The term form is well established in this sense is philosophy and relates on the one hand to Whilhelm Humbodlt’s notion f the inner form of a language, and on the other, to the Russian formalists notion of forms as opposed to context in literally analysis. A language (langue), says saussure, is a form not a substance. What must be emphasized at this point is the abstraction of saussure’s conception of the language-system. Little said about saussure dichotomy between langue and parole between the language-system and language behaviour. However it would seem that he himself believed rightly or wrongly that all changes originated outside the language system itself and did not take account of what were later to be identified as structural pressures with in the system operating as internal causal factors of language-change. This method of reconstruction was subsequently refined and adopted by schorals who called themselves structuralists and drew their inspiration at least partly, from saussure. Indo European vowel system as describe the method of reconstruction. This is paradoxical in view of the fact that saussure’s own early work on the proto. There are certain aspects of saussure’s distinction between the diachoronic and the synchoronic point of view that are controversial not to say paradoxical linguistic. Structural description of a language tells us how all the components fit together. It is important to realize that in opposing the neogrammariam view. It demonstrates how forms and meaning are interrelated at a particular point in a particular language-system. It gives a different kind of answer to the question, “why are things as they are?” Instead of teaching the historical development of particular forms of meanings. Sychoronic explanation in being structural rather than casal. Saussure argued that the synchronic description of particular languages could be equally scientific and also that it could be explanatory must necessarily be description of particular languages could be equally scientific and also it could be explanatory. It suffices to remind the reader of them and to show how they fit together. Several of the constitutive distinctions of saussurean structuralism have been introduced already. It is both conventional and convenient to date its birth as an identifiable movement in linguistics from the publication of saussure’s course de linguistic general in 1916. “STRUCTURALISM”Įspecially in Europe, is of multiple origin. Structuralism, functionalism and movements like generativism are the principal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |