saussure
现代语言学的开端—索绪尔
一、生平、背景
德克海姆现代社会学的现实性、制约性、系统性；弗洛伊德的心理学；惠特尼关于语言
的符号性、惯例性、任意性、可变性、不变性
二、比较语言学
1、指出比较语言学派没有明确其研究对象的性质
2、区分了比较语言学的两种方法：正视法、回顾法
3、指出重建的方法是比较法，比较的唯一目的是重建。重建的目的是记录研究成果而非仅仅为恢复一种形式，不过重建的形式有助于纵观一种语言的整体了类型，预示一些普通的语言事实。重建有三个因素可靠：区分一个词的音素数目；每种语言有一定的音素数目；无须描写音素的音质，只要看作不同的实体就够了。
4、纠正了施莱歇的语言演变理论，指出语言是不断变化的，一种语言并不总属于一个语言类型，同一语系的语言也不一定属于同一语言类型。有的语言如英语和爱尔兰语已经变成了另一种语言类型。同一印欧语系，屈折变化多大逐渐削弱，但斯拉夫语抵制了这种变化，英语屈折几乎全部消失。
5、基本同意新语法学派的观点，音变、类推是促进语言变化的两大音素。类推形式是以一种或多种其他形式为模型，按一种特定的原则创造出来的一种形式。如因为pension—pensionaire,所以intervention—interventionaire。并指出类推不
是语言变化，而是语言创造，因为两词可并存一段时间。类推总是产生于口语，在创造一种类推形式前，它的基本成分已经存在了。这样看来，类推是一种语法现象。
三、语言和言语
1、语言的两重性：声音形象和发声动作；语音和语义；个人方面和社会方面；言语本身即是社会制度，又是演变过程
把语言现象分为言语活动、言语、语言，言语活动=语言（社会、心理的）+言语（个人、心理物理的）。言语又分为两部分：言语“是人们所说的话的总和，其中包括（a）以说话人的意志为转移的个人的组合，(b)实现这些组合所必需的同样是与意志有关的发音行为。所以在言语中没有任何东西是集体的，它的表现是个人和暂时的。”“是个人的意志和智能的行为，其中应该区别开(1)说话者
赖以运用语言规则表达他的个人思想的组合；(2)使他有可能把这些组合表露出
来的心理*物理机构。”
语言的外部研究是指语言与人种学、文化、政治、语言政策、地理分布等关系的研究，而一切在任何程度上改变了系统的，都是内部的。
4、语言学的对象与任务
对象：语言学的唯一的，真正的对象就是语言和为语言而研究的语言
任务：描写并整理语言的历史；分析普遍规律；确定语言学的界限和定义
四、语言的符号性
索绪尔是符号学(semiology)的创始人。
1、符号性。语言符号联结的不是事物的名称，而是概念和音响形象，后者不是物质的声音，纯粹物理的东西，而是这声音的心理印迹，概念和音响形象的结合叫符号。把概念叫所指(signified)，音响形象叫能指(signifier)，“既能表明它们之间的对立，又能表明和它们所从属的整体间的对立。”
2、任意性。所指与能指间的联系是任意的，不存在自然的、必然的联系，是不可论证的，即对现实中跟它没有任何自然联系的所指来说是任意的。
3、不变性。语言的任意性不应使人想起能指完全取决于说话者的自由选择，能指对使用它的语言社会来说，却是不自由的，而是强制的。不变的原因有：“符号的任意性本身实际上使语言避开一切旨在使他发生变化的尝试”，不能论证谁更合理；语言必须有大量的符号，使得符号难以改变；符号的使用受到群体的控制；集体的惰性对一切语言创新的抗拒。“不仅因为绑在集体的镇石上，而且因为它是处在时间之中。”
4、线性关系。能指在语言中是一种声音，必须依靠时间顺序一个一个的出现。“它体现一个长度，这长度只能在一个向度上测定：它是一条直线。
5、连锁关系。讲话时，符号连接出现成为一个序列，每个符号与前后符号对立以取得自己的价值，符号间的以线条性为基础的关系称连锁关系（或组合关系），这种关系的结合体称结构。
6、联想关系。一个符号也可以引起许多联想，有意义联想、形式（词根、词缀）联想等，又称选择关系、聚合关系。具有联想关系的可以在一个结构中占据某个相同的位置。索绪尔认为，整个语言机构中不外就是这两种关系的运用。
五、系统和价值
1、系统：语言的符号不纯粹是语言的事实，而是系统的组成要素，这个系统代表了语言；系统永远只是暂时的，会从一种状态变为另一种状态。
2、价值
①在语言里，每项要素都由于其他各项要素对立才能有它的价值，词的价值不是由标志它的客观对象的关系来确定的，而是由它对其他词的关系及其在该语言中的地位来决定的。价值就是系统的功能，价值就是语言事实在该语言系统中的意义。
②具有相同意义的词不一定有相同的价值。如法语的mouton与英语的sheep，因为二者在各自词汇中的地位不同（下表）；法语复数跟梵语复数价值不同。
③价值由系统发出，因此，“语言是形式而不是实体”。
（价值指一个实体置于一个规则支配系统中考察时具有的功能特性。按索绪尔的观点，语言是一些独立语项组成的系统其中每个语项的价值只取决于其他语项的同时存在，它们通过组合关系和聚合关系相互联系。）
六、共时语言学与历时语言学
1、定义：共时语言学(synchronic linguistics)就是研究一种语言或多种语言在其历史发展的某一阶段的情况，即语言状态(language state)，而不考虑这种状态究竟如何演化而来，又称静态语言学(static linguistics)；历时语言学(diachronic linguistics)集中研究语言在较长历史时期所经历的变化，又称演化语言学(evolutionary linguistics)。索绪尔认为，这并非指语言学的两大成分，而是两种研究方法。
2、来源：共时语言学与历时语言学的区分客观上来源于语言与言语的区分。“语言只凡属于历时的，都只是由于言语。”换言之，共时语言学仅仅与语言有关，而历时语言学则与言语有关。
点—共时观点和历时观点—的对立是绝对的，不容许有任何妥协”；历时语言现象不改变语言系统，语言的变化是偶然的（后遭布拉格学派批评）
5、从两种观点看各语法学派：
①批评历史比较语言学，“全神贯注在历时态方面”，对语言的理解是“混杂的，犹豫不定的”。
②批评传统语法对“构词法毫无所知；它是规范的……而不是确认事实；缺乏整体的观点，不区分书面语和口头语”。
③赞扬罗瓦雅尔语法“忠实遵循着横轴线，从来没有背离过，所以这种方法是正确的。”
④为古典语法辩护，认为“它的对象更加明确”。
七、索绪尔的影响
索绪尔的历史影响可分两大方面：
第一，他为现代语言学提出了总的方向，明确了语言的本质，规定了语言学的任务：把语言作为一个单位系统和关系系统来分析。20世纪的各派语言学流派都受到他的思想的影响和启发，并从中吸取营养。
第二，索绪尔做了几个主要区分：语言与言语，共时语言学与历时语言学，连锁关系与选择关系。现在语言学中的大部分工作是在探讨这些概念的真正涵义和本质。
他不仅注意个别、具体的问题，更注意研究印欧语的整体结构，不仅研究历史语言学，更注意普通语言学理论。他的学说标志着现代语言学的开端。
Saussure and His Main Contributions
四川广播电视大学谭睿娟
between the synchronic and diachronic dimensions of language study, and made a distinction between langue and parole. Furthermore, Saussure assumed that language is a system of signs. He suggested that all signs have a signifier and a signified in common .
【Key words】 Saussure Main contributions Linguistics
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was a Swiss linguist who occupies an important place in the history of linguistics. He was the pivotal figure in the transition from the 19th to 20th century, and is generally considered the founder of modern linguistics. Saussure was a classmate of Brugmann and Leskien, and an important figure in the young grammarians. He published a few highly respected papers, but his more influential work was published after his death. His students at the University of Geneva were so impressed by his lectures that they thought his ideas concerning linguistic questions were original and insightful and should be preserved. So his students collected and edited their notes and published his Courses in General Linguistic (Cours de Linguistique Generale) in 1916, three years after his death. That is to say, this book is a collection and expansion of notes taken by Saussure's students during various lecture courses that he gave. Understandablely, it is rather fragmentary in character, and in many places there are hints only in the theoretical position which subsequent exegesis has concluded and Saussure must have held. There is also very little in the way of detailed illustration of his views. But its influence has been unparalleled in European linguistics since then, and it has had a major formative role to play in the shaping of linguistic thought in Europe over the thirty years or so which followed its publication. This book became the most important source of Saussure's ideas and of his influence upon succeeding generations of linguists.
Few other figures in the history of the science of language have commanded such lasting respect and inspired such varied accomplishments as Ferdinand de Saussure. L eonard Bloomfield justly credited the eminent Swiss professor with providing “ a theoretic foundation to the newer trend in linguistics study," and European scholars have seldom failed to consider his views when dealing with any theoretical problem. Jonath an Culler (1976) says, “Ferdinand de Saussure is the father of modern linguistics, the man who reorganized the systematic study of language and language in such a way as to make possible the achievements of twentieth-century linguists. This alone would make him a Modern Master: master of a discipline which he made modern."
De Saussure was responsible for three key directions in the study of language. First, he broke with the young grammarians by pointing the distinction between historical linguistics and the state of language at any point in time. He was determined to delimit and define the boundaries of languge study. To this end he began by distinguishing between historical linguistics and descriptive linguistics, or diachronic and synchronic analyses respectively. The distinction was one that comparative philologists had often confused, but for Saussure landing, subsequently for linguistics it was essential. Synchronic linguistics sees language as a living
whole, existing as a “state" at a particular point in time. It is descriptive linguistics that concerns with the state of a languge at any point in time, especially the present. Once linguist has isolated a focus—point for synchronic description, the time factor becomes irrelevant. Whatever changes may be taking place in their material, they are considered trivial. To consider historical material is to enter the domain of diachronic linguistics. It is the study of language history and change. This was the type of work that characterized most of Saussure's predecessors because the crucial question about language, at least until the 19th century, revolved around discovering the origin of language. Diachronic linguistics deals with the evolution of a language through time, as a continually changing medium—a never-ending succession of language states. Thus we may wish to study the change from Old English to Middle English, or the way in which Shakespeare's style changed from youth to maturity: both would be examples of diachronic study. Saussure drew the inter-relationship of the two dimensions in the way:
C
A
B
D
Here AB is the synchronic “axis of simultaneities"; CD is the diachronic “axis of successions". AB is a language state at an arbitrarily chosen point in time on the line CD (at X); CD is the historical path the language has traveled, and the route, which it is going to continue traveling.
This distinction is significant because synchronic analyses were either ignored or overlooked in the past, and most importantly, the distinction drew attention to the current structural properties of language as well as historical dimensions. Language system is complete and operates as a logical system or any point in time regardless of influence from the past. A language has an existence separate from its history. People who speak it constitute the language at any point in time and, of course, they are ignorant of its history.
This led to de Saussure's second contribution; the distinction between language and parole. Language is such a complex and varied phenomenon that it would be impossible to study it without assuming some basic operating principles. Saussure made a distinction among three main senses of language, and then concentrated on two of them. He envisaged language (human speech as a whole) to be composed of two aspects, which are called langue (the language system) and parole (the act of speaking). Langue was considered by Saussure to be the totality of a language, deducible from an examination of the memories of all the language users. Langue, then, is an abstract system that all of us have in common and enables us to speak.
It is the cognitive apparatus that members of a community share that allows them to use the vocabulary, grammar, and phonology in order to actualize speech. Langue is what the individual assimilates when he learns a language; it exists in the mind of each speaker. “It is the social product whose existence permits the individual to exercise his linguistic faculty." It is certainly a mentalistic concept of language system. Saussure argued strongly that the characteristics of langue were really present in the brain, and not simply abstractions. Langue is also something which the individual speaker can make use of but cannot be affected by himself; it is a corporate, social phenomenon. Parol e, on the other hand, is the “executive side of language." Parole, is the actualization of langue. It is the way we actually speak---the vocabulary, accent, and syntactic forms. That is to say, it is the actual, concrete act of speaking on the part of an individual, the controlled psychophysical activity, which is what we hear. It is a personal, dynamic and social activity, which exists at a particular time and place and in a particular situation, as opposed to langue, which exists apart from any particular manifestation in speech.
The distinction between Langue and parole is important. In distinguishing them, we are separating what is social from what is individual, and what is essential from what is accidental. If we study the phenomenon of speech we will find so many things, which are relevant to our study and the work will end up in confusion. If we concentrate on langue, then every aspect of language and speech fall into place within it. The distinction between langue and parole also has important implications for other disciplines as well. It is essential for any field of research to distinguish what belongs to the underlying system which makes possible various types of behavior and what belongs to actual instances of such behavior.
Saussure's third main theoretical contribution was to clarify the concept of a language system and many linguists feel that it was this facet of his thought that had the most profound influence on subsequent scholarship. He completed his tenets of structuralism. He showed that the principles of langue must be described synchronically as a system of elements composed of lexical， grammatical, and phonological components. The terminology of linguistics was to be considered relative to each other. In other words, an element of the linguistic system is meaningful only in relation to other elements. The most immediate and significant impact of de Saussure's structural theory was in the area of phonology. It led to the concept of the phoneme as a distinct and indivisible sound of a language. Although de Saussure's structuralism was crucial to the development of phonology, he was really interested in the larger and more abstract “system of signs." Linguistics was really the study of signs and their relationships. De Saussure characterize d signs as a relationship between “concept" and “sound" to use de Saussure's words signified and signifier. Saussure called this relationship of signified to signifier a linguistic sign. The sign, for him, is the basic unit of communication, a unit within the langue of the community. Being a relationship, and part of langue, it is thus a mental construct but we must remember that Saussure considered such constructs as nonetheless real (he refers to the sign as a ‘concrete
entity,' at one point). Langue, in this way, can be viewed as a system of signs. The linguistic sign is constituted by the structural relationship between the concept (e.g., “house"---the signified) and the sound of the word “house" (signifier). A language is essentially composed of such structural relationships, and the study of language is the study of the system of signs that express ideas. “Language," said de Saussure, “is a system of inner-dependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others" (de Saussure, 1959, p.114).
Two types of structural relationship in a language system presented by de Saussure are syntagmatic and associative. Syntagmatic relationships of a word are those relationships that can obtain with neighboring in a sentence. Associative structural relations pertain to the ways in which words can replace one another, and the ways in which they do not. These relationships are about how words and sounds are associated with each other and form part of the synchronic relationship within the language structure.
The influence de Saussure had on language was revolutionary. His work had a profound influence on many aspects of linguistics but synchronic analysis is one of the most radical because it turned language on itself. He argued that language was a closed and self-defining system, and his work caused linguists and scholars of language to look “inward" toward the internal mechanisms of language rather than “outward" to an empirical world. Language was structure-not function; it was form-not substance. The rewards of structuralism are significant. His theorizing led to the phonology of Jakobson (1962) and the generative syntax of Chomsky (1957). And his semiotics or “science of signs" had made great headway in understanding ver bal and nonverbal modes of communication: images, musical sounds, rituals, and social conventions all constitute fascinating systems of meanings. Saussure was the intellectual impetus for relegation language to the realm of internal logic and structural mechanisms that had little concern for the vicissitudes of language in context, or of how people actually use language to accomplish social goals.
References
［１］Ellis, Donald G. (1992). From language to communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
［２］Lrystal, David. (1985). Linguistics. New York : Viking Penguin Inc. ［３］Hu Zhuanglin & Runqing Liu. (1989). Linguistics: A Course Book. Beijing: Peking University Press.
［４］Saussure , Ferdinand de. (1960). Course in General Linguistics. Beijing: China Social Science Publishing House.