The chapter firstly deals with Saussure, then with the scholars most directly influenced by Saussure’s linguistic thought, i.e. the schools of Geneva, Prague, and Copenhagen, and finally with other European linguists essentially independent from it, but who are nevertheless labelled as “structuralist” (i.e., the Frenchmen Guillaume and Tesnière, and the London school). Saussure’s views are summarized by means of his four classical “dichotomies” (langue vs. parole, synchrony vs. diachrony, signifiant vs. signifié, associative vs. syntagmatic relations). They were differently developed by Saussure’s followers: Geneva school (Bally, at least) and Prague school choose a functionalist approach; Prague school also aimed at overcoming the synchrony/diachrony dichotomy, especially in the domain of phonology, where its most important contributions lie (by Trubetzkoy, Jakobson and Martinet). On the contrary, Copenhagen school (whose leader was Hjelmslev) adopted a strictly formal approach. Guillaume’s and Tesnière’s approaches differ from those of the just mentioned schools by focusing on syntax rather than on morphology and phonology. The London school (especially its leader, Firth) worked out a particular approach to phonology (the so-called “prosodic phonology”).

European Linguistics since Saussure

GRAFFI, Giorgio
2013

Abstract

The chapter firstly deals with Saussure, then with the scholars most directly influenced by Saussure’s linguistic thought, i.e. the schools of Geneva, Prague, and Copenhagen, and finally with other European linguists essentially independent from it, but who are nevertheless labelled as “structuralist” (i.e., the Frenchmen Guillaume and Tesnière, and the London school). Saussure’s views are summarized by means of his four classical “dichotomies” (langue vs. parole, synchrony vs. diachrony, signifiant vs. signifié, associative vs. syntagmatic relations). They were differently developed by Saussure’s followers: Geneva school (Bally, at least) and Prague school choose a functionalist approach; Prague school also aimed at overcoming the synchrony/diachrony dichotomy, especially in the domain of phonology, where its most important contributions lie (by Trubetzkoy, Jakobson and Martinet). On the contrary, Copenhagen school (whose leader was Hjelmslev) adopted a strictly formal approach. Guillaume’s and Tesnière’s approaches differ from those of the just mentioned schools by focusing on syntax rather than on morphology and phonology. The London school (especially its leader, Firth) worked out a particular approach to phonology (the so-called “prosodic phonology”).
9780199585847
Saussure’s dichotomies; Prague school; Copenhagen school; Tesnière; London school
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11562/564149
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact