Return to Saussure

“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 ...

Introduction Human understanding continually negotiates the boundary between concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. This article explores how two distinct philosophical models— Kant’s investigation of reason’s limits through antinomies and Peirce’s dynamic theory of signs—shed light on the complex relationship between lived experience and conceptual frameworks. Kant famously distinguishes between sensory impressions (phenomena) and pure concepts (noumena), arguing that our minds organize sensory input using innate cognitive structures. However, when pure reason pushes beyond the empirical world, it generates antinomies—conflicting propositions that, despite their contradictions, maintain compelling internal logic. In contrast, Peirce’s triadic theory of signs—comprising icons, indices, and symbols—offers a dynamic view in which signs actively shape both our perceptions and our thinking. This article revisits Kant’s antinomies in the context of his evolving understan...