made significant attempts
to undertake dictionary making as a serious scientific
process (Bogatova, 2000).
Major Dictionaries of the 18th, 19th, and

20th Centuries
The Pre-Revolutionary Period
The end of the 18th century was marked by growing interest in vernacular languages, and Russian
philological studies focused on creating a serious dictionary of Russian as a literary language. When in
1783 the Russian Academy was established, the first
large dictionary of the contemporary language, in six
volumes, was compiled (RAD), which appeared in
1789 (Clodapm Pyccroq AralEvbb (Dictionary of
the Russian Academy), 17891794).
It was aimed at revealing the system of the language, but the Russian written language had two
forms: Russian itself and Old Church Slavonic.
Therefore an entry in RAD had certain essential peculiarities: Its lexicosemantic abstraction covered the
semantic units of both Russian and Old Church Slavonic. The Slavonic vocabulary in RAD exceeds the
number of Slavonic words (and meanings) that circulated in the high and middle levels of the Russian
written language. At the end of the 18th century,
Russian and Slavonic were still united in the linguistic
consciousness of their speakers. The notion of exemplary language and correct literary word use was
traditionally associated with the books of the Old
Church Slavonic written language.
RAD was revised in 18061822, based on a new
alphabetical order. Although revised, it did not reflect
changes in the living language. This scholastic feature
was typical of all early academic dictionaries,
although they played an important role in society.
Russian Lexicography 705
In 1847, a new academic dictionary project in

four volumes was launched, entitled Clodapm
WEprodyo-Cladzycrouo b Pyccrouo Zpsra (A dictionary of the Church Slavonic and Russian languages).
This dictionary showed selected philological parameters of the vocabulary, including syntactic and
phonetic features associated with each word. Positive
features of this dictionary included differentiated
word-forming and orthographic variants of lexemes,
along with distinction of homonyms by means of
language signs. Moreover, the definitions were based
on the principles of linguistic analysis.
The second academic dictionary entitled Clodapm
WEprodyo-Cladzycrouo b Pyccrouo Zpsra (A dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian languages) was
planned and developed as a treasury of the language
according to contemporary scientific standards. It
contained, along with words from early manuscripts,
words extracted from the latest literary works. The
number of foreign words as well as new terms from
science and the arts were considerably increased
compared to its predecessors. However, this work
did not become a thesaurus as planned, because its
compilers were more concerned with applying prescriptive principles of word and definition selection.
Thus, only neologisms that were in general use in the
literary language were introduced into the dictionary,
and all the rest were left out.
Simultaneously, the Second Department of the
Academy began to work on a dictionary of Russian
popular dialects. Outline of a regional dictionary
of the great Russian language appeared in 1852. Six
years later, a supplement edited by A. Vostokov was
published. Both editions were based on the principle
of differentiation, and they laid the basis for dictionaries of Russian dialects that appeared in the 20th
century.
The system of Russian dictionaries compiled in the
Academy was oriented mainly towards the history of
the language. The Second Department of the Academy had a great linguistic goalto demarcate Old
Church Slavonic and Russian, showing the points of
maximum agreement, and to indicate the results
of their long interaction. In 18581861, Clodapm
WEprodyo-Cladzycrouo Zpsra (A dictionary of the
Church Slavonic language) was published in two
volumes. It provided the necessary linguistic tools to
discern between the two language systems.
The third Clodapm AralEvbb (Academy dictionary), edited by Y. Grot, appeared in 1895; for the
first time, a dictionary undertook a description of
modern Russian language. The fundamental links
between word meaning and word use are described.
After Grots death, the dictionary was supervised and
edited by A. Shakhmatov.
The Shakhmatov era of Russian academic lexicography is frequently considered to be its peak. According
to Shakhmatovs theory, the basis for the description
of the national language must be a living language
with a mixture of written and spoken languages.
The dictionary became a treasury of living Russian
words and even now is considered to be a major
milestone in Russian lexicography. It evidenced the
connection between different parts of the Russian
national language as well as the influence of dialects
on the literary language. Shakhmatovs dictionary is
recognized among Russian scholars as a dictionary of
the national language in its complexity and unity. It
contains a large number of slang and informal words.
There is also a correspondence, where possible, between the regional (dialectal) and literary meanings
of the words.
V. Dal was the first to use the term Tolrodsq
Clodapm explanatory dictionary in his Tolrodsq
Clodapm :bdouo Belbrouo Pyccrouo Zpsra (Explanatory dictionary of the living great Russian language), which was published in 1863 (Dal, 1863
1866). It was a pioneering dictionary that explained
all the meanings of the words, its main purpose being
to overcome the gap between written and spoken
Russian. Accordingly, A. Shakhmatov gave a highly
positive evaluation of this profound reference work.
As he was opposed to foreign borrowings in the
Russian language, Dal registered various dialectal
words alongside literary words in the dictionary,
trying to show productive models of word formation
based on yapolysq folk language. The dictionary
contains 200 000 entry words, among them more
than 80 000 that had never been included in dictionaries of the Russian language. In his effort to describe
the living Russian language, he combined the alphabetic and thesaurus word orders, registering synonyms in the entries. This dictionary opened a new
era in Russian academic lexicography.
Thus, in Russian lexicography of the 19th and
early 20th centuries, there are three interconnected
themes: dictionaries of the modern literary language,
historical dictionaries, and dictionaries of regional
dialects. Each of these themes had numerous branches
that varied in purpose and range.
The Soviet Period
The Soviet period of Russian lexicography, which

made use of the rich legacy of pre-revolutionary
academic dictionaries, began with Clodapm Pyccrouo
Zpsra (Dictionary of the Russian language), compiled by a group of distinguished scholars and edited
by D. Ushakov (Ushakov, 19351940). It was normbased and registered many new words developed
after the revolution, for example,
706 Russian Lexicography

arnbdbcn
rovcovolEw
vyouonbpa;ra
pawboyalbpanop
xlebopadol
iEacndo
activist
(a person active
in social
reform)
(Young
a member
Communist
of the
League)
Komsomol
published in large editions, e.g.
factory newspaper
rationalizer
large-scale bread-baking factory
patronage
and so on. Each word had a normative grammar

and pronunciation label along with information on
etymology, style, etc. Many collocations were included, which was a new feature of the dictionary. The
selection of words was naturally based on Communist
ideology and is the most vivid product of the ideologically colored reference works of the Soviet era.
Several other dictionaries of this kind appeared
subsequently, the most popular being S. Ozhegovs
dictionary, which went through more than 20 editions from 1949 on. But the most significant project
undertaken by scholars in the 20th century was an
enormous academic dictionary of the Russian language in 17 volumes that was published from 1948
to 1965, Clodapm CodpEvEyyouo Pyccrouo Zpsra
(Dictionary of the modern Russian language). It
contained many citations from classical Russian literature, fiction, and periodicals illustrating each
word, with the etymology of the word being the
central feature of each entry. The majority of definitions were ideologically oriented and influenced by
Ushakovs dictionary.
began to disappear from the modern Russian language.

The process of borrowing into the Russian language is explained first and foremost by the prestige
of the foreign language. For example,
ppepeynawbz
ppelcnadlEybe
rcrl.pbdysq
roycalnby
a bnpyyrn
bleqyoBocpbnanelmysq
papnbqyoxopzqcndEyysq
papndpscraybE
cowlauEpm
propaganda/agitation centre
ideological and educational
party-economic related, e.g.
a meeting of party members
and directors of factories to
discuss local economy and
development
party penalty/fine
a union of socialist
nations, e.g. Bulgaria,
Hungary,
Poland and USSR
presentation
show (theatre/circus)
exclusive
consulting
New concepts also demanded new words:

adnobay
blEqpEp
payn
laql;Ecn
crox
motor way
blazer/jacket
grant
digest
scotch (whisky reference)
The first dictionary of the Russian language at

the end of the 20th century that had no predecessors
was a new type of a national language dictionary
(Sklyarevskaya, 1998). It included new concepts of
the modern reality:
pepecnpoqra
roynppepecnpoqra
pocn
pepecnpoexysq
psyor
psyoxybr
lopsyoxysq
aynbpsyoxybr
The Perestroika Period
The latter part of the 20th century, beginning with

perestroika, was marked by growing interest in
borrowings from contemporary foreign languages,
especially English, as well as in colloquial words and
jargon, which was not previously recorded in dictionaries of the national language. At the same
time, ideologically colored words characteristic of
Communist times, such as:
a person chosen by the people
yapolysq
bpbpayybr
perestroika
against perestroika
post perestroika period
market
a person in favour of market
economy
before market economy
a person against principles of
market economy
borrowings:
royceycyc
ppbdanbpawbz
ppepeynawbz
bpbabyu
veyel;ep
vaprEnbyu
peqnbyu
npbllEp
bvbl;
rcrl.pbdysq
consensus
privatization
presentation
breifing
manager
marketing
rating
thriller
image
exclusive
slang/colloquial:
balle ;
becppelel
lbvoy
la;a
Beianm lapiy ya yib
ya xalzdy
panpaxanm
wild, happy time

chaos
million (money reference)
lies
to lie
to get something for
nothing, for free
to be sick and tired, bored
(swear word)
jargon (mainly youthful):

oboa a
oboe;bnbe
cnbpyxa
cnbpeylbz
halls of residence (student

reference)
grant/scholarship usually
paid monthly in Russian
universities
notes used in an exam/test
to cheat
a satisfactory work
(exam; c)
great, fantastic, amazing
(adv.)
great, the best (adj.)
to laugh a lot, laugh out
loud
happy, pleasant life/
experience
to like something very
much
failure in something
work very hard without
thinking or complaining/
to do donkeys work
to kill, do harm to
ipopa
ipapualra
yloxra
ylodlEndopbnelmyo
ponpzcyo, rlaccyo,
oballeyyo
yboqysq, rle dsq
p;anm
raqa
ballenm
pporol
biaxbnm, paxanm
parapanm
vocabulary of the criminal world:

ivoy
balayla
Bsira
cnyrax
blanyoq
vorpyiybr
pepo
search
2 meanings: Soup in prison,
place full of people
capital punishment
grass
jailbird, old lag
murderer/killer
knife
Terminology, especially from business and economics, is also recorded:

pybledoe porpsnbe
BayxEp
voyenapbpv
lbpby
royovbxEcroE
byaopvawboyyoe/
ppadodoe
ppocnpaycndo
money cover to pay with

roubles (Russian money)
voucher
method of controlling
economic process (e.g.
inflation) by putting
money into it
lease (on a building, office)
co-operation of countries on
the basis of agreement in
areas of economy,
information and law
political terms:
royceycyc
cnauyawbz
oboecndeyyoq
;bpyb
consensus
deterionation of life in a
society
computer terms:
bayr layysx
bynepaeqc
database
interface
baqn
ppbynep
byte
printer
sport:
apbcnaql
bobcleq
crb-cnpbv
rbrborcbyu
aaqnep
freestyle
bobsleigh
extreme sking
kick boxing
fighter
This dictionary became very popular, not only

among Russian users but also among foreigners
studying Russian. It was revised and republished
in 2001. It certainly inspired modern Russian lexicographers to apply new productive approaches to
the description of the modern Russian language
in use.
The Proposed New Academy Dictionary
Discussion concerning the issue of the proposed Clodapm Hodoq AralEvbb (A New Academy Dictionary)
(NAD) in 20 volumes has gained momentum since the
early 1980s. NAD will have essential differences from
all previous dictionaries of the Russian language. The
main issues are: its treatment of the lexicographic
object (the lexical system corresponds to the linguistic
perceptions of contemporary native speakers); its orientation to current word usage; its comprehensive
coverage (about 200 000 lexical units); and its lexicographical methods (including a computational lexicographers workbench). NAD aims to describe the
living, functioning language by using a wide range
of lexical material resorting to a synchronous linguistic cut. Unlike previous academic dictionaries, this
one rejects the traditional perception of the Russian
language and will try to describe the living language
without a historical perspective.
The notion of contemporaneity has been changed
to synchronism, as the theoretical foundation for the
dictionary. Synchronism is understood as one of the
elements of the dynamic equilibrium of the language
system. It is supported by the norms of the time
period during which the dictionary is compiled. A
synchronous type of dictionary contains only certain
elements of the language system: neutral modern language elements that join the stable core of the lexical
system, elements that have certain stylistic functions,
certain obsolete words, and elements that are part of
phraseology units.
The objectives of the dictionary caused a reconsideration of its empirical basis. According to the
conception of NAD, its sources will consist of texts
that reflect the language of contemporary native
speakers. A multitude of derivatives along with
new words make up the first source for the word
list. Until now, these words have been excluded
from explanatory dictionaries. The second source for

the word list is low-level colloquial vocabulary, which
has been treated extremely cautiously in the past and
seldom can be found in dictionaries. Borrowings are
the third source for the word list. Word formation
will serve as one of the most productive sources of
new vocabulary. Another source of vocabulary is terminology. The scope and weight of technical terminology in the Russian language has not only increased
but has become a menace. The last source of vocabulary for the New Academy Dictionary consists of
word equivalents or word combinations equal to a
word, both formally and functionally. Archaisms that
are judged to be semantically and stylistically suitable
for present-day usage will also be found in the
macrostructure of the dictionary.
Enlargement of the word list in comparison with
previous dictionaries will improve its main theoretical
purposethe elaboration of a segmentable, multiaspect, and differentiated system of functional and
stylistic labels. Considerable enlargement of the
word list, due to the inclusion of a number of new
lexical elements, is not contrary to normative dictionary principles. The vocabulary will be differentiated
according to its functional and stylistic features. Every
lexical unit will be characterized and evaluated
according to the norm. Moreover, characteristics of
usage limits will be included in the dictionary.
NAD authors are making an attempt to structure all
stylistic labels according to certain new parameters.
These are: social and functional; chronological; territorial and social; normative; genre and stylistic; and
connotative (expressive, emotive, evaluative). This
stylistic label system was based on the one developed
by V. Vinogradov for Tolrodsq Clodapm (The
Explanatory dictionary) as edited by D. Ushakov.
The Relationship between Lexicography and
Linguistic Theory
The theoretical basis of lexicography was explored

much later than the first Russian dictionaries, in the
middle of the 20th century by L. Scherba (Scherba,
1974). He developed three fundamental categories:
typology of dictionaries, principles of semantic analysis for making a dictionary entry, and discovery
of deeply embedded semantic elements. His six oppositions describing the main types of dictionaries
academic/informative; encyclopedic/general; concordance/defining; ordinary/ideological; defining/
translating; nonhistorical/historicalbecame the
topic of numerous subsequent discussions.
As well as establishing the notion of language
norms, Scherba defined stylistic criteria and promoted
other ideas, such as comprehension of the lexical system as the vocabulary of a certain human community
at a certain moment, and establishing two types of

lexical relations (word-to-word relations and meaning-to-meaning relations within a single word).
According to Scherba, the role of and knowledge within a dictionary is based on a complex of lexicological
and lexicographic studies, on the one hand summarizing theoretical studies and on the other hand being a
source and basis for further theoretical research.
The contribution of another well-known Russian
linguist, V. Vinogradov, to the theory and practice of
Russian lexicography includes many fundamental scientific studies and hundreds of articles (Bogatova,
1999: 253278). His research was mainly based on
critical analyses of Russian dictionaries. Thus, first
and foremost, he discovered and formulated problems in the theory of lexicography and theoretical
lexicology, his main contributions being a theory of
meaning and working out of a phraseology theory.
Vinogradovs fundamental statement about types of
phraseological units became the starting point for the
rapid and successful development of phraseology as
an independent linguistic discipline with its own terminological system and object of study, with special
reference to dictionary making.
Vinogradov created an integral semantic conception that determined the future of Russian semasiology (Vinogradov, 1977). The most important aspect of
Vinogradovs semantic conception was determining
the structure of lexical meaning. He interpreted the
structure of lexical meaning as a complex interaction
of semantics and grammar. Following Vinogradov,
generations of Russian linguists understand lexical
meaning as material matter formed according to the
laws of grammar of the given language, an element in
the general semantic system of the given vocabulary.
This overall definition of a words lexical meaning
was derived directly from lexicographical practice.
It manifests itself in the continuous merging of one
meaning of a word into another, in disputes about
how many meanings a word has and in constant
debates about the accuracy of definitions.
Vinogradov argued that lexical meanings related to
reality and lexical meanings related to the lexical
system are different. This observation led him to one
of the most important conclusions for lexicology and
semasiology: meanings are not homogeneous. There
are qualitative differences in structures of various
kinds of lexical meanings.
Vinogradov also developed a typology of lexical
meanings. This typology outlines three main types
of lexical meaning: free, phraseologically bound,
and functionally and syntactically fixed. Structurally
conditioned meanings represent an additional type.
The typology offered by Vinogradov is still relevant
today: it predicted the development of various
trends in semasiology: the theory of synonymy, homonymy, linguistic metaphor, and the theory of nominalization. It also contributed to the development
of phraseology and lexicography.
The third semantic conception offered by Vinogradov was the issue of the semantic limits of a word. He
saw this as a problem of homonymy in general and
lexicography in particular. The issue concerning the
modern Russian language had been under discussion
for many years. Vinogradov introduced a number of
proposals for determining the limits and norms of the
modern Russian language. At first this question arose
in connection with the need to determine the scope of
an explanatory dictionary and as a matter of combining normative, stylistic, and historic principles in one
reference book. Drawing on the ideas of Scherba,
Vinogradov considered the understanding of structure, volume, contents, limits, and norms of the modern Russian language to be correlated within narrow
chronological limits.
Further attempts to reflect the common literary
language, codified and represented mainly by fiction,
were undertaken in explanatory dictionaries of the
modern Russian language. In the 1950s and 1960s,
Russian lexicographers turned directly to the analysis
of a dictionarys objectives (Sorokaletov, 1998). These
objectives are: objectives of explanatory lexicography; structure and principles of making a dictionary
entry; issues of homonymy and word identity; role of
terminology in the national language; substantiation
of information capacity as determined by the type
of dictionary; criteria of synonymy; and stylistic diversity of the language. Multi-aspect and multilevel
theories of typologies of lexical meanings are currently being developed on the basis of Vinogradovs
ideas.
The search for systematic and unified principles
of lexicography led to the formation of an integral
systematic conception of vocabulary and stimulated
semantic research. The systematic description of
the vocabulary in the dictionary introduced by
J. Apresjan (Apresjan, 2000) presupposes the following factors: discovery and description of external
connections and relations of a word with other
words; description of semantic structure of a word;
and analysis of the seme structure of each lexical and
semantic variant necessary for writing a definition.
The conception of lexical and semantic systems has
been accepted in modern Russian linguistics as an
organization of the word stock with all its elements
naturally tied together, interacting and correlating
with each other in paradigmatic, syntagmatic, and
derivative relations. Moreover the system possesses
a dynamic character, and the system itself is interpreted as a model of a linguistic picture of the world.
The degree of vocabulary ordering within the system (and in the mind of a native speaker) is viewed by
Russian linguists in two different ways. According to
the idea of J. Karaulov, the system is completely ordered, and all of its elements are bound together into
one solid unity (Karaulov, 1981). None of the elements can be separated. P. Denisov, on the other
hand, argued that the system is relatively ordered.
Some zones can have more or less unity, while others
can be isolated. Variants on this issue are described as
different levels of analysis (Denisov, 1974).
External and internal aspects of the lexical and
grammatical system presuppose two kinds of vocabulary description in a dictionary. Research into the
external aspect is aimed at revealing the synonymic,
hyponymic, and other relations between words, as
well as studying different kinds of lexical groups
and formations. Traditional interpretations of the
internal aspect are connected with studying lexical
and grammatical variant correlations within one lexeme (polysemy) (Scherba, 1974; Karaulov, 1981).
There are no contradictions between the external
and internal aspects of the system; they simply show
different stages of analysis. The method of componential analysis offers an insight into every lexical and
semantic item. Thus, indivisible semantic unities become segmentable. These discoveries reveal three
aspects of the lexical and semantic system: external,
internal, and deeply embedded. This corresponds to
the three levels of semantic analysis.
Semasiology was developed in the 1980s and covers
various aspects of a words semantic structure: from
the simple correlation of a word and a concept, to the
theory of reference, to a description of a hierarchically organized structure of lexical meaning. Critical
analysis of dictionaries revealed the imperfection of
the information presented in them. A new level of
structural comprehension as well as lexical meaning
led to the formation of a new trend in semasiology
the study of expression. Combining the expressive
components of a word with its semantics became
the object of this trend.
The idea of deriving lexical meaning from a group
of words and text analysis became linguistically fruitful, going beyond mere lexicographic tasks and contributing to important theoretical conclusions. The
analysis leads to the conclusion that the main unit of
a dictionary the dictionary entry is a cluster of
linguistic knowledge concentrating all information
about a word. This conclusion makes it possible to
use the structure and contents of a dictionary entry as
a basis for further scientific research.
New integral conceptions developed on the basis
of dictionary compilation and analysis of reference
books include the conception of lexical compatibility,
language norms, the theory of synonymy, and the

theory of reference. Linguistic pragmatics thus was
generated as a lexicological discipline. It studies pragmatic information, not on the level of an utterance
but on the level of a word. Stylistics was developed,
along with semasiology. Stylistic research either was
aimed at lexicographic needs or provided materials
and ideas on dictionary issues for theoretical stylistics.
I. Melcuk carried out a series of linguistic studies
of Russian in four domains of linguistic research:
semantics and lexicography; syntax; phraseology;
and morphology. These topics are grouped into
seven thematic divisions, with special reference to
basic problems of semantics and lexicography and
the project of a new type of monolingual theoryoriented, semantically based collocational lexicon:
the explanatory combinatorial dictionary (ECD)
(Melcuk et al., 1984).
ECD is intended to be one of the central components of the natural-language meaning $ text model
(see Meluk, Igor Aleksandrovic (b.1932)).

meaning $ text
model
theory
It contains full-fledged illustrations of two complete

lexical entries; a thorough description within a lexicographic approach of all the senses of two Russian
temporal adverbs and emotion verbs; a countability/
noncountability feature related to the division of
senses in polysemous nouns; the border zone between
syntax, semantics and lexicography, and more.
Thus, the new model of ECD is an essential component of linguistic description within the meaning $
text theory, which describes a natural language as
a kind of logical device, called the meaning $ text
model of natural language. The lexical entries of an
ECD are designed to both test and demonstrate the
apparatus devised for the description of any type of
lexical unit within the framework of the meaning $ text approach. This instrument for lexical description claims to do justice to words both as
paradigmatic units in the network of relations in the
lexicon and as syntagmatic units systematically
related to other similar units in a discourse.
The ECD follows certain promising trends present
in contemporary lexicography. Three of them stand
out: developing active types of dictionaries; emphasizing the universal character of monolingual dictionaries; and matching linguistic to encyclopedic
information.
For a long time, the most common type of monolingual Russian dictionary was the comprehensive
one, to which the user would refer in order to find
out about an unfamiliar word or phrase found in a
text. Such dictionaries were oriented towards making

texts comprehensible, i.e., providing for the transition
from a text to the meaning expressed by it. Using the
traditional contrast between passive grammar (text
understanding, or analysis) and active grammar
(text production, or synthesis) introduced by L.
Scherba more than 50 years ago, one could call
these dictionaries passive.
Several attempts to create dictionaries that satisfied
the needs of foreign-language teaching were made in
the 1930s. A new type of reference book was developed, aimed at users practical needs and contributing
to their production of texts in a foreign language.
Clearly, the meaning $ text model and its indispensable component, the ECD, also aim at achieving this
objective. In this sense, the ECD is an active dictionary. It differs, however, from other active dictionaries in that the linguistic means needed for the
expression of a given idea are selected for inclusion
in the ECD according to explicitly formulated uniform principles, which are given a formalized description in special artificial languages (such as the lexical
functions employed for the description of restricted
lexical co-occurrence).
At the same time, the fact that expressions of a
natural language in the ECD are explicitly associated
with corresponding expressions of a deeper formal
language opens up the possibility of using the ECD not
only in an active but also in a passive role, i.e., not only
for the production but also for the understanding of
texts. Thus, the ECD is potentially a reversible dictionary of a universal character, based on an integrated
linguistic theory, and combining an explanatory
dictionary with phraseological, derivational, and
conceptual dictionaries, along with dictionaries of
synonyms and antonyms and of syntactic patterns.
Until recently, traditional lexicography differentiated between two types of dictionaries: (1) linguistic
dictionaries, which describe meanings of words from
the viewpoint of an unsophisticated native speaker,
and (2) encyclopedic dictionaries, which describe the
corresponding objects, processes, facts, and so forth.
However, the development of linguistics, semiotics,
and other related sciences has led to the idea that the
correct use of words is determined to a significant
degree by the way a language breaks down in reality
into distinct fragments and by what typical linguistic
representations are used to express these fragments.
Consequently explanatory dictionaries (Tol
rodsq Clodapm) began to provide minimal encyclopedic information for words with a strong cultural
and factual-knowledge background. Following this
trend, the ECD includes elements of encyclopedic
information in linguistic dictionary entries. However,
unlike other dictionaries, it strictly distinguishes
between these two types of information, presenting

them in different sections of the dictionary entry. In
maintaining this basic division between linguistic information and encyclopedic material, the ECD is
more consistent with traditional lexicography. At
the same time, the ECD possesses two important
features that distinguish it from most existing dictionaries: its theoretical orientation and its formal character.
The ECD is completely theory-oriented. As stated
above, it is conceived and implemented within the
meaning $ text theory, and the lexicographic method
used is intimately tied to this general linguistic framework. The ECD does not aim to satisfy the specific
needs of a well-defined class of prospective users; nor
does it take into account their probable level of understanding of the corresponding language. It is
designed primarily for scientific purposes and tries
to bridge the chasm between lexicography and theoretical linguistics by laying the basis for a fruitful
interaction between both fieldsan interaction that
heretofore has been minimal.
In accordance with its main goal, the ECD is explicit
and systematic, which means that it never relies on
informal methods of communicating information
about words or on the native speakers intuitive
knowledge of his language. The ECD also employs
circular definitions and requires similar descriptions
for semantically similar items. Thus, for example, all
names of institutions or all names of movements must
be described in exactly the same manner; all differences in the wording of the definitions or in the presentation of lexical collocations of semantically related
words must be justified by actual linguistic differences.
The ECD is a monolingual dictionary with the
following important features: it is an active, generalpurpose dictionary with a substantial element of
encyclopedic information; it is based on a modern
linguistic theory, strongly emphasizing systematic,
explicit, and formalized presentation of all information in the microstructure. The basic unit of an
Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary is a dictionary entry corresponding to a single lexeme or a
single phraseme, i.e., one word or one set phrase
taken in one particular sense. A family of dictionary
entries for lexemes that are sufficiently close in meaning and share the same signifier (i.e., have an identical
stem) is subsumed under each main entry.
The structure of a dictionary entry consists of such
main sections as morphological information (gender
of nouns, aspect of verbs); stylistic specification or
usage label (specialized, official, colloquial, poetic);
definition (elementary and complex word senses of
the language in question); illustrations; lexical functions (synonym, antonym, diminutive, conversive,
etc.); examples; encyclopedic information; idioms.

The ECD is likely to become a central component of
automatic text synthesis and analysis systems because
it presents all essential information about the vocabulary of the language in question in an explicit and
systematic way.
The ECD represents a contribution to language
theory, at least insofar as it provides for the development and refinement of a semantic metalanguage, the
systematic account of phraseology, and the development of a multifaceted approach to the word taken as
the sum of all its semantic and syntactic characteristics. Various advantages are provided by the ECD in
the area of language instruction, as well as in any
activity connected with the development of language
skills. Textbooks, pedagogically oriented dictionaries, reference works, and so on can be successfully
developed along the lines of the ECD.
The Present Day: New Dictionary Types

Dictionaries for General Purposes
A new group of lexicographers from St. Petersburg

integrated the experience of modern linguistic theory
into lexicographic practice, borrowed the rich practical experience of British publishers such as Harper
Collins, and created a new series of reference works
of different sizes (Concise, Pocket and Gem). Their
main product, Clodapm Pyccrouo Zpsra (Dictionary
of the Russian language), edited by D. Dmitriev, is
an example of a dictionary of the new generation
(Dmitriev, 2003). It represents a new type of dictionary intended to answer the question, How can one
speak Russian effectively?
Its compilers borrowed the policies of The Collins
Cobuild dictionaries and apply their typical features:
the dictionaries are corpus-based; full sentences are
used to define words; headwords and the alphabet are
marked with colors; words are exemplified in real
contexts and collocations.
The dictionary is object-oriented. Every meaning is
based on ideas about objects of reality, which possess
different properties (they may be participants in communication, may act in different situations, etc.).
Objects may be physical or abstract. Thus all objects
are divided into classes, for example, living organisms, transportation vehicles, and so on. Every object
is connected in our mind with a certain class, and in
the language they have certain lexical meanings.
Thus the key to word usage in this dictionary is
understanding that groupings of typical word usage
that refer to different classes of objects have different
collocational models, differ in form, and acquire definition in context. All of these features help the user to
understand the living Russian language and make this

an active type of dictionary.
Special Purposes Dictionaries
Parallel to Russian academic lexicography, various

groups of special dictionaries were developed. On
the one hand, these adopted practices from academic
dictionaries, but on the other hand they had their
own peculiar features of macro- and microstructure.
These include dictionaries of slang, difficult words,
new words, and archaisms; phraseological, dialectal,
etymological dictionaries, and so on. Among these,
author and LSP dictionaries have the greatest share
and are worth describing.
Single-Author Dictionaries Author dictionaries
have a long tradition in Russian lexicography, going
back to 1883, when the first glossary devoted to the
words used by a single Russian writer, Derzhavin,
compiled by academician J. Grot, was published.
This was an alphabetically arranged word list with
over 1750 headwords, accompanied by one or two
illustrations, without part of speech labels or definitions, and including an index of proper names.
Among these were proper names of mythological
origin (Dazhbog, Lada, Lel), folklore characters,
and ancient names (Afet Europe, Belt the Baltic
sea).
The appendix of proper names gives exhaustive information about various historical, biographical, geographical, political, and biblical names in Derzhavins
works. Each entry has been supplemented by Grots
comments and references to Derzhavins fiction,
letters, or documents. Thus, the lexicographer
introduced two types of author dictionaries: a
concordance to Derzhavins poems and a complete
alphabetical index of the proper names used (see
Karaulov, 2003: 17).
This dictionary was followed by modest attempts
to describe the vocabularies of other famous Russian
men of letters. A dictionary of the works and translations of D. Fon-Vizin appeared in 1904, compiled
by K. Petrov. This was the first attempt to create a
general-purpose lexicon for all genres of a writers
literary works. In spite of the fact that this new dictionary had a number of faults (the most significant
one being an absence of definitions in many entries),
its development is considered to be a major development in the lexicographic description of an authors
vocabulary.
The language and style of A. S. Griboyedovs comedy Woe from Wit by V. Kunitzky was published in
Kiev in 1894, followed by Materials for a dictionary
of Pushkins Prose by V. Vodarsky. This was devoted
to fiction and historical and critical prose only,
and although it does not contain systematic definitions, the senses are differentiated as in regular
concordances (Karaulov, 2003: 37).
The second period of Russian author lexicography
is notable for A Schedrin dictionary by M. Olminsky.
This was compiled in the late 19th century but only
published in 1937. The majority of entries are proper
names (the names of characters, with references to
the works in which they appear), ideologically important words and word combinations, typical images,
and cliches, which reveal Schedrins artistic conception. The entries contain quotations showing the
ideological importance of the characters or sarcastic
or ironic implications. Despite the fact that both of
the above-mentioned editions are not linguistic in
the traditional sense of the term, their place in the
general typology of single-author dictionaries is quite
significant.
The major event of the second period of Russian
single-author lexicography was the academic dictionary of A. Pushkins complete works (Pushkin
dictionary, 19561961). Pushkin, of course, significantly contributed to the formation of Russian literary language. This project had originated earlier in
the century, but the first volume of the dictionary was
published only in 1956, the volumes main purpose
being a description of the Russian vocabulary in
Pushkins time. It contains detailed entries with grammar labels, full definitions of meanings, and illustrations of words as used by Pushkin. Being a historical
dictionary, it was greatly influenced by Russian academic lexicography and does not show particular
stylistic features of the writers language. Instead, it
uses Pushkins works to explain and illustrate the
Russian language in the early 19th century.
Another project describing the language of a single
author was launched at Leningrad University in the
1950s (Clodapm AdnobboupaabxEcroq Tpbloubb
M. Uopmrouo (A dictionary of autobiographical
trilogy of M. Gorky), 19741990). B. Larin, the originator of the theory of single author lexicography,
conceived the idea of a complete explanatory dictionary of M. Gorkys autobiographical trilogy. This
was a new type of stylistic author dictionary, and its
purpose was to show the individual peculiarities of a
writers language. The compilers worked out a range
of stylistic labels that were later borrowed by compilers of other single-author dictionaries, such as one
dealing with Gorkys dramatic language (Clodapm
Lpavanypubb M. Uopmrouo (A dictionary of the
dramaturgy of M. Gorkys plays), 1994).
Both dictionaries opened up a new era in Russian
single-author lexicography, (see Karaulov, 2001),
notable for explanatory lexicons (or Tolrodsq Clodapm), and a significant group of indices based on
frequencies of words in the works of M. Tsvetaeva, I.

Brodsky, and other Russian poets.
The beginning of the millennium was marked by a
two-volume work called Clodapm Pyccroq Popbb
20 BEra (Dictionary of Russian poetry of the 20th
century) (20012003), which contains entries from
all the major Russian poets of the 20th century, with
a complete description of the usage in their texts,
accompanied by stylistic and expressive labels and
illustrations. This is a completely new type of historical-stylistic dictionary, which combines concordance
with lexicon and aims to describe the language of the
poets period as well as their individual peculiarities.
Dictionaries of Language for Special Purpose (LSP)
LSP dictionaries were originally classified in Russian
lexicography as nepvbyoloub ecrbq terminological
or yaybyo-nExybxEcrbq scientific-technical terms.
They appeared in the early 1930s with the effective
development of Russian science and technology,
which demanded mono- and bilingual dictionaries
describing different subject areas, such as metallurgy,
energy, chemistry, physics, etc. (Marchuk, 1992).
Since then, a Russian terminological school has been
established and hundreds of linguistic and encyclopedic LSP reference works of different types and sizes
have been published.
The most successful attempt to describe the historical and typological picture of Russian LSP dictionaries was made by Alexander Gerd (Gerd, 1985).
According to his main idea, all LSP dictionaries
must be based on a logico-notional scheme of a particular subject field, accompanied by specialist expertise. His idea found its development in numerous
theoretical works and dictionary projects.
Nowadays, LSP in Russia has at its disposal monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual dictionaries of
many different types (Leitchik, 1999). Modern LSP
lexicography in Russia is greatly affected by computers, so many dictionaries have recently appeared on
the Internet.
Culture-Oriented Dictionaries
The culture of speech has recently become a

promising field of lexicographic research in Russia.
The culture of speech embraces both language and
rhetorical proficiency and is understood by most Russian scholars as the ability to chose the linguistic
means that are proper and sufficient for achieving a
communicative purpose. The culture of speech thus
presupposes language acquisition (studying its grammatical, lexical, and phonological features) and learning the ethics of verbal interaction and the regulation
of effective speech behavior, i.e., the conditions,
principles, rules, and means of the appropriate and

expressive arrangement of written and oral texts.
Creative use of the various linguistic means available is based on profound knowledge of language,
which is, in its turn, the main goal of modern education. It is obvious, considering its educative goal, that
the research by Russian scholars in the field of the
culture of speech would inevitably result in an encyclopedic volume aimed at explaining the culture of
the modern Russian language in all its many aspects.
The encyclopedic dictionary Rylmnypa Pyccroq
Pexb (The culture of Russian speech), published in
2003, became the first reference book to define the
subject field, as previously no attempts had been
made to give a clear and precise description (Ivanov,
2003). The work started in 1989, when the main
decisions about the dictionary were made. They can
be summed up as follows:
. to avoid an excessive word list, it was decided not
to focus on the historical perspective but instead to
give a broad coverage of modern terminology with
some etymological data;
. the editors did not include the terms of grammar,
stylistics, poetry studies, or semiotics because of the
variety of available specialized dictionaries in those
subject fields;
. some subject field terms that have little connection
with philology were included as headwords, such
as lbyudbcnbxEcraz rcpepnbpa linguistic expertise; yeqpolbyudbcnbxecroe ppoupavvbpodaybe
neurolinguistic programming; perlava advertising;
. some entries on the theory of communication were
deliberately targeted at specialists aware of the
subjects peculiarities, not at nonprofessional
users, such as alpecayn addresser, alpecan addressee, rayals pexedouo Bopleqcndbz channels
of speech influence;
. while defining words that have explanations supplementing each other, the editors sometimes place
two definitions by different scholars together, even
if they seem to be incompatible, for example,
lbyudbcnbxecraz roloubz linguistic ecology,
cnblbcnbra stylistics;
. up-to-date 21st century mass-media texts were
chosen as the main source of illustrative examples,
although some examples come from the 1990s.
The structure of the dictionary is arranged in five
parts:
1. general terms of the culture of speech, rhetoric
studies, stylistics, and adjacent subject fields;
2. functional styles, genres, stylistic resources of the
language;
3. rhetoric methods and stylistic devices;

4. mistakes and faults of speech;
5. reference works.
The dictionary is easy to use, as it has an alphabetical arrangement. The headwords are given mostly in
the singular. In cases where the headword is a combination of a noun and an adjective, the variant starts
from the adjective if the word combination is a unified
term. When a group of terms is united by a general
term, the entry starts from the latter; the same holds
true in the case of synonyms: the entry starts from the
most frequent. In the back matter, there is a list of the
entries, which makes searching easier.
It is worth mentioning that the dictionary allows
one to solve various tasks. In case the purpose is
researching correct and effective speech production
or using stylistic devices, the editors advise that users
should first study the contents of the second and the
third parts, then consult the entries. If the purpose is
editing texts or correcting mistakes, the contents of
the fourth and the fifth parts will be of greater help.
The dictionary can also serve a perfect tool for college
and university students reading for examinations in
the culture of speech, stylistics, and rhetoric studies.
See also: Learners Dictionaries; Lexicography: Overview;
Meluk, Igor Aleksandrovic (b.1932); Russian Federation:

Language Situation; Russian.
Bibliography
Apresjan J D (2000). Systematic lexicography.
[CbcnEvanbxEcraz LErcbroupaabz]. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bogatova G A (ed.) (1999). Russian lexicographers of the
20th century [OTExECnBEyysE LErcbroupaas 20 BEra].
Moscow: Russian Language Institute, Academy of
Sciences.
Bogatova G A (ed.) (2000). Russian lexicographers of the
18th20th centuries [OTExECnBEyysE LErcbroupaas
1820 BErod]. Moscow: Nauka.
Dal V (18631866). An explanatory dictionary of the living
great Russian language [Tolrodsq Clodapm :bdouo
BElbrouo Pyccrouo Zpsra] (4 vols). Baudouin de Courtenay (ed.). Reprint of the 19031909 edition. Moscow:
Terra Book Club.
Denisov P N (1974). Essays on Russian lexicology
and educational lexicography [OxEprb po Pyccroq Lercbroloubb b ExEbyoq LErcbroupaabb]. Moscow: Moscow State University.
Dictionary of the modern Russian language [Clodapm
CodpEvEyyouo Pyccrouo Zpsra] (17 vols) (1948
1965). Moscow, Leningrad: Soviet Academy of Sciences.
Dictionary of the Russian Academy [Clodapm Pyccroq
AralEvbb] (6 vols) (17891794). St. Petersburg: Academy of Sciences.
Dictionary of Russian poetry of the 20th century [Clodapm

Pyccroq Popbb 20 BEra] (2 vols) (20012003).
Moscow: Languages of Slavonic culture.
Dmitriev D (ed.) (2003). Explanatory dictionary of the
Russian language [Tolrodsq Clodapm Pyccrouo
Zpsra]. Moscow: Astrel.
Gerd A S (1985). Basics of scientific-technological lexicography [Ocyods Hayxyo-TExybxEcroq lErcbro paabb].
Leningrad: Leningrad State University.
Gorbachevich K S (ed.) (19911994). Dictionary of modern
Russian literary language [Clodapm CodpEvEyyouo Pyccrouo LbnEpanypyouo Zpsra] (2nd edn., 20 vols). Moscow: Russian Language.
Ivanov L J (ed.) (2003). The culture of Russian speech: an
encyclopedic dictionary [Rylmnypa Pyccroq Pexb:
"ywbrlopElbxEcrbq Clodapm]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.
Karaulov J N (1981). Linguistic modeling and thesaurus of
literary language [LbyudbcnbxEcroE RoycnpybpodaybE b
TEpaypyc LbnEpanypyouo Zpsra]. Moscow: Nauka.
Karaulov J N (ed.) (2003). Lexicography of Russian writers
of the 19th20th centuries: an anthology [Pyccraz
Adnopcraz LErcbroupaabz 1920 BErod: Aynoloubz].
Moscow: Azbukovnik.
Kovtun L S (1963). Russian lexicography of the Middle
Ages [Pyccraz LErcbroupaabz "poxb CpElyEdErodmz].
Moscow, Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
Kovtun L S (1977). Lexicography in Muscovite Russia of the
16th and early 17th centuries [LErcbroupaabz d Mocrodcroq Pycb 16- Haxala 17 BEra]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Kozyrev V A & Chernyak V D (2000). The universe
in alphabetical order [BcElEyyaz d Alaadbnyov
PopzlrE]. St. Petersburg: Russian State Pedagogical
University named for I. A. Gertsen.
Leitchik V M (1999). Dictionary typology on the eve of
the 21st century [Tbpoloubz ClodapEq ya PopouE
21 BEra]. Publication of the International Slavonic
University, 24, 710.
Marchuk J N (1992). Basics of terminography [Ocyods
TEpvbyoupaabb]. Moscow: Moscow State University.
Melc uk I A (1999). The meaning-text theory lingustic
model [Opsn TEopbb LbyudbcnbxEcroq MolElb
Cvscl-nercn]. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.
Melc uk I A, Zholkovsky A K & Apresjan J D (1984).
Combinatorial lexicon of the Russian language: experiments in the description of Russian words [TolrodoRovbbyanopysq Clodapm CodpEvEyyouo Pyccrouo
Zpsra: Opsns CEvaynbro CbynarcbxEcrouo Opbcaybz Pyccroq LErcbrb]. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband 14.
Scherba L V (1974). Outline of general theory of lexicography [Opsn OboEq TEopbb LErcbroupaabb]. In
Scherba L V (ed.) Language system and speech activity.
Leningrad: Nauka. 265304.
Sklyarevskaya G N (ed.) (1998, 2001). An explanatory
dictionary of the Russian language: language change
at the end of the 20th century [Tolrodsq Clodapm
Pyccrouo Zpsra: ZpsrodsE BpvEyEybz Roywa 20
CnolEnbz]. St. Petersburg: Folio Press; 2nd edn. (2001)
Moscow: Astrel.
Rwanda: Language Situation 715

Sorokaletov F P (1998). History of Russian lexicography
[Bcnopbz Pyccroq LErcbroupaabb]. St. Petersburg:
Nauka.
Ushakov D N (19351940). An explanatory dictionary of
the Russian language [Tolrodsq Clodapm Pyccrouo
Zpsra] (4 vols). Moscow: State Press of Foreign and

National Dictionaries.
Vinogradov V V (1977). Selected works: lexicology and
lexicography [BpbpayysE Tpyls: Lercbroloubz b
LErcbroupaabz]. Moscow: Nauka.
Rwanda: Language Situation

J Rusanganwa, National University of Rwanda,
Butare, Rwanda
Rwanda is a country in eastern Africa bordered by the

Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Uganda,
and Tanzania. It has about 8 million inhabitants.
Four main languages are spoken in Rwanda, each with
their own status. Kinyarwanda is a national and official
language and plays an important role in coordinating
the political and social interactions among Rwandan
returnees from various English- or French-speaking
countries of refuge. French and English are used as
official languages and for communication in academic
matters. Some Rwandan families, especially well
educated ones, even use English or French in their household communication. Kiswahili, though widely spoken,
has not yet attained an official position; it is considered
the commercial language used among indigenous and
Afro-Asian traders. However, Kiswahili is taught as a
subject in some secondary schools and used by Muslims
as a language of communication in religious matters.
Kinyarwanda is spoken in the Republic of Rwanda
as well as in neighboring countries such as the
and Tanzania. Gasarabwe (1992) estimates that
Kinyarwanda is spoken and understood by more
than 20 million people. This number includes
8 320 000 Rwandans in Rwanda (according to the
2002 national census) and more than 5 million speakers in the neighboring countries and in the diaspora. In
addition, Kinyarwanda is mutually intelligible with
Kirundi, the language of about 7 million Burundians.
Kinyarwanda is a language of the Benue-Congo
branch of the Niger-Congo family and belongs to
the Bantu group, spoken in the central, eastern, and
southern parts of Africa. Kinyarwanda has been classified by Guthrie (1948) as D 61, belonging to group
D 60. However, following work by Meeussen (1967)
and Schoenbrunn (1994), Kinyarwanda has been
classified as belonging to the interlacustrine zone J,
and, within this zone, as J 61, together with Giha
and Kirundi. There are a number of slightly distinct
alternative names for Kinyarwanda, all revolving
around round the stem -rwanda-, e.g., Runyarwanda,

Ikinyarwanda, Rwanda, Orunyarwanda, Urunyarwanda, etc. The name of their language for Rwandans themselves is Ikinyarwanda. According to
available research (e.g, Nkusi, 1986: 289), Kinyarwanda has about a dozen dialects. These include
Ikireera, Ikigoyi, Igisoozo, Ikinyanduga (standard
Kinyarwanda), Igikiga (ubulimi), Igishobyo, Oluciga,
Igihavu, Ururashi, Amashi, and Ikiyaaka.
The writing system of Kinyarwanda employs Latin
characters, since the first writers of this language were
missionaries who wrote the prayer book Le livre de
priere / Igitabo cyabakristu bo mu Rwanda in 1907, a
manuscript produced in Maison Care e France.
Some sounds of Kinyarwanda are not found in IPA,
so some linguists (e.g., Gerla, 1980; Kimenyi, 1983;
Jouannet, 1984) have devised new phonetic symbols
to represent these sounds, e.g., for the clusters shy, jy,
mf, pf, ts, mpky. Kinyarwanda, as most other Bantu
languages, is a tone language. Two tones are distinguished by the diacritics high (/) and low (\) to characterize the rising and falling tones respectively, e.g.
umuhu`ngu, boy and aba na, children.
As any other language, Kinyarwanda can be used
not only in communication but also in specialized
domains, including drama, poetry, and other technical
domains for which specialized Kinyarwanda is needed.
Unfortunately, Kinyarwanda has not yet been used as a
medium of instruction in schools except in the lower
primary cycle. It is only taught as a subject from upper
primary school cycle through secondary school and to
university levels, as secondary schools and universities
in Rwanda use education materials written in English
or French. For this reason the policy of bilingualism
was adopted in 1996, making both English and French
used as mediums of instruction. It is still debatable
(Nkusi, 1980) whether Kinyarwanda will become an
instrument of modern or technical communication. If
asked their points of views, many Rwandans would
argue that this would not be a simple matter, since
most of the modern communication and technology
is imported from abroad. However, Kinyarwanda
adopts to this modernity and assimilates it by finding
equivalent terms. Only the technology invented by
Rwandans is directly named in Kinyarwanda.
Rwanda: Language Situation 715

Sorokaletov F P (1998). History of Russian lexicography
[Bcnopbz Pyccroq LErcbroupaabb]. St. Petersburg:
Nauka.
Ushakov D N (19351940). An explanatory dictionary of
the Russian language [Tolrodsq Clodapm Pyccrouo
Zpsra] (4 vols). Moscow: State Press of Foreign and

National Dictionaries.
Vinogradov V V (1977). Selected works: lexicology and
lexicography [BpbpayysE Tpyls: Lercbroloubz b
LErcbroupaabz]. Moscow: Nauka.
Rwanda: Language Situation

J Rusanganwa, National University of Rwanda,
Butare, Rwanda
Rwanda is a country in eastern Africa bordered by the

and Tanzania. It has about 8 million inhabitants.
Four main languages are spoken in Rwanda, each with
their own status. Kinyarwanda is a national and official
language and plays an important role in coordinating
the political and social interactions among Rwandan
returnees from various English- or French-speaking
countries of refuge. French and English are used as
official languages and for communication in academic
matters. Some Rwandan families, especially well
educated ones, even use English or French in their household communication. Kiswahili, though widely spoken,
has not yet attained an official position; it is considered
the commercial language used among indigenous and
Afro-Asian traders. However, Kiswahili is taught as a
subject in some secondary schools and used by Muslims
as a language of communication in religious matters.
Kinyarwanda is spoken in the Republic of Rwanda
as well as in neighboring countries such as the
and Tanzania. Gasarabwe (1992) estimates that
Kinyarwanda is spoken and understood by more
than 20 million people. This number includes
8 320 000 Rwandans in Rwanda (according to the
2002 national census) and more than 5 million speakers in the neighboring countries and in the diaspora. In
addition, Kinyarwanda is mutually intelligible with
Kirundi, the language of about 7 million Burundians.
Kinyarwanda is a language of the Benue-Congo
branch of the Niger-Congo family and belongs to
the Bantu group, spoken in the central, eastern, and
southern parts of Africa. Kinyarwanda has been classified by Guthrie (1948) as D 61, belonging to group
D 60. However, following work by Meeussen (1967)
and Schoenbrunn (1994), Kinyarwanda has been
classified as belonging to the interlacustrine zone J,
and, within this zone, as J 61, together with Giha
and Kirundi. There are a number of slightly distinct
alternative names for Kinyarwanda, all revolving
around round the stem -rwanda-, e.g., Runyarwanda,

Ikinyarwanda, Rwanda, Orunyarwanda, Urunyarwanda, etc. The name of their language for Rwandans themselves is Ikinyarwanda. According to
available research (e.g, Nkusi, 1986: 289), Kinyarwanda has about a dozen dialects. These include
Ikireera, Ikigoyi, Igisoozo, Ikinyanduga (standard
Kinyarwanda), Igikiga (ubulimi), Igishobyo, Oluciga,
Igihavu, Ururashi, Amashi, and Ikiyaaka.
The writing system of Kinyarwanda employs Latin
characters, since the first writers of this language were
missionaries who wrote the prayer book Le livre de
priere / Igitabo cyabakristu bo mu Rwanda in 1907, a
manuscript produced in Maison Caree France.
Some sounds of Kinyarwanda are not found in IPA,
so some linguists (e.g., Gerla, 1980; Kimenyi, 1983;
Jouannet, 1984) have devised new phonetic symbols
to represent these sounds, e.g., for the clusters shy, jy,
mf, pf, ts, mpky. Kinyarwanda, as most other Bantu
languages, is a tone language. Two tones are distinguished by the diacritics high (/) and low (\) to characterize the rising and falling tones respectively, e.g.
umuhu`ngu, boy and abana, children.
As any other language, Kinyarwanda can be used
not only in communication but also in specialized
domains, including drama, poetry, and other technical
domains for which specialized Kinyarwanda is needed.
Unfortunately, Kinyarwanda has not yet been used as a
medium of instruction in schools except in the lower
primary cycle. It is only taught as a subject from upper
primary school cycle through secondary school and to
university levels, as secondary schools and universities
in Rwanda use education materials written in English
or French. For this reason the policy of bilingualism
was adopted in 1996, making both English and French
used as mediums of instruction. It is still debatable
(Nkusi, 1980) whether Kinyarwanda will become an
instrument of modern or technical communication. If
asked their points of views, many Rwandans would
argue that this would not be a simple matter, since
most of the modern communication and technology
is imported from abroad. However, Kinyarwanda
adopts to this modernity and assimilates it by finding
equivalent terms. Only the technology invented by
Rwandans is directly named in Kinyarwanda.
716 Rwanda: Language Situation
Though not an international language, Kinyarwanda is widely spoken in the world. Apart from
being spoken in the central and eastern parts of
Africa, it is also broadcast over BBC, VOA, and
Deutsche Welle. These emissions are intended to
solve political and economic problems in Africas
Great Lakes region and in particular for Rwanda,
which experienced terrible genocide in 1994.
An Example of an English Text

Translated into Kinyarwanda
Original
The second edition of the Encyclopedia of Language

and Linguistics (ELL2) builds on the foundation laid
by the first edition (ELL1), which for a decade has
been the most authoritative, up-to-date, comprehensive, and international reference source in its field.
Kinyarwanda Translation
Isohoka
rya kabiri ry inkoranya bumenyi
it-come out of-two
of-put together-knowledge
y indimi
of tongues
edition second encyclopedia of language
n iyiga
ndimi
icapwa
and learn tongues print
and linguistics edition second
rya kabiri
of-two
rishingiye ku ryaribanjirije
k uburyo
it-hinges on which came first in the manner that
kuva
from
builds on its predecessor to an extent that for
mu myaka icumi kugezubu
in years
ten
to reach-now
a decade up-tonow was the most
ariyo
was the one
yashingirwagaho
kuberako ikubiyemo
that was hinged on because
it-contains
acceptable reference since it encompasses
isooko yinyandiko mpuza mahanga
source of writings
bring-together territories
zigezweho
up-to date
up-to-date international reference sources
mu
rwego
rwindimi
in the habitat of-tongues
in the field of languages
Kinyarwanda Phonetic Transcription
[[isohwkha rgyaa kha bir rgynkworaJaumeJi yndmi nyga ndmi itSapkha rgyaa khair riSi`Ngyiye
kwurgyaariaanzirize kwuurgyo kuva mu mJaakhtSum
kugyezuaryo
yaSiNgyirgwagaho
kwuerakwikwuiyemNsookwo yJandikwo mpuuzamahaaNga zigyezgweho mu rgweegwo rgwndmi]]
See also: Kinyarwanda; Language Education Policies in
Africa.
Bibliography
Barreteau D (1978). Inventaires des e tudes linguistiques
sur les pays de lAfrique noire francophone et sur
Madagascar. Paris: Selaf.
Bastin Y, Doneux J L, Coupez A, Evrard E & Vansina J
(1983). Classification lexicostatistique des langues bantoues (214 reves). Bulletin des seances de lAcademie
Royale des sciences doutres-mer 27, 173198.
Gasarabwe E (1992). Parlons kinyarwanda-kirund langue
et culture. Paris: Edition lHarmattan.
GERLA (1983). Notation et orthographe du kinyarwanda. Acte du colloque (35 juin 1981) Ruhengeri
UNR. [Unpublished.]
Guthrie M (1948). The classification of the Bantu languages. London: Oxford University Press.
Hyman L (ed.) (1976). Studies in Bantu tonology.
Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of
California.
Jouannet F (1984). Lorthographe du kinyarwanda, langue
nationale et officielle du Rwanda. Butare. [Unpublished.].
Kimenyi A (1980). A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Meeussen A E (1967). Bantu grammatical reconstructions.
Africana Linguistica 3, 79121.
Mould M J (1976). Comparative grammar reconstruction
and language sub-classification: the north Victorian
Bantu languages. Ph.D. diss. University of California.
Mudenge G (1985). Phonetique, phonologie et morphosyntaxe du Kireera dialecte du Kinyarwanda, memoire de
licence UNR-ruhengeri. [Unpublished.]
Munyakazi L (1984). La situation socio-linguistique du
Rwanda. Aspects endocentrique et exocentrique. Ph.D.
thesis, Universite de Nice.
Murekezi J B (1988). La morphologie nominale du kikiga,
langue bantou du nord-est du Rwanda, memoire de DEA.
Universite de Nice. [Unpublished.]
Ngurinzira B (1982). Projet atlas linguistique dAfrique
centrale ALAC-Rwanda. Inventaire de langues et travaux
linguistique. Kigali. [Unpublished.]
Nkusi L (1986). Rwanda: presentation socio-linguistique.
In Promotion et integration des langues nationales dans
les systemes educatifs. (CONFEMEN). Paris: Editions
Champions. 257289.
Nkusi L (1980). Le Kinyarwanda, peut-il devenir un instrument de communication moderne? In Education et
Culture 78, 131138. Published by Ministere de lEducation Nationale.
Nsanzabiga E (1985). Etudes tonologique et morphotonologique du rushobyo. dialecte du kinyarwanda, memoire
de D E A. Universite de Nice. [Unpublished.]
Schoenbrun D L (1994). Great Lakes Bantu: Classification
and Settlement Chronology. Sprache und Geschichte in
Afrika 16, 91152.
Ryukyuan 717
Ryukyuan
M Shibatani, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Also known as Luchuan and Okinawan, the Ryukyuan

(Okinawan, Central) language comprises a group of
diverse dialects of the former Ryukyu Kingdom,
14291879, which has lost much of its political and
economic independence since 1609, when it fell to the
hands of the Shimazu clan of Kagoshima, Kyushu.
Following the Japanese annexation in 1879, the
Ryukyu Islands became a prefecture of Japan Okinawa ken Okinawa Pref. the status it regained in
1972, when the islands were returned to Japan from
the American occupation. The Japanese government
policy of fostering the use of standard Japanese since
the time of the Meiji restoration (1868) has helped
marginalize local dialects throughout Japan, and it
has also had a pronounced effect in Okinawa. Based
on the most recent census (2002), it can be estimated
that of the current population of 1.3 million Okinawans, less than 300 000 people over the age 50 speak
some variety of the Ryukyuan language with varying
degrees of proficiency. Since children no longer learn
to speak Ryukyuan, the language is bound to become
extinct within the next 50 years unless active revitalization efforts are mounted.
Hypothesizing the sister-language relationship,
Chamberlain (1895) remarked that the relationship
between Ryukyuan and Japanese is something like that
between Spanish and Italian or that between French
and Italian. But unlike these Romance languages, the
Ryukyuan dialects are often mutually completely unintelligible among their speakers, let alone to the speakers of any mainland dialect. Japanese dialectologists,
on the other hand, have generally regarded Ryukyuan
as a branch of Japanese dialects comprising three
large groups: the Amami-Okinawa group (Amami dialect, Okinawan dialect), the Miyako-Yaeyama group
(Miyako dialect, Yaeyama dialect), and the southernmost Yonaguni dialect group. The dialect of Shuri, the
former capital of the Ryukyuan Kingdom, of the main
Okinawa Island is generally regarded as the standard
Ryukyuan, and it has served as a lingua franca of
the Ryukyus.
It is generally estimated that the Ryukyuan stock split
from the mainstream Japanese language at the latest
around the 6th century A.D. (Hattori, 1976). Ryukyuan
dialects show systematic sound correspondences with
the modern Tokyo dialect, and they preserve a number

of distinct features of Old Japanese. As shown in
TokyoShuri correspondences such as ame:ami
rain, hone:funi bone, and kokoro:kukuru heart,
the mid vowels have been raised in Ryukyuan dialects
with the result of the standard five vowels i, e, u, o, a
being reduced to the three vowels i, a, u. Innovative
phonological developments include palatalization of
/k/ before the /i/ corresponding to the Tokyo /i/
(Shuri t iri : Tokyo kiri fog), centralization of the
original /i/ in certain dialects (e.g., Miyako, Yaeyama),
and the development of long mid vowels /o:/ and /e:/
from au, ao, and ou, as well as e: from ai and ae,
respectively.
The features of Old Japanese preserved in Ryukyuan
dialects cover all aspects of grammar. The Old Japanese
consonant /p/ is preserved in such words as piru
day time, pi: fire, and pa: leaf, corresponding to
the Tokyo forms hiru, hi, and ha, respectively. The
Ryukyuan lexicon contains older forms such as tudzi
wife, wan I, and warabi child. The notable syntactic features of Old Japanese preserved include the
distinction between the conclusive form and the attributive form of verbs and adjectives; e.g., kat un
write-Conclusive and kat uru write-Attributive
correspond to the Tokyo form kaku used in both
conclusive and attributive functions. Also seen is the
preservation of the nominative function of the particle
nu (Old Japanese/Modern Japanese no) in the main
clause. In the total picture of the Japanese dialects, the
Ryukyuan dialects form the most peripheral groups
that preserve historically residual forms in line with
the classical theory dialectology.
See also: Japan: Language Situation; Japanese.
Bibliography
Chamberlain B (1895). Essay in aid of a grammar and
dictionary of the Luchuan language. Transaction of the
Asiatic Society of Japan 23 (suppl.) .
Hattori S (1967). Ryuukyuu hoogen to hondo hoogen. In
Okinawagaku no Reimei. Tokyo: Okinawa Bunka
Kyokai. 755.
Kokuritsu K K (1963). Okinawago Jiten. Tokyo: Okura-sho.
Shibatani M (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tojo M (1927). Wagakuni no hoogen-kukaku. Tokyo:
Ikueishoin.
S
Saadya Gaon (882942)
A Gianto, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, Italy
Saadya was born in Pithom (Abu Suweir) in the

Fayyum district of Egypt, in 882. The name Saadya
is an artificial Hebrew equivalent of his Arabic name
Said. He left Egypt in 905 and lived in Palestine but
moved further and finally settled in Babylonia. There
he was associated with the rabbinic Academy of Sura
and became its head, hence the title Gaon, from 928
to 930 and again from 936 until his death in 942.
Between the two terms of his gaonate, he lived
in Baghdad and wrote his famous Kitab al-Amanat
wa-al-Itiqadat (The book of beliefs and opinions) in
933, which was later translated into Hebrew by the
Ibn Tibbon family. In this book, Saadya attempted to
reconcile Judaism with the philosophical thinking of
Aristotle and Plato, his goal being to bring assimilated
Jews back to Torah and its practical application.
Saadya accepted the notion that reason was a legitimate standard for truth and set out to demonstrate
that the Torah was compatible with reason. What
was more, Saadya contended, the Torah was the
finest source of truth available, and the study of
Torah further developed ones rational judgment.
Saadya translated into Arabic almost every book in
the Hebrew bible, adding an Arabic commentary,
although there was no citation from the books of
Chronicles. The translation of the Pentateuch was
contained in the Polyglot bibles of Constantinople
(1546), Paris (1645), and London (1657), and in an
edition for the Jews of Yemen.
In 913, he completed his first great work, the
Hebrew dictionary to which he gave the title of Sefer
ha-Agron. It had two parts, each arranged according
to the alphabetic order of initials and of final letters

respectively. Its purpose was to help writers find
rhyming words. In a later edition, Saadya added the
Arabic translation of each word, and also included
passages concerning various memorable subjects
about poets and their diction, naming the work in
its new form Kitab al-Shir. Then in his Kutub alLughah, he sought to explain the irab, or derivational and inflectional morphology. His Tafsr al-Sab<na
Lafz. ah was a list of 90 Hebrew words, and some
Aramaic, which occur only once or very rarely in
the bible and explained from the vocabulary of the
Mishnaic Hebrew.
Saadya laid the foundation of Hebrew grammar
by establishing categories and rules. His dictionary,
primitive and merely practical as it was, became the
foundation of Hebrew lexicography. The categories
of rhetoric, as they were found among the Arabs,
were first applied by Saadya to biblical stylistic analysis. He was likewise one of the founders of comparative philology, through his explanation of the
Hebrew vocabulary by their Arabic cognates.
See also: Hebrew Lexicography.
Bibliography
Friedlander M (1910). Life and works of Saadia. Jewish
Quarterly Review 1, 177199.
Malter H (1969). Saadia Gaon: his life and works. New
York: Hermon Press [A reprint of the 1921 edition
in Philadelphia by The Jewish Publication Society of
America].
Skoss S L (1955). Saadia Gaon, the earliest Hebrew
grammarian. Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press.
720 Saami
Saami
P Sammallahti, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Saami is a subfamily of closely related languages

within the Uralic phylum. At present, the Saami languages are spoken in an area arching from Dalecarlia
in central Sweden to the tip of the Kola peninsula in
northwestern Russia. The number of native speakers
is ca. 30 000; ca. 85% of these speak North Saami
(Saami, Northern) in Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
The rest are unevenly distributed between Lule Saami
(Saami, Lule) (south of North Saami in Norway and
Sweden, estimated 2000 speakers), Kildin Saami
(Saami, Kildin) (inland and northern coast of the
Kola peninsula, 900 speakers), South Saami (Saami,
Southern) (in the southernmost Saami areas in
Norway and Sweden, 500 speakers), Skolt Saami
(Saami, Skolt) (in Finland and some speakers in
Russia, 400 speakers), Inari Saami (Saami, Inari)
(in Finland, 300 speakers). The rest, Ume Saami
(Saami, Ume) and Pite Saami (Saami, Pite) in Sweden
between South Saami and Lule Saami areas, and Ter
Saami (Saami, Ter) in eastern Kola peninsula are
maintained by a score of old speakers each; Akkala
Saami (Saami, Akkala) in southwestern Kola peninsula is probably extinct; the documentation of the
minor languages is unsatisfactory (Ter, Pite, Ume) or
highly unsatisfactory (Akkala).
There have been Saami idioms down to southern
Finland and southern Karelia in Russia; of these
idioms, the northernmost ones went into oblivion in
the 19th century. There is evidence (language documents, etc.) of Saami presence south of the South
Saami area in Sweden and Norway. Loanwords
from Finnic, Proto-Indo-European, Aryan, Germanic,
Baltic, and Slavic witness contacts with other linguistic groups. There is an ostensible non-Uralic
substrate, especially in place names.
First Saami books date to 1619. The author
belonged to a trader family and the language represents a pidgin with Saami, Finnish, and Swedish
words and hardly any inflection. The first books
representing Saami vernaculars (Lule Saami, Ume
Saami) were published in the same century. At present, six Saami languages (South, Lule, North, Inari,
Skolt, and Kildin) have a literary norm.
The Saami languages are structurally close to the
rest of the Uralic languages. The finite verb agrees
with the subject and is conjugated in three numbers
(singular, dual, and plural), three persons (first, second, and third), and two tenses (the present/future
and the preterit) in most languages; the auxiliary
leat to be together with nonfinite forms of the

main verb is used to form aspectual compound
forms (progressive vs. terminative aspect in both
tenses, e.g., lean boahtime I am coming vs. lean
boahta n I have come). The number of morphological moods varies from two (indicative, imperative) to
five (indicative, conditional, potential, imperative,
adhortative).
Negation is expressed by a negative verb; in the
idioms southwest of North Saami, it has two tenses.
In North Saami and east of the language area, tense is
encoded in the nonfinite main verb (e.g., North Saami
in mana I do not go vs. in mannan I did not go).
The rest of the auxiliaries (mostly for epistemic and
deontic modalities) show a more complete conjugation. In addition to compound tenses the nonfinite
verb forms are also used for sentence-embedding,
e.g., Ma ret logai Ma hte [AccSg] boahta n [Perfect
Participial] Mary said that Matthew has come. Derivation is extensive within and across word classes;
in verbs, there are several morphological passives
and causatives in addition to a wide selection of
aspectual derivatives (frequentative, subitive, etc.).
The Saami languages are nominative-accusative
languages; in North Saami, some verbs denoting
natural processes may take their single participant
argument either in the nominative or in the accusative
(e.g., biegga [NomSg] garai the wind became harder
garai biekka [AccSg] id.). The basic word order in
most Saami idioms is SVO but the older SOV is still
dominant in South Saami, and the object neutrally
precedes its nonfinite head (S Aux O V). Word order
is free for the dependents of the verb and determined
by pragmatic factors; the attribute precedes its head;
postpositions dominate over prepositions.
In addition to the grammatical cases nominative
( no case) and accusative, nominals have the local
cases illative, inessive, and elative (illative and locative in North Saami and the languages east of its
area), the predicative cases comitative, essive, and
abessive; as a rare case of degrammaticalization,
the abessive ending has evolved into a postposition
in North Saami (e.g., *guolihaga > guoli haga without fish). The local cases are also used in nonlocal
arguments (e.g., Ma htte balla gumppes [LocSg]
Matthew is afraid of the wolf); the comitative also
expresses the instrument argument. In addition to
determinative (e.g., Ma hte [GenSg] govva Matthews
picture) and complementing uses (e.g., seainni
[GenSg] c a2a through the wall), the genitive
expresses the owner argument when the theme is
definite, e.g., beana [NomSg] lea a hc i [GenSg]
the dog is fathers; if the theme is nondefinite, the
Sacks, Harvey (19351975) 721
locative (< inessive) is the case of the owner argument, e.g., a hc is [LocSg] lea beana [NomSg] father
has a dog; in South Saami, genitive is used in both
cases aehtjien [GenSg] benje [NomSg] father has a
dog, benje aehtjien the dog is fathers.
Saami phonology is an extreme sport: a bisyllabic stem may have over 20 different phonological
forms depending on grade alternation, compensatory lengthening, vowel balance and metaphony, etc.,
caused by different suffixes. The number of consonant phonemes is 1940 depending on idiom, and the
basic vowel phonemes (510 depending on idiom) are
combined to form vowel sequences (510 geminate
vowels and 410 diphthongs with the first component
higher than the second, e.g., /ie/ and /oa/). Word stress
is trochaic, e.g., /ku .laa.ha`l.laa.peèh.teh/ you understand each other, but morphology may cause deviations from the rule, e.g., /mu j.j.hta.lis.koàh.tiih/
to begin telling (/-s.koàh.tii-/ is a derivational ending). Ume, Pite, Lule, North, Inari, and Ter Saami
have three degrees of quantity in consonants,
e.g., North Saami /caal.l.liih/ writers (with an extra
syllabic pulse) vs. /caal.liih/ to write vs. /caa.liih/
make him/her write! Also vowels in stressed syllables show three contrasting lengths (roughly [a]
[ ] [a:]) but these derive from the phonological
oppositions (a) single vowel vs. vowel sequence and
(b) initial vs. final stress in a vowel sequence, e.g.,

/sah.te/ haphazard /(ij) maah.te/ does (not) know
how to /maah.te/ Matthews (GenSg) (phonetically [sahte] [m hte] [ma:hte]); initial vs. final stress
is also found in diphthongs, e.g., /soa.2an/ I fight
vs. /poa.2an/ I come. These contrasts originate in the
grammaticalization of allegro forms in which vowel
sequences in stressed syllables receive final stress, and
vowel sequences in the following syllables are reduced to single vowels (*/poa.2aan/>/poa.2an/
I come). Syllable border placement is distinctive
in at least North Saami, e.g., eastern North Saami
/pol.htuuh/ to rummage vs. /polh.tuuh/ you rummage.
See also: Finland: Language Situation; Norway: Language
Situation; Sweden: Language Situation; Uralic Languages.
Bibliography
Sammallahti P (1998a). Saamic. In Abondolo D (ed.) The
Uralic languages. London/New York: Routledge. 4395.
Sammallahti P (1998b). The Saami languages: an introduction. Karasjohka/Vaasa: Davvi Girji.
Sacks, Harvey (19351975)

W Bublitz, Universitaet Augsburg, Augsburg,
Germany
Harvey Sacks graduated from Columbia College,

New York in 1955 and earned his Bachelor of Law
at Yale Law School in 1959 and his Ph.D. in sociology
at the University of California, Berkeley in 1966.
Aged 40, he died in an automobile accident in
California, where he had taught at the University of
California in both Los Angeles and Irvine since 1963.
Sacks is best known for his invention of conversation
analysis. Even though he published relatively little
in his lifetime, his ideas spread continually, chiefly
through his numerous university lectures and conference papers; his influence expanded greatly when his
lectures were published posthumously in 1992.
Most consequential for the development of his
highly original accomplishments in sociology and linguistics was his contact with Harold Garfinkel (and
his ideas on ethnomethodology) and Erving Goffman.

The influence of Goffmans work in interaction analysis, i.e., the description of how participants behave in
normal, everyday interactive encounters, is particularly evident in Sackss early studies (on suicide help
conversations), in which he began to move away
from the established quantitative techniques and
preanalytic methodology of mainstream American
sociology. Instead, he adopted central concepts of
ethnomethodology, which is chiefly concerned with
the means and methods employed by interactants to
create and act within their own social reality. Accordingly, he strongly argued against the widely shared
belief that social norms, roles, and rules are statically
and objectively given, prior to and independent of the
interactants verbal (and accompanying non-verbal)
behavior, in which they are merely reflected. Being
convinced that, on the contrary, social order is continuously achieved in social encounters by the participants skillful use of language, he introduced
conversation analysis as an alternative (and by
Sacks, Harvey (19351975) 721
locative (< inessive) is the case of the owner argument, e.g., ahcis [LocSg] lea beana [NomSg] father
has a dog; in South Saami, genitive is used in both
cases aehtjien [GenSg] benje [NomSg] father has a
dog, benje aehtjien the dog is fathers.
Saami phonology is an extreme sport: a bisyllabic stem may have over 20 different phonological
forms depending on grade alternation, compensatory lengthening, vowel balance and metaphony, etc.,
caused by different suffixes. The number of consonant phonemes is 1940 depending on idiom, and the
basic vowel phonemes (510 depending on idiom) are
combined to form vowel sequences (510 geminate
vowels and 410 diphthongs with the first component
higher than the second, e.g., /ie/ and /oa/). Word stress
is trochaic, e.g., /ku.laa.ha`l.laa.peèh.teh/ you understand each other, but morphology may cause deviations from the rule, e.g., /muj.j.hta.lis.koàh.tiih/
to begin telling (/-s.koàh.tii-/ is a derivational ending). Ume, Pite, Lule, North, Inari, and Ter Saami
have three degrees of quantity in consonants,
e.g., North Saami /caal.l.liih/ writers (with an extra
syllabic pulse) vs. /caal.liih/ to write vs. /caa.liih/
make him/her write! Also vowels in stressed syllables show three contrasting lengths (roughly [a]
[ ] [a:]) but these derive from the phonological
oppositions (a) single vowel vs. vowel sequence and
(b) initial vs. final stress in a vowel sequence, e.g.,

/sah.te/ haphazard /(ij) maah.te/ does (not) know
how to /maah.te/ Matthews (GenSg) (phonetically [sahte] [m hte] [ma:hte]); initial vs. final stress
is also found in diphthongs, e.g., /soa.2an/ I fight
vs. /poa.2an/ I come. These contrasts originate in the
grammaticalization of allegro forms in which vowel
sequences in stressed syllables receive final stress, and
vowel sequences in the following syllables are reduced to single vowels (*/poa.2aan/>/poa.2an/
I come). Syllable border placement is distinctive
in at least North Saami, e.g., eastern North Saami
/pol.htuuh/ to rummage vs. /polh.tuuh/ you rummage.
See also: Finland: Language Situation; Norway: Language
Situation; Sweden: Language Situation; Uralic Languages.
Bibliography
Sammallahti P (1998a). Saamic. In Abondolo D (ed.) The
Uralic languages. London/New York: Routledge. 4395.
Sammallahti P (1998b). The Saami languages: an introduction. Karasjohka/Vaasa: Davvi Girji.
Sacks, Harvey (19351975)

W Bublitz, Universitaet Augsburg, Augsburg,
Germany
Harvey Sacks graduated from Columbia College,

New York in 1955 and earned his Bachelor of Law
at Yale Law School in 1959 and his Ph.D. in sociology
at the University of California, Berkeley in 1966.
Aged 40, he died in an automobile accident in
California, where he had taught at the University of
California in both Los Angeles and Irvine since 1963.
Sacks is best known for his invention of conversation
analysis. Even though he published relatively little
in his lifetime, his ideas spread continually, chiefly
through his numerous university lectures and conference papers; his influence expanded greatly when his
lectures were published posthumously in 1992.
Most consequential for the development of his
highly original accomplishments in sociology and linguistics was his contact with Harold Garfinkel (and
his ideas on ethnomethodology) and Erving Goffman.

The influence of Goffmans work in interaction analysis, i.e., the description of how participants behave in
normal, everyday interactive encounters, is particularly evident in Sackss early studies (on suicide help
conversations), in which he began to move away
from the established quantitative techniques and
preanalytic methodology of mainstream American
sociology. Instead, he adopted central concepts of
ethnomethodology, which is chiefly concerned with
the means and methods employed by interactants to
create and act within their own social reality. Accordingly, he strongly argued against the widely shared
belief that social norms, roles, and rules are statically
and objectively given, prior to and independent of the
interactants verbal (and accompanying non-verbal)
behavior, in which they are merely reflected. Being
convinced that, on the contrary, social order is continuously achieved in social encounters by the participants skillful use of language, he introduced
conversation analysis as an alternative (and by
722 Sacks, Harvey (19351975)
now major) approach. His aim was to prove that

social norms are most adequately described not
from a global but from a local point of view. The
analysts task is to meticulously describe the minute
details of as many instances of ordinary everyday conversational events (telephone conversations,
newspaper stories, jokes) as possible in order to discover systematically recurrent patterns of methods
and means that interactants use collaboratively and
routinely to negotiate, i.e., establish, maintain, and
vary, social order. Conversation analysis is thus an
inductive and strictly empirical data- though not theory-driven approach. Preexisting theories with their
descriptive categories and rules, which have been
independently developed for unspecified sets of data,
are rejected as being neither necessary nor applicable
to the analysis of naturally occurring (recorded
and transcribed) discourse. Instead, analysts develop
the necessary descriptive categories while analyzing the data; categories arise in and out of the
analytical process and are based on observation, not
intuition.
Conceptual landmarks of Sackss studies of the
mechanisms of talk-in-interaction include turn-taking
organization (how and where speaking turns occur,
how speakers select others or are selected themselves
as next speakers, how turns are structured, etc.),
topic organization, opening and closing procedures,
mechanisms of self-correction and repair, preferred
ways of referring to other people and telling stories
in conversation, and the sequential organization of
conversation with adjacency pair as its key concept.
These are pairs of speech acts whose first part sets up
a slot with a conditional relevance for an expected,
i.e., preferred, second part, thus constraining the
interlocutors choice; examples are questionanswer,
statementagreement or contradiction, invitation
acceptance or decline, reproachjustification, and
also greetinggreeting. It follows that each contribution to an ongoing conversation is both responsive
and initiative. By simultaneously taking up the preceding and setting up expectations for the following
turn, each interactant reveals his or her understanding of what is going on, what activities are currently
performed, and what interactional frames are shared.
In this way, participants continually display their
awareness of how their use of language contributes
to the constitution of the social event they are engaged in. In his later work (from 1968 onward),
Sacks broadened his perspective and preferred a
more global to the earlier local, occasionally ad hoc,
and detailed approach to conversational interaction;
his work took a turn toward systematicity and toward the relevance of substantial amounts of data
(Schegloff, 1992b: xi).
Summing up Sackss legacy, Schegloff lists four

aspects: methodology (of how to study human
sociality), topic (the recognition . . . that talk can
be examined in its own right, and not merely as a
screen on which are projected other processes), discipline, and inspiration (Schegloff,1992a: xii ff.).
However, even though the richness, originality, and
intellectual vigor of his work together with his ability to turn the apparently trivial into the gripping and
insightful (Silverman, 1998: x) are apparent from
the available oeuvre, the significance of his beliefs is
not generally recognized (Silverman, 1998). Not surprisingly, the methods of conversation analysis (being
rigorously empirical, inductive, and interactant centered) have also been criticized as being too positivistic, operating in an interest-, ideology-, and culturefree vacuum.
See also: Conversation Analysis; Ethnomethodology;
Goffman, Erving (19221982).
Bibliography
Garfinkel H & Sacks H (1986). On formal structures of
practical action. In Garfinkel H (ed.) Ethnomethodological studies of work. London: Routledge. 160193.
Sacks H (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal
of Sociology 8, 116.
Sacks H (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of
conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow D
(ed.) Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.
3174.
Sacks H (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children.
In Gumperz J & Hymes D (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt. 325345.
Sacks H (1974). An analysis of the course of a jokes telling
in conversation. In Bauman R & Sherzer J (eds.)
Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge:
University Press. 337353.
Sacks H (1975). Everyone has to lie. In Sanches M &
Blount B (eds.) Sociocultural dimensions of language
use. New York: Academic Press. 5779.
Sacks H (1978). Some technical considerations of a dirty
joke. In Schenkein J (ed.) Studies in the organization of
conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.
249269.
Sacks H (1992a). Lectures on conversation, vol. I. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Sacks H (1992b). Lectures on conversation, vol. II. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Sacks H, Schegloff E & Jefferson G (1974). A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50, 696735.
Schegloff E (1992a). Introduction. In Sacks H, Lectures on conversation, vol. I, ixlxiiOxford: Blackwell. ixlxii.
Sacred Texts: Hermeneutics 723

Schegloff E (1992b). Introduction. In Sacks H, Lectures on conversation, vol. II, ixliiOxford: Blackwell.
ixlii.
Schegloff E, Jefferson G & Sacks H (1977). The preference
for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361382.
Schegloff E & Sacks H (1973). Opening up closings.

Semiotica 7, 289327.
Silverman D (1998). Harvey Sacks and conversation
analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sacred Texts: Hermeneutics

W W Klein, Denver Seminary, Denver, CO, USA
Introduction
The task of hermeneutics involves interpretation, and
as a discipline, it concerns the theories and process of
understanding. How does anyone come to understand specific human communication, and what is
involved when they do? What do readers mean
when they say that something has meaning? While
such philosophical questions arise with all kinds
of inquiries, what is entailed in the understanding of
sacred texts, and more specifically, the Bible? In what
sense does the Bible have meaning for readers?
On one hand, understanding the Bible is analogous
to what occurs in reading any other document even
though this one is ancient. Employing various historical and critical procedures, scholars translate its
words into those others can understand. On the
other hand, the Bible is a sacred text to Jews (the
Hebrew/Aramaic portion) (see Jewish Languages)
and Christians (the Old and New Testaments). For
some of these readers, the designation sacred text
may indicate simply that the Bible is a foundational
document that has priority among all sources of
knowledge or inspiration. For others, however, sacred
text conveys a more literal belief that the Bible was
inspired by God and exists as divine revelation. There
are variations of these two positions. Thus the Bible is
subject to very different kinds of readings, depending
on the readers views of its nature. How then do
readers make sense of the Bible? Since crucial delimitations must restrict the range of this essay, I will
focus my attention on Christian readers, and especially Christians in the postreformation period.
Historical Overview
Though the term hermeneutics first appears only in
the mid-17th century, the quest to explain how to
understand the Bible began with the earliest Christians. Building on their Hebrew heritage, the New
Testament (NT) writers themselves started the process of reading and interpreting their sacred text,
what Christians came to call the Old Testament
(OT), for its significance in light of their experience
of Jesus. Luke says of Jesus: Then beginning with
Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the
things about himself in all the scriptures (Luke
24:27; NRSV; emphasis added). Jewish rabbinic interpreters employed such tactics as: midrash interpretation to find meanings in texts beyond the surface
meaning; pesher, used at Qumran to unpack the mysteries in the sacred texts that explained their own
experiences; allegory, to extract deeper and often
multiple senses of the literal sense of texts; and typology, the belief that the Bible reflected patterns of
Gods working in history. Arguably the authors of
the NT employed some or all of these same tactics
when they interpreted the OT.
Not surprisingly, then, the next generations of
Christians continued these same tactics, especially
after they adopted a canon consisting of both the
Hebrew Scriptures and what came to be the NT.
Though the process was far from tidy, by the council of Carthage (397 A.D.) the fixed collection of
66 books emerged as the Christian Bible (though
see below on the extent of the canon). Acknowledged as Gods complete revelation, these books
continued to be mined for their values for the church.
A central concern was to explain and defend orthodoxy as it was developing especially in opposition to
the threats from various sects and heresies, such as
Gnosticism.
During the centuries of the early church and
into the Middle Ages, scholars interpreted the Bible
in a wide variety of ways. Some sought the historical
(or literal) sense of a text; Origen detected three
senses, and John Cassian found four levels of meaning
in a text: the literal, allegorical (doctrinal), moral
(tropological), and anagogical (eschatological). The
latter two reasoned that the meaning of Spiritinspired texts could not be limited to what they
had meant to the original writers or readers. In addition, for some medieval theologians, when the

Schegloff E (1992b). Introduction. In Sacks H, Lectures on conversation, vol. II, ixliiOxford: Blackwell.
ixlii.
Schegloff E, Jefferson G & Sacks H (1977). The preference
for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361382.
Schegloff E & Sacks H (1973). Opening up closings.

Semiotica 7, 289327.
Silverman D (1998). Harvey Sacks and conversation
analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sacred Texts: Hermeneutics

W W Klein, Denver Seminary, Denver, CO, USA
Introduction
The task of hermeneutics involves interpretation, and
as a discipline, it concerns the theories and process of
understanding. How does anyone come to understand specific human communication, and what is
involved when they do? What do readers mean
when they say that something has meaning? While
such philosophical questions arise with all kinds
of inquiries, what is entailed in the understanding of
sacred texts, and more specifically, the Bible? In what
sense does the Bible have meaning for readers?
On one hand, understanding the Bible is analogous
to what occurs in reading any other document even
though this one is ancient. Employing various historical and critical procedures, scholars translate its
words into those others can understand. On the
other hand, the Bible is a sacred text to Jews (the
Hebrew/Aramaic portion) (see Jewish Languages)
and Christians (the Old and New Testaments). For
some of these readers, the designation sacred text
may indicate simply that the Bible is a foundational
document that has priority among all sources of
knowledge or inspiration. For others, however, sacred
text conveys a more literal belief that the Bible was
inspired by God and exists as divine revelation. There
are variations of these two positions. Thus the Bible is
subject to very different kinds of readings, depending
on the readers views of its nature. How then do
readers make sense of the Bible? Since crucial delimitations must restrict the range of this essay, I will
focus my attention on Christian readers, and especially Christians in the postreformation period.
Historical Overview
Though the term hermeneutics first appears only in
the mid-17th century, the quest to explain how to
understand the Bible began with the earliest Christians. Building on their Hebrew heritage, the New
Testament (NT) writers themselves started the process of reading and interpreting their sacred text,
what Christians came to call the Old Testament
(OT), for its significance in light of their experience
of Jesus. Luke says of Jesus: Then beginning with
Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the
things about himself in all the scriptures (Luke
24:27; NRSV; emphasis added). Jewish rabbinic interpreters employed such tactics as: midrash interpretation to find meanings in texts beyond the surface
meaning; pesher, used at Qumran to unpack the mysteries in the sacred texts that explained their own
experiences; allegory, to extract deeper and often
multiple senses of the literal sense of texts; and typology, the belief that the Bible reflected patterns of
Gods working in history. Arguably the authors of
the NT employed some or all of these same tactics
when they interpreted the OT.
Not surprisingly, then, the next generations of
Christians continued these same tactics, especially
after they adopted a canon consisting of both the
Hebrew Scriptures and what came to be the NT.
Though the process was far from tidy, by the council of Carthage (397 A.D.) the fixed collection of
66 books emerged as the Christian Bible (though
see below on the extent of the canon). Acknowledged as Gods complete revelation, these books
continued to be mined for their values for the church.
A central concern was to explain and defend orthodoxy as it was developing especially in opposition to
the threats from various sects and heresies, such as
Gnosticism.
During the centuries of the early church and
into the Middle Ages, scholars interpreted the Bible
in a wide variety of ways. Some sought the historical
(or literal) sense of a text; Origen detected three
senses, and John Cassian found four levels of meaning
in a text: the literal, allegorical (doctrinal), moral
(tropological), and anagogical (eschatological). The
latter two reasoned that the meaning of Spiritinspired texts could not be limited to what they
had meant to the original writers or readers. In addition, for some medieval theologians, when the
724 Sacred Texts: Hermeneutics
literal sense of a text did not suffice to defend orthodoxy, they found a level of meaning below the surface. The spiritual reading (lectio divina) of texts
also developed in this period. Here the goal was
not to understand the historical meaning of a text;
lectio served purposes of devotional edification and
meditation.
The Protestant Reformation, coupled with the Renaissance, began the shift toward the modern reading of Scripture. Martin Luther (see Luther, Martin
(14831546)) differed from Rome on the fundamental locus of authority. Instead of relying on Scripture
plus tradition (often resorting to these arcane methods of interpreting Scripture as the Roman church
did), Luther insisted on appealing to Scripture alone
(sola scriptura) as the channel of Gods word and will
for the church. He translated the Hebrew and Greek
testaments into German again to liberate Gods
word from the strictures of the Latin Vulgate. This
act energized a renewed emphasis on finding the
meaning of the Biblical texts themselves, and not the
churchs interpretation. On another front, the Renaissance spurred a new interest in classical learning, and
called for a return to the original Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts of the Bible. The Roman church rejected
this challenge to its authority, reaffirming its control
over biblical interpretation.
After Luther, William Tyndale (see Tyndale, William
(14941536)) and King James of England brought the
Bible into English the Authorized Version appeared in
1611 and it later was translated into numerous other
languages. Many more Christians possessed and read
the Bible for themselves free to do with it whatever
they willed. Devotional uses of the Bible paralleled
many of earlier pre-Enlightenment uses. Yet the rational reading of the Bible became the central legacy of
the postreformation period. In the 19th century and
beyond, Rationalism led to the proliferation of critical
methods for studying the Bible. Interpretation was
freed from all the constraints of dogma and orthodoxy.
Studied from a naturalistic worldview that excluded
supernatural phenomena by definition, the world of
the Bible emerged as a natural one devoid of miracles.
The Bible itself was viewed as merely a collection of
religious writings on a par with the sacred texts of other
religions. Emerging scientific methods gave scholars
access to facts and evidence of material culture independent of the statements in the Bible. Some used these
methods to call into question the historical reliability of
the Bible. For many the Bible became merely a good
source for moral or ethical values, not for theological or
historical truths. Certainly not all scholars agreed with
these dominant trends. In Germany, the British Isles,
and North America, prominent scholars resisted some
of these trends, insisted on the reliability of the biblical
documents, and sought to refute some of the critical

conclusions of the strict rationalists.
In the last century, further developments have altered the agendas of Bible interpreters. The focus
began to shift from the biblical text as the object of
study to the reader as the one who produces meaning. Skeptical about the possibility of objective
knowledge, some scholars discounted the ability of
readers to find fixed meaning in ancient texts. Because readers are subjective beings, only in their application of texts to concrete situations do they come
to understand what those texts mean for them. More
recently, embracing postmodernist values (see Postmodernism), others insisted that readers jettison all
attempts to discover objective meanings residing in
the texts or the authors of those texts. They championed the meaning produced by the reader thus the
popularity of reader-response criticism. Escaping
what they viewed as the restricted and arid confines
of historical criticism, many scholars employed other
kinds of scrutiny of the biblical texts: literary and
rhetorical criticism, psychological exegesis, deconstruction (see Poststructuralism and Deconstruction),
various advocacy criticisms (e.g., feminist, liberationist, Marxist, Queer, or other types of criticism), and
social-scientific analyses, among others (see Literary
Theory and Stylistics). At the same time, many conservative readers embraced the new tactics for understanding the ways texts work (such as literary and
rhetorical criticism) (see Rhetorical Structure Theory)
without abandoning the essential historicist goal of
seeking the texts and authors intentions.
The interpretive community then assumes critical
importance for biblical interpretation because each
community determines its rules of engagement. One
is the community of biblical scholars. Yet each group
of scholars within that larger community whether
conservative or liberal sets its research agenda and
governs acceptable findings. A community of believers provides other interpretive constraints whether
the community understands the Bible as a repository
of divine revelation (believing the Bible teaches
authoritatively) or holds to a more nuanced stance
(differing for each community). Finally, to limit the
list to three, there is the global or societal community,
for the Bible has passed into the larger culture in
many parts of the world.
This essay will now outline how a believing community seeks to understand the Bible those faithful
people who read the Bible as a sacred text for them.
The believing community occupies the best position
to understand the Bible on its own terms the way, in
fact, that most human communication is designed
and intended to be understood. I argue that this approach comports most adequately with the putative
purpose of the Bible, the stance of its authors, and the

historical view of the church. I reject the epistemological claim that no interpretation can ever be the correct one. Most Christians read the Bible with a view
to understanding its meaning for themselves; they
come to it positively and openly desire to learn and
grow through their engagement with its message.
Usually Christians who expend the energy to read
and understand the Bible do so because they possess
a cluster of qualifications for this enterprise: a reasoned faith that believes the Bible contains value for
them; a stance of obedience or a willingness to learn
from the Bible; a belief in the illumination of the Holy
Spirit that the Spirit will enable them to embrace
or implement the Bibles wisdom; participation in
a believing community in some meaningful way;
and the willingness to employ appropriate methods
for understanding. Stating this list is not to deny,
however, that many read and understand the Bible
who do not possess some, or perhaps any, of these
qualifications. Using appropriate methods, others
may understand what the Bibles authors sought to
communicate. I simply argue here that believers are in
the best position to understand its message from the
inside.
The Extent of the Canon

What is the Bible, or in other terms, what constitutes
the Christians sacred text to be interpreted? In simplest terms, Protestant Christians have never agreed
with Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians on
the extent of the canon of the OT. On the other hand,
all wings of Christendom since the 4th century agree
on the contents of the NT. Taking the position of
the Jews of the 1st century A.D., Protestants limit
the OT to 39 books and exclude the apocryphal or
deutero-canonical books that the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches embrace. Though these secondary books contain valuable historical information
about the Jews in the intertestamental period and
though they were influential in the first 1500 years
of the churchs existence, their influence has waned.
For more on the issues of the canon, see the article on
the Bible (see Bible).
Definition of Hermeneutics
In the Gospel of Luke, the author notes that Jesus
explained to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus
what the Scripture said about him (Luke 24:27).
Based on this explanatory function, and transliterating this Greek word hermeneuo, hermeneutics as a
discipline concerns the principles and theory behind
the process of understanding or interpreting human
communication, and the cluster of tactics employed

to implement that theory. Because the biblical documents derive from worlds very different from that
of modern readers spanning great distances of
time, culture, and language we require an appropriate and defensible procedure to help us understand
them.
What should be the agenda for those who wish to
interpret the Bible? What ought they seek? Some may
despair of any valid interpretation, be content merely
to read in their own meanings, be willing to allow all
readings to be valid understandings of a text (see our
discussion above), or seek the intended meaning of
the author and the resulting written text. And there
are other options. Three questions immediately surface before interpreters can settle on an agenda. First,
since all interpreters bring their presuppositions and
preunderstandings to a text, what role do these have
in the interpretive process? Second, who gets to decide upon the goal? Third, is the historical meaning of
the text the only meaning contained within it? I must
develop each of these points briefly.
First, all readers bring who they are to the task
of interpretation; indeed without some prior understanding, new understanding is all but impossible.
So readers bring their presuppositions about the nature of the Bible and what their study of the Bible
entails. They possess varied kinds of information,
attitudes, ideologies, and competence in using the
methods for explaining texts. But these neither guarantee nor preclude an accurate understanding of a
biblical text. In principle at least, readers can overcome all deficiencies in knowledge, ideology, and
methodology if they are willing and able to learn
and employ what is required to understand an ancient
text. The process of understanding allows growth and
progress; interpreters do not merely enter a vicious
hermeneutical circle in which they come out where
they began. Instead, at least in principle, they can
enter a hermeneutical spiral that allows them to
grow and learn in understanding. Even unlettered
Christians can comprehend much of the basic message of the Bible, though their deficiencies may prevent full understanding of many things. Yet those
deficiencies, in principle again, can be addressed.
Second, the decision about the goal comes down
to how communication functions. While different
answers are possible, I contend that the goal of interpretation is to discern what the biblical authors or
editors intended to convey in their messages at least
to the extent that such intentions can be recovered in
their texts. As noted above, most readers adopt this
stance when they seek to understand the Bible or
any communication. While many theorists speak
of readers creating or inventing meaning in their
encounter with a text, I believe the most adequate

way to understand what a text means is to seek to
discover what the author intended to say. That is,
I assert we readers ought to treat the biblical text
with dignity and respect, as we treat people and
their words when we engage in the communication
process: we seek to understand what people mean
when they speak. Biblical interpretation then succeeds when readers come as close as possible to deciphering the historical meaning of a text (what the
author or editor and recipients of the original text
would have understood it to mean) and then apply
in a valid way the significance of that meaning to
Christians today.
For example, consider words attributed to Jesus:
They do all their deeds to be seen by others;
for they make their phylacteries broad and their
fringes long (Matt. 23:5; NRSV). Neither the most
pious and prayerful meditation nor the most intuitive
reader-response reading will achieve an understanding of the meaning and potential significance of Jesus
reference here. Seeking its meaning for Jesus, Matthew, and the original readers must be the goal for
those who wish to understand the meaning of the
text. This aim also reflects biblical interpretation at
its best throughout the history of the church. Most
Christians believe this kind of interpretation is what
they are doing, even when, wittingly or unwittingly,
they are doing some version of reader-response
reading whether from the deconstructionist left or
the fundamentalist right.
The third issue on the agenda for determining the
goal of biblical interpretation is the question of
whether there is only a single meaning resident in a
biblical text. It is crucial to distinguish between meaning and significance. By meaning I refer to what the
author intended to convey in the words employed in a
text. Significance refers to the variety of ways that
meaning finds relevance at the time of the writing, in
different contexts, and over subsequent centuries.
Christians have often used the term application to
refer to this second category. So, in insisting that a
text has but one meaning, I do not deny that it may
have many applications through history. Another way
to ask this question is whether, when authors write,
they intend their words to communicate a single sense
or multiple senses. But perhaps I must extend the
question: when the biblical authors wrote, did they
write texts capable of a single or multiple meanings?
As to the first point, though readers can construe
meaning differently after all, words once written
are out there for any to do as they wish normal
communication assumes that authors intend a single
sense. That meaning may be intentionally (or unintentionally) ambiguous or may be conveyed through
an intentionally nonliteral device or genre (e.g., metaphor or parable), but that ambiguity or figure of
speech still describes what the author set out to
accomplish.
Any communicative act has content (the message),
energy (illocutionary force), and purpose (perlocutionary effect) (See Mood, Clause Types, and Illocutionary Force). The author selects the best genre to
encode the message it order to accomplish these purposes. To understand the meaning in a text, therefore,
requires that interpreters give full attention to these
dimensions. They are not free to exclude the author
when they seek the texts meaning that is, if they
conceive the biblical text as intended by its author to
communicate some deliberate message. This inclusion is all the more crucial for those who believe
the Bible to be inspired Scripture in which case
God also speaks through it. How can they listen
to God speaking through the Bible if they exclude
the authors intention as the goal?
Some argue that in biblical texts, the Holy Spirit
encoded meanings apart from the human authors
intention a meaning called the Sensus Plenior, a
fuller sense. As mentioned above, in the past, interpreters sometimes found three or even four levels of
meaning in texts. But was that valid? There is no
rational or nonrational way to test such a presumption. How would any reader of the Bible discern
meanings beyond what normal means of analysis
can uncover? The magisterium of the church may
well endorse certain interpretations even though
they depart from the normal sense of texts. Or an
individual faith community could well authorize a
meaning that others beyond it would dispute. But
apart from such authoritative pronouncements,
Christians have no objective way to discover whether
any text they read has some deeper meaning(s) below
the surface. So while theoretically other levels of
meaning may exist (even purportedly put there by
the Holy Spirit), readers have no means of detecting
it or, if there come to be rival claims to an alleged
deeper meaning of adjudicating between alternative
interpretations.
The task is not always easy, for we are far-removed
from the time, culture, and location of the original
writers and readers. The distances may be great, but
they are not insurmountable. Due to advances in
historical, linguistic, archaeological, cultural, and
many other kinds of studies, modern readers are
now in a position to know much about the ancient
world. And with this increasing fund of knowledge
and critical expertise, current readers are in a excellent position to understand the world in which the
biblical texts emerged. Errors can be committed;
presuppositions may derail adequate assessments;
preunderstandings may blind some from seeing

clearly what is there all these and other pitfalls
remain as significant challenges to an adequate understanding of the Bible. But in the pursuit of the
Bibles meaning, our options are not limited to a
free-for-all, anything-goes on one side, or a pessimistic nothing-can-be-known-for-sure on the other. Hard
work is involved, but I contend that the essential goal
is to understand the meanings of the authors to the
extent interpreters can recover them from their texts.
Essential Tasks for Understanding

The pursuit of a texts historical meaning involves
five basic steps. The likeliest candidate for the correct meaning of a text is most consistent with these:
the literary context in which the text occurs, the
features of the culture at the time in which the
text emerged, the correct meanings of the words at
the time they were used, the proper understanding of
how the language was employed grammatically to
construct the meaning, and the genre of the text itself.
I give attention to each of these points in turn.
Literary Context
Any biblical text whether a verse, a paragraph, or a

larger section exists within a literary context that
flows from one section and into the next. Interpreting
a text apart from its context runs the risk of misunderstanding its meaning. One cannot understand the
intended meaning of the sentence, That was the
largest trunk I ever saw, apart from the sentences
that precede or follow it. The context provides an
understanding of the theme or topic of the discussion,
gives readers the probable meanings of the words,
and enables one to follow the structure or flow of
the argument or narrative. Thus, the correct meaning
of a passage is the meaning that best fits the literary
context in which it occurs.
Literary context also involves moving beyond the
immediate context of a text to its place within a larger
section of the book, to the context of the entire biblical book in which it occurs, to other books written by
the author, if such other books exist in the canon, and
to other books written in that same genre, again, if
such exist. Canon criticism reminds us that ultimately
the canon itself occupies the largest literary context
that may shed light on a text. Obviously, the farther
out one moves, the less insight one will get into the
precise meaning of the text under study.
HistoricalCultural Background
Since the biblical texts were written so long ago,

comprehending their historical meanings requires research into their worlds. To put a biblical book into
its context, interpreters must try to understand such

data as the identity of the author and his or her
circumstances, the recipients situation, the time of
the writing, and the circumstances that elicited the
writing. Such knowledge is not always available, but
can greatly aid interpreters. Beyond the overall context of a book interpreters must investigate the specific details within the book itself and the particular
text under scrutiny. In a text under study, we will need
to research features as they surface: the worldview,
values, and mindset of the participants; societal structures of the time (marriage, family patterns, roles of
men and women); physical and geographical features
(e.g., climate, means of transportation, elevations);
economic structures (wealth, poverty, slavery); political climate (structures, loyalties); behavioral patterns
(dress, customs); and religious practices (power
centers, rituals, affiliations).
Word Meanings
Words are the basic building blocks of any written

communication, and interpreters must ascertain their
meanings in a given text (see Lexical Semantics: Overview). From among the possible meanings of the
word at the time, the goal of a word study is to
discover the most likely sense in the context in
which the author used it. The study of words is
fraught with pitfalls, because their meanings change
over time, and because most words cover a range
of meaning that is, have multiple senses. Earlier or
later meanings of words may be anachronistic or
impossible. In the sentence above regarding a large
trunk, trunk might refer to a part of a tree or an
elephant, a compartment in an automobile (in
American English!), a large version of a suitcase, or
a transportation system. Here, the literary or historical context in which the sentence occurred will help
settle the issue. For texts in the ancient worlds
whether in the OT Hebrew and Aramaic, or the
NT Greek we must access the best lexicons and
other historical research to enable us to settle on the
most likely sense for the biblical words in the specific
contexts under study.
Grammatical-Structural Relationships
Since written languages communicate by combining

words into larger units sentences, paragraphs, sections, discourses, books a correct understanding of
the meaning of a text will fully account for these
grammatical and structural features of a language (see
Narrative: Linguistic and Structural Theories). The
interpreters in the best position to recognize these features have learned the biblical languages. They seek to
explain how things work from within the requirements
of that language whether Hebrew, Aramaic, or

Greek. Many critical commentaries make available
the best insights of grammatical analysis to readers.
The comparison of several translations also helps readers grasp the essential structures of a passage. Readers
should identify the natural divisions in a section, grasp
the organization of the argument, the impact of the key
verbs, and any other features of the grammar and
structure that shed light on the meaning of a passage.
Genre
Though encountered as one book, the Bible includes

many books of distinct literary genres written over a
period of more than a thousand years. Competent
readers of the Bible will seek to become attentive to
the ways its messages are conveyed through these
various genres. Readers of the OT find narratives of
various kinds, legal materials, poetry, prophecy,
apocalyptic, and wisdom literature along with various subcategories such as proverbs, riddles, parables,
songs, and lists. In the NT, readers encounter gospels
(theological biographies of Jesus), epistles (letters),
narrative (Acts, sometimes termed theological history), and apocalyptic (Revelations). Of course,
within some of these categories are parables, miracle
stories, hymns, vice and virtue lists, and household
codes. Each genre or subtype has its own rules of
interpretation, and readers must treat each with the
integrity and methodology that its form requires. For
example, The mountains and the hills before you
shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field
shall clap their hands (Isa. 55:12; NRSV) makes
great sense in a poetic utterance, but is unintelligible
in a historical narrative. Readers must interpret each
genre according to the norms for understanding that
kind of writing.
Reading literature responsibly assumes that interpreters understand figures of speech or other literary
devices for what they are, and not in some unnatural
or literal sense. Again, the intention of the author and
the text reigns supreme. Readers should not subvert
the meanings of texts or read into them meanings
inconsistent with the genre in which they occur.
From Interpretation to Application

Most Bible readers are not content merely to understand what an ancient text means. What a text meant
is one thing; its significance in the life of an individual or the church is another. While the meaning
of a text is constant and constrained by its sense
and the intention of its author (we have argued), it
may have further significance (or implications) as
Christians apply that meaning to their circumstances.
This principle is demonstrated in many biblical texts.
For example, Moses assured Israel of Gods blessing if

the people obeyed Gods laws (Deut. 30:1120). Jesus
urged his listeners not merely to hear his words, but to
put them into practice (Matt. 7:1327). Paul goes so
far as to say, For whatever was written in former
days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures
we might have hope (Rom. 15:4). Again, These
things happened to them to serve as an example, and
they were written down to instruct us, on whom the
ends of the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11). Many
other texts affirm this same dynamic: readers discover
the point of Scripture in its application to their lives
(see Preaching).
Application is not so straightforward a task, however. How might a Christian apply the OT injunction
not to boil a baby goat in its mothers milk (Exod.
23:19)? Or respond to the prohibition against tattoos
(Leviticus 19:28)? Or to the claim that long hair on a
man is degrading (1 Cor. 11:14)? Chaos often reigns
when individuals or preachers draw out implications
of texts. Some rightly ask, why argue for some fixed
(original) meaning of texts, when in actual practice
Christians apply them in a dizzying variety of ways or
no way at all. Further, even if Paul argued against
homosexual practice (Rom. 1:2428), are Christians
bound to apply his rule in the same explicit way
he did?
As not all interpretations of the meaning of a text
are accurate, so not all applications (of even the correct interpretation) are legitimate. But four steps put a
modern reader in an excellent position to draw out a
legitimate application of a biblical text. Though these
scarcely scratch the surface, they are essential: (1)
Discover if in its original context the author makes a
specific application of the text under study. (2) After
assessing the specificity of the original application,
determine whether adopting the same application
today would convey the same meaning to modern
Christians as did the original meaning to the first
hearers. If so, then seek the culturally relevant way
of implementing that application. (3) If the specific
original application cannot be transferred to a modern context and still bear the original significance it
had for the original readers, then seek to extract any
broader principles that the text conveyed. (4) If possible, apply these principles in a manner that would
embody or convey the broader principle.
Uses of the Bible

People interpret, implement, and employ the Bible in
a wide variety of ways. If interpreters do not confine
hermeneutics to the epistemological realm how one
comes to understand or know but extend it, as
Said Ali, Manuel Ida (18611953) 729
I have, to the process of explaining the biblical texts,

then the result is a wide variety of uses. Though the
list of uses could grow quite large, I will limit this
discussion to the most obvious and widely practiced.
Some people are interested in learning more about the
worlds and thoughts of the peoples in Bible times.
Their objectives may be informational. Some read
and study the Bible as literature, whether for personal
enjoyment or with some intellectual objectives. For
believers in faith communities, the Bible informs their
worship whether personal or corporate and the
churchs liturgy since the churchs inception. Interpretations of the Bible have served the church in
formulating its theology growing out of the conviction that the Bible constitutes Gods revelation to his
people. Since Matthew records Jesus words that his
followers are to send disciples to all the nations and
teach all Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:1920), Christians have claimed to based their teaching and
preaching on the content of the Bible. Its teachings
underlie Christian faith and practice. In the hands of
Gods people the Bible serves as a resource for counsel
and encouragement as well as correction and reproof.
It has a truly formative and foundational role for
Christians.
See also: Bible; Jewish Languages; Lexical Semantics:
Overview; Literary Theory and Stylistics; Luther, Martin
(14831546); Mood, Clause Types, and Illocutionary
Force; Narrative: Linguistic and Structural Theories; Postmodernism; Poststructuralism and Deconstruction;
Preaching; Rhetorical Structure Theory; Tyndale, William
(14941536).
Bibliography
Adam A K M (ed.) (2000). Postmodern interpretations of
the Bible a reader. St.Louis: Chalice.
Alter R (1987). The art of biblical poetry. San Francisco:
Harper Collins.
Alter K & Kermode F (eds.) (1990). The literary guide to
the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barton J (ed.) (1998). The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
De La Torre M A (2002). Reading the Bible from the
margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Fee G D & Stuart D (1993). How to read the Bible for all its
worth (2nd edn.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Goldingay J (1995). Models for interpretation of scripture.
Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Green J B (ed.) (1995). Hearing the new testament: strategies for interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hirsch E D (1967). Validity in interpretation. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Johnson M D (2002). Making sense of the Bible: literary
type as an approach to understanding. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Klein W W, Blomberg C L & Hubbard R L Jr. (2004).
Introduction to biblical interpretation (2nd edn.).
Nashville: Nelson.
Kugel J L & Greer R A (eds.) (1986). Early biblical interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Marshall I H (2004). Acadia studies in Bible and theology:
Beyond the Bible: moving from scripture to theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Morgan R & Barton J (1998). Biblical interpretation.
Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ocker C (1999). Medieval exegesis and the origin of hermeneutics. Scottish Journal of Theology 52, 328345.
Osborne G R (1991). The hermeneutical spiral. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Schneiders S M (1999). The revelatory text: Interpreting the
new testament as sacred scripture (2nd edn.). Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Books.
Sugirtharajah R S (1998). Bible and Liberation: Asian biblical hermeneutics and postcolonialism: contesting the
interpretations. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Thiselton A C (1992). New horizons in hermeneutics.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Vanhoozer K J (1998). Is there a meaning in this text?
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Webb W J (2001). Slaves, women and homosexuals: exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis. Downers
Said Ali, Manuel Ida (18611953)

E Guimara es, Institute of Language Studies, Unicamp,
Sao Paulo Campinas, Brazil
Manuel Ida Said Ali is one of the Brazilian linguists

whose work marked the first half of the 20th century
in Brazil (Bechara, 1954, 1970; Silva Neto, 1955).
The descriptive rigor of his work made him an
obligatory reference for all linguists in the country.

He had originally begun working in the Laemmert &
Co. bookstore in Rio de Janeiro, where he came into
contact with the Brazilian historian Capistrano de
Abreu, who would greatly influence his intellectual
life. He was a professor of German (German, Standard) at the Cole gio Pedro II, the first public institution of basic and intermediary learning in Brazil. This
school, founded in 1837, had a pivotal role in the
Said Ali, Manuel Ida (18611953) 729
I have, to the process of explaining the biblical texts,

then the result is a wide variety of uses. Though the
list of uses could grow quite large, I will limit this
discussion to the most obvious and widely practiced.
Some people are interested in learning more about the
worlds and thoughts of the peoples in Bible times.
Their objectives may be informational. Some read
and study the Bible as literature, whether for personal
enjoyment or with some intellectual objectives. For
believers in faith communities, the Bible informs their
worship whether personal or corporate and the
churchs liturgy since the churchs inception. Interpretations of the Bible have served the church in
formulating its theology growing out of the conviction that the Bible constitutes Gods revelation to his
people. Since Matthew records Jesus words that his
followers are to send disciples to all the nations and
teach all Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:1920), Christians have claimed to based their teaching and
preaching on the content of the Bible. Its teachings
underlie Christian faith and practice. In the hands of
Gods people the Bible serves as a resource for counsel
and encouragement as well as correction and reproof.
It has a truly formative and foundational role for
Christians.
See also: Bible; Jewish Languages; Lexical Semantics:
Overview; Literary Theory and Stylistics; Luther, Martin
(14831546); Mood, Clause Types, and Illocutionary
Force; Narrative: Linguistic and Structural Theories; Postmodernism; Poststructuralism and Deconstruction;
Preaching; Rhetorical Structure Theory; Tyndale, William
(14941536).
Bibliography
Adam A K M (ed.) (2000). Postmodern interpretations of
the Bible a reader. St.Louis: Chalice.
Alter R (1987). The art of biblical poetry. San Francisco:
Harper Collins.
Alter K & Kermode F (eds.) (1990). The literary guide to
the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barton J (ed.) (1998). The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
De La Torre M A (2002). Reading the Bible from the
margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Fee G D & Stuart D (1993). How to read the Bible for all its
worth (2nd edn.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Goldingay J (1995). Models for interpretation of scripture.
Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Green J B (ed.) (1995). Hearing the new testament: strategies for interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hirsch E D (1967). Validity in interpretation. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Johnson M D (2002). Making sense of the Bible: literary
type as an approach to understanding. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Klein W W, Blomberg C L & Hubbard R L Jr. (2004).
Introduction to biblical interpretation (2nd edn.).
Nashville: Nelson.
Kugel J L & Greer R A (eds.) (1986). Early biblical interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Marshall I H (2004). Acadia studies in Bible and theology:
Beyond the Bible: moving from scripture to theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Morgan R & Barton J (1998). Biblical interpretation.
Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ocker C (1999). Medieval exegesis and the origin of hermeneutics. Scottish Journal of Theology 52, 328345.
Osborne G R (1991). The hermeneutical spiral. Downers
Schneiders S M (1999). The revelatory text: Interpreting the
new testament as sacred scripture (2nd edn.). Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Books.
Sugirtharajah R S (1998). Bible and Liberation: Asian biblical hermeneutics and postcolonialism: contesting the
interpretations. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Thiselton A C (1992). New horizons in hermeneutics.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Vanhoozer K J (1998). Is there a meaning in this text?
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Webb W J (2001). Slaves, women and homosexuals: exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis. Downers
Said Ali, Manuel Ida (18611953)

E Guimaraes, Institute of Language Studies, Unicamp,
Sao Paulo Campinas, Brazil
Manuel Ida Said Ali is one of the Brazilian linguists

whose work marked the first half of the 20th century
in Brazil (Bechara, 1954, 1970; Silva Neto, 1955).
The descriptive rigor of his work made him an
obligatory reference for all linguists in the country.

He had originally begun working in the Laemmert &
Co. bookstore in Rio de Janeiro, where he came into
contact with the Brazilian historian Capistrano de
Abreu, who would greatly influence his intellectual
life. He was a professor of German (German, Standard) at the Colegio Pedro II, the first public institution of basic and intermediary learning in Brazil. This
school, founded in 1837, had a pivotal role in the
730 Said Ali, Manuel Ida (18611953)
studies of the Portuguese language in Brazil during

the entire 19th century and a good part of the next.
Alis work, from the beginning, would show an important difference in relation to his contemporaries, due
to its descriptive rigor (Ca mara, 1961).
It is along this line that he is remembered in Brazilian linguistic history as one who, at the end of the
19th century and beginning of the 20th century, was
making detailed descriptions that became classics,
regarding the placing of atonic pronouns (a question
that motivated many discussions of normative character in Brazil); the use of the personal infinitive (a
characteristic particular to the Portuguese language);
intonation in Portuguese in Brazil; and the study of
what is in general considered the conditional mode
and what he characterized as a future form of the
preterit (Ali, 1908/1966).
There are also stylistic studies of authors in the
Portuguese language, through which he introduces
into Brazilian linguistic thought the question of the
subject of the language who marks his expressiveness
in that which he says (Ali, 1930). This work, Meios de
expressa o e Alterac o es sema nticas (Means of expression and semantic alterations), was one of the few
specific works on semantics produced in Brazil during
the first half of the 20th century.
In Portuguese language studies, he was the author
of two other works of great descriptive importance,
still relevant today: Grama tica Secunda ria da Lngua
Portuguesa (Secondary grammar of the Portuguese
language, 1924), intended for teaching the language,
and Gramatica Historica da Lngua Portuguesa
(Historical grammar of the Portuguese language,
1931), an indispensable work on the history of the
Portuguese language (joining two previous works:
Lexiologia do Portugues Historico (Lexicology of
historic Portuguese, 1921), and Formacao de Palavras e Sintaxe do Portugues Historico (Formation of
words and syntax of historic Portuguese, 1923). All

of his work was clearly marked by a psychological
position, including his Gramatica Historica. He himself said that the first part of this book wound up
being a semantic lexicology, exactly in virtue of this
position. In Brazil at that time, where language studies
were predominantly grammatical and normative, Ali
recognized the need for a practical (normative) grammar for pedagogical use. For the first time in Brazil, he
expressly formulated the distinction between normative
and descriptive, scientific grammar.
Bibliography
Ali M S (1908/1966). Dificuldades da Lngua Portuguesa.
Rio de Janeiro: Acade mica.
Ali M S (1921). Lexiologia do Portugues Historico. Sa o
Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Ali M S (1923). Formacao de Palavras e Sintaxe do
Portugues Historico. Sa o Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Ali M S (1924). Gramatica Secundaria da Lngua Portuguesa. Sa o Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Ali M S (1930/1971). Meios de Expressao e Alteracoes
Semanticas. Rio de Janeiro: FGV (1st ed.). Francisco
Alves.
Ali M S (1931). Gramatica Historica da Lngua Portuguesa.
Sa o Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Bechara E (1954). M. Said Ali. In Ali M S (ed.) Gramatica
Secundaria da Lngua Portuguesa, 8a. edic a o (1969). Sa o
Paulo: Melhoramentos. 1013.
Bechara E (1970). A contribuicao de M. Said Ali a`
Lingustica Portuguesa. Porto Alegre: Instituto Cultural
Brasileiro-A rabe.
Ca mara J M Jr (1961). Said Ali e a Lngua Portuguesa. In
Dispersos. Rio de Janeiro: Fundacao Getulio Vargas
(1975). 185189.
Silva Neto S (1955). Manuel Said Ali. Revista Brasileira de
Filologia 1, tomo 1. 109112.
Sainliens, Claude de (d. 1597)

D A Kibbee
This article is reproduced from the previous edition, volume 7,
p. 3640, 1994, Elsevier Ltd.
Claude de Sainliens was the most popular and most

prolific of the French instructors in England in the
second half of the 16th century, writing a number of
instructional texts for French and Italian, along with
at least two major FrenchEnglish dictionaries.
A native of Moulins, France, de Sainliens fled the

Wars of Religion early in the 1560s. He may be
the M. Claudius who helped John Baret prepare the
French part of his trilingual dictionary (Alvearie,
1573/74), and some attribute to him the Dictionarie
French and English (1570).
His general French textbooks were the French
Schoolemaister (1573) and the Frenche Littelton
(1576). They represent slightly different philosophies
of language instruction, the former presenting
grammar and pronunciation rules first, the latter
730 Said Ali, Manuel Ida (18611953)
studies of the Portuguese language in Brazil during

the entire 19th century and a good part of the next.
Alis work, from the beginning, would show an important difference in relation to his contemporaries, due
to its descriptive rigor (Camara, 1961).
It is along this line that he is remembered in Brazilian linguistic history as one who, at the end of the
19th century and beginning of the 20th century, was
making detailed descriptions that became classics,
regarding the placing of atonic pronouns (a question
that motivated many discussions of normative character in Brazil); the use of the personal infinitive (a
characteristic particular to the Portuguese language);
intonation in Portuguese in Brazil; and the study of
what is in general considered the conditional mode
and what he characterized as a future form of the
preterit (Ali, 1908/1966).
There are also stylistic studies of authors in the
Portuguese language, through which he introduces
into Brazilian linguistic thought the question of the
subject of the language who marks his expressiveness
in that which he says (Ali, 1930). This work, Meios de
expressao e Alteracoes semanticas (Means of expression and semantic alterations), was one of the few
specific works on semantics produced in Brazil during
the first half of the 20th century.
In Portuguese language studies, he was the author
of two other works of great descriptive importance,
still relevant today: Gramatica Secundaria da Lngua
Portuguesa (Secondary grammar of the Portuguese
language, 1924), intended for teaching the language,
and Gramatica Historica da Lngua Portuguesa
(Historical grammar of the Portuguese language,
1931), an indispensable work on the history of the
Portuguese language (joining two previous works:
Lexiologia do Portugues Historico (Lexicology of
historic Portuguese, 1921), and Formacao de Palavras e Sintaxe do Portugues Historico (Formation of
words and syntax of historic Portuguese, 1923). All

of his work was clearly marked by a psychological
position, including his Gramatica Historica. He himself said that the first part of this book wound up
being a semantic lexicology, exactly in virtue of this
position. In Brazil at that time, where language studies
were predominantly grammatical and normative, Ali
recognized the need for a practical (normative) grammar for pedagogical use. For the first time in Brazil, he
expressly formulated the distinction between normative
and descriptive, scientific grammar.
Bibliography
Ali M S (1908/1966). Dificuldades da Lngua Portuguesa.
Rio de Janeiro: Academica.
Ali M S (1921). Lexiologia do Portugues Historico. Sao
Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Ali M S (1923). Formacao de Palavras e Sintaxe do
Portugues Historico. Sao Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Ali M S (1924). Gramatica Secundaria da Lngua Portuguesa. Sao Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Ali M S (1930/1971). Meios de Expressao e Alteracoes
Semanticas. Rio de Janeiro: FGV (1st ed.). Francisco
Alves.
Ali M S (1931). Gramatica Historica da Lngua Portuguesa.
Sao Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Bechara E (1954). M. Said Ali. In Ali M S (ed.) Gramatica
Secundaria da Lngua Portuguesa, 8a. edicao (1969). Sao
Paulo: Melhoramentos. 1013.
Bechara E (1970). A contribuicao de M. Said Ali a`
Lingustica Portuguesa. Porto Alegre: Instituto Cultural
Brasileiro-Arabe.
Camara J M Jr (1961). Said Ali e a Lngua Portuguesa. In
Dispersos. Rio de Janeiro: Fundacao Getulio Vargas
(1975). 185189.
Silva Neto S (1955). Manuel Said Ali. Revista Brasileira de
Filologia 1, tomo 1. 109112.
Sainliens, Claude de (d. 1597)

D A Kibbee
p. 3640, 1994, Elsevier Ltd.
Claude de Sainliens was the most popular and most

prolific of the French instructors in England in the
second half of the 16th century, writing a number of
instructional texts for French and Italian, along with
at least two major FrenchEnglish dictionaries.
A native of Moulins, France, de Sainliens fled the

Wars of Religion early in the 1560s. He may be
the M. Claudius who helped John Baret prepare the
French part of his trilingual dictionary (Alvearie,
1573/74), and some attribute to him the Dictionarie
French and English (1570).
His general French textbooks were the French
Schoolemaister (1573) and the Frenche Littelton
(1576). They represent slightly different philosophies
of language instruction, the former presenting
grammar and pronunciation rules first, the latter
Sajnovics, Ja nos (17351785) 731
relegating those to reference status at the end. In 1580

de Sainliens published three texts meant to supplement the Littelton: De pronuntiatione linguae gallicae (in which he attacked efforts for orthographic
reform), A Treatise for the declining of verbs, and a
bilingual dictionary, A Treasurie of the French tong.
In 1593 he considerably expanded the dictionary,
retitling it A Dictionarie French and English. This
dictionary was an important source for Cotgraves
dictionary of 1611. Both schoolbooks remained popular well into the 17th century, with many posthumous editions.
Bibliography
Eccles M (1986). Claudius Hollyband and the earliest
FrenchEnglish dictionaries. Studies in Philology 83,
5161.
Farrer L (1908). Un devancier de Cotgrave: La vie et les
oeuvres de Claude de Sainliens. Paris: Presses universitaires.
Kibbee D A (1991). For to speke Frenche trewely. The
French language in England, 10001600: Its status, description and instruction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
See also: Dictionaries.
Sajnovics, Ja nos (17351785)

V E Hanzeli
p. 3641. 1994, Elsevier Ltd.
Sajnovics, astronomer and linguist, was born on May

12, 1735, in Tordas, Hungary, the younger son of a
well-to-do noble family. He entered the Jesuit Order
in 1748, studied philosophy and mathematics at
the Universities of Nagyszombat (Czech: Trnava;
German: Tyrnau) and Vienna, and astronomy at the
Vienna Imperial Observatory (1766). As a member
of a team of AustroHungarian astronomers, he
traveled, in 1769, to the Arctic island of Vard,
there to record the passage of Venus and to measure
the earthsun distance. Sajnovics, having observed a
number of similarities between the words used by the
indigenous Lapps and Hungarian words, went to
study written sources in Copenhagen, which confirmed his theory that the two languages are related.
He reported this to the Danish Royal Society, which
published his account (Sajnovics, 1770). Unfavorable
reaction to his theory in his native country turned
Sajnovics away from further language studies, but
Salar
Salina
See: Turkic Languages.
See: Hokan Languages.
he continued distinguished research and teaching in

astronomy until his death in Buda (now Budapest) on
May 4, 1785. He was a member of the Royal Societies
of Denmark and Norway.
His model was fully developed and extended to the
entire FinnoUgric family by Sa muel Gyarmathi (see
Gyarmathi, Samuel (17511830)).
See also: Gyarmathi, Samuel (17511830).
Bibliography
Erdo di J (1970). Sajnovics, der Mensch und der Gelehrte.
Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20,
291322.
Gulya J & Szathma ri I (1974). Sajnovics Ja nos. Budapest:
Magyar Nyelvtudomanyi Ta rsasa g.
Lako G (1970). J Sajnovics und seine Demonstratio.
Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
20, 269289.
Sajnovics J (1770). Demonstratio, idioma Ungarorum
et Lapponum idem esse. Copenhagen: Salicath. [2nd
edn., 1771, Soc. Jesu, Nagyszombat; German transl. by
Ehlers M, 1972, Beweis, dass die Sprache der Ungarn
und Lappen dieselbe ist. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.]
Sajnovics, Janos (17351785) 731
relegating those to reference status at the end. In 1580

de Sainliens published three texts meant to supplement the Littelton: De pronuntiatione linguae gallicae (in which he attacked efforts for orthographic
reform), A Treatise for the declining of verbs, and a
bilingual dictionary, A Treasurie of the French tong.
In 1593 he considerably expanded the dictionary,
retitling it A Dictionarie French and English. This
dictionary was an important source for Cotgraves
dictionary of 1611. Both schoolbooks remained popular well into the 17th century, with many posthumous editions.
Bibliography
Eccles M (1986). Claudius Hollyband and the earliest
FrenchEnglish dictionaries. Studies in Philology 83,
5161.
Farrer L (1908). Un devancier de Cotgrave: La vie et les
oeuvres de Claude de Sainliens. Paris: Presses universitaires.
Kibbee D A (1991). For to speke Frenche trewely. The
French language in England, 10001600: Its status, description and instruction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
See also: Dictionaries.
Sajnovics, Janos (17351785)

V E Hanzeli
p. 3641. 1994, Elsevier Ltd.
Sajnovics, astronomer and linguist, was born on May

12, 1735, in Tordas, Hungary, the younger son of a
well-to-do noble family. He entered the Jesuit Order
in 1748, studied philosophy and mathematics at
the Universities of Nagyszombat (Czech: Trnava;
German: Tyrnau) and Vienna, and astronomy at the
Vienna Imperial Observatory (1766). As a member
of a team of AustroHungarian astronomers, he
traveled, in 1769, to the Arctic island of Vard,
there to record the passage of Venus and to measure
the earthsun distance. Sajnovics, having observed a
number of similarities between the words used by the
indigenous Lapps and Hungarian words, went to
study written sources in Copenhagen, which confirmed his theory that the two languages are related.
He reported this to the Danish Royal Society, which
published his account (Sajnovics, 1770). Unfavorable
reaction to his theory in his native country turned
Sajnovics away from further language studies, but
Salar
Salina
See: Turkic Languages.
See: Hokan Languages.
he continued distinguished research and teaching in

astronomy until his death in Buda (now Budapest) on
May 4, 1785. He was a member of the Royal Societies
of Denmark and Norway.
His model was fully developed and extended to the
entire FinnoUgric family by Samuel Gyarmathi (see
Gyarmathi, Samuel (17511830)).
See also: Gyarmathi, Samuel (17511830).
Bibliography
Erdodi J (1970). Sajnovics, der Mensch und der Gelehrte.
Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20,
291322.
Gulya J & Szathmari I (1974). Sajnovics Janos. Budapest:
Magyar Nyelvtudomanyi Tarsasag.
Lako G (1970). J Sajnovics und seine Demonstratio.
Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
20, 269289.
Sajnovics J (1770). Demonstratio, idioma Ungarorum
et Lapponum idem esse. Copenhagen: Salicath. [2nd
edn., 1771, Soc. Jesu, Nagyszombat; German transl. by
Ehlers M, 1972, Beweis, dass die Sprache der Ungarn
und Lappen dieselbe ist. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.]
732 Salishan Languages
Salishan Languages
S Thomason, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,
USA
The 23 languages of the Salishan family are spoken in

the U.S. Northwest and neighboring British Columbia,
along the Pacific coast in Washington, Oregon,
and British Columbia, and inland to interior British
Columbia, the Idaho panhandle, and northwestern
Montana. The languages fall into five distinct
branches, according to the most commonly accepted
subgrouping schema (Czaykowska-Higgins and
Kinkade, 1998a; 3): Bella Coola, the northernmost
language and a one-language branch; Central (or
Coast)
Salish,
comprising
ComoxSliammon
(Comox), Pentlatch, Sechelt, Squamish, Halkomelem,
Northern Straits, Klallam (Clallam), Nooksack,
Lushootseed, and Twana; the Tsamosan languages,
Quinault, Lower Chehalis, Upper Chehalis, and
Cowlitz, located primarily south of the Central Salish
languages; Tillamook, a one-language branch, spoken
in Oregon; and Interior Salish, which is divided into
two branches: the three Northern Interior languages
Shuswap, Lillooet, and Thompson River Salish are
spoken in interior British Columbia, and the four
Southern Interior languages, ColvilleOkanagan,
Columbian, Coeur dAlene, and Montana Salish(a.k.a. Flathead-) KalispelSpokane (Kalispel Pend
dOreille), are spoken primarily in the interior U.S.
Northwest (although ColvilleOkanagan is also spoken across the border in Canada). In several instances,
as with Montana Salish-KalispelSpokane, different
tribes speak closely related dialects of a single (nameless) language.
Various proposals have linked the Salishan family
genetically to other Northwest languages, but none of
these is widely accepted. The isolate Kutenai, which
has long been in close contact with some of the Southern Interior languages, is one candidate for a distant
relative. Other proposed congeners are the Wakashan
and Chemakuan families, also located in the Pacific
Northwest; together, Salishan, Wakashan, and Chemakuan comprise the core of the famous Pacific
Northwest linguistic area. A number of striking typological features are found in all three of these families
(and some of them also in Kutenai); most of the features mentioned below for Salishan also occur in the
other two core Pacific Northwest families.
All Salishan languages have rich consonantal
inventories that include ejectives, lateral obstruents,
velar vs. uvular obstruents, labialized dorsal consonants, and (in some of the languages) glottalized
resonants and pharyngeal consonants. Table 1
Table 1 Proto-Salishan Consonant Phonemes

p
p
t
t
n
(r)
(r)
|
L
c
c
s
k
k
x
kw
kw
xw
l
l
y
y
(X)
(X)
w
w
q
q
x.
qw
qw
x. w
(h)
w
w
shows a widely (though not universally) accepted set

of ProtoSalishan consonant phonemes (modified
from Kroeber, 1999: 7, partly on the basis of comments in Czaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade, 1998a:
5152). Vowel inventories, in sharp contrast, are relatively simple: ProtoSalishan is generally believed to
have had just four vowel phonemes, /i e a u/.
Salishan phonology displays other striking features
as well, notably the presence (in almost all the languages) of very elaborate consonant clusters, as in
Montana Salish Ta qesmlme lcstmstxw! Dont
play with that! Another widely shared phonological
phenomenon is a sound change, in most of the
languages and apparently independently in at least
two subgroups, from the velar consonants k k x to
alveopalatals c c s (and then sometimes to other
consonants later).
Morphologically, Salishan is heavily agglutinative,
or polysynthetic. All the languages have many suffixes, including both grammatical suffixes for example, transitivizers, subject markers, and object makers
and lexical suffixes by the dozens, primarily indicating concrete objects (e.g., hand, face/fire, nose/
road/cost, round object, root/berry). Prefixes are
not so numerous, though most of the languages have
locative prefixes and several others as well. An affixloaded Montana Salish word, for instance, is qwo
c-tax. wl-m-nt-cut-m-nt-m they came up to me (lit.
me to-START-derived.transitive-transitive-reflexivederived.transitive-transitive-indefinite.agent). This
word contains one locative prefix and six suffixes,
with one suffix set, -m derived transitive plus -nt
transitive, repeated after the reflexive suffix
etransitivizes the stem.
Reduplication is a prominent morphological process in Salishan, used for such purposes as distributive
plural (e.g., Montana Salish qe cucuw all of us
are gone, we left one at a time vs. qe cuw all of
us are gone, we left in a group) and diminutive.
Salishan languages have pronominal clitics that
mark certain subjects (e.g., in intransitive predicates),
suffixes that mark other subjects (e.g., in transitive
predicates), suffixes that mark patients, and pronominal possessive affixes (see Czaykowska-Higgins and
Kinkade, 1998a: 31).
Salishan Languages 733
Word classes include at least full words and

particles. Because every full word can serve as the
predicate of a sentence, some scholars have argued
for the absence of a lexical distinction between verbs
and nouns (see Kuipers, 1968; Kinkade, 1983; Jelinek,
1998; for the other side of this controversy, see Van
Eijk and Hess, 1986; Kroeber, 1999: 3336). There is
general agreement that, if the distinction exists, its
morphological and syntactic ramifications are
weaker than in most or possibly all language families
outside the Pacific Northwest. Salishan languages
have suppletive lexical pairs of roots with singular
and plural reference, e.g., Montana Salish c n u Lx. w
I went in vs. qe nps we went in.
Nearly all Salishan languages are predominantly
predicate-initial, mostly VSO but in some languages
VOS; word order is rather free. In all the languages
transitivity is a major morphosyntactic category, with
transitivizing and detransitivizing suffixes, applicatives, causatives, and other complexities; they are
head-marking. Jelinek (e.g., 1984) and Jelinek and
Demers (e.g., 1994) have proposed that these are
pronominal argument languages, with full noun
phrases having the status of adjuncts rather than
arguments. This claim has been debated vigorously,
on both sides of the issue, by Salishanists and other
theoreticians.
Research on Salishan languages began early, with
wordlists collected by travelers as early as 1810 and
the first grammar and dictionary published later in the
19th century a grammar and a thousand-page twovolume dictionary of Montana Salish (Mengarini,
1961; Mengarini et al., 18771879). Modern Salishan
linguistics has been flourishing for over half a century,
and three especially important surveys have
appeared: Thompson, 1979; Czaykowska-Higgins
and Kinkade, 1998a and Kroeber, 1999 (in particular
Chap. 1). An annual conference, Salish and Neighboring Languages, is held each August, and the conference preprints are a major source for information
on the languages. A sizable number of descriptive
grammars and dictionaries of various Salishan languages are now available, together with a great many
more articles on specific theoretical and descriptive
issues, a large monograph on comparative syntax
(Kroeber, 1999), and an etymological dictionary
(Kuipers, 2002).
All the Salishan languages are gravely endangered.

Czaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade (1998a: 6467)
report speaker figures that range from about 500 (for
4 languages) to fewer than 10 (for 9 languages) and
0 (for several now-vanished languages). Languagerevitalization efforts are under way, however, for
many of the Salishan languages.
See also: Canada: Language Situation; United States of
America: Language Situation.
Bibliography
Czaykowska-Higgins E & Kinkade M D (1998a). Salish
language and linguistics. In Czaykowska-Higgins &
Kinkade (eds.). 168.
Czaykowska-Higgins E & Kinkade M D (eds.) (1998b).
Salish languages and linguistics: theoretical and descriptive perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jelinek E (1984). Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2,
3976.
Jelinek E (1998). Prepositions in Northern Straits Salish
and the noun/verb question. In Czaykowska-Higgins &
Kinkade (eds.). 325346.
Jelinek E & Demers R A (1994). Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70, 697736.
Kinkade M D (1983). Salish evidence against the universality of noun and verb. Lingua 60, 2539.
Kroeber P D (1999). The Salish language family: reconstructing syntax. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kuipers A H (1968). The categories verbnoun and
transitiveintransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua
21, 610626.
Kuipers A H (2002). Salish etymological dictionary. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 16.
Missoula: UMOPL Linguistics Laboratory.
Mengarini G S J (1861). Grammatical linguae Selicae. New
York: Cramoisey Press.
Mengarini G S J Giorda J et al. (18771879). A dictionary
of the Kalispel or Flat-head Indian language. St. Ignatius,
MT: St. Ignatius Print. [This work is usually referred to as
Giorda 18771879.]
Thompson L C (1979). Salishan and the Northwest. In
Lyle Campbell & Marianne Mithun (eds.) The languages
of Native America: historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press. 692765.
Van Eijk J P & Hess T M (1986). Noun and verb in Salish.
Lingua 69, 319331.
734 Samar-Leyte
Samar-Leyte
J W Lobel, University of Hawaii, Manoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii
Waray-Waray (Samar-Leyte) is an Austronesian language of the Central Bisayan subgroup of Central

Philippine languages. With approximately 3 million
speakers, Waray-Waray ranks sixth in terms of number of speakers in the Philippines, fifth in the Central
Philippine subgroup, and third in the Visayan Islands.
Waray-Waray is spoken in an area that roughly corresponds to the borders of the Eastern Visayas (Region
VIII), except for the western coast of Leyte and
Biliran and a number of small islands off the northwestern coast of Samar, most of which are Cebuanospeaking, except for Capul Island, which is home to
Sama Abaknon, a language of the Sama-Abaknon
subgroup.
As a Central Bisayan language, Waray-Waray is most
closely related to Ilonggo (Hiligaynon), Capiznon,
Masbatenyo, Romblomanon, Central and Southern
Sorsoganon, Porohanon, and Bantayanon. Outside of
the Central Bisayan subgroup, these languages are
related to Cebuano, Asi (Bantoanon), the Western
Bisayan languages (including Aklanon, Kinaray-a,
and Unhan [Inonhan]), and the Southern Bisayan languages (including Tausug, Surigaonon, and Butuanon).
Within the Central Philippine subgroup, the Bisayan
languages are coordinate with Tagalog and the Bikol
(Bicolano, Central) languages.
The standard dialect of Waray-Waray is that of
Tacloban City. The Waray-Waray-speaking areas exhibit substantial dialect variation, and in many places
no two towns speak the same dialect. Approximately
two dozen dialects and subdialects are found in
the region. The greatest major dividing line is between Northern Samarenyo and the rest of the
Waray-Waray area. The dialect of Allen, Samar, is
predominantly Southern Sorsoganon mixed with
Northern Samarenyo, and neighboring towns also
have a considerable amount of borrowing from
Southern Sorsoganon. There is also a modest amount
of evidence for a split between Samar Waray-Waray
and Leyte Waray-Waray, although much of this
split consists of borrowings from Cebuano into
Leyte Waray. The dialect of Abuyog, Leyte, is particularly heavily influenced by Cebuano, as is the dialect of Culaba, Biliran. It is also interesting that
the dialects of the oldest settlements in Baybay,
Leyte, (C. Rubino, personal communication), and
the Camotes Islands (Wolff, 1967) show a Warayan
substratum, indicating that Waray-Waray was much
more widespread in previous centuries before the

expansion of the Cebuanos in the mid-1800s (Larkin,
1982). In total, there are approximately 25 dialects
and subdialects of Waray-Waray, defined mostly by
lexical and morphological variation, as very little
phonological and grammatical differences exist.
The earliest written works on the Waray-Waray
language are Domingo Ezguerras 1663 grammar
Arte de la Lengua Bisaya de la Provincia de Leite
and a dictionary by Mateo Sanchez (15621618)
published a century after his death as the Vocabulario
de la Lengua Bisaya (1711).
Recent works include two dictionaries (Abuyen,
1994; Tramp, 1995), a series of pedagogical texts
(Wolff and Wolff, 1967), and two compilations of literature (Luangco, 1982b; Sugbo, 1995). Zorc (1977)
contains data from three Waray-Waray dialects in comparison to other Bisayan languages. Waray-Waray is
the language of the church throughout the Eastern
Visayas region, and by far the most readily available
literature in Waray-Waray is religious in nature, including two modern Bible translations and numerous
prayer pamphlets.
Waray-Waray has the basic Central Philippine-type
phonology, with 16 consonants / p b m w t d n s l r y k
g sng2 u S h / and three vowels / a i u /, and both stress
and length are contrastive. Most of the dialects of
northeastern and eastern Samar have a fourth vowel
as a reflex of PAn *e, a high, central, tense unrounded
vowel $i . The Waray-Waray orthography is mostly
regular except that it does not represent stress, length,
or the glottal stop.
Waray-Waray is most readily distinguishable from
other Central Philippine languages by the *s > /h/
sound change that has affected a small number of
common grammatical morphemes in all areas of
Samar south of the Sta. Margarita-Matuginao-Las
Navas-Gamay line and all of Leyte Waray except
the towns of Javier and Abuyog. However, the *s >
/h/ change and the loss or retention of PAN *e are
areal features, and therefore do not define genetic
subgroups within Waray-Waray.
Waray-Waray is agglutinative, with a complex system of verbal morphology expressing a wide variety
of semantic and syntactic contrasts. Although sometimes analyzed as ergative, these languages are probably of a separate type called Symmetrical Voice
Languages, in which multiple voice distinctions exist,
yet none can be considered more basic than the
other (Himmelmann, to appear). Like most other
Philippine languages, there are four main verbal
focuses (actor, object, location, and beneficiary; see
Table 1) and three case distinctions (nominative,
Samar-Leyte 735
Table 1 Waray-Waray focus-mood-aspect morphology
-um-verbs
Infinitive
Past/perfective
Present/progressive
Future
Imperative/subjunctive
Future subjunctive
Infinitive
Past/perfective
Present/progressive
Future
Imperative/subjunctive
Future subjunctive
mag-verbs
Actor focus
Object focus (1)
Object focus (2) / beneficiary focus
Location focus
-um-inm-nnamaRmagnagnag-Rmag-Rpagpag-R-
-on
-in-
ii-. . .-in-
-an
-in-. . .-an
-in-RR-. . .-on
-a
R-. . .-a
pag-..-on
gingin-Rpag-R-. . .-on
pag-. . .-i
pag-R-. . .-i
i. . .-in-R-. . .
i-R-an
R-. . .-an
igiginigin-R
ig-Rpag-. . .-an
pag-R-. . .-an
-in-R-. . .-an
R-. . .-an
-i
R-. . .-i
pag-. . .-an
gin-. . .-an
gin-R-. . .-an
pag-R-. . .-an
pag-. . .-i
pag-R-. . .-i
Table 2 Waray-Waray pronouns
Singular
Plural
Table 4 Waray-Waray demonstratives
Nominative
Genitive
Oblique
1st
ako, ak
ko
2nd
ikaw, ka
3rd
1st
exclusive
1st
inclusive
2nd
3rd
hiya/siya
kam
mo,
n mo,
nim
niya
namon
(ha/sa)
akon
(ha/sa)
mo/im
kita
naton
kamo
hira/sira
n yo
n ra
(ha/sa) ya
(ha/sa)
amon
(ha/sa)
aton
(ha/sa) yo
(ha/sa) ra
Table 3 Waray-Waray case markers
Nom
Gen
Obl
-ref
ref, past
ref, -past
-ref
ref, past
ref, -past
Standard
Waray
Abuyog
Calbayog;
Northern
Samar-A
Northern
Samar-B
in
an
it
hin
han
hit
sa
in
an
it
sin
san
sit
sa
in
an
i(n)
a(n)
sin
san
si(n)
sa(n)
sa
sa
genitive, and oblique) in noun phrases, name phrases,

and pronouns (marked by an introductory morpheme)
(see Table 2). Nouns, adjectives, and verbs distinguish
between singular, plural, and in some cases, dual, and
verbs may also be marked for reciprocal action. A
number of other meanings can be marked by verbal
affixes, including accidental, abilitative, distributive,
causative, social, and diminutive. Tense-aspect-mood
distinctions include infinitive, past/perfective, present/
progressive, future, imperative/subjunctive, and future
subjunctive. Both reduplication and repetition are
Near speaker; far from

addressee
Near speaker and
addressee
Far from speaker; near
addressee
Far from speaker and
addressee
Nominative
Genitive
Oblique
ad
hadi/
sadi
hini/sini
didi,
ngadi
dinhi,
nganhi
dida,
ngada
didto,
ngadto
in
iton
adto
hiton/
siton
hadto/
sadto
productive mechanisms that can denote diminutive,

repetitive, and intensive meanings, among others.
Waray-Waray has much the same grammatical
structure as Tagalog, except for (a) the existence of
distinct imperative forms, (b) a preference for inflecting verbs for plural actors, (c) a more elaborate system of case markers that distinguish between
referential and non-referential and past and nonpast in both the nominative and genitive cases (see
Table 3), and (d) a four-way distinction in demonstratives, including a contrast between referents that
are near only the speaker vs. those that are near both
the speaker and the addressee (see Table 4).
A noteworthy feature of the lexicon of dialects
of Waray-Waray spoken in parts of eastern and
northeastern Samar is the existence of a register of
vocabulary reserved for usage by speakers when they
are angry.
See also: Austronesian Languages: Overview; Bikol;
Cebuano; Hiligaynon; Malayo-Polynesian Languages;
Philippines: Language Situation; Tagalog.
Bibliography
Abuyen T (1994). Diksyunaryo Waray-Waray (Visaya)
English Tagalog. Philippines: Tomas Abuyen.
736 Samar-Leyte
Alca zar Fr A V (1914). Diccionario Bisaya-Espan ol para las
provincias de Sa mar y Leyte compuesto por el M. R. P. Fr.
Antonio Sa nchez de la Rosa, corregido y aumentado,
tercera edicio n. Manila: Imp. Y Lit. de Santos y Bernal.
Cinco E P (1977). A contrastive analysis of Waray
and Pilipino (Tagalog) adverbials. M.A. Thesis. Manila:
Philippine Normal College.
Diller T C (1971). Case grammar and its application to
Waray, a Philippine language. Ph.D. diss. Los Angeles:
University of California.
Ezguerra P D (1747). Arte de la Lengua Bisaya de la
Provincia de Leite. Manila: Compan ia de Jesus.
Figueroa A (1872). Arte del Idioma Visaya de Samar y Leite
(2nd edn.). Binondo, Philippines: Imprenta de Bruno
Gonzales Moras.
Himmelmann N (to appear). Typological characteristics.
In Himmelmann N & Adelaar K A (eds.) The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Curzon
Press.
Larkin J A (1982). Philippine history reconsidered: a socioeconomic perspective. The American Historical Review
87(3), 595628.
Luangco G C (ed.) (1982a). Kandabao: essays of Waray
language, literature and culture. Tacloban City: Divine
Word University Publications.
Luangco G C (ed.) (1982b). Waray literature: An anthology
of Leyte-Samar writings. Tacloban City: Divine Word
University Publications.
Macariola G P (1977). A contrastive analysis of Waray

and Tagalog (Pilipino) major transitive verbs. M.A. Thesis. Manila: Philippine Normal College.
Paquio M N (1969). An investigation of Waray phonology. M.A. Thesis. Columbia: University of Missouri.
Piczon P B (1974). Elements of modern Waray. M.A.
Thesis. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University.
Sanchez M (1711). Vocabulario de la lengua Bisaya (SamarLeyte).
Sa nchez de la Rosa A (1887). Diccionario Bisaya-Espan ol
para las provincias de Sa mar y Leyte.
Soriano F (1959). Fundamental grammar notes in the
Waray Waray dialect. As presented at the Sanz School
of Languages. Cornell University.
Sugbo V N (1995). Tinipigan: an anthology of Waray literature. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the
Arts.
Tramp G D Jr (1995). Waray dictionary. Kensington, MD:
Dunwoody Press.
Wolff J U (1967). History of the dialect of the Camotes
Islands, Philippines, and the spread of Cebuano Bisayan.
Oceanic Linguistics 6(2), 6379.
Wolff J U & Wolff I O (1967). Beginning Waray-Waray.
Ithaca: Cornell University.
Zorc R D (1977). The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines:
subgrouping and reconstruction. Pacific Linguistics
C-44. Canberra: Australian National University.
Samoa, American: Language Situation

Editorial Team
A group of five volcanic islands and two coral atolls

in the South Pacific Ocean, 14 degrees below the
equator, about halfway between Hawaii and New
Zealand, American Samoa is the southernmost
territory of the United States. Linguistic and cultural
evidence suggests that the first Samoa inhabitants
migrated from the West, possibly by way of Indonesia, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga, to the eastern tip
of Tutuila near the present village of Tula around
600 B.C. It is believed that there was at least an
800-year history of contact with Fiji and Tonga
before the Samoan islands were officially discovered
by Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen in 1722. International rivalries in the latter half of the 19th century
were settled by an 1899 treaty in which Germany and
the United States divided the Samoan archipelago.

The United States formally occupied its assigned
portion a smaller group of eastern islands with the
harbor of Pago Pago the following year. The western islands are now the independent state of Samoa.
Although technically considered unorganized in that
the U.S. Congress has not passed an Organic Act for
the territory, American Samoa is self-governing under
a constitution that became effective in 1967. The
official languages are Samoan and English, with the
majority of the population bilingual. The Samoan
language is closely related to Hawaiian and other
Polynesian languages. There are only minor regional
dialect differences, but great phonological and lexical
differences, between formal and colloquial speech.
See also: Samoa: Language Situation.
736 Samar-Leyte
Alcazar Fr A V (1914). Diccionario Bisaya-Espanol para las
provincias de Samar y Leyte compuesto por el M. R. P. Fr.
Antonio Sanchez de la Rosa, corregido y aumentado,
tercera edicion. Manila: Imp. Y Lit. de Santos y Bernal.
Cinco E P (1977). A contrastive analysis of Waray
and Pilipino (Tagalog) adverbials. M.A. Thesis. Manila:
Philippine Normal College.
Diller T C (1971). Case grammar and its application to
Waray, a Philippine language. Ph.D. diss. Los Angeles:
University of California.
Ezguerra P D (1747). Arte de la Lengua Bisaya de la
Provincia de Leite. Manila: Compania de Jesus.
Figueroa A (1872). Arte del Idioma Visaya de Samar y Leite
(2nd edn.). Binondo, Philippines: Imprenta de Bruno
Gonzales Moras.
Himmelmann N (to appear). Typological characteristics.
In Himmelmann N & Adelaar K A (eds.) The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Curzon
Press.
Larkin J A (1982). Philippine history reconsidered: a socioeconomic perspective. The American Historical Review
87(3), 595628.
Luangco G C (ed.) (1982a). Kandabao: essays of Waray
language, literature and culture. Tacloban City: Divine
Word University Publications.
Luangco G C (ed.) (1982b). Waray literature: An anthology
of Leyte-Samar writings. Tacloban City: Divine Word
University Publications.
Macariola G P (1977). A contrastive analysis of Waray

and Tagalog (Pilipino) major transitive verbs. M.A. Thesis. Manila: Philippine Normal College.
Paquio M N (1969). An investigation of Waray phonology. M.A. Thesis. Columbia: University of Missouri.
Piczon P B (1974). Elements of modern Waray. M.A.
Thesis. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University.
Sanchez M (1711). Vocabulario de la lengua Bisaya (SamarLeyte).
Sanchez de la Rosa A (1887). Diccionario Bisaya-Espanol
para las provincias de Samar y Leyte.
Soriano F (1959). Fundamental grammar notes in the
Waray Waray dialect. As presented at the Sanz School
of Languages. Cornell University.
Sugbo V N (1995). Tinipigan: an anthology of Waray literature. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the
Arts.
Tramp G D Jr (1995). Waray dictionary. Kensington, MD:
Dunwoody Press.
Wolff J U (1967). History of the dialect of the Camotes
Islands, Philippines, and the spread of Cebuano Bisayan.
Oceanic Linguistics 6(2), 6379.
Wolff J U & Wolff I O (1967). Beginning Waray-Waray.
Ithaca: Cornell University.
Zorc R D (1977). The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines:
subgrouping and reconstruction. Pacific Linguistics
C-44. Canberra: Australian National University.
Samoa, American: Language Situation

Editorial Team
A group of five volcanic islands and two coral atolls

in the South Pacific Ocean, 14 degrees below the
equator, about halfway between Hawaii and New
Zealand, American Samoa is the southernmost
territory of the United States. Linguistic and cultural
evidence suggests that the first Samoa inhabitants
migrated from the West, possibly by way of Indonesia, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga, to the eastern tip
of Tutuila near the present village of Tula around
600 B.C. It is believed that there was at least an
800-year history of contact with Fiji and Tonga
before the Samoan islands were officially discovered
by Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen in 1722. International rivalries in the latter half of the 19th century

The United States formally occupied its assigned
portion a smaller group of eastern islands with the
harbor of Pago Pago the following year. The western islands are now the independent state of Samoa.
Although technically considered unorganized in that
the U.S. Congress has not passed an Organic Act for
the territory, American Samoa is self-governing under
a constitution that became effective in 1967. The
official languages are Samoan and English, with the
majority of the population bilingual. The Samoan
language is closely related to Hawaiian and other
Polynesian languages. There are only minor regional
dialect differences, but great phonological and lexical
differences, between formal and colloquial speech.
See also: Samoa: Language Situation.
San Marino: Language Situation 737
Samoa: Language Situation

Editorial Team
The Independent State of Samoa, situated in the

South Pacific Ocean, comprises two main islands
and a number of smaller islands and uninhabited
islets. Settled as early as 1500 B.C., Samoa was reached
by European explorers in the 18th century. International rivalries in the latter half of the 19th century
Shortly after the outbreak of World War I in August
1914, New Zealand sent an expeditionary force to
seize and occupy German Samoa. This was to stop
German Samoa from being used as a naval refueling
base in the Pacific. The German forces on the islands
did not surrender; nor did they put up a fight. German
Samoa was renamed Western Samoa and New Zealand continued the occupation of Western Samoa
throughout World War I. In 1919, under the Treaty
of Versailles, Germany dropped its claims to the
islands and they were granted to New Zealand as a
League of Nations mandate. New Zealand administered Western Samoa under the auspices of the
League of Nations, and then as a United Nations
Samtoy
trusteeship, until the country received its independence in 1962 as Western Samoa. The country
was a constitutional monarchy under a native chief,
making it the first Polynesian nation to reestablish
independence in the 20th century. The country officially changed its name to Samoa in 1997. The official
languages are English and Samoan. The Samoan language plays a significant part in the islands culture;
elaborate ceremonies and protocols revolve around it.
Samoan presents no significant dialect variations but
has important register-based distinctions in the phonology. The talking chiefs dialect is very different
and most Samoans have difficulty understanding it.
The language used by the chiefs, who are versed
in eloquent speech-making that recalls the village
history, genealogy, and proverbs, is very poetical and
figurative. Symbolic phrases are used lavishly in
speeches during ceremonies and political debates. The
everyday language is used by all, including the chiefs
during personal conversations and at home.
Bibliography
Duranti A (1994). From grammar to politics: linguistic
anthropology in a Western Samoan village. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
See: Ilocano.
San Marino: Language Situation

Editorial Team
A small and completely landlocked enclave in central

Italy with a total territory of 61.2 km2, San Marino
claims to be the worlds oldest republic, founded by a
Christian stonemason named Marinus in 301 C.E. The
national language of the Most Serene Republic of
San Marino is Italian. The schooling is conducted in
Italian and the literacy rate is of circa 98% both
for men and women. Aside from Italian, 83% of the
28 503-strong population (July 2004) also speak
the Sammarinese dialect of Emiliano-Romagnolo, a
language structurally separate from Italian that is

related to Lombard, traditionally spoken in Northwest Italy. Sammarinese-speaking adults use Italian as
a second language, and there is a 100% literacy rate
in the latter. San Marino also has a population of
1455 deaf people. San Marino has one television
and three radio stations, which broadcast mainly in
Italian, and residents regularly receive broadcasts
also from Italy.
See also: Italian.
San Marino: Language Situation 737
Samoa: Language Situation

Editorial Team
The Independent State of Samoa, situated in the

South Pacific Ocean, comprises two main islands
and a number of smaller islands and uninhabited
islets. Settled as early as 1500 B.C., Samoa was reached
by European explorers in the 18th century. International rivalries in the latter half of the 19th century
Shortly after the outbreak of World War I in August
1914, New Zealand sent an expeditionary force to
seize and occupy German Samoa. This was to stop
German Samoa from being used as a naval refueling
base in the Pacific. The German forces on the islands
did not surrender; nor did they put up a fight. German
Samoa was renamed Western Samoa and New Zealand continued the occupation of Western Samoa
throughout World War I. In 1919, under the Treaty
of Versailles, Germany dropped its claims to the
islands and they were granted to New Zealand as a
League of Nations mandate. New Zealand administered Western Samoa under the auspices of the
League of Nations, and then as a United Nations
Samtoy
trusteeship, until the country received its independence in 1962 as Western Samoa. The country
was a constitutional monarchy under a native chief,
making it the first Polynesian nation to reestablish
independence in the 20th century. The country officially changed its name to Samoa in 1997. The official
languages are English and Samoan. The Samoan language plays a significant part in the islands culture;
elaborate ceremonies and protocols revolve around it.
Samoan presents no significant dialect variations but
has important register-based distinctions in the phonology. The talking chiefs dialect is very different
and most Samoans have difficulty understanding it.
The language used by the chiefs, who are versed
in eloquent speech-making that recalls the village
history, genealogy, and proverbs, is very poetical and
figurative. Symbolic phrases are used lavishly in
speeches during ceremonies and political debates. The
everyday language is used by all, including the chiefs
during personal conversations and at home.
Bibliography
Duranti A (1994). From grammar to politics: linguistic
anthropology in a Western Samoan village. Berkeley:
See: Ilocano.
San Marino: Language Situation

Editorial Team
A small and completely landlocked enclave in central

Italy with a total territory of 61.2 km2, San Marino
claims to be the worlds oldest republic, founded by a
Christian stonemason named Marinus in 301 C.E. The
national language of the Most Serene Republic of
San Marino is Italian. The schooling is conducted in
Italian and the literacy rate is of circa 98% both
for men and women. Aside from Italian, 83% of the
28 503-strong population (July 2004) also speak
the Sammarinese dialect of Emiliano-Romagnolo, a
language structurally separate from Italian that is

related to Lombard, traditionally spoken in Northwest Italy. Sammarinese-speaking adults use Italian as
a second language, and there is a 100% literacy rate
in the latter. San Marino also has a population of
1455 deaf people. San Marino has one television
and three radio stations, which broadcast mainly in
Italian, and residents regularly receive broadcasts
also from Italy.
See also: Italian.
738 Sanchis Guarner, Manuel (19111981)
Sanchis Guarner, Manuel (19111981)

J Carrera-Sabate, Universitat de Barcelona,
Barcelona, Spain
Manuel Sanchis Guarner was born in Valencia

in 1911. At the age of five, following the death of
his father, he was placed under the tutelage of his
uncle, the Valencian archaeologist, Josep Sanchis
Guarner, from whom he inherited his passion for the
study of his own country. Manuel Sanchis Guarner
obtained his university degree in Arts and Law at
the University of Valencia, became one of the directors
of Valencianist Cultural Action, and consolidated
his lifes project: to dedicate his efforts to his own
country.
In 1932, he obtained a grant to work in the Centre
for Historical Studies (CEH) in Madrid. In the philology section of the CEH, Sanchis Guarner learned phonetic methodology and dialectology from Mene ndez
Pidal, Ame rico Castro, Rafael Lapesa, and Tomas
Navarro Tomas, and he acquired the necessary background to lay down the foundation for Valencian
philology. In 1933, he agreed to write La llengua
dels valencians, which became a point of reference
in Valencian philology and Valencian identity, as
can be seen by its many editions. In 1934, Navarro
Tomas asked Sanchis Guarner to join a survey group
for an ambitious project which he was directing:
The Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula (ALPI).
With this project, Sanchis Guarner made several
research journeys to Spanish-, Basque-, and Catalanspeaking lands, the latter with Francesc de Borja
Moll.
The atlas project has never been finished because
it was interrupted by the Spanish Civil War. Sanchis
Guarner was incorporated into the Republican army,
and during the war he spent most of his time in
Extremadura and Madrid. After the defeat of the
Republican army, Sanchis Guarner was held in a
concentration camp (Salamanca) and later imprisoned in Madrid. After being a prisoner for nearly
four years, he was released provisionally, and in
1943 he settled in Majorca, where he became a language teacher in a high school and took up scientific
research again with the support of Francesc de Borja
Moll.
During this 16-year Majorcan period, he collaborated with Francesc de Borja Moll in the writing
of the Diccionari Catala`-Valencia`-Balear, initiated
by Antoni M. Alcover. Until that moment, Sanchis
Guarner had specialized in phonetics and dialectology, but in working on the dictionary, he learned
lexicographic techniques, etymology, semantics,

language history, popular culture, and the study of
proverbs and proper nouns. He produced different
studies in Catalan philology, such as Introduccion a
la historia lingustica de Valencia (1949), Grama`tica
valenciana (1950), Els parlars roma`nics de Vale`ncia i
Mallorca anteriors a la Reconquista (1955), and
others, centered on the recovery of local linguistic or
literary topics: Els poetes roma`ntics de Mallorca
(1950), Calendari de refranys (1951), and Els poetes
insulars de postguerra (1951).
In 1947, Sanchis Guarner and Francesc de Borja
Moll resumed interviewing for the ALPI. Sanchis, as
one of the main transcribers for the project, traveled
to New York in 1951 to retrieve the atlas materials
that had been safeguarded by Navarro Toma s since
the Spanish Civil War. The publications by Sanchis
Guarner relating to the atlas were La cartografa
lingustica en la actualidad (1953) and the Atlas de
la Pennsula Iberica (1953). Furthermore, Sanchis
Guarner, as the executive director of the ALPI, presented the publication of the first volume of the atlas
at the Congress of Romance Philology in Strasbourg
in 1962.
In 1954, Sanchis Guarner began teaching different
courses in Valencian language and culture twice a year
at the College of Arts at the University of Valencia. In
1959 he definitively returned to his native city, where
he worked as a French teacher in a school. Later on,
he was placed in charge of the Romance Philology
and General Linguistics courses at the university.
Afterwards, he became head of the Valencian Linguistics Department, in 1979, and he taught at the university until he retired, in 1981, the same year he
passed away. From this period, publications he
wrote that were significant include: Els valencians i
la llengua auto`ctona durant els segles XVI, XVII i
XVIII (1963), Els pobles valencians parlen els uns
dels altres, 4 vols. (19631983), and Aproximacio a
la histo`ria de la llengua catalana (1980). He also
collaborated on the Histo`ria del Pas Valencia`
(19601990).
Sanchis Guarner, as author of numerous papers,
prologues, and books reviews, contributed to Catalan
philology in several subjects, mainly: dialectology,
grammar, history of the language, literature, and culture. Furthermore, throughout his academic life, he
participated in different Romance philology congresses and joined the Miguel de Cervantes Institute
of Spanish Philology of the CSIC Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Cientficas, the Centre de Cultura
Valenciana, the Institut Alfons el Magna`nim de
Valencia, and the Escola Lullstica de Mallorca. He
Sanctius, Franciscus (15231600) 739
was also a member of the Institut dEstudis Catalans,

the Real Academia de la Historia, the Reial Acade`mia
de Bones Lletres, The Hispanic Society of America,
and Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando. In
1974 he was given the Honour Award of Catalan
Letters and in 1981 he received the Award of the
Unity of the Language for Aproximacio a la histo`ria
de la llengua catalana.
Unfortunately, Sanchis Guarner suffered the effects
of numerous stratagems against him by several antinationalist sectors in Valencian society. He was even
the victim of a frustrated bomb attack. Many people
did not forgive the fact that his scientific work made
the unity of Catalan clearly evident.
See also: Alcover, Antoni Maria (18621932).
Bibliography
Corte s S (2002). Manuel Sanchis Guarner (19111981).
Una vida per al dia`leg. Vale`ncia/Barcelona: IUFV/PAM.
Fabregat A (1973). Prese`ncia de Manuel Sanchis Guarner.
Serra dOr (July), 1113.
Ferrando A & Pe rez F (eds.) (1998). Manuel Sanchis
Guarner: el comproms cvic dun filo`leg. Vale`ncia:
Universitat de Vale`ncia.
Ferrando A et al. (1992). Perfil cientfic i huma` de Manuel
Sanchis Guarner. In Ferrando A (ed.) Miscella`nia Sanchis Guarner, vol. 1. Barcelona: PAM. 11141.
Gar J (1992). La ideologia lingu stica de Sanchis Guarner.
In Ferrando A & Hauf A G (eds.) Miscella`nia Joan
Fuster, vol. 5. Barcelona: PAM. 351379.
Moll F & de B (1982). A la bona memo`ria de Sanchis
Guarner. Serra dOr (March), 1113.
Sola` J (1984). Pompeu Fabra, Sanchis Guarner i altres
escrits. Vale`ncia: Eliseu Climent.
Sanctius, Franciscus (15231600)

M Piot, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Franciscus Sanctius or Francisco Sa nchez de las

Brozas, known in Spain as El Brocense, was born
c. 1522 in Las Brozas in the Spanish province of
Ca ceres into an aristocratic or hijosdalgo family
that had little economic means. At the age of 11, following his uncles on his mothers side named Sa nchez
(whose name he at that time assumed), he was trained
into the Royal Portuguese household in Evora and
then in Lisboa, where he began to study Latin and
Classics. Coming back to Spain, he studied at the
University of Salamanca and received his Bachelor
of Arts in 1551. He was a lecturer in Rhetoric
there also and later obtained a Ca tedra de prima de
Grama tica (1564), and then a Chair of Rhetoric
(1573) and the Chairs of Greek and Latin (1576).
Sanctius married twice thereafter and had 12 sons.
Bothered at the end of his life (15851595) by the
Inquisition Court because of his rebellious and critical stance against indoctrination and conformism, he
died in Valladolid in 1600.
He wrote treatises on Rhetoric: De arte dicendi
liber unus (1556) and Aphthonii Sophistae Progymnasmata Rhetorica (1556); on Latin: Grammatices
Latinae Institutiones (1562) and Arte para en breve
saber latin (1576); and on Greek: Grammatica Graeca
(1581). He also composed several works on Dialectic:
Organon Dialecticumm et Rhetoricum (1579) and
De nonnullis Prphyrii aliorumque in Dialectica
erroribus Scholae Dialecticae (1588); and on philosophy, astronomy, literature, and translation. His
work also includes philological comments on ancient
writers such as Virgil, Ovidius, Pomponius Mela,
Perse and Epicteta and moderns such as Politianus,
Garcilaso de la Vega, and Juan de Mena.
In his major work, Minerva: seu de causis linguae
Latinae (1587), a grammar of Latin whose subtitle he
took from his predecessor Julius Scaliger, recognizing
the same overall purposes and point of view on grammatical studies, he also referred to Nebrijas humanist
work. He shared the same methodological concern
about linguistic analysis as Petrus Ramus, and he
conversely pointed out a lack of rationality and methodology in the Italian philological tradition exemplified by Valla. He also criticized Erasmus for using a
nonclassical Latin.
Following his philosophical stands on Platos and
Aristotles arbitrariness of motivation of the linguistic units, Sanctius explicitly took his place in the
grammatical tradition of Quintilians and Priscians
syntactic approach, attempting to recover the logical
structure of sentences.
The purpose of the Minerva was to unearth the
origins and logical structures (causae) as much as
the internal rules (vera principia) of this language in
order to simplify the multiplicity of uses and methods
of language acquisition. Constructing this rule-based
grammar, Sanctius, both theoretician and great philologist (he mastered the entire classical Latin corpora
and leading grammaticians works in order to exemplify his views and hypotheses), aimed at a theoretical
Sanctius, Franciscus (15231600) 739
was also a member of the Institut dEstudis Catalans,

the Real Academia de la Historia, the Reial Acade`mia
de Bones Lletres, The Hispanic Society of America,
and Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando. In
1974 he was given the Honour Award of Catalan
Letters and in 1981 he received the Award of the
Unity of the Language for Aproximacio a la histo`ria
de la llengua catalana.
Unfortunately, Sanchis Guarner suffered the effects
of numerous stratagems against him by several antinationalist sectors in Valencian society. He was even
the victim of a frustrated bomb attack. Many people
did not forgive the fact that his scientific work made
the unity of Catalan clearly evident.
See also: Alcover, Antoni Maria (18621932).
Bibliography
Cortes S (2002). Manuel Sanchis Guarner (19111981).
Una vida per al dia`leg. Vale`ncia/Barcelona: IUFV/PAM.
Fabregat A (1973). Prese`ncia de Manuel Sanchis Guarner.
Serra dOr (July), 1113.
Ferrando A & Perez F (eds.) (1998). Manuel Sanchis
Guarner: el comproms cvic dun filo`leg. Vale`ncia:
Universitat de Vale`ncia.
Ferrando A et al. (1992). Perfil cientfic i huma` de Manuel
Sanchis Guarner. In Ferrando A (ed.) Miscella`nia Sanchis Guarner, vol. 1. Barcelona: PAM. 11141.
Gar J (1992). La ideologia lingustica de Sanchis Guarner.
In Ferrando A & Hauf A G (eds.) Miscella`nia Joan
Fuster, vol. 5. Barcelona: PAM. 351379.
Moll F & de B (1982). A la bona memo`ria de Sanchis
Guarner. Serra dOr (March), 1113.
Sola` J (1984). Pompeu Fabra, Sanchis Guarner i altres
escrits. Vale`ncia: Eliseu Climent.
Sanctius, Franciscus (15231600)

M Piot, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Franciscus Sanctius or Francisco Sanchez de las

Brozas, known in Spain as El Brocense, was born
c. 1522 in Las Brozas in the Spanish province of
Caceres into an aristocratic or hijosdalgo family
that had little economic means. At the age of 11, following his uncles on his mothers side named Sanchez
(whose name he at that time assumed), he was trained
into the Royal Portuguese household in Evora and
then in Lisboa, where he began to study Latin and
Classics. Coming back to Spain, he studied at the
University of Salamanca and received his Bachelor
of Arts in 1551. He was a lecturer in Rhetoric
there also and later obtained a Catedra de prima de
Gramatica (1564), and then a Chair of Rhetoric
(1573) and the Chairs of Greek and Latin (1576).
Sanctius married twice thereafter and had 12 sons.
Bothered at the end of his life (15851595) by the
Inquisition Court because of his rebellious and critical stance against indoctrination and conformism, he
died in Valladolid in 1600.
He wrote treatises on Rhetoric: De arte dicendi
liber unus (1556) and Aphthonii Sophistae Progymnasmata Rhetorica (1556); on Latin: Grammatices
Latinae Institutiones (1562) and Arte para en breve
saber latin (1576); and on Greek: Grammatica Graeca
(1581). He also composed several works on Dialectic:
Organon Dialecticumm et Rhetoricum (1579) and
De nonnullis Prphyrii aliorumque in Dialectica
erroribus Scholae Dialecticae (1588); and on philosophy, astronomy, literature, and translation. His
work also includes philological comments on ancient
writers such as Virgil, Ovidius, Pomponius Mela,
Perse and Epicteta and moderns such as Politianus,
Garcilaso de la Vega, and Juan de Mena.
In his major work, Minerva: seu de causis linguae
Latinae (1587), a grammar of Latin whose subtitle he
took from his predecessor Julius Scaliger, recognizing
the same overall purposes and point of view on grammatical studies, he also referred to Nebrijas humanist
work. He shared the same methodological concern
about linguistic analysis as Petrus Ramus, and he
conversely pointed out a lack of rationality and methodology in the Italian philological tradition exemplified by Valla. He also criticized Erasmus for using a
nonclassical Latin.
Following his philosophical stands on Platos and
Aristotles arbitrariness of motivation of the linguistic units, Sanctius explicitly took his place in the
grammatical tradition of Quintilians and Priscians
syntactic approach, attempting to recover the logical
structure of sentences.
The purpose of the Minerva was to unearth the
origins and logical structures (causae) as much as
the internal rules (vera principia) of this language in
order to simplify the multiplicity of uses and methods
of language acquisition. Constructing this rule-based
grammar, Sanctius, both theoretician and great philologist (he mastered the entire classical Latin corpora
and leading grammaticians works in order to exemplify his views and hypotheses), aimed at a theoretical
740 Sanctius, Franciscus (15231600)
and general analysis of language using ellipsis as its

main tool. His grammar implemented the rebuilding
of syntactic elementary structures, most of them regular (ratio), although with redundancy and subjected
in real language (usus) to various deletions. He accurately drew up the constraints list on deletion and
operations, such as addition, permutation, or substitution that allows passage from the logical level to the
level of speech. Every part of speech that is morphologically well-defined has its own syntactic behavior
and invariably remains in its primitive class. The
keyword is unicity, notwithstanding surface variations. At some level of the analysis (oratio perfecta),
all the utterances of the clauses basic structure are
composed of a subject (suppositum) and an object
(appositum).
In comparison with his predecessors, he reduced
the number of parts of speech and the number of
verbal voices to active/passive contrast. Instead of
expanding it, Sanctius preferred to clear terminology.
He made some references to Greek about rhetoricogrammatical terminology, syntactic uses, etymologies,
and some short allusions to Arabic.
The Minerva has always provided a wealth of problematics on coordination and subordination, case
theory, verbal phrase structure, agreement syntax,
polysemy, etc.
The works of Gasparus Scioppius and Jacobus
Perizionius contributed to the Minervas popularity
in Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, and
France during the 17th and 18th centuries. Writing
his Nouvelle Me thode Latine, Claude Lancelot discovered Sanctius Latin syntax and principles. Thus,
Sanctiuss ideas came into the Grammaire Ge ne rale et
Raisonne e of Port-Royal through Lancelot. Later,
Sanctius had a lot of direct and major influence on
the thinking and work of grammarians in the 18th
century. Nicolas Beauze e continued the Port-Royal
and especially the Sanctius tradition and principles
in his Grammaire Ge ne rale and the Encyclope dies
grammatical entries he wrote. His overall views
reflected Sanctiuss theoretical framework, with his
keyword: the ellipsis method. The simplicity of its

rules and the fact that logical structures assisted in
the interpretation of difficult uses of languages had
the same didactic implications for Sanctius as for
Beauze e. Du Marsais and James Harriss Hermes
also followed, in part, the Sanctius tradition. After a
certain lack of interest in general grammar in the 19th
and 20th centuries, the advent of Zellig S. Harriss
and then Chomskyan transformational models
renewed curiosity in Sanctiuss work and the subsequent French general grammars. The Minerva is today
considered by a number of scholars as prefiguring
aspects of Transformational Grammar, and Sanctius
and his successors are considered as forerunners of
that linguistic school.
See also: Beauzee, Nicolas (17171789); Chomsky, Noam
(b. 1928); Generative Grammar; Harris, James (1709

1780); Harris, Zellig S. (19091992); Lancelot, Claude
(16151695); Nebrija, Antonio de (1444?1522); PortRoyal Tradition of Grammar; Priscianus Caesariensis (d.
ca. 530); Quintilian (ca. 3098 A.D.); Ramus, Petrus (1515
1572); Scaliger, Julius Caesar (14841558).
Bibliography
Breva-Claramonte M (1983). Sanctius theory of language:
a contribution to the history of Renaissance linguistics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gonza lez de la Calle P U (1922). Vida profesional y acade mica de Francisco Sa nchez de las Brozas. Madrid: V.
Suarez.
Lakoff R (1969). Review of Herbert E. Brekle 1966.
Language 45, 343364.
Mayans y Siscar G (ed.) (1766). Francisci Sanctii Brocensis
opera omnia (4 vols). Geneva: Apud Fratres de Tourmes.
Morante (marque s de). (1859). Biografa de Francisco
Sa nchez El Brocense. Madrid: Imprenta y Librera
de Eusebio Aguado; facsimile reprinted, 1985. I. C. El
Brocense.
Sanctius F (1587). Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae.
Salmanticae: Apud Joannem & Andraeam Renaut,
fratres, (Facsimile reprinted 1986, Friedrich Frommann,
Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt).
Sandhi
E M Kaisse, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA, USA
Sandhi is the term used by the ancient Indian grammarians, most notably Pa n. ini, to refer to phonological processes occasioned by the putting together (Skt.
sam
. dhi) of morphemes to form words, and words
to form phrases. Because the sacred Vedic texts

were to be transmitted orally, it was important that
the hymns be pronounced without change through
time; considerable effort was therefore spent in describing the influence of adjacent segments on one
another. The grammarians spoke of internal sandhi,
the phonology that occurs within words, and of external sandhi, the phonology that occurs between
words in connected speech.
740 Sandhi
and general analysis of language using ellipsis as its

main tool. His grammar implemented the rebuilding
of syntactic elementary structures, most of them regular (ratio), although with redundancy and subjected
in real language (usus) to various deletions. He accurately drew up the constraints list on deletion and
operations, such as addition, permutation, or substitution that allows passage from the logical level to the
level of speech. Every part of speech that is morphologically well-defined has its own syntactic behavior
and invariably remains in its primitive class. The
keyword is unicity, notwithstanding surface variations. At some level of the analysis (oratio perfecta),
all the utterances of the clauses basic structure are
composed of a subject (suppositum) and an object
(appositum).
In comparison with his predecessors, he reduced
the number of parts of speech and the number of
verbal voices to active/passive contrast. Instead of
expanding it, Sanctius preferred to clear terminology.
He made some references to Greek about rhetoricogrammatical terminology, syntactic uses, etymologies,
and some short allusions to Arabic.
The Minerva has always provided a wealth of problematics on coordination and subordination, case
theory, verbal phrase structure, agreement syntax,
polysemy, etc.
The works of Gasparus Scioppius and Jacobus
Perizionius contributed to the Minervas popularity
in Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, and
France during the 17th and 18th centuries. Writing
his Nouvelle Methode Latine, Claude Lancelot discovered Sanctius Latin syntax and principles. Thus,
Sanctiuss ideas came into the Grammaire Generale et
Raisonnee of Port-Royal through Lancelot. Later,
Sanctius had a lot of direct and major influence on
the thinking and work of grammarians in the 18th
century. Nicolas Beauzee continued the Port-Royal
and especially the Sanctius tradition and principles
in his Grammaire Generale and the Encyclopedies
grammatical entries he wrote. His overall views
reflected Sanctiuss theoretical framework, with his
keyword: the ellipsis method. The simplicity of its

rules and the fact that logical structures assisted in
the interpretation of difficult uses of languages had
the same didactic implications for Sanctius as for
Beauzee. Du Marsais and James Harriss Hermes
also followed, in part, the Sanctius tradition. After a
certain lack of interest in general grammar in the 19th
and 20th centuries, the advent of Zellig S. Harriss
and then Chomskyan transformational models
renewed curiosity in Sanctiuss work and the subsequent French general grammars. The Minerva is today
considered by a number of scholars as prefiguring
aspects of Transformational Grammar, and Sanctius
and his successors are considered as forerunners of
that linguistic school.
See also: Beauzee, Nicolas (17171789); Chomsky, Noam
(b. 1928); Generative Grammar; Harris, James (1709

1780); Harris, Zellig S. (19091992); Lancelot, Claude
(16151695); Nebrija, Antonio de (1444?1522); PortRoyal Tradition of Grammar; Priscianus Caesariensis (d.
ca. 530); Quintilian (ca. 3098 A.D.); Ramus, Petrus (1515
1572); Scaliger, Julius Caesar (14841558).
Bibliography
Breva-Claramonte M (1983). Sanctius theory of language:
a contribution to the history of Renaissance linguistics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gonzalez de la Calle P U (1922). Vida profesional y academica de Francisco Sanchez de las Brozas. Madrid: V.
Suarez.
Lakoff R (1969). Review of Herbert E. Brekle 1966.
Language 45, 343364.
Mayans y Siscar G (ed.) (1766). Francisci Sanctii Brocensis
opera omnia (4 vols). Geneva: Apud Fratres de Tourmes.
Morante (marques de). (1859). Biografa de Francisco
Sanchez El Brocense. Madrid: Imprenta y Librera
de Eusebio Aguado; facsimile reprinted, 1985. I. C. El
Brocense.
Sanctius F (1587). Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae.
Salmanticae: Apud Joannem & Andraeam Renaut,
fratres, (Facsimile reprinted 1986, Friedrich Frommann,
Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt).
Sandhi
E M Kaisse, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA, USA
Sandhi is the term used by the ancient Indian grammarians, most notably Pan. ini, to refer to phonological processes occasioned by the putting together (Skt.
sam
. dhi) of morphemes to form words, and words
to form phrases. Because the sacred Vedic texts

were to be transmitted orally, it was important that
the hymns be pronounced without change through
time; considerable effort was therefore spent in describing the influence of adjacent segments on one
another. The grammarians spoke of internal sandhi,
the phonology that occurs within words, and of external sandhi, the phonology that occurs between
words in connected speech.
Sandhi 741
The earliest use of the word in English seems to

have been in 1806, when the missionary William
Carey, in his published work on Indian grammar,
referred to the permutation of letters occasioned by
the junction of syllables in Sanskrit; Joseph Wrights
translation of Brugmann (1888) extended the use of
the term to Latin. Gabelentz (1891) was perhaps the
first in Western Europe to use sandhi as a term in
general linguistics. The American structuralists
Edward Sapir (1925) and Leonard Bloomfield (1933)
began to use the word as a synonym for juncture,
and they are most likely responsible for bringing the
term into modern usage.
In the mid20th century, linguists writing in
English about Chinese phonology began regularly to
use the term tone sandhi to refer to the alterations
of tones conditioned by other tones (Shen, 1964;
Kratochvil, 1968). It was gradually discovered that
identical strings of tones might affect one another
differently, depending on the rhythmic and grammatical organization of the words on which the tones
fell. Determining the domain in which tone sandhi
operates has become a major area of research (Chen,
2000). The sandhi domains differ among Chinese
languages, some applying within metrical feet,
others operating on larger domains of the prosodic
hierarchy, such as phonological words, phonological phrases, and intonational phrases. Since these
domains are constructed in part on the basis of syntax, it is frequently necessary to know something
about the syntactic structure of a sentence in order
to know how the tones will emerge.
In the last quarter of the 20th century, sandhi came
to refer almost exclusively to external sandhi,
and therefore to be more or less synonymous with
phonological processes, both segmental and tonal,
operating between words. Well-studied examples
include raddoppiamento sintattico (gemination of a
word-initial consonant) in Italian (Napoli and Nespor,
1979), liaison in French (syllabification of a word-final
consonant as the onset of the next, vowel-initial word
(Selkirk, 1972), and tone sandhi processes in many
Bantu languages. Selkirk (1980, 1984), Nespor and
Vogel (1986), Kiparsky (1982), and Kaisse (1985)
were influential in bringing the study of such processes into the mainstream of generative studies. Selkirk
and Nespor and Vogel pioneered work on the prosodic
hierarchy as the mediating structure between syntax
and phonology, whereas Kaisse took the position
that rules of external sandhi could refer directly to
an impoverished syntactic structure. Kiparsky divided
phonological rules into lexical (word-internal) and
postlexical (word-external) processes, each type
having a defining set of characteristics. Efforts by
Andersen (1986) and Inkelas and Zec (1990), for example, have brought together contributions on the
external sandhi of particular languages and their

theoretical implications.
See also: Chinese (Mandarin): Phonology; Lexical Phonology and Morphology; Panini; Phonological Words; Sanskrit; Tone: Phonology.
Bibliography
Andersen H (ed.) (1986). Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. Trends in linguistics: studies and
monographs, vol. 33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bloomfield L (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Brugmann K (1888). Elements of the comparative grammar
of the Indo-Germanic languages. A concise exposition of
the history of Sanskrit, Old Iranian, Old Armenian, Old
Greek, Latin, Umbrian-Samnitic, Old Irish, Gothic, Old
High German, Lithuanian and Old Bulgarian. New
York: Westermann and Co.
Carey W (1806). Grammar of the Sungskrit language, composed from the works of the most esteemed grammarians. To which are added, examples for the exercise of the
students, and a complete list of the dhatoos or roots.
Serampore: The Mission Press.
Chen M Y (2000). Tone sandhi: patterns across Chinese
dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gabelentz G & von der (1891). Die Sprachwissenschaft:
ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse.
Lepzig: Tauchnitz.
Inkelas S & Zec D (eds.) (1990). The phonologysyntax
connection. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kaisse E M (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of
syntax and phonology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Kiparsky P (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In
Yang I S (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul:
Hanshin. 391.
Kratochvil P (1968). The Chinese language today: features of an emerging standard. London: Hutchinson and
Company.
Napoli D J & Nespor M (1979). The syntax of word-initial
consonant gemination in Italian. Language 55, 812841.
Nespor M & Vogel I (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Sapir E (1925). Sound patterns in language. Language 1,
3751.
Selkirk E O (1972). The phrase phonology of English
and French. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Selkirk E O (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology:
Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff M & Kean M-L (eds.)
Juncture. A collection of original papers, studia linguistica et philologica, vol. 7. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
Selkirk E O (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation
between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Shen Y (1964). Some experiments on Chinese tone sandhi.
In Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of
Phonetic Sciences, 1964, Mu nster. Basel: S. Karger.
525527.
742 Sango
Sango
W J Samarin, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Sango was declared the national language in the

constitution of the Central African Republic (1964),
French alone having the status of official language.
Sango also was given this status in 1991, allowing it to
be used in governmental communications. In practice, however, it is not yet a legal language and is
not used in public education, French being the official
medium. Missionaries introduced written Sango in
the 1920s, Catholics and Protestants using different
orthographies; an official one was established by
presidential decree in 1984. Literacy in Sango has
been used nonreligiously, primarily in personal correspondence and by radio journalists preparing
notes in ad hoc orthographies based on religious
Sango. There were about 46 hours of broadcasts in
Sango in 1994, but most of them were broadcasts of
dance music in the Kinshasa style, the rest news and
practical information.
Sango is a pidgin in origin, emerging very quickly
after representatives of King Leopold II in 1887
arrived to claim land and trade for elephant tusks in
the Ubangi river basin, followed in 1889 by the
French. Unlike other pidgins, Sango appears to have
arisen, not from the attempts of whites to communicate in an indigenous language, but from the attempts
of the linguistically diverse African soldiers and
workers who were brought to the region for its colonization. The Belgians used many men from the east
coast, the French from the west coast, and both many
more from the Bantu population along the Congo
river. Its existence as a lingua franca was noted
by Belgians in 1895. It is based on the Ngbandi subfamily of languages (not just the variety called Sango)
that make up the larger Ubangian family, to which
most of the Central African languages belong.
Although its phonology is the same as that of the
source language and although most of its lexicon is
Ngbandi, it is typically a pidgin in having a very
limited vocabulary (from 500 to 1000 words in
daily use) and virtually no inflection in its grammar;
tone plays a very limited grammatical role and only in
the speech of those influenced by Ngbandi speakers,
such as the Sangos and Yakomas.
Despite Sangos linguistic limitations, it is a symbol
of Central African identity and is by far the preferred
language of daily discourse in its capital of one-half
million persons, Bangui. However, several Central
Africans are active in legitimizing Sango with claims
about its adequacy for indigenous culture and with
efforts to increase its lexicon with Sango-based

neologisms and words from regional languages.
Nonetheless, French words occur in all varieties of
Sango. The influence of French has increased since
independence in vocabulary, grammar, and syntax,
even among those with little education.
Although Sango was remarkably uniform as a
lingua franca, it has become extremely variable as
the vernacular of Bangui in all of its structures but
exceptionally in its phonology. Contraction creates
most of the word variants, as twa from tongana
when, if, resulting in many syllable and word
forms that are strikingly different from those of indigenous languages: e.g., tl from t of with l carrying
high tone with words beginning with l. Central
African activists, however, are striving for a standard (that is, normative or prescriptive) form of the
language.
Practically all of the estimated 2 500 000 inhabitants of the Central African Republic speak Sango
(according to the census of 1988, varying from 10 to
100%), and in 1994, it was the only language known
by about 4050% of Banguis preschool non-Muslim
children.
See also: Pidgins and Creoles: Overview.
Bibliography
Bouquiaux L (1976). Contes de Tole ou les avatars de
laragne [sic] (Republique Centrafricaine): Contes
recueillis. Paris: CILF [Conseil International de la Langue
Franc aise].
Bouquiaux L, Diki-Kidiri M & Kobozo J M (1978).
Dictionnaire sango-francais et lexique francais-sango.
Paris: SELAF.
Calloch J (1911). Vocabulaire francais-sango et sangofrancais (langue commerciale de lOubangui-Chari)
precede dun abrege grammatical. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
De champs Wenezoui M (1981). Le francais, le sango et les
autres langues centrafricaines: Enquete sociolinguistique
au quartier Boy-Rabe (Bangui, Centrafrique). Paris:
SELAF.
Diki-Kidiri M (1977). De veloppement du sango pour
lexpression du monde moderne: Obstacles et possibilite s. In Les relations entre les langues negro-africaines
et la langue francaise, Dakar, 2326 Mars 1976. Paris:
CILF [Conseil International de la Langue Franc aise].
717728.
Diki-Kidiri M (1977). Le sango secrit aussi. Paris: SELAF.
Diki-Kidiri M (1986). Le sango dans la formation de la
nation centrafricaine. Politique Africaine 23, 8399.
Diki-Kidiri M (1995). Le sango. In Boyd R (ed.) Le syste`me verbal dans les langues oubangiennes [sic]. Munich/
Newcastle: Lincom Europa. 141164.
Sanskrit 743
Diki-Kidiri M (1998). Dictionnaire orthographique du
sa ngo . Reading: BBA [Bu ku t Beafrika].
Diki-Kidiri M (1998). Le sango. In Roulon-Doko P (ed.)
Les manie`res d e tre et les mots pour le dire dans les
langues dAfrique centrale. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Samarin W J (1967). A grammar of Sango. The Hague:
Mouton.
Samarin W J (1970). Sango, langue de lAfrique centrale.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Samarin W J (1979). Simplification, pidginization, and
language change. In Hancock I F (ed.) Readings in creole
studies. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. 5568.
Samarin W J (1982). Colonization and pidginization on
the Ubangi River. Journal of African Languages and
Linguistics 4, 142.
Samarin W J (1982). Goals, roles, and language skills in
colonizing central equatorial Africa. Anthropological
Linguistics 24, 410422.
Samarin W J (1984). The linguistic world of field colonialism. Language in Society 13, 435453.
Samarin W J (1984/1985). Communication by Ubangian
water and word. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6,
309373.
Samarin W J (1986). The source of Sangos be. Journal
of Pidgin and Creole Languages 1(2), 205223.
Samarin W J (1989). Language in the colonization of central Africa, 18801900. Canadian Journal of African
Studies 23(2), 232249.
Samarin W J (1989). The colonial heritage of the Central African Republic: A linguistic perspective. The
International Journal of African Historical Studies
22(4), 697711.
Samarin W J (1994). The dynamics of morphotactic
change in Sango. In Moore K E, Peterson D A &
Wentum C (eds.). Proceedings of the Twentieth Anniver-
sary Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,

February 1821, 1994 (Special session: Historical issues
in African linguistics, February 18, 1994). Berkeley, CA:
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 125138.
Samarin W J (1997). The creolization of pidgin morphophonology. In Spears S K & Wynford D (eds.) The
structure and status of pidgins and creoles. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. 175210.
Samarin W J (1998). The creation and critique of a Central
African myth. Revue Franc aise d Histoire dOutre-mer
318(85), 5581.
Samarin W J (2000). The status of Sango in fact and
fiction: on the one-hundredth anniversary of its conception. In McWhorter H (ed.) Current issues in pidgin and
creole studies. John Benjamins. 301333.
Samarin W J (2001). Explaining shift to Sango in Bangui.
In Nicola R (ed.) Lec ons dAfrique: Filiations, ruptures
et reconstitution de langues. Un hommage a` Gabriel
Manessy. Louvain/Paris: Peeters. 351391.
Samarin W J (2001). The past and present in marking
futurity in Sango. Journal of Pidgin and Creole
Languages 16(1), 53106.
Samarin W J & Diki-Kidiri M (1983). Modernization in
Sango. In Fodor I & Hage`ge C (eds.) Language reform:
History and future 3. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
157172.
Samarin W J & Walker J A (1997). Sango phonology. In
Kaye A S (ed.) Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including
the Caucasus) 2. Bloomington, IN: Eisenbrauns. 861880.
Saulnier P (1993). Bangui chante: Anthologie du chant
moderne en Afrique centrale. Paris: LHarmattan.
Taber C R (1979). French loan-words in Sango: The
motivation of lexical borrowing. In Hancock I F (ed.)
Readings in creole studies. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.
189197.
Sanskrit
J L Brockington, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
pp. 36493651, 1994, Elsevier Ltd.
The Sanskrit language one of the oldest of the Indo

European group to possess a substantial literature
has particular interest for linguists because of the
circumstances of its becoming known to Western
scholars and the stimulus thus given to historical linguistics. It has also been of enormous and continuing
importance as the classical language of Indian culture
and the sacred language of Hinduism.
Origin and History

Sanskrit, in its older form of Vedic Sanskrit (or simply
Vedic), was brought into the northwest of India by
ryans some time in the second half of the second
the A
millennium BC and was at that period relatively little
differentiated from its nearest relation within the
IndoEuropean group, Avestan in the Iranian family
of languages (these two being the oldest recorded
within the IndoIranian branch of IndoEuropean).
From there, it spread to the rest of North India as
ryans enlarged the area that they occupied, dethe A
veloping into the classical form of the language, which
subsequently became fixed as the learned language
of culture and religion throughout the subcontinent,
while the spoken language developed into the various
Sanskrit 743
Diki-Kidiri M (1998). Dictionnaire orthographique du
sango. Reading: BBA [Buku t Beafrika].
Diki-Kidiri M (1998). Le sango. In Roulon-Doko P (ed.)
Les manie`res d etre et les mots pour le dire dans les
langues dAfrique centrale. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Samarin W J (1967). A grammar of Sango. The Hague:
Mouton.
Samarin W J (1970). Sango, langue de lAfrique centrale.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Samarin W J (1979). Simplification, pidginization, and
language change. In Hancock I F (ed.) Readings in creole
studies. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. 5568.
Samarin W J (1982). Colonization and pidginization on
the Ubangi River. Journal of African Languages and
Linguistics 4, 142.
Samarin W J (1982). Goals, roles, and language skills in
colonizing central equatorial Africa. Anthropological
Samarin W J (1984). The linguistic world of field colonialism. Language in Society 13, 435453.
Samarin W J (1984/1985). Communication by Ubangian
water and word. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6,
309373.
Samarin W J (1986). The source of Sangos be. Journal
of Pidgin and Creole Languages 1(2), 205223.
Samarin W J (1989). Language in the colonization of central Africa, 18801900. Canadian Journal of African
Studies 23(2), 232249.
Samarin W J (1989). The colonial heritage of the Central African Republic: A linguistic perspective. The
International Journal of African Historical Studies
22(4), 697711.
Samarin W J (1994). The dynamics of morphotactic
change in Sango. In Moore K E, Peterson D A &
Wentum C (eds.). Proceedings of the Twentieth Anniver-
sary Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,

February 1821, 1994 (Special session: Historical issues
in African linguistics, February 18, 1994). Berkeley, CA:
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 125138.
Samarin W J (1997). The creolization of pidgin morphophonology. In Spears S K & Wynford D (eds.) The
structure and status of pidgins and creoles. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. 175210.
Samarin W J (1998). The creation and critique of a Central
African myth. Revue Francaise d Histoire dOutre-mer
318(85), 5581.
Samarin W J (2000). The status of Sango in fact and
fiction: on the one-hundredth anniversary of its conception. In McWhorter H (ed.) Current issues in pidgin and
creole studies. John Benjamins. 301333.
Samarin W J (2001). Explaining shift to Sango in Bangui.
In Nicola R (ed.) Lecons dAfrique: Filiations, ruptures
et reconstitution de langues. Un hommage a` Gabriel
Manessy. Louvain/Paris: Peeters. 351391.
Samarin W J (2001). The past and present in marking
futurity in Sango. Journal of Pidgin and Creole
Languages 16(1), 53106.
Samarin W J & Diki-Kidiri M (1983). Modernization in
Sango. In Fodor I & Hage`ge C (eds.) Language reform:
History and future 3. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
157172.
Samarin W J & Walker J A (1997). Sango phonology. In
Kaye A S (ed.) Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including
the Caucasus) 2. Bloomington, IN: Eisenbrauns. 861880.
Saulnier P (1993). Bangui chante: Anthologie du chant
moderne en Afrique centrale. Paris: LHarmattan.
Taber C R (1979). French loan-words in Sango: The
motivation of lexical borrowing. In Hancock I F (ed.)
Readings in creole studies. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.
189197.
Sanskrit
J L Brockington, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
pp. 36493651, 1994, Elsevier Ltd.
The Sanskrit language one of the oldest of the Indo

European group to possess a substantial literature
has particular interest for linguists because of the
circumstances of its becoming known to Western
scholars and the stimulus thus given to historical linguistics. It has also been of enormous and continuing
importance as the classical language of Indian culture
and the sacred language of Hinduism.
Origin and History

Sanskrit, in its older form of Vedic Sanskrit (or simply
Vedic), was brought into the northwest of India by
ryans some time in the second half of the second
the A
millennium BC and was at that period relatively little
differentiated from its nearest relation within the
IndoEuropean group, Avestan in the Iranian family
of languages (these two being the oldest recorded
within the IndoIranian branch of IndoEuropean).
From there, it spread to the rest of North India as
ryans enlarged the area that they occupied, dethe A
veloping into the classical form of the language, which
subsequently became fixed as the learned language
of culture and religion throughout the subcontinent,
while the spoken language developed into the various
744 Sanskrit
Pra krits. There is ample evidence of rapid evolution

during the Vedic period, with the language of the
latest phase, attested for example in the Upanisads,
showing considerable grammatical simplification from
that of the earliest hymns. The later Vedic is, in broad
terms, the form of the language that Pa n. ini described with such exactness in his grammar around
the fourth century BC, thereby creating no doubt
unintentionally an absolute standard for the language thereafter; his work is clearly the culmination
of a long grammatical tradition, based on concern
to preserve the Vedas unaltered (hence the stress on
phonetics), and is itself intended for memorization and
oral transmission, as its brevity indicates.
This standardization was not as universal as has
sometimes been represented (nor was the preceding
Vedic a unified language, for it exhibits features only
explicable as coming from slightly differing dialects,
and classical Sanskrit is based on a more eastern dialect than the one attested in the R. gveda), and it has
come to be recognized that, for example, the two
Sanskrit epics exhibit systematic divergences from the
language described by Pa n. ini and represent a distinct
epic dialect. However, with the growth of classical
Sanskrit literature (mainly within the period from the
fourth to the tenth centuries AD, when Sanskrit was
clearly no longer a natural language), Pa n. inis description was regarded as prescriptive and followed
to the letter, although the spirit was less closely observed (as shown by the tendency to longer and longer
compounds and to nominal constructions and the
like).
The earliest record of the language is contained in
the hymns of the R. gveda, which belong to around
12001000 BC, but they were not committed to writing until a much later period because of their sacred
character, for the Indian tradition has always placed
greater emphasis on oral tradition than on written
texts. In fact, the earliest dated record in Sanskrit is
an inscription of 150 AD, significantly later than the
use of Pra krit by the Buddhist ruler As oka for his
inscriptions in the third century BC . Early inscriptions
used one of two scripts: the Kharos. .th, deriving from
the Aramaic script used in Achaemenid Iran, and the
Bra hm, less certainly deriving from a North Semitic
script. The latter evolved into the Na gar family
of scripts, to which the Devana gar script now usually used for Sanskrit belongs, although before the
twentieth-century manuscripts were normally written
in the local script.
Characteristics
Any analysis of Sanskrit syntax must take account of
the shift from the natural language of the Vedic and
epic forms of Sanskrit to the learned language of the

classical literature, which selectively exploits certain
features of Pa n. inis description. Whereas the older
forms of the language show frequent use of nominal
compounds of two or three members and Pa n. inis
grammar describes their formation in great detail
(but in terms of their analysis into types: dvandva,
bahuvrhi, tatpurus. a), classical literature is marked
by a predilection for longer compounds, consisting
in some styles of writing of 20 or more members.
Another common feature, inherited from the Indo
European background but found much more extensively in the classical language, is the use of nominal
sentences involving the juxtaposition of the subject
and a nonverbal predicate. The frequent use of the
past participle passive as a verbal equivalent leads to
a preference for passive constructions, in a way typical of the Pra krits. Use of the absolutive becomes
in the classical language a common means to form
complex sentences by indicating actions occurring
before that of the main verb; again the effect is a
reduction in finite verbal forms. The usual sentence
order is subject, object, verb; however, this is so commonly modified for emphasis (with initial and final
positions in the sentence or verse-line carrying most
emphasis) that Sanskrit word order is often regarded
as being free. In vocabulary, the freeing from the
affective connotations of a natural language brought
a striking enlargement of the range of synonyms,
skillfully exploited in much of the classical literature
to produce rich sound effects.
In its morphology, Sanskrit is broadly comparable
to Greek or Latin, though somewhat more complex.
In both the nominal and verbal systems the dual is
obligatory for all twos, not just pairs. The nominal
system employs eight cases (seven according to the
Indian reckoning, which regards the vocative as a
form of the stem), three numbers, and three genders
(masculine, feminine, neuter). Unlike other Indo
European languages, Sanskrit lacks a developed series of prepositions, and the relatively few adverbial
formations used to define case relationships more
exactly tend to be placed after the noun. The use of
vr. ddhi (IE strengthened grade) to form derivatives
from nominal stems is a notable feature. The verb
has two voices, active and middle, their functions
well distinguished by the Sanskrit terms for them:
parasmaipada word for another and atmanepada
word for oneself; it also has five moods (injunctive,
imperative, subjunctive, optative, and precative) in
the Vedic, somewhat simplified in the classical language. Prepositional affixes to the verb may in Vedic
be separated from the verb but in the classical language must be prefixed to it (there is a comparable
development between Homeric and classical Greek).
Sanskrit 745
There is both an ordinary sigmatic future and a periphrastic future (formed through a specialized use of
the agent noun), several aorist formations (principally
a sigmatic aorist and a root aorist), and a perfect
normally formed with a reduplicated stem; these are
comparable to the equivalent tenses in Greek or
Latin. The augment is prefixed to several past tenses:
imperfect, aorist, pluperfect, and conditional. Verbal
roots are divided by the Sanskrit grammarians into
10 classes: six athematic and four thematic. A distinctive feature of the verbal system is the employment
of secondary conjugations with specific meanings:
causative, intensive, and desiderative. Historically, the
passive is also such a secondary conjugation, formed
by adding the middle endings to a modified root.
The Vedic language is marked by rather greater grammatical complexity with, most notably, a whole range
of case forms from nouns functioning as infinitives,
which are reduced to a single infinitive in the classical
language. It also possessed a pitch accent that had
died out by the time of the classical language.
Phonetically Sanskrit is marked by a number of innovations by comparison with other IndoEuropean
languages of comparable age. It is also notable for
the concern with phonetics of its own grammarians
(exemplified by the fact that the alphabet is arranged
according to the organ of articulation, with vowels
preceding consonants) and the precision of their descriptions. On the one hand, Sanskrit has collapsed
the three IndoEuropean vowels a, e, and o into a,
and on the other it has introduced a complete new
class of consonants, that of the retroflex consonants,
mainly under the influence of one of the other language groups already present in India, either Dravidian
or Munda, although in some instances the retroflex
consonants probably arose through internal phonetic
developments in relation to .s and r. The most widely
known feature is that of sam
. dhi junction, the process
of phonetic assimilation of contiguous sounds at the
junctures between both words and their component
parts (external and internal sam
. dhi).
Sample Sentence
tes. a m
khalv
es. a m
bhu .ta na m
trn. y
.
.
.
/tea:N
khelv
ea:N
bhu:ta:na:N tri:0y
eva
bja ni
bhavanty an. d. ajam
.
eve
bi:ja:ni
bheventy e0BejeN
jvajam udbhijjam iti||
ji:vejem udbhijeN
iti/
Living beings here have just three origins [literally
Assuredly of these living beings are/come into
being indeed three seeds]: being born from an egg
or live-born or produced from a sprout.
This simple sentence (from Cha ndogya Upanis. ad

6.3.1) exemplifies several of the features that are
taken to extremes in the classical language. There is
the avoidance of a transitive construction (although
here the verb, bhavanti, is expressed, whereas later
such a copula is normally suppressed), the employment of compounds, and the liking for etymological
figures (the latter two combined in the three compounds
p ending in the adjectival form -ja, coming
from jan to be born, while the use of cognates is
exemplified by bhavanti third pl present p
indicative
and bhu ta past participle passive from bhu to
become). The use of iti may also be noted here
to function as the equivalent of the colon in the
translation, more usually to perform the function of
quotation marks, to mark off a passage in direct
speech from the sentence in which it is embedded (an
idiom probably calqued on the Dravidian); Sanskrit
has no method of indicating indirect speech.
Role and Influence in Indian Culture

As is implicit in some of the statements above, it is
clear that throughout the main period of its use as a
literary language Sanskrit was not the first language of
its users, who in North India would have been native
speakers of one of the Pra krits deriving from Sanskrit
(used here in its widest sense of the group of OIA
dialects) or even of the next stage of MIA, the Apabhram
. s as, and in South India were speakers of one of the
Dravidian languages (which have been influenced to
varying degrees in their vocabulary by Sanskrit). The
prestige attaching to its use for the Vedas, the authoritative scriptures for Hindus, resulted in its being
regarded as the only language fit for use in the major
rituals of brahmanical Hinduism, a role that to a
limited extent it retains to this day. This was undoubtedly the reason why the Pura n. as and the many popular
texts related to them were composed (from the fourth
century to as late as the nineteenth century) in a form
of Sanskrit that is greatly indebted to the epics for its
linguistic and metrical expression, while similarly
Maha ya na Buddhism employed the so-called Buddhist
Hybrid Sanskrit (essentially a Sanskritization of MIA).
Sanskrit has therefore been a dominant influence on
the development of the languages in both the MIA and
NIA phases, supplying much of the religious vocabulary in the form of direct loans, over and above the
large proportion of the vocabulary descended from
Sanskrit.
Sanskrit and the West

First acquaintance with Sanskrit by Western scholars
came even before the period of British rule. Sir William
746 Sanskrit
Joness famous discourse in 1786 to the Asiatick Society in Calcutta on the affinity of Sanskrit with Greek,
Latin, and the other languages now known as Indo
European was not the first notice of such connection,
which had been proposed two centuries earlier by
Thomas Stevens (in 1583) and Fillipo Sassetti (in
1585). However, Joness eminence ensured it a much
wider audience than before, and this was in a significant sense the start of the discipline of comparative
philology, whereas the appreciation before long of the
achievements of the early Indian grammarians was an
important stimulant to the development of modern
linguistics, which has paid them the compliment of
borrowing a number of their terms, such as sam
. dhi.
See also: Sanskrit: Discovery by Europeans.
Bibliography
Burrow T (1973). The Sanskrit language (3rd edn.). London:
Faber and Faber.
Cardona G (1988). Pa n. ini: his work and its traditions.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Coulson M (1992). Sanskrit: an introduction to the classical
language (2nd edn.). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Gonda J (1971). Old Indian. Handbuch der Orientalistik,
2. Abt., 1. Bd., 1. Abschnitt. Leiden-Cologne: E. Brill.
Scharfe H (1977). Grammatical literature. History of Indian
Literature, vol. V. fasc. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sanskrit: Discovery by Europeans

R Rocher, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, USA
Pioneers: Missionaries and Travelers in

India (15831768)
The first known observation of a similarity between
Indian and Western languages occurred in a letter of
1583 (published 1957) by Jesuit missionary Thomas
Stephens/Stevens, which does not mention Sanskrit,
but Indian vernaculars and Greek and Latin. A letter
of 1586 (published 1855) by litterateur-merchant
Filippo Sassetti noted Sanskrits status as Indias
learned language, its antiquity and complexity, and
lexical similarities with Italian, notably in numerals
69 and words for god and snake. In 16601662,
Jesuit Heinrich Roth wrote, in Latin, the first
European grammar of Sanskrit (published 1988);
though organized on a Western plan, it follows Indian
terminology and analysis.
In a letter of 1725 (published 1729), Protestant
missionary Benjamin Schul(t)ze listed Sanskrit
numerals with equivalents in Latin for all, and in
other European languages for some. He offered in
the Orientalisch- und Occidentalischer Sprachmeister
(1748) a Sanskrit translation of the Lords Prayer,
reproduced in Adelungs Mithridates (1806). Most
influential was a survey of Sanskrit literature (1740;
published 1743) by Jesuit Jean-Franc ois Pons, which
described Sanskrit as admirable for its harmony,
copiousness, and energy and reported on the analysis by which native grammarians reduced the richest
language in the world to a small number of primitive elements to which derivational suffixes and
inflectional endings are added, according to rules

the application of which generates several thousand
correct Sanskrit words. It informed the works of de
Brosses, Dow, Sinner, Voltaire, Monboddo, Halhed,
Beauze e, and Hervas, and was plagiarized by John
Cleland (1778). In 17321733, Pons sent to the
French Royal Library 168 Sanskrit manuscripts,
which included the first five chapters of a grammar
in Latin with Sanskrit words in Bengali script. A sixth
chapter on syntax, in French with Sanskrit words
partly in Telugu, partly in Roman script, was forwarded in 1772 by Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux.
Ponss grammar, which Anquetil-Duperron came
close to publishing in 1804, was the first primer for
students of Sanskrit in Europe. Coeurdoux was the
author of a memoir that included, besides a basic
vocabulary, lists of Sanskrit words that have equivalents in Latin, Greek, or both, notably numerals, pronouns, and a partial paradigm of as- to be. Solicited
in 1767 by the Acade mie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, it was read only in 1786 and published in
1808, the same year as Friedrich Schlegels Ueber die
Sprache and Weisheit der Indier, which rendered it
obsolete.
These pioneers sometimes faulty data muddled
by erratic transliterations that reflected different local
pronunciations and the recorders various native tongues, and subject to misreading were interpreted
according to, or used to bolster divergent linguistic
theories. Gottfried Siegfried Bayer (1738) explained
similarities by contact and borrowing, yet a memoir
of the Tranquebar missionary Christian Theodor
Walther (1733), which Bayer appended, attributed
them to the common Scythian origin propounded
by Boxhorn, Saumaise, Jager, Leibniz, and others.
746 Sanskrit
Joness famous discourse in 1786 to the Asiatick Society in Calcutta on the affinity of Sanskrit with Greek,
Latin, and the other languages now known as Indo
European was not the first notice of such connection,
which had been proposed two centuries earlier by
Thomas Stevens (in 1583) and Fillipo Sassetti (in
1585). However, Joness eminence ensured it a much
wider audience than before, and this was in a significant sense the start of the discipline of comparative
philology, whereas the appreciation before long of the
achievements of the early Indian grammarians was an
important stimulant to the development of modern
linguistics, which has paid them the compliment of
borrowing a number of their terms, such as sam
. dhi.
See also: Sanskrit: Discovery by Europeans.
Bibliography
Burrow T (1973). The Sanskrit language (3rd edn.). London:
Faber and Faber.
Cardona G (1988). Pan. ini: his work and its traditions.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Coulson M (1992). Sanskrit: an introduction to the classical
language (2nd edn.). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Gonda J (1971). Old Indian. Handbuch der Orientalistik,
2. Abt., 1. Bd., 1. Abschnitt. Leiden-Cologne: E. Brill.
Scharfe H (1977). Grammatical literature. History of Indian
Literature, vol. V. fasc. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sanskrit: Discovery by Europeans

R Rocher, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, USA
Pioneers: Missionaries and Travelers in

India (15831768)
The first known observation of a similarity between
Indian and Western languages occurred in a letter of
1583 (published 1957) by Jesuit missionary Thomas
Stephens/Stevens, which does not mention Sanskrit,
but Indian vernaculars and Greek and Latin. A letter
of 1586 (published 1855) by litterateur-merchant
Filippo Sassetti noted Sanskrits status as Indias
learned language, its antiquity and complexity, and
lexical similarities with Italian, notably in numerals
69 and words for god and snake. In 16601662,
Jesuit Heinrich Roth wrote, in Latin, the first
European grammar of Sanskrit (published 1988);
though organized on a Western plan, it follows Indian
terminology and analysis.
In a letter of 1725 (published 1729), Protestant
missionary Benjamin Schul(t)ze listed Sanskrit
numerals with equivalents in Latin for all, and in
other European languages for some. He offered in
the Orientalisch- und Occidentalischer Sprachmeister
(1748) a Sanskrit translation of the Lords Prayer,
reproduced in Adelungs Mithridates (1806). Most
influential was a survey of Sanskrit literature (1740;
published 1743) by Jesuit Jean-Francois Pons, which
described Sanskrit as admirable for its harmony,
copiousness, and energy and reported on the analysis by which native grammarians reduced the richest
language in the world to a small number of primitive elements to which derivational suffixes and
inflectional endings are added, according to rules

the application of which generates several thousand
correct Sanskrit words. It informed the works of de
Brosses, Dow, Sinner, Voltaire, Monboddo, Halhed,
Beauzee, and Hervas, and was plagiarized by John
Cleland (1778). In 17321733, Pons sent to the
French Royal Library 168 Sanskrit manuscripts,
which included the first five chapters of a grammar
in Latin with Sanskrit words in Bengali script. A sixth
chapter on syntax, in French with Sanskrit words
partly in Telugu, partly in Roman script, was forwarded in 1772 by Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux.
Ponss grammar, which Anquetil-Duperron came
close to publishing in 1804, was the first primer for
students of Sanskrit in Europe. Coeurdoux was the
author of a memoir that included, besides a basic
vocabulary, lists of Sanskrit words that have equivalents in Latin, Greek, or both, notably numerals, pronouns, and a partial paradigm of as- to be. Solicited
in 1767 by the Academie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, it was read only in 1786 and published in
1808, the same year as Friedrich Schlegels Ueber die
Sprache and Weisheit der Indier, which rendered it
obsolete.
These pioneers sometimes faulty data muddled
by erratic transliterations that reflected different local
pronunciations and the recorders various native tongues, and subject to misreading were interpreted
according to, or used to bolster divergent linguistic
theories. Gottfried Siegfried Bayer (1738) explained
similarities by contact and borrowing, yet a memoir
of the Tranquebar missionary Christian Theodor
Walther (1733), which Bayer appended, attributed
them to the common Scythian origin propounded
by Boxhorn, Saumaise, Jager, Leibniz, and others.
Sanskrit: Discovery by Europeans 747
La Flotte (1768) also posited a North Asian origin,

while Sinner (1771) thought of borrowing from Greek
and Latin. The emphasis on numerals and other basic
vocabulary, i.e., vocabulary unlikely to have been borrowed, which De Laet, Grotius, Leibniz, and others
pioneered, did not necessarily lead to the conclusion
of a common origin. Schul(t)ze credited similarities
between Latin and Sanskrit to borrowing from Portuguese, while Coeurdoux favored the biblical myth of
Babel, making of Sanskrit one of the primitive languages that preserved elements that antedated separation. Evidence from Sanskrit fed individual theories
from the language mechanics of de Brosses (1765),
fascinated by Ponss report of Sanskrits derivation
from a handful of primitive elements, to the Celtomania of Le Brigant (1767).
Breakthrough: Colonials in Bengal

(17681788)
Sanskrits reputation for being amazingly copious
and for showing a regularity of etymology and
grammatical order induced Alexander Dow (1768)
to suspect that Brahmans invented it upon rational principles to be a mysterious repository for their
religion and philosophy. This assumption led
Christoph Meiners (1780) to explain similarities by
assuming that the Brahmans patterned Sanskrit after
Greek, a notion Dugald Stewart and Charles William
Wall still held in the 19th century.
Governor Warren Hastings orientalist policies and
patronage of both pandits and orientalists caused a
breakthrough. In the introduction to the translation
of the Code of Gentoo Laws (1776) that Hastings
commissioned, Nathaniel Brassey Halhed gave an
account of Sanskrit that interested Beauze e and
Monboddo among others. In his grammar of Bengali
(1778), Halhed digressed on features of Sanskrit,
spelling out the importance of similarities not only
in basic vocabulary, but for the first time also in
morphology, such as the conjugation in -mi in
Sanskrit and Greek. In an unpublished letter of
1779, he articulated a method, built on Monboddos
view that Latin was a dialect more ancient than
Greek: Sanskrit, closer to Latin than to Greek, had
to be even more ancient, yet what of the existence of
the dual number and the middle voice in this tongue
and in the Greek, which are totally absent from the
Latin? Holding, after Monboddo, that it is one
of the last gradations of art to simplify a complex
machine, he mentioned in favour of the pretensions
to priority of original in the Shanscrit language, that
it contains every part of speech, and every distinction
which is to be found in Greek or in Latin, and that
in some particulars it is more copious than either.
Sanskrits copiousness was emphasized again in

Sir William Joness statement of 1786 (published
1788), which, taken out of context, was elevated
later to the rank of a charter of comparative IndoEuropean linguistics:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a
wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more
copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined
than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by
accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could
examine them all three, without believing them to have
sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no
longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite
so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the
Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had
the same origin with the Sanskrit; and that the old
Persian might be added to the same family.
For Jones, in keeping with the monogeneticism of his

times, this emphasis was part of a search for a cradle
of civilization, which encompassed also Egyptians,
Ethiopians, Chinese, Japanese, even Peruvians. Yet it
informed Michael Hissmanns summary of the evidence from Pons, Dow, and Halhed, interpreted to
favor borrowing into Sanskrit (1780), and sidelined
Beauze es attempt to make of Sanskrit a model for an
international scholarly language (1786). By founding
the Asiatic Society in Calcutta (1784) and its organ,
the Asiatick Researches (1788), Jones provided a
forum for further advances and a channel to broadcast
them to Europe.
Taking Stock in Europe (17881802)

Returned missionary Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo undertook to catalog oriental collections in
Rome and to publish encyclopedic, if polemical,
works that included the first two grammars of
Sanskrit to be printed (1790, 1804), based on now
lost manuscripts by Hanxleden; an edition of the first
section of Amarasim
. has dictionary (1798); and dissertations on the relationship of Zend, Sanskrit, and
German, and of Latin, Zend, and Sanskrit (1798,
1802). He continued to emphasize basic vocabulary
presented in tabular form for comparison, but discarded explanations by contact and borrowing. He
rejected a Scythian origin in favor of an oriental
cradle and judged Sanskrit to be closer to Latin than
to Greek, while acknowledging that morphological
similarities, such as the augment and the reduplicated
perfect, point otherwise. Franz Carl Alter (1799)
published the Sanskrit words in the St. Petersburg
vocabularies corrected by Paulinus, and Paulinuss
and his own comparisons of these with other oriental
748 Sanskrit: Discovery by Europeans
languages. Hervas (1801) and Adelung (1806) drew

heavily on Paulinuss work.
A New Beginning: Sanskrit in Paris

(18021808)
In 1802, the oriental collections in the French National Library attracted the Scot Alexander Hamilton, a
returned member of Joness Asiatic Society, who cataloged anew the Sanskrit manuscripts with their
keeper, Louis-Matthieu Langle`s (1807), and introduced interested scholars to Sanskrit. Of the first
consequence was his tutoring of Friedrich Schlegel,
which provided a foundation for Schlegels Ueber
die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (1808). In this
complex and sometimes paradoxical book, Schlegel
retreated from the first enthusiasm that had him
exclaim that Sanskrit is the actual source of all languages, of all thoughts and poetry of the human
spirit; everything, everything without exception
stems from India. Yet he still viewed Sanskrit as the
most perfect, spiritual, quasi-divine language, the
oldest, and possibly the parent of organic, inflectional languages, which he considered superior to
the mechanical, agglutinative languages. Deeming
lexical similarities inherently inconclusive, he focused
on morphological similarities as the determining
criterion for establishing genealogy.
Mainstream (1808)
Schlegels example showed that Sanskrit could be
learned in Europe. It inspired Antoine-Le onard de
Che zy, who, self-taught with the grammars of
Paulinus and Pons and other manuscripts, became in
1814 the first incumbent of a chair of Sanskrit, at the
Colle`ge de France. August Wilhelm Schlegel followed
in the footsteps of his younger brother, learning
Sanskrit in Paris before initiating its teaching in
Germany, in Bonn (1818). Franz Bopp, Othmar
Frank, and others went on from Paris to London to
consult manuscripts in the East India Company Library, which housed the great collections of Colin
Mackenzie and of Henry Thomas Colebrooke, the
first author of a Sanskrit grammar in English (1805),
which remained incomplete, and the first Sanskrit
scholar, some of whose works are still read for other
than historical interest. Hamilton taught Sanskrit at
the college opened in 1806 to train the civil servants of
the East India Company, but no British university
offered Sanskrit until 1832, when the Boden chair
was created at Oxford in belated fulfillment of a bequest by a military officer of the East India Company.
The qualifications of this chairs first incumbent,
Horace Hayman Wilson, who learned Sanskrit from
pandits in India, were challenged by A. W. Schlegel,

who learned Sanskrit in Europe, in a public dispute
that epitomized the appropriation of Sanskrit by
Europeans, particularly on the Continent.
Sanskrit took pride of place in the development
of comparative Indo-European grammar. Unlike
Friedrich Schlegel, Bopp never referred to Sanskrit
as the parent language, but he made it the centerpiece
of his comparative studies of conjugational and other
grammatical systems. Sanskritocentrism remained
the norm for generations of comparatists. So significant was the discovery of Sanskrit in the development
of comparative Indo-European linguistics that it has
been felt necessary to voice reminders that it was
not a prerequisite as the works of Rask, Grimm,
and others demonstrate. Accounting in part for the
magnitude of this impact are the quality, quantity,
antiquity, and longevity of Sanskrit literature, yet
more important was the fact that Sanskrit was
first taught to Europeans directly or mediately
according to the tradition of rigorous analysis by
Pa n. ini and other Indian grammarians and phoneticians. The identification of the root as the smallest
common denominator of derived forms, vocalic
alternation, derivational and inflectional suffixes,
substitution rules, zeroing, etc., and the description
of articulatory processes were the procedures according to which Europeans learned Sanskrit from pandits. While this method of learning created an illusion
that Sanskrit is more regular and transparent than
other languages, the fact that the same procedures
could serve to analyze cognate languages provided a
framework for comparison.
See also: Adelung, Johann Christoph (17321806); Beauzee, Nicolas (17171789); Bopp, Franz (17911867); Boxhorn, Marcus Zuerius (1602/12-1653); Brosses, Charles de
(17091777); Coeurdoux, Gaston-Laurent (16911779);
Grimm, Jacob Ludwig Carl (17851863); Hervas y Panduro, Lorenzo (17351809); Historiography of Linguistics;
India: Language Situation; IndoEuropean Languages;
Jones, William, Sir (17461794); Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (16461716); Panini; Rask, Rasmus Kristian (1787
1832); Schlegel, August Wilhelm von (17671845); Schlegel, Friedrich von (17721829); Ziegenbalg, Bartholomaus
(16821719).
Bibliography
Camps A & Muller J-C (1988). The Sanskrit grammar and
manuscripts of Father Heinrich Roth S. J. (16201668).
Leiden: Brill.
Koerner E F K (1977). Friedrich Schlegel: Ueber die Sprache
und Weisheit der Indier (new edn.). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Santali 749
Mayrhofer M (1983). Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas: zwei Jahrhunderte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen and Irrtumern. Nachrichten der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Go ttingen I. Philologisch-historische
Klasse 5.
Muller J-C (1985). Recherches sur les premie`res grammaires manuscrites du sanskrit. Bulletin dEtudes
Indiennes 3, 125144.
Rocher L (1977). Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo: dissertation
on the Sanskrit language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rocher R (1968). Alexander Hamilton (17621824): a
chapter in the early history of Sanskrit philology. New
Haven: American Oriental Society.
Rocher R (1983). Orientalism, poetry, and the millennium:
the checkered life of Nathaniel Brassey Halhed 1751
1830. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Rocher R (1995). Weaving knowledge: Sir William Jones

and Indian pandits. In Cannon G & Brine K R (eds.)
Objects of inquiry: the life, contributions, and influences
of Sir William Jones (17461794). New York: New York
Rocher R (2001). The knowledge of Sanskrit in Europe
until 1800. In Auroux S et al. (eds.) History of
the language sciences II.2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
11561163.
Trautmann T R (1997). Aryans and British India. Berkeley:
Windisch E (1917). Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie and
indischen Altertumskunde. Strassburg: Tru bner.
Santali
G D S Anderson, Max Planck Institute, Leipzig,
Germany, and University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Santali (hcr. rcr. ), a member of the North Munda

(Kherwarian) subgroup of the Munda family within
the Austroasiatic linguistic phylum, is spoken by
between 5 million and 7 million people across several
states in eastern and central India. The most compact
area of Santal settlement is in the Sadar subdivision
of Bunkura, the Jhargram subdivision of Midnapur,
and Purulia in West Bengal; south of Bhagalpur and
Monghyr, in the Santal Parganas, Hazaribagh
and Dhalbhum in Bihar, and the newly formed tribal-dominant state of Jharkhand; and Baleshwar,
Mayurbhanj, and Keonjhar in Orissa. In Bangladesh,
the Santals are found mainly in Rajsahi, Rangpur, and
the Chittagong Hill tracts (Ghosh, 1994: 3).
Santali is characterized by a split into at least a
northern and southern dialect sphere, with slightly
different sets of phonemes (Southern Santali has six
phonemic vowels, in contrast with eight or nine in
Northern Santali), different lexical items, and to a
certain degree, variable morphology as well (e.g.,
the-ic:-rEn singular:plural opposition in animate
genitive case markers).
There is a degree of laryngeal tension (phonation
type) associated with certain Santali vowels. This
gives Santali and the closely related Mundari their
characteristic sound and differentiates these two languages from other languages of the region. Instrumental studies are needed to determine the exact
phonetic characteristics of this. In addition, a wide
range of vowel combinations may be found in Santali;
this tendency finds an extreme expression in words

such as kceaeae he will ask for him.
The following statements can be made regarding
the consonantism of Santali: retroflexion, while
attested, is less developed in Santali (and Munda)
generally than in Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages.
Further, in coda position, there is a characteristic use
of so-called checked consonants, ranging in articulation from preglottalized to unreleased. Examples of
checked consonants in final position in Santali include sEc towards, rit grind, selep antelope,
and dak water (Bodding, 1923: 79); before vowels
(generally speaking), these consonants alternate with
voiced stops, as in dal-aka-t-ko-a-e he has beat
them vs. dal-aka-d-e-a-e he has beaten him. Santali
also makes use of prenasalized stops in a number of
words as well: khokn. d. o ill conditioned, menjhle
fourth of six brothers, mcD nj beautiful, ot. hngaoto
steady on, gan. d. ke log, on. d. ga ogre, bhosn. d. oslovenly, ber. mbak incorrectly, and telnga stick; also
kher. ndun kher. ndun deep, kcr. njE (kcnjr. E) crooked, and dhar. nga (dhengra/i) strapping (Bodding,
1923: 36ff.).
Santali has a complicated demonstrative system
(Zide, 1972). Its basic three-way system is a straightforward proximal, distal, remote system in animate
(-i/kin/ko) and inanimate forms (-a/-akin/-ako), as
shown in the following examples (ANIM, animate;
INAN, inanimate; SG, singular; DL, dual; PL, plural):
(1a) Proximal:
SG
ANIM:
INAN:
nui
noa
this
DL
PL
nukin
noakin
these 2
noko/nuku
noako
these
Santali 749
Mayrhofer M (1983). Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas: zwei Jahrhunderte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen and Irrtumern. Nachrichten der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Gottingen I. Philologisch-historische
Klasse 5.
Muller J-C (1985). Recherches sur les premie`res grammaires manuscrites du sanskrit. Bulletin dEtudes
Indiennes 3, 125144.
Rocher L (1977). Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo: dissertation
on the Sanskrit language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rocher R (1968). Alexander Hamilton (17621824): a
chapter in the early history of Sanskrit philology. New
Haven: American Oriental Society.
Rocher R (1983). Orientalism, poetry, and the millennium:
the checkered life of Nathaniel Brassey Halhed 1751
1830. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Rocher R (1995). Weaving knowledge: Sir William Jones

and Indian pandits. In Cannon G & Brine K R (eds.)
Objects of inquiry: the life, contributions, and influences
of Sir William Jones (17461794). New York: New York
Rocher R (2001). The knowledge of Sanskrit in Europe
until 1800. In Auroux S et al. (eds.) History of
the language sciences II.2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
11561163.
Trautmann T R (1997). Aryans and British India. Berkeley:
Windisch E (1917). Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie and
indischen Altertumskunde. Strassburg: Trubner.
Santali
G D S Anderson, Max Planck Institute, Leipzig,
Germany, and University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Santali (hcr. rcr. ), a member of the North Munda

(Kherwarian) subgroup of the Munda family within
the Austroasiatic linguistic phylum, is spoken by
between 5 million and 7 million people across several
states in eastern and central India. The most compact
area of Santal settlement is in the Sadar subdivision
of Bunkura, the Jhargram subdivision of Midnapur,
and Purulia in West Bengal; south of Bhagalpur and
Monghyr, in the Santal Parganas, Hazaribagh
and Dhalbhum in Bihar, and the newly formed tribal-dominant state of Jharkhand; and Baleshwar,
Mayurbhanj, and Keonjhar in Orissa. In Bangladesh,
the Santals are found mainly in Rajsahi, Rangpur, and
the Chittagong Hill tracts (Ghosh, 1994: 3).
Santali is characterized by a split into at least a
northern and southern dialect sphere, with slightly
different sets of phonemes (Southern Santali has six
phonemic vowels, in contrast with eight or nine in
Northern Santali), different lexical items, and to a
certain degree, variable morphology as well (e.g.,
the-ic:-rEn singular:plural opposition in animate
genitive case markers).
There is a degree of laryngeal tension (phonation
type) associated with certain Santali vowels. This
gives Santali and the closely related Mundari their
characteristic sound and differentiates these two languages from other languages of the region. Instrumental studies are needed to determine the exact
phonetic characteristics of this. In addition, a wide
range of vowel combinations may be found in Santali;
this tendency finds an extreme expression in words

such as kceaeae he will ask for him.
The following statements can be made regarding
the consonantism of Santali: retroflexion, while
attested, is less developed in Santali (and Munda)
generally than in Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages.
Further, in coda position, there is a characteristic use
of so-called checked consonants, ranging in articulation from preglottalized to unreleased. Examples of
checked consonants in final position in Santali include sEc towards, rit grind, selep antelope,
and dak water (Bodding, 1923: 79); before vowels
(generally speaking), these consonants alternate with
voiced stops, as in dal-aka-t-ko-a-e he has beat
them vs. dal-aka-d-e-a-e he has beaten him. Santali
also makes use of prenasalized stops in a number of
words as well: khokn. d. o ill conditioned, menjhle
fourth of six brothers, mcD nj beautiful, ot. hngaoto
steady on, gan. d. ke log, on. d. ga ogre, bhosn. d. oslovenly, ber. mbak incorrectly, and telnga stick; also
kher. ndun kher. ndun deep, kcr. njE (kcnjr. E) crooked, and dhar. nga (dhengra/i) strapping (Bodding,
1923: 36ff.).
Santali has a complicated demonstrative system
(Zide, 1972). Its basic three-way system is a straightforward proximal, distal, remote system in animate
(-i/kin/ko) and inanimate forms (-a/-akin/-ako), as
shown in the following examples (ANIM, animate;
INAN, inanimate; SG, singular; DL, dual; PL, plural):
(1a) Proximal:
SG
ANIM:
INAN:
nui
noa
this
DL
PL
nukin
noakin
these 2
noko/nuku
noako
these
750 Santali
(1b) Distal:
SG
uni
ona
that
(1c) Remote:
ANIM:
INAN:
DL
PL
unkin
onakin
those 2
onko/unku
onako
those
SG
ANIM:
INAN:
DL
PL
hani
hankin hanko
hana
hanakin hanako
that yonder those (2) yonder
Alongside these are intensive forms (Example (2);

marked by infixation of -k-), just forms (Examples
(3a) and (3b); marked by a shift of (o/u>)-i-), as well
as forms adding connotations of things seen and
things heard (Examples (4a)(4c)):
(2) Intensives:
nukui this very one
niki
just this very one
nOkOy this very thing
(3a) Just proximal:
SG
DL
PL
nii
nikin
neko/niku
INAN: nia
niakin
niako
just this just these 2 just these
(3b) Just distal:
(5b) mErOm-ko kombro-ke-d-e-a

goat-PL
steal-ASP-TR-3-FIN
They stole the goat.
(5c) or. ak-ke-d-a-e
house-ASP-TR-FIN-3
He made a house.
The default position for subject agreement clitics is

in immediately preverbal position in Santali. Note in
the following examples (Bodding, 1929a: 58, 60,
208) that this is true even if the element appearing
in this position is an overt subject (or object) pronoun
(1, first person; INTR, intransitive; 2, second person;
LOC, locative; ALL, allative):
(6a) Kumbr. ebad-te-ko
egu-ke-t-le-a
bring-ASP-TR1PL-FIN
They brought us to Kumbrabad.
K-LOC/ALL-PL
(6b) hED
in -in calak-a
yes I1
go.INTR-FIN
Yes I will go.
(6c) in am-in n El-mE-a
I
you-1 see-2-FIN
I will see you.
ANIM:
SG
ANIM:
INAN:
ini
ina
just that
DL
PL
inkin
inakin
just those (2)
enko/inku
inako
(4a) Seen distal:

SG
DL
PL
OnE
that seen
OnEkin
those (2) seen
OnEko
(4b) Seen remote:

SG
DL
hanE
that yonder seen
hanEkin hanEko
those (2) yonder seen
PL
(4c) Heard distal:

SG
DL
OtE
that heard
OtEkin OtEko
those (2) heard
PL
Verbs as a lexical category in Santali, and indeed in

Munda languages generally speaking, are not easily
or rigorously defined in opposition to nouns (Bhat,
1997; Bhattacharya, 1975; Cust, 1878; Pinnow,
1966). As seen in the following examples (Ghosh,
1994: 21), one and the same root may be used as a
noun, as a modifier (adjective/participle), and as a
predicate/verb. Even a noun root such as house
may be used verbally with verbal inflection (ASP, aspect; TR, transitive; FIN, finite):
(5a) kombro
thief
thief
A wide range of arguments or referents may be

encoded within the Santali verbal complex. This
includes subjects, direct objects, indirect objects,
benefactives, and possessors of subjects or objects.
Note that Santali is doubly unusual in its system of
possessor indexing: it takes a special series of possessive inflection, and this pattern of referent indexing
does not reflect a process of raising (to argument/
term status of this logical modifier/operator), as a
verb in Santali may encode both its logical argument
and a possessor of that argument simultaneously, as in
Example 7d). Examples (7a)(7d) are from Bodding
(1929a: 212, 1923: 22, 2122, 209), respectively,
and Example (7e) is from Ghosh (1994: 65) (NEG,
negation;
ANT,
anterior;
BEN,
benefactive;
POSS, possessor):
kombro mErOm
stolen goat
a stolen goat
(7a) ba-ko
sap-le-d-e-a
catch-ANT-TR-3-FIN
They did not catch him.
im-en -me
give-1-2
give me
dul-a-n -me
pour.out-BEN-1-2
Pour out for me.
sukri-ko gOc-ke-d-e-tin -a
pig-PL
die-ASP-TR-3-1.POSS-FIN
They killed my pig.
hOpOn-e hEc -en-tin -a
son-3
come-PAST.INTR-1.POSS-FIN
My son came.
NEG-PL
(7b)
(7c)
(7d)
(7e)
The Santali language has been written in at least

five alphabets, depending on the locale of production
Sao Tome and Prncipe: Language Situation 751
and the purpose of the written material. There have

been Santali publications in Devanagari (Hindi),
Oriya, Bengali, and Roman and in the cl c EmEt cl
c iki script of indigenous origin (Zide, 2000: 8).
An ever-growing body of literature has appeared in
Santali, and the language is used on a limited basis
in other media (e.g., shortwave radio broadcasts).
See also: Austroasiatic Languages; India: Language
Situation; Munda Languages.
Bibliography
Anderson G D S (2001). Santali. In Garry J & Rubino C
(eds.) Facts about the worlds languages. Bronx, NY:
H. W. Wilson.
Anonymous (1929). Tea districts Labour Association language handbook: Santhali. Calcutta: Catholic Orphan
Press.
Bhat D N S (1997). Nounverb distinction in Munda languages. In Abbi A (ed.) Languages of tribal and indigenous peoples of India: the ethnic space. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass. 227251.
Bodding P O (1923). Materials for a Santali grammar
(mostly phonetic). Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Bodding P O (1929a). Materials for a Santali grammar
(mostly morphological). Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Bodding P O (1929b). A Santali grammar for beginners.
Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Bodding P O (19251929). Santal folk tales (3 vols). Oslo:
Institutet for Sammenligende Kulturforsning.
Bodding P O (19291936). A Santal dictionary (5 vols).
Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.
Campbell A (18991902). A SantaliEnglish dictionary.
(3 parts). Pokhuria: Santal Mission Press.
Cole F T (1906). Santali primer. Pokhuria: Santal Mission
Press.
Cust R N (1878). A sketch of the modern languages of the
East Indies. London: Tru bner.
Ghosh A (1994). Santali: a look into Santali morphology.
New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
Heuman E (1892). Grammatisk studie o fver santal-spra ket. Det kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs forhandlinger, Copenhagen, 148220.
Kisku P C & Soren K R (1951). Santali s abda kosh. Deoghar: Santal Paharia Seva Mandal. [In Santali.]
Lekomtsev J K (1968). Nekotorye kharakternye cherty
santalskogo predlozhenija.. In Jazyki Indii, Pakistana,
Nepala i Sejlona. Moscow: Nauka. 311320.
Lekomtsev J K (1975). Nekotorye nabludenija nad morfonologiej Santali. In Elizarenkova T I (ed.) Ocherki
po fonologii vostochnyx jazykov. Moscow: Nauka.
178205.
Macphail R M (1954). Campbells English-Santali dictionary (3rd edn.). Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Macphail R M (1964). An introduction to Santali. Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Murmu R (1976). Ranar: a Santali grammar in Santali
(Ol script work). Baripada: Murmu.
Neukom L (2001). Santali. Languages of the world/materials, 323. Mu nchen: Lincom.
Pal A (1980a). How action is expressed in Hor Parsi
or Santali language. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Calcutta 22/34, 151162.
Pal A (1980b). The structure of qualifying words in
Santali. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta 22/
34, 191196.
Phillips J (1852). An introduction to the Santali language.
Calcutta: Calcutta School Book Societys Press.
Sahu D (1962; 1968). Santali pravesika (2 vols). [In Santali.] Dengara, Bihar: Prapti-sthana Abhirama Prakasa.
Skrefsrud L O (1873). A grammar of the Santhali language.
Benares: Medical Hall Press.
Zide N H (1958). Final stops in Korku and Santali. Indian
Zide N H (1967). The Santali Ol Cemet script. In Languages and areas: studies presented to George
V. Bobrinskoy. Chicago: University of Chicago. 180189.
Zide N H (1972). A Munda demonstrative system: Santali. In Barrau J et al. (eds.) Langues et techniques,
nature et socie te I (papers for A. Haudricourt). Paris:
Klincksieck. 267274.
Zide N H (2000). Three Munda scripts. Linguistics in the
Tibeto-Burman Area 22, 199232.
Sao Tome and Prncipe: Language Situation

Editorial Team
Africas smallest country consists of two islands in the

Gulf of Guinea, facing Gabon. The bigger island of
the two, Sa o Tome , is the center of commercial and
administrative activity, and it is where the capital,
also called Sa o Tome , is found. The smaller island of
Prncipe gained limited autonomy in 1995. The population of Sa o Tome and Prncipe is about 181 000
(2004 estimate).
Sa o Tome and Prncipe was under Portuguese control from the 15th century up to independence in
1975. The Portuguese colonizers used the islands as
a port in the slave trade, as well as for large-scale,
slave-based plantations growing sugar cane and later
cocoa. A large number of the population of Sa o Tome
Sao Tome and Prncipe: Language Situation 751
and the purpose of the written material. There have

been Santali publications in Devanagari (Hindi),
Oriya, Bengali, and Roman and in the cl cEmEt cl
ciki script of indigenous origin (Zide, 2000: 8).
An ever-growing body of literature has appeared in
Santali, and the language is used on a limited basis
in other media (e.g., shortwave radio broadcasts).
See also: Austroasiatic Languages; India: Language
Situation; Munda Languages.
Bibliography
Anderson G D S (2001). Santali. In Garry J & Rubino C
(eds.) Facts about the worlds languages. Bronx, NY:
H. W. Wilson.
Anonymous (1929). Tea districts Labour Association language handbook: Santhali. Calcutta: Catholic Orphan
Press.
Bhat D N S (1997). Nounverb distinction in Munda languages. In Abbi A (ed.) Languages of tribal and indigenous peoples of India: the ethnic space. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass. 227251.
Bodding P O (1923). Materials for a Santali grammar
(mostly phonetic). Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Bodding P O (1929a). Materials for a Santali grammar
(mostly morphological). Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Bodding P O (1929b). A Santali grammar for beginners.
Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Bodding P O (19251929). Santal folk tales (3 vols). Oslo:
Institutet for Sammenligende Kulturforsning.
Bodding P O (19291936). A Santal dictionary (5 vols).
Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.
Campbell A (18991902). A SantaliEnglish dictionary.
(3 parts). Pokhuria: Santal Mission Press.
Cole F T (1906). Santali primer. Pokhuria: Santal Mission
Press.
Cust R N (1878). A sketch of the modern languages of the
East Indies. London: Trubner.
Ghosh A (1994). Santali: a look into Santali morphology.
New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
Heuman E (1892). Grammatisk studie ofver santal-spraket. Det kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs forhandlinger, Copenhagen, 148220.
Kisku P C & Soren K R (1951). Santali sabda kosh. Deoghar: Santal Paharia Seva Mandal. [In Santali.]
Lekomtsev J K (1968). Nekotorye kharakternye cherty
santalskogo predlozhenija.. In Jazyki Indii, Pakistana,
Nepala i Sejlona. Moscow: Nauka. 311320.
Lekomtsev J K (1975). Nekotorye nabludenija nad morfonologiej Santali. In Elizarenkova T I (ed.) Ocherki
po fonologii vostochnyx jazykov. Moscow: Nauka.
178205.
Macphail R M (1954). Campbells English-Santali dictionary (3rd edn.). Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Macphail R M (1964). An introduction to Santali. Benegaria: Santal Mission Press.
Murmu R (1976). Ranar: a Santali grammar in Santali
(Ol script work). Baripada: Murmu.
Neukom L (2001). Santali. Languages of the world/materials, 323. Munchen: Lincom.
Pal A (1980a). How action is expressed in Hor Parsi
or Santali language. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Calcutta 22/34, 151162.
Pal A (1980b). The structure of qualifying words in
Santali. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta 22/
34, 191196.
Phillips J (1852). An introduction to the Santali language.
Calcutta: Calcutta School Book Societys Press.
Sahu D (1962; 1968). Santali pravesika (2 vols). [In Santali.] Dengara, Bihar: Prapti-sthana Abhirama Prakasa.
Skrefsrud L O (1873). A grammar of the Santhali language.
Benares: Medical Hall Press.
Zide N H (1958). Final stops in Korku and Santali. Indian
Zide N H (1967). The Santali Ol Cemet script. In Languages and areas: studies presented to George
V. Bobrinskoy. Chicago: University of Chicago. 180189.
Zide N H (1972). A Munda demonstrative system: Santali. In Barrau J et al. (eds.) Langues et techniques,
nature et societe I (papers for A. Haudricourt). Paris:
Klincksieck. 267274.
Zide N H (2000). Three Munda scripts. Linguistics in the
Tibeto-Burman Area 22, 199232.
Sao Tome and Prncipe: Language Situation

Editorial Team
Africas smallest country consists of two islands in the

Gulf of Guinea, facing Gabon. The bigger island of
the two, Sao Tome, is the center of commercial and
administrative activity, and it is where the capital,
also called Sao Tome, is found. The smaller island of
Prncipe gained limited autonomy in 1995. The population of Sao Tome and Prncipe is about 181 000
(2004 estimate).
Sao Tome and Prncipe was under Portuguese control from the 15th century up to independence in
1975. The Portuguese colonizers used the islands as
a port in the slave trade, as well as for large-scale,
slave-based plantations growing sugar cane and later
cocoa. A large number of the population of Sao Tome
752 Sa o Tome and Prncipe: Language Situation
and Prncipe thus has historic roots in the former

Portuguese colonies of Angola, Mozambique, and
Cape Verde Islands.
Through the mix of speakers of different African
languages, different creole languages developed, with
Bantu and Kwa substrate and largely Portuguesebased lexicons. The two main creoles on Sa o Tome
are Sa otomese and Angolar. Sa otomense has the larger number of speakers and is spoken throughout
the greater part of the island. Angolar is spoken
in smaller pockets in the south, west, and east of
the island and shows greater lexical influence
from Angolan Bantu languages (notably Kimbundu
(Mbundu, Loanda)) than does Sa otomese. Sa otomese
is the national language of Sa o Tome . The main creole
language of Prncipe is Principense. Despite being
the national language of the island, Principense
has only a few speakers, so the status as national
language has a mostly symbolic function. The creole
languages of Sa o Tome and Prncipe are historically
and structurally similar to Fa DAmbu, the creole

language of Annobo n Island of Equatorial Guinea.
In addition to Sa otomese, Angolar, and Principense, Portuguese is used widely, especially outside
of informal contexts.
See also: Angola: Language situation; Equatorial Guinea:
Language Situation; Pidgins and Creoles: Overview.
Language Maps (Appendix 1): Map 14.
Bibliography
Chabal P (2002). A history of postcolonial Lusophone
Africa. London: Hurst.
Holm J (1989). Pidgin and creoles. Vol. 2: reference survey.
Maurer P (1995). Langolar: un cre ole Afro-Portugais parle
a` Sa o Tome . Hamburg: Buske.
Sapir, Edward (18841939)

J G Fought, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA
Edward Sapir was born in Lauenberg, Pomerania.

His family immigrated to the United States in 1889.
He received his higher education at Columbia University, earning his B.A. in 1904, an M.A. in Germanic
languages the next year, and completing his Ph.D. in
anthropology in 1909, along with some advanced
studies in historical and comparative linguistics.
He was first exposed to Native American languages
as a graduate student under the direction of Franz
Boas. The new approach to anthropology developed
(and largely administered) by Boas integrated the
study of cultures and their languages, as both were
manifested in the content and form of traditional
texts. Few would dispute that Sapir was unequalled
among American anthropologists of his generation.
Between 1907 and 1910 he held research fellowships
at the University of California and the University of
Pennsylvania. From 1910 to 1925, he was in charge
of the new Division of Anthropology of the Geological Survey of Canada, based in Ottawa, enabling him
to sponsor field studies by himself and others.
Sapirs intense, far-reaching field work began in
1905, with an Wasco-Wishram Chinookan, and
over the next five years alone he covered six other
languages, including his landmark description of

Takelma (completed in 1911, and published in 1922)
making him the paragon of Boasian, linguistically
driven anthropology. Sapirs extraordinary energy
and phonetic skills were the foundation for his capacity for quickly, accurately, and insightfully compiling
and analyzing vast amounts of textual and grammatical data from a wide range of American languages.
Unlike his contemporary Leonard Bloomfield, whose
informant sessions were carefully nondirective, Sapir
drew in and mobilized his informants, training them
to write accurately in their own languages and to
compile and translate traditional texts, which he
then worked through with them. Early in their
careers, the descriptive writingsthe linguisticsof
Sapir and Bloomfield seemed more alike in method
than their later works. These apparent differences
owe something to their very different personalities
and their divergent rhetorical styles. It seems likely
also that Sapirs wider anthropological responsibilities played a role. That each understood and
respected the others work can be seen in Sapir
(1931) and Bloomfield (1922).
Sapirs training in historical and comparative linguistics prepared him to exploit the growing body of
data from American languages as a means of dating
cultural contacts and migrations through linguistic
evidence. In his extremely important monograph on
752 Sao Tome and Prncipe: Language Situation
and Prncipe thus has historic roots in the former

Portuguese colonies of Angola, Mozambique, and
Cape Verde Islands.
Through the mix of speakers of different African
languages, different creole languages developed, with
Bantu and Kwa substrate and largely Portuguesebased lexicons. The two main creoles on Sao Tome
are Saotomese and Angolar. Saotomense has the larger number of speakers and is spoken throughout
the greater part of the island. Angolar is spoken
in smaller pockets in the south, west, and east of
the island and shows greater lexical influence
from Angolan Bantu languages (notably Kimbundu
(Mbundu, Loanda)) than does Saotomese. Saotomese
is the national language of Sao Tome. The main creole
language of Prncipe is Principense. Despite being
the national language of the island, Principense
has only a few speakers, so the status as national
language has a mostly symbolic function. The creole
languages of Sao Tome and Prncipe are historically
and structurally similar to Fa DAmbu, the creole

language of Annobon Island of Equatorial Guinea.
In addition to Saotomese, Angolar, and Principense, Portuguese is used widely, especially outside
of informal contexts.
See also: Angola: Language situation; Equatorial Guinea:
Language Situation; Pidgins and Creoles: Overview.
Language Maps (Appendix 1): Map 14.
Bibliography
Chabal P (2002). A history of postcolonial Lusophone
Africa. London: Hurst.
Holm J (1989). Pidgin and creoles. Vol. 2: reference survey.
Maurer P (1995). Langolar: un creole Afro-Portugais parle
a` Sao Tome. Hamburg: Buske.
Sapir, Edward (18841939)

J G Fought, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA
Edward Sapir was born in Lauenberg, Pomerania.

His family immigrated to the United States in 1889.
He received his higher education at Columbia University, earning his B.A. in 1904, an M.A. in Germanic
languages the next year, and completing his Ph.D. in
anthropology in 1909, along with some advanced
studies in historical and comparative linguistics.
He was first exposed to Native American languages
as a graduate student under the direction of Franz
Boas. The new approach to anthropology developed
(and largely administered) by Boas integrated the
study of cultures and their languages, as both were
manifested in the content and form of traditional
texts. Few would dispute that Sapir was unequalled
among American anthropologists of his generation.
Between 1907 and 1910 he held research fellowships
at the University of California and the University of
Pennsylvania. From 1910 to 1925, he was in charge
of the new Division of Anthropology of the Geological Survey of Canada, based in Ottawa, enabling him
to sponsor field studies by himself and others.
Sapirs intense, far-reaching field work began in
1905, with an Wasco-Wishram Chinookan, and
over the next five years alone he covered six other
languages, including his landmark description of

Takelma (completed in 1911, and published in 1922)
making him the paragon of Boasian, linguistically
driven anthropology. Sapirs extraordinary energy
and phonetic skills were the foundation for his capacity for quickly, accurately, and insightfully compiling
and analyzing vast amounts of textual and grammatical data from a wide range of American languages.
Unlike his contemporary Leonard Bloomfield, whose
informant sessions were carefully nondirective, Sapir
drew in and mobilized his informants, training them
to write accurately in their own languages and to
compile and translate traditional texts, which he
then worked through with them. Early in their
careers, the descriptive writingsthe linguisticsof
Sapir and Bloomfield seemed more alike in method
than their later works. These apparent differences
owe something to their very different personalities
and their divergent rhetorical styles. It seems likely
also that Sapirs wider anthropological responsibilities played a role. That each understood and
respected the others work can be seen in Sapir
(1931) and Bloomfield (1922).
Sapirs training in historical and comparative linguistics prepared him to exploit the growing body of
data from American languages as a means of dating
cultural contacts and migrations through linguistic
evidence. In his extremely important monograph on
Saudi Arabia: Language Situation 753
Time perspective (1916; reprinted in Mandelbaum,

1949) he recast the older Powell classification of language relationships produced by the Bureau of American Ethnology, which recognized 55 separate stocks.
Sapir reduced these to six, in a bold reclassification
that is still an active topic of discussion.
In 1925 Sapir accepted an appointment to the University of Chicago. The position opened up new interdisciplinary connections for him: there were linkages
with distinguished colleagues in sociology, psychology, and political science. Sapir moved again, to Yale, in
1931. During this period, he worked extensively in
culture and personality studies, a field he was instrumental in launching. One of his students at Yale was
Benjamin Lee Whorf, whose name is linked with his in
connection with a characteristically intuitive hypothesis concerning the mutual influence of habitual forms
and patterns in language and culture.
Mandelbaum (1949) presented a selected crosssection of Sapirs important linguistic and anthropological publications. This collection prompted
Zellig Harris (1951) to give Sapirs linguistics and its
role in the development of the field a long, insightful
review. Sapirs collected works, to appear in 16 large
volumes, are even now only half published. Native
American language texts, grammars, and related linguistic anthropology amount to more than half of this
material, an imposing monument to his genius, his
energy, and his mastery of the arts of phonetic transcription and morphological analysis. His skill in
addressing the public can be enjoyed in his popular
book Language (1921), which is still in print, still
gives the clearest, most accessible picture of a linguists work, and still attracts new readers to the field.
See also: Bloomfield, Leonard (18871949); Boas, Franz

(18581942); Harris, Zellig S. (19091992); Linguistics as
a Science; Structuralism; Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1897
1941).
Bibliography
Bloomfield L (1922). Review of Sapir (1921). The Classical
Weekly 15, 142143.
Darnell R (1990). Edward Sapir: linguist, anthropologist,
humanist. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Harris Z S (1951). Review of Mandelbaum (1949). Language 27, 288333.
Hymes D & Fought J (1981). American structuralism. The
Hague: Mouton.
Mandelbaum D G (ed.) (1949). Selected writings of Edward
Sapir in language, culture, and personality. Berkeley:
Sapir E (1916). Time perspective in aboriginal American
culture: A study in method. Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Memoir 90 (Anthropological Series, No.
13). Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau.
Sapir E (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Sapir E (1922). Takelma Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin 40, part 2: Handbook of American Indian Languages. Boas F (ed.). Washington: Government Printing
Office. 3296.
Sapir E (1931). The concept of phonetic law as tested in
primitive languages by Leonard Bloomfield. In Rice S A
(ed.) Methods in social science: A case book. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 297303.
Sapir E (1933). La re alite psychologique des phone`mes.
Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 30,
247265.
Sapir P et al. (eds.) (1990). Edward Sapir: The collected
works (vols. 116). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saudi Arabia: Language Situation

B Ingham, University of London, London, UK
The official language is Classical Arabic (Standard

Arabic), which is the form used in writing and for
official spoken purposes. This preserves the spoken
form of the 7th century AD as exemplified by the
Quran and pre-Islamic poetry. A diglossic situation
exists with colloquial Arabic as the spoken medium in
less formal situations.
There is considerable dialect diversity, the main
dialect groupings originating in old population centers based on the availability of water for agriculture.
These are the following:
1. the Southwestern dialects, including those of

Najra n and As. r on the borders of Yemen and the
e migre Ijma n and A l Murrah bedouin of the east;
2. the urban H. ija zi dialects, which are the result of a
mixture of Arabian features and those of immigrants from other Arab countries;
3. the Najdi group, including Central and Northern
Najd (Jabal Shammar) and the surrounding bedouin dialects, dividing into central and northern
Najdi types, which have spread also into Syria and
Iraq;
4. the Eastern dialects of the oases of al-H. asa.
Possibly because of their isolated location, some
dialects of Saudi Arabia have retained many archaic

Rule borrowing and language contact

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Rule borrowing and language contact

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

674 Rule Borrowing

whose speakers shifted in large numbers to Semitic

Rule Borrowing 675

so-called second genitive, a partitive case, in

38); both of these passages are cited in Hale, 2003).

676 Rule Borrowing

involve one-way transfer of rules from one language to

linguistics: proceedings of the second international

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology 677

Trask R L (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

The goal of phonological theory is the discovery of

Note: this and the other rules below are stated

Vowel Nasalization cannot have an effect in (4)

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology 677

Trask R L (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

The goal of phonological theory is the discovery of

Note: this and the other rules below are stated

Vowel Nasalization cannot have an effect in (4)

678 Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

members of the underlying inventory of Polish, i.e.,

The relevant rule is Nasal Assimilation.

Furthermore, Polish has a pattern of alternations

before a single consonant

Consequently, //E// deletes in the plural forms bz-y

BUT gank-u porch: [gank-u]; Nasal

The question is why Nasal Assimilation fails

The order in (9) must be stipulated, so it is extrinsic

The interaction between Yer Deletion and Nasal

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology 679

To summarize, rules X ordered before Y are in a

Voice Assimilation is stated informally as follows.

An obstruent assumes the

Clusters of a voiceless obstruent followed by a

following vowel suffix by two consonants.) In the

Fricatives become voiceless after

Fricative Devoicing applies only to /bitv-a/ because

680 Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

The operation of this rule is illustrated in (16), where

A comparison of the diminutive forms in the NOM

To summarize, a bleeding order is one in which

this in (14), where Fricative Devoicing made the

The rule is restricted to the context of sonorants,

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology 681

This derivation presents an array of various ordering relations between rules.

opaque. The fragment of Polish phonology presented

682 Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

Warsaw Polish at the stage at which the underlying yer

[S]: there is no front vowel in [grOS-k-u] that could

We conclude that Voice Assimilation is a postlexical rule.

Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology 683

To summarize, the word-internal /tv/ in bitwa and

684 Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology

Rubach J (2000b). Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic

Rules and Principles

The notions rule and principle lie at the heart of the

Traditionally, a linguistic rule maps one object

This mismatch falls into place if the mapping rules

See also: Fanagolo; Generative Phonology; Generative

Semantics; Lexicon, Generative.

684 Rule Ordering and Derivation in Phonology