Saussure or de Saussure? A Synchronic Perspective on Name Treatment in Academic Writing

Introduction

The question of whether Ferdinand de Saussure should be referred to as Saussure or de Saussure in academic writing has sparked some debate. While this may seem like a minor editorial detail, it actually reflects broader issues of linguistic convention and cultural norms. Different languages have their own rules regarding name particles, leading to variations in how scholars cite historical figures.

Saussure’s own linguistic framework provides valuable insight into this discussion. His synchronic approach emphasizes language as a system shaped by current usage rather than fixed historical precedent. From this point of view, the way we handle personal references is not governed by an immutable law but by the prevailing norms of a particular linguistic community.

A useful parallel can be drawn with academic citation styles. Just as APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and AMA formats differ depending on institutional and national preferences, name treatment varies across linguistic communities. French, English, and German, for instance, each handle surname particles according to their own traditions.

Thus, the real issue is not whether one form is "correct" and another "wrong," but rather the assumption that a single rule applies universally. In this regard, precepts are inherently flexible, and their use depends on the linguistic and curricular context in which they appear.

The Saussurean Synchronic Approach to Language

To fully grasp why there is no definitive answer to the Saussure vs. de Saussure dilemma, it is essential to consider the linguistic perspective introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure himself. He distinguished between synchronic linguistics, which examines language as it functions at a particular moment, and diachronic linguistics, which studies historical evolution and changes over time.

A synchronic approach views speech as a living system shaped by contemporary usage. Words, meanings, and grammatical structures do not follow a timeless set of rules but instead reflect the conventions of a speech community at a given time. In contrast, a diachronic approach would trace the historical development of naming guidelines but would not necessarily dictate how references should be used in modern contexts.

Applying this to the current debate, the way his name is referenced in scholarly work is not an absolute truth but a matter of agreement that varies across borders and institutional practices. Just as the meaning of a word depends on how it is used in a given linguistic structure, the treatment of nominatios with particles is determined by contemporary norms rather than a fixed regulations imposed across time and space.

The Role of Academic and Cultural Conventions

Academic writing, much like language itself, operates within established conventions rather than rigid laws. Citation styles such as APA, MLA, and Chicago differ based on institutional and national standards, and similarly, designation treatment is shaped by cultural and linguistic traditions rather than a universal principle.

For instance, in French, surname particles like 'de' are often dropped when referring to the last name alone (e.g., Ferdinand de Saussure becomes Saussure), though in some cases, particularly with aristocratic titles, the particle is retained (e.g., de Tocqueville). English usage tends to be more flexible, with both Saussure and de Saussure appearing in scholarly works. In German, however, the particle "von" is typically preserved, so Ludwig von Mises remains Von Mises in scholarly references.

These variations are not errors but reflections of distinct linguistic systems. Just as different tongues have unique grammatical rules, they also follow specific standards for handling names. Expecting a uniform approach across all contexts ignores the inherent diversity in speech and pedagogic practice.

The Danger of Imposing a Single Norm

The true problem in this debate is not whether Saussure or de Saussure is the correct form but the tendency to impose one standard as universally valid. Attempts to enforce a single "proper" way of citing names overlook the fact that language is inherently diverse and shaped by social context.

Throughout history, linguistic prescriptivism has often led to unnecessary rigidity in both language and academia. For example, English grammarians of the 18th century sought to impose Latin-based rules on English, despite structural differences between the two systems. Similarly, intellectual gatekeeping sometimes enforces arbitrary standards that disregard cultural variation.

A prescriptive approach to identity treatment ignores the dynamic nature of language. If we accept that citation styles vary across disciplines and institutions, we should also acknowledge that name conventions are equally fluid. Rather than insisting on a single correct form, scholars should recognize that different traditions coexist, and each is valid within its own context.

Conclusion

Ultimately, there is no definitive rule on whether Ferdinand de Saussure should be cited as Saussure or de Saussure. The appropriate form depends on the linguistic and educational context in which the reference appears. French, English, and German practices all treat name particles differently, and these differences are not mistakes but reflections of distinct cultural norms.

Academic writing is not governed by absolute laws but by accepted conventions, much like citation styles vary across institutions and countries. The key is to be aware of these variations rather than assuming that one approach is inherently superior to others.

A Saussurean synchronic perspective allows us to see language as a dynamic model rather than a rigid set of commands. Just as words acquire meaning through their use in a particular speech community, name treatment is shaped by contemporary practice rather than a fixed historical standard. Instead of enforcing a single norm, scholars should embrace linguistic diversity and recognize that variation is an essential part of language and academia alike.

Bibliography

McMillan, Kate. Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students. Routledge, 2020.

University of Chicago Press. The Chicago Manual of Style. 17th ed., University of Chicago Press, 2017.

Trask, R. L. Mind the Gaffe: The Penguin Guide to Common Errors in English. Penguin, 2001.

Butcher, Judith, Caroline Drake, and Maureen Leach. Butcher’s Copy-Editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-Editors and Proofreaders. 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.