MODERN LINGUISTICS

Ferdinand de Saussure (Swiss Scholar) was the founder of modern linguistics with the publishing of Cours de
Linguistique générale (1915).

Important features of Modern Linguistics:

1- PRIORITY OF THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE

Contemporary linguistics maintained that spoken language is primary and that writing represents speech in
another medium. It implies that speech is older and more widespread than writing.
Writing has no more than 6 or 7 thousand years. On the other hand, there is no group of people known
to have existed without the capacity of speech. It is reasonable to suppose that speech goes back to the
origins of human society.
All writing systems are demonstrably based upon units of spoken language. In the description of spoken
language, the linguist generally finds three different kinds of units: sounds, syllables and words. All systems
of writing take one of these units as basic.
No writing systems represent all the variations of pitch and stress present in the spoken language, so,
there are conventions of punctuation to distinguish different kinds of sentences. Moreover, there is no
direct face-to-face confrontation of writer and reader.
The fact that there are invariably such differences between speech and writing means that written
language cannot be regarded as merely the transference of spoken language to another medium.

2- LINGUISTICS IS A DESCRIPTIVE (not prescriptive) SCIENCE

The traditional grammarian assumed that the written language was more fundamental than the spoken,
and that literary language, a particular form of the written language, was purer and more correct than all
other forms of language. His task as a grammarian was to preserve this form of language from corruption.
However, each socially or regionally differentiate form of language has its own standard of “purity” and
“correctness”. So, the linguist’s first task is to describe the way people actually speak and write their
language. In other words, linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Another point to be made is that linguistic change involves “corruption” because all languages are
subject of constant change. All living languages are of their nature efficient and viable systems of
communication serving the different social needs of the communities that use them. As these needs change,
languages will tend to change to meet the new conditions.
However, we need prescriptive studies for administrative and educational advantages in having a unified
literary standard. But it is important to realize that they are subject to change and that their standard is
based upon the speech of one socially or regionally determined class of people.

3- THE LINGUIST IS INTERESTED IN ALL LANGUAGES

Every language, no matter how “backward” or “uncivilized”, has proven to be a complex and highly
developed system of communication. Most linguists these days have found that the study of all languages
on equal terms is rewarding. No language can be said to be “richer” than another, each is adapted to the
characteristic pursuits of its users.
The linguist’s concern is the construction of a scientific theory of the structure of human language.

4- PRIORITY OF SYNCHRONIC DESCRIPTION

Saussure introduced the distinction between the synchronic and the diachronic study of language. The
diachronic study of a particular language is the description of its historical development through time, from
our earliest records to the present day. The synchronic study of a language is the description of a particular
“state” of that language at some point in time, but it is not restricted to the analysis of modern spoken
language.
Nineteenth-century linguists were concerned with the diachronic description, whereas the twentieth-
century linguists are concerned with the synchronic description. For the latter, historical considerations are
irrelevant to the investigation of particular temporal “states” of language.
 Saussure made an analogy comparing languages to a game of chess. All languages are constantly
changing, and just as the state of the chess-board at some particular time can be described without
reference to the particular combination of moves that has brought that game to that point. So, the socially
and geographically delimited states of a language can be described independently of one another. Each
state of the language can be described on its own terms without reference to what it has developed from or
what it is likely to develop into.
It is the task of the synchronic linguistic description to formulate systematic “rules” as they operate in
the language at a particular time. The way in which the rules are integrated in the systematic description will
reflect particular historical processes in the development of the language. It doesn’t affect the general
principle of priority of the synchronic description because nature speakers don’t need to have a historical
knowledge of the language so as to learn and apply the rules.

5- THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH

The most characteristic feature of modern linguistics is “Structuralism”. Here, each language is regarded
as a system of relations, a set of interrelated systems, the elements of which have no validity independently
of the relations of equivalence and contrast which hold between them. Saussure was convinced that every
language, at a given time, constitutes an integrated system of relationships.
Abstract or formal modern linguistic theory has been developed to account the way people actually use
language. It derives from, and it is validated or refuted by, empirical evidence.

6- LANGUE AND PAROLE

Saussure introduced a distinction between langue and parole. All those who speak English share a
particular langue, and the set of utterances which they produce when they are speaking English constituted
instances of parole.
The relationship between langue and parole is very complex, and somewhat, controversial. All members
of a particular language-community produce utterances when they are speaking that language, which,
despite individual variations, they share the same structural characteristics. The utterances are instances of
parole, which linguist takes as evidence for the construction of a common structure: the langue. It is
therefore the langue, i.e. the language system, which the linguist describes.
Sentences are units of langue; and utterances are instances of parole.