One of the greatest linguists in the world, whose name is primarily associated with the assertion in linguistics of synchronicity and a systemic-structural approach to language, is Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). He studied with the neogrammarians A. Leskin, G. Osthof and K. Brugmann (University of Leipzig). In 1879, he published, prepared during his student years and immediately becoming world famous, “Memoir on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages", whose conclusions, based on a deductive-systemic analysis of rows of vowel alternations, regarding the presence of "sonantic coefficients" - laryngals (special phonemes that played a role in the development of Indo-European vocalism and changes in the structure of roots) were rejected by neogrammarians, but were confirmed half a century later, after discovery by E. Kurilovich (1927) of the Saussurean hypothetical A reflex in the Hittite language deciphered after the death of F. de Saussure.

In his works on Lithuanian accentuation (1894-1896), he formulated a law on the relationship between Lithuanian and Slavic stress and intonation (discovered by him simultaneously with F.F. Fortunatov, but independently of him).

He lectured first in Paris, where Antoine Meillet, Joseph Vandries, Maurice Grammont became his students, and then (from 1891) in his native Geneva, where, having moved from the department of Sanskrit and comparative linguistics to the department of general linguistics, he three times (1906-- 1912) read a course in the general theory of language, in which he brought together previously scattered thoughts about the nature and essence of language, about the structure of linguistics and its methods. He did not even leave outlines of lectures; noticeable differences have been established between the three lecture cycles in structure and author's emphasis.

The most important event became the publication under the name of F. de Saussure of a course of lectures, the text of which was prepared for publication and published under the title “Course of General Linguistics” (1916, i.e. after the death of F. de Saussure; the first Russian translation: 1933; in our The country recently published two volumes of F. de Saussure's works in Russian: 1977 and 1990). The publishers of the “Course” were his Geneva students and colleagues Albert Séchet and Charles Bally, who contributed a lot of their own (including the infamous phrase: “the only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself,” which stimulated the introduction into linguistics of the principle of immanentism). They relied only on some and not always the best student lecture notes. After a long series of years, more detailed notes from other students were discovered, making it possible to see the differences between the three cycles of lectures and to establish the evolution of the thoughts of the author, who did not immediately take the position of a synchronic approach to language, although he already speaks about the dichotomy of language and speech and the dichotomy of synchrony and diachrony in the first cycle. Later (1967-1968) a critical edition of the Course appeared, showing a rather arbitrary interpretation of F. de Saussure's lectures by their first publishers.

This book (in its canonical version) caused a wide resonance in world science. A heated debate developed between the followers of F. de Saussure and opponents of his concept, which served to crystallize the principles of structural linguistics. The ideas or even just the name of F. de Saussure were addressed by representatives of the most different schools. F. de Saussure became in the 20th century. the most critically read linguist. F. de Saussure is guided by the philosophical and sociological systems of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. He brought up for wide discussion the problems of constructing synchronic linguistics, the solution of which had already been outlined in the works of U.D. Whitney, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N.V. Krushevsky, A. Marty.

In constructing his linguistic theory, he uses the methodological principle of reductionism, according to which only essential moments in the object under study are highlighted, contrasting with unimportant, secondary, and undeserving moments. A stepwise selection is made on a dichotomous basis of features characterizing linguistics. Linguistics as a whole is included in the field of psychology, namely in the field of social psychology. In social psychology, there is a special social science - semiology, designed to study sign systems, the most important of which is language.

Within semiology, linguistics is distinguished, dealing with language as a special kind of sign system, the most complex in its organization. The language as a whole is called the term le langage (which is often translated into Russian by the term speech activity). Further, a distinction is made between external linguistics, which is less essential for a strict analysis, describing the geographical, economic, historical and other external conditions of the existence of a language, and internal linguistics, which is more essential for a researcher, studying the structure of the linguistic mechanism in abstraction from external factors, i.e. in an immanent way. The greatest closeness of writing to language in the circle of sign systems is indicated.

Internal linguistics is divided into the linguistics of language (la linguistique de la langue) and the linguistics of speech (la linguistique de la parole). Language is qualified as a system of signs, for which what is important, first of all, is the relationship between its elements, their oppositional, relative, negative properties, the differences between these elements, and not their positive, substantial properties. Elements of language are understood as units, each having not only its own meaning (le sens e), but also its significance (le valeur), based on its place in the system of relations. Material characteristics are recognized as secondary, due to which phonology (= phonetics) will be taken beyond the boundaries of linguistics. The method of realizing a linguistic sign is declared unimportant. There are two types of relationships between linguistic elements - associative and syntagmatic.

This system (language in the narrow sense) is assigned mental and social status. It is localized in the minds of speakers. The object of speech linguistics is qualified as a remainder isolated by subtracting language (la langue) from speech activity (le langage). This object is assigned a psychophysiological and individual status. It is possible to correlate with this object a separate speech act and the resulting combination of signs (syntagma), and to consider speech as a realization of language. The “Course of General Linguistics” presents only the characteristics of language in a narrow sense; there are no outlines of the linguistics of speech. The followers of F. de Saussure gave different interpretations of the dichotomy of language and speech (social - individual, virtual - actual, abstract - concrete, paradigmatics - syntagmatics, synchrony - diachrony, norm - style, system - implementation of the system, code - message, generating device - generation, (innate) ability (competence) - execution (performance).The followers of the Genevan scientist extended this dichotomy to the study of other aspects of language (the distinction between phonology and phonetics by N.S. Trubetskoy).

Finally, the linguistics of language was divided into a less important evolutionary, diachronic linguistics, observing the relationship of facts on the axis of time, and a more significant static, synchronic linguistics for the speaker and for the researcher of language, exploring the relationships of linguistic elements on the axis of simultaneity. The concept of a system was attributed only to synchrony. Diachronic linguistics has been divided into prospective and retrospective. The synchronic approach was identified with grammar and the diachronic approach with phonetics. Other authors have varied interpretations of this dichotomy (statics - dynamics, system - asystem, a whole organized into a system - a single fact, Miteinander - Nacheinander, i.e. simultaneity - sequence in time).

A linguistic sign was understood as an entirely mental formation, as an arbitrary, conditional, not imposed by nature, cause-and-effect connection of two sides - the acoustic image, the signifier (le signifiant) and the idea, the concept, the signified (le signifie). F. de Saussure formulated a number of laws of the sign, affirming its immutability and at the same time variability, its linearity. Discussions mainly revolved around the problem of convention - the motivation of a linguistic sign.

There are a large number of publications of the Course in French and its translations into various languages. F.'s ideas before Saussure influenced the activities of the Geneva and French schools of sociological linguistics, the formation and development of research programs of formal-structural and structural-functional movements, schools and individual concepts. Numerous discussions took place in Soviet linguistics around the teachings of F. de Saussure on the nature and structure of the linguistic sign and around his dichotomies of language - speech, synchrony - diachrony.

BRANCH
"SIBERIAN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY"

Faculty of Philology
Specialty "Russian language and literature"

Abstract on language theory:
"The linguistic theory of F. de Saussure."

Performed:
5th year student
Faculty of Philology
Armenakyan Lilit Avetikovna

Lesosibirsk 2011
Table of contents:
Introduction………………………………………………………………...3
§ 1. Origins linguistic concept F. de Saussure……………..…...5
§ 2. Basic principles of linguistics by F. de Saussure……….…………...8
Conclusion…………………………………………………………….17
List of references………………………………………………………...19

Introduction.
The personality of Ferdinand de Saussure in the modern scientific world acquires authentic features and appears before us in its true greatness. Nowadays there is no linguist who would not owe him at least something. There is no general theory that does not mention his name. Him with early years a certain mystery surrounds the solitary life. Today we perceive Saussure quite differently from his contemporaries. A whole aspect of his work, undoubtedly the most important, became known only after his death and little by little transformed the entire science of language. What did Saussure contribute to the linguistics of his time and what was his influence on the linguistics of our day? To fully answer this question, it would be necessary to analyze, compare, and discuss one of his works after another.
Saussure is, first of all and always, a man in search of fundamental principles. In his reflections, he instinctively strives to discover the basic features that determine the entire variety of empirical data. As far as language is concerned, he had a presentiment of its features that could not be found anywhere else. No matter what you compare it with, language always appears as something different.
First, let's say a few words about life and creative path one of the outstanding linguists of the 20th century, the Swiss linguist Saussure (1857 - 1913). He was born in Geneva, into a family of scientists. Ability for languages ​​was evident from childhood. In 1875, de Saussure began studying at the University of Geneva, and in 1876 he moved to Leipzig, where comparative linguistics was taught by the leading linguists of that time, G. Curziue and A. Leski. He stayed there for two years, being mainly interested in the comparative study of languages. The result of his studies in this area was the study “Memoir on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages” (1879); in this work, the description of individual facts of language, characteristic of neogrammarians, is replaced by a holistic description of the language system. In the Memoir, which is marked by a structuralist approach to language, Saussure hypothesized the existence in the Indo-European proto-language of vowels lost in the daughter Indo-European languages, traces of which can be discovered through the study of Indo-European roots and vowel alternations. Young grammarians coldly greeted de Saussure's work. N.V. highly appreciated the research of the young scientist. Krushevsky, who tried to apply the data obtained by de Saussure to the analysis of the Old Church Slavonic language. Today "Memoir" is considered as an example of scientific foresight. De Saussure's doctoral dissertation "The Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit" (1880) was also devoted to issues of comparative linguistics.
Since 1880, de Saussure has lived in Paris and takes an active part in the work of the Paris Linguistic Society (since 1882 he has been deputy secretary of the society). In 1884, he began lecturing at the Higher Practical School, and from that time on his scientific activity was limited to teaching. However, as a foreigner, de Saussure did not have the right to head a department in any higher language. educational institutions France. In 1891, he returned to the University of Geneva, where he became an extraordinary professor of comparative historical grammar of Indo-European languages, then an ordinary professor of Sanskrit and Indo-European languages, and from 1907 he headed the department of general linguistics.
During his teaching career, de Saussure did not publish a single general theoretical work, although he continued to work on the theory of language and the logical classification of languages. His deep thoughts on the problems of the essence of language were reflected in the course of general linguistics. Read by de Saussure in 1906-1912. three courses in general linguistics formed the basis of the “Course of General Linguistics” (1916), published posthumously; the book is a recording of his lectures by S. Bally and A. Seshe. “The Course of General Linguistics” gained worldwide fame, was translated into many languages ​​and had a great influence on the formation of various areas of linguistics in the 20th century.
§1. The origins of the linguistic concept of F. de Saussure.
The linguistic concept of F. de Saussure is based on criticism of the views of neogrammarians, the desire to better understand the structure of language and the essence of its basic units, and to use data from other sciences to understand the nature of language. At the same time, de Saussure creatively embraced the achievements of contemporary linguistics.
In solving the main linguistic problems - about the nature, essence and specificity of language - de Saussure was greatly influenced by the ideas of French positivist sociologists. In the “Course of Positive Philosophy” (1830-1842), O. Comte first introduced the term “sociology”.
The problem of the essence of social phenomena is discussed in detail in the work of Z. Durkheim “Method of Sociology” (1899); he writes that society is “a kind of psychic being, an association of many consciousnesses.” Durkheim derives the “law of coercion,” according to which every social fact is coercive: while forcing a person to obey, it at the same time prescribes a certain behavior to the person. These idealistic tenets of Durkheim's teaching influenced the linguistic views of de Saussure. Just as Durkheim believes that society is a mechanical association of many consciousnesses, so de Saussure believes that language is “a grammatical system that virtually exists in everyone’s brain, or, more precisely, in a whole collection of individuals, for language does not exist completely in any one of them, it exists fully only in a collective." De Saussure views language as a social fact that exists outside of a person and is “imposed” on him as a member of a given collective.
Another philosopher-sociologist, G. Tarde, in his work “Social Logic” (1895), declared the law of imitation to be the basis of social life. The relationship between society and the individual is the main problem of Tarde’s work, for the solution of which he also draws on the facts of language as a social phenomenon. According to Tarde, there is nothing in society that does not exist in the individual. But a minority of people are assigned the role of inventors, and the lot of the majority remains imitation. This position of Tarde was reflected in de Saussure’s solution to the problem of language and speech: “By separating language and speech, we thereby separate: 1) the social from the individual; 2) the essential from the incidental and more or less accidental.” However, de Saussure did not show the dialectic of the relationship between language and speech.
Baudouin de Courtenay put forward his understanding of the language system as a totality, the parts of which are interconnected by relations of meaning, form, sound, etc. He believes that the sounds of different languages ​​have different meanings, depending on their relationship to other sounds. In a language system based on relationships, Baudouin de Courtenay distinguishes levels - phonetic, morphological, semantic. He constantly points out the historical variability of the concept of system. De Saussure understands language in the same way (“language is a system, all the elements of which form a whole”). True, he bases his understanding of the system on opposition as a “special case of relations.”
The formation and development of de Saussure’s scientific views was also influenced by the theory about the types of relationships in Krushevsky’s language. The position of words in the language system, Krushevsky believed, is determined either by association by contiguity, when the connection between words is carried out either in their linear sequence, or by the identity of the meanings they express, or by association by similarity, when words are connected on the basis of external similarity or similarity in meaning. De Saussure also distinguishes two types of relationships - syntagmatic and associative. By syntagmatic relations he understands relations based on a linear character, based on extension; These are associations by contiguity in Krushevsky. By associative relations, de Saussure understands the relations of words that have something in common with each other, similar, for example, in a root, in a suffix, in a common meaning; these are associations by similarity in Krushevsky. De Saussure recognized only these types of relations, and Krushevsky noted that two types of relations do not exhaust all the means that our mind has in order to connect the entire mass of heterogeneous words into a single whole.
So, all the problems that de Saussure poses in the “Course of General Linguistics” have already been posed in the works of his predecessors and contemporaries: W. Humboldt, W. Whitney, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N.V. Krushevsky, M. Breal and others. The merit of de Saussure is that, having combined these problems, he created a general theory of language, although not free from contradictions and not giving a final answer to all questions.

§2. Basic principles of linguistics by F. de Saussure.
F. de Saussure believed that linguistic theory can be orderly and consistent (despite the “chaotic” nature of linguistic matter and semantics). This can be done, in his opinion, by contrasting the subject of linguistics with its object.
The object of linguistics is language as a system of signs. Therefore, linguistics is a semiological science, a part of social psychology that studies the life of signs within the life of society. Defining the specifics of linguistics, de Saussure ended the Course with these words: “The only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself.” De Saussure chose the method of antinomies as his main method of analysis. This method was widely used by linguists, but de Saussure interpreted antinomies ontologically - as the structure of linguistic theory.
The most important linguistic work of F. de Saussure is “A Course in General Linguistics,” the name of which has already appeared more than once in this work. The famous aphorism that crowns the "Course" - the only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself - belongs not to Saussure, but to his students. Saussure did not publish anything in the field of semiology he created; there are only his scattered notes on this issue, which were found and published only in the second half of the 20th century. The “Course of General Linguistics” gained great popularity in Europe at the turn of the 1910s and 1920s. The first language into which the Course was translated was Japanese. In the 1920-1930s, English, German, and Dutch translations appeared. In Russia, it became known soon after its release thanks to R. O. Yakobson and the Opoyazovites; the unfinished Russian translation of A. I. Romm dates back to the early 1920s. The first complete Russian translation (A. M. Sukhotin, edited and with notes by R. O. Shor) was published in 1933, subsequently, in the 1970s, it was edited by A. A. Kholodovich; Both editions of the translation are currently being republished.

“A Course in General Linguistics” was immediately regarded as a fundamental work and manifesto of a new scientific direction, which later received the name structuralism. The main principles of Saussure were later applied in other sciences, including anthropology and cultural studies (Claude Lévi-Strauss, who called linguistics the “pilot science” of the structuralist method, science pilote). Saussure's theses were directly developed by the Geneva linguistic school, the largest representatives of which were Bally and Séchet.
Moving directly to the presentation of the main provisions of Saussure’s concept, let us recall the quote by I. Jordan, in which he compares the linguist with a true teacher, calmly and thoroughly considering what “he must say to his students, trying at every step to draw their attention to the mistakes that should be made.” avoid, and show them the path along which they can walk without fear. It is difficult to imagine a deeper and more objective observer of linguistic facts than Saussure. Therefore, his explanations are in most cases very clear, almost mathematically precise and often convincing.”
The main provisions of Saussure's concept are as follows:
1. Saussure distinguishes between “language” (language), “speech” (rago!e) and “speech activity” (language). Speech activity- the system of expressive capabilities of a given people is very diverse and comes into contact with a number of areas: physics, physiology, psychology. In the totality of speech processes, Saussure identifies two polar aspects: language and speech. Language is a grammatical system and a dictionary, i.e. an inventory of linguistic means, without which it is impossible to master verbal communication. Language as a lexical and grammatical system potentially exists in the minds of individuals belonging to the same linguistic community. As a social product and as a means of mutual understanding between people, language does not depend on the individual who speaks it. On the contrary, an individual must make considerable efforts to master the language system perfectly. Therefore, learning a language is a purely psychological process. Speech means the act by which an individual uses language to express his thoughts, it is the use of the means of language for the purpose of communication; it consists of individual acts of speaking and hearing carried out in a cycle of communication. Therefore, its study should be psychophysiological. Language and speech “are closely related to each other and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and to produce all its effects; speech, in turn, is necessary for language to be established: historically, the fact of speech always precedes language.” Consequently, the development of language is revealed in speech; living speech is a form of existence and development of language. But, recognizing all this, Saussure declares: “all this does not interfere with the fact that these are two completely different things,” contrasts language with speech and claims that even two sciences are needed - “linguistics of language” and “linguistics of speech.”
What properties of language and speech lead to their opposition? Firstly, language differs from speech, as a social phenomenon from an individual one. Language is a kind of code imposed by society on all its members as a mandatory norm. As a social product, it is assimilated by each individual in finished form. Speech is always individual. Each act of speech has an author-speaker who improvises speech at his own discretion. “Language is not a function of the speaking subject, it is passively registered by the individual,” who “by itself can neither create nor change it.” On the contrary, “speech is an individual act of will and understanding.” Secondly, language is opposed to speech as the potential for its realization. Thirdly, language is stable and durable and differs from speech, which is unstable and disposable. Fourthly, language differs from speech as “the essential from the incidental and more or less accidental.” The differences between language and speech noted by Saussure do exist, but they do not provide grounds for absolutizing them, for these two aspects of speech activity in each individual case represent an inextricable dialectical unity: neither of them can be imagined independently of the other, both of them are mutually conditioned, for “ “language” is general, and “speech” is private, special.
More serious in its consequences is the erroneous opinion of Saussure, who considers language an abstraction, a “system of purely linguistic relations,” a kind of game of our mind, like the game of chess, to which he often resorts in comparison in discussions about the nature of language. Glossematics, for example, went further than Saussure in separating “language” from “speech” and recognizing it as a pure abstraction, a system of pure relations.
2. An important achievement of Saussure was the establishment of the specifics of linguistics as a science. Before him, linguists approached the study of language from the position of either logic, or psychology, or physiology, or sociology. He concludes his “Course” with the following conclusion: “From the excursions we have made into areas adjacent to our science, the following principle of a purely negative nature follows, but all the more interesting because it coincides with the main idea of ​​this course: the only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself to yourself and for yourself."
The first part of this conclusion is absolutely fair; the establishment of the object of study and the development of appropriate methods create the specificity of linguistics, necessary for it as an independent science. The second thesis, that language should be considered “in itself and for itself,” raises objections. Language, after all, exists for certain purposes - as a tool of communication, a means of expression and thoughts and the entire human culture. Separating him from his social functions and confining him to himself is a wrong path. However, Saussure in this case could have put into the term “language” the content disclosed above, but the general context contradicts this assumption.
3. Considering the factors influencing the development of language, Saussure strives, in the spirit of the previous definition, to “eliminate from the concept of language everything that is alien to its organism, its system.” He sharply separates internal linguistics (the language system itself) from external linguistics (the external conditions of the functioning and development of language).
Saussure notes the connection between the history of language and the history of society and civilization. He recognizes that “the customs of a nation are reflected in its language, and on the other hand, to a large extent it is the language that shapes the nation.” Political history associated with conquest, colonization, migration, language policy, the development of material culture and production influence the language: they determine its boundaries, interaction with other languages, and determine the features literary language, lead to borrowing, etc. However, according to Saussure, extralinguistic factors do not affect internal system language: “it is a mistake to think that, bypassing them, it is impossible to know the internal organism of language.” Moreover: there is no need to know the conditions under which a particular language develops. This division of linguistics into external and internal brings the latter to the fore, for “language is a system subject to its own order,” since “everything that modifies the system to any extent is internal.” Meanwhile, it is clear that language and its development should be studied in connection with the society that created it and continuously develops it. Therefore, opposition, separation of two linguistics from each other and recognition of only internal linguistics as true is hardly legitimate. At the same time, it should be noted that Saussure, through such a division, contributed to the dissection of the problem of the relationship of the language system to the history of society. This important problem has not yet received a historical materialist justification.
4. Saussure distinguished two aspects in language - synchrony and diachrony. Synchrony is the simultaneous existence of a language, a static aspect, a language in its system. Diachrony is the sequence of linguistic facts in time, a historical or dynamic aspect. From this opposition he drew a categorical conclusion: “The opposition of two points of view - synchronic and diachronic - is completely absolute and does not tolerate compromise.” As a result, according to Saussure, a new pair of independent disciplines should be distinguished - synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Separated from history, the synchronic aspect allows the researcher to study the relationships between coexisting facts, to cognize the system of language, that is, to study language “in itself and for itself.” The historical point of view (diachrony), in Saussure's view, destroys the linguistic system and turns it into a collection of disparate facts.
Methodologically, such an approach to language, caused by a reaction to atomism and the unsystematic consideration of language by neogrammarians, is explainable and acceptable, but in theoretical terms it is, of course, an erroneous formulation of the question, associated with a violation of the laws of dialectics and leading to an ahistorical consideration of the phenomena of language.
One can agree with Saussure when he states: “It is quite clear that the synchronic aspect is more important than the diachronic aspect, since for the speaking mass it alone is the true and only reality.” Indeed, a group of speakers masters the language in its modern state; one should become familiar with the existing system of the language before studying its history and connections with related languages. But this does not mean that the development of the language system should be fundamentally denied. The Prague linguistic school and Soviet linguistics do not allow for the opposition of synchrony and diachrony.
5. Saussure strongly emphasized the systemic nature of language and substantiated the sign nature of language. According to Saussure, linguistic facts as elements of a system mutually determine each other. In his opinion, systemic relations characterize only synchronic linguistics, since “there cannot be a system that simultaneously covers several periods.” Thus, language is a system of signs. Each linguistic sign has two sides: the signifier (the plane of expression) and the signified (the plane of content). In this regard, it is necessary to explain Saussure's thesis that “language is form, not substance.” Since, according to Saussure, the linguistic sign is two-sided and includes both the signifier (sound image) and the signified (meaning), this thesis states that language is a form, a means of expressing any content and that language should not be confused with the content of what is expressed.
A linguistic sign, on the one hand, is arbitrary, conventional (this refers to the choice of a sign), but, on the other hand, it is obligatory for the linguistic community. “If in relation to the idea it depicts, the signifier (i.e., the sign) appears to be freely chosen, then, on the contrary, in relation to the linguistic community that uses it, it is not free, it is imposed.” Saussure characterizes the social conditioning of a sign in the following way: “It is as if they say to language: “Choose!”, but they add: “You choose this sign and not another.”
Developing the theory of the linguistic sign, Saussure examined in detail and comprehensively all the properties of the sign and showed that signs form a system of relations. Saussure outlined the dual nature of this system in the form of opposition between syntagmatics and paradigmatics. Syntagmatic relations in the system of signs coincide with the linear, sequential arrangement of linguistic elements. Paradigmatic relations are determined by choice, selection of a certain linguistic element from a more or less extensive paradigm that is known to the speaker.
Considering language as a system of arbitrary signs, Saussure likens it to any other sign system that expresses ideas. “Language is a system of signs expressing ideas, and therefore can be compared with writing, with the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, with symbolic rites, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc.” In this regard, Saussure proposes to create a special science that studies the life of signs within society - semiology, or semiotics, in which both component linguistics would also be included.
Linguistics “as the science of signs of a special kind,” according to Saussure, is the most important section of semiotics, for the linguistic sign occupies an exceptional place among sign systems: language, as Saussure writes, is “the most complex and most widespread semiological system.”
Saussure’s emphasis on various features in the language system was also important for a systematic understanding of language: “What is important in a word is not the sound as such, but the sound differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others, since only these sound differences are significant.” This position is also developed by various directions of structuralism.
The concept of significance, which is important for Saussure’s concept, follows from the concept of systematicity. Since a linguistic sign is a mental phenomenon, it is not material (substantial) differences that are important for it, but relational (functional, systemic) properties. Overestimating its significance, Saussure tears language away from existing connections and turns it into an immanent system.
Disciples and followers of Saussure do not form a unity, since many provisions of his concept are contradictory and allow for ambiguous interpretation. The views of their teacher were directly developed by C. Bally, A. Seche, and the Russian linguist S. O. Kartsevsky (usually they are called the Geneva School). A more extensive group of linguists is represented by scientists who have assimilated the sociological ideas of Saussure and combined them with the principles of comparative historical linguistics (A. Meilleux, J. Vandries, A. Sommerfelt, E. Benveniste, etc.). And finally, some provisions of F. de Saussure’s concept served as a theoretical basis for various directions of the currently most influential linguistic trend in foreign linguistics - structuralism. The latter include the Prague School of Linguistics, the teachings of glossematics (Danish structuralism) and partly descriptive linguistics in the USA. The term “structuralism” was coined in 1939 by the Dutch linguist Pos. This direction is united by a number of principles: 1) the study of language as a sign system with an emphasis on its code properties; 2) differentiation between synchrony and diachrony; 3) searches for formal methods of studying and describing language.
Looking back at Saussure's entire life and creative career, we can say that he fulfilled his destiny. His earthly life ended, but his ideas received such wide recognition that he could hardly have imagined, and this posthumous fate became his second life, which now merges with the modern life of linguistics and its representatives.

Conclusion.
In 1963, when the fiftieth anniversary of the death of F. de Saussure was celebrated, the famous French linguist E. Benveniste wrote that in our time there is hardly a linguist who would not owe something to de Saussure, just as there is hardly such general theory language in which his name would not be mentioned. Despite some exaggeration of this assessment, it should be said that the provisions of de Saussure's theory had a great influence on the subsequent development of linguistics.
Many of de Saussure's theoretical positions were expressed in the works of representatives of the Kazan linguistic school.
It should be pointed out that de Saussure solved the problems of linguistics, considered by previous generations of scientists, in a new way, and this is his merit. First of all, he decisively pointed out social significance common language and the dependence of individual speech on it. De Saussure understands language as a system, as a set of interacting and interdependent units. The problem of the systematic nature of language lies at the heart of his linguistic theory. The merit of de Saussure is also that he attracted the attention of linguists to the study of the internal laws of the language system. Depending on which of de Saussure’s theoretical positions was taken as a basis, there are different assessments of his concept.
De Saussure's affirmation of the social nature of language, the definition of language as a social phenomenon (although with a certain psychological connotation of these concepts) gave grounds to proclaim de Saussure the founder of the sociological trend in linguistics. These provisions of de Saussure were subsequently developed by A. Meillet, C. Bally and A. Seshe, who studied mainly the linguistics of speech. Bally developed the foundations of linguistic stylistics and created a theory of actualization of language signs in speech, and Seche worked on problems of syntax. Among other representatives of the sociological trend in French linguistics, F. Bruno, M. Grammont, A. Doz and J. Vandries should be mentioned.
And finally, there is a direct continuity between the positions of de Saussure and representatives of structuralism in modern linguistics. Some structuralists (N.S., Trubetskoy) developed de Saussure’s doctrine of language and speech in relation to phonetics, others (L. Elmslev) focused their attention on understanding language as a system of pure relations, behind which nothing real is hidden. The fact that European structuralism borrowed some general ideas de Saussure, served as the basis for recognizing de Saussure as the forerunner of structuralism.

Bibliography:

Benveniste E. General linguistics. M., 1974.
Berezin F.M. History of linguistic teachings. M., 1984.
Kodukhov V.I. General linguistics. M., 1974.
De Saussure F. Course of general linguistics.
etc.................

LINGUISTIC THEORY OF F. DE SAUSSURE

§ 1. LIFE AND CREATIVE PATH

One of the outstanding linguists of the 20th century, Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was born in Geneva, into a family of scientists. From childhood, his ability for languages ​​manifested itself: he knew Greek and Latin languages. In 1875, de Saussure began studying at the University of Geneva, and in 1876 he moved to Leipzig, where comparative linguistics was taught by such major linguists of the time as G. Curtius and A. Leskin. He stayed in Leipzig for two years, interested mainly in the comparative study of languages. The result of his studies in this area was the study “On the original vowel system in Indo-European languages” (1879); in this work, the description of individual facts of the language, characteristic of neogrammarians, is replaced by a comprehensive description of the system. Young grammarians coldly greeted de Saussure's work. The young scientist’s research was highly appreciated by N.V. Krushevsky, who tried to apply the data obtained by de Saussure to the analysis of the Old Church Slavonic language. (The creative aspirations of I. C. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, Krushevsky and de Saussure during this period largely coincided; it was not without reason that de Saussure later said that these two Russian scientists came closest to the theoretical consideration of language.) The doctoral thesis is also devoted to issues of comparative linguistics de Saussure's dissertation "The Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit" (1880).

Since 1880, de Saussure has lived in Paris and takes an active part in the work of the Paris Linguistic Society (since 1882 - deputy secretary of the society). In 1884, he began lecturing at the Higher Practical School, and from that time on his scientific activity was limited to teaching. However, as a foreigner, de Saussure did not have the right to head a department at any higher educational institution in France. In 1891 he returned to his homeland. At the University of Geneva, he first became an extraordinary professor of comparative historical grammar of Indo-European languages, then an ordinary professor of Sanskrit and Indo-European languages, and from 1907 he headed the department of general linguistics.

During his teaching career, de Saussure did not publish a single general theoretical work, although he continued to work on the theory of language and the logical classification of languages. His deep thoughts on the problems of the essence of language were reflected in the course of general linguistics. Read by de Saussure in 190G-1912.

three courses in general linguistics formed the basis of the “Course of General Linguistics” (1916), published posthumously; the book is a recording of his lectures by S. Bally and A. Seche 1 . “The Course of General Linguistics” gained worldwide fame, was translated into many languages ​​and had a great influence on the formation of various areas of linguistics in the 20th century.

§2. ORIGINS OF THE LINGUISTIC CONCEPT

The linguistic concept of F. de Saussure is based on criticism of the views of neogrammarians, the desire to better understand the structure of language and the essence of its basic units, and the use of data from other sciences to understand the nature of language. At the same time, de Saussure creatively embraced the achievements of contemporary linguistics.

In solving the main problems of linguistics, about the nature, essence and specificity of language, de Saussure was greatly influenced by the ideas

| French positivist sociologists O. Comte, E. Durkheim and

G. Tarda (see Chapter 12, §3).

* In the Course of Positive Philosophy (1830-1842), Comte first introduced the term “sociology”. According to Comte, it is necessary to describe the phenomena being studied without penetrating into their essence, only to establish smallest number external connections between them. These connections are determined on the basis of the similarity of phenomena and their sequential arrangement in relation to each other. Comte divides sociology into social statics, which should describe the state of society, and social dynamics, which studies the impact of moral incentives on the transformation of the world.

The problem of the essence of social phenomena is discussed in detail in Durkheim's work “Method of Sociology” (1899); he writes that society is “a peculiar psychic being, an association of many consciousnesses.” Denying the existence of the objective world, Durkheim believed that objectively, outside of man, there is only the so-called “social fact”, “collective consciousness”, i.e. beliefs, customs, way of thinking, actions, language, etc. Durkheim concludes “ the law of coercion,” according to which every social fact is coercive: while forcing a person to obey, it at the same time prescribes a certain behavior for the person.

These idealistic tenets of Durkheim's teaching influenced the linguistic views of de Saussure. Just as Durkheim believes that society is a mechanical association of many minds, so de Saussure believes that school is “a grammatical system potentially existing in every brain, or, better said, in the brains of a whole collection of individuals, for language does not exist completely in none of them, it exists fully only in the mass” 2. Valid

1 In 1957, the Swiss scientist R. Godel published the book “Manuscripts
sources of the “Course of General Linguistics” by F. de Saussure”, which questions
the authenticity of certain provisions of de Saussure in the form in which they were
Bally and Seche made public. A consolidated publication has now been undertaken
the text of the book in comparison with all handwritten materials.

2 Quote. from the book: C o s y r F. d ​​e. Course of general linguistics. M., 1933.

Outside of Durkheim's law of coercion, de Saussure also noted it when analyzing the motivation of a linguistic sign. Emphasizing the conditionality of language, he believes that “if in relation to the idea it depicts, the signifier appears to be freely chosen, then, on the contrary, in relation to the linguistic community that uses it, it is not free, it is imposed.<...>It is as if they say to the tongue: “Choose!”, but they add: “You will choose this sign, and not another.” De Saussure considers language as a social fact that exists outside of a person and is “imposed” on him as a member (of a given collective.

I Durkheim’s influence also affected de Saussure’s teaching about
object and point of view in science and language. Durkheim argued that we
ButTGU^1GGg1]r^delivered in the """^real world only on a subjective basis
ny perceptions. De Saussure, developing this idea in relation to
linguistics, writes: “The object does not at all predetermine the point of view;
on the contrary, we can say that the point of view creates the object itself.”
In his opinion, only a “superficial observer” can admit
the reality of the existence of language. Words exist only to the extent
in which they are perceived by the speaker. Npugpmw ssch f the act is
language development yka with creates an object and ^traces^nid^]1your point of view on
language. " ~ ~ ---

Another philosophical sociologist, Tarde, in his work “Social Do-jrHjja” (1895), declared the law of imitation to be the basis of social life. The relationship between society and the individual is the main problem of Tarde’s work, for the solution of which he also draws on the facts of language as a social phenomenon. According to Tarde, there is nothing in society that does not exist in the individual. But a minority of people are given the role of inventors, and the lot of the majority remains imitation. This position of Tarde was reflected in de Saussure’s solution to the problem of language and speech: “By separating language and speech, we thereby separate: 1) the social from the individual; 2) essential from incidental and more or less accidental.” However, de Saussure did not show the dialectic of the relationship between language and speech.

De Saussure was also familiar with works on political economy*. Referring to these works [mainly by A. Smith and D. Ricardo, who talk about two types of value (value) - consumer and exchange], he argues that in order to establish the significance (value) of a linguistic sign it is necessary: ​​“1) the presence of some then a dissimilar thing that can be exchanged for something whose value is subject to determination, and 2) the presence of some similar things that can be compared with that whose value is about we're talking about" The formation of de Saussure's theoretical views was also influenced by his criticism of the provisions of comparative historical linguistics. Previous linguistics, according to de Saussure, devoted too much space to history and was therefore one-sided: it studied not the system of language, but individual linguistic facts (“comparison is not

1 See: With l yusarev N.A. The main thing in the linguistic concept of F. de Saussure. - “ Foreign languages At school". 1968, no. 4.

more as a means of recreating the past<...>; states are brought into this study only fragmentarily and in a very imperfect way. This is the science founded by Bopp; That’s why the understanding of his language is half-hearted and shaky.” Although comparative historical linguistics of the 80s of the XIX century. and achieved significant success, but not all scientists completely agreed with the teachings of the neogrammarians. American linguist W. Whitney, Russian linguists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and N. V. Krushevsky and others tried to pose and solve major theoretical problems. -*

In Whitney’s book “The Life and Development of Language” (1875), de Saussure could become acquainted with such problems of general linguistics as the relationship between language and thinking, the relationship between individual and social phenomena, etc. Whitney defines language as a set of signs used to expressions of thoughts. He notes two features of the signs of human language: their arbitrariness and convention. / The arbitrariness of a sign lies in the absence of a connection between the word / and the idea it expresses, and the convention lies in its use by the society to which the speaker belongs. Considering language to be a complex of correlative and mutually assisting parts, Whitney came closer to recognizing the systemic nature of language. He also tried to understand the structure of linguistic units and the relationships of their components. A comparison of the linguistic views of Whitney and de Saussure shows the undoubted influence of the American linguist, but de Saussure does not repeat, but reinterprets Whitney's positions 1 .

De Saussure also highly valued the work of Russian linguists Baudouin de Courtenay and Krushevsky. Some of their provisions were also reflected in the works of de Saussure; “Very much expressed by Saussure in his deeply thought-out and elegant presentation, which became public domain and aroused general admiration in 1916,” wrote L. V. Shcherba, “we had long known from Baudouin’s writings” 2 .

In what ways did the theoretical views of de Saussure, Baudouin de Courtenay and Krushevsky coincide and in what ways did they differ? Baudouin de Courtenay put forward his understanding of the language system as a totality, the parts of which are interconnected by relations of meaning, form, sound, etc. He said that the sounds of different languages ​​have different meaning, in accordance with the relationship to other sounds. In a language system based on relationships, Baudouin de Courtenay distinguishes levels - phonetic, morphological, semantic. He constantly points out the historical variability of the concept of system. De Saussure also understands language (“dzyk” is a system, all the elements of which form a whole”). True, he bases his understanding of the system on opposition as a “special case of relations.”

In de Saussure’s “Course of General Linguistics,” such a contrast as language and speech, associated with the relationship, is examined in detail.

1 See: Slyusareva N. A. Some half-forgotten pages from history
linguistics (F. de Saussure and W. Whitney). - In the book: General and Romanesque linguistics
M., 1972.

2 Shcherba L.V. Izbr. works on linguistics and phonetics, volume 1 L., 1958
from 14.

Neem of the social and individual (psychological) in language. Russian linguists have been distinguishing between language and speech for a long time. Back in 1870, Baudouin de Courtenay drew attention to the difference between human speech in general from individual languages ​​and dialects and, finally, from the individual language of an individual person. De Saussure considers language to be a social element of speech activity, and speech to be an individual act of will and understanding, that is, he contrasts language with speech. And in Baudouin de Courtenay’s interpretation, language and speech form an interpenetrating unity, they determine each other’s reality: individual language exists only as a type of language. De Saussure interprets the social as psychological, contrasting it with the individual. The collective-individual existence of language, according to Baudouin de Courtenay, presupposes the inseparability of the individual and the general in language, since the individual is at the same time universal.

Baudouin de Courtenay establishes the laws of language development over time and the laws that determine the functioning of language in its simultaneous state, i.e. the laws historical development language, its dynamics (what de Saussure later called the diachrony of language), and the laws current state language (synchronic, according to de Saussu, state of language). De Saussure contrasted the synchronic point of view with the diachronic one and considered the synchronic aspect more important.

The formation and development of de Saussure’s creative views was also influenced to a certain extent by the theory about the types of relationships in Kruszewski’s language. The position of words in the language system, Krushevsky believed, is determined either by association by contiguity, when the connection between words is carried out or in their linear sequence (for example, bring in money, big house), or in the identity of the meanings they express, or by association by similarity, when words are connected on the basis of external similarity or similarity in meaning (for example, harrow, furrow- external resemblance; drive, carry, carry- generality of meaning; near, spring, outer- commonality of the suffix). De Saussure also distinguishes two types of relationships - syntagmatic and associative. By syntagmatic relations he understood relations based on a linear nature, based on extension (re-read, human life); These are associations by contiguity in Krushevsky. By associative relations, de Saussure understood the relations of words that have something in common with each other, similar or in root (teach, teach, training), or by suffix (training, instruction), or by generality of meaning (training, enlightenment, teaching and so on.); Krushevsky called such relationships associations by similarity. De Saussure recognized only these types of relations, and Krushevsky noted that two types of relations do not exhaust all the means that our mind has in order to connect the entire mass of heterogeneous words into one single whole.

De Saussure proceeded exclusively from the opposition of specific units of language. Krushevsky paid attention to what unites them, which allows words to be combined in the mind into systems or nests.

There is undoubtedly a similarity between Saussure's definition of a sign as the unity of a signified and a signifier with the definition of a sign given by Krushevsky: a word is a sign of a thing, and ideas about a thing (signified) and about a word (signifier) ​​are linked by the law of association into a stable pair.

So, all the problems that de Saussure poses in the “Course of General Linguistics” (systematic understanding of language, its sign character, the relationship between the modern state of language and its history, external and internal linguistics, language and speech) have already been posed in the works of his predecessors and contemporaries: W. Humboldt, Whitney, Baudouin de Courtenay, Krushevsky, M. Breal and others. Zasl The secret is that, having combined these problems, he created a general theory of language, although not free from contradictions and not providing a final solution to all issues.

§3. DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE. THEORY OF LANGUAGE AND SPEECH

The problem of the relationship between language and speech was first posed
V. Humboldt, then A. A^Potebnya, and I. A,...Ea^, tried to solve it.
__douin_de_ Courtenay. F. de_Saussure_also develops various aspects
you this problem. ,

By distinguishing language (langue) and speech (parole), de Saussure proceeds from his
th understanding of speech activity (langage) in general, i.e. speech (re
human act) and language stand out “within the general phenomenon that is
speech activity occurs.” Speech activity from
rushes to both the individual and social spheres, invades that
certain areas, such as physics, physiology, psychology, have an external
(sound)" and internal (psychic) ​​sides. In the concept of de
Saussure, it appears as the concept of human speech in general, as
a property inherent in a person. Language is only a certain part,
truth, the most important, of speech activity (“language for us is speech-,

activity minus speech itself"). Tongue resists *

speech - this second side of speech activity. De Saussure presents the relationship between language, speech and speech activity in the form of a diagram:

Synchrony
^language<
speech activity < ^diachrony

(langage) 1р HF ь

Speech activity unites language and speech, the main difference between which is that language is social, and speech is individual. De Saussure constantly emphasizes that language is “the social element of speech activity in general, in relation to the individual, who by himself can neither create language nor change it.” In language, everything is social, everything is conditioned. Language how a social product is assimilated by each individual in finished form

(“language is a treasure deposited by the practice of speech in all who belong to the same social group”).

However, while recognizing the social nature of language, de Saussure also emphasizes its mental nature; language is “associations, sealed by collective consent, the totality of which constitutes language, the essence of reality, located in the brain.” This statement psychic The natural nature of language, the mental essence of linguistic knowledge* gave some scientists the basis to talk about the psychological sociologism of de Saussure's linguistic concept.

Speech in de Saussure’s theory is “an individual act of will and understanding, in which one must distinguish: 1) combinations with the help of which the speaking subject uses the linguistic code in order to express his personal thought; 2) a psychophysical mechanism that allows him to objectify these combinations.” On the other hand, “speak” is “the sum of everything that people say, and includes: a) individual combinations depending on the will of the speakers, b) acts of speaking, equally performed, necessary to carry out these combinations. Consequently, there is nothing collective in speech: its manifestations are individual and instantaneous.”

Language and speech “are closely related to each other and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and to produce all its effects; speech, in turn, is necessary for language to be established; “historically, the fact of speech always precedes language.” Recognizing the internal unity of language and speech, de Saussure. ^ at the same time claims that “these are two completely different things.” 4) Such an unexpected conclusion is due to the properties that he identifies when defining language and speech:

1. Language is a social product, but speech is always individual. Each act of speech is generated by a separate individual, and language is perceived in the form in which it was bequeathed to us by previous generations. Consequently, “language is not a function of the speaking subject, it is a product passively registered by the individual<...>. On the contrary, speech is an individual act of will and understanding.”

2. Language potentially exists in every brain as a grammatical system; the realization of these potential capabilities is speech. (As de Saussure said, speech is to language as the performance of a symphony is to the symphony itself, the reality of which does not depend on the method of performance.)

3. Language differs from speech, as the essential differs from the secondary and accidental. Essential in language are the normative facts of language fixed by linguistic practice, and side and random phenomena include all kinds of fluctuations and individual variations.

Clonings in speech.

One object can have such different properties; they must be distinguished: “Language, isolated from speech, constitutes an object accessible to separate study.<...>Not only can the science of language do without other elements of speech activity, but in general it is only possible if these other elements are added to it

not mixed." Therefore, de Saussure requires a separate study of each aspect of speech activity, proposing to distinguish between two sciences - the linguistics of language, which has language as its object of study, and the linguistics of speech, which is of secondary importance and studies the characteristics of individual speech. The researcher, said de Saussure, “must choose one of two roads, which it is not possible to follow at the same time; you need to go through each of them separately”; he himself was mainly engaged in the linguistics of language.-?

--"""After the publication of the “Course of General Linguistics,” many interpretations of the Saussurean “language-speech” system appeared. Some scientists recognize the need to distinguish between language and speech, others consider it scientifically untenable. Disputes also arise about which linguistic units to classify to language, and which - to speech; the reason for these disputes is in the contradictory statements of de Saussure himself about the distinction between language and speech.

The merit of de Saussure is the identification of internal contradictions in speech processes. But having discovered these contradictions, he did not notice the organic connection between them. His opposition of language as a social product of speech as an “individual” dual fact is incorrect. Language is a means of communication between people; this determines its social character. The development of language is determined by the development of the society whose needs

i who he serves. The reproduction of a language by many people cannot be homogeneous: various kinds of individual deviations arise, which, more concerning vocabulary than grammar and phonetics, do not change the social character of the language. But individual speech cannot exist in isolation from language. If there was nothing social in speech, it could not serve as a means of language acquisition.

Language as something common is holistic in its structure. But the forms of manifestation of this commonality are diverse. Modern means of mass communication (radio, television, cinema, etc.) are various forms of manifestation of language. Speech is the same form of its implementation - oral and written, dialogic and monologue, etc. Speech is not only individual, “it includes what is caused by a given communicative situation and can come to naught in another communicative situation. Language and speech are not only different, they are unthinkable without each other” 1.

§4. LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM

The main merit of F. de Saussure to linguistics is that at the beginning of the 20th century. he drew attention to the need to study language as a system, to analyze what is internal in a language and determines its essence as a means of communication.

1 Budagov R. A. Language, history and modernity. M., 1971, p. 61-62.

The success of de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics was greatly facilitated by the strict logic of presentation and vivid, unexpected comparisons. Thus, considering language as a system, de Saus-sur compares it with chess: “...Language is a system that obeys its own order. A comparison with the game of chess will help to clarify this, in relation to which it is relatively easy to distinguish what is external and what is internal: the fact that this game came to Europe from Persia is of an external order; on the contrary, everything that concerns the system and rules of the game is internal. If I replace wooden figures with ivory figures, such a replacement is indifferent to the system; but if I reduce or increase the number of pieces, such a change will deeply affect the “grammar of the game.”

However, this comparison contains a number of inaccuracies. First of all, chess knows no national differences - the rules of the game are the same everywhere. A language always has national categories that distinguish it from other national languages. Further, if when playing chess the history of its origin is unimportant for us, then the formation of the structure of a language is always greatly influenced by the conditions in which the language was formed. As if feeling the insufficiency of the above definition, de Saus-sur introduces into the concept of a system the element of opposing linguistic units: just as the game of chess comes down to combining the positions of various figures, so language is a system, based on the opposition of its specific units.

/ Determining the properties of a particular linguistic element by comparing it with other linguistic elements is something new that distinguishes Saussure’s understanding of the systemic character of language. However, focusing attention only on oppositions has led to a limitation of the content side of language: “there is nothing in language but differences,” “in language there are only differences without positive aspects.” The question arises - what is hidden behind these differences? After all, they must distinguish some real objects. Unfortunately, de Saussure does not answer this question; he is silent about what specific units are hidden behind these relations, and calls for limiting the tasks of linguistics to the study of the category of relation.

De Saussure distinguishes two types of relationships - syntagmatic and associative. “A syntagmatic relation is always present (in praesentia): it rests on two or more elements equally present in the actual sequence.” In syntagmatic relationships, linguistic units are arranged in a line, and due to the principle of linearity, each unit is combined with neighboring units. What combinations based on extension he calls syntagm aGmiG "Syntagma" can consist of two or more units (re-lire- “re-read”, center tons- "Against everyone", la vie humaine- "human life", s"il fait beau tempe, nous sortirons- “if the weather is good, we will go for a walk”).

What do syntagmatic relations refer to - language or speech? On the one hand, de Saussure says: “All types of syntagmas constructed according to regular forms must be classified as language, and not as speech.” But on the other hand, “in the field of syntagm there is no sharp line between the fact of language, imprinted by collective custom, and the fact of speech, depending on individual freedom.”

De Saussure calls the second type of relationship associative: “... An associative relationship connects absent elements (in absentia) into a potential, mnemonic series,” they are “in the brain; they constitute the stock that constitutes the language of each individual.” Having arisen in the human brain, associative relationships unite words according to a common root (French. enseignement, enseigner, ensei-gnons; rus. teach, teach, training) or suffix (French. enseignement, armement, changement; rus. training, instruction, direction), based on the random similarity of an acoustic image (French. enseignement And justement where in the first word -ment-suffix of a noun, and in the second - an adverb; Wed rus. mash And right) or on the basis of generality of meaning (French. enseignement, instruction, apprenlissage, education; rus. training, instruction, enlightenment, teaching, coaching). From the above examples it is clear that in associative relations de Saussure includes not only morphological, but also semantic connections between words, although he recognizes that the most characteristic of them are the connections of words within the paradigm of inflection.

De Saussure attached great importance to the theory of relations (“this entire set of established (usual) relations constitutes language and determines its functioning”). Each member of the system is determined by its connection with its other members both in space (syntagmatic relations) and in consciousness (associative relations).

The thesis about the system of language as a set of interdependent elements was given concrete implementation by de Saussure in the doctrine of two types of relations. The interaction of these relations is revealed in the process of speech, when composing phrases of all types, for example, What do you know?, in which we select the desired option to you out of line you, us and so on.

De Saussure viewed the language system as a mathematically precise system. He believed that all relationships in language can be expressed in mathematical formulas, and to designate the components of the system he used the mathematical term “member”. De Saussure noted two features of the system: a) all members of the system are in equilibrium, b) the system is closed.

The set of relationships determines the functioning of language as a means of communication. This determines the social nature of language. But besides language, there are other social phenomena - political, legal, etc. What distinguishes language from other social phenomena? Sign character, de Saussure answers, “language is a system of signs expressing ideas.” Of primary importance for understanding de Saussure's linguistic concept is his doctrine of the linguistic sign.

§ 5. TEACHING ABOUT LINGUISTIC SIGN

F. de Saussure defines language in the following way from the point of view of its signification: “Language is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the combination of meaning and acoustic image, and both of these elements are “equally” mental.” He further explains his understanding of a sign: “we call a sign a combination of a concept and an acoustic image.” An acoustic image is not a material sound, but an imprint of a sound, an idea received by a person through the senses. Since the acoustic image is a mental imprint of sound and the concept has a mental property, de Saussure comes to the statement that “ language the sign is thus a two-sided psychic entity.”

Since in common use a sign denotes only an acoustic image, de Saussure, emphasizing the linguistic essence of his definition of a sign, introduces special terms: “We propose to retain the word sign to designate the whole and replace the terms “concept” and “acoustic” with KCHI y image”, respectively, by the terms “Ve at the beginning” and “meaning”.

Linguistic signs are not abstractions, but realities located in the human brain. They represent those concrete entities" that the linguistics of language deals with. As an example of a linguistic sign, de Saussure cites the word as something central in the mechanism of language. But since not only words can be signs, but also often words, then "it is not in the word that look for a specific unit of language."

Having defined a linguistic sign as a mental entity, de Saussure concludes that the linguistics of language, a science that studies language as a system of signs of a special kind, is part of semiology - the science of signs in general. And since semiology is part of general psychology, linguistics (linguistics of language) should be considered as part of psychology.

Having formed a general idea of ​​the linguistic sign, de Saussure establishes its features that distinguish it from units of other sign systems. The first principle of the linguistic sign is formulated by him briefly: the linguistic sign is arbitrary; the connection connecting the signifier with the signified is arbitrary. By the arbitrariness of the sign, de Saussure understands the absence of any relationship with the object designated by this sign. Thus, the concept of “sister” is not connected by any internal relations with the sequence of sounds of the French word soeur and could be expressed by any other combination of sounds.

The importance of this principle is enormous, for it “subordinates the entire linguistics of language.” However, the arbitrariness of a linguistic sign is limited by the laws of development of a given language. The sign is absolutely arbitrary in some parts of words; In most words in the general system of language, the arbitrariness of the sign does not at all exclude motivation. If we take the floor fourty, then it is not motivated by anything, its internal form is unclear. But the word fifty, related to its constituent parts (five And ten), already can-

tivated. Internal form in a word fifty as transparent as, for example, in a word icebreaker, and the origin of words five And ten Without etymological analysis it is no longer clear.

The existence of motivated words makes it easier for a person to master the language system, since the complete arbitrariness of signs would make it difficult to memorize them. “There are no languages,” writes de Saussure, “where there is nothing motivated; but it is unthinkable to imagine a language where everything would be motivated.” ^Languages ​​with the maximum lack of motivation he calls lexical-logical languages ​​h e ^ s _ k i "mi, and with minimal - grammatical. These are "like two poles between which the entire system develops, two countercurrents along which the movement of language is directed: with one hand, the tendency to use a lexicological tool - ■■ an unmotivated sign, on the other hand, preference given to a grammatical tool - a construction rule.” Thus, according to de Saussure, there is much more unmotivated in the English language than in German; An example of an ultra-lexicological language is Chinese, and an example of an ultra-grammatical language is Sanskrit. De Saussure considers the antinomy “variability - immutability” of a sign to be a consequence of the action, the principle of arbitrariness of a linguistic sign. The immutability of a sign lies in the fact that people / use the signs of language as established by the tradition of previous generations (“precisely because the sign is arbitrary, he knows no other law than the law of tradition, and only because it can be arbitrary is that it is based on tradition").

But at the same time, linguistic signs are subject to change. The principle of the variability of a sign is associated with the principle of continuity^) In the process of the historical development of a language, the variability of a sign manifests itself in a change in the relationship between the signifier and the signified, i.e., either the meaning of the word, or the sound composition, or both the sound and the meaning can change [so, lat. pesage- “kill” has become French V poueg -“drown (in water)”]. “Language by its nature is powerless to defend itself against factors that constantly shift the relationship between the signified and the signifier,” this is one of the consequences of the arbitrariness of the sign, says de Saussure. V De Saussure also puts forward a second principle - the principle of linearity and sign. “The signifier, being a property of the auditory (auditory), unfolds only in time and is characterized by features borrowed from time: a) it represents extension, b) this extension lies in one dimension: it is a line.” In other words, acoustic images cannot arise simultaneously, they follow each other, sequentially, forming a linear chain.

But only the sounds of words can be arranged sequentially, and each sound has its own unique sound characteristics (dullness - sonority, softness - hardness, explosiveness, etc.). Moreover, these features appear in sound not linearly, but volumetrically, i.e. sound simultaneously has several features. Consequently, from the point of view of modern phonology, Saussure’s principle of lin

Nosti concerns the sounds in a word, not the phonemes. De Saussure himself says that the principle of linearity characterizes speech, not language, and therefore cannot be the principle of a linguistic sign as a member of the system.

If the main thing for a linguistic sign is arbitrariness, then why is there not a general sudden change in a language consisting of such signs? De Saussure points out four circumstances that prevent this:

1) the arbitrariness of the sign “protects the language from any attempt aimed at changing it”: it is impossible to decide which of the arbitrary signs is more rational;

2) the multiplicity of signs used by the language makes it difficult to change them;

3) extreme complexity of the language system;

4) “at any given moment, language is the business of everyone<...>. In this respect, it cannot in any way be compared with other social institutions. Precepts of the law, religious rites, maritime signals, etc. attract only a limited number of persons at a time and for a limited period; on the contrary, everyone takes part in language every minute, which is why language is constantly influenced by everyone. This one basic fact is enough to show the impossibility of revolution in it. Of all social institutions, language provides the least field for initiative. It cannot be separated from the life of the social masses, which, being inert by nature, acts primarily as a conservative factor.”

One of the main points in the linguistic theory of de Saussure
is his doctrine of the value of a linguistic sign, or
its significance. “Being part of the system, the word is not clothed
only by meaning, but also - mainly - by significance, and this
it's completely different. A few are enough to confirm this
examples. French word tnouton may have the same meaning as
Russian word ram, but it does not have the same significance as it,
and this is for many reasons, among other things, because, speaking of
a piece of meat cooked and served on the table, a Russian will say ram
on the, but not ram. The difference in significance between ram And mouton associated with
the fact that the Russian word has, along with it, another term, corresponding
which does not exist in the French language.” In other words,
the meaning of a word in the lexical system of one language may not correspond
correspond to the meaning of the same word in another language: in Russian
you can’t say “roast lamb”, but definitely - roast from
lamb, and in French gigot de mouton(literally “roast from
ram"). »

Meaning and significance are also not the same thing: significance enters into meaning as an addition. It is in the division of the semantics of a word into two parts - meaning and significance - that de Saussure’s penetration into the internal system of language lies: it is not enough to simply state the fact that a word has one meaning or another; it still needs to be compared with similar meanings, with words that can be opposed to it. Its content is determined only through

D attraction of what exists outside of it. The significance of a sign is determined only by its relationship to other members of the language system. "The concept of value applies not only to words, but also to any phenomena of language, in particular to grammatical categories. Thus, the concept of number is in any language. The plural of French and Old Slavonic languages ​​or Sanskrit has the same meaning (denotes many objects) , but does not coincide in significance. If in French the plural is opposed to the singular, then in Sanskrit or Old Church Slavonic, where in addition to the plural there was also a dual number to denote paired objects (eyes, ears, arms, legs), The plural is opposed to both the singular and the dual. It would be inaccurate to attribute the same importance to the plural in the languages ​​Sanskrit and French, Old Church Slavonic and Russian, since in Sanskrit or Old Church Slavonic the plural cannot be used in all those cases where it is used in French or Russian. “...Consequently,” de Saussure concludes, “the significance of the plural depends on what is outside and around it.”

A similar example can be given with the grammatical category of tense. The meaning of time is present in all languages, but the significance of the three-term category of time in the Russian language (present, future, past) does not coincide with the significance of the polynomial category of time in German, English, and French. Based on these examples, de Saussure comes to the conclusion that significance is an element of the language system, its function. ""

De Saussure distinguishes between the conceptual and material aspects of value (significance). The conceptual aspect of value is the relationship between signifieds (see examples with words ram And mouton). The material aspect of value is the relationship of signifiers to each other. “What is important in a word is not the sound itself, but those sound differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others, since they are the bearers of meaning.” De Saussure illustrates this statement with the example of the Russian form of the genitive plural hands, in which there is no positive sign, i.e., a material element that characterizes a given form, and its essence is comprehended through comparison with other forms of this word (hands- hand).

The doctrine of the significance of a linguistic sign developed by de Saussure is of great importance for the study of the lexical, grammatical and phonetic systems of language. But at the same time, from the point of view of the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge, it also contains a number of weak provisions. De Saussure believes that we observe “instead of pre-given ideas of significance arising from the system itself. By saying that they correspond to concepts, it should be understood that these latter are purely differential, that is, determined not positively by their content, but negatively by their relationships with other elements of the system.” It follows that the significance of a sign as part of the content side of language (signified) is determined by the relation

of the subject not to reality, but to other units of language, the place occupied in the system of language units (the meaning of the word ram is determined by the place of this word in the language system, and not by the fact that it denotes a four-legged artiodactyl animal). If for de Saussure concepts (meanings) are formed by the system, then for Soviet language experts they are the result of the reflective (cognitive) activity of the child. And from this the concepts do not become either given in advance or completely coincide in different languages 1 .

De Saussure excludes the material substrate from the concept of value (significance): “It is clear that sound, a material element, cannot in itself belong to language. It is something secondary for language, only the material it uses. All generally conditional values ​​(significances) are characterized precisely by this property of not being mixed with the tangible element that serves them as a substrate.” The linguistic category of value, extremely exaggerated by him, replaces everything.

Thus, a deeply and subtly noticed feature of the language system, being elevated to an absolute, led to an understanding of the language system as a set of pure relations, behind which there is nothing real. It was this idea of ​​de Saussure that was developed by L. Hjelmslev, the founder of glossematics, the Copenhagen school of structuralism (see Chapter 13, § 7).

To prove the position about language as a system of pure significations (values), de Saussure turns to the problem of the relationship between thinking and language, or ideas and sound. He believes that our thinking is a formless and vague mass, where there are no real units, and looks like a nebula. The sound chain is also an equally formless mass, plastic matter, which is divided into individual particles. The division of both masses occurs in language, for it serves as “a mediator between thought and sound, and in such a way that the unification inevitably leads to a mutual delimitation of units.” It is impossible to separate language and thinking, because “language can... be compared to a sheet of paper; thought is its front side, and sound is its back; You cannot cut the front side without cutting the back side; so in language it is impossible to separate either thought from sound, or sound from thought; this can only be achieved through abstraction.” The linguist works in the border region, where elements of both orders are combined. De Saussure's comparison is interesting, but it does not provide anything for understanding the essence of the question of the relationship between language and thinking.

§ 6. TEACHING ABOUT SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY

F. de Saussure figuratively called the opposition of language and speech the first crossroads encountered on the path of a linguist. He called this crossroads the opposition between s i n x r o hV and and

1 See: Solntsev V.M. Significance of language and the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge. - In the book: Leninism and theoretical problems of linguistics. M., 1970.

diachrony and, i.e., consideration of the language both at the moment of its state and in terms of its historical development. According to de Saussure, “everything that relates to the static aspect of our science is synchronic; everything that concerns evolution is synchronic. The nouns synx p 0)Nia and diachrony will respectively denote the state of language and the phase of evolution.”

When studying a language, de Saussure considers it absolutely necessary
distinguish its synchronic consideration from the diachronic one and in
Accordingly, he distinguishes two linguistics - synchronic
and diachronic, specifying the tasks of each of them: “S and n-
chronic linguistics will deal with logical^ and
psychological relationships connecting coexisting
elements and forming a system, studying them as. they perceive
suffer from the same collective consciousness. Diachronic
Russian linguistics, on the contrary, will study the relationships
connecting elements in sequence order, do not perceive
conceived by the same collective consciousness, - „
elements that are replaced by one another, but not framed
learning systems." ABOUT

Elements of language that exist simultaneously or
successive in time, de Saussure
considered it possible to place on the axes simultaneously
ness (AB) and sequences (CD). Illustrating D
these provisions, he spoke about transverse and longitudinal
number of tree slices: the first gives a picture of coexistence,
i.e. synchrony, and the second is a picture of a follower
significant development of fibers, i.e. diachrony.

If synchronic linguistics studies language as a system, then
^the object of diachronic linguistics does not form a system); otherwise go-
^[Saying, synchronic linguistics deals with language, and diarrhea-__
Shnicheskaya - with a speech. Every language change is individual
“Shchi is a fact of speech; repeated often, it is accepted by the collective.
bom and becomes a fact of language. Thus, the distinction between syn-D
chronic and diachronic linguistics is associated in de Saussure with
distinction between language and speech. --,..-..-

Two reasons force de Saussure to study language using the method of two linguistics: a) the multiplicity of signs “absolutely prevents the simultaneous study of relationships in time and relationships in a system” and b) “for sciences operating with the concept of value, such a distinction becomes a practical necessity.” IV What is the relationship between synchronic and diachronic linguistics? De Saussure believes that “language is a system, all parts of which can and should be considered in their synchronic connection. Changes that occur throughout the system as a whole, down to only the “relations” of one or another of its elements, can only be studied outside of it.”<...>"This distinction is essentially between alternating elements and coexisting elements"<...>prevents the study of both in the system of one science.” He gives preference to synchronic language learning, because “the synchronic aspect is more important than the dia-

7? and k. 169; 193

chronic, since for the speaking masses only it is the true and only reality.”

From the opposition between synchrony and diachrony, de Saussure made

serious conclusions:

1. He believes that in synchrony some forces are revealed, in diachrony - others. These forces cannot be called laws, since any law must be general and binding. The forces, or rules, of the synchronic state of language are often general, but never become obligatory. The forces of the diachronic state are often presented as obligatory, but never appear as general.

2. De Saussure argues that the synchronic plan of one language is much closer to the synchronic plan of another language than to its past (diachronic) state. Thus, it turns out that the synchronic state of the modern Russian language is closer to the synchronic state of, say, the Japanese language than to the diachronic state of the Old Church Slavonic language. The inconsistency of such a point of view is obvious.

It is also wrong to separate diachrony from synchrony, the history of a language from its modern state, because the system of a language is a product of long historical development and many facts of a modern language become clear only when its history is known. In order to understand the difference between combinations in modern Russian two houses And five houses, you need to know what the form of the dual number was Houses, which determined this difference.

If in his study “On the Initial System of Vowels in Indo-European Languages” de Saussure applies the principle of systematicity to the first history of Indo-European languages, now he deprives the history of language of systematicity. De Saussure believes that the system of language manifests itself only in synchrony, because in itself it is unchangeable. How do changes in language occur? Separating diachrony from synchrony, de Saussure explains all linguistic changes by pure chance. However, feeling the instability of such an explanation, he adds that traditional comparative historical grammar must give way to descriptive synchronic grammar; grammar that studies the current state of the language must be updated with a historical method that will help to better understand the state of the language. Emphasizing the importance of studying the synchronic state of language, de Saussure seriously shook theoretical basis traditional comparative historical linguistics and paved the way for the emergence of new methods of language analysis.

§7. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL LINGUISTICS |

The last opposition, which F. de Slúsur points out and which is also important for understanding the essence of language, is the opposition between external and internal linguistics, i.e., external and internal elements of language.

Of the extra-linguistic factors influencing language, de Saussure notes first of all the connection between the history of language and the history of the nation. According to him, these stories intertwine and influence each other; on the one hand, the customs of a nation are reflected in its language, and on the other hand, to a large extent it is the language that shapes the nation. Conquest, colonization, migration, language policy influence the boundaries of the spread of a language, the relationship of dialects within a language, the formation of a literary language, etc. Great historical events (for example, the Roman conquest) had enormous consequences for linguistics. De Saussure also includes as external linguistics everything that has to do with the geographical distribution of languages ​​and their dialectal fragmentation.

Extralinguistic, extralinguistic factors explain

some linguistic phenomena, for example, borrowing. But external

factors do not affect (the language system itself). De Saussure emphasizes

~It seems\ "that they are not decisive, since they do not concern

the very mechanism of language, the structure.

De Saussure sharply distinguishes external linguistics from internal. Problems about the essence of the external and internal in language, about the role of external factors were addressed to one degree or another by V. Humboldt, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, X. Gabelenzi and other linguists. The merit of de Saussure is that, speaking out against the study of language only in connection with the history of the people, he attracted the attention of linguists to the internal linguistics of the world.

But de Saussure's distinction between external and internal linguistics seems clearly untenable. To consider language to be social in nature and at the same time to deny the influence of society on language means to admit an obvious contradiction.

From all of the above, the conclusion logically follows, which concludes de Saussure’s book: “The only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself.” De Saussure is right in asserting the need for the independent existence of linguistics (linguistics, until the beginning of the 20th century, was part of either philosophy or psychology). But a linguist, studying a language, cannot and should not consider language “in itself and for itself.” Language cannot be separated from the society whose needs it serves; We must not forget the most important function of language - to serve as a means of communication. The requirement to study a language “for oneself” inevitably implies an impoverishment of the content side of linguistics.”

§8, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LINGUISTIC CONCEPT OF F. DE SAUSSURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTICS OF THE XX CENTURY.

In 1963, when the fiftieth anniversary of the death of F. de Saussure was celebrated, the famous French linguist E. Benveniste wrote that in our time there is hardly a linguist who would not owe something to de Saussure, just as there is hardly such a common a theory of language that would not mention his name. Despite some exaggeration

Reading this assessment, it should be said that the provisions of de Saussure’s theory had a great influence on the subsequent development of linguistics.

Many of de Saussure's theoretical positions were expressed in the works of representatives of the Kazan linguistic school - I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N. V. Krushevsky, V. A. Bogoroditsky. These scientists, with their independence and originality of linguistic thinking, destroyed the usual canons of classical linguistics. Soviet linguist E. D. Polivanov, who studied with Baudouin de Courtenay, wrote that “in the development of general linguistic problems, Russian and Polish scientists of the previous generation were not only on par, but also far ahead of their contemporary, and even contemporary Western Europeans.” And he spoke quite harshly about the work of de Saussure: although the book was perceived by many as a kind of revelation, it “contains literally nothing new in the formulation and resolution of general linguistic problems in comparison with what was already obtained in our country long ago by Baudouin and Baudouin school" 1 . Academician L.V. Shcherba writes about the same thing: “When in 1923 we received in Leningrad the “Cours de linguistique generale” de Saussure" (a posthumous edition of lectures on general linguistics by the famous linguist, professor at the University of Geneva, the book was excellent and which made a great impression in the West), they were amazed at the numerous coincidences between Saussure’s teachings and the tenets we are accustomed to” 3 .

What propositions of de Saussure were familiar to Russian linguists?

V.V. Vinogradov noted that “the future Saussurean distinction between “langue” and “parole” [language and speech. - F. B.] found a very clear expression already in Baudouin de Courtenay’s 1870 lecture “Some “general remarks on linguistics and language” 3. According to Shcherba, “the distinction between language as a system and language as an activity (“langue” and “parole” de Saussure "a), not as clear and developed as that of Saussure, is also characteristic of Baudouin.” As for the distinction between synchrony and diachrony, Shcherba noted that “the promotion of “synchronic linguistics”, so characteristic of 4 Saussure... is one of the foundations of all Baudouin’s scientific activity> 4 . Then this position of Baudouin de Courtenay was developed by his students, in particular Bogoroditsky: “... The historicism of linguistic research can and should be supplemented by synchronistic comparison; the resulting synchronic series make it possible to determine the comparative speed of movement of one or another phenomenon in individual languages"< >So, I put forward the idea of ​​“synchronism” in linguistic comparisons a whole quarter of a century before the appearance of “Cours de linguistique generale” (1916) by de Saussure, who had at his disposal... my German brochure (Einige Reform-

1 Polivanov E. D. For Marxist linguistics. M., 1931, p. 3-4.

2 Shcherba L.V. Izbr. works on the Russian language. M., 1957, p. 94.
"Vinogradov V.V.I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. - In the book: B o d u n de

Courtenay I. A. Fav. works on general linguistics, vol. 1. M., 1963, p. 12. 4 Shcherba L.V. Izbr. works on the Russian language, p. 94.

vorschlage...), and if there is no mention of her in his book, then I explain this by the posthumous publication of his book, partly compiled from notes from listeners" 1 .

In all likelihood, de Saussure was also familiar with G. Paul’s book “Principles of the History of Language,” which distinguishes between individual speech and the general/language usage determined by the goals of communication.

Back in 1870, Baudouin de Courtenay defined the content of external and internal linguistics. He pointed out that the external history of a language is closely connected with the fate of its speakers, people, and inside story language studies the life of a language in connection with the mental organization of the people speaking it. De Saussure also later defines the tasks of external and internal linguistics.

At the same time, it should be pointed out that the problems of linguistics considered

that had been attempted by previous generations of scientists, de Saussure solved them in a new way, and this is his merit. First of all, he resolutely pointed out the social significance common language and the dependence of individual speech on it.

De Saussure understands language as a system, as a set of interacting and interdependent units. The problem of the systematic nature of language lies at the heart of his linguistic theory. The merit of de Saussure is also that he attracted the attention of linguists to the study of the internal laws of the language system.

Depending on which of de Saussure’s theoretical positions was taken as a basis, there are different assessments of his concept.

In his early work on the vowel system of Indo-European languages, de Saussure explores the quantitative and qualitative relationships of vowels and sonorants and reconstructs some disappeared sounds. In addition, he makes interesting remarks about the structure of the Indo-European root. Subsequently, A. Meillet wrote that the study “On the original system of vowels in Indo-European languages” played an outstanding role in the formation of a new method for analyzing the sound correspondences of related languages, therefore de Saussure can be called an outstanding Indo-Europeanist, the founder of modern comparative-historical linguistics .

Continuing this line of activity of de Saussure, a great contribution to the development of the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages ​​/ Viesley Meillet, Benveniste and E. Ku£ilovich (in 1927 Kurilovich discovered _ theoretically "predicted" by de Saussure sonantic coefficients in the newly discovered Hittite language and called them lariigal sounds).

De Saussure's affirmation of the social character of language, the definition of language as a social phenomenon (though, with a certain L psychological coloring of these concepts) gave rise to the pro-

1 Bogoroditski and V.A. Studies on Tatar and Turkic linguistics. Kazan, 1933, p. 154-155.

De Saussure can be called the founder of the sociological trend in linguistic knowledge. These provisions of de Saussure were subsequently developed by D^Meye, JU. Bally and A. Sechet; they studied mainly the linguistics of speech. Bally “developed the foundations of linguistic stylistics and created a theory of actualization of language signs in speech, and Séchet worked on the problems of syntax.” Among other representatives of the sociological trend “~ in French linguistics, F. Bruno, M. Grammont, A. Doz and J. Vandries should be mentioned.

And finally, there is a direct continuity between the positions of de Saussure and representatives of structuralism in modern linguistics. Some structuralists (N. S. Trubetskoy) developed J de Saussure's teaching on language and speech in relation to phonetics, others (L. Hjelmslev) focused their attention on understanding language as a system of pure relations, behind which nothing real is hidden. The fact that European structuralism borrowed some of the general ideas of de Saussure served as the basis for recognizing de Saussure as the forerunner of structuralism.

1 See his works: French stylistics. M., 1961; General linguistics and issues of the French language. M., 1965.

One of the greatest linguists in the world, whose name is primarily associated with the assertion in linguistics of synchronicity and a systemic-structural approach to language, is Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). He studied with the neogrammarians A. Leskin, G. Osthof and K. Brugmann (University of Leipzig). In 1879, he published, prepared during his student years and immediately becoming world famous, “Memoir on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages”, the conclusions of which, based on a deductive-systematic analysis of rows of vowel alternations, regarding the presence of “sonantic coefficients” - laryngals (special phonemes , which played a role in the development of Indo-European vocalism and changes in the structure of roots) were rejected by neogrammarians, but were confirmed half a century later, after E. Kurilovich (1927) discovered the Saussurean hypothetical A reflex in the Hittite language deciphered after the death of F. de Saussure.

In his works on Lithuanian accentuation (1894-1896), he formulated a law on the relationship between Lithuanian and Slavic stress and intonation (discovered by him simultaneously with F.F. Fortunatov, but independently of him).

He lectured first in Paris, where Antoine Meillet, Joseph Vandries, Maurice Grammont became his students, and then (from 1891) in his native Geneva, where, having moved from the department of Sanskrit and comparative linguistics to the department of general linguistics, he three times (1906-- 1912) read a course in the general theory of language, in which he brought together previously scattered thoughts about the nature and essence of language, the structure of linguistics and its methods. He did not even leave outlines of lectures; noticeable differences have been established between the three lecture cycles in structure and author's emphasis.

The most important event was the publication under the name of F. de Saussure of a course of lectures, the text of which was prepared for publication and published under the title “Course of General Linguistics” (1916, i.e. after the death of F. de Saussure; first Russian translation: 1933; In our country, two volumes of F. de Saussure’s works have recently been published in Russian: 1977 and 1990). The publishers of the “Course” were his Geneva students and colleagues Albert Séchet and Charles Bally, who contributed a lot of their own (including the infamous phrase: “the only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself,” which stimulated the introduction into linguistics of the principle of immanentism). They relied only on some and not always the best student lecture notes. After a long series of years, more detailed notes from other students were discovered, making it possible to see the differences between the three cycles of lectures and to establish the evolution of the thoughts of the author, who did not immediately take the position of a synchronic approach to language, although he already speaks about the dichotomy of language and speech and the dichotomy of synchrony and diachrony in the first cycle. Later (1967-1968) a critical edition of the Course appeared, showing a rather arbitrary interpretation of F. de Saussure's lectures by their first publishers.

This book (in its canonical version) caused a wide resonance in world science. A heated debate developed between the followers of F. de Saussure and opponents of his concept, which served to crystallize the principles of structural linguistics. Representatives of a variety of schools turned to the ideas or even simply to the name of F. de Saussure. F. de Saussure became in the 20th century. the most critically read linguist. F. de Saussure is guided by the philosophical and sociological systems of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. He brought up for wide discussion the problems of constructing synchronic linguistics, the solution of which had already been outlined in the works of U.D. Whitney, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N.V. Krushevsky, A. Marty.

In constructing his linguistic theory, he uses the methodological principle of reductionism, according to which only essential moments in the object under study are highlighted, contrasting with unimportant, secondary, and undeserving moments. A stepwise selection is made on a dichotomous basis of features characterizing linguistics. Linguistics as a whole is included in the field of psychology, namely in the field of social psychology. In social psychology, there is a special social science - semiology, designed to study sign systems, the most important of which is language.

Within semiology, linguistics is distinguished, dealing with language as a special kind of sign system, the most complex in its organization. The language as a whole is called the term le langage (which is often translated into Russian by the term speech activity). Further, a distinction is made between external linguistics, which is less essential for a strict analysis, describing the geographical, economic, historical and other external conditions of the existence of a language, and internal linguistics, which is more essential for a researcher, studying the structure of the linguistic mechanism in abstraction from external factors, i.e. in an immanent way. The greatest closeness of writing to language in the circle of sign systems is indicated.

Internal linguistics is divided into the linguistics of language (la linguistique de la langue) and the linguistics of speech (la linguistique de la parole). Language is qualified as a system of signs, for which what is important, first of all, is the relationship between its elements, their oppositional, relative, negative properties, the differences between these elements, and not their positive, substantial properties. Elements of language are understood as units, each having not only its own meaning (le sense), but also its significance (le valeur), based on its place in the system of relations. Material characteristics are recognized as secondary, due to which phonology (= phonetics) will be taken beyond the boundaries of linguistics. The method of realizing a linguistic sign is declared unimportant. There are two types of relationships between linguistic elements - associative and syntagmatic.

This system (language in the narrow sense) is assigned mental and social status. It is localized in the minds of speakers. The object of speech linguistics is qualified as a remainder isolated by subtracting language (la langue) from speech activity (le langage). This object is assigned a psychophysiological and individual status. It is possible to correlate with this object a separate speech act and the resulting combination of signs (syntagma), and to consider speech as a realization of language. The “Course of General Linguistics” presents only the characteristics of language in a narrow sense; there are no hints on the linguistics of speech.
The followers of F. de Saussure gave different interpretations of the dichotomy of language and speech (social - individual, virtual - actual, abstract - concrete, paradigmatics - syntagmatics, synchrony - diachrony, norm - style, system - implementation of the system, code -- message, generating device -- generation, (innate) ability (competence) -- execution (performance).The followers of the Geneva scientist extended this dichotomy to the study of other aspects of language (the distinction between phonology and phonetics by N.S. Trubetskoy).

Finally, the linguistics of language was divided into a less important evolutionary, diachronic linguistics, observing the relationship of facts on the axis of time, and a more significant static, synchronic linguistics for the speaker and for the researcher of language, exploring the relationships of linguistic elements on the axis of simultaneity. The concept of a system was attributed only to synchrony. Diachronic linguistics has been divided into prospective and retrospective. The synchronic approach was identified with grammar and the diachronic approach with phonetics. Other authors have varied interpretations of this dichotomy (statics - dynamics, system - asystem, a whole organized into a system - a single fact, Miteinander - Nacheinander, i.e. simultaneity - sequence in time).

A linguistic sign was understood as an entirely mental formation, as an arbitrary, conditional, not imposed by nature, cause-and-effect connection of two sides - the acoustic image, the signifier (le signifiant) and the idea, the concept, the signified (le signifie). F. de Saussure formulated a number of laws of the sign, affirming its immutability and at the same time variability, its linearity. Discussions mainly revolved around the problem of convention - the motivation of a linguistic sign.

There are a large number of publications of the Course in French and its translations into various languages. F.'s ideas before Saussure influenced the activities of the Geneva and French schools of sociological linguistics, the formation and development of research programs of formal-structural and structural-functional movements, schools and individual concepts. Numerous discussions took place in Soviet linguistics around the teachings of F. de Saussure on the nature and structure of the linguistic sign and around his dichotomies of language - speech, synchrony - diachrony.

Plan

1. Structuralism (emergence and content).

2. Three schools of structuralism: Prague, Danish, American.

3. A new scientific discipline usually arises and develops under the influence of external and internal stimuli.

Among the external stimuli that have contributed to the recent development of structural linguistics are some major technical achievements in the last decades of the 20th century.

The effect of this technical achievement was dual: 1) the so-called information business arose: machine translation, automatic text abstracting, information retrieval, etc., which posed new challenges for linguistics;

2) the opportunity arose to mechanize labor-intensive, but not requiring significant creative efforts, linguistic work, which opened up new prospects for linguistics.

But in order to perceive, store, issue or process information, the machine must know the language, information about the language, and be able to distinguish between classes of words or members of a sentence. In all these cases, a person must enter into communication with the machine and teach the knowledge necessary to the machine in a form understandable to it, that is, formally.

When the real task of teaching a machine a language arose, it turned out that the usual descriptive grammar could not cope with this task, and that the linguistic descriptions adopted in it were not formal. There was a need to create more accurate descriptions of the language, understandable not only to humans, but also to modern computers.

The role of internal factors in the development of science is much more important.

Historically, structural linguistics arose much earlier. It was a reaction to descriptive grammar.

Descriptive grammar has accumulated a wealth of material and great experience exploring connections between different language materials. But it did not create precise concepts about linguistic objects. The concepts of descriptive grammar were developed without a general plan. Over thousands of years, each era made its contribution to the creation of linguistic terminology, but the basic terms were not systematized.

Major linguists have been undertaking since the end of the 19th century. a critical and constructive revision of the names of descriptive grammar, as a result of which structural linguistics arose. Structuralism as a movement has existed for several decades (since 1926) and is one of the main directions in modern linguistics.

The most important provisions of structuralism are as follows: the level of abstraction, the specificity of the science of language, the systematic nature of language;

Synchrony - the study of the language system at a certain moment in its existence should not be replaced by the study of its history.

Structuralism declares objectivity in the observation and recording of linguistic material. He relies on objective methods language research and thereby ensures the formalization of the natural language system, its transformation into formal models, abstract codes.

Like any scientific direction, structuralism has its predecessors.

Baudouin de Courtenay was the first linguist, who already in 1870, in his inaugural lecture at St. Petersburg University, gave the first impetus for the development of structuralism with two ideas - the doctrine of systematicity and the theory of the phoneme.

The work of the young Ferdinand Saussure "On the primitive system of vowels in the Indo-European languages" (1879) brilliantly showed to what extent the structural approach can enhance the power of comparative-historical study of linguistic phenomena. And finally, Saussure, in his work “Course General Linguistics” (1916), laid all four cornerstones of structuralism - specificity, system, form and relations - with his position:

1) the only and true object of linguistics is language;

2) language is a system that has its own order;

3) language is form, not substance;

4) in every state of language everything is based on relationships.

1. Specifics of the language. Something superfluous and alien is very often imposed on linguistics, trying to either psychologize, or physiologize, or sociologize, or aestheticize the facts of language. Linguistics should become an independent science, since its object - language - is something special, existing as a means of communication and developing according to its own internal laws. Structuralism tries to logicize language, but more often brings it closer to mathematics.

2. Language system. Issues of systematic language are the central issues of linguistics today. They created structuralism.

Structuralism aims to analyze each language as a single whole (system) in the close interaction of all its sides and parts. The idea of ​​systematicity was expressed by Humboldt (the first), Baudouin and Saussure.

3. Language structure. Structuralism teaches that language is not a homogeneous, formless mass, but a structure, that is, a hierarchically ordered whole, consisting of separate tiers. Tiers are subsystems of language: phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary. In the entire language and in each element, the plane of expression (form) and the plane of content (meaning, function) as a whole is the semantic commonality of the individual links of the structure.

4. Synchrony and diachrony. Some structuralists even talk about panchrony and achrony, that is, about language belonging to all times and not to any time.

IN different countries structuralism received different expressions, depending on the philosophical and morphological views of linguists. There are three known classical schools of structural linguistics: Prague (functional linguistics), Copenhagen (glossematics), American (descriptive).

Structuralism originated in Czechoslovakia, in Prague. The ground for the emergence of the Prague Linguistic Circle was prepared by the activities of Joseph Zubaty (1855-1931).

In 1926, Vilém Mathesius (1882-1945) founded the school of Prague structuralists called PLC, whose members were B. Gavranek, I. M. Korzinek, B. Trnka, I. Vahek, Russian representatives of the Prague school of R. O. Yakobson, N. S. Trubetskoy, S. I. Kartsevsky.

The main provisions of Prague structuralism boil down to the following:

1. Linguistics is an independent science. Psychologism, physiologism, and logicism interpret linguistic phenomena by what they express, and not by how they are expressed in language.

2. Language is a system. They contrasted this concept with the atomism of neogrammarians - the desire to consider linguistic facts in isolation, each separately.

Language is a functional system, a system of purposeful expressive means. At the same time, Prague residents correctly understand function as purpose, purposefulness, and not as dependence. They emphasized a functional understanding of language as a system that satisfies the expressive needs of members of a given linguistic community. They distinguished between the language of communication and poetic language.

The Prague structuralists created theoretical phonology. N. S. Trubetskoy put forward the concept of a “linguistic union”.

The Copenhagen Structuralist Circle was created in 1933. The head of this direction was Louis Hjelmslev. First great job, in which the theoretical foundations of the direction were already outlined, was the book “Principles of General Grammar” (1928). It was followed by “The Category of Cases” and the main theoretical work “Towards the Justification of the Theory of Language”. After the publication of the Proceedings of the PLC ceased in 1939, Vigo Brendal and Louis Hjelmslev published a journal in Copenhagen, the international organ of the structuralists. After Brendal's death, the journal is edited by Jelmslev alone. He also gave the name to his direction “glossematics” (glossa - language).

In this magazine for 1950-1951. Elmlev published an article “Method structural analysis in linguistics" with summary the basic principles of his theory: 1. A tendency towards abstract algebraism, towards the dematerialization of language.

2. Glossematics sees in language only a system of external signs.

3. Emphasizing the formal similarity and immutability of languages ​​of all times and peoples, ignoring the peculiarities and originality of individual languages, glossematicians claim that different languages ​​are only random variations on the same theme and therefore recognize it as desirable to replace “culturally low-value languages” with “culturally valuable” ", "more convenient", "technically more advanced".

4. Glossematics ignores the relationship of languages.

Modern US linguistics is considered an independent linguistic school. For its method it is called descriptive, i.e. descriptive linguistics. It arose from the need to describe the languages ​​of the American Indians.

The founder of this school was the outstanding US ethnographer and linguist Franz Boas (1858 - 1942). Boas's work was continued in two different directions by Sapir and Bloomfield.

E. Sapir considered language in a broad cultural aspect. He prepared the way for ethnolinguistics.

Professor of Germanic philology at the University of Chicago L. Bloomfield (1887–1949) was the real founder of descriptive linguistics. He attempted to place his work on a philosophical basis.

Representatives of descriptive linguistics are Naida, Block, Bollinger, Treyger, Hockett, Pike and others, who bring their method closer to Copenhagen structuralism.

Positive in descriptivism are:

Reliance on form as the starting point of linguistic analysis.

1. Study of all types of grammatical dependence between the components of linguistic formations.

2. Study of all forms of division and types of combination in a given language.

Negative points are:

Ignoring the semantic side of language.

3. Equating meaningful human language with animal signals.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 – 1913)- one of the outstanding linguists of the twentieth century. The courses on general linguistics given by Saussure were published after his death based on their notes of lectures by C. Bally and A. Sechet in 1916 under the title “Course of General Linguistics.” In 1933, its Russian translation was published in Moscow.

The problems posed and considered by Saussure in the Course of General Linguistics - language and speech, the systematic nature of language, its symbolic character, synchrony and diachrony, external and internal linguistics - had already been largely formulated by his predecessors and contemporaries. However, de Saussure's merit lies in the fact that, by combining these problems, he created a general theory of language

The first important antinomy of Saussure's concept is language and speech. In solving this problem, Saussure proceeds from general concept speech activity. Speech activity is a property inherent in humans. Language and speech “are closely related to each other and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and to produce all its effects; speech, in turn, is necessary for language to be established: historically, the fact of speech always precedes language.” At the same time, language and speech differ from each other in a number of ways. The first difference between them is that language is social, while speech is individual. Language as a social product is acquired by each individual in a ready-made form. Secondly, language potentially exists in the individual’s brain in the form of a grammatical system and vocabulary;

Thirdly, in contrast to the instability and one-time occurrence of speech, language is stable and durable.

He calls the second crossroads the antinomy of synchrony and diachrony. Synchrony is the state of language at a given moment, a static aspect, language in its system. Diachrony is the evolution of language, the sequence of linguistic facts in time. Synchronic linguistics studies language as a system, that is, it deals with language, while diachronic linguistics studies speech; its object does not form a system.

Another opposition to Saussure’s linguistic concept is the antinomy of external and internal linguistics. The merit of de Saussure is that he clearly distinguished the sphere of action of external and internal factors in language. It sharply separates the language system itself, the development of which is determined by internal factors, from the external conditions of the functioning and development of language. At the same time, language and its development should be studied in connection with the society that created the language and continuously develops it.

De Saussure substantiated the symbolic nature of language. He considers language a system of signs, “in which the only essential thing is the combination of meaning and acoustic image. Linguistic signs are realities located in the human brain. The central sign in the mechanism of language is the word. Saussure proposes to create a special science of signs in general - semiology. Linguistics will be part of semiology, its most important section.

No. 15 STRUCTURALISM IN LINGUISTICS

Linguist structuralism - direction. in linguistics, which arose in the beginning. 20th century This direction arose in opposition to comparative historical linguistics.

The term “structuralism” was first used in 1939 in an article by the Dutch linguist H. Pos, although the historical roots of this trend lie in the Indian linguistic tradition. The emergence and formation of structuralism was significantly influenced by the ideas of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. F. Fortunatov, L. Bloomfield, N. S. Trubetskoy and others.

Structuralism arose, first of all, as a negation of neogrammatism with its attention to the history and psychology of language, with its empiricism. The emergence of structuralism was also due to development of science, which penetrates widely idea of ​​elements and structure. The concept of structure emerged in the mid-twentieth century. one of the most popular, with different understandings in the terminology of different sciences.

In the very in general terms under structure is usually understood as a method of connection between the elements of the corresponding phenomenon. The concept of structure is also included in linguistics, although in different interpretations in different directions of structuralism. In the history of this linguistic direction there are several stages. First stage the development of structuralism in linguistics (until the 50s of the twentieth century) was characterized by increased attention to expression plan structure in a language that is more accessible to direct observation and strict description. During this period, preference is given to statics of the language system, psychological and social factors functioning and variability of language. Second stage (from the 50s) structuralism is characterized by close attention to the study content plan language, to dynamics language system. Since the 70s begins third stage in the development of structuralism. Structuralism, having developed by this time an apparatus for a strict description of the language system, ceases to exist as a separate direction in linguistics. The methods and techniques of structuralism are beginning to be used in sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and comparative historical linguistics, which ceases to oppose it to both new directions and traditional linguistics.

Although the schools of structuralism differ on some fairly significant issues in the study of language, they are united by the following theses: 1) language is a systemic-structural formation in which all its units are interconnected by various relationships; 2) language is a system of signs, correlating with other symbolic systems within the discipline common to them - semiotics; 3) when studying any natural language, one should distinguish between language and speech; 4) language can be studied from two points of view - synchronic and diachronic; priority in the structural study of language belongs to synchrony; 5) statics and dynamics are coexisting states of language; due to statics, the language as a system is balanced, dynamics ensures the possibility of changes in the language; 6) language is an independent phenomenon with its own internal laws, it must be studied, first of all, taking into account intralingual factors; 8) in the study of language it is necessary to use strict, precise methods that bring linguistics closer to the natural sciences.

No. 16 American descriptivism (E. Sapir, L. Bloomfield)

Descriptive, or descriptive linguistics, arose in the USA in the 20s and 30s of the twentieth century; its origins were such outstanding linguists as Franz Boas, Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield. Since it is based on structural principles in its methodological principles and research techniques, it is considered as one of the directions of structuralism.

E. Sapir is one of the famous specialists in American Indian languages. However, unlike F. Boas, E. Sapir sees the essence of language not so much in its external features and formal criteria, how many in connection with culture, society, history, which determine the internal nature and its specificity of each ethnic group. Each language, Sapir believes, is made according to a special model, therefore it divides the surrounding reality in its own way and imposes this method on all people speaking it. People speaking different languages ​​see the world differently; the perception of the world around them is largely unconsciously based on linguistic categories. These ideas were further developed in the works of B. Whorf and were called Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or hypotheses of linguistic relativity.

Sapir defines language as social phenomenon and raises the question of the relationship of language with other forms human behavior, in particular with culture. If culture can be defined as something What a given society does and thinks, then language is what How think.

The theoretical views of L. Bloomfield were the basis on which American descriptive linguistics arose and developed. In fact, L. Bloomfield acts as the creator of a system of descriptive linguistics, the philosophical basis of which is positivism. Central and the main task of linguistics announced description of language facts, but not their explanation, which is enshrined in the name of this direction as descriptive (from the English todescribe - to describe).

The psychological basis of L. Bloomfield's linguistic theory is behaviorism (from the English behavior - behavior) - a movement in American psychology at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, the main thesis of which is that a person’s mental activity can only be judged by his behavior, by externally expressed reactions. Following this teaching, Bloomfield views language as special form human behavior, language processes - as phenomena of the same order as biological processes, reduces verbal communication to a chain of stimuli and reactions to them.

Another fundamental problem posed by Bloomfield was the problem of linguistic meaning. Bloomfield considers the meaning of a linguistic form to be situational; it manifests itself in the situation “speaker - speech - reaction of the listener.” Since there can be a great variety of situations, the definition of linguistic meaning, Bloomfield believes, is the weakest link in the science of language.

Bloomfield's work is also associated with the creation of the theory of levels of language. He believed that the description of a language should begin from the simplest level - the phonological one, defining all phonemes and their possible combinations. After describing the phonological level, one should move on to a more complex level, which he calls semantic; semantics is divided into grammar and vocabulary.

Founded in 1931. The founder is Professor Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965), the main representatives are V. Brøndal, H. Uldahl, Sørenson. Danish structuralists understood language as a structure, as a whole, consisting, as opposed to a simple combination of elements, each of which depends on the others and can only be so in connection with it.

Within the framework of the Copenhagen linguistic circle, glossematics developed - an extreme view of language, strictly formalized in the spirit of the requirements of mathematics, logic, semiotics and the philosophy of neopositivism. The goal of glossematic theory is to create a method for describing language. Glossematics is characterized by the methodology of neopositivism. A theory is considered independent of experience if experimental data cannot strengthen or weaken it.

Glossematics see their task in text analysis. It is from the text that the system is extracted as a result of analysis. The preliminary point of analysis is catalysis, which boils down to bringing phrases to normal form. Analysis consists of identifying and recording dependencies between text elements that exist, according to the glossematic understanding of the nature of language, only thanks to these dependencies.

According to Yelmslev, a general theory of language should be built deductively, coming not from the facts of specific languages, but from general principles borrowed from formal logic. Theory should not depend on experience. Each sign has an external, directly perceived side and an internal, ideal side. Text analysis is carried out on two levels: the level of content and the level of expression. On each plane a distinction must be made between form and substance. At the same time, the main thing in language is form. To construct signs, figures are used (figures on the plane of expression correspond to phonemes, and figures on the plane of content correspond to elementary units of meaning that do not have their own expression).

In his work “Language and Speech,” Hjelmslev tried to go beyond the algebraic approach, proposing, along with the “language-scheme,” two concepts: “language-norm,” which includes social significant characteristics substance, but abstracted from the details of a specific pronunciation, and “language-usus” - a set of skills accepted in society, including pronunciation details; In contrast to the “language-scheme”, “language-norm” and “language-usus” assume a sound character.

Advantages: construction of a simple and consistent theory applicable to any language; development of Saussure's theory; identifying the most objective form of the deductive method.

Flaws: general character basic concepts that do not take into account the specifics of the language; the theories were theories of semiotics, not of human language; the theories are also valid for non-linguistic sign systems; therefore, these are general semiotic theories that do not allow one to describe natural languages.