Fd Saussure course of general linguistics. General linguistics course

LANGUAGE, ITS DEFINITION

(*323) What is the holistic and concrete object of linguistics? This question is extremely difficult; We'll see why below. At this point we will limit ourselves to showing this difficulty.

Other sciences operate on pre-given objects that can be viewed from different angles; There is nothing like this in our science. Someone says the French word nu; to a superficial observer it will seem that there is a specific linguistic object here, but a closer analysis will reveal the presence in this case of three or four completely different things, depending on how this word is considered: as a sound, as an expression of thought, as a correspondence to the Latin n?udum and etc. The object does not at all predetermine the point of view; on the contrary, it can be said that the point of view creates the object itself; at the same time, nothing warns us about which of these methods of consideration is more primordial or more perfect than the others.

In addition, every linguistic phenomenon always presents two aspects, each of which corresponds to the other and without it has no significance. For example:

1. Articulated syllables are acoustic impressions perceived by the ear, but the sounds themselves would not exist if there were no organs of speech; thus, n exists only as a result of the correspondence of these two aspects. Thus, it is impossible to reduce language to sound, nor to separate sound from the articulation of the speech organs; on the other hand, it is impossible to determine the movements of the speech organs, abstracting from the acoustic impression.

2. But let us assume that sound is a certain unity; Is it what characterizes human speech? Not at all, for it is only a tool for thought and does not have independent existence. Thus, a new and even more difficult correspondence arises: sound, a complex acoustic-vocal unity, in turn forms with the concept a new complex unity, physiological-mental. But that's not all.

(*324) 3. Speech activity has both an individual and a social side, and one cannot be understood without the other.

4. Every at the moment speech activity presupposes both an established system and evolution; at any moment language is both a living activity and a product of the past. At first glance, the distinction between a system and its history, between what is and what was, seems very simple, but in reality the relationship between both is so close that it is very difficult to separate them. The question may arise whether the problem is not simplified if we consider the linguistic phenomenon from its very origin, if, for example, we begin with the study of child speech. Not at all, because the greatest misconception is the idea that in relation to speech activity the problem of emergence is different from the problem of constant conditioning. Thus, we continue to remain in the same vicious circle.

So, no matter from which side we approach the question, nowhere is the integral object of linguistics clearly revealed to us; Everywhere we come across the same dilemma: either we focus on only one side of each problem, thereby risking not grasping the above-mentioned dualities inherent in it, or, if we study the phenomena of speech simultaneously from several sides, the object of linguistics appears before us as a disorderly jumble of heterogeneous, phenomena that are not related to each other. To do so means to open the doors to a whole range of sciences: psychology, anthropology, normative grammar, philology, etc., which we strictly distinguish from linguistics, but which, as a result of a methodological error, could include speech activity in their sphere of competence.

In our opinion, there is only one way out of all these difficulties: it is necessary from the very beginning to stand on the basis of “language” and consider it the norm for all other manifestations of speech activity. In fact, among other dual concepts, only one concept of “language”, apparently, allows for a self-sufficient definition and provides reliable support for the development of research thought.

But what is language? In our opinion, the concept of language (langue) does not coincide with the concept of speech activity in general (langage); language is only a certain part, although the most important part, of speech activity. On the one hand, it is a social product of the ability to speak, on the other hand, it is a set of necessary conditions acquired by the social collective for the implementation of this ability in individuals. Taken as a whole, speech activity is multiform and multisystem; invading several areas, in the fields of physics, physiology and psyche, it, in addition, relates to both the individual and the social sphere; it cannot be attributed to any of the categories of phenomena of human life, since it in itself does not represent anything unified. Language, on the contrary, is a closed whole and provides the basis for classification. By assigning it the first place among all and any phenomena of speech activity, we thereby introduce natural order into an area that cannot be otherwise delimited.

It would seem that this classification principle can be objected to as follows: the implementation of speech activity rests on the ability inherent in us by nature, while language is something learned and conditional; therefore, language depends on natural instinct, and does not predetermine it.

Here's how you can answer this.

First of all, it has not been proven at all that the speech function in the form in which it manifests itself in us when we speak is something completely natural, in other words, that our vocal apparatus is designed for speaking to the same extent as our legs are for walking. The opinions of linguists on this issue differ significantly. So, for example. Whitney 2, who likens language to social institutions with all their features, believes that it is only by chance, simply for reasons of convenience, that we use the vocal apparatus as an instrument of language; people, in his opinion, could just as successfully use gestures, using visual images instead of auditory ones. Without a doubt, such a thesis is too absolute: language is not social institution, in all respects similar to the others; in addition, Whitney goes too far in asserting that our choice only accidentally settled on the so-called organs of speech: after all, it was to some extent forced upon us by nature. But on the main point the American linguist seems to be absolutely right: language is convention and nature symbol indifferent. The question of the vocal apparatus, therefore, is a secondary question in the problem of language.

This position can be strengthened by defining what is meant by articulated(articulate) speech. In Latin articulus means "a member, part, subdivision of a number of things"; in relation to speech, articulation can mean either the division of a speech chain (chaine parlee) into syllables, or the division of a chain of meaning into meaningful units; in this exact sense they say in German: gegliederte Sparche. Adhering to this second definition, one could say this: what is natural for a person is not spoken speech, but precisely the ability to form a language, that is, a system of separate signs corresponding to separate concepts.

Broca 3 discovered that the ability to speak is localized in the third frontal left gyrus of the cerebrum, and they tried to rely on this discovery in order to attribute a natural character to speech activity. But, as is known, this localization was established in relation to total having to do with language, including (*326) writing; based on this, as well as from observations made regarding various types aphasia as a result of damage to these localization centers, it can apparently be assumed, firstly, that various disorders of oral speech in various ways are inextricably linked with disorders of written speech and, secondly, that in all cases of aphasia or agraphia it is not so much the ability to pronounce certain sounds or draw certain signs, as well as the ability to evoke in consciousness the signs of a given language system with any instrument. All this leads us to the assumption that, above the activities of various organs, there is a faculty of a more general order that controls these signs and which is the linguistic faculty par excellence. In this way we come to the same conclusion as we came to before.

Finally, to prove the rationality of studying speech activity, starting precisely with the category of language, one can also make the argument that the ability - no matter whether it is natural or not - to articulate words is carried out only with the help of a tool created and provided by the collective; That is why it can be argued that the unity of the phenomena of speech is given in language...

Let us summarize the characteristics of the language:

1. Language is something completely definite in a multi-system set of facts of speech activity. It can be localized in a certain segment of the circular motion we have considered, namely where the auditory image is associated with the concept. It is a social element of speech activity in general, external to the individual, who by himself can neither create language nor change it. Language exists only by virtue of a kind of contract concluded by members of the collective. At the same time, in order to use a language, an individual must learn it: a child masters it only little by little. Language is something isolated to such an extent that a person who has lost the gift of speech retains language because he understands the linguistic signs he hears.

2. Language, isolated from speech, constitutes a subject accessible to separate study. We do not speak dead languages, but we can perfectly master their linguistic organism. Not only can the science of language do without other elements of speech activity, but it is generally possible only if these other elements are not mixed in with it.

3. While speech activity as a whole has a heterogeneous character, language, as we have defined it, is a phenomenon that is homogeneous in nature: it is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the combination of meaning and acoustic image, and both of these elements of the sign are equally at least mentally.

4. Language, no less than speech, is a concrete subject by nature, and this greatly contributes to its research. Although linguistic signs are psychic in essence, they are not abstractions, associations, sealed by collective agreement, the totality of which constitutes language; they are realities located in the brain. Moreover, the signs of language are, so to speak, tangible; in writing they can be recorded through conventional outlines, whereas it seems impossible to photograph acts of speech in all detail; the utterance of the shortest word represents a countless number of muscular movements that are extremely difficult to comprehend and depict. IN same language, on the contrary, there is nothing other than an acoustic image that can be conveyed through a certain visual image. In fact, if we ignore the many individual movements necessary for the realization of speech, any acoustic image turns out, as we will see later, to be the sum of a limited number of elements or phonemes, which in turn can be depicted in writing using a corresponding number of signs. It is this very ability to record phenomena related to language that leads to the fact that a dictionary and grammar can serve as its correct image, for language is a storehouse of acoustic images, and writing is their tangible form.

THE PLACE OF LANGUAGE IN THE RANGE OF PHENOMENA OF HUMAN LIFE. SEMIOLOGY

This characteristic of language leads us to an even more important point. Language, isolated in this way from the totality of phenomena of speech activity, in contrast to this activity as a whole, finds a place for itself in the system of our knowledge about man.

As we have just seen, language is a social phenomenon, differing in many ways from other social phenomena: political, legal, etc. To understand its specific nature, it is necessary to bring in a new series of facts.

Language is a system of signs expressing ideas, and therefore can be compared with writing, with the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, with symbolic rites, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc. It is only the most important of these systems.

You can think like this a science that studies the life of signs within the life of society; such a science would be part of social psychology, and therefore of general psychology; we would call it “semiology” (from the Greek semeion - sign). It must reveal to us what the signs are, by what laws they are governed. Since it does not yet exist, it is impossible to say what it will be, but it has the right to exist; its place has been determined in advance. Linguistics is only part of this general science; the laws that semiology will discover will be applicable to linguistics, and the latter will thus be assigned to a very specific area in the totality of the phenomena of human life.

(*328) Precisely determining the place of semiology is the task of a psychologist; The task of a linguist comes down to finding out what distinguishes language as a special system in the totality of semiological phenomena. This question will be discussed below; for now let us remember only one thing: if for the first time we manage to find a place for linguistics among the sciences, it is only because we connected it with semiology.

Why is semiology not yet recognized as an independent science, which, like any other, has its own special object of study? The fact is that they still revolve in a vicious circle: on the one hand, there is nothing more suitable than language for understanding the nature of the semiological problem; on the other hand, in order to properly pose this problem, it is necessary to study language as such, and yet until now we have almost always begun to study language as a function of something else, from points of view alien to it.

First of all, there is the superficial point of view of the general public, which sees in language only nomenclature; this point of view destroys the very possibility of exploring the true nature of language.

Then there is the point of view of the psychologist studying the mechanism of the sign in the individual; This method is the easiest, but it does not lead beyond individual execution and does not affect the sign, which is social in nature.

Or again, having noticed that a sign must be studied socially, they pay attention only to those features of the language that connect it with other social institutions, more or less dependent on our will, and thus miss the goal, missing those features that are inherent precisely or semiological systems in general, or language in particular. For a sign, to some extent, always eludes the will, both individual and social, which is its most essential, but at first glance least noticeable feature.

It is in language that this trait is most manifested, but it is found in an area that is least studied; as a result, the necessity or special usefulness of semiological science remains unclear. For us, the linguistic problem is, first of all, a semiological problem, and the entire course of our reasoning receives its meaning from this basic position. Anyone who wants to discover the true nature of language must first of all pay attention to what it has in common with other systems of the same order, and linguistic factors that at first glance seem very significant (for example, the functioning of the vocal apparatus) should be considered only secondarily , since they serve only to distinguish language from other semiological systems. Thanks to this, not only will light be shed on the linguistic problem, but, as we believe, through the consideration of rites, customs, etc. as (*329) signs, all these phenomena will also appear in a new light, so that there will be a need to group them in semiology and explain them with the laws of this science.

LINGUISTICS OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS OF SPEECH

Having given the science of language its rightful place in the totality of the study of speech activity, we have thereby outlined a diagram of all linguistics. All other elements of speech activity, which form, in our terminology, “speech,” are naturally subordinate to this science, and it is thanks to this subordination that all parts of linguistics are located in their proper places.

Consider, for example, the production of sounds necessary for speech; the organs of speech are as extraneous in relation to language as the electrical devices used to record it are extraneous to the Morse alphabet; speaking, that is, the execution of acoustic images, does not in any way affect the system itself. In this respect, language can be compared to a symphony, the reality of which does not depend on the way it is performed; the mistakes that the musicians performing it may make do not violate this reality in any way.

The fact of phonetic transformations, that is, those changes in sounds that occur in speech and have such a profound impact on the fate of the language itself, will perhaps be raised against such a separation of speaking and language. Do we really have the right to claim that language exists independently of these phenomena? Yes, you have the right, because these phenomena concern only the material substance of words. Even if they affect language as a system of signs, then only indirectly, through changes in the resulting interpretation, which phenomenon does not contain anything phonetic in itself. It may be of interest to find the causes of these changes, which is helped by the study of sounds, but this is not the point: for the science of language it is quite enough to note sound changes and find out their consequences.

What we say about speaking is true about all other elements of speech. The activity of the speaking subject should be studied in a whole set of disciplines that have the right to a place in linguistics only insofar as they are related to language.

So, the study of linguistic activity is divided into two parts, one of them, the main one, has language as its subject. that is, something social in essence and independent of the individual; This is a purely mental science; the other, secondary, has as its subject the individual side of speech activity, that is, speech, including speaking; she is psychophysical.

Without a doubt, both of these subjects are closely related to each other and mutually imply each other; language is necessary for speech (*330) to be intelligible and to produce its full effect; speech, in turn, is necessary for language to be established; Historically, the fact of speech always precedes language. In what way would the association of a concept with a verbal image be possible if such an association had not previously taken place in the act of speech? On the other hand, only by listening to others do we learn our native language, the latter only being deposited in our brain as a result of countless experiences. Finally, the evolution of language is determined by the phenomena of speech; Our language skills are modified by the impressions we receive from listening to others. In this way, the interdependence between language and speech is established: language is both a tool and a product of speech. But all this does not prevent the fact that these two things are completely different...

This is the first branching path that you come across as soon as you begin to theorize about human speech activity. It is necessary to choose one of two roads, which are not possible to follow at the same time; you need to go through each of them separately.

As a last resort, you can retain the name of linguistics for both of these disciplines and talk about the linguistics of speech. But it cannot be confused with linguistics in the proper sense, with that linguistics whose sole object is language.

We will deal exclusively with this latter, and although in the development of our thoughts we will sometimes have to draw explanations from the field of speech study, we will always try in no way to erase the lines separating these two areas.

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ELEMENTS OF LANGUAGE

Our definition of language presupposes that from the concept of language we eliminate everything that is alien to its organism, its system, in a word, everything that is known under the name of “external linguistics,” although this linguistics deals with very important subjects and is mainly thought about when begin to study speech activity.

First of all, this includes all those points in which linguistics comes into contact with ethnology, all the connections that may exist between the history of a language and the history of a nation, race or civilization. These two stories are intertwined and mutually influence each other. This is somewhat reminiscent of the correspondences that have been established within linguistic phenomena proper. The customs of a nation are reflected in its language, and on the other hand, to a large extent, it is the language that shapes the nation.

Next, mention should be made of the relationship between language and political history. Great historical events, such as the Roman conquest, had incalculable consequences for a whole (*331) series of linguistic facts. Colonization, which is one form of conquest, transfers a language to another environment, which entails changes in that dialect. Many facts could be cited to support this. Thus, Norway, having united politically with Denmark, adopted the Danish language; however, currently the Norwegians are trying to free themselves from this linguistic influence. Domestic government policy plays an equally important role in the life of languages; some states, such as Switzerland, allow the coexistence of several languages; others, such as France, strive for linguistic unity. High level culture favors the development of some special languages(legal language, scientific terminology, etc.).

This brings us to the third point - the relationship between language and such institutions as church, school, etc., which in turn are closely related to the literary development of the language - a phenomenon all the more general because it is itself inseparable from political history. Literary language in all directions transcends the boundaries seemingly set for it by literature; it is enough to recall the influence of salons, the court, and academies on the literary French language. On the other hand, he sharply raises the question of the conflict between him and local dialects. The linguist must also consider the relationship between book language and everyday language, because the development of any literary language, a product of culture, leads to the demarcation of its sphere from the sphere of spoken language.

Finally, external linguistics also includes everything that has to do with the geographical distribution of languages ​​and their dialectal fragmentation. It is at this point that the distinction between external and internal linguistics seems especially paradoxical, since the geographical phenomenon is closely related to the existence of any language; and yet it does not really concern the inner organism of the adverb itself.

It has been argued that there is absolutely no way to separate all these issues from the study of language in the proper sense. This point of view prevailed especially after these “realia” began to be put forward with such persistence. Just as changes occur in the plant organism due to the action of external factors - soil, climate, etc., similarly, does not the grammatical organism often depend on external factors of linguistic change? It seems obvious that it is hardly possible to explain the technical terms and borrowings that infest the language without raising the question of their origin. Is it possible to distinguish the natural, organic development of an adverb from its artificial forms, like a literary language, caused by external, therefore inorganic, factors? Don't we constantly see how, along with local dialects, a “common” language (langue commune, koine) is developing?

(*332) We consider the study of external linguistic phenomena very fruitful, but it is a mistake to assert that without passing them it is impossible to know the internal organism of language. Let's take the borrowing of foreign words as an example. First of all, it can be established that it is not a permanent element in the life of language. In some isolated valleys there are dialects which, so to speak, have never adopted a single artificial term from outside. Is it possible to say that these adverbs are outside the normal language conditions, about which they cannot give an idea, that it is they who require a “teratological”4 approach in research, since they have not experienced any confusion? But the main thing is that the borrowed word is no longer considered as such as soon as it becomes an object of study within the system, where it exists only to the extent of its correlation and contrast with the words associated with it, like all other words of the adverb. Generally speaking, there is no need to know the conditions under which a particular language developed. In relation to some dialects, such as, for example, the Avestan language (Zend) and Old Church Slavonic, it is not even known exactly which peoples spoke them, but this ignorance does not in the least hinder us in studying them from the inside and in studying the transformations they experienced. In any case, the separation of both points of view is inevitable, and the more strictly it is observed, the better.

The best proof of this is that each of them creates its own special method. External linguistics can pile one detail on top of another without feeling constrained by the system. For example, each author will group at his own discretion facts relating to the spread of the language outside his territory; when identifying the factors that created the literary language along with dialects, you can always use a simple enumeration; if the author arranges the facts in a more or less systematic order, then this is solely in the interests of clarity of presentation.

With regard to internal linguistics the situation is completely different; language is a system that obeys its own own order. A comparison with the game of chess, in relation to which it is relatively easy to distinguish what is external and what is internal, will help to clarify this; the fact that this game came to Europe from Persia is of an external order; on the contrary, everything that concerns the system and rules of the game is internal. If I replace wooden pieces with ivory pieces, such a replacement makes no difference to the system, but if I reduce or increase the number of pieces, such a change will deeply affect the “grammar” of the game. This kind of distinction requires a certain degree of attentiveness, therefore in each case it is necessary to raise the question about the nature of the phenomenon and, when deciding it, adhere to the following rule: everything that to any extent modifies the system is internal.

1 Sotsekgiz, M., 1933. Translation by A. M. Sukhotin.

2 Whitney (1827-1894) - a famous American linguist who studied general linguistics and Sanskrit. His main work is “The Life of Language,” 1875. (Compiler’s note.)

3 P. Broca (1824-1880) - French anthropologist and anatomist

4 Teratology is the science of deformities. (Translator's note.)

NATURE OF A LANGUAGE SIGN
§ 1. Sign, signified, signifier

For many people, language at its core appears to be nomenclature, that is, a list of terms corresponding to the same number of things.

This view can be criticized in many ways. It presupposes the presence of ready-made ideas that precede words; it says nothing about the nature of the name - sound or mental, because the word tree can be viewed from both angles; finally, it allows us to assume that the connection connecting a name with a thing is something completely simple, which is very far from the truth. Such a simplified point of view can still bring us closer to the truth, revealing to us that the unit of language is something dual, formed from the convergence of two moments.

A linguistic sign connects not a thing and a name, but a concept and an acoustic image. This latter is not a material sound, a purely physical thing, but a mental imprint of sound, the idea we receive about it through our senses, it is a sensory image, and if we happen to call it “material”, then only in this in that sense and from the contrast to the second moment of association - a concept that is generally more abstract.

The mental character of our acoustic images is well outlined from observations of our own speech practice. Without moving our lips or tongue, we can talk to ourselves or mentally repeat a passage of poetry...

A linguistic sign is thus a two-sided mental essence...

Both of these elements are closely connected and attract each other. Are we looking for the meaning of the word? tree or the word that denotes the concept “tree”, it is clear that only those approximations that are sanctified by language seem to us to be in agreement with reality, and we reject anything else that can be imagined.

This definition raises an important terminological issue. We call sign a combination of a concept and an acoustic image, but in common use this term usually denotes only an acoustic image, for example the word ( tree etc.). They forget that if tree is called a sign, then only insofar as the concept “tree” is included in it, so that the idea of ​​the sensory side implies the idea of ​​the whole.

The ambiguity will disappear if we call all three existing concepts by names that are related to each other, but at the same time mutually opposed. We suggest keeping the word sign to denote the whole and replace the terms concept and acoustic image according to the terms signified And meaning-(*334)meaning; these last two terms have the advantage of marking the opposition that exists both between them and between the whole and them as parts of that whole. As for the term sign, then we are content with it, not knowing what to replace it with, since everyday language does not put forward any other possible term.

Language sign, as we have defined it, has two properties of primary importance. By pointing to them, we thereby formulate the basic principles of the branch of knowledge we are studying.

§ 2. First principle: arbitrariness of the sign

The connection connecting the signifier with the signified is arbitrary, or, in other words, since by sign we mean the whole resulting from the association of the signifier and the signified, we can say more simply: the language sign is arbitrary.

Thus, the idea of ​​“sister” is not connected in any internal relation with the change of sounds s-o-r (soeur), which serves as its “signifier” in French; it could be expressed by any other combination of sounds; this can be proven by the differences between languages ​​and the very fact of the existence of different languages; the signified "bull" is expressed by the signifier b-o-f (French boeuf) on one side of the linguistic boundary and o-k-s (German Ochs) on the other side. The principle of the arbitrariness of a sign is not disputed by anyone, but it is often much easier to discover the truth than to give it its rightful place; This principle subordinates the entire linguistics of language; its consequences are incalculable. True, they are not all revealed at first glance with equal obviousness; only after many wanderings can they be discovered and the primary importance of the said principle established.

To denote a linguistic sign, or, more precisely, what we call a signifier, the word is sometimes used symbol. It is not entirely convenient to use it precisely because of our first principle. A symbol is characterized by the fact that it is not completely arbitrary; it is not completely empty, it contains a rudiment of a natural connection between the signifier and the signified. The symbol of justice, scales, cannot be replaced with anything - a chariot, for example.

Word arbitrary also raises a comment. It should not be understood in the sense that the signifier depends on the free choice of the speaking subject (as we will see below, the individual does not have the power to make even the slightest change to a sign already established in the linguistic community); we want to say that it unmotivated, that is, arbitrary in relation to the signified, with which it does not actually have any natural connection.

Let us note in conclusion two expressions that can be advanced against this first principle.

(*335) 1. You can refer to onomatopoeia(the phenomenon of sound recording) as proof that the choice of signifier is not always arbitrary. But the phenomena of sound writing are never organic elements in the system of language. Their number is also much more limited than is usually thought. Such French words as fouet - whip and glas - bell ringing, can amaze the ear with the emotionality of their sound, but it is enough to turn to their Latin ancestors (fouet from f?agus - beech, glas from classicum) to be convinced that they were originally did not have such a character; the quality of their present sounds, or rather ascribed to them, is the accidental result of phonetic evolution.

As for genuine onomatopoeias (such as glug-glug, tick-tock), then they are not only few in number, but their choice is to some extent arbitrary, since they are only approximate and half-conditional imitations of noise (cf. French ouaoua, German wau-wau, Russian. gam-gam yap-yap as an imitation of barking). In addition, having entered the language, they are more or less subject to phonetic, morphological and any other evolution to which other words undergo (cf. French pigeon - dove, derived from the Vulgar Latin pipi?o going back to onomatopoeia), - obvious proof that they have lost something of their original characteristics and have taken on the property of a general linguistic sign, which, as we have pointed out, is not motivated.

2. Exclamations, very close to onomatopoeia, evoke similar remarks and also do not in the least refute our thesis. It would seem possible to consider them as direct expressions of reality, so to speak, dictated by nature itself. But for most of them it can be assumed that there is a necessary connection between their signified and the signified. It is enough to compare the corresponding examples from different languages ​​to see how different these expressions are in them (for example, French aie! corresponds to German au!, Russian. Ouch!). It is also known that many exclamations go back to words of a certain meaning (cf. Russian. crap!, fr. diable, mordiau! = mort Dieu, etc.).

So, we can come to the conclusion that both onomatopoeia and exclamations are secondary in meaning and their symbolic origin is in many cases controversial.

IMMATIITY AND VARIABILITY OF THE SIGN
§ 1. Immutability of sign

If in relation to the idea it depicts the signifier appears to be freely chosen, then, on the contrary, in relation to the linguistic community that uses it, it is not free, it is imposed. The public is not asked for its opinion, and the signifier chosen by the language cannot be replaced by another. This (*336) fact, seemingly contradictory, could jokingly be called a “forced card move.” It is as if they say to the tongue: “Choose!”, but they add: “You will choose this sign, and not another.” Not only could the individual, if he wanted, not change anything in the choice he had already made, but the mass itself is not able to reveal its power over a single word; it is connected with language as it is.

Thus, language cannot be likened to a contract in its pure and simple form; From this particular side, the linguistic sign is of particular interest for study, because if they want to show that the law operating in a collective is something that is obeyed and not freely accepted, then there is no more brilliant confirmation of this than language.

Let us see how the linguistic sign eludes our will, and then we will show the important consequences that follow from this.

In every era, no matter how far we delve into the past, language always acts as a legacy of the previous era. The act by virtue of which at a certain moment names were assigned to things, by virtue of which a contract was concluded between concepts and acoustic images - such an act, although imaginable, has never been stated. The idea that this could happen is suggested to us only by our very acute sense of the arbitrariness of the sign.

In fact, every society knows and has always known language only as a product that is inherited from previous generations and must be accepted as it is. This is why the question of the origin of language is not as important as it is thought. There is no need to even raise such a question; the only real object of linguistics is the normal and regular life of an already established dialect. A given state of language is always a product of historical factors, which explain why the sign is unchangeable, that is, why it is not amenable to any arbitrary change.

But the assertion that language is a heritage of the past explains absolutely nothing, if we limit ourselves to this. Is it not possible to change existing and inherited laws at any moment?

Having expressed such doubt, we are forced, emphasizing the social nature of language, to pose the question as we would pose it in relation to other social social institutions. How are these latter transmitted? This is where the more general question comes in, covering the question of immutability. First of all, it is necessary to find out what degree of freedom other institutions enjoy; we will see that in relation to each of them the balance between the imposed tradition and the free activity of society is different. It is necessary, further, to establish why, in a given category, factors of one kind are more effective (or less) than factors (*337) of the second kind. And finally, returning to language, we ask ourselves why the historical factor dominates it completely and excludes the possibility of any general and sudden linguistic change.

In response to this question, one could put forward many arguments and point out, for example, that language modifications are not associated with a change of generations, which do not lie in layers one on top of the other and do not represent a semblance of dresser drawers, but are mixed and penetrate one another , each of them including individuals of different ages. It would be possible to indicate the amount of effort required during training native language, from which it is easy to conclude that a general change is impossible. One could add that reflection is not involved in the use of one or another adverb, that the speakers themselves are largely unaware of the laws of language, and even if they are aware, they are not able to modify them. But even if they consciously treat linguistic facts, isn’t it generally known that these facts are almost not subject to criticism at all in the sense that every people is generally satisfied with the language that befalls them.

All these considerations are not without foundation, but they are not the point; we prefer the following, more essential, more direct considerations, those on which all others depend.

1. The arbitrariness of the sign, regarding which we above assumed the theoretical possibility of change. Delving deeper into the question, we see that in fact the very arbitrariness of the sign protects language from any attempt aimed at changing it. The speaking masses, even if they were more conscious, could not discuss questions of language. After all, in order to subject any thing to discussion, it must meet some reasonable standard. One can, for example, argue which form of marriage is more rational - monogamy or polygamy - and argue in favor of one or the other. One can also discuss a system of symbols, because a symbol is in a relationship of rational connection with the thing signified, but in relation to language, a system of arbitrary symbols, there is nothing to rely on. This is why all basis for discussion disappears; there is no motive to prefer one of the following series of words: soeur - Schwester - sister or boeuf - Ochs - bull etc.

2. The plurality of signs necessary for the formation of any language. The significance of this circumstance is important. The writing system, consisting of 20-40 letters, can, of course, be replaced by another. But this cannot be done with a language that includes not a limited number of elements, but an infinite number of signs.

3. The nature of the system is too complex. Language forms a system. Although, as we will see below, from this particular side it is not entirely arbitrary and relative rationality dominates in it, but at the same time it is here that the inability of the masses to transform it is revealed. For this system is a complex mechanism; it can be mastered only through reflection; Even those who use it every day don’t understand anything about the system itself. One could imagine the possibility of transforming a language only through the intervention of specialists, grammarians, logicians, etc. But experience shows that until now such attempts have not been successful.

4. Resistance of collective rigidity to any linguistic innovation. All of the above considerations are inferior in their meaning to the following: at any given moment, language is the business of everyone; being widespread among the masses and serving them, language is something that individuals use constantly and hourly. In this respect, it cannot in any way be compared with other social institutions. Precepts of the law, religious rites, maritime signals, etc. attract only a limited number of people at a time and for a limited period; on the contrary, everyone takes part in language every minute, which is why language is constantly influenced by everyone. This one basic fact is enough to show the impossibility of revolution in it. Of all social institutions, language provides the least field for initiative. It cannot be separated from the life of the social masses, which, being inert by nature, acts primarily as a conservative factor.

Still, it is not enough to say that language is a product of social forces for its unfreedom to become obvious; remembering that language is always inherited from a previous era, we must add that these social forces act as a function of time. If language is stable, it is not only because it is tied to the inert mass of the collective, but also due to the fact that it is located in time. These two facts are inseparable. Solidarity with the past puts pressure on freedom of choice every minute. We are talking Human And dog because they said before us Human And dog. This does not prevent the fact that in the entire phenomenon as a whole there is always a connection between two antinomic factors: arbitrary agreement, by virtue of which the choice is free, and time, due to which the choice is fixed. Precisely because the sign is arbitrary, it knows no other law except the law of tradition, and only because it can be arbitrary is that it is based on tradition.

§ 2. Variability of sign

Time, which ensures the continuity of language, also has another effect on it, which seems contradictory in relation to the first, namely: it subjects linguistic signs to change with greater or less speed, so that it is possible to speak in a certain sense about the immutability and about the variability of the linguistic sign 1.

In the end, both these facts are mutually conditioned: the sign is subject to change because it is not interrupted. In every change, the predominant factor is the stability of the old material; infidelity to the past is only relative. That is why the principle of changeability is based on the principle of continuity.

Variation over time takes various forms, each of which could serve as material for a long chapter in the theory of linguistics. Without going into too much detail, here's what you need to find out.

First of all, let us understand the meaning attributed here to the word “changeability.” It might give rise to the idea that here we are specifically dealing with phonetic changes undergone by the signifier, or with semantic changes affecting the signified concept. Such a view would not be sufficient. Whatever the factors of variability, whether they act in isolation or in combination, they always lead to a shift in the relationship between signifier and signified.

Here are some examples. Lat. nes?are, meaning “to kill,” became French. nouer with the meaning “to drown (in water)”. Both the acoustic image and the concept have changed, but it is useless to distinguish between these two sides of the phenomenon; it is enough to state collectively that the connection between idea and sign has weakened and that a shift has occurred in their relationship. If we compare the classically Latin nec?are not with the French nouer, but with the Vulgar Latin nec?are of the 4th and 5th centuries, meaning “to drown,” then the case turns out to be somewhat different, but here, although there is no noticeable change in the signifier, there is a shift in the relationship between idea and sign.

Old German dritteil - third in modern German has become Drittel. In this case, although the concept remains the same, the relationship has changed in two ways: the signifier has changed not only in its material aspect, but also in its grammatical form; it no longer includes the ideas of Teil (part); it has become a simple word. One way or another, here again is a shift in the relationship between idea and sign.

In the Anglo-Saxon language, the pre-written form f?ot - leg is preserved as f?ot (modern English, foot), and plural*f?oti - legs turned into f?et (modern English feet). Whatever changes are implied here, one thing is clear: a shift in attitude has occurred, new correspondences have arisen between sound material and idea.

Language by its nature is powerless to defend itself against factors that constantly shift the relationship between the signified and the signifier. This is one of the consequences of the arbitrariness of the sign.

Other human institutions - customs, laws, etc. - are all based to varying degrees on the natural relationships of things; they have the necessary correspondence between the means used and the goals set. Even the fashion that establishes our costume is not completely arbitrary: one cannot deviate beyond a certain extent from the conditions dictated by the human body. Language, on the contrary, is not limited in any way in the choice of its means, for it is impossible to imagine what could prevent the association of any idea with any series of sounds.

Wanting to clearly show that language is a social institution in its purest form, Whitney rightly emphasized the arbitrary nature of signs; thereby he set linguistics on its true path. But he did not reach the end and did not see that, by its arbitrary nature, language is sharply separated from all other social institutions. This is revealed in the way it develops; there is nothing more complex: it is located simultaneously in the social mass and in time; no one can change anything in it, and yet the arbitrariness of its signs theoretically justifies the freedom to establish any relationship between sound material and ideas. From this it follows that the two elements, united in a sign, live completely apart to an unprecedented degree, and that language changes, or rather evolves, under the influence of all the forces that can influence either sounds or meaning. This evolution occurs always and steadily; there is no example of a language that is free from it. After a certain period of time, tangible changes can always be noted in each language.

This is so true that this principle can be tested on the material of artificial languages. Any artificial language, as long as it has not yet entered into general use, is in the hands of its author, but as soon as it begins to fulfill its purpose and becomes common property, control over it disappears. Esperanto is one of the attempts of this kind; If this language becomes widespread, will it escape the law of evolution? After the first period of its existence, this language will, in all likelihood, enter the conditions of semiological development: it will begin to be transmitted by virtue of laws that have nothing in common with the laws of deliberate creation, and it will no longer be possible to go back. A person who would wish to compose an immutable language for use future generations, would be like a hen that hatched a duck egg: the language he created, willy-nilly, would be captured by the current that carries away all languages.

(*341) The continuity of a sign in time, associated with its changeability in time, is a principle of general semiology; this could be confirmed in writing systems, in the language of the deaf and dumb, etc.

But what is the basis for the need for change? We will perhaps be reproached for having explained this point less than the principle of immutability; this is because we have not identified the various factors of variability; it would be necessary to consider them in their diversity in order to establish to what extent they are inevitable.

The causes of continuity are a priori observable; The situation is different with the reasons for variability over time. It is better to abandon their exact clarification for now and limit ourselves to a general discussion of the shift in relations; everything changes in time; there is no reason for language to escape this general law.

Let us restore the stages of our construction, linking them with the principles established in the introduction.

1. Avoiding sterile definitions of words, we first of all discerned within the general phenomenon which is speech activity(langage), two factors: language(langue) and speech(password). Language for us is speech activity minus speech itself. It is a set of linguistic skills that allow an individual to understand others and be understood by them.

2. But such a definition still leaves language outside of social reality, it represents it as something unreal, since it includes only one aspect of reality, the individual aspect; to have a language, you need talking mass. Language never, contrary to appearances, exists outside of a social fact, for it is a semiological phenomenon. Its social nature is one of its intrinsic properties; its complete definition confronts us with two inextricably linked phenomena.

But under these conditions, the language is only viable, but not yet living; we took into account only social reality, not historical fact.

3. It may seem that language, insofar as it is determined by the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign, is a free system, organized at will, depending solely on the principle of rationality. This point of view, in fact, is not contradicted by the social nature of language taken in itself. Of course, collective psychology does not operate on purely logical material; It is also worth remembering how reason loses its position in practical relations between man and man. And yet, it is not this that prevents us from considering language as a simple convention, subject to modification at the will of the participants, but the action of time, combined with the action of social force; outside the category of time, linguistic reality is incomplete and no conclusion is possible.

If we took a language in time, but without a speaking mass (suppose that a person lives completely alone for several centuries), there would perhaps not be any (*342) change in it; time would not have shown its effect. And conversely, if you consider the speaking mass outside of time, you will not see the action in the language of social forces. To get closer to reality, it is therefore necessary to add to our first diagram a sign indicating the movement of time. Now language is losing its freedom, since time allows the social forces acting on it to develop their action; We thus arrive at the principle of continuity, which annuls freedom. But continuity necessarily implies changeability, that is, more or less significant shifts in relationships.

1 It would be unfair to reproach F. de Saussure for illogicality or paradoxicalness because he attributes two contradictory qualities to language. By contrasting two extreme terms, he only wanted to sharply emphasize the truth that language is transformed, but those who speak it cannot transform it. Another way to say it is that it is inviolable (intangible), but not immutable (inaltrable). ( Publishers' Note.)

Superlinguist is an electronic scientific library dedicated to theoretical and applied issues of linguistics, as well as the study of various languages.

How the site works

The site consists of sections, each of which includes further subsections.

Home. This section provides general information about the site. Here you can also contact the site administration through the “Contacts” item.

Books. This is the largest section of the site. Here are books (textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, encyclopedias, reference books) on various linguistic areas and languages, a full list of which is presented in the “Books” section.

For a student. This section contains a lot of useful materials for students: essays, coursework, dissertations, lecture notes, answers to exams.

Our library is designed for any circle of readers dealing with linguistics and languages, from a schoolchild who is just approaching this field to a leading linguist working on his next work.

What is the main purpose of the site

The main goal of the project is to improve the scientific and educational level of people interested in linguistics and studying various languages.

What resources are contained on the site?

The site contains textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias, periodicals, abstracts and dissertations in various fields and languages. Materials are presented in .doc (MS Word), .pdf (Acrobat Reader), .djvu (WinDjvu) and txt formats. Each file is archived (WinRAR).

(3 Votes)

Saussure F. de

General linguistics course

Saussure F. deGeneral linguistics course. - M.: URSS Editorial, 2007. - 257 p. (Linguistic heritage of the 20th century).E-book. Linguistics. General linguistics

Abstract (description)

Book offered to the reader "Course of General Linguistics"- reissue of the Russian translation of the work of the patriarch of the Geneva School of Linguistics and one of the founders of modern linguistics, published in 1933 and which has become a classic Ferdinand de Saussure. Recreated after the death of the scientist by his students Sh. Bally and A. Seshe from student notes of lectures, "Course of General Linguistics" laid down the fundamental principles linguistic science, which retain their significance to this day.
The book is recommended for linguists of all specialties, undergraduate and graduate students of philology, sociologists, and anyone interested in language problems.

Contents (table of contents)

Preface to the first edition
Preface to the second edition
Introduction
Chapter I. A quick look at the history of linguistics
Chapter II. Materials and the task of linguistics; its relationship to related disciplines
Chapter III. Linguistics object
1. Language; its definition
2. The place of language in the phenomena of speech activity
3. The place of language in a number of phenomena of human life. Semiology
Chapter IV. Linguistics of language and linguistics of speech
Chapter V. Internal and external elements of language
Chapter VI. Depicting language through writing
1. The need to study this issue
2. Prestige of the letter; reasons for its influence on pronunciation
3. Writing systems
4. Reasons for the discrepancy between style and pronunciation
5. Consequences of this discrepancy
Chapter VII. Phonology
1. Definition
2. Phonological writing
3. Criticism of the testimony of written texts
Application. Basics of Phonology
Chapter I. Phonological types
1. Definition of phoneme
2. The speech apparatus and its functioning
3. Classification of sounds according to their oral articulation
Chapter II. Phoneme in a speech chain
1. The need to study sounds in the speech chain
2. Implosion and explosion
3. Various combinations of exploitation and implosion in the speech chain
4. Syllable division and vocal point
5. Criticism of the syllabation theory
6. Duration of implosion and explosion
7. Phonemes of the 4th degree of openness. Diphthongs and questions of their writing
Part one. General principles
Chapter I. The nature of the linguistic sign
1. Sign, signified, signifier
2. First principle: arbitrariness of the sign
3. Second principle: linear character of the signifier
Chapter II. Immutability and variability of a sign
1. Immutability of the sign
2. Variability of sign
Chapter III. Static linguistics and evolutionary linguistics
1. Internal duality of all sciences operating with the concept of value
2. Internal duality and the history of linguistics
3. Inner duality, illustrated by examples
4. The difference between two series of phenomena, shown in comparisons
5. Contrasting both linguistics with respect to their methods and principles
6. Synchronic law and diachronic law
7. Is there a panchronic "all-time" point of view?
8. Consequences of mixing synchrony and diachrony
9. Conclusions
Part two. Synchronic linguistics
Chapter I. General provisions
Chapter II. Specific language entities
1. Entity (entlte) and unit (unite). Definitions
2. Distinction method
3. Practical difficulties of differentiation
4. Conclusion
Chapter III. Identity, reality, significance
Chapter IV. Linguistic significance (value)
1. Language as a thought organized in sounding matter
2. Linguistic significance from its conceptual aspect
3. Linguistic significance from its material aspect
4. Consideration of the sign as a whole
Chapter V. Syntagmatic relations and associative relations
1. Definitions
2. Syntagmagic relations
3. Associative relationships
Chapter VI. Language mechanism
1. Syntagmatic wholes (sclidarites)
2. Simultaneous action of two types of combinations
3. Arbitrariness, absolute and relative
Chapter VII. Grammar and its divisions
1. Definitions: traditional division
2. Rational division
Chapter VIII. The role of abstract entities in grammar
Part three. Diachronic linguistics
Chapter I. General provisions
Chapter II. Phonetic changes
1. Their absolute regularity
2. Conditions for phonetic changes
3. Questions of method
4. Reasons for phonetic changes
5. Unlimited effect of phonetic changes
Chapter III. Grammatical consequences of phonetic evolution
1. Breaking the grammatical connection
2. Erasing the complex structure of words
3. There are no phonetic doublets
4. Alternation
5. Laws of alternation
6. Alternation and grammatical connection
Chapter IV. Analogy
1. Definition and examples
2. Analogous phenomena are not changes
3. Analogy as a principle of new formation in language
Chapter V. Analogy and Evolution
1. How does a new formation enter the language by analogy?
2. Analogous neoplasms - symptoms of changes in interpretation
3. Analogy as a renewing and conservative principle
Chapter VI. Folk etymology
Chapter VII. Agglutination
1. Definition
2. Agglutination and analogy
Chapter VIII. Concepts of unity, identity and reality in diachrony
Appendix to the third and fourth parts:
A. Subjective analysis and objective analysis
B. Subjective analysis and identification of lower order units
B. Etymology
Part four. Geographical linguistics
Chapter I. On the difference of languages
Chapter II. Complexity of Geographical Diversity
1. Coexistence of several languages ​​in one place
2. Literary language and local dialect
Chapter III. Reasons for Geographical Diversity
1. The main reason is time
2. Effect of time on a continuous territory
3. Dialects have no natural boundaries
4. Languages ​​have no natural boundaries
Chapter IV. Propagation of linguistic waves
1. The power of communication and the “spirit of the native bell tower”
2. Reduction of both interacting forces to one general principle
3. Linguistic differentiation in separated territories
Part five. Conclusion. Issues in retrospective linguistics
Chapter I. Two perspectives of diachronic linguistics
Chapter II. The most ancient and proto-language (prototype)
Chapter III. Reconstructions
1. Their nature and purpose
2. Degree of reliability of reconstructions
Chapter IV. Evidence for language in anthropology and prehistory
1. Language and race
2. Ethnicity
3. Linguistic paleontology
4. Linguistic type and thinking of a social group
Chapter V Language families and linguistic types
Notes
Index of names
Subject index

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 - 1913) is called the Copernicus of modern linguistics. Saussure's linguistic concept is based on ideas of sign nature and systemicity of language. Saussure's ideas served as the basis for the emergence of structuralism in the 20th century. They helped in overcoming the crisis of world linguistics in late XIX- beginning of the 20th century

F. de Saussure became interested in linguistics at the gymnasium. He studied Sanskrit on his own, and at the age of 12 he met the founder of Indo-European linguistic paleontology, Adolphe Pictet. Under his influence, at the age of 15, Saussure wrote his first linguistic work " General language system" At the age of 16, while working on the structure of an Indo-European root, three years before K. Brugmann and G. Osthoff, Saussure accidentally discovered previously unknown Indo-European sonants - sounds that could form syllables. In 1875, Saussure became a student at the University of Geneva, but he had practically no one to study with here, and a year later he moved to Leipzig, the largest center of comparative studies of that time. At the University of Leipzig in 1878, Saussure wrote his dissertation “ Memoir (research) on the original vowel system in the Indo-European language».

This work outraged the professors at the University of Leipzig, the young grammarians Brugmann and Osthof. In the very center of neogrammatism with its “atomic” method of analysis, with its fundamental refusal to solve general theoretical problems, a modest student came up with an unusual, mathematically verified theory, which made it possible to predict the structure of the Proto-Indo-European root, and also clarified the composition of the vowels of the Indo-European proto-language. Saussure was so severely criticized that Memoir on the Original Vowel System of the Indo-European Languages ​​became his only major work published during his lifetime. Subsequently, Saussure published only small notes and reviews, which were not paid attention either in Switzerland, or in Germany, or in France.

The core idea of ​​the Memoir was the systematicity of language. Proving the systematic nature of the Indo-European proto-language, Saussure put forward a hypothesis about unusual sonants, which were then lost, but are indirectly reflected in the vowel alternations of modern Indo-European languages. Saussure made an important conclusion about the systematic nature of the phonetic and morphological structure of the Indo-European proto-language.

Thus, he came to the conclusion that all Indo-European roots had a uniform structure:

1) each root contained a vowel “e”, it could be followed by a sonant i, u, r, l, m, n: (*mer-, ber-, mei-, pei-, ken-);

2) in some conditions the vowel “e” alternated with “o”, in others “e” disappeared (* mer- // mor-: died, pestilence, die; ber- // bor-: take, collection, take);

3) where the vowel “e” dropped out, the root, which did not contain a sonant, remained without a vowel. At the root, with a sonant, the sonant acts as a syllabic sound when it is followed by a consonant: *pei-ti → pi-t.

The most important principle of these rules is that, under the same morphological and phonetic conditions, the vocalization of different roots should be the same. For example, in the first person present tense of Indo-European verbs there is a vowel “e” in the root: German. ich gebe (I give), lat. lego (assembling), russian I carry/lead/carry/weave. The verbal name has the vowel “o” at the root: lat. toga, russian burden / cart / cart. The participle has a zero sound “dra-ny” or contains a vowel, which is the result of the merger of the original vowel and the sonant “beaten” from “beat”.

Thus, arguments of a systemic nature ensure the reliability of the reconstruction of the proto-language.

In 1880, Saussure defended his doctoral dissertation on syntax. He begins to work at the University of Paris, and in Paris he meets I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Then a correspondence began between them. In 1891 Saussure moved to Geneva. Here the scientist studied classical and Germanic languages, linguistic geography, the epic of the Nibelungs, French versification and Greek mythology. There are 99 of his notebooks left on anagrams in Greek, Latin and Vedic poetry.

Saussure led a secluded life. In the eyes of those around him, he looked like a loser who was never able to rise to the level of his first talented book.

In 1906, Saussure was offered a professorship at the University of Geneva.

F. de Saussure read his course three times, without leaving even brief notes of his lectures. In 1906 - 1907 Six listened to Saussure's lectures on the theory of language, in 1908 - 1909. - 11, in 1910 - 1911. - 12 people. After Saussure's death, the lecture notes were published by Saussure's younger colleagues Charles Bally and Albert Séchet in 1916 as " General linguistics course" This year began the triumphant recognition of Saussure's concept, which had a colossal influence on the development of world linguistics. “The Course of General Linguistics” was reprinted several times on French, then was translated into other languages ​​of the world, including Russian.

In the Course of General Linguistics, Saussure solved the most important problems of linguistics:

1) Contrasting language and speech.

The central concepts of the “Course of General Linguistics” are speech activity, language and speech. In parallel with the scientists of the Kazan linguistic school, F. de Saussure began to distinguish between two sides in speech activity: language and speech. Saussure placed this distinction at the center of his general theory of language.

Language and speech are two sides of speech activity. Speech activity is diverse, it includes social and individual, because a person expresses his thoughts in order to be understood by others. In speech activity, there is an external sound and an internal, psychological side. Of the two sides of speech activity, language is one, but the most important side, which determines all the others.

The main difference between language and speech is that language is social, and speech is individual. The sociality of language lies in the fact that it functions only in human society. Language is a product of speech ability and a set of language skills. The child learns it while living in human society. Language is passively registered by a person and imposed on him. An individual species can neither create nor change a language.

Language, according to Saussure, is a code that forms a means for speech activity. But language is also a treasure deposited by the practice of speech in all members of the collective. It is a grammatical and lexical system that potentially exists in the brain of a collection of individuals.

Language is a mental phenomenon, but it contains only the general, abstract, and abstract. The mentality of language does not deny its real existence. Saussure considers the possibility of graphically, in writing, to reflect language as proof of its reality. The reality of language is confirmed by the ability to study dead languages ​​from monuments.

Speech is entirely individual. It is an act of will and consciousness of an individual; it is completely under the control of the individual.

The speech contains:

1) combinations that the speaker forms to express his thoughts using a social code;

2) the psycho-physiological mechanism by which thoughts are objectified and become common property. Speech includes onomatopoeia and articulation.

Reproduced speech is the sum of everything spoken. Consequently, language is abstracted from speech, and not vice versa: “Language and speech are interconnected, for language is both a tool and a product of speech.” Saussure demanded separate study of language and speech. Language is necessary to understand speech, and speech precedes language. It is necessary for the language to be established.

Contrasting language and speech, Saussure writes that language should be studied in the linguistics of language, and speech in the linguistics of speech. Linguistics of language / linguistics of speech is the first crossroads on the path of the researcher, and he must choose one of the roads. You need to go through each of them separately. Until the beginning of the 20th century. Linguists, Saussure believes, studied only speech. The linguistics of the language has not been studied at all. Therefore, Saussure’s motto became the words: “Take the point of view of language and from this point of view consider everything else!” The “Course of General Linguistics” ends with the phrase: “The only and true object of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself.”

2) Contrasting synchrony and diachrony.

The second crossroads on the path of a linguist is synchrony/diachrony, that is, the study of language at rest and in development. Saussure proposes to distinguish between 1) the axis of simultaneity (AB) and 2) the axis of sequence (CD).

The axis of simultaneity (AB) concerns the relations between coexisting sequences, where any interference of time is excluded. The sequence axis (SD) contains all the phenomena of the first axis with all their changes; more than one thing can never be considered on it at once.

Saussure associated the concept of a system only with synchrony, which coincides with the axis of simultaneity. In diachrony, which coincides with the axis of sequence, in his opinion, only displacements occur that can lead to changes in the system. The transition from one state of the system to another is the result of diachronic displacements of individual members.

Saussure is often accused of separating synchrony from diachrony and of making his theory unhistorical. But Saussure perfectly understood their dependence and called himself, first of all, a historian of language. Using many examples, he showed the independence of synchronic and diachronic analysis and their interconnectedness, emphasizing their dialectical unity and differences. But at the same time, he constantly reminded students that “modern linguistics, as soon as it emerged, plunged headlong into diachrony” and neglected synchrony. This is why the synchronic aspect was more important for Saussure. “For speakers, only the synchronic aspect is the true and only reality.”

If the linguistics of language is in the area of ​​synchrony, says Saussure, then the linguistics of speech is in the area of ​​diachrony. Diachronic studies are possible in prospective and retrospective plans. It is possible to predict the development of a language or to reconstruct a proto-language. Saussure proposes to call linguistics, which should deal with the rest of language, static or synchronic linguistics, and science, which should describe the successive states of language, evolutionary or diachronic linguistics.

3) Contrasting external and internal linguistics.

Saussure included all aspects related to the history of society as external linguistics; internal policy of the state; level of culture; the relationship between language and church, language and school; geographical distribution of languages ​​and their division into dialects. Language and social factors mutually influence each other.

Internal linguistics studies only the language system and the relationships within it. Saussure compares linguistics to the game of chess. The fact that the game of chess came to Europe from Persia is an external fact; internal is everything that concerns the system and rules of the chess game. If you replace figures made of wood with figures made of ivory, such a replacement will be indifferent to the system; but if the number of pieces is reduced or increased, such a change will deeply affect the “grammar of the game.”

Each of the linguistics has its own special method, says Saussure. External linguistics can pile one detail on top of another without feeling constrained by the clutches of the system. In internal linguistics, any arbitrary arrangement of material is excluded, since language is a system that obeys only its own order. Saussure gives preference to internal linguistics, since it was underestimated by contemporary linguists.

When publishing Saussure's works, material on the difference between internal and external linguistics was placed at the beginning of the book, and the impression was created that for Saussure this antinomy was the main one. In fact, for Saussure, the main thing was the opposition of language/speech, and the predominance of internal linguistics in his “Course...” is explained by the fact that Saussure outlined a new path along which linguistics of the 20th century took. This path led to in-depth study internal linguistics in terms of synchrony.

4) Saussure viewed language as a sign system.

This idea was developed by Aristotle, the authors of the “Grammar of Port-Royal”, W. von Humboldt, and scientists of the Kazan and Moscow linguistic schools.

Saussure was the first to isolate language as a sign system from other sign systems: writing, the alphabet of the deaf, and military signals. He was the first to propose distinguishing the science of the life of signs in society - semiology (gr. semeon "sign"). Semiology, according to Saussure, should be included in social psychology as a section general psychology. Later this science began to be called semiotics.

The definition of language as a sign system was directed both against the individualism of neogrammarians and against the understanding of language as an organism by supporters of naturalism. Any linguistic problem, according to Saussure, is, first of all, a semiological problem, since most of the properties of language are common to other signs and only a few are specific. The semiological study of language, Saussure believes, will help to understand the rituals and customs of peoples. But main goal linguistics - to separate language from other semiotic phenomena and study its specific properties.

5) The doctrine of linguistic sign and significance.

Saussure argued that “Language is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the combination of meaning and acoustic image, both of these elements of the sign being equally psychic.” Both of these elements are located in the brain, that is, it is psychic phenomena. They are connected by association among all speakers of linguistic unity, which ensures understanding. The thing itself and sounds are not included in the sign. A linguistic sign, according to Saussure, connects not a thing and a name, but a concept and an acoustic image.

Schematically, a linguistic sign can be depicted as follows::

The image shows that the linguistic sign is two-sided. The concept without an acoustic image refers to psychology. And only in combination with an acoustic image does a concept become a linguistic essence. An acoustic image is not something sounding, material, but only its imprint in a person’s consciousness. The most significant differences in the acoustic image are its differences from other acoustic images. Acoustic images can be presented in writing, the signs of which are imprinted in the mind in the form of visual images that replace acoustic ones.

Linguistic signs, according to Saussure, are real because they are located in the brain. They constitute the subject of the linguistics of language. Linguistic signs are, first of all, words, something central to the mechanism of language.

Having defined the linguistic sign, Saussure names two defining features that distinguish the linguistic system from other sign systems and from social phenomena: 1) randomness and 2) linearity.

Arbitrariness of the sign Saussure understood both conventionality and lack of motivation. According to Saussure, the sign is arbitrary, conventional, not connected by internal relations with the designated object (Russian bull, German Ochs). Thus, the connection between the signified (meaning) and the signifier (material form) is arbitrary. This manifests itself in a lack of motivation. Only a small number of onomatopoeic words and expressions are motivated in the language (Russian kukareku, meow-meow, woof-woof).

The morphological characteristics of language are associated with motivation. Saussure calls languages ​​with maximum morphological motivation grammatical, and languages ​​with minimal motivation lexicological. In the history of linguistics, there are constant transitions of motivated signs into arbitrary ones. Linguistic signs differ from signs of other semiotic systems in that the symbol retains a share of natural connection with the signified. For example, the symbol of justice is scales, not a chariot; the symbol of peace is a dove, not a hawk.

In 1939, on the pages of the journal Acta Linguistics, a discussion took place about the arbitrariness of the sign. The French scientist Emile Benveniste spoke out against the doctrine of the arbitrariness of the sign. He argued that the connection between a concept and an acoustic image is not arbitrary, but natural, since it is necessary. One side of the sign does not exist without the other. But Saussure's students, Albert Seche and Charles Bally, defending Saussure's theory of arbitrariness, clarified it: the sign is arbitrary when expressing thoughts and involuntary when expressing feelings and aesthetic impressions. A.A. Potebnya also believed that when they appear, all words are motivated, and then the motivation is lost. Disputes about the arbitrariness and involuntary nature of a linguistic sign continue to this day.

The consequence of arbitrariness is the antinomy of changeability/immutability of the sign. Language is imposed on the speaker and even on the masses as they follow the traditions of the past. And since the sign knows no other law than the law of tradition, it is arbitrary. However, the histories of languages ​​provide examples of changes in both sides of a linguistic sign: both the meaning and the sound composition. Thus, factors operate in language that lead to a shift between the signified and the signified precisely because there is no necessary connection between them and the sign is arbitrary. The development of language occurs independently of the will and consciousness of the speaker on the basis of the arbitrariness of the sign.

Linearity of a linguistic sign means that the signifier is an extension that unfolds in time, a line. Acoustic images follow one after another in the form of a chain and cannot appear simultaneously. The property of linearity was subsequently rejected by linguistics. Linearity is characteristic of speech and cannot characterize a sign as a member of a system. It is quite obvious that in Saussure’s teaching on the linearity of the sign there is a confusion of the linguistics of language with the linguistics of speech.

The central place in Saussure's concept of the linguistic sign is occupied by the doctrine of its theoretical value, or the doctrine of significance. A word is defined as a linguistic sign by its place and functioning in the language system, depending on other elements of the system. “Language is a system of pure values, not defined by anything except the present composition of the members that make up its composition,” Saussure argued. For example, the material from which the chess pieces are made is not important, what is important is their value under the conditions of the game.

Due to the fact that the linguistic sign is arbitrary and two-sided, Saussure speaks of two types of values: 1) conceptual and 2) material.

Conceptual (conceptual) value connected with the inner side of the sign, with the signified. Yes, French. mouton and eng. sheep have the same meaning “ram”, but the conceptual values ​​of these signs are different, since in French. in the language mouton = “ram” + “mutton”, and in English. In the language there is a special word for the meaning of “mutton” - mutton.

The conceptual value of a sign is revealed within a given language system, taking into account words of the same semantic field, synonymous and antonymic series. Conceptual value also characterizes grammar. So, Russian plural. the number differs from the Old Slavonic one, because it is a member of a binary opposition (singular - plural), and not a ternary one (singular - dv. - plural). Consequently, the conceptual values ​​of signs are determined by their relations with other members of the system, argues Saussure.

Material value- this is the difference in acoustic images, or signifiers. For example, in the word “wife” in gender. plural case number has no ending as a positive material element, and the essence is comprehended by comparison with other forms. This position is the basis for the doctrine of Fortunatov-Whitney about the zero form and the doctrine of Baudouin de Courtenay about the morphological zero.

Opposition is important for all elements of language, including phonemes. Thus, the French “r” can be pronounced both as a rolling “r” and as an “h”. In the German language, such liberties are unacceptable, because there “r” and “h” are independent elements of the sound system that have a meaningful function (Rabe - “raven”, habe - “I have”).

To prove his thesis “Language is a system of pure values,” Saussure turns to the problem of language and thinking. Thought not expressed in words is vague, formless, and the sound chain cannot be divided without connection with meaning. The connection of thinking with sound leads to the differentiation of units. Saussure likens language to a sheet of paper, where the front side is thought and the back is sound, but they are inseparable from each other. The linguist works in the border region, where elements of both orders are combined. And when analyzing, we must go from the whole to the individual elements.

6) The doctrine of language as a system.

Saussure's desire to convince his students of the need for a new approach to language forced him to constantly emphasize the systematic nature of language and talk about the role of differences in this systematicity. He put forward the thesis: “There is nothing in language but differences.” “Both the idea and the sound material are less important than what is around him in other signs.” For example, the significance can change while maintaining both sides of the sign, if another term changes (if the dual number is lost, the significance of the singular and plural numbers changes).

Saussure's merit lies in the fact that he truly appreciated the role of relations in language: “in every given state of language, everything rests on relations.” Saussure viewed the language system as mathematically precise and likened it to algebra and geometry. He used the terms of mathematics: member, element.

The systematic nature of the language is manifested at the phonetic, grammatical and lexical levels. The language system has two properties: 1) it is in balance and 2) it is closed. It reveals two types of relationships: syntagmatic and associative. These types of relationships correspond to two forms of our mental activity.

Syntagmatic relations occur when elements are arranged one after another in the flow of speech. Such combinations that have an extension can be called syntagms. Syntagma always consists of at least two consecutive units: morphemes, words, phrases, sentences. A member of a syntagma gains significance to the extent of its opposition to what is adjacent to it. This is an adjacency relationship.

Associative (Saussure's term), or paradigmatic (new term) relationships arise outside the speech process, in the human brain, on the basis that words that have something in common are associated in memory. Based on similar features, they can be combined into groups (for example, by the commonality of a root or suffix; by the commonality of grammatical forms).

Syntagmatic and associative relations in their totality, according to Saussure, define every language: they combine phonetics, vocabulary, morphology, syntax into a single whole. Saussure's linguistic technique is connected with these two types of relationships - decomposing the whole into parts on the basis of syntagmatic and associative comparison.

The Geneva (Swiss) linguistic school (Charles Bally, Albert Séchet, Sergei Osipovich Kartsevsky, Robert Gödel) and the Paris school (Antoine Meillet, Joseph Vandries, Michel Grammont, Marcel Cohen) are associated with the activities of Saussure. Both of these schools can be called Saussurian.

Since 1928, Saussurianism has gradually developed into structuralism, although this name itself appears only in 1939. On the banner of structuralism are the main theses of Saussure: language/speech, synchrony/diachrony, internal/external linguistics, systemicity and signification of language.

Don't lose it. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.

Many people have contributed to the development of modern linguistics, but the greatest contribution in this area was made by the Swiss linguist, the founder of structural linguistics and semiology (the science that studies the properties of signs and sign systems) and the man who stood at the origins of the Geneva School of Linguistics - Ferdinand de Saussure.

Many consider him one of the brightest minds in linguistics, calling him the “father” of linguistic science of the 20th century, because his ideas not only contributed to overcoming the crisis of world linguistics at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, but also seriously influenced the entire humanitarian thought of the last century. That is why we decided that dedicating one of the articles to the concept of this person would be very opportune.

To begin with, it is worth saying that Ferdinand de Saussure’s entire linguistic concept is based on the postulates of the sign nature and systematic nature of language, and his main work is the work “Course of General Linguistics.”

The work “A Course in General Linguistics” was published after the death of the author himself by his successors Albert Seche and Charles Bally, and the materials of the lectures that Saussure gave at the University of Geneva were taken as a basis. Thus, Séchet and Bally, to a certain extent, are considered co-authors of this work - Saussure himself did not have the goal of publishing the book, and a huge part of its structure and content was contributed by the above-mentioned publishers.

So, the semiology created by Saussure is interpreted by him as scientific direction, which studies the life of signs within the life of society, and has the main task of revealing the meaning of signs and the laws governing them. According to him, semiology should be classified as a part and what place it occupies in it should be determined by a psychologist. The linguist must find out how language stands out as an independent system in the complex of semiological phenomena. Considering that language is one of the sign systems, linguistics can be called a component of semiology. And the place of linguistics among other disciplines is determined precisely by its connection with semiology.

One of the basic ideas of the “Course of General Linguistics” is the differences between speech and language in speech activity. According to Saussure, when we distinguish between language and speech, we distinguish:

• Social and individual
• Essential and incidental

Language is a function, a product, passively registered by it and not presupposing preliminary reflection, and analysis appears in it only when classifying activity begins.

Speech is an individual act of will and understanding, which contains, first of all, certain combinations through which talking man uses a language code, and, secondly, a special mechanism of a psychophysical nature, which allows a person to make the combinations used objective.

Speech activity is heterogeneous in nature; language is a phenomenon that is homogeneous in nature - a system of signs, where the only important thing can be called the process in which meaning is combined with an acoustic image.

Saussure argues that speech activity consists of three components:

• Physical component (propagation of sound vibrations)
• Physiological component (movement from the organs of hearing to acoustic images or from acoustic images to the organs of speech)
• Mental component (acoustic images are a mental reality that does not coincide with sound; there is a certain idea about physical sound; concepts exist)

Despite the fact that language cannot exist outside of human speech activity (it is not an organism that exists independently, it does not have its own individual birth, life and death), the study of speech activity should begin precisely with the study of language, which is the basis of any speech phenomena. activities. And linguistics in the full sense of the word is the linguistics of language.

Linguistic sign, linguistic units, significance

Ferdinand de Saussure introduces several concepts:

• Language sign
• Language units
• Significance

A linguistic sign is formed by two components: an acoustic image (signifying) and a concept (signified). It also has two main properties, the first of which is the arbitrary connection between the two above-mentioned components, i.e. is that there is no internal and natural connection between them. And the second is that the acoustic image is characterized by an extension in time, in other words, in one dimension.

Language consists of linguistic entities - signs that reflect the unity of the acoustic image and concept. And linguistic units are linguistic entities separated from each other. They can only be identified through concepts, because the acoustic image is indivisible, which means that one sound unit corresponds to one linguistic concept. Linguistic units, based on this, are segments of mental sound that mean certain concepts.

Among other things, language is also a system of meanings. Given that meaning is a signified for the signifier, the significance of signs is produced from their interaction with other linguistic signs. If, for example, we compare language to a piece of paper, then the meaning will be related to the interaction of the front and back of this sheet of paper; the significance, in turn, will be correlated with the interaction of several leaves with each other.

And the concepts and acoustic images that make up language are purely differential values, in other words, the content cannot determine them positively, but their relationship to other components of the language system determines them negatively. There are no positive elements in language that could exist independently of the language system. There are only sound and semantic differences. Saussure says that what characterizes the difference between one sign and another is all that constitutes it. A language system is a collection of sound differences associated with a collection of conceptual differences. And only facts of combinations of signified and signifying data can be positive.

As for significances, there are two types of them, the main ones being two types of relationships and differences between the elements of the language system. These are:

• Syntagmatic relations
• Associative relationships

Syntagmatic relations are the relations between linguistic units, which follow each other in the speech stream, in other words, relationships within a set of language units that exist in the time dimension. It is these combinations that are called syntagmas.

Associative relations are relationships that exist outside the speech process and outside time. These are the relations of generality - the similarity of language units in sound and meaning, or only in meaning or only in sound in some respect.

Diachronic and synchronic linguistics

In addition to all of the above, it is important to note that among the main provisions of the “Course of General Linguistics” an important place is given to the distinction between two types of linguistics:

• Diachronic linguistics (historical and comparative)
• Synchronic linguistics (descriptive)

According to Saussure, linguistic research can correspond to its subject only if it takes into account both linguistic aspects: diachronic and synchronic.

Diachronic research should take accurately executed synchronic descriptions as a basis. Explore changes that occur during the process historical development language is impossible unless a careful simultaneous analysis of the language is carried out at each specific stage of its evolution. Compare the two different languages is possible only and only when a detailed synchronous analysis of both is taken as a basis.

Conclusion

The linguistic ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure prompted a revision classical methods linguistics and served as the theoretical foundation for innovative structural linguistics. Saussure was able to lay the foundations of semiology at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, and Saussure’s approach, which went beyond the framework of linguistic science in general, became the basis of structuralism, which, in turn, became the most significant direction in the humanitarian thought of the last century. In addition, Ferdinand de Saussure became a pioneer of the sociological school in linguistics and managed to cultivate, during the two decades that he taught at the University of Geneva, many talented students who later became outstanding linguists.