Critical summary:
In this chapter, Saussure commented on the writing system and its effects on and relations to languages. His central views can be summarized as follows:
- Writing is not of the internal system of the language, but its representation.
- A language and its written form are two separate system of signs and thus should be viewed as two separate entities.
- Due to several reasons, such as the apparent permanence of the visual symbols and the influence of the literary language, the written form is given primacy over the actual language itself, which has an oral tradition independent of writing.
- Because of this false primacy, the written form is sometimes harmful to the study of a language, as it masks the true nature of a language and causes students of linguistics to be distracted from their true object of studies.
Saussure also briefly explained the two writing systems: the ideographic system and phonetic system. He also emphasized that his inquiries is restricted to the phonetic writing system. He then devoted a large part of this chapter explaining the cause of inconsistencies between spelling and pronunciation, with numerous examples from the Proto-Indo-European languages.
Some important quotes and notes follows:
Q: The actual object we are concerned to study, then, is the social product stored in the brain, the language itself.
N: The use of the term ‘language’ is a constant point of contention in Saussure’s Magnus Opus. Here, I believe what he meant by ‘language’ is the linguistic structure.
Q: But this product differs from one linguistic community to another. What we find are languages. The linguist must endeavor to become acquainted with as many languages as possible, in order to become acquainted with as many languages as possible, in order to be able to discover their universal features by studying and comparing them.
N: The assumption of universal features gnaws at me.
Q: Languages are mostly known to us only through writing. Even in the case of our native language, the written form constantly intrudes…. Thus although writing is in itself not part of the internal system of the language, it is impossible to ignore this way in which the language is constantly represented.
N: Note how Saussure views the written form as an ‘intruder’.
Q: A language and its written form constitute two separate systems of sign. The sole reason for the existence of the latter is to represent the former. The object of study in linguistics is not a combination of the written word and the spoken word. The spoken word alone constitutes that object.
N: Saussure’s assertion is accurate as long as it is restricted to the phonetic writing system, because it is true the phonetic writing system exists only to record sound. It is not accurate when it comes to a ideographic writing system such as Chinese, because the ‘character’ of the Chinese writing system directly represent an idea; Understandable limitation given Saussure’s roots in the European languages.
Q: But the written word is so intimately connected with the spoken word it represents that it manages to usurp the principal role. As much or even more importance is given to this representation of the vocal sign as to the vocal sign itself. It is rather as if people believed that in order to find out what a person looks like it is better to study his photograph than his face… This misconception has a long history, and current views about languages are tainted with it.
N: Note his choice of words: usurp, tainted… Saussure has serious issues with the written languages. I suspect it is due to the fact that the written form interfere so much in the linguistic study of European languages, which are primarily oral, that Saussure felt the need to use hyperbole to emphasize his point.
Q: A literary language enhances even more the unwarranted importance accorded to writing. A literary language has its dictionaries and its grammars. It is taught at school from books and through books. It is a language which appears to be governed by a code, and this code is itself a written rule, itself conforming to strict norms – those of orthography. That is what confers on writing its primordial importance.
N:
Orthography: The rules of spelling.
This is the reason why so many (Chinese) students of English as L2 are able to learn so much about the language in school without being able to speak it. There is still too much importance attached to the written form, without realizing that English is primarily a spoken language. The reverse is also true about European students learning Chinese. Chinese is primarily a visual, thus written language. Many of the students of Chinese approach it like a spoken language without bothering, and in some cases avoiding, to learn the Chinese character. Without the character, the Chinese spoken language is hard to appreciate.
Q: …the fact that we learn to speak before learning to write is forgotten, and the natural relation between the two is reversed.
N: The logic of this statement is not sound. Just because as individuals we learn to speak first doesn’t necessarily mean that as a collective we do the same. A sequential relation does not necessary implicate a causal relation, or even indicate primacy.
Q: For a Chinese, the ideogram and the spoken word are of equal validity as signs for an idea. He treats writing as a second language, and when in conversation two words are identically pronounced, he sometimes refers to the written form in order to explain which he means. But this substitution, because it is a total substitution, does not give rise to the same objectionable consequences as in our Western systems of writing. Chinese words from different dialects which correspond to the same idea are represented by the same written sign.
N: For someone with very limited exposure to Chinese (there is nothing in Saussure’s biography which suggests that he has had the opportunity to be exposed to Chinese for an extended period of time), Saussure’s grasp of Chinese is surprisingly accurate. Although I would say Chinese is a very contextual language, with a lot of meaning not immediately and directly contained within its written or spoken signs.
However, although Saussure absolves Chinese from his linguistic inquiries, we cannot absolve any linguistic inquiries from the absence of a Chinese component. In his case, even as himself point out, it is not the system of writing that usurp the language, it is merely the phonetic writing system which usurp the place of language, whereas an ideographic system like Chinese has a rightful place in linguistics.
Q: A language is in a constant process of evolution, whereas writing tends to remain fixed. It follows that eventually spelling no longer corresponds to the sounds it should represent… Eventually, he association of incompatible written and spoken forms had repercussions on the written system itself… Etymological preoccupation also intrude… it is unclear whether this is merely a change in spelling or a change in pronunciation… Writing is not a garment, but a disguise… another result is that the more inadequately writing represents what it ought to represent, the stronger is the tendency to give it priority over the spoken language. Grammarians are desperately eager to draw our attention to the written form. Psychologically, this is quite understandable, but the consequences are unfortunate. The use acquired by the words ‘pronounce’ and ‘pronunciation’ confirmed this abuse and reverse the true relationship obtaining between writing and the language… as if the orthographic sign were basic… The pronunciation of a word is determined not by its spelling but by its history. Its spoken form at any given time represents one stage in a phonetic evolution from which it cannot escape. This evolution is governed by strict laws (what law?). Each stage may be ascertained by referring back to the preceding stage. The only factor to consider, although it is most frequently forgotten, is the etymological derivation of the word… But the tyranny of the written form extends further yet. Its influence one the linguistic community may be strong enough to affect and modify the language itself.
N: This two pages of etymological and orthographic investigation should be of interest to anyone who ever wonders why there is so much exception in English. Again, the point Saussure is trying to make, is that the confusion between the writing system and language proper itself often intrudes into the study of the real object, the linguistic structure. However, If the study of linguistics should focus on its language structure, then the so called misunderstanding caused by the written form should merely be cosmetic and not of any importance except perhaps as mere distractions. How a word is spelled and read has no major impact on the underlying linguistic structure; Thus even though it is important understanding the relation between the written form and the language, and be able to appreciate the difference between the two, it doesn’t interfere the linguistic study itself. How the spelling and pronunciation evolves and how their interact with each other might be interesting from the standpoint of a etymologist or anthropologist, but it is ultimately irrelevant to the linguist, except to know that our primary object of investigation should be acquire through the spoken language.
On another point, because how orthographic rules interfere and change the language (as Saussure himself admitted as much), we should not view the writing system as a mere distraction. Rather, we should consider the resulting development from the interaction between the writing and spoken form to be a primary contradiction in a language.
Critical Analysis:
On a whole, Saussure’s take on the writing system is heavily limited by his background in the phonetic writing system, which he hinted as much. This is understandable, but not excusable from the linguistic point of view.
From the view point of Chinese language, the writing system is a direct representation of an idea, forming together with the sound a solid and stable triangular relationship, a holy trinity if we may, whereas in a phonetic language like English, an idea is only tied to the sound, and the writing derived from the sound. However, many linguists of the European languages rely on the written form as their object of investigation; this is main point of contention for Saussure. Once one understands this, he will grasp the main point of this chapter.
However, even within the context of a phonetic writing system, I don’t believe we should dismiss the function of the writing system as readily as Saussure suggests. Precisely because of the primacy of writing (all the reasons Saussure listed are valid), a language inevitably will evolve to suit the need for writing. Certain features of a writing system will began to shape the language, for instance, it will become more codified, more logical and more structured. I view it as the direction of evolution for a language.
That said, one must not forget that the roots and functions of a language, which is speaking. No matter how much the written form influence a language, we will ultimately use it in speaking, and thus the features, and certain the errors acquired during speaking, will continue to shape a language. The written form and the spoken form is the primary contradiction which informs the development of a language, without any one of them taking true primacy.
The spoken form and the written form of the language, when combine with the economy reality of any given linguistic community, begin to acquire a class character. Written form of a language is often the privilege of the class which has the resource (both in terms of education and writing material, especially in a time when papers and inks are not commonly available) to perform them. In a certain sense, the struggle between the primacy of the spoken language and the written language is also a reflection of the struggle between the wealthy and the poor. This is largely a residue of special historical circumstance and will gradually lose its significant over time as it has no internal cause in the linguistic phenomenon itself, but it is interesting to note while it exists. It is of particular import to politicians to be aware of the class character of languages, so that they may use it effectively.