INTRODUCTION

The American Structuralist School represent influential intellectual

movement that emerged in the mid-20th century, each contribution
distinct perspective to the field of linguistics, anthropology, and
literary theory. While both shared a foundational interest in
structuralism, they exhibit nuanced differences, in their approaches
and applications. Two of the most prominent structuralist linguists
are ‘Ferdinand de Saussure’, in European structuralism and ‘Leonard
Bloomfield’, in American structuralist.

Structuralism In Linguistic

The term structuralism was used in many contexts across various

disciplines in the 20th century. It originates from the basic concept
that all phenomena occur in relation to each other, not
independently, and that all phenomenon are part of a whole with a
definite structure. In linguistics, structuralism is based on the
concept that language is a structured system of formal units, and
linguistics study should involve exploring the nature of those units
and their systematic arrangement, without reference to historical
antecedents or comparison with other language. The field of
structural linguistics originates from the work of Swiss linguist
Ferdinand de Saussure. Furthermore, structural linguists refer to two
main movements that developed independently of each other. They
are the American structuralism and European structuralism.
American Structuralist School

American structuralism generally refers to the study of structural

linguistics in North America from the 1920s to the 1950s. Franz Boas,
Leonard Bloomfield led the development of structural linguistics in
the US during the 1930s and 40s. This time periods is, in fact, called
the Bloomfieldian era. Bloomfield and his fellow linguistics mainly
focused on forms of linguistics items and the way they were
structured, instead of focusing on semantics. In this era, linguists
focus mostly focuses on writing descriptive grammars of unwritten
languages, especially the Native American language which were
dried out. It involves collective sets of utterances from native
speakers and analyzing the corpus of collected data by studying the
syntactic and phonological patterns of the language, as far as
possible without reference to meaning. Moreover, this method
identified and classified the linguistics items based on their
distribution within the corpus. In this analysis, linguists found that
those native languages couldn’t be described with categories
establishment by traditional linguists, which were based on
European languages. It compelled the American linguists to do more
advanced studies. Therefore, it is focus on the Native American
Languages that actually formed American linguistics, differentiation it
from other movements of linguistics structuralism. During the XIX
century and at the beginning of the XX century, linguistics in USA
followed the same direction pf the linguistic in European but after
the end of the World War I, American linguists wanted to show their
own linguistic characteristics. Like in European studies, American
linguistics also developed theories about synchronic linguistics. The
importance of Saussure’s course in the development of that process
has been a great deal of discussion. In 1922, Leonard Bloomfield
wrote that Saussure has constructed the basis of the new linguistics.
He was an American linguist who led the development of structural
linguistics in the United States during the 1930s and the 1940s. His
influential textbook Language, published in 1933, presented a
comprehensive description of American structural linguistics. He
made significant linguistics. He made significant contribution to Indo-
European historical linguistics, the description of Austronesian
language, and description of language of the Algonquian family.
Bloomfield and his followers were more interested in the forms of
linguistics terms, and in the way the items were arranged, that in
meaning. Meaning, according to Bloomfield, was not observable
using rigid methods of analysis, and it was therefore the weak point
in language study. Bloomfield has immense influence for more than
20 years. During this time linguists focused mostly on writing
descriptive grammars of unwritten language. This involves first,
collecting sets of utterances from native speakers of these languages,
and second, analysing the corpus of collected date by studying the
phonological and syntactic patterns of the language concerned, as far
as possible without reference to meaning. Items were identified and
classified solely on the basic of their distribution within the corpus.
For many American linguists, the beginning of their research was the
study of indigenous language due to fats that they were unknown in
their previous phases so, there weren’t susceptible to diachronic
investigation. This was precisely the fact that formed and
distinguished the American structuralism and its methods. As those
languages couldn’t be described with the category that were
established by the traditional linguistics (noun, adjective, verb, etc.)
researchers has to find new categories and, at the same time,
noticed the ‘weaknesses’ of the old language that were based on the
European ones. This conducted the American linguists to make
studies that were more advanced than those of their European
colleagues. Like a result of this, Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield
became the two most important and influential linguists of their
time. The most notable aspects that distinguish the American
structuralist school are: It was inspired to the conductivism’s theory
of the time of Watson and Skinner until the point of explaining the
sign as the response of a intermediate stimulus. It was through that
the structure of the language was upheld for two classes of
subsystems: centrals and peripheries. The first were concerned
about the grammatical system, the phonological system and the
morphological system. It’s usually presented as an reaction against
traditional grammar. American structural linguists based their
descriptions on objectives observation data, playing special attention
to current speech.

Characteristics of American Structuralism :

 As an offshoot of anthropology.
 Influenced by behaviourist psychology.
 Focused on Native American language, which were dying out.
 Attempted to develop a methodology to describe any corpus in
terms to the distribution of its expression-elements relative to
each other.
European Structuralist School

European structuralism was directly influenced and inspired by the

work of Saussure. The central concept of this movement is that
language is a system of sign, one cannot identify expressions-
element (sounds, words) independently of the content elements.
Therefore it is not possible to separate the study of language from
the study of meaning. This is where the concept of sign, signifier, and
signifier comes in. in simple words, signifier is the image or sound
associated with something (e.g., a table), while signified is the idea or
concept of the thing (e.g., a the idea of a table). Also, the sign is the
object that combines the signifier and the signified into a meaningful
unit. Furthermore, according to Saussure, language operates at two
levels: langue and parole. Langue is an abstract system, where parole
is actual speech. Besides, there are various schools, of European
structuralism such as the Geneva school, Prague School, Copenhagen
school, and Paris School. European structuralism refers to a diverse
intellectual movement that emerged in the mid-20th century,
drawing from various disciplines such as linguistics, anthropology,
and philosophy. The approach aimed to understand the underlying
structures and systems that shape human experience and societies.
While structuralism had its roots in the works of Ferdinand de
Saussure, it gained prominence through the contribution of thinkers
like Claude Levi-Strauss, Roman Jakobson, and Roland Barthes.
At its core, structuralism sought to uncover the hidden patterns and
rules governing human behavior and culture. In linguistics,
Saussure’s structural linguistics proposed the language is a system of
sign with arbitrary relationships between signifiers and signifieds.
This ideal influence structuralism through across disciplines,
encouraging scholar to analyze cultural phenomena as systems of
interconnected elements. Claude Levi-Strauss, a key figure in
structural anthropology, applied these principles to the study of
myths. He argued that myths share structural similarities across
different cultures, suggesting universal mental structures in human
cognition. Levi-Strauss’s approach involved identifying binary
oppositions and transformation within myths, revealing underlying
structures that reflects fundemental aspects of human thoughts.
In linguistics, Roman Jakobson expanded on Saussure’s ideas,
emphasizing the important of communication through language,
including the poetic function that focuses on the aesthetic aspects of
language. This broader view of language contribution to the
structuralism understanding of communication as a system of signs
with specific functions. Roland Barthes extended structuralist
analysis to cultural phenomena such as literature and photography.
His works, “Mythologies”, explored how everyday objects and
practices carry symbolic meanings shaped by cultural structures.
Barthes also introduced the concept of “semiology”, the study of
signs and symbols, as a way to analyze deeper meanings embedded
in cultural artifacts. While European structuralist made significant
contributions to various fields, it faced criticisms. Some argued that it
oversimplified the richness and diversity of underlying structures.
Post structuralism thinkers, including Michel Foucault and Jacques
Derrida, challenged the fixed nature of structuralist categories,
emphasizing the fluidity and complexity of meaning. European
structuralism was a transformative intellectual movement that
influenced fields such as linguistics, anthropology, and cultural
studies. Its emphasis on uncovering hidden structures and patterns
in human phenomena shaped the way scholars approached the
study of language, cultural, and society. Despite its limitations and
criticisms, structuralism remains a foundational influence in the
broader landscape of academic thought
Differance Between American and Europian
Structuralist School

American structuralism is a heterogeneous movement of linguistics

that occurs in the US from 1930s to 1960s. European structuralism is
a heterogeneous movement of linguistics that developed in
European during the 1920s. Ferdinand de Saussure was the most
prominent linguist in European structuralism. On the most
prominent linguist in American structuralism. American structuralism
involved the study of Native American languages. Since it was
unexplored area, linguists has to determine their rules and grammar
structures first, before describing these language pattern and
comparing them with English. However, European structuralism
involved European languages, which had been extensively studied
before. In America structuralism, one can observe complete neglect
of semantics or meaning. But, in European structuralism, the study of
language cannot be separated from the study of meaning.
Moreover, Europian structuralism mostly involved abstract ideas and
concepts. But, American structuralism was comparatively more
applied in nature.
American structuralism began as an offshoot of anthropology and
was influenced by behaviourism. On the other hand, European
structuralism takes a more pure linguistics approach.
American structuralism and European structuralism are two main
structural linguistics movements that developed independently of
each other. American structuralism began as an offshoot of
anthropology and was influenced by behaviorism. European
structuralism, on the other hand, was directly inspired and
influenced by the work of Saussure. Moreover, American
structuralism focused on Native American languages, while European
structuralism focused on European languages, which has clearly
identifiable grammar rules and structures. Therefore, there is a
distinct difference between American and European structuralism.

Conclusion

The American and European structuralist school emerged as

influential theoretical frameworks in the mid-20th century, shaping
the landscaple of social sciences and anthropology. While sharing
some common ground, they exhibit distinct perspectives on
understanding society and culture. Both schools shares a
commitment to understanding underlying structures, yet the diverge
is there emphasis. The American structuralists concentrate on
uncovering cognitive structures, while the European structuralists
delve into the symbolic and semiotic dimensions of culture. Despite
these differences, they collectively challenged the prevailing cultural
relativism of their time, offering more systematic and analytical
approaches to studying human societies. The impact of these
structuralist schools extended beyond anthropology into other
descriplines like literary theory, sociology, and philosophy. Levi-
Strauss’s structuralism influenced the development of structural
influenced the development of structural functionalism in social
institutions. European structuralism, with its focus on semiotics,
contributed to the growth of post structuralist thought, challenging
the stability of meaning and promotion deconstructionist approaches
The ameican and European structuralist schools, despite their
divergent emphases, played pivotal roles in shaping anthropological
and broader social science discourse. Their focus on underlying
structures, whether cognitive or symbolic, introduced systematic
methodologies for analyzing cultures. While their influence waned
with the advent of post-structuralist critiques, their legacy persists in
the ongoing debates within anthropology and the broader
intellectual landscape. The structuralist approach remains a
foundation chapter in the history of social thought, offering valuable
insights into the study of human societies and cultures.
CONTENTS

 Introduction.
 Structuralism in Linguistics.
 American Structuralist School.
 European Structuralist School.
 Difference between American and European
Structuralist School.
 Conclusion.
References

 https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-
american-and-structuralism/
 https:/academic.oup.com/book/43763/chapter-
abstract/370698564?redirectedFrom=fulltext
 www.Britannica Encyclopdia.com
 www.wikipedia.com