The Art of Negative Dialectic: What La Langue is not

Introduction: What La Langue is "

Ferdinand de Saussure questioned the nature of language in his seminal work, the "Course in General Linguistics." He posed a thought-provoking question right at the beginning: "Mais qu’est-ce que la langue?" or, "What, then, is linguistic structure?" In response, he declared, "Pour nous elle ne se confond pas avec le langage; elle n’en est qu’une partie déterminée, essentielle, il est vrai," which translates to, "It is not, in our opinion, simply the same thing as language. Linguistic structure is only one part of language, even though it is an essential part." This statement sets the stage for a profound exploration of what Saussure calls "la langue."

Negative Dialectic or "What La Langue is Not"

Saussure recognized the challenge of defining "la langue" – the core concept of his linguistic theory. He acknowledged that "la langue" is not an entity in itself but rather an integral element of the broader concept of language.

"…puisque la langue n’est pas une entité./…because a language/la langue is not an entity."

Perhaps due to this complexity, he dedicated significant effort to clarifying what la langue is not.

After carefully reading Saussure's 'Cours de Linguistique Générale' and 'Écrits de Linguistique Générale,' we unearthed numerous instances in which Saussure negates certain attributes of 'la langue,' thereby emphasizing what 'la langue' is not.

Merging Some Key Points

To streamline this wealth of information, we can consolidate a few related points:

1.      La Langue and Le Language: A pivotal distinction emerges as Saussure clarifies that "la langue" is not synonymous with language itself. It emerges as a distinct and indispensable component within the multifaceted landscape of language.

2.      La Langue and Social Institutions: Contrary to certain preconceptions, "la langue" is not a social institution identical to others. It follows a unique set of rules and principles, distinguishing it from conventional social institutions.

3.      La Langue's Freedom: Saussure emphasizes that "la langue" is not a realm of absolute freedom. Instead, it is subject to the influence of social forces and governed by the principle of continuity, thereby imposing limitations on its autonomy.

4.      Dynamic Nature of La Langue: Saussure clarifies that "la langue" is not a static state represented by a single point in time. It is better understood as a span of time characterized by subtle, albeit minimal, changes.

5.      Materiality of La Langue: According to Saussure, 'la langue' does not inherently possess sounds as part of its essence. Instead, sounds are considered elements used within the framework of 'le langage.' This observation implies that discussions about the nature of the phoneme as we understand it today are later developments introduced by the Prague and Copenhagen Circles.

6.      La Langue's Independence from the Spirit of Speakers: In a significant departure from popular belief, Saussure asserts that "la langue" operates independently of the intentions and cognitive processes of individual speakers.

7.      La Langue as a Living Organism: "La langue" does not exhibit the traits of a living organism. It lacks attributes such as birth, death, growth, or aging that are associated with living beings. This perspective can be related to the concept of "always having been there" or what Jacques Derrida might refer to as "arche-écriture/arche-writing". Derrida's philosophy often explores the idea that language is not tied to a fixed genesis or presence but is rather a system of differences and traces. In this sense, "la langue" in Saussure's view might be seen as a system that doesn't have a temporal beginning or end, aligning with a Derridean notion of language as a kind of eternal or timeless origin.

In this concise yet comprehensive list, Saussure's insights into what "la langue is not" are encapsulated, offering a clearer perspective on this fundamental linguistic concept. The meticulous negations of these attributes serve to unveil the distinct and intricate nature of "la langue."

The Power of Negative Dialectic

Saussure's method of "negative dialectic" is a powerful tool that guides us in understanding what "la langue" is. By contrasting and negating attributes, we can effectively define and grasp the concept. Here are some compelling reasons why this approach is invaluable:

1.      Conceptual Clarity: By negating what "la langue" is not, we eliminate misunderstandings and erroneous ideas, leading to a clearer understanding.

2.      Precise Delimitation: Identifying what "la langue" lacks helps us define its unique and essential features with precision.

3.      Highlighting Essential Aspects: Excluding irrelevant elements allows us to accentuate the fundamental components that compose "la langue."

4.      Conceptual Clarification: Addressing what "la langue" is not alleviates confusion and enhances our understanding.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Saussure's exploration of "la langue" through negative dialectic, a method attributed to philosophers like Socrates, is an illuminating journey into the intricacies of language and linguistic structure. By emphasizing what "la langue" is not, he unveils the true nature of this concept, thereby providing valuable insights into the essence of language. Saussure's method serves as a reminder that sometimes, understanding what something is not is the key to unlocking what it is.

We're thrilled to have you reading our blogs! We'd love to hear your thoughts, questions, or any cool insights you might have about the fascinating world where linguistics and philosophy collide. Don't be shy – drop us a line and let's have a chat! Together, we'll dive into the exciting mysteries of linguistics and philosophy and build a friendly and engaging community of thinkers. 😊

Riddle Me This:

Comprehension Question 1: According to Saussure, what is the primary distinction between "la langue" and “le langage”, and why is this differentiation crucial in his linguistic theory?

·         Answer: Saussure makes it clear that "la langue" is not synonymous with “le langage”; rather, it is an essential component within the broader spectrum of langage. This distinction is critical in his linguistic theory because it allows him to explore the structural elements of language while separating them from the more dynamic aspects of linguistic communication, such as speech.

Comprehension Question 2: What role does the method of "negative dialectic" play in Saussure's analysis of "la langue," and how does it contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept?

·         Answer: The method of "negative dialectic" involves Saussure systematically negating various attributes and misconceptions associated with "la langue." This method helps clarify what "la langue" is not, allowing for a more precise and nuanced understanding. By identifying what "la langue" lacks, this approach enables Saussure to highlight the essential aspects that constitute "la langue" and eliminate misunderstandings.

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Bouquet, Simon, Rudolf Engler, and Antoinette Weil, eds. ESCRITOS SOBRE LINGÜÍSTICA GENERAL. Translated by Clara Ubaldina Lorda Mur. Original title: Écrits de linguistique générale, de Ferdinand de Saussure. © Éditions Gallimard, 2002.

Culler, Jonathan. 1976. SAUSSURE. Fontana/Collins.

Thibault, Paul J. Re-reading Saussure: The Dynamics of Signs in Social Life. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.