12. Language as a system of signs and as a structure. De saussure's dichotomies. The theory of sign

There are many definitions of language, one of them is:

“Language is a system of interdependent signs in which the value of each sign results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others” (F. Saussure)

(besides system of signs, lang. can be also treated as a constant activity of the mind, means of communication and everything mentioned simultaneously)

Such scholars, as Potebnya, Saussure, Benvennist, Stepanov, Pierce and others agreed that lang is a system of signs that has a certain structure. That’s why the whole trend is called structuralism.

Saussure was not the first to put forward the idea that language uses signs to express thoughts. Aristotle defined linguistic signs as means of manifesting the impressions a human being gets when perceiving objects of the outside world.

A. Potebnya wrote that the word as a sign substitutes for the corresponding images or concepts, it represents them in the flow of thoughts and can be called a representation. But it was de Saussure who came up with a well-grounded theory of lang as a system of signs.

Language is a system of mutually defining entities. It is a system of signs, expressing ideas, a result of the human faculty for speech that evolved in society. Language is contingent on social interaction. The individual cannot create the arbitrary system alone. It requires agreement.

According to Saussure’s 1^st dichotomy, language is composed of two aspects: langue (the language system) and parole (the act of speaking). Language is that faculty of human speech present in all normal human beings due to heredity, but which requires the correct environmental stimuli for proper development. It is our faculty to speak to each other. Langue is a storehouse “the sum of word-images stored in the minds of individuals”. But it is also something which the individual speaker can make use of, but cannot affect by himself: it is a corporate, social phenomenon. Langue = grammar + vocabulary + pronunciation.

Parole is the actual, concrete act of speaking on the part of an individual, the controlled psycho-physical activity which is what we hear. It exists at a particular time and place and is opposed to langue, which exists apart from any particular manifestation of speech. Parole is the only object available for direct observation by the linguist, but it is not of primary importance to the linguist. What is of primary importance, it is langue as a vast network of structures and systems.

A system can be regarded as an ordered set of elements or a group of interrelated parts. But the term “system” can be applied only to the state of language at a certain moment of its development, at a certain point in time. In his theory Saussure give emphasis to the synchronic perspective, and later this approach caused a lot of criticism. The dichotomy of the synchronic and the diachronic dimensions helps to avoid some confusion, but neither of them excludes the other completely, there must always be a point of intersection. Language is dynamic and should be explored both from the synchronic and diachronic perspectives.

The third dichotomy of Saussure is the dichotomy of two main types of relations between the units of language: syntagmatic relations (linear relationship between the signs in a sentence) and paradigmatic relationships (systemic relationships between linguistic units within the system of language, relations of substitution).

V. Zvegintsev, e.g., argues that language is not a static system, it exists in development. In his opinion, the term “structure” is more adequate for linguistic research.

E. Benvennist says the term “structure” can be understood at least in two ways. A structure is a whole, which consists of interconnected and interdependent parts. A structure is a certain arrangement of interconnected elements which can substitute for each other. Each element of a structure is defined by the whole, i.e. by all its connections with the other elements. Taken in isolation any element looses its essential characteristics. Change in any part of a structure triggers off a series of changes in other parts, and, as a result, changes the whole.

Yu. Stepanov, on the contrary, is a proponent of the term “system”, which he understands as a whole that consists of elements and relations among these elements. The whole determines each element. The structure of a system is the aggregate of all the relations among the elements.

Charles Pierce identified three types of signs:

ICON is a sign that has a direct link with the object it stands for and has a resemblance with the objects, e.g.: finger prints. Language signs that are icons are onomatopoeic words.

INDEX is a sign which would lose the character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but would not lose its character if there were no interpretant (a bell in a school). Interjections are indexes in the system of language.

SYMBOL is a sign which would lose the character which renders it as a sign if there were no interpretant. Words are symbols.

Linguistic signs have some peculiarities which differentiate them from signs in other systems.

1. In most semiotic systems signs are not emotionally colored, they are neutral in terms of emotions or evaluation. The word as the central linguistic sign is usually loaded with some connotative meaning.

2. In most semiotic systems each sign can have only one meaning, the majority of words are polysemantic.

3. Being arbitrary by nature, the word can still become motivated as a result of some word formation process (derivatives, compound words, etc.).

4. Unlike signs in other semiotic systems, linguistic signs (words and morphemes) are productive elements because they can be used to create new signs (word formation).

All this leads us to the conclusion that language is a unique and very complex semiotic system.

The most important outcomes of exploring language as a system and as a structure were the theory of the phoneme and the theory of the morpheme (in more detail).

But this approach has its limitations.