Soci250 – Sociological TheoryModule 11 – Structuralism

François Nielsen

University of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Spring 2007

Outline

Main Themes

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)

Saussure’s Legacy in Linguistics

Claude Lévi-Strauss

Jacques Lacan

StructuralismMain Themes

I journey of structuralismI discovery of Indo-European family of languagesI → reconstruction of Proto-Indo-EuropeanI → Ferdinand de Saussure’s laryngeal theoryI → Saussure’s generalization to synchronic linguisticsI → phonology & modern linguisticsI → Claude Lévy Strauss applies structuralism to

anthropologyI → Jacques lacan to psychoanalysisI → Louis Althusser to Marxism. . .

What Is Structuralism?From Historical Linguistics to Psychoanalysis & More. . .

I term structuralism originates in Cours de linguistiquegénérale of Ferdinand de Saussure (1916)

I idea that one can apprehend language as a system inwhich each of the elements can only be defined by itsrelations of equivalency or opposition with the others; itis this set of relations that forms the structure

I structuralism has deep roots in historical linguistics,originating in reconstruction of proto-Indo-European

I structuralism applied outside of linguistics toanthropology (Claude Lévi-Strauss), Marxist sociology(Louis Althusser), psychoanalysis (Jacques Lacan), . . .

I extremely influential from about 1958 to early 1970s,declines thereafter

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Indo-European vs. non-Indo-European Words

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Conjugations of “to bear” Compared

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Sir William Jones (1746–1794)

I born Westminster, fathermathematician

I linguistic prodigy learnsGreek, Latin, Persian,Arabic, Chinese early

I 1764 graduates U.College, Oxford

I tutors Earl Spencer(ancestor Princess Diana)

I reputed orientalist by 22

I 1783 appointed SupremeCourt of Bengal

I founds Asiatick Society

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Sir William Jones’s Indo-European Hypothesis (1786)

“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of awonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, morecopious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined thaneither, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both inthe roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than couldpossibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed,that no philologer could examine them all three, withoutbelieving them to have sprung from some common source,which, perhaps, no longer exists.”

I common source later termed proto-Indo-European

I Germanic (“Gothick”) & Celtic also descendants

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Languages of Europe & Western Asia Around 1492

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)The Indo-European Family of Languages

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Hypothetical Spread from PIE Homeland in Ponto-Caspian Steppe

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Spread of PIE owis

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Spread of PIE perd

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Reconstruction of PIE

I over next 200 years historical linguists derive complexsound changes that led from proto-language to daughterlanguages

I by 1870 main outline of reconstruction in place

I mostly Danish, German, and French scholars

I reconstruction of PIE was triumph of 19th c linguistics

I uses comparative method to analyze systematiccorrespondences among related languages andreconstruct original (PIE) sounds

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Reconstruction of PIE – Comparative Method (Handout from Craig Melchert)

Introduction to LanguageHandout 6

The Comparative Method: “Grimm’s Law” and “Verner’s Law”

Sample Data:

Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic Correspondences

pitāÂ patēÂr pater fadar ‘father’ p=p=p=f; t=t=t=dtráyas treîs trēs þreis ‘three’ t=t=t= s‰atám (he)katón centum hund ‘hundred’ s‰=k=k=h; t=t=t=d

kannábis ‘hemp’ k= h; b= pdás‰a déka decem taihun ‘ten’ d=d=d=t; s‰=k=k=hyugám zugón iugum juk ‘yoke’ g=g=g=kbhrāÂtā phrāÂtēr frater brôþar ‘brother’ bh=ph=f=b; t=t=t= dhā- -thē- -dere ‘put, do’ dh=th=d=dstighnóti steíkhō steigan ‘go (up)’ gh=kh= g

Proto-Indo-European Stops:

*p *t *k*b *d *g*bh *dh *gh

“Grimm’s Law”:

PIE voiceless stops > Germanic voiceless fricatives: (p, t, k > f,  , h).PIE voiced stops > Germanic voiceless stops: (b, d, g, > p, t, k).PIE “voiced aspirated” stops > Germanic voiced stops: (bh, dh, gh > b, d, g).

Exception: PIE voiceless stops remain voiceless stops after another consonant (e.g. sp, st, sk > sp,st, sk).

“Verner’s Law”:

After an unaccented vowel, Germanic voiceless fricatives became voiced stops, then Germanicfixed accent on the first syllable: *fa ár > *fadár > fádar. This includes *s already inheritedfrom PIE: *woséyo- ‘to put on’ > Gmc. *wasíya > *wazíya- > OldEnglish werian ‘to wear’.

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Reconstructed PIE Fable

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Biography

I born Geneva in 1857

I studies Latin, Greek,Sanskrit U. of Geneva,Berlin, Leipzig (PhD1880)

I at 21 writes Thesis on thePrimitive Vowel System inIndo-EuropeanLanguages (1878)

I teaches Paris 11 years,then U. of Geneva

I 1906 begins Course ofGeneral Linguistics

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Laryngeal Theory (1879)

I de Saussure developed laryngeal theory at age 19 or 20

I deduces existence of “lost” consonants in PIE

I key to discovery was PIE ablaut (vocalic alternation)

I e.g. PIE root *sed- ‘to sit’ has 3 grades (vocalic forms)

1. e-grade or full grade *sed, e.g. Lat. sed-ere ‘to sit’, Eng.sit (i from earlier *e)

2. o-grade *sod-, e.g. Eng. sat (a from earlier *o)3. zero-grade *sd-, e.g. *ni-sd-o- ‘where [the bird] sits

down=nest’ > Eng. nest

I de Saussure saw that some derivation patternsinconsistent, unless one postulates additionalconsonants in PIE

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Laryngeal Theory (1879)

I in Sanskrit a class of verbs with -na- infixed in presenttense, another class with -naa- suffix

I F.d.S. conjectures both classes derive from same PIEclass

present tense desiderative infinitive

yunakti ‘joins’ yoksyati ‘intends tojoin’

yoktum ‘to join’

punati ‘cleanses’ pavisyati ‘intends tocleanse’

pavitum ‘to cleanse’

I first set implies roots yuk, yok, yok (zero-grade, o-grade,o-grade)

I the only way both sets can be derived from same PIEconjugation is to postulate original consonant X, so that

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Laryngeal Theory (1879)

*yu-na-k-ti *yeuk-syati *yeuk-tum*pu-na-X-ti *peuX-syati *peuX-tum

I F.d.S. conjectures of 2 (later 3) laryngealsI h1, neutral laryngealI h2, a-coloringI h3, o-coloring

I not found as such in any language (known at the time)derived from PIE

I only indirect traces in daughter languages as inconjugation of punati ’cleanses’ above

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Discovery of Hittite & Vindication of Laryngeal Theory (1935)

I Hittite first deciphered in 1927

I has sounds derived from two of the laryngealspostulated by Saussure

I e.g. Hittite hanti ’against’ cognate with Gr. anti-, Lat.ante-

I empirical confirmation of a-priori structural predictionmade immense impression

I in Cours de Saussure tries to generalize from way hefigured out the laryngeal theory

I FdS becomes father of modern linguistics, opposingI synchronic approach – language viewed as system at one

point in timeI diachronic approach – evolution of language (e.g.

reconstruction of PIE)

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)de Saussure’s Structuralism

I structuralism = notion that one can study language as astructure, i.e. a relative & oppositive system in which anelement exists only by its relation with, & opposition to,other elements

I e.g. in English /b/ & /v/ opposite→ differentiatebetween words bat & vat; in Spanish /b/ & /v/ equivalent

I different sound systems create comical confusion bynon-native speakers

I French coul & cul pronounced by English speakerI English fried rice pronounced by Japanese speaker

I → sensory (acoustic) content of elements less essentielthan their reciprocal relation within system (e.g. /b/ &/v/ equivalent vs. /b/ & /v/ opposed)

I → form more important than content

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Sign = Signified + Signifier

I “The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but aconcept and a sound-image.”

I → both components of the sign are psychological

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Sign = Signified + Signifier

I sign is combination ofsignifier (sound-image) &signified (concept)

I French signe, signifiant,signifié

I signifier and signifiedcannot be separated (liketwo sides of sheet ofpaper)

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Arbitrary Nature of the Sign

I “The bond between the signifier and the signified isarbitrary.”

I → linguistic sign is arbitrary

I by contrast symbol is not wholly arbitrary (e.g. pair ofscales symbolizing justice)

I → linguistics prototype of semiology = science of signs

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Language as System of Values

I determining value of a thing requires

1. dissimilar thing that can be exchanged for thing2. similar things that can be compared with thing

I e.g. word can be

1. exchanged with (dissimilar) idea2. compared with (similar) words

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Language as System of Values

I e.g. values of Eng. sheep & Fr. mouton differentbecause

I Eng. sheep ‘sheep’ × mutton ‘meat’I Fr. mouton ‘sheep, mutton’

I e.g. in Fr. value of décrépit ‘decrepit’ amplified bycoexistence of décrépi ‘(wall) with plaster coming off’

I e.g. value of plural different in Eng. & Sanskrit becausealso has dual, in addition to singular & plural

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Language as System of Values

I concepts notpredetermined but valuesemanating from system

I “When [signifiers] aresaid to correspond toconcepts, it is understoodthat concenpts are purelydifferential and definednot by their positivecontent but negatively bytheir relations with theother terms of the system.Their most precisecharacteristic is in beingwhat the others are not.”

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)Language & Community of Speakers

I language bound tocommunity of speakers

I speakers unconscious oflaws of language

I but “community itself doesnot control so much as asingle word”

I language not social contract

I language dominated bycultural transmission, notfree social choice

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)FdS Legacy – Influence on the Prague School (Phonology)

I Prince Nikolai S.Trubetzkoy (1890–1938)

I Roman Jakobson(1896–1982)

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)FdS Legacy – Phonology

I phoneme smallest distinctive unit within structure ofgiven language

I phonological systems of Modern (Standard) Arabic &(Israeli) Hebrew are overlapping

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)FdS Legacy – Phonology

I phonetic systems of Modern (Standard) Arabic &(Israeli) Hebrew are disjoint

I Eng. /p/ one phoneme; but /p/ in pin & spin phoneticallydifferent [ph] vs. [p]

Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908)Life & Influences

I

I born Brussels, Belgium,of Jewish parents

I grows up in Versailles

I U. of Paris

I 1934–38 teaches U. of SãoPolo, Brazil

I field trips to interior,becomes anthropologist

I story told in TristesTropiques (1955)

Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908)Life & Influences

I Claude Lévi-Strauss older

I 1940–1947 New Schoolfor Social Research, NY

I meets Franz Boas (whodies “in his arms”)

I meets Roman Jakobson,becomes structuralist

I Elementary Structures ofKinship (1949)

I Structural Anthropology(1955)

Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908)“Structural Study of Myths” from Structural Anthropology (1958)

I arranging numbers in a sequence is model fordecomposition of myth

I myth “as an orchestra score would be if it wereunwittingly considered as a unilinear series”

I arrange similar mythemes together in columns

Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908)Structural Analysis of Oedipus Myth

Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908)Structural Analysis of Oedipus Myth

I arrange similar mythemes in columns (previous slide)

I extract common feature of each column

1. overrating of blood relation2. underrating of blood relation3. denial of chthonian origin of man (chthonian monsters

overcome by man)4. persistence of chthonian origin of man (lameness

characteristic of chthonian beings)

I column (4) is to colum (3) as column (1) is to column (2)

I deep meaning of myth is reconciling contradictionI belief in chthonian origin of manI man results from union of man & woman

Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908)Legacy

I the raw, the cooked & therotten

I application ofstructuralism to cuisine

I assumption of singlehuman nature with innatemechanisms ofsimilarity/opposition

I + universal materialconstraints (e.g. raw,cooked, rotten)

I Mythologiques three thickvolumes

I treats structural theoriesas not really open toempirical testing

Jacques Lacan (1901–1981)Life & Influences

I

I born Paris

I becomes MD, thenpsychiatrist &psychoanalyst

I practices at HospitalSte-Anne, Paris

I holds seminar

I 1963 began teachingÉcole Pratique desHautes Études

I Écrits (Writings) ()