Nomenclature vs. System of Arbitrary Signs

Introduction

Language, as a complex and dynamic system of communication, has sparked various theories and perspectives over the centuries. One intriguing dichotomy emerges when comparing the nomenclaturist view of language, which sees words as direct labels for pre-existing objects, with Ferdinand de Saussure's revolutionary perspective of language as a system of arbitrary signs. As we read through the student's notes, it becomes apparent that Saussure's original intentions have faced challenges due to editorial interpretations and additions.

Nomenclature View: Unraveling Traditional Notions

In the nomenclature view, language is perceived as a straightforward system designed for naming and labeling objects. This perspective assumes that words have a one-to-one correspondence with the objects they represent, implying a direct connection to the external world. The very nature of this viewpoint suggests a fixed relationship between words and their referents, rooted in a belief that meaning is inherent in the words themselves.

The following criticism of the nomenclature view of language can be found in the notebooks of Emile Constantin:

“It has often been mistakenly supposed that in the language there is only a nomenclature (tree, fire, horse, snake). The approach is childish. If we follow it for a moment, we shall easily see what the linguistic sign consists in and what it does not consist in. Let us take a series of objects and a series of names:  Objects = (there appears the drawing of a tree; a horse) Names = arbos; equus”.

Here, Saussure invites a reconsideration of the relata of the linguistic sign, challenging the fixed relationship between words and their referents proposed by the nomenclature view and prompting a reassessment of its fundamental nature.

Saussurean View: Language as a System of Arbitrary Signs

Contrary to the nomenclature view, Saussure proposed a different perspective, introducing the concept of language as a system of arbitrary signs. According to Saussure, the relationship between the signifier (the sound image) and the signified (the concept or meaning) is arbitrary. This challenges the assumption of a direct, fixed relationship between words and their meanings. Saussure's view emphasizes the role of the linguistic system in shaping meaning, moving away from the idea that words have inherent connections to the objects they represent.

It should be noted that the editors of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics defined the concept of arbitrariness based on Saussure's initial definition of the linguistic sign. However, subsequent developments and revisions were relegated to later chapters. As we read the source materials, a nuanced understanding of arbitrariness emerges. The initial idea, suggesting a lack of motivation by external reality in the sign, is redefined as influenced by the properties of the entire language system and historically and socially embedded practices of language use. This challenges the received structuralist view that sees the linguistic sign as detached from reality, arguing instead for an intricate tie to reality, albeit not defined in a naturalist or substantialist manner (Stawarska, 2015)

 Saussure's Rejection of a Sound-Based Conception

Saussure rejected a sound-based conception of the linguistic sign for several crucial reasons. One primary concern was the arbitrariness of the sign. He asserted that there is no inherent or natural connection between the sound of a word and its meaning. Accepting a sound-based conception would imply a direct, non-arbitrary relationship, aligning with the nomenclature view, a perspective that Saussure aimed to challenge.

Furthermore, Saussure opposed the notion of a natural origin of language, where words could derive directly from natural cries or sounds. This rejection underscored his belief that language is a social construct with arbitrary conventions, not an organic reflection of natural phenomena.

However, the editors contributed to the ongoing confusion in the way they treated onomatopoeias in their edition of the course. For example, they introduced "glas" and "fouet" as examples of onomatopoeias that are not found in the source materials. Derrida was correct in pointing out, in his book "Glas," that "no one can consider 'fouet' and 'glas' as authentic onomatopoeias"—at least, not according to Saussure. We will soon address Derrida's take on the treatment of onomatopoeias in the Course, A Misguided Arrow.

Saussure's emphasis on the synchronic study of language, examining its internal system at a specific point in time, also played a pivotal role. He sought to distance himself from a diachronic perspective that suggests language evolved gradually from independently meaningful sounds.

To articulate his linguistic theories effectively, Saussure introduced a dedicated semiological vocabulary, using terms like "signifier" and "signified." This deliberate departure from a sound-based understanding allowed him to emphasize the arbitrary and structured nature of the sign.

Editorial Challenges: Distorting Saussure's Intentions

Unfortunately, Saussure's original ideas have faced potential misinterpretations due to editorial choices. The editors attempt to illustrate Saussure's presumed intent, including diagrams, but it does not always succeed. For example, they decided to include the figure we mentioned before from the notebooks of Emile Constantin, featuring the drawing of a tree coupled with the word "tree" to illustrate the linguistic sign. This now-famous illustration appears to parallel the nomenclature view, potentially suggesting a direct, non-arbitrary connection between linguistic signs and the external world. Such graphical representations, though editorial, can contribute to a misunderstanding of Saussure's core concepts.

Additionally, the interchangeability of terminology in the Course in General Linguistics, using both earlier and later terminology interchangeably, may lead to confusion. The terms "concept" and "acoustic image" are used alongside "signifié" and "signifiant," potentially blurring the distinction between Saussure's nuanced later concepts and earlier, potentially misleading terminology.

Inconsistencies in representation, including free insertions without manuscript support, further contribute to the risk of misinterpretation. The preservation of a fixed order of things, as implied by certain illustrations, may contradict Saussure's emphasis on the arbitrariness of linguistic signs.

Conclusion

Ferdinand de Saussure's contribution to linguistic theory remains profound, challenging traditional views and paving the way for new approaches. However, the nuances of his ideas have faced challenges in reaching audiences without distortion. Understanding the distinctions between the nomenclature view and Saussure's systematic approach sheds light on the dynamic nature of language and the ongoing journey to interpret Saussure's linguistic theories, which, in some respects, remain uncharted territory.

Bibliography

Stawarska, Beata. 2015. Saussure’s Philosophy of Language as Phenomenology: Undoing the Doctrine of the Course in General Linguistics. Oxford UP.

De Saussure, Ferdinand. "Curso de Lingüística General." Traducido por Amado Alonso. 24ª edición. Editorial Losada, 1945.

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.

 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

Derrida, Jacques. Glas. Translated by John P. Leavey, Jr., and Richard Rand. University of Nebraska Press, 1986.