Structuralism: Ferdinand De Saussure's theory of meaning

1. Semantics
Ferdinand de Saussure’s Theory of Meaning

2. Introduction
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), often regarded as the father of modern
structural linguistics, revolutionized the study of language with his groundbreaking
ideas. His influential work, Course in General Linguistics (1916), introduced a
structuralist approach to language, emphasizing the relationship between signs
and their meanings within a linguistic system. This theory laid the foundation for
semiotics (the study of signs), which has had a lasting impact on linguistics,
anthropology, cultural studies, and literary criticism.

3. Key Concepts in Saussure’s Theory
of Meaning

4. Langue and Parole
● Saussure differentiates between langue (language as a system) and parole (individual
use). Langue refers to the shared system of rules, conventions, and structures that
speakers of a language unconsciously follow. Parole, on the other hand, refers to
individual instances of speaking or writing. For example, if you hear the phrase "I am
going to the store", the rules that govern how this sentence is structured belong to the
system of langue, while the actual speaking of the sentence in a particular moment is
parole.
● Saussure's distinction emphasizes that language is a social system, not a purely
individual creation. When we analyze a piece of writing or speech, we are seeing how
the individual's parole interacts with the broader system of langue. In other words,
Saussure emphasizes that it is langue, the shared system, that gives meaning to
parole.

5. The Linguistic Sign: Signifier and Signified
In Saussure's theory, a linguistic sign consists of two parts: the signifier (the form,
such as a sound or written symbol) and the signified (the concept it represents). For
example, the word tree is the signifier, while the mental concept of a tree is the
signified.
This relationship is arbitrary—there is no inherent reason why the sequence of
sounds t-r-e-e should represent the concept of a tree. Different languages have
different signifiers for the same concept (e.g., arbre in French, baum in German),
which further illustrates the arbitrary nature of this relationship. What matters is that
speakers of a language agree on these associations.

6. Examples:
1. Dog: In English, the word dog is the signifier, and the concept of a four-legged
domestic animal is the signified. However, in other languages, different signifiers
are used for the same concept:
● In French: chien
● In Spanish: perro
● In Arabic: kalb
2. Water: The word water in English signifies the liquid that we drink, but again,
different languages use different signifiers:
● In French: eau
● In German: wasser
● In Japanese: mizu

7. 3. House: In English, house refers to a building for people to live in, but the
signifiers vary across languages:
● In Spanish: casa
● In French: maison
● In Urdu: ghar
In each of these examples, there is no natural connection between the sound or
the written symbol of the word and the concept it represents. The link exists
because the speakers of that particular language community have agreed upon
the association. This arbitrariness is a key aspect of Saussure's theory,
highlighting that meaning is derived from conventions within the language system
rather than from any inherent connection between words and their reference.

8. Arbitrariness of the Sign
One of Saussure's most critical contributions was his assertion that the
relationship between the signifier and signified is arbitrary—there is no inherent or
natural connection between a word and its meaning. This means that different
languages have different words for the same concept, and there is no universal or
"true" name for anything.
Example: The English word "sky" refers to the blue expanse above us, but in
French, it is "ciel," and in German, it is "himmel." Each of these words arbitrarily
represents the same concept, but none of them has a natural link to the idea of the
sky.

9. System of Differences
● According to Saussure, meaning in language comes from the differences between
signs, not from any inherent connection between signifier and signified. This is
evident in how words contrast with each other. For instance, the word cat is different
from cut or bat because of the differences in both sound and meaning.
● An analogy Saussure used to explain this system of differences involves train
schedules. A specific train, like the "8:25 Paris express," is not defined by its physical
components (the train cars or engine) but by its place in the schedule in relation to
other trains (e.g., it is the 8:25 train because it is not the 7:25 or the 9:25 train).
Similarly, words derive their meaning from their relationship to other words within the
system.

10. Binary Oppositions and differences
Saussure explains that language operates through binary oppositions—pairs of
contrasting elements, such as light and dark or hot and cold. These oppositions
help us to make sense of the world by structuring our experience of concepts. In
language, this can be seen in the contrast between phonemes or even in the
broader conceptual oppositions that shape meaning.

11. Saussure argued that meaning in language is derived not from the inherent
qualities of signs but from their differences from other signs. A word does not have
meaning in isolation but gains meaning through its relation to other words in the
system. Language is structured through binary oppositions, where meaning arises
from contrasts between elements.
Example: The word "cat" has meaning because it is distinct from similar-sounding
words like "bat," "pat," or "rat." The differences in sound and meaning between
these words allow speakers to distinguish between the concepts they represent.

12. Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Relations
Language operates on two axes: the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic. The
syntagmatic axis refers to the linear combination of words in a sentence (the
sequence in which words are arranged), while the paradigmatic axis refers to the
set of possible choices that can replace a word in a sentence (words that can
substitute for one another).
Syntagmatic Axis: The way words combine to form a sentence (e.g., "The cat
plays with a ball"). This axis follows grammatical rules and determines how
meaning is built up in a sequence.

13. Paradigmatic Axis: The choices available at each point in the sentence (e.g.,
"The cat" could be replaced by "The dog," changing the meaning). This axis refers
to how meaning can shift depending on the words selected.
Example: In the sentence "The boy eats an apple," the paradigmatic axis allows
us to replace "boy" with "girl," "eats" with "throws," or "apple" with "orange,"
creating different meanings each time.

14. Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Language
● The synchronic approach focuses on studying language at a specific point in
time. It analyzes the structure and relationships between elements of
language (words, sounds, grammar) without considering historical changes or
evolution.
● The diachronic approach, on the other hand, examines the historical
development and changes of language over time. It looks at how words,
sounds, and grammatical structures evolve. E.g., Tracing how the word
“knight” in English changed from “cniht” in Old English to its modern form, or
how the sounds of vowels shifted over centuries (like in the Great Vowel
Shift).

15. ● Saussure emphasized that synchronic analysis examines the system of
language (langue) as a stable structure, where meaning is derived from the
relationships between signs at that given moment.
● Saussure favored the synchronic approach for understanding the
underlying system of language because it emphasized how meaning is
constructed through the current relationships between signs, without being
influenced by historical changes. This synchronic perspective is central to
structuralism, where the focus is on how the structure of language creates
meaning rather than how it has evolved.

16. Language Shapes Reality
● One of Saussure’s most groundbreaking ideas is that language shapes our
perception of reality. Language is not merely a passive reflection of the world around
us but an active system that structures how we understand and interact with it.
● Saussure’s theory challenges the notion that language is a direct reflection of reality.
Instead, he argued that language shapes our perception of reality.
● The words we use to describe the world influence what we notice and how we
interpret our experiences. For example, the way different cultures classify and label
colors can affect how speakers of those languages perceive color.
● Example: The distinctions between "sheep" and "mutton" in English reflect different
aspects of reality (the living animal and its meat), whereas in French, the word
"mouton" refers to both. This shows how language influences the way people
perceive and categorize the world around them.

17. Conclusion
Saussure’s theory of language reveals that meaning is not
inherent in words but arises from the structure of language
itself, through relations and differences between signs. This
insight has had profound implications not only for linguistics
but also for the humanities and social sciences.