Jakobson’s Misreading of Saussure: Semiotics, Sémiologie, and Phonology

“As modern structural thought has clearly realized, language is a system of signs and linguistics is part and parcel of the science of signs, or semiotics (Saussure's semiologie). The mediaeval definition of sign-"aliquid stat pro aliquo" has been resurrected and put forward as still valid and productive. Thus the con stitutive mark of any sign in general and of any linguistic sign in particular is its twofold character: every linguistic unit is bipartite and involves both aspects -one sensible and the other intelligible, or in other words, both the signans "signifier" (Saussure's signifiant) and the signatum "signified" (signifie) . These two constituents of a linguistic sign (and of sign in general) necessarily suppose and require each other”. (Jakobson 1963: 162)

(This passage was cited by Derrida in Of Grammatology—Part One, section The Signifier and Truth—in the context of his criticism of Saussurean linguistics, where he argues that Saussure’s model remains entangled in the logocentric tradition).

Introduction

Roman Jakobson’s essay, The Phonemic and Grammatical Aspects of Language in their Interrelations, first presented at the Sixth International Congress of Linguists in Paris in 1948, is a seminal contribution to structural linguistics. Later incorporated into his Essais de linguistique générale (1963), the essay examines the interplay between phonemic and grammatical structures in language. However, in his discussion of linguistic signs, Jakobson appears to conflate distinct theoretical frameworks—Saussurean sémiologie, Peircean semiotics, and medieval theories of the sign. His assertion that “linguistics is part and parcel of the science of signs, or semiotics (Saussure's sémiologie),” collapses critical distinctions between these models. This article critically examines Jakobson’s conflation of semiotics and sémiologie, his misrepresentation of Saussure’s bipartite linguistic sign, and his questionable assertion regarding the necessary interdependence of signifier and signified within different sign typologies. Ultimately, it will be argued that Jakobson’s motivation for these theoretical conflations may stem from his own phonological theory, which diverges significantly from Saussure’s relational model of phonemes.

The Conflation of Semiotics and Sémiologie

Jakobson’s treatment of Saussure’s sémiologie as synonymous with Peirce’s semiotics is problematic: “linguistics is part and parcel of the science of signs, or semiotics (Saussure's sémiologie).” Saussure conceptualized sémiologie as the study of language as a self-contained system of differences, explicitly rejecting any necessary link between linguistic signs and objects in the external world. In contrast, Peirce’s semiotics distinguishes between three types of signs: icons, indices, and symbols. Icons maintain a resemblance to their objects, indices bear a causal or physical connection, and symbols operate through conventional or habitual associations.

By collapsing these frameworks, Jakobson obscures a fundamental difference: Saussure’s model is internalist, considering signs only within the structure of language, while Peirce’s typology introduces an external referential dimension, particularly in the case of icons and indices. Saussure explicitly warns against conflating linguistic signs with referential theories: “A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern” (Course in General Linguistics). Unlike Peirce, whose semiotic theory accounts for signs that function independently of linguistic convention (e.g., icons, like photographs representing a person or indices like smoke signifying fire), Saussure’s linguistic sign is entirely a product of differential and systemic relations. Jakobson’s assertion that “the medieval definition of sign—aliquid stat pro aliquo—has been resurrected and put forward as still valid and productive” further demonstrates his inclination to impose a referentialist framework onto Saussure’s linguistic model, a move that is theoretically unwarranted.

The Misinterpretation of the Saussurean Linguistic Sign

Jakobson’s reading of Saussure’s linguistic sign also introduces significant distortions. He claims that “every linguistic unit is bipartite and involves both aspects—one sensible and the other intelligible.” This characterization misrepresents Saussure’s view by implying a material vs. conceptual dichotomy akin to medieval or Peircean models. In Saussure’s system, the signifier (signifiant) is not a physical sound but a psychological impression of sound, just as the signified (signifié) is a mental concept. As Saussure clarifies: “A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is not actually a sound; for a sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer’s psychological impression of a sound, as given to him by the evidence of his senses. This sound pattern may be called a ‘material’ element only in that it is the representation of our sensory impressions. The sound pattern may thus be distinguished from the other element associated with it in a linguistic sign. This other element is generally of a more abstract kind: the concept” (Course in General Linguistics).

Jakobson’s framing suggests that Saussure’s model revives the medieval doctrine of signans and signatum (…both the signans "signifier" (Saussure's signifiant) and the signatum "signified" (signifie)), yet this is misleading. The terms signans and signatum are rooted in medieval scholastic thought and imply a referential relationship that Saussure’s model explicitly excludes. Saussure’s linguistic sign is purely differential and relational, whereas Jakobson’s description implies an external grounding that aligns more closely with Peirce’s or medieval theories. This misreading erases a crucial aspect of Saussure’s linguistics: linguistic units are defined not by intrinsic properties but by their contrast with other elements in the system.

The Necessity Relation Between the Two Constituents of the Sign

Jakobson’s claim that the two components of the linguistic sign necessarily presuppose and require each other is another oversimplification that fails to account for the nuances of semiotic theories: “These two constituents of a linguistic sign (and of sign in general) necessarily suppose and require each other.” Within Saussure’s framework, the signifier and the signified are indeed inseparable, forming a dyadic relationship akin to the two sides of a coin. However, Jakobson overextends this principle beyond the confines of Saussurean linguistics, applying it indiscriminately to all signs, including those in Peirce’s typology, where such a necessary interdependence does not hold.

For instance, a photograph of a person may function as a sign (signifier) of that person, but the person’s existence (signified) is independent of the photograph. Likewise, smoke may signify fire, but fire does not depend necessarily on smoke. By conflating Saussure’s semiological model with a broader semiotic framework, Jakobson obscures the diversity of sign relations, particularly the fact that, in linguistic signs, the signifier and signified form an inseparable unity, whereas in other types of signs, such as icons, the relation is external, linking separate entities like a picture and the person it represents. His assertion, while valid within Saussurean linguistics, becomes misleading when generalized to semiotics as a whole.

Jakobson’s Phonological Commitments and His Departure from Saussure

One possible reason for Jakobson’s insistence on a referentialist approach to Saussurean theory lies in his phonological framework. Unlike Saussure, who viewed phonemes as relational entities defined by their differences within the system, Jakobson introduced the notion of distinctive features, which he saw as intrinsic, material properties of phonemes. As Saussure emphasizes, “Each language constructs its words out of some fixed number of phonetic units, each one clearly distinct from the others. What characterises those units is not, as might be thought, the specific positive properties of each; but simply the fact that they cannot be mistaken for one another. Speech sounds are first and foremost entities which are contrastive, relative and negative” (Course in General Linguistics 164-165).

Saussure’s view, often termed “substance-free” phonology (John Joseph, 2012), contrasts sharply with Jakobson’s approach, which presupposes a material basis for phonemes. Jakobson’s inclination toward material phonetics may have influenced his tendency to introduce a referent into Saussurean semiology, thus distorting its fundamental principles.

Conclusion

Jakobson’s treatment of Saussure’s sémiologie in his Essais de linguistique générale conflates theoretical distinctions that are central to the study of the linguistic sign. His equation of sémiologie with semiotics disregards Saussure’s insistence on language as a self-contained system of differences. Furthermore, his characterization of the linguistic sign as a division between “sensible” and “intelligible” elements imposes an alien framework onto Saussure’s model, which consists of purely psychological components. His assertion that the signifier and signified necessarily require each other is valid within Saussure’s theory but not within Peirce’s broader semiotics. Finally, Jakobson’s own phonological commitments may explain his attempt to ground linguistic signs in material properties, a move that directly contradicts Saussure’s relational approach to phonemes. Ultimately, Jakobson’s misconstrual of Saussure obscures the theoretical distinctions that define his linguistics and semiotics, resulting in a misleading synthesis of divergent models.

This misconception did not remain an isolated account but shaped subsequent critiques of Saussure, including Derrida’s deconstructive reading in Of Grammatology. In Part One, section The Signifier and Truth, Derrida cites this passage from Jakobson to argue that Saussure’s theory remains entangled in the logocentric tradition extending from antiquity through medieval scholasticism. Jakobson’s assertion that “the medieval definition of sign—aliquid stat pro aliquo—has been resurrected and put forward as still valid and productive” and that the terms signans and signatum, inherited from medieval thought, are direct equivalents of signifier and signified, provides the foundation for Derrida’s critique. By accepting Jakobson’s characterization, Derrida aligns Saussure with a metaphysical lineage that may not fully reflect the internal logic of his linguistic model. In our next article, we will examine how this interpretative chain—from Jakobson to Derrida—has shaped contemporary understandings of Saussure, and whether Derrida’s critique, rooted in Jakobson’s framing, accurately captures the stakes of Saussure’s point de vue.

Related Post

Émile Benveniste's Engagement with Saussurean Semiology and Peircean Semiotics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/06/blog-post_29.html

Bibliography

Jakobson, Roman. Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1963.

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

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

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

John E. Joseph. SAUSSURE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

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