Defining the Object of Study in Linguistics: Saussure´s Methodological Legacy

Introduction:

Ferdinand de Saussure systematically traced the history of linguistic science in his lectures; his views were further elaborated in the "Course in General Linguistics." This blog post explores the three phases considered by Saussure—the Grammar Phase, Philology Phase, and Comparative Philology Phase and exposes their fundamental flaws, namely, their failure to grasp the governing principles underlying language.

Saussure maintained that regardless of notable progress in the late 19th century, particularly in the study of Romance and Germanic languages, unresolved issues persisted in the broader field of general linguistics.

Now that we have outlined Saussure's systematic tracing of the history of linguistic science and his nonconformity with the existing state of affairs in his field, let's delve into the specifics of each phase.

1. Grammar Phase: The initial phase, rooted in ancient Greece and continued predominantly by the French, is termed the Grammar Phase. Characterized by a normative and logic-based approach, it focused on establishing rules for distinguishing correct and incorrect linguistic forms. This early linguistic pursuit lacked a scientific and disinterested view, as seen in the study of paradigms in Latin and Greek. Saussure highlights its narrow perspective and normative nature.

[13] This discipline (grammar) …is based on logic. It offers no scientific or objective approach to a language as such. Grammar aims solely at providing rules which distinguish between correct and incorrect forms. It is a prescriptive discipline … and its outlook is inevitably a narrow one.

2. Philology Phase: The second phase, Philology, emerged with Friedrich August Wolf's scientific movement in 1777. Beyond language, it encompassed the fixation, interpretation, and commentary of texts, venturing into literary history, customs, and institutions. Although it excelled in comparing texts across periods and deciphering inscriptions, it was closely tied to written language. The Philology Phase's emphasis on ancient Greek and Latin sometimes overlooked the living language.

[14] Philology seeks primarily to establish, interpret and comment upon texts. This main preoccupation leads to a concern with literary history, customs, institutions, etc. But in this field philological criticism has one failing: it is too slavishly subservient to the written language, and so neglects the living language…its concern is almost exclusively with Greek and Roman antiquity.

3. Comparative Philology Phase: The third and final phase initiated the era of comparative philology or "comparative grammar." Scholars, notably Franz Bopp, recognized the potential of comparing languages, a groundbreaking shift in linguistic methodology. Bopp's exploration of Sanskrit's role in comparative studies showcased the ability to illuminate linguistic relationships by explaining the forms of one language through another. Saussure acknowledges the contributions of linguists like Jacob Grimm, Pott, Kuhn, Max Müller, G. Curtius, and Aug. Schleicher to this phase.

[14] The third period began when it was discovered that languages could be compared with one another.  What was new was the elucidation of one language by reference to a related language, explaining the forms of one by appeal to the forms of the other.

But although no one would deny that the comparativists succeeded in openingup a new and profitable field of investigation, they did not manage to found a true science of linguistics. For they never took very great care to define exactly the nature of the object they were studying/ Elle ne s’est jamais préoccupée de dégager la nature de son objet d’étude. And until this elementary step is taken, no science can hope to establish its own methods.

Despite all its achievements, Saussure criticized the Comparative Philology Phase for its exclusive focus on Indo-European languages and their failure to grasp the reasons underlying the discovered linguistic correspondences. While linguistic patterns were identified during this phase, the underlying governing principles remained elusive. This deficiency, Saussure argued, stemmed from the prevailing positivist ethos of the era, where linguists, including Neogrammarians, Germanists, and Romanists, were primarily aligned with an objectivist scientific approach. They concentrated on studying observable and measurable aspects, that which could be observed, measured, and quantified—specifically, the exploration of sound and its graphical representation, privileging substance in the process. Their key objective was to compare languages and identify commonalities, aiming for the reconstruction of the proto-Indo-European language (Stawarska 2015).

However, this scientific approach inherently omitted the other facet of the linguistic equation: meaning—a realm that eluded comprehension through strictly scientific methods, like those deployed by physicists, for example. Recognizing the dual nature of language, Saussure sought to confront both dimensions and advocate for a more comprehensive approach that considered the elusive yet crucial dimension of meaning.

Conclusion

A careful examination reveals a captivating trajectory in the evolution of linguistic science, progressing from the normative Grammar Phase to the expansive yet somewhat limiting Philology Phase and culminating in the transformative Comparative Philology Phase. These distinct phases reflect the dynamic and significant changes that shaped the field of linguistics.

Saussure's critical assessment of the contemporary state of linguistics highlights its limitations, particularly the exclusive focus on Indo-European languages and their emphasis on observable and measurable aspects, like sound, a hallmark of the positivist spirit of the time, which inadvertently overlooked the crucial dimension of meaning within language.

The dissatisfaction that Saussure harbored for existing linguistic theories prompted him to advocate for a more precise definition of the object of study— "la langue," the language system. According to him, a thorough understanding of this underlying system was paramount, and historical and comparative approaches did not fully align with his vision for addressing the core problems in general linguistics.

Saussure's contribution lies in his effort to address the dual nature of language, moving beyond the exclusive focus on form and structure to incorporate meaning. By proposing a distinctive methodology and point of view, he paved the way for a more general and systematic study of linguistics. In essence, Saussure's legacy encourages scholars to consider both observable linguistic patterns and the intricate, often hidden, process of meaning-making. This holistic approach fosters a deeper and more nuanced understanding of language.

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

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

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.