Misunderstanding Saussure's Linguistics: Its Impact on Scientific Inquiry

Introduction

This article delves into Ferdinand de Saussure's critical distinctions between linguistics and the natural sciences, expanding upon insights from his seminal work, Course in General Linguistics. These contrasts remain relevant today, particularly because Saussure’s ideas have often been misinterpreted and misapplied in broader discussions about the nature of knowledge. While he emphasized the context-dependent and socially constructed character of linguistic laws, some 20th-century thinkers have misused his concepts to challenge the universality and stability of scientific laws. This article argues that such misinterpretations misrepresent his original intent and result in destabilizing claims about empirical inquiry, undermining the foundational principles of the natural sciences. Clarifying Saussure’s differentiations allows for a deeper appreciation of the unique quality of linguistic study and the integrity of systematic methodologies.

Saussure’s Distinction Between Linguistics and Natural Sciences

Ferdinand de Saussure revolutionized linguistic theory by distinguishing between linguistic analysis and natural science methodologies. He observed that in linguistics, “the object is not given in advance of the viewpoint”—the subject matter is shaped by the observer’s perspective, unlike in fields like geology or astronomy, where objects such as rocks or stars remain stable and clearly defined. This insight underscores the inherently interpretative nature of linguistic phenomena, setting linguistics apart from fields with more tangible subjects.

Central to his stance is his division between synchronic and diachronic approaches. Synchronic linguistics examines a language at a specific moment, focusing on the relationships among its elements as a structured system. In contrast, diachronic linguistics explores how speech evolves over time, tracing historical shifts in pronunciation, meaning, and structure. Unlike disciplines such as geology or astronomy, which do not require separate methods for studying static versus dynamic states, linguistics must adopt both perspectives to fully understand language's complexity. This dual focus captures the inherent temporality of linguistic systems, as synchronic analysis underscores internal structures, while diachronic analysis addresses historical transformations.

For example, Saussure illustrates synchronic relationships through the French word chose ('thing'), which is understood in relation to other contemporary terms like objet ('object') or truc ('thingamajig'). Diachronically, chose originates from the Latin word causa, but this historical link reflects two distinct linguistic systems—Latin and French—rather than a single, coherent structure. Such distinctions underscore the necessity of both synchronic and diachronic analysis in comprehending the distinctive nature of linguistic change.

20th-Century Interpretations of Saussure’s Ideas

The rise of structuralism in the 20th century brought new interpretations of Saussure’s insights. Thinkers like Claude Lévi-Strauss applied Saussure’s concepts to broader cultural and social structures, suggesting that underlying systems govern human behavior. However, this approach sometimes extended his ideas beyond their original linguistic context, leading to overly generalized conclusions about culture.

Poststructuralist thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, further adapted Saussure’s ideas, advocating for a radical relativism that questioned the stability of all knowledge, including scientific inquiry. They argued that if meaning in language is unstable, then the truths established by the sciences must also be contingent. This viewpoint challenged the legitimacy of objective laws, suggesting that, like linguistic laws, they are situational and socially constructed.

However, this interpretation diverges from Saussure’s original intent. While he acknowledged the variability and context-dependence of linguistic phenomena, he did not suggest that reality itself is contingent upon language. He maintained that an external world exists independently of linguistic signs, as illustrated in his discussion of the “Object Outside the Subject:”

There is indeed an object which is outside the subject, and the name, but one does not know whether it is vocal or mental: <(arbos can be taken in these two different senses)>. The link between the two is not at all clear. Constantine's Notebook VII 75a

He acknowledged that a physical entity—such as a tree—exists outside of its linguistic label, even if our understanding of it is mediated through language. This position contrasts with the poststructuralist claim that language entirely constructs the object, showing that Saussure did not support radical relativism.

Consequences of Misinterpretation

The misinterpretation of Saussure’s ideas has had significant implications for systematic research, fostering skepticism about the objectivity and reliability of scientific methods. By conflating linguistic and physical laws, some thinkers have undermined the empirical foundation of the natural sciences, suggesting that scientific knowledge is merely another socially constructed discourse. This skepticism has contributed to a broader narrative that questions the validity of evidence-based findings, especially in critical fields like climate science and medicine.

Academically, these distortions have widened the gap between the humanities and sciences, leading to a dilution of scientific rigor in favor of relativistic frameworks that prioritize social constructs over empirical evidence. This has also affected public trust in science, as audiences struggle with conflicting narratives about knowledge. Such confusion can hinder efforts to address global challenges that require a clear understanding of knowledge-based principles.

Reasserting Saussure’s Original Distinctions

To reassert Saussure's original demarcations, it is crucial to clarify his intentions and the nuances of his arguments. He emphasized that linguistic events are contingent, shaped by social conventions and cultural frameworks, but he did not intend for his ideas to undermine the empirical foundations of the natural sciences. Instead, he highlighted the unique characteristics of linguistic laws, which reflect a dynamic, evolving social system. He pointed out, “A language thus has this curious and striking feature. It has no immediately perceptible entities. And yet one cannot doubt that they exist, or that the interplay of these units is what constitutes linguistic structure” (CGL [149]). This complexity in defining linguistic units contrasts with the study of more tangible entities in fields like physics or chemistry.

By emphasizing Saussure’s acknowledgment of an external object, we can counter the poststructuralist misinterpretations that extend linguistic relativism to analytical domains. His distinction between language as a system of signs and the materiality that exists outside this system preserves the integrity of scientific investigation, reminding us that linguistic theories should not be used to deny the reality that exact methods seek to understand.

Conclusion

Saussure’s distinctions between linguistics and the natural sciences accentuate the context-dependent nature of linguistic laws compared to the universal principles of scientific inquiry. His focus on synchronic and diachronic perspectives highlights the social construction of language, which contrasts sharply with the objective, invariant constitution of objective laws. Misrepresentations of his ideas have led to unwarranted skepticism toward well-organized methods, undermining the empirical rigor essential for scientific progress.

Understanding Saussure’s true intentions allows us to preserve the integrity of both linguistic and scientific studies. By recognizing the unique features of each discipline, we can enrich our understanding of language while supporting the foundational principles that sustain the sciences. A careful reading of Saussure thus helps maintain clarity in the study of both language and science, affirming the validity of their distinct methodologies and ensuring a balanced approach to knowledge.

Related Posts

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

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/10/blog-post_20.html

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

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/10/blog-post_24.html

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

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. Originally published in 1967.

Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Pantheon Books, 1970. Originally published in French as Les Mots et les choses in 1966.