Central
to Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theory introduced in "Course in
General Linguistics" is the distinction between "langue" and
"parole". For de Saussure, langue (language) is the abstract
structure or system of conveying meaning while parole (speech) is the
particular use of language (somewhat but not completely similar to Noam Chomsky's
linguistic competence and performance). De Saussure gives the example of Chess,
the game which exists as a set a rules and functions (langue) with endless possibilities
to be played out (parole).
The
importance of de Saussure's distinction starts in the fact that langue
obviously determines any possible parole. While parole is individual langue exists
only as a social entity that no one has any full control over. Since it
precedes parole, langue should be in de Saussure's view the focus of linguistic
inquiry. But parole is still important since it is only through the idiosyncratic
manifestations of speech (parole) that we can access the langue.
The
distinction between langue and parole is also important since it is central to
de Saussure's structuralist view of language as a self contained system of
signification. Chess exists before any actual game and it's not up to the
players do decide on the rules. If you try to play checkers with Chess pieces no
one will be able or want to play with you, that is you will not be understood. But
when we play Chess, or use language, it's not about the pieces by themselves
but their perspective relationships within the context of the game's setting
and rules. This leads us to how de Saussure thinks of language as a system of
inner relations between words that relate to each other and not referential
reality (see The arbitrary nature of the Sign) . This means that to anything we say there is an
underlying structure which determines its possibility.
See also:
You might be interested in:
