Return to Saussure

  Introduction Besides the analogy of the game of chess, Saussure employs other captivating comparisons to illustrate the complex relationship between linguistique statique et linguistique dynamique. In the notes of Saussure's students corresponding to the lesson of June 20, 1911, we find a passage where he uses two additional analogies borrowed from the language of optics (le langage de l'optique) to further clarify the complex interplay of dependence and independence between the synchronic and diachronic aspects: Toujours en empruntant le langage de l'optique, il est juste de parler de deux perspectives fondamentales (car on peut distinguer des sous-perspectives) comme exprimant ce qu'il y a dans un état ou ce qu'il y a dans une diachronie ( From the notebooks of Emile Constantin). These similarities and dissimilarities, says Saussure, are contingent on the point of view adopted by the observer, which is in consonance with his dictum "C'est le poi...

Introduction Language has long fascinated linguists and philosophers. Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein, though working in different intellectual traditions, converged on a crucial point: the need to rethink the nature of linguistic units. Moving beyond the conventional view that words simply name things, both thinkers explored the internal logic of language, skillfully employing the metaphor of a chess game to reveal how meaning arises not from reference, but from systemic function. Challenging Conventions: The Question of Linguistic Identity Central to the inquiries of both Saussure and Wittgenstein is the problem of linguistic identity. What makes a word what it is, apart from its supposed connection to an object? Can meaning be accounted for without appealing to an act of naming? They put it this way: `Wer von einem Tag auf den andern verspricht »Morgen will ich dich besuchen« – sagt der jeden Tag das Gleiche; oder jeden Tag etwas anderes? ´ — Philosophische...

Saussure : No one can consider "fouet" and "glas" as authentic onomatopoeias. Not me, at any rate. Why do you ask? What prompted your interest in these particular examples?" Rodeaux : I found them in a book that critiques your approach to authentic onomatopoeia, particularly regarding your selection of words such as 'fouet' and 'glas' as examples. The author contends that these examples are either poorly chosen or, paradoxically, too apt. The passage unfolds as follows, with some lines omitted for brevity: One wonders why Saussure chose these “words” as examples of presumed onomatopoeias…In other words, the examples are chosen too poorly or too well: no one can consider fouet and glas as authentic onomatopoeias…and besides, there is no authentic onomatopoeia. How would you respond to such a critique? Saussure : Ah, the subtleties of scholarly interpretation! My dear Rodeaux, allow me to address this matter with the clarity th...