# data[].attributes.body
The first phase, called “grammar” was problematic in that it attempted to construct rules for how language should be rather than appreciating the ways in which grammar structure can vary, giving the phase a very narrow scope. The second phase, philology, was problematic in that it focused mainly on written language rather than spoken and realized language. Comparative philology was more useful in that it compared various languages to one another, however it was still limiting because it only studied Indo-European languages and only did so in a comparative way.

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest difficulty that aspiring linguists must face is that multiple different factors contribute to the way a language develops and is used, and overlooking certain factors in favor of others can cause linguists to draw incorrect or partially correct conclusions. The solution to this is to primarily focus on the linguistic system itself and to use other factors as individually contributing branches that are all related to the linguistic structure.

# data[].attributes.body
Sound/concept
vocalization/perception
individual/social

# data[].attributes.body
Sound/idea
Individual/social
Established/evolving

# data[].attributes.body
Langue/ Parole

Society/Individual

Self-contained whole/ Principle of classification

Sound pattern/Concept

Physiological/Psychological

Internal/External

Passive/Active

# data[].attributes.body
A linguistic item can have multiple layers of analysis, such as phonetic articulation, assigning semantics to said item, and social aspects, etc. He proposes a solution to eliminate this confusion, which is to focus on the linguistic system (langue) and assign different analyses as manifestations of said linguistic structure, so phonetics semantics etc. would be branches of langue.

# data[].attributes.body
Saussure critiqued writing grammars for languages because they were oftentimes prescriptive and dictated what a language should be instead of describing how grammar varies in language. He also was not content with philology since it mainly focused on written texts instead of the living language. The third phase, comparative linguistics, Saussure seemed to be most appreciative but still was not completely content with it. He pointed out that comparative linguistics was not an official science because it did not define the actual concepts of what they were studying. It was also strictly comparative and not historical, and thus believed it did not draw concrete conclusions.

# data[].attributes.body
"Everything is internal which alters the system..." Saussure's original metaphor of understanding the internal nature of language by way of chess is an interesting look at how the rules and structure of language cannot be changed by external things like parole. For example, if the chess pieces changed the rules of the game would still remain. Furthermore, like his metaphor about cutting a plant, he reveals that perspectives depend on other perspectives despite each functioning separately.

# data[].attributes.body
He compares a plant with internal forces affected by external forces such as soil and climate to how a grammatical structure also is affected by external linguistic changes. He also compares the internal system of a language to chess, and if the pieces of the chess game were removed, similarly the grammar of a language would be affected.

# data[].attributes.body
Saussure uses the metaphor of language as a game of chess, where piece value depends on position, where the rules are constant, where the system is only ever temporary, where movement is all that is needed, where only one element of language is altered at a time, where a movement has repercussions upon the whole system, and where the current change exists independently of preceding and resulting states. Saussure also uses the metaphor of a junction of roads, with one leading to a diachronic approach to linguistics, or parole, and the other leading to a synchronic approach, or langue.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Vox campaign video the religious imagery and the statue of Don Pelayo are icons. The religious imagery (the statue of the virgin Mary, the church) represents Christian tradition and the statue of Don Pelayo corresponds to the actual Don Pelayo. The Spanish Flags are indexes – in the context of the rally, the flags are nationalistic. There are icons present on the flag, but those only exist as part of the flag, which is itself more abstract. Other indexes are the music and individual words. The words only have the meaning that Vox is going for when strung together, and the music only has the meaning of a victorious reclaiming of Spain when the words and imagery are associated with them. Finally, symbols are present in the wreath, the color scheme and specific objects on the flag, and in various aesthetic elements of the setting. The meaning conveyed by these symbols requires a cultural knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
When English focuses on symbols instead indexical meanings, it acts as a way to completely ignore racism or other issues that many Americans want to ignore. Once a certain word is coded to ascribe a certain race (like "protest" to white, "riot" to Black), media outlets can push their own agenda as Americans across the country who are consuming media or subconsciously ascribing a certain race to a negative connotation. If people do not acknowledge how words change upon context, it stunts critical thinking and beneficial discussions about politics and social values.

# data[].attributes.body
In France, wearing a burqa to non-Muslims is an icon for pushing an Islamic agenda, or at least threatening France's "neutrality towards religion." However, wearing a mask during the pandemic is the opposite, and it instead represents French patriotism, community values, and caring for one another. For French Muslims, their burqa is seen as a connection to their faith, not necessarily having to do with attacking France or French culture. The burqa ban is the French government's refusal to acknowledge what the burqa means to the Muslim community

# data[].attributes.body
The first discipline was grammar, which was based solely on logic and had no scientific or objective approach. It was also prescriptive and provided rules rather than observing. The second was philology, which sought to establish, interpret and comment upon texts. However, it was primarily focused on written language and therefore neglected the spoken or living language. It also was centered mostly on Greek and Roman antiquity. Comparative philology was the third, which elucidated languages by comparing them to their relatives. Comparative philology never truly found a definition of its object of study. Its investigations were also limited to the Indo-European languages, and its focus on comparison did not warrant drawing conclusions. The exclusively comparative approach had no basis in reality.

# data[].attributes.body
Aspiring linguists are prompted to either tackle problems exclusively on one front, risking failure to account for dualities, or to attempt to commit to study language in several ways simultaneously, in which the object of study becomes muddled. Saussure proposed linguists fix this by taking the study of linguistic structure (langue) as their primary concern and relate all other manifestations of language to it.

# data[].attributes.body
The binaries are:
sound                               idea
individual                         social
established system        evolution

# data[].attributes.body
We assign physical objects meaning based on their location. A knife indoors is probably used for cooking, a knife outdoors is probably used for hunting. Similarly, the same pencil is a very different tool in a mathematician's office and an artist's studio. Reducing words and sounds to symbols fails to consider how their meaning is altered in context. Telling someone you love them can mean something very different when whispered in an intimate setting than it can yelled in a vibrant and populated ones. The meanings of words and sounds are also indexical based on the words and sounds around them. Certain phrases, like "I love you" can lose their meaning when they precede a "but" or a "yet." Matching words and sounds specifically to objects and basing an understanding of language off of that limits the understanding of the multiple meanings ascribed to words and sounds based on context.

# data[].attributes.body
The French government upheld their mask mandate by working to make masks a symbol of patriotism, liberty, equality and fraternity. The fact that masks are encouraged while veils condemned and penalized is indicative of a racist and Islamophobic policy and attitude. There are structural and functional similarities between masks and veils, but veils are connected to Islam so they are the targets of attacks. Where masks are made symbolic of equality and fraternity, veils are made symbolic of danger and anti-patriotism. The context is also made important as well. Masks only symbolize their ascribed values in a public context, as do the veils and other religious coverings banned. Both objects have a cultural significance, but only the mask's cultural significance is promoted while the cultural significance of a face covering is vilified.

# data[].attributes.body
Writing grammar is overly prescriptive, which makes it too narrow and removed from actual language use. Philology is only focused on written, historical language, and it mostly focuses on Greek and Roman. Comparative philology falls prey to several mistakes, including not investigating the significance of the comparisons that are made and remaining distant from the reality of the interconnectedness of language. Lastly, it was mostly focused on Indo-European languages.

# data[].attributes.body
Unlike other scientists who can choose an object of study and consider it from several viewpoints, in linguistics, the viewpoint one uses can produce several different objects. If a linguist focuses on only one aspect, they might miss something important, but, if they try to study everything at once, their study will become a mess of disconnected things. The only way to resolve this according to Saussure is to study langue as the primary concern and then relate other aspects of language to langue.

# data[].attributes.body
Binaries:
oral articulation/auditory perception
sound/idea
individual aspect of language/social aspect of language
established system/evolution

# data[].attributes.body
Saussure critiques the study of grammar in linguistics as being prescriptive instead of observational. It separates language into "correct" and "incorrect" forms, devaluing informal language as well as other dialects. Philology, the study of ancient texts, is also imperfect because it focuses heavily on written language. As a result, spoken language is neglected. Furthermore, philology focuses almost exclusively on Ancient Greek and Roman, which makes it outdated and Eurocentric in contemporary studies of linguistics. Finally, comparative philology fails to make historical conclusions through its comparative approach, disconnecting it from reality.

# data[].attributes.body
Compared to other sciences, the object of study in linguistics is not easily definable; the viewpoint that the linguist adopts can create the object of study because a word like "nu" has multiple dimensions including sound, etymology, definition, and so on. In order to solve this problem, linguists study linguistic structure as their primary object of study, as it is the only part of language that is independently definable and that relates to all other forms of language.

# data[].attributes.body
Parole vs. Langue Binaries:
Individual vs. Collective/Social
Heterogeneous vs Homogeneous
Constantly Evolving vs Established System
Intangible vs Tangible

# data[].attributes.body
-Just like the electrical apparatus or fingers used to tap out Morse code is external to the actual code, speech/parole is external to language system/langue.
-External aspects about chess such as its historical origins in Persia and the material the chess pieces has no actual impact on how the game functions, similar to parole as an external component of language. However, if you remove pieces from the chess board, the change substantially changes the "grammar" of the game and how it functions. Likewise, langue functions in the same way where changes to the language system will have a drastic impact on how the language works.

# data[].attributes.body
The first phase that Saussure highlighted was grammar. He defined grammar as a discipline that was based on logic and rules that determined what correct and incorrect forms were. He believed the problem was that this discipline was very rigid and didn’t leave room for impartial observation. The second phase was philology, which was the study of ancient texts. This discipline focused on a scientific approach where one interprets and comments on texts. The concern with this phase neglected the living language and could lead to questionable commentary on literary history, customs, institutions etc. Additionally, it was only directly correlated to Ancient Greece and Rome. The third phase was comparative philology or comparative grammar. This discipline focused on the comparison of various languages. Saussure found this approach admirable, but not the direction he wanted linguistics to go. Scientific methods were not able to be formed for this disciple due to the fact that what was studied was never clearly defined.

# data[].attributes.body
The key quandary that aspiring linguists face is deciding what linguistics should be and the angle at which it should be looked at. Saussure acknowledges two possible paths, one being langue and the other being parole. However, he decides that linguistics should primarily focus on langue. The danger of honing in on one path versus the other is losing the importance of parole. Language is multifaceted as it encompasses a scientific and social aspect, by focusing on linguistic structure, social nuance can be lost.

# data[].attributes.body
Langue: Langue has an internal focus that is based on a cognitive system. This approach puts an emphasis on word structure, and grammar, and sound.

Parole: Parole has an external focus where there is an emphasis on understanding language through interpersonal communication and ideas. This approach is rooted in the role of language in social relationships.

# data[].attributes.body
Saussure uses chess as a metaphor for language. He explains that both the game of chess and language are systems that are based on values and modifications. He compares the state of the board to the state of language and says that the value of a chess piece depends on the position on the board, much like how context and positionality come into play with language. Furthermore, he explains that chess is played in a series of states where what the board used to look like has no effect on what the board currently looks like. Specifically connecting to langue, Saussure expresses that when pieces are removed from the game the grammar and language of the game change due to their departure. Chess puts players in a temporary position that varies each game, which is similar to the ever-changing nature of language. Saussure also connects the complexities of language to that of a plant. Each plant is unique, especially when cut to reveal its various fibers. Plants much like language have certain arrangements that directly affect it. It is clear that with both plants and language perspective is very important in that it changes the trajectory of either the lifespan or conversation.

# data[].attributes.body
In Abascal’s speech, there are several symbols displayed like the cross on Don Pelayo’s statue as well as his attire. The statue itself can be an icon, but mainly an index as it has different meanings and values depending on the viewer. The same goes for the flag, Abascal’s supports are waving the flag, linking Abascal and his platform directly to the flag and its meaning. Some left-leaning Spainards would likely be insulted by the use of the flag in this campaign video as it changes what it means to be an inhabitant of Spain. Some icons include the base of the statue that says ‘Pelayo’ clearly indicating the identity of the statue and the positive cheering from the crowd.

# data[].attributes.body
In American English, the words, protest, and riot have simple definitions and ignore the ways in which they are socially used. This is dangerous because the symbol-centric view ignores the context and historical evolution of these terms. In this clip, it is clear that a politically right-leaning news outlet associates the terms protests and riots with specific racial groups. This is a key distinction that must be discussed since it creates new biased meanings for these “straightforward” terms that are only illuminated with context.

# data[].attributes.body
When the French government defines masks, they connect them strictly to physically protecting their citizens from COVID, they do not analyze the symbolism nor the deeper meaning of face coverings. In contrast, the Muslim women and their allies see face coverings with a strong sense of symbolism. Both view not wearing a mask/veil as dangerous and disrespectful, but for very different reasons. This is a clear example of cultural differences and values.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like I may have misunderstood something in this section because it seems like the majority of the metaphors are referring to synchrony and diachrony, which are very different from langue and paroles, if I'm understanding correctly. Metaphors for synchrony and diachrony included chess and cutting into the stem of a plant. The only metaphor I picked up on for langue and parole was Saussure's comparison to parole as seeds for change. Again, I may have misunderstood, and I am excited to hear more in class.

# data[].attributes.body
Abascal's use of "buena gente" stands out to me as a clear linguistic index when I first heard it. It is a term that can mean so many different thing, like for my mom it would mean someone who practices hospitality appropriately and is kind, but here it is very clear that Abascal is using it for a Spanish nationalistic us/them dichotomy because of the symbols and icons around him. The statue of Don Pelayo is an icon for a white supremacist figure because Don Pelayo led the Reconquista. The setting in Covadonga is another symbol for white supremacist conquest.

# data[].attributes.body
This clip demonstrates the racially contextual usage of "protests" and "riots." Instead of "protest" meaning a specific thing and "riot" another, the words are used differently based on both the race of the speaker/writer/dominant media power and the race of the people engaging in the radical action. In this sense, the way people use the words is far too context-dependent for it to be a simple symbol. Similarly, "special" is often a word with positive connotation, but in the context of a non-disabled speaker speaking about a disabled person, it often is infantilizing at best and clearly derogatory at worst.

# data[].attributes.body
Because a mask and veil are both face coverings, there is an element of indexicality because the meaning of the face covering is context-specific. Additionally, the veil/head coverings of Muslim women are one of the most common symbols of Islam in the historically Christian countries. Mask use also has indexical meanings based on political context (for instance the American right see it as a symbol of liberalism and big government, and the left see it as a symbol of civic duty). Given the way the article describes it, the mask seems to symbolize in France compliance with the government and appreciation for government-defined civic duty.

# data[].attributes.body
The most obvious icon in this video is the statue of Pelagius de Asturias. Because Pelagius helped start the Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula against the Moors, this icon is representative of Spanish nationalism and white supremacy. (being North African and Muslim, the Moors were seen as threats to white Christian Spanish identity). The speaker Abascal also refers to Pelagius as "Don Pelayo." This is an example of a linguistic index, as the term "Don" is a context-specific and socially defined title in Spanish given to men of high social status. Finally, the Spanish flags in the video are symbols. There is nothing intrinsic about the flags that suggests their connection to Spanish identity. The relationship between the signifier and signified are linked by an arbitrary, culturally defined relationship.

# data[].attributes.body
The symbol-centric view of American English can be quite problematic because it ignores the context-specific meanings associated with certain words. This is evident in news coverage regarding Black and white activists. While armed white men who marched on state capitol buildings were called "protestors," unarmed Black activists during the Black Lives Matter movement have been labeled as "rioters," and "looters." It is dangerous to take these words at face value, because it reinforces racist societal connotations of Black people and delegitimatizes the protests.

# data[].attributes.body
Although both masks and veil wearing are used as face coverings, French government and society's attitudes towards veils are undeniably laden with Islamophobic undertones. While mask wearing is linked to patriotism and supported by 94% of the French public, veils on the other hand are seen as undemocratic and and restrictive. This type of language portrays French women who choose to wear a veil as an outside threat, stripping them of their humanity and putting them in potential danger from French society and government.

# data[].attributes.body
The first icon that is made clear in the video is that of Don Pelayo. In the context of the video he is set out to be a synonymous with nationalism and Spanish strength as he was crucial in the reconquest of Spain from the moors. By referencing Don Pelayo, Abascal is clearly creating an “us” versus “them” and “good” versus “bad” narrative which speaks to the xenophobic right wing political party to which he belongs. The Spanish flag is also seen throughout the video which emphasizes this Spanish nationalism and loyalty. The meaning of all of these images is socially and politically situated, for Don Pelayo and the Spanish flag can carry many negative connotations for many.

# data[].attributes.body
The three prior phases or types of linguistics were writing grammars, philology and comparative philology. Saussure understands that grammar is a simplified version of how language should look rather than how it actually does look. As a result, grammar rules are removed and do not actually recognize the patterns of true language. Next is philology which is essentially the study of one language in relation to its origin. However, according to Saussure, the act of tracing a language takes the focus away from the real-time nuances of the new language as it looks too closely at language origins. Finally, the failures of comparative philology was that it was a method that was almost too comparative. Historical aspects and nuances of languages were not taken into consideration. It became clear that comparisons - whether they revealed similarities or differences - were just one aspect of studying language.

# data[].attributes.headline
The first phase, grammar, had the problem of being too narrow and prescriptive. Rather than observing how language varies through space and time, grammar focuses on whether or not language is used in correct or incorrect form. The second phase, philogoly, had the problem of being based only on written language. This excludes any spoken language, limiting this phase severely. The last phase, comparative philogoly, compared the structure of various languages but failed to find the historical significance in the connection between these various languages.

# data[].attributes.subject
The first phase, grammar, had the problem of being too narrow and prescriptive. Rather than observing how language varies through space and time, grammar focuses on whether or not language is used in correct or incorrect form. The second phase, philogoly, had the problem of being based only on written language. This excludes any spoken language, limiting this phase severely. The last phase, comparative philogoly, compared the structure of various languages but failed to find the historical significance in the connection between these various languages.

# data[].attributes.body
In France, wearing a face mask in the context of covid-19 is a concept that is highly praised and expected from its citizens. Those with face coverings are seen as doing their societal duty and the mask has become synonymous with community, care and compassion. There is also a strong link between face masks and patriotism and the French values of, “liberty, equality and fraternity.” While the Burqa also effectively stops the spread of airborne particles, therefore limiting the spread of covid, the wearers are vilified and it is instead seen as a marker of difference instead of a community effort. By making the Burqa illegal while making masks mandatory, it speaks to the desired homogeneity of the French nation to eliminate any marker of difference. By contrasting mask wearers (as patriotic citizens), with those who wear burqas, islamic women are seen as disobeying French norms and values, being seen as radicalized and disobedient which are blatantly xenophobic and islamophobic ideas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aspiring linguists face the quandary of deciding which aspect of language to study. The problem is that the components of language are broad and highly interconnected. Saussure proposes to fix this by focusing on linguistic structure only, as this component of language is an important and self-contained concept.

# data[].attributes.subject
Aspiring linguists face the quandary of deciding which aspect of language to study. The problem is that the components of language are broad and highly interconnected. Saussure proposes to fix this by focusing on linguistic structure only, as this component of language is an important and self-contained concept.

# data[].attributes.body
Linguists face the problem of intersectionality when study languages. It can be different to incorporate every aspect - physical, historical, social and structural - into one's study of a language. Saussure proposes that linguists must then focus primarily on the structure of language as it can have fixed definitions. From there, Saussure guides linguists to relate all other facets of language to the structure.

# data[].attributes.body
social product            body of rules
individual                   societal
sound                       idea
active                       passive
internal external

# data[].attributes.body
The linguistic icons, symbols and indexes in this video reveal that context is crucial to understand the social interaction between langue and parole. Don Pelayo is clearly deliberate in his choice of language use. The linguistic indexes here are defined by the context of his speech rather than his words appearing as a written quote. The symbolic use of religious signs also reveals the physical nature of icons and how they can translate linguistically in order to convey a specific message.

# data[].attributes.body
The conversation in this video reveals the significant wait of word use depending on the context or place, people and politics. The centric view of American English is unrealistic because each American has their own perspective of meaning, contexts and consequences. Loaded words such as "protesters" and "rioters" cannot be taken at face value, especially in the intersectional context of the news and the BLM movement. Language does not stand alone but rather in a moment that contains meaning and significance. Thus, symbols and their meanings must be fluid.

# data[].attributes.body
The prior phases of linguistics include grammar, philology and comparative philology. Saussure explains the first phase, grammar, as being based on logic with no scientific approach. Saussure claims that this approach is far too prescriptive. Grammar focuses primarily on what is right and wrong, and in turn limits the outlook. The second phase is philology which works to primarily interpret texts. The main problems with this phase is that it was too concerned with Greek and Roman antiquity. Additionally, the one dimensional view as a written language neglects and completely discounts the idea of language as living. The third phase is comparative philology. Saussure offers a harsh critique and states that this field never really defined what they were studying and therefore could never really draw any meaningful and profound conclusions as it was also limited to indo-european languages. 

# data[].attributes.body
According to Saussure, linguistics can be studied from a plethora of different perspectives. He explains that there is not only a psychological aspect to language, but psychological one as well. Language and the way we use it is socially situated in addition to having an individual aspect. There is also an extremely important cultural and historical context that can be analyzed as well. Trying to capture all of the complexities of this field doesn’t always do it justice in the most coherent and mindful way. Instead Saussure argued that linguistics should be studied simply from the langue perspective which focuses on linguistic structure. 

# data[].attributes.body
Social product versus set of rules and conventions
Individual versus societal
Sound versus idea
External focus versus internal focus
Homogeneous versus heterogeneous

# data[].attributes.body
They way words such as riot, looting and unrest have been assigned to be people is heavily racialized and and works to change the narrative and delegitimize the work protestors are doing. It is dangerous to take these words at face value as it ignores the context of race relations in the United States for hundreds of years. In contrast, many white individuals who are partaking in the same kinds of activities are labeled as protestors. The connotation on the word protest implies that it is something that is done peacefully. Putting this in contrast with BLM protests criminalizes protesting for the most basic human rights. 

# data[].attributes.body
The metaphor I found most helpful in cementing this distinction was the discussion of the game of chess. Saussure explains that external facts that give context to the game, don’t change how it is played. But the pieces themselves, the number of them and the value behind each piece, could potentially change the “grammar” of the game if they were altered. Another metaphor Sausser uses is that of a symphony. He states, “The symphony has a reality of its own, which is independent of the way it is performed. The mistakes which musicians may make in the performance in no way compromise that reality.” This speaks to the notions of individual versus societal and the body of rules in which langue focuses on. 

# data[].attributes.body
As Professor Evers mentioned in her lecture, looking at lexical items through a symbol-centric view will lead an observer to miss out on the nuances and deeper power of the communicative unit (in this case, a word). If a single referent is linked precisely to a single word in the mind of every speaker, in this case let’s use “rioter,” then in the symbolic interpretation we would assume that a rioter invokes the same exact idea of what a rioter is in every speaker’s mind. In this case most likely it would signify an angry individual engaging in a violent expression of possibly unjustified dissatisfaction. However, as current events demonstrate, that is not the full parameters of the concept signified by the term “rioter.” Rather, the metaphorical room which contains the essence of the word, has a back door. This back door leads to a hallway, which contains constraints based on race, class, political affiliation, and so on. To divorce such a term from these extensions of meaning would be to ignore the true discriminatory power it exercises in the media today. By using the word “rioter,” the speaker is indexing, in a socially accepted way, that the protestors are black, and that although their argument is entirely justified in reality, they have exaggerated their needs. Meanwhile, what would be symbolically referenced in a Saussurian view as a “rioter,” is referred rather by the word “protest,” because the whiteness of its perpetrators removes its contention from, by definition, the so-called “correct” referent. In choosing what words to use to describe an event, a person ideologically positions themselves in our socio-political landscape.

# data[].attributes.body
The first phase of linguistics discussed, “grammar,” is problematic because it is purely prescriptive and subjective by creation, not allowing for linguistic diversity and assuming a very one dimensional approach to language forms and how they ‘should’ be. The second phase of linguistics was “philology”. This phase was problematic in that it concentrated completely on written texts and didn’t study the ever changing spoken language. The second phase also focused its analysis almost entirely on ancient Greek and Roman texts, excluding others. The third phase, “comparative philology,” was created with the discovery that different languages could be compared to one another. One problematic aspect of this phase was that it failed to explain the significance of the type of study they were conducting with language or the significance of their results, barring them from complete conclusions. By not defining specifically what they were studying, the researchers in this phase also failed to create a true science, which could have replicable and understood methods of approach, according to Saussure. Also, this third phase once again focused solely on Indo-European languages without discussing the many others.

# data[].attributes.body
During this speech I discerned physical signs such as; the Spanish flag, which indexes of nationalism and patriotism; the statue of Don Pelayo, which is an icon for a person who embodies many of the same ideological ideals; the symbolic location of the presentation at a historical landmark; the memorial, which again indexes patriotism; the large group of people gathered together, which is an icon of community and solidarity; and lastly the old architecture, which indexes the lasting beauty of Spain and its history. Linguistically, the nationalist battle cry was a notable signal. A crowd of people all yelled together, which indexes community and solidarity again, as well as glorified battles in history. Additionally, the use of repetition for words which refer to Spanish identity position the orator and his followers as patriotic and more “Spanish” than other people. The use of the word “campaign,” given the proximity of the statue of Don Pelayo, clearly indexes a past ideological and political dispute. Furthermore, his assertions which divide “good” people from “bad” people in an unmistakable way cemented an us/them position which allows his followers to reduce the humanity of the “other.”

# data[].attributes.body
Aspiring linguistics face the quandary that there are many different facets of language that could be studied, including the literal uttered sounds and sounds heard during the act of speech, the ideological and social significance that these signs hold in society, and the difference between the present and past meaning and usage of these signs. Therefore, linguistics are stuck trying to decide how best to approach these many aspects of language and risk either narrowing their focus too much and not taking into account the full picture of language in trying to study a single part of it, or indeed trying to study all of it and being overwhelmed with the many disconnected parts one must then look at. Saussure proposes as a solution that linguistics must primarily study the structure of language and connect all other aspects of language to the central focus of this structure. This is because, according to Saussure, language structure is the only facet of language that can be easily categorized and understood independently.

# data[].attributes.body
I would analyze the semiotics of mask versus veil wearing in France as a physical manifestation of a religious and/or political stance in the nation. Based upon the response of the French administration, we see that their issue with a face covering such as a burqa is not based in the physical act of covering oneself, but rather in the index of that sign in their minds. It indexes what nationalists view as a threat; Islam radicals. Because in their minds the signifier and the signified cannot between separated, they feel they must control the only one they really can in a physical society; in this case, the veil. However, this link between dangerous religious affiliations and plain masks does not exist, and so the indexed interpretation for those in power was available for a different assignment. In this case, French patriotism based in an ideology aligned with secular science. So, while the physical manifestation of these phenomena appear to overlap, this simply magnifies the underlying semiotic divide between the index of a burqa for a Muslim women, in this case community and solidarity, and a French government official, which, to them, is a potentially radical terrorists/threats.

# data[].attributes.body
This article spoke to the fascinating and important use of context by way of enforcing certain agendas over citizens - in this case French citizens. Whilst face coverings is a serious concern for COVID -19, the semiotics or symbolism of the mask and burqa do not align in a way that speaks to the French argument of  nationalism or community. By expressing the needs of a unified community through pandemic mask wearing, the French government is exaggerating the ironic laws against Muslim women. I think this article would be interesting to read alongside the perspective of country like the US whose citizens are far less willing to wear masks as a sign of nationalism (vs. France's 94%).

# data[].attributes.body
Grammar was too prescriptivist. It relied on outlining rules and not on forming observations. Philology relied too heavily on written language and ignored spoken language. It also focused almost exclusively on "Greek and Roman antiquity" (1). Comparative philology spent all its energy on the actual comparison without drawing on historical evidence. Comparative philologists reportedly treated language as if it existed as "a fourth realm of nature" (4) instead of as something that humans create over time.

# data[].attributes.body
The first phase of linguistics was known as grammar. Saussure claimed that this phase was prescriptive and too narrowly focused. The second phase, philology, ignored "living language" in favor of too heavy a focus on written language according to Saussure. The final phase, comparative grammar, neglected to focus on the historical aspect of the languages they studied, ignoring the significance of connections between the languages and strictly comparing them.

# data[].attributes.body
In discussing the three phases of linguistics, Saussure offers multifaceted critiques. For grammar, he believed that this was a very prescriptive approach to language, based on logic, and offered no scientific approach to language. It did  provide rules to distinguish between correct and incorrect forms, but its outlook was narrow and far from allowing for a biased and objective approach.  Philology was an overly strict approach to studying written language, while ignoring living and active forms. It was also too focused on Greek and Roman periods of the past. Lastly, Comparative philology was not only limited to the study of Indo-European languages, but failed to analyze and dig deeper into the importance of the linguistic comparisons established, and was too comparative, without taking into consideration the historical background and context of these languages. He believed that relying solely on a comparative approach does not accurately reflect the conditions which are present in language everywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
Grammar aims solely to provide rules without actually making any observations or coming to any conclusions so it doesn't do much. Philology seeks to comment on pre-existing texts and neglects living language. Comparative philology relates languages to each other using a historical approach and actually comments on languages and their development.

# data[].attributes.body
One problem facing linguists is that no clear subject exists as such. Unlike other sciences or disciplines, there is not just one set of topics to cover or questions to answer. He proposes in response that linguists ought to focus on linguistic structure (which I'm guessing may be translated from "langue"), as to Saussure it is "the one thing that is independently definable" (9).

# data[].attributes.body
Aspiring linguists face the problem of the many layers that make up linguistics and a language. Trying to study just one aspect will result in an incomplete study of language, but trying too many will end up with disjointed parts. In addition, the study of language will often bleed into other fields. Saussure proposes studying langue specifically, or linguistic structure, for the best understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
The field of linguistic study and analysis faces a puzzling dilemma in which linguists can either address the problem directly and fail to take into account important dualities, or feel committed to exhaustively and simultaneously studying language that results in a multitude of unconnected ideas and things. He proposes that the solution lies in taking the study of linguistic structure as a profound and primary goal, and assess all other language dualities and creations according to the structure.

# data[].attributes.body
Language is multifaceted and there seems to be an unending ways to approach it. Saussure instead suggests breaking language as a concept up into analyzable pieces, specifically langue/linguistic structure. He also argues that linguistic structure is the most important side of language and that all the other aspects of it, wouldn't make any sense without langue. Therefore to understand language/linguistics, you need to understand linguistic structure.

# data[].attributes.body
langue/parole
external/internal
psychological/physiological
active/passive
rules/social product
ancillary/accidental

# data[].attributes.body
Saussure uses multiple metaphors to explain the dichotomy of language. For one, he compares it to a plant and the plants fibers. He notes that if you cut a plant stem cross-wise, then you see the interaction of plant fibers on a single surface, but if you cut perpendicular to your previous cut, then you see the entirety of the fibers that make up the stem. Like “langue” and “parole”, these two different views of the plant fiber show different perspectives, yet are at the same time completely dependent one on the other. Saussure also uses the metaphor of chess. He says that both language and chess have a system of values and that both systems are constantly changing. As is true of both chess and language, each change to the system affects the values present. For example, a movement of the queen off the board would represent a large change in the value of a players pieces similarly to how a removal of a word in a sentence in the langue sense would change the parole meaning a person might receive due to a changed context. He also further delves into this metaphor by saying that both language and chess have a set of conventions that remain the same throughout, in chess these are the game rules, in language, these are the continuous principles of semiology.

# data[].attributes.body
The sound vs the idea conveyed
Individual vs society
Homogeneous vs heterogeneous
External vs internal

# data[].attributes.body
Parole: external, evolving, concept

# data[].attributes.body
Audible vs. intellectual
Individual vs. social
Institution vs. an evolving process
Psycho-physical vs. purely psychological
Homogenous vs. heterogenous

# data[].attributes.body
One metaphore Saussure uses to cement his ideas is language as a plant. You can study the plant alone, but you will not get the full picture if you don't consider the impact of outside influence on inside mechanisms. In the plant metaphor, this is represented by the impact the soil and climate have on the plant's internal structures. In language, borrowing and literature shine light on internal structure or langue. A second metaphor he uses concerns chess, demonstrating the internal (langue) vs the external (parole). He says you can change some external aspects of chess (such as the material making up the pieces) without affecting the internal, or the rules system. Other external facts, such as where the game originated, don't affect internal structure either. Something that changes internal structure, such as the number of pieces, is internal. However, it's easy to distinguish between external and internal. "Everything is internal which alters the system in any degree whatsoever" (23)

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest sign in this speech is the Pelayo statue under which Abascal gives his speech. In itself, this is an icon which resembles the actual Pelayo. In this speech however, it is an index because context is needed to know the significance of far-right Abascal choosing to give his speech here. He claims to want to rid Spain of their enemies, and Pelayo was a conquistador who drove out groups believed to be the enemy. The Spanish flag is a symbol first, with no inherent link to the country of Spain. However, it is also an index when considering the use of flags to further the aims of nationalist groups.

# data[].attributes.body
Saussure uses the metaphors of the projection of a 3 dimensional object onto a 2 dimensional plan and of a plant to denote how perspective affects the study of linguistics. He moves on to use chess as a metaphor for language. Just as chess pieces have predetermined but arbitrary values, so too do terms in language. Both are temporary. And finally, it only takes the movement of one piece to change the board, just as linguistic developments only change isolated elements.

# data[].attributes.body
There are a lot of signs present in this video. Some of the symbols in this video are the flag of Spain, the cross behind the statue, and the church. All of these are symbols that people have arbitrarily chosen to have a much bigger ideological meaning. The flag represented nationality and patriotism for Spaniards, while the cross and the church have come to represent religiosity, conservatism, and traditionalism. The clearest use of an Icon was the statue of “Don Pelayo” as this is a figure that literally has a resemblance to the living man it is depicting. Although I’m not quite sure, I’d also argue that the positive cheering of the crowds also acts as an icon because it bears resemblance to support for this candidate, which is absolutely a message he wishes to give with this video. There are also many Index signs in this video. For one, the flag of Spain, the church, or the mention of “Don Pelayo” in the speech are all also Index signs. This is because these signs can easily mean a wide variety of things in different contexts. For one, the flag of Spain being used to represent this right-wing candidate could be very offensive to left leaning citizens of Spain. The church and cross symbols could also signify the exclusion of groups that don’t have the same beliefs as this candidate. The mention of the significance of the location of the speech in Covadonga and “Don Pelayo” with the respectful “Don” also can convey the message, only with the cultural and historical context of understanding the story behind them, that this candidate is all for conquest of others and an othering of those that aren’t traditionally Spanish. He also indexes this by using the phrase “good people '' in his speech and how he defines it afterward. This once again requires  context of his political beliefs to grasp his meaning, hat he is wanting to unify his supporters against people who want to work with those different from himself.

# data[].attributes.body
individual v social
homogenous v heterogenous
tangible v abstract
internal v external
social product v rules
evolving v established

-

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing that jumps out in this video is the ubiquitous waving of the Spanish flag. Flag waving is such a clear sign of nationalism that it is hard to mistake. You can also hear shouts of "Viva España," clear calls to nationalism. In Abascal's speech you can also pick out the phrase "buena gente," or "good people." He's talking too quickly for me to pick out the rest (whoops), but it's a bit of a red flag to me that he's denoting "good people" in front of a statue of the man determined to drive out the moors from Iberia. It rings as a xenophobic phrase, separating the 'good Spanish people' from everyone else. Of course the statue too is an important symbol, of national values and historical narratives that have been uplifted (not to mention the cross on top of it, which wields all sorts of significance).

# data[].attributes.body
First problem was with grammar. The problem with grammar was that grammar is strictly about rules, which distinguish between a “correct” and “incorrect form”, making it a prescriptive discipline. This leaves it far removed from “impartial observation” and leaves a very strict analysis. The second problem was with philology, which is an interpretation and commenting on texts. The main problem with it is that it focuses too much on the written language and leaves living language untouched and neglected. The third problem is with comparative philology, which is taking certain words from languages and comparing and contrasting them. However the biggest problem with this is that it lead to wild theories that had no basis in reality and lead to strange ways of thinking about language.

# data[].attributes.body
When just considering symbols, one might assume that a word as a sign is always strictly linked to one, same meaning. In this example, that would assume that the symbol "protester" always means peaceful, good, etc. It would also assume that "rioter" is always negatively valenced, linked to a looter, someone violent, an other. However, one needs to take into account the context of the American history regarding systematic racism. Out of this context, calling one person a protester would imply that they were fighting the good fight and being respectful, while calling another a rioter would imply they were behaving poorly. In context, one would consider that it may be in the interest of certain groups to demonize Black protesters and minimize their efforts, or normalize white protesters even if their efforts are dangerous. Considering this indexical meaning adds a social layer to the word choice of a politician or media outlet, rather than just assuming the word choice was based on actions alone.

# data[].attributes.body
In discussing synchrony, he uses the metaphor of the projection of a 3D project on a 2D plan. The projection witnessed does depend on the object that is being used, but it will also have differences. The projection is considered a separate entity from the object. He goes on to say that in linguistics the relation between historical reality and linguistic state is similar; in which the linguistic state is a projection of historical reality. He also uses the metaphor of cutting crosswise into the stem of a plant, in which the longitudinal fibres of the plant will be witnessed if we were to make a second cut perpendicular to it. The longitudinal section shows the fibres themselves, while the transversal section shows us the arrangement on a certain level. Another metaphor is that of chess and language in which both are systems of values, and have modifications. Chess pieces and language both have set, predetermined values, but also temporary ones. Furthermore, one chess piece has a great influence on the game, similar to linguistic developments and their effect on certain specific, isolated elements.

# data[].attributes.body
The first phase was writing grammars and it was problematic because it focused on logic, taking a "prescriptive" rather than a descriptive approach to studying languages. It had a very narrow outlook. Next came philology. This too had issues because it did not focus on linguistic structure, but rather on historical written pieces of literature. This meant that spoken language and its nuances were overlooked. The third phase, comparative philology, was also limited as it only made comparisons, and as a result scholars made many incorrect conclusions that didn't reflect reality.

# data[].attributes.body
I would argue that America promotes the position that reality is reality, truth is truth, no matter what you call it. So it doesn't matter if you deem something "rioting," "looting," or "protesting," because it's all the same act. But that view ignores al the context of a given event, who's participating in it, who's discussing it, and more. It puts so much power in the hands of the storyteller, who gets to categorize something and leave it as fact, claiming that the symbol they point to is what they say it is.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the example of the way the symbol “protest” is used in the U.S. it becomes clear that the symbol-centric view of American English doesn’t accurately grasp the context specific significance these symbols have in our society. If the symbol-centric view of American English was correct then every single American would have the same ideological association with the symbol “protest” and therefore think of it and use it in the same ways. Unfortunately, as the video on the lecture showed, the symbol “protest” is used in mass media almost exclusively for White protestors, even the ones that have become militant and have passed into rioting. On the other hand, the meaning supposedly agreed upon for the symbol “protest” by social contract is not ever associated with Black protestors, because of racist steriotyping and biases. Although black people might say they are protesting, mass media will almost exclusively use a word that represents negative and violent tendencies such as rioting. Once you look at this example it then becomes very clear that a person's perspective on the world strongly influences the context they have for a symbol. This context absolutely leads to different people with opposing values to use a symbol in various ways and therefore assuming a symbol-centric perspective of American English fails to grasp at these intricacies so important to understanding a symbols true meaning in a society.

# data[].attributes.body
Grammar was based on logic rather than scientific or objective approaches to a language. It is considered a “prescriptive discipline” which made it removed from impartial observation and didn’t make room for the nuances of language, giving it an incredibly narrow viewpoint. Philology was created to “establish, interpret, and comment” texts, which was problematic due to its sole emphasis around written language rather than the living language. The third period was comparative philology only compared Indo-European languages and did not prove the relationship between languages and was never explicitly defined.

# data[].attributes.body
Mask and veil wearing both relate to the idea of French patriotism. Because the government has pushed wearing a mask as a sign of patriotism and helping your fellow countrymen, it is now a symbol of patriotism, or arguably an index. On the other side, the government as pushed veil wearing as anti-patriotic, denouncing it as a symbol of hiding yourself from others in society. It also reveals an underlying fear of Islam as veil wearing alone will not inherently cause any harm to an external person. These opposite views boil down to cultural context and beliefs because, while initiating from different sources, ultimately both a mask and a veil are face coverings. It would be helpful to analyze the laws surrounding masks vs veils, and note the language used as well as the reasoning behind requiring or banning the respective coverings. It appears that both come down to patriotism and solidarity.

# data[].attributes.body
What stood out to me was the number of camera which we understood through context to convey importance as well as the action of Abascal placing flowers at the statue as a sign of respect. I believe both of those would fall under indexes? I thought the statue itself was an icon, through its ability to represent Spaniards and the reverence it was given as a statue as seen through the crowds around it. In terms of symbols, the colors of the flowers were agreed upon to represent the Spanish flag because of the colors used. I'm not sure if I fully grasp the difference between these terms.

# data[].attributes.body
The quandary that aspiring linguists face is multiple different objects of study for linguistics to commit to. He introduces 4 of them: 1. Oral and auditory, 2. Speech sounds, 3. Language as an individual aspect and social aspect, 4. Language involves an established system and evolution. This leads many of them to be concerned with so many disciplines of study. He answers this quandary by suggesting that linguists should only be primarily focused on linguistic structure and relate all other aspects of language to it.

# data[].attributes.body
There are a number of symbols, icons, and indexes that stood out to me from the video. Symbolically, Abascal placing the flowers on the statue, the waving of the Spanish flag with the statue and the cross in the back, the chanting of "Viva Espana" by the crowd in a very patriotic, and positive manner. The tight knit stature of the crowd indicates unity and groupthink in a way as well. The families depicted holding the flag indicate this strong form of nationalism as well, and loyalty to a country. Also, I couldn't tell from the fast pace of the video, but I found it paradoxical that it seemed there were a number of outside flags from different countries flying (I could be wrong I tried to replay the video but it was really fast for my eyes), when this seems to be more of a nationalistic gathering.

# data[].attributes.body
Linguists face the quandary of either approaching a problem from one viewpoint and risk failing to consider dualities or study a variety of ways simultaneously which can cause disorganization and a pile of unconnected concepts. Saussure recommends that linguists study linguistic structure as their primary concern and subsequently, relate all other types of language to it.