The Screen of the Word: Challenging the Self-Evidence of Linguistic Units

 Introduction

The notion of the "word" as a fundamental building block of language has long been taken for granted in linguistic thought. However, its status as a self-evident concept has been the subject of significant scrutiny. In Course in General Linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure challenges the traditional view that words are discrete entities with inherent meanings corresponding directly to objects in the world. Instead, he argues that linguistic units emerge from relational contrasts within a structured system rather than from pre-existing reference points. Building on Saussure’s critique, André Martinet, within a functionalist framework, further deconstructs the assumption that the word is a universal or natural unit of language. This article examines Saussure’s foundational arguments against the conventional notion of the word before exploring how Martinet refines and extends this critique through cross-linguistic analysis.

Saussure’s Critique of the Word as a Concrete Entity

Saussure begins his discussion by rejecting the nomenclaturist view, which assumes that language is merely a set of labels corresponding to objects in the world:

“For some people, a language, reduced to its essentials, is a nomenclature: a list of terms corresponding to a list of things. This conception is open to a number of objections” [CGL-97].

Instead, he argues that concrete units, including words, are not pre-existing entities that simply map to external objects. Rather, they emerge from systematic contrasts within the linguistic system:

“Words do not answer exactly to our definition of linguistic units” [CGL-158].

To illustrate the instability of the concept of the word, Saussure presents several examples that challenge its supposed self-evidence:

• Phonetic Variation: The French word mois (‘month’) does not have a fixed phonetic form. It appears as mwa in le mois de décembre and as mwaz in un mois après. If the word were a discrete, self-contained unit, we would expect phonetic consistency, yet it varies depending on phonetic context.
• Morphological Complexity: Words often consist of smaller meaningful elements. In désireux (‘desirous’) and malheureux (‘unfortunate’), the suffix -eux carries meaning independently of the stems désir- and malheur-, showing that words are not necessarily the smallest units of meaning.

Beyond these internal complexities, Saussure highlights the broader challenge of defining what constitutes a word:

• Words as Abstract Constructions: The singular cheval (‘horse’) and its plural chevaux (‘horses’) exhibit both phonetic and morphological differences. If treated as distinct words, their semantic connection is ignored; if treated as variations of the same word, their phonetic differences are overlooked.
• Units Larger than Words: Certain expressions, such as s’il vous plaît (‘if you please’) or il a été (‘he has been’), function as single conceptual units despite consisting of multiple words. Similarly, compound forms like porte-monnaie (‘wallet’) challenge a strict boundary between words and phrases.

Thus, for Saussure, the notion of the word as a fundamental unit of language is problematic, as linguistic reality does not align with this conventional segmentation.

The Paradox of Language as a System Without Self-Evident Units

Unlike in the natural sciences, where basic units—such as animals in zoology or celestial bodies in astronomy—are clearly identifiable, linguistics lacks immediately perceptible divisions. Saussure remarks:

“On further reflection, it becomes clear that what a word is usually taken to be does not correspond to our notion of a concrete unit” [CGL-147].

This fundamental issue makes linguistic analysis uniquely challenging. Language is composed of elements that are indispensable for meaning, yet their boundaries are not naturally given but determined within the system of linguistic contrasts. This paradox—that language functions as a structured system despite lacking self-evident units—sets it apart as a semiological system unlike any other.

Martinet’s Functionalist Extension of Saussure’s Critique

Martinet extends Saussure’s critique by demonstrating that the notion of the word is highly variable across languages and cannot serve as a universal basic atom. In his article The Word, he argues that different languages segment reality in fundamentally different ways, reinforcing Saussure’s claim that linguistic structure is an autonomous system rather than a natural taxonomy.

Martinet illustrates this point with cross-linguistic examples:

• The Boundaries of the Word in Different Languages: Languages vary in how they distinguish words from morphemes. In Chinese, a character like 手 (shǒu, ‘hand’) can function as an independent word but more commonly appears in compounds such as 手机 (shǒujī, ‘mobile phone’). Meanwhile, Latin employs extensive inflectional morphology that blurs the boundary between words and phrases.
• Possessive Constructions: The structure of possessives differs significantly across languages:
• English: John’s book (two words: John’s and book)
• French: le livre de Jean (four words: le, livre, de, Jean)
• Turkish: Ali’nin kitabı (‘Ali’s book’), where the possessive marker -in is attached to the noun.
  These variations highlight how languages segment information differently, making it difficult to define a "word" in absolute terms.
• Complex Word Formation in Agglutinative Languages: In Turkish, a single word like evlerinizden (‘from your houses’) conveys meaning that English expresses with a phrase (from your houses). The fact that Turkish encodes such relationships morphologically, whereas English does so syntactically, demonstrates that what constitutes a "word" depends on the language’s structure.
• Compound Structures and Phrase Units: German and English handle compounds differently. Whereas English allows multi-word expressions like writing desk, German forms compounds such as Schreibtisch (‘writing table’) as single words. Similarly, French treats porte-monnaie (‘wallet’) as a single word, while English does not do the same with coin purse.

By providing these examples, Martinet aligns with Saussure in rejecting the idea of a universal linguistic sign. Instead, he emphasizes that language must be analyzed synchronically as a system shaped by communicative needs, rather than by imposing externally defined categories. His functionalist perspective expands Saussure’s insights, showing that linguistic segmentation is not only arbitrary but also shaped by the functional demands of communication.

Conclusion

Saussure and Martinet both expose the fundamental instability of the word as a primary unit of language. Saussure dismantles the traditional perspective by demonstrating that words derive their identity not from direct reference to extralinguistic entities but from their position within a structured system of differences. Martinet extends this critique by highlighting cross-linguistic variability and the functional constraints that shape the segmentation of  ‘thought-sound.’ Together, their insights challenge the assumption that linguistic units are self-evident, reinforcing the idea that language is not a mere collection of words but a dynamic system governed by structural and functional principles. Their work remains essential to contemporary linguistic theory, underscoring the necessity of a relational and systemic approach to language analysis.

Bibliography

Martinet, André, and Victor A. Velen. "The Word." Diogenes 13, no. 51 (1965): 38-54.

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.