Are we all saussureans now?

George Wolf
University of New Orleans
Summary

This paper addresses the question whether all of the most important linguistic theories of the 20th century are Saussurean. Beginning with Engler’s observation that there are so many interpretive possibilities in the Saussurean material which has appeared that it is even possible for opposing viewpoints to be Saussurean, the discussion ranges over European and American theorists from Bloomfield to Roy Harris, and questions to what extent each followed the Genevan master.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1982 Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard. (Transl. as Language and Symbolic Power by Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson. Edited and introduced by John B. Thompson. Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press 1991.)Google Scholar
1997 Méditations pascaliennes. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (Transl. as Pascalian Meditations by Richard Nice, Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press, 2000.)Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine
1990–1999 Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. 3 vols. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Engler, Rudolf
1975 “European Structuralism: Saussure”. Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.XIII: Historiography of Linguistics, 829–886. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Firth, John Rupert
1957 Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franckel, Jean-Jacques & Denis Paillard
1998 “Aspects de la théorie d’Antoine Culioli”. Langages No.129.52–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1985 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy
1987 Reading Saussure. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
1998 Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
1999 “Integrational Linguistics and the Structuralist Legacy”. Integrational Linguistics in the Context of 20th-Century Theories of Language ed. by George Wolf (= special issue of Language & Communication 19:1), 45–68. Oxford & New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1943 Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. (Transl. as Prolegomena to a Theory of Language by Francis J. Whitfield, International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 7 1953; 2nd rev. ed. published by University of Wisconsin Press, Madison 1961.)Google Scholar
Joseph, John E.
1990 “Ideologizing Saussure: Bloomfield and Chomsky’s readings of the Cours de linguistique générale ”. Ideologies of Language ed. by John E. Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor, 51–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Love, Nigel
1988 “The Linguistic Thought of J. R. Firth”. Linguistic Thought in England 1914–1945 ed. by Roy Harris, 148–164. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Milner, Jean-Claude
1995 Introduction à une science du langage. Abridged ed. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. (Original ed. 1989.)Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1922 Cours de linguistique générale. 2nd ed. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
1968 Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique. par Rudolf Engler. Vol.I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1974 Cours de linguistique générale ed. by Rudolf Engler. Vol.II, fasc. 4. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1983[1922] Course in General Linguistics. Transl. by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
1996 First Course of Lectures on General Linguistics (1907) from the Notebooks of Albert Riedlinger. Ed. and transl. by Eisuke Komatsu & George Wolf. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Spence, N. C. W.
1957 “A Hardy Perennial: The distinction of la langue and la parole ”. Archivum Linguisticum 9.1–27.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S.
1939 Grundzüge der Phonologie. (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7.) Prague. (Later republished by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1958; Engl. transl. by Christine A. M. Baltaxe, Principles of Phonology, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press 1969.)Google Scholar
Wolf, George
1987 “Firth’s Two Theories of Meaning”. Quaderni di semantica 8:1.95–101.Google Scholar