Abstract Linguistic theory of F. de Saussure
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 - 1913) is called the Copernicus of modern linguistics. linguistic concept Saussure founded ideas of the sign nature and systematic nature of language. The ideas of Saussure 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 19th - beginning of the 20th century.
F. de Saussure became interested in linguistics in the gymnasium. He studied Sanskrit on his own, and at the age of 12 he met the founder of Indo-European linguistic paleontology, Adolf Pictet. Under his influence, at the age of 15, Saussure wrote his first linguistic work " General system language". At the age of 16, while studying the structure of the Indo-European root, three years before K. Brugmann and G. Osthoff, 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 (study) on the original vowel system in the Indo-European language».
This work outraged the professors of the University of Leipzig, the young grammarians Brugmann and Osthoff. At the very center of neogrammatism with its “atomic” method of analysis, with its fundamental refusal to solve 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 the Indo-European parent language. Saussure was criticized so severely that A Memoir of the Primitive Vowel System in the Indo-European Languages became his only major work published during his lifetime. Subsequently, Saussure published only small notes and reviews, which were not paid attention either in Switzerland, or in Germany, or in France.
The core idea of the "Memoir" was the systematic nature of the language. Proving the systematic 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 systematic nature of the phonetic and morphological structure of the Indo-European parent 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) in some conditions, the vowel “e” alternated with “o”, in others “e” disappeared (* mer- // mor-: died, pestilence, die; ber- // bor-: I take, collect, take);
3) where the vowel "e" fell out, the root that did not contain a sonant remained without a vowel. At the root, with a sonant, the sonant acts as a syllabic sound when it is followed by a consonant: *pei-ti → pi-t.
The most important principle of these rules is that under the same morphological and phonetic conditions, the vowels of different roots should be the same. For example, in the first person of the present tense of Indo-European verbs, there is a vowel “e” in the root: German. ich gebe (I give), lat. lego (collect), rus. I carry / lead / carry / weave. The verbal name has a vowel "o" at the root: lat. toga, rus. burden / cart / raft. The participle has zero sound "dra-ny" or contains a vowel, which is the result of the fusion of the original vowel and the sonant "broken" from "bey".
Thus, arguments of a systemic nature ensure the reliability of the reconstruction of the parent language.
In 1880 Saussure defended his doctoral dissertation on syntax. He begins to work at the University of Paris, and in Paris he meets I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Then a 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. There remain 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 loser who could not rise to the level of his first talented book.
In 1906, Saussure was offered a position as a professor at the University of Geneva.
F. de Saussure read his course three times without leaving even brief notes 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 of General Linguistics" was reprinted several times in French, then was translated into other languages of the world, including Russian.
In the "Course of General Linguistics" Saussure solved the most important problems of linguistics:
1) Contrasting language and speech.
The central concepts of the "Course of General Linguistics" were speech activity, language and speech. In parallel with the scientists of the Kazan Linguistic School, F. de Saussure began to distinguish between two sides in speech activity: language and speech. Saussure placed this distinction at the center of a general theory of language.
Language and speech are two sides of speech activity. Speech activity is diverse, it includes social and 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 social nature 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 by living in a human society. Language is passively registered by man and imposed on him. An individual 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 deposited 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 collection of individuals.
Language is a mental phenomenon, but in it there is only the general, the abstract, the abstract. The psychic nature of language does not deny its real existence. Saussure considers the possibility of graphically reflecting the language in writing as proof of its reality. The reality of language is confirmed by the possibility of studying dead languages from monuments.
Speech is entirely individual. It is an act of the will and consciousness of an individual, it is completely controlled by the individual.
The speech contains:
1) the combinations that the speaker forms to express his thoughts using the 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 spoken. Consequently, language is abstracted from speech, and not vice versa: "Language and speech are interconnected, for 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 installed.
Contrasting 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 roads. You have to go through each of them separately. Until the beginning of the 20th century. linguists, according to Saussure, studied only speech. The linguistics of the language is completely unexplored. Therefore, Saussure's motto was the words: "Stand on the point of view of language and consider everything else from this point of view!" The "Course of General Linguistics" ends with the phrase: "The only and true object of linguistics is language considered in and for itself."
2) Contrasting synchrony and diachrony.
The second crossroads on the path of a linguist is synchrony / diachrony, that is, the study of a language at a moment of rest and in development. Saussure proposes to distinguish between 1) the axis of simultaneity (AB) and 2) the axis of sequence (CD).
The axis of simultaneity (AB) concerns the relationship between coexisting sequences, where all interference of time is excluded. On the axis of sequence (SD) are all the phenomena of the first axis with all their changes, it can never be considered more than one thing at once.
Saussure associated the concept of a system only with synchrony, which coincides with the axis of simultaneity. In diachrony coinciding with the axis of the sequence, in his opinion, there are only shifts that 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.
Often Saussure is accused of separating synchrony from diachrony, of the non-historical 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 interconnectedness, emphasizing their dialectical unity and differences. But at the same time, he constantly reminded students that "modern linguistics, having barely arisen, plunged headlong into diachrony" and neglected synchrony. That is why the synchronic aspect was more important for Saussure. "For speakers, only the synchronic aspect is the true and only reality."
If the linguistics of language is in the realm of synchrony, says Saussure, then the linguistics of speech is in the realm of diachrony. Diachronic studies are possible in prospective and retrospective plans. You can predict the development of a language or engage in the reconstruction of the parent language. Linguistics, which should deal with the rest of the language, Saussure proposes to call static or synchronous linguistics, and the science that should describe the successive states of the language, evolutionary or diachronic linguistics.
3) Contrasting external and internal linguistics.
Saussure attributed to external linguistics all aspects related to the history of society; internal politics states; level of culture; relations between language and church, language and school; geographical distribution of languages and their fragmentation into dialects. Language and social factors mutually influence each other.
Internal linguistics studies only the language system, the relationships within it. Saussure compares linguistics to a game of chess. That the game of chess came to Europe from Persia is a fact of an external order; internal is everything that concerns the system and rules of the chess game. If we replace the figures from the tree with figures from Ivory, such a replacement will be indifferent to the system; but if the number of figures is reduced or increased, such a change will profoundly affect the "grammar of the game."
Each of the linguistics has its own special method, says Saussure. External linguistics can pile one detail upon 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 gives preference to internal linguistics, as it was underestimated by contemporary linguists.
When Saussure's works were published, 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 was the main one. In fact, for Saussure, the main thing was the opposition of language / speech, and the predominance of internal linguistics in his "Course ..." is explained by the fact that Saussure designated new way on which linguistics of the 20th century went. This path led to an in-depth study of internal linguistics in terms of synchrony.
4) Saussure viewed language as a system of signs..
This idea was developed by Aristotle, the authors of the Port-Royal Grammar, V. von Humboldt, scientists from the Kazan and Moscow linguistic schools.
Saussure was the first to isolate language as a sign system from other sign systems: letters, the alphabet of the deaf-mute, 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 became known as semiotics.
The definition of language as a sign system was directed both against the individualism of neogrammarists 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 a language are common with other signs and only a few are specific. Semiological study of the 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 the Linguistic Sign and Significance.
Saussure argued that "Language is a system of signs in which the only essential is the combination of meaning and acoustic image, and both of these elements of the sign are equally mental." Both of these elements are in the brain, that is, they are mental phenomena. They are associated by association among all speakers of linguistic unity, which ensures understanding. The thing itself and the sounds do not enter into 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 psycho-logy. And only in conjunction with the acoustic image does the concept become a linguistic entity. The acoustic image is not something sounding, material, but only its imprint in the human mind. The most significant in the acoustic image is its difference 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 that replace acoustic ones.
Linguistic signs, according to Saussure, are real because they have a location in the brain. They are the subject of the linguistics of the language. Linguistic signs are, first of all, words, something central in the mechanism of language.
Having defined the 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.
The arbitrariness of the sign Saussure understood both convention and lack of motivation. 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 crow, meow-meow, woof-woof).
Motivation is associated with the morphological characteristics of the language. Saussure calls the languages with the maximum morphological motivation grammatical, and with the minimum - lexicological. In the history of linguistics, constant transitions of motivated signs into arbitrary ones are observed. Linguistic signs differ from the signs of other semiotic systems in that the symbol retains a share of natural connection with the signified. For example, the symbol of justice is the scales, not the chariot; the symbol of peace is the dove, not the 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 Saussure's theory of arbitrariness, clarified it: the sign is arbitrary when expressing thought and involuntary when expressing feelings and aesthetic impressions. A.A. Potebnya also believed that when they appear, all words are motivated, and then motivation is lost. Disputes about the arbitrariness - non-arbitrariness of a linguistic sign continue to this day.
The consequence of arbitrariness is the antinomy of the changeability / immutability of the sign. The language is imposed on the speaker and even on the mass, 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 history of languages gives examples of changes in both sides of the linguistic sign: both the meaning and the sound composition. Thus, there are factors in language that lead to a shift between the signified and the signifier, precisely because there is no necessary connection between them and the sign is arbitrary. The development of the 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 occur simultaneously. The property of linearity was subsequently rejected by linguistics. Linearity is characteristic of speech and cannot characterize a sign as a member of a system. It is quite obvious that in Saussure's doctrine of the linearity of the sign, there is a mixture of the linguistics of language with the linguistics of speech.
The central place in Saussure's concept of a linguistic sign is occupied by 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, determined by nothing but the actual composition of the members that make up its composition,” Saussure argued. For example, the material from which the chess pieces are made is not important, what matters is their value under the conditions 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. Yes, French. mouton and English. 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. The 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 the words of the same semantic field, synonymous and antonymic series. Conceptual value also characterizes grammar. So, Russian pl. the number differs from Old Slavonic, because it is a member of the binary opposition (singular - plural), and not ternary (singular - binary - plural). Consequently, the conceptual values of signs are determined by their relationship with other members of the system, argues Saussure.
material value is the distinction of acoustic images or signifiers. For example, in the word "wife" in the genus. case pl. number has no ending as a positive material element, and the essence is comprehended by comparison with other forms. Fortunatov-Whitney's theory of zero form and Baudouin de Courtenay's theory of morphological zero are built on this position.
Contrasting is important for all elements of the language, including phonemes. So, the French "r" can be pronounced both as a rolling "r" and as "h". In German, 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 that is not expressed in words is vague, formless, and the sound chain does not divide without connecting with meaning. Connecting thinking with sound leads to a distinction between units. Saussure likens language to a sheet of paper, where the front side is a thought, and the back side is a sound, but they are inseparable from each other. The linguist works in the border area, where elements of both orders are combined. And in the analysis it is necessary to go from the whole to the individual elements.
6) The doctrine of 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 language and talk about the role of differences in this systemicity. He put forward the thesis: "There is nothing in language but differences." "Both the idea and the sound material are less important than what is around him in other signs." For example, the significance can change while maintaining both sides of the sign, if the other member changes (if the dual number is lost, the significance of the singular and the plural changes).
Saussure's merit lies in the fact that he truly appreciated the role of relations in language: "in any given state of language, everything rests on relations." Saussure considered the language system as mathematically exact and likened it to algebra and geometry. He used the terms of mathematics: member, element.
The systematic nature of the language is manifested at the phonetic, grammatical and lexical levels. The language system has two properties: 1) it is in balance and 2) it is closed. It reveals two types of relationships: syn-tagmatic 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. Syn-tagma always consists of at least two consecutive units: morphemes, words, phrases, sentences. A member of the syntagma acquires 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. According to similar features, they can be combined into groups (for example, according to the common root or suffix; according to the common grammatical forms).
Syntagmatic and associative relations in their totality, according to Saussure, define 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 activities of Saussure are associated with the Geneva (Swiss) Linguistic School (Charles Balli, Albert Seche, Sergey Osipovich Kartsevsky, Robert Gödel) and the Paris School (Antoine Meillet, Joseph Vandries, Michel Grammont, Marcel Cohen). Both of these schools can be called Saussurian.
Since 1928, Saussurianism gradually develops into structuralism, although this name itself appears only in 1939. Saussure's main theses are on the banner of structuralism: language / speech, synchrony / diachrony, internal / external linguistics, systemicity and sign language.
At the beginning of the XX century. the famous Swiss linguist F. de Saussure first tried establish mutual connections between the facts of language, group them, synthesize into a whole. According to the French philologist E. Benvenista, in our time there is hardly a linguist who would not be indebted to Saussure, and there is hardly a general theory of language in which his name would not be mentioned. more
| |
|||||||
|
F. de Saussure pointed out the subject of linguistics with the utmost precision: "The only and true object of linguistics is language considered in and for itself." This formulation, given in the final part of the book, contains three important provisions, two of which are true, and the third is puzzling and some commentators on the work of the great Genevan are considered not “Saussurean”, but generated either by the conjecture of the publishers, or (if these are the words of Saussure) lecturer: for simplicity and greater clarity, take everything to the extreme.
First position: the language must be learned in independent science, and not become alternately the object of biology, then physiology, then psychology, then sociology, etc., which do not study the entire language and only by the methods of their sciences. The second provision is about the content of linguistics: it must consider language learning the most important, even “only”, one’s subject (“object”) and not to share this right and this duty with any other science, if one does not want to receive fragmentary judgments about this most complex property of an individual and all mankind (A.T. Khrolenko , V.D. Bondaletov, 2006, p. 67).
F. de Saussure put forward a number of new ideas about language:
1)language as a system;
2)sign theory of language;
3)synchrony and diachrony;
4)syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in language.
Let's describe them.
1. Language as a system. F. de Saussure strictly distinguishes between three linguistic concepts: speech activity (language), language (language) and speaking, or individual speech (password). Language should not be confused with speech. Language, according to Saussure, is “the social product of speech ability, the totality of necessary conditions learned by the social collective for the realization of this ability in individuals” (F. de Saussure, 1933, pp. 34–35). “Language,” F. de Saussure noted, “is only a certain part, though the most important part, of speech activity.” Although language is only the sum of necessary conventions accepted by society, it is it that makes speech activity possible. All components of speech activity that are not related to language, the scientist called the general term - speech.
F. de Saussure used method of antinomies- a way of presenting material in the form of contradictory provisions, each of which is recognized as logically provable. Antinomy contains two sides of one phenomenon, presented as being in an insoluble unity and opposition. The analysis that F. de Saussure conducts in relation to language and speech is interesting.
| Speech 1. Speech ability is universal in nature. 2. Speech is heterogeneous: it varies endlessly. 3. Speech is instantaneous: speech acts cannot be known and depicted exactly. 4. Speech may be lost (for example, with aphasia). 5. Speech activity stops in the event of the death of an individual. | Language 1. Languages are characterized by a national form, are of a different nature. 2. The language is homogeneous: it is something common that unites all members of society. 3. The signs of the language are permanent, tangible, and can be fixed in writing. 4. The language is saved even if there is no playback. 5. Language is preserved for a long time, being fixed in writing. |
F. de Saussure was the first in linguistics of the 20th century. after W. von Humboldt drew attention to general theory of language. But if Humboldt stressed that language is not a frozen product human activity, but this activity itself, then Saussure argued the exact opposite: “Language is not the activity of the speaker. Language is finished product passively registered by the speaker. F. de Saussure delineated "internal linguistics" dealing with language, and "external linguistics", studying that "what is alien to his body, his system." To external linguistics, the scientist attributed the issues of the geographical distribution of languages, problems linking the language with history, culture, politics, as well as acoustics, physiology, and the psychology of speech. F. de Saussure did not deny the importance of studying extralinguistic (extralinguistic, as they say now) questions, but for him they were outside the main problems of linguistics. The “Course of General Linguistics” ended with the well-known words: “the only and true object of linguistics is language considered in and for itself” (F . Saussure, 1977, p. 207). These words are not in any of the student lecture notes of F. de Saussure. Apparently, they were completed by the compilers of the book. S. Bally and A. Seshe(V. Alpatov, 1998, p. 642). Thus, an outstanding linguist of the XX century. significantly narrowed the problems of the science of language, but this narrowing for the first time helped to clarify and clearly define the primary linguistic tasks. After F. de Saussure, linguists for half a century focused on the study of language - its sound structure and morphology, already in a new sense. And they achieved a lot, significantly increased the accuracy of many scientific methods of linguistics.2. The sign theory of language. F. de Saussure wrote: “Language is a system of signs expressing concepts, and, therefore, it can be compared with writing, the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, symbolic rites, forms of courtesy, military signals ... It is only the most important of these systems.” It was the Swiss scientist who proposed the creation of a special science that studies the life of signs within society - semiology, or semiotics, which would also include linguistics as an integral part. Linguistics "as a science
about signs of a special kind”, according to Saussure, is the most complex and most widespread semiological system.
F. de Saussure discovered the fundamental law of language: one member of the system never means anything by itself. The scientist wrote: “It is not the sound as such that is important in the word, but the sound differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others, since only these sound differences are significant.” This proposition is now being developed by representatives of various strands of structuralism.
The notion of significance, which is important for Saussure's concept, also follows from the concept of systemicity. The significance (value) of linguistic signs is the totality of their relational (expressing attitude) properties that exist along with absolute properties (meaning, sound features, etc.). The sign, according to F. de Saussure, is the unity of the signified (concept) and the signifier (acoustic image), connected according to the principle of arbitrariness. The arbitrariness of the sign is the lack of motivation. Wed Russian dog, English dog, german Hund denote the same animal, but none of the words reflect the properties of the animal. The exception to the arbitrariness of a linguistic sign is only a few onomatopoeic words.
The signifier can be sound - this is most often the case in the language, but this is not necessary. The scientist has repeatedly compared the language with chess. For chess, the rules of the game are important, and the material from which the pieces are made is immaterial; the shape of the figures is also not important in itself, it is only necessary that the figures differ. So for a linguist it is not so important whether the sign in front of him is a sound sign or a written one. But it is important that in human consciousness this or that signified should be constantly connected with a certain signifier. That is, on the one hand, the linguistic sign is arbitrary, conditional (this applies to the choice of the sign), but, on the other hand, it is mandatory for the linguistic community. F. de Saussure emphasizes the social conditionality of the sign in this way: “It’s as if they say to the language: “Choose!”, But they add: “You choose this sign, and not another.” The constant link between the signifier and the signified is the sign. Another feature of the linguistic sign is signifier linearity, that is, the sequential deployment of language units (words, affixes) in the act of speech and the strict laws of their location relative to each other.
3. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Developing the theory of the linguistic sign, F. de Saussure studied in detail and comprehensively all the properties of the sign and showed that signs form a system of relations. The dual nature of this system he designated in the form of opposition syntagmatics and paradigmatics. Syntagmatic relations in the system of signs coincide with the linear, sequential arrangement of linguistic elements. paradigmatic(F. de Saussure called them associative) relations are determined by the choice of a particular language element from a paradigm that is known to the speaker.
The differences between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations can be illustrated by the following example. In the Russian word cat last sound [ t] - deaf. Getting into the syntagma, this sound in the word may not be preserved: the cat is sick. Here, the assimilation of the deaf [t] takes place according to the voicedness of the voiced following it [ b]. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between paradigmatic(vertical) and syntagmatic(horizontal).
4. Synchrony and diachrony. Another famous antinomy of F. de Saussure is the opposition of synchrony and diachrony. From ancient times to the eighteenth century language in European science was considered unchanged. Thus, in the "Grammar of Port-Royal" Latin and French were considered in the same row: for the authors of the grammar it did not matter that French came from Latin (!). In the 19th century the other extreme became dominant: scientific linguistics began to be considered only historical and, first of all, comparative historical. Of course, even before F. de Saussure, there were quite a few both synchronic and diachronic studies. But these two ways of describing a language: a) a static, one-time description of a language in a system, and b) a sequence of linguistic facts in time - a historical or dynamic aspect - often mixed up. The merit of F. de Saussure is a clear separation of these approaches. It is no coincidence that the domestic linguist S.D. Katsnelson called the antinomic method of the great scientist the method of drawing bridges.
The disciples and followers of F. de Saussure do not currently act in unity. Directly developed the views of their teacher Sh. Balli, A. Seshe Russian linguist S.O. Kartsevsky(commonly referred to as the Geneva School). A large group of linguists developed the sociological ideas of Saussure in combination with the principles of comparative historical linguistics ( A. Meie, J. Vandries, A. Sommerfelt, E. Benveniste). Finally, some provisions of Saussure's linguistic concept were the basis of structural linguistics. It includes Prague Linguistic School, the doctrine of glossematics (Danish structuralism, American descriptive linguistics). The term "structuralism" was introduced into scientific circulation in 1939 by the Dutch linguist Pos. This direction is based on a number of principles:
1) the study of the language as a sign system with an emphasis on its code properties;
2) the distinction in the language of synchrony and diachrony;
3) the search for formal methods for studying and describing the language.
LINGUISTIC THEORY F. DE SAUSSURE
§ 1. LIFE AND CREATIVE WAY
One of the outstanding linguists of the 20th century, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was born in Geneva, in a family of scientists. From childhood, his ability for languages manifested itself: he knew Greek and Latin. In 1875, de Saussure began studying at the University of Geneva, and in 1876 he moved to Leipzig, where such major linguists of the time as G. Curtius and A. Leskin taught comparative linguistics. He stayed in Leipzig for two years, mainly interested in the comparative study of languages. The result of his studies in this area was the study "On the original system of vowels in the Indo-European languages" (1879); in this work, the description of individual facts of the language, which is characteristic of neogrammarists, is replaced by a jj£-__lost description of the system. The neo-grammarists coldly greeted the work of de Saussure. The research of the young scientist was highly appreciated by N. V. Krushevsky, who tried to apply the data obtained by de Saussure to the analysis of the Old Church Slavonic language. (The creative aspirations of I. C. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, Krushevsky and de Saussure in this period coincided in many respects; it was not for nothing that de Saussure later said that these two Russian scientists came closest to the theoretical consideration of language.) The doctoral thesis is also devoted to the issues of comparative linguistics de Saussure's dissertation "The Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit" (1880).
Since 1880 de Saussure lives in Paris and takes an active part in the work of the Parisian Linguistic Society (since 1882 - deputy secretary of the society). Since 1884, he began lecturing at the Higher Practical School, and from that time on, his scientific activity was limited to teaching. However, as a foreigner, de Saussure did not have the right to head a department in any of the higher educational institutions in France. In 1891 he returned to his homeland. At the University of Geneva, he first became an extraordinary professor of comparative historical grammar of the Indo-European languages, then an ordinary professor of Sanskrit and Indo-European languages, and from 1907 he headed the department of general linguistics.
During the "time of teaching, de Saussure did not publish a single general theoretical work, although he continued to study the theory of language and the logical classification of languages. His deep reflections on the problems of the essence of language were reflected in the course of general linguistics. Read by de Saussure in 190G-1912.
three courses in general linguistics formed the basis of the "Course of General Linguistics" (1916), published posthumously; the book is a recording of his lectures by S. Balli and A. Seshe 1 . The "Course of General Linguistics" gained worldwide fame, was translated into many languages and had a great influence on the development of various areas of linguistics of the 20th century.
§2. ORIGINS OF THE LINGUISTIC CONCEPT
F. de Saussure's linguistic concept is based on criticism of the views of neogrammarists, the desire to better understand the structure of the language and the essence of its basic units, the use of data from other sciences to understand the nature of the language. At the same time, de Saussure creatively accepted the achievements of contemporary linguistics.
In solving the main problems of linguistics, about the nature, essence and specificity of language, de Saussure was greatly influenced by the ideas
| French positivist sociologists O. Comte, E. Durkheim and
G. Tarda (see ch. 12, §3).
* In the "Course of Positive Philosophy" (1830-1842), Comte introduces the term "sociology" for the first time. According to Comte, it is necessary to describe the phenomena under study without penetrating into their essence, only to establish the smallest number of external connections between them. These connections are determined on the basis of the similarity of phenomena and their sequential arrangement in relation to each other. Comte divides sociology into social statics, which should describe the state of society, and social dynamics, which explores the impact of moral incentives on the transformation of the world.
The problem of the essence of social phenomena is dealt with in detail in Durkheim's The Method of Sociology (1899); he writes that society is "a kind of psychic being, an association of many minds". Denying the existence of the objective world, Durkheim believed that objectively, outside of man, there is only the so-called "social fact", "collective consciousness", i.e. beliefs, customs, way of thinking, actions, language, etc. Durkheim deduces " law of coercion, according to which every social fact is coercive: by forcing a person to obey, it at the same time prescribes a certain behavior to a person.
These idealistic tenets of Durkheim's teaching influenced de Saussure's linguistic views. Just as Durkheim believes that society is a mechanical association of many minds, so de Saussure believes that ^shk^ is “a grammatical system that potentially exists in every brain, or, rather, in the brains of a whole set of individuals, for language does not exist completely in none of them, it exists in full measure only in the mass” 2 . Action-
1 In 1957, the Swiss scientist R. Godel published the book Handwritten
sources of the “Course of General Linguistics” by F. de Saussure, in which it calls into question
authenticity of certain provisions of de Saussure in the form in which they were
published by Balli and Sechet. Summary publication currently underway
text of the book in comparison with all handwritten materials.
2 Quot. according to the book: So s yu r F. de. Course of general linguistics. M., 1933.
Outside of Durkheim's law of coercion, de Saussure is also noted when analyzing the motivation of a linguistic sign. Emphasizing the conditionality of "language," he "believes that "if in relation to the idea depicted by it, the signifier appears to be freely chosen, then, on the contrary, in relation to the linguistic community that uses it, it is not free, it is imposed.<...>It is as if they say to the tongue: "Choose!", but they add: "You will choose this sign, and not another." De Saussure considers language as such a social fact that exists outside of a person and is “imposed” on him as a member (of a given collective.
I The influence of Durkheim also affected the teachings of de Saussure on
object and point of view in science and language. Durkheim argued that we
NoTGy ^ 1Gr1] r ^ delivered to "" "^ the world only on the basis of the subjective
perceptions. De Saussure, developing this idea in relation to
linguistics, writes: “The object does not at all predetermine points of view;
on the contrary, it can be said that the point of view creates the object itself.
In his opinion, only a "superficial observer" can admit
the reality of language. Words exist only to the extent
in which they are perceived by the speaker. Npugpmu w ss f act of being
language yka s creates an object and^traces^nid^]
language. "~~---
Another philosopher-sociologist, Tarde, in his work "Social do-jrHjja" (1895) declared the law of imitation to be the basis of social life. The relationship between society and the individual is the main problem of Tarde's work, for the solution of which he also draws on the facts of language as a social phenomenon. According to Tarde, there is nothing in society that is not in the individual. But a minority of people are assigned the role of inventors, and imitation remains the lot of the majority. This position of Tarde was reflected in de Saussure's solution of the problem of language and speech: “By separating language and speech, we thereby separate: 1) the social from the individual; 2) essential from incidental and more or less accidental. However, de Saussure did not show the dialectics of the relationship between language and speech.
De Saussure was also familiar with works on political economy*. Referring to these works [mainly by A. Smith and D. Ricardo, who speak of two types of value (value) - consumer and exchange], he argues that in order to establish the significance (value) of a linguistic sign, it is necessary: “1) the presence of some that of a dissimilar thing that can be exchanged for something whose value is to be determined, and 2) the presence of some similar things that can be compared with something whose value in question". The formation of de Saussure's theoretical views was also influenced by his criticism of the provisions of comparative historical linguistics. The former linguistics, according to de Saussure, gave too much space to history and therefore was one-sided: it studied not the system of language, but individual linguistic facts (“comparison is not
1 See: Slyusa rev and N. A. The main thing in the linguistic concept of F. de Saussure .- “ Foreign languages at school". 1968, no. 4.
more like a means of recreating the past<...>; states enter into this study only fragmentarily and in a very imperfect way. Such is the science founded by Bopp; therefore, the understanding of his language is half-hearted and shaky. Although comparative historical linguistics of the 80s of the XIX century. and achieved significant success, but not all scholars completely agreed with the teachings of the neogrammarists. American linguist W. Whitney, Russian "linguists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and N. V. Krushevsky and others tried to pose and solve major theoretical problems. -*
In Whitney's book The Life and Development of Language (1875), de Saussure could get acquainted with such problems of general linguistics as the relationship between language and thinking, the relationship between individual and social phenomena, etc. Whitney defines language as a set of signs used for expressions of thoughts. He notes two features of the signs of human language: their arbitrariness and conventionality. / The arbitrariness of the sign lies in the absence of a connection between the word / and the idea expressed by it, and the conditionality lies in its use by the society to which the speaker belongs. Considering language as a complex of correlative and mutually helping parts, Whitney came close to recognizing the systemic nature of language. He also tried to understand the structure of language units, the relationship of their components. A comparison of the linguistic views of Whitney and de Saussure shows the undoubted influence of the American linguist, but de Saussure does not repeat, but rethinks Whitney's positions 1 .
De Saussure also highly valued the work of the Russian linguists Baudouin de Courtenay and Krushevsky. Some of their provisions are also reflected in the works of de Saussure; “Very much expressed by Saussure in his deeply thought-out and elegant exposition, which became public property and caused general delight in 1916,” wrote L. V. Shcherba, “we have long known from the writings of Baudouin” 2 .
How did the theoretical views of de Saussure, Baudouin de Courtenay and Krushevsky coincide, and how did they differ? Baudouin de Courtenay put forward his understanding of the language system as a set, the parts of which are interconnected by relations of meaning, form, sound, etc. He said that the sounds of different languages have different meaning in relation to other sounds. In the system of language based on relations, Baudouin de Courtenay distinguishes levels - phonetic, morphological, semantic. He constantly points to the historical variability of the concept of a system. De Saussure understands the language in the same way (“the language is a system, all elements of which form a whole”). True, he bases his understanding of the system on opposition as a "special case of relations."
In the "Course of General Linguistics" de Saussure, such an opposition is analyzed in detail, such as language - speech, associated with the correlation
1 See: Slyusareva N. A. Some half-forgotten pages from the history of
linguistics (F. de Saussure and W. Whitney). - In the book: General and Roman linguistics
M., 1972.
2 Shcherba L.V. Selected. works on linguistics and phonetics, vol. 1, L., 1958
from 14.
The concept of social and individual (psychological) in language. Russian linguists have been delimiting language and speech for a long time. Back in 1870, Baudouin de Courtenay drew attention to the difference between human speech in general and individual languages and dialects, and, finally, from the individual language of an individual. De Saussure considers language to be a social element of speech activity, and speech is an individual act of will and understanding, that is, he opposes the language of speech. And in the interpretation of Baudouin de Courtenay, language and speech constitute an interpenetrating unity, they determine the reality of each other: an individual language exists only as a kind of language. De Saussure interprets the social as psychological, contrasting it with the individual. The collective-individual existence of language, according to Baudouin de Courtenay, implies the inseparability of the individual and the general in the language, since the individual is at the same time universal.
Baudouin de Courtenay establishes the laws of the development of language in time and the laws that determine the functioning of the language in its simultaneous state, i.e., the laws of the historical development of the language, its dynamics (what de Saussure later called the diachrony of the language), and the laws of the current state of the language (synchronous , according to de Saussure, the state of the language). De Saussure contrasted the synchronic point of view with the diachronic one, and considered the synchronic aspect to be more important.
The formation and development of the creative views of de Saussure was also influenced by the theory of the types of relations in the language of Krushevsky. The position of words in the language system, Krushevsky believed, is determined either by association by contiguity, when the connection between words is carried out or in their linear sequence (for example, make money, big house) or in the identity of the meanings they express, or by association by similarity, when words are combined on the basis of external similarity or similarity in meaning (for example, harrow, furrow- external similarity; drive, drive, carry- commonality of meaning; near, spring, outer- common suffix). De Saussure also distinguishes two types of relations - syntagmatic and associative. By syntagmatic relations, he understood relations based on a linear character, based on the extent (re-read, human life); these are associations by contiguity in Krushevsky. Under the associative relations, de Saussure understood the relationship of words that have something in common with each other, similar either by root (teach, teach, teach) or by suffix (training, instruction) or by generality of meaning (training, enlightenment, teaching etc.); Krushevsky called such relationships associations by similarity. De Saussure recognized only these types of relations, and Krushevsky noted that the two types of relations do not exhaust all the means that our mind has in order to combine the whole mass of heterogeneous words into one single whole.
De Saussure proceeded solely from the opposition of specific units of language. Krushevsky, on the other hand, paid attention to what unites them, which allows you to combine words in your mind into systems or nests.
There is no doubt that Saussure's definition of the sign as the unity of the signified and the signifier is similar to the definition of the sign given by Krushevsky: the word is the sign of a thing, and the ideas about the thing (the signified) and the word (the signifier) are linked by the law of association into a stable pair.
So, all the problems that de Saussure poses in the "Course of General Linguistics" (systematic understanding of the language, its sign character, the relationship between the current state of the language and its history, external and internal linguistics, language and speech) have already been posed in the works of his predecessors and contemporaries: W. Humboldt, Whitney, Baudouin de Courtenay, Krushevsky, M. Breal and others. Zasl uga_de_Sdsyu-ra is that, by combining these problems, he created a general theory of language, though not free from contradictions and not giving a final solution to all questions.
§3. LANGUAGE DEFINITION. THEORY OF LANGUAGE AND SPEECH
The problem of the relationship between language and speech was first posed
W. Humboldt, then A. A^ Potebnya, and I. A, ... Ea^, tried to solve it,
__duin_de_ Courtenay. F. de Saussure also develops various aspects
you of this problem. ,
Highlighting the language (langue) and speech (parole), de Saussure proceeds from his
understanding of speech activity (langage) in general, i.e. speech (re
speech act) and language stand out “within the general phenomenon, which is
there is speech activity. Speech activity from
rushes both to the individual and to the social spheres, intrudes into that
some areas, such as physics, physiology, psychology, has an external
(sound)" and internal (mental) sides. In the concept of de
Saussure, it appears as a concept of human speech in general, as
property inherent in man. Language is only a certain part,
true, the most important, speech activity (“language for us is speech,
activity minus speech itself). Language opposes *
speech - this second side of speech activity. The relationship between language, speech and speech activity de Saussure presents in the form of a diagram:
Synchrony
^language<
speech activity <
^diachrony
(langage) 1r HF b
Speech activity combines language and speech, the main difference between which is that language is social, and speech is individual. De Saussure constantly emphasizes that language is "a social element of speech activity in general, in relation to the individual, who by himself can neither" create "language," nor change it. In language, everything is social, everything is conditioned. Language how a social product is assimilated by each individual in finished form
(“Language is a treasure deposited by the practice of speech in all who belong to one social group”).
However, while recognizing the social character of language, de Saussure also emphasizes its mental nature; language is "associations held together by collective agreement, the totality of which constitutes language, the essence of reality, located in the brain." This statement mental The natural character of language, the mental essence of linguistic knowledge* has given some scholars grounds to speak of the psychological sociologism of de Saussure's linguistic concept.
Speech in the theory of de Saussure is “an individual act of will and understanding, in which it is necessary to distinguish: 1) combinations with which the speaking subject uses the language code in order to express his personal thought; 2) a psychophysical mechanism that allows him to objectify these combinations. On the other hand, £ech __ is “the sum of everything that people say, and includes: a) individual combinations depending on the will of the speakers, b) acts of speaking, equally performed, necessary to carry out these combinations. Consequently, there is nothing collective in speech: its manifestations are individual and instantaneous.
Language and speech are “closely related to each other and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and to produce all its action; speech, in turn, is necessary for the establishment of language; historically, the fact of speech always precedes language. Recognizing the internal unity of language and speech, de Saussure. ^ at the same time claims that "these are two completely different things." 4) Such an unexpected conclusion is due to the properties that he highlights, defining language and speech:
1. Language is a social product, but speech is always individual. Each act of speech is generated by a separate individual, and the language is perceived in the form in which it was bequeathed to us by previous generations. Consequently, "language is not a function of the speaking subject, it is a product passively registered by the individual<...>. On the contrary, speech is an individual act of will and understanding.
2. Language potentially exists in every brain as a grammatical system; the realization of these potentialities is speech. (As de Saussure said, speech is to language as the performance of a symphony is to the symphony itself, the reality of which does not depend on the mode of performance.)
3. Language differs from speech, as essential from secondary and accidental. Essential in the language are the normative facts of the language fixed by "linguistic practice", and side and random phenomena include all kinds of fluctuations and individual deviations.
Inflections in speech.
One object can have such different properties, they must be distinguished: “Language, isolated from speech, constitutes a subject accessible to isolated study.<...>Not only can the science of language do without other elements of speech activity, but it is possible in general only if these other elements are in addition to it.
not mixed in." Therefore, de Saussure requires a separate study of each of the aspects of speech activity, proposing to distinguish between two sciences - language linguistics, which has language as an object of study, and speech linguistics, which is of secondary importance and studies the characteristics of individual speech. The researcher, said de Saussure, “must choose one of two roads, which cannot be followed at the same time; you have to go through each of them separately”; he himself was mainly engaged in the linguistics of language.-?
--"""After the publication of the "Course of General Linguistics", many interpretations of the Saussurean system "language - speech" appeared. Some scientists recognize the need to distinguish between language and speech, others consider it scientifically untenable. There are disputes about which linguistic units to refer to language, and which to speech; the reason for these disputes is in the contradictory statements of de Saussure himself on the distinction between language and speech.
The merit of de Saussure is the definition of internal contradictions in speech processes. But having discovered these contradictions, he did not notice the organic connection between them. His opposition of language as a social product of speech as an "individual" dual fact is wrong. Language is a means of common and I between people, this determines its social character. The development of the language is due to the development of that society, the needs of which
i whom he serves. The reproduction of a language by many people cannot be homogeneous: various kinds of individual deviations arise, which, being more related to vocabulary than to grammar and phonetics, do not change the social character of the language. But individual speech cannot exist in isolation from language. If there was nothing social in speech, it could not serve as a means of mastering the language.
Language as something common is holistic in its structure. But the manifestations of this common are manifold. Modern mass media (radio, television, cinema, etc.) are various forms of language manifestation. The same form of its implementation is speech - oral and written, dialogic and monologue, etc. Speech is not only individual, “it refers to what is caused by a given communicative situation and can come to naught in another communicative situation. Language and speech are not only different, they are inconceivable without each other” 1 .
§4. LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
The main merit of F. de Saussure before linguistics is that at the beginning of the 20th century. he drew attention to the need to study the language as a system, to analyze what in the language, being internal, determines its essence as a means of communication.
1 Budagov R. A. Language, history and modernity. M., 1971, p. 61-62.
The success of de Saussure's "Course in General Linguistics" was greatly facilitated by both the strict logic of presentation and vivid, unexpected comparisons. Thus, considering language as a system, de Saus-sur compares it with chess: “... Language is a system that obeys its own order. A comparison with the game of chess, in relation to which it is relatively easy to distinguish what is external and what is internal, will help to clarify this: the fact that this game came to Europe from Persia is of an external order; on the contrary, everything that concerns the system and the rules of the game is internal. If I replace wooden figures with ivory figures, such a replacement is indifferent to the system; but if I decrease or increase the number of figures, such a change will profoundly affect the "grammar of the game."
However, this comparison contains a number of inaccuracies. First of all, chess knows no national differences - the rules of the game are the same everywhere. A language, on the other hand, always has national categories that distinguish it from other national languages. Further, if the history of their occurrence is not significant for us when playing chess, then the design of the structure of the language is always greatly influenced by the conditions in which the language was formed. As if sensing the insufficiency of the above definition, de Saus-sur introduces into the concept of a system an element of opposing linguistic units: just as a game of chess comes down to combining the positions of various pieces, so language is a system, based on the opposition of its specific units.
/ Determining the properties of a particular linguistic element by comparing it with other linguistic elements - this is what distinguishes Saussure's understanding of the systemic nature of language. However, focusing only on oppositions has led to a limitation of the content side of the language: “there is nothing in the language but differences”, “there are only differences in the language without positive aspects”. The question arises - what is hidden behind these differences? After all, they must distinguish some real objects. Unfortunately, de Saussure does not give an answer to this question, he is silent about what specific units are hidden behind these relations, and calls for limiting the tasks of linguistics to the study of the category of relation.
De Saussure distinguishes two types of relations - syntagmatic and associative. The syntagmatic relation is always present (in praesentia): it rests on two or more elements equally present in the actual succession. With syntagmatic relations, linguistic units line up, and by virtue of the principle of linearity, each unit enters into combination with neighboring units. Which combinations, based on length, he calls sin ta g m aGmiG "Syntagma" can consist of two or more units (re-lire- "re-read", center tons- "Against everyone", la vie humaine- "human life", s "il fait beau tempe, nous sortirons"If the weather is fine, we'll go for a walk."
What do syntagmatic relations refer to - language or speech? On the one hand, de Saussure says: "It is necessary to attribute to language, and not to speech, all types of syntagmas built according to regular forms." But on the other hand, "in the field of syntagma, there is no sharp line between the fact of language, imprinted by collective custom, and the fact of speech, which depends on individual freedom."
The second type of relationship de Saussure calls associative: “... An associative relationship connects elements that are absent (in absentia) into a potential, mnemonic series”, they are “in the brain; they constitute the stock that language forms in each individual. Having arisen in the human brain, associative relations unite words according to the common root (French. enseignement, enseigner, ensei-gnons; Russian educate, educate, educate) or suffix (French) senseignement, armement, changement; Russian instruction, instruction, direction) based on the random similarity of the acoustic image (French. sensesignment and justicement, where in the first word -ment- noun suffix, and in the second - adverbs; cf. Russian mash and right) or on the basis of common meaning (French. senseignement, instruction, apprenlissage, education; Russian training, instruction, enlightenment, teaching, coaching). It can be seen from the examples given that in the associative relations de Saussure includes not only morphological, but also semantic connections between words, although he admits that the most characteristic of them are the connections of words within the paradigm of inflection.
De Saussure attached great importance to the theory of relations (“this whole set of established (usual) relations constitutes the language and determines its functioning”). Each member of the system is determined by its connection with its other members both in space (syntagmatic relations) and in consciousness (associative relations).
The position about the system of language as a set of interdependent elements received from de Saussure a specific implementation in the doctrine of two types of relations. The interaction of these relations is revealed in the process of speech, when composing phrases of all types, for example, What do you know? in which we select the desired option to you from a number you, us etc.
De Saussure viewed the language system as a mathematically precise system. He believed that all relations in a language could be expressed in mathematical formulas, and he used the mathematical term "member" to designate the components of a system. De Saussure noted two features of the system: a) all members of the system are in equilibrium, b) the system is closed.
The totality of relations determines the functioning of the language as a means of communication. This determines the social character of the language. But besides language, there are other social phenomena - political, legal, etc. What distinguishes language from other social phenomena? Sign character, de Saussure answers, "language is a system of signs expressing ideas." Of paramount importance for understanding the linguistic concept of de Saussure is his doctrine of the linguistic sign.
§ 5. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
F. de Saussure defines language in this way from the point of view of its symbolism: “Language is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the combination of meaning and acoustic image, and both of these elements are psychic in an “equal” measure. Further, he explains his understanding of the sign: "We call the combination of a concept and an acoustic image a sign." An acoustic image is not a material sound, but an imprint of sound, a representation received by a person through the senses. Since the acoustic image is the mental imprint of the sound and the concept has a mental property, de Saussure arrives at the assertion that " language the sign is thus a two-sided psychic entity.
Since in common use a sign denotes only an acoustic image, de Saussure, emphasizing the linguistic essence of his definition of a sign, introduces special terms: “We propose to retain the word sign to denote the whole and replace the terms “concept” and “acoustic with KChI th image ", respectively, by the terms" Ve nachaemoe "and" meaning ".
Language signs are not abstractions, but realities that are in the human brain. They represent those specific entities "in which the linguistics of language is concerned. As an example of a linguistic sign, de Saussure cites the word as something central in the mechanism of language. But since signs can be not only words, but also part of the word, then" not in the word follows look for a particular unit of language.
Having defined the linguistic sign as a mental entity, de Saussure concludes that the linguistics of language, the science that studies language as a system of signs of a special kind, is part of semiology - the science of signs in general. And since semiology is part of general psychology, linguistics (linguistics of language) should be considered as part of psychology.
Having made a general idea of the linguistic sign, de Saussure establishes its features that distinguish it from the units of other sign systems. The first principle of the linguistic sign is formulated by him briefly: the linguistic sign is arbitrary; the connection connecting the signifier with the signified is arbitrary, LTox "by the arbitrariness of the sign, de Saussure understands the absence of any relationship with the object denoted by this sign. Thus, the concept of "sister" is not connected by any internal relations with the sequence of sounds of the French word soeur and could be expressed by any other combination of sounds.
The importance of this principle is enormous, because it "subdues the entire linguistics of the language." However, the arbitrariness of a linguistic sign is limited by the laws of development of a given language. An absolutely arbitrary sign is lign in some part of the words; in the majority of words in the general system of the language, the arbitrariness of the sign by no means excludes motivation. If we take the floor fourty, then it is not motivated by anything, its inner form is unclear. But the word fifty, related to its constituent parts (five and ten), already mo-
tivated. Internal form in a word fifty as transparent as, for example, in the word icebreaker, and the origin of words five and ten without etymological analysis it is already unclear.
The existence of motivated words makes it easier for a person to master the system of language, since the complete arbitrariness of signs would make it difficult to memorize them. “There are no languages,” writes de Saussure, “where there is nothing motivated; but it is unthinkable to imagine such a language where everything would be motivated. ^Languages with maximum unmotivatedness he calls lexico-logs h e ^ c _ k and "mi, and minimal - grammatical. These are "like two poles between which the whole system develops, two counter currents along which the movement of the language is directed: from one hand, a tendency to use a lexicological tool - ■■ unmotivated sign, on the other hand - the preference given to the grammatical tool - the rule of construction. Thus, according to de Saussure, there is much more unmotivated in English than in German; Chinese is an example of an ultra-lexicological language, and Sanskrit is an example of an ultra-grammatical language. As a consequence of the "action, the principle of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign, de Saussure considers the antinomy" variability - invariability "of the sign. The immutability of the sign lies in the fact that people / use the signs of the language as established by the tradition of previous generations ("precisely because the sign is arbitrary, he does not know any other law than the law of tradition, and it can be arbitrary only because it relies on tradition.
But at the same time, linguistic signs are subject to change. The principle of sign variability is associated with the principle of continuity ^) In the process of the historical development of a language, the variability of a sign manifests itself in a change in the relationship between the signifier and the signified, that is, either the meaning of the word, or the sound composition, or both the sound and the meaning can change [for example, lat. pesage- "to kill" has become in French poyer -"to drown (in water)"]. “Language by its very nature is powerless to defend itself against factors that constantly shift the relationship between signified and signifier” - this is one of the consequences of the arbitrariness of the sign, argues de Saussure. V De Saussure also puts forward the second principle - the principle of linear n o - "* with t and sign. "The signifier, being a property of the auditory (auditory), unfolds only in time and is characterized by features borrowed from time: a) it represents extension, b) this extension lies in one dimension: it is a line.” In other words, acoustic images cannot occur simultaneously, they follow each other, sequentially, forming a linear chain.
But only the sounds of words can be sequentially located, and each sound has its own sound characteristics (deafness - sonority, softness - hardness, explosiveness, etc.). Moreover, these features appear in the sound not linearly, but volumetrically, i.e., the sound simultaneously has several features. Therefore, from the point of view of modern phonology, Saussure's principle of line "ey-
Nosti concerns the sounds in a word, not the phonemes. De Saussure himself says that it is speech, and not language, that characterizes the principle of clayness; therefore, it cannot be the principle of a linguistic sign as a member of a system.
If arbitrariness is the main thing for a linguistic sign, then why is there not a general sudden change in a language consisting of such signs? De Saussure points out four obstacles to this:
1) the arbitrariness of the sign "protects the language from any attempt to change it": it is impossible to decide which of the arbitrary signs is more rational;
2) the plurality of signs used by the language makes it difficult to change them;
3) the extreme complexity of the language system;
4) “at any given moment, language is the business of everyone and everyone<...>. In this respect, it can in no way be compared with other social institutions. The prescriptions of the law, the rites of religion, sea signals, etc., attract only a limited number of persons at a time and for a limited period; on the contrary, everyone takes part in language every minute, which is why language experiences the constant influence of everyone. This basic fact alone is sufficient to show the impossibility of a revolution in him. Of all social institutions, language represents the smallest field for initiative. He cannot be torn away from the life of the social mass, which, being inert by nature, acts primarily as a conservative factor.
One of the main points in the linguistic theory of de Saussure
is his doctrine of the value of a linguistic sign, or of
its importance. “Being part of the system, the word is clothed not
only meaning, but also - mainly - significance, and this
already quite different. Few are enough to confirm this.
examples. french word tnouton may be the same as
Russian word ram, but it does not have the same significance with it,
and this for many reasons, among other things, because, speaking of
a piece of meat cooked and served on the table, the Russian will say lamb
on the, but not ram. The difference in significance between ram and mouthon associated with
the fact that the Russian word has another term along with it, corresponding to
which does not exist in French”. In other words,
the meaning of a word in the lexical system of one language may not correspond
answer the meaning of the same word in another language: in Russian
you can’t say “roast lamb”, but it’s necessary - roast out
lamb, and in french gigot de mouton(literally "hot
ram"). »
Meaning and significance are also not the same: significance enters into meaning as a complement. It is precisely in the division of the semantics of the word into two parts - meaning and significance - that de Saussure's penetration into the internal system of the language consists: it is not enough just to state the fact that the word has this or that meaning; it still needs to be compared with similar values, with words that can be opposed to it. Its content is determined by
G attraction existing outside of it. The significance of a sign is determined only by its relation to other members of the ^system of the language. "The concept of value applies not only to words, but also to any phenomena of the language, in particular to grammatical categories. So, the concept of number is in any language. The plural of French and Old Church Slavonic or Sanskrit is the same in meaning (denotes many objects) , but does not match in significance.If in French the plural is opposed to the singular, then in Sanskrit or Old Slavonic, where, in addition to the plural, there was also a dual number to designate paired objects (eyes, ears, arms, legs) The plural is opposed to both the singular and the dual. It would be inaccurate to assign the same significance to the plural in Sanskrit and French, Old Church Slavonic and Russian, since in Sanskrit or Old Church Slavonic one cannot use the plural in all those cases where it is used in French or Russian. "... Therefore, - concludes de Saussure, - the significance of the plural depends on what is outside and around it."
A similar example can be given with the grammatical category of tense. The meaning of time is available in all languages, however, the significance of the three-term category of time in Russian (present, future, past) does not coincide with the significance of the polynomial category of time in German, English, French. Based on these examples, de Saussure comes to the conclusion that significance is an element of the language system, its function. ""
De Saussure distinguishes between the conceptual and material aspects of value (significance). The conceptual aspect of value is the ratio of the signified to each other (see examples with the words ram and mouthon). The material aspect of value is the ratio of signifiers to each other. “It is not the sound itself that is important in a word, but those sound differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others, since they are the bearers of meaning.” This statement de Saussure illustrates with an example of the Russian form of the genitive plural hands, in which there is no positive sign, i.e., a material element that characterizes a given form, and its essence is comprehended through comparison with other forms of this word (hands- hand).
The doctrine of the significance of a linguistic sign developed by de Saussure is of great importance for the study of the lexical, grammatical and phonetic systems of a language. But at the same time, from the point of view of the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge, it also contains a number of weak provisions. De Saussure believes that we observe “instead of pre-given ideas of significance, which flow from the system itself. Saying that they correspond to concepts, it should be understood that these latter are purely differential, that is, they are determined not positively by their content, but negatively by their relations with other elements of the system. Hence it follows that the significance of a sign as part of the content side of the language (the signified) is determined by the relation
of the subject not to reality, but to other units of the language, the place occupied in the system of units of the language (the meaning of the word ram determined by the place of this word in the language system, and not by the fact that it denotes a four-legged artiodactyl animal). If_for de Saus-sur., the concepts (meanings) are formed by the system, then for the Soviet language-gedes they are the result of the reflective ((cognitive) activity of the children. And from this, the concepts do not become either given in advance, or completely coinciding in different languages 1 .
De Saussure excludes the material substratum from the concept of value (significance): “After all, it is clear that sound, a material element, cannot by itself belong to language. It is something secondary for the language, only the material used by it. All conditional values (significances) in general are characterized precisely by this property of not mixing with the tangible element that serves them as a substratum. The linguistic category of value, extremely exaggerated by him, replaces everything.
Thus, the deeply and subtly noticed feature of the language system, being elevated to the absolute, led to the understanding of the language system as a set of pure relations, behind which there is nothing real. It was this idea of de Saussure that was developed by L. Hjelmslev, the founder of glossematics, the Copenhagen school of structuralism (see Ch. 13, § 7).
To prove the proposition about language as a system of pure meanings (values), de Saussure turns to the problem of the relationship between thinking and language, or ideas and sound. He believes that our thinking is a formless and vague mass, where there are no real units, and looks like a nebula. The sound chain is also an equally shapeless mass, plastic matter, which is divided into separate particles. The division of both masses takes place in language, for it serves as "an intermediary between thought and sound, and mustard gas in such a way that the combination inevitably leads to a mutual delimitation of units." It is impossible to separate language and thinking, because “language can ... be compared with a sheet of paper; thought is its front side, and sound is its back; you can not cut the front side without cutting the back; so in language it is impossible to separate either thought from sound, or sound from thought; this can only be achieved by abstraction. The linguist works in the border area, where elements of both orders are combined. De Saussure's comparison is interesting, but it does nothing to understand the essence of the question of the relationship between language and thought.
§ 6. THE DOCTRINE OF SYNCHRONY AND DIACRONY
F. de Saussure figuratively called the opposition of language and speech the first crossroads encountered on the path of a linguist. He called the opposition with and n x r about hV and and
1 See: V. M. Solntsev. Significance of language and the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge. - In the book: Leninism and theoretical problems of linguistics. M., 1970.
diachrony and, i.e., consideration of the language both at the moment of its state and in terms of its historical development. In the words of de Saussure, “everything that pertains to the static aspect of our nauTsh is synchronic, everything that concerns evolution is synchronic. The nouns s and n x p 0)Niya and diachrony will, respectively, designate the state of the language, and the phase of evolution.
In the study of language, de Saussure considers it absolutely necessary
to distinguish its synchronic consideration from diachronic and in
Accordingly, he distinguishes between two linguistics - synchronic
and diachronic, specifying the tasks of each of them: “S and n-
chronic linguistics will deal with logical^ and
psychological relationships connecting coexisting
elements and forming a system, studying them in a way. they perceive
toil with the same collective consciousness. Diachronic
Chinese linguistics, on the other hand, will study the relations
connecting elements in sequence order, do not perceive
carried by the same collective consciousness,
elements that are replaced by one another, but not
chewing systems". O
Elements of the language that exist simultaneously or
successive in time, de Saussure
considered it possible to place on the axes at the same time
news (AB) and sequence (CD). illustrating D
these provisions, he talked about the transverse and longitudinal
nom sections of the tree: the first gives a picture of coexistence,
i.e. synchrony, and the second - a picture follower
ny development of fibers, i.e., diachrony.
If synchronic linguistics studies language as a system, then
(the object of diachronic linguistics does not form a system); otherwise go-
^[Speaking, synchronic linguistics deals with language, and diahru-__
Shnicheskaya - with speech. Every language change is individual
“Schi is a fact of speech; often repeated, it is accepted by the collective->.
bom and becomes a fact of language. Thus, the distinction between syn-D
chronic and diachronic linguistics is associated in de Saussure with
distinction between language and speech. --,..-..-
Two reasons force de Saussure to study language using the method of two linguistics: a) the multiplicity of signs "absolutely prevents the simultaneous study of relations in time and relations in the system" and b) "for sciences that operate with the concept of value, such a distinction becomes a practical necessity." IV What are the relationships between synchronic and diachronic linguistics? De Saussure believes that “language is a system, all parts of which can and should be considered in their synchronic connection. Changes that occur in the entire system as a whole, up to only "relations" of one or another of its elements, can only be studied outside., it. ""<...>"This is the essential difference between interchangeable elements and coexisting elements"<...>hinders the study of both in the system of one science. He gives preference to the synchronic "learning of the language, because" the synchronic aspect is more important than the dia-
7? a k. 169; 193
chronic, since for the speaking masses only he is the true and only reality.
From the opposition of synchrony and diachrony, de Saussure made
serious findings:
1. He believes that some forces are found in synchrony, and others in diachrony. These forces cannot be called laws, since any law must be general and binding. The forces or rules of the synchronic state of language are often general but never mandatory. The forces of the diachronic state are often presented as mandatory but never general.
2. De Saussure argues that the synchronic plan of one language is much closer to the synchronic plan of another language than to its past (diachronic) state. Thus, it turns out that the synchronous state of the modern Russian language is closer to the synchronous state of, say, the Japanese language than to the diachronic state of the Old Church Slavonic language. The inconsistency of such a point of view is obvious.
To separate diachrony from synchrony, the history of a language from its current state, is also unlawful because the language system is the product of a long historical development, and many facts of a modern language become understandable only when its history is known. In order to understand the difference between combinations in modern Russian two houses and five houses, you need to know what the form of the dual number was Houses, defining this difference.
If in the study "On the Primitive Vowel System in the Indo-European Languages" de Saussure applies the principle of consistency to the history of the Indo-European languages, now he deprives the history of the language of consistency. De Saussure believes that the system of language manifests itself only in synchrony, because in itself it is unchangeable. How do language changes happen? Having separated diachrony from synchrony, de Saussure explains all language changes as pure chance. However, sensing the precariousness of such an explanation, he adds that the traditional comparative-historical grammar should give way to a descriptive synchronic grammar, to a grammar that studies the current state of the language, it is necessary to update the historical method, which will help to better understand the state of the language. Emphasizing the importance of studying the synchronic state of language, de Saussure seriously shook the theoretical foundations of traditional comparative historical linguistics and paved the way for the emergence of new methods of language analysis.
§7. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL LINGUISTICS |
The last opposition pointed out by F. de Cl> sur, and which is also important for understanding the essence of language, is the opposition between external and internal linguistic stick, i.e., external and internal elements of language.
Of the extralinguistic factors influencing the language, de Saussure first of all notes the connection between the history of the language and the history of the nation. According to him, these stories intertwine and influence each other; on the one hand, the customs of a nation are reflected in its language, and on the other hand, it is the language that forms the nation to a large extent. Conquests, colonization, migration, language policy affect the boundaries of the spread of a language, the ratio of dialects within a language, the formation of a literary language, etc. Great historical events (for example, the Roman conquest) had enormous consequences for linguistics. De Saussure also refers to external linguistics everything that has to do with the geographical distribution of languages and their dialectal fragmentation.
Extralinguistic, extralinguistic factors explain
some linguistic phenomena, for example „borrowings. But external
factors not., affect (The very system of language] £a. De Saussure emphasizes
~suggests\ "that they are not decisive, because they do not concern
the very mechanism of the language, the structure of the structure.
De Saussure sharply delimits external linguistics from internal. Problems about the essence of the external and internal in the language, about the role of external factors in one way or another concerned W. Humboldt, J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, X. Gabelenzi and other linguists. The merit of de Saussure is that, opposing the study of the language only in connection with the history of the people, he drew the attention of linguists to the
But de Saussure's distinction between external and internal linguistics seems clearly untenable. To regard language as social in nature and at the same time to deny the influence of society on language is to admit a clear contradiction.
From all of the above, the conclusion logically follows, which concludes the book of de Saussure: "The only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in and for itself." De Saussure is right in asserting the need for the independent existence of linguistics (linguistics until the beginning of the 20th century was part of either philosophy or psychology). But a linguist, studying a language, cannot and should not consider language "in and for itself". It is impossible to tear language away from the society whose needs it serves; we must not forget the most important function of language - to serve as a means of communication. The requirement to study the language "for oneself" inevitably implies the impoverishment of the content side of linguistics.
§8, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF F. DE SAUSSURE'S LINGUISTIC CONCEPT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTICS OF THE XX CENTURY.
In 1963, when the fiftieth anniversary of the death of F. de Saussure was celebrated, the famous French linguist E. Benveniste wrote that in our time there is hardly a linguist who would not be indebted to de Saussure, as there is hardly such a common a theory of language that did not mention his name. Despite some exaggeration
Reading this assessment, it should be said that the provisions of de Saussure's theory had a great influence on the subsequent development of linguistics.
Many of the theoretical propositions of de Saussure were already expressed in the works of representatives of the Kazan linguistic school - I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N. V. Krushevsky, V. A. Bogoroditsky. These scientists, by their independence and originality of linguistic thinking, destroyed the usual canons of classical linguistics. The Soviet linguist E. D. Polivanov, who studied with Baudouin de Courtenay, wrote that “in the development of general linguistic problems, Russian and Polish scientists of the previous generation were not only on a par, but also far ahead of their contemporary, and contemporary Western Europeans as well.” And he spoke rather sharply about the work of de Saussure: although the book was perceived by many as a kind of revelation, it “contains literally nothing new in the formulation and resolution of general linguistic problems compared to what Baudouin and Baudouin school" 1 . Academician L. V. Shcherba writes about the same: “When in 1923 we received in Leningrad “Cours de linguistique generale” de Saussure "a (a posthumous edition of lectures on general linguistics by the famous linguist, professor at the University of Geneva, the book is excellent and which made a great impression in the West), they were struck by the numerous coincidences of the teachings of Saussure with the provisions we are accustomed to” 3 .
What provisions of de Saussure were familiar to Russian linguists?
V. V. Vinogradov noted that “the future Saussurean distinction between “langue” and “parole” [language and speech. - F. B.] found quite clear expression already in Baudouin de Courtenay's lecture of 1870 "Some "general remarks on linguistics and language" 3. According to Shcherba," the distinction between language as a system and language as an activity ("langue" and "parole" de Saussure "a), not as clear and developed as in Saussure, is also characteristic of Baudouin." As for the distinction between synchrony and diachrony, Shcherba noted that “the promotion of “synchronic linguistics” so characteristic of Saussure... is one of the foundations of all of Baudouin's scientific activity> 4 . Then this position of Baudouin de Courtenay was developed by his students, in particular Bogoroditsky: “... The historicism of linguistic studies can and should be supplemented by synchronistic comparison; the resulting synchronic series make it possible to determine the comparative speed of movement of one or another phenomenon in individual languages "< >So, I put forward the idea of "synchronism" in linguistic comparisons a whole quarter of a century before the appearance of "Cours de linguistique generale" (1916) de Saussure, who had at his disposal ... my German pamphlet (Einige Reform-
1 Polivanov E. D. For Marxist Linguistics. M., 1931, p. 3-4.
2 Shcherba L.V. Selected. work on the Russian language. M., 1957, p. 94.
"Vinogradov V. V. I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. - In the book: B o d u en de
Courtenay I. A. Fav. works on general linguistics, vol. 1. M., 1963, p. 12. 4 Shcherba L. V. Selected. works on the Russian language, p. 94.
vorschlage ...), and if there is no mention of it in his book, then I explain this by the posthumous edition of his book, partly compiled from the notes of listeners.
In all likelihood, de Saussure was also familiar with G. Paul's book "Principles of the History of Language", which distinguishes between individual speech and the general / language determined by the goals of communication, usus.
Back in 1870, Baudouin de Courtenay determined the content of external and internal linguistics. He pointed out that the external history of the language is closely "connected with the fate of its speakers, the people, and the internal history of the language is engaged in the study of the life of the language in connection with the mental organization of the people speaking it. He also later defines the tasks of external and internal linguistics and de Saussure.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that the problems of linguistics, considered
riven by previous generations of scientists, de Saussure decided in a new way, and this is his merit. First of all, he resolutely "pointed out the social significance common language and the dependence of individual speech on it.
De Saussure understands language as a system, as a set of interacting and interdependent units. The problem of the systematic nature of the language underlies its linguistic theory. The merit of de Saussure also lies in the fact that he drew the attention of linguists to the study of the internal laws of the language system.
Depending on which of the theoretical provisions of de Saussure was taken as a basis, there are different assessments of his concept.
In his early work on the study of the vowel system in the Indo-European languages, de Saussure examines the quantitative and qualitative relationships between vowels and sonorous sounds and reconstructs some of the disappeared sounds. In addition, he makes interesting remarks about the structure of the Indo-European root. Subsequently, A. Meillet wrote that the study "On the original system of vowels in the Indo-European languages" played an outstanding role in the formation of a new method for analyzing the sound correspondences of related languages, therefore de Saussure can be called an outstanding Indo-Europeanist, the founder of modern comparative historical linguistics .
Continuing this line of activity of de Saussure, a great contribution to the development of a comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages \u200b\u200b/ Viesli Meillet, Benveniste and E. Ku£ilovich (in 1927 Kurilovich about-J-discovered _ theoretically "predicted" by de "Saussure sonantic coefficients in the newly discovered Hittite language and called them larigal sounds).
De Saussure's approval of the social_character of language, the definition of language as a social "phenomenon (although, with a certain L psychological coloration of these concepts) gave rise to the
1 Bogoroditsk and V. A. Ztyuda on Tatar and Turkic linguistics. Kazan, 1933, p. 154-155.
Call de Saussure the founder of the sociological trend in language-knowledge. These provisions of de Saussure were subsequently developed by D ^ Meillet, JU. Balli and A. Sechet; they studied mainly the linguistics of speech. Balli "developed the foundations of linguistic stylistics J and created the theory of actualization of language signs in speech, and Sechet dealt with the problems of syn-" taxis. Among other representatives of the sociological trend "~ in French linguistics, one should mention F. Bruno, M. Grammont, A. Doz and Jean-Vandries.
And finally, there is a direct continuity between the positions of de Saussure and the representatives of structuralism in modern linguistics. Some structuralists (N. S. Trubetskoy) developed J de Saussure's doctrine of language and speech in relation to phonetics, others (L. Elmslev) focused their attention on understanding language as a system of pure relations, behind which nothing real is hidden. The fact that European structuralism borrowed some of the general ideas of de Saussure served as the basis for recognizing de Saussure as the forerunner of structuralism.
1 See his works: French style. M., 1961; General linguistics and questions of the French language. M., 1965.
“The only and true object of linguistics is yavl. language considered in and for itself” At the heart of ling. De S.'s concepts - criticism of the views of neogrammarists and the use of data from other sciences for understanding the nature of the language. 1) De S. considered language as a social fact that exists outside of a person and is “imposed” on him as a member of the collective (the influence of the sociologist Durkheim). 2) “The object does not predetermine the t. sp., but, on the contrary, the t. sp. creates the object” - i.e. words exist to the extent that the cat. they are perceived by the speaker. 3) The Problem of Language and Speech: By separating langue et parole (in speech activities, langage), we separate the social from the individual. For De S. “language is a system, everything is a cat. form a whole." He bases his understanding of the system on the opposition of Language (social factor) and Speech (individual). Offers to distinguish between 2 sciences: Linguistics of Language and Linguistics. Speech (features of individual speech). 4) On De Saussure prov. influence theory Krushevsky about the types of relations in the language: De S. singled out 2 types of relationships: syntagmatic(based on linear character, length: re-read) and associative(relationships of words similar in root, suff.: teach-teach; training). The study of language as a system and means of communication. Considers the language system as a mathematically exact system: “All members of the system are in balance; system yavl. closed."
Language differs from other social phenomena in that "language is a system of signs expressing ideas." In the language system signs the only existing yavl. combination of meaning and acoustic. image, moreover, both of these e-signs are equally psychic”. An acoustic image is the mental imprint of a sound. Yaz. The sign is a two-way mental. essence: concept + acoustic. image = signified and signifier. Principles of a linguistic sign:
1 . Language sign is arbitrary 2. The principle of the linearity of the sign: - the signifier represents the extension - this extension is a line, lies in one dimension. Acoustic images cannot occur 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 the word in the lexical system of the 1st language. may not match the meaning in another language system . Significance is a function of the language system. The language must be studied in synchrony (a slice in time, simultaneity) and diachrony (successive development). De S. argued that the synchronic plan of one language is closer to the synchronic plan of another language than to its past (diachronic) state. Emphasized the importance of studying the synchronous state of the language.
16. The concept of the system and structure of the 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 possibilities of a given people. Saussure identifies two polar aspects in the totality of speech processes: language and speech. Language is a grammatical system and a dictionary, that is, an inventory of language tools, without mastering which verbal communication is impossible. Language as a lexical and grammatical system potentially exists in the minds of individuals belonging to the same linguistic community. Language learning is a purely psychological process. Speech means the act by which an individual uses language to express his thoughts, it is the use of the means of language for the purpose of communication; it consists of individual acts of speaking and hearing. Therefore, its study should be psychophysiological. Language and speech are “closely related to each other and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and produce all its action; speech, in turn, is necessary for the establishment of language: historically, the fact of speech always precedes language.
2. Saussure distinguished two aspects in the language - synchrony and diachrony . Synchrony is the simultaneous 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 drew a categorical conclusion: "The opposition of two points of view - synchronic and diachronic - is absolutely absolute and cannot be compromised." 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 cognize the system of language, that is, to study the language "in itself and for itself." The historical point of view (diachrony), according to Saussure, destroys the language system and turns it into a collection of disparate facts.
3. Saussure in every possible way emphasized the systemic nature of the language and substantiated the symbolic nature of the 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 cannot be a system covering several periods at the same time." 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, Saussure's thesis that "language is a form, not a substance" should be explained. 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 being 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 rites, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc. In this regard, Saussure proposes to create a special science that studies the life of signs within society - semiology, or semiotics, in which both component would include linguistics.
Linguistics "as the science of signs of a special kind", according to Saussure, is the most important section of semiotics, because the linguistic sign occupies an exceptional place among sign systems: language, as Saussure writes, is "the most complex and most widespread semiological system."
Saussure's emphasis on various features in the language system was also important for the systemic understanding of the language: "It is not the sound as such that is important in the word, 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 strands of structuralism.
The notion of significance, which is important for Saussure's concept, also follows from the concept of systemicity. 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 tears language from existing connections and turns it into an immanent system.
§ 1. Language definition
What is a holistic and concrete object of linguistics? This question is extremely difficult, we will see why below. We confine ourselves here to showing these difficulties.
Other sciences operate with pre-given objects that can be viewed from different angles of view; there is nothing similar in linguistics. Someone uttered the French word pi for "naked": to a superficial observer it would seem that this is a specific linguistic object; however, a closer look will reveal three or four completely different things in pi, depending on how he considers this word: only as a sound, as an expression of a certain concept, as a correspondence to the Latinnudum"naked", etc. In linguistics, the object does not at all predetermine points of view; on the contrary, it can be said that here the point of view creates the object itself; at the same time, nothing tells us which of these ways of considering a given fact is primary or more perfect than others.
In addition, no matter what method we take to consider this or that phenomenon of speech activity, two sides are always found in it, each of which correlates with the other and is significant only thanks to it.
Here are some examples:
1. Articulated syllables are acoustic phenomena perceived by the ear, but the sounds themselves would not exist if there were no organs of speech: for example, the sound p exists only as a result of the correlation of these two sides: acoustic and articulatory. Thus, language cannot be reduced to sound, nor can sound be separated from the articulatory work of the organs of speech; on the other hand, it is impossible to determine the movement of the organs of speech, abstracting from the acoustic factor (see p. 75 et seq.).
2. But let us assume that sound is something simple: does it exhaust what we call speech activity? Not at all, for it is only an instrument for thought and has no independent existence. Thus, a new correlation arises that complicates the whole picture: sound, a complex aquetic-articulatory unity, in turn forms a new complex physiological-mental unity with the concept. But that's not all.
3. Speech activity has two sides: individual and social, and one cannot be understood without the other.
4. At any given moment, speech activity presupposes both an established system and evolution; at any moment, speech activity is at the same time an active establishment (institutionactuelle) and a product of the past. At first glance, the distinction between system and history, between what is and what was, seems very simple, but in reality the two are so closely linked that it is very difficult to separate them. Isn't the problem simplified if we consider speech activity in its very origin, if, for example, we start with the study of the child's speech activity? Not at all, because the greatest delusion is the idea that in relation to speech activity the problem of emergence is different from the problem of constant conditioning. Thus, we continue to remain in the same vicious circle.
So, no matter which way we approach the question, nowhere is the object given to us in its entirety; everywhere we stumble upon the same dilemma: either we focus on only one side of each problem, thereby risking not grasping its inherent two-sidedness, or, if we study the phenomena of speech activity simultaneously from several points of view, the object of linguistics appears before us as a pile heterogeneous, unrelated phenomena. In doing so, we open the door to a whole "series of sciences: psychology, anthropology, normative grammar, philology, etc., which we strictly delimit from linguistics, but which, as a result of a methodological error, can claim speech activity as one of their objects. .
In our opinion, there is only one way out of all these difficulties:one must from the very beginning stand on the ground of language and regard it as the foundation( normal) for all other manifestations of speech activity.Indeed, among the many bilateral phenomena, only language seems to allow for an independent (autonome) definition and provides a reliable support for thought.
But what is language? In our opinion, the concept of language does not coincide with the concept of speech activity in general; language is only a certain part - however, the most important part - of speech activity. It is a social product, a set of necessary conventions adopted by the team to ensure the implementation, functioning of the ability to speech activity.
sti that exists in every native speaker. Taken as a whole, speech activity is diverse and heterogeneous; flowing simultaneously in a number of areas, being at the same time physical, physiological and mental, it also belongs to the sphere of the individual and the sphere of the social; cannot be categorized in any specific category. human life, because it is not known how unity can be communicated to all this.
In contrast, language is a whole in itself, thus being the starting point (principle) classification. Giving it the first place among the phenomena of speech activity, we thereby introduce a natural order into this totality, which otherwise cannot be classified at all.
It would seem that it would be possible to object to this position put forward by us about the starting point of classification, arguing that the implementation of speech activity rests on the ability inherent in us by nature, while language is something learned and conventional, and that, consequently, language should occupy a subordinate position in relation to natural instinct, and not stand above it.
Here's what you can say to that.
First of all, it has not been proved at all that speech activity, in the form in which it appears when we speak, is something quite natural, in other words, that our organs of speech are designed for speaking in the same way that our legs are for walking. The opinions of linguists on this matter differ significantly. So, for example, Whitney, who equates language with social institutions with all their features, believes that we use the organs of speech as a tool of speech purely by accident, simply for reasons of convenience; people, in his opinion, could just as well use gestures, using visual images instead of auditory ones. Undoubtedly, such a thesis is too absolute: language is not a social institution similar in all respects to others (see pp. 106 and also 108-109); besides, Whitney goes too far in asserting that our choice has only accidentally settled on the organs of speech: after all, this choice was to some extent imposed on us by nature. But on the main point, the American linguist seems to be absolutely right: language is a convention, and what the nature of the conditionally chosen sign is, it is completely indifferent. Consequently, the question of the organs of speech is a secondary question in the problem of speech activity.
This position can be reinforced by defining what is meant byarticulate speech( languagearticle). in latinarticulusmeans "component", "member(s)"; in relation to speech activity, articulation can mean either the division of a sound chain into syllables, or the division of a chain of meanings into meaningful units; in this sense, they say in Germangeglieder
teSprache. Adhering to this second definition, one could say that what is natural for a person is not speech activity like speaking (languageParle), but the ability to create a language, that is, a system of differentiated signs corresponding to differentiated concepts.
Broca discovered that the ability to speak is localized in the third frontal gyrus of the left hemisphere of the brain; and they tried to rely on this discovery in order to attribute a natural-scientific character to speech activity. But as you know, this localization was established in relation toTotal,related to speech activity, including writing; on this basis, and also from observations made regarding various types of aphasia as a result of damage to these centers of localization, one can apparently assume: 1) that various disorders of oral speech are inextricably linked in various ways with disorders of written speech, and 2) that in all In cases of aphasia or agraphia, it is not so much the ability to pronounce certain sounds or write certain signs that is violated, but the ability, by any means, to evoke signs of ordered speech activity in the mind. All this leads us to suppose that above the activity of the various organs there exists a faculty of a more general order which governs these signs, and which is the faculty of language par excellence. In this way we arrive at the same conclusion as we arrived at earlier.
Finally, in order to prove the need to start the study of speech activity precisely from language, one can add the argument that the ability (no matter whether it is natural or not) to articulate words is carried out only with the help of "an instrument created and provided by the collective. Therefore, there is nothing incredible in the assertion that unity in speech activity brings language.
§ 2.The place of language in the phenomena of speech activity
In order to find a sphere corresponding to language in the totality of the phenomena of speech activity, it is necessary to consider an individual act of speech communication. Such an act involves at least two persons - this is the minimum necessary for the completeness of the situation of communication. So, let us be given two persons talking to each other: A and B [see Fig. rice. on the. p. 50].
The starting point of the act of speech communication is in the brain of one of the speakers, say A, where the phenomena of consciousness, which we call "concepts", are associated with representations of linguistic signs, or with acoustic images that serve to express concepts. Let us assume that this concept causes in
A B
 |
corresponding acoustic image to the brain - this phenomenon is purelymentalorder followed byphysiologicalprocess: the brain transmits an impulse corresponding to the image to the organs of speech, then sound waves propagate from the mouth of A to the ears of B - this is already purephysicalprocess. Further, the process of communication continues in B, but in reverse order: from the ear to the brain - the physiological transmission of the acoustic image; in the brain - the psychic association of this image with the corresponding concept. When B speaks in turn, during this new act of speech exactly the same path will be taken as during the first one - from the brain of B to the brain of A, speech will pass through the same phases. All this can be depicted as follows:
Growling, phonation Hearing
This analysis does not claim to be complete. We could also single out a purely acoustic sensation, the identification of this sensation with a latent acoustic image, a motor image in contrast to phonation, speaking, etc. But we took into account only those elements that we consider essential ; our scheme allows us to immediately distinguish physical elements (sound waves) from physiological elements (speaking, phonation and listening)
And mental (verbal images and concepts). At the same time, it is extremely important to note that the verbal image does not coincide with the sound itself and that it is just as psychic as the concept associated with it.
The speech act depicted by us above can be divided into the following parts:
a) the outer part (sound vibrations coming from the mouth to the ears)
and the inner part, including everything else;
b) the psychic part and the non-psychic part, of which the second
includes both physiological phenomena occurring in the organs of speech
nia, and physical phenomena outside the person;
c) the active part and the passive part: everything that comes from
the associating center of one of the speakers to the ears of the other, and
passively everything that goes / From the ears of this latter to his associate
center.
Finally, within the psychic part localized in the brain, everything that is active can be called executive (P O), and everything that is passive can be called receptive (0->- P),
To this we must add the capacity for association and coordination, which is revealed as soon as we pass to the consideration of signs in terms of interconnection; it is this ability that plays the most important role in the organization of language as a system (see pp. 155 et seq.).
But in order to correctly understand this role, it is necessary to move away from the speech act as a single phenomenon, which is only the embryo of speech activity, and move on to language as a social phenomenon.
In all persons who communicate in the above way with the help of speech activity, a certain kind of equalization inevitably occurs: all of them reproduce, although, of course, not in exactly the same way, approximately the same signs, connecting them with the same concepts.
What is the reason for this social "crystallization"? Which part of the speech act could be responsible for this? After all, it is very likely that not all of them take an equal part in this.
The physical part can be rejected immediately. When we hear a conversation in a language we do not know, we do hear sounds, but because we do not understand what is being said, what is said does not constitute a social fact for us.
The mental part of the speech act also participates little in "crystallization"; its executive side remains completely uninvolved in this, for the execution is never carried out by the collective; it is always individual, and here the individual is wholly in charge; we'll call itspeech.
The formation of approximately the same mental images for all speakers is due to the functioning of the receptive and coordinative abilities. How should you imagine
this social product, so that the language stands out completely, standing apart from everything else? If we were able to grasp the sum of all verbal images accumulated in all individuals, we would touch on that social connection, which forms the language. Language is a treasure deposited by the practice of speech in everyone who belongs to one social group, it is a grammatical system that virtually exists in everyone’s brain, more precisely, in a whole set of individuals, because language does not fully exist in any of them, it exists fully only in the team.
By separating language and speech, we thereby separate: 1) the social from the individual; 2) essential from incidental and more or less accidental.
Language is not an activity (function) of the speaker. Language is a finished product passively registered by the speaker; it never presupposes premeditation and only classifying activity is consciously carried out in it, which will be discussed below (see pp. 155 et seq.).
On the contrary, speech is an individual act of will and reason; in this act it is necessary to distinguish: 1) combinations in which the speaker uses the code (code) language for the purpose of expressing one's thoughts; 2) a psychophysical mechanism that allows him to objectify these combinations.
It should be noted that we are concerned with the definition of objects, not words; therefore the differences we have established are not in the least affected by some ambiguous terms that do not quite correspond to each other in different languages. Yes, GermanSprachecorresponds to Frenchlanguage"languageslanguage"speech activity"; Germanrederoughly equivalent to Frenchpassword"speech"; however, in it.redecontains an additional meaning: "oratory" (= French.discours); latinsermomeans more andlanguage"speech activity" andpassword"speech" whilelinguameanslanguage"language", etc. For none of the concepts defined above, it is impossible to indicate the exact word corresponding to it, therefore it is absolutely useless to define words; it is bad when, in defining things, one proceeds from words.
We now summarize the main properties of the language:
1. Language is something quite definite in a heterogeneous set of facts of speech activity. It can be localized in a certain segment of the speech act we have considered, namely, where the auditory image is associated with the concept. It represents the social aspect of speech activity, external to the individual, which by itself can neither create it nor change it. Language exists only by virtue of a kind of contract concluded by the members of the collective. However, to know its functioning, the individual must learn; the child masters it only little by little. To such an extent, language is something quite special.
the battle that a person who has lost the gift of speech retains the language, since he understands the linguistic signs he hears.
2. Language other than speech constitutes a subject available independent study. We do not speak dead languages, but we can perfectly master their mechanism. As for the other elements of speech activity, the science of language can do without them; moreover, it is possible at all only on the condition that these other elements are not mixed with its object.
3. While speech activity as a whole has a heterogeneous character, language, as we have defined it, is a phenomenon that is homogeneous in nature - it is a system of signs in which the only essential is the combination of meaning and acoustic image, and both of these components of the sign are equal least mental.
4. Language notinless than speech, is concrete in nature, and this is very conducive to its study. Although linguistic signs are psychic in their essence, at the same time they are not abstractions; associations, sealed by collective consent andintheir totality constituting the language, the essence of reality, localized in the brain. Moreover, the signs of a language are, so to speak, tangible: in writing they can be fixed by means of conditional spellings, while it seems impossible to photograph acts of speech in all details; the pronunciation of the shortest word is an innumerable set of muscular movements that are extremely difficult to know and depict. In languageon the contrary,there is nothing but an acoustic image thatmay betransmitted through avisual image.AThimselfIn fact, if we ignore the multitude ofactions of the movements necessaryto implement acousticimageinspeech, any acousticthe image turns out like we dowe will see, only the suma limited number of elements, or phohim, who in theirthe queue can be depicted on the letter using the appropriate number of characters. It is the ability to fix the phenomena of language that makes it possible to make a dictionary and grammar a true image of it: after all, language is a treasure trove of acoustic images, and writing provides them with a tangible form.
§ 3. The place of language in a number of phenomena of human life.
Semiology
The characterization of language formulated in § 2 leads us to an even more important point. Language, singled out in this way from the totality of the phenomena of speech activity, in contrast to this activity as a whole, occupies a special place among the manifestations of human life.
As we have just seen, language is a social institution that differs in many respects from other social institutions: political, legal, etc. In order to understand its specific nature, a number of new facts must be brought to bear.
Language is a system of signs expressing concepts, and therefore it can be compared with writing, with the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, with symbolic rites, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc., etc. It is only the most important of these systems.
Therefore, one can imaginea science that studies the life of signs within the framework of the life of society;such a science would be part of social psychology and, consequently, general psychology; we would call hersemiology(from Greek.semeion"sign") *. It must reveal to us what signs are and what laws they are governed by. Since it does not yet exist, it is impossible to say what it will be; but it has the right to exist, and its place is determined in advance. Linguistics is only a part of this general science: the laws that semiology discovers will also apply to linguistics, and this latter will thus be assigned to a well-defined area in the totality of the phenomena of human life.
To determine exactly the place of semiology is the task of the psychologist. The task of the linguist is to find out what distinguishes language as a special system in the totality of semiological phenomena. This question will be considered by us below; for the time being, let us remember only one thing: if for the first time we manage to find a place for linguistics among the sciences, it is only because we have connected it with semiology.
Why is semiology not yet recognized as an independent science, which, like any other science, has its own special object of study? The fact is that so far it has not been possible to get out of the vicious circle: on the one hand, there is nothing more suitable for understanding the nature of semiodogical problems than language, on the other hand, in order to properly pose these problems, one must study language as such. ; meanwhile, until now, people almost always try to learn language depending on something else,withpoints of view alien to him.
|
1 We must beware of confusionsemiologywithsemantics* 3 studying [changes]values. 2 Wed. Adrien N a v i 1 1e, Nouvelle classification des sciences, 2 e ed. enti-erement refondue, Alcan Paris, 1901,wherethisideaacceptedin. consideration. 3 An asterisk after the corresponding word or paragraph refers the reader of the "Course" to the corresponding note of the publishers of the "Course" S. Bally and A. Seshe. These notes in our edition are placed at the end of the "Course". -Note,ed. |
Then there is the point of view of psychologists who study the mechanism of the sign in the individual; this method is the easiest, but it does not lead further than the individual act of speech and does not affect the sign, which is by nature social.
But, even noticing that the sign must be studied as social phenomenon, pay attention only to those features of the language that connect it with other social institutions, more or less dependent on our will, and thus miss the mark, skipping those features that are inherent only either in semiological systems in general, or language in particular . For the sign always eludes to some extent both the individual and the social will, which is its most essential, but at first sight the least noticeable feature.
It is in language that this feature manifests itself most clearly, but it is found in an area that remains the least studied; as a result, the necessity or special utility of semiology remains unclear. For us, however, the problems of linguistics are primarily semiological problems, and the whole course of our reasoning acquires its meaning only in the light of this basic proposition. Whoever wants to discover the true nature of language must first of all pay attention to the fact thatinit has nothing in common with other systems of the same order; and many linguistic factors that seem at first glance very significant (for example, the functioningorgans of speech)should be considered only in the secondqueue,insofar astheyserve only to highlight the languagefromsets of semiological systems. Thanks to this, not onlytoproblems of linguistics,but,we believe_yTs£ consideration of rites,customs, etc. as signs of all these yavle-dagasamewill speak innewlight, so that there will be a need forunite them allwithin the framework of semiology and explain them by the laws of this science.
