We have thus two purposes in breaking our segments into simultaneous components: Primarily, we wish to find the distributionally independent factors (e.g. tone-less vowels, and tone by itself) which can be variously combined to yield the segments of chapter 4 [phonemic distinctions]. Secondarily, if we have segments some of whose components (e.g. sibilant position) will later appear to be members of one morpheme, while others of their components (e.g. tone) are members of another co-occurring morpheme, it is desirable that we separate these two groups of components. There is no procedure by which we can easily discover at this stage, when we have no knowledge of the phonemic limitations of the language, what break-down of our segments into independent component factors is most useful; this will be done in chapter 10 [phonemic long components]. There is also no procedure which will tell us at this stage, when we have no knowledge of the morphemes of the language, what components are members of simultaneously-occurring independent morphemes.
- Harris (1951), a pag.52

Segments and components which are dependent on particular phonemic environment, i.e., whose limitations of distribution can be stated in terms of the presence of other phonemes, do not have phonemic status.
- Harris (1951), a pag.116

Components are therefore useful primarily when they are fully defined as to their various lengths and domains in various environments, and when utterances written componentally take full advantage of all abbreviations permitted by the component definitions, rather than spell out the successive phonemes in component representation. For example, if — is defined as a cluster-long devoicing component, we do not have to specify its length in each environment, since the length is determined by the environment: if it is more convenient, we can as readily write /æz'be — zdƏ — z/ as / æz'bezdƏz/ for 'asbestos'.
- Harris (1951), a pag.134

Components can also be so set up as to make phonemically different alternants of one morpheme turn out to be componentally identical. When written componentally, then, the morpheme does not have different alternants, and a morphophonemic statement is thus avoided. An example of this is seen […] where the basis for identical componental writings is the fact that a component of one morpheme is so defined as to extend over another morpheme which itself does not contain the component.
- Harris (1951), a pag.134, n.20

The components may indeed be viewed not as new elements, but as symbols for relations among phonemes much as phonemes are symbols of relations among segments.
- Harris (1951), a pag.135

When all the phonemes of a language have been expressed as combinations of components, the components constitute a distributionally preferred set of basic elements for linguistic description.
- Harris (1951), a pag.136

The components differ from the phonemes (or residues) both in the variety of their lengths and in the fact that various numbers of them may occur over any one unit length.
- Harris (1951), a pag.136

[…] once a particular component, in combination with others, replaces a phoneme, that component will occur in every position in which the phoneme had occurred, and in each of these positions it will indicate the occurrence of the speech feature it represents; these unit-length components would not be set up with various definitions in various positions (i.e.with positional variants) because the chief purpose in setting them up is to indicate which speech feature occur characteristically every time a phoneme occurs.
- Harris (1951), a pag.148

The formulae and diagrams may be somewhat simpler when they describe the combinations of components rather than of phonemes, because a larger proportion of the components will be similar to each other in sequential relations. However, graphic provision would have to be made for the fact that components can be combined simultaneously as well as successively.
- Harris (1951), a pag.155

If we brake phonemes up into components, the devoicing morpheme in 'house—to house', 'belief—to believe' […] would consist not in the interchanges of one phoneme for another, but in a single devoicing component: 'believe' + morphemic segment consisting of devoicing component = 'belief'.
- Harris (1951), a pag.169

Each component represents not only any morpheme which occurs in a particular environment, but also the features which differentiate that environment from the environment of other morphemes. Therefore, each component is long, though in some environments it may involve only the morpheme class in question (in positions where that morpheme sub-class does not differ environmentally from other sub-classes of its general class); in the latter environments the component has one-morpheme length. It is therefore necessary to state, in the definition of each component, not only what morpheme (or phonemic sequences) it represents in each environment, but also what its domain is (i.e. over which morpheme classes, residues, or positions it operates) in each environment. Each morpheme can now be identified by a combination of components (plus its own particular residue, if any), each component indicating some of the special limitations of occurrence which this morpheme (or its class) has, but which other morphemes or classes do not. However, it is not in general convenient to identify particular phonemic parts of each morpheme with particular components, because no regularity can be obtained in the phonemic sequences that would be associated with each component. This results from the fact that the components […] are elements which are independent of each other. The method used here in setting up the components is comparable to that used to establish the morphemicsegments: all interdependent features are included in one element, and each element is therefore independent (in as many environments as possible) of the other elements […]. Therefore, rather than define the components in terms of their phonemic content in each environment, and thus supersede the morphemes entirely, we define the components in terms of morphemes and morpheme classes, leaving these, as before, to be ultimately defined in terms of phonemic sequences in particular environments. The fact that in many positions one or another of the components may extend over more than one morpheme (over the morpheme in question and over at least one morpheme of the diagnostic environment) makes it all the more undesirable to identify the components phonemically. The length variability of the components, which raises them above the restrictions of the single morpheme, is the feature in which they differ fundamentally from a mere noting of the relations among morpheme classes. Because of their length, these components express not only the relation among morphemes which substitute for each other in a particular environment, but also the relation between these morphemes and the differentiating feature of that environment.
- Harris (1951), a pag.309

[…] the components can be considered as indicating relations among morphemes or classes. They thus closely parallel, though in the form of elements rather than of relations or classes, the grammatical constructs known as categories […].
- Harris (1951), a pag.311, n.20

When each member of a phoneme is broken up into simultaneous portions some of which extend, at least in some environments, over more than one phoneme length […], the classes may be called components; each phoneme is then definable as a unique combination of components.
- Harris (1951), a pag.361