Friday, August 13, 2004
Little insight into Saussure
-The article seeks to make it simpler to understand the concepts of Saussure, talking through the “Course in general linguistics”
-It takes us through the history of the time, concentrating on the emergence of holistic thought that was emerging at that point in time.
a) Saussure uses the paper analogy, saying that you can’t cut up one side of paper without cutting out the other, so thus also the “signifier” and “signified”
b) He argues that language is a central element in human society, and thus can not be analysed separately in the field of linguistics
c) He distinguishes between ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ – language and speech, stating that language is like the building, which is comprised of many bricks, but exists only as a whole. Speech is central in understanding language, but is not the structure – or the building
d) Context is also essential – even though words may have the same meaning, the value attached can not be seen as the same, given that the words function within different structures – thus five francs, once exchanged into German marks, will not buy the same amount of bread, even though they are to some degree exchangeable and comparable.
-The study of language must be separated into two types – diachronic and synchronic. Diachronic analysis is the analysis of the evolution of languages, whereas synchronic is the study of the language as frozen in time. Synchronic analysis must preceed diachronic, as there can be no strudy of the movement before there is study of the static.
-Saussure’s view means that we have to discard the notion of the evolution of languages, wherein certain phonemes and structures survive as a matter of course. It can not be argued that certain sounds naturally survive and naturally evolve into other structures – only those that are of use in the new systems will survive, i.e., survival of the fittest. Certain elements may survive throughout time, but quite often in an entirely new system, if and only if they can be assimilated. There is no study of the evolution of sounds, without the study of what values are attached to them.
-Relations between sounds and values are purely arbitrary. They lose their arbitrariness only due to the syntagmatic relations we attach to them. This is the relationship between those words and the surrounding sentences and images. However, symbols on their own can easily be swapped around – it is only when they are placed in context that these shifts can seem strange.
-Two ways in which symbols can be analysed
a) by exchanging them for something dissimilar, i.e., and idea or physical representation
b) by comparing them to other words
c) these analyses always happen only within a system – we are dealing with abstract equivalences, not real world ones – it is the exchange system that is the primary concern for study, not the actual exchange that occurs
-Absolute and relative arbitrariness: One argument against Saussure is that a system where meanings are absolutely arbitrary cannot be structured. Saussure replies by claiming that there is absolute and relative arbitrariness. Relative arbitrariness happens when two arbitrary symbols are used to form a new symbol that is then less arbitrary as it is linked in meaning to other symbols.
fon @ 4:15 AM link to post * *