Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1. Introduction
In this article, I shall examine the early history of linguistic structuralism and the role played in it by the Russian philologist and linguist
Roman Jakobson (18961982). I shall show that he was the first linguist
237
238
W. Keith Percival
239
240
W. Keith Percival
these new perspectives filtered into linguistics the influence may not
have come from Saussure alone. To express this notion more positively,
it seems reasonable to believe that to some significant extent Saussures
Cours confirmed and reinforced already prevailing theoretical trends.5
One suspects in other words that many linguists had already come to
believe in much of what Saussure set out to demonstrate in the Cours
before they had even read the book. The link between that book and the
rise of structuralism is the crucial question to consider here.
241
242
W. Keith Percival
243
4. Early structuralism
As for the important term structuralism, it was never used by Ferdinand
de Saussure himself and in general was not used by linguists at all until
the late 1920s, that is, a full decade after the Cours had first appeared
and over a decade after its author died. Specifically, the word is first
attested in writings issuing from the Linguistic Circle of Prague
(Cercle linguistique de Prague), founded by Vilm Mathesius and
Roman Jakobson in 1926. An important early document emanating
of the poets contemporaries, and the new tendencies that Pushkin embodied in his
poetry. Similarly, Jakobson relates the poetic language of his own contemporaries
Velimir Khlebnikov (18851922) and Vladimir Mayakovskij (18931930), to the
conversational language of the present time, the special poetic language used by
these poets, and the trends and tendencies found in their work, in other words a
similar triad of factors. Basic to Jakobsons preoccupation was the dynamic impact
of creative writing. Poetic language is to some extent independent of the language
of everyday life but also has a dialectical relationship with the ever changing poetic
tradition. Arguably, Jakobson found Saussures rigid two-way relationship between
the synchronic and diachronic perspectives in linguistics inadequate to handle these
complex relationships. In essence, while he finds Saussures neat antinomies intellectually stimulating on the one hand he does not find them true to the complexities
of actual linguistic usage on the other.
244
W. Keith Percival
245
of Geneva under Charles Bally from 1916 to 1917, hence shortly after
Saussures death in 1913, begins his article with the following verbatim
quotation from the Cours (Saussure 1916: 127; 1922: 124):
La langue est un systme dont toutes les parties peuvent et doivent tre
considres dans leur solidarit synchronique.
[Language is a system all parts of which can and should be investigated in
their synchronic inter-dependence.]11
5. Structural psychology
The key terms structure and structural, connected with the word
structuralism, were, however, not coined by linguists in the late
1920s but had already been current among psychologists a generation
earlier.12 At that time, they referred to a distinctive feature of the
theories professed by the British-born American psychologist E. B.
Titchener (18671927), who had studied at the University of Leipzig
under the founder of experimental psychology Wilhelm Wundt. The
essence of the approach that he had acquired there consisted in using
evidence from introspection to determine the irreducible elements
of consciousness and to investigate the way in which they combine.
Titchener also recognized the importance of a functional approach
that would investigate the way in which these elements functioned in
human behaviour, but enjoined his colleagues to concentrate first on
isolating these elements, since function logically presupposes structure.
It may be recalled that functional psychology was represented at this
time by the work of Franz Brentano and his students.
11
Compare Saussure 1922: 176177 and Tullio De Mauros commentary thereon
in endnotes 256 and 257 of his critical edition (Saussure 1976: 447448).
12
On the history of psychology in this period, and in particular the structuralist
movement, see Schultz 1969: 87111. On earlier uses of the concept of structure by
nineteenth-century linguists in Germany, see Koerner 1975: 721725.
246
W. Keith Percival
247
tantalizingly shrouded in mystery and may for ever remain so, Jakobson certainly disseminated both the term and his own notion of
structuralism to fellow linguists in the 1930s. Later, his association in
the early 1940s with Claude Lvi-Strauss in New York at the cole libre
des hautes tudes, the Free French and Belgian University housed at
the New School for Social Research, led to the dissemination of some
of the key ideas of structuralism to anthropology and from there to
other social sciences (one thinks in this connection of Jacques Lacan
in psychology).14 It is interesting to note that the American linguist
Zellig Harris adopted the term structural that appears in the title of
his seminal monograph Methods in Structural Linguistics, published in
1951.15
structure in Russian formalism (see Wellek 1991: 321). On the relation between
Prague School literary criticism and earlier Russian formalism, see Steiner 1976.
Especially informative from a general historical perspective is Toman 1995. In any
case, we must remember that by the nineteenth century the metaphorical use of the
word structure had become so commonplace in most European languages that
its use in the twentieth century is hardly significant. What looks more significant
was the need felt at some point to create an ism derivative (structuralism), which
in the case of linguistics entailed a strong recommendation that languages should
be described primarily as structured objects. This became a crucial methodological
requirement. The underlying notion was clearly that language could be regarded as
a whole where all parts hold firmly together, as Jakobson himself worded it in a
1944 article (see Jakobson 1971b: 479).
14
See Lvi-Strauss 1958. On the passage of structuralist ideas from Jakobson to
Lvi-Strauss, from Prague to Paris, and from linguistics to the social sciences, see
Merquior 1986: 36106. Merquior also examines the impact of structuralism on literary theory, as exemplified especially in the work of Roland Barthes; see Merquior
1986: 107188.
15
See Hymes, Fought 1981: 811 for an account of this terminological shift.
Harris book was originally to have been entitled Methods in Descriptive Linguistics.
The kind of linguistics practised by the followers of Leonard Bloomfield was usually
called descriptive since it aimed at describing unwritten languages, and a keen
need was felt for a uniform method for conducting this kind of research and publishing the results thereof. Composing a grammar for such a previously unknown
language was thought of at that time as a form of description. Saussure and the
linguists who regarded themselves as his followers in Europe were not interested in
composing grammars of unwritten languages; nor were they active in describing the
248
W. Keith Percival
249
tempted to conclude that the two were different sides of the same coin.
If that is so, it may be that in a strange sense Saussure was indeed the
founder of structuralism: the self-styled structuralists themselves
saw to that. At the same time, however, it is clear that no immediate
Saussurean paradigm was unleashed by the publication of the Cours
in 1916 (see Percival 1981). The later vogue of the term structuralism
may well have been connected with the need felt by readers of that book
to believe in ideas that they read into it and also by their desire to imagine that they were members of a single coherent scientific movement
opposed to the theorizing of their immediate predecessors. While we
certainly know something about how these beliefs first took shape, the
question of how they were disseminated and came to be accepted by
later generations of professional linguists remains to be clarified. What
would be useful is to track the use made by linguists of the cluster of
terms surrounding the concept structure. Imagine comprehensive
entries for these terms in the style of The Oxford English Dictionary or
Le Grand Robert!
Needless to say, the phenomenon of structure talk, that is, the
use of the terms structure and structural across different academic
fields, coupled with the concomitant notions of holism and system raises
a number of tantalizing questions for intellectual historians. Here are
a few of them: How did linguistic structuralism come to be associated
retrospectively with the trend away from historical linguistics, a trend
that was in reality alien to the thinking of the Linguistic Circle of Prague
and to many other structuralists?18 In general, moreover, what factors
even endorsed the notion that Saussure was the creator of modern linguistics. In
an article written soon after he arrived in New York, he argued (Jakobson 1944: 78)
that the pioneer who tamed the field [of linguistics] and led to a new movement in
language-science was the great discoverer of linguistic antinomies, the founder of
the French school and in essence the founder of modern linguistics in general Ferdinand de Saussure (emphasis mine, W.K.P.). I am much indebted to my colleague
Kenneth L. Miner for providing me with an English translation of this important
article, which since it appeared in Yiddish has been largely ignored.
18
Clearly, the early structuralists were grounded in historical linguistics and
continued to practise it throughout their careers. Trubetzkoys initial focus was the
250
W. Keith Percival
prehistory and history of the Slavic languages. An unrealized ambition of his was to
write a book entitled Vorgeschichte der slavischen Sprachen. See Trubetzkoys valuable autobiographical sketch in Trubetzkoy 1962: 273278, esp. p. 278. Moreover,
the trend among linguists away from historical work does not appear to have been
explicitly promoted by the structuralists themselves or before them by Ferdinand
de Saussure, who as is well known began his career by making an outstanding contribution to the problem of the Proto-Indo-European vocalism. Nevertheless, the
trend away from historical work was indeed a reality that had already begun to
manifest itself by the time the structuralists came to the fore. Baudouin, whose phoneme theory was grounded in historical considerations, argued that linguists need
to focus on the observable speech of their own contemporaries and away from the
records of past periods of language. The trend was already reported as under way by
Jakobson in the opening sentence of his first major publication, his 1921 treatise on
Khlebnikovs poetry: For some time, linguistics has not been content to study dead
languages and distant linguistic periods (Striedter, Kony 1972: 18; Jakobson 1979:
299). Trubetzkoy ruefully comments on the fact that younger linguists in Moscow
had already abandoned historical work; see Trubetzkoy 1962: 278.
251
252
W. Keith Percival
253
254
W. Keith Percival
255
256
W. Keith Percival
References
Albrecht, Jrn 1988. Europischer Strukturalismus: Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher
berblick. Tbingen: Francke.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen: ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg: K. J. Trbner. [For a Russian translation, see Baudouin 1963: 265347. For an English translation, see
Stankiewicz 1972: 144212.]
1963 = Boduen de Kurtene, I. A. 1963. Izbrannye trudy po obshchemu yazykoznaniyu, vol 1. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
2005. Mikoaj Kruszewski: His Life and Scholarly Work. [Browne, Wayles, trans.);
Adamska-Saaciak, Arieta; Smoczyska, Magdalena, eds.] Analecta Indoevropaea Cracoviensia 6. Krakw: Ksigarnia Akademicka. [In Russian: Baudouin
1963: 146201.]
Berg, Leo S. 1969. Nomogenesis, or Evolution Determined by Law. [Rostovtsov, J. N.,
trans.] Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Babel and the Mixture of Languages], see Troubetzkoy 1996: 115126. Here it seems
clear that Trubetzkoy was indebted to Baudouin de Courtenay for having raised the
difficult question of language mixture, see Stankiewicz 1972: 216226.
257
Blackburn, Simon 1994. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard 1914. Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Holt.
1922. Review of Sapir 1921. Classical Weekly 15(18): 414415.
1923/24. Review of Saussure 1922. Modern Language Journal 8: 317319.
1933. Language. New York: Holt.
1970. A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. [Hockett, Charles F., ed.] Indiana University Studies in the History and Theory of Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Boas, Franz 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Bulletin of the Bureau
of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution 40. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Brndal, Viggo 1928. Ordklasserne, partes orationis: Studier over de sproglige Kategorier, avec un rsum en franais. [Word Classes, Parts of Speech: Studies Regarding
the Linguistic Categories.] Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad.
Brown, Edward J. (ed.) 1973. Major Soviet Writers: Essays in Criticism. London, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Cercle IV 1931 = Runion phonologique internationale tenue Prague (1821/
XII 1930). Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4. Prague: Jednota
eskoslovenskch matematik a fysik.
Congrs International de Linguistes II 1933. Actes du Deuxime Congrs International de Linguistes (Genve 2529 aot 1931). Paris: Librairie dAmrique et
dOrient Adrien Maisonneuve.
yevkyj, Dmytro 1931. Phonologie und Psychologie. Cercle IV 1931: 322.
Deuxime = Congrs International de Linguistes II. n.d. Deuxime Congrs International de Linguistes (Genve 2529 aot 1931). Propositions reues en rponse
aux questions qui seront traites en sances plnires. Comit dorganisation et de
prparation scientifique, Geneva.
Dosse, Franois 1991. Histoire du structuralisme 1: Le Champ du signe, 19451966.
Paris: ditions la Dcouverte.
Elia, Annibale 1978. Pro Saussure, contro Saussure: Il sociale nelle teorie linguistiche
del Novecento. Studi linguistici e semiologici 10. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Erlich, Victor 1965. Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. Slavistic Printings and
Reprintings 4. The Hague: Mouton.
Ffrench, Patrick 1995. The Time of Theory: A History of Tel Quel (19601985).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gadet, Franoise; Sriot, Patrick (eds.) 1997. Jakobson entre lest et louest, 19151939:
Un pisode de lhistoire de la culture europenne. Cahiers de lILSL 9. Lausanne:
Presses Centrales de Lausanne.
Gasparov, Boris 1997. Futurism and phonology: Futurist roots of Jakobsons approach to language. In: Gadet, Sriot 1997: 109129.
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
258
W. Keith Percival
Hjelmslev, Louis 1943. Omkring sprogteoriens grundlggelse [On Laying the Foundation of a Theory of Language]. Festskrift udgivet af Kbenhavns Universitet.
Copenhagen: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri.
1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. [Whitfield, Francis J., trans.] Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Hjelmslev, Louis; Uldall, Hans Jrgen 1957. Outline of Glossematics: A Study in the
Methodology of the Humanities with Special Reference to Linguistics 1. General
Theory. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 10. Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag.
Holenstein, Elmar 1976. Roman Jakobsons Approach to Language: Phenomenological Structuralism. [Schelbert, Catherine; Schelbert, Tarcisius, transls.] Bloomington, London: Indiana University Press.
Hymes, Dell; Fought, John 1981. American Structuralism. Janua linguarum. Series
maior 102. The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman 1921. Noveishaya russkaya poeziya: Nabrosok pervyj. Prague:
Politika. [Republished in Striedter, Kony 1972: 18135, and in Jakobson 1979:
299354.]
1929a. ber die heutigen Voraussetzungen der russischen Slavistik. Slavische
Rundschau 1: 629646.
1929b. Romantick veslovanstv nov slavistika. [Romantic pan-Slavism
A new Slavistics.] in 1(1): 1012.
1931. ber die phonologischen Sprachbnde. In: Cercle IV 1931: 234240.
[Republished in Jakobson 1971a: 137143.]
1936. Um den russischen Wortschatz. Slavische Rundschau 8: 8090.
1944. Sosir, der foter der modernen lingvistik [Saussure, the Father of Modern
Linguistics.] Yivo Bleter: Journal of the Yiddish Scientific Institute 24: 6778.
1971a. Selected Writings I: Phonological Studies. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
1971b. Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
1975. N. S. Trubetzkoys Letters and Notes. Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 47.
The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
1979. Selected Writings V. On Verse, Its Masters and Explorers. The Hague: Mouton.
1992. My Futurist Years. [Bengt Jangfeldt, ed.; Stephen Rudy, trans. and Introduction]. New York: Marsilio.
Jespersen, Otto 1913. Sprogets logik [The Logic of Language]. Copenhagen: Schultz.
1922. Language, its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin.
1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
1937. Analytic Syntax. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.
Joseph, John E. 2002. From Whitney to Chomsky: Essays in the History of American
Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kartsevski, Serge 1922. tudes sur le systme verbal du russe contemporain. Slavia
1(13): 242268.
259
260
W. Keith Percival
261
1926 .
, , .
, 1930- . ,
Cours de linguistique
gnrale. ,
. ,
, .
,
.
.
Roman Jakobson ja lingvistilise strukturalismi snd
Termini strukturalism ti keeleteadusse Roman Jakobson 1926. aastal
asustatud Praha Lingvistilise Ringi algusaegadel. Jakobsoni ja tema kolleegide toonaste ideede kogumit on kindlasti vimalik mratleda, kuid
see erineb oluliselt sellest, kuidas me oleme strukturalismi mistet hilisematel aegadel mistma harjunud. Muutus selle termini mistmises sndis
tnu sellele, et alates 1930ndatest muutus tavaks strukturalismi vrdsustamine Ferdinand de Saussurei ideedega, nii nagu neid esitati tema 1916.
aastal postuumselt ilmunud teoses Cours de linguistique gnrale. Siiski
on vimalik testada, et Jakobsoni grupp oli ideoloogilistel kaalutlustel Saussurei teooriale vastu. Sedamda, kuidas struktualismi miste
leidis jrjest laiemat kasutamist, vrdsustati seda ha enam positivistliku
keeleteadusega, mitte Praha Lingvistilist Ringi algselt iseloomustanud
262
W. Keith Percival