Langue and Parole Related to Culture Comparison Essay

Saussure distinguishes language (langue), speech (parole), and speech activity (language). Speech activity is many-sided also adjoins to a number of areas: physics, physiology, mentality. Speech is the individual phenomenon, and language is “a social product of speech ability, set of the necessary conditions acquired by the public collective for the realization of this ability at separate persons.” Language acts as a “system of cleanly linguistic attitudes,” and only it should be studied by linguists: “Unique and true object of linguistics is the language considered in and for.”

In the development of this position, Saussure differentiates between external linguistics and internal linguistics. To the external linguistics, the attitudes of language to public establishments belong and historical conditions of its existence. But all these moments are outside language as systems of pure attitudes (“there is no necessity to know a condition in which this or that language “as” language is the system, submitting to the own order.”) And in this last understanding, language makes a subject of internal linguistics (“all is internal that in any degree alters system”) (Levi-Strauss, 1966, p. 88).

The following differentiation Saussure divides into two planes: diachronic (historical or dynamic aspect) and synchronism (static aspect, language in its system). Both these aspects are torn from each other by Saussure and also opposed (“with the opposition of two points of view on language – synchronous and diachronic – absolutely and do not bear the compromise”). Abstract from historical consideration, the synchronic aspect allows the researcher to concentrate on studying the system of language closed “in itself and for itself. ” The historical point of view on language (diachronic) destroys the system, transforms it into the assembly of the isolated facts (Beedham, 1999, pp 99).

Saussure considers the language as the system of any signs (the sign nature of language) and assimilates to any other system of signs. (“Language is the system of the signs expressing ideas and consequently, it can be compared to the writing, with the alphabet for the deaf-mutes, with symbolical ceremonies, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc.”) He thinks of creation of science, “studying a life of signs inside of the life of any society” (semiology). The language sign, according to Saussure, on the one hand, is absolutely any, but, on the other hand, is obligatory for the given language collective. (“If in relation to idea represented by the meaning (i.e., a sign) is represented freely chosen, that, on the contrary, in relation to language collective which uses it, it is not free, and it is imposed.”)

Saussure has started many new problems in linguistics, has revealed a number of prominent aspects in studying language, promoted a deeper understanding of the specificity of language. But at the same time, in his doctrine, there are many internal contradictions. In it, the distinct tendency to the antihistorical approach to language, to a metaphysical representation about language as to the system of the pure attitudes which have been not burdened by any material forms also is incorporated. These moments of his linguistic theory also received the development in some directions of structural linguistics.

Other sciences operate above given objects which can be considered under the various corners of sight. Someone says the French word “nu” to the superficial observer will seem like a concrete linguistic object, but the more steadfast analysis will find out the presence, in this case, three or four absolutely various things how to consider this word: as a sound as of expression think as conformity Latin’ n’ and etc. (Meerloo, 1952, p. 67).

Besides, any linguistic phenomenon always represents two aspects from which everything corresponds to another and without it has no importance. For example:

1. Articulated syllables are an essence of the acoustic impressions perceived by an ear, but sounds would not exist if there were no bodies of speech; so, ‘n’ exists only as a result of the conformity of these two aspects. It is impossible, thus, neither to reduce language to sounding nor to tear off sounding from the articulation of bodies of speech; on the other hand, it is impossible to define movements of bodies of speech, not considering the acoustic impression.
2. But it should be admitted that the sound is a certain unity. It is only the instrument for an idea and has no independent existence. Thus, there is new and even more complicating conformity: the sound, complex acoustic-vocal unity, forms in turn with concept new complex unity, physiological-cogitative.
3. The speech activity has both the individual and social parts, and it is impossible to understand one without another.
4. During each moment, speech activity assumes both the established system and evolution; any minute language is both alive activity and the product of the past. At first sight, rather simple distinction between the system and its history is represented, but actually an attitude meanwhile and another so close what to separate them rather inconveniently. There can be a question, whether the problem becomes simpler if to consider a linguistic phenomenon from its most occurrence, if, for example, to begin with studying children’s speech. At all, for the greatest error is the idea as if concerning speech activity, the problem of occurrence is distinct from a problem of constant conditionality. Thus, we continue to remain in the same vicious circle(Beedham, 1999, p. 101).

If to summarize the characteristic of language, it is worth saying the following:

1. Language is something quite certain in multisystem sets of the facts of speech activity. It can be localized in a certain piece of the circular movement considered by us, namely there where the acoustical image associates with the concept. It is a social element of speech activity in general; external in relation to the individual, which itself cannot create language. Language exists only by the virtue of some kind of the contract concluded by members of the collective. At the same time, to use language, the individual should learn it: the child seizes it only little by little. Language up to such degree is something isolated.
2. The language is isolated from speech, makes the subject accessible to isolated studying. We do not speak in dead languages, but we can perfectly seize their language organism. Not only the science about language can do without other elements of speech activity.
3. While speech activity as a whole has a diverse character, language is the phenomenon homogeneous by the nature: it is a system of signs in which there is a unique essential connection of sense and an acoustic image, and both these signs in an equal measure are psychic.
4. Language is a concrete subject by the nature, and it rather promotes its research. Language signs are psychic on the essence, but at the same time they are not abstraction, the associations fastened by the collective consent, which set language makes, the essence of a reality having a site in brain. Moreover, signs on language, so to say, are perceived; in writing they can be fixed by means of conditional tracings whereas it is represented impossible to photograph certificates of speech in all details; pronouncing of the shortest word represents uncountable set of muscular movements which it is extremely difficult to learn and to represent. In language, on the contrary, there is nothing, except for an acoustic image which can be transferred by means of the certain vision. Really, if to distract from the set of the separate movements necessary for realization of speech, any acoustic image appears, as we further shall see, the sum of the limited number of elements or the phonemes able in turn to be represented in writing by means of respective number of signs. Here this opportunity to fix phenomena concerning language also leads to that as its true image and grammar for language is a warehouse of acoustic images (Meerloo, 1952, p. 55).

The word-combination “standard of speech” (a synonym – “speech culture”) is applied now in three values:

• The standard of speech is first of all its any attributes and properties, set and which system speak about its communicative perfection;
• The standard of speech is the set of skills and the knowledge of person providing expedient and not complicated application of language with a view of dialogue;
• The standard of speech is area of linguistic knowledge of a standard of speech, as sets and system of its communicative qualities.

It is easy to see the internal dependence between a standard of speech in the first meaning (objective) and a standard of speech in the second meaning (subjective): that the structure of speech has got necessary communicative perfection, the author of speech should possess the set of the necessary skills and knowledge; at the same time to receive these skills and knowledge, it is necessary to have samples of communicatively perfect speech, it is necessary to know its attributes and laws of its construction. Having assumed, that the attributes and properties of language structure of communicatively perfect speech suppose generalization and as a result representations about communicative qualities of speech (correctness, accuracy, expressiveness, etc.) are developed. So, there are two definitions:

• The standard of speech is a set and system of its communicative qualities;
• The standard of speech is a doctrine about the set and system of communicative qualities of speech.

Speaking about the standard of speech or culture of language, it should be mentioned that it is useful to find out, whether we have in view of speech in difference from language when we speak about a standard of speech. It is especially necessary, as attempts to distinguish a standard of speech and culture of language are carried out, and these attempts are not groundless. Terms and concepts “speech” and “language” are closely connected and “speech activity”, “text”, “the maintenance (sense) of the text “cooperates with terms and concepts. Therefore it is desirable to consider language and speech not only in the ratio with each other, but also in the ratio with the speech validity, the text and sense of the text. We shall accept the following definitions:

• Language is the sign mechanism of dialogue; set and system of sign units of dialogue in derivation from variety of concrete statements of separate people;
• Speech is the sequence of signs on the language, organized under its laws and according to needs of the expressed information.

References

Beedham C. (1999) Langue and Parole in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective, Pergamon; 1st ed edition

Bernstein, B. (1972) Social class, language and socialization // The psychosociology of language / Ed. S. Voscovici. – Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1966) The savage mind. – Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Meerloo Joost Abraham Maurits (1952) Conversation and communication; A psychological inquiry into language and human relations, International Universities Press

Seikel Anthony J. , King Douglas W. , Drumright David G. (2005) Anatomy and Physiology for Speech, Language, and Hearing, Singular; 3 edition