The Nuanced Meaning of 'General' in Saussure's 'General' Linguistics

 

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics is a foundational text in modern linguistic theory, laying the groundwork for structuralism and influencing a wide range of academic disciplines. Central to Saussure's approach is his distinction between the "internal" and "external" elements of language, a division that has sparked considerable debate and criticism, particularly from thinkers like Jacques Derrida. This article explores the specific meaning of the term "general" in Saussure's framework, examining how it shapes his definition of the object of study in linguistics and his deliberate exclusion of certain aspects, such as writing, from his analysis. Understanding this nuanced interpretation of "general" is crucial for engaging with both Saussure's original ideas and the critiques they have inspired.

The Inner Struggle of Ferdinand de Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure's arrival in Paris marked a promising start in his academic career, as he was warmly welcomed at the École des Hautes Études and quickly became an influential figure in the linguistic community. Émile Benveniste, in Problems in General Linguistics, notes that Saussure's innovative ideas immediately captivated both students and colleagues. His appointment as assistant secretary of the Société de Linguistique by Michel Bréal further solidified his position as a leading authority in the field, setting the stage for what seemed to be a highly productive career.

However, this initial momentum soon waned. Saussure's early enthusiasm gave way to a marked decline in scholarly output. His contributions became increasingly sporadic, often made reluctantly and primarily at the urging of friends. Upon his return to Geneva to accept a university chair, his public contributions nearly ceased, though he continued to work privately, writing and reflecting in relative isolation.

The root of Saussure's withdrawal from the public eye lay in what Benveniste describes as a "drama of the mind." As he delved deeper into linguistic studies, he grew increasingly disillusioned with the prevailing theories and methods. He became frustrated with what he saw as the inadequacies and "absolute ineptness of current terminology" and the flawed foundations of contemporary research. His dedication to intellectual rigor and his critical stance on the linguistic discourse of his time led to profound frustration.

This inner turmoil is vividly captured in a letter to Antoine Meillet dated January 4, 1894, where Saussure expressed deep dissatisfaction with the state of linguistic scholarship. He lamented the need to reform the field, insisting that meaningful progress required first establishing a clear understanding of "language in general."

His frustration stemmed from the immense challenge of logically organizing linguistic facts in a way that clarified the true work of linguists. He criticized the focus on the "picturesque aspect of a language," viewing it as ethnographic rather than scientific. This deep dissatisfaction led to his reluctance to publish, as he found it impossible to write without a firm theoretical foundation. His critical perspective explains why even simple articles were delayed, as he sought to avoid using "expressions which are logically odious" without undertaking a "decidedly radical reform."

Juxtaposition of "Language in General" and "History"

"The absolute ineptness of current terminology, the necessity to reform it, and, in order to do that, to show what sort of subject language in general is, come incessantly to spoil my pleasure in history, although I have no dearer wish than not to have to concern myself with language in general." (Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 21, 1964).

Saussure's juxtaposition of "language in general" with "history" in the fragment of his letter to Antoine Meillet cited above is revealing. This passage highlights Saussure's internal conflict between his interest in historical linguistics—likely encompassing philology, comparative linguistics, and historical linguistics—and his growing realization of the need to address more abstract, theoretical questions about the nature of language itself.

Saussure contrasts two areas of linguistic study here:

1. History: This term likely refers to Saussure's work in philology, comparative linguistics, and historical linguistics—fields where he felt more at ease and derived genuine pleasure. These disciplines are more empirical, focusing on the evolution, comparison, and documentation of languages over time.
2. Language in General: This phrase appears to refer to a more abstract, theoretical inquiry into the fundamental nature of language—questions about what language is rather than how it changes over time or varies across cultures. Saussure's frustration with this area suggests that it involved a level of abstraction and theoretical rigor that he found intellectually challenging and less immediately satisfying than historical linguistics.

Saussure's Pleasure in History vs. Discomfort with Theoretical Inquiry

Saussure clearly states that his pleasure lies in "history," indicating his preference for the detailed, concrete work involved in studying languages within specific historical and cultural contexts. However, this enjoyment is marred by the "necessity" to address broader, more theoretical issues about "language in general." While he recognized the importance of these theoretical questions, they were not his primary interest. The need to engage with them seems to have been more of a burden than a passion for him.

The task of understanding "what sort of subject language in general is" appears to have been undertaken out of necessity rather than personal enthusiasm. It was essential to reform the inadequate terminology and concepts that dominated the field at the time.

Saussure's Approach to "General Linguistics"

According to the letter to his colleague, Saussure's motivation for teaching his course in "General Linguistics" does not seem to have arisen from pleasure. He likely approached these lectures not out of a personal passion for abstract theorization, as some might believe, but because he saw it as a crucial and unavoidable task—something that had to be done to set the field on a firmer theoretical foundation. He recognized that without addressing these fundamental issues, linguistic study could not advance meaningfully.

This perspective suggests that Saussure's use of "general" in "General Linguistics" carries a more specialized meaning within his framework. Rather than indicating something broad or all-encompassing in a conventional sense, "general" refers to the foundational, underlying principles of language—principles that must be understood to reform linguistic theory and practice. For Saussure, engaging with these "general" questions was necessary for the advancement of the field, even if it was not where his personal interests or passions lay.

Identifying and Defining the Object of Study in "General Linguistics"

Saussure's dissatisfaction with the linguistic science and terminology of his time, as expressed in his correspondence, clearly informs the questions and arguments he raises in his Course in General Linguistics. His frustration with the inadequacies and contradictions in prevailing linguistic approaches drove him to redefine and reorient the entire field. Saussure aimed to create a more coherent and systematic framework for understanding language, moving away from the fragmented and conflicting perspectives that dominated the field.

In Chapter 3 of the Course, he grapples with a fundamental problem: What is the actual object of study in linguistics? This question echoes his earlier concerns about the lack of clarity and consistency in the field's terminology and theoretical foundations. Unlike other sciences where objects of study are clearly defined and pre-existing, linguistics lacks a single, pre-defined object. Instead, the object of study is created by the viewpoint adopted by the linguist. This realization leads to a complex situation where multiple perspectives on the same linguistic phenomenon can result in different objects of study, none of which can claim inherent superiority.

His exploration of these different perspectives—whether focusing on a word's sound, meaning, historical derivation, or social use—highlights the fragmented nature of linguistic inquiry. He identifies several dualities inherent in the study of language, such as the auditory and articulatory aspects of sound, the relationship between sound and meaning, the individual and social aspects of language, and the system versus its historical evolution. These dualities make it challenging to define a single, unified object of study in linguistics, leading to a potential "muddle of disparate, unconnected things."

The Quest for Resolution and Adequate Terminology

Saussure’s frustration with the state of linguistics and its terminology—previously expressed in his private letters—finds resolution in his proposal to focus on "linguistic structure" (la langue) as the primary object of study. He suggests that this focus can bring order to an otherwise chaotic and fragmented field. By emphasizing linguistic structure, Saussure introduces a way to classify and understand language that avoids the pitfalls of previous approaches, which often borrowed methods from psychology, anthropology, prescriptive grammar, or philology—fields that, while related, do not adequately address the specific needs of linguistic science.

Linguistic structure (la langue), as he defines it, is not simply synonymous with language (le langage), though it is a critical component. By giving la langue "pride of place" among the facts of language, Saussure seeks to introduce a "natural order" into the study of language, providing a clear, independently definable object of study to guide linguistic inquiry.

The Specific Meaning of "General" in Saussure's Framework

In Saussure's work, the term "general" in "General Linguistics" carries a specific and nuanced meaning, distinct from its broader, dictionary definition. Rather than implying something all-encompassing, "general" in this context refers to the foundational, structural aspects of language that underlie its various manifestations. His emphasis on linguistic structure reflects his effort to identify a unifying principle in the study of language, bringing coherence to the previously fragmented and contradictory perspectives that dominated the field.

When he initiated his course in "General Linguistics," his goal was to "introduce a natural order into an aggregate which lends itself to no other classification." He did not intend to address all aspects of the heterogeneous phenomenon of language (le langage). As explained in Chapter 5 of the Course, titled "Internal and External Elements of a Language," General Linguistics focuses solely on the structural aspects of language as a system, deliberately excluding what he terms "external linguistics." While Saussure acknowledges that "external linguistics" deals with important matters that deserve attention in the study of language, these are outside the scope of General Linguistics. Writing, for instance, falls into the category of "external linguistics" and is therefore not addressed within General Linguistics.

Saussure's distinction between Internal and External Elements of a Language, if overlooked, can lead to questions like those posed by Derrida in Of Grammatology: "Why does a project of general linguistics, concerning the internal system in general of language in general, outline the limits of its field by excluding, as exteriority in general, a particular system of writing, however important it might be, even were it to be in fact universal?" (O.G., p. 39).

This question sets the stage for a further exploration of Derrida's criticism of Saussure, particularly regarding the exclusion of "writing" from "General Linguistics." Derrida wrote in this respect: "it is indeed within a sort of intralinguistic leper colony that Saussure wants to contain and concentrate the problem of deformations through writing" (O.G., p. 42). This critique will be the focus of the next article, where we will delve deeper into Derrida's challenge to Saussure's framework:

- Challenging the 'General': The Debate Over Writing in 'General'  Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_13.html

Conclusion

Saussure's concept of "general" in General Linguistics is far from a broad, all-encompassing term; it specifically refers to the foundational structures of language that underpin its various forms. This focused definition leads to a deliberate exclusion of "external" elements, such as writing, from his analysis, a decision that has drawn significant criticism from later scholars like Derrida. By recognizing the specificity of Saussure's use of the term "general," we can better understand both the strengths and limitations of his linguistic theory. This understanding also provides a clearer context for Derrida's critique, which challenges the boundaries Saussure set for linguistic inquiry, opening up new avenues for exploring the relationship between language and writing.

Related Post

Exploring the Interplay of External and Internal Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_26.html

Two Roads Diverged in Linguistics: He Took the Less Traveled By

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_29.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. Revue de linguistique générale. Comité de rédaction: André Burger, secrétaire; Robert Godel, trésorier; Edmond Sollberger. Genève: Librairie Droz S. A., 1964. Accessed August 11, 2024. https://www.cercleferdinanddesaussure.org/CFS/Volume_21_1964.pdf.

Ferdinand de Saussure. Ecrits de linguistique générale, edited by Simon Bouquet and Rudolf Engler, Gallimard, 2002.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

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.