Core Meaning and the Dynamics of Presence and Absence in Linguistics: A Differential Approach

As regards language, articulation may refer to the division of the chain of speech into syllables, or to the division of the chain of meanings into meaningful units…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]

Introduction:

In linguistic studies, traditional approaches often emphasize static rules and intrinsic meanings to explain phenomena such as grammar, phonology, and polysemy. However, Ferdinand de Saussure introduced a revolutionary perspective that focuses on relational and oppositional dynamics within the language system. This article explores how Saussure’s differential approach provides a more nuanced understanding of grammatical facts, phonological distinctions, and polysemy, highlighting the interconnected and active nature of language. Finally, we will briefly explore the Derridean concept of 'the hinge' (la brisure) and examine whether its central role in Derrida's philosophy holds up when scrutinized from a Saussurean perspective.

Expression Plane: Grammatical Level

Saussure’s analysis of grammatical facts marks a departure from traditional views that treat grammar as a set of static rules. Instead, he introduces a differential approach to understanding grammatical structures. For example, the formation of the plural in German, as in the case of Nacht : Nächte, demonstrates how each term in a grammatical fact is understood and defined by oppositions in the system akin to lexical items. This relationship between linguistic units and grammatical facts illustrates how everything in language boils down to differences, constituting a complex balance of interdependent terms. As Saussure states:

"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]

Expression Plane: Phonological Level

Similarly, this differential approach applies to the study of the phonological level. Saussure posits that phonemes are not defined by their positive attributes but by their differences from other phonemes. For instance, in French, the phoneme “r” is characterized by its contrast with other consonants rather than by a specific, intrinsic quality. This means that the phoneme "r" can vary in pronunciation as long as it remains distinguishable from other phonemes. The essence of a phoneme, therefore, lies in its contrastive role within the language system, rather than in any concrete, fixed feature:

"Each language constructs its words out of some fixed number of phonetic units, each one clearly distinct from the others. What characterises those units is not, as might be thought, the specific positive properties of each; but simply the fact that they cannot be mistaken for one another. Speech sounds are first and foremost entities which are contrastive, relative and negative. What proves this is the latitude speakers are allowed in pronunciation, provided they distinguish one sound from another. In French, for instance, the fact that r is usually pronounced as a uvular consonant does not prevent many speakers from pronouncing it as an apical trill. It makes no difference to the French language, which requires only that r should be distinct from other consonants. There is no necessity that it be pronounced always in exactly the same way. I can even pronounce a French r like the German ch in Bach, doch, etc.; whereas I could not in German substitute r for ch because German, unlike French, distinguishes between r and ch." [CGL 164-165]

Expression Plane: Lexical Level (Polysemic Words)

Building on this, Saussure's differential approach also extends to the lexical level, specifically in the phenomenon of polysemy. Traditionally, polysemy is explained through a structured framework, referring to a single word having multiple related meanings or senses. For example, "bank" can mean the side of a river (e.g., river bank) or a financial institution (e.g., savings bank). The analysis includes core meaning, which is the fundamental sense of the word, such as "bank" referring to a financial institution. From this core, extended meanings develop, such as "bank" meaning the side of a river, derived from an earlier meaning related to a mound or pile.

However, Ferdinand de Saussure introduced a revolutionary perspective on linguistic phenomena, viewing them through a relational and oppositional lens. His understanding of grammatical, and phonological levels in terms of difference extends to how polysemic words are understood. In his lesson on June 30, 1911, Saussure emphasized that the value of a word is determined by the contribution of coexisting terms that delimit it. What is in the word is determined by the contribution of what exists around it, both syntagmatically and associatively:

"The value of a word can never be determined except by the contribution of coexisting terms which delimit it: what is in the word is only ever determined by the contribution of what exists around it." (Constantin’s Notebook X 136a)

Saussure illustrated this with the word "décrépit," questioning how an old man described as "décrépit" and a wall described as "décrépi[t]" have a similar sense. The answer lies in the influence of neighboring words:

"How does it come about that an old man who is décrépit and a wall that is décrépi [t (corr.)] have a similar sense? It is the influence of the neighbouring word." (Constantin’s Notebook X 137a)

This suggests that polysemy can be explained in terms of difference, not by referring to intrinsic meanings present in the word, aligning with Saussure's broader linguistic theory. While the traditional approach offers concrete definitions and static analysis, Saussure’s perspective emphasizes the dynamic, relational, and oppositional nature of words, understanding them as constructs within the language system deriving meaning from their contrasts and interrelations with other linguistic elements.

The Hinge: Words with Two Meanings

We turn now to Jacques Derrida's concept of the hinge (la brisure). In "Of Grammatology," Derrida opens the article "The Hinge" [La Brisure] with a fragment from a letter he received from his friend Roger Laporte:

You have, I suppose, dreamt of finding a single word for designating difference and articulation. I have perhaps located it by chance in Robert['s Dictionary] if I play on the word, or rather indicate its double meaning. This word is brisure [joint, break] "-broken, cracked part. Cf. breach, crack, fracture, fault, split, fragment, [breche, cassure, fracture, faille, fente, fragment.]-Hinged articulation of two parts of wood- or metal-work. The hinge, the brisure [folding-joint] of a shutter. Cf. joint."

The term "brisure" (hinge) is central to understanding Derrida’s philosophy. According to Roger Laporte, this concept means both difference and articulation, signifying a break or breach as well as a joint or link. However, this view seems to reside within the logocentric perspective that Derrida seeks to deconstruct. It raises the question: Does Derrida, "the master of différance," embrace the notion that words possess meanings—indeed, not just one but two—which seems extraordinary? This paradox will be the focus of our next article, where we will critically engage with it from a Saussurean perspective.

Conclusion

"In language, there is nothing but differences." [CGL] [166]

Saussure's differential approach represents a significant shift from traditional linguistic analysis, offering a dynamic framework for understanding grammar, phonology, and lexicology. By focusing on relational and oppositional dynamics, Saussure reveals the intricate balance of interdependent terms that constitute language. This perspective not only enhances our comprehension of linguistic phenomena but also underscores the fluid and evolving nature of language, challenging static and intrinsic views.

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

Related Post: 

The Clash of Titans: Abel and Saussure on the Nature of Language

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-clash-of-titans-abel-and-saussure.html

The Protean Nature of 'Logos': Polysemy in Philo-Theological Thought

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/06/blog-post_30.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, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

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.