av owed ▁themselves ▁as ▁being ▁a ▁part ▁of ▁this ▁movement . ▁▁ ▁The ▁orig ins ▁of ▁struct ural ism ▁connect ▁with ▁the ▁work ▁of ▁Ferdinand ▁de ▁S auss ure ▁on ▁lingu istics , ▁along ▁with ▁the ▁lingu istics ▁of ▁the ▁Prag ue ▁and ▁Moscow ▁schools . ▁In ▁brief , ▁S auss ure ' s ▁struct ural ▁lingu istics ▁prop ounded ▁three ▁related ▁concepts . ▁▁▁ ▁S auss ure ▁argued ▁for ▁a ▁distinction ▁between ▁langue ▁( an ▁ideal ized ▁abstra ction ▁of ▁language ) ▁and ▁par ole ▁( language ▁as ▁actually ▁used ▁in ▁daily ▁life ). ▁He ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁" sign " ▁was ▁composed ▁of ▁both ▁a ▁" sign ified " ▁( sign ifié ), ▁an ▁abstract ▁concept ▁or ▁idea , ▁and ▁a ▁" sign ifier " ▁( sign ifi ant ), ▁the ▁perce ived ▁sound / visual ▁image . ▁ ▁Because ▁different ▁languages ▁have ▁different ▁words ▁to ▁refer ▁to ▁the ▁same ▁objects ▁or ▁concepts , ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁intr insic ▁reason ▁why ▁a ▁specific ▁sign ifier ▁is ▁used ▁to ▁express ▁a ▁given ▁concept ▁or ▁idea . ▁It ▁is ▁thus ▁" ar bitr ary ". ▁ ▁Sign s ▁thus ▁gain ▁their ▁meaning ▁from ▁their ▁relationships ▁and ▁contrast s ▁with ▁other ▁signs . ▁As ▁he ▁wrote , ▁" in ▁language , ▁there ▁are ▁only ▁differences ▁' without ▁positive ▁terms .' " ▁ ▁Pro ponents ▁of ▁struct ural ism ▁would ▁argue ▁that ▁a ▁specific ▁domain ▁of ▁culture ▁may ▁be ▁understood ▁by ▁means ▁of ▁a ▁structure — model led ▁on ▁language — that ▁is ▁distinct ▁both