The Geneva Circle: From Rousseau's Legacy to Saussure's Terminological Reform

 

Introduction

French linguistic discourse has long grappled with the nuanced meanings of "la parole," "le langage" and "la langue," Rooted in Rousseau's Essai sur l'Origine des Langues, these terms traditionally mean what distinguishes man among the animals, what distinguishes nations from each other and the language of his country (Rousseau, 1781) . However, Ferdinand de Saussure's groundbreaking theories in the early 20th century reshaped their definitions, introducing intricate technical distinctions. Despite Saussure's efforts, the gap between theoretical precision and common understanding persists, urging a closer examination of these linguistic nuances.

Traditional Meanings vs. Technical Terms

From Rousseau's time to today, the meanings of "la parole," "la langue," and "le langage" in French have remained largely stable. "La parole" consistently refers to speech and individual expressions of language, as in "Il a pris la parole" (He took the floor). "La langue" denotes a specific language, like French or English, as in "La langue française est belle" (The French language is beautiful). "Le langage" refers to the general phenomenon of language, encompassing various forms and systems of communication, such as "le langage des signes" (sign language).

However, in the early 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure redefined "la parole," "la langue," and "le langage" in his linguistic theory. He assigned specific technical meanings to these terms: "la parole" refers to individual acts of speech, highlighting the personal and variable aspects of language; "le langage" encompasses the overall human capacity for language; and "la langue" represents the abstract, systemic structure of a language—shared rules and conventions within a linguistic community, highlighting the collective and relatively stable aspects of language.

Despite Saussure's redefinitions, the technical meanings of "la parole," "la langue," and "le langage" have not entered popular French usage. Non-specialists typically interpret these terms in their traditional senses, leading to misunderstandings in a linguistic context. This gap between linguistic theory and common usage highlights the need to clarify these terms when discussing linguistic concepts with a broader audience or general readers.

Challenges of Preserving Nuance in Cross-Linguistic Transmission

Translating Saussure's technical terms "la parole," "la langue," and "le langage" into English presents significant challenges due to the lack of equivalent terminological distinctions. In English, these terms often translate simply to "language" or "speech," which fails to capture Saussure's subtle distinctions. For instance, "la parole" (speech) emphasizes individual and variable acts of language, but English "speech" may not fully convey this nuance. "La langue" (language) represents the systemic, collective rules of a language, which is not inherently clear in the English term "language." "Le langage" covers the broad human capacity for language, but without the contextual distinction from "la langue" and "la parole," it can be ambiguous.

This lack of precise English terminology can lead to misunderstandings. English speakers might not easily grasp the theoretical distinction between "la langue" as an abstract system and "la parole" as individual speech acts, both often translated as "language." To address this, translators and linguists use additional context or explanatory phrases, such as "the system of a language" for "la langue" and "individual speech acts" for "la parole." However, these explanations can be cumbersome and may not fully capture the original nuances.

Linguistic Relativity: Navigating Linguistic Boundaries and Semantic Gaps

Saussure was keenly aware of the challenges associated with translating the technical terms "la parole," "la langue," and "le langage" into other languages. This awareness is evident from his cautionary  reminders to his students, where he emphasized that other languages might lack precise equivalents for the French terms. This warning underscores the significance of grasping these concepts within their original linguistic and cultural framework. Such idea is echoed in the following quotes, which elucidate the complexities of linguistic translation and the necessity of contextual understanding:

“It is possible that in languages other than French we may not find words covering exactly what the French words cover”. Constantin's Notebook VII 70a

“Thus in German the word Sprache covers individual languages as well as language in general, while Rede answers more or less to ‘speech’, but also has the special sense of ‘discourse’. In Latin the word sermo covers language in general and also speech, while lingua is the word for ‘a language’; and so on. No word corresponds precisely to any one of the notions we have tried to specify above”. [CGL] [31]

O.V.  Ainsi en allemand Sprache veut dire « langue » et « langage » ; Rede correspond à peu près à « parole », mais y ajoute le sens spécial de « discours ». En latin sermo signifie plutôt « langage » et « parole », tandis que lingua désigne la langue, et ainsi de suite. Aucun mot necorrespond exactement à l’une des notions précisées plus haut

If we carefully compare these two passages from the Cours—the original text and the English translation by Harris—we begin to understand what has been discussed so far.

 Conclusion:

Saussure's acknowledgment of the limitations in cross-linguistic equivalence underscores the necessity of embracing linguistic concepts within their particular cultural and linguistic milieu (synchronic approach to language). In his theoretical framework, the meaning of a word (a "sign") arises from its relationship with other words in the system, rather than from any inherent connection to what it represents. His idea that "in a language there are only differences, and no positive terms" [CGL] [166] underscores that words gain meaning through their similarities, differences, and oppositions within the linguistic system:

“In a given language, all the words which express neighbouring ideas help define one another’s meaning. Each of a set of synonyms like redouter (‘to dread’), craindre (‘to fear’), avoir peur (‘to be afraid’) has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. If redouter (‘to dread’) did not exist, its content would be shared out among its competitors. On the other hand, words are also enriched by contact with other words”. [CGL] [160]

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

Related Post:

The Origins of Language: Rousseau and Saussure on Langue, Parole, and Langage

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/06/blog-post.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, 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

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Essai sur l'origine des langues. In Collection complète des oeuvres. Genève, 1780-1789, vol. 8, in-4°. Online edition, www.rousseauonline.ch. Version of October 7, 2012. http://www.rousseauonline.ch/Text/essai-sur-l-origine-des-langues.php.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Essay on the Origin of Languages, Which Treats of Melody and Musical Imitation. Translated by John H. Moran, 1781.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Conversation with Saussure

Image
  A Conversation with Le Maître Student : I arrived in Geneva last night from France, taking the 8.45 train from Paris. I was eager to meet you because I stumbled upon a book that references your teachings. I'd like to read a passage from it and hear your thoughts: "In the eyes of Saussure, writing is a garb of perversion and debauchery, a cloak of corruption and disguise, a masquerade that must be exorcised – in other words, fended off – by the virtuous word: 'Writing veils the appearance of language; it is not a guise for language but a disguise'. A peculiar 'image.' One might already suspect that if writing is an 'image' and an external 'figuration,' this 'representation' is not without its implications. The exterior and interior share a relationship that is, as usual, anything but mere externalization." What's your perspective on this? Saussure : Before I dive into the topic, I'd like to acknowledge that the pass...
Read more

Historia and Différance: The Interplay of Narrative and Deconstruction

Image
Objective: To examine the philosophical and narrative parallels between Herodotus and Derrida, highlighting how Herodotus’ innovative treatment of history, origins, and storytelling elucidates key dimensions of Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy. This article argues that the ancient historian offers a tangible and accessible entry point into Derrida’s complex ideas, including his critique of metaphysics, the concept of différance, and the portrayal of history as fragmented, fluid, and nonlinear. Introduction Herodotus, the "father of history," as he is often called, occupies a singular place in intellectual tradition by blending narrative exploration with philosophical inquiry. Similarly, Jacques Derrida revolutionized contemporary thought through his challenges to established notions of origins, meaning, and causality. This article explores the relationship between these two figures, analyzing how the former’s fluid approach to beginnings, storytelling, and causati...
Read more

“There Is Nothing Outside”: A Parallel Between Nietzsche and Derrida’s Radical Critiques of Metaphysics

Image
Abstract This article explores the philosophical convergence between Nietzsche’s “there is nothing outside the whole” ( es gibt nichts außer dem Ganzen ) in Twilight of the Idols and Derrida’s “there is nothing outside the text” ( il n’y a pas de hors-texte ) in Of Grammatology . Both statements dismantle metaphysical frameworks by rejecting external origins or absolute truths and affirming systems as self-referential and interwoven. Nietzsche challenges the notion of divine or teleological causation, while Derrida critiques the idea of an independent "transcendental signified." By providing the intellectual background of these declarations and analyzing their shared themes, the article illuminates their joint significance in destabilizing Western philosophical traditions and revealing the immanent, dynamic nature of existence and meaning. Introduction The lines “there is nothing outside the whole” and “there is nothing outside the text” are cornerstones of Niet...
Read more