- Saussure's Distinction between Linguistic, Legal, and Natural Laws: Philosophical Implications

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics is a cornerstone of modern linguistics, particularly for its distinction between synchronic and diachronic approaches. Synchronic linguistics examines the structure of a language at a specific point in time, while diachronic linguistics studies how it evolves over time. Saussure’s analysis includes a nuanced discussion of "laws" in language, contrasting these with principles in the legal and natural sciences—a topic we first introduced in the previous piece titled “Beyond the Law: Saussure’s Temporal Perspective on Language and Meaning.”

This article delves deeper into this issue, arguing that linguistic laws resist straightforward categorization in the traditional legal or scientific sense.

Linguistic Laws and Their Nature

Synchronic laws describe how elements within a language interact at a specific moment in time, highlighting consistent patterns without imposing rigid rules. They are general in nature but not imperative. For example, the rule in Latin stating that stress never falls before the antepenultimate syllable reflects a synchronic uniformity. These norms are descriptive, capturing the equilibrium of a structure at a given time.

Diachronic laws, in contrast, account for historical shifts, such as shifts in pronunciation or meaning over time. They describe transformations like the change in Old English, where the initial "hw" sound evolved into "wh" in Middle English, as seen in the evolution of "hwæt" to "what." Unlike synchronic laws, diachronic laws are often considered imperative because they represent changes that a language undergoes as it evolves. However, they lack generality, being specific to particular historical and geographical contexts.

Comparing Linguistic Laws with Legal and Scientific Laws

Saussure distinguishes between linguistic laws and those found in legal and scientific domains. Legal laws are both general and imperative within a given territory; they are socially enforced rules that demand compliance from community members, governing behavior uniformly within a society, making them binding and prescriptive.

Scientific laws, like those in physics, are understood as universal and necessary principles that apply across all instances, such as the law of gravity, which holds true regardless of time or place. These rules describe consistent relationships in nature, offering explanations that are timeless and unchanging.

In contrast, Saussure introduces the concept of synchronic and diachronic laws in linguistics, each describing different aspects of its object of study. Synchronic laws focus on relations and patterns within a language at a specific point in time, capturing the regularities of how it functions naturally among speakers. These patterns are descriptive rather than prescriptive; they highlight consistent usage within a linguistic system without requiring adherence in the manner of legal laws.

Diachronic laws, on the other hand, describe changes over time. While such developments can appear systematic—like shifts in pronunciation or grammar—they do not have the universality of scientific laws. Instead, they are specific to particular historical and geographical contexts, reflecting how languages evolve differently across time and space. These transitions are imperative in the sense that they represent natural shifts as it adapts, but they lack the general applicability of scientific principles.

Saussure's comparisons emphasize that linguistic laws differ fundamentally from both legal and scientific laws. Linguistic laws are shaped by the unique nature of language as a dynamic and socially influenced institution. They describe regularities and patterns in its use but are neither prescriptive like legal rules nor universally constant like scientific laws. Instead, they capture the evolving and context-dependent nature of the phenomenon.

The Question of Panchronic Laws

Saussure explores the idea of panchronic laws—universal principles that might govern linguistic phenomena across all languages and time periods. Such laws would imply the existence of consistent structural patterns, irrespective of historical or cultural context. However, he expresses skepticism about this approach, arguing that even broad linguistic trends, such as common phonetic shifts, are inherently tied to specific historical and social contexts.

For example, the evolution of causa in Latin into chose in French is shaped by unique linguistic and cultural conditions specific to the historical development of French. This transformation cannot be generalized as a universal rule applicable to all languages. Each change, though part of a larger trend, is bound to a particular time and place, making it impossible to extract a single, timeless principle that would apply universally.

While Saussure acknowledges that certain overarching tendencies might be observed—such as the inevitability of phonetic changes in languages over time—he emphasizes that linguistic laws are always shaped by their specific contexts. This limits the usefulness of a purely panchronic perspective, as it fails to account for the variability and particularity inherent in the evolution of individual tongues.

Implications for Linguistic Theory

Saussure’s distinctions between synchronic and diachronic laws have reshaped our comprehension of language as a dynamic, socially influenced phenomenon. Unlike laws in legal or scientific domains, linguistic patterns are fluid, reflecting the inherent variability and context-dependence of human communication. This perspective has significantly influenced the methodology of linguistic studies, advocating for a balance between the synchronic analysis—examining their structure at specific moments—and diachronic exploration of how languages evolve over time.

His insights paved the way for structuralism, shifting the focus of linguistics from purely historical studies to an examination of the interrelated elements that structure language as a system. This shift marked a departure from traditional philology, which emphasized the evolution of languages, to a focus on how its elements form an interconnected network. The emphasis on analyzing language as a structured system of signs profoundly influenced 20th-century linguistic thought, impacting not only linguistics but also fields such as anthropology, semiotics, and literary theory.

Beyond linguistics, Saussure’s analysis raises important philosophical questions about order and change in social systems, challenging the applicability of models from natural sciences to linguistics. While natural sciences often seek universal laws that apply across all contexts, Saussure’s approach suggests that language’s variability resists such straightforward categorization. His work encourages a more nuanced understanding of language’s complexity, showing that the models of regularity used in other fields cannot fully account for the unique, context-bound characteristics of linguistic phenomena. This insight has led to a broader recognition of the need to approach social and cultural events on their own terms, respecting their specificity and historical particularities.

Conclusion

Saussure's analysis in Course in General Linguistics clarifies the distinction between synchronic and diachronic laws, emphasizing that the former describe consistencies within a system at a specific moment, while the latter trace transformations over time. Unlike legal laws, which enforce rules, or scientific laws, which assert universal consistency, linguistic laws are shaped by context and the evolving nature of human mode of expression.

Saussure’s work fundamentally shifted linguistic inquiry, moving from tracing historical changes to examining the internal relationships that define speech. This shift laid the foundation for structuralism and has shaped generations of linguistic thought, offering a framework that acknowledges the variability and social dynamics of language. His distinctions continue to provide valuable insights for both linguists and philosophers, helping us understand language as a uniquely human system that blends stability with evolution, resisting simple classification.

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, 2005.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 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]. Translated by Roy Harris. University of Oxford, 1993.