- Beyond the Law: Saussure’s Temporal Perspective on Language and Meaning

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure's distinction between synchrony and diachrony, outlined in Course in General Linguistics, Part One, Chapter 3, fundamentally reshapes our understanding of how languages evolve and function. Saussure argued that time introduces unique challenges to its study, requiring two different approaches: synchrony, which examines language as a structured system at a given moment, and diachrony, which traces changes over a span.
Unlike other sciences, where time does not demand such a division, linguistics must navigate the dynamic nature of the network across different stages. This article explores how this temporal dimension shapes our perception of linguistic laws, leading to a conception that diverges from the rigid, universal character of laws in the legal or natural sciences. It aims to demonstrate that these principles, whether synchronic or diachronic, are inherently tied to time, reflecting the variable and evolving essence of language.

Time as a Defining Factor in Linguistics

The passage of time plays a crucial role in linguistics, setting it apart from other sciences like astronomy or geology. In linguistics, chronology affects how we analyze language, necessitating two distinct perspectives: synchrony and diachrony. The synchronic approach examines its structure as a complete framework at a specific moment, while the diachronic approach focuses on how it evolves and changes through various epochs. Unlike in astronomy, where time tracks the movement of celestial bodies without requiring separate methods, or geology, where historical sequences can be reconstructed but do not demand a split in perspective, linguistics must account for the dynamic nature of language. Time’s influence in linguistics means that studying the relationships within a system (synchrony) is fundamentally different from understanding how those relationships transform historically (diachrony), requiring an approach unique to this field of study.

Understanding Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives

Synchronic linguistics examines language as a structured system at a particular moment, emphasizing the interconnections among linguistic elements. It treats language as a network where the value of each term arises from its relationships with other coexisting elements. For instance, in modern French, the word chose (‘thing’) is understood through its associations with other words like objet (‘object’) and truc (‘thingamajig’), all of which exist within the same linguistic framework.
Conversely, diachronic linguistics explores how speech evolves over time, focusing on the historical progression of words, sounds, and structures. This approach analyzes shifts across different periods, recognizing that elements from different eras do not form a coherent structure. For example, chose originates from Latin causa, but this relationship is diachronic because chose and causa represent distinct linguistic systems—French and Latin—that do not coexist. Thus, synchronic analysis emphasizes internal relationships, while diachronic analysis reveals the historical variations between linguistic elements.

Linguistic Laws: A Unique Conceptualization

Saussure’s notion of "linguistic laws" refers to the regularities observed within linguistic systems, fundamentally differing from laws in legal contexts and the natural sciences. Legal laws are prescriptive, mandating compliance across all relevant situations; they aim to regulate societal behavior consistently. In contrast, natural laws, such as those found in physics, are universal principles that hold true regardless of time or space—like the law of gravity or the laws of motion.
Linguistic principles, however, are intricately linked to the passage of time, necessitating a unique perspective. As previously mentioned, they can be categorized into two types: synchronic and diachronic. Synchronic laws outline patterns and consistencies within a language at a specific moment, concentrating on the relationships that create a stable network of terms. These laws describe how elements interact without imposing rules.
On the other hand, diachronic "laws" pertain to variations that occur across different periods, such as variations in pronunciation or meaning, which are not universally applicable. These changes are specific to historical contexts, functioning more as descriptions of events than fixed principles. Unlike the universal nature of natural laws, linguistic laws reflect the inherent variability and temporality of language, underscoring its dynamic and evolving character.

The Impossibility of a Panchronic Approach

A panchronic perspective attempts to study language independently of time, seeking universal principles that apply across all periods and contexts. However, Saussure rejects this view, arguing that concrete linguistic phenomena are always tied to specific times and places. It cannot be analyzed outside the temporal framework because each element gains its meaning through its place in a particular historical or synchronic system.
For example, while phonetic changes—such as shifts in pronunciation—may follow general trends, each transformation is unique to a certain period and linguistic environment. A sound modification might occur across different communities, but it will manifest differently depending on the language’s history and structure at that stage. This makes it impossible to study language change in a completely timeless manner. Thus, linguistic analysis depends on synchrony (studying an arrangement of units at a given moment) and diachrony (tracing shifts historically), reflecting the inherent temporality of linguistic structures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Saussure’s work highlights the central role of time and space in linguistic study, emphasizing the distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis. This temporal dimension leads to a unique understanding of linguistic laws, which are shaped by their context and cannot be universally applied as in the natural sciences. Unlike legal laws, which are prescriptive and demand compliance across various situations, language rules do not impose uniformity or consistency. They reflect the fluidity of speech and are inherently tied to the specific historical and cultural contexts in which they arise.
Moreover, unlike natural laws, which are universal and immutable—holding true across time and space—language principles are characterized by their variability and temporality. Saussure’s conceptualization of these regularities acknowledges that while patterns may emerge within a specific tongue at a particular moment, these patterns are subject to change and do not extend beyond their temporal and spatial contexts. Thus, comprehending linguistic laws necessitates an appreciation of the dynamic nature of linguistic systems, marking a significant departure from how they are conceived in legal and scientific disciplines. Saussure's insights encourage us to view language as a living, evolving entity shaped by the intricate interplay of time, culture, and human experience.

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