De Suassure's Paraphrase Summary

1039 Words 5 Pages
De Suassure’s Paraphrase
De Suassure discusses the difference between semiology (study of signs) to linguistics and how it is a part of semiology. He argues about the difference between signs and symbols; the former being an arbitrary thing and the latter has a rational relationship with the thing it relates too. He then talks about how linguistic changes based on individuals and society. To examine this, he talks about the difference between synchronic linguistics, which is studied during a point in time, and diachronic, which studies language throughout human history. Next, he discusses the fact that language abides by a set of rules and can be viewed by structural units which creates a system of values. Ultimately, language as a duality
…show more content…
His idea centers around the difference between metaphor and metonymy in language, and thus, in aphasia. First, he describes what metonymy, a substitution for a word (suit for a business person), and metaphor, a word that means something like the original word. Depending on how one uses these types of language, and whether one prefers one over the other, is proof of an individual’s “personal style, his verbal predilections and preferences” (1153). To further his point, he brings up Gleb Ivanovič Uspenskij who had a language disorder in which a word (his name), which meant the same thing, began to mean something different. It is important to determine whether the symbols are from contiguity (displacement) or similarity (symbolism) which comes from …show more content…
A piece of literature must not be privy to history’s objectivism and without use of psychology (or at least not relying on either). These texts are then evaluated on a “horizon of expectations” and, depending on how the texts adheres to them, it is viewed differently on the horizon (1412). Also, reconstructing “the horizon of expectations” through the past allows a look at the contemporary reader’s viewpoint. However, the text should be looked at both through this historical understanding as well as how it relates to the texts in other series. Linguistic’s use of synchronic and diachronic has allowed readers to view a work synchronically as well as diachronically. Finally, literary history must be seen as related to “general history,” but also as “special history”

Related Documents