Eli Fischer-Jørgensen

Intrinsic F₀ in Tense and Lax Vowels with Special Reference to German

The main purpose of this paper is to show that the observation which is the starting point for almost all attempts at explaining intrinsic fundamental frequency (intrinsic F0) in vowels, i.e. that it is correlated with vowel height (interpreted as tongue height), does not hold if short lax vowels are included, since they have a considerably lower tongue height but practically the same F0 as their corresponding tense counterparts. Section 1 contains a discussion of some explanations of intrinsic F0 and vowel height and a short exposition of its connection with other vowel features. Section 2 gives a survey of the properties of tense and lax vowels based on data from the phonetic literature. Section 3 reports on an investigation of German tense and lax front unrounded vowels, including duration, tongue height, jaw opening, vertical lip opening, formant frequencies, and F0. Section 4 contains a discussion of various possible explanations of the results.

On the definition of phoneme categories on a distributional basis

Abstract Sapir was probably the first to suggest that phonemes might be grouped into categories according to their possibilities of combination with other phonemes in the speech chain2. Bloomfield goes much farther. He maintains3 that this is the only definition of phoneme categories which is structurally relevant, whereas the classification by distinctive features is irrelevant, because it is in reality a physiological description. This statement is probably too categorical. At any rate it may be maintained that the distinctive features are also found by commutation and can be defined by their mutual combinations, that they must accordingly be considered as linguistic units, and that it is only the next step, the analysis of these features, which is concerned with pure substance4. Both classifications would in that case be structurally relevant, and in a complete description of a language phonemes should be classified in both ways: (1) according to their constituent parts (their distinctive features) and...

Form and substance in glossematics

Abstract As everybody knows, the distinction between form and substance is not Hjelmslevs invention. It has, with the more common terminology “form and matter”, “forma et materia”, been discussed for more than 2000 years, mainly among philosophers, but also with application to language. The late Danish linguist Paul Diderichsen had made extensive studies concerning the history of the term “form” in linguistics and prepared an article on this subject, but at his death it was not ready for publication. He shows how the distinction between form and matter has, in the course of time, been mixed up with what is now, in glossematic terminology, called expression and content, but in various, quite different, ways. From one point of view the sounds have been considered as the matter formed by thought, by ideas, from another point of view the structure of the logical proposition has been considered as form opposed to its content, the concepts, as matter. Later on, the term form has been used about flexion conside...

Roman Jakobson and Denmark

Abstract Roman Jakobson was one of the greatest linguists of this century - perhaps the greatest - and he had close connections with many linguistic centers in many countries. One may perhaps therefore wonder why exactly Denmark has chosen to celebrate his centenary by an international symposium. But there were some special bonds between Jakobson and Denmark. Denmark was one of the first countries where a majority of linguists accepted structural linguistics and thus also the ideas of the Prague Circle; and many Danish linguists of the older generation feel deeply indebted to Roman Jakobson. But his works have also been an inspiration for the younger generation, particularly his later works on distinctive features and his discussions of semiotic problems. And the initiative for the present symposium was taken by the younger generation of Danish linguists.

Supplementary note to Hans Basbøll's commentary on hjelmslev's analysis of the Danish expression system

Abstract This note is not meant as a criticism of Basbolls paper. He has given a penetrating and acute analysis of the inconsistencies in Hjelmslevs description and he has shown, convincingly, that it is possible to improve Hjelms-levs rules and notations considerably within his own framework. 3