The Relational and Contrastive Nature of Language: Insights from Saussure's Lecture


Introduction

On July 4, 1911, Ferdinand de Saussure elucidated a foundational principle in linguistics: the arbitrariness of the sign. He emphasized that the connection between a determinate portion of the conceptual mass of ideas (signified) and a specific cut in the indistinct domain of sounds (signifier) is "perfectly arbitrary." Each language produces an "entirely relative" set of values.

In the same lecture, he also discussed the relational and contrastive nature of language, arguing that the widely recognized diagram showing the signified (signifié) above the signifier (signifiant), divided by a bar,

represents an abstraction useful for didactic purposes but not reflective of the actual workings of language. This article aims to elaborate on Saussure's claims, particularly that the sign is arbitrary and that the sign, understood as a unit comprising a signifié and a signifiant, is a secondary product of value.

Relational and Contrastive Nature of Language

Saussure posits that the relationship between the signified (concept) and the signifier (sound/image) is secondary to their value within the linguistic system. The signified alone is an indistinct mass without clear boundaries, the same goes for the signifier.

For instance, the French word "cher" (meaning both "dear" and "expensive") gains its specific value through its contrast with other French terms. In German, the same concepts are expressed with "lieb" and "teuer," which do not map directly onto "cher." This lack of exact correspondence across languages illustrates that meanings are not inherent to words but are defined through their relationships within each language.

If ideas were predetermined in the human mind before being linguistic values, one thing that would necessarily happen is that terms would correspond exactly as between one language and another.

French : cher ['dear']                 German: lieb, teuer <(also moral)>

There is no exact correspondence. Constantin's Notebook Χ 139a

The sign emerges only through the combination of specific signifiers with specific signifieds and the contrasts these combinations create within each linguistic system.

Primacy of the System Over Isolated Signs

For a relation between the signified and signifier to exist independently of the linguistic system, the ideas (signifieds) would need to be pre-determined and distinct before language. However, Saussure argues that ideas are not inherently determinate; their clarity and boundaries come from their placement within the language system.

To illustrate this, consider the French words "juger" (to judge) and "estimer" (to estimate). In German, the equivalents are "urteilen" and "erachten," but these terms only partially overlap with the French meanings. The German terms do not correspond exactly to the French terms, highlighting that concepts are defined within the context of each language. The value of a term, therefore, is determined by how it contrasts with other terms within its language, emphasizing the relational nature of linguistic meaning:

French : juger, estimer ['judge, estimate´]          German: urteilen, erachten 

<have a set of meanings only partly coinciding with French juger, estimer.> Constantin's Notebook Χ 139a

Linguistic Values, Differences and Oppositions

The value of a linguistic sign results from its opposition to other terms in the language. This notion of value arises from the indeterminacy of concepts without language. The schema linking the signified to the signifier is not the starting point of linguistic analysis but a product of the system of values created by language. This point, which has been widely overlooked by his critics, is illustrated in the following way, taking as example the word cher:

We see that in advance of the language there is nothing which is the notion 'cher´ in itself. So we see that this representation

although useful, is only a way of expressing the fact that there is in French a <certain> value cher <delimited in French system> by contrast with other terms.

<It will be a certain combination of a certain quantity of concepts with a certain quantity of sounds> 

                              So the schema 

                             is not the starting point in the language.

The value 'cher´ is determined on both sides. The contours of the idea <itself> is what we are given by the distribution of ideas in the words of a language. <Once we have the contours, the schema

                            can come into play. Constantin's Notebook Χ 139a

Conclusion

Saussure's insights emphasize that in a language, there are only differences, not positive terms. The paradoxical truth is that these differences are what constitute values. When analyzing language, it is more accurate to speak of form rather than substance. Therefore, the essence of linguistic signs lies in the differences and oppositions that exist between them, highlighting the primacy of the system over individual signs.

Saussure's lecture of July 4, 1911, underscores the arbitrariness of linguistic signs and the fundamental role of systemic relationships in creating meaning. Understanding language as a system of values shaped by contrasts provides a profound insight into the nature of linguistic value and the intricate workings of the language mechanism.

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

Related Post

The Dynamic Interplay of Sign, Signifier, and Signified in Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/09/sign-signifier-and-signified-in.html

Bibliography

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

 

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