History of Modern Linguistics

Twentieth-century Linguistics
Europe and America
Two main approaches to language study;
They unite to form the modern subject of
linguistics.
The European approach arises out of the aims and
methods of 19th-century comparative philology
with its focus on written records and its interest in
historical analysis and interpretation.

1
Twentieth-century Linguistics
“The beginning of the twentieth-century saw a
sharp change of emphasis, with the study of the
principles governing the structure of living
languages being introduced by the Genevan
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 – 1913).
Saussure’s early work was in philology , but he is
mainly remembered for his theoretical ideas, as
summarised in Cours de linguistique generale
(Course in general linguistics)” (Crystal, 2010:431),

2
Twentieth-century Linguistics
Saussure’s book is widely held to be
the foundation of the modern subject
as Crystal points out.
The book was published
posthumously in 1916, and consists of a
reconstruction by two of Saussure’s
students of his lecture notes and other
materials. (Crystal, 2010:431).
3
Twentieth-century Linguistics
The American approach arose from the interests
and preoccupations of American anthropologists,
who were concerned to establish good descriptions
of the America Indian languages and cultures
before they disappeared.
There were no written records to rely on, as a
result,
There was no historical analysis.

4
 The American Approach
The Amerindian languages presented very
different kinds of structures from those
encountered in the European tradition (Crystal,
2010:431).
That’s why the approach was to provide a careful
account of the speech patterns of the living
languages.
Crystal (ibid) “a pioneer in this field was Franz Boas (1858 –
1942), who published the first volume of Handbook of
America Indian Languages in 1911”.
5
 The American Approach
Edward Sapir (1884-1939) published Language ten years
later.
Both books proved to be a formative influence on the early
development of linguistics in America.
“The new direction is forcefully stated by Boas: we must
insist that a command of the language is an indispensable
means of obtaining accurate and thorough knowledge,
because much information can be gained by listening to
conversations of the natives and by taking part in their daily
life, which, to the observer who has no command of the
language, will remain entirely inaccessible” (Crystal, ibid).

6
 Saussurean Principles
Some of Saussure’s most central ideas were expressed
in the form of pairs of concepts:

7
 Diachrony vs Synchrony
Saussure distinguished :
Diachronic as being historical and Synchronic as
being non-historical approaches to language
study.
Diachronic or historical approach to language
study sees language as a continually changing
medium.
Synchronic or non-historical approach sees language as
existing as a ‘state’ at particular moment in time.

8
 Diachrony vs Synchrony
In the diagram AB represents a Synchronic
“axis”of simultaneities – a language state at some
point.
CD is a Diachronic “axis” of successions – the
historical path the language has travelled.
In this view, it is always necessary to carry out
some degree of Synchronic work before making a
Diachronic study (Crystal, 2010:431).
However, a Synchronic analysis can be made
without referring to history (Diachrony).
9
 Langage vs Langue vs Parole
The many senses of the word “language” prompted
Saussure to introduce three terms:
Langage is the faculty of speech present in all normal
human beings due to heredity – our ability to talk to
each ather.
The faculty is composed of two aspects which were
central to Saussure’s thinking:
Langue – the language system;
Parole – the act of speaking.

10
 Langage vs Langue vs Parole
“Lange is the totality of a language, which
we could discover by examining the
memories of all language users (Crystal,
2010:431)”.
“Parole is the actual, concrete act of
speaking on the part of a person – a
dynamic, social activity in a particular time
and place (Crystal, ibid)”.
11
 The linguistic sign
Saussure recognised two sides to the study of
meaning but emphasized that the relationship
between the two is arbitrary: ‘signifiant’ vs ‘signifie’
(signified vs signifier) – the linguistic sign.
For him, the sign is a basic unit of communication
within a community, that’s why language is seen as
a system of signs. Thus
A sentence is a sequence of signs (Crystal,
2010:431).

12
 Syntagmatic vs paradigmatic axis
According to Saussure, when the signs are
seen as a linear sequence, the relationship
between them is called Syntagmatic as She +
can + go
When a sign is seen as contrasting with
other signs in a language, the relationship is
called Associative or Paradigmatic as She vs
He, can vs will, go vs run.
13
 Bibliography
CRYSTAL, David, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Language, 1st Ed. Cambridge: CUP, 1987

CRYSTAL, David, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of

Language, 3rd Ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2010

14