Philosophy of Being and Knowledge

Philosophy of Language

Structuralism

In the late 19th century, science focused on phenomena and their interrelations with other phenomena. By the early 20th century, a shift in scholarly interests emerged, with scholars beginning to investigate what phenomena are composed of, thus concentrating on the structure of phenomena. Just as physicists began to decompose matter into molecules, atoms, and other microscopic particles, so linguists became captivated by analyzing the structure of language, isolating it from all other factors. The foundations of this approach were laid by Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) in his lectures. As Saussure did not publish his key ideas, his students, Charles Bally and Albert Seche, edited their notes from Saussure’s lectures and published them in 1916 under the title "Course in General Linguistics," which brought Saussure international fame and inaugurated a new linguistic movement later known as Structuralism. This school opposed the Neogrammarians and displaced them from their dominant position in scholarly discourse, becoming the leading school in 20th-century European linguistics.

Saussure was critical of the Neogrammarians, positing that language does not emerge from reality; rather, reality can be structured through language. Reality exists independently of language, but since only through language can objects of reality be defined and described, there is no reality for humans beyond that which language shapes. Without language, everything would be a chaotic expanse, lacking boundaries and order. Language enables the structuring of the world, delineating one object from another. Saussure believed that linguistics encompasses three interrelated domains:

• Linguistic Activity: The inherent human ability to produce sounds and assign meanings to them. This activity includes two aspects: the external (sounds and writing) and the internal (the mental aspect of language). Linguistic activity is individual because speaking does not require other people or special conditions.
• Language: A complex of elements through which humans think and express themselves. These elements have an intersubjective nature, as people speak as others do; otherwise, their language would be unintelligible. In essence, linguistic activity is an individual capacity to use language.
• Speech: The actual use of language, the realization of linguistic capability. Speech occurs when linguistic activity and language converge, meaning there is a person who can speak and a language through which they can speak.

The distinction between language and speech allowed Saussure to identify two realities. Everything associated with society, psychology, etc., was categorized under speech, while language remained a pure structure and a means of structuring the world. Its principles are not determined by external factors. This differentiation also enabled Saussure to distinguish between two types of linguistics, which became established in scholarly discourse:

• Internal Linguistics: The branch of linguistics studying language without regard to its external relations, focusing on the internal structure of language.
• External Linguistics: The branch of linguistics examining language in its social, cultural, and historical contexts, considering language within the spiritual world of humanity, social institutions, and interpersonal relations.

According to Saussure, language is a system of signs. This assertion established him as a founding figure in semiotics (the study of signs). Saussure redefined the concept of the sign. Prior to Saussure, Aristotle’s thesis that a word is a sign denoting a thing—implying a connection between word and object—prevailed. Saussure argued that a word is not connected to a thing; rather, it signifies a concept through acoustic or graphic means, representing the mental structure of the thing. Since a word does not have an objective meaning, i.e., it does not define a thing, the connection between word and concept is established within the human mind, as both concept and word are human products. Since psychology studies the inner world of humans, Saussure believed that semiotics is a part of psychology.

After Ferdinand de Saussure, several schools of Structuralism emerged, each extracting and developing a particular aspect of his rich doctrine in its own manner. The most notable among them were the Danish, Czech, and American schools of Structuralism.

• The Danish School of Glossematics, or the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle, emerged in 1931, when a group of Danish linguists came together. The leader of this circle was Louis Trolle Hjelmslev (1899-1965), who was then at the helm of the Institute of Linguistics and Phonetics at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Copenhagen. Active members included Hans Jørgen Uldall (1907-1957), Viggo Brøndal (1887-1942), Knud Togeby (1918-1974), and others, though Hjelmslev remained the primary inspiration. The name of this school derives from the Greek "γλώσσημα" (genitive form of "γλωσσήματος", glossematos, meaning word). Glossematics is characterized by a synthesis of Saussurean Structuralism, Bertrand Russell’s logical positivism, and Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology. From Saussure, Hjelmslev adopted the distinction between language and speech, as well as the doctrine that language is a system of signs not connected to things; from Russell and Carnap, Hjelmslev inherited the idea that language theory should be entirely separated from real language and should examine universal structures; from Husserl, Hjelmslev took the notion that language is a means of knowledge. According to Hjelmslev, language theory should study language as a system of symbols, detached from society, history, or human psychology, as society, history, and psychology, as Saussure demonstrated, are related to speech, not language. The theory of language should explore universal principles of language, free from any external ties. This approach aimed to bring linguistics closer to the exact sciences: just as natural sciences operate under universal laws, which, according to Carnap, are formulated based on inductive collection of empirical data, so linguistics, in Hjelmslev’s view, should analyze texts from which empirical data can be inductively gathered, and on this basis, derive universal principles applicable to any language or text. Thus, the program of the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle was grounded in the aspiration to liken linguistics to algebra or formal logic. Just as logic studies the laws of thought apart from their application, so linguistics, according to Hjelmslev, should be studied as pure regularities.
• American Structuralism, or Descriptivism, is a branch of Structuralism that developed in America independently of similar European linguistic trends. Its foundations were laid by Franz Boas (1858-1942), Edward Sapir (1884-1939), and Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949). These scholars worked with a specific material—Native American languages. They were compelled to acknowledge that the methods used to study Indo-European languages could not be applied to Native American languages. Indo-European languages have their own history and writing systems, thus allowing their study based on historical context. Native American languages are unwritten, and therefore, there are no sources for studying their past. The only method for studying Native American languages is the description of the available material. Hence, the name Descriptivism (from the Latin "descriptio," meaning to describe). While Danish Structuralists were influenced by logical positivism, American Structuralists were influenced by the psychological school of behaviorism, which focused on human behavior. Descriptivists viewed the task of language as mediating between subject and reaction. For instance, when John says to Mary, "Close the window," John does so to elicit a certain reaction. The means by which John seeks to induce the expected reaction is language. If the task of language is to induce some behavior, then language should be studied from this perspective. Descriptivists attempted to avoid complex philosophical theories of language, believing that philosophical study only complicates the issue. Statements have no objective meaning; they are merely impulses intended to provoke action, that is, to elicit a response from the listener.
• The Czech School of Functionalism, or the Prague Linguistic Circle, is a branch of linguistics founded in 1926 by Vilém Mathesius (1882-1945). The Prague linguists made a significant contribution to various issues in linguistics, but their main linguistic-philosophical interests centered on the relationship between language and what it describes; the relationship between language and other languages; and the relationship between language and its structural elements. They developed Saussure’s distinction between language and speech, emphasizing that language is a unique structure of relations, an abstract constant in the consciousness of its speakers, in contrast to speech, which is the concrete manifestation of language and therefore conditioned by the speech situation. For Prague linguists, the function of language was also a matter of great importance, which led to their being termed functionalists. Unlike Danish linguists, who compared the function of language to that of mathematics, Prague linguists considered the function of language to be its fulfillment of purpose. In other words, the function of language is what the speaker uses it for.

Thus, Structuralism is a branch of the philosophy of language, initiated by Ferdinand de Saussure, grounded in the belief that language is an abstract and condition-free structure that organizes reality. Everything humans know about the world is known through the prism of language, which establishes order in the world. Structuralism evolved into three directions, each interpreting the structuring function of language in its own way. Emerging from linguistics, Structuralism found adherents in other fields of the humanities. In the 1960s and 70s, humanity was enthralled by the euphoria of scientific progress. This was fertile ground for the flourishing of Structuralism across all spheres. By the late 70s, however, humanity began to disillusion with the power of science. People noticed that neither the creation of the atomic bomb, nor human spaceflight, nor other scientific achievements made people happier. This disillusionment gave rise to a new cultural movement—Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. Since they extend beyond the philosophy of language to encompass all manifestations of culture, they are appropriately analyzed in the context of the philosophy of culture.