Linguistics in the development of contemporary literary theories:

Structuralism
The approach to linguistics which views language as a structured system is called Structuralism. Up
until the twentieth century, linguists dealt with language as a collection of individual elements:
speech, sounds, words, grammatical word-endings etc… Modern linguists emerged in Europe and
the USA in the early decades of twentieth century. The first great figure of modern linguistics in
Europe, the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure is regarded as the father of modern linguistics. His
most famous work was published after his death when some of his students got together and on the
basis of their lecture notes, reconstructed and published course under the title Course in General
Linguistics. Saussure put the emphasis on how each element of language is related to other
elements because he saw this as a way to correct a lot of errors that had been made by earlier
linguists who never looked at the big picture. Saussure’s approach came to be known as
Structuralism. Saussure’s book revolutionised the approach towards the study of language. It gave
way to synchronic study of language. He introduced concepts like sign, signified, signifier, langue and
parole. He laid the foundations of structuralism.
Some of the important linguistic distinctions that Saussure made are:

1. Langue and Parole

Langue and Parole are two terms introduced by Saussure. Langue denotes all the elements
of a language including the rules and conventions of their combination. It is the set of rules
by which we combine words into sentences, use certain words in certain ways, rules which
are rarely altered and which all users of a language follow. It refers to the totality of
language share by the collective consciousness. It is the language system shared by a
community of speakers. Langue encompasses the abstract, systematic rules and conventions
of a signifying system. It involves the principles of a language without which no meaningful
utterance would be possible. Langue is abstract and exists within a collectivity.
Parole is the actual use of language by an individual in speech or writing. Everyday speech
where we use words in particular context is called parole. It is the concrete physical
manifestation of the abstract langue that exists in mind. It refers to concrete utterances
produced by individual speakers in actual situations. An analogous term is performance.
Parole is not collective but individual.
Langue is what people use when thinking and conceptualising(abstract) while parole is what
they use in speaking or writing (concrete).
2. Synchronic and Diachronic Grammar
Saussure often distinguished two approaches in the study of languages: synchronic and
diachronic. The terms synchronic and diachronic have their origins in Greek, diachronic
meaning through/across time and synchronic meaning together time.
Synchronic linguistics studies a language at one period of time. In synchronic linguistics,
languages are studied at a theoretical point in time. If we study, for example, the structure
of English, as it exists today and describe it without reference to how it was used in the past,
it is a synchronic study. The synchronic linguistics studies how a language works at a time,
regardless of its past history or future blueprint. It is also called Descriptive Study Linguistics.
Synchronic study is linear, static and closed. (Synchronic study is where we look at words
within the current state of language and not at its history. This is now self-evident. When we
hear a sentence ‘The film star looks glamorous’, we immediately understand what it means.
W are not aware that any of those words had a different meaning before in history. Glamour
 was a word used to describe witches. We understand the meaning of the words as they are
in use today.

Diachronic Linguistics, also called Historical Linguistics, traces the developments of a

language through time. In diachronic linguistics, languages are studied from the point of
view of their historical development. Diachronic regards language as a succession of states,
so it is the states that have to be described first. If we study, for example, that changes that
appeared in English from 1700 to 1900, then it is a diachronic study.
Therefore, synchronic study of language is concerned with language as it is or as it was at a
particular time while diachronic approach to the study of language is concerned with the
study of language through time.

3. Signifier and Signified

According to Saussure, a language is a system of signs. Each sign in language is a union of
‘signifier’ and ‘signified’. Signifier is the sound image or its graphic equivalent. The concept
referred to is the signified. The signifier is that which signifies (i.e., the wors as it is spoken or
written and the signified is that which is signified (i.e., the concept or meaning)
E.g. The letters ‘c-o-w’ or the sound combination /kaʊ/ form a signifier which evokes in our
mind the signified cow. The word cow does not signify the actual animal that we call cow
now. It represents only the concept or the image of the animal that we have in our minds.
What we do here is we invent a word cow consisting of some word images and we use it to
represent the concept of cow that exists in our mind. There is no inherent reason or logic
why the letters or sounds should mean cow. Thus, the relationship between the signifier and
signified is arbitrary but then they become conventions.
Language is a system of signs. And each sign consists of a signifier and a signified. A linguistic
sign is a holistic combination of the signifier and the signified. The relationship is social and
arbitrary. Saussure used the term semiology to describe the study if signs.

4. Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic relationships

Two types of relationships between linguistic units have been identified by Saussure-
syntagmatic and paradigmatic. The word paradigmatic has its origin in the Greek word
‘paradeigmatikos’ which means serving as a pattern, and syntagmatic in the agreek word
‘sutagmatikos’ which means arranged together.
A sentence is a sequence of signs. Each sign contributes something to the meaning of the
whole. When we view the signs as a linear sequence, the relationship between them is
known as syntagmatic. The syntagmatic relationship is a linear (horizontal, chain)
relationship which exists between the signs that follow one another in a complex unit. For
example, in a sentence ‘The man sat on the bench’, the relationship that ‘man’ has with ‘the’
and ‘sat on the bench ‘is syntagmatic. The words are placed one after the other along the
syntagmatic axis, and each of the words has a particular environment or context which
consists of the others words on its left and right. Syntagmatic relations are associative
relations.
A paradigmatic relationship denotes a vertical arrangement of signs in the utterance. It is a
kind of relationship between a sign in a sequence and sign not present in the sequence but
which is part of the rest of the language. The paradigmatic relationship is vertical (choice)
relationship, which exists between a sign present in particular environment and all other
signs that could replace it while still yielding a well-formed complex unit. For example, the
four words in ‘This coffee is strong’ are in syntagmatic relationship. But coffee in the
 statement is in a paradigmatic relationship with tea, student, girl, wall, light, whisky etc…
Therefore, when a sign that is present is seen contrasting with other sigs in the language, the
relationship is paradigmatic. Paradigmatic contrasts at the level of sounds allow us to
identify the phonemes of a language. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic notion have thus been
extended to phonemes as well.
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations make up the structure of any language. It is due to
this relationship that we are able to build up an infinite number of combinations with a
limited number of signs.
5. Competence and Performance
The ‘Competence’ and ‘Performance’ dichotomy was put forward by the famous American
linguist Noam Chomsky in connection with his syntactic model of Transformational
Generative Grammar. this dichotomy is both a revision and development of Saussure’s
distinction between langue and parole.
Competence is the native speaker’s knowledge of his language. It is the set of principles
(rules) which a person must posses in order to be a speaker of a language. It refers to the
speaker’s knowledge of a set of internalised rules regarding his language. It enables him to
create and understand infinite number of actual and potential sentences. Every native
speaker has the grammar of his language internalised in his brain so that he can
automatically recognise and reject the ungrammatical ones. Performance is the translation
of this knowledge into utterances in real life situations. So, performance is the actual use of
competence in communication, subject to physical/biological limitations. Performance may
be hampered by the speaker’s lapses like slips of the tongue, forgetfulness, breathing,
hesitations, errors etc… If competence is abstract, performance is concrete.
A distinction should be made between the Saussurean concept of langue and parole and the
Chomskian concept of competence and performance. While langue is common to every
language-user, competence varies from individual to individual. Langue stresses the social
aspect of language whereas competence is based on individual psychology.
In 1986, Chomsky published Knowledge of Language in which he replaced the term
competence with I-language (Internalised language) and performance with E-language
(Externalised language).

Saussure also proposed a relational theory of language where:

i. Words existed in relation to other words and

ii. The meaning of each word was dependent on other words.

The meaning was the result of being able to recognise the difference bet words. ‘Cat’ is cat because
it is not ‘bat or ‘hat’. It is different in terms of the sound produced and the way in which it is written.
Meaning thus emerges in the difference or opposition between words. ‘cat’, ‘bat’, and ‘hat’ are all
words in the system of language; they are related to each other and they make sense only in being
different from each other. Therefore, the structure of language is that of difference and opposition.

Saussure also suggested that words and their meanings are not natural but created through
repeated use and convention. The word ‘cat’ does not naturally refer to a four-legged furry animal of
a particular kind with particular habits. We have come to associate the name or word ‘cat’ to the
animal through long use or convention. There is no real relationship between the word and its
meaning. Meaning is attributed through its use by a community of language users. The animal cat
does not declare its ‘catness’, we attribute the ‘catness’ to it by giving it a name. Humans have given
the name cat to it, whatever the cat may think of itself. The signifier is connected to the meaning or
concept (signified) in a purely arbitrary relationship. Together, the signifier and signified constitute a
sign.

Saussure’s move undermined the very notion of language by proposing the relationship between
words and meanings as arbitrary. The structure of language ensures that when we use words,
however arbitrary their meaning might be, we register certain differences and make sense of them.
We make sense of ‘cat’ because it is different from other words that are equally arbitrary in their
relationship with things. So, the words in a language do not refer to a reality, but to other words
from which they are different. We are able to distinguish between real things because the words for
them are different. Language, is therefore, a system that constantly refers to itself.

Saussure, thus developed the ideas of:

1. Arbitrariness – words have no real connection to their meanings or things they describe. The
connections are established by conventions.
2. Convention – a linguistic convention is a principle or norm that has been adopted by a
person or linguistic community about how to use, and what the meaning is of, a specific
term. According to Saussure, language is a system of signs and sign is a combination of
signifier and the signified. The relation between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary but
we associate a word with a concept or image through long use or by convention.
3. Relationality – words make sense to us or have value for us in their relationality; in their
difference form other words. Words are related to each other in the form of difference and
have no absolute value of their own. Every word is opposed to, and different from another
word and meaning emerges in difference.
4. Binary opposition - binary opposition is the structuralist idea that acknowledges the human
tendency to think in terms of opposition. For Saussure, the binary opposition was the means
by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined against what it is
not. e.g. speech/writing, reason/passion, man/woman, inside/outside, presence/absence
etc…
Derrida argued that these oppositions were arbitrary and inherently unstable. The structures
themselves begin to overlap and clash and ultimately these structures of the text dismantle
themselves from within the text. Deconstruction rejects ‘binary opposition’ on the grounds
that such oppositions always privilege one term over the other, i.e., the signified over the
signifier.
5. Linguistic sign - ‘structural relationship’ between sound-image (signifier) and concept
(signified) constitutes what Saussure calls the linguistic sign. The linguistic sign can be
characterized in terms of the relationship which pertains between its dual aspects of
‘concept’ and of ‘sound image’ – or, to use the terms which Saussure’s work has made
famous –signified and signifier. The structural relationship between the concept of a tree
(i.e. the signified) and the sound-image made by the word ‘tree’ (i.e. the signifier) thus
constitutes a linguistic sign, and a language is made up of these: it is ‘a system of signs that
express ideas’.
6. Attributiveness - There is no real relationship between the word and its meaning. Meaning
is attributed through its use by a community of language users.
 Deconstruction
Jacques Derrida is associated with the movement in philosophy known as ‘Deconstruction’.
Derrida’s early work not only built upon the Saussurean notions of language and signification, but
took them to radical extremes. Derrida argued that if the relation between signifier and signified is
arbitrary ad all languages are relational then the process of reading is a movement from one signifier
to another. We can never come to the end of signification and discover meaning because when we
get to the end, we are faced not with the signified but with yet another signifier. Every signifier
refers to other words or signifiers in an endless postponement- deference of meaning. Therefore, in
order to explain the word ‘cat’, we use further terms like animal, organism, whiskers, tail etc…- more
signifiers along the chain of signification.

According to Derrida, every signifier is made up of an ‘absence’. Building on Saussure’s assumption

that meaning is a result of différance (the endless deferral of any ultimate meaning in a word or
sentence), Derrida suggests that every word carries within it the words that we are aware of as
being different. Every signifier is a series of differences from other signifiers, all of those are the
absences that constitute this one for us. ‘Cat’ is produced because ‘bat’, ‘hat’ and ‘fat’ are absent,
but these absences are crucial because without them we would not know cat. This means that the
meaning of ‘cat’ is result of absence than mere presence of difference.

Writing and language, according to Saussure was différance – a term that combines difference and
deference (postponement). All writing is différance and a study of this différance is what Derrida
famously termed ‘grammatology’. If structuralism is interested in how meaning is produced and
texts work, deconstruction is interested in that contradictions that resist meaning( in how texts do
not work but deconstruct themselves). Derrida argued that on considering speech and writing,
speech is privileged because it is seen as more authentic, since it happens only with a speaking
person. Writing is treated as artificial, and as suggesting death, loss and unreliability since writing
can exist independent of the writer. Thus, speech is taken to mean presence and writing to mean
absence. Writing is therefore about absences and thus less privileged. Derrida termed this privileging
of speech over writing Phonocentrism. Speech is privileged because it seems to have an essence, the
speaker. We assume that the speaker embodies the truth of what is being said because the speaker
is present.

Derrida proposed that the notions of truth are dependent upon the idea of a centre, core and
essence. This is what he termed 'logocentrism’ or ‘the metaphysics of presence’, where the core or
the presence is seen as being truth. He argued that God functioned as a sort of core truth, whom he
called a ‘transcendental signified’. This is where, Western philosophy assumes all truth originates.
Deconstruction rejects this emphasis on centres, origins and essences.

Some of the key terms are:

1. Logocentrism – Logocentrism is the term Derrida used to describe the assumption and quest
for a core, an essence, truth and centre. It is the dependency on the notion of a self-
certifying foundation, or absolute, or essence, or ground, which is ever-needed but never
present. ‘Logos’ or the final meaning is believed to vest in God whom Derrida terms a
transcendental signified- a signified that explains and culminates the very process of
signification. Logocentrism comes from “logos,” the Greek word that means word, truth,
reason and law. The ancient Greeks thought of logos as a cosmic principle hidden deep
within human beings, within speech and within the natural universe. If you are Logocentric,
 you believe that TRUTH is the voice, the word, or the expression of a central, original and
absolute Cause or Origin.
According to Derrida, all Western culture are logocentric i.e. they are centred or grounded
on a ‘logos’ or in a phrase he adopts from Heidegger, they rely on the “metaphysics of
presence”. They are logocentric, in part because they are phonocentric. i.e. they grant
privilege to speech over writing. By logos, Derrida signifies what he also calls an ‘ultimate
referent’- a self-certifying and self-sufficient ground, or foundation, that is directly present
to our awareness and serves to ‘centre’ the structure of linguistic system.
In his work Of Grammatology, Derrida describes how Western knowledge is structured
around the ‘word’. The New Testament opens with the line “In the beginning was the word”.
Derrida calls this desire for centre ‘logocentrism’ (Logos being the Greek word for ‘word’). It
is the belief that there is an ultimate reality or centre of truth that can serve as the basis for
all our thoughts and action.

2. Transcendental Signified – a signified which transcends all signifiers and a meaning which
transcends all signs. The transcendental signified is a concept that is invested with absolute
authority and which is placed beyond questioning or examination. The transcendental
signified would provide the ultimate meaning and would be the origin of origins. A
transcendental signified is a meaning that lies beyond everything in the whole universe. This
transcendental signified is centered in the process of interpretation and whatever else is
decentred. To Derrida this is a great error because: 1. There is no ultimate truth or a unifying
element in universe, and thus no ultimate reality (including whatever transcendental
signified). What is left is only difference.2. Any text, in the light of this fact, has almost an
infinite number of possible interpretations, and there is no assumed one signified meaning.
3. Trace – a trace is what a sign differs/ defers from. It is the absent part of the sign’s presence.
In other words, trace is the sign left by the absent thing, after it has passed on the scene of
its former presence. Every present bears the trace of an absent which defines it. According
to Derrida, the trace itself does not exist because it is self-effacing i.e. in presenting itself, it
becomes effaced. Since all signifiers viewed as present contain traces of other signifiers or
absence, the signifiers can neither be wholly present or absent.
4. Aporia – Aporia, according to Derrida is an inseparable deadlock, or double bind of
incompatible/contradictory meanings which are undecidable-in that we lack any sufficient
ground for choosing them. Aporia represents the difficulty in understanding the meanings of
the words. The term is used to refer to the unresolvable difficulties that a text may open up
during reading. ‘Aporetic’ moment takes the form of something that cannot be explained
with standard rules of logic.
5. Undecidability - undecidability is one of Derrida’s most important attempts to trouble
dualisms, or more accurately, to reveal how they are always already troubled. An
undecidable, (eg. ghost, pharmakon, hymen, etc.), is something that cannot conform to
either polarity of a dichotomy (eg. present/absent, cure/poison, and inside/outside in the
above examples). For example, the figure of a ghost seems to neither present or absent, or
alternatively it is both present and absent at the same time (SM).