Methods of structural linguistics

Plan;

Introduction

Body

Conclusion

References

Structural linguistics, or structuralism, in linguistics, denotes schools or theories in which

language is conceived as a self-contained, self-regulating semiotic system whose elements
are defined by their relationship to other elements within the system.[1][2] It is derived 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 dynamic system of interconnected units. Saussure is also
known for introducing several basic dimensions of semiotic analysis that are still important
today. Two of these are his key methods of syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis,[3]
which define units syntactically and lexically, respectively, according to their contrast with
the other units in the system. Other key features of structuralism are the focus on
systematic phenomena, the primacy of an idealized form over actual speech data, the
priority of linguistic form over meaning, the marginalization of written language, and the
connection of linguistic structure to broader social, behavioral, or cognitive phenomena.[4]

Structuralism as a term, however, was not used by Saussure, who called the approach
semiology. The term structuralism is derived from sociologist Émile Durkheim's anti-
Darwinian modification of Herbert Spencer's organic analogy which draws a parallel
between social structures and the organs of an organism which have different functions or
purposes.[5] Similar analogies and metaphors were used in the historical-comparative
linguistics that Saussure was part of.[6][7] Saussure himself made a modification of August
Schleicher's language–species analogy, based on William Dwight Whitney's critical
writings, to turn focus to the internal elements of the language organism, or system.[8]
Nonetheless, structural linguistics became mainly associated with Saussure's notion of
language as a dual interactive system of symbols and concepts. The term structuralism was
adopted to linguistics after Saussure's death by the Prague school linguists Roman
Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy; while the term structural linguistics was coined by Louis
Hjelmslev.[

History
Structural linguistics begins with the posthumous publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's
Course in General Linguistics in 1916, which his students compiled from his lectures. The
book proved to be highly influential, providing the foundation for both modern linguistics
and semiotics. Structuralist linguistics is often thought of as giving rise to independent
European and American traditions due to ambiguity in the term. It is most commonly
thought that structural linguistics stems from Saussure's writings; but these were rejected
by an American school of linguistics based on Wilhelm Wundt's structural psychology.[10]

Key Features

edit

John E. Joseph identifies several defining features of structuralism that emerged in the
decade and a half following World War I:

Systematic Phenomena and Synchronic Dimension: Structural linguistics focuses on

studying language as a system (langue) rather than individual utterances (parole),
emphasizing the synchronic dimension. Even attempts to study parole often
incorporate elements into the sphere of langue.[4]
Primacy of Langue over Parole: Structuralists believe that the virtual system of langue,
despite being indirectly observable and reconstructed through parole, is more
fundamental and "real" than actual utterances.[4]
Priority of Form over Meaning: There is a general priority of linguistic form over
meaning, continuing the Neogrammarians' tradition, although some exceptions exist,
such as in Firth's work.[4]
Marginalization of Written Language: Written language is often viewed as a secondary
representation of spoken language, though this view varies among different
structuralist approaches.[4]
Connection to Social, Behavioral, or Cognitive Aspects: Structuralists are ready to link
the structure of langue to broader phenomena beyond language, including social,
behavioral, and psycho-cognitive aspects.[4]

European structuralism

edit

In Europe, Saussure influenced: (1) the Geneva School of Albert Sechehaye and Charles
Bally, (2) the Prague linguistic circle, (3) the Copenhagen School of Louis Hjelmslev, (4) the
Paris School of André Martinet and Algirdas Julien Greimas, and the Dutch school of
Simon Dik.[11] Structural linguistics also had an influence on other disciplines of
humanities bringing about the movement known as structuralism.
'American structuralism', or American descriptivism

edit

Some confusion[12][a] is caused by the fact that an American school of linguistics of 1910s
through 1950s, which was based on structural psychology, (especially Wilhelm Wundt's
Völkerpsychologie); and later on behavioural psychology,[13][b] is sometimes nicknamed
'American structuralism'.[14]This framework was not structuralist in the Saussurean sense
that it did not consider language as arising from the interaction of meaning and
expression. Instead, it was thought that the civilised human mind is organised into binary
branching structures. Advocates of this type of structuralism are identified from their use
of 'philosophical grammar' with its convention of placing the object, but not the subject,
into the verb phrase; whereby the structure is disconnected from semantics in sharp
contrast to Saussurean structuralism.[10] This American school is alternatively called
distributionalism, 'American descriptivism', or the 'Bloomfieldian' school – or 'post-
Bloomfieldian', following the death of its leader Leonard Bloomfieldin 1949. Nevertheless,
Wundt's ideas had already been imported from Germany to American humanities by Franz
Boas before him, influencing linguists such as Edward Sapir.[15]

Bloomfield named his psychological approach descriptive or philosophical–descriptive; as

opposed to the historical–comparative study of languages.[16] Structural linguists like
Hjelmslev considered his work fragmentary because it eluded a full account of language.
[17] The concept of autonomy is also different: while structural linguists consider
semiology (the bilateral sign system) separate from physiology, American descriptivists
argued for the autonomy of syntax from semantics.[18] All in all, there were unsolvable
incompatibilities between the psychological and positivisticorientation of the
Bloomfieldian school, and the semiotic orientation of the structuralists proper. In the
generative or Chomskyan concept, a purported rejection of 'structuralism' usually refers to
Noam Chomsky's opposition to the behaviourism of Bloomfield's 1933 textbook Language;
though, coincidentally, he is also opposed to structuralism proper.

Basic theories and methods

edit

The foundation of structural linguistics is a sign, which in turn has two components: a
"signified" is an idea or concept, while the "signifier" is a means of expressing the signified.
The "sign", e.g. a word, is thus the combined association of signifier and signified. The
value of a sign can be defined only by being placed in contrast with other signs. This forms
the basis of what later became the paradigmatic dimension of semiotic organization (i.e.,
terms and inventories of terms that stand in opposition to each other). This is contrasted
drastically with the idea that linguistic structures can be examined in isolation from
meaning, or that the organisation of the conceptual system can exist without a
corresponding organisation of the signifying system.

Paradigmatic relations hold among sets of units, such as the set distinguished
phonologically by variation in their initial sound cat, bat, hat, mat, fat, or the
morphologically distinguished set ran, run, running. The units of a set must have something
in common with one another, but they must contrast too, 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. Syntagmatic
relations, in contrast, are concerned with how units, once selected from their paradigmatic
sets of oppositions, are 'chained' together into structural wholes.

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations provide the structural linguist with a tool for
categorization for phonology, morphology and syntax. Take morphology, for example. The
signs cat and catsare 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 only have to invert the units to turn a statement
into a question. We thus take syntagmatic evidence (difference in structural configurations)
as indicators of paradigmatic relations (e.g., in the present case: questions vs. assertions).

The most detailed account of the relationship between a paradigmatic organisation of

language as a motivator and classifier for syntagmatic configurations was provided by
Louis Hjelmslev in his Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, giving rise to formal
linguistics. Hjelmslev's model was subsequently incorporated into systemic functional
grammar, functional discourse grammar, and Danish functional grammar.

References

edit

1. Martinet, André (1989). "Linguistique générale, linguistique structurale, linguistique

fonctionnelle". La Linguistique. 25 (1): 145–154.
2. Matthews, P. H. (2014). "Structural linguistics". The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics
(3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191753060.
3. de Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Open Court House.
4. Joseph, John E. (2002). From Whitney to Chomsky: Essays in the History of American
Linguistics. John Benjamins. ISBN 9781588113504.
5. Hejl, P. M. (2013). "The importance of the concepts of "organism" and "evolution" in
Emile Durkheim's division of social labor and the influence of Herbert Spencer". In
 Maasen, Sabine; Mendelsohn, E.; Weingart, P. (eds.). Biology as Society, Society as
Biology: Metaphors. Springer. pp. 155–191. ISBN 9789401106733.
6. Sériot, Patrick (1999). "The Impact of Czech and Russian Biology on the Linguistic
Thought of the Prague Linguistic Circle". In Hajičová; Hoskovec; Leška; Sgall;
Skoumalová (eds.). Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, Vol. 3. John Benjamins. pp. 15–24.
ISBN 9789027275066.
7. Aronoff, Mark (2017). "Darwinism tested by the science of language". In Bowern;
Horn; Zanuttini (eds.). On Looking into Words (and Beyond): Structures, Relations,
Analyses. SUNY Press. pp. 443–456. ISBN 978-3-946234-92-0. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
8. Saussure, Ferdinand De (1931). Cours de linguistique générale (3e éd.). Paris: Payot. p.
42. Nous pensons que l'étude des phénomènes linguistiques externes est très fructueuse
; mais il est faux de dire que sans eux on ne puisse connaître l'organisme linguistique
interne.