In accordance with his fundamental principle of the systemic nature of language, Saussure paid main attention to the specific relations of units of language, believing that it is these relations, taken by themselves, that constitute the essence of one or another unit. Oppositions, differences are important in language; therefore, elements of language are defined and characterized by Saussure negatively. “There is nothing in language but differences” (7, p. 152).

We have already said above that Saussure understood language as a purely mental entity. Therefore, sound as a material substance cannot relate to language; for a language, sound is something secondary and accidental. The sound used in speech is nothing more than a convenient in its qualities means for creating oppositions, systemic relationships between “acoustic images”. The signifier, by which Saussure understood the acoustic image, is a mental phenomenon: “... (The signifier) ​​is incorporeal in language, and its creation is not a material essence, but exclusively those differences that delimit its acoustic image from all other acoustic images ... - these are, first of all, opposite, relative and negative essences ”(7, p. 151).

According to Saussure, the negative essence of a linguistic unit, for example a phoneme, is characterized in this way provided that it is taken in isolation, regardless of the signified (concept). But, emphasizes Saussure, “as soon as we begin to consider the sign as a whole, we are faced with something positive of its own kind. Although the signified and the signifier, taken separately, are purely differential and negative quantities, their combination is a positive fact ”(7, p. 153).

Saussure breaks the dialectical unity of sound and meaning on the grounds that their change and development are relatively independent and that isolated from each other as facts of language they represent negative quantities, "bundles of relations" of a purely psychological order ("acoustic image", "concept") ... Their changes are independent of each other: a change in the meaning of a word,

its ambiguity is not reflected in its phonetic side, and, on the contrary, the phonetic change of a word may not affect its meaning. In this fact, Saussure sees the main proof of the arbitrariness of sound, that is, the arbitrariness of the connection between the acoustic image and the concept.

Saussure compares language in this respect to a game of chess. The main thing in the game is those systemic relationships, the functions that the figures perform. In case of loss of a figure, for example a horse, we can replace it with any other object - a matchbox, cork, piece of sealing wax, etc. This will not change the game, the material itself plays a secondary role. We observe the same in the language. The main thing is the role of the sign in the system, and not its material essence, which can be changed or even replaced by another (cf .: letter).

Saussure's assessment of the role of sound in language contradicts, one might say, the generally accepted understanding of sound as a necessary material aspect of language, without which the formation of language in general would be impossible. In the process of language formation, the synthesis of sound and thought was necessary and involuntary due to the very nature of these phenomena, which turned out to be capable of such synthesis in human speech activity. The possibility of relatively independent changes in sound and meaning is explained, as we have said above, not by the arbitrariness of the sign, that is, the connection between sound and thought, but by the fact that sound and thought, both material and ideal, are simultaneously fundamentally different phenomena. Therefore, their independent changes are also possible under the conditions of their necessary, involuntary connection, since thought can be realized outside only with the help of one or another material means, a substrate. The articulated sound articulated by a person - genetically, by its inherent properties, functionally - turned out to be that internally necessary, instilled by the very nature of man, a means that contributes to the formation and development of discrete thought - a concept. Therefore, there is no reason to talk about the "randomness" of sound in the formation of a language. The history of mankind does not know such a human community that would not use sound language.

In the concept of the consistency of Saussure's language, the concept of significance occupies an important place. A linguistic sign, for example a word, has not only meaning, but also the significance that a sign acquires as a result of its relations with other signs of the language. The significance of a linguistic unit is determined by its place in the language system, its connections with other units in this system. Saussure writes in this regard: “As part of the system, a word is endowed not only with meaning, but also - mainly - with significance, and this is quite another ... The significance of any term is determined by its environment: even in relation to a word that means“ the sun ", it is impossible to directly establish its significance, if you do not overlook the fact that its 66

surrounds; there are languages ​​in which the expression is unthinkable "sitin the sun"(7, p. 113).

For a clearer representation of the category of significance, let us turn to a non-linguistic example that explains the systematic nature of the category of significance - to systems of assessments. Obviously, the significance of the "three" will be different in three-point, five-point, ten-point assessment systems. Likewise, the significance of the plural will be different in a language where there are only two forms of number, singular and plural, compared to a language that has, along with these forms, the form of a dual. Similarly, the significance of past tense forms will be different in languages ​​that have a different number of such forms: on the one hand, in a language where there is only one form of the past tense (as, for example, in modern Russian), in comparison with languages ​​that have a developed system of forms the past tense (cf. also tense forms in the Old Russian language), etc.

Saussure rightly objects to the atomic approach that dominated in his time in the study of language. The ideas of consistency, the significance of linguistic units were developed in various linguistic directions.

Scientific and pedagogical activity F. de Saussure

The outstanding linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) studied at the University of Leipzig in 1876–1878, where the famous young grammarians K. Brugman, G. Osthof, A. Leskin worked at that time. In 1878-1880. he trained in Berlin. During his stay in Germany, he published a book

“A memoir on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages”, which was not recognized by Leipzig young grammarians. The focus of this work is on the sound system. Based on purely structural considerations, Saussure suggested that the Indo-European proto-language had special phonemes that disappeared in the Indo-European daughter languages ​​(such as Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Latin). This hypothesis, known as the laryngeal theory (the lost phonemes were later conventionally called laryngals), helped explain many problems in the study of the evolution of the Indo-European phonological system.

In 1880, having defended his thesis in Leipzig on the topic "On the use of the genitive absolute in Sanskrit," Saussure went to Paris, where he worked with his student A. Meillet. He took an active part in the work of the Parisian Linguistic Society. In 1884 he began teaching at the Higher Practical School, and from that time on his scientific activity was limited to teaching. Saussure taught a course on comparative grammar of the Germanic languages ​​and taught seminars in Gothic and Old High German until 1887. Then the course included a comparative grammar of Greek, Latin and Lithuanian, and he acquired a broad Indo-European orientation. However, as a foreigner, Ferdinand de Saussure had no right to head a department in any of the higher educational institutions in France.

In 1891 he returned to his homeland, where until the end of his life he taught in Zhe-

Neva University as a professor. At first he held the post of extraordinary professor of comparative historical grammar of Indo-European languages, then ordinary professor of Sanskrit and Indo-European languages, headed the department of comparative grammar of Indo-European languages. Since 1905 he headed the Department of General Linguistics and Philology. During his teaching career, Saussure did not publish a single general theoretical work.

In 1906-1907, 1908-1909, 1910-1911. he taught a course in general linguistics. On the basis of the student's notes of these lectures, his younger colleagues Charles Bally and Albert Séchet prepared and published in 1916 (after the death of F. de Saussure) the book Cours de linguistique generale. “The publishers themselves did not take courses in general linguistics, but Balli studied with Saussure in a number of disciplines from 1895 to 1905, and Séchet from 1891 to

1893<...>... The general course in 1910-1911 was attended by the wife of A. Seshe, whose recordings were used, as well as those of A. Ridlinger, when preparing the Course for publication. "

The book quickly became popular and played an important role in the development of various areas of linguistics. This work formulates views on language that had a tremendous impact on the linguistics of the 20th century, in particular on the development of structural linguistics. The linguistic theory of Saussure is based on the problem of the systemic nature of language.

Saussure supports the ideas of psychological and sociological linguistics. His concept will be continued in linguosemiotics, systems linguistics and in the teachings of structuralist schools.

If I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. F. Fortunatov paid the main attention to language units - phonemes and morphemes, word forms and word combinations, then F. Saussure considered the study of linguistic relations to be the main one, since he understood language as a sign system , where “suffixes and stems have significance only to the extent of their syntagmatic and associative oppositions”.

Linguistics itself, according to Saussure, is a combination of several sciences: linguistics of language and speech, internal and external linguistics, synchronic and diachronic linguistics.

Language and speech

The main provisions of Saussure on this problem are as follows:

“The study of speech activity falls into two parts; one of them, the main one, has as its subject language, that is, something social in essence and independent of the individual; it is purely psychic science; the other, secondary, has the subject of the individual side of speech activity, that is, speech, including phonation; she is psychophysical. Undoubtedly, both of these subjects are closely related and presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and thus effective; speech, in turn, is necessary for the formation of a language; the historical fact of speech always precedes language ”.

For Saussure, three concepts are correlated: speech activity (in the translation of N. A. Slyusareva - linguistic activity) (langage), language (la langue) and speech (la parole). Speech activity has a heterogeneous character, the concept of language does not coincide with the concept of speech activity in general. Language is only a certain part of speech activity, its social element. Language

- the basis for all manifestations of speech activity. Speech activity is the realization of the capabilities of the language. Language is opposed to speech. Speech is an individual act of will and understanding. Saussure emphasizes that “it is precisely the phenomena of speech that determine the evolution of language: our language skills change from the impressions we receive while listening to others”.

Language as a social phenomenon is a system of signs serving for communication in a given human community. However, while recognizing the social nature of language, Saussure also emphasizes its mental nature. “The language exists in the collective as a set of imprints available to everyone in the head, like a dictionary, copies of which, completely identical, would be in the use of many persons” [ibid., P. 27.]

Saussure considers it necessary to build two independent disciplines: linguistics of language and linguistics of speech, and only linguistics of language, in his opinion, can be considered linguistics in the strict sense of the word. Phonology refers, in his opinion, to the linguistics of speech.

In relation to the individual, language is external in the sense that the individual can neither create language, nor change it. In accordance with this, Sos-sur defines the concept of language: “language<…>Is a system of signs in which

the only essential is the combination of meaning and acoustic

times, and both of these components of the sign are equally psychic ”[ibid., p. 22].

According to Saussure, language as a system of signs inherited from the past is available for holistic study, and along with this, each sign that is part of the system is subject to change, that is, a shift in the relationship between its constituent elements, which is also available to study , but of a completely different order. This leads to the need to strictly distinguish “synchronic linguistics” from “diachronic linguistics”.

According to F. de Saussure, everything that is extralinguistic is eliminated from the concept of language, that is, everything that is outside the language as a system of signs, “that is alien to its body<…>what is known as "external linguistics". The areas of consideration of linguistic facts proper form internal linguistics [see. 1, p. 517].

So, Saussure believes that language has a sign nature and that there are two main dichotomies: 1) the dichotomy of language and speech and 2) the dichotomy of synchrony and diachrony. In his concept, Saussure proceeds from the inconsistency and complexity of the real language and its specific units. What was new was not that Saussure noticed the contradictory nature of language, but that he interpreted linguistic theory as a science of the sign system of a language, studying, first of all, its internal structure.

The nature of the language sign

Of paramount importance for understanding the linguistic concept of de Saussure is his doctrine of the linguistic sign. According to Saussure, both sides of the linguistic sign are mental and are connected by an associative connection. A linguistic sign connects not a thing and its name, but a concept (signified, signifie) and an acoustic image (signifier, signifiant), a psychic imprint in sound. The terms signified and signifier were taken by Saussure from the "Grammar of Port-Royal" and introduced in order "to oppose their psychological orientation of the concept and acoustic image, that is, to highlight the features of linguistic phenomena."

The main properties of a language sign:

Its arbitrariness (in the sense of being unmotivated for speakers).

The word arbitrary ... should not be understood in the sense that meaning

can be freely chosen by the speaker<…>; we just want to say that the signifier is unmotivated, that is, arbitrary in relation to the given signifier, with which it has no natural connection in reality.

Its linear character (the ability to develop in only one dimension - in time). "The signifier, being by its nature perceived by ear, unfolds only in time and is characterized by signs borrowed from time: a) it has an extension and b) this extension has one dimension - this is a line."

Its tradition (imposition on the collective).

Statistical and evolutionary linguistics

According to Saussure, there is synchronic (statistical) linguistics and diachronic (evolutionary) linguistics. Everything that relates to the statistical aspect of this science is synchronous. Everything about evolution is diachronic.

Although the ideas of synchronicity and diachrony were first put forward by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and L. V. Shcherba, the new terms "synchrony" and "diachrony" were proposed by F. de Saussure and stuck with his name. Saussure criticized the statements of the young grammarist Hermann Paul and sought to prove that not only the history of language and historical grammar should be studied scientifically, but also the system of language in the state in which it is attested in a given era.

Statistical linguistics studies a language in a certain time period without taking into account the development of linguistic forms and meanings, that is, what is perceived at the moment by the linguistic community.

Evolutionary linguistics studies linguistic forms and meanings in time, analyzes systemic relations in the perspective of various collective consciousnesses, that is, from the position of linguistic collectives separated in time. According to Saussure, diachronic research must be based on carefully executed synchronic descriptions. The scientist believed that the study of changes occurring in the historical development of the language is impossible without a careful synchronous analysis of the language at certain moments of its evolution. Comparison of two different languages ​​is possible only on the basis of a preliminary thorough synchronous analysis of each of them. Linguis-

scientific research, according to Saussure, is only then adequate to its subject,

when it takes into account both the diachronic and synchronic aspects of the language.

The ratio of language units in the system

Relationships unfold in two areas, each of which forms its own series of significance. They correspond to two forms of our mental activity. Like N. V. Krushevsky, he distinguishes two types of relationships. “On the one hand, words in speech, connecting with each other, enter into relationships based on the linear nature of the language, which excludes the possibility of pronouncing two elements at the same time”. These elements line up one after another in the flow of speech, forming syntagmas. A syntagma always consists of at least two consecutive units. Saussure calls the relations between the elements of the syntagma syntagmatic (these are associations by contiguity in N. V. Krushevsky).

On the other hand, outside the process of speech, words that have something in common with each other are associated in memory. As a result of these associations, associative relationships are formed (N. V. Krushevsky called such relationships associations by similarity), based not on length, but localized in the brain and belonging to the memory of each person or individual. Associative relations arise as a result of community in meaning, in form, in color, for example, in root (teach, teach, teach) and so on. Any word is capable of recalling everything that can be associated with it in one way or another.

Strong and weaknesses F. Saussure's teachings

The strengths of the teachings of Saussure:

1. He put forward an important proposition about the systemic nature of the language, op-

dividing language as a system that obeys its internal

order, as a set of interdependent elements interconnected by relationships.

2. He identified two types of relations in the language (associative and syntag-

mathematical).

3. One of the main points of Saussure's linguistic theory is his doctrine of the value (significance, valeur) of a linguistic sign. The difference between meaning and significance is that significance distinguishes the meaning of a word in one language from the corresponding meaning in another language. The "meaning" of a word is possible only insofar as there are all other word signs language that there is language as a system. The presence of two kinds of relations (within a sign and a given sign to the system) determines the “significance” of a word. What is said about words applies to grammatical categories: their significance is determined not only by their value, but also by their role in the system ”[see. 9, p. 142].

4. An important provision of Saussure's theory is the distinction between language and speech. However, recognizing the relationship between language and speech, Saussure declares that language and speech are completely different concepts. He contrasts the language of speech and speaks of the need for two sciences: linguistics of language and linguistics of speech.

5. Saussure distinguished between internal and external linguistics. Saussure attributed the factors of the geographical spread of languages, conquest, migration, and language policy to external linguistics. External factors, according to Saussure, do not affect the internal system of the language, are not decisive, since they do not relate to the very mechanism of the language, its structure. Saussure paid primary attention to internal linguistics, believing that it modifies the system. Saussure's distinction of linguistics into internal and external contains contradictions. After all, language is social in nature, it is associated with society, being a means of communication in this society. To recognize as true only internal linguistics is to underestimate the social character of the language.

All the problems posed by F. Saussure in the "Course of General Linguistics"

have already been put in the works of his predecessors and contemporaries (W. Humboldt, W. D. Whitney, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N. V. Krushevsky, M. Breal). The merit of de Saussure is that, having combined these problems, he created a general theory of language, though not free from contradictions and not giving a final solution to all questions. The book's success was largely due to the strict consistency of the presentation and vivid, unexpected comparisons.

Weaknesses of Saussure's teachings:

1. Saussure considered a linguistic sign as a two-sided mental formation, and not an ideal-material formation, representing an object, properties, relation of reality.

2. One cannot agree with the exclusion of phonology from linguistics on the grounds that sounds are elements of speech, not language, since they have no meaning. The theory of speech sounds cannot be confused with the theory of phonemes as elements of language. Saussure approached the theory of phonemes rather closely, but he put an insufficiently clear content into the term phoneme itself.

The main

1. Amirova T.A. and other History of linguistics: Textbook. manual for stud. higher.

study. institutions / T. A. Amirova, B. A. Olkhovikov, Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky

/ Ed. S. F. Goncharenko. - M .: Publishing Center "Academy", 2003.

- S. 508-521.

2. Amirova T.A. From the history of linguistics of the XX century. Structural and functional linguistics (origins, directions, schools): textbook. 2nd ed., Rev. - M .: MGLU, 2000 .-- S. 10-22.

3. Saussure F. de. General linguistics course // Edited by Sh. Balli and A. Seshe / Per. with fr. A. Sukhotina. De Mauro T. Biographical and critical notes on F. de Saussure. Notes / Per. with French S. V. Chistyakova. Under total. ed. M.E. Ruth. - Yekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. university,

1999 .-- 432 p.

additional literature

4. Zaliznyak A.A. About "Memoir" by F. de Saussure // F. de Saussure. Works on

linguistics. - M., 1977 .-- S. 289-301.

5. Zasorina L.N. Introduction to Structural Linguistics. - M., 1974 .-- S. 45-

6. Katsnelson S.D. General and typological linguistics. - L., 1986 .-- S.

7. Slyusareva N.A. F. de Saussure's theory in the light of modern linguistics.

8. Slyusareva N.A. On F. de Saussure's notes on general linguistics // Saussure F. de. Notes on general linguistics: Per. with fr. / Common ed., entry. sl. and comments. N. A. Slyusareva. - M .: Publishing group "Progress", 2000. - S. 7-28.

9. Sukhotin A.M. Abstracts for the report on the "Course of General Linguistics"

F. de Saussure // Questions of linguistics. - 1994. - No. 6. - S. 140-143.

10. Kholodovich A.A. About the "Course of General Linguistics" by F. de Saussure // F. de

Saussure. Works on linguistics. - M., 1977 .-- S. 9-29.

11. Kholodovich A.A. Ferdinand de Saussure. Life and Works // F. de Saussure.

Works on linguistics. - M., 1977 .-- S. 600-671.

Homework

1. On what examples does F. de Saussure prove the principle of variability of language

2. Make a table comparing the main language concepts

F. de Saussure and I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay.

Exam preparation questions

1. What is the basis of Saussure's linguistic theory?

2. According to Saussure, the totality of which sciences is linguistics?

3. What are the central judgments of F. de Saussure in the book "Course of General Lin-

gvistiki "?

4. The concepts of "language" and "speech" in the linguistic concept of F. de Saussure.

5. How does Saussure characterize a linguistic sign?

6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the teachings of Saussure?

7. What is the significance of the works of F. de Saussure for modern lin-

guisties?

8. In whose writings the continuation of the problem of linguistics was found,

nye Saussure?

Abstract topics

1. Contribution of Ferdinand de Saussure to the development of the theory and history of linguistics.

2. Analysis of the postulates of F. de Saussure.

3. F. de Saussure - the founder of the sociological trend in linguistics.

“The only and true object of linguistics is yavl. language considered in itself and for itself. ”At the heart of ling. De S.'s concepts - criticism of the views of young grammarians and the use of data from other sciences for understanding the nature of language. 1) De S. considered language as a social fact, which is outside of a person and is "imposed" on him as a member of a team (the influence of a sociologist Durkheim). 2) "The object does not predetermine the so-called sp., But, on the contrary, the sp. Creates the object" - that is. words exist to the extent that the cat. they are perceived by the speaker. 3) The problem of language and speech: Separating langue et parole (in the speech of children, langage), we separate the social from the individual. For De S. “language is a system, all e-you are a cat. form a whole. " He bases his understanding of the system on the opposition of Language (social factor) and Speech (individual). Proposes to distinguish between 2 sciences: linguistics of language and ling. Speeches (features of individual speech). 4) De Saussure influence theory Krushevsky about the types of relationships in the language: De S. highlighted 2 types of relationship: syntagmatic(based on linear character, length: re-read) and associative(the relationship of words similar in root, suff.: teach-teach; training-imposition). Learning language as a system and means of communication. Considers the language system as a mathematically exact system: “All members of the system are in equilibrium; system yavl. closed ".

Language differs from other social phenomena in that "language is a system of signs expressing ideas." In the language system. signs of the only existing yavl. connection of sense and acoustic. image, and both of these e-that signs are equally psychic. " An acoustic image is the psychic imprint of a sound. Language. sign is a bilateral psyche. essence: concept + acoustic. image = signified and signifier. Linguistic sign principles:

1 ... Language sign is arbitrary 2. The principle of the linearity of the sign: - the signifier represents the length - this length is the line, lies in one dimension. Acoustic images cannot arise simultaneously: they follow each other, forming a linear chain. This principle characterizes speech, not language. The doctrine of the significance of the language sign: the meaning of a word in the lexical system of the 1st language. may not coincide with the meaning in another language system . Significance is a function of the language system. Language must be studied in synchronicity (time slice, simultaneity) and diachrony (sequential development). De S. argued that the synchronous plan of one language is closer to the synchronous plan of another language than to its past (diachronic) state. He emphasized the importance of studying the synchronous state of the language.

16. The concept of the system and structure of language in the linguistic concept of f. De Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) is one of the outstanding linguists. The main provisions of Saussure's concept are as follows:

1. Saussure distinguishes between "language" (langue), "speech" (parole) and "speech activity" (langage). Speech activity is a system of expressive capabilities of a given people. In the general totality of speech processes, Saussure distinguishes two polar aspects: language and speech. Language is a grammatical system and a vocabulary, i.e. an inventory linguistic means, without mastering which speech communication is impossible. Language as a lexical and grammatical system potentially exists in the minds of individuals belonging to the same linguistic community. Learning a language is a purely psychological process. Speech means the act by which an individual uses language to express his thoughts, this is the use of language means for the purpose of communication; it consists of individual acts of speaking and hearing. Therefore, its study must be psychophysiological. Language and speech “are closely related and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and to produce all its effect; speech, in turn, is necessary for the establishment of language: historically, the fact of speech always precedes language. "

2. Saussure distinguished two aspects in language - synchronicity and diachrony ... Synchrony is a one-time existence of a language, a static aspect, a language in its system. Diachrony is a sequence of linguistic facts in time, a historical or dynamic aspect. From this opposition, he made a categorical conclusion: "The opposition of two points of view - synchronic and diachronic - is absolutely absolute and does not tolerate compromise." As a result, according to Saussure, a new pair of independent disciplines should be distinguished - synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Separated from history, the synchronic aspect allows the researcher to study the relationship between coexisting facts, to know the system of language, that is, to study the language "in and for himself." The historical point of view (diachrony), in Saussure's view, destroys the language system and turns it into a collection of disparate facts.

3. Saussure in every possible way emphasized the systemic nature of language and substantiated the sign nature of language. According to Saussure, linguistic facts as elements of a system mutually determine each other. In his opinion, systemic relations characterize only synchronic linguistics, since "there can be no system that covers several periods simultaneously." Thus, language is a system of signs. Each linguistic sign has two sides: the signifier (the plane of expression) and the signified (the plane of content). In this regard, it is necessary to explain Saussure's thesis that "language is form, not substance." Since, according to Saussure, the linguistic sign is two-sided and includes both the signifier (sound image) and the signified (meaning), this thesis asserts that language is a form, a means of expressing any content and that language should not be confused with the content of what is expressed.

Considering language as a system of arbitrary signs, Saussure likens it to any other sign system that expresses ideas. “Language is a system of signs expressing ideas, and therefore, it can be compared with writing, with the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, with symbolic rituals, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc. In this regard, Saussure proposes to create special science that studies the life of signs within society - semiology, or semiotics, in which both component linguistics would also be included.

Linguistics "as a science of signs of a special kind," according to Saussure, is the most important section of semiotics, for the linguistic sign occupies an exceptional place among sign systems: language, as Saussure writes, is "the most complex and most widespread semiological system."

Important for the systemic understanding of the language was Saussure's emphasis on various features in the language system: "What is important in a word is not the sound as such, but the sound differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others, since only these sound differences are significant." This position is also developed by various directions of structuralism.

The concept of significance, which is important for Saussure's concept, also follows from the concept of consistency. Since a linguistic sign is a mental phenomenon, it is not material (substantial) differences that are important for it, but relational (functional, systemic) properties. Overestimating the significance, Saussure divorces language from existing connections and turns it into an immanent system.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 - 1913) is called the Copernicus of modern linguistics. Saussure's linguistic concept is based on ideas of the symbolic nature and systemic nature of the language... Saussure's ideas served as the basis for the emergence of structuralism in the 20th century. They helped in overcoming the crisis of world linguistics at the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century.

F. de Saussure became interested in linguistics at the gymnasium. He independently studied Sanskrit, and at the age of 12 met the founder of Indo-European linguistic paleontology, Adolphe Pictet. Under his influence, at the age of 15, Saussure wrote his first linguistic work “ General system language". At the age of 16, studying the structure of the Indo-European root, three years before K. Brugman and G. Osthof, Saussure accidentally discovered previously unknown Indo-European sonants - sounds that could form syllables. In 1875 Saussure became a student at the University of Geneva, but he had practically no one to study here, and a year later he moved to Leipzig, the largest center of comparative studies of that time. At the University of Leipzig in 1878 Saussure wrote his dissertation “ Memoir (research) on the original vowel system in Indo-European».

This work angered the professors of the Leipzig University, the young grammarians Brugman and Osthof. In the very center of Young Grammatism, with its "atomic" method of analysis, with its fundamental rejection of solving general theoretical problems, a modest student came up with an unusual, mathematically verified theory that made it possible to predict the structure of the Proto-Indo-European root, and also clarified the composition of the vowels of Indo-European proto-language. Saussure was criticized so harshly that the Memoir on the Original Vowel System in Indo-European Languages ​​became his only major work published during his lifetime. Subsequently, Saussure published only small notes and reviews, which were not noticed either in Switzerland, or in Germany, or in France.

The core idea of ​​the "Memoir" was the systematic nature of the language... Proving the systemic nature of the Indo-European proto-language, Saussure put forward a hypothesis about unusual sonants, which were then lost, but are indirectly reflected in the vowel alternations of modern Indo-European languages. Saussure made an important conclusion about the systemicity of the phonetic and morphological structure of the Indo-European proto-language.

So, he came to the conclusion that all Indo-European roots had a uniform structure:

1) each root contained the vowel "e", it could be followed by the sonant i, u, r, l, m, n: (* mer-, ber-, mei-, pei-, ken-);

2) under some conditions the vowel "e" alternated with "o", in others "e" disappeared (* mer- // mor-: died, pestilence, die; ber- // bor-: take, collect, take);

3) where the vowel "e" dropped out, the root, which did not contain a sonant, was left without a vowel. At the root of the sonant, the sonant acts as a syllable sound when it is followed by a consonant: * pei-ti → pi-ty.

The most important principle of these rules is that under the same morphological and phonetic conditions, the pronunciation of different roots should be the same. For example, in the first person of the present tense of Indo-European verbs in the core there is no vowel "e": it. ich gebe (give), lat. lego (collecting), rus. carry / carry / carry / whip. The verbal name has a vowel "o" at the root: lat. toga, rus. load / cart / raft. The participle has zero sound "torn" or contains a vowel, which is the result of the fusion of the original vowel and the sonant "bey" from "bey".

Thus, arguments of a systemic nature ensure the reliability of the proto-language reconstruction.

In 1880 Saussure defended his doctoral dissertation on syntax. He began to work at the University of Paris, and in Paris met I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Then correspondence began between them. In 1891 Saussure moved to Geneva. Here the scientist studied classical and Germanic languages, linguistic geography, the Nibelungen epic, French versification and Greek mythology. Remaining 99 of his notebooks on anagrams in Greek, Latin and Vedic poetry.

Saussure led a secluded life. In the eyes of those around him, he looked like a failure, who was never able to rise to the level of his first talented book.

In 1906 Saussure was offered a professor position at the University of Geneva.

F. de Saussure read his course three times, without leaving even a short transcript of his lectures. In 1906 - 1907. Saussure's lectures on the theory of language were attended by six, in 1908 - 1909. - 11, in 1910 - 1911. - 12 people. After Saussure's death, the lecture notes were published by Saussure's younger colleagues Charles Bally and Albert Sechet in 1916 as “ General linguistics course". This year began the triumphant recognition of Saussure's concept, which had a tremendous impact on the development of world linguistics. The "Course in General Linguistics" has been reprinted several times in French, then it was translated into other languages ​​of the world, including Russian.

In the "Course in General Linguistics" Saussure solved the most important problems of linguistics:

1) Contrast of language and speech.

The central concepts of the "Course of General Linguistics" were speech activity, language and speech. In parallel with the scientists of Kazan linguistic school F. de Saussure began to distinguish between two sides in speech activity: language and speech. Saussure put this distinction at the center of his general theory of language.

Language and speech are two sides of speech activity. Speech activity is diverse, it includes the social and the individual, because a person expresses his thoughts in order to be understood by others. In speech activity, the external sound and internal, psycho-logical side are distinguished. Of the two sides of speech activity, language is one, but the most important side that determines all the others.

The main difference between language and speech is that language is social and speech is individual. The sociality of language lies in the fact that it functions only in human society. Language is a product of speech ability and a set of language skills. The child learns it while living in human society. Language is passively registered by a person and imposed on him. An indie species can neither create nor change a language.

Language, according to Saussure, is a code that forms a means for speech activity. But language is also a treasure, laid off by the practice of speech in all members of the collective. It is a grammatical and lexical system that potentially exists in the brain of a collective of individuals.

Language is a mental phenomenon, but it contains only the general, abstract, abstract. The psychic nature of language does not deny its real existence. Saussure believes that the proof of its reality is the possibility of graphically, in writing, to reflect the language. The reality of language is confirmed by the opportunity to study dead languages ​​from monuments.

Speech is entirely individual. It is an act of the will and consciousness of an individual person, it is completely controlled by the individual.

The speech contains:

1) combinations that the speaker forms to express his thoughts using a social code;

2) the psycho-physiological mechanism by which thoughts are objectified and become common property. Speech includes onomatopoeia, articulation.

Reproduced speech is the sum of everything that is said. Consequently, language is abstracted from speech, and not vice versa: "Language and speech are interconnected, because language is both a tool and a product of speech." Saussure demanded a separate study of language and speech. Language is necessary to understand speech, and speech precedes language. It is necessary for the language to be established.

Opposing language and speech, Saussure writes that language should be studied in the linguistics of language, and speech in the linguistics of speech. Linguistics of language / linguistics of speech is the first crossroads on the path of the researcher, and he must choose one of the paths. We must go separately for each of them. Until the beginning of the XX century. linguists, says Saussure, studied only speech. The linguistics of the language has not been studied at all. Therefore, Saussure's de-vise was the words: "Take the point of view of the language and from this point of view, consider everything else!" The "Course of General Linguistics" ends with the phrase: "The only and true object of linguistics is the language considered in itself and for itself."

2) Contrasting synchronicity and diachrony.

The second crossroads on the path of a linguist is synchronicity / diachrony, that is, learning a language at a time of rest and in development. Saussure proposes to distinguish 1) the axis of simultaneity (AB) and 2) the axis of succession (CD).

The axis of simultaneity (AB) concerns the relationship between coexisting sequences, where any interference of time is excluded. All the phenomena of the first axis with all their changes are located on the sequence axis (SD); it is never possible to consider more than one thing on it at once.

Saussure connected the concept of the system only with synchrony, which coincides with the axis of simultaneity. In the diachrony that coincides with the axis of the sequence, in his opinion, only displacements occur, which can lead to a change in the system. The transition from one state of the system to another is the result of diachronic displacements of individual members.

Saussure is often accused of breaking synchronicity from diachrony, of the unhistorical nature of his theory. But Saussure perfectly understood their dependence and called himself primarily a historian of language. Using many examples, he showed the independence of synchronic and diachronic analysis and their interconnection, emphasizing their dialectical unity and differences. But at the same time, he constantly reminded students that “modern linguistics, as soon as it emerged, went headlong into diachrony” and neglected synchronicity. This is why the synchronic aspect was more important for Saussure. "For speakers, only the synchronic aspect is the true and only reality."

If linguistics of language is in the field of synchrony, says Saussure, then linguistics of speech is in the field of diachrony. Diachronic studies are possible in prospective and retrospective plans. You can predict the development of the language or engage in the reconstruction of the proto-language. Linguistics, which should deal with the calmness of language, Saussure proposes to call static or synchronic linguistics, and the science, which should describe the successive states of language, evolutionary or diachronic linguistics.

3) Contrasting external and internal linguistics.

Saussure referred to external linguistics as all aspects related to the history of society; domestic policy states; the level of culture; the relationship between language and church, language and school; geographical distribution of languages ​​and their division into dialects. Language and social factors mutually influence each other.

Internal linguistics studies only the language system, relations within it. Saussure compares linguistics to the game of chess. The fact that the game of chess-you came to Europe from Persia is an external fact; everything that concerns the system and rules of the chess game is internal. If you replace the shapes from the tree with the shapes from Ivory, such a replacement will be indifferent to the system; but if the number of pieces is reduced or increased, such a change will deeply affect the "grammar of the game."

Each of the linguists has its own particular method, says Saussure. External linguistics can heap one detail on top of another without feeling constrained by the clutches of the system. In internal linguistics, any arbitrary arrangement of material is excluded, since language is a system that obeys only its own order. Saussure prefers internal linguistics, as it was underestimated by contemporary linguists.

When publishing the works of Saussure, material on the difference between internal and external linguistics was placed at the beginning of the book, and the impression was created that for Saussure this antinomy is the main one. In fact, for Saussure, the main thing was the opposition of language / speech, and the preponderance of internal linguistics in his "Course ..." is explained by the fact that Saussure designated new way, according to which linguistics of the XX century went. This path led to an in-depth study of internal linguistics in terms of synchronicity.

4) Saussure viewed language as a sign system.

This idea was developed by Aristotle, the authors of the "Grammar of Port-Royal", W. von Gum-boldt, scientists of the Kazan and Moscow linguistic schools.

Saussure was the first to separate language as a sign system from other sign systems: letters, the alphabet of the deaf, military signals. He was the first to propose to single out the science of the life of signs in society - semiology (gr. Semeon "sign"). Semiology, according to Saussure, should be included in social psychology as a section of general psychology. Later this science was called semiotics.

The definition of language as a sign system was directed against the individualism of young grammarians and against the understanding of language as an organism by supporters of naturalism. Any linguistic problem, according to Saussure, is, first of all, a semiological problem, since most of the properties of language are common with other signs and only a few are specific. Semiological study of language, Saussure believes, will help to understand the rites and customs of peoples. But the main objective linguistics - to separate language from other semiotic phenomena and study its specific properties.

5) The doctrine of linguistic sign and significance.

Saussure argued that "Language is a system of signs, in which the only essential is the combination of meaning and an acoustic image, and both of these elements of the sign are equally psychic." Both of these elements are located in the brain, that is, they are mental phenomena. They are associated by association for all speakers of linguistic unity, which ensures understanding. The thing itself and sounds are not included in the sign. A linguistic sign, according to Saussure, connects not a thing and a name, but a concept and an acoustic image.

Schematically, a linguistic sign can be depicted as follows:

The image shows that the linguistic sign is two-sided. The concept without an acoustic image refers to psychology. And only in combination with an acoustic image does a concept become a linguistic essence. The acoustic image is not something sounding, material, but only its imprint in the consciousness of a person. The most significant differences in the acoustic image from other acoustic images. Acoustic images can be represented in writing, the signs of which are imprinted in the mind in the form of visual images replacing acoustic ones.

Linguistic signs, according to Saussure, are real, since they are located in the brain. They also constitute the subject of language linguistics. Linguistic signs are, first of all, words, something central to the mechanism of language.

Having given a definition to a linguistic sign, Saussure names two defining features that distinguish the linguistic system from other sign systems and from social phenomena: 1) arbitrariness and 2) linearity.

Arbitrariness of the sign Saussure understood both as convention and as unmotivated. According to Saussure, the sign is arbitrary, conditional, not connected by internal relations with the designated object (Russian bull, German Ochs). Thus, the connection between the signified (meaning) and the signifier (material form) is arbitrary. This manifests itself in a lack of motivation. In the language, only a small number of onomatopoeic words and expressions are motivated (Russian kukareku, meow-meow, woof-woof).

Associated with motivation morphological characteristics language. Languages ​​with maximum morphological motivation Saussure calls grammatical, and with minimum - lexicological. In the history of linguistics, there are constant transitions of motivated signs into arbitrary ones. Linguistic signs differ from signs of other semiotic systems in that the symbol retains a share of natural connection with the designated. For example, the symbol of justice is the scales, not the chariot; the symbol of peace is a dove, not a hawk.

In 1939, a discussion about the arbitrariness of the sign took place on the pages of the journal "Akta Linguistics". The French scientist Emile Benveniste opposed the doctrine of the arbitrariness of the sign. He argued that the connection between the concept and the acoustic image is not arbitrary, but natural, since it is necessary. One side of the sign does not exist without the other. But the students of Saussure, Albert Sechet and Charles Bally, defending the theory of arbitrariness of Sos-sur, clarified it: the sign is arbitrary when expressing thoughts and involuntary when expressing feelings and aesthetic impressions. A.A. Potebnya also believed that when they arise, all words are motivated, and then the motivation is lost. Disputes about the arbitrariness - the involuntary nature of the linguistic sign continue to this day.

The consequence of arbitrariness is the antinomy of mutability / immutability of the sign. The language is imposed on the speaker and even on the masses, as it follows the traditions of the past. And since the sign knows no other law than the law of tradition, it is arbitrary. However, the histories of languages ​​give examples of changes in both sides of a linguistic sign: both the meaning and the sound composition. Thus, in the language there are factors that lead to a shift of the signified and the signifier precisely because there is no necessary connection between them and the sign is arbitrary. The development of language occurs independently of the will and consciousness of the speaker on the basis of the arbitrariness of the sign.

Linearity of a linguistic sign means that the signifier is an extension that unfolds in time, a line. Acoustic images follow one after another in the form of a chain and cannot arise at the same time. The property of linearity was subsequently rejected by linguistics. Linearity is inherent in speech and cannot characterize a sign as a member of the system. It is quite obvious that in Saussure's doctrine of the linearity of a sign, there is a confusion of the linguistics of language with the linguistics of speech.

Central to Saussure's concept of a linguistic sign is the doctrine of its theoretical value, or the doctrine of significance... The word is defined as a linguistic sign by its place and functioning in the language system, depending on other elements of the system. "Language is a system of pure values, which is not defined by anything, except as the actual composition of its members," Saussure argued. For example, the material from which the chess pieces are made is not important, what is important is their value in terms of the game.

Due to the fact that the linguistic sign is arbitrary and two-sided, Saussure speaks of two types of values: 1) conceptual and 2) material.

Conceptual (conceptual) value connected with the inner side of the sign, with the signified. So, French. mouton and eng. sheep have the same meaning "ram", but the conceptual values ​​of these signs are different, since in French. language mouton = "ram" + "mutton", and in English. language for the meaning of "mutton" has a special word - mutton.

The conceptual value of a sign is revealed within a given language system, taking into account words of the same semantic field, synonymous and antonymic series. Conceptual value also characterizes grammar. So, Russian plural. the number differs from the Old Church Slavonic, because it is a member of the binary opposition (singular - plural), and not the ternary (singular - double - plural). Consequently, the conceptual values ​​of signs are determined by their relationship with other members of the system, Saussure argues.

Material value- this is the difference in acoustic images, or signifiers. For example, in the word "wife" in the genus. case plural number has no ending as a positive material element, but the essence is comprehended by comparison with other forms. On this position, the doctrine of Fortunatov - Whitney about the zero form and the doctrine of Baudouin de Courtenay about morphological zero are built.

Opposition is important for all elements of the language, including phonemes. So, the French "r" can be pronounced as a rolling "r", and as "h". In the German language, however, such liberties are unacceptable, because there "r" and "h" are independent elements of the sound system that have a meaningful function (Rabe - "raven", habe - "I have").

To prove his thesis "Language is a system of pure values" Saussure turns to the problem of language and thinking. Thinking, not expressed in words, is vague, formless, and the sound chain does not separate without connection with meaning. The connection of thinking with sound leads to the differentiation of units. Saussure likens language to a sheet of paper, where the front side is thought and the back side is sound, but they are inseparable from each other. The linguist works in a borderline area where elements of both orders are combined. And when analyzing it is necessary to go from the whole to the individual elements.

6) Learning about language as a system.

Saussure's desire to convince his students of the need for a new approach to language forced him to constantly emphasize the systemic nature of the language and talk about the role of differences in this systemicity. He put forward the thesis: "In the language there is nothing but differences." "Both the idea and the sound material are less important than what is around it in other signs." For example, the significance can change while maintaining both sides of the sign, if the other member changes (with the loss of the dual number, the significance of the singular number and the plural number changes).

Saussure's merit lies in the fact that he truly appreciated the role of relations in language: “in each this state language, everything rests on relationships. " Saussure regarded the language system as mathematically exact and likened it to algebra and geometry. He also used the terms of mathematics: term, element.

The consistency of the language is manifested at the background, grammatical and lexical levels. The language system has two properties: 1) it is in equilibrium and 2) it is closed. It reveals two types of relationships: syntagmatic and associative. These types of relationships correspond to two forms of our mental activity.

Syntagmatic relations occur when elements line up one after the other in the flow of speech. Such combinations that have length can be called syntagmas. Sin-tagma always consists of at least two consecutive units: morphemes, words, phrases, sentences. A member of a syntagma gains significance to the extent of its opposition to what is adjacent to it. This is an adjacency relationship.

Associative (Saussure's term), or paradigmatic (new term) relationships arise outside the process of speech, in the human brain, on the basis that words that have something in common are associated in memory. By similar features, they can be combined into groups (for example, by common root or suffix; by common grammatical forms).

Syntagmatic and associative relations in their totality, according to Saussure, determine each language: they combine phonetics, vocabulary, morphology, syntax into a single whole. Saussure's linguistic technique is connected with these two types of relations - to decompose the whole into parts on the basis of syntagmatic and associative comparison.

The Geneva (Swiss) Linguistic School (Charles Bally, Albert Sechet, Sergei Osipovich Kartsevsky, Robert Gödel) and the Paris School (Antoine Meillet, Joseph Vandries, Michel Grammond, Marcel Cohen) are associated with Saussure's activities. Both of these schools can be called Saussurian.

Since 1928, Saussurianism gradually develops into structuralism, although this name itself appears only in 1939. The main theses of Saussure are on the banner of structuralism: language / speech, synchronicity / diachrony, internal / external linguistics, systemic darkness and symbolism of language.

The phenomenon of language in philosophy and linguistics. Tutorial Fefilov Alexander Ivanovich

2.12. Ferdinand de Saussure (1827-1913). Linguistic structuralism

F. de Saussure - the founder of the structural direction in linguistics. His systematic approach to language is characterized as semiological, designed to study language as a special sign system. He divided linguistics into external and internal. External linguistics deals mainly with the description of the geographical (dialectal) features of the language, internal linguistics is designed to study the immanent structural organization of linguistic phenomena (without taking into account any external factors, for example, the speaking subject and the designated reality). In the structural theory of F. de Saussure, language is isolated from speech activity and opposed to speech. Accordingly, two types of relations of linguistic signs are distinguished - associative (vertical), or paradigmatic (for N. Krushevsky this is an associative relation by similarity) and syntagmatic (linear, horizontal) (in N. Krushevsky, this is an associative relation by contiguity). Linguistic elements connected by these relations modify their meaning and acquire a certain significance depending on the environment and position in the associative plan or in the vocal bundle.

Without excluding diachronic (evolutionary) linguistics from consideration, F. de Saussure proposed focusing on synchronic (static) linguistics. A linguistic sign was defined as the unity of the acoustic image of a material, pronounced sound and meaning (meaning, concept), and, what is especially important, it should be recognized as such only in correlation with other linguistic signs and with the designated external object.

It is known that F. de Saussure did not even leave an outline of his lectures. "He destroyed, as soon as the need was no longer necessary, hastily drawn up drafts, in which he recorded in general view those ideas that he later expounded in his readings. "(From the preface to the first edition of the Course)." The most important event was the publication under the name of F. de Saussure of a course of lectures, the text of which was prepared for publication and published under the title "Course of General Linguistics" (1916, that is, after the death of F. de Saussure; first Russian translation: 1933; in our the country recently published two volumes of works by F. de Saussure in Russian: 1977 and 1990). The publishers of the "Course" were his Geneva students and colleagues Albert Sesche and Charles Bally, who contributed a lot of their own "(see IP Susov History of Linguistics. M., 2006. - p. 208).

The most "alien" in the "Course of General Linguistics" are, in our opinion, such concepts as "signifier" (sound form) and "signified" (meaning), which have introduced a certain confusion in the explanation of the essence of a linguistic sign among many followers of the structural direction in linguistics ... It should be noted that in his early (original) works, presented in a more accurate translation into Russian, F. de Saussure used the concept of "signified" (external object), and not "signified", while emphasizing the inextricable link between linguistic form and meaning , which is more consistent with the bilateral nature of the linguistic sign. One should also be more critical of such linguistic assessments of the structural heritage of F. de Saussure, according to which the "material (sound and physiological) side" is excluded by the author from the definition of language, and "external objects" denoted with the help of language, allegedly, were not accepted by him in Attention.

Major works and sources:

Works on linguistics. M., 1977.

Notes on general linguistics. Moscow: Progress, 1990; 2001.

Basic structural and linguistic views:

1. Linguistics is a historical science. Language is a historical phenomenon.

F. de Saussure states that the science of language (for his time) is essentially and by definition predominantly historical. "The more you learn the language, the more you become convinced that all in the language there is story, in other words, language is the subject of historical analysis, not abstract, it contains facts, but not the laws and whatever it seems organic in linguistic activity, in fact, is only possible and completely random. "

In his opinion, the historicity of the science of language is understood as the desire to know the people through the language. "Language is an important part of spiritual wealth and helps to characterize a certain era, a certain society". This " language in history", but not " history of language", not " life of the language itself"." The language has its own history. "

The historical aspect of language is the change, or "movement of the language in time." "A language taken at two different points in time is not identical with itself." Moreover, the historical change in the language is continuous.

2. Language is not an organism.

F. de Saussure opposes the evolutionary concept of language, according to which language is born, grows, becomes decrepit and dies, like any organism. "Language is not an organism, it does not die by itself, it does not grow and does not age, that is, it has neither childhood nor mature age, no old age, and finally, the language is not born. "

The language changes, but at the same time a new linguistic datum is not generated. Although changes over time can be significant, we are talking about the same language.

Not only the forms (sounds), but the meanings (meanings) of the language underwent historical changes. These changes took place in accordance with certain principles (regularity), for example, the principle of analogy. In different historical eras, the language has developed in accordance with the same principles.

The generated artificial languages ​​cannot replace natural languages.

3. Language is social. Language is a means of mutual understanding.

"The goal of linguistic activity - the achievement of mutual understanding - is an absolute need for any human society." "Language is social, or it does not exist. Before it is imposed on an individual, language must be sanctioned by the collective." "Language abides in the collective soul." "Language is a social product, a set of necessary conventions adopted by the collective to ensure the implementation, functioning of the ability to speech activity that exists in every native speaker."

Language ability is the ability to manipulate language signs. This is the ability to control the movement of articulatory organs in the formation of articulate sounds, and at the same time the ability to correlate these sounds with the corresponding concepts.

4. It is necessary to distinguish between internal and external linguistics.

TO foreign linguistics everything related to the geographical spread of languages ​​and their division into dialects applies.

TO internal linguistics refers to the system of language and the rules of its functioning ("system and rules of the game"). "Language is a system that obeys its own order."

"Everything that modifies the system to some extent is internal."

5. The science of language should investigate linguistic (speech) activity.

Language activity, or "articulate speech" (according to F. de Saussure, not a very clear, vague term) is the property of the human race; an instrument of collective and individual activity; a tool for the development of innate abilities. The manifestations of linguistic activity are subject to study. It is necessary to give a clear idea of ​​them, "classify and understand them".

"Language and linguistic activities(langue et langage) are the same, one is a generalization of the other. ”However, F. de Saussure notes that the study of linguistic activity is an analysis of various manifestations of language; a description of the principles that govern the language; drawing conclusions from specific linguistic material. In this case, language should be considered as a system, and linguistic activity as a universal phenomenon.

Linguistic activity is not an activity that is reduced to a combination of material, sound (physiological-acoustic) actions. "Material sound can only be opposed by a combination sound - concept, but by no means one concept". In his other works, the author brings to the sound acoustic image, under the concept - meaning, believing that these are the ideal objects that linguistics should study.

The acoustic image and the mental image are linked in a linguistic sign by a psychic association. A phonation phenomenon, or material sound, does not constitute the essence of a linguistic sign. Much more important is the perfect representation of material sound. "According to the concept that we always adhere to, phonation contrasted as purely mechanical, so clean acoustic". Thus, phonation is equated with the sound of a word (the quality of verbal sound), mechanical - with the movement of the organs of speech when pronouncing a sound, acoustic - with the ideal image of sound in linguistic consciousness." The mechanism of sound production "does not belong to" such a completely special area, as a linguistic activity ”.

6. What is designated and expressed with the help of language does not belong to the sphere of linguistic research itself.

"No matter how bright the rays of light with which the language can unexpectedly illuminate other objects of study, they will have only a completely episodic and secondary significance for the study of the language itself, for internal development of this research and for the purposes that it pursues. "It is proposed to investigate the sign function, and not the nature of the designated object. This excludes the possibility of attributing to the linguistic sign the properties of the object called with its help.

7. Language is a sign system. Sound and word perform a sign function in the language.

For F. de Saussure, language is an arbitrary, conventional system of signs. "Language is a system internally ordered in all its parts". The language depends on the designated object, but free and arbitrary in relation to him.

According to F. de Saussure, "in language, sound is perceived only as a sign." It is the sign of the "signified", that is, the meaning. Likewise, a word that we consider in conjunction with other words that exist simultaneously with it is a sign, or more precisely, "is the bearer of a certain meaning." The words of the language perform the function of symbols, since they have nothing to do with the designated objects. "The study of how the mind uses symbols is a whole science that has nothing to do with historical analysis."

"Any language consists of a certain number of objects of the external order, which a person uses as signs." The essence of a linguistic sign lies in its ability to inform about something - "it is by its very nature intended for transmission".

The property of the language system is that one a language sign by itself means nothing... Only in relation to other linguistic signs can it mean something. In these relations, the interdependence of linguistic signs is manifested basic law of language.

The language system functions according to its own laws - "language does not obey the guiding activity of the mind, because from the very beginning it is not the result of visible harmony between the concept and the means of its expression."

A change in one sign in the language system can lead to a change in the nature of the relationship of this sign with other signs, cf. what is before him. " Their equilibrium, mutual arrangement is violated.

Language sign indicates some non-linguistic subject... A non-linguistic subject can in turn associate some kind of linguistic sign. However, the designated external objects do not belong to language, cf. "Of course, it is regrettable that designated items who are not his part of"." A linguistic sign connects not a thing and its name, but a concept and an acoustic image. "Thus, it is argued that a linguistic sign is a" sound-concept ", and not" sound is a thing. " things that the author often equates with meaning.

The linguistic sign forms the unity of sound and meaning (correspondence between the phonetic and significant sides). It is impossible to separate the sound side of the sign from its conceptual side. An acoustic image is a psychic imprint of sounding in our consciousness. A linguistic sign is a two-sided psychic entity (an image of sound and meaning at the same time).

A linguistic sign exists "not only due to the combination of phonism and meaning", but also due to correlation with other linguistic signs, and, in addition, correlates with the essence of the external order, that is, with the designated object (object). It is impossible to speak only about "the word and its meaning", while forgetting that the word is surrounded by other words, or parasemes. "

The shape of the sign is inconceivable without taking into account the meaning. At the same time, one cannot talk about semantics outside the form. The sound is realized only together with the meaning. Sound should be viewed as complex acoustic-articulatory unity... In unity with the concept, sound represents " complex physiological and mental unity".

"To signify (signifier) ​​is not only to endow a sign with a concept, but also to select a sign to a concept." Concepts are phenomena of consciousness. They are associated "with representations of linguistic signs, or with acoustic images."

Language sign linear, it is extended in the time it takes to pronounce it. A sign is a sound (a time period, conventionally starting on the left and ending on the right), to which some meaning is attributed. In a word mark there is nothing anatomical - it is impossible to separate the sound form from the meaning, they do not exist without each other.

A linguistic sign is a combination of a concept and an acoustic image. The concept is signified... Acoustic image - signifying... The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, that is, it is not motivated.

"Significators, perceived by ear, have only a timeline: their elements follow one after another, forming a chain."

A symbol differs from a linguistic sign in that it is not completely arbitrary. There is still a natural connection in him, cf. a symbol of justice, scales ("it cannot be replaced with anything."

The exception is the few onomatopoeia and interjections in the language. However, they "are not organic elements in the language system."

The essence of signs is to be different.

8. Language is a system of pure meanings.

"The meaning is what is in relation to the correspondence with the acoustic image."

"Language is a system of pure meanings, determined exclusively by the present state of its constituent elements."

To explain the significance of linguistic units, F. de Saussure uses an analogy with chess. Both in language and in chess "there is a system of meanings and an observed change in them."

"The corresponding significance of the pieces depends on their position at any given moment on the board, just as in language the significance of each element depends only on its opposition to all other elements."

The significance of the pieces also depends on the rules of the chess game. Similar stable rules ("adopted once and for all") are also in the language. This refers to the unchanging principles of semiology.

With a change in the significance of one figure or unit of language, it can lead to a change in the meanings of other figures (other linguistic signs) or to a change in the entire system.

The significance of a piece on a chessboard varies depending on position (location and environment).

By analogy, the significance of a linguistic unit changes depending on syntactic function and from compatibility with other language units in speech.

In a later exposition, F. de Saussure understands the meaning of a linguistic unit by significance. The concept is considered as one of the aspects of linguistic significance. "Significance ... there is, of course, an element of meaning."

"The significance of one element stems only from the simultaneous presence of others (significance)." The significance of a word is revealed by contrasting this word with another word. It can be a paradigmatic opposition.

However, the significance can be determined by "everything that is associated with it (with the word). This is the syntagmatic relationship of a word in a linear row, in a row of compatibility with other words.

The precise characterization of meanings is "to be what others are not."

F. de Saussure considers not only the conceptual (semantic) significance, but also the sound significance ("the significance of the material side of language"). "In a word, it is not the sound itself that is important, but those sound differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others, since they are the bearers of meaning."

"The language system has a number of differences in sounds associated with a number of differences in concepts." "There is nothing in language but differences." These differences appear in comparison, for example, "taken separately, neither Nacht nor N? Chte don't mean anything. "

"The significance of the whole is determined by its parts, the significance of the parts is determined by their place in the whole."

9. System-forming relations in the language are syntagmatic and associative relations.

"Words in speech, connecting with each other, enter into relations with each other based on the linear nature of the language, which excludes the possibility of pronouncing two elements at the same time"

"A member of a syntagma receives significance only to the extent of its opposition to either what precedes it, or what follows, or both together."

"Outside the process of speech, words that have something in common with each other are associated in memory in such a way that groups are formed from them, within which very diverse relationships are found." "We will call these relationships associative relationships."

"All types of syntagmas, which are built according to certain rules, should also be referred to language, and not to speech."

Highlights associative rows in which a root or suffix is ​​common to all members.

Words can also be grouped according to the generality of acoustic images. Thus, words can be grouped either by common sense or by common form.

10. It is necessary to distinguish between diachrony of language (evolutionary linguistics) and synchrony (idiosynchrony) of language (static linguistics).

A diachronic approach to language is a study of its historical development (horizontally, in sequence). The synchronic approach is a study of the state of the language without taking into account the historical development (vertically). Wed: "Always state with historical point vision and awareness of the current state are opposed to each other. These are two ways the sign exists. "" Each word is at the intersection of diachronic and synchronic perspectives. "

The transitions of a language from one state to another are studied by evolutionary (diachronic) linguistics. Diachronic linguistics must study the relationships that connect the elements of a language in time.

The timeless state of the language, without taking into account the factors of its development, is studied by static (synchronic) linguistics. Synchronous linguistics should study systemic phenomena in the language in the form as they are perceived at the moment by the linguistic community.

11. Language is collective. Speech is individual. The word is the unit of language. A sentence is a unit of speech.

Speech is characterized by individuality. It includes phonation, a combination of elements (verbal signs), the will of the speaker. The language is "legalized by society and does not depend on the individual."

"Speech is an individual act of will and reason." Language is a socially passive phenomenon. "Language is finished product passively registered by the speaker. "

In relation to the individual, language is external, in the sense that the individual can neither create it, nor change it.

"A sentence exists only in speech, in a discursive language, while the word is a unit that is outside of any discourse, in the treasury of the mind." The word is a ready-made unit of language. The sentence is created in the process of speech activity.

"If we subtract from Linguistic activity (Langage) everything that is Speech (Parole), then the rest can be called Langue proper, which consists exclusively of mental elements." Thus, Linguistic activity = Speech + Language.

"Language is a psychic connection between a concept and a sign, which cannot be said about speech." "Language ... is a system of signs in which the only essential is the combination of meaning and an acoustic image, and both of these components of the sign are equally psychic." As a system of signs, language should be studied within the framework of semiology (sign theory).

"Historically, the fact of speech always precedes language."

"Language always acts as a legacy of a previous era." The speaker must also reckon with which acoustic images are assigned to which concepts. "

Meaning in the language, that is, the sound shells of words cannot be changed arbitrarily in spite of the prevailing sound characteristics. "Society accepts the language as it is."

Historical continuity plays into the language crucial role to maintain the stability of the language system.

Collective inertia opposes any linguistic innovation. A revolution in language is impossible. Language is a product of social forces.

However, language still changes due to a shift in the relationship between the signified and the signifier. This shift contributes to the emergence of new correspondences between sound and concept.

12. It is necessary to distinguish between sound (oral) language and written (graphic) language.

Sound and writing are two different systems signs. The letter is used to represent the language. However, the subject of linguistics is "an exceptionally sounding word".

"Language is constantly evolving, while writing tends to be immobile." We often retain "spellings that have no reasonable excuse." This refers to the multiplicity of written signs used to capture the same sound.

Polygram of the discussed problems (after F. de Saussure)

From the book Philosophy: A Textbook for Universities the author Mironov Vladimir Vasilievich

Chapter 6. Structuralism 1. Formation of structural linguistics Structuralism originally developed in linguistics and literary criticism in the 30s. XX century The foundations of structural linguistics were developed by the Swiss philologist F. de Saussure and presented in his book "General Course

From the book Postmodernism [Encyclopedia] the author Gritsanov Alexander Alekseevich

LINGUISTIC TURN LINGUISTIC TURN is a term describing the situation in philosophy in the first third - mid-20th century. and denoting the moment of transition from classical philosophy, which considered consciousness as a starting point

From the book Complete collection of works in two volumes. the author Kireevsky Ivan Vasilievich

EVENT EVENT is a concept introduced by the philosophy of postmodernism in the context of rejection of the linear version of reading the historical process and fixing in its content historical temporality, open to configuration as

From the book Introduction to Philosophy author Frolov Ivan

Tsaritsyno night. (1827). Night found a merry cavalcade two miles away from Tsaritsyn. Unwittingly, they quickly changed their horses to a slow pace, when huge ponds opened up in front of them - a red-edged monument to Godunov's wise rule. Noisy conversations

From the book Violence and the Sacred author Girard Rene

4. Structuralism Structuralism is a direction in philosophy of the XX century, as well as hermeneutics, directly related to the development of humanitarian knowledge. The transition in the 20-50s of a number of humanities from the empirical-descriptive to the abstract-theoretical level required

From the book of Michel Foucault, as I imagine him by Blanchot Maurice

2. Neorealism and linguistic analysis (J.E. Moore) George Edward Moore (1873-1958) - English philosopher, one of the founders of Anglo-American neorealism and the linguistic branch of analytical philosophy. Moore asserts himself as a philosopher in 1903, when come out

From the book Marcel Proust and signs by Deleuze Gilles

From the book The Legacy of Genghis Khan the author Trubetskoy Nikolay Sergeevich

Goodbye, Structuralism Foucault has at least two books - one seemingly esoteric, the other brilliant, simple, fascinating, both programmatic in appearance - in which he seems to clear the way for hopes of some new knowledge, but they are in fact rather

From the book Philosophy of Chance author Lem Stanislav