The famous structuralists, like, Roman Jakobson, Roland Barthes, Claude Levi Strauss and Ferdinand De Saussure have made their contributions in justifying the fact that “a language speaks us”. All of these structuralists have tried to develop the semiology or semiotics. These structuralists always took a language as a sign that reflects the thoughts of human being. The philosophies of structuralism were emerged prominently in the 20th century. The concepts that are provided by the structuralism hold more scope for making criticism. The most of the theories given by the structuralism include a margin of objectivity is the reason of the criticism. This objection is termed as the scientific objection. The structuralists tried to prove that we do not speak a language instead language speaks us. The fact is based on the thoughts that everything is produced as a result of some force or power, but the efforts of humans are not enough to produce anything. This statement has been made as a result of giving more attention towards the structures, patterns and the systems. (West, 170, 1996)
The theories of structuralists are quite contradictory if they are compared with the theories developed by the humanists. Now, we are going to argue on the models developed for a language by the humanists as well as by the structuralists.
The model that was presupposed and developed by the humanists states that the human minds are capable of understanding the real world. The human minds are rational and can get to everything that is seen. In the same manner, the rational human mind is able to portray and define the real world precisely up to some extent. This definition is given by making a use of some languages. The approach developed by the humanists relies on the fact that some of the languages are necessarily used for illustrating the real world. According