UNIT 2 LOOKING AT DATA-1

Structure

Objectives
Introduction
Structuralism in Linguistics
Structural-functional Linguistics :The Saussurean Principles
2.3.1 Language and Parole
2.3.2 The Arbitrariness of the Sign
2.3.3 The Diachronic and the Synchronic Study of Language
2.3.4 The Oppositional Structure of Language
Structural Linguistics : The Saussurean Heritage
American Structuralism
2.5.1 Difference between American and European Structuralism
2.5.2 Sapir
2.5.3 Bloomfield
2.5.4 Bloomfieldian Methodology
Let Us Sum Up
Key Words
Questions

In this unit we shall trace the development of structuralism in Europe and in

America. In Europe it was largely based on the principles laid down by Ferdinand
de Saussure, and in America it was associated with the approach known as
Bloomfieldean/Post-Bloomfieldean.Structuralism, as a school of thought, led to the
emergence of structural linguistics which provided one of the perspectives for
looking at data. We shall also see how as a reaction to structuralism, formal
linguistics and ultimately Generative Grammar emerged which brought about a
shift in methodology and orientation in linguistic theory for looking at data.

On completing this unit, you should be able to do the following:

(i) . trace the development of structuralism in Europe and America,

(ii) differentiate between the two versions of structuralism, and
(iii) differentiate between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, langue and
"
parole, diachronic and synchronic studies.

In the next unit you will read about the emergence of Generative enterprise and how
it makes a point of departure for the Post Bloomfieldean studies.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

, The term 'structuralism' stands for a school of thought that developed in the 1960s in
France in the wake of Claude Levi~Strauss'sAnthropologie structurale (1 958) and
his attempt to discover the objective meaning af human culture. Levi-Strauss sought
to isolate kinship systems as objective systems of meaning that existed, that could be
analyzed, independently of their particular application or of their meaning for
particular individuals, and that are amenable to study by the methods of the positive
sciences, Structuralism appears to make possible the establishment of
autonomous and objectlve human sciences, because it provides those sciences
with their own independent and objective fields of study. Therefore as a school of
thought structuralisin cannot be reduced to a single movement or trend. rather ir has
had a strong impact on many disciplines during the entire twentieth century -be it
linguistics, literature, music, myth, art or even systems of kinship. In fact,
structuralism can best be described, to adapt a telin proposed by Basil Bemstein. as a
"thematic region", that brings together " disciplines and the technologies they nialtk
possible, much as cognitive science, management, engineering and medicine do "
(Thibault 1998: 598). The 20th century scholarship was based on the principle thal
our knowledge of the world will not be complete unless we arrive al the str~rctureof
the system, i.e the relationship between the members of the system. Hence the
search for the structure became a characteristic of the 20th century scholarship and
propelled an era of structuralism in scientific research. Structuralism believes that the
individual phenomena of human experience exist but are intelligible through their
interconnections and not in isolation. The interconnections can be "accounted for
rationally- rather than just described and classified or intuitively grasped in their
unique peculiarityn-by looking at them "in their relational character'', perceiving
"their connections as constituting a structure", and finding "behind endless variatioils
some abstract patteins subject to simple general rules" (Lepschy 1992: 163).

2.2 STRUCTURALISM IN LINGUISTICS

Although Levi-Strauss' work has stimulated the developiiient of strucluralisni as a n

intellectual movement, this stimulus has owed much of its force to the facl that 1.w-
Strauss' work reproduces an approach that had been developed quite independently
within linguistics. In hct, it was only with his encounter with linguistics that lie
became fully aware of the theoretical, methodological and philosophical implications
of his approach. His encounter with linguistics further gave him the confidence lo
generalize his findings and to offer structuralisni as a iiiethod for all the hu~iian
sciences.

Strictly speaking structuralism in linguistics ineans a new approach to the ihcts

already known . The facts of treating languages as structurt?s-i.e, as total systems or
connected wholes-in terms of their internal patterns of connection, rather than as sets
of isolated ~ t e n and
~ s in tenns of their historical sequence of developnient are merely
reconsidered with regard to their fiinctiorz in the system. It is the study of how the
structures of these entities affect the way they function. Inasmuch as language. as a
coinniunicative system, has a function, the structuralisl ;xodel of language insists on
the social (i.e communicative) function of language. Structuralism in linguistics
also implies an insistence on making a clear distinction between historical
phenomena and the characteristics of a linguistic system at a given point in time.
This insistence on the two-fold distinction was largely a reaction to the 19th century
scholarship which stressed on studying language through classical languages and
subsequently made historicisln their fundamental inark of thinking. It may be ~ioted
here, that in spite of insisting on studying language at a given moment, the
structuralist approach is still capable of shedding some historical light on the subjec~.
Historical differences between the structures of the same or two different languages
can still be shown by the structuralist model of language.

2.3 STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS: THE

SAUSSUREAN PRINCIPLES

The foundational principles of structural-functional linguistics were based 011 the

lecture notes of the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-19 13). published
posthumously as Cours de Linguistique Gerzerrrb (CLG). These principles entered
 I

into the structuralist model of linguistics and provided a turning point in the history Looking at Data-1
of linguistics. The following are the general methodological principles of Saussure:

2.3.1 Langue and Parole (language structure vs speaking in a language)

While making distinctions between the linguistic system and its actual
manifestations, we arrive at the crucial opposition between langue andparole.
Lungtie is the system or structure of a language whereasparole is the activity of
speaking 1n.alanguage or actual speech. According to Saussure, within the whole
field of linguistic activity (langage), we should distinguish between the language
system (langue) and speaking or writing the language @arole). The three way
d~stinctionmay be understood as following:

larrgage-as the general capacity that distinguishes man from the animals.

Iarzgue-as language structure which consists of vocabulary, principles of

construction, idioms, rules of pronunciation, etc.

parole-as language, both speech or writing used in context.

For Saussure, langue is something that is at once social and constrairrirzg : "It is both
a social product of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions
that have been adopted by a social body to permit individuals to exercise that faculty"
(CLG,25,9). While the former means that it is the possession of the community of
speakers, the latter suggests that it is something fixed. Parole, on the other hand, is
the realm of freedom : "It is an individual act ... wilful and intellactual" (CLG, 14).
Langue-Parole distinction has formed a basis for all later structuralist model of
l~nguistics.

2.3.2 The Arbitrariness of the Sign

The linguistic sign is an arbitrary linkage between a signijier and a signified. The
fonner is a sound-image while the latter is a concept. Saussure believed that there is
no natural connection between sound and meaning. There is no natural or intrinsic
connection between sound-images and concepts. It is purely arbitrary or conventional
and there is nothing particularly cat-like about the word 'cat' or sense of continuity
about the verb-ending '-ing'.
7

signifier

Here is a linguistic example:

Sign: The written word 'tree'

,Signifier: The letters 't-r-e-e' <

Signified : The category 'tree'

This concept will come up again in later units, and has already been mentioned in
unit 1.
p ~ h .is~ L ~ ~ The
~ , , ~ ~2.3.3 ~ ?Diachronic and the Synchronic .Study of Language (History
vs Structure)
;Discussion of the factors which explain the changes or mutability of language led lo
awareness of the importance of time. Although Saussure grew ~ l pin the tradition of
19th century historical and comparative linguistics, he could not reconcile hi~iiself
with the historicism of the neograinmarians. He argued I1la.t an adequate treatiiient of
the effect of time calls for a radical distinction between the two branches of
linguistics, synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Synchronic linguistics studies
langue, which is a system that is psychologically real, whereas diacluoiiic ling~~islics
is concerned with relations of succession between irtrlividunl itenzs. which speakers
are unaware of and which are not quite systematic. The synchronic study of language
is, thus, tlie study of linguistic system in a particular state, at a point of time.
whereas the diachronic study of language is the study of its evolution in time.

2.3.4 The Oppositional Structure of Language

Language is a set of oppositions without positive teims. According to this Sa~iss~irean
principle, the arbitrariness of the sign is limited by the systematic nature of sign
systems. The signs that make up a language stand in opposition to each otlier.

The linearity of signs coupled with the notion of oppositions formed the basis of
Saussurean distinction between two inain types of structural relations between signs :
tlie syntagmatic and iltegaradignratic. Syntagmatic relationship is linear, while the
paradigmatic relationship is associative. In the syntagmatic relationship, units as
sounds, phrases, clauses, sentences and discourse are chained together in a fixed
sequence and combination and they get their force by standing in opposition to wliat
precedes or Follows them. This relationship holds at various levels of languagr. Tlie
following example shows it at the sound level. Let LIS take a simple word l~lcecar.
This word consists of three units - the phonemes /W, / z / u t ~ d /t/. The relationsl~ip
that exists between these three units is syntagmatic.

Paradigmatic relationship, on the other hand, refers to the relationship that holds
between units that are there and the units that are not iltere but potentially co~ildhave
been. Let us take the same example again. The first unit of the word cat is /I;/. There .
are many otlier sounds which could have come at this place, for instance (I)/ or /b/ or
!nz/, giving words likepat, bat and nzut. The relationship that holds between the be nit
in question that is /Ir/ and other probable candidates for example /E)/ or /b/ or /112/:are
paradigmatic. The syntagmatic relationship is the relationship inpreserttia, while
paradigmatic relation is the relationship in abserriia.The two relationships can be
diagrammatically shown as follows:

k a: t Syntagmatic

P
Paradigmatic b

These relationships can also be seen at the syntactic level. Let us take as example
John likes bananas. The sentence consists of three words John, likes and brrlrllnas.
The linear relationship between these three units is syntagmatic. But there is another :
relationship between Jolt11 and other possible units which can occur at the place of
John but are not there, for instance, Mary, Tim, The boy. This relationship in
absentia is called paradigmatic. Let us see the following diagram:
 Syntagmatic
John liltes bananas

paradigmatic Maiy
Tim

The boy

The Saussurean principles set out in Cours were developed by a number of important
I schools of thought and subsequently paved the way for an emergence of structural
I
I I~nguistlcs.
I

1 2.4 STRUCrrU-BBPaLLINGUISTB[CS:THE SAUSSUREAN

As mentioned earlier, structural linguistics owes its foundational debt to the great
Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). His insightful observations on
language as a system and his treatment of language primarily as a social phenomenon
became the guiding principle for stnictural linguistics. The central principle of tlie
Cours 1s that a well- defined subpart of language called Imzgue, can be abstracted
fro111 the total~tyof speech. It represents the abstract system of structural relationships
Inherent in language - relationships that are held in common by all members of a
speech community. Since kmgue, according to Saussure, forms a coherent structural
I system, any such approach to language which is devoted to explicating the internal
I
I
I
workiiigs of this abstract system is referred to as structural lirzguist'ics.The structural
approach to the analysis of language is not only concerned with explicating the
inle~iialworltings of Inrzgue, but it also involves the segmentation of utterances into
elenlents in teiiris of two basic and complementary relations : syntagmatic and
paradigmatic ('associative' according to Saussure). The former looks into those
eleilients which combine to form a larger unit, while the latter taltes those elements
which call be substituted for another in a given context.
I

In a structuralist description of language both an inventory of the linguistic elements

of the langusge under analysis and statement of the positions in which the elements
occur are taken into consideration -- the former refers to cliscoveryprocedure and the
latter refers to distributiort. The case for such a taxonomic or classificatory approach
I
I
to Iarzg~it.was made explicit in the Cours : "It would be interesting from a practical
fi v~eulpointto begin with units, to determine what they are and to account for their
diversity by classifying them ..... Next we would have to classify the subparts, then
I the larger units, etc." (Saussure 1959 : 111).

.T'he 1950s in the United States witnessed a spate of activities in structural linguistics
with a distinct Saussurean heritage. Later, structural linguistics in America took on its
dlslinctive cast and entered the period of its great success.
I

i
/ 2.5 AMERICAN STRUCTURALISM

Ailierican st~ucturalismhas been associated with the approach variously called "post-
Bloomfieldian", "neo Bloornfieldian" or simply "Bloomfieldian", The adherents of
this approach have commor~lycalled it "descriptive linguistics."

2.5.1 Difference between American and European Structuralism

Svucturalism in the United States grew illdependently to that of its European

cbunterpart. Their interests were different and they even differed in their
What is Lnngrrage?
understanding of the term 'structure'. The European linguists understood it as " the
arrangement of a whole in parts and the demonstrable coherence of these reciprocally
conditioned parts in the whole "(Benveniste 1971 :8). For inost of the American
linguists, structure is "the distribution of the elements as it is observed, and the
capacity of these element for association or substitution" (1971 :8). According to
Benveriste, a 'Bloomfieldian' will segmentalize the whole into its constitutive
elements and will define "each of these elements by its position in the whole and by
the variations and substitutions posible in this same position" (197 1 :8).

If European scholars were interested in ancient languages and the developiiient of

modem European languages from them, the American structural linguists were
primarily interested in describing and classifying the American Indian languages. The
representatives of American structuralism tended to write the grammar of 'exotic'
languages of Amerindian tribes such as Menomini, Hopi, Talcelma. Anierican
linguistics, slnce the beginning of this centuiy, has been oriented toward the current
of structural linguistics by the work of scholars such as Boas (185 8 - 1942),
especially by the works of Sapir (1884 - 1939) and Bloomfield (1887 - 1948) - the
two pioneers of structural linguistics in America.

2.5.2 Sapir

Following the methods developed by Boas, Sapir gave up his work in classical
philology and started analysing languages of Amerindian tribes. His analysis of
Takelma, an American-Indian language spoken in the Northwest, in fact, predated the
Saussurean principles of structuralism. Through his Takelrna grainmar of 19 1 1
(published as Sapir 1922), he had worked out the basic principles of struct~iralisn~
even before Saussure's Cours had been published. Language, according to Sapir, was
a communicative and social activity. His interests in language were iar - ranging. In
addition to grammatical analysis, he took into account the humanistic and cultural
aspects of language. He also published papers on the functioning of language in
creative literature, mythology and religion.Although he was a structuralist in his
orientation, he held a moderate position. He was not fully averse to liistoricisi-~~.
For
him, language was a prodzrct of history, "the product of long-continued social
usage" (Sapir 1921 :2).

In the structural conception of language formulated by Sapir, the most striking [act
was the aspect of universality. He conceived of language as a structure which is
universal: "Language, as a structure, is on its inner face the mould of thought" and
"[There] is no more striking general fact about language than its universality..... 'rlie
lowliest of the South African Bushmen speaks in the forms of a rich sy~-Iibolicsystem
that is in essence perfectly comparable to the speech of the cultivated Frenchman"
(1921:22). .

Sapir refused to look at language through mechanistic methods. He held that

"linguistic consciousness"of speakers must be taken into account. His approach was
inore nientrrlistic as opposed to the mecltnnistic or belraviouristic approach of
Bloomfield. His mentalism, which inakes claims about a relationship between
language and the mind, led to the belief that linguistic structure plays a role In
shaping our perception of reality.His student Benjamin Whorf further developed this
idea and came forward with the hypothesis widely known as Sapir - Wlzorf'
Hypotlrmis. You will read about this later in the block.

2.5.3 Bloomfield

The Mechariisnr of Bloomfield was closely related to behaviourism in psychology.

According to bekavioirrism, human cot-~ductis totally predictable i.e it can be
explained on the basis of situations in which it occurs, independently of all internal
18 factoi-s. Even speech must be explained by the external conditions surrounding its
production.
 In accepting the basic ideas of behaviourism, Bloomfield, in his book Language Looking a t Bata-1
( 1933), formulated his mechanistic and materialistic conception of language which is
based upon stinzulus-response schema:

He explained the stimulus-response schematic usage of language by means of his

fanlous story of Jack and Jill, walking down the lane. Jill sees an apple . She is
h~ungryand wants it. But she wants Jack to get her the apple. She makes a noise with
Iier larynx. tongue and lips. Jack hears her request, climbs a tree to get the apple,
which Jill then devours. Here real or practical events preceding the act of speech is
the stimulus (S) (in this case, Jill's feeling of hunger). If Jill had got the apple herself
lhen stiii~uluswould have directly caused the response (R) (her getting of the apple)
symbolized by S >ReInstead there is a substitute response (r) in the form
of a vocal movemeilt (i.e she asks Jack to do it). The substitute response of Jill leads
to a substitute stimulus or s linguistic stimulus (s) for Jack: he hears her request, and
this causes the real or a practical response (R).

Since Bloomfield's main concern was to develop linguistics into a science, the
principles through which this could be done were the exclusion of psychology fiom
liilguistics and the use of scientific descriptive statements. He refused to accept any
psychological interpretation of the linguistic fact and demanded a strictly mechanistic
approach. This is evident from his treatment of residual forms (or so-called
exceptions in 'sound change'). He insisted upon the regularity of sound change and
emphasized the scieniific necessity of assuming that 'conditioned sound changes are
purely phonetic' and 'independent of non-phonetic factors, such as meaning,
frequency. . .' This became a starting point fiom which emphases upon a so-called
nreckarrist~iarose. According to Bloomfield, linguists should deal with observable
events only which are located in the coordinates of time and space. His insistence on
dealing with only those events that were accessible to an observer in both time and
place niarked a definite shift from mentalisin tophysicalis~n.He believed that the
linguist should define descriptive terms rigidly in physical tenns that could be
derived from a set of collection of everyday items dealing with physical happenings.

While he had earlier been a mentalist too, by 1933 Bloomfield became an apostle of
u~z~i-~rrentalismtin 1inguistics.B~placing a very heavy emphasis on objective
observation he had become an empiricist and had adopted a view of linguistic
science that allowed only statements based on generalizations drawn fiom observable
facts by a set of mechanical procedures. As he put it: "The only useful generalizations
about language are inductive generalizations. Features which we think ought to be
universal may be absent from the very next language that becomes accessible"
(1933:20).

His empiricist orientation had also affected his approach to the study of meaning. He
had rebelled against the linguistic theories of meaning or the signified (to use
Kristeva's tern1j . While he admitted that a central function of language was to convey
. nleaning, he remarked that meaning was either a completely unobservable mentalistic
construct or else, consisted in so many and detailed events surrounding the speech
act, that an adequate observation of it was nearly as hopeless as that of a mental
reality. He affirmed that linguistic science would never be able to tackle it without
taking into account the "state of the speaker's body" and the "predisposition of the .
nervous sound system, which results from all of his experience, linguistic and other,
up to this very moment-not to speak of hereditary and pre-natal factors"(1933-141).
Since this goal was unattainable, recourse to meaning was to be avoided wherever
possible. Hence, meaning had to be kept aside in the task of establishing an adequate
linguistic method.
Inspired by the ideas of anti-mentalisn~of Bloomfield, American linguistics was tlius
committed for a long time to the principle that language must be analyzed without
regard to meaning. Efforts were made to evolve a lnethodology based on an
exhaustive description of the behaviour of liiiguistic units without reference to
meaning. This is where American linguistics resorted to co-occurrence, the possible
distribution of sound sebments (phoneliies) and combinations of them (morpllemes)
in a language. Thus, a new method of analysis was evolved which was based on
noting and describing all positions which units of a given language system coi~ld
occupy-i.e, on deterlnining the distribution of linguistic u1;its.

On the basis of distribution of the units of linguistic structure, three types of

distributional relations have been identified:

(a) Complementary distribution - where one unit occurs, the other does not
occur i.e. two or more units liever occur in tlie same environment. For
exaii~ple,in English the p1ioneme.lpl has two variants [Z?], the unaspirated,
and [p"] the aspirated. [p"] occurs initially, whereas b]occurs elsewhere. For
instance [yl'in], bh=t] and [pi' et]. In these words lpl comes initially and is
aspirated. In words like stop, spji, tip, /p/ does not colne iilitially and is
therefore unaspirated.
, [p"] initially

\ [p] elsewhere
Here @''I and [y] are allophones of tlie phonemas /p/.

This condition helps in recognizing and groupiizg not only the alloplioncs of
a single phoneme but also allomorphs of the saine moiyl~eme..lust as a
phoneme can have several allophones, morphemes can also have a number
of alloinoiyhs. This can be illustrated by taltillg the following ext~~nples.

Let us take the plural marker moi-plieme - s. It hasthree forms . -.F. -Z and --iz
depending upoil tlie environment of its occurrence. The morpheme --s is
realized as [s] if it is preceded by a voiceless sound, as in c'cq~s,rdars, hooks;
as [z] if it is preceded by a voiced sound as in cubz, lidz, do&; as [ iz] if it is
preceded by sibilant sounds as in prizes, voices.

(b) Contrastive distribution - where a change in one sound produces a changc

in meaning. This is established with the help of nlinirrtnlpairs. For example.
p a t [y" s t ] contrasts with bat [bzt]. Ilence lpl and lbl are plionemcs. Even
sub- ~ninimnlyairscall be used to establish contrasts. For example, pact
[pl'~kct]contTasts with hat [bat]. I-Ience lpl a i d llhl are phonemes.

(c) Free variation - where units occur in the same environiilent alongwith no
change in meanings. In this case they are variants of the same linguistic ~ i n ~ t .
For example the word either is pronounced [~dar]or [aidar]. The change In
the first sound does not lead to change in meaning.

These distributional criterla have been developed into an exact axiomatic system
and have been responsible for giving American structuralisnl the name
distributioiialism.

Distribution of linguistic units was tested by the method of strbstitsttiorz : replac~ng

one unit under investigalioil by another latown unit in the same environment. and ~f
the substitution can be performed without an essential change in the linguisl~c
context, then both units belong to the same class. For example, in the sentence ./ohn
likes bananu,~,John call be substituted by Bill, The boy, M-y sister, etc. They
therefore, belong to the same catsgory as Jollrl . i.c. N1) (NCLIII
Phrase). Renlcmber
 I
that lt cannot be substituted by write (Verb), smart (Adjective), in(Preposition). Looking a t Data-l
S11lce anti-mentalism characterized the theories of structural linguists in America,
American structuralism devoted itself exclusively to a description of the concrete I
I
structures of actual sentences with as precise phonetic transcription as possible. There I

was very littie questioning about matters of theory, and the entire emphasis was on
I
methodology of descriptions, on questions such as how forms could be segmented, on
how one could lmow where to segment, i.e. on discovsiyprocedncre,

Discovery procedure would mechanically produce a grammatical description based

011 a 'corpus'. This 'corpus' is the linguist's objective material in which sthe finds
out the distribution o f the structural elements in order to arrive at the linguistic
system, the grammar underlying the corpus. Certain operations on a corpus of data
were carried out without any reference to the external signification of linguistic
fol-111s.Lingu~stictheory thus becaine a strict analytical programme, which, applied
to any corpus, will yield an appropriate grammar. The role of a linguistic theory of
thls type can be outlined in the following way:

Linguistic
Corpus + Theory Grammar

Thus, for the American linguists, linguistic analysis was considered a logical calculus
leading to the discovery of the basic units of language and their formal arrangement.

2.5.4 Bloomfieldian Methodology

'I'hougli the concept of levels was inherent in the traditional linguistics, it was given a 1
new theoktical status and importance under the structural approach. By introducing
such a distinction of structure levels, the distributionalists were able to arrive at a
higher degree of precision in the grammatical descriptions of language. For example,
English adjective category can be more precisely defined as : a word which can stand !
between the definite article the and a noun and which never takes-s in the plural.

Since the goal of the American linguistics was to 'discover' a grammar by

performing a set of operations on a corpus of data, this was to be achieved by
following certain order of the levels of grammatical description which is as follows:

1) Phonemics
~i) Morphemics
iii)
iv)
Syntax
Discourse
:
i
The corpus consists of speech so the first operation is phonemic. Blooinfieldians
worked out the principle of analysis in the field of phonemics which was based on the
il
1I
of criterion of distribution and exemplified by substitution test. I
i

Since language consists of a string of phonemes which are grouped into minimal

I
recui-rent sequences or morphs, hence there is a morphemic operation. The
procedure for classifying morpks into morphemes was similar to that for classi@ing
phones into phonemes. You will understand these concepts better in later units,

Bloomfieldians most important contribution to the theory of syntax has been the
analysis of iinrnsdiate constituents (ICs). In order to discover the structure of
linguislic units, one divides the utterance into two parts, which are in turn divided
into two parts, etc. until one arrives at the minimal elements that can no longer be
divided using the same criteria. In this way one arrives at the immediate constituents
but one does not label them. Thus the phrase old men and women can be divided as :
 U'l~fltis Lnnglt~ge? Old inen and women
1C analysis 1 (meaning: old Inen and old women)

1C analysis I1 (meaning: women and old men)

Elwomen

Thls analysis merely provides a purely foimal descr~ptionwithout taking the classical
grammatical categories (Noun, Verb, etc.) or even the philosophical categories that
establish the classical analysis of the sentence (subject, predicate, etc.). The fon.na1
analysis proposed by American structuralism nut only helped to reveal the principles
by which the structure of a message may be linguistically organized but also offered
the possibility of studying languages that do not need logical categories to construcl a
signifying system. For example, the Chinese language does not need to clarify tense
in the verb form or determination by an article, etc.

Since American linguists have had. to describe numerous unknown languages,

adoption of neutral description for linguistic analysis became necessary. Use of
neutral methods relieved them fiom forming presuppositions on the basis of Indo-
European languages and subsequently freed them from Eurocentricism.

Structuralism, of which American structuralism is the extreme fonnalizing tendency,

thus, introduced the episten~ologicalbreak not in explanation but by offerini-in
accordance with logical positivism-a flat description of language.

Bloomfieldians' insistence on description had, infact, largely emanated from their

faithful adherence to empirical conception according to which science has only to
describe phenomena. The researchers task would then simply be classificatiofz or
taxonomy-a grammar is simply a classification of the segments (phonemes,
morphemes, words, word groups) that appear ~nthe utterances of the corpus. The
analytical approach to structure has rendered language static - an object witl~our
history or the speaking subject,

2.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we have traced the developed of sbucturalism in Europe and America.
We have differentiated between the two versions of structuralism. We have also
touched upon important concepts such as paradigmatic and syntag~naric~~larions,
langue and parole and diachronic and synchrionic studies.

In the next unit, we will acquaint you w ~ t hthe Generative point of view in looking at
data.

22
m
 Looking a t Data-1

Structuralism: An approach to the study of language which

considers a language to be primarily a
system of relations - i.e., the place of every
element in language (speech sound, word,
etc.) is defined by the way it relates to other
elements in the language.

Generative Grammar: A particular grammar of a particular

language which, in a purely mechanical way,
is capable of enumerating all and only the
grammatical sentences of that language.

Paradigmatic relation: Any relation between two or more linguistic

items or forms which are competing
possibilities, in that exactly one of them may
be selected to fill some particulars position
in a structure.

Syntagmatic relation: A relation between two or more linguistic

elements which are simyltaneously present
in a single structure.

Langue: In Saussure's classification, language

regarded as a system shared by acommunity
of speakers.

Parole: The particular utterances produced by

particular speakers on particular occasions.

Diachronic: Pertaining to language change over time.

Example, from old English to Middle
English to Modem English.

Synchronic: Pertaining to a language at a particular point

of a time. Example, studying English now
would be a synchronic study of Modem
English.

Typology: The classification of language according to

their structural features.

Signifier: The form of a linguistic sign

Signified: The meaning of a linguistic sign

Discovery procedure: An explicit mechanical procedure for

constructing a grammar from a corpus of
data in some language.

Distribution: The list of positions in which particular

linguistic items can occur.

Mentalism: The belief that such unobservable

phenomena such as mind, thoughts,
intentions and mental processes generally
are objectively real, and hence they can
 reasonably be involved in scientific
Whnt is Lrrng!lage? investigation and be made the object of
study.

Behaviourisrn: An approach In psychology wh~chholds that

psychologists should study only observable
and measurable yhenornena, and should not
appeal to i~nobservablethings like 'mind' and
'intention'.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: The hypothesis t h a ~the structure of our

language significantly affects the way we
perceive the world.

Complementary distribution: The relation between two linguistic forms

which can never occur in the same
environment.

Phoneme: Any basic sound unit found in a particular ,

language, such as 11-1.111, /el in English.

2.8 QUESTIONS

1. Trace the development of structural ism in linguistics.

2. Discuss the difference between the following:

i. Diachronic and synchronic linguistics

ii. Syntagnatic and paradigmatic relationships
...
in. Langue and parole

3. What are the main points of difference between American and European
structuralism'?

4. Discuss the salient features of American structuralisn~.Who were its main

proponents?