A More Complex Saussure: Beyond Mere Binaries

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure is often regarded as a master of making clear-cut distinctions in linguistic theory—such as langue vs. parole, signifier vs. signified, syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic relations, and synchronic vs. diachronic analysis. These binaries, as handed down to us through secondary literature, have been central to his influence on structuralism and modern linguistics, shaping our understanding of language as a systematic structure.

However, focusing solely on these dualities can lead to an oversimplified view of his ideas. A closer look at his discussion on the invariability and variability of the sign reveals a more nuanced perspective, where stability and change are not at odds but are intertwined. He suggests that signs evolve precisely because they endure over time, demonstrating that continuity enables transformation. This deeper integration of opposites challenges the view of Saussure as a rigid thinker bound to strict categories. The insights discussed here draw from Course in General Linguistics, a text that continues to shape our understanding of language and offers a perspective that extends beyond simple oppositions.

Saussure and the Legacy of Dichotomies

Saussure’s work is often defined by a series of dichotomies, such as langue vs. parole (the contrast between the system and individual speech acts), signifier vs. signified, which distinguishes the two elements of the linguistic sign; syntagmatic vs. associative relations, referring to relations in praesentia (present in a sequence) and in absentia (relations to other absent elements); and synchronic vs. diachronic analysis, which separates the study of language as a stable system from its historical evolution.

These distinctions have had a lasting impact on linguistic theory, guiding the shift toward structuralism by emphasizing language as a systematic structure rather than merely a collection of historical changes. However, this focus on binaries has also led to an oversimplified view of his ideas. Scholars like Jonathan Culler (Saussure, 1976) have argued that these dichotomies can make Saussure appear overly rigid, concentrating solely on fixed structures rather than the dynamic processes that shape language. Yet a closer reading reveals a more intricate perspective: Saussure acknowledges the interplay between continuity and change, challenging a purely binary interpretation of his work.

Invariability and Variability of the Sign

Saussure’s concepts of immutabilité (invariability) and mutabilité (variability) describe the dual nature of linguistic signs. Invariability refers to the stability of signs within a language system, where relationships between signifiers and signifieds are inherited from previous generations. Variability, on the other hand, acknowledges that they gradually alter over time. He notes that “variability and invariability are both, in a certain sense, characteristic of the linguistic sign,” emphasizing that stability and change coexist in the system. This idea moves beyond a simple opposition between the two. He views these qualities as interdependent: signs change precisely because they endure, and change arises from continuity. He explains that “the principle of change is based upon the principle of continuity.”

For instance, the Latin necāre, meaning 'to kill,' evolved into the French noyer, meaning 'to drown.' While modern speakers may not perceive the historical connection between these terms, this shift illustrates 'a displacement in the relationship between signifier and signified,' showing how both sound and meaning can transform while still retaining a link to their origins. Similarly, the evolution of Old English fōt (foot) to fēt (feet) demonstrates how phonetic transformations have altered the plural form, even as the core concept remains recognizable.

These examples highlight the contrast between evolving relationships and Saussure’s well-known binaries, showcasing how languages metamorphose from their inherited forms. His framework illustrates that linguistic signs are shaped by both their historical continuity and their capacity for transformation, providing a nuanced view of how languages balance stability and evolution.

A Closer Look at "the Displacement in the Relationship between Signifier and Signified"

The phrase “a shift in the relationship between signifier and signified” (un déplacement du rapport entre le signifié et le signifiant) is central to understanding Saussure’s views on linguistic evolution. This shift illustrates how the linguistic system evolves while maintaining continuity, emphasizing that signs do not change arbitrarily but rather within a framework established by their historical usage. By examining this relationship, we see that the evolution of language incorporates both variability and invariability, allowing for gradual modifications that retain a connection to the past.

Let’s return to the examples discussed previously: the transformation of necāre to noyer and the evolution of Old English fōt to fēt. These examples effectively bridge the synchronic and diachronic aspects of language. The diachronic perspective highlights the historical transformations in linguistic structure over time, while the synchronic view focuses on the structural relationships within a linguistic system at a specific moment. The transformation of necāre to noyer reflects not only a historical evolution but also influences how French functions today, where the meaning associated with “to drown” persists in the collective understanding of speakers. Similarly, the evolution from fōt to fēt illustrates that, even as sounds and forms alter, the underlying concept of plurality remains intact, reflecting how linguistic changes occur within the broader principles of number and structure. Thus, Saussure’s linguistics emphasizes the dynamic interplay between continuity and change within the linguistic system.

Implications for Understanding Saussure as a Theorist

Saussure’s treatment of immutabilité (invariability) and mutabilité (variability) presents a more nuanced comprehension of his work than the conventional view suggests, which often depicts him solely as a proponent of rigid distinctions. By examining how these two characteristics coexist, we gain valuable insight into the complexities of speech that transcend simplistic binary classifications. This perspective enriches contemporary linguistic theory by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the interplay of opposites, leading to more holistic approaches in linguistics.

Moreover, the applications of Saussure’s ideas extend far beyond linguistics into fields such as semiotics, social sciences, and philosophy. For example, understanding the balance of stability and change in linguistic signs can significantly inform studies of cultural change and societal norms. This interplay between established conventions and evolving meanings reflects the dynamic forces at work within societies.

Embracing this complexity allows researchers to develop integrated frameworks that consider how systems function in tandem with tradition and transformation. In doing so, we enhance our understanding of human communication and interaction, ultimately recognizing that the study of language is deeply intertwined with the study of culture itself.

Conclusion

This exploration of immutabilité and mutabilité reveals a more complex Saussure, one who perceives language as a dynamic balance between stability and evolution. Rather than confining his insights to rigid dichotomies, Saussure illustrates how the interplay between invariability and variability shapes both linguistic meaning and structure. This nuanced understanding enriches our appreciation of his contributions and underscores the foundation he provides for a more comprehensive exploration of language that encompasses both historical and contemporary dimensions.

Saussure's legacy invites us to embrace complexity and rethink our approaches to linguistic theory and beyond. His integration of opposites reminds us to seek connections rather than distinctions, encouraging scholars to examine the interplay of various factors within any system. In today's discussions about modes of expression, particularly regarding the impact of digital communication and the rapid evolution of internet slang, Saussure’s insights offer valuable frameworks for understanding how new forms of expression challenge traditional linguistic boundaries.

Ultimately, rethinking Saussure matters today because it equips us to better navigate the complexities of contemporary language use, fostering a richer and more inclusive awareness of human communication in an ever-changing world.

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.

Culler, Jonathan. 1976. SAUSSURE. Fontana/Collins.