Understanding the Foundations of Linguistics: From Saussure to Today

 Before the modern study of language took shape, scholars mostly focused on how to label language as right or wrong. That tradition, called grammar, was mostly about correcting mistakes. Meanwhile, philology explored the history of words, grammar rules, rhetorical techniques, and the analysis of classic literature—mostly from Indo-European languages. Then came comparative philology, which tried to understand one language by comparing it to others. But this method had its limits: it looked at language from the outside, without digging deeper into how we use or experience it.

And it is that around the start of the 20^th century, a new way of thinking emerged—thanks to a Swiss professor named Ferdinand de Saussure, whose ideas completely reshaped our understanding of language.

Saussure and the Birth of Modern Linguistics

In his groundbreaking work Course in General Linguistics, Saussure proposed that linguistics should study language in its broadest and deepest sense, not just as rules or word histories, but as a living, social, and abstract phenomenon (Sreedharan, 2007). He introduced powerful concepts that still influence how we think about language today:

• Langue vs. Parole: Langue is the shared system of language in a community (like grammar rules), while Parole is how individuals actually use it in real situations.
• Signifier vs. Signified: Every word is a sign made of two parts: the signifier (the sound or written form) and the signified (the concept or meaning).
• Synchrony vs. Diachrony: We can study language as it exists now (synchronically), or how it changes over time (diachronically).

One of Saussure’s most debated ideas was that the link between the signifier and signified is arbitrary. For example, there’s no natural reason why the sound “dog” refers to that furry animal—it’s just a social agreement. However, Saussure downplayed the role of the human mind and cultural experience in how we produce or shape language. His main concern was structure.

After Saussure: New Paths in Linguistics

After Saussure, many other scholars built on or challenged his views. Let’s look at three major developments:

1. Structuralism

This school, inspired by Saussure, emphasized the deep structures of language. But over time, it began to overdo it—focusing so much on rules and systems that it sometimes ignored the messy, creative, human side of communication.

2. Semiotics

Here, Charles Sanders Peirce (1960) offered a fresh take. He said there are three types of signs:

• Icon: A sign that looks like what it represents (e.g., a photograph of a dog).
• Index: A sign that points to something else (e.g., smoke signals fire).
• Symbol: A sign whose meaning is based on social convention (e.g., traffic lights or letters of the alphabet).

This approach acknowledged that signs can connect meaning in different ways—not always arbitrary.

3. Functionalism

Roman Jakobson (1981) focused on how language works in real communication. He looked at who is speaking, who is listening, what the message is, and why it’s being said. Language wasn’t just a system of signs—it was a living act between people.

Language Acquisition: How Do We Learn to Speak?

In the field of second language learning, one big question has always been: How do children acquire language? Two main schools offer answers:

• Behaviourism: Children learn by imitation and reinforcement.
• Nativism: Language is an inborn capacity of the human mind.

Noam Chomsky (1986) shook the world of linguistics by arguing that language is universal and innate. He introduced the idea of a Universal Grammar—a mental blueprint that all humans share. For Chomsky, the mind plays a central role in language. Yet, he didn’t fully consider the importance of culture or the role of bodily experiences like emotions, gestures, or sensory input.

Toward a More Human View: Cognitive Linguistics

Today, many scholars believe that neither structure nor pure mental rules are enough. Cognitive Linguistics brings it all together. It says that: Language is shaped by our bodies (how we move, feel, and perceive the world), our minds (how we think and remember), and our cultures (our shared stories, habits, and values).

This perspective helps us understand language as something deeply human—tied to how we live, feel, and connect with others.

As a teacher in training, understanding these shifts in linguistic theory is more than just academic—it helps you see how language reflects the minds, bodies, and cultures of your students. When you teach, you're not just correcting grammar; you're helping young people find their voice in a new language. And that’s a deeply human task.

References

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Praeger.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. Elsevier.

Jakobson, R. (1981). Selected writings. Mouton Publishers.

Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.

Sreedharan, E. (2007). A textbook of historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000. Orient Longman.