Module: Linguistics Level: Third year LMD
Course: Linguistics Schools and Movements
LESSON 1: European Structuralism
Introduction
The theory we now call structuralism is not confined to a single discipline. In essence all
structuralism revolves around the concept of system, seen as the whole, and the internal
contrasts within it. Structuralist ideas in linguistics have developed in Europe and America
concurrently and autonomously at the beginning of the 20th century. The two variants were
different in many ways because each had its own history and precursors. Linguistic work in
Europe had a very long tradition. It was conducted on written, already studied languages;
while in America, it was the by-product of anthropologists’ interest in learning about the
native Amerindian vanishing tribes’ languages, which have never been described before and
whose nature required the description of language from a fresh angle. In spite of such a
disparity, they shared the conception of considering language a system and used descriptive
tools in their analysis.
I. Ferdinand de Saussure
Structural linguistics in Europe was initiated with the publication of Cours de Linguistique
Générale of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857- 1913). The book was edited and
published by his students in 1916. It presents a series of lectures that Saussure gave in
Geneva. It was a novelty in linguistic thinking during the 1920s and 1930s. Despite being
originally a comparative philologist himself, Ferdinand de Saussure is considered the founder
of structuralism. Saussure’s work was principally non-historical and descriptive. This linguist
is well distinguished for his view of language and for his dual concepts presented in the form
of dichotomies, which have become a tradition when discussing Saussure’s theory.
A. Saussure’s View of Language
Prior to the 20th century, linguists took an atomistic view of language: it was seen as a
compilation of individual elements, for instance, speech sounds, words and grammatical
endings. This was an item-centred analysis. Ferdinand de Saussure put forward a very
different view where language is seen as structured system of relation oppositions. In
structuralism, units (sounds, morphemes, sentences, meanings . . .) can be defined only by
reference to their relationships to the other units in the same language. They are mutually
defining entities. They derive their identity from their interrelationships. Every unit is a point
in a structure, and it has no significance by itself.
X x x x
x x x
Atomistic view (collection of individual items) Structural view (network of
relations)
The structural view of language
B. Saussure’s Dichotomies
Various theoretical dichotomies can be extracted from Saussure’s work. This has become a
tradition. He made a clear distinction between several new concepts: langue/parole,
syntagmatic/paradigmatic relationships, synchronic/diachronic studies and signifier/signified.
Syntagmatic relationships exist between items in a sequence. They are also called linear, co-
occurrence, sequential or horizontal relations. By contrast, paradigmatic relationships hold
between existing items and other items in the same language that can take the same position
in the sequence: between actual elements and their substitutes. Taken together, all elements
form a class, a system. These relationships are also called associative, substitution, vertical
relationships. According to Saussure, language, then, has a two-dimensional structure.
Contrary to the entirely historical view of language of the earlier hundred years, Saussure
emphasised the value of seeing language from two dissimilar views, which he called
synchronic and diachronic. A synchronic approach to language studies investigates the state
of language at a particular phase of its development without allusion to its history. Saussure
referred to this state as an état de langue. In order to study this, linguists will collect samples
of language within a fixed period, describing them not considering any historical factor which
might have influenced the state of language up to that time. The time factor is irrelevant. A
diachronic approach, in contrast, is the study of the history of a language, focussing on
language change in pronunciation, grammar or vocabulary. This approach deals with the
never ending successions of language states. A diachronic study presupposes a synchronic
study. Saussure emphasised that modern linguistics should be synchronic in perspective.
state
State 1
past
State 2
Present
Synchronic Vs. Diachronic studies
Saussure distinguished between three main senses of language, and then he emphasized two
of them. He sees that langage is composed of two aspects langue and parole. These terms
have obtained a wide approval in modern linguistics, without any specific translations in
European languages. Langage is the hereditary propensity of human speech present in all
normal human beings. For its correct development, it needs the appropriate environmental
prompts. It is a natural bequest distinguishing the human species. Langue refers to the abstract
system shared by all the speakers of the same language, like English, Arabic, French, etc. It is
an underlying system of abstract rules of lexicon, grammar and phonology which is implanted
in each individual’s mind resulting from his nurture in a given speech community. Being
peculiar to the speech community, langue is something which the individual can make use of
but cannot influence by himself. It has a social nature according to Saussure. Parole refers to
the real speech of the individual, an instance of the use of system. It is the concrete side of
language. According to Saussure, it is langue that should be the primary concern of the
linguist.
One of the concepts introduced by Saussure in his linguistic theory is the linguistic sign. He
regards langue as a system of arbitrary signs. First, he defines the sign as a relationship
between two equally participating characteristics: the signifié (signified) and the signifiant
(signifier). The first refers to an idea or a concept, the second to a form or an acoustic image.
The sign is a meaningful entity, and it is the basic unit of communication. Arbitrariness of the
linguistic sign means that there is no inherent or inevitable link between the signifier and the
signified: it is a matter of convention within a speech community.
