Student Question
What are the differences between Saussure's and Bloomfield's linguistic theories?
Quick answer:
Saussure and Bloomfield differed in their linguistic approaches, with Saussure focusing on synchronic analysis, viewing language as a system at a specific point, akin to a chess game. He emphasized the abstract structure and relationships between signs. In contrast, Bloomfield, from the Neogrammarian school, concentrated on diachronic analysis, studying the historical and comparative development of languages. Bloomfield's approach was more sociological and psychological, considering the evolution and behavior of languages over time.
Bloomfield came from the Neogrammarian school of linguistics. That means he focused on the historical aspects and evolution of languages. He studied particular languages, their history and how words are generated. Both Bloomfield and Saussure studied language as a structure or with a scientific basis. The main difference is that Bloomfield studied linguistics diachronically: it's historical and comparative development. Saussure studied language synchronically: he made the comparison between language and chess. You don't need to know the history/previous moves; you could understand the system just by looking at the board at any single moment/state. This is the synchronic. Unlike Bloomfield who studied the historical development of linguistics, focusing on behavior, Saussure sought to understand the underlying structure of language in general: and this had to do with the relationship between signs. Bloomfield's study would focus more on this history of signs. I think you could say that Saussure's study is more abstract (still scientific) and philosophical and Bloomfield's was more sociological and a little psychological.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.