Ferdinand De Saussure.rtf

8/11/2019 Ferdinand De Saussure.rtf

1/25

Ferdinand de Saussure (1910)

Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics

Source: Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linghuistics (1910-1911) pu l! "erga#on "ress$ 199%! &eproduced here are the rst fe and lastfe pages of hat are notes ta en * a student of Saussure's lectures!

+, .cto er 1910/

ntroductor* chapter: rief sur2e* of the histor* of linguistics

The course ill deal ith linguistics proper$ not ith languages and language! This science has gone through phases ith shortco#ings! Three phases #a*

e distinguished$ or three successi2e approaches adopted * those ho tooa language as an o 3ect of stud*! Later on ca#e a linguistics proper$ a are ofits o 3ect!

The rst of these phases is that of gra##ar$ in2ented * the Gree s and

carried on unchanged * the French! t ne2er had an* philosophical 2ie of alanguage as such! That's #ore the concern of logic! 4ll traditional gra##ar isnor#ati2e gra##ar$ that is$ do#inated * a preoccupation ith la*ing do nrules$ and distinguishing et een a certain allegedl* 'correct' language andanother$ allegedl* 'incorrect'5 hich straight a a* precludes an* roader2ie of the language pheno#enon as a hole!

Later and onl* at the eginning of the 19th centur*$ if e are tal ing of #a3or#o2e#ents (and lea2ing out the precursors$ the 'philological' school at

4le6andria)$ ca#e ,) the great philological #o2e#ent of classical philolog*$carr*ing on do n to our o n da*! n 1777$ Friedrich 8olf$ as a student$ ishedto e enrolled as a philologist! "hilolog* introduced a ne principle: the#ethod of critical e6a#ination of te6ts! The language as 3ust one of the#an* o 3ects co#ing ithin the sphere of philolog*$ and conse uentl*su 3ected to this criticis#! enceforth$ language studies ere no longerdirected #erel* to ards correcting gra##ar! The critical principle de#andedan e6a#ination$ for instance$ of the contri ution of di;erent periods$ thus to


2/25


3/25

gli#pse of hat the stud* of linguistics as to e in general! ou tless thegro th of &o#ance studies$ inaugurated * iehls$ as a de2elop#ent of

opp's rules for the ndo


4/25


5/25

t is one of the ai#s of linguistics to de ne itself$ to recognise hat elongsithin its do#ain! n those cases here it relies upon ps*cholog*$ it ill do so

indirectl*$ re#aining independent!

.nce linguistics is concei2ed in this a*$ i!e! as concerned ith language inall its #anifestations$ an o 3ect of the roadest possi le scope$ e cani##ediatel*$ so to spea $ understand hat perhaps as not al a*s clear: theutilit* of linguistics$ or its clai# to e included a#ong those studies rele2antto hat is called 'general culture'!

4s long as the acti2it* of linguists as li#ited to co#paring one languageith another$ this general utilit* cannot ha2e een apparent to #ost of the

general pu lic$ and indeed the stud* as so specialised that there as noreal reason to suppose it of possi le interest to a ider audience! t is onl*since linguistics has eco#e #ore a are of its o 3ect of stud*$ i!e! percei2esthe hole e6tent of it$ that it is e2ident that this science can #a e acontri ution to a range of studies that ill e of interest to al#ost an*one! tis * no #eans useless$ for instance$ to those ho ha2e to deal ith te6ts! tis useful to the historian$ a#ong others$ to e a le to see the co##onestfor#s of di;erent pheno#ena$ hether phonetic$ #orphological or other$ andho language li2es$ carries on and changes o2er ti#e! ore generall*$ it ise2ident that language pla*s such a considera le role in hu#an societies$ andis a factor of such i#portance oth for the indi2idual hu#an eing and

hu#an societ*$ that e cannot suppose that the stud* of such a su stantialpart of hu#an nature should re#ain si#pl* and solel* the usiness of a fespecialists5 e2er*one$ it ould see#$ is called upon to for# as correct an ideaas possi le of hat this particular aspect of hu#an eha2iour a#ounts to ingeneral! 4ll the #ore so inas#uch as reall* rational$ accepta le ideas a outit$ the conception that linguistics has e2entuall* reached$ * no #eanscoincides ith hat at rst sight see#s to e the case! There is no sphere in

hich #ore fantastic and a surd ideas ha2e arisen than in the stud* oflanguages! Language is an o 3ect hich gi2es rise to all inds of #irage! ostinteresting of all$ fro# a ps*chological point of 2ie $ are the errors languageproduces!


6/25

ha2e left on one side the uestion of languages and language in order todiscuss the o 3ect of linguistics and its possi le utilit*!

+ Do2e# er 1910/

ain sections of the course:

1) Languages ,) The language %) The language facult* and its use * the

indi2idual!

8ithout for the #o#ent distinguishing ter#inologicall* et een languagesand language$ here do e nd the linguistic pheno#enon in its concrete$co#plete$ integral for#B That is: here do e nd the o 3ect e ha2e toconfrontB 8ith all its characteristics as *et contained ithin it andunanal*sedB This is a diEcult* hich does not arise in #an* other disciplines- not ha2ing *our su 3ect #atter there in front of *ou! t ould e a #ista eto elie2e that this integral$ co#plete o 3ect can e grasped * pic ing out

hate2er is #ost general! The operation of generalisation presupposes thate ha2e alread* in2estigated the o 3ect under scrutin* in such a a* as to e

a le to pronounce upon hat its general features are! 8hat is general inlanguage ill not e hat e are loo ing for5 that is$ the o 3ect i##ediatel*gi2en! ut nor #ust e focus on hat is onl* part of it!

Thus$ it is clear that the 2ocal apparatus has an i#portance hich #a*#onopolise our attention$ and hen e ha2e studied this articulator* aspectof languages e shall soon realise that there is a corresponding acoustic

aspect! ut e2en that does not go e*ond purel* #aterial considerations! tdoes not ta e us as far as the ord$ the co# ination of the idea and thearticulator* product5 ut if e ta e the co# ination of the idea and the 2ocalsign$ e #ust as if this is to e studied in the indi2idual or in a societ*$ acorporate od*: e still see# to e left ith so#ething hich is inco#plete!"roceeding thus$ e see that in catching hold of the language * one end atrando# e are far fro# eing a le to grasp the hole pheno#enon! t #a*see#$ after approaching our stud* fro# se2eral angles si#ultaneousl*$ that


7/25

there is no ho#ogeneous entit* hich is the language$ ut onl* aconglo#erate of co#posite ite#s (articulation of a sound$ idea connected toit) hich #ust e studied piece#eal and cannot e studied as an integralo 3ect!

The solution e can adopt is this:

n e2er* indi2idual there is a facult* hich can e called the facult* ofarticulated language! This facult* is a2aila le to us in the rst instance in thefor# of organs$ and then * the operations e can perfor# ith thoseorgans! ut it is onl* a facult*$ and it ould e a #aterial i#possi ilit* toutilise it in the a sence of so#ething else - a language - hich is gi2en to theindi2idual fro# outside: it is necessar* that the indi2idual should e pro2ided

ith this facilit* - ith hat e call a language - * the co# ined e;ort of hisfello s$ here e see$ incidentall*$ perhaps the #ost accurate a* of dra inga distinction et een language and languages! 4 language is necessaril*social: language is not especiall* so! The latter can e de ned at the le2el ofthe indi2idual! t is an a stract thing and re uires the hu#an eing for itsrealisation! This facult* hich e6ists in indi2iduals #ight perhaps eco#pared to others: #an has the facult* of song$ for e6a#ple5 perhaps noone ould in2ent a tune unless the co##unit* ga2e a lead! 4 languagepresupposes that all the indi2idual users possess the organs! *distinguishing et een the language and the facult* of language$ e

distinguish 1) hat is social fro# hat is indi2idual$ ,) hat is essential fro#hat is #ore or less accidental! 4s a #atter of fact$ e shall see later on that

it is the co# ination of the idea ith a 2ocal sign hich suEces to constitutethe hole language! Sound production - that is hat falls ithin the do#ainof the facult* of the indi2idual and is the indi2idual's responsi ilit*! ut it isco#para le to the perfor#ance of a #usical #asterpiece on an instru#ent5#an* are capa le of pla*ing the piece of #usic$ ut it is entirel* independentof these 2arious perfor#ances!

The acoustic i#age lin ed to an idea - that is hat is essential to thelanguage! t is in the phonetic e6ecution that all the accidental things occur5for inaccurate repetition of hat as gi2en is at the root of that i##enseclass of facts$ phonetic changes$ hich are a host of accidents!

%) * distinguishing thus et een the language and the facult* of language$


8/25

e see that the language is hat e #a* call a 'product': it is a 'socialproduct'5 e ha2e set it apart fro# the operation of the 2ocal apparatus$

hich is a per#anent action! @ou can con3ure up a 2er* precise idea of thisproduct - and thus set the language$ so to spea $ #ateriall* in front of *ou -

* focussing on hat is potentiall* in the rains of a set of indi2iduals

( elonging to one and the sa#e co##unit*) e2en hen the* are asleep5 ecan sa* that in each of these heads is the hole product that e call thelanguage! 8e can sa* that the o 3ect to e studied is the hoard deposited inthe rain of each one of us5 dou tless this hoard$ in an* indi2idual case$ illne2er turn .ut to e a solutel* co#plete! 8e can sa* that language al a*s

or s through a language'$ ithout that$ it does not e6ist! The language$ inturn$ is uite independent of the indi2idual5 it cannot e a creation of theindi2idual-$ it is essentiall* social5 it presupposes the collecti2it*! Finall*$ itsonl* essential feature is the co# ination of sound and acoustic i#age ith anidea! (The acoustic i#age is the i#pression that re#ains ith us the latenti#pression in the rain ( !))! There is no need to concei2e it (the language)as necessaril* spo en all the ti#e!

Let us co#e do n to details5 let us consider the language as a social product!4#ong social products$ it is natural to as hether there is an* other hicho;ers a parallel!

The 4#erican linguist 8hitne* ho$ a out 1 70$ eca#e 2er* in=uential

through his oo The principles and the life of language$ causedastonish#ent * co#paring languages to social nstitutions$ sa*ing that the*fell in general into the great class of social institutions! n this$ he as on theright trac -$ his ideas are in agree#ent ith #ine! ' t is$ in the end$fortuitous$' he said$ 'that #en #ade use of the lar*n6$ lips and tongue inorder to spea ! The* disco2ered it as #ore con2enient5 ut if the* had used2isual signs$ or hand signals$ the language ould re#ain in essence e6actl*the sa#e: nothing ould ha2e changed!' This as right$ for he attri uted nogreat i#portance to e6ecution! 8hich co#es do n to hat as sa*ing: theonl* change ould e the replace#ent of the acoustic i#ages #entioned *2isual i#ages! 8hitne* anted to eradicate the idea that in the case of alanguage e are dealing ith a natural facult*5 in fact$ social institutionsstand opposed to natural institutions!

De2ertheless$ *ou cannot nd an* social institution that can e set on a parith a language and is co#para le to it! There are 2er* #an* di;erences!

The 2er* special place that a language occupies a#ong institutions is


9/25

undenia le$ ut there is #uch #ore to e said-$ a co#parison ould tendrather to ring out the di;erences! n a general a*$ institutions such as legalinstitutions$ or for instance a set $of rituals$ or a cere#on* esta lished onceand for all$ ha2e #an* characteristics hich #a e the# li e languages$ andthe changes the* undergo o2er ti#e a!-e 2er* re#iniscent of linguistic

changes! ut there are enor#ous di;erences!

1) Do other institution in2ol2es all the indi2iduals all the ti#e5 no other isopen to all in such a a* that each person participates in it and naturall*in=uences it!

,) ost institutions can e i#pro2ed$ corrected at certain ti#es$ refor#ed *an act of ill$ hereas on the contrar* e see that such an initiati2e isi#possi le here languages are concerned$ that e2en acade#ies cannotchange * decree the course ta en * the institution e call the language$etc!

efore proceeding further$ another idea #ust e introduced: that ofse#iological facts in societies! Let us go ac to the language considered asa product of societ* at or : it is a set of signs 6ed * agree#ent et eenthe #e# ers of that societ*5 these signs e2o e ideas$ ut in that respect it'srather li e rituals$ for instance!

Dearl* all institutions$ it #ight e said$ are ased on signs$ ut these signs donot directl* e2o e things! n all societies e nd this pheno#enon: that for2arious purposes s*ste#s of signs are esta lished that directl* e2o e theideas one ishes5 it is o 2ious that a language is one such s*ste#$ and that itis the #ost i#portant of the# all5 ut it is not the onl* one$ and conse uentl*

e cannot lea2e the others out of account! 4 language #ust thus e classeda#ong se#iological institutions5 for e6a#ple$ ships' signals (2isual signs)$ar#* ugle calls$ the sign language of the deaf-and-du# $ etc! 8riting isli e ise a 2ast s*ste# of signs! 4n* ps*cholog* of sign s*ste#s ill e partof social ps*cholog* - that is to sa*$ ill e e6clusi2el* social5 it ill in2ol2ethe sa#e ps*cholog* as is applica le in the case of languages! The la sgo2erning changes in these s*ste#s of signs ill often e signi cantl* si#ilarto la s of linguistic change! This can easil* e seen in the case of riting -although the signs are 2isual signs - hich undergoes alterations co#para leto phonetic pheno#ena!


10/25


11/25

contrasting headings is suEcientl* self-e2ident! Hust as$ althoughco#parisons ith the natural sciences #ust not e a used$ it ould li e ise

e i##ediatel* e2ident hat as #eant in a or on natural histor* *contrasting 'the plant' ith 'plants' (c!f! also !'insects$ 2ersus 'the insect')!

These di2isions ould correspond reasona l* ell e2en in content to hat eshall get in linguistics if e distinguish et een 'the language' and'languages'! So#e otanists and naturalists de2ote their entire careers to oneapproach or the other! There are otanists ho classif* plants ithoutconcerning the#sel2es ith the circulation of the sap$ etc!$ that is to sa*$

ithout concerning the#sel2es ith 'the plant'!

Considerations rele2ant to the language (and e uall* to so#e e6tent tolanguages as ell) ill lead us to consider languages fro# an e6ternal pointof 2ie $ ithout #a ing an* internal anal*sis5 ut the distinction is not hardand fast$ for the detailed stud* of the histor* of a language or of a group oflanguages is perfectl* ell acco##odated under the heading 'languages'$and that presupposes internal anal*sis! To so#e e6tent one could also sa*that in #* second part 'the language' could e e6panded to read 'the life ofthe language'$ that this second part ould contain things of i#portance forthe characterisation of the language$ and that these things are all part of alife$ a iolog*! ut there are other things that ould not e included: a#ongothers$ the hole logical side of the language$ in2ol2ing in2aria les

una;ected * ti#e or geographical oundaries! Languages constitute theconcrete o 3ect that the linguist encounters on the earth's surface5 'thelanguage' is the heading one can pro2ide for hate2er generalisations thelinguist #a* e a le to e6tract fro# all his o ser2ations across ti#e andspace!

+%0 Hune 1911/

&e2ersing the order of the t o series ha2e considered$ e can sa* that the#ind esta lishes 3ust t o orders of relations et een ords!


12/25

1) .utside speech$ the association that is #ade in the #e#or* et eenords ha2ing so#ething in co##on creates di;erent groups$ series$ fa#ilies$ithin hich 2er* di2erse relations o tain ut elonging to a single categor*:

these are associati2e relations!

,) 8ithin speech$ ords are su 3ect to a ind of relation that is independentof the rst and ased on their lin age: these are s*ntag#atic relations$ of

hich ha2e spo en!

ere of course there is a pro le#$ ecause the second order of relationsappears to appeal to facts of speech and not linguistic facts! ut thelanguage itself includes such relations$ e2en if onl* in co#pound ords(Ger#an aupt#ann)$ or e2en in a ord li e u##heit$ or e6pressions li es'il 2ous plait +'if *ou please'/ here a s*ntag#atic relation holds!

8hen e spea of the structure of a ord$ e are referring to the second indof relation: these are units arranged end to end as e6ponents of certainrelations! f e spea of so#ething li e a =e6ional paradig# (do#inus$do#ini$ do#ino) e are referring to a group ased on associati2e relations!

These are not units arranged end to end and related in a certain a* in 2irtueof that fact!

agn-ani#us: the relation in2ol2ing ani#us is s*ntag#atic! dea e6pressed* 3u6taposition of the t o parts in se uence! Do here$ either in #agn or in

ani#us do *ou nd so#ething #eaning 'possessing a great soul'!

f *ou ta e ani#us in relation to ani#a and ani#al$ it is a di;erent order ofrelations! There is an associati2e fa#il*:

ani#us

ani#a

ani#al


13/25

Deither order of relations is reduci le to the other: oth are operati2e!

f e co#pare the# to the parts of a uilding: colu#ns ill stand in a! certainrelation to a frieAe the* support! These t o co#ponents are related in a a6

hich is co#para le to the s*ntag#atic relation! t is an arrange#ent of t oco-present units! f see a oric colu#n$ #ight lin it * association ith aseries of o 3ects that are not present$ associati2e relations ( onic colu#n$Corinthian colu#n)!

The su# total of ord relations that the #ind associates ith an* ord that ispresent gi2es a 2irtual series$ a series for#ed * the #e#or* (a #ne#onicseries)$ as opposed to a chain$ a s*ntag#a for#ed * t o units presenttogether! This is an actual series$ as opposed to a 2irtual series$ and gi2esrise to other relations!

The conclusion should li e to dra fro# this is as follo s: in hiche2er orderof relations a ords functions (it is re uired to function in oth)$ a ord isal a*s$ rst and fore#ost$ a #e# er of a s*ste#$ interconnected ith other

ords$ so#eti#es in one order of relations$ so#eti#es in another!

This ill ha2e to e ta en into account in considering hat constitutes 2alue!First$ it as necessar* to consider ords as ter#s in a s*ste#!

4s soon as e su stitute ter# for ord$ this i#plies consideration of itsrelations ith others (appeal to the idea of interconnections ith other

ords)!

8e #ust not egin ith the ord$ the ter#$ in order to construct the s*ste#!

This ould e to suppose that the ter#s ha2e an a solute 2alue gi2en inad2ance$ and that *ou ha2e onl* to pile the# up one on top of the other inorder to reach the s*ste#! .n the contrar*$ one #ust start fro# the s*ste#$the interconnected hole5 this #a* e deco#posed into particular ter#s$although these are not so easil* distinguished as it see#s! Starting fro# the

hole of the s*ste# of 2alues$ in order to distinguish the 2arious 2alues$ it ispossi le that e shall encounter ords as recognisa le series of ter#s!( ncidentall*: associati2el*$ can su##on up the ord do#inos 3ust as easil*


14/25

as do#ino$ do#ine$ do#in-B5 s*ntag#aticall*$ ha2e to choose eitherdo#inos or do#ini!)

4ttach no i#portance to the ord ord! The ord ord as far as a#concerned has no speci c #eaning here! The ord ter# is suEcient5further#ore$ the ord ord does not #ean the sa#e in the t o series!

Chapter I! Ialue of ter#s and #eanings of ords!

o the t o coincide and di;er!

8here there are ter#s$ there are also 2alues! The idea of 2alue is tacitl*i#plied in that of ter#! 4l a*s hard to eep these t o ideas apart!

8hen *ou spea of 2alue$ *ou feel it here eco#es s*non*#ous ith sense(#eaning) and that points to another area of confusion (here the confusion

ill reside #ore in the things the#sel2es)!

The 2alue is indeed an ele#ent of the sense$ ut hat #atters is to a2oidta ing the sense as an*thing other than a 2alue!

t is perhaps one of the #ost su tle points there is in linguistics$ to see hosense depends on ut ne2ertheless re#ains distinct fro# 2alue! .n this thelinguist's 2ie and the si#plistic 2ie that sees the language as ano#enclature di;er stri ingl*!

First let us ta e #eaning as ha2e represented it and ha2e #*self set it out:

i#age going into concept The arro indicates #eaning as counterpart of theauditor* i#age


15/25

n this 2ie $ the #eaning is the counterpart of the auditor* i#age andnothing else! The ord appears$ or is ta en as$ an isolated$ self-contained

hole5 internall*$ it contains the auditor* i#age ha2ing a concept as its

counterpart!

The parado6 - in aconian ter#s the trap in the 'ca2e' - is this: the #eaning$hich appears to us to e the counterpart of the auditor* i#age$ is 3ust as

#uch the counterpart of ter#s coe6isting in the language! 8e ha2e 3ust seenthat the language represents a s*ste# in hich all the ter#s appear as lin ed

* relations!

series of cricles 3oined * dou le-headed arro s 4t rst sight$ no relationet een the a) and the ) arro s! The 2alue of a ord ill e the result onl*

of the coe6istence of the di;erent ter#s! The 2alue is the counterpart of thecoe6isting ter#s! o does that co#e to e confused ith the counterpart ofthe auditor* i#ageB

4nother diagra#: series of slots:

line di2ided up into sections the relation inside one slot and et een slots is2er* hard to distinguish!

The #eaning as counterpart of the i#age and the #eaning as counterpart ofcoe6isting ter#s #erge!

efore e6a#ple$ note that: .utside linguistics$ 2alue al a*s see#s to in2ol2e

the sa#e parado6ical truth! Tric * area! Ier* diEcult in an* do#ain to sa*hat 2alue consists of! So let us e 2er* ar*! There are t o ele#entsco#prising 2alue! Ialue is deter#ined 1) * a dissi#ilar thing that can ee6changed$ and that can e #ar ed J +an up-arro / and ,) * si#ilar thingsthat can e co#pared K- - +left-right arro s/!

up-arro ith to and fro# arro s either side These t o ele#ents are


16/25

essential for 2alue! For e6a#ple$ a ,0-franc coin! ts 2alue is a #atter of adissi#ilar thing that can e6change (e!g! pounds of read)$ ,) the co#parison

et een the ,0-franc coin and one-franc and t o-franc coins$ etc!$ or coins of si#ilar 2alue (guinea)!

The 2alue is at the sa#e ti#e the counterpart of the one and the counterpartof the other!

@ou can ne2er nd the #eaning of a ord * considering onl* thee6changea le ite#$ ut *ou ha2e to co#pare the si#ilar series ofco#para le ords! @ou cannot ta e ords in isolation! This is ho the s*ste#to hich the ter# elongs is one of the sources of 2alue! t is the su# ofco#para le ter#s set against the idea e6changed!

The 2alue of a ord can ne2er e deter#ined e6cept * the contri ution ofcoe6isting ter#s hich deli#it it: or$ to insist on the parado6 alread*#entioned: hat is in the ord is onl* e2er deter#ined * the contri ution of

hat e6ists around it! (8hat is in the ord is the 2alue!) 4round its*ntag#aticall* or around it associati2el*!

@ou #ust approach the ord fro# outside * starting fro# the s*ste# andcoe6isting ter#s!

4 fe e6a#ples!

The plural and hate2er ter#s #ar the plural!

The 2alue of a Ger#an or Latin plural is not the 2alue of a Sans rit plural! utthe #eaning$ if *ou li e$ is the sa#e!

n Sans rit$ there is the dual!


17/25

4n*one ho assigns the sa#e 2alue to the Sans rit plural as to the Latinplural is #ista en ecause cannot use the Sans rit plural in all the cases

here use the Latin plural!

8h* is thatB The 2alue depends on so#ething outside!

f *ou ta e on the other hand a si#ple le6ical fact$ an* ord such as$ suppose$ #outon - #utton$ it doesn't ha2e the sa#e 2alue as sheep in


18/25

+ Hul* 1911/

t is not possi le e2en to deter#ine hat the 2alue of the ord sun is in itselfithout considering all the neigh ouring ords hich ill restrict its sense!

There are languages in hich can sa*: Sit in the sun! n others$ not the sa#e#eaning for the ord sun (N star)! The sense of a ter# depends on presenceor a sence of a neigh ouring ter#!

The s*ste# leads to the ter# and the ter# to the 2alue! Then *ou ill seethat the #eaning is deter#ined * hat surrounds it!

shall also refer ac to the preceding chapters$ ut in the proper a*$ 2iathe s*ste#$ and not starting fro# the ord in isolation!

To get to the notion of 2alue$ ha2e chosen to start fro# the s*ste# of ordsas opposed to the ord in isolation! could ha2e chosen a di;erent asis tostart fro#!

"s*chologicall*$ hat are our ideas$ apart fro# our language B The* pro a l*do not e6ist! .r in a for# that #a* e descri ed as a#orphous! 8e shouldpro a l* e una le according to philosophers and linguists to distinguish t oideas clearl* ithout the help of a language (internal language naturall*)!

Conse uentl*$ in itself$ the purel* conceptual #ass of our ideas$ the #assseparated fro# the language$ is li e a ind of shapeless ne ula$ in hich it isi#possi le to distinguish an*thing initiall*! The sa#e goes$ then$ for the

language: the di;erent ideas represent nothing pre-e6isting! There are no: a)ideas alread* esta lished and uite distinct fro# one another$ ) signs forthese ideas! ut there is nothing at all distinct in thought efore the linguisticsign! This is the #ain thing! .n the other hand$ it is also orth as ing if$

eside this entirel* indistinct real# of ideas$ the real# of sound o;ers inad2ance uite distinct ideas (ta en in itself apart fro# the idea)!


19/25

There are no distinct units of sound either$ deli#ited in ad2ance!

The linguistic fact is situated in et een the t o:

This linguistic fact ill engender 2alues hich for the rst ti#e ill edeter#inate$ ut hich ne2ertheless ill re#ain 2alues$ in the sense that can

e attached to that ord! There is e2en so#ething to add to the fact itself$and co#e ac to it no ! Dot onl* are these t o do#ains et een hichthe linguistic fact is situated a#orphous$ ut the choice of connection

et een the t o$ the #arriage (of the t o) hich ill create 2alue isperfectl* ar itrar*!

.ther ise the 2alues ould e to so#e e6tent a solute! f it ere notar itrar*$ this idea of 2alue ould ha2e to e restricted$ there ould e ana solute ele#ent!

ut since this contract is entirel* ar itrar*$ the 2alues ill e entirel* relati2e!

f e go ac no to the diagra# representing the signi ed and signif*ing

ele#ents together signi ed and signi er ith up arro

e see that it is dou tless 3usti ed ut is onl* a secondar* product of 2alue! The signi ed ele#ent alone is nothing$ it lurs into a shapeless #ass!Li e ise the signif*ing ele#ent!

ut the signif*ing and signi ed ele#ents contract a ond in 2irtue of thedeter#inate 2alues that are engendered * the co# ination of such and suchacoustic signs ith such and such cuts that can e #ade in the #ass! 8hat

ould ha2e to e the case in order to ha2e this relation et een signi ed andsignif*ing ele#ents gi2en in itself B t ould a o2e all e necessar* that theidea should e deter#inate in ad2ance$ and it is not! t ould a o2e all enecessar* that the signi ed ele#ent should e so#ething deter#ined inad2ance$ and it is not!


20/25

That is h* this relation is onl* another e6pression of 2alues in contrast (inthe s*ste#)! That is true on an* linguistic le2el!

4 fe e6a#ples! f ideas ere predeter#ined in the hu#an #ind efore einglinguistic 2alues$ one thing that ould necessaril* happen is that ter#s ouldcorrespond e6actl* as et een one language and another!

French

Ger#an

cher +'dear'/

lie $ teuer (also #oral)

There is no e6act correspondence!

3uger$ esti#er

+'3udge$ esti#ate'/

urteilen$ erachten

ha2e a set of #eanings onl* partl* coinciding ith French 3uger$ esti#er !

8e see that in ad2ance of the language there is nothing hich is the notion'cher' in itself! So e see that this representation: idea and auditor* i#agealthough useful$ is onl* a a* of e6pressing the fact that there is in French acertain 2alue cher deli#ited in French s*ste# * contrast ith other ter#s!

t ill e a certain co# ination of a certain uantit* of concepts ith a


21/25

certain uantit* of sounds!

So the sche#a signi ed and signi er is not the starting point in thelanguage!

The 2alue cher is deter#ined on oth sides! The contours of the idea itself ishat e are gi2en * the distri ution of ideas in the ords of a language!

.nce e ha2e the contours$ the sche#a can co#e into pla*! signi ed andsigni ng

This e6a#ple as ta en fro# 2oca ular*$ ut an*thing ill do!

4nother e6a#ple! dea of di;erent tenses$ hich see#s uite natural to us$ isuite alien to certain languages! 4s in the Se#itic s*ste# ( e re ) there is

no distinction$ as et een present$ future and past5 that is to sa* these ideasof tense are not predeter#ined$ ut e6ist onl* as 2alues in one language oranother!

.ld Ger#an has no future$ no proper for# for the future! t e6presses it *

#eans of the present! ut this is a #anner$ of spea ing! ence .ld Ger#anpresent 2alue is not the sa#e as in French future!

Si#ilarl* if e ta e the di;erence et een the perfecti2e aspect of the 2erand the i#perfecti2e aspect in the Sla2ic languages (diEcult* in the stud* ofthese languages)! n Sla2ic languages$ constant distinction et een aspectsof the 2er : action outside an* uestion of ti#e or in process ofacco#plish#ent! 8e nd these distinctions diEcult ecause the categoriesare unfa#iliar! So not predeter#ined$ ut 2alue!

This 2alue ill result fro# the opposition of ter#s in the language!

ence hat ha2e 3ust said: The notion of 2alue as deduced fro# theindeter#inac* of concepts! The sche#a lin ing the signi ed to the signif*ing


22/25


23/25


24/25

There are no positi2e ideas gi2en$ and there are no deter#inate acousticsigns that are independent of ideas! Than s to the fact that the di;erencesare #utuall* dependent$ e shall get so#ething loo ing li e positi2e ter#s

through the #atching of a certain di;erence of ideas ith a certain di;erencein signs! 8e shall then e a le to spea of the opposition of ter#s and so notclai# that there are onl* di;erences ( ecause of this positi2e ele#ent in theco# ination)!

n the end$ the principle it co#es do n to is the funda#ental principle of thear itrariness of the sign!

t is onl* through the di;erences et een signs that it ill e possi le to gi2ethe# a function$ a 2alue!

f the sign ere not ar itrar*$ one ould not e a le to sa* that in thelanguage there are onl* di;erences!

The lin ith the chapter entitled 4 solute ar itrariness$ relati2e ar itrarinessis this: ha2e considered the ord as a ter# placed in a s*ste#$ that is to sa*as a 2alue! Do the interconnection of ter#s in the s*ste# can e concei2edas a li#itation on ar itrariness$ hether through s*ntag#atic interconnectionor associati2e interconnection!

So: n couperet s*ntag#a et een root and suE6$ as opposed to hache!

( nterconnection$ s*ntag#atic lin et een the t o ele#ents!)

ache +'a6e'/ is a solutel* ar itrar*$ couperet +'chopper'/ is relati2el*#oti2ated (s*ntag#atic association ith coupe +'chop'/)$

couperet


25/25

hache

s*ntag#atic li#itation a solutel* ar itrar*!

plu +'pleased'/

plaire +'to please'/

associati2e li#itation

n this course onl* the e6ternal part is #ore or less co#plete!

n the internal part$ e2olutionar* linguistics has een neglected in fa2our ofs*nchronic linguistics and ha2e dealt onl* ith a fe general principles oflinguistics!

These general principles pro2ide the asis for a producti2e approach to thedetails of a static state or the la of static states!

Further &eading:

iograph* J 8e er J Ha o son J ur hei# J arthes J LO2i-Strauss J errida

ar6ist "s*cholog* J I*gots *

Documents

Ferdinand De Saussure.rtf