Structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure
Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss Linguist, credited with finding the field of
structural linguistics, a new theory applying in linguistics system. He often treated as
the father of modern linguistics.
His most influential work ‘Course in General Linguistics’ which published posthumously
in 1916.
So what is Structural Linguistics?
Structural linguistics, as far as Saussure concerned, is the idea that language is a
systematic contrast and equivalence.
Structural linguistics holds the view that language consists of in a string of linguistics
objects, such as words, phonemes, morphemes, and each object earned its meaning to
contrast of other objects in a linguistic system.
This was entirely new wave thinking about language and presented a radical trend
from the previous approaches.
In order to understand the Saussure structural system, we have to first understand, the
key ideas and distinction between ‘sign/signifier/referent’, ‘Langue/Parole’,
‘synchronic/diachronic’ and ‘syntagmatic/paradigmatic’.
Saussure’s central distinction is between ‘langue’ and ‘parole’.
Parole: it consists of individual usages of language at particular times to make
statements, ask questions, individual utterance, commands etc. Parole is the speech act.
Langue: it is the underlying system – passively assimilated and not explicitly
formulated by speakers. Langue makes all acts of speaking possible, intelligible and
meaningful. It is the systematic language shared by community.
Saussure used the term ‘langue’ to signify, language as a system or structure (langue)
on the other hand by ‘parole’ he means any given utterance in that language.
For example – a particular remark in French (a sample of parole) only makes sense to
you if you are already in possession of the whole body of rules and conventions
governing verbal behavior which we call ‘French’ ( the langue or the French linguistic
structure).
Again, Saussure argued that language and every other expressive system consist of
signs. He gave a threefold analysis of linguistic sign: signifier/signified/referent
‘Signified’ the ‘Concept’ in mind.
‘Referent’ refers the ‘actual state’.
Signifier + Signified + Referent = Sign
Signifier: It is the sound image of that what we talking about, the act of speech or
utterance.
Signified: It is the concept of the thing of which we are talking about. It is the idea of
our mind.
Referent: The actual real thing in the world is called referent.
Thus for Saussure, the sign is trisided psychological entity. One cannot exist without the
other; otherwise it just could not be a sign.
But here Saussure says, the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.
There is an arbitrary unconventional relationship between the two. For, Saussure, the
meaning we give to words is purely arbitrary, and that these meanings are maintained
by conventions only. Words, that is to say, are ‘unmotivated signs’, means that there is
no inherent connection between a word and it designates.
Again, Saussure highlighted another distinction between synchronic and diachronic.
Synchrony: synchrony refers to a study of complete linguistics system at a given time.
Saussure’s aim was to show that language can be studied synchronically and that this is
the most illuminating way to explicit it.
Diachronic: it refers how the linguistic system developed over a period of time.
Another important Saussurian distinction is between ‘syntagmatic’ and ‘paradigmatic’
analysis.
Syntagmatic analysis can be used whenever the expressive act requires a series of signs;
it can be series of words in a statement, or a series of shots in a film sequence. But often
the same statement can give quite difference meaning if the word order is altered or the
same shots in a film can have different meanings if the order is reverse. For example –
The wise person is temperate
Temperate is the wise person
On the other hand paradigmatic analysis examines the signs used in the expressive act
against a background of possible alternatives in each position. For example –
The wise person is temperate
The wise ‘person/man’ is ‘clam/intuitive/honest’
So why are any of these interesting?
As far as Saussure concerns, the study of language is liable to belief. He stresses that
language is structural; thereby language can be freed from associations by the social,
cultural, political or historical.
Practically this approach to language means that the study of language by structural
relations only. Linguistics objects and it meanings can be grasped only through its
contrast with other linguistic objects in the systems.
