The traditional interpretation of [y] and [w] in Spanish forms like bien ‘well’ and bueno ‘good’ has been to assign them to the phonemes /i/ and /u/. The semivowel allophone of each of these vowel phonemes is stated to occur in the following positions: SV, VSV, CSV, VSC, VS; examples (from Chavarría-Aguilar): huerta, Tehuantepec, puerta, jaula, hoy. All analysts, however, agree that there are still other allophones that cannot be assigned to /i/ and /u/, but must be assigned to a phoneme /y/ (variously transcribed as /j, y, ž/), though with the exception of King they do not describe any allophones that must be assigned to /w/ and therefore set up no such phoneme. The assignment of [y] and [w] to /i/ and /u/ therefore achieves at best only the economy that results from having no /w/ in the phoneme inventory. Other possible advantages, such as those of pattern congruity, will be examined hereafter by comparison with the analysis to be suggested here.

In a comparison of the linguistic results of Experiments I, II, and III, it will be important to have a measure of the relative difficulty of the learning under each of these three sets of conditions. In Experiments I and II, where the two visual factors of shape and color are exactly correlated with specific and uniformly recurring sound-sequences, it is also possible to compare the rates and degrees of learning of (1) the syllables corresponding to shape and color, and (2) the names corresponding to the 14 figures of the learning series and those corresponding to the 2 figures which occurred only in the recognition series. By correct response is meant a response to a figure substantially identical with the name which was taught to the subject in the learning series, or, in the case of the two figures which did not occur in the learning series, a response showing a correct analysis of the factors of shape and color in accordance with the categories of the linguistic system of the experiment. Many responses have been counted as correct, for the purposes of these comparisons, which deviate phonetically to some extent from the words taught, but which are nevertheless unmistakeable variants of these words.

In Language 10. 43ff. (1934), R. G. Kent, in his review of L. Bloomfield's Language (New York, 1933), mentions Bloomfield's transcription of the Russian word for city, gorod. Bloomfield writes ['gorot], while Kent would prefer ['gort]. The justification given to Kent by Bloomfield for his transcription is: 'Weakening of unstressed syllables in Russian is sufficiently indicated when the place of accent is given, i.e., ['gorot] but plural [goro'da] tells as much as ['gorǝt, gǝra'da]: in fact, to the persons who know the rule which you cite, it tells more, since each of these transcriptions indicates both the accented and the unstressed forms of each vowel-phoneme, whereas ['gort], for instance, fails to tell whether the second syllable has [o] or [a] or [i].'

Developments in linguistic theory have shed important light upon the theory and practice of translation, resulting in the recognition that translating is basically not a process of matching surface forms by rules of correspondence, but rather a more complex procedure involving analysis, transfer, and restructuring. Such linguistic procedures as transformation and componential analysis provide far more satisfactory bases for translation than have existed in the past. At the same time, the theory of translation is able to provide linguistic science with new insights into structure and with improved methods for testing hypotheses.