Rit (Vísindafélag Íslendinga) - 01.06.1970, Page 100

98
2.3. While de Saussure’s distinction of form and substance
has thus directed linguistic attention to the formal inter-
relationships of linguistic entities, as opposed to their material
properties, it may at the same time be said to have in general
served to bring the traditional phonetic problems into clearer
perspective. In historical phonology, too, this has helped to
crystallize the question of the role of the organs of speech in
sound change. Emphasis has been laid on the importance,
for the evolution of language, of the fundamental antinomy
between the human needs of communication and expression
and the natural inertia of man, the latter referring, in par-
ticular, to the speech organs and their anatomical and physio-
logical properties (see, especially, Martinet 1955:94-97).
However, one of the terms of this antinomy, viz., human
inertia, including the natural limitations of the speech organs,
must be considered a constant; the anatomical and physiolog-
ical properties of the organs involved are ever-present and
invariable factors and cannot, therefore, alone account for
the diversity of phonological evolution. Their importance is
necessarily restricted to the role of permanent elements in
the general conditioning of phonological development. They
can therefore at most contribute to the answer of the less
ambitious question how, not of the question why, a change
takes place. If the fundamental antinomy is at all accepted,
the more ambitious why has to be considered as being deter-
mined by the needs of communication, which must then be
regarded as a variable.
As regards the constant, on the other hand, it must not
be forgotten that the speech organs consist not only of the
organs of speech production, but also of those of speech recep-
tion and of speech perception (and speech conception). In
other words, not only the articulatory, but also the acoustico-
aural, and even the perceptual (neural), aspect of speech must
be taken into consideration. And while the mechanism of the
first is relatively well understood, too much still remains un-
certain about the others.