Mongin Ferdinand de Saussure Born in Geneva in 1867 Defined the notion of synchronic linguistics: the study of languages as a system existing at a given moment in time. Synchronic VS diachronic (historical linguistics) Was trained as the linguist of the conventional, historical variety and became successful in that field, especially in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo- European.

Saussure Lectured at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris from All his publication dealt with historical rather than synchronic linguistics. 1in 1906, Saussure was persuaded to take over responsibility for a course on General linguistics and comparison of Indo-European languages fro a scholar who had had to give it up after 33 years. Saussure taught course in general linguistics from In the frist year, he limited himself to historical matters. For the second time, he briefly included syncronic linguistics. In the third, he largely dealt with synchronic linguistics.

Saussure Died in 1913 Never published his theoretical materials Two of his colleagues: Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye who never heard Saussure lectures on general linguistics decided to reconctruct Saussure’s ideas from notes taken by students together with such lecture notes as Saussure had lefy behind. The book produce “Cours de linguistique generale”, a vehicle by which Saussure’s ideas became known to scholarly world.

Synchronic/Diachronic Ontological question: the kinds of things Saussure thought languages are if they are not living organism as Schleicher and others had suggested. In Saussure’s time, many works analysed some forms or range of forms in a given language by tracing the stages through which they had evolved Saussure claimed that whatever the virtues of the analysis, they certailny told nothing about how the language functions from the views of those who use it since for the speaker of a language, history of language does not exist.

Ch Should Ch be analysed as a unit or as a combination of /t/ + /  / It it is aanalysed as a combination between /t/ and /  /, it suggests that Englishman has fewer different sounds However it implies a consonant cluster quite different in the kind from the other clusters found in English (English does not have /k  / /p  / Historically, ch descend from a single sound /k/, and never had anything to do with /t/ + /  / Church was originally identical to Scott’s kirk

Saussure Compared language with a game of Chess What has gone before is quite irrelevant to the current state of the play at any point One who describes language from the outside, from the standpoint of the observer is free to adopt diachronic or synchronic approach. One who describes it from the inside must describe a “language state”. However, there is onesy stematic character of syncronic study which cannot be found in diachronic approach. Historical linguistics is usually a matter of describing one isolated event after another Syncronic linguistics is much more serious and no question of presenting isolated anecdote: describes a complete state of language or nothing at all.

Language State The current value of language depends on all other languages, and changing a single word does not change the potential of that word, but recast the whole network of the relationship between the words. For example: sheep (English) is equivalent to mouton (French), but in English sheep contrasts with mutton. The value of sheep (English) is different from that of French mouton. The value of rice (English) is different from the value of beras (Indonesian). Because, we have sawah, padi, beras, dan nasi.

English VS Russian Velarized lateral sound (dark l) and lateral l (clear l). Lateral l is used when a vowel follows such as in hilly, velarised loccurs in other environments as in hill, and hilltop. The two sounds are in complementary distribution. In Russian, the two sounds are independent phonemes such as [‘ug  l m ) ‘corner’ and [‘ug  l) ‘coal’ are perceived by Russian-speakers as contrasting in pronunciation and are spelled differently.

Language State A network of relationship in which the value of eaxh element depends on on the value of every other A language consists of a sign represented by the divisions marked off by the dotted lines, each signs being the union of a signifiant and signifie Individual sign cannot be considered in isolation, since both their pronunciation and meaning are defined by their contrasts with the other signs of the system Without the system provided by the language, we have no basis for incividualising sounds or concepts.