Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания. К 90-летию С. Е. Яхонтова

 642  Hana Třísková   The unit of yùnwèi may be represented by two kinds of sound: one kind is jìng yīnsù 静音素 , or “static speech sounds” (such as [a] , [i] etc.), another kind is dòng yīnsù 动音素 , or “kinetic speech sounds” (such as [a i ] , [a n ] etc.). Let us point out again that both “static” and “kinetic speech sounds” always stand as a single phonological unit, a single yùnwèi (e. g. [a i ] is not analyzed as two phonemes). Each of the three “ w i ” categories has its own inventory of permitted items. At this point we need to mention the approach to phonological analy- sis expounded by the British linguist, J. R. Firth ( † 1960). It lies outside the mainstream of Western phonology, being remarkably akin to the lines of Chi- nese phonological thought. It is the “polysystemic approach” . Linguist Da- vid Crystal characterized it in the following way: “ An approach to linguistic analysis based on the view that language patterns cannot be accounted for in terms of a single system of analytic principles and categories… but that dif- ferent systems may need to be set up at different places within a given level of description ”. In other words, the system of contrasts at one point in a syllabic (or other) structure is established independently of the system of contrasts at other points in this structure. For example, in a CVC structure, one system is operating at the first ‘C’ position, while another system is operating at the second ‘C’ position. Sampson points out the benefits of Firth’s analysis in relation to Chinese [Sampson 1985: 216]. Let us quote several lines, as they neatly make the point we are aiming at: “ …in Mandarin Chinese the only consonants which can occur at the end of a syllable are [n] , [ŋ] , of which the latter is not among the many consonants which can occur syllable-initially. A phonemicist would presumably want to treat [ŋ] as an allophone of one of the initial consonants, but which? —  [k] ? [m] ? — while Firth simply re- cognizes a two-member syllable-final system which is very different from the multi-member syllable-initial system. Firth argues, correctly in my view, that phonemicists are led into error by the nature of European writing systems. A phonemic transcription, after all, represents a fully consistent application of the particular principles of orthography on which European alphabetic scripts happen to be more or less accurately based. It is natural that scholars working with Oriental cultures, many of which had scripts based on other principles and whose traditions of philological discourse were independent of European thought, should be skeptical about elevating their own tribal speech-notation system into an axiom of science. Certainly the Chinese, who had a very old-established vocabulary for discussing the pronunciations of words, would never have described, say, the syllable that we would tran- scribe [nan] , as consisting of a sequence of three segments in which the first and third are identical ”.