Oh my, loved it! It has helped me a lot since I'm attending Portuguese as a major course at college. I've found the video very simple and well explained, thanks a lot.
i'm surprised how much of the material is covered in just 5 minutes. hope to see more. maybe bloomfield's take on saussure, and then zellig, and so on. :D maybe i'm being too greedy.
From my experience of learning linguistics (from Saussure) I found that the signifier is not a phisycal sound but a sound image in our brain (the brain thinks through words). In this video the signifier reffers to (the sound of the letters, it should be specified that (the sound) is not a phonetical one but something else). I find this video interesting though. (sorry for my english, I'm not a native english speaker.)
hmmm! same. I think chomsky makes it clear,. signifier could be held to be lower than mere utterances, something general, like I-language representation that's then externalized into utterances(both sound & text of 'cat' being separate). but then, there's another trouble of having multiple such internal representations & the whole affair quickly gets psychological.
LOved. I learn a lot from videos like these, i like the voice explaining and behind the photos and text and the movment. Thank very much for posting it
we have to read this in our college and now this chapter is running...i learn something from this thanks for that... but still i dont know more things. and please upload more videos if u have of this subject
I don’t see how anyone could argue that you can’t have a thought or mental image or idea without a signifier or word. That part seems preposterous. It’s true that you can’t very well _communicate_ an idea without a word (or combination of words) or sign (or combination of signs) for it. But it is obvious that we have many ideas, thoughts, and mental images without any such sign. It is even obvious to me that the majority of our thoughts are of this kind. So there are many more ideas and thoughts than there are signifiers. In order to have a shared sign at all, it has to be assigned to a thought that people can share. Obviously, two people can behold the same cat or touch or otherwise sense the same cat. So the sign - sound “cat” makes perfect sense to everyone. Other concepts can not be referred to that way, because they cannot be seen or sensed directly. For example, a cat has some force that imparts animation to it, which is why we call it an “animal”. Whatever that force is, we can not see it. But certainly, we can see breathing. So we take the Latin name for “breath” and we use it to name that force that imparts animation to a thing. The “spiritus”, the “breath”. We use the language of the shared observation to describe the phenomenon that is not a shared observation. Much of the cleverness of language lies in that ability. In other experiences, no such word is adequate, and for that reason, we have many other art forms. Literature is one, which uses words, but music and visual art do the same thing without words. As do actions. In fact, if words were able to communicate those internal experiences, we would not have those art forms.
Thank you very much, but the way you are talking is like you are addressing your speech only to native speakers .. I have found difficulties hearing many terms and concepts.
I have one objection. In Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Course in General Linguistics, the Open Court Publication, it states " In practice, a linguistic state occupies not a point in time, but a period of time of varying length, during which the sum total of changes occurring is minimal. It may be ten years, a generation, a century, or even longer. A language may hardly change at all for a long period, only to undergo considerable changes in the next few years." (pg. 99) "One could likewise say that static linguistics is also in this sense concerned with epochs; but the term state is preferable. The beginning and end of an epoch are usually marked by some more or less sudden upheaval which tends to alter the established order. The term state avoids the suggestion that anything like that occurs in a language." (Pg. 100) "So the notion of a linguistic state can only be an approximation." (Pg. 100) My critique is minor in the fact that the video states that synchronic study only occurs at one point in time. Again this detail is minor, but the synchronic structure should be based upon not only a state of time which little alteration occurs, but then comes into play with diachrony slightly just by design. What does that mean? In mathematics they have summations, and where this connects with linguistics are these states in time where the words remain the same to which we can add them up in order to not only determine the etymology of the word, the gymnastics of the linguistic world, but to see the phonological changes (and possibly more) which caused this shift in language. So, my basic critique is the unexplored idea of what synchrony is and can be.
absolutely perfect , this was a perfect books that i was read and it has contains the important things of knowledge in linguistics, the others topics i want was pragmatics from JL. Austins
Ross the video is helpful, even though may be because my internet connectivity isn't that good, making it difficult for me to view the full scene, some concepts are not clearly understood. however, am catching up with the topic. thanks so much.
And another couplet from my own cranium: If, sans language, regulating thought would impossible, Saussure asserted so knowing music is free but in the suasible.
If you've ever learned another language, you sometimes come across words and phrases that do not have an exact translation in our own language. What does that mean for Sassure's notion that there is no signified without a signifier, especially in terms of translating terms for something more abstract?
I was taught that Saussure never talked about "structure / structural" (4min47s), instead he used the word "system". His students later used the word structure to talk about his work. Can you confirm?
You've literally explained in 5 minutes what my lecturer took 3 hours to explain, this has helped me so much thank you for this!
You say language is a system of differences, but how can you be Saussure?
Get out
nice one lol
OMG that made me laugh!
The word Saussure here is a parole or langue?
no
I understood it better in English in 5 minutes than from my teacher in my native language in over an hour. Thank you
Very informative, thanks!
- a confused student from Humanities class
Clearest explanation yet, hope you have more in the series to come!
Very nice explanation. I feel my brain has grown.
I'll have a lesson on Saussure tomorrow, and I feel well prepared now. thank you, good video.
and I ended up watching cat videos instead of studying, after watching this one. great..
i love cat
Oh my, loved it! It has helped me a lot since I'm attending Portuguese as a major course at college. I've found the video very simple and well explained, thanks a lot.
i'm surprised how much of the material is covered in just 5 minutes. hope to see more. maybe bloomfield's take on saussure, and then zellig, and so on. :D maybe i'm being too greedy.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh period
This was absolutely wonderful and has aided my studies beyond proclamation! Thank you so damn much!
It is a very good introduction in this complex subject.... It is clear and objective. Congrats !
Incredibly helpful for trying to make Structural Linguistics stick... thank you very much!
From my experience of learning linguistics (from Saussure) I found that the signifier is not a phisycal sound but a sound image in our brain (the brain thinks through words). In this video the signifier reffers to (the sound of the letters, it should be specified that (the sound) is not a phonetical one but something else). I find this video interesting though. (sorry for my english, I'm not a native english speaker.)
hmmm! same.
I think chomsky makes it clear,. signifier could be held to be lower than mere utterances, something general, like I-language representation that's then externalized into utterances(both sound & text of 'cat' being separate).
but then, there's another trouble of having multiple such internal representations & the whole affair quickly gets psychological.
Yes indeed !
I'm reading Saussure's text and I think you're right. He's pretty explicit about the signifier *not* being a spoken utterance.
@@Mitchell-vk4zy can you help me ? please ! 💓
itsMUHAMMED Oh, man. I wish I could. I honestly don’t even remember making this comment.
Great video, really compact summary of what de Saussure created. Thanks for helping me understand!
Thanks for making this video There's a lot of text I must read for my Linguistics class, and I needed some brief introduction.
LOved. I learn a lot from videos like these, i like the voice explaining and behind the photos and text and the movment. Thank very much for posting it
Thank you! This is SO helpful. The book I'm stuck reading is a DRAG and this brought the ideas to life!
I have a Linguistics exam in a week and here I am learning about completely new things..... wow!
This video is really helpful and nice. Thanks a bunch for sharing it.
this is a great video! short, comprehensive, and smart. thank you.
Packed with information n super easy to understand.... Thanks a ton
Many thanks. You have elucidated structuralism in a very simple yet precise way.
wow you talk so fast. my brain can't take it all immediately 😭
true
Ya me too
Amazing explanation, very helpful. Thank you!
Thank you!!!!!! Have been listening to and reading loads of nonsense!!! Thank you again.
you saved my life and i am not joking THIS IS GREAT???
Thank you so much... This helped me and my classmates a whole lot in my intro to literary theory course.
Awesome! Great graph and table in the Paradigm and Syntagm contrast!
Amazing video and wonderfully explained! The graphics did a great job of making it make sense!
Excellent explanation,I feel my brain has grown
So much clearer than my course! Wow thanks.
Wow❤❤❤❤ thank you so much for this enormous effort
Concise, helpful video. Merci beaucoup pour le partage à ce sujet
The beautiful explanation you made it very clear thank you so much
Thank you for the nice and clear illustration.
Very good video, helped me a lot with homework. thank you!
should have mentioned Charles Sanders Peirce
Well, in English we don’t start with a “tl” sequence but we do end with the “tl” sequence in words such as “little”.
studying for an exam and this video helped a lot!
While studying for the exam of English Methods and Aproaches... Greetings to Saussure
Awesome video, thank you! Hope it will help me with my exam!
I have tomorrow an exam about this in French, I finally understood. Thanks
Awesome explanation.Thank you.Hope to see more drone you talking about the same subject.
we have to read this in our college and now this chapter is running...i learn something from this thanks for that...
but still i dont know more things. and please upload more videos if u have of this subject
excellent work it helped me a lot. keep it up
This is a great video-thank you
I have learned alot in 5mins more than I did in class
This was very helpful. Thank you Bella. :)
Amazing explanation! Thank you.
I don’t see how anyone could argue that you can’t have a thought or mental image or idea without a signifier or word. That part seems preposterous. It’s true that you can’t very well _communicate_ an idea without a word (or combination of words) or sign (or combination of signs) for it. But it is obvious that we have many ideas, thoughts, and mental images without any such sign. It is even obvious to me that the majority of our thoughts are of this kind. So there are many more ideas and thoughts than there are signifiers.
In order to have a shared sign at all, it has to be assigned to a thought that people can share. Obviously, two people can behold the same cat or touch or otherwise sense the same cat. So the sign - sound “cat” makes perfect sense to everyone.
Other concepts can not be referred to that way, because they cannot be seen or sensed directly. For example, a cat has some force that imparts animation to it, which is why we call it an “animal”. Whatever that force is, we can not see it. But certainly, we can see breathing. So we take the Latin name for “breath” and we use it to name that force that imparts animation to a thing. The “spiritus”, the “breath”. We use the language of the shared observation to describe the phenomenon that is not a shared observation. Much of the cleverness of language lies in that ability.
In other experiences, no such word is adequate, and for that reason, we have many other art forms. Literature is one, which uses words, but music and visual art do the same thing without words. As do actions. In fact, if words were able to communicate those internal experiences, we would not have those art forms.
Excellent explanation, cheers
Sooo clear and well-made. Make more, please!!??
Thank you so much! This helped tremendously. It's strange that there is not much material on the difference. I owe you a coffee :)
Thank you very much, but the way you are talking is like you are addressing your speech only to native speakers .. I have found difficulties hearing many terms and concepts.
Wonderful summary! Thanks!
thank you so much 💕 everything was so clear
Thanks a lot, a great summary with everything I need in it :)
Very nice explanation. thanks
I have one objection. In Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Course in General Linguistics, the Open Court Publication, it states " In practice, a linguistic state occupies not a point in time, but a period of time of varying length, during which the sum total of changes occurring is minimal. It may be ten years, a generation, a century, or even longer. A language may hardly change at all for a long period, only to undergo considerable changes in the next few years." (pg. 99) "One could likewise say that static linguistics is also in this sense concerned with epochs; but the term state is preferable. The beginning and end of an epoch are usually marked by some more or less sudden upheaval which tends to alter the established order. The term state avoids the suggestion that anything like that occurs in a language." (Pg. 100) "So the notion of a linguistic state can only be an approximation." (Pg. 100)
My critique is minor in the fact that the video states that synchronic study only occurs at one point in time. Again this detail is minor, but the synchronic structure should be based upon not only a state of time which little alteration occurs, but then comes into play with diachrony slightly just by design. What does that mean? In mathematics they have summations, and where this connects with linguistics are these states in time where the words remain the same to which we can add them up in order to not only determine the etymology of the word, the gymnastics of the linguistic world, but to see the phonological changes (and possibly more) which caused this shift in language. So, my basic critique is the unexplored idea of what synchrony is and can be.
Very helpful and clear. Thank you!
Upvoted for cats.
Grateful 2 U 4 makin sch a nice vid wid examples,
please make more videos *
Thank you so much, I think I'm finally starting to understand it.
Great explanation, thank you!
Thank a lot for this explanation 🙏🏼
I've stumbled in a lot of anime videos before I actually got here even though this particular video is the reason why I browsed my TH-cam. 😭
Brilliant, thankyou so much.
absolutely perfect , this was a perfect books that i was read and it has contains the important things of knowledge in linguistics, the others topics i want was pragmatics from JL. Austins
Thank you so much that was really helpful ! I hope you will do the same with other topics like : Socioligistics for e.g
That was very helpful. Thank you!
Best video..thanks..why don't you come with another video?😊
Thanks! I see the light now!
Ross the video is helpful, even though may be because my internet connectivity isn't that good, making it difficult for me to view the full scene, some concepts are not clearly understood. however, am catching up with the topic. thanks so much.
Very helpful! Thanks
Very wisely crafted
amazing explanation. thank you
this is awesome :D loved it.
Wow thank you a great video!
I heard "not the difference" and after replaying the segment over a few times I finally heard "note the difference". 🙃
AWESOME video thanks a lot !
Langue = language, langage = human speech, parole = speaking
Merci! Cela m’a aidé! :)
Nice education thanks
Thank you for this video. I have one remark and please correct me if I'm wrong. The G in Syntagm is silent like the one in paradigm (sɪntæm)
Thank you for your summary.
So, he claimed “language is a STATIC system of interconnected units.” Interesting.
HELL YEAH THANK YOUU🤩🤩
thank you
it is very helpful
And another couplet from my own cranium:
If, sans language, regulating thought would impossible,
Saussure asserted so knowing music is free but in the suasible.
Thanks a lot!!!
A handy couplet from my own cranium:
Civilization need not preserve the use of verbs
Unless its apparati be left so on the curbs.
this is a great video, thank you for your time. fyi, though, the sound quality is bad. i had it on max and could barely hear.
This video was awesome it helped me a lot!!! Btw what software did you use to make that video??
thank you very much
Can you also please do similar video on "Bloomfield" and "Naom Chomsky"? Thank you ☺
great vid! thanks!
If you've ever learned another language, you sometimes come across words and phrases that do not have an exact translation in our own language. What does that mean for Sassure's notion that there is no signified without a signifier, especially in terms of translating terms for something more abstract?
I was taught that Saussure never talked about "structure / structural" (4min47s), instead he used the word "system". His students later used the word structure to talk about his work. Can you confirm?
i'm sorry but that's the cutest fkn cat i've ever seen
0:52 always cracks me up i can't