Structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure 
       Ferdinand  de  Saussure  was  a  Swiss  Linguist,  credited  with  finding  the  field  of 
       structural linguistics, a new theory applying in linguistics system. He often treated as 
       the father of modern linguistics. 
       His most influential work ‘Course in General Linguistics’ which published posthumously 
       in 1916. 
        
       So what is Structural Linguistics? 
       Structural  linguistics,  as  far  as  Saussure  concerned,  is  the  idea  that  language  is  a 
       systematic contrast and equivalence. 
       Structural linguistics holds the view that language consists of in a string of linguistics 
       objects, such as words, phonemes, morphemes, and each object earned its meaning to 
       contrast of other objects in a linguistic system. 
       This was entirely new wave thinking about language and presented a radical trend 
       from the previous approaches. 
       In order to understand the Saussure structural system, we have to first understand, the 
       key  ideas  and  distinction  between  ‘sign/signifier/referent’,  ‘Langue/Parole’, 
       ‘synchronic/diachronic’ and ‘syntagmatic/paradigmatic’. 
        
       Saussure’s central distinction is between ‘langue’ and ‘parole’. 
       Parole:  it  consists  of  individual  usages  of  language  at  particular  times  to  make 
       statements, ask questions, individual utterance, commands etc. Parole is the speech act. 
       Langue:  it  is  the  underlying  system  –  passively  assimilated  and  not  explicitly 
       formulated by speakers. Langue makes all acts of speaking possible, intelligible and 
       meaningful. It is the systematic language shared by community. 
       Saussure used the term ‘langue’ to signify, language as a system or structure (langue) 
       on the other hand by ‘parole’ he means any given utterance in that language. 
       For example – a particular remark in French (a sample of parole) only makes sense to 
       you  if  you  are  already  in  possession  of  the  whole  body  of  rules  and  conventions 
       governing verbal behavior which we call ‘French’ ( the langue or the French linguistic 
       structure). 
       Again, Saussure argued that language and every other expressive system consist of 
       signs. He gave a threefold analysis of linguistic sign: signifier/signified/referent 
        
        
                                                                                                          ‘Signified’ the ‘Concept’ in mind. 
        
                          ‘Referent’ refers the ‘actual state’. 
                  Signifier + Signified + Referent = Sign 
        
       Signifier: It is the sound image of that what we talking about, the act of speech or 
       utterance. 
       Signified: It is the concept of the thing of which we are talking about. It is the idea of 
       our mind. 
       Referent: The actual real thing in the world is called referent. 
       Thus for Saussure, the sign is trisided psychological entity. One cannot exist without the 
       other; otherwise it just could not be a sign. 
       But here Saussure says, the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. 
       There is an arbitrary unconventional relationship between the two. For, Saussure, the 
       meaning we give to words is purely arbitrary, and that these meanings are maintained 
       by conventions only. Words, that is to say, are ‘unmotivated signs’, means that there is 
       no inherent connection between a word and it designates. 
        
       Again, Saussure highlighted another distinction between synchronic and diachronic. 
       Synchrony:  synchrony refers to a study of complete linguistics system at a given time. 
       Saussure’s aim was to show that language can be studied synchronically and that this is 
       the most illuminating way to explicit it. 
       Diachronic:  it refers how the linguistic system developed over a period of time. 
        
       Another important Saussurian distinction is between ‘syntagmatic’ and ‘paradigmatic’ 
       analysis.  
       Syntagmatic analysis can be used whenever the expressive act requires a series of signs; 
       it can be series of words in a statement, or a series of shots in a film sequence. But often 
       the same statement can give quite difference meaning if the word order is altered or the 
       same shots in a film can have different meanings if the order is reverse. For example –  
                    The wise person is temperate 
                    Temperate is the wise person 
       On the other hand paradigmatic analysis examines the signs used in the expressive act 
       against a background of possible alternatives in each position. For example –  
                    The wise person is temperate 
               The wise ‘person/man’ is ‘clam/intuitive/honest’ 
        
       So why are any of these interesting? 
       As far as Saussure concerns, the study of language is liable to belief. He stresses that 
       language is structural; thereby language can be freed from associations by the social, 
       cultural, political or historical. 
       Practically this approach to language means that the study of language by structural 
       relations  only.  Linguistics  objects  and  it  meanings  can  be  grasped  only  through  its 
       contrast with other linguistic objects in the systems.