Émile Benveniste's Engagement with Saussurean Semiology and Peircean Semiotics

 Introduction

In his article “Saussure after Half a Century,” Émile Benveniste explores Ferdinand de Saussure’s foundational concepts, such as language structure (la langue) and the nature of the linguistic sign (signe). He quotes from Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 12, highlighting Saussure's view on the law of language: “The absolutely final law of language is, we dare say, that there is nothing which can ever reside in one term.”

At this juncture, Benveniste introduces the term “semiotics” into the discussion, a concept associated with Peirce rather than Saussure:

“But what we wish to emphasize here is the scope of the principle of the sign when set up as a unit of language. From that it results that language becomes a semiotic system: "The task of the linguist," said Saussure, "is to find out what makes language a special system within the mass of semiological data .... But to me the language problem is mainly semiological." We see that this principle is now gaining ground outside linguistics and penetrating into the sciences of man, which are becoming aware of their own semiotics.” (Benveniste, 1971)

The use of the terms  "semiotics" and “semiology” within the same paragraph prompts the question: are semiotics and semiology synonymous? Let’s examine this issue further.

Are Semiotics and Semiology the Same?

There are compelling reasons why semiotics and semiology should not be conflated, as they differ fundamentally in scope, theoretical foundations, and applications, despite their shared focus on signs and meaning. Semiotics, influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce, encompasses diverse sign systems beyond language, such as smoke indicating fire, and explores how signs function across biology, meteorology, medicine, and society. It emphasizes the triadic relationship between signs, their objects, and their interpretants, thus highlighting the role of interpretation in creating meaning—a breadth that encompasses all forms of human and non-human communication.

Conversely, semiology, developed by Ferdinand de Saussure, centers primarily on linguistic signs. Saussure's semiology addresses the dyadic relationship between signifier and signified, focusing on intentional communication acts and their governing rules, often excluding natural or non-conventional signs from its purview.

Scholars like Benveniste, who attempt to integrate semiology under the broader term of semiotics, encounter confusion. While both disciplines share an interest in signs and meaning-making processes, they do not wholly coincide. Semiotics provides a wider theoretical framework that accommodates intentional and unintentional signs across diverse domains, while semiology remains narrowly focused on linguistic and conventional sign system (Russell Daylight).

However, in our opinion, the most compelling reason to avoid using “semiotics” when discussing “semiology” is articulated by Benveniste himself. Addressing the differential and relational character of language, he quotes Saussure:

 « La loi tout à fait finale du langage est, à ce que nous osons dire, qu'il n'y a jamais rien qui puisse résider dans un terme...donc que a est impuissant à rien désigner sans le secours de b, celui-ci de même sans le secours de a» 

 "The absolutely final law of language is, we dare say, that there is nothing which can ever reside in one term… so that a is powerless to designate anything without the aid of b, and the same thing is true of b without the aid of a"

This quote from Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 12 underscores that within language, every term derives its meaning through opposition to other terms within the system, reflecting the foundational principle that everything in language bears the imprint of dualities such as articulatory/acoustical, signifier/signified, individual/society, langue/parole, associative/syntagmatic, and synchronic/diachronic. These dualities reveal that no term holds intrinsic value alone but gains significance through its contrast with others. Introducing the term "semiotics" when discussing Saussure's "semiology" disrupts his meticulously constructed conceptual framework, where each term's meaning depends on its relational context within the linguistic system, exemplified by the interplay between "langue" (abstract language system) and "parole" (individual speech acts), and other dualities like signifier/signified, synchronic/diachronic, etc.

The resulting interdependent network functions like a language system on a smaller scale, where all concepts cooperate to delineate each other, creating a delicate balance where each term helps define the others. When we introduce a term that doesn't belong to the mechanics of this system, conflicts arise, and it is detected as the odd one out, much like inserting a random Greek word in a Spanish sentence, which leaves the listener puzzled.

Benveniste seeks to bridge the chasm between Saussure’s linguistics and Peirce’s semiotics by proposing that complex cultural phenomena like myths and social structures also serve as signifiers, requiring interpretation for their signified meanings. However, this view sharply contrasts with Saussurean principles, where the signifier and signified are inherently connected and cannot exist independently.

Conclusion

In his article “Saussure after Half a Century,” Émile Benveniste delves into key aspects of Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theories. He elucidates Saussure’s foundational contributions: his conceptualization of language structure (la langue) as an abstract system, the dual nature of the linguistic sign (signe) comprising the signifier and the signified, and his proposal of semiology as a broader study of signs within society.

However, Benveniste’s introduction of "semiotics," implicitly invoking Charles Sanders Peirce’s triadic model of signs, represents a significant departure from strict Saussurean doctrine. This divergence is evident in Benveniste’s critique of Saussure’s exclusion of the referent—a critique implying a reliance on the reality (la réalité) Saussure intended to exclude from his linguistic analysis (see link to related post below). 

Benveniste broadens semiotic inquiry by proposing that cultural phenomena, such as myths and social structures, also function as signifiers that necessitate interpretation to uncover their signified meanings. This blending of semiology and semiotics underscores Benveniste’s agenda to reconcile Saussure’s linguistics with Peirce’s semiotic theory. Nonetheless, such assimilation risks oversimplifying or conflating distinct theoretical frameworks, potentially obscuring the nuances of both Saussure's and Peirce's contributions to their fields and confusing students about fundamental principles of sign theory.

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

Related Post

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

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/06/blog-post_23.html

Bibliography

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

Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, publiés par la Société Genevoise de Linguistique, no. 12 (Genève: Librairie Droz, 1967).

Russell Daylight. The Difference Between Semiotics and Semiology. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Startklar/Downloads/6292-16927-2-PB.pdf