Analyzing and criticizing de Saussure's theory on langage, langue and parole', the author introduces his own distinction between the features of social habit and the individual features (which include the f. of individual habit, disposition and constitution and the casual f.), both of which, he maintains, are found in de Saussure's ‘parole’ and ‘la partie passive du circuit’, i. e. the psychological and physiological activity of the utterer, the sounds produced thereby and the physiological and psychological activity of the hearer (s). He criticizes Professor Tokieda's linguistic theory in terms of his own concepts ‘utterance’, ‘sentence’, ‘form’;‘utterer’, ‘expresser’, ‘first personer’ and ‘indefinite personer’. The ‘utterance’ is a unique speech-event, which includes the psychological and physiological activity of the utterer and the sounds produced thereby. The recurrent features of social habit in the utterances which are recognized as the repetions of ‘the same words’ by every speaker of a speechcommunity are defined as the ‘linguistic production’. A linguistic production consists of one or more ‘sentences’. A sentence is composed of an ‘intonation-pattern’ marking its end, one or more ‘taxemes’ and ‘forms’.(Cf. the, author's article ‘The analysis of meaning’ in For Roman Jakobson, 1956) The ‘expresser’ of a sentence is, according to the author, theoretically independent from the utterer of the utterance corresponding to the sentence. The ‘word’ is a minimal ‘free form’. The phonetic side of a word is called its ‘shape’, and its semantic side its ‘sememe’. In Japanese, nouns ‘indicate’, verbs and adjectives ‘indicate and express, ’ and enclitics and some suffixes ‘express.’ With relation to the expressing words and forms, it is necessary to discriminate between the ‘first personer’ and the ‘indefinite personer’. For instance, the form sizuka da «(it is) quiet» expresses the first personer's judgment, while the adjective atatakai «warm»expresses the indefinite personer's. The latter can take an interrogative intonation-pattern and make an interrogative sentence, while the former can not.
After O. Böhtlingk described long vowels of Yakut dialect in 1851, Z. Gombocz, in his work Die bulgarisch-türkischer lehnwörter in der ungarischen sprache 1912, against the mechanische Verschmelzung or Zusammenziehungstheorie of W. Radloff and V. Grønbech, set force a new theory of long vowels in proto-Turkic. Later J. Németh, Е. Д. Поливанов, M. Räsänen and L. Ligeti tried to show that Yakut dialect keeps long vowels since a fairly old time, and from about the time of 1930, with the backing of Türkmen dialect, long vowel theory in proto- Turkic has been established. The writer tries to compare, in tabular forms, vowels of the modern dialects of Yakut, Tuva, Koibal Karagas, Xakas, Kašgar, Salar, Kirgiz, Kazax, Cuvaš, Kazan Tatar, Baškir, Taškent, Xiwa, Türkmen and Osman, with the results as for long and short a, i, o, u, ö, ü: (1) Yakut dialect corresponds to Türkmen dialect on the points of long vowels and diphthongs. (2) most words with y and v of Cuvaš dialect contain the preceeding Yakut and Türkmen words. (3) o, u, ö, ü of Baskir and Kazan Tatar dialects correspond respectively to u, o, ü, o of the other dialects. In the oldest inscriptions (732 A.D.), while at ‘horse’, eb ‘house’, ac-‘open’ etc. are written without vowel letters, we can find at ‘name’, ac ‘hungry’, yook-yuok ‘not’, köök-küök ‘blue, sky’ etc. with vowel letters. This is, as V. Thomsen noted in his Samlede Afhandlinger III, p.33, an evidence of the language of the oldest inscriptions with long vowels or diphthongs.In the dictionary Kitabu divan luyat at-turk (11 c.), clear distinction between the words with long and short vowels is made as in Arabic, which all the examples in quetion show as seen in the article (e.g. horse at 189, at- 112;‘name’ at- 3, at- 4-c). Nouns with hyphen indicate derivative forms, and verbs without hyphen imperative. It is notable in this dictionary that the stem vowels lose their length in the derivative forms and that the fact can be observed in the modern Yakut dialect as well. So it might be said that the history of Turkic vowels is that of vowel shortening. Correspondence relations of short i, e and long i in the modern dialects are seen in tabular forms, e.g. e of Xakas, Kazax, Baškir and Kazan Tatar dialects correspond to i of the other dialects and i of Xakas, Baškir and Kazan Tatar to e. This may be derived from [æ] or [ε]. The writer's investigatation into the eight words in the oldest inscriptions that V. Thomsen pointed out to be of narrow é in his works, Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées and “Une lettre meconnues des inscriptions del'Ienissei” has resulted that the words et-, yetmis and eki would be [æt], [jæ-tmi] and [i-ki] from the view points of the forms in the modern dialects and in Divan luyat. It has been estimated that the rest five words, as the table shows, would be of long vowels as [e: l], [e: ∫], [be: l], [be: ∫] and [ke: ∫], with references of the letter i much used for these words in the oldest inscriptions and Divan luyat, and of Yakut i, iä corresponding to Türkmen i, ä. From this fact, he has presumed short [æ] or [ε] to long [e:] or [ie:] in old Turkic, as in English beat [bi: t] to bit [bit] and as in German Lehre [le: ro] to lernen [lεrnen].