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 observes that some people perceive language as a simple nomenclature, a list of terms corresponding to different pre-existing concepts. However, this conception proves problematic as it implies the existence of fully formed ideas before the creation of words. Language, instead, should be seen as a system of pure values, where both signified and signifier are defined by their connections and differences with the other linguistic elements.

If words had the job of representing concepts fixed in advance, one would be able to find exact equivalents for them as between one language and another. But this is not the case. French uses the same verb louer (‘hire, rent’) both for granting and for taking a lease, whereas German has two separate verbs, mieten and vermieten: so there is no exact correspondence between the values in question. [CGL] [161]

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]

Is the Phoneme Concrete or Abstract?

This perspective also applies to the phonological level. Phonemes are oppositional and negative entities, defined by their difference from other phonemes in the system. 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 neither concrete nor abstract, but 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. In this constant process of identifying and understanding the differences between linguistic elements, we dive into the depth of language, where the only constant is change, and the only certainty is variability: panta rhei

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.