The Differential Nature of Language: An Analysis of Linguistic Levels

   c’est une mauvaise méthode que de partir des mots pour définir les choses. [CGL] [31]

Introduction

The notion of value, originally drawn from economics and metaphorically adapted within linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure, forms a cornerstone of his language theory. This concept permeates through every layer of language, spanning from the phonological to the morphological, lexical, and syntactical levels. According to Saussure, linguistic signs, phonemes, and grammatical facts are values, where what best describes them is their difference from the other elements of the system.

To further explore this intricate interplay of values within language, we will now examine how these ideas are developed in Course in General Linguistics. Here, we can trace the evolution of Saussure's thoughts and observe how he systematically dismantles the simplistic nomenclature view in favor of a more complex, differential system of linguistic values. This approach will allow us to understand the deeper implications of his theory and its revolutionary impact on the field of linguistics.

Nomenclature vs. Play of Differences

Saussure challenges the traditional notion that language functions as a nomenclature — a simple system of names corresponding to pre-existing concepts. This view assumes that ideas exist independently of words and that the relationship between a name and its referent is straightforward and unproblematic. However, he demonstrates that such assumptions are flawed. Language is not a mere catalog of labels but a dynamic system where the value of each element is determined by its difference from others.

For example, the French verb louer can mean both ‘to rent’ and ‘to hire,’ while German distinguishes these meanings with two separate verbs: mieten (‘to rent’) and vermieten (‘to lease out’) [CGL] [161]. This discrepancy illustrates that linguistic units do not have fixed, universal meanings. Instead, their value is defined relationally within the specific system of a given language. The meanings of louer, mieten, and vermieten arise not from any inherent connection to pre-formed ideas but from their contrast with other terms in their respective systems.

As Saussure explains, “For some people a language, reduced to its essentials, is a nomenclature: a list of terms corresponding to a list of things. This conception is open to a number of objections. It assumes that ideas already exist independently of words. […] Furthermore, it leads one to assume that the link between a name and a thing is something quite unproblematic, which is far from being the case” [CGL] [97].

By rejecting this nomenclature view, Saussure redefines language as a system of pure values, where meaning emerges from the interplay of differences between signifiers and signifieds.

In this framework, what defines a linguistic unit is not what it inherently is, but what it is not. Language, therefore, operates as a web of contrasts, where each element derives its identity from its position within the larger structure.

Grammar Facts as a System of Values

Grammatical facts, which express oppositions between terms, are clear examples of how language functions as a system of values. For example, the formation of the plural in German, as in the case of Nacht : Nächte, demonstrates how each term opposed in a grammatical fact is defined by a set of oppositions in the system. This relationship between linguistic unit and grammatical fact illustrates how everything in language boils down to differences, constituting a complex balance of interdependent terms.

What is usually called a ‘grammatical fact’ corresponds in the final analysis to our definition of a linguistic unit. For there is always an opposition of terms involved. What is special is that the opposition happens to be particularly important, e.g. German plural formations of the type Nacht vs. Nächte. Each of the items which contrast grammatically (the singular form without the umlaut and without the final -e, contrasting with a plural form having both) is itself the product of the operation of oppositions within the system. In isolation, Nacht and Nächte are nothing: the opposition between them is everything. [CGL] [168]

The Phonological Level

This perspective also applies to the phonological level. Phonemes are oppositional and negative entities, defined by their difference from other phonemes in the system. As John Joseph put it: “Saussurean phonology is what’s nowadays called a ‘substance-free’ phonology.” Language does not require a concrete quality in sound, an intrinsic distinctive feature, but simply that it is distinguishable, different from the other sounds in the system. From this perspective, the phoneme is a play of differences, a value.

Each language constructs its words out of some fixed number of phonetic units, each one clearly distinct from the others. What characterises those units is not, as might be thought, the specific positive properties of each; but simply the fact that they cannot be mistaken for one another. Speech sounds are first and foremost entities which are contrastive, relative and negative. What proves this is the latitude speakers are allowed in pronunciation, provided they distinguish one sound from another. In French, for instance, the fact that r is usually pronounced as a uvular consonant does not prevent many speakers from pronouncing it as an apical trill. It makes no difference to the French language, which requires only that r should be distinct from other consonants. There is no necessity that it be pronounced always in exactly the same way. I can even pronounce a French r like the German ch in Bach, doch, etc.; whereas I could not in German substitute r for ch because German, unlike French, distinguishes between r and ch. [CGL] [164-165]

Conclusion: "In language, there is nothing but differences." [CGL] [166]

Ultimately, the very essence of language lies in its differential character. Whether trying to identify a linguistic sign, analyzing a grammatical fact like the plural, or examining the distinctive features of a phoneme, we constantly encounter the same reality: what best defines these elements is their difference from all other elements of the system, being what the others are not. This intrinsic quality makes the linguist's work extraordinarily challenging. Often, when we believe we have finally defined an element in positive terms, that definition dissipates like a soap bubble, leaving us facing the complexity, fluidity and play inherent in the linguistic system.

Cite this page: Return to Saussure. Retrieved from http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

Related posts from this blog:

On Defining "La Langue": Saussure's Differential Approach

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/02/blog-post_14.html

The Significance of Terminology in Saussure's Work

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-significance-of-terminology-in.html

 Bibliography

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