Broad 1: Traditional Grammar Vs.

Modern Linguistics
The study of language has undergone significant evolution over time.
Traditional Grammar & Modern Linguistics are two branches of language
studies. Traditional Grammar is the senior as its origin traces back to the
15th century. On the other hand, Modern Linguistics is a relatively new
branch of language studies, deriving from the lackings of Traditional
Grammar in the 20th century. In this discussion, we will explore the
distinctions between these two approaches.
Traditional Grammar is a set of rules and principles used to analyze and
prescribe language usage. It decides how speakers should or should not
use a language. A classic example is the forbiddance of split infinitives
like “to quickly run”, deeming grammatically flawed. Another example is
the rule for avoidance of contraction form = I can’t I cannot .
Modern Linguistics, on the other hand, studies language by looking at how
people use it in real life, differently in various situations. Its approach is
descriptive. It analyzes how we are using it now rather than how it ‘should
be’ used. For instance, it might not only analyze the words in a sentence
like "She walked to the store" but also how they sound, how they're
formed, what they mean, and what they say about the social context.
Traditional Grammar is a collection of Prescriptive Rules that decide
how speakers should or should not use a language, whereas Modern
Linguistics is Descriptive type - analyzes how we are using it now
rather than how it ‘should be’ used. Traditional Grammar is
Educational Language & mainly focuses on written form. On the other
hand, Modern Linguistics’ field is autonomous and it considers oral form
or speech the most important aspect. Traditional Grammar forced
language into a Latin-based framework. Modern Linguistics doesn’t
force any framework of another. Traditional Grammar is Unscientific
whereas Modern Linguistics is the Scientific Study of language including
grammar, syntax etc. Traditional Grammar’s Origin — 15th Century;
Prominent Use — 18th Century (Aristotle, Plato era). Modern
Linguistics derives from Traditional Grammar.
In conclusion, Traditional Grammar takes a rule-based approach and
Modern Linguistics a dynamic approach. Modern Linguistics is the
upgraded version of Traditional Grammar. Understanding both
approaches can help linguists learn more about how language functions
and evolves throughout history.
 Broad 2: Structuralism in Detail
Structuralism comes from a branch of language-study called
structural linguistics. This was developed by Swiss linguist and
philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure— the father of Modern
Linguistics. Ferdinand's "sign theory" is a fundamental
concept in structuralism. According to Ferdinand, sign is a
basic unit of language, and a sign consists of two parts: the
signifier & the signified.
Signifier is the physical form of the sign such as a word, image
or sound, whereas Signified is the concept or meaning
associated with the Signifier. For example, the word "dog," is a
Signifier, while the concept of a furry, four-legged animal is the
Signified.
According to Saussure, the connection between the signifier
and the signified is arbitrary, which means there's no inherent
reason why the word "dog" represents a furry four-legged
creature. It's just something that speakers of a particular
language agree upon.
In structuralism, this relationship between the signifier and
the signified is crucial because it helps us understand how
language creates meaning. Saussure believed that language
operates as a system of signs, where each sign is defined by its
relationship to other signs within the language system.
The sign theory by Ferdinand de Saussure helps us understand
how words and language work together to create meaning, and
how meaning is constructed within a larger system of signs.
Langue and Parole are other two aspects of structuralism – a
theoretical linguistic dichotomy distinguished by Ferdinand.
Imagine language as a giant board game. Langue is the whole
gameboard, all the rules and possibilities. Parole is your actual
play – how you use those rules to say something unique.
Langue is a Set of conventions and rules shared by all speakers
of a language. On the other hand, Parole is the actual sounds,
sentences or utterances produced by the speaker. Langue is
abstract because it exists in our mind whereas Parole is the
concrete realization of language. Langue is the Legislative side
of a language, often referred to as the "Code". Parole is the
Executive side of a language, often referred to as the "speech
acts" – the Encoding/Decoding of the code. Langue provides
the structure for parole and Parole constantly shapes and
influences langue through its actual usage.
Furthermore, in the context of Structuralism, there are
Diachronic and Synchronic studies of language. Diachronic
studies explore how language changes over time, tracing its
historical development and evolution. Synchronic studies, on
the other hand, analyze language existing at a specific point in
time, without considering its historical changes. For example,
diachronic study might examine how the English language
has evolved over centuries like “thou” became “you”, while
synchronic study might analyze the different dialects of
English spoken today including slangs.
In conclusion, structuralism offers a method of understanding
language and human experience by examining underlying
structures and systems. By exploring the relationship between
Signifiers and Signifieds, as well as Langue and Parole, and
Diachronic and Synchronic studies, structuralism provides
insights into the nature of language and its role in shaping
human culture and thought. It also helps us see the hidden
patterns in language, making us better communicators.
 Short Note 1: IC Analysis
In order to study the structure of a sentence, the structural
linguists thought of dividing a sentence into its immediate
constituents (or ICs). The principle involved was that of cutting
a sentence into two, further cutting these two parts into another
two, and continuing the process till the smallest unit, the
morpheme was arrived at. IC Analysis is based on P.S Rules
(Phrase Structure Rules). In IC Analysis the bare-minimum
break-down of a sentence consists of a Noun Phrase & a Verb
Phrase. Below is the illustration of IC Analysis:

Sentence

A man is walking barefoot.

NP VP

A – Determiner
Man – Noun
Is – Auxiliary Verb
Walking – Main Verb
Barefoot – Adjective

To conclude, ICA is a form of linguistic analysis which breaks

down a sentence into its smallest grammatical unit. Through IC
Analysis, Generative Grammar can be explained. ICA comes
with a pre-diagram. The importance of IC Analysis is it helps
us understand the nature of language, how the sentences are
made, giving us insights into how people learn and use
language. It is the mathematical study of sentence-structure.
 Short Note 2: Langue and Parole
Langue and Parole is a theoretical linguistic dichotomy
distinguished by Ferdinand. Imagine language as a giant board
game. Langue is the whole gameboard, all the rules and
possibilities. Parole is your actual play – how you use those
rules to say something unique.

LANGUE PAROLE
Set of conventions and rules Actual sounds, sentences or
shared by all speakers of a utterances produced by the
language. speaker.
Abstract because it exists in Concrete realization of
our mind. language.
the "Code". Encoding/Decoding of the
code; the "speech acts".
Collective language structure. Individual language
performance.
Fixed and unchanging over Dynamic & constantly
time. evolving.
Legislative side of a language. Executive side of a language.
Provides the structure for Constantly shapes and
parole. influences langue through its
actual usage.

To conclude, "Langue" is the language blueprint, the shared

system of rules and conventions. On the other hand, "Parole" is
how we actually use it to reflect personal expressions. Together,
they help us understand how language works both as a shared
code and as a tool for individual expression.
 Short Note 3: Traditional Grammar Vs Modern Linguistics
Traditional Grammar & Modern Linguistics are two branches
of language studies. Traditional Grammar is a set of rules used
to prescribe language usage. Its origin traces back to the 15th
century (prominent in 18th century, the era of Aristotle, Plato).
On the other hand, Modern Linguistics studies language with a
descriptive approach. It is a relatively new branch of language
studies, deriving from Traditional Grammar in the 20th century,
through the mind of Ferdinand de Saussure – the father of
modern linguistics.
Traditional Grammar:
▪ Collection of Prescriptive Rules.
▪ Educational Language.
▪ Decides how speakers should or should not use a language.
▪ Mainly focused on Written Form.
▪ Forced language into a Latin-based framework.
▪ Unscientific.
▪ Origin — 15th Century; Prominent Use — 18th Century
(Aristotle, Plato era).
Modern Linguistics:
▪ Descriptive type – Analyzes how we are using a language
rather than how it ‘should be’ used.
▪ Autonomous Field.
▪ Considers oral form or speech the most important aspect.
▪ Scientific Study of language including grammar, syntax
etc.
▪ Doesn’t force any framework of another.
▪ Derives from Traditional Grammar.
In conclusion, Traditional Grammar takes a rule-based
approach and Modern Linguistics a dynamic approach. Modern
Linguistics is the upgraded version of Traditional Grammar.
Understanding both approaches can help linguists learn more
about how language functions and evolves throughout history.
 Short Note 4: Plato's problem
The term "Plato's Problem" was coined by Noam Chomsky, a
famous and ground- breaking linguist. In the field of linguistics,
Plato's problem refers to the question of how humans can know
so much about language with relatively little exposure to it
during their early years. Chomsky noticed that children learn
language quickly and easily, even though they receive only
limited and sometimes ambiguous input. By the age of four,
most children have the ability to construct complex sentences.
This raised a puzzle: how can children acquire complex
language skills so effortlessly?
Chomsky proposed that humans are born with an inborn
capacity for language, which he called Universal Grammar.
According to him, Universal Grammar provides a set of rules
and structures that are shared by all human languages. These
built-in rules help children make sense of the language they
hear and enable them to produce and understand sentences they
have never encountered before.
The reason that this question has been termed "Plato's Problem"
is that Plato, an aristocratic philosopher., philosophized on the
topics of knowledge, experience, and how the two interrelate.
The questions behind how language is learned and to what
extent experience has to do with that knowledge, relate directly
to many questions that Plato posed/asked. It is in the
philosopher's work Meno that these issues are addressed.
In essence, Plato's problem, as seen by Chomsky, challenges us
to understand how humans can learn language so effectively
despite the limited input they receive. Chomsky's solution
suggests that our brains come pre-equipped with the
fundamental rules of language, making the process of language
acquisition much smoother and more efficient than it might
otherwise be. The formulation of this problem itself is evidence
for the existence of universal grammar.
 Short Note 5: Universal Grammar
Humans can learn language with very little exposure to it
during their early years. By the age of four, most children have
the ability to construct complex sentences, even though they
receive only limited and sometimes ambiguous input. Noam
Chomsky, a language genius, thought there must be something
special in our brains helping us learn languages. He called it
Universal Grammar (UG), like a built-in language app!
Universal Grammar, is like a set of rules or instructions that are
already in our brains when we are born. These rules help us
learn and understand language as we grow up. It's like having a
built-in language toolkit that helps us figure out how to speak
and understand the languages we are exposed to. Universal
Grammar suggests that all human languages share some basic
features, and our brains are naturally wired to recognize and use
these features when we learn a language. So, when we learn to
talk, we're not starting from scratch; we already have some
basic rules in our minds that guide us as we learn to
communicate.
UG is like a set of hidden rules, like grammar instructions, that
everyone has in their brain. These rules help us understand
sentences we've never heard before, learn any language, and
create new sentences by combining words in new and self-
natural ways.
UG is like a secret language within every language. However,
it's still a mystery how exactly it works and what those hidden
rules are. Scientists are still trying to figure it out. Nevertheless,
it is a ground-breaking idea that challenges us to understand
how humans can learn language so effectively despite the
limited input they receive.