Grammar as a System of Values: Revisiting Saussure’s Abstract Entities

Saussure, F. de. Course in general linguistics

Introduction

Traditional grammar presents language as a system composed of identifiable categories: nouns, verbs, cases, and syntactic rules. Students encounter these elements as if they were stable objects that exist independently of the language in which they appear. Yet this familiar picture becomes less secure when examined through the perspective developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in the Course in General Linguistics. In several passages of that work, Saussure advances a striking proposal: grammatical categories do not exist as self-contained entities. They arise from relations within the linguistic system itself.

Saussure’s broader theory of language begins with a principle that overturns common intuition. Linguistic elements are defined not by intrinsic substance but by the differences that distinguish them from one another. “In a language,” he writes, “what distinguishes a sign is what constitutes it” (Saussure, 1916/2011). When the sign is considered as a whole—the unity of signifier and signified—it becomes a positive element within the system, yet its identity remains dependent on contrasts with other signs.

The implications extend far beyond lexis. Saussure suggests that grammar itself emerges from networks of oppositions and associations among linguistic forms. Categories such as case, word class, and syntactic order appear not as primitive building blocks but as abstractions derived from patterns within the system. Exploring this perspective reveals a grammar that is relational rather than substantial, structured through differences rather than through fixed components.

Grammar as a System of Oppositions

Saussure illustrates the relational character of grammar with a simple example from German morphology. The singular noun Nacht (“night”) contrasts with the plural Nächte. Taken individually, these forms carry little explanatory value. Their significance lies in the opposition between them. “In isolation, Nacht and Nächte are nothing,” Saussure remarks; “the opposition between them is everything” (Saussure, 1916/2011).

The plural does not exist as an independent feature attached to a word. Instead, the distinction emerges through contrast with the singular. English offers a comparable pattern:

• goose / geese
• mouse / mice
• cat / cats

The plural meaning arises from the relation between two forms rather than from a property inherent in either one. Grammar, in this sense, consists of a network of oppositions that assign value to linguistic units.

This observation leads Saussure to a broader claim. What traditional grammar calls “grammatical facts”—plurality, tense, agreement—correspond to patterns of opposition within the language system. Linguistic units and grammatical relations therefore represent different perspectives on the same underlying phenomenon: the interplay of differences that structures the language.

Concrete and Abstract Entities

To clarify how grammar operates within this framework, Saussure distinguishes between two types of linguistic elements. On the one hand are concrete entities, the actual signs that combine a signifier with a signified. On the other hand are abstract entities, which include grammatical categories such as case, word class, and syntactic order.

Abstract entities do not appear directly in speech. They emerge from regularities among groups of signs. Saussure emphasizes that these abstractions remain grounded in concrete forms: “Abstract entities are based ultimately upon concrete entities” (Saussure, 1916/2011).

The distinction prevents an overly metaphysical interpretation of grammar. Categories like noun or genitive are not invisible structures hovering above language. They represent patterns discerned within the relations linking actual linguistic signs.

Associative Relations and the Emergence of Categories

Saussure next examines grammar from the perspective of associative relations, which connect linguistic elements in the mind of speakers. These relations form networks linking words with similar forms, meanings, or functions.

Consider the French verbs enseigner (“to teach”) and juger (“to judge”). Each produces a related noun:

• enseigner → enseignement
• juger → jugement

Speakers recognize that these pairs share a specific morphological relationship. At the same time, they perceive that the relation between enseignement and jugement differs from that linking each noun to its corresponding verb. The mind thus distinguishes not only connections among words but also the types of relations that unite them.

Through such associations arise what grammarians later describe as word families, paradigms, and derivational patterns. Saussure suggests that grammatical classification ultimately reflects these mental groupings: “The sum total of the classifications established by grammarians must coincide with the associations operative in speech” (Saussure, 1916/2011).

From Associations to Grammatical Categories

Associative relations can extend beyond formal similarity and operate solely through shared grammatical value. Ferdinand de Saussure illustrates this point with Latin genitive forms:

·         dominī (“of the master”)

·         rēgis (“of the king”)

·         rosārum (“of the roses”)

These words display distinct endings—-ī, -is, and -ārum. Phonetically they share little in common, yet speakers recognize them as fulfilling the same grammatical function. Their connection rests on grammatical value rather than on sound.

A comparable pattern appears in possessive constructions in the German language:

·         des Mannes (“of the man”)

·         des Kindes (“of the child”)

·         der Frau (“of the woman”)

Here the genitive markers vary considerably:

·         -es (Mannes)

·         -es with a different stem (Kindes)

·         no ending on the noun, with the genitive marked on the article (der Frau)

Phonetically and morphologically these forms differ significantly, yet speakers immediately recognize them as expressing the same grammatical relation: possession or dependency (“of …”).

Associations can expand even further. Links among inflected forms give rise to the notion of case, while broader networks connect all nouns, adjectives, or verbs. What traditional grammar calls parts of speech thus appear as large-scale associative groupings within the linguistic system.

Saussure acknowledges that speakers may not consciously articulate these structures. The linguist’s task involves making explicit patterns that speakers grasp intuitively through habitual use.

The Syntagmatic Dimension of Grammar

Associative relations account for paradigms and categories. A second dimension of linguistic organization arises from syntagmatic relations, which govern the combination of elements within sequences.

In compounds such as French désireux (“desirous”) or Latin signifer (“standard-bearer”), meaning depends partly on the relative positions of smaller units. Reversing the order would produce forms that do not exist in the language. Arrangement therefore contributes directly to linguistic value.

Syntagmatic relations operate throughout grammar. Speakers do not merely recognize the components of a phrase; they also perceive the order in which those components appear. This order frequently carries meaning even when no additional word signals the distinction.

Word Order as an Abstract Entity

Saussure describes word order as an abstract entity—a structural property not tied to any single sign yet essential for interpretation. French provides a simple illustration:

• je dois (“I must”)
• dois-je ? (“must I?”)

The words remain the same, but their arrangement changes the meaning of the sentence.

English displays a similar pattern:

• You are coming.
• Are you coming?

Here again, the difference lies entirely in the sequence of elements. Syntax expresses meaning without introducing new words.

When Languages Encode Relations Differently

Languages distribute grammatical meaning across different structural resources. In English, relations between nouns often appear through simple juxtaposition:

• olive oil
• stone wall

Spanish conveys the same relations through prepositional phrases:

• aceite de oliva
• muro de piedra

In one language, word order carries the relation; in the other, a preposition performs that role. Saussure’s analysis highlights how grammatical value can arise through various structural means within different linguistic systems.

The Illusion That Nothing Expresses Something

A particularly subtle insight emerges when comparing syntactic patterns across languages. English allows relative clauses such as:

• the man I have seen

French expresses the same relation with an explicit relative pronoun:

• l’homme que j’ai vu

At first glance the English construction appears to omit a necessary element. Saussure argues that this impression results from comparison with the French pattern. The meaning in English is not conveyed by absence but by the configuration of the words already present. The arrangement of elements generates the syntactic relation without requiring an additional marker: que.

Form and Function

Saussure concludes this discussion with a principle that reinforces the unity of the linguistic sign. A material form exists only through the function it performs, while a function requires some material support. Sound patterns alone cannot constitute linguistic units; meaning must accompany them. Conversely, meaning cannot exist in language without being expressed through a signifier.

Grammar therefore emerges from the interplay between form and function within the system. Abstract categories arise from relations among concrete signs, yet those relations never detach themselves from the material elements that sustain them.

Conclusion

Saussure’s analysis transforms the way grammar can be understood. Instead of a collection of independent categories, grammar appears as the visible pattern produced by the organization of the linguistic system. Plurality, case, word class, and syntactic order derive from relations among signs rather than from intrinsic properties of words.

This perspective reveals a structure that is both abstract and grounded. Grammatical categories emerge from associations and combinations among concrete linguistic forms. The language system, built upon differences and relations, generates the patterns that traditional grammar describes.

More than a century after the publication of the Course in General Linguistics, Saussure’s insight retains its force. Grammar becomes not a catalogue of entities but a dynamic structure arising from the internal organization of language itself.

References

Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Fontana.

Harris, R. (2016). Linguistics after Saussure. Routledge.

Harris, R. (1987). Reading Saussure: A critical commentary on the Course in General Linguistics. Duckworth.

Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1916)