Saussure’s Linguistic Sign: Revisiting the Critique of the Missing Referent

 

Introduction

In Émile Benveniste's "Problems in General Linguistics," particularly in the chapter titled "The Nature of the Linguistic Sign," he engages critically with Ferdinand de Saussure's foundational concept of the linguistic sign. Saussure posited that the linguistic sign consists of a signifier (signifiant) and a signified (signifié), emphasizing the union of a mental concept and a sound image rather than a direct connection between a real object and its name. Benveniste challenges Saussure's definition, arguing that it implicitly relies on a third term—reality or the referent—that Saussure excludes from his initial formulation. He contends that Saussure's reference to the "idea" (signifié) actually involves considerations of the representation of real objects, akin to the Aristotelian concept of the sign (Aristotle, De Interpretatione 16a3-8).

His critique, however, invites examination, as it reveals potential misunderstandings of Saussure's theoretical framework. This article aims to explore the relevant passage from Benveniste's book in more detail, highlighting the potential pitfalls and misinterpretations inherent in the author's argument. By examining his interpretation alongside Saussure's original texts, we seek to elucidate Saussure's stance on language and clarify how his deliberate exclusion of the referent aligns with his broader theoretical goals. Ultimately, this exploration aims to reinforce the coherence and rigor of Saussure's approach to linguistics within the context of his rationalist methodology.

Analogies in Natural Sciences: Flora and Fauna

In the natural sciences, researchers use theoretical constructs to study complex phenomena. For example, naturalists studying bees do not rely solely on direct observation, which may reveal chaotic activity in their natural habitats. Instead, they develop theoretical models to interpret bee behavior, communication, and social organization, enabling them to derive meaningful patterns from what might seem like random observations.

Similarly, in botany, "the plant" serves as an idealized model that encapsulates general features and functions, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of plant biology. Conversely, the study of individual "plants" involves examining specific instances and variations. This distinction between theoretical models (rationalism) and concrete examples (empiricism and pragmatism) is crucial for advancing scientific knowledge. Saussure leans towards rationalism, positing that grasping complex phenomena necessitates theoretical frameworks surpassing immediate sensory data. Peirce, on the other hand, endorsed pragmatism. However, the interplay between these approaches is complex, as Saussure expresses below:

"He (the linguist) must first study languages (“les langues”), as many languages as possible, and widen his horizons as far as he can. So this is how we shall proceed. From the study and observation of these languages, the linguist will be able to abstract general features, retaining everything that seems essential and universal, and setting aside what is particular and accidental. He will thus end up with a set of abstractions, which will be the language (“la langue”).” (Constantin’s Notebook I 10a)

La Langue vs. Les Langues: The Exclusion of the Referent

Saussure’s approach to linguistics mirrors methodologies employed in natural sciences:

"Just as, although comparisons with the natural sciences must not be abused, it would likewise be immediately evident what was meant in a work on natural history by contrasting 'the plant' with 'plants'. These divisions would correspond reasonably well even in content to what we shall get in linguistics if we distinguish between 'the language' (la langue) and 'languages' (les langues)." (Constantin’s Notebook I 10a)

Saussure focused on "la langue," the abstract system of language, rather than "les langues," individual languages. By concentrating on "la langue," Saussure aimed to identify universal principles and structures underlying all languages, allowing linguists to abstract general features while setting aside individual variations.

One core aspect of Saussure's theory is the deliberate exclusion of the referent, or external reality, from language study. Saussure's dyadic model emphasizes internal relationships within the language system, focusing on the abstract structure of "la langue." This methodological choice underscores the importance of comprehending internal logic and conventions governing language, independent of its connection to the external world.

Misunderstandings and Criticisms: Comparing Saussure and Peirce

Émile Benveniste's critique in "The Nature of the Linguistic Sign" suggests that Saussure’s exclusion of the referent implies an implicit reliance on it. Saussure’s argument implicitly hinges on the existence of a third element—the actual object or reality—which was not intended to be part of the linguistic sign according to Saussure’s initial definition. This reliance on a third term undermines the supposed arbitrariness of the sign:

"It has just been seen that Saussure took the linguistic sign to be made up of a signifier and signified. Now-and this is essential-he meant by 'signified,' the concept. He declared in so many words (p. 100 [p. 66]) that the 'linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image.' But immediately afterward he stated that the nature of the sign is arbitrary because it (the sign) 'actually has no natural connection with the thing signified (la réalité)' [p. 69]. It is clear that the argument is falsified by an unconscious and surreptitious recourse to 'a third term' which was not included in the initial definition. This third term is the thing itself, the reality (la réalité)." (Benveniste, 1966).

                                                               (Benveniste, Problemes de linguistique generale, 1966)

 However, this interpretation conflates different levels of analysis. Saussure’s focus on theoretical entities like "la langue" represents a deliberate methodological choice to study the abstract system of language, rather than to deny the existence or importance of external reality. Critics often misinterpret this focus, mistakenly assuming that Saussure’s model is incomplete without the referent—a third term found in Peirce’s triadic model.

Saussure’s dyadic model, in contrast, focuses on structural relationships within the language system. Comparing these models underscores their distinct aims and scopes: Saussure’s model offers a rigorous framework for analyzing the internal structure of language, while Peirce’s model delves more comprehensively into addressing external reality. Peirce, a pragmatist, sought to uncover objective truths about observable phenomena through semiotics and reasoning, as articulated in his seminal paper "What Is a Sign?" (1894): "So it is only out of symbols that a new symbol can grow. Omne symbolum de symbolo," and adds: "The art of reasoning is the art of marshalling such signs and of finding out the truth."

It means that tracing symbols is not an end in itself; this process should lead us to discover the truth. Intriguingly, this last sentence goes unnoticed by Derrida in Of Grammatology. Peirce's emphasis on "the truth" elucidates the contrasting philosophies between Peirce and Saussure. Peirce primarily aimed to unveil objective truths about the external world, employing semiotics and reasoning, a pursuit less central to Saussure’s focus.

Conclusion

In summary, Benveniste's critique of Saussure's theory in "The Nature of the Linguistic Sign" reveals several misunderstandings of his linguistique de la langue. Saussure's deliberate exclusion of the referent is a methodological choice that aligns with his focus on "la langue" as an abstract system. This deliberate exclusion allows linguists to uncover the underlying principles and relationships that govern language, independent of external reality. Consequently, Saussure's omission of the referent in his dyadic model can be understood as a result of this approach. Paradoxically, Benveniste acknowledges Saussure as fundamentally driven by a pursuit of fundamental principles governing empirical diversity, affirming his rationalist approach to understanding language in the article Saussure After Half a Century:

“Saussure was first and always a man of fundamentals. He went instinctively to the most basic characteristics which govern the diversity of the empirical datum”. (Benveniste, 1966)

By recognizing the relevance of theoretical constructs used in scientific and linguistic studies, we can appreciate the coherence and rigor of Saussure’s approach, reinforcing its validity in the study of language.

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

Related Posts:

Demystifying Semiotics: Derrida and Peirce

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/09/demystifying-semiotic-derrida-vs-peirce.html

'Farmers' in the Field of Language: Concrete Analogies in Saussure’s Abstract Theory

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/05/farmers-in-field-of-language-concrete.html

Bibliography:

Benveniste, Émile. Problems in General Linguistics. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1966. Reprint, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1971.

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

What Is a Sign? Charles Sanders Peirce (1894)

The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,
reproducing Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958)

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.