Paradigm

Paradigm is a set of units from which one may be chosen to combine with units from other paradigms to form a syntagm (that is, a combination of units into a signifying whole). The paradigmatic dimension of language is that of choice, the syntagmatic that of combination. Saussurian linguistics argues that all languages and codes are built upon these two dimensions. The alphabet is a paradigm, and letters chosen from it may be combined to form written words (syntagms). A man’s wardrobe holds a number of paradigms for instance – one each for shirts, ties, socks – which are combined into a syntagm (his dress for the day). A road sign is a syntagm formed from units from two paradigms (the shape of the sign, and the symbol in the middle). A paradigm, then, is a set of units which have an overall generic similarity: within the set each unit must be significantly distinguished from the others: the meaning of the unit chosen is defined by its relationship to the others in the paradigm that were not. In the lay paradigm of ‘farm animals’, the unit cow stands for a farm animal distinguished from horse, pig and sheep, but in the farmer’s paradigm it means something different because it is distinguished from heifer, steer and bullock.

Paradigms are generally shared among members of a culture: they come within the area of langue. Syntagms can be unique combinations created for the occasion. They are examples of parole. Paradigms can be regarded as synchronic or diachronic.

This pair of terms refer to two different, but not mutually exclusive, ways of conducting semiotic/linguistic analysis. Synchronic analysis concentrates on the state of language (or cultural phenomena) at one moment. Diachronic analysis concentrates on the changes in a given language (or cultural phenomena) over time. A Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure set up a distinction in linguistic study between studying language as a system of meaningsat one moment in time (synchronic linguistics) and studying changes in the system of meanings from one temporal point to another (diachronic linguistics). The proper historical study of language depended, for Saussure, on initially describing the overall shape of the language, synchronically, before proceeding to the description of its change over time. Synchronic study thus became, in Saussure’s view, logically prior to diachronic study; and the latter became – in effect – the comparison of temporally discrete synchronic states.

Synchronic analysis has become the normin much semiotic work, where the emphasis has been on isolating the elements (signs) and their internal relationships within an abstract system (codes) of many different sign systems. Saussure predicted that synchronic analysis would eventually lead on to a more theoretically adequate diachronic analysis, or even to a combination of the two, which he dubbed panchronic. This may be the situation now developing in semiotics, where more attention is being paid to the historical development of particular media and institutionalized discourses than was hitherto the case.

According to T. Kuhn a paradigm is an accepted model or pattern. “Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute. To be more successful is not, however, to be either completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number” (T.Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 1996. P. 23).

The paradigm is a related constellation of ideas, spanning many different disciplines by depending on the same underlying model of the universe. A paradigm shift erupts when the old model becomes obsolete and a more accurate theory of the universe emerges to replace it.

Kuhn revealed the true nature of these epoch-making periods. We have been taught that science is rational and objective, based on observation and data. Kuhn, however, said nothing could be further from the truth. He found that thinking alternated back and forth between times of stable, “normal science”, and turbulent scientific revolutions caused by “extraordinary science”. The history of science, Kuhn discovered, consisted of a “series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions”, in which “one conceptual world view was replaced by another”

Rather than being an objective debate about data, these revolutions were actually ideological struggles between the old and the new thinking. The struggle was thus not about science and data, it was all about maintaining an ideology and maintaining power. The old worldview simply had too much invested in the old worldview to accept the truth of the new – even when they saw it with their own eyes. It’s basically a war of the worldviews.

Another use of the word paradigm is in the sense of Weltanschauung (German for world view). For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception. Social scientists have adopted the Kuhnian phrase " paradigm shift" to denote a change in how a given society goes about organizing and understanding reality. A “dominant paradigm” refers to the values, or system of thought, in a society that are most standard and widely held at a given time. Dominant paradigms are shaped both by the community’s cultural background and by the context of the historical moment. The following are conditions that facilitate a system of thought to become an accepted dominant paradigm:

· Professional organizations that give legitimacy to the paradigm

· Dynamic leaders who introduce and purport the paradigm

· Journals and editors who write about the system of thought. They both disseminate the information essential to the paradigm and give the paradigm legitimacy

· Government agencies who give credence to the paradigm

· Educators who propagate the paradigm’s ideas by teaching it to students

· Conferences conducted that are devoted to discussing ideas central to the paradigm

· Media coverage

· Lay groups, or groups based around the concerns of lay persons, that embrace the beliefs central to the paradigm

· Sources of funding to further research on the paradigm.