Prague School and Structural Linguistics

Crina Herţeg
Teaching Assistant, “University 1st December 1918” of Alba Iulia

The Prague Linguistic Circle represented an important moment in the history

of linguistics in that it provided linguistics with new theories such as the theory of
linguistic functions. It brought novelty in interpreting language but it also had
shortcomings, for it did not offer a complete and overall theory, which could serve
as foundation for further research. The Prague Linguistic Circle started activity in
1928, when, at the first International Congress of Linguistics, organized in The
Hague, the Prague participants presented their program drafted by Roman
Jakobson in cooperation with Nicholay Serghey Trubetzkoy and Serghey
Karcévsky. The fruit of their research, “Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Prague” was launched and made known a year later at The First International
Congress of Slavicists held in Prague. The first volume of ,,Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Prague”, volume entitled ,,Thèses du Cercle Linguistique de
Prague” sets out the principles of a new linguistics, structural linguistics. The
Prague Linguistic Circle was brilliantly represented by such linguists as Vilém
Mathesius, Roman Jakobson, Nicholay Serghey Trubetzkoy, Jan Mukarovsky.
Their preoccupations covered various areas of the sciences of language.
Trubetzkoy dealt with phonetics and phonology, Vilém Mathesius dealt with
syntax, Roman Jakobson was interested in poetics and Jan Mukarovky tackled
poetic language. We shall briefly mention just a few of their achievements in the
field of linguistics. In 1939 Vilém Mathesius published an important paper entitled
“On the So-Called Functional Sentence Perspective”. By theme Mathesius
understood what is known or obvious in the given situation and the point from
which the speaker starts in his discourse. Travnicek resumed the idea of the paper,
referring to Mathesius` conception of functional sentence perspective without
covering all the aspects of Mathesius` theory. The basic issue with which they did
not agree was the definition of theme. Travnicek does not agree with way in which
Mathesius conceives theme, he defines theme as the sentence element that links up
directly with the object of thought, proceeds from it and opens the sentence
thereby.
N.S. Trubetzkoy is another leading representative of the Prague School in that
he founded phonological studies. His fundamental conception of the role of sound
patterns in language is that they serve to differentiate meaningful units from each
other without themselves necessarily being carriers of meaning.
In the field of linguistics the Prague scholars were greatly influenced by
Ferdinand de Saussure and by his incipient structuralism. Most linguists agree
with the fact that structuralism appeared in 1916, when Ferdinand de Saussure`s
“Course in General Linguistics” was published and Ferdinand de Saussure is
considered to be the father of structuralism. He left a legacy, which greatly
influenced linguistics in general and the first to be influenced by Ferdinand de
Saussure were the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle. The linguistic
background and the period in which they developed their activity represented a
real backup and support for them. Their striving to establish a structural linguistics
coincides with the development of linguistics due to the advancement of
philosophy. It is The Prague School by its exceptionally prolific scholar, Roman
Jakobson, which is responsible for coining the term structuralism in 1929. In the
same year Jakobson recognized the interdisciplinarity of structuralism.
The foundations of Prague linguistic functions were laid by the psychologist
Karl Buhler, in elaborating these functions Buhler started from the idea that
language is an instrument. Buhler contributed remarkably to the structural theory
of language, he found that the main linguistic functions start from: speaker,
receiver, process of communication. Buhler`s conception was accepted by many
important linguists of the Prague School. His theory became popular among
Prague linguists, however, it was not accepted without being modified and
criticized. The first Prague linguist to criticize it was Vilém Mathesius. He made
the distinction between the two main functions of language: the communicative
function and the expressive function. Mathesius did not consider it necessary to
distinguish expressive manifestations from communicative ones. Another Prague
linguist who modified Buhler`s theory was Jan Mukarovsky. He admitted that
Buhler`s functional tripartite system applies only in ordinary communication and
not in poetic manifestations. He adds a fourth function to the three ones already
mentioned by Buhler, namely the aesthetic function. It is not necessary for an
aesthetic function to be dominant in a poetic manifestation it appears as secondary
in poetical manifestations.
Structuralism conceived language as a synchronic system of signs and the
oppositions existing among them. Structuralists believe that the underlying
structures which organize units and rules into meaningful systems are generated by
the human mind itself, and not by sense perception. As such, the mind is itself a
structuring mechanism that looks through units and files them according to rules.
Prague structuralism is functionalistic. Functionalism represents approaching and
studying language from a functional point of view, from the perspective of the
functions performed by it. Prague linguists studied language by strongly
emphasizing its functions and the functionality of elements of language. This
emphasis on function includes both the function of language in the act of
communication and the role of language in society, the function of language in
literature and problems of different aspects and levels of language from a
functional standpoint The emphasis on function and functionality makes Prague
School different from other structuralist schools. Linguists of the Prague Circle
stressed the function of elements within language, the contrast of language
elements to one another and the total pattern or system formed by these contrasts.
The Prague School becomes famous for its interest in the application of
functionalism, the study of how elements of a language accomplish cognition,
expression and conation. This combination of structuralism with functionalism is
yet another contribution to modern linguistics. The term of function is borrowed
from Baudouin de Courtenay and the term of system from Ferdinand de Saussure.
In the study of language the Prague scholars attached a great importance to
external factors such as political, social and geographical ones and they stressed
the importance of the social functions of language. The most common definition of
language agreed with by most linguists is that language is a universal means of
communication. This complex phenomenon was differently dealt with and
perceived by linguists. For example Ferdinand de Saussure conceived language as
a social phenomena or system of signs controlled by laws. The way Ferdinand de
Saussure conceived language and his dichotomy langue (a social institution; a
system of signs) and parole (an individual activity; the product of language) led to
the failure of looking at linguistic changes as structural events with the result that
the historical development of language was conceived by him as a sum of isolated
deviations originating in parole. Prague linguists deal with the relationship
language-speech, they do not agree with Saussure`s dichotomy and consider this
dichotomy as unnecessary because speech (parole) is the reality of language
(langue). Prague linguists approach language from a structural point of view and
as part of a system. They define language as functional system of communication
means and agree that language performs two functions : of communication and the
poetic function. Prague linguists study language from the point of view of its
structure. Prague Linguistic Circle signs the birth certificate of a new science,
phonology and Trubetzkoy`s starting point in dividing phonetics from phonology
is the dichotomy language-speech. The Prague linguists distinguish several aspects
of language: national language (consists of functional styles), standard language
(serves as model for a larger speech community). The two basic properties
attached by the Prague linguists to the standard language are its flexible stability
and intellectualization.
In his article O jazyce básnickém (On Poetic Language) Jan Mukarovsky deals
with the problem of language and especially the problem of poetic language.
Starting from the definition of poetic language as a component of the system of
language, having its own evolution, he conceives it as a functional language.
Poetic language exists next to functional languages, any of which represents an
adjustment of the system of language to a certain purpose pursued by the
discourse; the purpose is to obtain an aesthetic effect. The aesthetic function
dominates the poetic language. According to Jan Mukarovky a characteristic of
poetic language is its dynamism, it being able to reveal the inner structure of the
linguistic sign and to find new ways of using it. Poetic language uses the linguistic
sign autonomously. Jan Mukarovsky does not agree with the conception of poetic
language as a component of literary language, he believes that purists who want to
discard foreign elements from literary language conceive it in this way. He
believes that poetic language has a close relationship with literary language, which
is reflected in its influence over the evolution of literary norm. Poetic language
and literary language have independent evolutions and are ruled by independent
laws. Another issue that Mukarovsky tackles in his article is the place language
has in literature and he agrees that language is the material which literature uses to
obtain literary works. Language acts beyond the limits of literature as the most
important system of signs. Language is a phenomenon characterized by changes
and which undergoes changes along its evolution. The previous evolution of a
language can bring changes within a literary work. A disadvantage of language
conceived as artistic material is the fact that the literary work has a restricted
circulation and that it addresses to a restricted linguistic community. Poetic
language is a component of national language. The permanent transformation of
poetic language is the result of the aesthetic function. The evolution of poetic
language means the endless transformation of the ways of using linguistic means,
which the national language provides it with.
Prague Linguistic Circle brought new approaches and new methods in
studying language, including the mathematic method, it emphasized two basic
terms: the linguistic sign and communication and contributed to the development
of linguistics and of the study of language.

Bibliography:

 Coşeriu, Eugeniu- Introducere în lingvistică, Editura Echinox, Cluj, 1999

 Coteanu, Ion- Crestomaţie de lingvistică generală, Editura Fundaţiei
România de Mâine, Bucureşti, 1998
 Elgin Haden, Suzette-What is Linguistics? Prentice Hall-Inc., New Jersey,
United States of America, 1979
 Graur, Alexandru; Wald, Lucia- Scurtă istorie a lingvisticii, Editura
Didactică şi Pedagogică, 1977
 Elgin Haden, Suzette- What is linguistics? Prentice Hall-Inc., New Jersey,
United States of America, 1979
 Ionescu, Emil- Manual de lingvistică generală, Editura All, Bucureşti,
1997
 Archibald, A. Hill- Linguistics, United States of America, 1969.
 Lyons, John- Introducere în lingvistica teoretică, Editura Ştiinţifică,
Bucureşti, 1995
 Lyons, John; Coates, Richard; Deuchar, Margaret; Gadzar, Gerald- New
Horizons in Linguistics, Great Britain, Penguin Books, 1987.
 Manoliu Manea, Maria- Structuralismul lingvistic, Editura Didactică şi
Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1973
Poetică şi stilistică. Orientări moderne, Bucureşti, Editura Univers, 1972
 Saussure, Ferdinand de- Curs de lingvistică generală, Editura Polirom,
Iaşi, 1998
 http: //www.heartfield.demonco.uk/ jakobson.html
 http: //www.shlrc.mq.edu.aux / trubetzkoy.html.
 Travaux linguistiques de Prague, vol.1-2, Prague Academia, Editions de
l`Academie Tschécoslovaque des sciences, 1966