From Semiology to Biolinguistics: A Comparative Analysis of Saussure’s Signs and Chomsky’s Genes

 Introduction

Just as art historians divide an artist’s career into distinct periods—like Picasso’s Blue Period (1901–1904) and Rose Period (1904–1906)—Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories have also evolved through several phases. Analyzing his work in these phases reveals the progression and shifts in his theoretical perspectives.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Chomsky’s early work established the principles of Transformational-Generative Grammar and Universal Grammar (UG), as seen in his seminal texts like Syntactic Structures (1957) and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965). During this phase, he introduced central concepts such as deep structure and surface structure, which revolutionized the way linguists viewed syntactic and semantic relations.

Chomsky’s Minimalist Program of the 1990s and 2000s marked a notable shift, where he aimed to simplify Universal Grammar by identifying and focusing on its most essential elements. This phase of his work sought to streamline the understanding of language structure and reduce the complexity inherent in his earlier theories. In consonance with Galileo, who believed that “Nature is simple,” Chomsky was looking for “the simplest theory”: “we will seek the simplest computational procedure consistent with the data of language, for reasons that are implicit in the basic goals of scientific inquiry” (Polychroniou, 2016).

In the most recent phase—the Biolinguistic Program (2000s–Present)—Chomsky explores the biological foundations of language, delving into the concept of internal language (I-language) and investigating its evolutionary origins. This phase reflects a profound shift towards understanding the genetic and cognitive underpinnings of language, aligning linguistic theory more closely with biological sciences.

This article focuses on Chomsky’s contemporary phase, examining his latest ideas through the lens of Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theories. By comparing Chomsky’s biolinguistic approach with Saussure’s emphasis on language as a semiological system, this analysis aims to provide a deeper understanding of how these distinct perspectives contribute to the broader field of linguistics and enrich our comprehension of the underlying principles of human language.

Recent Developments in Chomsky’s Work (2000s–Present)

In recent years, Noam Chomsky has concentrated on what he terms the "Basic Property" of human language—an innate genetic endowment that underpins the unique human capacity for language: "The fundamental task of inquiry into language is to determine the nature of the Basic Property — the genetic endowment that underlies the faculty of language" (Polychroniou, 2016). This concept is fundamental to understanding how humans generate and comprehend an infinite array of structured expressions, distinguishing our linguistic abilities from those of other species.

Chomsky’s work in this period emphasizes exploring the biological and cognitive foundations of language. He advocates for focusing on internal language, or "I-language," which refers to the mental representation of linguistic knowledge and the cognitive system that constructs and understands language independently of external influences. This shift highlights a move towards understanding how the language faculty operates within the mind, rather than its external manifestations.

He differentiates between internal language and external language (E-language). Internal language pertains to the cognitive mechanisms that generate and interpret linguistic expressions, whereas external language involves the practical use of language in communication, such as spoken and written forms. While I-language concerns the cognitive architecture of language, E-language reflects its application in real-world interactions.

His recent research agenda, part of the Biolinguistic Program, seeks to address critical questions about language acquisition, its genetic basis, and its evolutionary development. By bridging linguistic theory with biological science, Chomsky aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of language, focusing on its internal cognitive structures and genetic underpinnings. This approach underscores his commitment to uncovering the fundamental nature of language and its biological roots.

While Chomsky’s work has increasingly focused on the biological aspects of language, seeking to understand its cognitive and genetic underpinnings, the approach of Ferdinand de Saussure stands in stark contrast. Saussure laid the foundation for a very different way of looking at language. Unlike Chomsky, who delves into the innate properties of the human mind and the evolution of language, Saussure's theories concentrate on the relational and functional aspects of language as a social phenomenon.

Saussure’s Views on Language

In Course in General Linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure presents a complex and nuanced perspective on language. He addresses the challenge of defining the field of inquiry in linguistics, noting that unlike sciences with clear objects of study, linguistics lacks a predetermined object. Saussure illustrates this complexity through an analysis of the French word "nu" (naked), emphasizing that understanding this term involves multiple dimensions: its phonetic properties, its conceptual meaning, and its etymological roots. This highlights that linguistic objects are not fixed but are focus dependent.

He underscores the interconnectedness of different facets of language, arguing that linguistic phenomena encompass both auditory impressions and vocal articulations, which are inseparable in understanding language. Furthermore, language has both, an individual and a social aspect, making it challenging to define it as a single, unified object of study. He also addresses the duality between synchronic linguistics (language as it exists at a specific time) and diachronic linguistics (language as it evolves over time), these perspectives are deeply interconnected and should not be studied in isolation.

The Place of Origins in Saussure’s Theory and the Interconnection of Paired Elements

Saussure's views on the origins of language further illustrate the double essence of this phenomenon. He argues that the connection between the synchronic (present state) and diachronic (origins and evolution) aspects of language is so close that it is difficult to separate them. He dismisses the notion that studying the ontogenesis of language would simplify the understanding of language, focusing on the origins does not provide a distinct or simplified view of language; rather, it adds another layer of complexity.

This perspective is encapsulated in the statement: "It is quite illusory to believe that where language is concerned the problem of origins is any different from the problem of permanent conditions. There is no way out of the circle." [CGL] [24]. He emphasizes that the distinction between the origins of language and its permanent conditions is blurred, and it is impossible to definitively separate or prioritize the various elements involved in it.

To navigate these complexities, Saussure proposes focusing on linguistic structure (la langue) as the primary object of study. By analyzing the internal structure of language at a relatively stable period of time, linguists can create a coherent framework that accommodates its heteroclite nature and serves as a principle of classification: 

 "A language as a structured system, on the contrary, is both a self-contained whole and a principle of classification." [CGL] [25] 

“While language in general is heterogeneous, a language system is homogeneous in nature”. [CGL] [32] 

 A Comparative Analysis of Chomsky and Saussure's Linguistic Approaches

The linguistic theories of Noam Chomsky and Ferdinand de Saussure represent two fundamentally different approaches to understanding language, each shaping the field of linguistics in distinct ways. Their perspectives diverge sharply in terms of the origins and evolution of language, the role of biological factors, and the focus of linguistic inquiry.

Origins and Evolution of Language

Saussure and Chomsky differ significantly in their views on the origins and evolution of language. Saussure downplays the significance of language origins, arguing that linguistics should focus on language as a system of signs within a given time frame (synchrony). He argues that language is inherited from previous generations, and that historical and evolutionary aspects are secondary to understanding language at a specific point in time within a given community:

"In fact, no society has ever known its language to be anything other than something inherited from previous generations, which it has no choice but to accept. That is why the question of the origins of language does not have the importance generally attributed to it. It is not even a relevant question as far as linguistics is concerned. The sole object of study in linguistics is the normal, regular existence of a language already established". [CGL] [105]

For Saussure, the key to linguistic analysis lies in examining how language functions in its current state, rather than tracing its origin and historical development (diachrony).

In contrast, Chomsky places the origins and evolution of language at the heart of his theory. His biolinguistic approach emphasizes understanding the genetic and biological underpinnings of the language faculty, viewing this as essential for explaining human language acquisition and use. Chomsky’s focus on the evolutionary development of language and its basis in human genetics marks a departure from Saussure’s synchronic perspective.

Role of Biology in Linguistic Inquiry

The role of biology is another major point of divergence between the two theorists. Saussure’s theoretical framework treats language primarily as a cultural and social phenomenon, with little emphasis on biological or genetic factors: “A language, as we have just seen, is a social institution”.  [CGL] [33]. He considers language as a system of signs governed by social conventions and cultural norms. Saussure’s approach is thus centered on the relationships between signs and their use within linguistic systems rather than exploring the biological mechanisms behind language.

Chomsky, on the other hand, views language as an innate biological capacity. His biolinguistic approach investigates the cognitive and neurological processes involved in language acquisition, reflecting a belief that language is hard-wired into the human brain. His emphasis on uncovering the genetic mechanisms that facilitate language acquisition represents a significant expansion of linguistic inquiry to include cognitive science and neuroscience.

Chomsky’s emphasis on biology doesn´t seem to align with Saussure’s views on what should be the main focus of linguistic studies: “Our definition of a language assumes that we disregard everything which does not belong to its structure as a system; in short everything that is designated by the term ‘external linguistics’”. [CGL] [40]

Conclusion: Integrating Saussure and Chomsky’s Linguistic Approaches

This comparative analysis of Noam Chomsky’s and Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theories highlights the contrasting yet complementary nature of their approaches. Chomsky’s work, evolving from Transformational-Generative Grammar to the Minimalist Program and, most recently, the Biolinguistic Program, emphasizes, among other aspects, the genetic and cognitive mechanisms underpinning human language and its evolution, viewing it as an innate biological capacity. In contrast, Saussure views language as a social system of signs, shaped by cultural and historical forces, emphasizing its synchronic dimensions, yet recognizing its ties to the past.

The tension between these perspectives—Chomsky’s predominantly diachronic, biolinguistic framework and Saussure’s primarily synchronic, structuralist approach—underscores the diverse dimensions of linguistic inquiry. While Saussure’s theories illuminate the social and cultural aspects of language, Chomsky’s work explores its biological and cognitive foundations. By integrating these approaches, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of language, one that encompasses its intricate structural properties and its evolutionary and genetic basis. This synthesis not only enriches our comprehension of linguistic theory but also illustrates the multifaceted nature of language as both a cultural artifact and a biological phenomenon.

Related Posts

Saussure's Interdisciplinary Lens: Exploring the Peripheral Demarcation

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/01/blog-post_06.html

The Computational Nature of Language: Chomsky’s Theoretical Perspectives in the 21st Century

https://leonardoerasmo.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post.html

Exploring the Interplay of External and Internal Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_26.html

Bibliography

Chomsky, Noam. On Nature and Language. Edited by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Chomsky, Noam. “Of Minds and Language.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT, n.d. Accessed August 14, 2024.

Chomsky, Noam. The Minimalist Program: 20th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2015.

Polychroniou, C.J. (2016, September 24). Noam Chomsky on the Evolution of Language: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Truthout. Retrieved from https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-on-the-evolution-of-language-a-biolinguistic-perspective/

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

Saussure, F. (1910-1911). Troisième cours de linguistique générale: d'après les cahiers d'Emile Constantin [Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics: From the Notebooks of Emile Constantin]. (R. Harris, Trans.) University of Oxford.1993

The Evolution of Picasso’s Painting Style and What Each Artistic Choice Represents: https://mymodernmet.com/pablo-picasso-periods/