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 intrigued linguists and philosophers throughout history. Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein, though working independently, shared a common goal: to redefine our understanding of linguistic units. Departing from the conventional idea that words merely label objects, both theorists ventured into the subtleties of linguistic identity, skillfully employing the analogy of the game of chess to shed light on the essence of language. Challenging Conventions: The Quest for Linguistic Identity At the heart of Saussure and Wittgenstein's inquiries lay the fundamental questions surrounding linguistic units. What defines a word beyond a label for an object? How can we grasp the meaning of a word without relying on a simple naming relationship? 226 .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 Untersuchungen. [151] Lorsque, dans une conf...

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...