In the Twilight Zone: Solving the Puzzle of Abstract Entities in Language
Introducing Chaos: Abstract Entities of Language
Saussure starts the discussion on abstract entities within language/la langue in Constantine's notebooks with a note of caution:
"This is one of the most difficult areas to explore. Here I see only glimmers, not broad daylight." (Notebook VII 83a)
He further asserts that understanding this domain requires prior knowledge of "concrete entities," a subject previously addressed. However, upon revisiting the lesson concerning concrete entities, enlightenment remains elusive. Instead, we encounter another admonition similar to the one provided regarding abstract entities:
"Where language/la langue is concerned, we are in a very poor position to see the real entities, since the language phenomenon is internal and fundamentally complex." (Notebook VII 78a)
Thus, we find ourselves in a labyrinth where mere glimpses pervade every turn. Therefore, with this caveat in mind, let us attempt to comprehend what abstract entities entail within the Saussurean framework.
Law and Order in Language: Syntactic Relations
Saussure observes, somewhat perplexed, that "many things/beaucoup de choses" in language are contingent upon the order of linguistic units. For instance, in constructions such as "je dois" [I ought] and "dois-je" [ought I], it is "the sequence" that determines the value of the idea. We are tempted to infer that it is the "sequence" acting as a device or means (un moyen) which forms a link with the signified to render meaning possible, rather than the signifier itself. This notion seems to challenge the concept of linguistic sign as an entity constituted by the union of a signifier and a signified. This idea appears to be reinforced by the following passage:
"And yet here there is something, with a different material basis, which prompts awareness of a certain value, that is the same <and dictates an identical use>. <Here we lose contact altogether with the material basis."> (Notebook VII 84a)
The sequence, the order, serves as a "mechanism" for conveying meaning. Saussure astutely observes that this phenomenon correlates with the principle of linearity, which enables the distinction of a before and after, thereby distinguishing two sequences.
"So there is a sequence which is here used as a device. From one angle, we realize clearly that this relates to the fundamental condition that the language is linear. If we can distinguish two sequences, if there is a before and an after, which we use as a device, it is because we are travelling in one dimension." (Notebook VII 83a)
This "distinction" functions as a device necessary for the speaker to construct meaning, considering that in Saussure's framework, in language/la langue everything boils down to difference. However, he adds that since it operates as a mechanism, the notion of sequence or order should be categorized among abstract entities. It does not seem appropriate for Saussure to classify it as a concrete entity, a term he used to denote the linguistic sign, which signifies the link between the signifier and the signified.
Solving the Conundrum: Course in General Linguistics
In Part Two, Chapter 4 of Course in General Linguistics, we seem to find a way out of the predicament outlined above. There we encounter the following passage:
"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." (CGL [161])
Building upon this assertion, Saussure concludes that grammatical facts, which express oppositions between terms, as in the case of the German plural Nacht : Nächte (or "I ought" : "ought I", for that matter) are clear examples of how language functions as a system of values.
Such examples demonstrate 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])
In the case of the German plural formation "Nacht" vs. "Nächte," there is an opposition between the singular form without the umlaut and final -e and the plural form with both. Similarly, in English, "I ought" and "ought I" represent an opposition in terms of word order, which can change the meaning or function of the sentence. Both examples highlight how language operates through contrasts and oppositions, and how these oppositions are fundamental to the structure and meaning of language.
The aphorism "In language, there is nothing but differences" (CGL [166]) succinctly captures the core principle of Saussure's theory, emphasizing the inherent differential nature of language. This perspective positions General Linguistics as a science representative of the 21st century, aligning with the latest discoveries in quantum mechanics, cybernetics, and physics, which emphasize a systemic approach over a focus on individual elements.
Saussure's linguistic theory, although predating contemporary discourse, sharply contrasts with 20th-century theories that sought to explain word order phenomena, such as those seen in constructions like "I ought" and "ought I," as manifestations of an intinsic language faculty. Humans, they believe, are born with an inbuilt set of principles and rules, biologically determined, which encompass word order regulations. These word order patterns are believed to be governed by innate principles encoded in the human genome.
However, according to Saussure, language is not inherently natural or biologically predetermined; rather, what is natural is the human ability to create distinct signs, conventional and socially agreed upon, for distinct ideas (CGL [26]). This axiom could serve as the starting point for any minimalist program seeking the simplest and most efficient explanation of linguistic phenomena.
Related Post:
The Differential Nature of Language: An Analysis of Linguistic Levels
https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/02/blog-post_12.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.
Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. Second Edition. With an Introduction by David W. Lightfoot. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. Second Edition. Edited by James McGilvray. Christchurch, New Zealand: Cybereditions Corporation, 2002.
Chomsky, Noam. Language and Mind. Third Edition. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, 2006.
Comments
Post a Comment