Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 78. kötet (1976)
Tanulmányok - Vachek, Josef: Gyula Laziczius and Early Prague Phonology 480
482 VACHEK, JOSEF HAVRÁNEK) that the Common Colloquial Czech vowels [e:] and [o:], virtuallyunknown in referential function, are often found to replace their short counterparts [e] and [o], respectively, if the words containing the latter are pronounced with strong emotion (see, e.g., instances like [bje: zet] 'to run', [mo: re] 'the sea' for standard Czech, unemotional, bezet, mofe. It should also be recalled that the 1931, fairly complete list of phonological terminology10 includes, aside of combinatory phonemic variants conditioned by the environment of the concerned phoneme, also stylistic variants of the phoneme, both independent and combinatory (I.e., p. 3X9f), where the attribute 'stylistic', as a rule, means 'emotionally motivated'. More instances of the kind, of course, might be adduced here11 ; still, all of them were only considered, in the early stage of phonology, as more or less isolated instances of emotionally motivated exceptions from the regularities otherwise established in the referential ('purely communicative') function. Laziczius, however, was the first linguist to reserve for the emotionally motivated phonic facts their due place in the functional hierarchy of phonic facts viewed in their entirety, and no longer to treat them as mere exceptions to the rules governing the phonic phenomena of the purely communicative utterances. This new approach Laziczius was enabled to take by drawing consistent consequences from the well-known Karl Bühler's model of language12 which, at that time, constituted an important signpost showing linguistic research a way to more fruitful results. Laziczius's conception was to be later criticized by Trubetzkoy13 , especially for not distinguishing clearly between phonic phenomena signalling expression (Kundgabe) and those signalling appeal (Appell). The criticism was justified, as far as it went. Still, Trubetzkoy himself, in the long run, was forced to admit the difficulty of drawing a distinct line between the two kinds of phenomena in concrete fieldwork, and indeed — at least to a degree — gave some satisfaction to Laziczius's lack of distinction between the two spheres by using one and the same undifferentiated tern 'phonostylistics' (Lautstilistik) for the discipline examining both of them. There are two important maxims of modern functionalist linguistics which owe, if not their origin, then certainly their widespread acknowledgement to Laziczius's inspiration: first, that emotively functioning phonic facts are just as conventional in the given language community as are the phonic facts serving the purposes of 'pure', i.e. non-emotional communication, and second, that Laziczius's conclusions concerning the phonic level of language should also be applied to its higher levels, especially to the grammatical. In other words, any deviation from the established grammatical regularity is 10 Projet de terminologie phonologique standardisée. Travaux du Cercle Linguis*ique de Prague 4 (1931): 309—323. 11 Already in pre-structuralist models of language emotive expressions used to attract linguists' attention (see, e. g., V. MACHEK, Studie о tvofení vyrazu expresivních. Praha 1930; BRITTA М. CHARLESTON, Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means of Expression in Modern English. Bern 1960). On account of their non-structuralist approach they necessarily lack the hierarchical perspective. 18 KARL BÜHLER, Sprachtheorie (Jena 1934). Bühler's model was;, of course later supplemented or otherwise modified (e. g. by Jakobson and K. Horálek). Still, in its gross outlines it preserves its usefulness. 13 N. S. TRUBETZKOY, Grundzüge der Phonologic (Travaux du CLP 7, Prague 1939), pp. 28ff.
