Talk:Structural linguistics

Searle vs Derrida - dangerous territory

I wonder why Searle is quoted at the end of the article. Yes Derrida is a bone of contention I know that, but Searle obivously has got no idea. Derrida never made that claim and if you look up trace (derrida) you'll see that there is a lot more to that than just a simple misreading of de Saussure.

And putting it at the end end of the article further emphasizes Searle. And why is Searle said to have claimed that Derrida altered the truth value of a concept- I mean yes you can put it that way, but it sounds completely different from what is said in the Searle quotation, which simply is that Derrida maintained something else than de Saussure. Meaning he didn't just alter the truth value of de Saussure's concept but he had a thoroughly different proposition (according to Searle).

Also deconstruction is put in quotation marks (not inside the Searle quotation). Why is that? It's a widely accepted term. You can't just put everything you don't agree with in quotation marks. I'd write "pope" then, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, isn't it? Sorry if I've just made hell of a fuss, because of a minor inattention. But that part of the article seems to be biased and taking side with a quotation.

andi 217.249.225.190 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On Chomsky and the current state of Structuralism

I peronally have much bigger issues with the article listed under "Structural Linguistics"

First issue is: Chomsky is not a structuralist nor should he be quoted or listed in this article other than to point out that his views differ from those of the Structuralists. He is mostly a theorist whose main pass time is to discredit others in multiple fields (including linguistics and psychology - see: Skinner). His theorizing do not qualify him as a linguist. Linguists do research and he mainly publishes many un-founded theories that even the generative linguists who follow him (around the world, mind you, from the US,China, England and parts of Europe) are mostly unable to prove despite their large numbers and financed years of "studies".

Second issue is: this article mainly focuses on what Structural Linguistics is NOT instead of what it IS. The claim that it is not taught worldwide since the 1930s-1950s American movement slowed down does not mean that it is not currently being taught. I study Structural Linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem which has had a program since at LEAST the 1960s to my knowledge and I am certain much longer than that. Structural Linguistic Research and analysis take years and require live examples of the language in its natural form, therefor building theses is a slower process than the process of theoretical linguistics known as generative linguistics. This article focuses mainly on an American-British (or should I say, English-speaking?) perspective.

Further research is necessary to properly update and define Structural Linguistics in this article. The work is insufficient and lacking in credibility.

109.66.44.81 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)S. Gorman109.66.44.81 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim that structural linguistics is regarded as outdated may apply to America but it definitely does not apply to Europe. Here, Saussure is still mentioned as the founder of modern linguistics and many of the dichotomies he has pointed out (diachornic X synchronic, syntagmatic X paradigmatic, language X parole, signifiant X signifié) are still considered to be fundamental to modern linguistic research. This article needs a major revision! Anša (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Still true more than three years afterwards. There might something of a case of "America is the world" bias here. I cannot vouch for Europe, but in France at least, Saussure is still presented in introductory linguistic textboooks as a founding father of modern linguistics, and most of the concepts he defined are still very much in use. Lucien Tesnière's approach to grammar is still taught (I had a bit it at the university in the early 2000s) and his ideas of valency and actancy are widely discussed and developed (e.g. Gilbert Lazard). Nonetheless, it is obvious that linguistics has moved beyond structuralism as it was the first part middle of the 20th century. The issue may be from the wording (outdated is sort of right if applied to structuralism from half a century ago, but may run a bit near from irrelevant, which it is probably not meant) and general balance : it is especially lacking in the introduction, which includes several disparaging statements (that should probably not be put in such a prominent position), but the section about the recent reception of structural linguistics appears to use a much more qualified tone. Aucassin (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Structuralism was alive and well and still being taught to undergraduates at the University of Chicago in the 1980's, which is no slouch of a unversity. And, in computational linguistics, HPSG and Chomskian ideas are sort of falling by the wayside; e.g. the stanford parser is a dependency parser, not an hpsg; psychologists measure valency and actancy in lab expreiments; there is zero psychological support for theta-roles; and modern generative theories e.g. meaning-text theory, are built on dependency as a foundation. So indeed, all the stuff about Chomsky in this article just seems either biased or just plain wrong... (and I 'd fix it myself, I'm just not an expert). 88.119.194.62 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of material on Chomsky

As this discussion over many years agrees that the article makes far too much of Chomsky. I have removed this material and pasted it here, in case someone wants to find it easily. ˜˜˜˜

Chomsky's relationship to structuralism

Although consistent in his rejection of American Structuralism, Noam Chomsky has maintained contradictory positions on the continuity of his own views with those of de Saussure. In 1963 Chomsky identified his own view so closely with those of de Saussure that Mauro referred to his paper as "une veritable profession de foi saussurienne," "a veritable profession of Saussurian faith". In 1972, Chomsky described structural linguistics as an "impoverished and thoroughly inadequate conception of language".

According to Searle, Chomsky maintained that structural linguistics was efficient for phonology and morphology, because both have a finite number of units that the linguist can collect. However, he did not believe structural linguistics was sufficient for syntax, reasoning that an infinite number of sentences could be uttered, rendering a complete collection impossible. Instead, he proposed the job of the linguist was to create a small set of rules that could generate all the sentences of a language, and nothing but those sentences.

Searle paraphrases one of Chomsky's key objections to structural linguistics as its inadequacy in explaining complex and/or ambiguous sentences, writing:

John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please" look as if they had exactly the same grammatical structure. Each is a sequence of noun-copula-adjective-infinitive verb. But in spite of this surface similarity the grammar of the two is quite different. In the first sentence, though it is not apparent from the surface word order, "John" functions as the direct object of the verb to please; the sentence means: it is easy for someone to please John. Whereas in the second "John" functions as the subject of the verb to please; the sentence means: John is eager that he please someone. That this is a difference in the syntax of the sentences comes out clearly in the fact that English allows us to form the noun phrase "John's eagerness to please" out of the second, but not "John's easiness to please" out of the first. There is no easy or natural way to account for these facts within structuralist assumptions.

References

Edits concerning Durkheim

Caio soares vechiato has changed the introduction of the section Structural explanation. I think the point in this edit is in disagreement about what Durkheim said and what Spencer said. It is also now emphasised that their organic analogy relates to sociology. However, there's now the problem that what is written in the introduction is no longer relevant to the article structural linguistics. Basically, the way to go is to remove Durkheim and Spencer altogether, since whatever they have written cannot be relevant to linguistics. At the same time, the term 'structuralism' with respect to Saussure's 'structuralism' is derived from Durkheim (who derived his idea from Spencer). Caio soares vechiato, do you have any good ideas as where to go from here? Weidorje (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Weidorje I think you brought a great issue. I was translating this text to Portuguese then I saw tis part . It was completely making no sense in both ways: Structural Explanation ? I got to look on ever single Oxford dictionary to try make this word fits in the way it was (3 times plus the title, by the way) put in the text. It was, generally, talking about the word origin, first line made it clear (although was missing a connector between structural explanation and the origin, see for instance, the topic functional explanation in functional linguistics) and from that point it was only saying about Durkheim perception of society.So we must ask:

1. ) Did Durkheim applied this concept inside Linguistics ? And if he didn't (as i know until now) it's not relevant mention him.
2. ) Did Durkheim inspire the entry of this term through Saussure or other person in the Linguistics subject ?If that's so, must be clear in the text and with an source telling exactly it because the antique source did not mention it all, in this way is being said here. It was just explaining the organic Spencer theory and how it was modified by Durkheim, nothing related to Linguistics.

So, that is my purpose; If you have the source mentioning as pointed on 2, you should correct the text, explaining it. If you don't but wanna bring the term's roots, as I felt it was the intention, we just need to add something like "The structural terminology is derived from Durkheim [...] into sociology view of society and into linguistic field it was insert by Saussure...". And I agree to the point that the way this essay is now (if the textual cohesion won't be fixed) is better take it off. I only didn't do it because I was trying to change as little as possible because my intention was translate and not review it, thats why i kept. --Caio soares vechiato (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato, thanks for the translation work. The Portuguese WP is a very important media. Anyway, when you ask whether Durkheim applied this type of explanation in linguistics, he did to the extent that he considered language as a social fact, which is the one thing Saussure copied; otherwise Saussure's idea comes from Volksgeist/Völkerpsychologie. But this is common to 19th century theory because it's all somehow derived from Hegel's theory, so these are all different versions of Hegel's "spirit". The word structuralism in structural linguistics apparently comes from Durkheim, but it was given only afterwards; Saussure considered his theory as "semiology". However, Saussure does explain structures in Course analogously to Durkheim. Here's one source that mentions "structural explanation" in the context of Saussurean linguistics Ctrl+F structural explanation. But notice that Martinet's Double articulation uses a similar mode as Durkheim because Martinet claims that, in order for the system to gain functional complexity, it will need to diversify.

Anyway, your edit has a point. Let's keep it, and when I have the time, I will build on it to make the concept of structural explanation clearer. (True, there are few clear sources.) It is used sometimes, although a lot more in biology. I think it just means whatever comes naturally out of the necessities of the system itself (i.e. something which is not specifically functional). Weidorje (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Weidorje Ok then, do you may have an ideia when you will edit ? I am not rushing anything lol but I'm just asking it because if it is going to be like days/weeks I can let my translation on stand by, until the better version comes in or if it takes more time I can publish as soon as I finish it and then, later, update. And I just have to say that I found the notes a very good way to make some explanations, although some must be done in the text, because we cannot foresee the reader's knowledge. And I really felt that (if i didn't know i would not know it). Also I get the fact a long text can boring. And I think you may consider a change in the "Structural Explanation" you can see this a discussion about it on here https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198826965.001.0001/oso-9780198826965-chapter-4#:~:text=Another%20good%20definition%20says%20that,but%20not%20the%20old%20one. Regards Caio soares vechiato (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato unfortunately I've got a paper to finish. But I will come back to it later. I think the intro will work as it is for the time being. Thanks, Weidorje (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato, how is this looking? Weidorje (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello there Weidorje Now I am the one stuck on papers. I gave an fast look and seems good but it will imply some changes on the second paragraph as well because it resumes the notion of the term Structuralism in "humanistic linguistics" as correctly pointed now, beneath the page's title. And as a resume should be a briefly explanation and only after that, on the "structural explanation" topic we see deeply the origin of structuralism term until its application on linguistics. I don't know what you have in mind but I think the definition gave on" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics" (3 ed.) would match with the first paragraph. However, it is broader and less precise than that contained in the first paragraph so can have a changing of places. The definition cited above is "Any school or theory in which language is conceived as a self-contained, self-regulating system, whose elements are defined by their relationship to other elements." Also I didn't find where (in the gave source which is great by the way) Saussure made use of this analogy and I'm reading his book and it's pretty the opposite, the book is hardly criticizing on the point of use an human organic analogy. Caio soares vechiato (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato, well I made some fixes to the introduction. I'm not a great fan of Matthews who admits there is confusion, but himself contributes it because he doesn't explicate that the usual 'European' reference relates to structuralism in sociology, and the 'other' (idiosyncratic of American linguistics) relates to structural psychology which is – well, another branch of post-Hegelian ('Geist') philosophy, but not to be thoroughly discussed in the context of Saussure. Matthews's previous writings were actually worse, I think he took this version from Joseph's book From Whitney to Chomsky where Joseph argues that Chomsky was nevertheless a true structuralist (because the term was first used in structural psychology). But Matthews's main definition as quoted by you is not bad at all. It has been discussed here.

Saussure uses the word 'organism' several times. You will find these with Ctrl+F organism. Weidorje (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Weidorje Yes, when I was looking to the web into dictionaries references (because it is shortly and consequently good to use as introduction) this seemed the best because it does not bend for a specific matter. The other good ones always make reference for Strauss or for Saussure. I wish I could find a definition on Merriam Dictionary but it just have from structuralism (in genera) which the first definition is dated on 1907 if you may find helpful it's on I did what you told me and I just saw what i've read until now "he" is criticizing its use. Caio soares vechiato (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato, just as a point of interest, the 1959 English translation of Saussure ends: "We now realize that Schleicher was wrong in looking upon language as an organic thing with its own law of evolution, but we continue, without suspecting it, to try to make language organic in another sense by assuming that the "genius" of a race or ethnic group tends constantly to lead language along certain fixed routes. [...]"

Here, I take genius to be the Geist or the Hegelian spirit. Klautke, in the sources, confirms that Saussure studied under the Völkerpsychologist Heymann Steinthal and took his idea from him, but the 'fixed routes' thing is an obvious reference to Jacob Grimm's Sprachgeist and subsequent attempts to computationally post-dict (reconstruct) lost languages.

As I mentioned, it seems everyone during the 19th century was doing post-Hegelian humanities. German influence was only diminished after World War I. As such, Matthews and other American linguists are still trying to make the case that their linguistics is not 'German', but some higher form which has replaced Saussure. This is not correct. Look at what Matthews writes: "The term [structuralism] itself was in general use before the Second World War, with reference to a discipline in which the study of a language system was abstracted from the spoken and written use of languages and from their history." What discipline is he talking about? Then he goes on to argue that there was confusion, because the Bloomfieldian school was not really structuralist, but Chomsky is, although he argued against the 'structuralists'. This makes little sense.

Matthews's definition seems fine if you only read the first line. But he is making a definition where that branch of American linguistics is associated with Saussure rather than Wundt and Völkerpsychologie as they know very well is the truth. The Wundtian/Bloomfieldian school is not to be linked with Saussure, and the current sources emphasise that nor is Chomsky (as is also emphasised by Chomsky himself). We get much more reliable definitions from Continental sources, or from American structuralists proper. This is important, because if we take Matthews's word that any 'Geist' approach to language and society is structuralism, it will amount to saying that Hegel was a structuralist, as was Bopp, Grimm, the neo-Grammarians; as well as the Völkerpsychologists Lazarus, Steinthal and Wilhelm Wundt. That is completely counter-factual, and idiosyncratic to American linguistics – no philosopher would agree. Weidorje (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. I was looking at Martinet's definition of structuralism, and it turns out to be the same as Matthews. So, the definition is good, let's use it. I'm only saying that the further conclusions drawn by Matthews will not be correct, because language is not considered as a self-regulating system in generative grammar. Weidorje (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Weidorje I think this is great and i just pointed out the Matthews definition as an option you could use. Anyhow, my point (of Saussure had used organic analogy) still stands. When I read "Similar analogies and metaphors were used in the historical-comparative linguistics that Saussure was part of" sounded perfect but what follows seems, for me, a pretty huge mistake "Although Saussure made use of the organic analogy". It gives the impression Saussure used it (like in the begin of his works) and then gave up. I until now have not seen it. There is big difference between "made use" and "pointed the term to critiquing it" which was what he did.Caio soares vechiato (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato. No, it's correct. What Saussure and Durkheim have in common is they could not let go of the organic analogy, so they modified it (each in a different way) so it was no longer Darwinist. This is the point of structuralism, that it is an anti-Darwinian approach to humanities. At the same time, it is supposed to be 'a natural science' like evolutionary biology (in a way...). This is a bit weird from the modern perspective, but there's still not much of an alternative. Saussure's Course is also posthumous and not so well planned. He first criticises the analogy, and then ends up using it himself, but this is how it is. With Ctrl+F organ you will find what Saussure's idea was of the correct idea of language as an organism. The whole point of the book is that Saussure first teaches "the negative": what language is not, and then he teaches what it is: an organism, like a plant, which is studied anatomically, not in relation to its environment. This is why Martinet called it self-contained ("un systéme où tout se tient") because he disagreed. The functionalists wanted to study the "adaptation" of language, although in a non-Darwinian way. This programme failed totally because the name 'functionalism' was eventually reclaimed by the Darwinists who have now supplanted humanists in most universities. Weidorje (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Weidorje I completely agree with you. What I am trying to say is that when you read the paragraph, as a whole, it shows Saussure made use of a organic analogy exactly in the terms settled by Spencer, not a modified version by his own. Please give a look Caio soares vechiato (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato, do you think so? I read it differently. Spencer was one of the Darwinists. He coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", and he also regarded social evolution as being directed towards completion. As it is written, Saussure disagreed with the competition model, and he also considered language as a system in its own right [to the extent that he abandoned evolutionary linguistics which is not mentioned – I could add it]. So, everyone in the 19th century either used the spirit analogy or the organism analogy. However, they made different interpretations of it. I would think that Spencer and Saussure are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Weidorje (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Weidorje Yes It becomes very clear when it is translated. Look "The term is derived from Sociologist Émile Durkheim's anti-Darwinian modification of Herbert Spencer's organic analogy which draws a parallel between social structures and the organs of an organism which have different functions or purposes.[here we've got the origination of the terminology] Similar analogies and metaphors were used in the historical-comparative linguistics that Saussure was part of.[explanatory bet add new information] Although [This conjunction here emphases it even more] made use of the organic analogy, [what organic analogy ? Automatically it makes you go back to "Durkheim' s anti-Darwinian modification of Herbert Spencer's organic analogy"]. You maybe can take off this conjunction and say that Saussure criticized it on the way it was fixed and keep the rest of the paragraph's text "notion of language as a dual interactive system of signs and concepts." which is cleaner all his notion in the book.Caio soares vechiato (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caio soares vechiato, well, you can of course fix the text yourself. Sorry for being so touchy in the beginning. Your edits are good. It could say, for instance, that Saussure made use of an organic analogy. I've also discovered the page social organism which is probably a better link and an alternative term. Weidorje (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Weidorje No worries at all, as I pointed before I had no intention to modify it, only translate. I just firstly did it, without look the discussion page, because I thought it was one of these abandoned pages. But I am glad someone is carefully watching it that's why I chose discuss the points instead of direct change. Anyway I think it's fine now. How about you ?Caio soares vechiato (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Bloomfield

This article seems to present Bloomfield's early attachment to Wunt's approach as 'American structuralism' tout court, which is completely wrong. Bloomfield's _Language_ strongly rejected the psychological approach and it is his mature thinking shown here that influenced the next 30 years of linguistics in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetologist (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

'American structuralism', or American descriptivism

The lead paragraph is too narrowly framed to be about American structural linguistics. It is about the origins of immediate-constituent analysis as an approach to syntax. Bn (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)