Inside the Language Game: Saussure and Wittgenstein's Chess Analogy

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 conférence, on entend répéter à plusieurs reprises le mot Messieurs !, on a le sentiment qu’il s’agit chaque fois de la même expression, et pourtant les variations de débit et l’intonation la présentent, dans les divers passages, avec des différences phoniques très appréciables — aussi appréciables que celles qui servent ailleurs à distinguer des mots différents (cf. pomme et paume, goutte et je goûte, fuir et fouir, etc.).  Cours de linguistique générale

These questions, intertwined and constituting the broader issue of linguistic identity, prompted both theorists to question previous theories of language and search for a new understanding.

The conventional vision, often associated with nomenclaturism, views words as mere labels for objects. However, Saussure and Wittgenstein opposed this view, asserting that such an approach lacked a satisfactory account of the identity of linguistic units and, consequently, failed to offer a viable theory of language. For them, the essence of language rested on more intricate foundations.

The Chessboard Analogy: Illuminating Linguistic Identity

To illustrate their nuanced perspectives on linguistic identity, Saussure and Wittgenstein turned to the analogy of the game of chess. This metaphorical chessboard served as a powerful tool, allowing them to explain the intricacies of language without resorting to external connections.

Wittgenstein, highlighting the spatial and temporal phenomenon of language, drew parallels with chess pieces when discussing the rules of the game. The question "What is a word really?" found an analogous counterpart in "What is a piece in chess?"

108…Wir reden von dem räumlichen und zeitlichen Phänomen der Sprache; nicht von einem unräumlichen und unzeitlichen Unding. [Nur kann man sich in verschiedener Weise für ein Phänomen interessieren.] Aber wir reden von ihr so, wie von den Figuren des Schachspiels, indem wir Spielregeln für sie angeben, nicht ihre physikalischen Eigenschaften beschreiben. Die Frage »Was ist eigentlich ein Wort?« ist analog der »Was ist eine Schach‐ figur?«   Philosophische Untersuchungen.

Saussure, echoing Wittgenstein's sentiments, made chess his favorite metaphor. The substitution of ivory for wood chess pieces, for Saussure, made no difference to the system, emphasizing the self-contained nature of language. Changing the number of pieces, however, had a profound impact on the grammar of the game. Saussure invited us to contemplate the identity of a chess piece, such as a knight, asserting that its material existence was insignificant without its role in the game. The replacement of a lost or destroyed piece with a different-shaped object further emphasized the connection between identity and value in the linguistic system:

[43]…la langue est un système qui ne connaît que son ordre propre. Une comparaison avec le jeu d’échecs le fera mieux sentir. Là, il est relativement facile de distinguer ce qui est externe de ce qui est interne : le fait qu’il a passé de Perse en Europe est d’ordre externe ; interne, au contraire, tout ce qui concerne le système et les règles. Si je remplace des pièces de bois par des pièces d’ivoire, le changement est indifférent pour le système : mais si je diminue ou augmente le nombre des pièces, ce changement-là atteint profondément la « grammaire » du jeu.  Cours de linguistique générale

This analogy underscored the theorists' shared emphasis on discussing language in terms of its internal rules and functions rather than describing it in relation to external entities.

Convergence of Perspectives: Internal Linguistics

Saussure and Wittgenstein converged in their rejection of nomenclaturism and their use of the chess analogy to explore linguistic identity. This analogy became a beacon guiding them through the complexities of language without the need for external referents. For both, the fundamental error of seeking explanations outside the linguistic system betrayed a profound misunderstanding of what language truly is.

In conclusion, Saussure and Wittgenstein, while pursuing separate routes, joined forces through their opposition to nomenclaturism. The chessboard analogy, with its internal rules and structure, became the framework for a redefined understanding of linguistic identity. Through this metaphorical lens, they revealed that true comprehension of language requires an appreciation of its internal rules, and the intricate interplay of its constitutive elements. The chessboard of language, as envisioned by Saussure and Wittgenstein, invites us to explore the depths of linguistic identity without venturing beyond the boundaries of the game.

Bibliography

Harris, Roy. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to Play Games with Words. Routledge, 1990.

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

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen, ed. by G. E. M. Anscombe, R. Rhees, G. H. Von Wright, Ludwig Wittgenstein Werkausgabe, Band 1 (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1999).