Course in General Linguistics - F. de Saussure

8/6/2019 Course in General Linguistics - F. de Saussure

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/course-in-general-linguistics-f-de-saussure 1/6

Course in General Linguistics

Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale) is an influential book compiled by Charles

Bally and Albert Sechehayethat is based on notes taken fromFerdinand de Saussure's lectures at the University of

Geneva between the years 1906 and 1911. It is generally regarded as the starting point of structural linguistics, an

approach to linguistics that flourished inEurope and the United States in the first half of the 20th century

Semiology: language, langue, and parole Saussure focuses on what he calls language, that is "a system of signs that express ideas," and suggests that it may

be divided into two components: langue, referring to the abstract system of language that is internalized by a given

speech community, and parole, the individual acts of speech and the "putting into practice of language". While

speech ( parole) is heterogeneous, that is to say composed of unrelated or differing parts or elements, language

(langue) is homogeneous, composed of the union of meanings and 'sound images' in which both parts

are psychological. Therefore, as langue is systematic, it is this that Saussure focuses on since it allows an

investigative methodology that is rooted, supposedly, in pure science.

Beginning with the Greek word semîon meaning 'sign, Saussure names this science semiology: a science that

studies the life of signs within society. A popular view of language is that it is a natural organism, that grows and

evolves in accordance with fixed laws and is not determinable by the will of humans. Saussure argued against

that organicistview of language. Instead, he defined language as a social product, the social side of speech being

beyond the control of the speaker. According to Saussure, language is not a function of the speaker, but is passively

assimilated. Speaking, as defined by Saussure, is a premeditated act.

The sign

Fig. 1 - The Sign

The focus of Saussures investigation is the linguistic unit or sign.

The sign (si gne) is described as a "double entity", made up of the signifier , or sound image, (si gnifi ant ), and

the signified, or concept (si gnifié). The sound image is a psychological, not a material concept, belonging to the

system. Both components of the linguistic sign are inseparable. One way to appreciate this is to think of them as

being like either side of a piece of paper - one side simply cannot exist without the other.

Saussure is adamant that language cannot be considered a collection of names for a collection of objects. According

to Saussure, language is not a nomenclature. Indeed, the basic insight of Saussure's thought is that denotation, the

reference to objects in some universe of discourse, is mediated by system-internal relations of difference. *****1



Arbitr ar iness The basic principle of the arbitrariness of the sign in the extract is: there is no natural reason why a particular sign

should be attached to a particular concept.

Fi g. 2 - Arbit rar i ness

In Figure 2 above, the signified "tree" is impossible to represent because the signified is entirely conceptual. There is

no definitive (ideal,archetypical) "tree". Even the picture of a tree Saussure used to represent the signified is itself

just another signifier. The object itself - a real tree, in the real world - is the referent. For Saussure, the arbitraryinvolves not the link between the sign and its referent but that between the signifier and the signified in the interior

of the sign.

The concepts of signifier and signified could be compared with the F reud i an concepts of latent and manifest

meaning. Freud was also inclined to make the assumption that signifiers and signifieds are inseparably bound.

Humans tend to assume that all expressions of language mean something.

In further support of the arbitrary nature of the sign, Saussure goes on to argue that if words stood for pre-existing

concepts they would have exact equivalents in meaning from one language to the next and this is not so. Different

languages divide up the world differently. To explain this, Saussure uses the word bu f as an example. He cites the

fact that while, in English, we have different words for the animal and the meat product: Ox and bee f ,

in French, bu f is used to refer to both concepts. A perception of difference between the two concepts is absent

from the French vocabulary. In Saussure's view, particular words are born out of a particular societys needs, rather

than out of a need to label a pre-existing set of concepts.

But the picture is actually more complicated, through the integral notion of 'relative motivation'. This is to say that,

at the level of langue, hierarchically nested signifiers have relatively determined signified. An obvious example is in

the English number system: That is, thoughtwenty and two might be arbitrary representations of a numerical

concept, twenty-two, twenty-three etc. are constrained by those more arbitrary meanings. The tense of verbs

provides another obvious example: The meaning of "kicked" is relatively motivated by the meanings of "kick-" and "-

ed".

A further issue is onomatopoeia. Saussure recognised that his opponents could argue that with onomatopoeia there

is a direct link between word and meaning, signifier and signified. However, Saussure argues that, on

closer etymological investigation, onomatopoeic words can, in fact, be coincidental, evolving from non-

onomatopoeic origins. The example he uses is the French and English onomatopoeic words for a dog's bark, that

is Oua f Oua f and Bow W ow.

Finally, Saussure considers interjections and dismisses this obstacle with much the same argument i.e. the sign /

signifier link is less natural than it initially appears. He invites readers to note the contrast in pain interjection in

French (ai e) and English (ouch).



Value The value of a sign is determined by all the other signs in the langue.

Fi g. 3 - Value

Saussure realized that if linguistics was going to be an actual science, language could not be a mere nomenclature;

for otherwise it would be little more than a fashionable version of lexicology, constructing lists of the definitions of

words. Thus he argued that the sign is ultimately determined by the other signs in the system, which delimit its

meaning and possible range of use, rather than its internal sound-pattern and concept. Shee p, for example, has the

same meaning as the French word mouton, but not the same value, for mouton can also be used to mean the meal

lamb, whereasshee p cannot, because it has been delimited by mutton. Language is therefore a system of

interdependent entities.

This is an important fact to realize for two reasons: (A) it allows Saussure to argue that signs cannot exist in isolation;

and (B) he could discover grammatical facts through syntagmatic and paradigmatic analyses.

Syntagmatic and par adigmatic r elations Language works through relations of difference, then, which place signs inopposition to one another. Saussure

asserted that there are only two types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. The latter is associative, and

clusters signs together in the mind, producing sets: sat , mat , cat , bat , for example,or thought , thi nk , thi nk i ng, thi nker . Sets always involve a similarity, but difference is a prerequisite, otherwise none

of the items would be distinguishable from one another: this would result in there being a single item, which could

not constitute a set on its own.

These two forms of relation open linguistics up to phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Take morphology,

for example. The signs cat and cat s are associated in the mind, producing an abstract paradigm of the word forms

of cat . Comparing this with other paradigms of word forms, we can note that in the English language the plural often

consists of little more than adding an s to the end of the word. Likewise, in syntax, through paradigmatic and

syntagmatic analysis, we can discover the grammatical rules for constructing sentences: the meaning of j e dois (I

should) and dois j e? (Should I?) differ completely simply because of word order, allowing us to note that to ask a

question in French, you only have to invert the word order.



Synchr onic and diachr onic axes

Fi g. 4 - The Synchroni c and Di achroni c Axes

Language that is studied synchronically is "studied as a complete system at a given point in time" (The AB axis).

Language studied diachronically is "studied in its historical development" (The CD axis). Saussure argues that we

should be concerned with the AB axis (in addition to the CD axis, which was the focus of attention in Saussure's

time), because, he says, language is "a system of pure values which are determined by nothing except the

momentary arrangements of its terms". We could study chess diachronically (how the rules change through time) or

synchronically (the actual rules). To illustrate this, Saussure uses a chess metaphor . In chess, a person joining a

games audience mid-way through requires no more information than the present layout of pieces on the board and

who the next player is. They would not benefit from knowing how the pieces came to be arranged in this way.

[edit]Geographic linguistics

A portion of C ourse in General Linguisticscomprises Saussure¶s ideas regarding the geographical branch of

linguistics.[3]

According to Saussure, the geographic study of languages deals wi th external, not internal, linguistics. Geographical

linguistics, Saussure explains, deals primarily with the study of linguistic diversity across lands, of which there are two

kinds: diversity of relationship, which applies to languages assumed to be related; and absolute diversity, in which

case there exists no demonstrable relationship between compared languages. Each type of diversity constitutes a

unique problem, and each can be approached in a number of ways.

For example, the study of Indo-European and Chinese languages (which are not related) benefits from comparison, of

which the aim is to elucidate certain constant factors which underlie the establishment and development of any

language. The other kind of variation, diversity of relationship, represents infinite possibil ities for comparisons, through

which it becomes clear that dialects and languages differ only in gradient terms. Of the two forms of diversity,

Saussure considers diversity of relationship to be the more useful with regard to determining the essential cause of

geographical diversity.

While the ideal form of geographical diversity would, according to Saussure, be the direct correspondence of different

languages to different areas, the asserted reality is that secondary factors must be considered in tandem with the

geographical separation of different cultures.

For Saussure, time is the primary catalyst of linguistic diversity, not distance. To illustrate his argument, Saussure

considers a hypothetical population of colonists, who move from one island to another. Initially, there is no difference

between the language spoken by the colonists on the new island and their homeland counterparts, in spite of the

obvious geographical disconnect. Saussure thereby establishesthat the study of geographical diversity is necessarily

concentrated upon the effects of time on linguistic development. Taking a monoglot community as his model (that is, a



communit

¡

¢

ich £

¤ ¥ ¦

§

£

onl

one l¦

nguage), Saussure outlines the manner in ¡

hich a language might ̈

evelop and

graduall

undergo subdivision into distinct dialects.

Saussure¶s model of diff erentiation has 2 basic pr inciples:©

) that linguistic evolution occurs through successive

changes made to specific linguistic elements; and ©

2) that these changes each belong to a specific area,¡ hich they

aff ect either ¡ holly or par tially.

It then f ollows f rom these pr inciples that dialects have no natural boundary, since at any geographical point a

par ticular language is undergoing some change. At best, they are defined by ³waves of innovation´²in other words,

areas where some set of innovations converge and over lap.

he ³wave´ concept is integral to Saussure¶s model of geographical linguistics²it descr ibes the gradient manner in

which dialects develop. Linguistic waves, according to Saussure, are influenced by two opposed f orces: parochialism,

which is the basic tendency of a population to preserve its language¶s traditions; and intercourse, in which

communication between people of diff erent areas necessitates the need f or cross-language compromise and

standardization. Intercourse can prevent dialectical f ragmentation by suppressing linguistic innovations; it can also

propagate innovations throughout an area encompassing diff erent populations. Either way, the ultimate eff ect of

intercourse is unification of languages. Saussure remarks that there is no barr ier to intercourse where only gradual

linguistic transitions occur .

Having outlined this monoglot model of linguistic diversity, which illustrates that languages in any one area are

undergoing perpetual and nonunif orm var iation, Saussure turns to languages developing in two separate areas.

In the case of segregated development, Saussure draws a distinction between cases of contact and cases of isolation.

In the latter , commonalities may initially exist, but any new f eatures developed will not be propagated between the two

languages. Never theless, diff erentiation will continue in each area, leading to the f ormation of distinct linguistic

branches within a par ticular f amily.

he relations character izing languages in contact are in stark contrast to the relations of languages in isolation. Here,

commonalities and diff erences continually propagate to one another²thus, even those languages that are not par t of

the same f amily will manage to develop common f eatures.

[edit] r iticism

Linguist Noam

homsky maintained that structural linguistics was efficient f or phonology and morphology, because

both have a finite number of units that the linguist can collect. However , he did not believe structural linguistics was

sufficient f or syntax, reasoning that an infinite number of sentences could be uttered, render ing a complete collection

impossible. Instead, he proposed the job of the linguist was to create a small set of rules that could generate all the

sentences of a language, and nothing but those sentences.[4]

homsky's cr iti

ues led him to f ound generative

grammar .

ne of

homsky's key ob jection to structural linguistics was its inadequacy in explaining complex and/or ambiguous

sentences. As philosopher John R. Sear le[4]

wr ites:

..."John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please" look as if they had exactly the same grammatical

structure. Each is a sequence of noun-copula-ad jective-infinitive verb. But in spite of this sur f ace similar ity the

grammar of the two is quite diff erent. In the first sentence, though it is not apparent f rom the sur f ace word

order , "John" f unctions as the direct ob ject of the verb to please; the sentence means: it is easy f or someone

to please John. hereas in the second "John" f unctions as the sub ject of the verb to please; the sentence



means: John is eager that he please someone.

hat this is a diff erence in the syntax of the sentences comes

out clear ly in the f act that English allows us to f orm the noun phrase "John's eagerness to please" out of the

second, but not "John's easiness to please" out of the first. here is no easy or natural way to account f or

these f acts within structuralist assumptions.

By the latter half of the 20th century, many of Saussure's ideas were under heavy cr iticism. His linguistic ideas

are now generally considered impor tant in their time, but outdated and superseded by developments such

as cognitive linguistics. In 972, homsky descr ibed structural linguistics as an "impover ished and thoroughly

inadequate conception of language,"[5]

while in 984, Marcus Mitchell declared that structural linguistics were

"f undamentally inadequate to process the f ull range of natural language [and f ur thermore were] held by no

current researchers, to my knowledge."[6]

Holland[2]wr ites that it was widely accepted that

homsky had

"decisively ref uted Saussure. [...] Much of homsky's work is not accepted by other linguists [and] I am not

claiming that homsky is r ight, only that

homsky has proven that Saussure is wrong. Linguists who re ject

homsky claim to be going beyond

homsky, or they cling to phrase-structure grammars.

hey are not turning

back to Saussure."

In the 950s as structural linguistics were f ading in impor tance in linguistics, Saussure's ideas were appropr iated

by several prominent figures in continental philosophy, and f rom there were borrowed inliterary theory, where

they are used to interpret novels and other texts. However , several cr itics have charged that Saussure's ideas

have been misunderstood or deliberately distor ted by continental philosophers and literary theor ists.[7][8]

or

example, Sear le[9]

notes that, in developing his "deconstruction" method, Jacques Derr ida altered the truth

value of one of Saussure's key concepts: " he correct claim that the elements of the language only f unction as

elements because of the diff erences they have f rom one another is conver ted into the f alse claim that the

elements [...] are "constituted on"

Derr ida) the traces of these other elements."

Course in General Linguistics - F. de Saussure

Documents