Grammar Vs the Lexicon: Linguistic Theories in the 20th and 21st Centuries Prof Dr Torsten Mller Author: Saber

Klai (108010116999) Assignment n1

WS 2011-12

In this monograph, we will discuss the major claims that De Saussure and Chomsky had advanced on language. We will try to see where these claims converge and where they diverge. For a starter, lets begin here with the first point of similarity: Saussure and Chomsky are both mentalists. They busied themselves dealing with the kind of language that exists in the mind, and not the one that is performed. For both, the mind is the field of investigation of all linguistics inquiries. Having said that, lets now move to a more thorough comparison between the two scholars.

1. A science of language:

Saussure argues that language is an intricate phenomenon. This intricacy emanates from the fact that language is founded on the notion of duality and complementarity (physiological/psychological, Individual/social, etc). Thus he claims that it is not easy to establish a science of language just by imitating other sciences. According to Saussure, theres more to language than what one hears: language is not only sounds (so a science of language that focuses only on studying the sound system of a particular language would not be able to answer the fundamental question: whats language?). What Saussure is trying to drive home is that language is a constellation of different, yet connected, elements: we have sound and grammar (medium), meaning (expression of ideas), and history (the derivation and change of language), and a science that endeavors to account for those aspects of language altogether would fail at attaining the truth.

Saussure seems fully aware of the tremendous task of establishing a science that has to deal with so intricate a system. Therefore, he suggests that instead of dealing with the different aspects of language altogether, we should narrow down the study of language to the study of its structure only. Whats important in language study now is "structure" (because it is "definable" , while meaning is abstract and equivocal). The linguist must take the linguistic structure as his "primary" task, an try to relate all other manifestations of language to it. Meaning plays a secondary role in this paradigm, yet Suassure does not exclude it.

Chomsky too, like Saussure, is interested in the scientific study of language. He calls for the creation of a science of language that is on equal footing to other natural sciences. Chomsky shares Saussure his worries that due to the complexity of language, its study would not be an esay task to do. So, likewise, he reduces the study of language to the examination of one of its aspects which can, ultimately, account for the other elements. Chomsky thinks that the focus should be placed on grammar (structure). He argues that the chief aim of linguistics is to differentiate between the grammatical sentences of a language from the ungrammatical ones, and we should only deal with the grammatical sentences (study the structure of the grammatical sentences). One point here that requires further clarification is that in chomskys reasoning, the notion "grammatical" cannot and should not be identified with "meaningful". A sentence can be grammatical but meaningless, and vice versa.

2. Language as a system:

According to Saussure language is a system that evolves in time. It is a system that is ubiquitous and derivative of much older systems: "an institution in the present and a product of the past". This system consists of a set of signs (words) which are interrelated: their meaning and realization "are fulfilled when contrasted with other signs in the system". A sign consists of a sound image (sound pattern) and a concept. Saussure presents also the dichotomy of "signified" and "signifier": a sign is a combination of a signifier (speech sound), and a signified (a portion of meaning).

Another important dichotomy that Sausure presents is that of langue/parole. He argues that in every language theres a psychological element and a social one. The following grid illustrates in more detail what the langue/parole dichotomy means:

Langue Its the psychological part of language. Its a systematic inventory of items (words). Its not complete in any speaker. It exists perfectly only within a collectivity. Its the shared social structure of

Parole Its the social part of language. It has to do with syntax: production of sentences. Its the individual manifestation of langue. Its the usage of the system but not the system. Its the actual utterance.

language.

Saussure was more interested in the study of langue than parole: for him parole is too inconsistent to be studied.

For Chomsky language is a system that consists of "a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of finite set of elements". So this means that chomskys paradigm places high importance on the sentence and considers dealing with morpehemes unnecessary for language study.

He argues that language is a system of rules (syntactic component) that exist in our minds since birth ( they are innate). This syntactic component which Chomsky calls "Generative Grammar" is responsible for the creation of sentences. It first formulates sentences and then operates a series of transformatinal tasks: adding the semantic component to the sentences (the Deep Structure component) and then the surface component (the phonological component_ the Surface Structure component).

Chomsky too, like Saussure, distinguishes in language between what he calls "competence" and "performance". Indeed, Competence is the speaker-hearers knowledge of his language. According to Chomsky, every speaker has a perfect knowledge of their language. On the other hand, performance is the actual use of language in concrete situations.

It is true that both dichotomies, langue/parole and competence/performance, seem alike. However, a closer investigation shows some discrepancies, not in the paroleperformance part, yet in langue-competence.

Langue Its not complete in any speaker. It exists perfectly only within a collectivity. Its socially acquired. A systematic inventory of items (words)---> a system of contrast (contrasting of words)

Competence Every speaker has a complete knowledge of their language (competence) Its natural, instinctive A system of rules: a system of generative processes

3. The use of language:

Saussure argues that a perfect way to study language is to have a look at its usage. We dont have to look at written languages in order to study them. In fact, spoken languages are part of the material that the linguist should utilize and not overlook.

He thinks that language is the most important system of communication. Indeed, Its a means of "working together", co-operation, and co-ordination between humans. This cooperation is carried out through the sound waves exchanged between the individuals of the same speech community. Actually, these sound waves function as a stimulus that triggers others to do things for us or for the group. Saussure presents it as follows:

S ---> r (linguistic substitue reaction)................s (linguistic substitue stimulus) --->R

In other words, through language we can get people to act and vice versa, we can be prompted to act too.

Chomsky, however, is not interested in language use. His paradigm includes and accounts only for the mental processes that intervene in language formation. The only language use that is of importance to Chomsky is that of the creative potential of language (how language is used creatively?), i.e how language manages to update itself in the sense that it is able to create or express "indefinitely many thoughts" and respond "appropriately in an indefinite range of new situations".

4. The social aspect of language:

Saussure assumes that language has an individual aspect and a social one. Its something that we use everyday. Its an inextricable part of our lives. Its a social product created by the people that speak it. It does not exist in the vaccum, or in every individual separately, matter of fact it exists in the sum of its usage by all the members of the community. In other words, language is not an individual property, its a shared social construct that belongs to all its users.

Saussure argues that language is perfect/complete only in collectivity. It emanates from

the group not from the individuals : our social fellows teach us this system of signs ----> Language is a social fact.

Chomsky, on the contrary, ignores the social aspect of language. He is interested only in what happens in the mind. For him society does not play any role in language inception and production only that of triggering or getting the system of language acquisition started (in addition to the Universal Grammar). He claims that we dont learn language by experience: the context is linguistically poor (weak linguistic stimuli).

5. Conclusion:

Saussure Similarities: mentalist Language is an intricate system He calls for a science of language He is interested in the study of structure (words) --->structuralist Study of langue/ parole is ignored mentalist

Chomsky

Language is a complex phenomenon He is for the scientific study of language

He is interested in the study of structure (sentences) --->structuralist Study of competence/ performance is ignored Language as a system of sentences Ideal speaker-hearer Language is complete in one person. We have a perfect knowledge of our language Competence is an individual/ psychological matter Syntax is part of competence Language is an endowmnet: we are predisposed to acquire a language. Society provides a weak linguistic stimuli We dont learn language by experience

Differences: Language as a system of signs (words) No perfect speaker of language Language is never complete in one person: it is perfect in the collectivity Langue is a shared social structure Syntax is not part of langue/ it belongs to parole Language is given to us from outside (society) We learn language from our speech community members We learn language through habit/society/stimuli