Saussure’s Effort to Capture Proteus: The Pursuit of Linguistic Precision

Language is a field which is complex, protean and heterogeneous in its various facets. Constantin’s Notebook VII 66a

Introduction

Émile Benveniste, in his article Saussure after Half a Century (Benveniste 1966/1971), describes Saussure's arrival in Paris, where he was warmly welcomed at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes. There, he quickly attracted disciples who were captivated and inspired by his ideas. He was soon appointed assistant secretary at the Societe de Linguistique, and everything seemed to suggest that he had a successful career ahead. However, his productivity soon declined. He wrote fewer and fewer articles, mainly to fulfill requests from friends. 

When he returned to Geneva to take up a university chair, he eventually stopped writing altogether. The primary reason for his withdrawal from publishing, writes Benveniste, was a deep mental struggle. As Saussure developed his own ideas, which increasingly departed from traditional linguistic theories, he became more confident in his unique perspective on language, which led him to distance himself from the established linguistic teachings of his time. He found that his evolving theories fundamentally challenged the prevailing views, causing him to feel more and more detached from the academic community. This intellectual isolation contributed to his reluctance to publish, as he struggled with the inadequacy of current terminology and the need to reform it.

His internal conflict and frequent discouragement are evident in a letter to Meillet, dated January 4, 1894. In it, Saussure reveals that the inadequacy of current terminology and the necessity to reform it continually disrupted his enjoyment in writing and publishing:

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.

In spite of myself, this will result in a book, in which I shall, without enthusiasm or passion, explain why there is not a single term used in linguistics to which I grant any meaning whatsoever. And I confess that it is not until after that that I shall be able to take up my work at the point at which I left it.

In this article, we will examine passages from Constantin’s notebooks and the Course in General Linguistics that illustrate Saussure’s dissatisfaction with the linguistic terminology of his time. We will explore his efforts to uncover the true nature of language, much like the challenge of catching the elusive Proteus—a figure known for his ability to change shape and escape capture. Saussure’s pursuit, though difficult, reflects his relentless quest for clarity in linguistics.

A Brief Consideration of the Protean Nature of Language

Ferdinand de Saussure expressed considerable frustration with the linguistic terminology of his time. His struggle to find precise terms for linguistic phenomena reflects the inherently fluid and multifaceted nature of language. This complexity is captured in the following quote about the challenges of defining terms like "word," "term," "value," and "meaning":

"Any term we choose (sign, term, word, etc.) will become slippery and risk designating only one of the parts. Probably there isn't one to be found. As soon as any term in a language is applied to a notion of value, it is impossible to know whether we are on one side of the divide or the other or both at the same time. Hence very difficult to find a word unambiguously designating the association signifié/signifiant." (Constantin’s Notebook VIII, 93a)

Saussure’s frustration highlights the ambiguity in terms such as "sign," "term," and "word," which are often used interchangeably to refer to either the concept or the sound image. This ambiguity complicates the task of capturing the dual nature of linguistic signs—the signifier and the signified. As a result, it is challenging to find a term that clearly distinguishes between these components or the relationship between them.

To address this issue, Saussure suggests a terminological change to reduce confusion. He proposes retaining the term "sign" for the whole while replacing "concept" and "sound pattern" with "signification"(signifié) and "signal" (signifiant),  respectively. These new terms better reflect the distinctions between each element and their relationships within the whole:

The ambiguity would be removed if the three notions in question were designated by terms which are related but contrast. We propose to keep the term sign to designate the whole, but to replace concept and sound pattern respectively by signification and signal. The latter terms have the advantage of indicating the distinction which separates each from the other and both from the whole of which they are part. We retain the term sign, because current usage suggests no alternative by which it might be replaced. [CGL] [99-100].

We would like to note in passing that the first sentence of the quote above succinctly encapsulates Saussure’s modus operandi, explicitly illustrating how language functions based on relation and opposition.

Internal duality of Language: Synchronic and Diachronic Linguistics

Similar to his frustration with the terminology related to the linguistic sign, Saussure also expresses dissatisfaction with the terms used by philologists of his time to refer to historical linguistics.

He argues that language is a system of pure values determined solely by the temporary state of its constituent elements:

For a language is a system of pure values, determined by nothing else apart from the temporary state of its constituent elements. [CGL] [116-117].

Due to its complex and rigorously organized nature, Saussure believes that language must be studied through two distinct axes:

1.      Axis of Simultaneity: This axis deals with the relationships between elements that exist simultaneously, without considering the passage of time. It focuses on how elements interact with each other at a given point in time.

2.      Axis of Succession: This axis considers changes over time, examining how elements evolve and transform sequentially. It looks at the historical progression of these elements.

He points out that the terminology available to describe these two dimensions is inadequate. Terms like "history" and "historical linguistics" are too vague because they imply a focus on the chronological sequence of events rather than on the distinct nature of the linguistic system at different points in time:

The terms available are not all equally appropriate to indicate the distinction in question. ‘History’ and ‘historical linguistics’ cannot be used, for the ideas associated with them are too vague. [CGL] [116-117].

To address this issue, Saussure proposes distinguishing between two fields of study and using more precise terminology. But what should these fields be called?

That is why we must distinguish two branches of linguistics. What should they be called? …in order to mark this contrast more effectively, and the intersection of two orders of phenomena relating to the same object of study, we shall speak for preference of synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics. [CGL] [116-117].

·         Diachronic Linguistics: This term refers to the study of language through time, focusing on changes and evolution. It emphasizes the temporal axis and how linguistic states transition from one to another.

·         Synchronic Linguistics: This term refers to the study of language at a particular point in time, focusing on the static relationships and structures within the system. It highlights the axis of simultaneity.

By introducing these terms, Saussure aims to clearly distinguish between the study of linguistic states (synchronic) and the study of linguistic changes over time (diachronic). This distinction allows for a more precise and effective analysis of language, addressing the limitations of existing terminology.

Conclusion

Saussure’s challenges with linguistic terminology highlight the profound impact of his innovative theories on the study of language. His dissatisfaction with the existing terminology used to address the linguistic sign revealed his recognition of language as a dynamic and intricate system, far beyond mere nomenclature.

Saussure's concept of language as a system of "pure values" necessitated a distinction between synchronic and diachronic perspectives. By introducing these terms, he provided a clearer framework for analyzing language—synchronic focusing on static structures at a given time, and diachronic addressing changes over time. This dual approach was essential for capturing the full complexity of linguistic phenomena, emphasizing the interplay between stability and change.

Despite his internal struggles and isolation from the academic community, Saussure's efforts to reform terminology underscored his dedication to refining linguistic analysis. His work laid the groundwork for modern linguistic theory and offered a more precise understanding of language's complex nature.

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

Related Post:

Saussure on Terms, Values, Words and Meanings: Insights from Constantin's Notebooks

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/07/blog-post_24.html

Bibliography

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

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