Language as a Computational System: Relations and Differences Between Chomsky and Saussure

Introduction

The study of language as a structured system has undergone significant evolution, shaped by the contributions of influential figures like Noam Chomsky and Ferdinand de Saussure. Chomsky, drawing from the computational theories pioneered by Alan Turing and others, conceptualizes language as a computational system where atomic elements—basic, indivisible units—are combined according to defined rules to produce an infinite array of meaningful expressions. This approach underscores the importance of these atomic elements as foundational to the cognitive processes that drive human language. In contrast, Saussure, whose work predates the development of computational theory, viewed language as a system of interrelated signs, where the meaning of each sign is shaped by its relationships with other signs within the linguistic system. Despite lacking the computational tools available to Chomsky, Saussure's insights share conceptual similarities with computational theory but diverge in their emphasis, placing the system of relations at the heart of linguistic identity and meaning.

Chomsky, Computational Systems, and the Language Faculty

A computational system is a structure designed to process information by applying a set of defined rules and operations to atomic elements, ultimately producing an output. In computational theory, these atomic elements are the basic, indivisible units—such as bits in a computer—while the rules refer to the algorithms or procedures that dictate how these elements interact. In the context of language, the atomic elements could be word-like units that serve as the building blocks of communication, and the rules would be the grammatical principles that govern sentence formation. The output of this process could be a calculation in a computer or, in linguistic terms, a coherent sentence or communicated idea.

Noam Chomsky's conceptualization of language as a computational system was significantly influenced by the work of Alan Turing and other mathematicians who developed the theory of computability. Turing's work demonstrated how a finite object, such as the human brain, could generate an infinite variety of expressions. This concept provided Chomsky with the intellectual framework to address what he termed the "Galilean challenge"—the question of how humans can produce and understand an unlimited number of sentences they have never encountered before. Chomsky used these ideas to define the Basic Property of human language: the innate language faculty that allows for the construction of an infinite array of structured expressions, each with a specific meaning that can be externalized through speech, writing, or sign language. He emphasizes that while language serves a social function in communication, its primary use is internal—facilitating thought, reflection, and planning. (Polychroniou, 2016)

Saussure and the Language Mechanism as a Computational System

Ferdinand de Saussure, although lacking the modern computational tools available to Chomsky, seems to have intuitively understood the workings of the language mechanism in a way that resembles the operations of a computational system. Saussure introduced the concepts of the signifier and the signified, where the signifier is the form of a word (when treated as a proxy for a sign), and the signified is its associated concept or meaning.

He posited that a word appears as an isolated, self-contained unit composed of these two elements:

The meaning is the counterpart of the auditory image and nothing else. The word appears, or is taken as, an isolated, self-contained whole; internally, it contains the auditory image having a concept as its counterpart. — Constantin's Notebook X 134a

However, he also recognized a paradox: the meaning of a word (the signified) is not just determined by its internal relationship with the signifier but also by its relations with other terms in the language system.

The paradox—in Baconian terms, the trap in the cave—is this: the meaning, which appears to us to be the counterpart of the auditory image, is just as much the counterpart of terms coexisting in the language. — Constantin's Notebook X 135a

From this perspective, the signified is also the counterpart of the coexisting terms. Saussure illustrated this web of relations with a diagram consisting of a series of slots:

 Each slot contains a signified and a signifier, creating a relationship between the two elements within an individual slot. Additionally, there is a relationship between these elements and all the slots in the series. The signified is the counterpart of the signifier within a particular slot, but both are also counterparts to the coexisting two-sided slots in the chain.

Saussure suggested with this diagram that language is a system of interconnected signs, where the meaning of each sign is shaped by its relations with the others—both those present in a syntagm (syntagmatic relations) and those absent but present in the speaker's mind (associative relations). This is akin to a computational system, where the output depends on the entire network of relationships within the language. While Saussure did not have the concept of a computational system as we understand it today, his insights into the relational nature of language echo the principles of computational theory, where the meaning or function of an element is determined by its interaction with the broader system of rules.

Saussure's systemic approach to language, where meaning is defined relationally rather than through intrinsic properties, presents a challenge to integrating the idea of an "atomic element" as Chomsky understands it. In Chomsky's framework, these elements appear to have a core identity, whereas in Saussure's model, their identity is fluid, defined primarily by what they are not in relation to others. This lack of a fixed "atomic element" within Saussure’s system complicates any straightforward comparison with Chomsky's theory.

Given this complexity, it is essential to delve deeper into how these differing perspectives on language elements shape the broader theoretical frameworks of Saussure and Chomsky.

The “Atomic Element:” Divergences in Chomsky's and Saussure's Theories

When exploring the relationship between Computational Theory, Chomsky's approach to language, and Saussure's General Linguistics, it’s important to recognize that the concepts of atomic elements in computational theory, Saussure's linguistic units, and Chomsky's 'semantically interpreted objects' do not perfectly align.

Although Saussure's treatment of language bears similarities to Chomsky's understanding of it as a computational system, key divergences emerge when considering the centrality of certain elements in each approach. These terms are not interchangeable, nor is there a one-to-one correspondence between them. However, there is a compelling reason to believe that these conceptual frameworks communicate with one another, especially given that Chomsky has integrated the language of computational systems into his linguistic theory, as illustrated below:

The Basic Property takes language to be a computational system, which we therefore expect to observe general conditions on computational efficiency. A computational system consists of a set of atomic elements and rules to construct more complex ones. For generation of the language of thought, the atomic elements are word-like, though not words; for each language, the set of these elements is its lexicon.  (Polychroniou, 2016).

In Chomsky's framework, atomic elements—the basic, indivisible units of the language system—are central. These elements are the foundational building blocks from which more complex structures are constructed, and they possess a relatively stable identity within the system. Conversely, Saussure emphasizes the primacy of the system itself—the underlying rules and relations that define the existence and meaning of these elements. This is a key difference between the two theorists. Saussure illustrates this perspective by stating:

The value of a word can never be determined except by the contribution of coexisting terms which delimit it: ... what is in the word is only ever determined by the contribution of what exists around it. (What is in the word is the value.) Around it syntagmatically or around it associatively. You must approach [it] from outside by starting from the system and coexisting terms — (Constantin's Notebook X 136a).

This focus on the system complicates the concept of identity for "atomic elements" in Saussure’s theory. Unlike in Chomsky's model, where atomic elements have a more defined and stable identity, Saussure's view suggests that their identity is fluid and system-dependent, without a fixed center. He further illustrates this idea with a nonlinguistic example:

Let us examine the problem of identity in linguistics in the light of some nonlinguistic examples. We assign identity, for instance, to two trains (‘the 8.45 from Geneva to Paris’), one of which leaves twenty-four hours after the other. We treat it as the ‘same’ train, even though probably the locomotive, the carriages, the staff, etc., are not the same. [CGL] [151]

This example illustrates how identity in language, much like in the case of the trains, is not always tied to the physical or static properties of elements but is determined by their place within a system of relations. It underscores Saussure’s point that the value and identity of linguistic elements emerge from their relational context rather than from attributes inherent to specific atomic elements.

Thus, while Chomsky emphasizes the importance of atomic elements in language, Saussure places the system—the network of relations and rules—at the forefront. In Saussure's theory, the system appears to be the precondition for the existence and identity of atomic elements, suggesting a more dynamic and interdependent view of language. Despite their differences, the interplay between these frameworks highlights the multifaceted nature of language, where the identity and meaning of elements are shaped by both their intrinsic properties and their relationships within a broader system.

Conclusion

In comparing the linguistic theories of Chomsky and Saussure, we find both convergence and divergence in their approaches to understanding language as a system. Chomsky's approach, rooted in computational theory, prioritizes the atomic elements as the core of language, with the rules of combination playing a crucial role in generating meaning. Saussure, however, emphasizes the linguistic system itself—the network of relationships among signs—suggesting that the identity and meaning of atomic elements are fluid and context-dependent within the system. While both theorists provide valuable insights into the nature of language, their differing focal points highlight the complexity of this phenomenon and the varied ways in which meaning is constructed and understood.

 Related Posts:

Terra Incognita: Revisiting the Concepts of Term, Value, Word, and Meaning in General Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/07/blog-post_26.html

The Principle of Ascent: Illuminating the Unseen in Language

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/04/blog-post_06.html

Reference

Polychroniou, C.J. (2016, September 24). Noam Chomsky on the Evolution of Language: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Truthout. Retrieved from https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-on-the-evolution-of-language-a-biolinguistic-perspective/

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

Saussure, F. (1910-1911). Troisième cours de linguistique générale: d'après les cahiers d'Emile Constantin [Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics: From the Notebooks of Emile Constantin]. (R. Harris, Trans.) University of Oxford.1993