Charting Terra Incognita: Defining Linguistics' Object of Study

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure’s General Linguistics represents a transformative shift in how we understand language and its study. Unlike natural sciences, which examine objects with clear, defined boundaries—such as animals in zoology, rocks in geology, or celestial bodies in astronomy—linguistics deals with a more elusive subject. Saussure’s insights reveal that the object of linguistic study is not straightforward or fixed but is shaped by the perspective of the observer:

The object is not given in advance of the viewpoint: far from it. Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object. [CGL] [23]

This inherent elusiveness highlights the distinct nature of linguistic analysis compared to other scientific fields. By exploring the fluidity and multiplicity of linguistic objects, Saussure underscores the complexities involved in studying language and delineates its unique position among academic disciplines. However, while Saussure’s work demonstrates the variable and interpretative nature of linguistic phenomena, it does not imply that the objects of study in other sciences, like rocks or animals, are equally elusive or subjective. Some schools of thought have extended Saussure’s views to question the existence of objective reality itself, but Saussure’s theory fundamentally supports the existence of an external reality independent of linguistic constructs.

The Object of Study in Linguistics

At the heart of Saussure’s inquiry is the challenge of defining the object of study in linguistics:

What is it that linguistics sets out to analyse? What is the actual object of study in its entirety? The question is a particularly difficult one. [CGL] [23]

Unlike other sciences with well-defined subjects, linguistics must contend with the inherent complexity of language, which resists a single, unified analysis. Saussure uses the French word "nu" (naked) to illustrate this point. What might seem like a simple linguistic element is actually a multifaceted phenomenon, interpreted differently depending on whether it is viewed as a sound, a concept, or an etymological origin:

Suppose someone pronounces the French word nu (‘naked’). At first sight, one might think this would be an example of an independently given linguistic object. But more careful consideration reveals a series of three or four quite different things, depending on the viewpoint adopted. There is a sound, there is the expression of an idea, there is a derivative of Latin nūdum, and so on. [CGL] [23]

This example emphasizes that the object of linguistic study is not pre-determined but is instead shaped by the perspective from which it is approached.

This variability leads to a situation where the linguist’s chosen perspective essentially creates the object of study. Whether the focus is phonetic, semantic, historical, or otherwise, there is no intrinsic hierarchy among these perspectives.

Furthermore, there is nothing to tell us in advance whether one of these ways of looking at it is prior to or superior to any of the others. [CGL] [23]

This realization complicates linguistic analysis, as it must accommodate the variability and relativity inherent in its objects of study. Furthermore, Saussure notes that linguistic phenomena exhibit a dual nature—interdependent aspects that must be considered together to fully understand the nature of language.

Whichever viewpoint is adopted, moreover, linguistic phenomena always present two complementary facets, each depending on the other. [CGL] [23]

The Role of the Passage of Time

A central challenge in linguistics is addressing the passage of time, which introduces a bifurcation into synchronic and diachronic approaches. Unlike other sciences, where temporal changes do not necessitate separate disciplines, linguistics must address language both as a static system (synchronic linguistics) and as a dynamic, evolving phenomenon (diachronic linguistics). This duality is crucial because understanding language fully requires considering both its fixed state and its historical development.

In other fields, time does not split disciplines. For instance, astronomy and geology study temporal changes without creating separate fields for static and dynamic states. Similarly, the study of law includes descriptive and historical aspects, yet these are not viewed as fundamentally distinct. Saussure argues that linguistics is unique in its need to distinctly separate synchronic and diachronic perspectives, as linguistic phenomena reveal different characteristics when viewed from these temporal angles. Thus, linguists must select their approach based on whether they are investigating the static or evolving aspects of language.

The Unique Challenge of Defining Linguistic Units

Saussure emphasizes the unique challenge of defining fundamental units of linguistic analysis, unlike the more tangible units in natural sciences. For example, zoology, astronomy, and chemistry deal with units like animals, celestial bodies, and chemical compounds, respectively, which are straightforward and well-defined. In contrast, language functions as a system reliant on the interplay of abstract, elusive units:

But just as chess is based entirely on the combinations afforded by the various pieces, so too a language has the character of a system based entirely on the contrasts between its concrete units. [CGL] [149]

Defining these linguistic units is a significant challenge, leading to questions about their very existence. Language’s abstract nature, unlike the tangible units of other sciences, underscores the complexity of linguistic analysis. The lack of immediately perceptible entities in language distinguishes it from other systems, making the definition and study of its units particularly intricate.

Defining Linguistic Units in Contrast to Natural Sciences

Saussure’s central argument is that while other sciences take their objects of study for granted, linguistics must grapple with the elusive nature of its fundamental units. This difficulty highlights the unique characteristics of language as a system of values and contrasts, differentiating it from other scientific disciplines. His theory emphasizes that while linguistic units are challenging to define, their recognition is essential for understanding language’s structure and function:

A language thus has this curious and striking feature. It has no immediately perceptible entities. And yet one cannot doubt that they exist, or that the interplay of these units is what constitutes linguistic structure. [CGL] [149]

His distinction between linguistics and natural sciences is crucial. While he acknowledges that the object of study in linguistics is unclear, he contrasts this with the certainty of objects in other sciences. This is evident in the following quote, where the key issue is understanding the nature of the "name" and its relation to the "object which is outside the subject":

There is indeed an object which is outside the subject, and the name, but one does not know whether it is vocal or mental: <(arbos can be taken in these two different senses)>. The link between the two is not at all clear. (Constantine's Notebook VII 75a)

In this quote, the "Object Outside the Subject" refers to the external reality or the referent that is independent of the perceiving subject, for example, a physical tree that exists in the world. The "Name" can be understood as the sign that refers to the object, to that tree. "The link between the two is not at all clear" indicates that the relationship between the "name" (language) and the "object outside the subject" (reality) is quite problematic. The way language hooks into reality is a mystery.

Saussure’s acknowledgment of objects outside the subject contrasts significantly with certain post-structuralist views, which often challenge the notion of an objective reality outside of language and discourse. Saussure acknowledges that there are objects outside the subject, indicating a belief in an external reality independent of language, a view that contrasts sharply with other schools of thought like post-structuralism.

Conclusion

In summary, Saussure’s exploration of language reveals its distinctive position among academic disciplines. Unlike the natural sciences, where objects of study are clear and observable, linguistics deals with abstract, elusive units. The dual nature of language necessitates a bifurcated approach that sets linguistics apart from other fields. Saussure’s work highlights the complexities involved in understanding language and the inherent challenges in defining its objects of study. Crucially, while some contemporary thinkers extend linguistic principles to question the nature of reality itself, Saussure’s theory maintains that language, understood as a system, shapes signs rather than creating reality. This distinction is vital because it preserves the belief in an external reality independent of linguistic constructs. His acknowledgment of objects outside the subject contrasts significantly with certain post-structuralist views, which often challenge the notion of an objective reality outside of language and discourse. Language is fluid, a rock is not to the same extend. Thus, while Saussure’s insights about language are profound and influential, they should not be misinterpreted as denying the existence of a world beyond our linguistic representations.

Related Posts

- The Elusive Link Between Object and Name: Understanding the Relationship Between Language and Reality in Saussure's Theory

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/03/blog-post_30.html

- Saussure's Interdisciplinary Lens: Exploring the Peripheral Demarcation

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/01/blog-post_06.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