- Email: [email protected]
Agrammatic aphasia: A cross-language narrative sourcebook
332
Review
language vs. use of language, E(xterna1) vs. I(nternal) language, the core vs. the periphery of the grammar (and how it relates to markedness) are also made in this chapter. Botha then explains how the principles and parameters of Chomsky’s rule system work and gives an account of the debate surrounding the modularity of mind. Fortunately for his readers, Botha very carefully lists all these topics (and many more) in the table of contents and index making the book a useful reference work. ‘The terrain of theory’ is the title Botha gives to Chapter Three. Its three main sections are on the terminological problems surrounding the use of the word theory to mean a grammar of language, linguistic universals and grammars (generative and others). This chapter, like all the others, is well-organized and probably quite useful to anyone unfamiliar with this area of generative linguistics. Chapter Four, ‘The Marshes of Method’, is probably most interesting to those concerned with the history of linguistics and the development of methodology in this century. Botha discusses the ontological status of various Chomskyan theories and describes Chomsky’s differences with Skinner, McCawley, Katz, Quine, Harman, Searle, George Lakoff, Newmeyer and others (including even earlier incarnations of Chomsky himself). For a rather different perspective on the material in this chapter, one should look at Newmeyer 1986 and various of the articles in Newmeyer 1988. Finally something needs to be said about the style Botha adopted for this book. Depending on predilection and bias, the reader will either love it or hate it. The running commentary (with a great deal of alliteration - e.g. ‘Major Movers are put under a microscope, both their manoeuvres and their motives being meticulously monitored by the Master’, p. 15 1) is difficult to read at first (because of the distracting style) but it gets easier with time. All in all, despite the offputting style, the book is well worth reading.
References Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1986. Linguistic theory in America. New York: Academic Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1988. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lise Menn and Loraine Obler (in association with Gabriele Miceli) (eds.), Agrammatic Aphasia: A Cross-Language Narrative Sourcebook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990. Volumes I, II and III. 1985 pp. Reviewed by Marjorie Perlman Larch, Department of Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck College, 43 Gordon Square, London WC1 OPD, UK. Based on the model acquisition, Agrammatic
of Slobin’s (1985) cross-language study of child language Aphasia: A Cross-Language Narrative Sourcebook is the first
&ViOVS
333
example of a cross-language corpus collection in the field of linguistic aphasiology. This sourcebook is the product of the Cross-Language Aphasia Study (CLAS) group led by Lise Menn and Loraine Obler. At the outset, I must admit to having an interest in the sourcebook having contributed to it, but as I can only answer for five pages out of the nearly two thousand, I believe I can present an objective view. The research goal of the CLAS project is to identify dissociations along linguistic lines between two patients within a language which can serve as evidence for levels and components of the language processing system. The stronger claim, which could only be tested in an even larger cross-language research enterprise than this one, for the functional structure of the brain’s language capacity may be argued on the grounds of converging evidence of patterned associations found in aphasic speakers of structurally dissimilar languages. To tackle this goal is ambitious, and the success achieved in designing, coordinating and analysing evidence which provides this first step towards an answer is to be applauded. Cross-language studies help to resolve characterizations of aphasic deficits in a given language where the level of impairment is difficult to determine due to ambiguity, opacity and under-specification in that grammar. This has particularly been true of attempts to characterize agrammatic disorders in English, and as such was a direct motivation for this particular work. In her preface, Berndt gives an apt precis of the agrammatics’ difficulties and the special relevance they hold for theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics: ‘In the context of a fairly well-preserved ability to communicate meanings, the agrammatic patient appears to have lost some very essential part of the language system[‘s] . . . generative capacity’ (p. xxv). Menn and Obler characterize the agrammatic aphasics’ language production as a deficit in one of the most basic language abilities: the ability to put words into constructions with one another in order to convey meaning beyond what would be conveyed by naming the referents in a list. The editors see their task as providing crucial evidence for key questions in modelling the functional organization of the grammar. Question: ‘If there are functional subcomponents of language processing, do they in fact correspond to such descriptive subcategories of grammar as word-order vs. morphology, or are these superficial distinctions as far as brain functions are concerned? . . . Here, much can be expected from studies of aphasia, and from the present project in particular’ (p. 5). Menn and Obler provide a survey of different theoretical approaches to the difficulties of characterizing the linguistic nature of the agrammatic disorder. This overview serves as an index to those ideas used to interpret the findings presented by the various language investigators. They present in detail both sides of the debate on aphasia as an instance of disordered language processing vs. impaired/lost linguistic knowledge. They consider the various stages of processing or levels of linguistic representations which have been hypothesized as the source of the deficit(s). This aptly sets the theoretical framework within which the CLAS data can serve as significant evidence.
334
Reviews
This is an amazing three-volume archive of a controlled collection of spontaneous speech from closely matched agrammatic aphasic patients and ‘normal’ control subjects in 14 languages - all cross-linguistically analyzed with English. The central tasks which comprise the narratives collected for this sourcebook were four types of narrative: (1) a folk tale (Little Red Riding Hood was used by the majority as it is widely known cross-culturally), (2) the history of the patients’ illness (controls produced a description of their work/daily routine), (3) a description of a complex action picture, and (4) the description of four sequences of events (like comic strips). Each subject produced a written version of the same folk story they had previously told from memory. Finally, subjects were asked to read aloud the folk story that they had spontaneously produced. This ensures parallel production of narrative language in speech, writing and reading for comparison. Each case is presented in identical fashion to allow for direct comparison between language productions of agrammatics and controls within and across languages. The texts are presented in a complete and unabridged form so they can be analyzed for clues as to the nature of the agrammatic impairment by any linguist who wishes to embark on such research. To this end, the whole corpus of each subject is published in their own language with transcriptions of running spontaneous speech productions, marked for pauses, hesitations, etc. Interlinear morphemic translations into English are provided for each, with erroneous forms analyzed grammatically, expected target forms supplied and English equivalents given. A short ‘micro-grammar’ is provided for each language detailing the relevant morphosyntactic structures for the uninitiated. The methodology of data collection, transcription and categories defined for analysis are all carefully detailed. Clinical neurological notes on the history of patients’ illness and computed tomography brain scans are provided to give definitive behavioural and anatomical data (Vanier and Caplan). Two agrammatic case studies in English (Menn), Dutch (Kolk, Hehng and Keyser), German (Stark and Dressler), Icelandic (Magnusdottir and Thrainsson), Swedish (Ahlsen and Dravins), French (Nespoulous, Dordain, Perron, Jarema and Chazal), and Italian (Miceli and Mazzucchi) are contained in Volume I. Volume II contains the case studies in Polish (Jarema and Kadzielawa), SerboCroatian [Sic] (Zei and Sikic), Hindi (Bhatnagar), Finnish (Niemi, Laine, Hanninen and Koivuselkl-Sallinen), Hebrew (Baharav), Chinese (Packard), and Japanese (plus two additional Japanese cases of crossed - i.e. right hemisphere, aphasia) (Sasanuma, Kamio and Kubota). This volume also includes comparative chapters on ‘Word order in the Germanic languages: Subject-verb or verb-second. 7 Evidence from Swedish and Icelandic’ (Comrie); ‘Models of language processing’ (Goodglass); and a concluding synthetic summary of findings and theoretical implications by Menn and Obler. The transcriptions of the matched ‘normal’ control subjects for each of the 14 languages studied is contained in Volume III. Although the contents of all three volumes, a list of contributors as well as a very helpful list of abbreviations is included
Reviews
335
in each, the index and bibliography are only found at the end of Volume III. This is somewhat of an inconvenience as it requires that all the books be used simultaneously. The volumes are printed and bound solidly to a standard rarely achieved in present academic texts. This sourcebook of aphasic corpora provides an entree into an area of research previously limited to clinical researchers in large teaching hospitals. As only a small portion of the psycholinguistic community has direct access to patients, publication of these texts and analyses affords students and scholars from any discipline and setting the opportunity to investigate hypotheses about language processing in aphasics. To underscore their commitment to the sourcebook being used as a research tool by others, the corpus is even available in computer-readable form from the publishers. Copies of the audio tape recordings of the subjects are also available to scholars. There is great care and concern for methodological issues throughout. The sourcebook describes how patients and control subjects were selected, the tasks that were presented, the data analysis and statistical representation of results. The intention is that this study could, and indeed should be, replicated by others and in other languages. There is the express intention by those working on the CLAS project that this is an ongoing work which the reader is implored to participate and contribute. In detailing the procedures which defined the CLAS collaborators’ interlinear transcription methods, Menn and Obler underscore their belief that ‘there is no such thing as a neutral analysis’. They give a detailed description of the biases and assumptions that were built into the approach that the CLAS group used ‘so that readers may be aware of them and decide how to compensate for them’. Menn and Obler compel the researchers who they hope will subsequently use these materials for their own ends to be equally as clear, honest and precise: ‘We hope that the readers will also be led to consider carefully the biases their own methods introduce, and to describe them as we have described ours . ..’ (p. 24). The history of this international undertaking which was initiated in 1981, completed 1987 with three years in press, testifies to the heroic job of the academic editors Menn and Obler along with 34 co-researchers and contributors, as well as their editorial assistant M. O’Connor and the technical editing by Benjamins. The publishers must be applauded for being willing to take on such a massive scholarly project; the complete three-volume set runs to 1,985 pages. The work was extremely labourintensive to produce, but it culminated in a superb archival reference book. Unfortunately, in virtue of its cost the sourcebook may be purchased primarily by libraries. There is not sufficient space in this review to discuss in depth the illuminating findings brought to light by the study of these agrammatic speakers of such a wide range of structurally distinct languages. The data can be taken to argue for certain formulations of the aphasic deficit. Alternatively, it may be valuable evidence for addressing theoretical questions pertaining to grammar. Anyone interested in linguistic aphasiology and neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive science or universal grammar should consider ways to obtain a copy of this
336
Reviews
fascinating book. By the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, linguists might argue that their colleagues in psychology and neuroscience could jointly support a request for the purchase of these books. As it is a uniquely valuable research tool, it is possible that the sourcebook could be construed as necessary research materials and their cost be budgeted for in research grants.
James Fife, The Semantics of the Welsh Verb. A Cognitive Approach. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1990. 547 pp. & 35.00. Reviewed by John R. Taylor, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa. As far as I am aware, the work under review is the first book-length publication to apply Langacker’s model of cognitive grammar to the description of a substantial fragment of a single language. The subject matter of the book is the verbal group in modern colloquial Welsh. After a short, first chapter, which gives some background on varieties of Welsh, and the status of Welsh linguistic studies, Chapter 2 introduces some basic notions of cognitive grammar. The main sources, perforce, are Langacker’s pre-1988 publications, although Fife appears to have had access to pre-published versions of Langacker (1991). There follow four weighty chapters, which deal in considerable depth with (i) the verbal paradigms in Welsh, i.e. the so-called ‘present’, ‘past’, and ‘imperfect’ endings (Ch. 3); (ii) the auxiliaries (gwneud ‘do’, cael ‘get’, bod ‘be’, etc.), and the constructions in which they are used (Ch. 4); (iii) various periphrastic expressions of aspect, involving the use of bod ‘be’ in association with a prepositionlike element (am ‘for’, ar ‘on’, heb ‘without’, i ‘to’, wedi ‘after’, yn ‘in’, etc.) and a nominalised verb (Ch. 5); and (iv) a variety of passive constructions (Ch. 6). It is legitimate to ask, at the outset, what one should, or could, expect from a cognitive grammar account of these topics. To put it another way: What is the distinctive contribution (the major selling point, if one will) of a cognitive grammar account likely to be? A full answer to these questions would require a detailed exposition of Langacker’s approach - something which would obviously be inappropriate in the present review. I shall content myself, therefore, with a few very general remarks on cognitive grammar, especially as these pertain to an assessment of Fife’s treatment of the Welsh verbals. The basic assumption of cognitive grammar is that a language may be exhaustively characterised as ‘an open-ended set of linguistic signs [...I each of which associates a semantic representation of some kind with a phonological representation’ (Langacker 1987: 11). While the affinity with the Saussurian ‘signe linguistique’ will be obvious, Langacker construes ‘sign’, or ‘symbolic unit’, rather more broadly than Saussure appears to have done, to comprise, not only the words and bound morphemes of a
Review
language vs. use of language, E(xterna1) vs. I(nternal) language, the core vs. the periphery of the grammar (and how it relates to markedness) are also made in this chapter. Botha then explains how the principles and parameters of Chomsky’s rule system work and gives an account of the debate surrounding the modularity of mind. Fortunately for his readers, Botha very carefully lists all these topics (and many more) in the table of contents and index making the book a useful reference work. ‘The terrain of theory’ is the title Botha gives to Chapter Three. Its three main sections are on the terminological problems surrounding the use of the word theory to mean a grammar of language, linguistic universals and grammars (generative and others). This chapter, like all the others, is well-organized and probably quite useful to anyone unfamiliar with this area of generative linguistics. Chapter Four, ‘The Marshes of Method’, is probably most interesting to those concerned with the history of linguistics and the development of methodology in this century. Botha discusses the ontological status of various Chomskyan theories and describes Chomsky’s differences with Skinner, McCawley, Katz, Quine, Harman, Searle, George Lakoff, Newmeyer and others (including even earlier incarnations of Chomsky himself). For a rather different perspective on the material in this chapter, one should look at Newmeyer 1986 and various of the articles in Newmeyer 1988. Finally something needs to be said about the style Botha adopted for this book. Depending on predilection and bias, the reader will either love it or hate it. The running commentary (with a great deal of alliteration - e.g. ‘Major Movers are put under a microscope, both their manoeuvres and their motives being meticulously monitored by the Master’, p. 15 1) is difficult to read at first (because of the distracting style) but it gets easier with time. All in all, despite the offputting style, the book is well worth reading.
References Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1986. Linguistic theory in America. New York: Academic Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J., 1988. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lise Menn and Loraine Obler (in association with Gabriele Miceli) (eds.), Agrammatic Aphasia: A Cross-Language Narrative Sourcebook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990. Volumes I, II and III. 1985 pp. Reviewed by Marjorie Perlman Larch, Department of Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck College, 43 Gordon Square, London WC1 OPD, UK. Based on the model acquisition, Agrammatic
of Slobin’s (1985) cross-language study of child language Aphasia: A Cross-Language Narrative Sourcebook is the first
&ViOVS
333
example of a cross-language corpus collection in the field of linguistic aphasiology. This sourcebook is the product of the Cross-Language Aphasia Study (CLAS) group led by Lise Menn and Loraine Obler. At the outset, I must admit to having an interest in the sourcebook having contributed to it, but as I can only answer for five pages out of the nearly two thousand, I believe I can present an objective view. The research goal of the CLAS project is to identify dissociations along linguistic lines between two patients within a language which can serve as evidence for levels and components of the language processing system. The stronger claim, which could only be tested in an even larger cross-language research enterprise than this one, for the functional structure of the brain’s language capacity may be argued on the grounds of converging evidence of patterned associations found in aphasic speakers of structurally dissimilar languages. To tackle this goal is ambitious, and the success achieved in designing, coordinating and analysing evidence which provides this first step towards an answer is to be applauded. Cross-language studies help to resolve characterizations of aphasic deficits in a given language where the level of impairment is difficult to determine due to ambiguity, opacity and under-specification in that grammar. This has particularly been true of attempts to characterize agrammatic disorders in English, and as such was a direct motivation for this particular work. In her preface, Berndt gives an apt precis of the agrammatics’ difficulties and the special relevance they hold for theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics: ‘In the context of a fairly well-preserved ability to communicate meanings, the agrammatic patient appears to have lost some very essential part of the language system[‘s] . . . generative capacity’ (p. xxv). Menn and Obler characterize the agrammatic aphasics’ language production as a deficit in one of the most basic language abilities: the ability to put words into constructions with one another in order to convey meaning beyond what would be conveyed by naming the referents in a list. The editors see their task as providing crucial evidence for key questions in modelling the functional organization of the grammar. Question: ‘If there are functional subcomponents of language processing, do they in fact correspond to such descriptive subcategories of grammar as word-order vs. morphology, or are these superficial distinctions as far as brain functions are concerned? . . . Here, much can be expected from studies of aphasia, and from the present project in particular’ (p. 5). Menn and Obler provide a survey of different theoretical approaches to the difficulties of characterizing the linguistic nature of the agrammatic disorder. This overview serves as an index to those ideas used to interpret the findings presented by the various language investigators. They present in detail both sides of the debate on aphasia as an instance of disordered language processing vs. impaired/lost linguistic knowledge. They consider the various stages of processing or levels of linguistic representations which have been hypothesized as the source of the deficit(s). This aptly sets the theoretical framework within which the CLAS data can serve as significant evidence.
334
Reviews
This is an amazing three-volume archive of a controlled collection of spontaneous speech from closely matched agrammatic aphasic patients and ‘normal’ control subjects in 14 languages - all cross-linguistically analyzed with English. The central tasks which comprise the narratives collected for this sourcebook were four types of narrative: (1) a folk tale (Little Red Riding Hood was used by the majority as it is widely known cross-culturally), (2) the history of the patients’ illness (controls produced a description of their work/daily routine), (3) a description of a complex action picture, and (4) the description of four sequences of events (like comic strips). Each subject produced a written version of the same folk story they had previously told from memory. Finally, subjects were asked to read aloud the folk story that they had spontaneously produced. This ensures parallel production of narrative language in speech, writing and reading for comparison. Each case is presented in identical fashion to allow for direct comparison between language productions of agrammatics and controls within and across languages. The texts are presented in a complete and unabridged form so they can be analyzed for clues as to the nature of the agrammatic impairment by any linguist who wishes to embark on such research. To this end, the whole corpus of each subject is published in their own language with transcriptions of running spontaneous speech productions, marked for pauses, hesitations, etc. Interlinear morphemic translations into English are provided for each, with erroneous forms analyzed grammatically, expected target forms supplied and English equivalents given. A short ‘micro-grammar’ is provided for each language detailing the relevant morphosyntactic structures for the uninitiated. The methodology of data collection, transcription and categories defined for analysis are all carefully detailed. Clinical neurological notes on the history of patients’ illness and computed tomography brain scans are provided to give definitive behavioural and anatomical data (Vanier and Caplan). Two agrammatic case studies in English (Menn), Dutch (Kolk, Hehng and Keyser), German (Stark and Dressler), Icelandic (Magnusdottir and Thrainsson), Swedish (Ahlsen and Dravins), French (Nespoulous, Dordain, Perron, Jarema and Chazal), and Italian (Miceli and Mazzucchi) are contained in Volume I. Volume II contains the case studies in Polish (Jarema and Kadzielawa), SerboCroatian [Sic] (Zei and Sikic), Hindi (Bhatnagar), Finnish (Niemi, Laine, Hanninen and Koivuselkl-Sallinen), Hebrew (Baharav), Chinese (Packard), and Japanese (plus two additional Japanese cases of crossed - i.e. right hemisphere, aphasia) (Sasanuma, Kamio and Kubota). This volume also includes comparative chapters on ‘Word order in the Germanic languages: Subject-verb or verb-second. 7 Evidence from Swedish and Icelandic’ (Comrie); ‘Models of language processing’ (Goodglass); and a concluding synthetic summary of findings and theoretical implications by Menn and Obler. The transcriptions of the matched ‘normal’ control subjects for each of the 14 languages studied is contained in Volume III. Although the contents of all three volumes, a list of contributors as well as a very helpful list of abbreviations is included
Reviews
335
in each, the index and bibliography are only found at the end of Volume III. This is somewhat of an inconvenience as it requires that all the books be used simultaneously. The volumes are printed and bound solidly to a standard rarely achieved in present academic texts. This sourcebook of aphasic corpora provides an entree into an area of research previously limited to clinical researchers in large teaching hospitals. As only a small portion of the psycholinguistic community has direct access to patients, publication of these texts and analyses affords students and scholars from any discipline and setting the opportunity to investigate hypotheses about language processing in aphasics. To underscore their commitment to the sourcebook being used as a research tool by others, the corpus is even available in computer-readable form from the publishers. Copies of the audio tape recordings of the subjects are also available to scholars. There is great care and concern for methodological issues throughout. The sourcebook describes how patients and control subjects were selected, the tasks that were presented, the data analysis and statistical representation of results. The intention is that this study could, and indeed should be, replicated by others and in other languages. There is the express intention by those working on the CLAS project that this is an ongoing work which the reader is implored to participate and contribute. In detailing the procedures which defined the CLAS collaborators’ interlinear transcription methods, Menn and Obler underscore their belief that ‘there is no such thing as a neutral analysis’. They give a detailed description of the biases and assumptions that were built into the approach that the CLAS group used ‘so that readers may be aware of them and decide how to compensate for them’. Menn and Obler compel the researchers who they hope will subsequently use these materials for their own ends to be equally as clear, honest and precise: ‘We hope that the readers will also be led to consider carefully the biases their own methods introduce, and to describe them as we have described ours . ..’ (p. 24). The history of this international undertaking which was initiated in 1981, completed 1987 with three years in press, testifies to the heroic job of the academic editors Menn and Obler along with 34 co-researchers and contributors, as well as their editorial assistant M. O’Connor and the technical editing by Benjamins. The publishers must be applauded for being willing to take on such a massive scholarly project; the complete three-volume set runs to 1,985 pages. The work was extremely labourintensive to produce, but it culminated in a superb archival reference book. Unfortunately, in virtue of its cost the sourcebook may be purchased primarily by libraries. There is not sufficient space in this review to discuss in depth the illuminating findings brought to light by the study of these agrammatic speakers of such a wide range of structurally distinct languages. The data can be taken to argue for certain formulations of the aphasic deficit. Alternatively, it may be valuable evidence for addressing theoretical questions pertaining to grammar. Anyone interested in linguistic aphasiology and neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive science or universal grammar should consider ways to obtain a copy of this
336
Reviews
fascinating book. By the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, linguists might argue that their colleagues in psychology and neuroscience could jointly support a request for the purchase of these books. As it is a uniquely valuable research tool, it is possible that the sourcebook could be construed as necessary research materials and their cost be budgeted for in research grants.
James Fife, The Semantics of the Welsh Verb. A Cognitive Approach. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1990. 547 pp. & 35.00. Reviewed by John R. Taylor, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa. As far as I am aware, the work under review is the first book-length publication to apply Langacker’s model of cognitive grammar to the description of a substantial fragment of a single language. The subject matter of the book is the verbal group in modern colloquial Welsh. After a short, first chapter, which gives some background on varieties of Welsh, and the status of Welsh linguistic studies, Chapter 2 introduces some basic notions of cognitive grammar. The main sources, perforce, are Langacker’s pre-1988 publications, although Fife appears to have had access to pre-published versions of Langacker (1991). There follow four weighty chapters, which deal in considerable depth with (i) the verbal paradigms in Welsh, i.e. the so-called ‘present’, ‘past’, and ‘imperfect’ endings (Ch. 3); (ii) the auxiliaries (gwneud ‘do’, cael ‘get’, bod ‘be’, etc.), and the constructions in which they are used (Ch. 4); (iii) various periphrastic expressions of aspect, involving the use of bod ‘be’ in association with a prepositionlike element (am ‘for’, ar ‘on’, heb ‘without’, i ‘to’, wedi ‘after’, yn ‘in’, etc.) and a nominalised verb (Ch. 5); and (iv) a variety of passive constructions (Ch. 6). It is legitimate to ask, at the outset, what one should, or could, expect from a cognitive grammar account of these topics. To put it another way: What is the distinctive contribution (the major selling point, if one will) of a cognitive grammar account likely to be? A full answer to these questions would require a detailed exposition of Langacker’s approach - something which would obviously be inappropriate in the present review. I shall content myself, therefore, with a few very general remarks on cognitive grammar, especially as these pertain to an assessment of Fife’s treatment of the Welsh verbals. The basic assumption of cognitive grammar is that a language may be exhaustively characterised as ‘an open-ended set of linguistic signs [...I each of which associates a semantic representation of some kind with a phonological representation’ (Langacker 1987: 11). While the affinity with the Saussurian ‘signe linguistique’ will be obvious, Langacker construes ‘sign’, or ‘symbolic unit’, rather more broadly than Saussure appears to have done, to comprise, not only the words and bound morphemes of a