Uddrag fra BREV TIL: Eli Fischer-Jørgensen FRA: Charles Ernest Bazell (1955-02-11)

Dear Miss Fischer-Jorgensen, 1 hope you received the brief replies to your questions by the 15th# small matter if you did not, since as I said,there were no important misinter- pretations, and none at all for which you could be to blame; I wonder if you could let me have a copy of the critical part of your presentation (even if it has melted bitter on it)? A few more details. "Intrinsic similarity" and "composition" are of course quite distinct when it comes to different mediums, since then intrinsic similarity has no applica- tion at all, whereas one may still distinguish between isomorphism of composl- tion and isomorphism of distribution. In a conventional phonemic transcrip- tion, the letters may be sa4d to have the same formal distribution as the phon- ernes they represent, but not the same formal composition. **here^ei£ the different features were represented each by invariable letter-parts, thej/could said to have the same formal composition as the phonemes. Of course, to say that two wholes (e.go the wholes constituted b£ / phonemes divisible into features) have the same formal composition, is to say that the distribution of the parts (up to the level of the whole, but not beyond) is the same (e.g. that if nasality combines with ocslihsiveness/ but not with vocal- ity, then e.g. there is a dot which combines with a stroke but not with a circle and so on, in the compositionally equivalent graphic system). So statements of formally equivalent composition may be turned into statements of formally equi- valent distribution. But the reverse is equally true. Statements on the dls- tribution of phonemes can be turned into statements on the composition of wordso ■°ut this points to an important terminological error in my paper, to which am grateful that you have indirectly drawn attention, when opposed to lntrlns c , distribution does not have the same meaning as when it is opposed to compositiono In the former case it means only distribution among substantially defined units. Within a given medium, this distinction is naturally superfluous9 since however they are defined, the units will be of like substance. But of course within the fgiven medium, the distinction between "composition" and "intrinsic similar- ity" is also (with the relatively trivial exception made in my letter) also sup- erfluous• My terminological solution Is to separate the opposition intrinsic/extrinsic from the opposition compositional/distributional, -they are parallel oppositions, but the one should be general, and the other apply specially to a given medium. rhere is hence another confusion that I ought to have dealt with. My fault, according to you, Is that I made a false distinction. make a false identification. Anyway * was wrong. I am lookimg forward to the studies you announce, especially to that on the overlapping manifestations of phonemes. ‘lhis Is closely connected with the question of the arbitrary", on which I am grateful to have your agreement in principle. I wish you could have dealt with this in ypur paper for -“eta. Por instance the Japanese distribution Ha Hi fu is not to be set on a par with the conceivable distribution fa fl hu» which would not be easy to motivate -- henc- in the latter cage one would be more Inclined (other things equal) to assume ^accidental gaps in the distribution. ‘lhis is the only criterion which (In Linguistic lorm" ) Iadded to those which you gave (in the second paragraph, Si«8 2fv0n?^d a haif H?*3' on P*1® --did you recognise that this was but A\for llnSul!tl° in general, nobody approves of tualS von ^ seem to approve of some part. Yoy are nearly the first (ac- your Extension i apJ\ro7® °f graphical parallel. I accept your extension of the analogy, which can be developed*