Page 65 – 98

PART ONE: General Principles

Critical summary:

Part one consists of three chapters. In the first chapter, the nature of linguistic sign is discussed. In the second chapter, the invariability and variability of Sign is discussed, and the in the third, the distinction between static linguistics (synchronic) and evolutionary linguistics (diachronic) is drawn.

This is the part of the book where Saussure famously distinguished synchronic and diachronic linguistics and analyze their individual characteristics. By doing this, he provides a comprehensive and clear view of language as a complex social system. By analyzing language as such a system, his analysis bears significant implication for all such social institutions, although his analysis is focused mostly on linguistics.

What follows is the quotes and notes arranged by chapters.

Chapter 1 Nature of the Linguistic Sign (page 65 – 70)

In this chapter, Saussure famously reintroduced the concept of sign as the unity of the signification (concept) and signal (sound pattern).

Q: For some people, a language, reduced to its essentials, is a nomenclature: a list of terms corresponding to a list of things… This conception is open to a number of objections. It assumes that ideas already exist independently of words. It does not clarify whether the name is a vocal or a psychological entity… it leads one to assume that the link between a name and a things is something quite unproblematic, which is far from being the case. Nonetheless, his naive view contains one element of truth, which is that linguistic units are dual in nature, comprising two elements.

N: Saussure’s statement confirms one of the observations that I long held, which is that ideas cannot exist independently of words. Or rather, the assumption of pre-existing ideas which leads to the appearance of language is not a correct assumption.

Q: A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is not a actually a sound; for a sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer’s psychological impression of a sound, as given to him by the evidence of his senses.

N: My initial reaction to this statement is to ask, whether a language must be bound to a sound pattern. Can the signal be visual instead of audial? But a quick objective observation reveals that a language must necessarily consists of the audio component because it must be actualized in speech, and that’s why in many aspect it is bound by the characteristic of speech. Including it’s linear, one-dimensional nature, and its emphasis of a sound pattern. We do not think in terms of writing, even with a ideographic writing system like in Chinese. When we think, it always resembles a monologue, which points to the primacy of speech sound.

Q: The linguistic sign is, ten, a two-sided psychological entity… These two elements are intimately linked and each triggers the other… only the connexions institutionalised in the language appear to us as relevant… it is forgotten that if arbor is called a sign, it is only because it carries with it the concept ‘tree’, so that the sensory part of the the term implies reference to the whole… We propose to keep the term sign to designate the whole, but to replace concept and sound pattern respectively by signification and signal. The latter terms have the advantage of indicating the distinction which separates each from the other and both from the whole of which they are part.

Q: The link between the signal and signification is arbitrary… we can express this more simply as: the linguistic sign is arbitrary.

N: This statement deserves its own section between it is often overlooked. There is no inherent and internal cause to the formation of a linguistic sign. It is purely arbitrary. Because it is arbitrary, there is no internal motivation or rather direction of evolution; all changes must result from external factors: social and conventional. There is thus no inherent “truth” value to any linguistic phenomenon: all are equally valid because all are equally arbitrary.

 

N: Although we accept that the signs themselves are arbitrary, is it possible to establish general laws, for example, the economy of physiology (how convenient it is to utilize our physical organs), which influence the sets of possible sound patterns (signal) which is used in the formation of signs?

Q: It may be noted in passing that when semiology is established one of the questions that must be asked is whether modes of expression which rely upon signs that are entirely natural (mime, for example) fall within the province of semiology. If they do, the main object of study in semiology will none the less be the class of systems based upon the arbitrary nature of the sign.

N: This statement seems out of place, because in principle, mime and speech has no principle: the physical movement is used to produce a psychological distinguishable units, (visual pattern for mime and sound pattern for speech). In that sense, all modes of expression rely upon signal which is produce entirely based on natural (physiological) means.

Q: We may therefore say that signs which are entirely arbitrary convey better than others the ideal semiological process. That is why the most complex and the most widespread of all systems of expression, which is the one we find in human languages, is also the most characteristic of all.

N: A line of inquiry may be developed along the line of “what is the semiological process”. The creation of a sign, if we observe further, is a prevalent phenomenon in the human society. To associate a signification (a concept, or an abstraction of concrete entities) to a signal (another physical entity) is a common method by which human explain and “make sense” of our world. This is what I would say is the microcosm of all thinking process.

Q: The word symbol is sometimes used to designate the linguistic sign… the use of the word symbol is awkward, for reasons connected with our first principle. For it is characteristic of symbols that they are never entirely arbitrary.

Q: The word arbitrary also calls for comment. It must not be taken to imply that a signal depends on the free choice of the speaker… The term implies simply that the signal is unmotivated: that is to say arbitrary in relation to its signification, with which is has no natural connexion in reality.

N: In other, the word arbitrary doesn’t mean that the connexion can be freely chosen, rather that there is no logic nor laws governing the association between the signal and the signification.

Q: Two objections may be mentioned which might be brought against the principle that linguistic signs are arbitrary: Onomatopoeic words, and exclamations.

N: Onomatopoeia: the formation of a word from a sound associated with what is named.

N: Saussure’s two arguments against onomatopoeia as exception to the arbitrary rule is brilliant: First, the onomatopoeia is also an conventionalized approximation, which is also arbitrary in nature. Second, when the onomatopoeic words enter the language, it is subjected to the same phonetic and morphological evolution as other words.

Q: The second principle: linear character of the signal. The linguistic signal, being auditory in nature, has a temporal aspect, and hence certain temporal characteristic: (a) it occupies a certain temporal space, and (b) this space is measured in just one dimension: it is a line.

N: Considering that language must be realized in speech sound, it must consider that auditory nature, which means it must be linear, even for a language which utilize a two-dimensional writing system like Chinese. This feature of language has a far-reaching effect on how language is utilize and how we think. This is a very significant limit of language.

 

CHAPTER VII: Physiological Phonetics (page 32 – 37)

Critical summary:

In this chapter, Saussure briefly explained the necessity of using writing as a tool to record sound, i.e. as orthographic sign. He also cautioned that while writing (as he expounded in previous chapter) can be misleading to linguistics inquiries, but at present we still need to rely on writing to help with the transcription of sound, and thus must continue to learn about our writing system as an orthographic sign system.

What is important, according to Saussure, is to understand writing as representation of sounds, not the language itself.

Saussure also explained the two kinds of phonetics studies, one which concerns itself with the evolution of sounds, which he called “historical phonetics”. Another which studies the mechanics of phonation, which he called “physiological phonetics”.

Saussure also cautioned that although speech sound is the basis of language analysis, not all sounds are meaningful. Different languages employ different sets of sounds, and thus different sets of sounds are meaningful in different languages.

Saussure in the third section explored the ways of using writing as a form of evidence to establish the sound system of a language that is no longer in use. He described three different ways: using writing as external evidence, as evidence of historical sound change, and as contemporary evidence as part of comparison.

For language still in use, the only sensible approach is to observe directly, especially when there are ways to record the language in action directly via sound or video recording.

Some important quotes and notes as follow:

Q: … without its orthographic sign a sound is something very vague.

Q: A language is a system based upon psychological contrasts between these auditory impressions, just as a tapestry is a work of art based upon the visual contrast between strands of different colours. What is important for an analysis is the effect of these contrasts, and not the processes by which the colours were obtained in the first place.

N: Psychological contrasts, means that only those contrasts we perceive is meaningful. For example, in Chinese, tonal contrasts are important, whereas in English it carries less meaning.

Q: The primary requirement of the linguist is that writing should provide him with a system for representing sounds which is free from ambiguity.

N: This is a nice concept, but one that is not practical, because such a system will exceed the needs of any one language and thus unwieldy.

Q: Another requirement is to draw a strict distinction between abductive and adductive sounds.

N: Note abductive and adductive sounds.

Q: Is there a case for replacing conventional orthography by a phonetic alphabet? … In our opinion, any such alphabet is destined to remain a tool for linguists.

Q: There is also the question of reading…A new or unknown word is scanned letter by letter. But a common, familiar word is taken in at a glance, without bothering about the individual letters: its visual shape functions like an ideogram.

N: Saussure might have touched on something more important than what he believed. This shows that there is a human tendency to directly connect written symbols with the actual meaning without relying on auditory impressions. It also shows that it is possible to approach language via a written system which has a direct link to meaning, if not a phonetic writing system.

Q: For each language use a fixed number of distinct speech sounds and this is the only sound system which has any reality as far as the linguist is concerned.

Q: In the case of a contemporary language, the only rational procedure is: (a) to establish the system of sounds by direct observation, and then (b) to compare this with the system of letters used – inexactly to represent them.

N: It is around this time (late 19th century) that the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) was established in France and Britain. It is hard to determine whether Saussure’s thought has influenced this development or the other way round.

APPENDIX: Principles of Physiological Phonetics (page 39 – 63)

Critical summary

This portion of the book deals heavily with the mechanics of phonation. It is divided into two chapters.

The first chapter deals with sound types, and how the individual sounds are categorized according to the articulatory methods. It discusses the various vocal apparatus of sound production and relate them to the existing phonetic classification. This is still relevant today.

The second chapter deals with sounds in spoken sequences, i.e. when sounds are put in relation to each other in a speech stream. Saussure points out, correctly, that when two or more sounds are put together, not all combinations make sense: it is limited by articulatory sensibility. Thus, it is important to consider speech sound not in isolation, but when they are put together in a speech stream.

The important concept Saussure introduce is the difference between adductive and abductive pronunciation. Adduction is a closing movement for a speech sound in action, while abduction is an opening movement. This observation sheds light on why certain speech sounds become altered in actual use and why certain speech sounds are possible.

Quotes and Notes from Chapter 1 of Appendix:

Q: … The impression produced on the ear is not only given to us as directly as that of the movements of the speech organs, but also provides the more natural basis for a theory of speech sounds… It is the sequence the ear hears that enables us immediately to detect when one sound is replaced by another.

N: Here, Saussure tells us that speech sound is determined by auditory impression, not articulatory attempt.

Q: The sequence of sounds we hear is not divided into segments of equal duration, but into segments identifiable as auditory units. This facts provides us with a natural starting point for the study of speech sounds.

Q: The identification of sounds in a spoken sequence thus rests solely on auditory impressions. But their description is a different matter. This must be based upon articulatory considerations, since the units of an auditory sequence as such as unanalysable. We need to appeal to the corresponding sequence of movements in phonation.

N: When we describe speech sounds, we need to rely on how they are pronounced to categorize them.

Q: The speech sound is an aggregate of auditory impressions and articulatory movements, comprising what is heard and what is spoken, one delimiting the other.

N: The speech sound is delimited by pauses, the complete absence of movement and sound.

Summary from Chapter 2 of Appendix:

It is very tempting to quote large swathe of text from the Chapter 2 of the Appendix dealing with adductive and abductive sounds. But it is necessary to condense its text into something more digestible.

Firstly, the concept of classifying sounds based on aperture (how wide the mouth is opened) of mouth is introduced in the previous chapter. For all sounds except ‘a’ (the maximum aperture), there exists two possible variant or rather stage of a sound, the adductive and the abductive sound. The adductive sound, denoted with a ‘>’, is a closing sound, while the abductive sound, denoted with a ‘<’, is an opening sound. Most easily identify by combining with ‘a’ in a phonic sequence, as in “aiia”, where the first “I” is adductive (>), and the second “I” is abductive (<).

The aperture of the sound, combined with whether it is adductive or abductive determines whether certain combination of sounds is possible or natural. For example, the sound (K<>r) is always possible (as in car), so is (k<<r), (as in cry). The sound (r>>k) would be natural too because ‘r’ has a wider closing aperture than ‘k’. (like irk). However, in the sound (r<<k), the abductive ‘r’ would produce no perceptible sound because it is taken over by the sound of abductive ‘k’. That’s why there is no relative phonics denotion of ‘rk+vowel’. Using the concept of adductive and abductive sounds, Saussure defined the syllabic boundaries and vocalic peak. Syllabic boundaries happened when an adductive sound transit to an abductive sound (><), whereas the vocalic peak happens when an adductive sound occurs after silence or an abductive sound ( >) or (<>).

Example: The word : “A>r>t<i>s>t>”, the syllabic boundary is between the adductive ‘r’ and the abductive ‘t’, while the vocal peak occurs with the adductive ‘A’ when it transit from silence, and the adductive ‘I’ when it transit from the abductive ‘t’.

Other concepts of ‘sonant’, ‘adsonant’ and also the diphthong spelling system is also discussed.

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:

1. Writing is not of the internal system of the language, but its representation.
2. A language and its written form are two separate system of signs and thus should be viewed as two separate entities.
3. 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.
4. 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.

 

S3: Languages and their place in human affairs. Semiology (P15 – 17)

 

N: Why is Semiology not yet a word in MS word’s dictionary?

 

N: In these two pages, Saussure famously proposed the science of Semiology: a science studying signs and its role as part of social life. This section is highly philosophical, and contain some inconsistency which I believe arise from issues with translation. It is worth reading the section in its entirety again and again to understand Saussure’s essential thoughts on the issue of language and sign.

 

Q: A language, defined in this way from among the totality of facts of language, has a particular place in the realm of human affairs, whereas language does not.

N: Here, what Saussure meant by “A language” is a language as a structure system, whereas “language” is the act of communication, primarily by speech.

 

Q: A language, as we have just seen, is a social institution. But it is in various respects distinct from political, juridical and other institutions.

N: We should compare the language phenomenon to economy.

 

Q: A language is a system of signs expressing ideas, and hence comparable to writing, the deaf-and dumb alphabet, symbolic rites, forms of politeness, military signals, and so on.

N: What seems strange to me is the fact that Saussure separate writing from language. As a Chinese native speaker, I have always considered writing as an integral and inseparable part of a language. I also tend to view the systems which Saussure listed as “comparable” as a form of language. Could it be that my view of language is closer to what Saussure would consider as a system of signs?

 

N: If we understand any system of signs as a form of language, is there really a need for a separate discipline called “semiology”? Should we not also include the study of various sign system into the linguistic discipline? Anyway, this is an ontological question and should not be the concern of linguists. The crux of the matter is, if a language is a system of signs, and the most important and obvious system of signs is language, then it stands to reason that the study of the two is the same in fact, if not categorical.

 

Q: … hitherto a language has usually been considered as a function of something else, from other points of view… there is the superficial view taken by the general public, which sees a language merely as a nomenclature. This is a view which stifles any inquiry into the true nature of linguistic structure.

 

N: Nomenclature: the devising or choosing of names for things, especially in a science or other discipline; A naming system.

 

N: Language is obviously not just the naming of things, but it is also correct to say that one of the most important function of language is to give names to things; it probably began as such.

 

Q: …the viewpoint of the psychologist, who studies the mechanism of the sign in the individual. This is the most straightforward approach, but it takes us no further than individual execution. It does not even take us as far as the linguistic sign itself, which is social by nature.

 

N: The dialectic relationship between the individual and the collective must be observed in all phenomenon; The individual is part of the collective; yet the collective is formed of individuals. Without the individual, there is no collective, and without the collective, the individual cease to be necessary. The individual and the collective is only meaningful in relation to each other.

 

Q: … to the fact that the sign must be studied as a social phenomenon, attention is restricted to those features of languages which they share with institutions mainly established by voluntary decision.

 

N: The grammarians…

 

Q: In this way, the investigation is diverted from its goal. It neglects those characteristics which belong only to semiological systems in general, and to languages in particular. For the signs always to some extent eludes control by the will, whether of the individual or of society: that is its essential nature, even though it may be by no means obvious at first sight.

 

N: What Saussure means is that if we only study the features of languages which is established voluntarily, we risks missing those features of language which develop organically from its usage. It is all fine to study the “official”, “correct”, “standardize” form of the language and its related social institution, but when language is used in our daily lives, it takes on its own lives, and eludes the control of human will. In this sense, it is very similar to human economy, or any such mass system.

 

Q: If one wishes to discover the true nature of language systems, one must first consider what they have in common with all other systems of the same kind. Linguistic factors which at first seem central must be relegated to a place of secondary importance if it is found that they merely differentiate languages from other such systems.

 

N: This sheds some light into the teaching of language. It is not the vocabulary (the names) , the pronunciation (vocal component), and even the grammar (rules of using a language) that is the most important components in a language, although they are necessary. It is the structure of the language which will enable a person to finally grasp the usage of a language. And because the nature of language structure is common across all languages, people who are able to really understand a language, will be able to achieve similar proficiency in another language, given sufficient material (linguistic inputs). We observe this as a kind of “linguistic aptitude” which measures an individual’s capability to use languages.

 

CHAPTER IV: Linguistics of Language Structure and Linguistics of Speech (18-20)

 

Critical Summary:

 

In these three pages, Saussure attempts to differentiate the actual act of using the language in speech from what he termed the “linguistic proper”, I.e. the linguistic structure. He attempted to draw the distinction between studying the actual use of a language itself and studying the linguistic structure.

 

This distinction can be made apparent by comparing a language which relies on speech act as we know it, to a language which is not reliant on speech, like the sign language. Although these languages have different forms of expression, they can express the same idea, which is translated into a language structure which only correspond to the expression of meaning.

 

This distinction is also apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Chinese language and its writing system. It is common knowledge that in the Chinese language, the same writing system can produce speeches which are vastly different from each other in different dialects. The writing system correspond directly to the linguistic structure, which contains its essential meaning. The speeches in different dialects are merely different expression of the same structure. The studies of the different speeches in Chinese would correspond neatly and directly to Saussure’s idea of a “linguistic of speech”, whereas the study of the Chinese language as shown in its writing responds to his idea of a “linguistic of language structure”, or “linguistic proper”.

 

However, even Saussure himself noted that even though it is possible to draw a distinction between the two, in actual application the two is inseparably intertwined, and it is close to impossible to study one without referring to another. This apply to other acts of language too.

 

In summary, it is important to establish the object of study of linguistic as the linguistic structure. It is important to observe at the same time that it is impossible to study the structure without the substance of language, which is observed in the actual act of using the language itself.

 

Q: The activity of the speaker must be studies in a variety of disciplines, which are of concern to linguistics only through their connexions with linguistic structure.

 

Q: The study of language thus comprises two parts. The essential part takes for its object the language itself, which is social in its essence and independent of the individual. This is a purely psychological study. The subsidiary part takes as its object of study the individual part of language, which means speech, including phonation. This is a psycho-physical study.

 

Q: The two objects of study are doubtlessly closely linked and each presupposes the other. A language is necessary in order that speech should be intelligible and produce all its effects. But speech also is necessary in order that a language may be established… it is by listening to others that we learn our native language. A language accumulates in our brain only as the result of countless experiences… Thus there is an interdependence between the language itself and speech. The former is at the same time the instrument and the product of the latter. But none of this compromises the absolute nature of the distinction between the two.

 

N: Note the primacy associated with speech. Although undeniably, the speech act is a major part of a language, there are other forms of expression, some independent of the speech act. For instance a pictorial writing system.

 

N: Also from the angle of language learning, if the speech act is so important, it follows that listening and speaking should form an important part, if not the predominant part of language teaching. For Chinese, writing should gain the same importance, because of how the writing system directly correspond to the linguistic structure in the Chinese language.

 

N: From the act of language learning, what is more important? How can it relate to the linguistic structure? How can linguistic structure shed light on how a language should be taught and learned?

 

Q: A language, as a collective phenomenon, takes the form of a totality of imprints in everyone’s brain, rather like a dictionary of which each individual has an identical copy…

 

N: This is a rather disputable statement; For each individual’s understanding and grasp of a language, even among native speakers, is different from one another. So does it mean that we should exclude the parts where everyone has a slightly different appreciation from “linguistic proper”, or simply assign differences as different languages (Should Am.E and Br.E be considered as TWO separate languages or two variants of the same language?). Or rather, this statement is fundamentally indefensible, and that we have to accept that despite a basic linguistic framework, there exist different level of understanding and appreciation in each individual’s “linguistic” imprints, and that a language which comprise the totality of imprints in everyone’s brain of which each individual has an identical copy is merely a theoretical possibility, but not an actual one?

 

N: If the above statement is true, there would be no misunderstanding in the world.

 

Q: In what way is speech present in this same collectivity? Speech is the sum total of what people say, and it comprises (a) individual combinations of words, depending on the will of the speakers, and (b) acts of phonation, which are also voluntary and are necessary for the execution of the speakers’ combination of words. Thus there is nothing collective about speech. Its manifestations are individual and ephemeral. It is no more than an aggregate of particular cases…

 

N: In here, Saussure’s “speech” clearly meant the application of a language in an act of speech. Thus, he is correct to observe that it is individual to the speaker and is particular to the situation. However, this makes his statement of a universal collective “language” which is identical in everyone’s brain a rather stark statement, because if we form our linguistic imprint based on the speech we hear, and that the speech we hear is of an individual and varied nature, how is it possible that we can form an identical linguistic imprint in our minds?

 

Critical analysis:

 

I suspect the failing of this Chapter is not one of ideation, but one of expression or perhaps of translation. It is clear that there must be enough common element in everyone’s “linguistic imprint” to make “a language” a reality, yet there also exist sufficient differences in our “linguistic imprint” which produces error of speech, variants of the same languages, and even misunderstanding in our actual use of language. Saussure attempts to get at the common core by differentiating the elements of individual character in a language. He might have termed it in a way which invites controversial, but his underlying logic and reasoning is sound, and what is important is we understand the underlying logic, and his observation that the common core of a language to every person is its “linguistic structure”.

 

CHAPTER V: Internal and External Elements of a Language (P21-23).

 

Critical summary:

 

In these three pages, Saussure recounts the different elements which influence the use of language, including other social institution, and explain that although these different elements affect language as a phenomenon, they are external to the study of linguistic system. The sole object of linguistic studies should be its Internal elements, which is the linguistic system itself. This is a very important chapter which clears up the confusion facing many students of linguistics.

 

The external elements which Saussure listed includes: ethnology, political history, other social institutions, literary languages, dialects, and geography.

 

Saussure went on to make an excellent argument in the necessity of separating these external elements of a language from its internal elements (the linguistic proper), while remaining conscious and aware of its influences.

 

Some of the important quotes and a critical analysis follows:

 

Q: A nation’s way of life has an effect upon its language. At the same time, it is in great part the language which makes the nation.

 

N: The importance of this observation cannot be overstated. When a person adopt a language, it adopts along with the language a way of thinking and a way of life. It might not be apparent at first, but its effect is far reaching.

 

Q: Major historical events… are of incalculable linguistic importance in all kinds of ways.

 

N: One familiar with Chinese history can immediately point to the Unification of China under Qin Shi Huang as a significant development in the history of Chinese language.

 

Q: A language has connexions with institutions of every sort… These institutions in turn are intimately bound up with the literary development of a language… A literary language is by no means confined to the limits apparently imposed upon it by literature…

 

N: Courts, academies, salons, governments, etc, these social institutions, in their use of language, leave their imprint in the daily use of our language, and in return, the common parlance also has influence in the language used in these institutions.

 

Q: … there arises the important question of conflict with local dialects. The linguist must also examine the reciprocal relations between the language of books and the language of colloquial speech,

 

N: This is important in defining the objective of language learning: What is the primary goal of the language education system?

 

Q: …every literary language, as a product of culture, becomes cut off from the spoken word, which is a language’s natural sphere of existence.

 

N: That’s why it is not sufficient to just write; An idea must be propagate through the speech act!

 

Q: Finally, everything which relates to the geographical extension of languages and to their fragmentation into dialects concerns external linguistics. It is on this point, doubtless, that the distinction between external linguistics an internal linguistics appears most paradoxical. For every language in existence has its own geographical area. None the less, in fact geography has nothing to do with the internal structure of the language.

 

Q: It is sometimes claimed that it is absolutely impossible to separate all these questions from the study of language itself. That is a view which is associated especially with the insistence that science should study ‘Realia’.

 

Q: In our opinion, the study of external linguistic phenomenon can teach linguists a great deal. But it is not true to say that without taking such phenomena into account we cannot come to terms with the internal structure of the language itself.

 

Q: The main point here is that a borrowed word no longer counts as borrowed as soon as it is studied in the context of a system.

 

N: To the system, where its individual parts originate from has no bearings on the system as a whole. A language system which can adopt components from different sources is no doubt a most adaptable system.

 

Q: In any case, a separation of internal and external viewpoints is essential. The more rigorously it is observed, the better… each viewpoint gives rise to a distinct method.

 

Q: Everything is internal which alters the system in any degree whatsoever.

 

Critical analysis:

Saussure’s view of a language as a self-contained system is a sound one, however, it can be easily misconstrued, and very hard to give a definite shape. For instance, what is considered as the system? Is it the structure itself? In many languages, there exist the phenomenon where a subject is sometimes omitted based on the context of the discourse. Does it mean the system is being altered? The ‘system’ of a language should not be viewed narrowly as containing only its structure, although the structure is a big part of it. The system also contains the rules of the construction of its structure.

In a sense, the study of the linguistic system is a study of the human mind itself. Because what we perceive and experience in the material is translated by our mind into a language. The linguistic system is thus the closest object we have to study which is the equivalent of the human minds.

To take it further, the relation between the external and internal elements of language, is parallel to the relation of the development of human mind and our external experience of the material world: one is not possible without another, yet are clearly distinct from each other.

In the practical point of view, there is a need to draw the distinction between ‘grammar’ and the internal system of a language. The two can be deceivingly similar, yet are completely different.

Page 9

 

Q: Language has an individual aspect and a social aspect.

N: (Individual aspect) only in-so-much that it is part of a whole. Language has no meaning (or rather, doesn’t exist) without its social nature.

 

Q: It is quite illusory to believe that where language is concerned the problem of origins is any different from the problem of permanent conditions. There is no way out of the circle.

N: the problem of origin: Where language comes from. Permanent conditions: The facts of language, what language IS.

 

Q: So however we approach the question, no one object of linguistic study emerges of its own accord. Whichever way we turn… but their methods are not the ones that are needed.

N: This paragraph concludes that language doesn’t fall into any of the following field: psychology, anthropology, prescriptive grammar, philology and so on…

 

Q: One solution only, in our view, resolves all these difficulties. The linguists must take the study of linguistic structure as his primary concern, and relate all other manifestations of language to it.

 

N: The structure is the only object of study. Because language is thinking, it is therefore the foundation of all sciences. The study of structure is thus revealing to the workings of a human mind. The structure is thus the main object of study of linguistics.

 

N: What is the foundation of language? What give language the substance from which a structure can emerge? It can only be human experience (sensory experience). And this experience must be shared, I.e. social.

 

N: Structure doesn’t come before substance. It must be extracted from our common experience.

 

Q: Indeed, amid so many dualities, linguistic structure seems to be the one thing that is independently definable and provides something our minds can satisfactorily grasp..

N: It seems to me that the linguistic structure is something that is created by our mind (based on a lot of linguistic material), and thus can ipso facto be understood by the mind.

 

(P9 – 10)

 

 

Q: What, then, is linguistic structure? It is not, in our opinion, simply the same thing as language. Linguistic structure is only one part of language, even though it is an essential part. The structure of a language is a social product of our language faculty… (cont.)

N: Contrary to popular beliefs, the structure of a language is NOT inherent to the language, although it may appear so when we learn a language as a second language.

 

Q: At the same time, it is also a body of necessary conventions adopted by society to enable members of society of use their language faculty.

N: Still NOT inherent to the language itself. However, I would argue that social convention is an integral part of language because language cannot function without it being a social convention, I.e. understood and used by most if not all of a community.

 

Q: Language in its entirety has many different and disparate aspects… It is at the same time physical, physiological and psychological. It belongs both to the individual and to society. No classification of human phenomena provides any single place for it, because language as such as has no discernible unity… A language as a structure system, on the contrary, is both a self-contained whole and a principle of classification…

N: To study language as a structure system allow it to be studied together with any signs and symbols which is the association between a sign and a meaning. It is through this articulation that Saussure founded the science of Semiology. Language structure is a set of sign system, the most complicated one. In a broader sense, we can call all signs a form of language.

 

(P10 – 11)

 

Q: It might be objected to this principle of classification that our use of language depends on a faculty endowed by nature: whereas language systems are acquired and conventional, and so ought to be subordinated to – instead of being given priority over – our natural ability.

 

N: Saussure’s excellent rebuttal essentially contains the following points:

1) It has not been established that the function of language is entirely nature: “it is not clear that our vocal apparatus is made for speaking as our legs for walking”. Sure, our vocal apparatus is made for making sounds, but that doesn’t equate speaking. Just like using the legs for walking doesn’t equate dancing.

2) In disease such as aphasia and agraphia, it is not the ability to (physiologically) utter or to inscribe that is affected, but the ability to produce signs corresponding to normal language.

to add to this excellent rebuttal, I would also argue that language doesn’t rely on any one physiological ability to produce them: sign language is as much a language as speech, and in both case they can understand writing by sight. It seems to me that although the way to produce language is limited by our natural faculties, it doesn’t depend on them. If there is a physiological faculty that correspond to the usage of language, it is not any of the observable faculties.

On the other hand, even if such faculty exist (let’s assume it does), it is hard to imagine that such a faculty can generate a language structure on its own. It is logical to assume that a language structure is the product of the interaction between a natural faculty of symbol articulation and the external linguistic material that a person is exposed to, which is a social product based on collective experience. This dual nature of language found unity in linguistic structure, and thus the structure should be the primary object of study.

 

Q: *The language we use is a convention.

N: Because it is a convention, it has no inherent truth. And because it is a convention, the community of primary and majority speakers always have primacy over its usage and people who learn the language as a second language must observe and respect this primacy.

 

Q: …language articulation… In Latin, the word articulus means ‘member, part, subdivision in a sequence of things’. As regards language, articulation may refer to the division of the chain of speech into syllables, or to the division of the chain of meanings into meaningful units… one may say that it is not spoken language which is natural to man, but the faculty of constructing a language, I.e. a system of distinct signs corresponding to distinct ideas.

N: How that distinction is drawn should thus be an important aspect of linguistic studies. It also offers insight into how the community of speakers think collectively.

 

Q: Broca discovered that the faculty of speech is localised in the third frontal convoltion of the left hemisphere of the brain… All this leads us to believe that, over and above the functioning of the various organs, there exists a more general faculty governing signs, which may be regarded as the linguistic faculty par excellence.

 

Q: Whether natural or not, the faculty of articulating words is put to use only by means of the linguistic instrument created and provided by society. Therefore it is no absurdity to say that it is linguistic structure which gives language what unity it has.

N: The commonality of language structure should reflect the unity of natural linguistic faculty in individual human (we assume), and the unity in experience (more common among community of close proximity). Language should thus be taught by uniting human experience; this is the thought behind situational teaching methodology.

 

SUMMARY (p8 – 11)

 

In these pages, the book deals with these issues:

• Why it is difficult to establish an object of study for language study.
• Discuss the various aspects involved in the phenomenon of language (physical, physiological, psychological, social, individual, etc)
• What linguistic structure is.
• Why linguistic structure is a suitable primary object of study for linguistics.

 

My understanding:

It is difficult to establish an object of study for language because it involves too many aspect of human activities, and also the nature of language is not the sum of all its manifestation. From the perspective of the generation of language, there is the physical aspect (medium, sound or paper, etc), the physiological aspect (how the sound is produced, the motion involved in writing, the hearing process, etc), and psychological (the association of a sound/visual pattern with a distinct meaning). From sociological perspective, language is both individual and collective, it is produced by individual human, but the understanding and utility of language depends on a collective understanding, a convention. The social convention aspect of language again has a dual nature of it being a product of the past (philological), and the existing system (grammatical).

 

What unites all these varied aspect is the fact that language is a structured sign system. The linguistic structure represent the inherent logic used in the generation of a language and all other linguistic facts (the pronunciation, writing, etc). We find the nexus connecting all phenomenon of language in linguistic structure.

 

S2: Linguistic structure: its place among the facts of language (P11 – 15)

 

N: For most of the linguistic inquire, Saussure give primacy to the act of speech. It is natural considering the oral nature of western languages. However, the same method can be apply to using writing as an object of analysis. For example, the hear-speak circuit can be easily replace by the read-write circuit.

 

SUMMARY (S2: p11 – 15)

 

In this section, Saussure attempted to isolate linguistic structure from all the phenomena of language by analysing a speech circuit.

Saussure inquires that, since users of the same language form approximately the same association between (sound) patterns and concepts, from where does this “social crystallisation” originate from? Which part of the circuit is involved the most?

 

One can immediately dismiss the physical part of the circuit to play any role besides the most functional in the formation of linguistic structure.

 

Saussure argues that the executive side of the psychological process also does not play a part, because it is an individual act, and is not subject to the will of collective. Saussure term the executive part of the psychological process ‘speech’ (could be a translation approximation).

 

Saussure then proceeds to observe that the “individual’s receptive and co-ordinating faculties build up a stock of imprints which turn out to be for all practical purposes the same as the next person’s”, and call it the “language”.

 

He went on to distinguish “speech” and “language” by stating that “language” is a social product, not a “function of the speaker”, but the product “passively registered by the individual”, whereas speech is always an individual act of the will and the intelligence, where two parts are involve: the combination of concept with the language signs, and the psycho-physical mechanism which allows for externalization of that combination.

 

Saussure also attempted to steer the discussion from the semantics of “speech” and “language” to the nature of the “things” we have defined.

 

He summarized language as a structured system as follows:

• Language structure is the social part of a language which can be localised in that “particular section of the speech circuit where sound patterns are associated with concepts”. It is external to the individual “who by himself is powerless either to create it or to modify it. It exists only in virtue of a kind of contract agreed between the members of a community.”
• A language system can be studied independently (as opposed to the whole act of speech). He also argues that “A science which studies linguistic structure is not only able to dispense with other elements of language, but is possible only if those other elements are kept separate.”
• While language is heterogeneous, a language system is homogeneous in nature. The system has common features which can be studied as a united whole.
• Linguistic structure is real and tangible (as opposed to it being abstract), which can be set down in writing. Thus a suitable object of study.

 

Critical analysis of S2(p11-15)

 

N: In general, Saussure seems to give a lot of primacy to the sound component of language. His understanding of writing as recording a sets of sound pattern reveal his limitation as a user of western language. On the whole though, if we replace his usage of “speech” with “a form of expression”, then his understanding of language and language structure is an accurate one. Also, in his discourse, it is clear that he distinguish thinking as a separate process, as oppose to the same process of “speech”.

 

Q: … distinguish… “what is essential from what is ancillary and more or less accidental”

 

N: Original notes on the margin: “The “essential” varies according to social situation, even within the same language”. At first, my response to the word “essential” took on the meaning of “context”. Although in his discourse, what Saussure mean by “essential” is the essential part of language, which is the structure.

 

Q: It is the product passively registered by the individual

N: Original note on the margin: “The partial language. The complete language can only exist in the collective. Here I confuse the language structure with the linguistic act of “speech”. What Saussure meant by “language” no doubt means the language structure which is the entirety of the relations between the symbol and the concept. Which, as he articulated, is originated as a social convention among the collective.

 

Q: …speaker uses the code provided by the language in order to express his own thought.

N: Isn’t a thought formed at the same time as the language which expresses it? Here, by viewing language as a tool for thought expression, Saussure missed the nature of language. There can be no thought without language. The process that Saussure described IS the thinking process itself.

 

Q: That is why all definitions based on words are vain. it is an error of method to proceed from words in order to give definitions of things.

N: Saussure wrote this part to orientate his reader towards understanding the meaning of the terms “speech” and “language” by starting from the actual “thing”, instead of focusing on its lexical definition. My original response: “True, but when an individual encounter a new experience outside of his original language, he still needs to rely on existing lexicon i.e. words to make sense of the new phenomenon” deals with another matter, which is the function and role of lexicons.

 

Q: A science which studies linguistic structure is not only able to dispense with other elements of language, but is possible only if those other elements are kept separate.

N: My original response: Structure interacts with other aspects of language and shouldn’t study in isolation. Structure should be the result of linguistic facts, not despite it. I now think that Saussure in the original statement meant that linguistic structure can be distinguished from other aspect of linguistic facts, which is correct. of course when studying linguistic structure, we can only approach it by its substance, i.e. other linguistic facts.

 

Q: Writing can fix them in conventional images, whereas it would be impossible to photograph acts of speech in all their details.

 

N: Is writing evolves as such out of necessity of social and technical limitations? Now that there are ways to captive speech act conveniently (videos), will it change this aspect of linguistic? Will writing continue to be necessary?

 

Q: … if one leaves out of account that multitude of movements required to actualise it in speech, each sound pattern, as we shall see, is only the sum of a limited number of elements or speech sounds, and these can in turn be represented by a corresponding number of symbols in writing. Our ability to identify elements of linguistic structure in this way is what makes it possible for dictionaries and grammars to give us a faithful representation of a language. A language is a repository of sound patterns, and writing is their tangible form.

 

N: This paragraph reveals a limited understanding of the writing phenomenon and an assumed primacy in phonics (speech). This is due to the author’s roots in western languages (And his observation is accurate as far as we take into consideration his objects of observation are western languages). A language is a repository of “signs / symbols”. Speech words could be the earliest symbols, but may not by the primary ones. Most definitely not the only one. Writing is the concrete and tangible form of these symbols, which may or may not be a sound (auditory), it can also be a visual symbol (Chinese character). In Chinese, the writing (character) is actually the primary form, and speech derived from writing.

Translator’s Introduction

N: The translator’s introduction is an important and integral part of the “Course in General Linguistic”. For a book dealing with linguistics, the translation itself must be scrutinized and dealt with in detail. The translator’s introduction provided an important perspective from the translator, which illuminates the nuances in the original text revealed during the translation process. It also summarizes the thought of Saussure in a very concise fashion.
(F41)

Q: It is a key text not only within the development of linguistics but also in the formation of that broader intellectual movement of the twentieth century known as ‘structuralism’.

Q: With the sole exception of Wittgenstein, no thinker has had as profound an influence on the modern view of homo loquens as Saussure.

N: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951), student of Bertrand Russell, author of Philosophical Investigation (To be read). Proposer of Language-game theory. Key Idea: Meaning is use.
N: homo loquens: the talking man, as oppose to homo sapiens, the wise man. The term is coined in 1772. J.G. Herder.

Q: For instead of men’s words being seen as peripheral to men’s understanding of reality, men’s understanding of reality came to be seen as revolving about their social use of verbal signs.

Q: Words are not vocal labels which have come to be attached to things and qualities already given in advance by Nature, or to ideas already grasped independently by the human mind. On the contrary languages themselves, collective products of social interaction, supply the essential conceptual frameworks for men’s analysis of reality and simultaneously, the verbal equipment for their description of it. The concepts we use are creations of the language we speak.

Q: For the founder of modern linguistics at the same time founded semiology, the general science of signs, within which linguistics was to be one special branch.

(F42)

Q: He rejected the possibility of an all-embracing science of language, which would deal simultaneously with physiological, sociological, philosophical and psychological aspects of the subject. Instead, he proposed to cut through the perplexing maze of existing approaches to the study of linguistic phenomena by setting up a unified discipline, based upon a single, clearly defined concept: that of the linguistic sign.

Q: … it can be identified only by contrast with coexisting signs of the same nature, which together constitute a structured system.

Q: to drawing a radical distinction between diachronic (or evolutionary) linguistics and synchronic (or static) linguistics, and giving priority to the latter.

N: diachronic should be understood as “over the time”, and synchronic should be understood as “of the same time”. To call synchronic “static” is misleading.

N: Philology: The branch of knowledge dealing with structure, historical development and relationships of a language or languages.

(F43)

Q: The explanations philological historians provided were in the final analysis simple appeals to the past. They did not – and could not – offer any analysis of what a language is from the viewpoint of its current speakers. Whereas for Saussure it was only by adopting the users’ point of view that a language could be seen to be a coherently organised structure, amenable to scientific study. For linguistic signs, Saussure insisted, do not exist independently of the complex system of contrasts implicitly recognised in the day-to-day vocal interactions of a given community of speakers.

N: In simple terms, how a language was used in the past only provided an anthropological evidence to the current form of the language. These anthropological evidences usually are largely determined by how the words of the language was used throughout time, but does not give the any indication to the underlying logic beneath the language. It is often only lexical. But lexical study doesn’t form a holistic linguistic study. Linguistic study, which includes the structure of a language, is only possible by synchronic study, I.e. by studying the relation of syntax and lexicon used at the same time.

N: ‘signifiants’ (translated as signals, or signifier), ‘signifie’ (translated as signification or signified) are the dual entity proposed by Saussure to explain the nature of a sign. In simple terms, a “sign” must necessary be formed by two facets: the idea (signifie, signified) of the sign, and the outward form of expression (signifiants, signifier) of the sign. The signified is the abstraction of a concrete object or phenomenon in the material world, while the signifier is the concrete expression of that abstraction via sound or image, thus making a “sign” an abstraction device which connects material objects with physical expression, which explain the primary function of language.

Q: A language (langue) is for Saussure this whole system which alone makes it possible to identify the describe constituent parts: it is not a whole fortuitously built up out of parts already existing in their own right. Linguistic signs are therefore not like individual bricks, put together in a certain way to form an architectural structure. Unlike bricks, they are not separate self-contained units. Except as parts of the total structure, they do not even exist, any more than the circumference or the radii of a circle exist without the circle.

N: If linguistic signs are not the components of a language, merely its property like this paragraph suggests, then what is the component of a language? What provides the substance on which a language is built upon? I propose that the building blocks of a language is the common experience that is shared by the users of the language, which is expressed as linguistic signs.

(F44 to F48)

N: In these pages, the translator gave the brief account of the history of “Course in General Linguistic” and detailed the issues faced with translating the original text. Although “Course in General Linguistic” was put together by Saussure’s colleagues posthumously based on course notes taken by his students, the translator argues that it should capture the essence of Saussure’s thought. Also, despite any objection, the “Course” is widely studies in the linguistic field and thus achieve influence that cannot “retrospectively be denied to it”, despite inconsistencies that is presence in the “Course” and the original manuscripts of Saussure. The translator went on to point out how callous translations have caused Saussure’s thought to be misunderstood by linguists of the English-speaking scholars. The translator also pointed out several terms which might caused misunderstanding or rather obstruct the understanding of Saussure’s thought when reading the “Course”.

N: What is ‘image acoustique’? The translator’s explanation is “sound pattern”. My own understanding is something closer to “sounds which makes sense”.

N: langue seems to be used in different contexts which deserves special attention.

Preface to the First Edition

(F49 to F52)

N: In these pages, the editors, Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye explained the approach taken (that of a reconstruction) in the production of the “Course”, and explain the rationale behind.

Introduction
Chapter 1: A Brief Survey of the History of Linguistics

(p1)

Q: First of all came what was called ‘grammar’. This discipline, first instituted by the Greeks and continued mainly by the French, is based on logic. It offers no scientific or objective approach to a language as such. Grammar aims solely at providing rules which distinguish between correct and incorrect forms. It is a prescriptive discipline, far removed from any concern with impartial observation, and its outlook is inevitably a narrow one.

N: Yet grammar remains influential and an important, if not the most important, component in second language teaching and learning. If this view of grammar is followed to its natural conclusion, one might question the place of grammar in second language teaching and learning, even if it’s necessary to learn “grammar” as it is.

Q: … the scientific movement inaugurated by Friedrich August Wolf in 1777… Philology seeks primarily to establish, interpret and comment upon texts. This main preoccupation leads to a concern with literary history, customs, institutions, etc… In all these areas, philology applies its own method, which is that of criticism… arise principally in the comparison of texts of different periods, in establishing the language characteristic of each writer…

N: It seems that Saussure’s contention against the philological approach is that it is overly concerned with the written language, and its diachronic studies and thus overlooking the “living language”. Another implied contention is that philology studies considered too many aspect which influence language without first establishing an object of study.

(P2)

Q: Th third phase… comparative philology, or ‘comparative grammar’, … the elucidation of one language by reference to a related language, explaining the forms of one by appeal to the forms of the other.

N: Saussure’s contention against the comparativist approach lies into their tendency to over-generalized everything as comparable. The evolution observed in a language is assumed to be present and parallel to a related language which results in a similar phenomenon. Which is not necessarily true, because the evolution of two languages is not always comparable and goes through the same phase.

Q: The mistakes a science makes in its initial stages present a magnified picture of the mistakes made by individuals starting out on scientific research.

N: The collective progress reflecting the individual progress? The value of learning is in avoiding mistakes made collectively in the past?

(P5)

Q: The achievement of the Neogrammarians was to place all the results of comparative philology in a historical perspective, so that linguistic facts were connected in their natural sequence. The Neogrammarians no longer looked upon a language as an organism developing of its own accord, but saw it as a product of the collective mind of a linguistic community.

N: To say that “language is a product of the collective mind of a linguistic community”, is to formulate the mind and the language as two separate entities. Rather, if we understand language and mind as two inseparable aspects of the same entity, and its dual nature as individual and collective, we should understand the phenomenon of language change as the collective evolution of language fueled by the collective usage of the language by a community of users. The logic of evolution is not inherent to the language itself, but in the usage and experience of the community.

Chapter II: Data and Aims of Linguistics: Connexions with Related Sciences

(P 6 to 7)

N: In these two pages, Saussure outline principles related to the Data and Aims of Linguistics inquiries. Of importance is the equality among all existing languages as data of Linguistics. No language should be considered superior or inferior when functioning as data of Linguistics because they are all “forms of expressions”. He also outline the relation between Linguistics and other sciences, and by differentiating Linguistics from other sciences, he also propose the primary aims of Linguistics as such:
(a)to describe all known languages and record their history. This involves tracing the history of language families and as far as possible, reconstructing the parent languages of each family;
(b)to determine the forces operating permanently and universally in all languages, and to formulate general laws which account for all particular linguistic phenomena historically attested;
(c)to delimit and define linguistics itself.

It seems to me that without a philosophical understanding of language itself, the above aim cannot be achieved. In other words, we need to answer the fundamental question of: What is language?

Q: …since the linguist is very often in no place to make his own linguistic observations at first hand…

N: This situation has changed with the emergence of the Internet.

Q: In the lives of individuals and of societies, language is a factor of greater importance than any other. For the study of language to remain solely the business of a handful of specialists would be a quite unacceptable state of affairs. In practice, the study of language is in some degree of other the concern of everyone. But a paradoxical consequence of this general interest is that no other subject has fostered more absurd notions, more prejudices, more illusions, or more fantasies.

Chapter III: The Object of study

(P8 – 9) Difficulties facing the study of language
N: In these two pages, the book outline the difficulties of defining the object of study for linguistic studies. In contrast to other sciences, for which the objects of study are “given in advance, then examined from different points of view”, the object of study for Linguistic is “not given in advance of the viewpoint”, rather. it is “the viewpoint adopted which creates the object”. Furthermore, there is nothing to tell us “in advance whether one of these ways of looking at it is prior to or superior to any of the others”. The book went on to illustrate the various complementing facets found in any linguistic phenomenon:
(1)that of the phonetic duality: what is spoken and what is heard form a phonetic unit.
(2)that of sound (or signifier) and meaning (or signified) duality present in a unit of word (sign).
(3)The individual and social duality of the language.
(4)The current institution (official established system) and historical evolution (the organic growth) duality.

Q: Would matters be simplified if one considered the ontogenesis of linguistic phenomena…

N: Ontogenesis: the development of a phenomenon from the earliest stage to maturity.

N: Some notes on the margin:
(1)Language is not the words
(2)All of these are the components of language
(3)Language is the expression of meaning, which only exist during social interaction.
(4)Language doesn’t requires a sound component, although it usually is present. Take for example the sign language.
What is the definition of linguistics?

Book info

Title : Course in General Linguistics
Author : F. de Saussure
Translation : Roy Harris
ISBN : 978-7-5600-2374-8

(Q for quote, N for note)

Preface by Chomsky

(F15)

Q: The evidence is strong that among the human cognitive systems is a “faculty of language”…

N: Agree, the ability to recognize a pattern from sounds and pictures is most definitely an inherent trait of the human species. I would go further and say that our ability to formulate language is the same as our ability to think.

Q: …, FL passes through a series of states, normally reaching a relatively stable state at about puberty, after which changes are peripheral…

N: How much of stability is due to the stability or rather the stagnancy of environment? Does the growth of our FL reflects the growth of our physical reality, including that of body and environment? It is arguable that the stability observed in the growth of FL is only a reflection of the stability in environment, and when exposed to new stimuli or even new environment, there will be new growth to our FL.

N: There is a need to distinguish the initial and inherent Linguistic Facility (LF) and the Faculty of Language that is the result of the interaction between that initial LF and the material reality of individuals.

(F16)

Q: … “creative use of language” that has traditionally been considered a primary indication of possession of mind; by Descartes and his followers,…

Q: … with the shift of perspective to “internalist linguistics,” a great deal has been learned about the cognitive structures and operations that enter into these remarkable capacities.

N: Undoubtedly the human’s cognitive structures play a part in the formulation and utility of language, however, focusing on the individual and the internal workings of a human’s brain might prove to be necessary but insufficient. Language first and foremost, is a social product, and thus certain aspects of it must lie in between human. It may also be necessary to shift the focus of the study of language from the individual to the collective, from the internal working to external social behavior among individuals.

Q: … an I-language is a system of discrete infinity, a generative process that yields an unbounded range of expressions, each with a definite sound and meaning.

N: It is more correct to say that the I-language is an internal mechanism and machinations that responds to external stimuli, much like how the human body responds to environmental factors like the food we take in and the exercise we perform. Our language appear infinite and generative precisely because our environment stimuli is generative by nature, and human experience is infinite.

Q: In fundamental respects human language does not fall within the standard typologies of animal communication systems, and there is little reason to speculate that it evolved from them, or even that it should be regarded as having the “primary function” of communication (a rather obscure notion at best). Language can surely be used for communication, as can anything people do, but it is not unreasonable to adopt the traditional view that language is primarily an instrument for expression of thought, to others or to oneself; statistically speaking, use of language is overwhelmingly internal, as can easily be determined by introspection.

N: Here is the where Chomky’s view of language breaks down. First, to view the mind or rather thinking as a separate a priori existence is the hallmark assumption of Idealism which has never been proven or substantiate. Chomsky correctly observes that the internal usage of language for thinking and the external usage of language for communication are separate processes, but failed to establish a correct relation between these two processes. The expression: “language is an instrument for expression of thought”, suggests that Chomsky (and many people) assumes that speaking is an externalization of an internal thinking process. But reverse is also possible, and if investigate, will appear closer to human experience: that Thinking and Thought are the internalization of the external communication process. It is impossible for human to think without the facility of language: most thinking are done in the form of monologues which assume audience. It appear more accurate to me to call language a product of communication effort among people, and thinking is an attempt to communicate with oneself via internal speech. Also, human is a type of animal. So any trait that humans possess is, ipso facto, possessed by animals.

N: Thought and language (speech) should not be viewed as separate entity, rather, different expressions of the same entity.

N: The external use of language comes before the internal utilization of such language for the purpose of thinking.

(F17)

Q: … Prior to unification, it was common for leading scientists to regard the principles and postulated entities of chemistry as mere calculating deices, useful for prediction phenomena but lacking some mysterious property called “physical reality.”…

N: The three stages of truth: It is ridiculed, and then violently opposed, and then accepted as being self-evident.

(F18)

Q: … the study of linguistic capacities of persons should find a fundamental place in any serious investigation of other aspects of language and its use and functions..

N: Biolinguistic, as Chomsky calls it, is a necessary study, but doesn’t equate I-language. It is apparent that language has a biological component which is unique to human, but that should not become a primary inquiry.

Q: Again adapting traditional terms… (The whole paragraph about S-0 and UG) … seems shrouded in mystery, like much of the rest of the nature of action.

N: Using the terms adopted by Chomsky, what if there is no UG, but only a specific G present in PLD? And the function of S-0 for the FL is to identify the G in the PLD and internalize that to form a IG (Internal grammar)? This perspective will run into the problem of the point of origin of G in PLD. However, why the assumption of a point of origin? It is equally possible that the Grammar (patterns observed in languages) is first derived, not generated from some internal mechanism.The derived Grammar (D-G) then reacted upon the Language, creating the impression of a UG or a point of origin. The closest comparison is how human identify patterns in nature’s landscape and then apply said patterns in landscaping activities. It is, in fact, no prior design in natural landscape; human derive the pattern, and then project a humanoid entity through which the pattern was created. That is the fundamental pitfalls of all idealistic philosophy, including that of theism.

N: The first formulation is always arbitrary.

(F19)

Q: It was recognized very soon that there is a serious tension between the search for descriptive and for explanatory adequacy. The former appears to lead to very intricate rule systems, varying among languages and among constructions of a particular language. But this cannot be correct, since each language is attained with a common FL on the basis of PLD providing little information about these rules and constructions. (para) The dilemma led to efforts to discover general properties of rule systems that can be extracted from particular grammars and attributed to UG… (attempts to fix the parameters of S-0 and UG)… and attainable in the normal way.

N: The problem with this approach stems in the view of language as something internally generated, and that language is inherently rule-based and logical. This approach assumes that there is a priori existence of a certain sets of rule which is logical (the UG) which resides within the human’s FL as S-0, which then generate a language according to the PLD received. This has never been substantiated. A more accurate description of language is a process by which a sets of arbitrarily generated meaning-symbol association slowly becoming more and more logical and rule-based under the functions and process of the pattern-recognition mechanism contained within what Chomsky calls the FL (Faculty of Language) of the human species. The tension between the descriptive and explanatory adequacy is due to the insufficient evolution of language, and is the internal drive of the continual evolution and improvement of languages. Ironically, this incomplete and sometimes reverse view of language, and the search for a UG, might prove to be a major step in the evolution of language.
N: Having an origin is a human experience, thus a common human assumption, which has never been proven, only deduced. Having an origin that “make sense” to human is also a human assumption. It could be the origin is purely arbitrary.

(F20)

Q: …from the conditions that FL must satisfy to be used at all: the “interface conditions” imposed by the systems… (description of different mental systems)… generating expressions that are “legible” by these systems, which exist independently of language.

N: How do we know these are separate systems? Specifically, is the conceptual-intentional system really a separate system from the FL?

Q: Since the states of FL are computational systems, the general properties that particularly concern us are those of efficient computation. A very strong minimalist thesis would hold that FL is an optimal solution to the problem of linking SM and CI, in some natural sense of optimal computation.

N: The economy of language.
N: It is not a correct assumption to assume an efficient S-0 of FL exist prior to and consequently generates the languages as we know them.

(F21)

Q: …Galilean thesis that has inspired the modern sciences: the thesis that “nature is perfect,” and that the task of the scientist is to demonstrate this…

N: This assume that our reaction to the nature is not part of the natural process. Also, “perfect” suggests a static state which doesn’t change, which cannot be achieved.

沈家煊序

(F22)

Q: ……我国学者自己撰写的第一部语法著作《马氏文通》正是直接学习和模仿西方语法的结果。

(F23)

Q: 外语界的雪人“收集采购”功不可没，但是有不少人言必称外国，对国外的理论讲得头头是道，问到自己母语里的情形就一问三不知。今年来不少人在论文中也开始举一些汉语的例子，但是蜻蜓点水，不痛不痒，有的甚至削足适履，拿汉语的事实去迁就国外的理论。汉语界的学人由于语言的障碍，大多只能通过别人的介绍和翻译来了解国外的动态，了解谈不上全面深入，视野不够开阔，思路比较闭塞。另外就是把眼光过分集中于汉语，忽视对语言普遍规律的探究，有人认为这是我国语言学长期落后的一个重要原因……

N: 造成这个局面，主要还是没有从哲学的高度来理解语言这个现象，并从哲学的基础来构建一个语言学的研究框架。同时，由于语言学研究的目前许多都起点于国外的研究，因此搞语言研究必须在重视汉语的主体性的原则下，也同时深刻了解目前语言学的研究现状，并从中提取普遍规律。

(F23-24)

Q: ……我想提几点建议；一时要由浅入深，循序渐进……二是要去粗存精，去伪存真……三是联系实际，融会贯通……融会贯通不够的一个主要原因是联系语言的实际不够……

N: 同意沈先生的建议，另外补充两点：一是要从哲学的高度去认识语言现象，并构建一个完整、独立的语言学研究系统。这是语言学哲学化的过程。二是要多鼓励第二语言、特别是英语的学习，以及对汉语的系统性认知。第二语言的学习有两个目的：其一、通过对第二语言逻辑性、抽象性的学习，能够有助于抽象理解自己的母语，并总结其中的逻辑性。其二、鉴于目前大部分的语言学研究系统及其成果以国外特别是英文的研究为主，熟悉英文能够更加深刻并直接的把握目前语言学的研究成果，并从中提炼普遍规律。不同的语言，作为同一普遍语言现象的不同体现形式，肯定具有普遍性质，精通两种语言将有助于通过比较研究来推演语言的共性及特性。
N: 汉语对语言学研究拥有一个特有的切入点，既字义结合体的切入点。外国语言只有音义结合体，其文字均为表音文字。只有汉语拥有完整的字义结合体的系统。这是汉语对语言学研究尚未完全发挥的作用。必须通过对汉字的研究去探索语言的普遍规律。

Q: 我们正处在一个信息时代，语言是人类最重要的信息载体。新兴的认知科学又把语言作为主要的研究对象，因为语言是人类最高级最重要的认知能力。

导读 – 张绍杰

（先读本文再精读）

The following passage is an excerpt from the book: “Learning in the Information Age“.

One fundamental aspect of human life that will be radically impacted by the “information revolution” is the language of human, although this great shift is only in its infancy.

One of the reasons that the multitude of languages evolved as such is the relative isolation of important human communities and the general lack of communication and exchange among these important centers of civilizations. Before the advent of the Information era, interactions among civilizations were conducted by selected representatives or proxies. As such, it was inevitable that languages formed for each major civilizations according to the need of their particular historical period and physical location.

The Internet, by providing means of communications and interactions that can transcend the limitations of distance, have provided the necessary physical prerequisite for large-scale interactions among members from different language groups. Economic forces will propel people to begin widespread mingling, despite the initial reticence. With enough interactions, over time, a global language will begin to emerge.

Information technologies are also driving this progress from another angle by means of machine interpretation of human languages. At present, this takes the forms of various automatic translation softwares and language analysis and learning performed by computers. As the power of computers develops further, their analysis and abstraction of natural human language might provide new insights to this little understood human phenomenon.

Automatic machine translation capability provides an alternative to a global language. Instead of all of humanity using one language, it is entirely possible that machines in the future becomes so powerful that it can interpret all human languages like a natural human, and instead of one global language, human might be able to interact through one global language interface, while retaining the use of their own native languages. This could also be a transitory phase before the eventual emergence of a global human language.

In a very distant future, though, it is also possible that the entire concept of “language” will be made irrelevant, as human develop other ways of communicating, or our life form and society structure evolve beyond the need for language as we know it as a tool for communication.

Existing languages will be challenged and impacted as the human society undergoes the process of the re-creation of a global language. Emerging transient semi-language such as emoticons and acronyms commonly used online will continue to impact the use of traditional language like sea waves upon the levee, and sooner or later, existing languages will have to adapt or risk being marginalized. Prominent languages like English and Chinese will evolve and survive, but will eventually be assimilated into the final global language, much akin to how English had assimilated Germanic, Celtic and Latin languages.

On the whole though, the evolution of language will lag behind the visible change in economic and social structure of the human society, as language is but a reflection and consequence of the changes in the material and social aspect of human life. It is, however, an important shift, and one we should actively anticipate and work toward.

This article is a result of an interesting online discussion surrounding what is considered as language. Specifically, are images and music considered as a form of language? The discussion went like this: I proposed that “language is mind” and there isn’t a separate so called “mind” without language. The counterpose was that “when humans see a pieace of art (images) or hear a piece of music, they derived meaning from the experience, and thus there exist a ‘mind’ which uses language as a form of expression.”

That was the beginning of my thinking about this issue. Basically, what is the boundary of language? The flip side of the coin is thus, what is the boundary between the “mind” and simple mental activities?

I think we can safely say that language is formed by a set of clearly defined, highly codified symbols. Each element in a language has clearly defined meanings (which are derived from experiences, see my previous article), and even the logic among these elements is also highly specific. When people communicate using language, they are not free to derive meanings arbitrarily; Even when there are ambiguities, they are usually limited to a certain sets of possibilities.

Whereas, for objects of “art” such as paintings, sculptures, musics, etc, they transmit an “experience” directly, and the viewer may freely associate meanings to this direct experience. Take for example a painting of a seaside village, for some, it might invoke a feeling of melancholy, for some, that of freedom and relaxation. Yet for those who has never been to a seaside, it might create an exotic and curious feeling. It is the same with great literature: although constructed using words (language), the author constructed an experience without clearly defining the meanings, as such, the readers are free to construct their own meanings based on the experience they constructed. “There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people’s eyes.” so said Shakespeare.

Correspondingly, there is a difference between common mental activities and the so called “mind”. What we understand as “mind” usually involves a process of rationalization: a process which involve the utilization of “language”. When we feel elation, we rationalize it, by expressing, even to ourselves, “I am happy”. The elation part is a mental activity which involve other physical reactions, the “I am happy” part is the rationalization of the mental activity and create a rational mind. The rational response to a personal experience is the part which can be communicated among people. It is in fact, created for the sole purpose of being communicable.

It that sense, the claim “Language is mind” is still an accurate description of this particular human phenomenon. However, by exploring the boundaries of language and mind, we can also say that “Language is the rationalizing of human experiences”.

A part of the recording in a recent news caught my attention. I don’t much care about the political implications behind the news except perhaps as a generic background to a language phenomenon. I am more interested in the exchange as a language phenomenon and what it says about our human mind.

Here is the transcripts of the part of the recording which I am interested in:

Taiwan Coast Guard:
“Philippine Coast Guard, This is Taiwan Coast Guard and This is Taiwan Exclusive Economic Zone. We are Now (Not) leaving. We are Now (Not) leaving. Over”

Philippine Coast Guard:
“Thank you, Thank you, Thank you very much”

But after some time, the Philippine Coast Guard realized that the Taiwan Coast Guard was not leaving, and the following exchange happened:

Philippine Coast Guard:
“What is your intention? You said you are now leaving. Why are you still here?

Taiwan Coast Guard:
“We are Not leaving. We are Not leaving. Over”

Okay. So the Taiwan Coast Guard has bad English pronunciation. What’s the big deal?

Was it just the pronunciation though? If we look at the sentence structure, we’ll realize, there’s no need for “now” in that sentence. If the Taiwanese intention was to leave, a simple “We are leaving” would have sufficed. Even if they wanted to add in the now, a more natural way of expression would have been “We are leaving now”. (Although, grammatically speaking, “we are now leaving” is not wrong).

Okay, maybe the Phillipine Coast Guard’s English was not so good as well.

Was it just a problem of misheard? Let’s look at the context. The Taiwan Coast Guard had just iterated that they were in their Exclusive Economic Zone. How likely was it that they immediately declared they wanted to leave? The logic didn’t follow.

The point is, this has nothing to do with language proficiency, though the bad pronunciation probably didn’t help. This is a phenomenon I’ve observed countless times on other people: they hear what they want to hear, regardless of logic. The only condition they need is plausible doubt (the bad pronunciation in our case).

It is one of those things which you find ludicrous and ridiculous when you observe it on someone else, but when it happens to you, you either cannot understand it, or refuse to acknowledge it.

We all do it. Because it is not a weakness or defect of the language faculty, it is a feature. The human language is not only in the words and sentences, but also in the tone of voice, the gestures, the situations, and everything else which can be best summarized as the “context”. When we hear a sentence which may produce ambiguous meaning, our brains automatically “fill in the blank” with contextual knowledge. This process is automatic, and it’s sometimes so powerful that it overwrites the actual words spoken.

A very important part of that contextual knowledge is a person desires or beliefs. That’s why in almost all speaking technique training you’ll encounter the technique of “framing”. Unscrupulous people often use this technique to get others to hear what they did not say. Self improvement gurus use this technique to make their followers feel good. The bottom line? Always examine your own beliefs and desires, and know that they will always be part of what you hear. And then try to listen beyond that.