7

Saussure's Theory of Language

7.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a description of Saussure's theory of language.

According to this theory, the linguistic system in each individual's brain
is constructed from experience. The process of construction depends on
the associative principles of contrast, similarity, contiguity and frequency.
The principle of contrast prevents confusion or interference between
linguistic units by making them distinct from each other. The principle
of similarity captures aspects of rule-governed behaviour by defining
classes of intersubstitutable units which constrain combinatory pro-
cesses. The principle of contiguity allows more complex units to be
formed from the combination of simpler units. This principle also allows
the products of the linguistic system to be integrated into the system in
much the same way that mathematical formulae, which are the products
of mathematical systems, become integral components of mathematical
knowledge. The principle of frequency enables frequently occurring
units to be recognised as stable units. It also enables abstract categories
to be induced when a sufficient number of units turn out to have similar
properties. It will be shown how the interaction of these principles enables
the theory to incorporate rule-based and experience-based perspectives
on language as well as giving the theory a certain psychological plausibility.
It should be noted that the theory is very general. It is not concerned
with specific languages, such as English or French. In fact, it is not con-
cerned specifically with language as such, but with systems of mental
representation in general. Language is a case in point. In view of its
level of generality, the theory does not make specific predictions about
individual differences. It does, however, permit individual differences
to arise in various ways.

134

N. Chipere, Understanding Complex Sentences

© Ngoni Chipere 2003
 Saussure's Theory ofLanguage 135

It is necessary to bear in mind that the theory was put together from
the lecture notes of Saussure's students. This, together with the fact that
it has been translated from French, may be responsible for the fact
that certain key points are not always treated with a desirable level of sys-
tematicity. For this reason, this chapter will combine description with
interpretation. For the most part, the interpretation involves relating
Saussure's ideas to some basic mathematical notions which are more
clearly defined and easier to work with. This chapter begins by drawing
some parallels between Saussure's theory and current ideas concerning
the application of fractals to the biological modelling of plant growth.

7.2 A biological metaphor for the language system

Aspects of Saussure's theory are surprisingly contemporary; notably his

commitment to the idea that complex structures emerge from the repeated
application of simple rules. Currently, there is considerable interest in
fractals, highly intricate mathematical objects that are generated by the
repeated application of simple rules. Fractals display a property called
self-similarity, whereby the parts display the same structure as the
whole (see Mandelbrot, 1982). It turns out that formal linguistics has
contributed indirectly to the study of fractals via Aristid Lindenmayer,
who employed Chomsky's (1957) ideas on rewrite rules to model plant
growth. To suit his purpose, Lindenmayer (1968) modified the manner
in which rewrite rules are applied. His modifications turn out to be similar
in some respects to the manner in which Saussure applied associative
principles to describe the growth of language in the human mind.
Lindenmayer's work is described very briefly below in order to provide
a convenient metaphor of Saussure's theory.
Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer (1996) describe rewriting as 'a tech-
nique for defining complex objects by successively replacing parts of
a simple initial object using a set of rewriting rules or productions'. They
demonstrate the use of rewriting in the modelling of plant growth. Accord-
ing to Prusinkiewicz, plant forms are not really complex, but intricate:

A plant is doing the same thing over and over again. Since it is doing
it in many places, the plant ends up with a structure that looks
complex to us. But it's not really complex; it's just intricate (cited in
Devlin, 2000: 90).

When Prusinkiewicz says that a plant is doing the same thing repeatedly
in many different places, he is alluding to the fact that plant growth can