Romero Lis

WRITTEN EXPRESSION IV

PEREGRINI

THEORIES OF THE LANGUAGE: SAUSSURE, CHOMSKY AND WIDDOWSON

The linguists, Saussure, Chomsky and Widdowson, analyzed the use of language and its structure. There are
differences and similarities in each theory as regards the different concepts that they postulated in their
books. The distinction between usage and use is related to the Saussures distinction between langue and parole
and Chomskys similar distinction between competence and performance.

Saussure said that langue (language) refers to the system of rules and conventions which is independent of, and
pre-exists, individual users whereas Parole (speech) is the use of the language. It is the actual utterances. It is an
external manifestation of langue. It is the usage of the system, but not the system. Saussure focused on langue
rather than parole because for him the most important are the structures and rules of a semiotic systems a whole
rather than a specific performances or practices which are merely instances of its use. In other words, it was the
system by which meaning could be created that was of interest to him rather than individual instances of its use.
Furthermore, Saussures approach was to study the system synchronically as if it were frozen in time rather
than diachronically in terms of its evolution over time. His theory differentials between the language and how
it is used, and therefore enables these two very different things to be studied as separate entities.
Widdowson said that knowing a language is more than how to understand, speak, read and write sentences, but
how sentences are used to communicate. He gave the definition of use and usage. Usage is the ability to
produce correct sentences, or manifestations of the linguistic system. That is to say, it makes evident the extent
to which the language user demonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules. On the other hand, use is the ability
to use the knowledge of the rules for effective communication.
Chomsky explained that performance is the real world linguistic output. It may accurately reflect competence,
but it also may include speech errors. Otherwise, competence, being an ideal, is located as a psychological or
mental property. This is in contrast to performance, which refers to an actual event.

Romero Lis

WRITTEN EXPRESSION IV

PEREGRINI

Chomskys notion of competence has to do with a language users knowledge of abstract linguistic rules. This
knowledge has to be put into effect as behavior, it has to be revealed through performance. When it is put into
effect through the citation of sentences to illustrate these rules, as is done in grammar books, then performance
yields instances of usage; abstract knowledge is manifested. In other words, usage is another aspect of
performance; that which make evident the extent to which the language user demonstrates his ability to use his
knowledge of linguistics rules for effective communication.
Competence is a persons underlying (subconscious) linguistic ability to create and understand sentences,
including sentences they have never heard before. Linguistic competence includes components such as
phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics and morphology. Moreover, competence enables native speaker to
recognize ambiguous sentences or accept even apparently meaningless sentences as syntactically correct. Even
if youve never heard these before, you know which one is English and which one isnt.
For instance; eight elephants very lazy brandy drank.
Chomsky argues that only under an idealized situation whereby the speaker-hearer is unaffected by
grammatically irrelevant conditions such as memory limitations and distractions will performance be a direct
reflection of competence.
Whereas the terms performance and parole can be used almost interchangeably, their counterparts
competence and langue are quite different from each other. Langue is a static system of signs, whereas
competence is understood as a dynamic concept, as a mechanism that will generate language endlessly.
Taking all these into account I can say that we are generally required to use our knowledge of the language
system in order to achieve some kind of communicative purpose. That is to say, we are generally called upon to
produce instances of language use; we dont simply manifest the abstract system of the language, we at the
same time realize it as meaningful communicative behavior. Finally, communicative abilities have to be
developed at the same time as the linguistic skills; otherwise the mere acquisition of the linguistic skills may
inhibit the development of communicative abilities.