SAUSSUREANISM AND STRUCTURALISMWithin twentieth-century philosophy and human sciences, Course in General Linguistics attributed to Ferdinand de functions primarily as a site of official doctrine closely associated with structuralism, that is, as a statement of familiar oppositional pairings between signifier and signified, la langue and la parole, synchrony and diachrony. Barthes argued that a reliance on these oppositional pairings in process of mapping out many aspects of human reality (such as kinship arrangements, neurotic symptoms, literary genres) may in fact be a hallmark of activity, one which distinguishes it from other traditions of inquiry (Barthes 1972, 213). Structuralism can therefore be defined as direct application of 'Saussurean doctrine' to many fields of study dealing with cultural signification in a social context. Considering hold that had on Saussure's linguistics within twentieth-century European philosophy and related fields, it is usual to consider these oppositional pairings as a distinctive feature and a shared trait of Saussureanism and structuralism. They figure as general principles that were applied to linguistic study in Course in 1910s, and then extended to broader field of philosophy and human sciences within post-Second World War French (and then challenged within post-structuralism, notably by Derrida).This assumed continuity between a 'proto-structuralist' doctrine and properly so-called can also be rendered by fact that it is usual in scholarship to define proper as an intellectual movement with a distinctive Saussurean lineage, and to exclude strands of scholarship that do not share in Saussurean legacy. Hence, it is usually allowed that term structuralism covers a large and varied territory of knowledge, and arguably one finds elements throughout written history of Western philosophy in many attempts to characterize objects in terms of a combination of structural elements within a system (Culler 2006, 5). However, it is standard to qualify as in proper sense of term movement that displays a direct lineage to Saussurean linguistics as presented in Course only; a number of scholarly works devoted to testify to this trend. Culler notes that the term is generally used to designate work that marks its debts to structural linguistics and deploys a vocabulary drawn from legacy of Ferdinand de Saussure. . . . There are many writings, from Aristotle to Noam Chomsky, that share propensity to analyze objects as products of a combination of structural elements within a system, but if they do not display a Saussurean ancestry, they are usually not deemed structuralist (Culler 2006, 5). Sturrock states that, The founding father of structural linguistics in Europe, and man frequently looked on as patron of whole Structuralist movement, was Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (Sturrock 2003, 26). And Dosse observes that structuralism's (in proper sense) central core, its unifying center, is model of modern linguistics and figure of Ferdinand de Saussure, presented as its founder (Dosse 1997, 43). (The return to Saussure would belong to period's prevailing theme of returning to foundational figures, like Marx and Freud [Dosse 1997, 43]). In sum, structuralism's identity is widely recognized as closely bound up with its historical foundation in Great Book authored by Ferdinand de Saussure.The shared Saussurean/structuralist commitment to familiar oppositional pairings between signifier and signified, la langue and la parole, synchrony and diachrony was made possible by production, replication, and reception of Course as a site of official doctrine. …