Collective term for a number of linguistic approaches in the first half of the twentieth century, all based on the work of F. de Saussure, but strongly divergent from one another. Depending on theoretical preconceptions, the term ‘structuralism’ is used in several ways. In its narrower sense, it refers to the pregenerative phase of linguistics before N. Chomsky’s Syntactic structures; in its broader sense, to all linguistic theories which focus on an isolated investigation of the language system, which would include generative transformational grammar. The most important centers of ‘classical’ structuralism are (a) the Geneva School, concerned primarily with the work of de Saussure, (b) American structuralism, following the work of L.Bloomfield, (c) the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle with L. Hjelmslev’s glossematics, (d) contextualism (Firthian linguistics), centered in London, and (e) the Prague School, represented chiefly by N.Trubetzkoy, A.Martinet, and R.Jakobson.
All variations of structuralism have certain theoretical premises in common, which result in part from the influence of empiricism and in part from a common reaction against the nineteenth century positivistic atomism of the Neogrammarians.
Even though de Saussure did not use the term ‘structure’ in his posthumously published Cours de linguistique générale (1916, based on lecture notes from the years 1906–11), but rather the terms système and mécanisme, he is none the less recognized as the ‘father’ and pioneer of structuralism, and his Cours is seen as a summary of the fundamental principles of structuralist linguistic description. De Saussure assumes that language is a relational system of formal, not substantial, elements, which can be precisely recorded and exactly represented. He sees research into the internal relations of language as the central task of linguistics and linguistics as an autonomous sicence that has no need to resort to psychology or the social sciences for aid in explanation. The following basic assumptions found in de Saussure’s work are viewed as fundamental for structuralist linguistic analysis. (a) ‘Language’ can be regarded from three aspects as langue(langue vs parole) (a particular language stored in the minds of all of its speakers), as parole (actual instances of speech in concrete situations), and as faculté de langage(langage) (general competence for the acquisition and use of language). In this view, langue and parole condition each other. The object of linguistic investigation is langue, which can only be described through an analysis of the expressions of parole. (b) Language (in the sense of langue) is regarded as a system of signs. Each sign consists of two (mutually conditioning) aspects, the acoustic image, and the concept. The connection of these aspects to one another is arbitrary (arbitrariness), i.e. language-specific and dependent on convention. (c) These linguistic signs form a system of values which stand in opposition to one another. Each sign is defined by its relation to all other signs in the same system. The fundamental structuralist concept of the ‘distinctive principle’ is characterized by this principle of ‘contrast’ (d) These element relationships can be analyzed on two levels: the syntagmatic level, i.e. the level of linear co-existence; and the paradigmatic level, i.e. the level of interchangeability of elements in a particular position; (paradigmatic vs syntagmatic relationship). (e) Since language (langue) is understood to be a system of signs, its analysis must be pursued along strictly synchronic lines, i.e. as the description of a state of affairs that exists at a given time (synchrony vs diachrony). (f) Linguistic analysis is based on a representative corpus, whose regularities are defined by way of two steps, segmentation and classification, segmentation taking place on the syntagmatic level, classification on the paradigmatic (alsodistribution).
The central level of investigation in structuralism, especially in the Prague School, is phonology. Methods of analysis were tested on its inventory of elements and possible combinations. These methods, when applied to the analysis of syntax, led to phrase structure grammar; the limits of these procedures are shown most clearly in the area of semantics(componential analysis, lexical field theory).
While ‘structuralism’ in its narrower sense refers to de Saussure’s linguistic theories, in its broader sense it is an umbrella term for approaches in anthropology, ethnology, sociology, psychology, and literary criticism, which - in analogy to linguistic structuralism-concentrate on synchronic analysis rather than on genetic/historical preconditions, in order to expose the universal structures at work under the surface of social relations (see especially R.Barthes, C.Lévi-Strauss).
References
Albrecht, J. 1988. Europäischer Strukturalismus. Darmstadt.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York.
Harris, Z.S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago, IL.
——1965. Transformational theory. Lg 41.363–401. (Repr. in Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Dordrecht, 1970. 531–77.)
Harris, R. 1987. Reading Saussure. London.
Hjelmslev, L. 1943. Omkring sprogteoriens grundlaeggelse. Copenhagen. (Prolegomena to a theory of language, trans. F.J.Whitfield. Baltimore, MD, 1953.)
Holdcroft, D. 1991. Saussure: signs, systems and arbitrariness. Cambridge.
Joos, M. (ed.) 1966. Readings in linguistics, vol. 1: the development of descriptive linguistics in America, 1925–1956. Chicago, IL.
Joseph, J.E. 1990. Bloomfield’s (1887–1949) Saussureanism. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 43.43–53.
Koerner, E.F.K. 1990. L.Bloomfield (1887–1949) and the Cours de linguistique générale. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 43.55–63.
Mohrmann, C. et al. (eds) 1961. Trends in European and American linguistics, 1930–1960. Utrecht.
Newmeyer, F.J. Linguistic theory in America. Orlando, FL.
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York.
Saussure, F.de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris. (Course in general linguistics, trans. R.Harris. London, 1983.)
Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen.
Von der Gabelentz, G. 1891. Die Sprachwissen-schaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Tübingen.
