Linguistic structuralism: understanding language as a system

Another major contribution of structuralism is its emphasis on the relationships between linguistic elements. Saussure distinguishes two types of relationships: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relationships concern the linking of linguistic units in an utterance, as in the sentence “The cat sleeps,” where each word is linked to the others according to a precise syntactic order. Paradigmatic relationships, on the other hand, are based on the opposition between elements that can occupy the same position in a given structure. For example, in the sentence “The cat sleeps,” the word “cat” can be replaced by “dog,” “bird,” or “child,” which modifies the overall meaning of the utterance without changing its syntactic structure.

Following Saussure, structuralism was further developed and systematized by several schools and researchers. The Prague School, founded by Nikolai Trubetskoy and Roman Jakobson, applied the principles of structuralism to phonology, highlighting the role of distinctive oppositions between sounds. Trubetskoy (1939) defined the phoneme not as a simple sound unit, but as a set of distinctive features that allow words to be differentiated within a language. Thus, in French, the opposition between /p/ and /b/ is relevant because it distinguishes words like poule (hen) and boule (ball).

Jakobson (1963), for his part, developed a theory of language functions, identifying six elements in any act of communication: the sender (the speaker), the receiver (the listener), the message, the context, the code (the language), and the channel (the medium of communication). He also distinguished several linguistic functions, such as the referential function (centered on information), the expressive function (which expresses the speaker’s emotions), and the phatic function (which serves to establish or maintain contact between interlocutors).

Structuralism also influenced syntactic analysis, notably with Lucien Tesnière (1959), who introduced the notion of syntactic dependency. He demonstrated that the words in a sentence are not juxtaposed randomly, but organized into hierarchical units, where certain elements govern others. For example, in the sentence “Pierre eats an apple,” the verb “eats” is the central element around which the subject (Pierre) and the object (an apple) are structured. This model foreshadows the later developments of Chomsky’s generative grammar, although Chomsky gradually moved away from the structuralist paradigm to adopt a more formalist and cognitive approach.

Structuralism also extended to semantics with Louis Hjelmslev (1943), who proposed an even more abstract analysis of linguistic structures. He distinguished between the plane of expression (linguistic forms) and the plane of content (meanings), and emphasized the idea that language is a network of relations where each element derives its meaning from its oppositions with others.

A key characteristic of structuralism is its synchronic approach, which studies language in its current functioning rather than its historical evolution. This perspective contrasts sharply with 19th-century historical linguistics, which favored the diachronic study of languages ​​by tracing their origins and transformations through time. For Saussure and his successors, language must be analyzed as an autonomous system, where every internal change modifies the entire structure.

Despite its considerable influence, structuralism has been criticized since the 1960s, particularly by functionalist and generativist schools of thought. Some researchers accuse it of underestimating the role of context and social interactions in language use. Others believe it places too much emphasis on the formal structure of language at the expense of the cognitive processes underlying language production and comprehension. These criticisms have led to the development of new approaches, such as pragmatics, which focuses on language use in context, and cognitive linguistics, which explores the links between language and thought.

Despite these challenges, the legacy of structuralism remains fundamental to the study of language. It enabled the establishment of rigorous analytical methods and paved the way for deeper research into the nature of the sign, phonology, syntax, and semantics. Its influence extends far beyond linguistics, touching disciplines such as anthropology with Lévi-Strauss, semiotics with Barthes, and psychoanalysis with Lacan. Even today, many concepts stemming from structuralism continue to inspire work on the structure and functioning of languages.