First year Linguistics Lecturer: Kihel R.

Some Key Concepts in Modern Linguistics

Each human language is a composite of knowledge and abilities allowing

speakers of the language to communicate with each other, to express ideas,

hypotheses, emotions, desires, and all the other things that need expressing.

Linguistics is the study of these knowledge systems in all their aspects: how is such a

knowledge system structured, how is it acquired, how is it used in the production and

comprehension of messages, how does it change over time? Linguists consequently

are concerned with a number of particular questions about the nature of language.

What characteristics do all human languages have in common? How do languages

differ, and to what extent are the differences systematic, that is to say, can we find

patterns in the differences? How do children acquire such complete knowledge of a

language in such a short time? What are the ways in which languages can change over

time, and are there limitations to how languages change? What is the nature of the

cognitive processes that come into play when we produce and understand language?

Ferdinand de Saussure is the first to say publically that language is a system,

and it must be studied independently without referring to something else. He is the

father of Europeam structuralism and one of the founders of Contemporary

Linguistics of the twentieth century .Saussure's presented his ideas in dichotomies :

Diachronic vs. Synchronic Linguistics, Signifier vs. Signified, Langue vs. Parole,

Paradigmatic vs. Syntagmatic Relations. His ideas had a major impact on linguistic

theory in Europe and America and over the world. Saussure’s most influential ideas

are presented throughout the lesson.

The Greek etymology of diachronic and synchronic may help comprehending

their meaning in Linguistics. The -chron- part they share comes from Greek khronos,

meaning "time" (or "pertaining to time").The prefix syn- means "together", "with";

the prefix dia- means "through". Both can be used to describe an approach, a

phenomenon or an activity by analyzing its behaviour in regards to a timeline. If an

approach, phenomenon or activity is described as "synchronic" it means it isn't

affected by past and future, and that it simply emphasizes on a specific point in time.

For example, chess is defined as a synchronic game. In fact, at any time you can

resume a chess game someone else started and then abandoned and what moves were

made before you resumed the game do not concern you. If an approach, phenomenon

or activity is described as "diachronic", on the other hand, it means such approach,

phenomenon or activity focuses on an evolution of some kind through time.

Therefore, Diachronic linguistics deals with the development of languages

through time, the similarities and the differences that exist between them, and the

families they descend from. However, Synchronic linguistics is the study of the state

of a language at a given point in time. Synchronic linguistics sees language as a living

whole (generally the present), existing as a state at a particular point in time (as état

de langue as Saussure put it). Saussure focuses on synchronic linguistics in contrast to

diachronic linguistics. On the one hand, in a diachronic study, people ignore the

history of their language , whereas, in a synchronic study they can check the validity

of the statements by studying the utterances of living speakers. On the other hand, the

diachronic study can falsify and contaminate the synchronic study. The twentieth

century has known a shift from historical linguistics to synchronic linguistics because

of the aforementioned reasons.

2
 First year Linguistics Lecturer: Kihel R.

An example of a synchronic study can be the language of modern English. In

order to study this, linguists will collect samples from native speakers , describing

them without any historical considerations. And of a diachronic study can be the

evolution of English from Old English to Middle English.

Language is a system of interrelated items and the value of these items is

defined by their place in the system rather than by their history. Saussure criticized

current linguistics as seeking to understand language changes but not why it changed

or what underlying factors were really changing. Widely considered the founder of

modern linguistics, Saussure's perspectives thus evolved from a diachronic linguistic

perspective (how languages change and branch off throughout time), to the

introduction of synchronic linguistics (the study of a single language as it existed at a

particular point in time), a perspective that ultimately changed the course of linguistic

thought. He believed that the study of linguistics should not presume to prescribe how

people should speak, but simply describe how they do.

2.Langue vs. Parole

Langue: is the language system which is shared by all the members of the

speech community. It is also an institution, a set of interpersonal rules and norms.

Langue=grammar+vocabulary+pronunciation. Parole: is the actual manifestation of

language in speech or writing. It is idiosyncratic (proper to the individual and specific

to the situation on in which it occurs. In other words, Langue is a system in that it has

a large number of elements whereby meaning is created in the arrangements of its

elements and the consequent relationships between these arranged elements. Parole is

the concrete use of the language, the actual utterances. It is an external manifestation

of langue. It is the usage of the system, but not the system.

1. Langue is a language system shared by a community of speakers.

Parole is the individual realization of that system.

2. Langue is a social phenomenon

Parole is an individual phenomenon.

3. Langue is what is potential

Parole is what is actual.

4. Langue is a static situation

Parole is a dynamic situation

5. Langue is a concept.

Parole is the sound image of that concept

6. Langue is a rule

Parole is behaviour.

By defining Langue and Parole, Saussure differentiates between langue and

how it is used, and therefore enabling these two very different things to be studied as

separate entities. As a structuralist, Saussure was interested more in langue than

parole. It was the system by which meaning could be created that was of interest

rather than individual instances of its use.

Thus, Saussurean contribution was to cut up the total phenomenon of language

(langage) into:–actual speech production (parole), including the role of the individual

will, and– the socially shared system of signs (langue) that makes production and

comprehension possible. Although Saussure spoke of linguistics of parole that would

cover the phonetic side of language and the product of individual will, he made it

4
 First year Linguistics Lecturer: Kihel R.

clear that the Linguistics of langue is the essential, real Linguistics. Langue is beyond

the direct reach of the individual will.

3. Signifier vs. Signified

signifier (signifiant): is the word given arbirarily to the concept it defines.It is

also referred to sound image. It is different from one language to another. Signified

(signifié): is the concept referred to. It is the same in all language.

The sign, as union of a signifierand a signified, has two main characteristics.

1. The bond between the signifier and signified is arbitrary. De Saussure says

language is a symbolic system based on pure or arbitrary conventions infinitely

extendable and modifiable according to the changing needs and conditions of the

speakers. There is nothing in either the thing or the word that makes the two go

together, no natural, intrinsic, or logical relation between a particular sound image and

a concept. An example of this is the fact that there are different words, in different

languages, for the same thing. Dog is "dog" in English, "perro" in Spanish, "chien" in

French, "Hund" in German.

2. The second characteristic of the sign is that the signifier (here, meaning the spoken

word or auditory signifier) exists in time, and that time can be measured as linear.

You can't say two words at one time; you have to say one and then the next, in a

linear fashion. (The same is true for written language: you have to write one word at a

time (though you can write over an already written word) and you generally write the

words in a straight line).

"Signifier" and "signified" are terms used in linguistics to describe the

components of a sign: the signifier is the word, and the signified is the thing or idea it

represents. Signifiers needn't be confined to words; they can include any system of

representation, including drawings, traffic lights, body language, and so on. Much of
the literary criticism of the last twenty-five years has focused on the relationship

between the signifier and signified, and therefore on the very nature of meaning.

Therefore, linguists cannot explain the relation between signifier and signified, but

rather they should focus on how arbitrary signs fit together in an internally coherent

system.

4. Syntagmatic vs. Paradigmatic Relations

One of the most striking characteristics of language as Saussure's was the

first to emphasize, is that units are not given in a positive and unequivocal fashion

but must be discovered and defined in relational terms. Eventually, there are two

principal types of relations: the syntagmatic relations (relations of combination; that

is to say, the way in which linguistic units can be combined into larger structures),

and the associative relations (now generally paradigmatic, they are relations of

substitution; it means the relations between units that can substitute for one another

in the same spot in a linguistic structure. Paradigmatic immediately relations are

relations of exclusion; the presence of one unit excludes the presence of the other).

The following examples illustrate both dimensions:

We-must-respect-laws→syntagmatic relations

She should be quiet.

I will be happy.

You can leave now.

There is a syntagmatic relation between We+must+respect+laws, and a paradigmatic

relation between (We, She ), (must, should) and ( respect, be).......etc.

Thus, syntagmatic relations are seen according to a horizontal dimension or

level and paradigmatic relations are viewed according to a vertical level or a vertical

dimension. They exist at all levels of linguistic description: lexical, grammatical and
6
 First year Linguistics Lecturer: Kihel R.

phonological. Saussurean notion of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations became

the hallmark of the 20th century Linguistics: first, because it proposed that a single

principle of structure unites all the levels at which language functions — sound,

forms, and meaning; second, because it suggested a way of analyzing language that

would not depend on a simple listing of elements with their “translation” into either

another language or some sort of philosophical interpretation. Elements could

henceforth be analyzed according to the relations they maintained with other

elements, and the language could be understood as the vast system — not of these

elements — but of these relations.

De Saussure's contribution to modern linguistics was responsible for three key

directions in the study of language. He distinguished between Synchrony and

Diachrony, between langue and parole, between signified and signifier. He also

contributed by describing the distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic, the

theory of associative value. Saussure's contributions to linguistics are given below:

The contribution Saussure had on language was revolutionary. His work had a

profound influence on many aspects of linguistics. Lastly the following statement

from Benevensite will reflect his contribution: "a forerunner in doctrines which in the

post fifty years have transformed the theory of language, he has opened us

unforgettable vistas on the highest and mysterious faculty of man... he has contributed

to the advent of formal thought in the sciences of society and culture and to the

founding of a general semiology". There is not a single general theory which doesn't

mention his name. In sum, Major schools of linguistics in the world have incorporated

the basic notions of Ferdinand de Saussure’s thought in forming the central tenets of

structural linguistics. The ideas are still valid and taught all over the world. Saussure’s

work in fact goes beyond linguistics and has influenced other disciplines such as
anthropology, sociology and literary criticism. It has also influenced and inspired

many different interpretations.