Language as a complex algebra: Post-structuralism and inflectional morphology in Saussure’s Cours

Raúl Aranovich

doi:10.1515/sem-2015-0118

Article

Language as a complex algebra: Post-structuralism and inflectional morphology in Saussure’s Cours

Raúl Aranovich

Published/Copyright: November 10, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Semiotica Volume 2016 Issue 208

Abstract

In Item-and-Arrangement models of inflection, morphemes are associations of form and meaning stored in a mental lexicon. Saussure’s notion of the linguistic sign as a unit of an acoustic image (signifier) and a concept (signified) immediately suggests such a model. But close examination of the examples of inflectional morphology throughout the Cours brings Saussure’s ideas more in line with Process morphology, a model in which recurrent elements in word forms are exponents of content features, and realizational rules license a word form inferentially from the word’s content. The Saussurean sign allowed French structuralists to revolutionize the methods of modern social science, eschewing the motives and intentions of human actors to focus on the system of oppositions that make signification possible in each domain. Eventually, post-structuralism rejected the static nature of the linguistic sign, forcing linguistics into relative isolation (since it held on to sign-based models of language). The criticism of structuralist treatments of morphology in Process models of inflection, however, stands as an exception to this tendency. In retrospect, I argue, similar ideas can be found in Saussure’s view of the langue as a complex algebra.

Keywords: morpheme; paradigm; sign; structuralism

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists. The congress convened in Geneva, in 2013, to commemorate the centenary of Saussure’s death.

References

Anderson S. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262Search in Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arrivé, Michel. 2003. Saussure, Barthes, Greimas. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 56. 89–109.10.4000/ml.1438Search in Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland. 1957. Mythologies. Paris: Le Seuil.Search in Google Scholar

Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23. 399–418.10.2307/410300Search in Google Scholar

Chaubet, François & Emmanuelle Loyer. 2000. L’école libre des hautes études de New York: Exil et résistance intellectuelle (1942–1946). Revue historique 302(4). 939–972Search in Google Scholar

Choi, Yong-Ho. 2008. Ricœur and Saussure: On meaning and time. Semiotica 168(1/4). 255–269.10.1515/SEM.2008.015Search in Google Scholar

Daylight, Russell. 2012. The passion of Saussure. Language & Communication 32. 240–248.10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.003Search in Google Scholar

Gadet, Françoise. 1989. Saussure and contemporary culture. London: Hutchinson.Search in Google Scholar

Greimas, Algirdas J. 2000 [1956]. L’actualité du saussurisme. In Thomas F. Broden & Françoise Ravaux-Kirkpatrick (eds.), La mode en 1830, 371–382. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.10.3917/puf.grei.2000.01Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Roy. 1999. Integrational linguistics and the structuralist legacy. Language & Communication 19. 45–68.10.1016/S0271-5309(98)00017-2Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Roy. 2001. Saussure and his interpreters. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.3366/edinburgh/9780748613083.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, Louis. 1973 [1933]. Structure générale des corrélations linguistiques. In Louis Hjelmslev (ed.), Essais linguistiques II, 57–98. Copenhagen: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague.Search in Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, Louis 1972 [1947]. Structural analysis of language. In Bertil Malmberg (ed.), Readings in modern linguistics, 97–105. Stockholm: Läromedelsförlagen-Mouton.10.1515/9783110820041-009Search in Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210–234.10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524Search in Google Scholar

Hutton, Christopher. 1990. Meaning and the principle of linearity. Language and Communication 10. 169–183.10.1016/0271-5309(90)90001-RSearch in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1966 [1939]. Signe zéro. In Eric Hamp, Fred Householder & Robert Austerlitz (eds.), Readings in linguistics II, 109–115. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Joseph, John E. 1992. Modern linguistics in post-modern perspective. Language & Communication 12. 165–179.10.1016/0271-5309(92)90006-USearch in Google Scholar

Joseph, John E. 2012. Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lagopoulos, Alexandros Ph. 2010. From sémiologie to postmodernism: A genealogy. Semiotica 178(1/4). 169–253.10.1515/semi.2010.010Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, P. 1972. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, P. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. 2013. Some remarks on Chomsky’s reading of Saussure. In Stephen R. Anderson, Jacques Moeschler & Fabienne Reboul (eds.), L’Interface langage-cognition (Actes du 19e Congrès International des Linguistes), 233–252. Geneva: Droz.Search in Google Scholar

Pavel, T. 2001. The spell of language: Poststructuralism and speculation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Posner, Roland. 2011. Post-modernism, post-structuralism, post semiotics? Sign theory at the fin de siècle. Semiotica 183(1/4). 9–30.10.1515/semi.2011.002Search in Google Scholar

Rampton, Ben. 2007. Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11. 584–607.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00341.xSearch in Google Scholar

Robins, R. H. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 58. 116–144.10.1111/j.1467-968X.1959.tb00301.xSearch in Google Scholar

Spencer, A. 2001. The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99. 279–313.10.1111/1467-968X.00083Search in Google Scholar

Saussure, F. de. 1995 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale, Ch. Bally & A. Sechehaye (eds.). Paris: Payot.Search in Google Scholar

Strozier, R. M. 1988. Saussure, Derrida, and the metaphysics of subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110848175Search in Google Scholar

Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486333Search in Google Scholar

Taverniers, Miriam. 2008. Hjelmslev’s semiotic model of language: An exegesis. Semiotica 171(1/4). 367–394.10.1515/SEMI.2008.082Search in Google Scholar

Wetherell, M. 1998. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse Society 9(3). 387–412.10.1177/0957926598009003005Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-11-10

Published in Print: 2016-1-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0118

Keywords for this article

morpheme; paradigm; sign; structuralism