Saussure and His Main Contributions:
Introduction:
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was a Swiss linguist who has a significant position in linguistic history and is often regarded as the pioneer of modern linguistics. He was the first to underline the significance of seeing language as a living entity.
He established a "theoretic basis to the modern trend in linguistics research," and European academics seldom fail to examine his ideas when dealing with any theoretical challenge.
According to Jonathan Culler (1976),
"Ferdinand de Saussure is the founder of contemporary linguistics, the man who reformed the systematic study of language and language in such a manner that twentieth-century linguists' accomplishments were made feasible."
Role of Saussure in Language
He divided between Synchrony and Diachrony, langue and parole, signified and signifier, and syntagmatic and paradigmatic expressions. He also contributed to the idea of associative value by explaining the contrast between syntagmatic and paradigmatic value. The following are Saussure's contributions to linguistics:
Synchrony and Diachrony:
Synchrony: -
Saussure suggested that language, as a system of signs, is always a complete system. The crucial component of language, like chess, is how the pieces move and the locations of all parts relative to one another.
Each piece's form is simply required to realize its potential. A synchronic connection occurs when two comparable things exist at the same time. There is a synchronic link between modern American English and British English.
Diachrony and Saussure:
The term "diachrony" refers to change. Changes in the meaning of words across time For example, throughout the 1980s, "magic" represented "excellent" in youth culture (and, to a lesser extent, beyond).
It is therefore the study of language in terms of how it changes in use visually. It is based on the definitions of terms found in dictionaries. A diachronic connection exists when two entities are connected yet separated by time. There is a diachronic link between 12th century English and 21st century English.
Saussure's Synchrony and Diachrony in Linguistics:
Linguistics can be divided into two types based on the method, range, or scope of its study, or the linguist's area of interest. The two main types are Diachronic Linguistics and Synchronic Linguistics.
Diachrony in Linguistics
Diachronic linguistics is the study of the historical evolution of language across time. For example, we look at how French and Italian evolved from Latin. This kind of linguistics also studies changes in language through time; hence, it is known as historical linguistics.
Synchronic linguistics:
Synchronic linguistics is uninterested in the evolution of language across time. It focuses on how a certain speech community speaks a language at a specific moment in time. It is sometimes referred to as 'descriptive' linguistics.
Diachrony vs Synchronic:
- Diachronic linguistics investigates language change.
- Synchronic linguistics investigates language states without regard for history.
C.F. Hockett asserts:
“The study of how a language works at a given time, dless of its past Plessy or future destiny, is called descriptive or synchronic linguistics. The study of how speech habits change as time goes by is called historical or diachronic linguistics.”
The distinctions synchrony and diachrony apply to how language is treated from various perspectives. Though the historical nature cannot be overlooked, its current shape is the consequence of genuine historical processes, changes, and transformations.
Concentrating on the units of its structure at the time is required for a comprehensive grasp of it. Some academics believe that the two techniques are indistinguishable. They argue that thinking of descriptive and historical linguistics as distinct fields is incorrect.
However, the two regions are kept separate for the most part, and one is researched to the exclusion of the other. Synchronic sentences have no reference to the language's prior phases.
Linguistic studies in the nineteenth century were historical; they arose as part of wider historical research into the origins and evolution of civilizations and groups, particularly in West Asia, Egypt, and the Middle East.
Such philological experts examined language at various phases of development and sought to comprehend relationships between languages. Language families have been found, as have genetic relationships. Diachronic linguistics was a big finding of the nineteenth century for Zhirmunsky:
“Which developed so powerfully and fruitfully from the 1820s to the 1880s. This discovery enabled linguists to explain modern languages as a result of law-governed historical development”.
A deeper examination reveals that solid historical (diachronic) postulations are not conceivable without great synchronic (descriptive) work; in other words, an outstanding historical linguist must also be a competent descriptive scholar.
The distinction is seen in the image above. The diachronic axis (x-y) has been regarded as dynamic, whereas the synchronic axis has been deemed static. The differences were initially defined and named by Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure.
According to V.M. Zhirmunsky, a Russian linguist,
"in de Saussure's theory, synchronous language is seen as a system of static oppositions resting on a single temporal plane, a static two-dimensional cross-section."
According to Wilkins, the principles that create this dichotomy allowed us to gather
"especially precise knowledge on language in its present use."
Historical concerns, according to Saussure, are unimportant when analyzing certain temporal states of a language.
However, Saussure's chess analogy fails at the point when participants select the path of a particular game being played against one another and with a known aim. As far as we know, there is no directionality in the diachronic evolution of languages.
Saussure concept of Signifier and Signified:
Exposition:
According to Saussure's 'theory of the sign,' a sign is made up of the matched pair of signifiers and signified.
Signifier and Saussure:
The pointing finger, the word, or the sound image are all signifiers. The prize is nothing more than a mishmash of letters. The star is not the pointing finger. Meaning is formed by the interpretation of the signifier.
Signified and Saussure:
The notion, meaning, or item indicated by the signifier is the signified. It does not have to be an "actual thing," but rather any referent to which the signifier refers. The signified item is generated inside the perceiver and is internal to them.
Signifier vs Signified:
While we convey ideas, we do so via signifiers. While the signifier is more consistent, the signified varies among persons and settings.
As the signifier stimulates ideas and pictures, the signified does become habitual. While the signifier and signified seem to be simple, they are an essential component of semiotics.
Plato vs Saussure:
Saussure's views contradict Plato's belief that thoughts are eternally stable.
Plato considered ideas to be the fundamental principle that was realized in specific cases. A signifier has no significance without a signified, and the signified varies depending on the person and circumstance. Even the fundamental premise of Saussure is flexible.
The Naturalizer and the signified connection are arbitrary (this is referred to as'unmotivated').
Explanation:
A genuine item does not have to exist 'out there.' While the letters c-a-t spell cat, they do not represent 'catness.' In the conveyed meaning it produces, the French'chat' is not similar to the English'cat' ('chat' serves various reasons for the French).
The French term'mouton' refers to both a 'button' and a living'sheep,' but the English do not distinguish.
Saussure challenges the conventional reflectionist concept that the signifier reflects the signified: the signifier generates the signified in terms of the meaning it elicits in us.
Both the signifier and the signified as formed by an interpreter are required for the concept of assign. A signifier without a signified is nothing more than noise. It is impossible to have a signified without a signifier.