The making of the Course in General Linguistics: Behind the scenes

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure is a name that rings with significance in the field of language studies. His groundbreaking ideas laid the foundation for modern linguistics. But what happens when you try to unravel the complexities of his work, particularly his "Course in General Linguistics"? In this blog post, we'll explore the challenges faced by editors Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye as they grappled with Saussure's intricate ideas and terminology. We'll also look into the relevant concepts of "Valeur" and "Object" in Saussure's theory and examine the clash between traditional and structuralist linguistics.

Navigating the Editorial Challenge

Imagine being tasked with editing a masterpiece on Saussure's theories, but the catch is, you're deciphering the notes of students who attended the lectures. That's precisely what editors Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye encountered when they took on Saussure's linguistic work. Their mission? To interpret Saussure's revolutionary ideas, all while addressing significant gaps in the material. One such gap was the absence of a "linguistique de la parole" and of detailed comprehensive information or explanations regarding the specific meanings and nuances of linguistic elements within the materials being edited, making their job akin to piecing together a linguistic puzzle (Harris 2001).

One of the intriguing challenges the editors faced was Saussure's unique perspective on sound change. Unlike traditional linguistics, Saussure rejected the idea that understanding language required knowledge of linguistic evolution. He believed that one could learn and use a language without considering its historical development. Instead, he emphasized the significance of synchronic analysis, which focuses on studying language at a specific point in time, in contrast to diachronic analysis, which examines language change over time. This marked a significant departure from the traditional emphasis on diachronic linguistics, where the historical evolution of languages took center stage. Saussure's emphasis on synchrony as the primary focus of linguistic analysis represented a fundamental shift in linguistic thinking and transformed the understanding of language history into a series of synchronic states rather than a linear progression through time.

This new approach forced Bally and Sechehaye to navigate the tension between Saussure's intentions and the students' notes. Their editorial balancing act successfully converted complex content into lucid and scholarly prose. Yet, it also raised eyebrows when the editors occasionally quoted their own words as Saussure's, leaving us to wonder about the precision of their interpretation (Bouissac 2010).

Untangling Saussure's Terminological Complexity

Saussure's linguistic theory is indeed a treasure trove of terminology. Editors Bally and Sechehaye had to be linguistic cartographers, charting a course through his terminology, notably the distinction between "langue" (language as a system) and "parole" (individual speech acts). This distinction wasn't just a minor bump in the road; it was a linguistic mountain they had to scale (Daylight 2011).

As if that wasn't challenging enough, the editors also had to decide what to include and exclude from Saussure's original material. They made the bold choice of excluding his comparative survey of Indo-European languages, considering it unrelated to the core concept of "la langue."

On the other hand, they included a chapter on phonetics that was not originally from Saussure. This decision was one of the choices made by the editors during the compilation and editing of Saussure's work. The chapter on phonetics was included to provide additional context and information related to linguistic studies, but it was not directly derived from Saussure's original lectures and notes.

But this wasn't the only obstacle on their linguistic journey. Saussure's rejection of the conventional view that linguistic history required knowledge of linguistic evolution, as mentioned above, raised questions about synchrony and diachrony in linguistics. Additionally, the distinction between "signification" and "valeur" presented yet another linguistic puzzle (Culler 1976).

The Elusive Object of Linguistics

Picture Saussure's concept of "objet" as a linguistic enigma wrapped in a riddle:

[23]“The object is not given in advance of the viewpoint: far from it. Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object”.

Editors Bally and Sechehaye faced an extremely challenging task when trying to decipher whether "la langue" or "les langues" represented the true object of linguistics. Saussure's distinction between these terms emphasized the importance of an abstract, universal concept ("la langue") versus individual languages ("les langues"). The editors had to tread carefully, choosing to leave the issue open for discussion rather than taking a strong position.

The elusive nature of "objet" left linguists pondering the essence of linguistics itself. Did it encompass all linguistic concerns, or was it more narrowly focused? Saussure's notes and lectures hinted at a distinction between "la langue" and "les langues," adding a layer of complexity to the editors' task (Harris 1993).

Clash of Linguistic Paradigms

Now, let's shift our “point de vue” to the clash between traditional and structuralist linguistics. Antoine Meillet, representing the traditional linguistics camp, had reservations about Saussure's work. Meillet's objections stemmed from his allegiance to traditional historical-comparative linguistics. While Saussure's approach emphasized theoretical study and the concept of "la langue," Meillet preferred the collection and ordering of linguistic facts. Linguists following this approach aim to catalog linguistic elements, trace their historical development, and identify patterns of language change over time, the emphasis is on empirical observations and the establishment of historical relationships between languages. (Harris 2001).

This clash between traditional and “general” linguistics continues to reverberate in linguistic circles. It highlights the profound impact Saussure had on the field and the enduring debates sparked by his revolutionary ideas.

Conclusion:

In our exploration of the challenges faced by editors Bally and Sechehaye when navigating Saussure's linguistic maze, we've addressed the intricate terminology and concepts at the heart of his theories. "Valeur" and "objet" are not merely linguistic jargon; they are the pillars upon which Saussure's linguistics stand. The clash with traditional linguistics, exemplified by Meillet's critique, showcases the enduring relevance of Saussure's ideas.

As linguists and language enthusiasts, we continue to grapple with these concepts and their implications for our understanding of language. Saussure's linguistic legacy remains an intellectual adventure that invites us to explore, question, and appreciate the profound impact of his work on the study of language.

We're thrilled to have you reading our texts! 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. 😊          Rodie

Reading Comprehension:

Question: What was one of the significant challenges editors Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye faced while editing Saussure's linguistic work?

·         Answer: One of the significant challenges they faced was the absence of detailed semantics and a "linguistique de la parole" in Saussure's material.

Question: What did editors Bally and Sechehaye choose to exclude from Saussure's original material, and why?

·         Answer: Editors Bally and Sechehaye chose to exclude Saussure's comparative survey of Indo-European languages because they considered it unrelated to the core concept of "la langue."

Question: How did Antoine Meillet's views on linguistics differ from Saussure's, and what linguistic approach did Meillet adhere to?

·         Answer: Antoine Meillet's views on linguistics differed from Saussure's in that Meillet adhered to traditional historical-comparative linguistics. While Saussure emphasized theoretical study and the concept of "la langue," Meillet favored the collection and systematic ordering of linguistic facts.

Bibliography:

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

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.

Bouissac, Paul. 2010. "SAUSSURE: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED." Continuum International Publishing Group.

Tallis, Raymond. Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory. Macmillan Press, 1988.

Daylight, Russell. What if Derrida was wrong about Saussure? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.

Harris, Roy. Saussure and his Interpreters, 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press, 2003. (First edition published 2001 by Edinburgh University Press.)

Saussure, F. (1910-1911). Troisième cours de linguistique générale: d'après les cahiers d'Emile Constantin [Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics: From the Notebooks of Emile Constantin]. (E. Komatsu, Ed.) Gakushûin University, Tokyo. (R. Harris, Trans.) University of Oxford.1993

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

Starobinski, Jean. Words upon Words: The Anagrams of Ferdinand de Saussure. Translated by Olivia Emmet. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1979.

Sanders, Carol, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.