A Critical Review of Ferdinand De Saussure's Linguistic Theory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CSCanada.net: E-Journals (Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture,... ISSN 1923-1555[Print] Studies in Literature and Language ISSN 1923-1563[Online] Vol. 8, No. 1, 2014, pp. 57-61 www.cscanada.net DOI:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320140801.3909 www.cscanada.org A Critical Review of Ferdinand de Saussure’s Linguistic Theory Basel Al-Sheikh Hussein[a]; Ibrahim Abushihab[b],* [a]Assistant Professor. Department of English and Literature, Faculty of Arts/ Al–Zaytoonah, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. INTRODUCTION [b]Associate Professor. Department of English and Literature, Faculty of If one considers the criticism rose against methods and Arts/ Al–Zaytoonah, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. * theories which revolutionized linguistics, one comes to Corresponding author. acknowledge the fact that almost none of them remain Received 25 October 2013; accepted 3 February 2014 undisputed. And each method or approach distances itself from others before it; for example, the mentalist descriptive linguistics of structuralism in Europe led by Abstract de Saussure was against philology, and the physicality Needless to say that the issues and problems by previous descriptive linguistics of American structuralism founded linguistic studies and theories have not been completely by L .Bloomfield refused to accept or acknowledge resolved yet and still remain in dispute. Therefore the mentalist. Chomsky, in turn, reproved Bloomfield Ian authors of this paper feel the need for the re-examination descriptive structuralism as inadequate and praised of those problems and principles studied and discussed mentalist and traditional grammar as well. many years ago. And because the authors believe that As for Bloomfield, mentalism for firth was rejected many of these problems in linguistics were recognized and severely criticized. But Halliday’s functional approach by Ferdinand de Saussure, the attempt has been made to seems an alternative to both American Bloomfieldian support this by presenting his linguistic considerations structuralism and Chomskyan generativism. Continuity of and discussions. The authors’ selection of de Saussure can supplanting approaches by each other obtained. Halliday be justified by the tremendous influence of his work in comments on the continuity and history of linguistics general development of linguistic theories. as saying that twentieth-century linguistics “has tended The study has revealed that Saussure’s vision of to wrap old descriptions inside new theories instead of complexities and dilemmas in the description of language seeking genuinely new descriptions” (Beaugrande, 1933, still persists in linguistics. For example, uncertainty and p.346). disputes still exist over the relation of language to the De Saussure’s thinking on language has exercised an very great number of speech events in the experience of important influence on the whole of twentieth-century linguists, in addition to the status of rules or laws applying linguistics (cf. Harris 1983, 1984, 2001; Tagai, 2009). to all languages and in addition to the nature of linguistic For example, in studying the detailed and individual units, especially in semantics. Thus, the study reveals features of dialectal variation, one is often studying the that Saussure’s deliberations provide an inspiring impetus sort of synchronic situation in which the phenomena of for reconsidering the still disputed aspects and areas in linguistic change have their origin (cf. Robins, 1993). linguistics. Also sapir and Bloomfield share many of de Sausure’s Key words: Symbolism; Arbitrary; Language change; views on the description of language. For example, like Phonetic change; Syntagm; Sign system de Saussure, Sapir describes language as “a Pure human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, Basel Al-Sheikh Hussein, Ibrahim Abushihab (2014). A Critical emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily Review of Ferdinand de Saussure’s Linguistic Theory. Studies in produced symbols” (Sapir, 1921, p.8); i.e., language is a Literature and Language, 8(1), 57-61. Available from: http://www. cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/view/j.sll.1923156320140801.3909 “conventional, arbitrary system of symbolisms” (1921, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.sll.1923156320140801.3909 p.4). And as for de Saussure, the real language for Sapir is 57 Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture A Critical Review of Ferdinand de Saussure’s Linguistic Theory not made up by the phonetic framework of speech, and the the exploration of the relatedness of many languages, individual speech-sound cannot be taken as a linguistic because they failed to form the true science of linguistics, element: “The mere sounds of speech are not the essential and to draw a distinction between states and successions fact of language … and the single sound of articulated (De Saussure, p.81f). speech is not a linguistic element at all” (1921, p.22, p.42). De Saussure argued against the neogrammarians, who Again like de Saussure, Sapir declares that the tried to show how a set of facts apparently obeys the psychological existence of the word is not based on its same law. He pointed out that such facts are isolated and phonetic characteristics, such as ‘accent’. Once again accidental, and that “regardless of the number of instances like de Saussure, Sapir views language change as a major where a phonetic law holds, all the facts embraced by it concern of linguistics, and introduces it into language as a are but multiple manifestations of a single particular fact” leading and determining feature of diversity (Sapir, 1921, (p.93f). De Saussure’s principle in the study of language pp.24, p.33, p.173). is that it would be a mistake to suppose that the facts Despite these shared views with de Saussure, sapir embraced by a law exist once and for all. There are no unlike him believes that “phonetic change is frequently unchangeable characteristics. followed by morphological rearrangements” (Sapir, p.183). On Bloomfield’s side, we can recognize that he follows 2. DE SAUSSURE’S LINGUISTIC de Saussure in that the connection between linguistic THEORY forms and their meanings is wholly arbitrary; each According to de Saussure, Linguistics is differentiated “combination of signaling units is arbitrarily assigned from sciences such sciences as zoology, psychology, to some feature of the practical world” (Bloomfield, and anthropology because these sciences can be helpful 1933, p.152). Again like de Saussure, Bloomfield does to “everything that is outside the system of language” not consider writing as language, but merely a way (1966, p.20). For de Saussure, linguistics is only a part of recording language by means of visible marks, and of a science (semiology) that is engaged in the study he believes that the linguist does not “need to know of the life of signs within society (cf. Thibault, 1997). something about writing in order to study language” In other words, linguistics is expected to clarify “what (Beaugrande, 1933, p.12). Bloomfield also shares with de makes language a special system within the mass of Saussure his reluctance to see phonetic change following semiological data” (De Saussure, 1966, p.17). This, in laws (Bloomfield, p.365). turn, means that “if we are to discover the true nature of Like de Beaugrande (1993) and Robins (1993), the language, we must learn what it has in common with all authors of this paper are convinced that surveying the other semiological systems” (De Saussure, 1966, p.17). major issues and problems of linguistics through their The unique object of linguistics is then language studied treatment in Saussure’s ‘Course in General Linguistics’ in and for itself. For de Saussure, this unique object is the can help in planning for future research that calls for a social product deposited in the brain of each individual i.e., comprehensive and systematic study of the languages speech cannot be studied, because it is not homogeneous. of linguistics, and that de Saussure in many ways marks De Saussure then limits the object of study in drawing the beginning of linguistics as an independent academic a dichotomy between ‘langue’ (language) and ‘langage’ subject in its present form, and many of the distinctions (human speech), making language only a definite part of and topics now almost universally recognized as essential human speech and arguing that language can be classified to it were first made explicit by him. among human phenomena, whereas human speech cannot, “for we cannot discover its unity; only language 1. LINGUISTICS IN DE SAUSSURE’S gives unity to speech” (De Saussure, 1966, p.19). De Saussure also distinguishes between ‘parole’ (speaking) TIME and ‘langue’ (language); he declares that “the two objects At his time, Saussure was dissatisfied with the state are closely connected and interdependent … Speaking of linguistic research, because of the confusion that is necessary for the establishment of language, and characterized it. He also criticized the study of grammar historically its actuality always comes first … Language is which was based on logic and far from being concerned passive, receptive, collective, and homogeneous ... Unlike with the language itself; consequently, according to de language, speaking is not collective … its manifestations Saussure, the study of grammar did not approach the are individual and momentary and depend on the will of description of language scientifically. speakers”(De Saussure, 1966, p.18f). De Saussure rejected such study, because it treated De Saussure emphasizes that speaking, as the activity grammar as a normative discipline, detached from actual of speakers, should be studied in a number of disciplines observation. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the other than linguistics. De Saussure’s restricted notion study of the comparison of texts of different periods and of language can be confined “in the limited segment of Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture 58 Basel Al-Sheikh Hussein; Ibrahim Abushihab (2014).