***What did Ferdinand de Saussure believe about language?

* What is the structural school of linguistics concerned with?

* How did comparative historical linguistics begin?
* How is linguistics defined?
Ferdinand de Saussure (French pronunciation: [fɛʁdinɑ̃ də soˈsyːʁ]) (26. November 1857 – 22. F
ary 1913) was a Swiss linguist whose ideas laid a foundation for many signific
ant developments in linguistics in the 20th century. Saussure is widely conside
red to be one of the fathers of 20th-century linguistics[1][2] and of semiotics
, and his ideas have had a monumental impact throughout the humanities and socia
l sciences.
Biography
Ferdinand Mongin de Saussure, born in Geneva in 1857, showed early signs of cons
iderable talent and intellectual ability. After a year of studying Latin, Greek,
Sanskrit, and a variety of courses at the University of Geneva, he commenced gr
aduate work at the University of Leipzig in 1876. Two years later at 21 years Sa
ussure studied for a year at Berlin, where he wrote his only full-length work, Mém
oire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes (Dissert
ation on the Primitive Vowel System in Indo-European Languages). He returned to
Leipzig and was awarded his doctorate in 1880. Soon afterwards he relocated to P
aris, where he would lecture on ancient and modern languages. He taught in Paris
for 11 years before returning to Geneva in 1891. Saussure lectured on Sanskrit
and Indo-European at the University of Geneva for the remainder of his life. It
was not until 1906 that Saussure began teaching the Course of General Linguistic
s that would consume the greater part of his attention until his death in 1913 i
n Vufflens-le-Château, VD Switzerland.
Contributions to linguistics
Laryngeal theory
While a student, Saussure published an important work in Indo-European philology
that proposed the existence of a class of sounds in Proto-Indo-European called
laryngeals, outlining what is now known as the "laryngeal theory." It has been a
rgued that the problem he encountered, namely trying to explain how he was able
to make systematic and predictive hypotheses from known linguistic data to unkno
wn linguistic data, stimulated him to develop structuralism.
The Course of General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale)
Saussure's most influential work, the Cours de linguistique générale (Course of Gene
ral Linguistics), was published posthumously in 1916 by former students Charles
Bally and Albert Sechehaye on the basis of notes taken from Saussure's lectures
at the University of Geneva. The Cours became one of the seminal linguistics wor
ks of the twentieth century, not primarily for the content (many of the ideas ha
d been anticipated in the works of other nineteenth-century linguists), but rath
er for the innovative approach that Saussure applied in discussing linguistic ph
enomena.
Saussure made what became a famous distinction between langue (language) and par
ole (speech). Language, for Saussure, is the symbolic system through which we co
mmunicate. Speech refers to actual utterances. Since we can communicate an infin
ite number of utterances, it is the system behind them that is important. In sep
arating language from speaking, we are at the same time separating: (1) what is
social from what is individual; and (2) what is essential from what is accessory
and more or less accidental.
Saussure illustrated this with reference to a chess game. The chess game has its
rules and its pieces and its board. These define the game, which can then be pl
ayed in an effectively limitless number of ways by an infinite number of pairs o
f players. Any particular game of chess is of interest only to the participants.
Thus in linguistics, while we may collect our data from actual instances of spe
ech, the goal is to work back to the system of rules and words that organize the
speech.
The most revolutionary element in Saussure's work is his insistence that languag
es do not produce different versions of the same reality, they in effect produce
different realities. That different languages conceptualize the world in signif
icantly different ways is demonstrated by the fact that even such "physical" or
"natural" phenomena as colors are not the same in different languages. Russian d
oes not have a term for blue. The words poluboi and sinij, which are usually tra
nslated as "light blue" and "dark blue," refer to what are in Russian distinct c
olors, not different shades of the same color. The English word "brown" has no e
quivalent in French. It is translated into brun, marron, or even jeune depending
on the context. In Welsh, the color glas, though often translated as "blue," co
ntains elements that English would identify as "green" or "grey." Because the bo
undaries are placed differently in the two languages the Welsh equivalent of the
English "grey" might be glas or llwyd.
In Saussure’s theory, language is mostly the means of social communication with th
e help of “signs,” where the linguistic sign—a word—makes and defines the relationship b
etween the acoustic image of the set of sounds or “signifier” (for instance: f, a, m
, i, l, y ) and the actual image (or “signified”) of a “family” in our consciousness. Th
is relationship, the bond between the signifier and signified, is both arbitrary
and necessary.
The principle of arbitrariness dominates all ideas about the structure of langua
ge. It makes it possible to separate the signifier and signified, or to change t
he relationship between them. The set of acoustic sounds, i.e. “signifier” (f, a, m,
i, l, y), evokes just the image of the object, “family” (always, necessarily and al
so, strictly). In Saussure's linguistics, there is no place for any socially cha
rged nuance or sensual addition that the word “family” might otherwise evoke. This s
trictly one-to-one correspondence, therefore, often came under criticism by lite
rary or comparative linguists such as Vaclav while working with the concepts of
aesthetics.
Critiques of Saussure’s linguistic theories
The following quotes from Saussure’s main work, Course in General Linguistics, ill
ustrate some of his theories, particularly vis-a-vis real-life social organizati
ons:
Some people regard language…as a naming process only…. This conception is open to cr
iticism on several points. It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words…fin
ally, it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple
operation… (p. 65).
Without language thought is a vague, uncharted nebula. There are no pre-existing
ideas, and nothing is distinct before the appearance of language… (p. 112).
Linguistics then works in the borderland where the elements of sound and thought
combine; their combination produces a form, not a substance…. The arbitrary natur
e of the sign explains why the social fact alone can create a linguistic system.
The community is necessary if values that owe their existence solely to usage a
nd general acceptance are to be set up; by himself, the individual is incapable
of fixing a single value… (p. 113).
The term "arbitrary" should not imply that the choice of the signifier is left e
ntirely to the speaker…; I mean that it is unmotivated, i.e. arbitrary in that it
actually has no natural connection with the signified… (p. 68–69).
Saussure's use of the word "contract" (on page 14) refers to Rousseau's discussi
on of the social contract as the basis of sociability (along with its implicit c
ritique of theories of legitimacy purely based on raw power).
His use of the term, “arbitrariness” (pp. 68–69, 113), runs counter to that of others
(such as Malinowski; see Varenne 1997), who were developing an alternate theory
of meaning in parallel to Saussure's, and is understood as saying that no invest
igation of the "context" of an utterance can establish the "meaning" of a sign,
that is its peculiar power as historical product constraining the future. It is
"arbitrary," dependent on an implicit (though not always) agreement that this si
gn is to do anything in particular. The quote from page 113 contrasts with Georg
e Herbert Mead's insistence that the conversation of gestures precedes symbolic
meaning (see Varenne 1997). And yet they both emphasize the "social."
It could also be argued that language usage is not (even in Saussure) a simple e
ffect of la langue: the system is not changed by the individual usage as such, b
ut through the community, which the language as an institution helps to form.
However, this concept of social praxis, which becomes crucial if one wants to un
derstand the proper establishment and change of the language system, is missing
in Saussure. Social praxis is a part of the larger reality that language is embe
dded in, but which structuralism seldom deals with in its methodological closure
around the always already existing structure.
Some critics (see Bouissac 2003), perhaps without sufficiently detailed study of
Saussure’s work, added a new dimension to the debate, further reinforcing the ste
reotype of a Saussurian doctrine which they contended had overlooked the social,
processual, transformational, and fundamentally temporal nature of languages an
d cultures. Thus, in their eyes, Saussure's approach appeared to study the syste
m only "synchronically," as if it was frozen in time (like a photograph), rather
than also "diachronically," in terms of its evolution over time (like a film).
Legacy
The impact of Saussure's ideas on the development of linguistic theory in the fi
rst half of the twentieth century cannot be understated. Two currents of thought
emerged independently of each other, one in Europe, and the other in America. T
he results of each incorporated the basic notions of Saussurian thought in formi
ng the central tenets of structural linguistics.
In Europe, the Prague School with Vilem Mathesius, Sergei Karczewski, and Roman
Jakobson was dominant. Jakobson then transferred the school’s efforts to the Unite
d States. Elsewhere, Louis Hjelmslev and the Copenhagen School proposed new inte
rpretations of linguistics from structuralist theoretical frameworks.
In America, Saussure's ideas informed the "distributionalism" of Leonard Bloomfi
eld and post-Bloomfieldian structuralism. In contemporary developments, structur
alism has been most explicitly developed by Michael Silverstein.
Outside linguistics, the principles and methods employed by structuralism were s
oon adopted by scholars and literary critics, such as Roland Barthes, Jacques La
can, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, and implemented in their respective areas of study.
However, their expansive interpretations of Saussure's theories, and their appli
cation of those theories to non-linguistic fields of study, led to theoretical d
ifficulties and proclamations of the end of structuralism in those disciplines.
This alone clearly underscores the fact that Saussure was no philosopher, only a
ground-breaking theoretical linguist whose ideas could be summed up in a few wo
rds.
The differences we readily experience as independent of language are in fact con
structed by it. This does not mean that language creates "actuality" (that is, t
rees, rocks, buildings, and people) but that language turns undifferentiated, me
aningless nature into a differentiated, meaningful, cultural reality. The most s
ignificant feature of Saussure's work is the argument that language precedes exp
erience. We have no direct access to the world; our relationship to it is always
mediated by, and dependent on, language.
Thus, his position emphasized the role of language to the expense of all other h
uman faculties, individual and social, and did not address the origin of the mea
nings and cultural values that are communicated through the medium of language.
Nevertheless, Saussure's work formed the foundation upon which the field could d
evelop.
Course in General Linguistics
Main article: Course in General Linguistics
Saussure's most influential work, Course in General Linguistics (Cours de lingui
stique générale), was published posthumously in 1916 by former students Charles Ball
y and Albert Sechehaye on the basis of notes taken from Saussure's lectures at t
he University of Geneva. The Course became one of the seminal linguistics works
of the 20th century, not primarily for the content (many of the ideas had been a
nticipated in the works of other 20th century linguists), but rather for the inn
ovative approach that Saussure applied in discussing linguistic phenomena.
Its central notion is that language may be analyzed as a formal system of differ
ential elements, apart from the messy dialectics of real-time production and com
prehension. Examples of these elements include his notion of the linguistic sign
, which is composed of the signifier and the signified, and possibly has a refer
ent.
Saussure was at work compiling a written version of his lectures when he died. A
manuscript of this effort was discovered in 1996 and published as Writings in G
eneral Linguistics, and offers significant clarifications of the gaps.
Laryngeal theory
While a student, Saussure published an important work in Indo-European philology
that proposed the existence of ghosts in Proto-Indo-European called sonant coef
ficients. The Scandinavian scholar Hermann Möller suggested that these might actua
lly be laryngeal consonants, leading to what is now known as the laryngeal theor
y. It has been argued that the problem Saussure encountered, of trying to explai
n how he was able to make systematic and predictive hypotheses from known lingui
stic data to unknown linguistic data, stimulated his development of structuralis
m. Saussure's predictions about the existence of primate coefficients/laryngeals
and their evolution proved a resounding success when the Hittite texts was disc
overed and deciphered, some 50 years later.Saussure's ideas had a major impact o
n the development of linguistic theory in the first half of the 20th century. Tw
o currents of thought emerged independently of each other, one in Europe, the ot
her in America. The results of each incorporated the basic notions of Saussurian
thought in forming the central tenets of structural linguistics. In Europe, the
most important work was being done by the Prague School. Most notably, Nikolay
Trubetzkoy and Roman Jakobson headed the efforts of the Prague School in setting
the course of phonological theory in the decades following 1940. Jakobson's uni
versalizing structural-functional theory of primatology, based on a markedness h
ierarchy of distinctive features, was the first successful solution of a plane o
f linguistic analysis according to the Saussurean hypotheses. Elsewhere, Louis H
jelmslev and the Copenhagen School proposed new interpretations of linguistics f
rom structuralist theoretical frameworks. In America, Saussure's ideas informed
the distributionalism of Leonard Bloomfield and the post-Bloomfieldian Structura
lism of those scholars guided by and furthering the practices established in Blo
omfield's investigations and analyses of language, such as Eugene Nida, Bernard
Bloch, George L. Trager, Rulon S. Wells III, Charles Hockett, and through Zellig
Harris, the young Noam Chomsky. In addition to Chomsky's theory of Transformati
onal grammar, other contemporary developments of structuralism include Kenneth P
ike's theory of tagmemics, Sidney Lamb's theory of stratificational grammar, and
Michael Silverstein's work.
Semiotics
Saussure is one of the founding fathers of semiotics. His concept of the sign/si
gnifier/signified/referent forms the core of the field.
Influence outside linguistics
The principles and methods employed by structuralism were soon adopted by schola
rs and literary thinkers, such as Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and Claude Lévi-S
trauss, and implemented in their areas of study (literary studies/philosophy, ps
ychoanalysis, anthropology respectively). However, their expansive interpretatio
ns of Saussure's theories, which contained ambiguities to begin with, and their
application of those theories to non-linguistic fields of study such as sociolog
y or anthropology, led to theoretical difficulties and proclamations of the end
of structuralism in those disciplines.
Quotations
* "A sign is the basic unit of language (a given language at a given time).
Every language is a complete system of signs. Parole (the speech of an individua
l) is an external manifestation of language."
* "A linguistic system is a series of differences of sounds combined with a
series of differences of ideas."
* "The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary."
* "In language there are only differences, and no positive terms"