Course in General Linguistics

Course in General Linguistics (French: Cours de linguistique

générale) is a book compiled by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye
Course in General
from notes on lectures given by Ferdinand de Saussure at the Linguistics
University of Geneva between 1906 and 1911. It was published in
1916, after Saussure's death, and is generally regarded as the starting
point of structural linguistics, an approach to linguistics that flourished
in Europe and the United States in the first half of the 20th century.
One of Saussure's translators, Roy Harris, summarized Saussure's
contribution to linguistics and the study of language in the following
way:

Language is no longer regarded as peripheral to our grasp

of the world we live in, but as central to it. Words are not
mere vocal labels or communicational adjuncts
superimposed upon an already given order of things.
They are collective products of social interaction,
essential instruments through which human beings
constitute and articulate their world. This typically
twentieth-century view of language has profoundly
Editor Charles Bally
influenced developments throughout the whole range of
Albert Sechehaye
human sciences. It is particularly marked in linguistics,
philosophy, psychology, sociology and anthropology".[1] Author Ferdinand de
Saussure

Although Saussure was specifically interested in historical linguistics, Original title Cours de linguistique
the Course develops a theory of semiotics that is more generally générale
applicable. A manuscript containing Saussure's original notes was Language French
found in 1996, and later published as Writings in General Linguistics. Subject Linguistics
Published 1916
Media type Print
Contents
Semiology: langue, langage, and parole
The sign
Arbitrariness
Value
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations
Synchronic and diachronic axes
Geographic linguistics
Criticism
Editions
See also
Notes
 Bibliography

Semiology: langue, langage, and parole

Saussure distinguishes between "language (langue)" and "speech (parole)". Language is a well-defined
homogeneous object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts. Speech is many-sided and heterogeneous: it
belongs both to the individual and to society. Language is a self-contained whole and a principle of
classification: it is social. Language is not complete in any speaker: it is a product that is assimilated by
speakers. It exists only within a collective. Language is "a system of signs that express ideas".

To explain how the social crystallization of language comes about, Saussure proposes the notion of "individual
speaking (parole)". Speaking is willful and intentional.

While individual speaking is heterogeneous, that is to say composed of unrelated or differing parts or elements,
language is homogeneous—a system of signs composed of the union of meanings and "sound images", in
which both parts are psychological. Therefore, as language (langue) is systematic, it is this that Saussure
focuses on since it allows an investigative methodology that is "scientific" in the sense of systematic enquiry.

Beginning with the Greek word semîon meaning "sign", Saussure proposes a new science of "semiology": "a
science that studies the life of signs within society".

The sign
The focus of Saussure's investigation is the linguistic unit or sign.

The sign (signe) is described as a "double entity", made up of the signifier, or sound pattern (referred to by
Saussure as a 'signal'), and the signified, or concept (referred to by Saussure as 'signification'). The sound
pattern 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.

The relationship between signifier and signified is, however, not quite that simple. Saussure is adamant that
language cannot be considered a collection of names for a collection of objects (as it is in the conception that
Adam named the animals, for example). 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.

Arbitrariness
For Saussure, there is no essential or natural reason why a particular signifier should be attached to a particular
signified. Saussure calls this the "arbitrariness of the sign" (l'arbitraire du signe).

No two people have precisely the same concept of "tree," since no two people have precisely the same
experiences or psychology. We can communicate "tree," however, for the same reason we can communicate at
all: because we have agreed to use it in a consistent way. If we agreed to use the word and sound for "horse"
instead, it would be called "horse" to the same effect. Since all that is important is agreement and consistency,
the connection is arbitrary.

In further support of the arbitrary nature of the sign, Saussure goes on to argue that if words stood for pre-
existing universal concepts they would have exact equivalents in meaning from one language to the next and
this is not so. Languages reflect shared experience in complicated ways and can paint very different pictures of
the world from one another. To explain this, Saussure uses the word bœuf as an example. In English, he says,
 we have different words for the animal and the meat
product: Ox and beef. In French, bœuf is used to refer to
both concepts. In Saussure's view, particular words are
born out of a particular society's needs, rather than out of
a need to label a pre-existing set of concepts.
But the
picture is actually even more complicated, through the
integral notion of 'relative motivation'. Relative motivation
refers to the compositionality of the linguistic system,
along the lines of an immediate constituent analysis. 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, though
Fig. 2 – Arbitrariness
twenty 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". But, most simply, this captures the insight that the value of a syntagm—a system-level
sentence—is a function of the value of the signs occurring in it. It is for this reason that Leonard Bloomfield
called the lexicon the set of fundamental irregularities of the language. (Note how much of the
"meaningfulness" of the Jabberwocky poem is due to these sorts of compositional relationships!)

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 unmotivated (not sharing a likeness), in
part evolving from non-onomatopoeic origins. The example he uses is the French and English onomatopoeic
words for a dog's bark, that is ouaoua and Bow Wow.

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 (aie) and English (ouch).

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

Fig. 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.
Sheep, 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, whereas sheep cannot, because it has been delimited by mutton.
Language is therefore a system of interdependent entities. But not only does it delimit a sign's range of use, for
which it is necessary, because an isolated sign could be used for absolutely anything or nothing without first
being distinguished from another sign, but it is also what makes meaning possible. The set of synonyms
redouter ("to dread"), craindre ("to fear"), and avoir peur ("to be afraid"), for instance, have their particular
meaning so long as they exist in contrast to one another. But if two of the terms disappeared, then the
remaining sign would take on their roles, become vaguer, less articulate, and lose its "extra something", its
extra meaning, because it would have nothing to distinguish it from.

This is an important fact to realize for two reasons: (A) it allows Saussure to argue that signs cannot exist in
isolation, but are dependent on a system from within which they must be deduced in analysis, rather than the
system itself being built up from isolated signs; and (B) he could discover grammatical facts through
syntagmatic and paradigmatic analyses.

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations

Language works through relations of difference, then, which place signs in opposition 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, think, thinking,
thinker. 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 cats 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 je dois ("I should") and dois je? ("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. A
third valuation of language stems from its social contract, or its accepted use in culture as a tool between two
humans.

Since syntagmas can belong to speech, the linguist must identify how often they are used before he can be
assured that they belong to the language.

Synchronic and diachronic axes

To consider a language synchronically is to study it "as a complete system at a given point in time," a
perspective he calls the AB axis. By contrast, a diachronic analysis considers the language "in its historical
development" (the CD axis). Saussure argues that we should be concerned not only with the CD axis, which
was the focus of attention in his day, but also with the AB axis because, he says, language is "a system of pure
values which are determined by nothing except the momentary arrangements of its terms".

To illustrate this, Saussure uses a chess metaphor. We could study the game diachronically (how the rules
change through time) or synchronically (the actual rules). Saussure notes that a person joining the audience of
a game already in progress requires no more information than the present layout of pieces on the board and
who the next player is. There would be no additional benefit in knowing how the pieces had come to be
arranged in this way.

Geographic linguistics
A portion of Course in General Linguistics comprises Saussure's ideas regarding the geographical branch of
linguistics.[2]

According to Saussure, the geographic study of languages deals with 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 languages and Chinese (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
possibilities 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 establishes that 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 community which speaks only one language), Saussure outlines
the manner in which a language might develop and gradually undergo subdivision into distinct dialects.

Saussure's model of differentiation has 2 basic principles: (1) that linguistic evolution occurs through
successive changes made to specific linguistic elements; and (2) that these changes each belong to a specific
area, which they affect either wholly or partially.

It then follows from these principles that dialects have no natural boundary, since at any geographical point a
particular language is undergoing some change. At best, they are defined by "waves of innovation"—in other
words, areas where some set of innovations converge and overlap.

The "wave" concept is integral to Saussure's model of geographical linguistics—it describes the gradient
manner in which dialects develop. Linguistic waves, according to Saussure, are influenced by two opposed
forces: parochialism, which is the basic tendency of a population to preserve its language's traditions; and
intercourse, in which communication between people of different areas necessitates the need for cross-
language compromise and standardization. Intercourse can prevent dialectical fragmentation by suppressing
linguistic innovations; it can also propagate innovations throughout an area encompassing different
populations. Either way, the ultimate effect of intercourse is unification of languages. Saussure remarks that
there is no barrier 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 nonuniform variation, 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 features developed will not be propagated
between the two languages. Nevertheless, differentiation will continue in each area, leading to the formation of
distinct linguistic branches within a particular family.
The relations characterizing languages in contact are in stark contrast to the relations of languages in isolation.
Here, commonalities and differences continually propagate to one another—thus, even those languages that are
not part of the same family will manage to develop common features.

Criticism

Editions
There have been two translations into English, one by Wade Baskin (1959), and one by Roy Harris (1983).

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in general linguistics. Eds. Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye.
Trans. Wade Baskin, subsequently edited by Perry Meisel & Haun Saussy. NY: Columbia
University Press, 2011.
Original: Course in general linguistics. Eds. Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye. Trans.
Wade Baskin. NY: The Philosophical Society, 1959 (reprint NY: McGraw-Hill, 1966)
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics (http://www.royharrisonline.com/linguist
ic_publications/course_in_general_linguistics.html). Eds. Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye.
Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. 1983 ISBN 0-8126-9023-0

See also
Linguistic turn
Semiotic triangle

Notes
1. Harris, Roy. 1988. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein. Routledge. p. ix.
2. This section of the article references the Roy Harris translation of the book.

Bibliography
Bouquet, Simon & Rudolf Engler, eds. Writings in General Linguistics. Trans. Carol Sanders &
Matthew Pires. NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000. ISBN 0-19-285383-X.
Culler, Jonathan. Ferdinand de Saussure, revised edn. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1991 (1st edn. Saussure, London: Fontana, 1976). ISBN 0-00-633743-0.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1999. ISBN 0-631-
20188-2.
Godel, Robert. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de F. de Saussure.
Geneva: Droz, 1957.
Harris, Roy. Reading Saussure: A critical commentary on the Cours de linguistique générale.
La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. 1987. ISBN 0-8126-9049-4
de Mauro, Tullio, trans. Corso di linguistica generale. Bari: Laterza, 1967.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. “Cours”, in Literary Theory: An Anthology. Eds. Michael Ryan & Julie
Rivkin. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2001. ISBN 1-4051-0696-4.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Course_in_General_Linguistics&oldid=1064537015"

This page was last edited on 8 January 2022, at 22:09 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.