Saussure&Chomsky
Saussure句法学
Saussure句法学
索绪尔(Saussure 1972)主张把语言学限定为语言(langue)的句法学、音系学和符号学研究。
这一精致的提法使语言学富有成果，但也使语言学成为没有情景依托的学问。
有趣的是，受索绪尔影响的语言学家提倡采用抽象概括的方法获得客观真理，并宣称在这方面获得了科学成就，但这种成功却主要来自他们的概括性发现发表之后产生的出乎意料的社会文化影响。
索绪尔的语言学思想及其普遍研究在扩展基础教育受众群体、提供统一民族语言标准、提高全民教育效率、助长依赖可靠记录的官僚体制以及最近的实现基于网络和计算机的文字处理等方面均有推动作用。
然而，为了抽象分析之便而把语言研究的对象限定在可控的狭小范围之内，不承认语言的本意就是言语(parole，langage，实际上拉丁语词根lingua的意思即是“舌头”)，会导致语言学对文本、谈话、行为之间的协调关系以及语言对事实的社会建构等更广阔的图景视而不见。
Saussure
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. Leonard 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. Jonathan 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 forsynchronic 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: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. Parole, 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 ledto 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 characterized 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 rel ationship 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 ide as. “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 verbal 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.。
索绪尔
价值要通过语言单位在系统中的关系或者说差别来体现，孤立地谈价值是不现实也是不可能的。“也就是说绝对孤立的、没有其他任何参照的所指关系及由此构成的语言符号是不存在的。从这个意义上讲，价值是一种关系，是一种对立，是系统的产物。”[4](p351)因为“任何要素的价值都是由围绕着它的要素决定的。”[1](p162)这说明语言要素本身并无价值，其价值要在系统中由其它要素及其关系来体现。例如：“生”孤立地看并没有价值，只有通过与“死”之间的对立关系才能体现其价值，无“生”就无所谓“死”，无“死”就无所谓“生”。这里事实上已经蕴含了语义场的概念，即生死反义词语义场。同时，“在同一种语言内部，所有表达相邻近观念的词都是互相限制的。”[1](p160)这也可以理解为：在同一种语言内部，所有表达相邻近的观念的词都是互补的。在互补中体现限制，在互补中体现对立，在对立和限制中体现差别，在差别中体现各自的价值。这在同义词中表现得最为突出，例如现代汉语同义词“看”、“瞧”、“瞅”、“张”、“望”、“瞜”、“盯”、“瞄”、“瞪”、“瞥”、“瞟”、“观”、“视”、“睃”等，虽然同是表示“观看”义，但在具体语用中却又各司其职，进而体现它们之间的对立，显现出各自的价值。比如“瞟”是“斜着眼睛看”，多用于口语中。这就显现出“瞟”与其他观看类词的差别和对立，既限制了其它观看类词语涉足“瞟”的语义语用领域，又是对整个观看类语义系统的补充，这就是其价值之所在。正如Thibault所指出的“价值是产生意义的潜能，它通过差别得以体现，这种差别存在于语言系统中的所有要素，是从具体使用中抽象出来的”。[5](p165)
(三)从整体符号解析语言的价值
把语言符号作为一个整体来探讨其价值，即将能指与所指结合成一个符号实体，探求语言符号系统及符号与符号之间的关系、对立与差别。索绪尔将这看成是积极的事实，而将分开来看的能指与所指的差别看成是消极的事实。“所指和能指分开来考虑虽然都纯粹是表示差别的和消极的，但它们的结合却是积极的事实。”[1](p167)语言符号是由能指和所指构成的价值系统，要了解这个价值系统，应该从在语言运行中其作用的概念和音响形象两个方面入手。但概念和音响形象都是浑然之物，语言就是在这两个浑然之物之间形成时制订出它的单位的，这才是真正的积极的事实。在索绪尔看来，所指与能指的差别是一一对应的，能指发生变化了，所指也会发生变化，进而导致整个符号的价值发生变化。“事实上，绝对的不变性是没有的；语言的任何部分都会发生变化。”[1](p194)这体现出价值的相对性，这种相对性又反映出语言符号的任意性和社会规约性。“符号的任意性又可以使我们更好地了解为什么社会事实能够独自创造一个语言系统。价值只依习惯和普遍同意而存在，所以要确定价值就一定要有集体，个人是不能确定任何价值的。”[1](p159)
索绪尔的语言学说
索绪尔的语言学说
❖ 例一：
❖ 中古汉语 有36/35个 声母。它 们是：
发音部 位旧名
发音部 位新名
唇 重唇 音 轻唇 舌 舌头 音 舌上
齿齿 头
音正 齿
牙音
双唇 唇齿 舌尖中 舌面前 舌尖前
舌面前 舌叶音 舌面后
喉
喉音
舌根
音
半元音
半 舌 音 舌尖边
半 齿索绪音尔的语鼻言齿学音说
❖ 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）。
索绪尔的语言学说
❖ 20世纪80年代 ： 漂亮妹妹——英俊哥哥
❖ 20世纪90年代： 靓妹——酷哥
❖ 20世纪90年代末—21世纪初： 美眉——靓仔 美女——帅哥
❖ 语词（声音）-->所指（概念）-->指称（现 实）。
❖ 语言切分现实从而使现实清晰显现，是从人的 层次上来说的：对人来说，现实在语词的水平 上成象。“通过语词（概念，所指，而所指与施 指又是“一张纸的正反两面”，合于语言符号之 中）的中介，人达到对现实的一种理解。
❖ 索绪尔反对语词和现成事物一一对应的关系， 反对我们假定“有现成的、先于词而存在的概念。
在语言的机构中一切要素在语言的机构中一切要素都是按照组合关系和聚合关系运行的都是按照组合关系和聚合关系运行的在我们的记忆中常保存着各种类型的句段有的复杂些有的不很复杂不管是什么种类或长度如何使用时就让各种联想集合参加进来以便决定我们的选择
❖ 一 索绪尔（Saussure，1857-1913）的生平 ❖ 二 《普通语言学教程》的主要内容 ❖ 三 索绪尔语言学说对后代的影响
索绪尔Saussure
语言langue索绪尔称系统规则为“语言”（langue)，而系统的任何一次出现形态为“言语”(parole)。
更确切的说法是深层结构（deep structure)与表层结构（surface structure)。
深层结构是任何系统能发挥作用的关键，因此索绪尔对符号学发展的贡献，往往被称作“系统论”（systematics)。
系统的任何状态都只是一种暂时的显现方式，系统保证了动态变化中的延续。
能指 signifier索绪尔(Ferdinandde Saussure)把符号视为能指与所指的结合。
能指是符号的可感知部分，在不十分严格地讨论符号学时，符号也就是符号的能指。
所指signified索绪尔把符号视为能指与所指的结合。
如果一定要给所指下一个定义，就是能指所指出的东西，就是能指所指向的东西。
外延/ 内涵 denotation/ connotation或指称和意义，其区别最早由穆勒(John Stuart Mill)提出，对应于其他逻辑学家所说的extension和intension之间的区别。
外延是适合某个符号的直接指称，也就是皮尔斯说的“对象”。
内涵则是对象各种属性的总和，包括暗示意义。
内涵实际上是没有边界的，可以无限延伸。
任意性 arbitrariness符号过程到底凭借什么力量，把表意引向某种特定对象特定意义上去？索绪尔把符号与意义的这种连接关系称为“任意性”，他说任意性是“语言符号本质的第一原则”(Saussure1969:61)。
索绪尔提出的任意性原则是任何符号普适的，他说“将要建立的符号学”的对象“是以符号任意性为基础的全体系统”（Saussure1969: 65):任意性原则不仅支配语言，而且支配所有符号系统。
符号是“不透明”的，自身不能导向意义，必须依靠约定俗成来确定意义。
系统性systemacity结构主义的核心问题，不是“结构”，而是“系统”。
系统是各成分关联构成一个整体，而不是各成分的简单累积：系统大于成分之和，也就是说，一旦进入系统，组分除了自己的功能，还获得了“系统功能”。
索绪尔语言学六个观点英文版
索绪尔语言学六个观点英文版(1) The first question is the difference between speech activity langage, speech parole, and langue. Saussure believes that conversation spans the fields of physics, physiology, and psychology, and it also belongs to the field of individuals and society. Speech activity consists of two parts. The first part is the main one, which is actually the future of society and the language of individuals. This research is purely psychological. The second part is secondary, it takes the personal part of speech activity, that is speech, which includes pronunciation as the object of study, and it is psychophysical. T o use an analogy, language can be said to be a score, and speech is a performance.(2) The second aspect refers to the fact that language is a symbol system. Another metaphor that needs to be used here is that language can be said to be an algebra with only complex terms. The combination of the concept and the sound image is called the sign, the concept is called the signified signifie, and the sound image is called the signifier signifiant. So what are the characteristics of this essentially mental language symbol?Saussure pointed out two characteristics:A. The sign is arbitrary, which means that it is unarguable, that is, it is arbitrary for the referent that has no natural connection with it in real life. Since the symbols are arbitrary, why don't we see the pervasive suddenchanges in the speech that these symbols make up?There are four factors that hinder this change, the first is the arbitrariness of the sign, which in itself actually makes language shun all attempts to make it change, and the second, that constitutes any language, it must be The fact that there are a large number of symbols makes it difficult to change the symbols, and thirdly, the nature of the language system is too complex, because the system is complex, and people have to think deeply to master it. The fourth is collective inertia, which will produce a resistance to all language innovations. Among all social systems, "language is the least suitable for innovation, it is integrated with the life of the public, and the latter is inherently Inertness is a conservative factor. Language has a stable nature not only because it is tied to the collective rock, but also because it is in time. These two things are inseparable. Whenever there is an association with the past, there is an impediment to freedom of choice."B. The linearity of the signifier, the signifier belongs to the auditory nature and can only be expanded in time, and has the characteristics of borrowing time. First, it reflects a length, and second, this length can only be in one dimension, on Determination, it is a straight line, which is as important as the law of the arbitrariness of signs, upon which the whole apparatus of language depends.(3) The difference between internal linguistics and externallinguistics. Saussure used chess as a metaphor in many places. For example, he said, replacing wooden pieces with ivory pieces, this change is irrelevant to the system, but if the number of pieces is reduced or increased, this change will deeply affect the game. Following a rule, he proposed, "everything that changes the system in any way is internal.(4) The systemicity of language and the value of symbols. The symbols of language are not purely the facts of language, but the constituent elements of the system. This system represents language. The function of the symbols entering the system is determined by the relationship between the various elements of the system. Language is a system, and all the elements in this system form a whole. Here Saussure once again uses the metaphor of chess. He believes that chess can be attributed to the position of each piece, language is a system based only on the opposition of his specific units, and the state of playing chess is equivalent to the state of language. , the value of each piece is determined by their position on the chessboard. Similarly, in language, each element has its value because it is in opposition to other elements."The system is always only temporary, and will change from one state to another, and it is true that the value is also determined first of all by the unchanging statute, that is, the rules of chess, which existed before the start of chess, and are played every time. After a chess move, it continues to exist, and language also has such a rule that oncerecognized, it exists forever, and that is the eternal rule of semiotics.”Saussure put forward that "language is a form, not an entity. The concept of value is the basic concept of Saussure's linguistics. The concept of identity is often combined with the concept of value. Value contains units, concrete entities and reality. The concept of value. Since value determines the function of symbols, the concept of value is one of the concepts with pivotal significance in the system of Saussure's linguistics.(5) The fifth is synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics. Saussure distinguished between synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics. He believes that the synchronic and diachronic views are in opposition to each other, and no compromise is allowed. At the same time, Saussure believes that the synchronic idea is more important than the diachronic idea, because to the speaker, "it is the real, the only reality.I also disagree on this point.(6) He proposes the distinction between segmental and associative relations, which is also a very important distinction. Bloomfield praised Saussure for providing a theoretical basis for the new direction of language research, which is modern linguistics, so we have repeatedly emphasized that Saussure is the Auki of modern linguistics.。
索绪尔 能指和所指问题
索绪尔语言学中的能指与所指吕源弗迪南德索绪尔（Ferdinand de Saussure，1857年11月26日- 1913年2月22日）是现代语言学之父。
索绪尔祖籍法国，但是却出生在瑞士。
他自1907年开始将受‘普通语言学’课程，先后讲过三次。
其代表作《普通语言学教程》是他的讲稿，由他的学生们在索绪尔去世后于1916年整理出版。
（真是伟大）。
这部著作据说在语言学界引起了‘哥白尼’式的革命，一举奠定了二十世纪现代语言学基础。
这不仅是一部语言学的开山之作，而且也是哲学中结构主义流派的重要思想来源。
（在多说一句：2013年将是索绪尔逝世100周年纪念日，而2016年将是他那部划时代的《普通语言学教程》出版100周年。
这两个日子的重大意义不仅限于语言学，而且对其他学科的学者来说，特别是哲学家，也属于划时代的纪念日。
）索绪尔索绪尔在语言学方面的成就可用博大精深来形容。
索绪尔认为语言符号是概念和音响形象的结合。
他将言语活动分成‘语言’(langue)和‘言语’(parole)两部分。
语言是言语活动的社会部分，不受个人意志支配，是社会成员共有的，是一种社会现象。
而言语则试验与火中受个人意志支配的部分，它带有个人发音、用词、造句的特点。
因为语言具有统一作用，因此虽然个人的特点不同，但是同一社团中的成员都可以相互沟通。
索绪尔进而指出，语言具有内部要素和外部要素。
因此，语言研究又可以分为内部语言学和外部语言学。
内部语言学研究语言本身的结构系统，而外部语言学则关注语言与民族、文化、地理、历史等方面的联系。
索绪尔最有影响力，也是最为人熟悉的概念当属他将语言符号定义为两面实体(dyad)。
其中的一面他称之为‘能指’(signifier)，而另一面为‘所指’(signified)。
比较通俗地解释，能指是音响形象，属于语言的纯物质层面。
所指却是心理概念。
如果我们以英语的‘cat’为例，那么cat由能指/c/a/和/t/组成，而‘猫’的概念就是所指。
Saussure and Chomsky 区别
Both Saussure and Chomsky make the distinctionbetween the abstract language system and the actual useof language. their purpose is to single out the languagesystem for serious study. Two linguists idea differ in thatSaussure took a sociological view of language, Chomskylooks at language from a psychological point of view, competence is a property of the mind of each individual.Similar to Saussure, Chomsky thinks what linguist shouldstudy is the ideal speaker’s competence, and the task oflinguists is to discover and specify the rules of language.We can see that Saussure's distinction between "langue" and "parole" is similar to Chomsky's distinctionbetween COMPETENCE and PERFORMANCE.Saussure to mean the system of a language, that is the arrangement of sounds and words which speakers of alanguage have a shared knowledge of or, as Saussure said,"agree to use". Langue is the "ideal" form of a language.Saussure called the actual use of language by people inspeech or writing "parole". He looks at language more froma sociological point of view.Chomsky thinks that he object of investingation inlinguistics is the ideal speaker’s competence, not hisperformance; that is, we must discover what an ideal sheaker knows of his native language. Chamsky also believes that one’s linguistic competence must be a set of rules which can be applied over and over again to generate large number of sentences, including sentences he has never heard before. He looks at language more from a psychological point of view.These are the distinctions between Chomsky and Saussure.教育一班0962010707杨佩玲。
Saussure
对索绪尔思想的认识过程
• 3.再认识时期。经过70-80年代的再认识 过程，索绪尔丰富的思想内涵被解释了 出来。“结构主义解读”，“语言系统 理论”的解读，“符号学”式的解读。 • 4.重新认识时期。对前人关于索绪尔研究 结论的重新审视以及新的发现。社会-符 号元理论思想，“结构-功能”式的解读。
对索绪尔思想的认识过程
• 1. 传播时期 从《教程》1916年出版至50 年代，近三十年的时 间里，Saussure的语言学理论并未引起极大震动和广泛 认同。许多学者包括Meillet、Yespersen 等这些名家都 持谨慎或否定的态度。《教程》的性质和地位问题被 提了出来。该时期学术界并未对Saussure作出公正的评 价。 • 2. 重要的发现时期 50-60年代这一时期的考证研究过程通常被称为 “索绪尔语言学思想的重新发现”时期。这一时期对 索绪尔的研究实际上是《教程》的文本研究，也可以 说是对《教程》做了“语文学”式的解读。虽然这种 研究并未对Saussure思想体系作深入探索，但它证实了 《教程》的“真实性”，从而成为索绪尔研究的转折 点。
索绪尔留给语言学的遗产
• 1.语言研究的对象不是给定的而是建构的 语言研究的对象不是预先给定的， 是先有观点而后有研究对象。即“所采 用的观点创造了研究对象”。 索绪尔首 先指出语言是一种社会惯例，但不同于 其他社会惯例，它是表达概念的符号系 统（To communicate ideas, they must be part of a system of conventions, part of a system of signs）。语言具有社会符号的 性质，表现在它具有符号性、社会性和 规约性。
----Forefather of Modern Linguistics
瑞士语言学家saussure将文字体系
瑞士语言学家saussure将文字体系瑞士语言学家Ferdinand de Saussure（1857年6月26日至1913年2月22日）是一位重要的语言学家，他提出了一个称为“语言系统”（ou sémiologie）的新理论。
这个理论主要关注语言内部的“内在结构”和“外在投影”，并把文字体系纳入认知语言学中。
Saussure的理论的一个主要概念就是语言的“系统性”。
他认为，语言在各个方面都具有相应的系统性，而不是单一的代表性或特征性。
他提出，语言的各个部分都是相关联的，因此语言可以看作是一个完整的体系。
换句话说，语言的各个部分都会影响彼此，对语义和表达能力也会产生影响。
Saussure还强调了文字体系的重要性。
他提出，文字体系是一个统一的概念，它由可能的字符和可能的意义组成。
文字体系是一个统一的系统，它把词的声音，义项和义象整合到一起，构成一个完全的体系。
通过文字体系，我们可以理解多义词的不同意义，以及它们在某种上下文中的潜在意义。
Saussure还指出，文字体系由不同类型的元素组成，如语音、语义、义项和义象等。
他把文字体系分为两个主要部分：语音体系和意义体系。
语音体系包括词汇、句法和语音特征；而意义体系则是一个抽象的概念，涉及共同认知和储存有关词汇意义的信息。
同时，文字体系也涉及到上下文以及文字之间的关系，因此，文字体系不同于单纯的语音体系。
Saussure的文字体系的理论受到广泛的好评，并被认为是现代语言学的重要基础。
他的文字体系理论激发了许多学者进行深入的语言研究，从而推动了认知语言学的发展。
现代的文字分析还借鉴了Saussure的研究，以便更好地理解语言的本质。
Saussure
2) langue is a generally accepted way of communication. parole is simply a personal choice . 3) langue is relatively fixed and parole is temporary.
2.2: Synchronic and Diachronic
• ‘Synchrony is a fiction, for language changes as the minutes pass and grammar-writing is a lengthy enterprise. However, the fiction of synchronic description is essential of linguistics’ (Fowler)
2.1: Langue and Parole
a) Langue refers to the abstract linguistic system
shared by all the members of a speech community .
Parole refers to the realization of langue in actual use. b) The difference between langue and parole is obvious.
sound pattern. Langue without parole, can only express
very limited ideas. • In linguistics study, langue is the goal and parole is the tool. From the collection and analysis of parole, we could have an insight of the langue.
社会语言学
游汝杰、邹嘉彦 指出社会语言学（Sociolinguistics）学科名称是由社会学（Sociology）和语言学（Linguistics）复合而成，内容包括两个方面，一是Social Linguistics，基本涵义是：从语言的社会属性出发，用社会学的方法研究语言，从社会的角度解释语言变体和语言演变。二是Sociology of Language，基本涵义是：从语言变体和语言演变的事实，来解释相关的社会现象及其演变和发展的过程。 从研究方向来界定社会语言学，简而言之，前者是从社会研究语言，后者是从语言研究社会。
祝畹瑾
祝畹瑾 她将研究内容细分为五个方面：（1）一个国家或地区的语言状况，和按照各种属性划分的言语共同体使用语言的状况和特征；（2）各种语言变体的构造特点及其社会功能；（3）交谈的情景与选择语码之间的关系以及语码选择与人际关系的相互作用；（4）社会以及不同的集团对各种语言变体的评价和态度以及由此产生的社会效应；（5）由于社会的、文化的、经济的政治的种种原因以及语言接触所引起的语言变化的方式和规律等。 她的界定主要是关注言语共同体、语言变体、语码转换、社会与变体的联系这几个方面。
Sociolinguistics is an umbrella term which covers a variety of different interests in language and society,including the social functions of language and the social characteristics of its users.Sociolinguistics is the studyguage varieties,the characteristics of their functions,and the characteristics of their speakers as these three constantly interact and change within a speechIseeks to discover the societal rules and norms that explain and constrain language behaviour and the behaviour toward language in speech also seeks to determine the symbolic value of language varieties for their speakers.That language varieties come to have symbolic or symptomatic value,in and of themselves,is an inevitable consequence of their functional differentiation.(Reproduction of this article without written permission is strictly prohibited.contact me via email if you want to copy this eassay: This essay is taken from"Linguistics.A Course Book" Editor in chief:胡壮麟Subeditor:姜望琪 资料来源：《语言学教程》 主编：胡壮麟 副主编：姜望琪)
索绪尔
索绪尔1.人物介绍索绪尔，全名：费尔迪南·德·索绪尔（Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913），瑞士语言学家。
祖籍法国。
1857年11月26日生于瑞士日内瓦。
1876年，进入德国莱比锡大学。
1878 年发表论文《印欧语的原始元音系统》，被誉为“历史语言学中杰出的篇章”。
1881年在巴黎高等研究所教古代语言和历史比较语言学。
1891年，应日内瓦大学的聘请，教印欧系古代语言和历史比较语言学。
1907～1912年讲授普通语言学，首创这一学科。
1913年3月22日卒于澳洲。
享年56岁。
他把语言学塑造成为一门影响巨大的独立学科，他认为语言是基于符号及意义的一门科学，现在一般通称为符号学，他从1907年始讲授“普通语言学”课程，先后讲过三次。
2.索绪尔语言理论的要点可以概括如下：①语言和言语。
索绪尔把言语活动分成“语言”(langue)和“言语”（parole）两部分。
语言是言语活动中的社会部分，它不受个人意志的支配，是社会成员共有的，是一种社会心理现象。
言语是言语活动中受个人意志支配的部分，它带有个人发音、用词、造句的特点。
但是不管个人的特点如何不同，同一社团中的个人都可以互通，这是因为有语言的统一作用的缘故。
索绪尔进而指出，语言有内部要素和外部要素，因此语言研究又可以分为内部语言学和外部语言学。
内部语言学研究语言本身的结构系统，外部语言学研究语言与民族、文化、地理、历史等方面的关系。
索绪尔主张，研究语言学，首先是研究语言的系统（结构），开结构主义的先河。
②语言的能指和所指。
他认为语言是一种符号系统，符号由“能指”（Signifiant）和“所指”（ Signifie ）两部分组成。
所指的就是概念。
能指是声音的心理印迹，或音响形象。
索绪尔又指出，语言符号有两个特性：①符号的任意性；②符号构成的线性序列，话只能一词一句地说，不能几句话同时说。
同时，索绪尔又有两点补充：①语言始终是社会成员每人每时都在使用的系统，说话者只是现成地接受，因此具有很大的持续性。
Saussure 生平及理论简介
Onomatopoeia: words that sound like the sounds they describe,e.g in Chinese 叮咚， 轰隆，叽里咕噜 and in English hiss(snakes),twitter(swallows),croak(frogs)
As a matter of fact,arbitrary and onomatopoeic effect may work at the same time. The poem also demonstrates very clearly the concept of the sign as a two sided psychological entity, since it is impossible to read the nonsense words without assigning a possible meaning to them.
Point 1
It is Saussure's argument that it is only the consistency in the system of signs that allows communication of the concept each sign signifies.
English idioms such as as cool as a cucumber(极为冷静)， to have one’s heart in
one’s mouth(战战兢兢) may not look or sound logical but we cannot change the expressions any other way ,for it is conventional to say things in this way.
英语语言学概论Saussure and Chomsky1
Saussure’s Linguistic Structuralism
• Langue and Parole 语言和言语
• Synchronic and Diachronic 共时和历时
• Sign, Signifier and Signified 符号，能指和所指
• Language and Mind(1968) 《语言和心灵》
• Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar(1972) 《生成语法的语义学研究》
• Reflections on Language（1975） 《语言论》
Chomsky’s Linguistic Theories
• It was posthumously published in 1916. • It is considered Saussure’s most influential work. • His ideas in this book leave a monumental impact.
"A linguistic system is a series of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas."
Differences
• Chomsky‘s language competence is a psychological construct.
• Saussure’s langue is a set of social conventions.
THANK YOU
Similarties
• Represent a similar classification of knowledge and behavior and a similar dichotomy of the scope of linguistic inquiry。
2011-2012学年语言学下册Saussure
What is Structuralism?
Structuralists are interested in the interrelationship between UNITS, also called "surface phenomena," and RULES, which are the ways that units can be put together. In language, the units are words; the rules are the forms of grammar which order words.
Langue
is the set of conventions and rules which language users all have to abide by, Parole is the concrete use of the conventions and the application of the rules.
Thirdly, traditional grammar has been restricted mainly to SYNTAX, that is, the way of words making patterns to form sentences, while linguistics has a boarder scope for researching, eg. pragmatics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, ect. which, accordingly, are out of the scope of traditional grammar. The modern linguistics differs from traditional grammar in that it does not force language into a Latin-based framewrok. It is wrong to judge one language by standards of another