The Similarities Between Chomsky and Saussure

Chomsky did research on linguistics and produced a theory. Saussure also did research on linguistics. There were three main ideas of Saussure similar to Chomsky’s theory. These were; sign, language-speech dichotomy, and synchronic-diachronic distinction. Saussure used the sign as a linguistic sign. So, Saussure used the sign instead of the word. Chomsky used it as a sentence. Chomsky said that meaning lied beneath the sentence, while Saussure thought that meaning was hidden in signs. In fact, they both said the same thing and had similar views. They just explained in different ways. Saussure’s opinion was that the language did not belong to a person, written by all people. 

And, Saussure mentioned the fluency of the language, just like Chomsky. In the same way, Chomsky said that language is only belonging to human and it developed with people. Also, Chomsky thought that the language was innate. Although people had a certain number of letters that can be used, people had the ability to create unlimited sentences. In this way, Chomsky defended the view of generative grammar and mentioned it continuously change. Saussure talked about the connection between the power of thought and sound that were an inseparable pair. In the same way, Chomsky mentioned that language and everything related. Chomsky also discussed the language in terms of psychology. And, he said that looked at the person’s language to understand the functioning of the person's mind. Also, Saussure said that language creates many things with mental meanings.

Bakhtin had three main ideas about semiotics. These were; dialogue-dialogism, heteroglossia, and carnival. The dialogue had an important role in Bakhtin's view. When we looked at the dialogical-cultural theory of semiotics, Bakhtin thought that what people were saying in the dialogue was a kind of independent, persistent and objective. Bakhtin explained the dialogue in this way. People did not engage in a dialogue with the thought of disrespect to others. People engaged in a dialogue to communicate, not to change or interact. Bakhtin thought that the dialog and the body were related. The dialogue did not make by decision and there was no return. At the same time, Bakhtin emphasized that culture also affected on the dialogue. The dialogue was not only communication with each other but also the confrontation of cultures.

Berne mentioned this situation in his book the Games People Play. He said that everyone is playing, but they are entering the expectation. Berne saw the game like an act as a predictable end reaching action. Rules of games affect people and lead to a sort of predictable end. Therefore, Berne thought that a game should not have rules. The rules affect all people's lives. Even though it is not mentioned verbally, it is internalized and directed to behave in that way. It also becomes a repeatable state when the rules of a game are pre-determined. Games can be a good end for one side, a bad end for the other sides, good end for both or one side wins and the other lose. It's like life, like real life. People play the game together with future expectations or with their past experiences.

Sebeok’s Theory of Global Semiotics is a more comprehensive point of view. Semiotics had changed from a language-centric approach to a more comprehensive and broader perspective with Sebeok. Before Sebeok, the sign was examined in a more limited way. According to Sebeok, semiotics had two meanings. He first explained minor and major semiotics. There was minor semiotics which was including signs. Major semiotics were meant that everything else in the universe. Sebeok also said that this was global semiotics. 

This was also related to biology and biosphere. According to Sebeok, biological foundations were important in explaining many things). A sign has explained another sign, which made another sense and this made another sense, and so on. So this was Sebeok’s endless semiotics. According to Sebeok, global semiotics involved everything including animals. But, animals and humans were different in semiotics. People were different from animals because people had the ability to think. Also, Sebeok has created a systematic layout in all scientific fields where semiotic is found. Sebeok has continuously added new things to semiotic and has helped to transform it into something global. And, Sebeok had presented a global view.