Structural linguistics / Structuralism
Structural Linguistics: An Overview of Saussure’s Theory and Method
Structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics originating from the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and is part of the overall approach of structuralism. Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics published posthumously in 1916, stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as the father of modern linguistics for bringing about the shift from diachronic (historical) to synchronic (non-historical) analysis, as well as for introducing several basic dimensions of semiotic analysis that are still important today, such as syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations. In this text, I will explain Saussure’s theory and method of structural linguistics and how they can be applied to different levels of language analysis.
Sign
The foundation of structural linguistics is the sign, which in turn has two components: a signified and a signifier. The signified is an idea or concept, while the signifier is a means of expressing the signified. The sign is thus the combined association of signifier and signified. Signs can be defined only by being placed in contrast with other signs, which forms the basis of what later became the pragmatic dimension of a semiotic organization, that is, collections of terms/entities that stand in opposition. This idea contrasted drastically with the idea that signs can be examined in isolation from a language system and stressed Saussure’s point that linguistics must treat language synchronically.
Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis
One of Saussure’s key methods was syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis, which define units syntactically and lexically respectively, according to their contrast with other units in the system. Syntagmatic relations hold among units that are chained together into structural wholes, such as sentences or phrases. Paradigmatic relations hold among sets of units that exist in the mind, such as words or morphemes. The units of a set must have something in common with one another, but they must also contrast, otherwise, they could not be distinguished from each other and would collapse into a single unit, which could not constitute a set on its own, since a set always consists of more than one unit.
Both paradigmatic and syntagmatic organizations belong to the abstract system of language (langue) or an abstract Platonic ideal. Different linguistic theories place different weights on the study of these dimensions. For example, structural and generative accounts pursue primarily characterizations of the syntagmatic dimension of the language system (syntax), while functional approaches such as systemic linguistics focus on the pragmatic dimension. Both dimensions need to be appropriately included, however, as paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations provide the linguist with a tool for the categorization of phonology, morphology, and syntax.
Applications of Structural Linguistics
Structural linguistics can be applied to different levels of language analysis. For example, take morphology, the study of word formation. The signs cat and cats are associated in the mind, producing an abstract paradigm of the word forms of cat. Comparing this with other paradigms of word forms, we can note that in English, the plural often consists of little more than adding an -s to the end of the word.
Likewise, through paradigmatic and syntagmatic analysis we can discover the syntax of sentences. For instance, contrasting the syntagma Je dois (I should) and Dois-je? (Should I?) allows us to realize that in French we can invert the units to turn a statement into a question. We thus take syntagmatic evidence (difference in structural configurations) as indicators of paradigmatic relations (for example, in this case: questions vs. assertions).
The most detailed account of the relationship between a paradigmatic organization of a language as a motivator and classifier for syntagmatic configurations is that set out in the systemic network organization of systemic functional grammar, where paradigmatic relations and syntagmatic configurations each have their separate formalization, related by realization constraints. Modern linguistic formalisms that work in terms of lattices of linguistic signs, such as head-driven phrase structure grammar, similarly begin to separate an explicit level of paradigmatic organization.
In conclusion, structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics that examines language as a system of signs and their relations. It was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure and influenced many subsequent linguistic theories and methods. It involves analyzing language at different levels using syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations. It aims to reveal the underlying structure and logic of language as an abstract system.
Difference between langue and parole
According to the structural linguistics approach developed by Ferdinand de Saussure, langue and parole are two concepts used to describe the relationship between language and speech.
Langue refers to the abstract, systematic rules and structures that govern a language, while parole refers to the actual use of those rules and structures in speech.
Langue is the system of signs and their relations that underlie the speech activity of a language. It is independent of and pre-exists, the individual user. It involves the principles of language, without which no meaningful utterance, or parole, would be possible
Parole, on the other hand, refers to the concrete instances of the use of langue, including texts which provide ordinary research material for linguistics. It is the actual utterances of language, both written and spoken, that are produced by individual speakers.
Saussure argued that linguistics must treat language synchronically, that is, as a system that exists at a given point in time, rather than diachronically, that is, as a system that evolves over time. He also argued that linguistics must focus on langue, rather than parole, as the true object of study.
An example of the distinction between langue and parole can be seen in the following sentence:
- I love you.
This sentence is an instance of parole, as it is a specific expression of language by a speaker. However, this sentence is also based on the system of langue that underlies it, such as the rules of grammar, syntax, morphology, and semantics that make it intelligible and meaningful.