1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

FerdinanddeSaussure(1910)

Third Course of Lectures on

General Linguistics

Source:Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linghuistics (19101911)

publ.PergamonPress,1993.Reproducedherearethefirstfewandlastfewpagesof
whatarenotestakenbyastudentofSaussure'slectures.

[28October1910]
Introductorychapter:Briefsurveyofthehistory
oflinguistics
Thecoursewilldealwithlinguisticsproper,notwithlanguagesandlanguage.This
science has gone through phases with shortcomings. Three phases may be
distinguished,orthreesuccessiveapproachesadoptedbythosewhotookalanguageas
anobjectofstudy.Lateroncamealinguisticsproper,awareofitsobject.

Thefirstofthesephasesisthatofgrammar,inventedbytheGreeksandcarriedon
unchanged by the French. It never had any philosophical view of a language as such.
That'smoretheconcernoflogic.Alltraditionalgrammarisnormativegrammar,that
is,dominatedbyapreoccupationwithlayingdownrules,anddistinguishingbetweena
certain allegedly 'correct' language and another, allegedly 'incorrect' which straight
awayprecludesanybroaderviewofthelanguagephenomenonasawhole.

Later and only at the beginning of the 19th century, if we are talking of major
movements (and leaving out the precursors, the 'philological' school at Alexandria),
came2)thegreatphilologicalmovementofclassicalphilology,carryingondownto
our own day. In 1777, Friedrich Wolf, as a student, wished to be enrolled as a
philologist.Philologyintroducedanewprinciple:themethodofcriticalexaminationof
texts. The language was just one of the many objects coming within the sphere of
philology, and consequently subjected to this criticism. Henceforth, language studies
were no longer directed merely towards correcting grammar. The critical principle
demandedanexamination,forinstance,ofthecontributionofdifferentperiods,thusto
someextentembarkingonhistoricallinguistics.Ritschl'srevisionofthetextofPlautus
maybeconsideredtheworkofalinguist.Ingeneral,thephilologicalmovementopened
up countless sources relevant to linguistic issues, treating them in quite a different
spirit from traditional grammar for instance, the study of inscriptions and their
language.Butnotyetinthespiritoflinguistics.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 1/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

A third phase in which this spirit of linguistics is still not evident: this is the
sensationalphaseofdiscoveringthatlanguagescouldbecomparedwithoneanother
that a bond or relationship existed between languages often separated geographically
bygreatdistancesthat,aswellaslanguages,therewerealsogreatlanguagefamilies,in
particulartheonewhichcametobecalledtheIndoEuropeanfamily.

Surprisingly,therewasneveramoreflawedorabsurdideaofwhatalanguageisthan
duringthethirtyyearsthatfollowedthisdiscoverybyBopp(1816).Infact,fromthen
onscholarsengagedinakindofgameofcomparingdifferentIndoEuropeanlanguages
with one another, and eventually they could not fail to wonder what exactly these
connections showed, and how they should be interpreted in concrete terms. Until
nearly1870,theyplayedthisgamewithoutanyconcernfortheconditionsaffectingthe
lifeofalanguage.

This very prolific phase, which produced many publications, differs from its
predecessorsbyfocussingattentiononagreatnumberoflanguagesandtherelations
between them, but, just like its predecessors, has no linguistic perspective, or at least
nonewhichiscorrect,acceptableandreasonable.Itispurelycomparative.Youcannot
altogether condemn the more or less hostile attitude of the philological tradition
towardsthecomparativists,becausethelatterdidnotinfactbringanyrenewalbearing
ontheprinciplesthemselves,nonewhichinpracticeimmediatelyopenedupanynew
horizons, and with which they can clearly be credited. When was it recognised that
comparisonis,inshort,onlyamethodtoemploywhenwehavenomoredirectwayof
ascertaining the facts, and when did comparative grammar give way to a linguistics
whichincludedcomparativegrammarandgaveitanewdirection?

It was mainly the study of the Romance languages which led the IndoEuropeanists
themselves to a more balanced view and afforded a glimpse of what the study of
linguisticswastobeingeneral.DoubtlessthegrowthofRomancestudies,inaugurated
byDiehls,wasadevelopmentofBopp'srulesfortheIndoEuropeanlanguages.Inthe
Romance sphere, other conditions quickly became apparent in the first place, the
actual presence of the prototype of each form thanks to Latin, which we know,
Romancescholarshavethisprototypeinfrontofthemfromthestart,whereasforthe
IndoEuropeanlanguageswehavetoreconstructhypotheticallytheprototypeofeach
form. Second, with the Romance languages it is perfectly possible, at least in certain
periods, to follow the language from century to century through documents, and so
inspect closely what was happening. These two circumstances reduce the area of
conjecture and made Romance linguistics look quite different from IndoEuropean
linguistics.ItmustalsobesaidthatGermanicstudiestosomeextentplayedthesame
roleaswell.Theretheprototypedoesnotexist,butinthecaseofGermanicthereare
longhistoricalperiodsthatcanbefollowed.

The historical perspective that the IndoEuropeanists lacked, because they viewed
everything on the same level, was indispensable for the Romance scholars. And the

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 2/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

historicalperspectiverevealedhowthefactswereconnected.Thusitcameaboutthat
the influence of Romance studies was very salutary. One of the great defects, from a
scholarlypointofview,whichiscommontophilologyandthecomparativephaseisa
servile attachment to the letter, to the written language, or a failure to draw a clear
distinction between what might pertain to the real spoken language and what to its
graphic sign. Hence, it comes about that the literary point of view is more or less
confused with the linguistic point of view, and furthermore, more concretely, the
written word is confused with the spoken word two superimposed systems of signs
which have nothing to do with each other, the written and the spoken, are conflated.
Thelinguisticswhichgraduallydevelopedinthiswayisascienceforwhichwecantake
thedefinitiongivenbyHatzfeld,DarmstetterandThomas'sDictionary:'thescientific
study of languages', which is satisfactory, but it is this word scientific that
distinguishesitfromallearlierstudies.

Whatdoesittake:1)asitssubjectmatter2)asitsobjectortask?

1) a scientific study will take as its subject matter every kind of variety of human
language: it will not select one period or another for its literary brilliance or for the
renownofthepeopleinquestion.ItwillPayattentiontoanytongue,whetherobscure
or famous, and likewise to any period, giving no preference, for example, to what is
calledaclassicalperiod',butaccordingequalinteresttosocalleddecadentorarchaic
periods.Similarly,foranygivenperiod,itwillrefrainfromselectingthemosteducated
language, but will concern itself at the same time with popular forms more or less in
contrastwiththesocallededucatedorliterarylanguage,aswellastheformsoftheso
called educated or literary language. Thus linguistics deals with language of every
periodandinalltheguisesitassumes.

Necessarily,itshouldbepointedout,inordertohavedocumentationforallperiods,
asfaraspossible,linguisticswillconstantlyhavetodealwiththewrittenlanguage,and
willoftenhavetorelyontheinsightsofphilologyinordertotakeitsbearingsamong
thesewrittentextsbutitwillalwaysdistinguishbetweenthewrittentextandwhatlies
underneath treating the former as being only the envelope or external mode of
presentationofitstrueobject,whichissolelythespokenlanguage.

2)Thebusiness,taskorobjectofthescientificstudyoflanguageswillifpossiblebe1)
to trace the history of all known languages. Naturally this is possible only to a very
limitedextentandforveryfewlanguages.

In attempting to trace the history of a language, one will very soon find oneself
obligedtotracethehistoryofalanguagefamily.BeforeLatin,thereisaperiodwhich
GreekandSlavicshareincommon.Sothisinvolvesthehistoryoflanguagefamilies,as
andwhenrelevant.

But in the second place 2), and this is very different, it will be necessary to derive
from this history of all the languages themselves laws of the greatest generality.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 3/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

Linguistics will have to recognise laws operating universally in language, and in a

strictly rational manner, separating general phenomena from those restricted to one
branch of languages or another. There are more special tasks to add concerning the
relations between linguistics and various sciences. Some are related by reason of the
informationanddatatheyborrow,whileothers,onthecontrary,supplyitandassistits
work.Itoftenhappensthattherespectivedomainsoftwosciencesarenotobviouson
first inspection in the very first place, what ought to be mentioned here are the
relationsbetweenlinguisticsandpsychologywhichareoftendifficulttodemarcate.

Itisoneoftheaimsoflinguisticstodefineitself,torecognisewhatbelongswithinits
domain. In those cases where it relies upon psychology, it will do so indirectly,
remainingindependent.

Once linguistics is conceived in this way, i.e. as concerned with language in all its
manifestations, an object of the broadest possible scope, we can immediately, so to
speak, understand what perhaps was not always clear: the utility of linguistics,or
itsclaimtobeincludedamongthosestudiesrelevanttowhatiscalled'generalculture'.

As long as the activity of linguists was limited to comparing one language with
another, this general utility cannot have been apparent to most of the general public,
andindeedthestudywassospecialisedthattherewasnorealreasontosupposeitof
possibleinteresttoawideraudience.Itisonlysincelinguisticshasbecomemoreaware
of its object of study, i.e. perceives the whole extent of it, that it is evident that this
sciencecanmakeacontributiontoarangeofstudiesthatwillbeofinteresttoalmost
anyone.Itisbynomeansuseless,forinstance,tothosewhohavetodealwithtexts.It
is useful to the historian, among others, to be able to see the commonest forms of
different phenomena, whether phonetic, morphological or other, and how language
lives,carriesonandchangesovertime.Moregenerally,itisevidentthatlanguageplays
suchaconsiderableroleinhumansocieties,andisafactorofsuchimportancebothfor
theindividualhumanbeingandhumansociety,thatwecannotsupposethatthestudy
of such a substantial part of human nature should remain simply and solely the
businessofafewspecialistseveryone,itwouldseem,iscalledupontoformascorrect
an idea as possible of what this particular aspect of human behaviour amounts to in
general. All the more so inasmuch as really rational, acceptable ideas about it, the
conceptionthatlinguisticshaseventuallyreached,bynomeanscoincideswithwhatat
firstsightseemstobethecase.Thereisnosphereinwhichmorefantasticandabsurd
ideashavearisenthaninthestudyoflanguages.Languageisanobjectwhichgivesrise
toallkindsofmirage.Mostinterestingofall,fromapsychologicalpointofview,arethe
errorslanguageproduces.Everyone,lefttohisowndevices,formsanideaaboutwhat
goesoninlanguagewhichisveryfarfromthetruth.

ThusitisequallylegitimateinthatrespectforlinguisticstodaytoClaimtobeableto
putmanyideasright,tothrowlightonareaswherethegeneralrunofscholarswould
beveryliabletogowrongandmakeveryseriousmistakes.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 4/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

Ihaveleftononesidethequestionoflanguagesandlanguageinordertodiscussthe
objectoflinguisticsanditspossibleutility.

[4November1910]
Mainsectionsofthecourse:
1) Languages 2) The language 3) The language faculty and its use by the
individual.

Without for the moment distinguishing terminologically between languages and

language, where do we find the linguistic phenomenon in its concrete, complete,
integralform?That is: where do we find the object we have to confront? With all its
characteristics as yet contained within it and unanalysed? This is a difficulty which
doesnotariseinmanyotherdisciplinesnothavingyoursubjectmatterthereinfront
of you. It would be a mistake to believe that this integral, complete object can be
grasped by picking out whatever is most general. The operation of generalisation
presupposesthatwehavealreadyinvestigatedtheobjectunderscrutinyinsuchaway
as to be able to pronounce upon what its general features are. What is general in
languagewillnotbewhatwearelookingforthatis,theobjectimmediatelygiven.But
normustwefocusonwhatisonlypartofit.

Thus,itisclearthatthevocalapparatushasanimportancewhichmaymonopolise
ourattention,andwhenwehavestudiedthisarticulatoryaspectoflanguagesweshall
soon realise that there is a corresponding acoustic aspect. But even that does not go
beyond purely material considerations. It does not take us as far as the word, the
combinationoftheideaandthearticulatoryproductbutifwetakethecombinationof
theideaandthevocalsign,wemustaskifthisistobestudiedintheindividualorina
society,acorporatebody:westillseemtobeleftwithsomethingwhichisincomplete.
Proceedingthus,weseethatincatchingholdofthelanguagebyoneendatrandomwe
are far from being able to grasp the whole phenomenon. It may seem, after
approaching our study from several angles simultaneously, that there is no
homogeneousentitywhichisthelanguage,butonlyaconglomerateofcompositeitems
(articulation of a sound, idea connected to it) which must be studied piecemeal and
cannotbestudiedasanintegralobject.

Thesolutionwecanadoptisthis:

Ineveryindividualthereisafacultywhichcanbecalledthefacultyofarticulated
language.Thisfacultyisavailabletousinthefirstinstanceintheformoforgans,and
thenbytheoperationswecanperformwiththoseorgans.Butitisonlyafaculty,andit
would be a material impossibility to utilise it in the absence of something else a

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 5/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

language which is given to the individual from outside: it is necessary that the
individualshouldbeprovidedwiththisfacilitywithwhatwecallalanguagebythe
combinedeffortofhisfellows,herewesee,incidentally,perhapsthemostaccurateway
of drawing a distinction between language and languages. A language is necessarily
social: language is not especially so. The latter can be defined at the level of the
individual.Itisanabstractthingandrequiresthehumanbeingforitsrealisation.This
facultywhichexistsinindividualsmightperhapsbecomparedtoothers:manhasthe
facultyofsong,forexampleperhapsnoonewouldinventatuneunlessthecommunity
gavealead.Alanguagepresupposesthatalltheindividualuserspossesstheorgans.By
distinguishing between the language and the faculty of language, we distinguish 1)
what is social from what is individual, 2) what is essential from what is more or less
accidental.Asamatteroffact,weshallseelateronthatitisthecombinationoftheidea
withavocalsignwhichsufficestoconstitutethewholelanguage.Soundproduction
that is what falls within the domain of the faculty of the individual and is the
individual's responsibility. But it is comparable to the performance of a musical
masterpieceonaninstrumentmanyarecapableofplayingthepieceofmusic,butitis
entirelyindependentofthesevariousperformances.

Theacousticimagelinkedtoanideathatiswhatisessentialtothelanguage.Itisin
thephoneticexecutionthatalltheaccidentalthingsoccurforinaccuraterepetitionof
whatwasgivenisattherootofthatimmenseclassoffacts,phoneticchanges,whichare
ahostofaccidents.

3) By distinguishing thus between the language and the faculty of language, we see
thatthelanguageiswhatwemaycalla'product':itisa'socialproduct'wehaveset
it apart from the operation of the vocal apparatus, which is a permanent action. You
can conjure up a very precise idea of this product and thus set the language, so to
speak,materiallyinfrontofyoubyfocussingonwhatispotentiallyinthebrainsofa
set of individuals (belonging to one and the same community) even when they are
asleep we can say that in each of these heads is the whole product that we call the
language.Wecansaythattheobjecttobestudiedisthehoarddepositedinthebrainof
eachoneofusdoubtlessthishoard,inanyindividualcase,willneverturnOuttobe
absolutely complete. We can say that language always works through a language',
without that, it does not exist. The language, in turn, is quite independent of the
individual it cannot be a creation of the individual, it is essentially social it
presupposes the collectivity. Finally, its only essential feature is the combination of
sound and acoustic image with an idea. (The acoustic image is the impression that
remainswithusthelatentimpressioninthebrain(D.)).Thereisnoneedtoconceiveit
(thelanguage)asnecessarilyspokenallthetime.

Letuscomedowntodetailsletusconsiderthelanguageasasocialproduct.Among
socialproducts,itisnaturaltoaskwhetherthereisanyotherwhichoffersaparallel.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 6/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

The American linguist Whitney who, about 1870, became very influential through
hisbookThe principles and the life of language,causedastonishmentbycomparing
languages to social Institutions, saying that they fell in general into the great class of
socialinstitutions.Inthis,hewasontherighttrack,hisideasareinagreementwith
mine.'Itis,intheend,fortuitous,'hesaid,'thatmenmadeuseofthelarynx,lipsand
tongueinordertospeak.Theydiscovereditwasmoreconvenientbutiftheyhadused
visualsigns,orhandsignals,thelanguagewouldremaininessenceexactlythesame:
nothingwouldhavechanged.'Thiswasright,forheattributednogreatimportanceto
execution. Which comes down to what I was saying: the only change would be the
replacementoftheacousticimagesImentionedbyvisualimages.Whitney wanted to
eradicatetheideathatinthecaseofalanguagewearedealingwithanaturalfacultyin
fact,socialinstitutionsstandopposedtonaturalinstitutions.

Nevertheless, you cannot find any social institution that can be set on a par with a
language and is comparable to it. There are very many differences. The very special
place that a language occupies among institutions is undeniable, but there is much
more to be said, a comparison would tend rather to bring out the differences. In a
generalway,institutionssuchaslegalinstitutions,orforinstanceaset,ofrituals,ora
ceremonyestablishedonceandforall,havemanycharacteristicswhichmakethemlike
languages,andthechangestheyundergoovertimea.everyreminiscentoflinguistic
changes.Butthereareenormousdifferences.

1)Nootherinstitutioninvolvesalltheindividualsallthetimenootherisopentoall
insuchawaythateachpersonparticipatesinitandnaturallyinfluencesit.

2)Mostinstitutionscanbeimproved,correctedatcertaintimes,reformedbyanact
of will, whereas on the contrary we see that such an initiative is impossible where
languages are concerned, that even academies cannot change by decree the course
takenbytheinstitutionwecallthelanguage,etc.

Before proceeding further, another idea must be introduced: that of semiological

factsinsocieties.Letusgobacktothelanguageconsideredasaproductofsocietyat
work:itisasetofsignsfixedbyagreementbetweenthemembersofthatsocietythese
signsevokeideas,butinthatrespectit'sratherlikerituals,forinstance.

Nearly all institutions, it might be said, are based on signs, but these signs do not
directly evoke things. In all societies we find this phenomenon: that for various
purposessystemsofsignsareestablishedthatdirectlyevoketheideasonewishesitis
obviousthatalanguageisonesuchsystem,andthatitisthemostimportantofthem
all but it is not the only one, and consequently we cannot leave the others out of
account.Alanguagemustthusbeclassedamongsemiologicalinstitutionsforexample,
ships'signals(visualsigns),armybuglecalls,thesignlanguageofthedeafanddumb,
etc.Writing is likewise a vast system of signs. Any psychology of sign systems will be
part of social psychology that is to say, will be exclusively social it will involve the
samepsychologyasisapplicableinthecaseoflanguages.Thelawsgoverningchanges
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 7/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

inthesesystemsofsignswilloftenbesignificantlysimilartolawsoflinguisticchange.
This can easily be seen in the case of writing although the signs are visual signs
whichundergoesalterationscomparabletophoneticphenomena.

Having identified the language as a social product to be studied in linguistics, one

mustaddthatlanguageinhumanityasawholeismanifestedinaninfinitediversityof
languages:alanguageistheproductofasociety,butdifferentsocietiesdonothavethe
same language. Where does this diversity come from? Sometimes it is a relative
diversity, sometimes an absolute diversity, but we have finally located the concrete
objectinthisproductthatcanbesupposedtobelodgedinthebrainofeachofus.But
thisproductvaries,dependingOnwhereyouareintheworld,whatisgivenisnotonly
thelanguagebutlanguages.Andthelinguisthasnootherchoicethantostudyinitially
the diversity of languages. He must first study languages, as many languages as
possible,andwidenhishorizonsasfarashecan.Sothisishowweshallproceed.From
the study and observation of these languages, the linguist will be able to abstract
general features, retaining everything that seems essential and universal, and setting
asidewhatisparticularandaccidental.Hewillthusendupwithasetofabstractions,
which will be the language. That is what is summarised in the second section: the
language.Under'thelanguage'Ishallsummarisewhatcanbeobservedinthedifferent
languages.

3) However, there is still the individual to be examined, since it is clear that what
creates general phenomena is the collaboration of all the individuals involved.
Consequentlywehavetotakealookathowlanguageoperatesintheindividual.This
individual implementation of the social product is not a part of the object I have
defined.This third chapter reveals, so to speak, what lies underneath the individual
mechanism,whichcannotultimatelyfailtohaverepercussionsinonewayoranother
on the general product, but which must not be confused, for purposes of study, with
thatgeneralproduct,fromwhichitisquiteseparate.

[8November1910]
PartOne:Languages
Thisheadingcontrastswiththatofmysecondchapter:thelanguage.Thereisnopoint
in giving a more detailed specification and the meaning of these two contrasting
headings is sufficiently selfevident. Just as, although comparisons with the natural
sciencesmustnotbeabused,itwouldlikewisebeimmediatelyevidentwhatwasmeant
in a work on natural history by contrasting 'the plant' with 'plants' (c.f. also .'insects,
versus'theinsect').

Thesedivisionswouldcorrespondreasonablywellevenincontenttowhatweshall
get in linguistics if we distinguish between 'the language' and 'languages'. Some
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 8/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

botanistsandnaturalistsdevotetheirentirecareerstooneapproachortheother.There
arebotanistswhoclassifyplantswithoutconcerningthemselveswiththecirculationof
thesap,etc.,thatistosay,withoutconcerningthemselveswith'theplant'.

Considerationsrelevanttothelanguage(andequallytosomeextenttolanguagesas
well)willleadustoconsiderlanguagesfromanexternalpointofview,withoutmaking
anyinternalanalysisbutthedistinctionisnothardandfast,forthedetailedstudyof
the history of a language or of a group of languages is perfectly well accommodated
undertheheading'languages',andthatpresupposesinternalanalysis.Tosomeextent
onecouldalsosaythatinmysecondpart'thelanguage'couldbeexpandedtoread'the
lifeofthelanguage',thatthissecondpartwouldcontainthingsofimportanceforthe
characterisationofthelanguage,andthatthesethingsareallpartofalife,abiology.
Butthereareotherthingsthatwouldnotbeincluded:amongothers,thewholelogical
side of the language, involving invariables unaffected by time or geographical
boundaries. Languages constitute the concrete object that the linguist encounters on
the earth's surface 'the language' is the heading one can provide for whatever
generalisationsthelinguistmaybeabletoextractfromallhisobservationsacrosstime
andspace.

[30June1911]

Reversing the order of the two series I have considered, we can say that the mind
establishesjusttwoordersofrelationsbetweenwords.

1)Outsidespeech,theassociationthatismadeinthememorybetweenwordshaving
something in common creates different groups, series, families, within which very
diverse relations obtain but belonging to a single category: these are associative
relations.

2)Withinspeech,wordsaresubjecttoakindofrelationthatisindependentofthe
first and based on their linkage: these are syntagmatic relations, of which I have
spoken.

Hereofcoursethereisaproblem,becausethesecondorderofrelationsappearsto
appealtofactsofspeechandnotlinguisticfacts.Butthelanguageitselfincludessuch
relations, even if only in compound words (German Hauptmann), or even in a word
likeDummheit, orexpressionslikes'il vous plait ['ifyouplease']whereasyntagmatic
relationholds.

When we speak of the structure of a word, we are referring to the second kind of
relation: these are units arranged end to end as exponents of certain relations. If we
speak of something like a flexional paradigm (dominus, domini, domino) we are

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 9/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

referringtoagroupbasedonassociativerelations.Thesearenotunitsarrangedendto
endandrelatedinacertainwayinvirtueofthatfact.

Magnanimus: the relation involving animus is syntagmatic. Idea expressed by

juxtapositionofthetwopartsinsequence.Nowhere,eitherinmagn orinanimus do
youfindsomethingmeaning'possessingagreatsoul'.

If you take animus in relation to anima and animal, it is a different order of

relations.Thereisanassociativefamily:

animus
anima
animal

Neitherorderofrelationsisreducibletotheother:bothareoperative.

If we compare them to the parts of a building: columns will stand in a. certain

relationtoafriezetheysupport.Thesetwocomponentsarerelatedinawaxwhichis
comparabletothesyntagmaticrelation.Itisanarrangementoftwocopresentunits.If
IseeaDoriccolumn,Imightlinkitbyassociationwithaseriesofobjectsthatarenot
present,associativerelations(Ioniccolumn,Corinthiancolumn).

The sum total of word relations that the mind associates with any word that is
presentgivesavirtualseries,aseriesformedbythememory(amnemonicseries),as
opposedtoachain,asyntagmaformedbytwounitspresenttogether.Thisisanactual
series,asopposedtoavirtualseries,andgivesrisetootherrelations.

TheconclusionIshouldliketodrawfromthisisasfollows:inwhicheverorderof
relations a words functions (it is required to function in both), a word is always, first
and foremost, a member of a system, interconnected with other words, sometimes in
oneorderofrelations,sometimesinanother.

Thiswillhavetobetakenintoaccountinconsideringwhatconstitutesvalue.First,it
wasnecessarytoconsiderwordsastermsinasystem.

As soon as we substitute term for word, this implies consideration of its relations
withothers(appealtotheideaofinterconnectionswithotherwords).

We must not begin with the word, the term, in order to construct the system. This
wouldbetosupposethatthetermshaveanabsolutevaluegiveninadvance,andthat
youhaveonlytopilethemuponeontopoftheotherinordertoreachthesystem.On
the contrary, one must start from the system, the interconnected whole this may be
decomposedintoparticularterms,althoughthesearenotsoeasilydistinguishedasit
seems. Starting from the whole of the system of values, in order to distinguish the
various values, it is possible that we shall encounter words as recognisable series of
terms.(Incidentally:associatively,Icansummonuptheworddominos justaseasilyas

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 10/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

domino, domine, domin? syntagmatically, I have to choose either dominos or

domini.)

Attachnoimportancetothewordword.ThewordwordasfarasIamconcernedhas
no specific meaning here. The word term is sufficient furthermore, the word word
doesnotmeanthesameinthetwoseries.

ChapterV.Valueoftermsandmeaningsofwords.
Howthetwocoincideanddiffer.
Where there are terms, there are also values. The idea of value is tacitly implied in
thatofterm.Alwayshardtokeepthesetwoideasapart.

When you speak of value, you feel it here becomes synonymous with sense
(meaning) andthatpointstoanotherareaofconfusion(heretheconfusionwillreside
moreinthethingsthemselves).

Thevalueisindeedanelementofthesense,butwhatmattersistoavoidtakingthe
senseasanythingotherthanavalue.

It is perhaps one of the most subtle points there is in linguistics, to see how sense
depends on but nevertheless remains distinct from value. On this the linguist's view
andthesimplisticviewthatseesthelanguageasanomenclaturedifferstrikingly.

FirstletustakemeaningasIhaverepresenteditandhavemyselfsetitout:

The arrow indicates meaning as counterpart of

theauditoryimage

In this view, the meaning is the counterpart of

the auditory image and nothing else. The word
appears, or is taken as, an isolated, selfcontained whole internally, it contains the
auditoryimagehavingaconceptasitscounterpart.

TheparadoxinBaconiantermsthetrapinthe'cave'isthis:themeaning,which
appears to us to be the counterpart of the auditory image, is just as much the
counterpart of terms coexisting in the language. We have just seen that the language
representsasysteminwhichallthetermsappearaslinkedbyrelations.

At first sight,
no relation
between the a)
and the b)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 11/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

arrows.The value of a word will be the result only of the coexistence of the different
terms.Thevalueisthecounterpartofthecoexistingterms.Howdoesthatcometobe
confusedwiththecounterpartoftheauditoryimage?

Anotherdiagram:seriesofslots:

the relation inside one slot and between

slotsisveryhardtodistinguish.

The meaning as counterpart of the image and the meaning as counterpart of

coexistingtermsmerge.

Before example, note that: Outside linguistics, value always seems to involve the
same paradoxical truth. Tricky area. Very difficult in any domain to say what value
consistsof.Soletusbeverywary.Therearetwoelementscomprisingvalue.Valueis
determined1) by a dissimilar thing that can be exchanged, and that can be marked |
[anuparrow]and2)bysimilarthingsthatcanbecompared<>[leftrightarrows].

Thesetwoelementsareessentialforvalue.Forexample,
a20franccoin.Itsvalueisamatterofadissimilarthing
that I can exchange (e.g. pounds of bread), 2) the comparison between the 20franc
coinandonefrancandtwofranccoins,etc.,orcoinsofsimilarvalue(guinea).

Thevalueisatthesametimethecounterpartoftheoneandthecounterpartofthe
other.

Youcanneverfindthemeaningofawordbyconsideringonlytheexchangeableitem,
but you have to compare the similar series of comparable words. You cannot take
words in isolation. This is how the system to which the term belongs is one of the
sourcesofvalue.Itisthesumofcomparabletermssetagainsttheideaexchanged.

Thevalueofawordcanneverbedeterminedexceptbythecontributionofcoexisting
termswhichdelimit it: or, to insiston the paradox already mentioned:whatisinthe
wordisonlyeverdeterminedbythecontributionofwhatexistsaroundit.(Whatisin
thewordisthevalue.)Arounditsyntagmaticallyorarounditassociatively.

Youmustapproachthewordfromoutsidebystartingfromthesystemandcoexisting
terms.

Afewexamples.

Thepluralandwhatevertermsmarktheplural.

ThevalueofaGermanorLatinpluralisnotthevalueofaSanskritplural.Butthe
meaning,ifyoulike,isthesame.

InSanskrit,thereisthedual.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 12/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

Anyone who assigns the same value to the Sanskrit plural as to the Latin plural is
mistakenbecauseIcannotusetheSanskritpluralinallthecaseswhereIusetheLatin
plural.

Whyisthat?Thevaluedependsonsomethingoutside.

If you take on the other hand a simple lexical fact, any word such as, I suppose,
mouton mutton, itdoesn'thavethesamevalueassheepinEnglish.Forifyouspeak
oftheanimalonthehoofandnotonthetable,yousaysheep.

Itisthepresenceinthelanguageofasecondtermthatlimitsthevalueattributable
tosheep.

mutton/sheep / mouton(Restrictiveexample.)

Sothe|arrowisnotenough.The<>arrowsmustalwaysbetakenintoaccount.

Somethingsimilarintheexampleofdecrepit.

Howdoesitcomeaboutthatanoldmanwhoisdecrepit andawallthatisdecrepit
haveasimilarsense?

Itistheinfluenceoftheneighbouringword.Whathappenstodecrepit (anoldman)
comesfromthecoexistenceoftheneighbouringtermdecrepit (awall).

Exampleofcontagion.

[4July1911]

It is not possible even to determine what the value of the word sun is in itself
withoutconsideringalltheneighbouringwordswhichwillrestrictitssense.Thereare
languagesinwhichIcansay:Sit in the sun. Inothers,notthesamemeaningforthe
word sun (= star). The sense of a term depends on presence or absence of a
neighbouringterm.

The system leads to the term and the term to the value. Then you will see that the
meaningisdeterminedbywhatsurroundsit.

I shall also refer back to the preceding chapters, but in the proper way, via the
system,andnotstartingfromthewordinisolation.

To get to the notion of value, I have chosen to start from the system of words as
opposedtothewordinisolation.Icouldhavechosenadifferentbasistostartfrom.

Psychologically,whatareourideas,apartfromourlanguage?Theyprobablydonot
exist.Orinaformthatmaybedescribedasamorphous.Weshouldprobablybeunable
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 13/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

according to philosophers and linguists to distinguish two ideas clearly without the
helpofalanguage(internallanguagenaturally).

Consequently,initself,thepurelyconceptualmassofourideas,themassseparated
from the language, is like a kind of shapeless nebula, in which it is impossible to
distinguishanythinginitially.Thesamegoes,then,forthelanguage:thedifferentideas
represent nothing preexisting. There are no: a) ideas already established and quite
distinctfromoneanother,b)signsfortheseideas.Butthereisnothingatalldistinctin
thoughtbeforethelinguisticsign.Thisisthemainthing.Ontheotherhand,itisalso
worthaskingif,besidethisentirelyindistinctrealmofideas,therealmofsoundoffers
inadvancequitedistinctideas(takeninitselfapartfromtheidea).

Therearenodistinctunitsofsoundeither,delimitedinadvance.

Thelinguisticfactissituatedinbetweenthetwo:

Thislinguisticfactwillengendervalueswhichforthefirsttimewillbedeterminate,
but which nevertheless will remain values, in the sense that can be attached to that
word.Thereisevensomethingtoaddtothefactitself,andIcomebacktoitnow.Not
only are these two domains between which the linguistic fact is situated amorphous,
but the choice of connection between the two, the marriage (of the two) which will
createvalueisperfectlyarbitrary.

Otherwisethevalueswouldbetosomeextentabsolute.Ifitwerenotarbitrary,this
ideaofvaluewouldhavetoberestricted,therewouldbeanabsoluteelement.

Butsincethiscontractisentirelyarbitrary,thevalueswillbeentirelyrelative.

Ifwegobacknowtothediagramrepresentingthesignifiedandsignifyingelements
together

we see that it is doubtless justified but is only a

secondaryproductofvalue.Thesignifiedelementaloneis
nothing, it blurs into a shapeless mass. Likewise the
signifyingelement.

Butthesignifyingandsignifiedelementscontractabondinvirtueofthedeterminate
values that are engendered by the combination of such and such acoustic signs with
suchandsuchcutsthatcanbemadeinthemass.Whatwouldhavetobethecasein
ordertohavethisrelationbetweensignifiedandsignifyingelementsgiveninitself?It
wouldaboveallbenecessarythattheideashouldbedeterminateinadvance,anditis
not. It would above all be necessary that the signified element should be something
determinedinadvance,anditisnot.

That is why this relation is only another expression of values in contrast (in the
system).Thatistrueonanylinguisticlevel.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 14/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

A few examples. If ideas were predetermined in the human mind before being
linguistic values, one thing that would necessarily happen is that terms would
correspondexactlyasbetweenonelanguageandanother.

French German
cher
lieb, teuer (alsomoral)
['dear']
Thereisnoexactcorrespondence.
juger,
urteilen, erachten
estimer
have a set of meanings only partly
['judge,
coincidingwithFrenchjuger, estimer .
estimate']

Weseethatinadvanceofthelanguagethereisnothingwhichisthenotion'cher'in
itself. So we see that this representation:
althoughuseful,isonlyawayofexpressing
the fact that there is in French a certain
value cher delimited in French system by
contrastwithotherterms.

It will be a certain combination of a certain quantity of concepts with a certain

quantityofsounds.

Sotheschema isnotthestartingpointinthelanguage.

Thevaluecher isdeterminedonbothsides.Thecontoursoftheideaitselfiswhatwe
are given by the distribution of ideas in the words of a language. Once we have the
contours,theschemacancomeintoplay.

Thisexamplewastakenfromvocabulary,butanythingwilldo.

Anotherexample.Ideaofdifferenttenses,whichseemsquitenaturaltous,isquite
alientocertainlanguages.AsintheSemiticsystem(Hebrew)thereisnodistinction,as
between present, future and past that is to say these ideas of tense are not
predetermined,butexistonlyasvaluesinonelanguageoranother.

OldGermanhasnofuture,noproperformforthefuture.Itexpressesitbymeansof
thepresent.Butthisisamanner,ofspeaking.HenceOldGermanpresentvalueisnot
thesameasinFrenchfuture.

Similarlyifwetakethedifferencebetweentheperfectiveaspectoftheverbandthe
imperfectiveaspectintheSlaviclanguages(difficultyinthestudyoftheselanguages).
In Slavic languages, constant distinction between aspects of the verb: action outside

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 15/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

any question of time or in process of accomplishment. We find these distinctions

difficultbecausethecategoriesareunfamiliar.Sonotpredetermined,butvalue.

Thisvaluewillresultfromtheoppositionoftermsinthelanguage.

Hence what I have just said: The notion of value was deduced from the
indeterminacyofconcepts.Theschemalinkingthesignifiedtothesignifyingelementis
not a primary schema. Value cannot be determined by the linguist any more than in
otherdomains:wetakeitwithallitsclarityandobscurity.

Tosumup,theworddoesnotexistwithoutasignifiedaswellasasignifyingelement.
But the signified element is only a summary of the linguistic value, presupposing the
mutualinteractionofterms,ineachlanguagesystem.

ChapterVI
Inalaterchapter,ifIhavetime:WhatIhavesaidbyfocussingonthetermvaluecan
bealternativelyexpressedbylayingdownthefollowingprinciple:inthelanguage(that
is, a language state) there are only differences. Difference implies to our mind two
positivetermsbetweenwhichthedifferenceisestablished.Buttheparadoxisthat:In
thelanguage,thereareonlydifferences,withoutpositiveterms.Thatistheparadoxical
truth.Atleast,thereareonlydifferencesifyouarespeakingeitherofmeanings,orof
signifiedorsignifyingelements.

Whenyoucometothetermsthemselves,resultingfromrelationsbetweensignifying
andsignifiedelementsyoucanspeakofoppositions.

Strictlyspeakingtherearenosignsbutdifferencesbetweensigns.

ExampleinCzech:zhena,'woman'genitiveplural,zhen.

Itisclearthatinthelanguageonesignisasgoodasanother.Herethereisnone.

(zhena, zhen functionsaswellaszhena, gen.pl.zhenuwhichexistedpreviously.)

[Thisexampleshowsthatonlythedifferencebetweensignsisoperative.

zhenuworksbecauseitisdifferentfromzhena.

zhenworksbecauseitisdifferentfromzhena.

Thereareonlydifferencesnopositivetermatall.

HereIamspeakingofadifferenceinthesignifyingelement.

Themechanismofsignifyingelementsisbasedondifferences.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 16/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

Likewise for signified elements, there are only differences that will be governed by
differencesofanacousticnature.Theideaofafuturewillexistmoreorless,depending
onwhetherthedifferencesestablishedbysignsofthelanguage(betweenthefutureand
therest)aremoreorlessmarked.

Aller['togo']functionsbecauseitisdifferentfromallant ['going']andallons ['(we)

go'].

aller | allons| allant

Englishgoing = aller, allant

Unsegmented,givennoacousticdifferencebetweentwoideas,theideasthemselves
willnotbedifferentiated,atanyrateasmuchasinFrench.

Sothewholelanguagesystemcanbeenvisagedassounddifferencescombinedwith
differencesbetweenideas.

There are no positive ideas given, and there are no determinate acoustic signs that
are independent of ideas. Thanks to the fact that the differences are mutually
dependent,weshallgetsomethinglookinglikepositivetermsthroughthematchingof
acertaindifferenceofideaswithacertaindifferenceinsigns.Weshallthenbeableto
speak of the opposition of terms and so not claim that there are only differences
(becauseofthispositiveelementinthecombination).

In the end, the principle it comes down to is the fundamental principle of the
arbitrarinessofthesign.

Itisonlythroughthedifferencesbetweensignsthatitwillbepossibletogivethema
function,avalue.

Ifthesignwerenotarbitrary,onewouldnotbeabletosaythatinthelanguagethere
areonlydifferences.

The link with the chapter entitled Absolute arbitrariness, relative

arbitrarinessisthis:Ihaveconsideredthewordasatermplacedinasystem,thatis
tosayasavalue.Nowtheinterconnectionoftermsinthesystemcanbeconceivedasa
limitationonarbitrariness,whetherthroughsyntagmaticinterconnectionorassociative
interconnection.

So:Incouperet syntagmabetweenrootandsuffix,asopposedtohache.

(Interconnection,syntagmaticlinkbetweenthetwoelements.)

Hache ['axe'] is absolutely arbitrary, couperet ['chopper'] is relatively motivated

(syntagmaticassociationwithcoupe['chop']),

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 17/18
1/18/2017 Saussure'sLecturesonGeneralLinguistics

couperet syntagmatic limitation absolutely

hache arbitrary.
plu ['pleased']
plaire ['to associativelimitation
please']

Inthiscourseonlytheexternalpartismoreorlesscomplete.

In the internal part, evolutionary linguistics has been neglected in favour of

synchroniclinguisticsandIhavedealtonlywithafewgeneralprinciplesoflinguistics.

Thesegeneralprinciplesprovidethebasisforaproductiveapproachtothedetailsof
astaticstateorthelawofstaticstates.

FurtherReading:
Biography|Weber|Jakobson|Durkheim|Barthes|LviStrauss|Derrida
MarxistPsychology|Vygotsky

PhilosophyArchive@marxists.org

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm 18/18