Ferdinand de Saussure

(1857-1913)

Cours de linguistique générale

Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale (Course in General Linguistics) is a

peculiar book, not merely published but in part composed after the author's death.

Since he ‘destroyed the rough drafts of the outlines used for his lectures’, the editors used

‘the notes collected by students’ in order to ‘attempt a reconstruction, a synthesis’, and to

‘recreate F. de Saussure's thought.’

Saussure

Thus, the ‘Saussure’ of the Cours is a composite voice, speaking from a lecture platform between

1897 and 1911 and passing through the notebooks of followers who confess that ‘the

master’ ‘probably would not have authorized the publication of these pages.’

Many problems with its formulation and interpretation may reflect the difficulties of its

composition.

Saussure

Saussure -- or ‘Saussure’, perhaps -- seems fully conscious of his role as founder of a ‘science’.

He constantly searches for generalities, high-level abstractions, and fundamental definitions.

Over and over, he states what is ‘always’ or ‘never’ the case, what applies in ‘each’ or ‘every’

instance, what are the ‘only’ relevant aspects, and so on.

Saussure

At times, these universalizing assertions may go beyond what can be demonstrated, or conflict with

each other in puzzling ways.

Formulating the common denominators of Saussurian ‘thought’ can thus be quite

challenging.

Saussure

Saussure was highly discontent with the state of the discipline. He charged that ‘no other field’ was

so beset by ‘mistakes’, ‘aberrations’, ‘absurd notions, prejudices, mirages, and fictions.’

He deplored ‘the confusion’ ‘in linguistic research’ as well as the ‘absurdities of reasoning’, and the

‘erroneous and insufficient notions’ created by his predecessors.

Saussure

‘Before finding its true and unique object’, ‘the science that has been developed around the facts

of language passed through three stages.’

First, the ‘study’ of ‘“grammar”‘ was ‘based on logic’, but ‘lacked a scientific approach and was detached from language itself’. Preoccupied with

‘rules for distinguishing between correct and incorrect forms’, grammar ‘was a normative

discipline, far removed from actual observation’.

Saussure

Second, ‘classical philology’ was devoted to ‘comparing texts of different periods, determining

the language peculiar to each author, or deciphering and explaining inscriptions.’

This approach ‘followed written language too slavishly’, ‘neglected the living language’, and

focused on ‘Greek and Latin antiquity.’

Saussure

Third, ‘comparative philology’ explored the relatedness of many languages, but ‘did not

succeed in setting up the true science of linguistics’, because it ‘failed to seek out the

nature of its object of study.’

Also, ‘the exaggerated and almost exclusive role’ ‘given to Sanskrit’ was a ‘glaring mistake.’

SaussureSaussure was especially critical of ‘philology’, which ‘has no clear-cut objective’ and fails ‘to make a sharp

distinction between states and successions.’

In contrast, ‘the “grammarians” inspired by traditional methods’ at least tried to ‘describe language-states’.

Though ‘traditional grammar neglects whole parts of language’, does not ‘record facts’, and ‘lacks overall

perspective’, ‘the method was correct’: however ‘unscientific’, ‘classical grammar’ is judged ‘less open

to criticism’ than ‘philology’

Saussure

In effect, ‘general linguistics’ would become a ‘true science’ by supplying the theoretical and

methodological framework absent from earlier approaches, while drawing freely on their findings

and examples.

Saussure

Saussure envisioned ‘linguistics’ taking its place among ‘other sciences that sometimes borrow from its data, sometimes supply it with data’ --

e.g., ‘political history’, ‘psychology’, ‘anthropology’, ‘sociology’, ‘ethnography’, ‘prehistory’, and

‘palaeontology.’.

SaussureOn a grand scale, Saussure foresaw ‘a science that studies the life of signs within society’, and

called it 'semiology.'

‘Linguistics is only a part of that general science’ and is charged with ‘finding out what makes

language a special system within the mass of semiological data’. ‘If we are to discover the true nature of language, we must learn what it has in

common with all other semiological systems.’

Though he didn't elaborate on this future science in detail, he predicted it would establish ‘laws’,

‘rules’, and ‘constant principles’

Saussure

‘the true and unique object of linguistics is language studied in and for itself’

‘language is not similar in all respects to other social institutions’

‘other sciences work with objects that are given in advance’, whereas in ‘linguistics’, ‘it would seem

that it is the viewpoint that creates the object’

Saussure

‘Language’ constitutes a ‘linguistic fact’ that, Saussure hopes, can ‘be pictured in its totality.’

‘We must call in a new type of facts to illuminate the special nature of language’; and must ‘throw

new light on the facts’, whether ‘static’ or ‘evolutionary.’

For instance, ‘concepts’ are ‘mental facts’; ‘analogy’ is ‘a universal fact’; ‘a phonological

system’ is a ‘set of facts’; and so on...

Saussure‘The concrete entities of language are not directly

accessible.’

Saussure's already raises the persistent problem in modern linguistics of how to decide what is

‘real.’

So he would justify the thesis that ‘language is concrete’ with the mentalistic premise that

‘associations which bear the stamp of collective approval’ ‘are realities that have their seat in the

brain.’

Saussure‘The concrete object of linguistic science is the social product deposited in the brain of each

individual.’

When ‘sound and thought combine’, they ‘produce a form, not a substance’;

‘all the mistakes in our terminology, all our incorrect ways of naming things that pertain to

language, stem from the involuntary supposition that the linguistic phenomenon must have

substance.’

Saussure‘language exists independently’ of ‘the material

substance of words’;

‘the word-unit’ is ‘constituted’ ‘by characteristics other than its material quality’;

and ‘a material sign is not necessary for the expression of an idea.’

‘A material unit exists only through its meaning and function’, just as these two require ‘the

support of some material form.’

SaussureNevertheless, ‘being unable to seize the concrete entities or units of language directly, we shall work

with words.’

Insofar as ‘the word’ ‘at least bears a rough resemblance’ to ‘the linguistic unit’ and ‘has the

advantage of being concrete’, ‘we shall use words as specimens equivalent to real terms in a

synchronic system,

and the principles that we evolve with respect to words will be valid for entities in general.’

Saussure

He drastically limits the object of study: ‘the science of language is possible only if’ ‘the other

elements of speech’ ‘are excluded.’

Saussure makes a dichotomy between ‘language’ [langue] and ‘speaking’ [parole]

Saussure

‘language’ lange VS

‘passive’

‘receptive’

‘collective’

‘homogeneous’

‘speaking’ parole

‘active’

‘executive’

‘individual’

‘heterogeneous’

Saussure

In yet another trend-setting dichotomy, Saussure claimed that ‘language and writing are two

distinct systems of signs; the second exists for the sole purpose of representing the first.’

‘The linguistic object is not both the written and the spoken forms of words; the spoken forms

alone constitute the object.’

Saussure

‘Language’ is ‘organized thought coupled with sound’; and ‘each linguistic term is a member, an

“articulus”

in which an idea is fixed in a sound and a sound becomes the sign of an idea’.

This viewpoint led to the famous thesis that the ‘sign’ ‘results from associating’ a ‘signified’ with a

‘signifier.’

Saussure

‘Language’ is a ‘self-contained whole and a principle of classification’

because it is ‘a system of distinct signs corresponding to’ or ‘expressing’ ‘distinct ideas.’

‘As in any semiological system, whatever distinguishes one sign from the others constitutes it’

Saussure

‘Language is characterized as a system based entirely on the opposition of its concrete units.’

‘The general fact’ is ‘the functioning of linguistic oppositions.' Saussure's most extreme formulation

is also the most frequently quoted: ‘in language there are only differences without positive terms’

Saussure

'The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.’

If the ‘sign’ ‘results from’ that bond, Saussure ‘can simply say: the linguistic sign is arbitrary’, i.e., ‘it is unmotivated’, as shown by words for the

same thing (“tree”) in different languages.

This ‘principle’ ‘dominates all the linguistics of language’

Saussure

First, ‘the arbitrary nature of the sign explains’ ‘why the social fact alone can create a system.’

Second, `arbitrary and differential are two correlative qualities’: ‘a segment of language can never in the final analysis be based on anything

but its noncoincidence with the rest.’

Third, ‘in linguistics to explain a word is to relate it to other words, for there are no necessary relations between sound and meaning.’

Saussure

‘Both terms involved in the linguistic sign’, the signified and the signifier, ‘are psychological and are united in the brain by an associative bond.’

‘The psychophysical mechanism’ is significant only for ‘exteriorizing’ the ‘combinations’ that

‘express’ ‘thought.’

The ‘sound-image’ ‘is not the material sound, but the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression that it makes on our senses.’

Saussure

‘Psychologically, our thought -- apart from its expression in words -- is only a shapeless and indistinct mass’, a

‘floating realm.’

‘Thought, chaotic by nature, has to become ordered... language takes shape between... the indefinite plane of jumbled ideas and the equally vague plane of sounds.’

‘Without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut consistent distinction between two ideas’.

Saussure

Saussure set yet another trend for linguistics by typically implying that the categories and notions

he proposes are shared by the minds of speakers.

‘The only real object of linguistics is the normal, regular life of an existing idiom.’

Saussure

Saussure calls for ‘two sciences of language’, one ‘static’ or ‘synchronic’, and the other

‘evolutionary’ or ‘diachronic.’

‘The synchronic viewpoint’ ‘is the true and only reality to the community of speakers.’

Saussure

‘The opposition between the two viewpoints, the synchronic and the diachronic, is absolute and

allows no compromise.’

Only ‘synchronic facts’ ‘affect the system as a whole’ and are therefore ‘always significant.’

Saussure

‘Language is a system of pure values determined by nothing except the momentary [i.e. synchronic]

arrangement of terms’

and ‘a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the

simultaneous presence of others.’

Saussure

‘Language is a system of pure values determined by nothing except the momentary [i.e. synchronic]

arrangement of terms’

and ‘a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the

simultaneous presence of others.’

STRUCTURALISM

Saussure

To capture ‘synchronic facts’, we should recognize that ‘in language everything boils down’ not only

‘to differences, but also to groupings.’

To study groupings, yet another major dichotomy is proposed: we should ‘gather together all that

makes up a language state and fit this into a theory of syntagms and a theory of associations’

Saussure

‘Each fact should’ ‘be fitted into its syntagmatic and associative class.’

‘Only the distinction’ ‘between syntagmatic and associative relations can provide a classification

that is not imposed from the outside’

Saussure

‘Syntagmatic[1]’ and ‘associative[2]’ ‘solidarities’ ‘are what limits arbitrariness’ and supplies

‘motivation’:

‘(1) analysis of a given term, hence a syntagmatic relation;

(2) the summoning of one or more other terms, hence an associative relation’

Saussure

‘Syntagms’ are ‘combinations supported by linearity’ and

‘always composed of two or more consecutive units.’

Saussure

This fresh dichotomy is predictably propounded in mentalistic terms.

‘Our memory holds in reserve all the more or less complex types of syntagms, regardless of their class or length, and we bring in the associative groups to fix our choice when the time for using

them arrives.’

‘Every’ ‘unit is chosen after a dual mental opposition.’

Saussure

‘The isolated sound’ ‘stands in syntagmatic opposition to its environing sounds

and in associative opposition to all other sounds that may come to mind.’

Saussure

‘Parts’ of ‘syntagms’, such as the ‘subunits’ of ‘words’, can be ‘analysed’ because they can be

‘placed in opposition.’

‘From the synchronic viewpoint’, each word ‘stands in opposition to every word that might be

associated with it.’

Saussure

One problem with ‘the syntagm’ is clearly recognized:

‘there is no clear-cut boundary between the language fact, which is the sign of collective usage,

and the fact that belongs to speaking and depends on individual freedom.’

‘The sentence is the ideal type of syntagm, but it belongs to speaking, not to language.’

SaussureThe counterpart of ‘syntagmatic’ is, as we saw,

‘associative’, which would later be called ‘paradigmatic’:

‘a particular word is like the centre of a constellation’, or ‘the point of convergence of an

indefinite number of co-ordinated terms’ that ‘float around’ within ‘one or more associative series.’

Whereas a syntagm immediately suggests an order of succession and a fixed number of

elements, terms in an associative family occur neither in fixed numbers nor in a definite order.’

Saussure

‘The mind creates as many associative series as there are diverse relations’,

though Saussure's editors suggest that ‘the mind naturally discards associations that becloud the

intelligibility of discourse.’

Saussure

The mentalist outlook is crucial here because ‘co-ordinations formed outside discourse’ ‘are not

supported by linearity’ or by ‘the theory of syntagms.’

‘Their seat is in the brain; they are part of the inner storehouse that makes up the language of each

speaker.’

‘These associations fix word-families, inflectional paradigms, and formative elements (radicals, suffixes,

inflectional endings, etc.) in our minds.’

Saussure

Perhaps Saussure's inclination toward mentalism on this point reflects his determination to keep his

‘science’ clear of ‘speaking.’

All the same, the ‘functioning of the dual system’ Saussure depicts must be inferred from actual ‘discourse’ before it can be projected into ‘our

minds.’

Saussure

Such problems are conspicuously less acute in respect to the sounds of language, the area which Saussure, like many of our theorists, considered

most basic.

‘We must draw up for each language studied a phonological system’ comprising ‘a fixed number of well-differentiated phonemes.’

Saussure

‘This system’ (phonology) is declared ‘the only set of facts that interests the linguist.’

‘Graphic symbols bear but a faint resemblance to it.’

‘Modern linguists have finally seen the light’ and ‘freed’ ‘linguistics’ ‘from the written word’

Saussure

‘The signifier, being auditory, is unfolded solely in time’ and ‘represents a span’ ‘measurable in a

single dimension.’

In any ‘grouping’, a given ‘sound’ ‘stands in syntagmatic opposition to its environing sounds and in associative opposition to all other sounds

that may come to mind.’

Saussure

Whereas ‘phonology is outside time, for the articulatory mechanism never changes,’

‘phonetics is a historical science, analysing events and changes and moving through time’,

and therefore ‘the prime object of diachronic linguistics.’

Saussure

Saussure's programme for the study of sounds has remained a fundamental part of linguistics.

Having a mentalist orientation, he wanted a theory that would not depend on ‘material’ aspects and insisted ‘the movements of the vocal apparatus’

do not ‘illuminate the problem of language.’

But his ultimate recourse was a ‘classification’ based on ‘oral articulation.’

Saussure

‘Certain metaphors are indispensable’

The language system is pictured in terms of a ‘theatre’, ‘a symphony’, or ‘the planets that revolve

around the sun.’

A ‘system of phonemes’ is said to work like a ‘piano.’

Saussure‘Certain metaphors are indispensable’

‘The description of a language state’ is modelled after the ‘grammar of the Stock Exchange.’

‘Trains’ and ‘streets’ show the interplay of ‘differences and identities.’

‘The social side of speech’ is ‘a contract signed by the members of a community.’

‘The vocal organs’ are like ‘electrical devices used in transmitting the Morse code’

Saussure'The functioning of language is like a game of chess’

‘The respective value of the pieces depends on their position on the chessboard just as each linguistic term

derives its value from its opposition to all the other terms.’

The ‘material make-up’ of the pieces has no ‘effect on the “grammar” of the game.’

Though ‘the system’ ‘varies from one position to the next’, ‘the set of rules’ ‘persists’ and ‘outlives all events’

Saussure Such metaphors relieve Saussure's abstract vision of language by introducing objects or events that could be seen or felt, and whose

reality admits little doubt.

Yet even the most complex metaphor, the chess game, falls far short of the complexity of

language.

The rules and pieces of chess are known to anyone who plays the game, and disputes about

them are unlikely.

Saussure

The rules and units of language are so numerous, diffuse, and adaptable that even experts seldom

agree on any large number of them.

A ‘linguistic term’ rarely stands in such a clear and stable ‘opposition to all the others’ as a bishop or

a knight differs from all other chess pieces.

Saussure

The abstractness of language can also be offset by comparing linguistics to other sciences like

‘geology’, ‘zoology’, ‘astronomy’, and ‘chemistry.’

These sciences have reasonably concrete object domains; but Saussure's favoured model was

mathematics, which does not.

Saussure

‘Language’ can be conceived as ‘a type of algebra consisting solely of complex terms.’

‘Relations’ should be ‘expressed’ by ‘algebraic formulas’, ‘proportions’, and ‘equations’, though Saussure does not expect a ‘formula’ to ‘explain

the phenomenon.’

Saussure

Building a science of language was Saussure's ultimate aspiration.

He ‘probably would not have authorized the publication' of the Cours because his own

conceptions seemed too unstable and unsatisfactory to fit his ideals of science.

Saussure

He firmly asserted categorical dichotomies, but could not always maintain them himself,

e.g. ‘synchronic’ versus ‘diachronic,’ or ‘collective’ versus ‘individual.’

He emphasized that language is social and psychological, yet wanted linguistics cleanly separated from sociology and psychology

Saussure

He vacillated between mentalism and mechanism in appealing to notions like ‘brain’, ‘mind’, and ‘thought,’

yet repeatedly referred to language itself as a ‘mechanism.’

Perhaps he wanted to deflect the issues of intention and will

Saussure

Of course, the nature of language is so intricate that its descriptions often entail inconsistencies,and a pioneering work like the Cours is liable to

be full of them.

Language seems to have been resisting Saussure's determined campaign to make it hold

still, to be as static, orderly and precisely circumscribed as he wanted it to be.

Saussure

Many of Saussure's successors have underestimated the intricacies and qualifications

within his arguments.

Some of his terms, concepts, and dichotomies have been taken at face value, oversimplified, or treated as absolutes for the theory, doctrine, and

organization of linguistics.

Saussure

The reach of his vision is best revealed in the way that the same perplexities and dilemmas both

explicit and implicit in his book have persisted in linguistics ever since.

Saussure

Saussure's deliberations deserve their place at the outset of ‘modern linguistics’ by virtue of their problematic nature as well as their monumental

scope.

His inaugural deliberations provide both an inspiring and a sobering impetus for reconsidering

how to stake out possible topographies of the discipline.