Squib published in:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 41:1 (2018) ► pp. 152–159
General section

The origin of the valency metaphor in linguistics

| University of Warsaw | Polish Academy of Sciences

The aim of this squib is to question the popular belief that the metaphor of valency was introduced to linguistics by Lucien Tesnière in the middle of 20th century. Rather, we show that it was first used by Charles Peirce half a century earlier, leading to apparently independent – but probably mediated by Roman Jakobson – ‘discoveries’ of this metaphor by linguists in the Soviet Union, Holland, USA and indeed France.

Keywords: valency, Tesnière, Peirce, Jakobson
Published online: 27 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00017.prz
References
Ágel, V.
(2000) Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ágel, V., Eichinger, L., Eroms, H. -W., Hellwig, P., Heringer, H. -J., & Lobin, H.
(Eds.) (2003) Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch Der Zeitgenösischen Forschung. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ajdukiewicz, K.
(1935) Die syntaktische Konnexität. Studia Philosophica, 11, 1–27.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O.
(1991) Charles S. Peirce’s work on relatives and modern valency grammar. Cruzeiro Semiotico, 151, 69–82.Google Scholar
Baum, R.
(1976) Dependenzgrammatik: Tesnières Modell der Sprachbeschreibung in wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher und kritischer Sicht. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, R.
(1994) Roman Jakobson: Life, Language, Art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bühler, K.
(1934) Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
(2008) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell, 6th edition. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. W.
(1949) Structurele Syntaxis. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Engel, U.
(2003) Das valenzkonzept in der Grammatikographie: ein Überblick. In V. Ágel et al. (2003), pp. 1309–1330.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.
(1997) German-English Verb Valency: A Contrastive Analysis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hellan, L., Malchukov, A., & Cennamo, M.
(2017) Issues in contrastive valency studies. In L. Hellan, A. Malchukov, & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F.
(1958) A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. O.
(1949) The phonemic and grammatical aspects of language and their interaction. In Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Linguistes, (pp. 5–18). Paris.Google Scholar
(1965) Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes, 13(51), 21–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1971) Results of a joint conference of anthropologists and linguists. In Selected Writings II, (pp. 554–567). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1977) A few remarks on Peirce, pathfinder in the science of language. MLN, 92(5), 1026–1032. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1980) The Framework of Language. Michigan Studies in Humanities.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1937) Analytic Syntax. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kacnel’son, S. D.
(1948) O grammatičeskoj kategorii. Vestnik Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 21, 114–134.Google Scholar
(1987) K ponjatiju tipov valentnosti. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 31, 20–32.Google Scholar
Kahane, S., & Osborne, T.
(2015) Translators’ introduction. In L. Tesnière (2015), pp. xxix–lxxiii. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liszka, J. J., Battistella, E., & Haley, M.
(2006) Linguistics and semiotics II: C. S. Peirce’s influence on 20th-century linguistics. In S. Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, H. -J. Niederehe, & K. Versteegh (Eds.), History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, (pp. 2589–2599). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S., & Parodi, C.
(2008) Key Terms in Syntax and Syntactic Theory. Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Nübler, N.
(2003) Kontrastive Fallstudie: Deutsch – Russisch. In V. Ágel et al. (2003), pp. 1207–1214.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S.
(1897) The logic of relatives. The Monist VII(2), 161–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pongó, S.
(2003) Die Wertigkeitsmetapher. In V. Ágel et al. (2003), pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W.
(2006) Archaeological Semiotics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, K.
(2003) Metataxe: ein Dependenzmodell für die computerlinguistische Praxis. In V. Ágel et al. (2003), pp. 636–660.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L.
(1953) Esquisse d’une Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
(1959) Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
(2015) Elements of Structural Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xrakovskij, V. S.
(2003) Valenz und Sprachtypologie. In V. Ágel et al. (2003), pp. 444–457.Google Scholar