4.2.

1 Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations

In saussure's view , the language is a system of signs , each of which consists of two
parts: SIGNIFIED ( concept ) and SIGNIFIER (sound image). And the relationship
between these two parts is arbitrary. Therefore the linguistic cannot attempt to explain
individual signs in a piecemeal fashion. Instead he must try to find the value of a sign
from its relations to others its position in the system.

The two principal types of relations which Sauusure identified are SYNTAGMATIC and
PARADIGMATIC relations. The former is a relation between one item and others in
a sequence, or between elements which are all present , such as the relation between
weather and the others in the following sentences.

e.x. 4-1

If the weather is nice, we will go out.

There are syntactic and semantic conditions the words in a syntagmatic relation must
meet . For example, e.x. 4-2a below is an acceptable sentence, but B) and C) are not.

e.x. 4-2

a. The boy kicked the ball.

b. *Boy the ball kicked the.

c. *The ball kicked the boy.

The words in (b) are arranged in a way which violates syntactic rules. First, the countable
noun boy cannot occur without a determiner before it. Second, the words in boy the or
boy the ball are not in any grammatical relations with each other. They are neither in
subordination like boys there or in coordination like boys and girls. Lastly, the is an
article and cannot function as the object of kicked. And in (c), the ball is inanimate while
the verb kick requires an animate subject.

The order of words is also influenced by semantic considerations. Whether (a) or (b) in
ex. 4 -3 will be used depends on the meaning.

Ex.4-3

(a) The boy chased the dog.

(b) The dog chased the boy.

The PARADIGMATIC relation , Saussure originally called ASSOCIATIVE, is a

relation holding between elements replaceable with each other at a particular place
in a structure, or between one element present and the others absent. For example, in the
context The _______ is smiling, there are constrains on the possible elements occurring
here. As is obvious, verbs definitely cannot be used in this place. The most likely
candidate is a noun. But there are also strict constrains on the possible type of nun
occurring here. First, it must be an animate noun, nouns like book, desk are not possible
choices. Second, even within the type of animate nouns, only those which have a
semantic component of human are most naturally used with the verb smile. Trees, cats
only smile in children's stories. Thirdly, the noun must be in the singular to occur with is
smiling, so nouns like boys, men are excluded. In other words, only singular human
nouns like boy, girl, man, woman, student are capable of occurring in this con text. And
these words are said to be in a paradigmatic relation here. They can substitute for each
other without violating syntactic rules.

One thing to be noted is that the constraints on words in a paradigmatic relation, different
from those in a syntagmatic relation, are syntactic only. Semantic factors are not taken
into consideration here.words in a paradigmatic relation are comparable only in terms of
syntax. They have the same syntactic features. But they are not replaceable with each
other semantically. They do not mean the same, which is obvious from the words boy,
girl, man, woman and student.

In Saussure's original theory, these two relations are applicable at every level of linguistic
analysis. At the phonological level, for example, the phoneme /p/ is in a syntagmatic
relation with the phonemes /i/ and /t/ in the word pit; and it is in a paradigmatic relation
with /b/, /s/ and /h/, as they are capable of replacing /p/ in the context /_it/ to form an
English word. These two relations together, like the two axes of a ordinate, determine the
identity if al linguistic sign. That is, the value of a linguistic sign is determined by the
signs with which it can combine to form a sequence, and the signs with which it contrasts
and can replace in this sequence.

The sequence which a sign forms with those it is in a syntagmatic relation is

sometimes called a STRUCTURE , to use the word in a more restricted sense; and the
class of signs which are in a paradigmatic relation are sometimes called a SYSTEM ,
with “system” also referred to as the HORIZONTAL relation, or CHAIN relation. And
the paradigmatic relation also known as the VERTICAL relation, or CHOICE
relation.

PARADIGMATIC AND SYNTAGMATIC. Contrasting terms in (structural)

LINGUISTICS. Every item of language has a paradigmatic relationship with every other
item which can be substituted for it (such as cat with dog), and a syntagmatic
relationship with items which occur within the same construction (for example, in The
cat sat on the mat, cat with the and sat on the mat). The relationships are like axes, as
shown in the accompanying diagram.
 syntagmatic
The cat sat on the mat.
paradigmatic His dog slept under that table.
Our parrot perched in its cage.

Paradigmatic contrasts at the level of sounds allow one to identify the phonemes

(minimal distinctive sound units) of a language: for example, bat, fat, mat contrast with

one another on the basis of a single sound, as do bat, bet, bit, and bat, bap, ban.

Stylistically, rhyme is due to the paradigmatic substitution of sounds at the beginning of

syllables or words, as in: ‘Tyger! Tyger! burning bright / In the forests of the night.’

On the lexical level, paradigmatic contrasts indicate which words are likely to belong to

the same word class (part of speech): cat, dog, parrot in the diagram are all nouns, sat,

slept, perched are all verbs. Syntagmatic relations between words enable one to build up

a picture of co-occurrence restrictions within SYNTAX, for example, the verbs hit, kick

have to be followed by a noun (Paul hit the wall, not *Paul hit), but sleep, doze do not

normally do so (Peter slept, not *Peter slept the bed). On the semantic level,

paradigmatic substitutions allow items from a semantic set to be grouped together, for

example Angela came on Tuesday (Wednesday, Thursday, etc.), while syntagmatic

associations indicate compatible combinations: rotten apple, the duck quacked, rather

than *curdled apple, *the duck squeaked.