Linguistics 2 .

Semester II
Lecture One:
Historicism/ Traditional Grammar
In the 18th century, the first use of the comparative method by William Jones sparked the
rise of comparative linguistics. Bloomfield attributes "the first great scientific linguistic work of
the world" to Jacob Grimm, who wrote Deutsche Grammatik.[17] It was soon followed by other
authors writing similar comparative studies on other language groups of Europe. The scientific
study of language was broadened from Indo-European to language in general by Wilhelm von
Humboldt, of whom Bloomfield asserts:

"This study received its foundation at the hands of the Prussian statesman and scholar
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767—1835), especially in the first volume of his work on Kavi, the
literary language of Java, entitled Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und
ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts (‘On the Variety of the
Structure of Human Language and its Influence upon the Mental Development of the Human
Race’)."

Structuralism
Early in the 20th century, de Saussure introduced the idea of language as a static system
of interconnected units, defined through the oppositions between them. By introducing a
distinction between diachronic to synchronic analyses of language, he laid the foundation of the
modern discipline of linguistics. Saussure also introduced several basic dimensions of linguistic
analysis that are still foundational in many contemporary linguistic theories, such as the
distinctions between syntagm and paradigm, and the langue- parole distinction, distinguishing
language as an abstract system (langue) from language as a concrete manifestation of this
system (parole).[18] Substantial additional contributions following Saussure's definition of a
structural approach to language came from The Prague school, Leonard Bloomfield, Charles F.
Hockett, Louis Hjelmslev, Émile Benveniste and Roman Jakobson.[19]

Traditional Grammar Modern Linguistics

• History-based study. • Synchronic study.
• Written aspect of language. • Written and spoken aspects of language.
• Borrowed models of analysis. • Language is self-sufficient
• Language of literary terms and of the linguist himself. • Immanence of langue.
• Lack of standardization and definitions. • Unified terminology.
• Prescriptive. • Descriptive.
• Item-centered analysis. • Structure-centered analysis.

1
Linguistics 2 .

Lecture 2
Langue and parole
Langue (French, meaning "language") and parole (meaning "speech") are linguistic terms
used by Ferdinand de Saussure. Langue describes the social, impersonal phenomenon of
language as a system of signs, while parole describes the individual, personal phenomenon of
language as a series of speech acts made by a linguistic subject.[1] The distinction is similar to
that made about language by Wilhelm von Humboldt, between energeia (active doing) and ergon
(the product of that doing).[2]

Langue and parole are more than just 'language and speech' (although this is a useful
quick way of remembering them).
Langue
La langue is the whole system of language that precedes and makes speech possible. A sign is a
basic unit of langue.

Learning a language, we master the system of grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation. These
are all elements of langue.

Langue is a system in that it has a large number of elements whereby meaning is created in the
arrangements of its elements and the consequent relationships between these arranged
elements.
Parole
Parole is the concrete use of the language, the actual utterances. It is an external manifestation
of langue. It is the usage of the system, but not the system.

Discussion

By defining Langue and Parole, Saussure differentiates between the language and how it is
used, and therefore enabling these two very different things to be studied as separate entities.

As a structuralist, Saussure was interested more in la langue than parole. It was the
system by which meaning could be created that was of interest rather than individual instances
of its use.

Marxist Mikhail Bakhtin (1929) criticized the splitting of langue and parole as separating
individuals and society where it matters most, at the point of production. He developed a
'dialogic' theory of utterances where language is understood in terms of how it orients the
speaker/writer to the listener/reader. Words are subject to negotiation, contest and struggle.
Language is strongly affected by social context.

Modification of langue at the point of parole is used to create new meaning, either where the
speaker has limited grasp of language or where deliberate distortion is used.

2
Linguistics 2 .

References

1. de Saussure, F. (1986). Course in general linguistics (3rd ed.). (R. Harris, Trans.). Chicago:
Open Court Publishing Company. (Original work published 1972). p. 9-10, 15.
2. "Language as a finished product, a set of tools forged for future use, is in fact a precipitate
of the ongoing activity. It is created in speech, and is in fact being continuously recreated,
extended, altered, reshaped. This Humboltdian notion is the basis for another famous
contribution of Saussure, his distinction between langue and parole." Charles Taylor, The
Importance of Herder, "Philosophical Arguments" (Harvard University Press, 1997), 97.

3
Linguistics 2 .

Lecture Three
Synchrony versus Diachrony
We can study a given language in two ways, Saussure maintains. The first is that we can
look at the language as it is (or was) at any particular point in time. Thus we might study the
syntax of American English in the early twenty-first century, or the phonology of seventeenth-
century French or the patterns of compounding in Classical Chinese. These are all
SYNCHRONIC studies (syn- ‘alike’, chronos ‘time’).
The alternative is to look at the way in which a language develops or changes over time. In
this way we might consider the development of the English verb system, or changes in Arabic
phonology from the classical period until today. These are DIACHRONIC studies (dia- ‘through’,
chronos ‘time’).
Saussure was reacting to an environment in which the only linguistic study that was seen
as being scientific was the study of the development of languages. By putting the synchronic side
of language studies back on the linguistic map, he expanded the scope of linguistics. Yet by the
late twentieth century, there were some linguists complaining that this strict distinction between
synchronic and diachronic linguistics had become a major problem in dealing with language.
All living languages are in a continuous state of change. Much of the complaint tradition,
which is a social factor affecting many languages including English, is a reaction to recent
changes. For example, people who complain that some speakers do not distinguish between
imply and infer are caught up in a change whereby the two used to mean different things and now
are less likely to be semantically distinct, especially in less formal contexts. This is evidence that
aspects of language change are reflected in the synchronic structure of any given language or
variety. This is the subject matter of variationist linguistics, as developed by William Labov. Any
linguistic change progresses gradually through a speech community. Some speakers adopt the
change more quickly than others, and some speakers use both the conservative and the
innovative form for some period during the change. Thus any synchronic description of a variety,
if it is detailed enough, can make sense only if aspects of diachrony are taken into account.
Furthermore, language change leaves relics behind whose structure can be understood only
with reference to their history. Why is blackmail called blackmail, for example? Why is it black
and why is it mail? The synchronic structure of twenty-first-century English does not provide an
answer for this. Blackmail has become an unmotivated word, even though we can see the
elements black and mail within it.
Despite such problems, the distinction between synchronic and diachronic studies is
generally maintained today.

4
Linguistics 2 .

Lecture Four
Paradigmatic/ Syntagmatic Dichotomy
When we speak, language is produced in time, so that some bits of our utterance precede
or follow other bits. When we write, this temporal aspect of language is replaced by a spatial
aspect: the words are set out on the page in a conventional way such that linear order
corresponds to the temporal order in speech. Thus English is written from left to right, with
elements further to the left corresponding to elements produced earlier than elements further to
the right. So in (1) cat precedes mat in linear order, corresponding to temporal structure in
speech: we would say cat before we would say mat.
(1) The cat sat on the mat

The elements in (1) are said to be related to each other syntagmatically. Together they
form a SYNTAGM or construction. We can say that the verb sit (or sat in this particular sentence)
determines what it will be related to syntagmatically in that it demands something in the position
of the cat in (1) and allows, but does not demand, an equivalent phrase after it (as in They sat the
dog on the mat).

However, language is also structured in terms of the words (or other elements) which are
not there but which could have been. Each of the words in (1) could have been replaced by a
number of other possible words. Some examples are given in (2).

(2) The cat sat on the mat

This girl sits across your bed
That student walked over her car
My frog ran by their lap

The words in each of the columns in (2) are related to each other paradigmatically. They
are related by being alternative possible choices at a position in the syntagm. While elements
which are related syntagmatically are all present, elements which are related paradigmatically
are mostly absent: they are relationships of potential.
Each of the columns in (2) can be called a PARADIGM, although that name is more usually
reserved for a particular type of paradigmatic relationships, those holding between different
forms of the same word (or, more technically, lexeme). Thus (3) illustrates a Latin noun
paradigm.

(3) ‘lord’ singular plural

nominative dominus dominı¯
vocative domine dominı¯
accusative dominum domino¯s
genitive dominı¯ domino¯rum
dative domino¯ dominı¯s
ablative domino¯ dominı

In (3) we see a number of suffixes, each of which has a syntagmatic relationship with the
stem domin-. The endings themselves are in a paradigmatic relationship.

5
Linguistics 2 .

Note that elements in paradigmatic relationships share common features. All the words in
the first column in (2) are determiners, all those in the second column are nouns and so on.
Word classes can be thought of as being derived from sets of paradigmatic relationships.
Very specific syntagms can also show semantically related words in relevant paradigms. Thus,
consider (4), where the verb – except in figurative uses – demands the word cat or a closely
related word.

(4) The cat miaowed.

kitten
tom
moggy

6
Linguistics 2 .

Language Types
Languages of the world can be classified into four major categories according to the
arrangement or order of morphemes. It is called the structural typology, and it is associated with
Wilhelm Von Humboldt, a German linguist of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It is strictly a
classification of the word structure of language. Thus, there are three main types of languages
based on this view.
1- Agglutinative (Agglomerating): In this type of languages, words are formed by the free
combination of affixial morphemes which are added to the base morpheme without
altering its structure.
Example: UNLOVELINESS. In this word, the affixes: un –li -ness are arranged to the base
morpheme “love” without affecting its structure. Turkish, Japanese, Swahili are said to be
agglomerating.
2- Inflecting (Fusional): In this type of languages, the affixes are merged closely with the base
morpheme so that they become part of the word itself.
Example: English noun plurals like: ,en , mice, geese and women are inflectional in
structure as against the grammatically equivalent agglutinative forms : cars , houses,
tables .etc.
Example: drink (present) drunk (past-part) drank (past)
Latin can be taken as a typical example of inflecting languages.
3- Isolating (Analytic): An isolating language is defined as one in which all words are
invariable, and each, morpheme represents a word. In English invariable words such as
prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions are isolating in type.
Example : at , to , on , too , very , and , or , but , from , now .
Chinese is cited as a well-known example of the isolating types.
4- Incorporating (Polysynthetic): Eskimo and some American Indian languages have been so
called as their word forms are said to be very long and morphologically complex and to
contain numerous bound morphemes the translation of which would be represented by
separable words in more familiar languages. This fourth class of language types, however,
is of little use in linguistic typology.

NO PURE TYPES:
The recognition of three types of language does not imply that any language will fall neatly
into one type. Features of agglutination and fusion are usually to be found in most languages,
though in different proportion. Some languages make use of one type of word formation to a
predominant extent and are consequently classified as isolating, agglutinative or fusional
languages.
English is in fact a fairly mixed type in respect of the three types and each can be illustrated
from English, though it is more analytic, having a large number of single-morpheme words.