Phonetic Writing in Cours de Linguistique Générale: Exploring the Greek Model

Introduction

In "Of Grammatology," Jacques Derrida highlights Ferdinand de Saussure's preference for phonetic writing over systems like pictographic writing. Derrida finds this problematic as it implies a prioritization of speech over writing. This observation prompts a deeper exploration of Saussure's interest in phonetic writing, particularly regarding the ancient Greek alphabet.

One reason for his interest could be its efficiency. Phonetic writing systems use a small set of characters (around 26 in English) to represent language sounds. This allows for easier learning and more efficient communication and literacy, as these symbols can be combined in various ways to represent a vast vocabulary. In contrast, pictographic systems require a unique symbol for each word or concept, resulting in a large number of symbols that must be memorized, making literacy more complex and time-consuming.

Another rationale is found in Saussure's synchronic approach to language, as described in his "Linguistique de la langue." The linguist must choose between two radically different approaches: synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics, and phonetic writing was (is) the system in use in his time:

Our survey here will be restricted to the phonetic system of writing, and in particular to the system in use today, of which the prototype is the Greek alphabet. [CGL] [48]

Additionally, the conventional relationship between a character and the sound it represents in phonetic writing mirrors the arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified, aligning with the differential nature of language. It means that both language (la langue) and phonetic writing should be considered part of semiology (in the Saussurean sense). This contrasts with those writing systems that 'show at least a vestige of natural connexion between the signal and its signification.' [CGL] [101]

However, the most compelling reason for Saussure's focus on phonetic writing seems to lie in the complexities surrounding the delimitation of linguistic units. This article will focus on this aspect, drawing insights from "Course in General Linguistics" and other materials to explore this intriguing facet of Saussure's theory.

Setting the Stage: La langue comme pensée organisée dans la matière phonique

Saussure posits that language acts as a structuring force on both thought and sound. Without this framework, thoughts and sound patterns remain formless.

…our thought is simply a vague, shapeless mass. In itself, thought is like a swirling cloud, where no shape is intrinsically determinate. No ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the introduction of linguistic structure. [CGL] [155]

Language creates divisions within these abstract realms, facilitating the emergence of distinct linguistic signs. This process involves a complex transformation of 'thought-sound' into distinct linguistic elements, analogous to how atmospheric pressure creates waves on water. Language thus emerges from the interaction between thought and sound, delimiting and organizing them into structured linguistic units. In Constantin's Notebook X 138a, he represents the process of creating these divisions with the following diagram:

 

Mot vs Signe: Challenges in Delimiting Linguistic Units

Despite the natural ability of speakers to recognize linguistic signs, linguists face challenges in systematically identifying and delimiting these units.

This process wouldn’t be difficult if we equate “linguistic signs” with “words”, but the concept of "word" doesn't always neatly align with a single concrete sign. Take, for example, "cheval" (horse) and "chevaux" (horses), which are considered variations of the same word but differ in both meaning and sound.

Moreover, signs can encompass smaller components such as prefixes and suffixes, as well as larger entities like compounds and phrases, further complicating the task of identifying distinct units. Despite these difficulties, pinpointing concrete units remains essential, as language relies on the contrast between these units for its functioning. Without this delineation, progress in linguistic analysis becomes stymied.

Seeking a Resolution: Phonetic Writing

Saussure's interest in the simplicity and precision of the ancient Greek alphabet aligns with his pursuit of solving the problem of delimiting linguistic signs. Unlike modern alphabets, which often use combinations like "ch" for 'š' or "x" for 'ks,' the primitive Greek alphabet maintained a direct one-to-one correspondence between sound units and symbols. This straightforward representation ensured a precise analysis of sound sequences into their constituent auditory units, an aspect that likely appealed to Saussure in his quest to resolve the issue of delimiting linguistic signs.

The ancient Greek method of phonetic writing mirrors Saussure's concept of linguistic signs as combinations of signals (sound patterns) and signification (concept). Each symbol in the Greek alphabet represents a single sound unit, echoing Saussure's idea of linguistic signs as tangible entities formed through the association of sound and meaning. In the case of the linguistic unit, a distinct sign is articulated with a distinct idea by convention; in the case of the phonetic alphabet, a distinct sign is arbitrarily associated with a distinct sound:

…one may say that it is not spoken language which is natural to man, but the faculty of constructing a language, i.e. a system of distinct signs corresponding to distinct ideas. [CGL] [26]

Consider the following example from the Course, which reminds of the diagram we saw above describing the formation of linguistic units found in Constantin's Notebook X 138a:  

In the spelling of the word bárbaros (‘barbarian’), each of the letters stands for a single segment. In the diagram given here, the horizontal line represents the sequence of sounds, while the vertical strokes indicate the transitions between each sound and the next.

In the primitive Greek alphabet, there are no combinations like our modern French ch for š. Nor are there variable representations of a single sound, like our c and s for the sound s. Nor are there single characters representing a combination of sounds, like our x for ks. This principle, which is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for good transcription, was adopted almost without exception by the Greeks. [CGL] [155]

This accurate representation of sound units by symbols offered a model for a systematic approach to delimiting linguistic units, addressing the challenges encountered by linguists in their identification and analysis.

Phonetic writing, unlike ideographic or syllabic systems, focuses on faithfully capturing individual speech sounds. This direct representation aligns with Saussure's emphasis on the articulation of idea and sound patterns in the formation of linguistic signs.

Conclusion

The model of phonetic writing, epitomized by the ancient Greek alphabet, offered valuable insights for Saussure's endeavor to resolve the challenge of delimiting linguistic signs. Its clarity and precision in representing sound units by symbols align with Saussure's conception of linguistic signs, providing a systematic methodology for analyzing speech sounds and identifying linguistic units. Saussure might have viewed it as more beneficial to his theory compared to other writing systems where delineations are less clear, making them impractical for his project. Thus, Saussure's preference for phonetic writing reflects its practical applicability in advancing his linguistic theories.

Cite this text: 

Rodie. (2024). Return to Saussure. Retrieved from http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

 Related Post:

Speech, Writing, and Sin: The Nature vs. Nurture Dilemma

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_14.html

Derrida's Profound Redefinition of Writing: Arche-écriture

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/09/blog-post.html

 Bibliography

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

Saussure, F. (1910-1911). Troisième cours de linguistique générale: d'après les cahiers d'Emile Constantin [Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics: From the Notebooks of Emile Constantin]. (R. Harris, Trans.) University of Oxford.1993

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Corrected Edition. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Copyright © 1974, 1976, 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.