Study Resource-2, Continental Philosophy

Saussure- A Guide for the Perplexed
By Paul Bouissac
CHAPTER 5
LINGUISTICS AS A SCIENCE: SAUSSURE'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN LANGUE (LANGUAGE AS SYSTEM) AND PAROLE (LANGUAGE IN USE)
PART 1- PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
Source: Manuscripts discovered in 1996, translated from French into English in 2006
Problems of translation: There are many ambiguities attached to the meaning of French words used by Saussure in his works. Many a times, a word, in spoken and written form, has many unrelated meanings. For instance, left as opposed to right and left as opposed to stayed and right as opposed to wrong and as different from write. Most of the times, the meaning intended is clear through the semantic and grammatical contexts. However, some words can receive a range of meanings when they are used both metaphorically and technically. For instance, pocket in case of language of garments and in expressions like pocket of infection in medical context and pocket of resistance in warfare. In the same way, the word langage in French can have a variety of meanings as 'language' in English- it can stand for the:
Human capacity to express ideas regardless of the language
Any language which did exist or have existed in the world
Any form of communication
Thus, in translating langage as 'language', we end up with multiple interpretations which do not only talk about natural or articulate language but also in analogical and metaphorical manner. The French word langue is a particularized form of langage which refers to articulate language- sort of like 'tongue' in English. Langue and 'tongue' also refer to the muscle which is located in the mouth and is used for production of sounds of a language. While it is possible to understand which interpretation of langage Saussure was referring to using the semantic context, it is not possible to do the same with langue for which he provided a technical definition.
PART 2- SAUSSURE'S APPROACH TO FOUNDNG LINGUISTICS AS A SCIENCE
Multiple viewpoints of approaching language- Saussure aimed at establishing the science of language. There are multiple ways of approaching language: as a social phenomenon, neuro-motor phenomenon, historical phenomenon and others. In his pursuit of finding out which approach could be used to grasp language and if it were possible to combine all these points of view, Saussure began by defining what the object of the science of language is. He called it 'la langue'.
Analytic and synthetic methodology of science: The methodologies used to do science can be broadly categorized as: analytic and synthetic. Analytic refers to bottoms-up approach, where we start with data and build hypotheses. These hypotheses are explanation which would let us reach a law or formula to account for the data. (Bottom- data TO Up- Law or formula) This is the method followed by empirical sciences. This method cannot be followed in studying languages because of the diversity, heterogeneity and incoherence of data of languages. It is not possible to come to clear basic units by investigating language from multiple viewpoints.
In the synthetic method, we follow the top-down approach. The premises we start with are based on axioms and postulates based on 'strong intellectual evidence'. Once we reach a hypothesis, we use it to test all the data. (Top- Premises and hypotheses TO Bottom-data) So, he began with certain number of evident propositions which were considered irrefutable and went on to find out the truth about language. From his study, he concluded: language was both a system and an institution. Here, language refers to spoken language, which arrived in the evolutionary history of human beings way before the coming of written language which arrived for particular functions like invoking of deities, recording of economic transactions and establishment of ownership.
Langue- Langue is considered to be the essential form of that which is universal to language of the past, present and future. It is the ground in the absence of which language would cease to have its linguistic relevance. It is in virtue of its universality that Saussure believed the essential system of langue could be the base of a science.
PART 3- A KEY NOTION- LANGUE (LANGUAGE AS SYSTEM)
Langue- language as a system- is considered to be that which conceptualizes our experience of the world and expresses ideas. However, it is not possible to reduce langue as being a systemic aggregate of these or any other functions it might come to serve in human activities. According to Suassure, langue is 'a close set of relations between terms that can be understood only as mutually defined values.' Langue is more precisely defined as system of signs. No mathematical model was put up to exemplify this idea. In being a system of such relations, langue is capable of reflecting our mental being completely. The values of the terms we use are determined within the lines of the set.
Analogy to chess game- Drawing an analogy with game of chess, Saussure said that in the game of chess, the value of each piece is decided on the basis of the position of other pieces. Regardless of the language spoken by its players or names given to the pieces, the values of the pieces are mutually defined such that every move of a piece continually determines the mutually definable values of the other pieces. Thus, the meaning of each move is only under the system of rules of the chess game. However, such a system of rules is also arbitrary and can be changed at any time because the game itself is a human institution. The change in the rule of one piece will result in a change in the rules of all the other pieces. The similarity between langue and chess game is that langue is a set of words, as the chess is set of pieces. The values of the words are determined by the set of relationships they have with other words, much like the value of a piece in a chess game is determined by the value of the other pieces. The values of the pieces (knowing which boxes each piece stands in) encompasses the universe of chess game, much like langue encompasses the universe of the speakers. The rules of the chess game tell us which moves we can make while the rules of langue tell us what we can say. Though the rules and properties of langue are arbitrary, while the rules of chess game can be changed at will in principle, it is not possible to change the rules of langue arbitrarily.
To Saussure, it did not matter how the differences between the units of a language were explicated- visually or auditorily- as long as a network of related differences could be formed such that the values of units of the language were determinable. Though Saussure did express this idea of langue, he did not establish the formal representation of the system or put forward how it actually works. His attempts at representation of langue through algebra or geometry proved in vain as he found that the complexity of langue including the types of opposites and their vastness could not be expressed through mathematical equations.
PART 4- WHERE IS LANGUE LOCATED?
Nature of langue and its embodiment in human brain- Langue is that which makes it possible to communicate and understand each other within a linguistic community. It is not possible to use linguistic forms of the past to understand the langue of current system. Saussure believed that langue was 'concrete', that is, not abstract and such that its template was placed in individual brains. In using a certain language, the speakers partake of the resources provided by their langue- they choose certain relations or values which produce significations for oneself and for the others in the conversation who share the same langue. Metaphorically, the cognitive brain was seen as a set of interconnected boxes or files. Keeping in view the state of neurology at his time, he could not establish how langue was internalized and embodied in the brain as a formal system. The embodiment of langue would also explain the way in which other means of communication than speaking function. These include maritime signaling with use of flags and social etiquette. His idea of the encompassing of all forms of communication as operations of langue is today an integral part of semiology.
Langue's continually changing character and uselessness of historical linguistics: Langue is the "conceptual snapshot..of the system that sustains verbal communication at the moment when it takes place" (82). Devoid of any permanent features, langue continually transitions between different states of langue. The purpose of langue is to make communication possible. Communication becomes possible because the different forms of langue existent at a particular moment are determined through one another. In these interrelations, they form a system. Historical linguistics studies the transition of individual forms of langue over time. However, such a study cannot reveal the essence of language, langue. This point can be explained metaphorically through the difference between geology and geography- a point also brought up frequently by Saussure. A person traveling from point A to point B will find the knowledge of the existence of a valley at a certain place on the way useless. What concerns her is the current state of the landscape which could better or deter her during the trip. In the same way, understanding the history of a certain word is not of much significance since the use of the word- the context containing network of phonological and semantic differences- will allow to distinguish 'water' from 'wine', 'batter', 'air' and others. Langue is a system where every move repositions all the other pieces such that the geometry of the whole system is transformed.
# Phonology- study of speech sounds used in a language- part of linguistics
Semantics- the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs
Semiotics- branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming and truth.
Semiology- study of signs

PART 5- LANGUE AS AN INSTITUTION
Langue is not only a self-contained system of relations but also a social phenomenon. In calling langue a social institution, he did not mean that it was created by the society but that the society has no ultimate control on the language. It is without much awareness of the system that we use the langue. The constant verbal intercourse is our raw material which makes the witness of langue possible.
Langue is acquired by each individual from the preceding generation as well as from all the people with whom one converses since the beginning of one's life. It is not possible to precisely pin point the way in which linguistic conventions have undergone transformations over time. Moreover, the attempts to control language are generally in vain. The common example used by Saussure was the case of Volapuk, a language created by a German priest to bring international unity and peace which declined within 10 years of considerable use. Thus, langue is distinguished from social institutions like political institutions and legal code due to this aspect of its nature. Langue is social in the sense that it is based on conventions which populations foster and which allows individuals to communicate with one another. However, such conventions are not rigid since they change and vary over time. "Particular langues as systems can be observed only in social milieu and at a given point in time." (85)
During late-19th century, the idea that language is purely a social institution was prevalent- the prime proponent of which was William Dwight Whitney (published 'The Life and Growth of Language: An Outline of Linguistic Science' in 1875). Saussure expressed doubts about such an assertion. His ideas were also impacted by the debate between Emile Durkheim and Gabriel Tarde- prominent sociologists. Saussure felt that while language shared many features with social institutions, it cannot be identified with it. Thus, he found that language could only be metaphorically identified as a social institution. Though langue only exists in individual brains, there is sufficient overlapping of these regions to make communication possible. From his own manuscripts and students' writings, it seems that Saussure had a statistical view in mind when he said that langue was a social fact. The consideration of individual brains will be the scientific evidence for reality of langue. Without the individual brains as its locus in the social reality, langue would become a mere abstraction.
Saussure did not involve himself in the origin and history of langue, like Whitney who believed that language was progressing towards universal civilization. Saussure's peripherizing of history of langue is surprising taking into account the fact that he was himself a historical linguist. He believed that the question of origin and history of langue would not bring us any closer to understanding its nature. The empirical base for general linguistics would be constituted of the following two evidences: langue is a system which is embodied in the brain and langue is a social fact. Saussure eliminated all aspects of empirical data which were ether accessory or accident to reach an abstraction of langue which would mark the possibility of language and communication. He believed that language- here and now- was the only empirical data that can be used to understand the nature of langue.
PART 5- THE REALM OF PAROLE
Parole is a French word which can be relevantly translated as 'spoken word' for our purpose. There are two broad ways of understanding it: firstly, we can record and report someone's last words while we can also say that the only thing that a dog lacks to be fully human is faculty of language where 'last words' and 'faculty of language' are translations of parole.
Parole is all that is not langue. It refers to those aspects of language which have been marginalized in determining the essence of language through notion of langue. Parole and langue are necessary complimentaries of each other. Parole and langue have their respective methods of investigation/of being studied. While general linguistics would deal with langue, parole would be studied by sociology, neurophysiology, phonetics, literature, psychology, acoustic and history. He also expressed the need for a discipline which would focus on parole alone. He defined parole as: "(a) everything that is to do with acoustic production; (b) everything to do with combining elements, everything to do with human will. Duality: Parole= individual will. Langue: social passivity."
What is the importance of parole? (Source: The Twofold Essence of Language)
Parole is the source of all that is in langue. It is the root of all change that occurs in langue with time.
It is through parole that meaningful strings of words arise ephemerally. This marks the role of parole as Saussure's empirical data keeping in mind that Saussure saw spoken language to be the only valid object of investigation for linguistics.
Two types of parole:
Actualized parole
Constitutes either of 'the combination of elements contained in a segment of real speech' (spoken word or phrase) or 'the system within which elements are linked together by what precedes or follows them' (complete sentence or discourse) (this is also called syntagma- 'what is ordered side by side)
Potential parole
"a group of elements created and associated in the mind, or the system within which an element has an abstract existence among other potential elements'.
Every element of language is bound by two systems:
Langue
Parole: Defined by what follows and precedes
Thus, language was seen as set of virtual relations where the value of each potential element is determined in interconnectedness. This was the langue from which the speaking subject gets resources to produce instances of parole.
CHAPTER 6
SIGN, SIGNIFICATION, SEMIOLOGY
PART 1- WHAT IS A LINGUISTIC SIGN?
Linguistic signs are the building blocks we use to communicate our thoughts. They are the meaningful units we put together in our sentences- not the elementary sounds or the syllables which constitutes the flow of our speech. They are morphological, in the sense that, if they are broken down any further, then they will cease to be meaningful.
Example of linguistic sign: 'My bull runs very fast'- Here, 'my', 'bull', 'runs' '-s', 'very' and 'fast' are the linguistic signs which have come together to form a meaningful sentence. These signs can be replaced by other ones to form another meaningful sentence. In this sentence, the '-s' is added to the verb (third person present singular). Consider- "Your bulls only eat hay."- Here, '-s' is added to the noun (plural). Thus, depending on the place to which it is added- '-s' can result in different possible meanings.
According to Saussure, a linguistic sign refers to the association between an acoustic image and an idea or concept. Here, acoustic image refers to the sound pattern while the idea/concept refers to the meaning or signification. For instance, in using the sign 'friend', you are referring to a particular type of social relationship. The association of acoustic image and idea/concept is marked by three characteristics:
The association between the acoustic image and idea is so close that they cannot be disassociated and this union is psychological or mental in nature;
This association is arbitrary in nature- it is a social convention.
A linguistic sign has no meaning by itself. Signs are not isolated units whose meanings would be determined by positive relation between the acoustic image and concept- that is, the meaning of 'friend' is not based on some relationship between the speech pattern of friend and the concept. Moreover, the signs signify through their differences with each other. They form system of differential values.
PART 2- THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
2.1. The Two Sides of the Linguistic Sign
Refuting common view of acoustic image-concept as parallel to form-meaning: The common philosophical view is that the relationship between acoustic image and concept is analogous to the relation between form and meaning. There is supposed to be an autonomous thought that is expressed under various forms. However, Saussure refutes by saying that linguistic forms cannot be considered independent of their meaning. In studying linguistics, we are dealing with morphology- that is, forms which belong to a language system like 'friend', 'speak' and others and not to sound patterns like 'fr', 'lan' and 'ges'. Saussure insisted that the relationship between acoustic image and concept is mental or psychological such that it is located in the brain. He uses the experiments of Paul Broca, a physician and anatomist who showed that the loss of language is related to the damage to particular cerebral region in aphasic patients. Saussure said that all linguistic forms have a meaning and all linguistic meanings have a form.
Intimate association between acoustic image and the concept: Acoustic image does not refer to the physical sound itself but the psychological or mental representation which are associated closely with the distinct concepts. The acoustic image and concept are the recto and verso of a sheet of paper. This view is backed by the evidence provided by inner speech, commonly called thinking, where the thinking itself cannot be disassociated from the acoustic image in which the thoughts are case. Thinking cannot be disassociated from the system of our language. The language we use provides us with ways to categorize our experience of self and world. The language "casts a net on the structure of our phenomenological reality" (93).
Analogies to relation between acoustic image-concept:
Signified and signifier: There are two nouns derivable from the French verb 'signifier' (to signify): signifiant (signifying) and signife (signified). Conventionally, the 'signifying' is considered to be the active part while 'signified' is considered the passive part of the process. However, such a conventional association does not reflect the intimate association that Saussure attributed to the relation between acoustic image and concept.
Body and soul of Christian theology: Towards the end of his course on general linguistics, Saussure uses the relation between body and soul of Christian theology to talk about the relation between the acoustic image and the concept. However, by this analogy, the phonetic body would have to be considered as consisting of functional organs which- even when dead (disassociated from the soul) would have the capacity of being identified. However, in case of acoustic image and concept, when the sound elements of an acoustic image are considered independently of their meaning (concept), they do not act like functional organs. For instance, consider 'guinea' and 'pig'- it is clear that each added sound (+g, +u and so on) or group of sounds do not act like functional organs: "g+u+i+n+e+a" and "p+i+g".
2.2. The Arbitrariness of the Linguistic Sign
The principal mark of Saussure's science of language was the principle of arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. The words in a language have the meaning they have because the people who speak the language implicitly agree on the association between the acoustic image and the concept. For instance, an English speaker acquires a series of associations- like 'friend' and 'enemy' as a social convention inherited when she learns the native language or when she acquires it as a secondary language. 'Friend' and 'enemy' are the two opposite qualities which other people can have with respect to the well-being of the self. When she travels to Hungary or Indonesia, it will not be possible for her to guess which sound patterns correspond to the acoustic image associated with the concept of 'friend' and 'enemy' because there is no natural link between the quality of being a friend/enemy and the sound pattern.
The principle of arbitrariness explains why there is no absolute correspondence between the words of different languages. For instance, English makes a distinction between 'sheep' and 'mutton' as the animal grazing in the field and served on the table respectively. But in French, there is only one word 'mouton' for both cases. If the objects that form of words signify- friend/enemy- had objective properties and these properties determined the forms of the words, then all languages would be similar. However, this is not the case.
Non-motivated association: The social mass is the ultimate source from which we derive our associations. There is no particular agency which is deliberately enforcing these associations. When we use the term 'arbitrary', it might give the impression that free will being asserted. This is generally the inference in philosophy of science and theory. In using the notion of non-motivated association, Saussure wanted to point out that the association between acoustic images and concepts results from chance factors. Thus, one cannot create or redefine words at will. The appearance of new words in a language results from emergence of an unconscious consensus. This is paradoxical as no one is aware of the changes that take place but eventually, everyone accepts it (Gen-Y, Gen-X, selfies).
Motivated-associations: There are degrees of motivations from the complete lack of it to relative degrees of it. In our use of 'n', 'ism' or '-er', we are motivated to use them as a sign of negation and agency respectively. These become the factor of motivation for creation of other words within the language of which they form a part.
2.3. Value and Signification
Generally, speakers of a language tend to assume that every word has a meaning- that is- there is a one-to-one positive relation of word with its meaning. The dictionary becomes a model for representing the language. However, in learning a second language, it is realized that there is not always one-to-one correspondence between the words of two languages- 'sheep' and 'mutton' of English to 'mouton' of French- because the two words do not have the same value in the two different languages.
Language is not a collection of words where each word has a meaning independent of the rest. Language, on the other hand, is a vast network of differences where the value of each word is determined by the other words. Each term has a differential and reciprocal value within the language system- as a sound pattern and a concept.
Saussure compares language to a game of chess to talk about the former's true nature. The pieces are defined according to their relation to a structured space and to each other. The value of each category of the pieces is determined by opposition to all the other categories with regard to the degree and direction of mobility according to arbitrary rules. Thus, the whole system is a set of relation between relations.
PART 3- CONCEPTION AND REPRESENTATION OF LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
Saussure talks about the nature of language in his text- 'The Twofold Essence of Language' (written between 1891 and 1911). In using the term 'two', he is referring to the complexity than the duality of language.
There can be no one point of entry into unfolding and laying down language as a system (a langue) because the object is always created from a point of view and there can always be multiple points of view. The only entry was the language being used at the moment which fulfils its communicative and expressive functions. But Saussure's main idea was to produce a formal representation which went beyond the intuitive theoretical ideas. He believed that in the end, the formal language of science would turn out to be a simple mathematical formula. Saussure believed that only algebra could act as an adequate tool to represent the multidimensional abstract relations which comprises complexity of a system like language.
The 'ultimate quaternion' was the closest Saussure came to offering a formal system of language. The term 'quaternion' arises from the Latin quaternus (quadruple). This was coined by the Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton in 1843 to perform calculations involving 3-dimensional space. According to Saussure, a semiological system must have at least four terms, since a sign cannot be conceived in the absence of another sign and a signification cannot be conceived in absence of at least another signification. Language could be formally expressed as a set of four irreducible terms and three irreducible relations between these terms. He also talks about the relation between idea and form- how the relationship of idea to form is not identical to the relationship of form to idea.
PART 4- FROM LINGUISTICS TO SEMIOLOGY
Semiology is derived from two Greek terms- 'semeion' (sign) and 'logos' (science). It is considered science of pathological symptoms and system of maritime signals.
Saussure extensively uses the system of maritime signals to talk about the system of language. A collection of clothes lay in the ship- they are meaningless heap of rags. Some are selected and hung in a certain pattern- this acquires the status of being a signal. The meaning of this selection depends on all the other possible signals that this particular configuration is not. This essential property of language- differential valuation- was also extendable to other systems based on social conventions like etiquette, maritime signaling and so on. It was found in brain studies that even though the ability for spoken language was damaged in some patients, they could write- this showed that linguistic signs are not exclusively verbal. There must be a higher level in the brain which makes such a functioning of signs possible without the acoustic medium. Thus, spoken language is only one of the many possible systems.
CHAPTER 7
SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY
When we consider a language from the synchrony point of view, we observe it as it is at the moment when we study it. But we can also examine a language from the diachrony point of view by researching its history, that is, tracing back the various changes it has undergone during the past centuries or even millennia. These two technical terms used by Saussure can be understood in plain English as meaning coexistent (synchronic) and successive (diachronic). According to Saussure, the synchronic point of view bears upon a langue, that is, a system within which the value of each term is determined by the other terms that are parts of it. It is the system of linguistics signs that makes possible linguistic communication at the present moment. Thus, a plane on which we could represent all the coexistent relations that constitute a langue would be an adequate figure for expressing the synchronic point of view
If we want to examine a language from a diachronic point of view, we need to look at ancient texts that provide indirect information about the way people were communicating in earlier times. We know that languages change over time if we try to read texts that were written a few centuries ago. Even during our lifetime, we are aware that new words and new ways of speaking pop up as time goes, while other ones become old fashioned and even disappear. This is particularly obvious to younger people when they interact with older generations.
Language is both a static and a dynamic phenomenon, depending on the point of view we take. We can switch back and forth from one to the other, but we have to choose only one point of view if we want to engage in a scientific endeavour. It does not make sense to mix the two because conflating the two points of view generates confusion and construes a fallacious object that exists only for the philologist and does not serve any communicative function. Since language is a succession of states, we have to look at it either as a state that can be described at a given time, or as a history that can be retraced through the examination of the successive states to which we have access in lineages of ancient texts as they appear in the historical record.
2.1 status and motus
Status and motus are nominal forms corresponding respectively to the verbs meaning "to stand" and "to move." They contrast stability and movement, or the notions of static and dynamic. Status is defined by Saussure as "a reciprocal state of the terms" that results from a new event. Motus refers to the events, the constant changes, that occur in languages in the course of time.
In his opinion, only the reciprocal relations that constitute a langue at a given point in time can be formally studied as a system. The best analogy he can think of is the game of chess: what counts at any given time during a game is the present situation, not the moves that have led to this situation. Saussure considers that it matters little when we communicate through our language to know how the particular vocal patterns we use to convey various ideas have evolved until the time when we use them.
2.2 phonetics and morphology
In Saussure's time, phonetics was the discipline that studied the history of phonetic changes in the frame- work of comparative linguistics and it applied almost exclusively to Indo-European languages. Saussure usually refers to the sounds of language as "vocal configurations." A vocal configuration is not necessarily a linguistic phenomenon. We can articulate all sorts of sounds. In addition, there is not much difference between vocal configurations that are produced deliberately as nonsensical sequences of syllables and words that are uttered in a language we do not know. Both certainly can be studied by phonetics as they are physical and physiological phenomena. They have articulatory and acoustic properties.
Historical phonetics studies the way in which vocal configurations are coded in the various scripts from the past that have survived. Comparative linguistics developed methods that allow us to infer plausible sounds from their written form and to retrace the successive changes they document over centuries and millennia. Some hypotheses can be formulated about the reasons for such changes. However, he came to realize later that, in spite of the interest and validity of such endeavors, they did not address the essential part of language. They were focused on the diachrony and, as such, they were irrelevant to what Saussure considered the true nature of language.
Saussure opposed "phonetics" to "morphology" for the same reasons he opposed diachrony to synchrony and motus to status. Morphology is coined after the ancient Greek word morphe, which means form. Morphology is the science of forms in general but it has received a technical meaning in linguistics. It applies to the set of forms that have a meaning or a function in a language. This includes not only the words of this language but also the parts of words that in some languages indicate a grammatical function, such as in English the ending "ed" that signals the past tense, or the use of grammatical words like "have" and "will" to situate an action with respect to the present. Saussure criticized the usual distinction that was made by his contemporaries between "form" and "sense" to refer to elements of a language. For him, the two domains could not be separated because a form alone could not be part of a language and there was no meaning that could be apprehended without a form.
Phonetics could study forms. But the constituents of a langue were linguistic signs, that is, the indissociable union of an acoustic image and a concept. This was for him the exclusive domain of morphology. The system of a langue is accessible through its morphology alone. This led Saussure to go as far as dissociating linguistics from phonetics for the same reasons that he set apart synchrony (the static point of view or status) and diachrony (the dynamic point of view or motus).
3) Why and how do language change?
it was obvious to him that changes in language lacked consistency and involved many heterogeneous causes. They could be documented and described but they remained somewhat erratic and anecdotal. Saussure considered that these variegated phenomena could not be explained by a single all-encompassing theory. This led him to declare that language was fundamentally irrational in the sense that it was impossible to predict the ways in which languages change.
The kinds of changes that are observed can nevertheless be enumerated. Let us consider the two main sources of changes as they were described by Saussure.
3.1 Phonetic changes
Phonetic changes depend on the physiological and physical aspects of speech. Languages are always transmitted verbally from generation to generation. This is a continuum that is coextensive with the history of humankind ever since language emerged as a property of the species. There cannot be any gaps in the transmission since speaking a language presupposes that one has received it from the social group within which she or he was born.
Saussure alluded at times to the "tyranny of writing," meaning by this that writing was a conservative force that slowed down the constant modifications naturally occurring in spoken languages. There are however always marked differences between the spoken and written forms of a language. A case in point is a phenomenon called "rhotacism," a word coined after "RHO" the name of the letter R in the Greek alphabet. It refers today to what is considered a speech defect: the inability to clearly articulate the sound "R" in words such as "more" and to replace it by "W." But a phenomenon that is considered to be a speech defect with respect to a norm supported by spelling can also be understood as a phonetic change that is accepted by large portions among the populations of native speakers of English.
The general principle to keep in mind is that changes such as R>W or S>Z>R occur naturally and spontaneously without the speakers being aware of, let alone intending those, changes. Such changes in speech are progressive and hardly noticeable at first, but they eventually become compounded and give rise, after a long period of time, to new languages. Although there were some local evidences of directionality in these phonetic changes, attempts to discern general laws had not been successful during Saussure's lifetime and a theory of phonetic evolution remained an elusive goal. This is why he considered that phonetics was a purely historical endeavor that could record successive events but could not fully explain them in terms of a scientific theory. From this point of view Saussure characterized language as being irrational. It is difficult to account for phonetic changes. Saussure mentioned several causes that had been pro- posed, such as the principle of lesser effort that led speakers to save their muscular energy spent for articulating sounds, the climate and environment that may impact upon the physiological state of the speakers, the anatomic predispositions of the diverse races, the social conditions that may put different articulatory constraints on groups, for instance, whether some should speak softly and other forcefully, the way in which the phonetic education of children is conducted, the influence of other languages with which a population may come in contact through trade or conquest, and the spread of fashions bearing upon the pronunciation of words and the intonation of sentences. All these plausible circumstances formed a heterogeneous set of physical and social forces to which speakers were submitted.
3.2 Analogical changes.
An analogical change occurs when a feature that exists in a word or group of words is transferred to other words or group of words. This kind of contagion is usually prompted because there are already other similarities, even superficial ones, between the two. Saussure considered that these sorts of changes were less unconscious than the phonetic changes. Even though it could not be claimed that they are fully deliberate, the speakers can be aware of the ground for the analogy. They certainly appear to be more reasonable than purely accidental changes, but this does not mean that they are consistently logical. Saussure took as an example of this phenomenon the odd plural form "feet" in English and retraced its analogical extension to plural words like "geese" and "teeth."
4) Relation between Synchrony and Diachrony
these two points of view are, according to Saussure, the basis of two different approaches to language. Nevertheless, they concern the same global phenomenon. In this respect, they can be considered as abstractions designed to construe two coherent domains of investigation, each one with its own method. This is why we should not look at them as totally separate entities, one pertaining to the present use of linguistic communication, the other being projected in the deep past of languages. The consideration of a language as the system of relations that determines through a complex network of differences the identities of its words and their meanings consists of looking at this language from the synchronic point of view. When the synchronic point of view is considered as it applies to a particular language rather than a general notion, Saussure called it "idio-synchronic" from the Greek adjective idios, which means "particular." The linguist strives to express a complete and coherent vision of this language as a comprehensive set of abstract relations. However, language can be directly observed only when it is used, that is, when a particular language is being spoken, and, because it is a linear, sequential phenomenon, it always occurs in time. From this point of view it is necessarily diachronic. All language changes take place in the process of being spoken and it is the cumulative effects of those changes that eventually produce new systems, that is, new languages.
Therefore a langue is by necessity always a temporary phenomenon. Under various circumstances it may appear relatively stable. But, on the whole, the history of human languages show that new languages have continuously sprouted from older ones under the pressure of the numerous changes that occur whenever a language is used for communicating within a population.
Continental Philosophy
Study Resource-2
14-Feb-2015