The contribution of John Rupert Firth to the history of linguistics 
 and the rejection of the phoneme theory. Angela Senis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris VII - Laboratoire d’Histoire des Théories Linguistiques (UMR 7597)

Though his two main biographies (Rebori 2002; Plug 2008) tend to show an early interest in languages, John Rupert Firth’s initial academic formation was devoted to history. This aspect of his life was to have an everlasting impact on his own career as well as his students’ and colleagues’. Serving in India as an English teacher for the Indian Education Service (1915-1928) eventually reawakened Firth’s interest in language studies. The acculturation stemming from that experience was, according to him (1968:96[1956]), a necessary condition to guarantee both the objectivity and scientific character of his researches, allowing him to shed a new light on occidental linguistics. Soon, his analysis of language met a major obstacle: a necessity to segment statements in order to better apprehend them (1930:182). Choosing a relevant unity for division was a key-step leading to recurring discussions throughout his work. In that prospect, Firth came to consider the “phoneme theory” whose popularity was dramatically increasing among worldwide scientists of the beginning of the XXth century (1968[1955]). The concept was all the more important that he integrated Daniel Jones’ staff in the Department of Phonetics at UCL on his return to Great-Britain (1928). As soon as his first published work, Speech (1930), language is tackled through a historical perspective. In a 1934 paper entitled “The Word Phoneme”, Firth enlarges on the phoneme offering a historiography of the concept. He dates it back to the Kazan School and more specifically to B. de Courtenay and N. Kruszewski. He also analyses the Prague School and the Bloomfieldian perspectives in order to develop a line for the “London School”. Durand (1974:5) points out the ambiguity linked to the existence of two London Schools: D. Jones’, mainly devoted to phonetics, and Firth’s, committed to linguistics in a broader way. The irreconcilable position of both scientists concerning the phoneme theory confirms the necessity of such a dichotomy. Firth does not give a clear definition of the phoneme as if to avoid adding yet another one to those already worked out by other linguists, each and every School favoring its particular acception. This may also be ascribed to the fact that he never published one whole and coherent work exposing thoroughly his theory of language (Bazell 1970:vi; Rebori:2002:165 ; Robins 1961:198). The reader, indeed, has to explore, pick and mingle the elements meant to fit into a definition. As for the “phoneme” Firth’s writings thus point to a “functional phonetic unit” (1930:171; 1957:3[1934]) characterized by “grammatical and lexical functions” (1957:5[1934]) made up of sound variations depending on the context of the utterance (1957:3[1934]). Besides, it should not be confused with a “speech sound” (1930). He establishes a total of 45 phonemes (1930:182) in English. Firth also denounces the lack of universality of the phoneme. The oriental influence of the SOAS, where he had been teaching since 1938 is patent when he points out to the discrepancy between the phoneme and syllabic languages such as Sanskrit (1957:125[1948]) and Southeast Asian languages such as Chinese (1968:32[1953]) or Japanese which he taught as a “restricted language” during World War II (1957:125[1948],182[1950]). The lack of accuracy of the phoneme is but another criticism finding its illustration in the use of different subcategorization such as the “chroneme” and “toneme” coined by Jones in 1944 (1955:38). The relationship between the phoneme and the letter is also problematic. Authors such as Graff (1935) defined the phoneme as a purely phonic element with no tangible materialization. In the usage Firth describes, the reader is confronted with a hypostatization of the concept (1957:21[1935], 126, 147[1948], 220[1951]; 1968:46[1955]), bestowing upon it the concreteness of a letter, the connotation of the corresponding sign interfering in its use. Last but not least, Firth adds a methodological criticism. In his point of view, the acknowledgement of characteristic recurring contexts should come first (1948), even before the identification of phonemes. Contextualization is a fundamental analytic tool for the London School, in phonology as well as at any other level of analysis, and Firth denounces its general absence from the mainstream linguistic analysis (1957 [1934, 1935]; 1968 [1955]). Based upon the limits exposed here, Firth eventually decides to discard the phoneme terminology and to resort instead to the term “'sound' [that] will do less harm” restricting its use “to certain features only of consonants and vowels systematically stated ad hoc for each language” (1957:122, 137[1948]). However categorical his opinion might appear, Firth’s statement should nonetheless be qualified here since he cannot banish completely the terminology when exchanging with other scientists and seems

aware of the limits of his rejection (ibid.). This position puts him at odds with general scientific trends, but echoes the more isolated voices of Jespersen and Hjelmslev (1957:220[1951]; 1968:46[1955]). Besides, Firth develops the concept of phonaesthesia as soon as 1930. It combines sounds with meaning on a sub-morphemic level, such as: SL- in “slug”, “slope”, linked to a “pejorative context of experience” and salivation (1930 :184; 1957:44[1935];1968:92[1956]); “'dark' l sound” (1930:193), using the phonemic terminology, in words like “wobble”, “fiddle” in frequentative, iterative, and diminutive actions… Though it proved to be a major contribution for the London School fostering future corpus studies, Firth does not quite solve the problem he denounced regarding the hypostatization of the phoneme since the phonaestheme seems as deeply linked to the graphic sign. However, it presents the advantage of being based on the “phonetic habits” (1930:180-8) and thus on the context of utterance, which highly lacks in the phoneme theory. It may also be isolated in syllabic languages, phonaesthesia being an important aspect of the Japanese language (1957:125[1948]). Firth’s questioning of principles held for granted by occidental linguists of the beginning of the XXth century led people to doubt and take enough distance to envision the limitations of some concepts, such as the phoneme. His academic formation and his experience both in India and in Africa during WWI, are definitely complementary and allow his acception of language to transcend both his time (the XXth century) and his cultural identity (Englishman studying his own mother tongue). His handling of the so-called “phoneme theory” reflects his general point of view on language and its study. As for him, meaning is the main concern of the linguist (1968:41[1955], 71[1956]) and it must be sought “at all levels of linguistic analysis” (1957:192[1951]) through the context of situation. In this, the phoneme failed to convince him. In that perspective, the phonaestheme appears to be a kind of answer to the phoneme theory as collocation and colligation respectively embody his viewpoint on the lexical and grammatical approaches within what is known as his “contextual theory of meaning”. This particular stance may be seen as one of the first key-steps leading to the birth of Firth’s London School of General linguistics located at SOAS (from 1938 on) taking its scientific independence through a definitive schism from Jones’ London School of Phonetics at UCL. Keywords: J. R. Firth, history, epistemology, phoneme, phonaestheme, context, London School. References:

BAZELL, C. E.; CATFORD, J.C.; HALLIDAY, M. A. K ET ROBINS R. H.: In Memory of J. R. Firth. Ed. London, Longman linguistic library (1966) BLOCH, B.: “A set of postulates for phonemic analysis”, Language, Vol. 24, 1 (1948: 3-46) BLOOMFIELD, L.: Language. New York: Holt (1933:77-78) CHAPMAN, S. & ROUTLEDGE, P. (eds): Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (2005:80-86) COURTENAY, B. (de) : Versuch einer Theorie Phonetisher Alternationen, ein capitel aus der psychophonetik. Ed. Strassburg, Trübner (1895). DURAND, J. & Robinson, D. : “Introduction” in Langages, 8e année, n°34, (1974 : 3-10) FIRTH, J. R.: The Tongues of Men & Speech. Ed. London: Oxford University Press (1964) 
 Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. Ed. London: Oxford University Press (1957) 
 Selected Papers of J. R. Firth, 1952-59. Under the direction of F. R. Palmer. Ed. London, Longmans (1968) GRAFF, W. L.: “Remarks on the phoneme”, American speech, Vol. X, n°2, avril (1935) HJELMSLEV, L.: “Structural Analysis of Language” Studia Linguistica, vol. i (1948) JAKOBSON, R.: Selected Writings: Word and language, II, Volume 2. de Gruyter (1971) JESPERSEN, O.: Linguistica: selected papers in English, French and German. Ed. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard (1933:214) JONES, D.: “Chronemes and Tonemes”, Acta Linguistica, IV, Copenhagen (1944:1-10)
 The Phoneme: its nature and use. Ed. Cambridge (1950) “The History and Meaning of the Term 'Phoneme'”. Le Maître Phonétique (Juil_Dec 1957:1-20) KRUSZEWSKI, N. : Über die Lautabwechslung. Université de Kazan (1881) PLUG, L.: “J. R. Firth: a New Biography”, Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. 106:3 (2008: 337-374) REBORI, V.: “The legacy of J. R. Firth: a report on recent research” in Historiographia Linguistica, vol.29. 1-2, (2002:165-190) ROBINS, R. H.: A Short History of Linguistics. Ed. Longman (1967, 1976) TROUBETZKOY, N.: Grundzüge der Phonologie, Prague, Ed. Cercle Linguistique de Prague (1939) Anleitung zu phonologishen Beschreibungen, Ed. Cercle Linguistique de Prague (1935) TWADELL, W. F.:“On defining the Phoneme” in Language Monograph 16, Linguistic Society of America (1935)