Tar!K______ 1
The Prague School of Linguistics Vs. The London of Linguistics
Modern schools of linguistics developed in the twentieth century and continued to
contribute towards understanding the science behind language since then. From
Saussure to Chomsky, we see gradual development in that scientific field. As a result,
the theories and works by the modern schools of linguistics, the field has now become
a well-reputed academic discipline. The linguists today can thank Saussure to some
extent for inciting that revolution towards “synchronic linguistics” from the previously
acclaimed “diachronic linguistics”. Instead of looking at language from a historical
perspective, these pioneers started looking at languages as systems that are snapshots
of times in history or the present. This essay will focus on two of those modern schools
of linguistics through a lens of “compare and contrast”. The two candidates for this
analysis are The Prague School of Linguistics and The London School of Linguistics;
both the schools have similarities in terms of functionality, but differ in how they view
phonology.
European schools of linguistics are more interested in the paradigmatic relations rather
than the syntagmatic relationships of a language. To understand the European schools
of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure (1916) must be mentioned repeatedly. His idea of
“langue vs. parole” has been the foundation of the European views on linguistics
(Sampson 2003). Before going deeper into the two schools of linguistics, it is important
to understand Saussure’s perspective. He talked about three distinguished terms for
language, langue and parole. Where language is just a general term, langue being a
particular language and finally, parole being the language of an individual.
Saussure’s synchronic view further led to the theory of Structuralism which
distinguished between the “signifie” vs. “signifiant”. In translation, this means
The Prague School of Linguistics Vs. The London of Linguistics
Modern schools of linguistics developed in the twentieth century and continued to
contribute towards understanding the science behind language since then. From
Saussure to Chomsky, we see gradual development in that scientific field. As a result,
the theories and works by the modern schools of linguistics, the field has now become
a well-reputed academic discipline. The linguists today can thank Saussure to some
extent for inciting that revolution towards “synchronic linguistics” from the previously
acclaimed “diachronic linguistics”. Instead of looking at language from a historical
perspective, these pioneers started looking at languages as systems that are snapshots
of times in history or the present. This essay will focus on two of those modern schools
of linguistics through a lens of “compare and contrast”. The two candidates for this
analysis are The Prague School of Linguistics and The London School of Linguistics;
both the schools have similarities in terms of functionality, but differ in how they view
phonology.
European schools of linguistics are more interested in the paradigmatic relations rather
than the syntagmatic relationships of a language. To understand the European schools
of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure (1916) must be mentioned repeatedly. His idea of
“langue vs. parole” has been the foundation of the European views on linguistics
(Sampson 2003). Before going deeper into the two schools of linguistics, it is important
to understand Saussure’s perspective. He talked about three distinguished terms for
language, langue and parole. Where language is just a general term, langue being a
particular language and finally, parole being the language of an individual.
Saussure’s synchronic view further led to the theory of Structuralism which
distinguished between the “signifie” vs. “signifiant”. In translation, this means
