Course in General Linguistics (Classic Reprint)

Great Quality of Product and Fabulous Service

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was a Swiss linguist who was a landmark figure in the development of semiotics. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 236-page Open Court paperback edition.]He explained, “The aims of linguistics will be: (a) to describe all known languages and record their history. This involves tracing the history of language families and, as far as possible, reconstructing the parent language of each family; (b) to determine the forces operating permanently and universally in all languages, and to formulate general laws which account for all particular linguistic phenomena historically attested; (c) to delimit and define linguistics itself. Linguistics has very close connections with other sciences. Sometimes they provide linguistics with data and sometimes linguistics provides them with data. The boundaries between linguistics and its neighbouring sciences are not always clearly drawn. For example, linguistics must be clearly distinguished from ethnography and prehistory, both of them disciplines in which linguistic facts may be utilized as evidence. It must likewise be distinguished from anthropology… language is a social phenomenon. But ought linguistics on that account to be incorporated in sociology?” (Introduction, Ch. II, pg. 6)He explains, “It is therefore possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of general psychology. We shall call it SEMIOLOGY (from the Greek ‘semeion,’ ‘sign’). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Since it does not yet exist, one cannot say for certain that it will exist. But it has a right to exist, a place ready for it in advance.” (Ch. III, pg. 15-16)He points out, “The link between signal and signification is arbitrary. Since we are treating a sign as the combination in which a signal is associated with a signification, we can express this more simply as: the linguistic sign is arbitrary. There is no internal connexion, for example, between the idea ‘sister’ and the French sequence of sounds ‘s-o-r’ which acts as its signal.” (Pt. I, Ch. I, pg. 67) He adds, “The signal, in relation to the idea it represents, may seem to be freely chosen. However, from the point of view of the linguistic community, the signal is imposed rather than freely chosen. Speakers are not consulted about its choice. Once the language has selected a signal, it cannot be freely replaced by any other. There appears to be something rather contradictory about this... What can be chosen is already determined in advance. No individual is able, even if he wished, to modify in any way a choice already established in the language. Nor can the linguistic community exercise its authority to change even a single word. The community, as much as the individual, is bound to its language.” (Ch. II, pg. 71)He suggests, “we must distinguish between two branches of linguistics. What should they be called?... The terms ‘evolution’ and ‘evolutionary linguistics’ are more exact, and we shall make frequent use of these terms. By contrast, one may speak of the science of linguistic STATES, or static linguistics. But in order to mark this contrast more effectively… we shall speak for preference of SYNCHRONIC linguistics and DIACHRONIC linguistics. Everything is synchronic which relates to the static aspect of our science, and diachronic everything which concerns evolution. Likewise ‘synchrony’ and ‘diachrony’ will designate respectively a linguistic state and a phase of evolution.” (Ch. III, pg. 81) He adds, “Once this dual principle of classification is grasped, one may add that everything which is diachronic in languages is only so through speech.” (Pg. 96)He summarizes, “Everything we have said so far comes down to this. In the language itself, there are only differences. Even more important than that is the fact that, although in general a difference presupposes positive terms between which the difference holds, in a language there are only differences, and no positive terms. Whether we take the signification or the signal, the language includes neither ideas nor sounds existing prior to the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonetic differences arising out of that system. In a sign, what matters more than any idea or sound associated with it is what other signs surround it. The proof of this lies in the fact that the value of a sign may change without affecting either meaning or sound, simply because some neighbouring sign has undergone a change.” (Ch. IV, pg. 118)He states, “the language itself is a form, not a substance… The importance of this truth cannot be overemphasized. For all our mistakes of terminology, all our incorrect ways of designating things belong to the language originate in our unwittingly supposing that we are dealing with a substance when we deal with linguistic phenomena.” (Pg. 120) He ends on the note, “there emerges a negative lesson, but one which is all the more interesting in that it supports the fundamental thesis of this course: the only true object of study in linguistics is the language, considered in itself and for its own sake.” (Pt. Five, Ch. V, pg. 230)For anyone studying linguistics and/or semiotics, this book will be “must reading.”

This is the book that set the foundation for all modern critical theory, structuralism, semiotics, deconstructionism. A must have for students of critics and students of the language.