SAUSSURE'S THEORY OF SIGN

Sreekumar M. A comparative study of Sphota theory of language and F.D.

Saussures theory of sign Department of Philosophy, University of Calicut,
1998

CHAPTER

- 111

SAUSSURE'S THEORY OF SIGN

"....I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in
grammar..."

Niebsche - Twilight of Idols - 483.

"..... The concept is real without being actual, ideal without being
abstract.

The concept is defined by its consistency, its end0

consistency and exo consistency, but it has no reference: it is selfreferential; it posits itself and its objects at the same time as it is
created. Constructivism unites the relative and the absolute ......"

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari - What is Philosophy - p.22.

ONE

In his life Ferdinand de Saussure led an uneventful life but his

uneventful life bring so much 'destructive effects' in the modem thought. In
language philosophy as a rule, Saussure is held responsible for all the
extravagances of the poststructuralist theories that came after him.

The

famous poststructuralist concepts such as "the fundamental undecidability

inherent in language" or the claim that "there is nothing outside of the text"
are often traced back to Saussure. Saussure's concept of the Sign or to be

<, -

specific, his principle lof the arbitrary nature of the Sign is considered to be
the perpetual source of all poststructuralist thinking.
Saussure is acknowledged to be the father of modem linguistics. He
recognised the language philosophy along the scientific lines. Major work of
Saussure, named Course in General Linguistics had a major impact not only
on linguistics but on cultural studies too. 'Course' is the basis of structuralism
and semiology.

Saussure published only one book during his life time,

which is named as Memoire (1878). Memoire was a work in comparative

philology which investigated the vowel system of early Indo-European
languages. His famous work 'Course' was published posthumously by his
students, the book is based upon the students notes, which was given by him
to his students on 1907-11 at University of Geneva. The primary object of
Saussure in the course is to outline a methodology for linguistics. In his
'course' he was searching for the underlying structure of language. The
linguistic model developed by Saussure has been adopted and refined by
Levi-Strauss and Barthes.

TWO

In the beginning 'course' offers us a compressed vision of Saussure's

remarks on the history of linguistics. Comparative philology or comparative

grammar which dates from Franz Bopps work of 1816 has been taken as the
first stage of linguistic investigation by Saussure. And the second period
began in 1870, and in this period comparative philology became more
properly historical and some linguists began asking important questions,
about the nature of language and linguistic method. Saussure is interested in
the method of linguistic analysis and the definition of linguistic units. So he
did not give too much importance to general problems of linguistics.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, linguisti assume that linguistics would
cast light on the nature of human thought and of the mind itself. At that time
it is believed that by studying language one sought to understand thought
itself. In 18th century thought the origin of language became a central
problem in linguistics. It is essential to note that the origin of language was
investigated as a philosophical problem rather than historical problem. Thus
18th century thinking about language came to focus up on philosophic

etymology, the attempts to explain signs and abstract ideas by imagining

their origin in gesture, action, etc. The desire to study the mechanism of mind
in language led to a search for primitive roots. A root is a rudimentary name,
a basic representation of the word. The etymological project assumes that the
words of our language are not arbitrary sings but have a rational basis and

are motivated by resemblance to a primitive sign. In the approach the

relationship between language and mind conceived atomistically.
The 19th century linguisti would reject the 'atomic' picture, they
divorced the study of language from the study of mind. According to the
19th century linguistics the word became a form, which was to be compared
with other forms so as to establish the relation between the language. In
other words the historical evolution of the word is to be traced. In short the
object of study of 19th century linguistics was the study of 'sign' as a form
whose resemblance and historical links with forms must be demonstrated.
Linguistics generally consider the 19th century development as a great
advance, and undoubtedly this was a great leap from the 17th century. But
something was lost in this shift, that was the proper use of a methodology in
linguistics. Saussure once again returned to the problem of sign. He saw that
unless one treats linguistic forms as signs one can't define them. He placed
the problem of sign in the context of his methodological enquiry, thus he
avoided the atomism of 18th century linguistics. Saussure re-establishes, the
study of the relationship between the study of language and the study of
mind at another level and in a different methodological context. In Saussure's
view the study of language reveals that mind is not a set of primitive
conceptions or natural ideas but the general structuring and diffracting

operations by which things are made to sigmfy. When Saussure argues that
'meaning' is differential, based on the difference between term, his claim
concerns not only language but the general human process too. In every
human process he sees the creation of meaning by differentiation.
The comparative grammarians had also been criticised by Saussure.
He says that the comparative grammarians never succeeded in their attempt
to find out a true 'linguistics' because they did not try to determine the nature
of the object they were studying. And Saussure accuses them that, they do
not try of find out the sigruficance of the relationship in a system, their
method was exclusively comparative rather than historical,
"...But the comparative school, which had the indisputable
merit of opening up a new and fruitful field, didn't succeed in
setting up the true science of linguistics. It failed to seek out
the nature of its object of study. Obviously, without this
elementary step, no science can develop a method.
The first mistake of the comparative philologists was also
the source of all their other mistakes. In their investigations
(which embraced only the Indo-European languages), they
never asked themselves the meaning of their comparisons or

the sigtuficance of the relations that they discovered. Their

method was exclusively comparative ,not historical...."

As Saussure rightly observes, it was only towards 1870, that linguistics

began to lay the base stone for a proper study and analysis of language. Two
important developments happened at that time. The first one was, a group of
linguistics
known as neo-grammarians, demonstrated that sound laws, which
previously had been treated as correspondence that held in large number of
cases but not in others, operated without exception. The second important
development was after 1870. In the words of Saussure that was 'the result of
comparative study were brought into historical sequences'. In his works in
1878 Saussure himself made a major contribution to historical linguistics.
These works showed Saussure's result of thinking of language as a system of
relational items, even when working at the task of historical reconstruction.
We can take Saussure certainly as an accomplished Neo-Grammarian.
Saussure's contemporaries' fault lie in the point that, they failed to ask
themselves the fundamental questions about what they were studying: those
questions about the nature of language itself and its individual forms and
important questions in methodology, such as the relation between synchronic
and diachronic in a system. The Neo-Grammarians could not take the
problem in the seriousness it deserved; because they were not thinking about

1)

the signs. The Neo-Grammarians were concerned not with 'signs' but with
forms, it was the failure of that school.
The contribution of William Dwight Whitney, who was one of the NeoGrammarian linguist, had been praised by Saussure, because he raised the
question of Sign. In his work 'Language and the study of language, and life
and growth of language Whitney argued that- 'Language is infact, an
institution founded on social convention; a treasure of words and forms' each
of which is an 'arbitrary and conventional sign'.

The conventional and

institutional nature of language has been stressed by Whitney. Saussure's

remarks about Whitney shows the importance of Whitney's theory:
"....To emphasise the fact that language is a genuine
institution, Whitney quite justly insisted upon the arbitrary
nature of sings; and by so doing, he placed linguistics on its
true axis. But he did not follow through and see that the
arbitrariness of language radically separates it from all other
institutions. This is apparent from the way in which language
evolves..."
Unfortunately Whitney did not realize the consequences and
implications of his new perspective. He still specified that the linguistics
must be a historical science. He underestimated the task of

synchronic

linguistics. His awareness about the problems of definition and identity of

the relational nature of linguistic units was too little. However the insights of
Whitney prompted Saussure to think about the problem of sign in a new
perception.
We have to place Saussure with Freud and Durkheim inorder to
understand Saussure's importance in the areas of social science. Sigmaund
Freud and Ernil Durkheim, the founders of Modern Psychology and Modem
Sociology respectively, were two exact contemporaries of Saussure. In social
science these three thinkers created a new revolution. And they placed social
science in a new epistemological context, which even today offers us a new
mode of explanation in social science.
The nature and status of the 'facts' in a society is the initial problem for
social science. This was a central problem in the 19th century. The two main
streams in philosophy, namely German Idealism and empiricist positivism
discussed this issue very broadly. The two schools thought that society is a
derivated secondary phenomena rather than something primary.
The positivist tradition of Hume distinguished between an objective
physical reality of objects and events and an individual subjective perception
of reality. According to this school society is to be taken as the outcome of the
action of the individuals. Thus the society is a fictitious body, the sum of

several members who compose it. Definitely this is a utilitarian stand point;
they think that society is the result of individuals and each person in the
society acting in accordance with self interest. On the other hand, for Hegel,
who has been the prominent figure in German idealism, laws, manner,
customs, and state itself are expressions of a mind. Hegel studied the Human
history as the manifestation of primary; the primary phenomena, the spirit.
These views have been strongly and vehemently attacked by Saussure,
Durkheim and Freud. Their methods were based upon the 'objective reality
of social facts'. According to the methodology of these three thinkers, the
individual society is a primary reality, not just the sum of individual
activities, nor the manifestation of mind. And if one wishes to study human
behaviour one must understand that there is a social reality. These thinkers
did not dismiss the social sigruficance of personal action, but they insisted on
the point that, meaning of the society cannot be treated as the sum of
subjective perceptions.
Saussure, Freud, and Durkheim asked some important questions: what
makes individual experience possible? what enables man to operate with
meaningful objects and actions? What enables them to communicate and act
meaningfully ?.

The answer postulated by them was that the social

institution, formed by human activities is the condition of experience. Their

methodology suggests that to understand an individual experience one must

study the social norms which make it possible. The social phenomenon is
made possible by a system of interpersonal conventions, that is a language.
Freud analysed and interpreted the human mind in terms of this new
methodology. In his view the individual in a society assimilates, consciously
or unconsciously the collective social system, and the behaviour of an
individual is made possible only in a social system or network. Values are the
products of this social system. Freud made apparent to us how the culture
suffuses the remotest parts of the individual mind. The suffusion of culture
makes an individual's sense of identity. In the formation of an individual self,
unconscious defence occasioned by social taboos leads a person to repression
and displacement. Here what Freud tries to point-out is the importance of a
social system, which produces 'culture' just language, which produces
'meaning' in a system. As Durkheim argued the reality which is crucial to the
individual, is not the physical environment but a 'social value', a system of
rules and norms, collective representation, which makes possible social
behaviour.
In his works on suicide, Durkheim gave us a causal explanation. He
study the cause of high suicide rate in a society. Suicides in a society in the
view of Durkheim are the manifestation of the weakening in social bonds,

which result from particular configuration of social norms.

Freud's

psychological analysis are also causal explanations; his attempt is to relate

actions to an underlying psyche economy. But the linguists do not try to
explain the cause of an utterance by a particular person in a society at a given
moment. They try to show why the sequence has the form and meaning.
Linguists do it by relating it to the system of language.
Farewell to the historical explanation was the sigdicant aspect in the
works of Freud, Durkheirn and Saussure. They marked move from historical
to structural analysis. To them explanation of the social phenomena is not to
discover temporal antecedents and link them in a causal chain but to speedy
the place and function of the phenomena in a system. Instead of conceiving
the causation in a historical model, which has been explained by them in a
state, in a condition or in structure.
The decisive steps of Durkheim, Freud and Saussure seem responsible
for the development of the science of man. Removing the 'origins' from a
temporal history and by internalising the 'origin' they create a new space of
explanation which has come to be called unconscious. Structural explanation
relates action to a system of norms - the rules of language, the collective
representation of a society, the mechanism of a physical economy - and thus

the concept of unconscious is a way of explaining how these systems have

explanatory force.
The concept unconsciousness arises in the work of Freud, but it is in
linguistics that the concept emerges in its clearest and most irrefutable form.
Unconscious is the concept which enables one to explain an indubitable fact.
In linguistics' for example, we say that we know a language, yet we need a
linguist to explain to us what it is that we know.

The concept of the

unconscious comects these two facts and opens a space of explanation as well
as exploration. Linguistics, like psychology and sociology, will explain our
actions by setting out irr detail the implicit knowledge, which we have not
brought to c o ~ i o u s n e s s ,

In the discussion of the concept unconscious and conscious, another

problem, which is highly polemical in nature, will arise: the problem of
'subject'. Here the subject means the subject of experience, or the 'I' or the
self which thinks, perceives, speaks etc. Saussure puts the subject at the
centre of his analytical project. Then the 'notion' of the subject becomes
central to the analysis of language.

In language we always identdy the linguist unit with reference to the

subject. In a language, we know that

p] and [d] are

different phonemes

because for the subject 'bag' and 'day' are different sings. For the speaking

'subject' the bag and day are different signs, the opposition between [b] and
[d] differentiates signs for the speaking subject. In the process of 'value'
formation in a system the 'subject' takes a crucial role. In the writings of
Saussure we can see such a provision to the 'presence' of subject.
In the introduction we have discussed the methodology of
structuralism in a general manner and discussed its philosophical
implications. The problem of subject is also explained, as we have seen after
the structuralism the concept 'subject' have been analysed and deconstructed
by Derrida. Before Derrida's attempt to deconstruct the subject, Nietzsche
and Heidegger attacked the concept 'subject' which existed in the western
metaphysical tradition.
What distinguishes Saussure from the traditional metaphysicians who
claimed absolute authority of the 'subject', is that he was highly radical in his
approach towards the subject. He does not take the subject as a 'reflection' of
the absolute in the traditional sense. In his courses he simply gives us a
provision of a 'subject' as a 'knower' of what one does. So we have to draw a
sharp line of demarcation between Saussure's concept of subject and
traditional concept. We will discuss this issue in the last chapter of
comparison.

Today deconstruction of the subject becomes the central theme in

philosophy, psychology and in linguistics. The 'subject' is broken down into
its constituents. Now the disciplines inaugurated by Saussure, Freud and
Durkheim have been chipped away by the poststructuralist thought. Subject
has lost its place as a 'centre' or source of meaning. The 'self' or 'subject'
comes to appear more and more as a construct. When a man speaks 'he' does
not speak through the language, but language speaks through him. As Lacan
says, 'I' is not a given thing; it comes to exist, in a mirror stage which starts in
infancy, as that which is seen and addressed by others. The problem of the
subject and its effects in the 20th century thought will be discussed in the last
chapter.
We can sum up this introduction with a question. Did Saussure know
anything about the themes of Freud and Durkheim? There is no evidence
that Durkheim Saussure and Freud knew anything of each other's work. We
are not sure whether Saussure knew anything about the other two or not. We
are not sure the methodology in social science brings a new epistemological
shift in our life which influences our thought and helps us to bring new
dimensions in our philosophical enquiries.

THREE
Saussure's theory of language and Sign

As Saussure rightly pointed out in his 'courses', linguists are often

baffled by the nature of the object about which they are studying. So
Saussure, was very unhappy with the linguistics existed at that time, he wrote
"Linguistics never attempted to 7determine the nature of the object it was
studying, and without this elementary operation a science can't develop an
appropriate method."
Human language is an extremely complex phenomenon, so it needs a
care full examination and explanation. A word, which may be uttered by a
person may involve an extraordinary range of factors, which should be
considered from many angles. Generally the work of a linguist involves the
study of sound, phonemes, hearing mechanism, the intention of the speaker
and listener etc. But the linguist confronts another problem, that is, what is
he trying to describe, what is he looking for, or in short what is language ?
Saussure's analysis and explanations of language are based up on this
'crucial problem'.

His approach and method was different from the

traditional style. In his analysis of language the concept 'sign' plays an

important role. Saussure defined the language as a system ef signs. Noises

count as language only when they serve to express or communicate ideas;

otherwise they are just noises. For the communication of the idea the words
must be a part of system of conventions or part of a system of signs.
According to Saussure sign is the union of signrfier and signrfied. Sigzufier or
the 'signrficant' sigrufy an idea. 'Signrfie' or the signrfied is the idea signdied
by the signrfier. Signher and signrfied are the components of the 'sign'.
The nature of the concept 'sign' is illustrated by Saussure is highly
different from the signher, signrfied relation, propounded by Russel and
Moore. In the opinion of Russell and Moore a word sigrufies a particular
thing as its meaning but Saussure's concept of sign is basically different from
the analytic tradition. He points out the arbitrary nature of the 'sign'. He
criticises the naive approach.
"....Some people regard language, when reduced to its
elements, as a naming process only

-a

list of words, each

corresponding to the thing that it names. For example:

This conception is open to criticism at several points, It

assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words (on this
point, see below ,p.111); it does not tell us whether a name is

vocal or psychological in nature (arbor, for instance, can be

considered from either view point); finally, it lets us assumes
that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple
operation-- an assumption that is anything but true. But this
rather naive approach can bring us near the truth by showing
us that the linguistic unit is a double entity, one formed by the
associating of two terms..."3
According to Saussure the linguistic sign is arbitrary. This is the first
principle of Saussure's theory of language. The 'sign' can be taken as an
arbitrary relation between sigrufier and the sigrufied - what is the meaning of
the term 'arbitrary' in Saussure's writing ? In one sense the answer is quite
simple - there is no inevitable or natural link between the sigrufier and the
sigrufied.
In part one of the 'course', he describes the nature of the linguistic sign.
He says,
"....The bond between the sigrufier and the sigrufied

is

arbitrary. Since I mean by sign the whole that results from the
associating of the signier with the s i g h e d , I can simply say:

the linguistic sign is arbitrary...."4

Then he rectifies the nature of the arbitrary nature of the sign, and tries
to spell out a confusion that the choice of the sigrufier is left entirely to the
speaker, he continues:
"..The word arbitra y also calls for comment. The term should
not imply that the choice of the sigrufier is left entirely to the
speaker (we shall see below that the individual does not have
the power to change a sign in any way once it has become
established in the linguistic community); I mean that is
unmotivated, i.e. arbitrary in that it actually has no natural
comection with sigrufied..." 5
Here Saussure crystallised the concept very clearly. But it needs an
explanation. Since I speak English I may use the sigrufier represented by dog
to talk about an animal of a particular species. Iodtet, or bloop would serve
equally well if they were accepted by the members of my speech community.
Here the point is, there is no intrinsic value or reason why one of the sigrufier
rather than the another should be linked with the concept of dog.
Saussure points out some exceptions to this basic principle, in some
cases we can see the sound of the signher seems in some way mimetic or
imitative. "bow-wow" can be taken as an example in English. This particular
nature of some sign is known as 'Onomatopoeia'. But in a language we can

see only few such cases, we can separate them as special cases, except this
class, almost all of the 'signs' in a language are arbitrary in their nature.
"...l) onomatopoeia might be used to prove that the choice of
the s i e i e r is not always arbitrary.

But onomatopoeia

formations are never organic elements of a linguistic system.

Besides,. their number is much smaller than is generally
supposed. Words like French fouet 'whip' or glas 'knell' may
strike certain ears with suggestive sonority, but to see that
they have not always had this property we need only examine
their Latin forms (fouet is derived fromf a p s ' beech-tree', glas
from classicurn 'sound of a trumpet').

The quality of their

present sounds, or rather the quality that is attributed to them

is a fortuitous result of phonetic evolution..."

Saussure then examines the nature of the interjection, which is closely

related to onomatopoeia, and conclude that -'onomatopoeic formations and
interjedions are of secondary importance, and their symbolic origin is in part
open to dispute' 7
The linguistic sign, in Saussure's view unites not a thing and a name
but a concept and sound image.

The linguistic sign is a two-sided

psychological entity that can be represented by the drawing.

Concept
Sound Image
The two elements, the concepts and sound image are intimately united,
and each recalls the other. To avoid the ambiguity related to the word 'sound
image' Saussure has given separate names to the concept and to the sound
image. He says ;
"

...I propose to retain the word sign (signe) to designate the

whole and to replace concept and sound-image respectively by

signified (singnim and signifier (significant); the last two terms
have the advantage of indicating the opposition that separates
them from each other and from the whole of which they are
parts. As regards sign, if I am satisfied with it, this is simply
because I do not know of any word to replace it, the ordinary
language suggesting no other..." 8
Thus we can represent it in another model,
Signified

Sigrufier
In a victure it mav be sketched as

Tree

125

What are the philosophical implications, and sigiuficance of this new

theory of Saussure, we can summarise them as shown below: language is
not a nomenclature and therefor its sigiufieds are not pre-existing concepts.
The concepts are changeable and which vary from one state of language to
another. And since there is no necessary reason for one concept rather than
other to be attached to a given signrfier, there is no essential core of meaning
that it must retain in order to count as the proper signrfied for that sigiufier.
The relation between sigmfier and signrfied is arbitrary, which means there
are no fixed universal concepts or fixed universal signrfiers. Both sigiufier
and sigiufied are purely relational or differential entities. Because they are
arbitrary they are relational.
Saussure attaches great importance to the fact that language is not a
nomenclature. We can not understand the full ramification of this theory,
unless we grasp the importance of arbitrary nature of the sign. A language
doesn't simply assign arbitrary names to a set of independently existing
concepts. The language set-up an arbitrary relation between signhers of its
own choosing on the one hand, and sigrufieds of its own choosing on the
other hand. Each language produces a different set of sigrufiers and different
set of signheds. This choosing of a signrfier for a signrfied in a language is an
arbitrary way of organising the world into concepts and categories.

We can clardy the above point with the help of some examples; which
already exist in a language system. In French language the sound sequence of

Fleuve and Riviere are two signhers. River and stream are two English
signhers. The organisation of the conceptual plane in different in English
and French. In English the signhed River is opposed to stream solely in
terms of size whereas a Fleuve differs from a river not because it is larger, but
because it flows in to the sea. Fleuve and riviere are not s i w e d s or concepts
of English.
These two languages operate and work perfectly well with different
conceptual articulation or distinction. This fact indicates that these divisions
are no natural, or necessary, but arbitrary. It is important to note that a
language has ways of talking about the flowing bodies of water, but language
can make its conceptual distinction in this area in any way or a wide variety
of ways; the ways depend upon the size of the flowing bodies, or swiftness of
flow, straightness, direction of the flow, depth etc.

Language not only

chooses the signhers in an arbitrary manner but it also divides the conceptual
possibilities in any manner it likes. This shows that the concepts or sigrufieds
are not autonomous entities, each of which is defined by some kind of
essence. The concepts are members of a system and they are defined by their
relation to other members of the system. If I like to explain to someone the

meaning of stream, I must tell him about the difference between a stream and
a river, a rivulet and a stream etc., I can't explain the term without showing
the difference between the concepts, thus the concept shows the 'difference'
between the concepts, not the meaning in itself.
The value of the concepts depends on their relation with one another.
Saussure says:
"...But it is quite clear that initially the concept is nothing, that
is only a value determined by its relations with other similar
values, and that without them the sipdication would not
exist. If I state simply that a word sigruhes something when I
have in mind the associating of a sound-image with a concept,
I am making a statement that may suggest what actually
happens, but by no means am I expressing the linguistic fact
in its essence and fullness.." 9
As he says each of the sigrufied makes the meaning not by the 'value'
that lies in it; but by the difference which makes in a system with other
concepts.
Saussure in his writings uses some analogies to show the relational
identity of the concepts in a language system. The relational identity of the
linguistic units is not easy to grasp. The first analogy of Saussure is the

analogy of a Train, which is named as the '8:25 Geneva - to - Paris Express'.

Each day the 8:25 Geneva -to - Paris Express starts from Geneva at 8:25. We
consider the 8:25 Geneva -to

- Paris Express is same train each day,

even

though the coaches, locomotive and personnel change from one day to the
next. The train gets its 'identity' only by placing it in a system of trains, as
indicated by the time table. The relational identity in the determining factors;
the 8:25 Geneva -to - Paris Express remains the same train even if it leaves
half an hour late.
Comparison between language and chess is an another analogy which
is used by Saussure to illustrate the notion of relational identity of the

concepts in language. The basic units of chess are obviously king, queen,
rook, bishop and knight etc. The actual physical shape of the pieces and
colour etc. are not important. The king may be of any size and shape as long
as there are ways of distinguishing it from other pieces. The two rooks need
not be of identical size and shape, so long as they can distinguished from
other pieces. If a piece is lost from a chess set we can replace it with any other
sort of object; on the condition that this object will not be confused with the
objects representing piece of a different value. Saussure makes the point
clear.

"...Take a knight, for instance. By itself is it an element in the

game? Certainly not, for by its material make up-outside its
square and the other conditions of the game-it means nothing
to the player; it becomes a real, concrete element only when
endowed with value and wedded to it. Suppose that the piece
happens to be destroyed or lost during a game. Can it be
replaced by an equivalent price ? Certainly. Not only another
knight but even a figure shown of any resemblance to a knight
can be declared identical provided the same value is attributed
to it. We see then that in semiological systems like language,
where elements hold each other in equilibrium in accordance
with fixed rules, the notion of identity blends with that of
value and vice versa ..."l0
From this above quoted paragraph one point is quite clear. The units of
the game of chess have no material identity - there are no physical properties
necessary to a king; rook, etc. Identity is wholly a function of difference with
in a system. We can understand Saussure's concept of 'difference' well, when
we apply the analogy to language. Saussure says:
"....Everything that has been said up to this point boils down
to this: in language there are only differences. Even more

important: a difference generally implies positive terms

between which the difference is set up; but in language there
are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take
the sigrufied or the sigrufier, language has neither ideas nor
sound that existed before the linguistic system, but only
conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the
system...."l1
We can conclude this study of 'sign' with the following observations:
Signtfier and Sigrufied must be defined in terms of their relation with other
sigrufiers and signifieds. To define the units of language we must distinguish
between these purely relational and abstract units and their physical
realisations. In language the actual sounds we produce in speaking are not in
themselves units of the linguistic system. Linguistic unit is a form rather than
a substance defined by the relations which set it off from other units.
Saussure introduced some dichotomies to study the language in
general and sign in particular. 'Langue' and 'Paroke' in the first dichotomy.

La Langue is the system of a language, the language as a system of forms.

-.

Parole is actual speech, or in other words the speech acts which are made
possible by the language.

When a person lives in a language community, he assimilates some set

of forms in a language, that is known as "langue".

It is defined as 'hoard

deposited by the practice of speech in speakers who belongs to the same

community, a grammatical system, which, to all intent and purpose, exist in
the mind of each speaker'. In other words it is defined as a social product
whose existence permits the individual to exercise his linguistic faculty.
Parole is the executive side of the language. Saussure says:
"....Speaking, on the contrary, is an individual act. It is wilful
and intellectual.

Within the act, we should distinguish

between: (1)the combination by which the speaker uses the

language code for expressing his own thought; and (2) the
psychological mechanism that allows him to exteriorize those
combination..." 12
In the stage of parole the speaker of a language selects and combines
elements of the linguistic system. And then he gives to these forms a concrete
phonic and psychological manifestation. These manifestations are sound and
meaning.
The primary concern of the linguistics is 'langue'.

When a linguist

analyses a language, he tries to findout units and rules of combination which

make up the linguistic system. 'Langue' or the linguistic system is a coherent

analysable object. As Saussure says langue is a system of signs in which the

only essential thing is the union of meanings and acoustic image. When a
person studies language as a system of signs he is trying to identdy its
essential features. Primarily he tries to find out those elements which are
crucial to the sipfying function of language.

Saussure writes about

importance of langue in his 'course':

"...In separating language from speaking we are at the same
time separating: (1)what is social from what is individual; and

(2) what is essential from what is accessory and more or less

accidental..." 13
In the realm of speech relevance and irrelevance is difficult to
determine. So we have to concentrate upon langue to study the nature of
language. When we concentrate upon langue, various aspects of language
and speech fall into place with in or around it.
The distinction between langue and parole leads to the creation of two
distant disciplines, one of the branch named phonetics studies the speech act
from a physical point of view. Phonology the other branch at the same time
concentrates its attention up on the distinction between the abstract units of
the sigtufier, which are functional with in the linguistic system. Phonetics

would describe the actual sounds produced when one utters a form, but
phonology is the study of functional distinctions in a system.
In language two different utterances may be the manifestation of the
same sentence, here we encounter the central notion of identity in linguistics.
For example if at some time Mohan says 'I am tired', 'I' refer to Mohan and
understanding this reference is an important part of understanding the
utterance. However that reference is not part of the meaning of the sentence For George also may utter the same sentence, in his sentence 'I' will refer to
George. The important point is, within the linguistic system 'I' does not refer
to anyone. Its meaning in the system is the result of the distinction between

'I' and 'You', he, she and they; a meaning which can sum up by saying that 'I'
means the speaker as opposed to anyone else. In language pronouns are the
best examples of the difference between meanings which are properties of
utterance only and meanings which are properties of elements of the
linguistic system.
To clarrfy the above point, we can take an example when a French man
says 'Jai uv un mouton' and an English man says 'I saw a sheep' their
utterance are likely to have the same signrfication. About a state of affair they
are making the same claim.

But, as units of their respective linguistic

systems, the meaning of 'mouton' and 'sheep' are different, they do not have

the same meaning or value. For sheep is defined by an opposition with

'mutton', where as 'mouton' is bounded by no such distinction, but it is used
both for the animal and for meat. Saussure's point is, he tries to show, that
there is one kind of meaning, a relational meaning or value, in language. And
s i d c a t i o n , which is another kind of meaning, involves the use of linguistic
elements in actual situation of utterance in the language.
In linguistics the study of a langue involves an invention of the
distinctions, which create signs and rules of combination, where as the study
of 'parole' leads us to an account of language use. By separating the langue
from parole, Saussure gave us a clear sense of the language. And linguist
have got a much clear sense of what he was doing in language.
/

Synchronic and diachronic perspective

Saussure introduced another dichotomy in language studies, that is the

distinction between synchronic and diachronic perspective. Study of the
linguistic system in a particular state without reference to time is known as
synchronic study of language. In diachronic study language will be studied
with reference to its evolution in time.
Saussure gave more importance to the synchronic study of language, so
he was accused of ignoring the historical nature of language; which is an
entity in constant evolution.

But Saussure had recognised the radical

historicity of language. He asserted the importance of distinguishing between

fads about the linguistic system and facts about the linguistic evolution.
Some times, in some cases the two kinds of facts seem intertwined.
As we have seen in the section on arbitrary nature of the sign, the
relation between the signher and signhed is arbitrary. Saussure connects the
arbitrary nature of the sign, and historical nature of language. There is no
essential or natural connection between sigrufier and the signhed. If there is
some essential connection between si@er

and signhed, the sign would

have an essential core, which would be unaffected by time, and which would
resist the change in meaning. This 'unchanging essence' does not exist in
language. So the meaning will alter from one period to another by the
'accidental features' of the time. Any aspect of sound or meaning can change.
The history of language shows radical evolutionary alteration of both sound
and meaning. Neither signher nor sigrufied contains any essential core which
time cannot touch. The sign is totally subject to history. And the combination
of sigrufier with a sigrufied in a contingent result of the historical process.
The above mentioned arbitrary nature of the sign and its connection
with time require a historical analysis. Since the sign has no necessary core,
it must be defined as a relational entity in its relation to other signs.

The language is a wholly historical entity. It is always open to change.

A person must focus on the relations which exist in a particular synchronic
state if one is to define its elements.
Saussure shows the irrelevance of historical or diachronic facts to the
analysis of la- langue. Some examples in the English language shows the
irrelevance of diachronic information. In modern English the second person
pronoun 'you' is used to refer both to one person and to many -you may be
either the subject or the object in a sentence. But in earlier stage of the English
language, 'you' was defined by its opposition to 'ye' on the one hand and to
thee and thou on the other- 'ye' in a subject pronoun, you an object pronoun,
thee and thou singular forms and you a plural form. At a later stage of
English 'you' comes to serve as a respectful way to addressing one person.
Now in modern English 'you' is no longer defined by its opposition to 'ye'
three and thou. Today one can speak modem English perfectly without
knowing that 'you' was once used as a plural and objective form. In modem
English 'you' is defined by its role in a synchronic state of language. We can
take another example for Om the French language. In French the noun par
(step) and the negative adverb par (not) derive historically from a single sign.
But this is not relevant to a description of modern French, where the words
function is totally different ways and must be treated as different signs.

Saussure gave importance to the synchronic method, but that does not
mean he had taken language only in a synchronic way.
The Diachronic identity depends upon a series of synchronic identities.
Diachronic statements relate a single element from one state of a linguistic
system to element from a later state of the system. The linguistic units are
defined by relations within their own states of the system. Saussure argues
that diachronic statements are derived from synchronic statement. Taking an
example Saussure asks, what allows us, to state that Latin mare become
French mer (sea). Saussure says that 'we are using the correspondence
between 'mare' and 'me{ to decide that 'a' became 'e' and that final 'e' fell.14
At each period in the history, we can see that a change occurred, when there
was an old form and a new form which were phonetically different but
phonologically or functionally identical. In the example of 'mare' and 'mer',
we connect the two forms with the help of intermediate forms, which
constitute an unbroken chain of synchronic identities.
ofcourse have had different associations.

The forms may

However they could be used

interchangeably by speakers. Some persons stick to the old form and others
prefer the new.

But the move from one to other would not produce a

differencein actual meaning. From the view point of linguistic system there
would a synchronic identity between the two forms.

Saussure's remark about the relation between synchronic and

diachronic nature of linguistic form is interesting.
"...In any event, we cannot accurately define the unit until we
have studied it from both viewpoints, the static and the
evolutionary. Until we solve the problem of the diachronic
unit, we cannot penetrate the outer guise of evolution and
reach its essence. Understanding units is just as important
here as in synchrony if we are separate illusion from reality
(see p. 110)...."l5
As we have seen above language has synchronic and diachronic
aspects. These two aspects are important in the study of language. Saussure
is aware of the intertwining of synchronic and diachronic facts. For him the

difficulty lies only in the separation of these two elements, when they are
mixed. When a linguist studies the language he has to separate the two
aspects, but the two aspects are mixed. However these two aspects are to be
separated because they are facts of a differentorder with different conditions
of existence.
Some linguists offer a panchronic synthesis, or perspective, to study the
nature of language. But Saussure rejects that offer. He says that, the arbitrary

nature of the language signs does not allow us to give a place to panchronic
approach in linguistics.
A synchronic fact is a relationship or opposition between two forms

existing simultaneously.

In order to understand the synchronic and

diachronic aspects of language and its difference we can take an example

from English. In English language some nouns have unusual plural forms
like feet, geese, and teeth.
In the Early Anglo- Saxon the singular and plural forms of these nouns
seem, as shown below.

Stage I

Singular

Plural

Foot

fot

foti

Goose

gas

gosi

Tooth

top

topi

(Where b =th, pronounced roughly foat, foati)

Stage I1

Foot

fot

feti

Goose

gos

gesi

Tooth

top

topi

Stage 111

Foot

fot

fet

Goose

goS

ges

Tooth

tof

tef

In the first stage plural forms were affected by a phonetic change

known a "I" mutation. When 'I' is followed by a stressed syllable, the vowel
of the stressed syllable was effected and back vowels were fronted, so that o
became e in the second stage. In the third stage the final '1' was dropped.
Saussure says that these forms are by the English vowel shift, in which
o became

and e became I and then it became the modern forms. At the

stage one plural was made by the presence of a final i. This is a synchronic
fact, because the opposition between presence and absence of 'I' marked the
opposition between singular and plural. In the second stage too certain
number of plural forms were affected which is due to e, which produces a
new synchronic fact in stage two. In the third stage too we can see a
synchronic change, the whole process shows that the linguistic system was
able to use the difference in the synchronic state as a meaning-bearing
opposition.
According to Saussure, diachronic facts are of a different order from the
Synchronic. In the history of language we can see the historical evolution of

individual elements throw up forms which the system uses, and study of
those systematic uses is the central task.

Historical explanation is not

required here. Explanation is linguistic in structural: one explains the forms

and rules of combination by sketching out the underlying system of relation,
in a particular synchronic state,

which defines the elements of that

synchronic system.
In the view of Saussure as we have seen above language is a form not a
substance. A language is a system of mutually related values. Analysis of
language means setting out the system of values which constitute a state of
the language. Langue is a system of oppositions or difference, it is not
positive phonic and sigrufying elements of speech act or the parole. Nothing
is given in linguistics as positive self-defined elements with which we can
start. In order to identlfy two instances of the same unit we must construct a
formal and relational entity by distinguishing between differences which are
non functional and differences which are functional. Once we have identified
the relations and oppositions in a system, we will get the linguistic 'sign'
which emerges from the net work of differences.
When Saussure talks about 'signs' or the linguistic units, it may sound,
as though he was referring to speaking of words only. The language consists
of grammatical relations and distinctions. But according to Saussure, there is

no fundamental difference between a linguistic unit and a grammatical fact.

Their common nature is a result of the fact that signs are entirely differential
objects and they constitute a linguistic sign.
For example, consider the word 'took'. What is the sign of the past
tense here? It is nothing positive in the world itself, but it is only a relational
element.

The opposition between take and took carries the distinction

between present and past. Thus in the study of the language, the linguist is
concerned with relationships, identities and differences. There are two major
types of relationship - the first one is - opposition which produces distinct and
alternative terms (b as opposed to p) the next one is, there are relations
between units which combine to from sequence. The former relation is
known as paradigmatic relation and the latter 'syntagmatic'.

Paradigmatic

relations are the oppositions between elements which can replace one
another. Syntagmatic relations define combinatory possibilities: the relation
between elements which combine in a sequence.
We can see the paradigmatic syntegmatic relationship at the level of
morphology or word structure. A noun is partly defined by the combination
into which it can enter with suffixes and prefixes. We can make friendless,
friendly, friendliness, unfriendly, befriend.

The combinatory possibilities

represent syntagmatic relationships. The paradigmatic relationships are to be

found in the contrast between a given morpheme and those which could
replace it in a given environment.

In this way we will get paradigmatic

contrast between -1y-less, and -ship, in that they can all occur after friend and
replacement of one by another brings a change in meaning. And at the level
of syntax too we can see the same type of relationship. For example take the
sentence he fnghtened.

We can replace he by, George, Raman, the man

standing on the corner etc. But not by 'stone' 'colour', 'tree', etc. Our
knowledge of syntagmatic relations enables us to define for he fnghtened a
paradigmatic class of items which can follow it.

These items are in

paradigmatic contrast with one another and to choose one is to produce the
meaning by excluding others.
Saussure, as a structuralist, claims that the entire linguistic system can
be reduced to and explained in terms of a theory of syntagamatic and
paradigmatic relations. In the view of a structuralist, the linguistic system
consists of different levels of structure, at each level one can identdy the
elements, which contrast with one another and combine with other elements
to form higher level units. At each level the principle strudure is same.
Saussure says that language is a form and not a substance; so its elements
have only contrastive and combinational properties. The units of elements
have been identified at each level of the structure. This identification is done

by the capacity of differentiation. At the level of phoneme, we idenhfy the

phonological distinctive features as the relational features which differentiate
the phonemes. The same thing happens at the level of morphemes, and at
last the words are defined by the fact that they play different roles in the
higher level units of phrase and sentence.
In linguistics nothing is given in advance, we cannot start from a word
assuming that a meaning is given to that word before the set up of the
system. The elements with which one tries to start are defined by both
syntagmatic and paradigmatic relation. In the structure the items are defined
by their contrast with other items and their ability to combine to form higher
level items.
Serniology is another concern for Saussure, but in 'course', Saussure
devotes very few paragraphs about it. According to Saussure serniological
perspective is central to any study of language.
As Saussure pointed out in his course language is a social institution,
but it is different from political, legal, institutions. Saussure says,
N

...Language

is a system of signs that express ideas, and is

therefore comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of

deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signals,
etc. But it is the most important of all these systems.

science that studies the life of signs within society is

conceivable; is would be a part of social psychology and

..

consequently of general psychology; I shall call it semiology

(from Greek semeion 'Sign').

Semiology would show what

constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science

does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but is has
a right to existence, a place staked out in advance. Linguistics
is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws

discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics, and

the latter will circumscribe a well-defined area within the
mass of anthropological facts..."l6
Human being always make noises, gestures etc. to convey meaning,
but every gesture and noise is always in a system, where there are signs there
is a system. An underlying system of convention makes the meaning of the

utterance.

So to understand the 'meaning' one has to understand the

semilogical system, and should not treat the 'utterance' in isolation. In this
analysis meaning is derived from the system. Saussure says,
"...But to me the language problem is mainly seniological, and

all developments derive their sigruficance from that important

fact. If we are to discover the true nature of language we must

lean what is has in common with all other semiological

systems; linguistic forces that seem very important at first
glance..."l7
Saussure's remarks about semiology is very brief in 'course', but his
proposals concerning semiology were taken up seriously only at the middle of
this century. The other disciplines realised the importance of his suggestions
only after many years the publication of 'course'. What is now called
'structuralism' is a product of Saussure's insight. Anthropologists, literary
critics and the scholars in many other disciplines saw that the 'example' of
linguistics could help them to justdy what they sought to do in their own
areas of study. And then they began to take linguistic as a model of their
methodology.

Claud levi strauss defined anthropology as a branch of

semiology, and paid homage to Saussure.

Sirniology is a vast field of enquiry. In semiology every sign has a
meaning because every sign is in a network of culture. Sernilogy would come
to include most of the disciplines of the humanities and the social science.
Most of the domain of human activity, be it, cooking, architecture, advertising
fashion, literature or music can be approached in semiological terms.
In semiological studies we should remember that the signdying
phenomena which one encounters in the various domain are not alike. All

signs are not of the same type. So various typologies of signs have been
proposed, but three fundamental classes of signs are important. The icon,
index, and the sign proper. In these three types the relation between signrfier
and the sigdied are different. An icon involves actual resemblance between
sigdier and the sipdied. Portrait is an example. In an index the relation
between the signifier and the sigrufied is causal: Smoke and fire is the best
example of it. In the sign the relation between signrfier and the signdied is
arbitrary and conventional. Mannerisms in community can be taken as the
example of this type.
The above division is important however signs proper, where the
relation between signher and signdied is arbitrary or conventional, are thus
the central domain of semiology. The signs require semiological investigation
to understand the mechanism of their working. To understand the 'meaning'
of a signher one must reconstruct the semiotic system, because one can't
understand the meaning in isolation. The reconstruction of a semiotic system
alone help us to do the explanation of the 'system and meaning' in a system.
In the domain of social and natural science, we can't see the 'sign' as in
the languages that they are not semiological in themselves does not mean that
those disciplines are not in the area of 'semiotics'. The objects which these
discipline study are not signs proper, but they may be studied as semiotic

systems. Astrology is an example of it. We do not believe in the prediction of

an astrologist, who establishes a relation between movement of the planet
and the events of the people's lives. But in astrology they use a system of
conventions, which are not an 'essential' character of the planets. In the same
way semiology can study the conventions which govern the discourses and
interpretation of any discipline. Semiologists do not bother about the truth
and falsity of any discipline. To them that is irrelevant. They simply analyses
a system and findout the relation between the concepts.

FOUR

The rise of the new science of linguistics is the most fascinating chapter
in the history of human race. Linguistics and the semiotics changed the views
of philosophers and thinkers. Nobody today argues that he can create a 'new
system' without the help of linguistics. The position of the study of 'signs' in
the domain of knowledge is not a matter of dispute now.

After the

Saussurean period our whole concept of language and reality has changed.
So nobody can move forward without the influence of Saussure.

NOTES
1.

Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics; Edited by Charles B d y

and Albert Sechehaye in Collaboration with Albert Riedlinger, translated by
Wade Baskin (MCGraw - Hill Book Company, 1966), p. 3-4.

2.

Ibid, p. 76.

3.

Ibid,p.65.

4.

Ibid, p. 67.

5.

Ibid,p.68.

6.

Ibid,p.69.

7.

Ibid,p.70.

8.

Ibid, p. 67.

9.

Ibid, p. 117.

10. Ibid, p. 110.

11. Ibid, p. 120.

12. Ibid, p. 14.

13. Ibid, p. 14.
14. Ibid, p. 182.
15. Ibid, p. 181.
16. Ibid, p. 16.
Ibid, p. 17.