Semiology: langage, langue, and parole[edit]

Saussure focuses on what he calls langage, that's "a system of signs that express ideas," and
suggests that it may be divided into two components: langue, referring to the abstract system
of language that is internalized by a given speech community, and parole, the individual acts
of speech and the "putting into practice of language".
While speech (parole) is heterogeneous, that is to say composed of unrelated or differing
parts or elements, language (langue) is homogeneous, composed of the union of meanings
and 'sound images' in which both parts are psychological. Therefore, as langue is systematic,
it is this that Saussure focuses on since it allows an investigative methodology that is rooted,
supposedly, in pure science. Beginning with the Greek word semon' meaning 'sign',
Saussure names this science semiology: a science that studies the life of signs within
society'.
A popular view of language is that it is a natural organism, that grows and evolves in
accordance with fixed laws and is not determinable by the will of humans. Saussure argued
against that organicist view of language. Instead, he defined language as a social product, the
social side of speech being beyond the control of the speaker. According to Saussure,
language is not a function of the speaker, but is passively assimilated. Speaking, as defined
by Saussure, is a premeditated act.
The sign[edit]
The focus of Saussure's investigation is the linguistic unit or sign.
The sign (signe) is described as a "double entity", made up of the signifier, or sound image
(signifiant), and the signified, or concept (signifi). The sound image is a psychological, not a
material concept, belonging to the system. Both components of the linguistic sign are
inseparable. One way to appreciate this is to think of them as being like either side of a piece
of paper one side simply cannot exist without the other.
The relationship between signifier and signified is, however, not quite that simple. Saussure
is adamant that language cannot be considered a collection of names for a collection of
objects (as where Adam is said to have named the animals). According to Saussure, language
is not a nomenclature. Indeed, the basic insight of Saussure's thought is that denotation, the
reference to objects in some universe of discourse, is mediated by system-internal relations of
difference.
Arbitrariness[edit]
For Saussure, there is no essential or natural reason why a particular signifier should be
attached to a particular signified. Saussure calls this the "arbitrariness of the sign"
(l'arbitraire du signe).


Fig. 2 Arbitrariness
No two people have precisely the same concept of "tree," since no two people have precisely
the same experiences or psychology. We can communicate "tree," however, for the same
reason we can communicate at all: because we have agreed to use it in a consistent way. If we
agreed to use the word and sound for "horse" instead, it would be called "horse" to the same
effect. Since all that is important is agreement and consistency, the connection is arbitrary.
In Lewis Carroll's book Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Alice
comes across nonsense poem called Jabberwocky. Carroll exploits the arbitrary nature of the
signifier-signified relationship through use of nonsense words, empty signifiers which refer to
no concept but which we naturally try to ascribe signifieds to.
Excerpt from J abberwocky
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
In further support of the arbitrary nature of the sign, Saussure goes on to argue that if words
stood for pre-existing universal concepts they would have exact equivalents in meaning from
one language to the next and this is not so. Languages reflect shared experience in
complicated ways and can paint very different pictures of the world from one another. To
explain this, Saussure uses the word buf as an example. In English, he says, we have
different words for the animal and the meat product: Ox and beef. In French, buf is used to
refer to both concepts. In Saussure's view, particular words are born out of a particular
society's needs, rather than out of a need to label a pre-existing set of concepts.
But the picture is actually even more complicated, through the integral notion of 'relative
motivation'. Relative motivation refers to the compositionality of the linguistic system, along
the lines of an immediate constituent analysis. This is to say that, at the level of langue,
hierarchically nested signifiers have relatively determined signified. An obvious example is
in the English number system: That is, though twenty and two might be arbitrary
representations of a numerical concept, twenty-two, twenty-three etc. are constrained by those
more arbitrary meanings. The tense of verbs provides another obvious example: The meaning
of "kicked" is relatively motivated by the meanings of "kick-" and "-ed". But, most simply,
this captures the insight that the value of a syntagma system-level sentenceis a function
of the value of the signs occurring in it. It is for this reason that Leonard Bloomfield called
the lexicon the set of fundamental irregularities of the language. (Note how much of the
"meaningfulness" of the Jabberwocky poem is due to these sorts of compositional
relationships!)
A further issue is onomatopoeia. Saussure recognised that his opponents could argue that
with onomatopoeia there is a direct link between word and meaning, signifier and signified.
However, Saussure argues that, on closer etymological investigation, onomatopoeic words
can, in fact, be coincidental, evolving from non-onomatopoeic origins. The example he uses
is the French and English onomatopoeic words for a dog's bark, that is Ouaf Ouaf and Bow
Wow.
Finally, Saussure considers interjections and dismisses this obstacle with much the same
argument, i.e., the sign/signifier link is less natural than it initially appears. He invites readers
to note the contrast in pain interjection in French (aie) and English (ouch).
Value[edit]
See also: Value (semiotics)
The value of a sign is determined by all the other signs in the langue.


Fig. 3 Value
Saussure realized that if linguistics was going to be an actual science, language could not be a
mere nomenclature; for otherwise it would be little more than a fashionable version of
lexicology, constructing lists of the definitions of words. Thus he argued that the sign is
ultimately determined by the other signs in the system, which delimit its meaning and
possible range of use, rather than its internal sound-pattern and concept. Sheep, for example,
has the same meaning as the French word mouton, but not the same value, for mouton can
also be used to mean the meal lamb, whereas sheep cannot, because it has been delimited by
mutton.
Language is therefore a system of interdependent entities. But not only does it delimit a sign's
range of use, for which it is necessary, because an isolated sign could be used for absolutely
anything or nothing without first being distinguished from another sign, but it is also what
makes meaning possible. The set of synonyms redouter ("to dread"), craindre ("to fear"), and
avoir peur ("to be afraid"), for instance, have their particular meaning so long as they exist in
contrast to one another. But if two of the terms disappeared, then the remaining sign would
take on their roles, become vaguer, less articulate, and lose its "extra something", its extra
meaning, because it would have nothing to distinguish it from.
This is an important fact to realize for two reasons: (A) it allows Saussure to argue that signs
cannot exist in isolation, but are dependent on a system from within which they must be
deduced in analysis, rather than the system itself being built up from isolated signs; and (B)
he could discover grammatical facts through syntagmatic and paradigmatic analyses.
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations[edit]
Language works through relations of difference, then, which place signs in opposition to one
another. Saussure asserted that there are only two types of relations: syntagmatic and
paradigmatic. The latter is associative, and clusters signs together in the mind, producing sets:
sat, mat, cat, bat, for example, or thought, think, thinking, thinker. Sets always involve a
similarity, but difference is a prerequisite, otherwise none of the items would be
distinguishable from one another: this would result in there being a single item, which could
not constitute a set on its own.
These two forms of relation open linguistics up to phonology, morphology, syntax and
semantics. Take morphology, for example. The signs cat and cats are associated in the mind,
producing an abstract paradigm of the word forms of cat. Comparing this with other
paradigms of word forms, we can note that in the English language the plural often consists
of little more than adding an s to the end of the word. Likewise, in syntax, through
paradigmatic and syntagmatic analysis, we can discover the grammatical rules for
constructing sentences: the meaning of je dois ("I should") and dois je? ("Should I?") differ
completely simply because of word order, allowing us to note that to ask a question in
French, you only have to invert the word order. A third valuation of language stems from its
social contract, or its accepted use in culture as a tool between two humans.
Since syntagmas can belong to speech, the linguist must identify how often they are used
before he can be assured that they belong to the language.
Synchronic and diachronic axes[edit]
Language that is studied synchronically is "studied as a complete system at a given point in
time" (The AB axis). Language studied diachronically is "studied in its historical
development" (The CD axis). Saussure argues that we should be concerned with the AB axis
(in addition to the CD axis, which was the focus of attention in Saussure's time), because, he
says, language is "a system of pure values which are determined by nothing except the
momentary arrangements of its terms". We could study chess diachronically (how the rules
change through time) or synchronically (the actual rules).
To illustrate this, Saussure uses a chess metaphor. In chess, a person joining a game's
audience mid-way through requires no more information than the present layout of pieces on
the board and who the next player is. They would not benefit from knowing how the pieces
came to be arranged in this way.
Definition:
In linguistics, the absence of any natural or necessary connection between a word's meaning and its sound or
form.
Arbitrariness is one of the characteristics of all languages. Although there are some words that exhibit an
apparent connection between sound and sense (see sound symbolism), such words are comparatively rare. See
Examples and Observations, below.
See also:
Cultural Transmission
Displacement
Duality of Patterning
English Language
Icon, Sign, and Symbol
Productivity
Ads
Learn Japanese online
www.busuu.com
Learn Japanese online and completely for free!
Distance MBA Admission
shiatsdde.edu.in/Distance+MBA
Join UGC Approved Distance Program. In Finance, Marketing & More.Apply!
Speak English Fluently
www.eagetutor.com/Speak_English
Learn to Speak English Fluently with Online Spoken English Program.
Examples and Observations:
"Despite occasional iconic characteristics, human language is essentially arbitrary. The form of an
expression is generally independent of its meaning except for the associations established by
convention. Imagine a parent trying to catch a few minutes of the televised evening news while
preparing dinner. Suddenly a strong aroma of burning rice wafts into the TV room. This nonarbitrary
sign will send the parent scurrying to salvage dinner. The aroma is caused by the burning rice and will
convey its message to speakers of any language. Now consider the words of a youngster who sees the
smoke in the kitchen and shouts, 'The rice is burning!' That utterance is just as likely to send the parent
hurtling to the kitchen, but the words are arbitrary. It is a set of facts about English (not about burning
rice) that enables the utterance to alert the parent. The utterance is thus an arbitrary sign."
(Edward Finegan, Language: Its Structure and Use, 6th ed. Wadsworth, 2012)

Different Languages, Different Conventions
"Different languages have different conventions (that's part of the reason they are different languages),
and conventions can and do change. . . .

"The overwhelming presence of arbitrariness in language is the chief reason it takes so long to learn
the vocabulary of a foreign language: it's generally impossible to guess the meaning of an unfamiliar
word, and each new word just has to be learned individually. Even if I give you the big clue that all of
the following Basque words are the names of living creatures, I very much doubt that you'll be able to
guess any of them: zaldi, igel, txori, oilo, behi, sagu. In fact, they mean 'horse,' 'frog,' 'bird,' 'hen,' 'cow'
and 'mouse,' respectively. . . .

"Arbitrariness is in no way unique to human language: it is typical of animal signalling systems and of
virtually every conceivable system of communication."
(Robert Lawrence Trask, Language: The Basics, 2nd ed. Routledge, 1999)

The Arbitrariness of Linguistic Rules
"Consider the arbitrariness of linguistic rules. The rule that the word for tadpole in English is 'tadpole'
is arbitrary (i.e. lacking in reason) in one sense, as linguists have often remarked: there is no reason a
language ought to use those phonemes arranged in that order to refer to a tadpole ('renacuajo' or
'rumpetroll' would do as well). Yet at the same time, the rule and actions guided by it are not arbitrary
in other senses. . . . [A]s with all norms of language, there is a good reason to have such norms for the
use of words in such ways. That good reason is that it is actually necessary to do so to achieve the
coordination that enables communication, self-expression, and all the other priceless benefits of having
a language."
(Timothy Endicott, "The Value of Vagueness." Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, ed.
by Andrei Marmor and Scott Soames. Oxford University Press, 2011)


"Arbitrariness does not mean that the individual speaker can proceed quite freely in the choice of
linguistic constructions: from the standpoint of language acquisition and communication, the speaker
experiences the connection between sign and meaning as customary and obligatory."
(Hadumod Bussmann, Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated and edited by
Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzai. Routledge, 1996)

Onomatopoeia and Arbitrariness
"There are sporadic instances in all languages of what is traditionally referred to as onomatopoeia: cf.
the non-arbitrary connection between the form and meaning of such onomatopoeic words as 'cuckoo,'
'peewit,' 'crash,' in English. But the vast majority of the words in all languages are non-onomatopoeic:
the connection between their form and their meaning is arbitrary in that, given the form, it is
impossible to predict the meaning and, given the meaning, it is impossible to predict the form."
(John Lyons, Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1981)

Saussure and the Arbitrariness of the Linguistic Sign
"It was [Swiss linguist Ferdinand de] Saussure who first drew attention to the fundamental importance
for linguistic theory of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. This arbitrariness is no accident: it is a
prerequisite of the semiotic efficiency of the medium. Only a tiny proportion of conceivable notions
could be effectively portrayed in sound, so a limitation to iconic signs would seriously constrain the
expressive range of language. It is possible that the earliest words to develop in the history of language
were imitative; if so, then the break with iconicity, whenever it occurred, was a decisive step in the
evolution of the language faculty."
(D.A. Cruse, "Language, Meaning and Sense: Semantics." An Encyclopaedia of Language, ed. by N.E.
Collinge. Routledge, 1990)


"Saussure also argued that what is treated as a separate concept in a language worthy of its own
letter/sound combination, is also arbitrary: 'different languages cut up reality in different ways'
(Andersen, 1988: 27). For example, we could investigate two different languages and find that
Language A uses three different words to refer to still water, rain and floodwater, but that Language B
only has one word which is used for all three kinds of water. . . .

"Another aspect of Saussure's theory is his claim that signs depend on one another for their meaning.
Take the example of Language B, above. If the circumstances of the speakers of Language B changed,
they might find that it would be useful to distinguish rain from other kinds of water and adopt the word
from Language A . . .. The consequence would be that the original word for water in Language B
would have to shift slightly in meaning, because it would no longer include the concept of rain water,
since this now has its own sign."
(Linda Thomas, Shn Wareing, Ishtla Singh, and Jean Stilwell Peccei, Language, Society and Power:
An Introduction. Routledge, 2000)


"The fundamental principle of the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign does not prevent us from
distinguishing in any language between what is intrinsically arbitrary--that is, unmotivated--and what is
only relatively arbitrary. Not all signs are absolutely arbitrary. In some cases, there are factors which
allow us to recognize different degrees of arbitrariness, although never to discard the notion entirely.
The sign may be motivated to a certain extent."
(Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics [1916], trans. by Wade Baskin.
Fontana/Collins, 1974)
Pronunciation: AR-bi-TRAR-i-ness
Saussure and the arbitrariness of the sign
27Jan
Ad by Movie Mode
X
X
Born in Geneva in 1857, Ferdinand de Saussure is today considered to be the father of
modern linguistics. His thought led to the establishment of the general study of ways which
human experience is organised. Although his work in linguistic theory was only published
posthumously, extracted from his own notes and teachings, Saussures thinking completely
changed the way in which we engage a systematic study of language.

Saussures preliminary problem was that the study of linguistics in his time never attempted
to determine the nature of the object it was studying.[1] Language is a complex system
possessing multiple aspects which lend themselves to analysis. A study of language, then,
might try focusing on any of the following:
i) The formal properties of sounds produced by language
ii) The articulation of air through the mouth, tongue and vocal chords.
iii) The physical reception of sounds via the stimulation of the ear.
iv) The intentions of the speaker when speaking.
v) The concepts and objects referred to by language.
vi) The social contexts of communication; the circumstances of speech.
vii) The conventions of language accepted by both speaker and listener which allows
for the transmission of meaning.
viii) The historical development of language forms.
Without knowledge of the fundamental nature of the object of analysis, Saussure knew that
linguistics could never develop an appropriate method. No single one of these aspects offers
itself as a satisfactory answer to the question: what is language?
Saussures own answer to this question was, though in no way spectacular, resoundingly
important: language is a system of signs. Noises or marks are considered to be words only
when they serve to express ideas, and never otherwise. In order to express ideas, these sounds
and marks must operate from within a system of conventions; rules which delineate words
from each other and from nonsense. In order for this system to successfully delineate
meaningful sounds and marks in this way, the system of conventions must be acknowledged
as such by those who use it. Sounds and marks thus become words only when operating
within a system of convention and only when that system is recognised as such.
Language as a system of signs is therefore a two-sided coin. On one side of this coin is the
verbalised or written form of language: a sanctioned combination of sounds (syllables and
intonation) or marks (letters and punctuation): this form is what Saussure names the signifier.
On the second side of the coin is the idea or concept which the signifier is attempting to
express. This side is called the signified. For example, the syllables d-oh-g, when spoken,
form the spoken signifier dog, which is a recognised word in the English language. The
sounds d-oh-g become the spoken word dog and dog is a signifier in English. The
signified concept activated by the linguistic signifier dog in this example is understood to
be a domesticated, quadrapedal mammal known to bark and chase balls: a dog. Thus the two
sides of Saussures sign (or coin if you like) allow it to function as one (they do not actually
exist independently of each other in reality, even if the analysis seems to suggest as much).
Saussure had come to understand, as Jonathan Culler writes, that a particular combination
of signifier and signified is an arbitrary entity.[2] In other words, the form that a word takes
has no effect on what it signifies: this explains why like concepts can be expressed across a
multiplicity of languages. Take the concept of the colour red: in English its linguistic signifier
is red; rouge for the French; hongsi or in Mandarin, et cetera. Although these
signifiers are entirely different from each other in form, they all serve to express the same
concept with equal success. However, it is not true that all concepts are expressed the same
across all languages, indeed far from it. This is true because the signified, those concepts
expressed by language, are also arbitrary. Each language is in and of itself an entirely
arbitrary structure.
Saussure came to the conclusion that every language is the sum of its conceptual distinctions:
every language cuts up the world in its own way. These conceptual distinctions can be
concerned with a whole number of properties or distinguishing features and the selection of
one over the other is the way languages are structurally, not just formally, disparate. In
Saussures words, language can divide up a spectrum of conceptual possibilities in any way
it likes.[3] Stream and river in English are divergent concepts by distinction of their
corresponding sizes: a stream is a little river; a river is a big stream. Rain and snow form
separate, meaningful terms by virtue of the distinction of temperature and chemical state. But
stream and river could easily be subsumed into a single term meaning flowing body of
water, just as rain and snow might be reduced to a term meaning substances falling
from the clouds. On the other hand, in French, the distinction between riviere and fleuve
is not one of size, but rather that a riviere flows into the sea, where a fleuve does not.
Conceptual distinctions are immensely useful, of course, but they are not innate: they are
arbitrary, just as the sounds and marks used to express them. Saussure was concerned that
while this fundamental principle of arbitrariness is uncontested, is not wholly appreciated.
The arbitrariness of the signified explains why names for ideas are not merely substitutable
across the different languages (asides from simple ones like the colour red). For example, this
is why we cant replace the German term schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the suffering of
others) with any particular word in English; we simply dont have an equivalently concise
linguistic concept available. Of course we can get there in a roundabout fashion, but the
concept is not embedded into any word in English per se. In the West, to be called fat is
insulting, on account of the distinctly negative social value imbued in the word. But in China,
for example, it is an insult to call someone skinny kushou( ) as it suggests
undernourishment or poor health. In this example the conceptual distinction remains constant
(physical weight) but the conceptual value is inverted across the two languages; one could not
substitute kushou for skinny in discussions pertaining to physical desirability because of
the difference in appreciation of those concepts. The point here is, as Saussure writes, that
each language articulates or organises the world differently. Languages do not simply name
existing categories, they articulate their own.[4]
The fact of the arbitrariness of the sign can be seen in the rich history of conceptual shifts that
have occurred even within the linguistic evolution of English. The word cattle, for
example, used to mean property. In subsequent years the term came to refer property that
was four-footed before it came to refer to, as it does today, domesticated bovines. This
example clearly reveals how concepts (signifieds) of signs, like their forms (signifiers),
change with circumstances: not only the marks and sounds, but the semantic shape of words
evolve over time. We discover not ideas given in advance but values emanating from the
system, writes Saussure.[5]
To stress the obviousness of the point, the opposite to an arbitrary system of signs would be a
system which is grounded on concrete essences; of fundamental things in reality. This
language would be premised on the discovery of the one true system of distinctions upon
which our reality is founded. The quest for the language of Adam for example, in the
Christian tradition, was once a major preoccupation of language study; a mythical description
of this one true system. The book of Genesis begins with the myth of the garden of Eden,
where Adam, the first man, gives, under his gods instruction, names to all the animals and
things of the world. Theologists once believed the rediscovery (it was lost at Babel) of this
perfect system would mean the elimination of all the discrepancies and differences in the
languages of the world; uniting all under the true language of the Christian god. But
without the authority of a god and a list of essences, however, we are left to our own,
fluctuating, evolving, disparate systems of signs. Instead of an absolute, positive definition of
a thing we rely on relational distinctions for meaning, as the above example of river and
stream highlights.
The most precise characteristic [of signs] is that they are what the others are not, Saussure
argues.[6] Jonathan Culler offers a great example: imagine that language was a game of
chess. Each piece in the game has a distinct shape to separate it formally from the others.
This shape signifies the manner in which a piece may function. But it doesnt really matter if
you replace a king with a coin, so long as both players agree that the coin now operates the
same way as the king does. The piece is defined by its function and the function is defined by
the rules of the game. There is nothing innately kingly about being able to move one square
in all directions; this movement is merely relational; defined in usefulness by the movements
of the other pieces. Identity is wholly a function of differences within a system writes
Culler: there are only differences, with no positive terms writes Saussure.[7]
The point of all this is to separate the wheat of the object of linguistic analysis from the chaff
of its expression or realisation/performance. The game of language, like the game of chess, is
in the fullest sense a system of relational differences. When you have the chess pieces alone
with no instructions as to how they move and function, you have a bunch of curious forms;
when you have knowledge of these instruction but no any pieces, you just cant play the
game. This division between the relational or conceptual structure and its formal expression
is the difference between, in Saussurian terminology, la langue and parole. Riding the same
distinction between the signified and its signifier, la langue refers to the entire relational
structure of concepts which constitutes a language, where parole refers to the performance or
expression of that system. In other words, la langue and parole distinguish a linguistic
structure (the conceptual plane) from its actual manifestation (linguistic form). Parole is
literal speech and writing in this sense, with la langue being that which is assimilated in
coming to understand a language: the object of linguistic analysis.
In dividing language in this way we are separating what is social from what is individual and
what is essential from what is ancillary or accidental, writes Saussure.[8] When we talk
about language, then, we are, in a sense, not so much talking about a particular set of word-
forms, but the conceptual structure which those forms delineate.








Q. 1. Discuss the nature of language and explain how it is
learnt. Cite illustrative examples.
Q. 1. Discuss the nature of language and explain how it is learnt. Cite illustrative
examples.
Ans. Language is the most important phenomenon in the world. From birth to death, all our
activities are regulated by language. The human knowledge and culture is stored and
transmitted in language. Thinking is only possible through language. In our dreams, we make
use of language. Language dominates every aspect of human life. In fact, it is a yardstick to
separate us from other beings. Language is a mean of communication. With the help of
language, we can express our thoughts and feelings to others. Without language, society
would be impossible.

SOME DEFINITIONS OF LANGUAGE:
1. Oxford English Dictionary defines language as Words and the methods of
combining them for the expression of thoughts
2. According to Allen, Language is a mean of communicative thoughts.
3. According to Bolinger, Language is species specific.
4. According to H.A. Gleason, Language is one of the most important and
characteristic forms of human behavior.
5. According to Ben Jonson, Language most shows a man, speak that I may see
thee.
6. Leonard Bloomfield says, Each community is formed by the activity of language.

NATURE OF LANGUAGE:
1. Language is learnt: Learning of language is not an automatic process. Of course, it is
a behaviour but it is not type of behaviour like walking and crawling that comes to child in
natural way. Language by imitation and practice. Language is not possible without effort.
2. Language is related to the culture of society: Every language is related to culture of
society to which it belongs. The culture of the people naturally influences the language.
Every language is the product of society. We cannot separate language from the culture in
which that language exists. It has meaning only in relation to that society and culture.
3. Language is species specific: Language is species specific. Only human beings have
got the gift of language. Of course, the other species do communicate but only human beings
can make use of language.
4. Language is species uniformed: Language is species uniformed. All human children
are capable of acquiring any language natively if they are provided the right kind of
environment.
5. Language is a system: Each language is a unique system. The system of language
consists of sounds, structures and vocabulary. A person who wants to learn a new language
will have to learn new sounds, new structures and new vocabulary. The sound system of
language differs from language to language depending upon the culture to which a language
belongs. Each language has its own system of vocabulary. Thus each language is systematic.
6. Language is a system of systems: Each language is a system of systems. There are
phonological and grammatical systems in all languages. There are several sub systems with in
a language. The phonology of a language forms its own system as the various sounds
function in a systematic way.
7. Language is a system of symbols: Each language works through symbols. Different
words used in a language are the symbols. They stand for certain things. The language will
function well if its symbols are known both to the speaker and the person for whom they are
being used.
For example the world cup has three sounds (K, , P) It is a symbol of English because a
meaning is attached to it. But if we take the same three sounds like, K, , P they do form Puc,
but that is not a symbol of English language as no meaning is attached to it.
8. Symbols of language are vocal: Different symbols are used in a single language.
These symbols are vocal. A language system does not exist in a vacuum. It is primary used in
speech. Only speech provides all essential signals of a language. There are other kinds of
symbols which cannot be called vocal symbols. For example, gestures and signal flags are
visual symbols and ringing of the bells and beating of a drum are auditory symbols. They do
not form any language. In language the sounds are produced through vocal organs. Reading
and writing are no doubt important. But speech is the basic form of language. A language
without speech is unthinkable.
9. Language is a skill subject: Learning of a language is a skill subject. It is skill like
swimming and cycling. We can not learn swimming or cycling just by studying rules. We can
learn it by practice. In the same way, we can learn a language y constant practice of that
language. So a lot of repetition for major linguistic skills like listening, speaking, reading and
writing is required.
10. Language is for communication: Language is the best means of communication and
self expressions. Human beings express their ideas, thoughts, feelings and emotions through
language. In this way language is a means to connect past present and future.
11. Governed by a particular set of rules: Each language is governed by a particular set
or rules. For example English is S.V.O. language. In forming sentence, we put subject, then
verb and after verb we put object.
For example
He killed a snake.
Subject Verb Object
On the other hand, Hindi is S.O.V. language. First we put subject, he object and after object,
we put verb.
]sanao saaMp maara .
Subject Object Verb
12. Symbols of language are Arbitrary: Here by arbitrary symbols we meant that there is
no visual relationship between the language item and the object for which it stands. A man is
called man traditionally. There is no visual similarity between the symbol man and the
actual man. We have not named it so on the basis of some logic or scientific principles. In
English we say man, in Hindi we say manauYya and in Punjabi we say ___________.
None of them is better than the other. In fact, we call a man man because people have
agreed to use it in that sense.
13. Language is unique: Each language is unique because it has its own style of
functioning. The sounds, vocabulary and structures of every language have their own
specialty.