Language vs. Speech

Ferdinand de Saussure was one of the most influential figures of 20^th century linguistics. He believed language (langue) to be “a product that is passively assimilated by the individual” (59) as opposed to being a function of the speaker and speaking (parole) to be an “individual act”. Language and speaking are thus separate entities. In other words, language is a set of socially shared rules whereas speech is simply the verbal mode of communication. Speaking is premeditated but language is in a way conventionally determined by the members of a society (this is the social side of speech that cannot be modified). He makes an important distinction between speech and language: speech is heterogeneous whereas language is homogenous. Saussure defines language to be a “system of signs that express ideas” and that is made up of a union of meanings and sound-images that are both psychological. Speech is composed of several different elements since the speaker can express his thoughts in various different ways. Although Saussure defines language to be a “social institution”, he regards it as being systematic – the association between an auditory image and a concept (as opposed to a thing and a name). He calls this semiology – “the science that studies the life of signs within society” (60).

 What is a sign?

Language according to Saussure is not a simple naming process. It involves a rather complex operation whereby a concept and sound-image “are united in the brain by an associative bond” (61). It is precisely this combination that is defined as a sign. A sign is a double entity, comprised of both a signifier (signifiant) and a signified (signifié). The signifier refers to the sound image (psychological concept, spoken word, linguistic part of the sign) whereas the signified refers to the concept (mental image). Like two sides of a sheet of paper, these are inseparable.

Key Principles

Saussure names two fundamental principles: the arbitrary nature of the sign (Principle I) and the linear nature of the signifier (Principle II). Principle I states that signs are arbitrary, meaning there is no particular reason why a signifier is linked to a signified. There is no natural connection between the two. And in fact, because of the unmotivated nature of the sign, the relationship is thus based on convention. That is why a sign cannot be changed once it has been established by a particular community. The word “cat” refers to a four-legged animal that “meows” only because this has been agreed upon by the members of a society and not based upon a natural link between the mental image of cat and the succession of sounds c-a-t. One problem is the issue of onomatopoeia and interjections. Saussure dismisses this however by citing examples such as the English bow-wow and the French oua-oua, illustrating that both are conventional imitations of one another. The argument against interjections is very much the same. Principle II states that the signifier represents a span that is measurable only in the dimension of time. In other words, auditory images have duration and are linear. As stated by Saussure, this is obvious when signifiers are represented in writing.

Synchrony vs. Diachrony 

Synchrony refers to “everything that relates to the static side of our science” (AB axis) whereas diachrony refers to “everything that has to do with evolution” (CD axis) (64). Saussure compares the functioning of language to the game of chess in aims of stressing the importance of synchrony or the language-state. Essentially, he argues that language is always momentary and varies from one position to the next. In chess, the rules of the game exist throughout the entire game and are based on unchangeable conventions (this is much like language in that rules have been equally agreed upon). Furthermore, by joining the game at any moment, one can still play based on the pieces positioned on the board. Thus, there is no benefit for knowing how the pieces came to be arranged in a certain way or by following the entire match. The chess metaphor stresses Saussure’s desire for studying language as a complete system at any given point in time. This makes sense since speakers generally perceive language in its current state and do not have access to its history.

Linguistic Value

The value of a sign is dependent upon all other signs in the language. From a conceptual viewpoint, terms are interdependent, deriving their value from other terms. One example Saussure uses are the French synonyms “redouter” (to dread), “craindre” (to fear) and “avoir peur” (be afraid) to show that these words have their particular meaning as long they are contrasted with each other. By removing two of the words, the remaining word has no point of reference and thus, becomes nebulous. This is why signs cannot exist alone; their value is determined by their environment. The same argument can also be applied to grammatical entities. From a material viewpoint, it is not only the sound but also the phonic differences that make it possible to distinguish one word from all others. Signs used in writing are arbitrary (the writing of the letter “t” is arbitrary with respect to the sound that it makes), the value of the letters are negative and differential (“t” can be written in different ways), the forms depend uniquely on the limitations imposed by a given system and the means of sign production is irrelevant (engraved, pen, chisel etc.).

Last word

Saussure states that in language, “there are only differences without positive terms” (70). Signs are purely differential, not defined positively by their content but rather negatively by contrast with other signs within the same system. There are no positive preexisting ideas within a linguistic system. However, why then do we have something positive if the sign is considered in its totality?