language, a
system of conventional spoken or written symbols by means of which human
beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. The functions of
language include communication, the expression of identity, play,
imaginative expression, and emotional release.
Characteristics
of language
Definitions
of language
Many definitions of language have been
proposed. Henry Sweet, an English phonetician and
language scholar, stated: “Language is the expression of ideas by means of
speech-sounds combined into words. Words are combined into sentences, this
combination answering to that of ideas into thoughts.” The American
linguists Bernard Bloch and George L. Trager
formulated the following definition: “A language is a system of arbitrary vocal
symbols by means of which a social group cooperates.” Any succinct definition of language makes a number of presuppositions and begs a number of
questions. The first, for example, puts excessive weight on “thought,” and the
second uses “arbitrary” in a specialized, though legitimate, way.
A number of considerations enter into a proper
understanding of language as a subject:
1. Every physiologically and mentally normal
person acquires in childhood the ability to make use, as both speaker and
hearer, of a system of vocal communication that comprises a circumscribed set of
noises resulting from movements of certain organs within the throat and mouth.
By means of these noises, people are able to impart information, to express
feelings and emotions, to influence the activities of others, and to comport
themselves with varying degrees of friendliness or hostility toward persons who
make use of substantially the same set of noises.
2. Different systems of vocal communication
constitute different languages; the degree of difference needed to establish a
different language cannot be stated exactly. No two people speak exactly alike;
hence, one is able to recognize the voices of friends over the telephone and to
keep distinct a number of unseen speakers in a radio broadcast. Yet, clearly,
no one would say that they speak different languages. Generally, systems of
vocal communication are recognized as different languages if they cannot be
understood without specific learning by both parties, though the precise limits
of mutual intelligibility are hard to draw and belong on a scale rather than on
either side of a definite dividing line. Substantially different systems of
communication that may impede but do not prevent mutual comprehension are
called dialects of a language. In order to describe in
detail the actual different speech patterns of individuals, the term idiolect, meaning the speech habits of a single person, has been
coined.
3. Normally, people acquire a single language
initially—their first language, or mother tongue, the language spoken by their
parents or by those with whom they are brought up from infancy. Subsequent
“second” languages are learned to different degrees of competence under various
conditions. Complete mastery of two languages is designated as bilingualism; in many cases—such as
upbringing by parents speaking different languages at home or being raised
within a multilingual community (a routine experience in Africa and Southeast Asia, for
example)—speakers grow up as bilinguals. In traditionally monolingual cultures,
such as those of Britain and the United States, the learning, to any extent, of
a second or other language is an activity superimposed on the prior mastery of
one’s first language and is a different process intellectually.
4. Language, as described above, is
species-specific to human beings. Other members of the animal kingdom have the
ability to communicate, through vocal noises or by other means, but the most
important single feature characterizing human language (that is,
every individual language), against every known mode of animal communication, is its infinite productivity and creativity. Human beings are unrestricted
in what they can talk about; no area of experience is accepted as necessarily
incommunicable, though it may be necessary to adapt one’s language in order to
cope with new discoveries or new modes of thought.
Animal communication systems are by
contrast very tightly circumscribed in what may be communicated. Indeed,
displaced reference, the ability to communicate about things outside immediate
temporal and spatial contiguity, which is fundamental to speech, is found
elsewhere only in the so-called language of bees. Bees are able, by carrying out
various conventionalized movements (referred to as bee dances) in or near the
hive, to indicate to others the locations and strengths of nectar sources. But
nectar sources are the only known theme of this communication system.
Surprisingly, however, this system, nearest to human language in function,
belongs to a species remote from man in the animal kingdom and is achieved by
very different physiological activities from those involved in speech. On the
other hand, the animal performance superficially most like human speech, the
mimicry of parrots and of some other birds that have been kept in the company
of humans, is wholly derivative and serves no independent communicative
function. Humankind’s nearest relatives among the primates, though possessing a
vocal physiology similar to that of humans, have not developed anything like a
spoken language. Attempts to teach sign language to chimpanzees and other apes through
imitation have achieved limited success, though the interpretation of the
significance of ape signing ability remains controversial.
5. In most accounts, the primary purpose of
language is to facilitate communication, in the sense of transmission of
information from one person to another. However, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic studies have drawn attention to a range of
other functions for language. Among these is the use of language to express a
national or local identity (a common source of conflict in situations of
multiethnicity around the world, such as in Belgium, India, and Quebec). Also important are the “ludic”
(playful) function of language—encountered in such phenomena as puns, riddles, and crossword puzzles—and the range of functions seen in
imaginative or symbolic contexts, such as poetry, drama, and religious expression.
Language interacts with every aspect of human life in society, and it can be understood
only if it is considered in relation to society. This article attempts to survey language (both spoken
and written) in this light and to consider its various functions and the
purposes it can and has been made to serve. Because each language is both a
working system of communication in the period and in the community wherein it is used
and also the product of its history and the source of its future development,
any account of language must consider it from both these points of view.
The science of language is known as linguistics. It includes what are generally distinguished
as descriptive linguistics and historical linguistics. Linguistics is now a highly technical
subject; it embraces, both descriptively and historically, such major divisions
as phonetics, grammar (includingsyntax and morphology), semantics, and pragmatics, dealing in detail with these various aspects
of language.
Characteristics and Features of Language
Language is, today, an inseparable part of human
society. Human civilization has been possible only through language. It is
through language only that humanity has come out of the stone age and has
developed science, art and technology in a big way. Language is a means
of communication, it is arbitrary, it is a system of systems. We know that
Speech is primary while writing is secondary.
Language is human
so it differs from animal communication in several ways. Language can
have scores of characteristics but the following are the most important ones:
language is arbitrary, productive, creative, systematic, vocalic, social,
non-instinctive and conventional. These characteristics of language set human
language apart from animal communication. Some of these features may be part of
animal communication; yet they do not form part of it in total.
Language
is Arbitrary: Language is
arbitrary in the sense that there is no inherent relation between the words of
a language and their meanings or the ideas conveyed by them. There is no reason
why a female adult human being be called a woman in English, aurat in Urdu, Zen
in Persian and Femine in French. The choice of a word selected to mean a
particular thing or idea is purely arbitrary but once a word is selected for a
particular referent, it comes to stay as such. It may be noted that had
language not been arbitrary, there would have been only one language in the
world.
Language
is Social: Language is a
set of conventional communicative signals used by humans for communication in a
community. Language in this sense is a possession of a social group, comprising
an indispensable set of rules which permits its members to relate to each
other, to interact with each other, to co-operate with each other; it is a
social institution. Language exists in society; it is a means of nourishing and
developing culture and establishing human relations.
Language
is Symbolic: Language
consists of various sound symbols and their graphological counterparts that are
employed to denote some objects, occurrences or meaning. These symbols are
arbitrarily chosen and conventionally accepted and employed. Words in a
language are not mere signs or figures, but symbols of meaning. The
intelligibility of a language depends on a correct interpretation of these
symbols.
Language
is Systematic: Although
language is symbolic, yet its symbols are arranged in a particular system. All
languages have their system of arrangements. Every language is a system of
systems. All languages have phonological and grammatical systems, and within a
system there are several sub-systems. For example, within the grammatical
system we have morphological and syntactic systems, and within these two
sub-systems we have systems such as those of plural, of mood, of aspect, of
tense, etc.
Language
is Vocal: Language is
primarily made up of vocal sounds only produced by a physiological articulatory
mechanism in the human body. In the beginning, it appeared as vocal sounds
only. Writing came much later, as an intelligent attempt to represent vocal
sounds. Writing is only the graphic representation of the sounds of the
language. So the linguists say that speech is primary.
Language
is Non-instinctive, Conventional:
No language was created in a day out of a mutually agreed upon formula by a
group of humans. Language is the outcome of evolution and convention. Each
generation transmits this convention on to the next. Like all human
institutions languages also change and die, grow and expand. Every language
then is a convention in a community. It is non-instinctive because it is
acquired by human beings. Nobody gets a language in heritage; he acquires it
because he an innate ability.
Language
is Productive and Creative:
Language has creativity and productivity. The structural elements of human
language can be combined to produce new utterances, which neither the speaker
nor his hearers may ever have made or heard before any, listener, yet which
both sides understand without difficulty. Language changes according to the needs
of society.
Finally, language
has other characteristics such as Duality referring to the two
systems of sound and meaning, Displacement which means the
ability to talk across time and space, Humanness which means
that animals cannot acquire it, Universality which refers to
the equilibrium across humanity on linguistic grounds, Competence and Performance which
means that language is innate and produced is society and furthermore, language
is culturally transmitted. It is learnt by an individual from his elders, and
is transmitted from one generation to another. Thus using J. Firth’s
term, language is a ‘polysystametic’. It is also open to be studied from
multifaceted angles.
|
Language and parole
|
||
|
These are
Saussure's terms. Langue refers to the abstract system of rules and
conventions of a signifying system-it is independent of, and pre-exists,
individual users. Parole refers to concrete instances of its use. To the
Saussurean semiotician, what matters most are the underlying structures and
rules of a semiotic system as a whole rather than specific performances or
practices which are merely instances of its use. Whilst Saussure did not
concern himself with parole, the structure of langue is of course revealed by
the study of parole. Applying the notion to semiotic systems in general
rather than simply to language, the distinction is one between the semiotic
system and its usage in specific texts and practices. For instance, in a
semiotic system such as cinema, any specific film can be seen as the parole
of the underlying system of cinema'language'(although note that the eminent
film theorist Christian Metz rejected the idea of a cinematic langue).
Saussure emphasized the importance of studying the'language-state'synchronically-as
it exists as a relatively stable system during a certain period-rather than
diachronically (studying its evolution).
Description
Langue and
parole are more than just 'language and speech' (although this is a useful
quick way of remembering them).
Langue
La langue is the
whole system of language that precedes and makes speech possible. A sign is a
basic unit of langue.
Learning a
language, we master the system of grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation.
These are all elements of langue.
Langue is a
system in that it has a large number of elements whereby meaning is created
in the arrangements of its elements and the consequent relationships between
these arranged elements.
Parole
Parole is the
concrete use of the language, the actual utterances. It is an external
manifestation of langue. It is the usage of the system, but not the system.
Discussion
By defining
Langue and Parole, Saussure differentiates between the language and how it is
used, and therefore enabling these two very different things to be studied as
separate entities.
As a structuralist, Saussure was interested
more in la langue than parole. It was the system by which meaning could be
created that was of interest rather than individual instances of its use.
Marxist
Mikhail Bakhtin (1929) criticized the splitting of langue and parole as
separating individuals and society where it matters most, at the point of
production. He developed a 'dialogic' theory of utterances where language is
understood in terms of how it orients the speaker/writer to the
listener/reader. Words are subject to negotiation, contest and struggle.
Language is strongly affected by social context.
Modification
of langue at the point of parole is used to create new meaning, either where
the speaker has limited grasp of language or where deliberate distortion is
used.
In linguistics, language as an abstract system of signs (the underlying structure of a language), in contrast to parole, the individual expressions of language (speech acts that are the products of langue).
Etymology:
French
term for "language" as defined by Swiss linguist Ferdinand
de Saussure in Course in
General Linguistics (1916)
Observations:
·
"Saussure
distinguished between;
- langue,
the rules of sign system (which might be grammar) and
- parole, the articulation of signs (for example, speech or writing),
the
sum of which is language:
language
= langue + parole
While langue could
be the rules of, say, English grammar, it does not mean parole always
has to conform to the rules of standard English (what some people erroneously call
'proper' English). Langue is less rigid than the phrase 'set
of rules' implies, it is more a guideline and is inferred from the parole.
Language is often likened to an iceberg: the parole is
visible, but the rules, the supporting structure, are hidden."
(Nick Lacey, Image and Representation: Key Concepts in Media Studies. Palgrave, 1998)
·
"Langue/Parole--The
reference here is to the distinction made by the Swiss linguist Saussure.
Where parole is the realm of the individual moments of
language use, of particular 'utterances' or 'messages,' whether spoken or
written, langue is the system or code (le code de la
langue') which allows the realization of the individual messages. As the
language-system, object of linguistics, langue is thus
totally to be differentiated from language, the heterogeneous
totality with which the linguist is initially faced and which may be studied
from a variety of points of view, partaking as it does of the physical, the
physiological, the mental, the individual and the social. It is precisely by
delimiting its specific object (that is, of the langue, the
system of the language) that Saussure founds linguistics as a science."
(Stephen Heath, Translator's Note in Image-Music-Text by Roland Barthes. Macmillan, 1988)
·
"The
language system [langue] is not a function of the speaking subject, it
is the product which the individual registers passively; it never presupposes
premeditation, and reflection only comes into it for the activity of
classification which will be discussed later."
(Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 1916; translated by Wade Baskin, 1959)
Inter dependency of Langue and Parole
"Saussure's Course does not overlook the importance of reciprocal conditioning between langue and parole. If it is true that langue is implied by parole, parole, on the other hand, takes priority on two levels, namely that of learning and that of development: 'it is in hearing others that we learn our mother tongue; it manages to settle in our brain only after countless experiences. Finally, it is parole that makes langue develop: it is the impressions received by hearing others that alter our linguistic habits. Thus langue and parole are interdependent; the former is both the instrument and the product of the latter' (1952, 27)."
SYNTAGMATIC AND PARADIGMATIC
RELATIONS: LANGUE AS FORM, NOT SUBSTANCE
Saussure distinguishes between the
“syntagmatic” relations a linguistic clement has with the elements preceding
and following it in an utterance, and “associative” (now usually called
paradigmatic) relations it has to other elements with which it shares partial
identity, but which do not occur in the particular utterance at hand. For
example, in the sentence “Crime pays” the clement crime has asyntagmatic
relationship with “pays” that determines, among other things, their order
relative to one another and the fact that pays has the inflectional -s. At
the same time, crime has paradigmatic relations with countless other
elements, including the inflcctionally related crimes, the derivationally
related criminal, the conceptually related misdemeanour (and the conceptually
opposite legality), and the phonetically related “grime”. Langue, Saussure insisted, is form, not
substance.
According
to Saussure the value of each linguistic
sign determined by its relationship to other signs within an utterance
(syntgmatic), and by its relationship to other signs that could replace it in
its position (paradigamtic
relationship –
F. de Saussure himself used the term “associative”).
Saussurean
notion of paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relations became
the hallmark of the 20th century Linguistics: first, because it proposed that
a single principle of structure unites all the levels at which language
functions — sound, forms, and meaning; second, because it suggested a Way of
analyzing language that would not depend on a simple listing of elements with
their “translation” into either another language or some sort of
philosophical interpretation. Elements could henceforth be analyzed according
to the relations they maintained with other elements, and the language could
be understood as the vast system — not of these elements — but of these
relations.
Paradigms and Syntagms
Semiotics is probably best-known as an approach to textual
analysis, and in this form it is characterized by a concern with structural analysis.
Structuralist semiotic analysis involves identifying the constituent units in
a semiotic system (such as a text or socio-cultural practice) and the
structural relationships between them (oppositions, correlations and logical
relations).
 Saussure
was 'concerned exclusively with three sorts of systemic relationships: that
between a signifier and a signified;
those between a sign and all of the other elements of its system; and those
between a sign and the elements which surround it within a concrete
signifying instance' (Silverman 1983, 10). He
emphasized that meaning arises from the differences between signifiers; these
differences are of two kinds: syntagmatic (concerning positioning) and paradigmatic (concerning substitution). Saussure
called the latterassociative relations
(Saussure 1983, 121; Saussure 1974, 122). but
Roman Jakobson's term is now used. The distinction is a key one in
structuralist semiotic analysis. These two dimensions are often presented
as 'axes', where the horizontal axis is the syntagmatic and the vertical axis
is the paradigmatic. The plane of the syntagm is that of the combination of 'this-and-this-and-this'
(as in the sentence, 'the man cried') whilst the plane of the paradigm is
that of the selection of 'this-or-this-or-this'
(e.g. the replacement of the last word in the same sentence with 'died' or
'sang'). Whilst syntagmatic relations are possibilities of combination,
paradigmatic relations are functional contrasts - they involve differentiation. Temporally,
syntagmatic relations refer intratextually to other signifiers co-present within the text, whilst paradigmatic
relations refer intertextually to signifiers which are absent from the text (Saussure 1983, 122; Saussure 1974, 123). The
'value' of a sign is determined by both its paradigmatic and its syntagmatic
relations. Syntagms and paradigms provide a structural context within which
signs make sense; they are the structural forms through which signs are
organized into codes.
Paradigmatic relationships can operate on the level of the
signifier, the signified or both (Saussure 1983, 121-124; Saussure 1974, 123-126; Silverman 1983, 10; Harris 1987, 124). A
paradigm is a set of associated signifiers or
signifieds which are all members of some defining category, but in which each
is significantly different. In natural language there are grammatical
paradigms such as verbs or nouns. 'Paradigmatic relations are those which
belong to the same set by virtue of a function they share... A sign enters
into paradigmatic relations with all the signs which
can also occur in the same context but not at the same time' (Langholz Leymore 1975, 8).
In a given context, one member of the paradigm set is structurally
replaceable with another. 'Signs are in paradigmatic relation when the choice
of one excludes the choice of another' (Silverman & Torode 1980,
255). The use of one signifier (e.g. a particular word or a garment) rather
than another from the same paradigm set (e.g. respectively, adjectives or
hats) shapes the preferred meaning of a text. Paradigmatic relations can thus
be seen as 'contrastive'. Note that the significance of the differences between even
apparently synonymous signifiers is at the heart of Whorfian theories about language.
Saussure's notion of 'associative' relations was broader and less formal than
what is normally meant by 'paradigmatic' relations. He referred to 'mental
association' and included perceived similarities in form (e.g. homophones) or meaning (e.g. synonyms). Such similarities
were diverse and ranged from strong to slight, and might refer to only part
of a word (such as a shared prefix or suffix). He noted that there was no end
(or commonly agreed order) to such associations (Saussure 1983, 121-124; Saussure 1974, 123-126).
In film and television, paradigms include ways of changing shot
(such as cut, fade, dissolve and wipe). The medium or genre are also
paradigms, and particular media texts derive meaning from the ways in which
the medium and genre used differs from the alternatives. The aphorism of Marshall McLuhan (1911-80) that 'the medium is the message'
can thus be seen as reflecting a semiotic concern: to a semiotician the medium is not 'neutral'.
A syntagm is an orderly combination of
interacting signifiers which forms a meaningful whole within a text -
sometimes, following Saussure, called a 'chain'. Such combinations are made
within a framework of syntactic rules and conventions (both explicit and
inexplicit). In language, a sentence, for instance, is a syntagm of words; so
too are paragraphs and chapters. 'There are always larger units, composed of
smaller units, with a relation of interdependence holding between both' (Saussure 1983, 127; Saussure 1974, 128): syntagms
can contain other syntagms. A printed advertisement is a syntagm of visual
signifiers. Syntagmatic relations are the various ways in which elements
within the same text may be related to each other. Syntagms
are created by the linking of signifiers from paradigm sets which are chosen
on the basis of whether they are conventionally regarded as appropriate or
may be required by some rule system (e.g. grammar). Synatagmatic relations
highlight the importance of part-whole relationships: Saussure stressed that
'the whole depends on the parts, and the parts depend on the whole' (Saussure 1983, 126; Saussure 1974, 128).
Syntagms
are often defined as 'sequential' (and thus temporal - as in speech and music), but they
can represent spatial
relationships. Saussure himself (who emphasized 'auditory signifiers'
which 'are presented one after another' and 'form a chain') noted that visual
signifiers (he instanced nautical flags) 'can exploit more than one dimension
simultaneously' (Saussure 1983, 70; Saussure 1974, 70). Spatial syntagmatic relations are found in
drawing, painting and photography. Many semiotic systems - such as drama,
cinema, television and the world wide web - include both spatial and temporal
syntagms.
Thwaites et al. argue that within a genre, whilst
the syntagmatic dimension is the textual structure, the paradigmatic
dimension can be as broad as the choice
of subject matter (Thwaites et
al. 1994, 95).
In this framing, form is a syntagmatic dimension whilst content is a paradigmatic dimension.
However, form is also subject to paradigmatic choices and content to
syntagmatic arrangement.
Jonathan Culler offers an example of the syntagmatic relations
and paradigmatic contrasts involved in Western menus:
In the food system... one defines on
the syntagmatic axis the combinations of courses which can make up meals of
various sorts; and each course or slot can be filled by one of a number of
dishes which are in paradigmatic contrast with one another (one wouldn't
combine roast beef and lamb chops in a single meal; they would be
alternatives on any menu). These dishes which are alternative to one another
often bear different meanings in that they connote varying degrees of luxury,
elegance, etc. (Culler 1985, 104).
Expanding on an example offered by David Lodge, Susan Spiggle
explains in more detail how this might apply to a girl wearing a tee-shirt,
jeans and sandals:
1. She selects signs from three paradigms (i.e. sets of possible signs - upper
body garments, lower body garments, and footwear). Each paradigm contains a
possible set of pieces from which she can choose
only one. From the upper-body-garment paradigm (including blouses,
tee-shirts, tunics, sweaters), she selects one. These items share a similar structure, function, and/or other
attribute with others in the set: they are related to one another on the
basis of similarity. She further selects items related by similarity from the
lower-body-garment and footwear paradigms. A socially defined, shared
classification system or code shapes her selections.
2. She combines the selected signs through rules
(i.e., tee-shirts go with sandals, not high heels), sending a message through the ensemble - the syntagm. Selection requires
her to perceive similarity and opposition among signs within the set (the
paradigm), classifying them as items having the same function or structure,
only one of which she needs. She can substitute,
or select, a blouse for the tee-shirt - conveying a different message. The
combination, tee-shirt–jeans–sandals, requires her to know the 'rules by
which garments are acceptably combined... The combination... is, in short, a
kind of sentence' (Lodge 1977, 74). The
tee-shirt–jeans–sandals syntagm conveys a different meaning (sends a
different message) at the beach than at a formal occasion. (Spiggle 1998, 159)
In the case of film, our interpretation of an individual shot
depends on both paradigmatic analysis (comparing it, not necessarily
consciously, with the use of alternative kinds of shot) and syntagmatic
analysis (comparing it with preceding and following shots). The same shot
used within another sequence of shots could have quite a different preferred
reading. Actually, filmic syntagms are not confined to such
temporal syntagms (which are manifested in montage:
the sequencing of shots) but include the spatial syntagms found also in still
photography (in mise-en-scène:
the composition of individual frames).
Both
syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis treat signs as part of a system -
exploring their functions within codes and
sub-codes - a topic to which we will return. Although we will discuss
syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations separately, it should be emphasized
that the semiotic analysis of a text or corpus has to tackle the system as a
whole, and that the two dimensions cannot be considered in isolation. The
description of any semiotic system involves specifying both the membership of
all of the relevant paradigmatic sets and also the possible combinations of
one set with another in well-formed syntagms. For the analyst, according to
Saussure (who was, of course, focusing on the language system as a whole),
'the system as a united whole is the starting point, from which it becomes
possible, by a process of analysis, to identify its constituent elements';
one cannot try to construct the system by working upwards from the
constituent elements (Saussure 1983, 112; Saussure 1974, 113). However,
Roland Barthes argued that 'an important part of the semiological
undertaking' was to divide texts 'into minimal significant units... then to
group these units into paradigmatic classes, and finally to classify the
syntagmatic relations which link these units' (Barthes 1967, 48; cf. Langholz Leymore 1975, 21 and Lévi-Strauss 1972, 211). In practice, the analyst is likely to
need to move back and forth between these two approaches as the analysis proceeds.
M.H
|
