Saussure and linguistics today My Saussure

Citation preview

EUGENIO COSERIU MY SAUSSURE

When the friends who organized this symposium invited me to participate, they told me one of the subjects of To tell the truth, sion because we are

that ! would be — more than a guest speaker — discussion. all of us should be considered subjects of discusall linguists who, in this day and age, continue to

talk of Saussure!

Our theme here today, then, is Saussure and contemporary linguis-

tics.

Lintend to take that title literally. Indeed, since I can claim to speak

knowledgeably about myself as a contemporary linguist, I propose Tairly of to treat Saussure with respect to my own conception of language and Saussure. linguistics. In this sense I will speak to you of “my”

:—W‘ËËËËMŒ]…

Œ— w linguists. He answered that he had found predecessors and'to in others either a confirmation of his own ideas or contrasting opinions

which proved useful in defining more clearly his own views. In parti-

cular, he mentioned that, with respect to Saussure, it had taken him a long time to free himself of the distinction berween langue and parole. (This occurs frequenty in the sciences dealing with man: we learn from others and forget that we have done so. Then, upon reading these authors again, we have the impression that they simply confirm our

views. As for those ideas we fail to grasp, We pass them by as extraneous

to our intuitive convictions!)

But can we really reject the distinction between langue and parole?

In my opinion, we can undoubtedly perfect the way we present it and

explain it; but I feel we cannot reject the distinction outright. _

Indeed, 1 would prefer to take a different approach altogether to the question. For you see, I am willing to recognize that everything of value

in mv writinos and in mv conceptions and in the methods I follow is the

€ EUGENO Costrat

010

MY SAUSSURE

fruit of à dialectical reworking © of the reflection s and

&

TRy 4. À Kcu\âv.mà

e

This attitude characterizes my approach to saus: Saussure, although it has at isundersta that T have criticizend times led to_misun des ndings. in; It has been; asserted en him to 3

elabo, rations i that may be found in other linguists and philosophersof ofthe language . The

ever-present touchstone in this process is the of language— the reality that reveals itself through reflective obsereality rvat ion an%äfimne ic | G ‘ould describe my corc ns s essentia y an attempt to reconcile — while kceping à firm eye epio on the reality of language — Saus. sure with Humboldt and Pagliar

Soussure from the outside, failing to see his worth and reducing ”Γ: nalities. “This is simply not the case. | have always sought 10 move fro

saussure, not agairisthim m.wéowhw?;xrspemve: they fail to see that I My ceitics

suffer From '…rânïuî…œ have never sought to interpret Saus

o, aided by the suggestions coming from

HielSapir, msMenen ledez-P v,rat idal and from the philosophy and epistembîlugylngfism[le ibaz, Vico, Hegel and Cr and Hege e Vhus, my guiding principle has been to give full credit to the ideas which I have

Æe

S

A

encountered and which I have attempted 10 inte; Unitary coi tion. This is because al y causc }%YEP_

Aescribe

have attempted to describe this us

ufhey explicate may

prove

o

ill-advised

u

the progress of linguistics in_thisi Cerflu à Nofe l.hz:i Ele :nl\ n:_t and speakingof the development of “Saussurian linguistics” — ins , [cos

e 5

imu

il phenomena, This within the complex world of language-like 5 e

after all, Saussure hims

signified is inseparable from the Sz =4 In the same way, thesis that linguistic

wms

#he A ;

k

H

Hus

=

coursviews e, coîned bodlt's and Saussure’s QXPÏS& .) I haveby Meille therct; lorebutriz it orou: Y‘adî}:i lied eSaussure’s distinctions as reak and, using further -dnsu ncu:flz‘ p

them, T have managed to circumbscribe the primary e ismfi

The Psystemt

oo eicn 1.i Cnguis i

ctions and

obje the level of îäl—lfigfi àä—— propositions.

ained cù e, o 7o

|

Jaussure toË. d

L) Î;î UÎÎ-_, RE

6945 < tièvx.

it

of horeiogy fn and a justificaion of the system as homogencous at the level of expres- |s it o2 and syntagmatic at dhat = ()’. entrely paradigmatic in fact, Sion The (itother15, was the construction both of à functional lexical seman

o

2 The othe:

to the J of àà fune functional syntax corresponding r ang f exematics”) and manent li linguistics) — one which, therefore, T con(i.e., the e obj obj )Ecl of immanent ; ï sidere perfect Ëg‘a ussurian dwc'Ê ine> required, as 1 mentioned, creating « series of Obtaining these

our effective understandiny 3 € useful in bettering of language, ‘ # _\‘ ‘ ; _—ä _g_ -Our matto_should there

188

becaus

boldt, saw any language qua falis as a system in which fout Sfél:;:!g:xe expression was, of

We may apply this attitude to entire conceptual systems. Weshould concepte not reject structuralism outris instead, determine in what _ fore be: alcanzar Grenzen— use and circumscribe eve: cons

is

am convinced that Saussure, following a tradition stemming from

elf was perfectly aware of the sense in which the two may in fact be considered separately. I find it, therefore, better to aske ourselves, instead, ; fn what sense we may ignifier and signified to be inseparable, And the answe indeed r to

.

3

Let us now consider how Saussure’s fundamental distinct still indispensable to an understanding of language and languages. siudies have focused on languages as homogeneous spems —

f

z & properly speaking, the signified, and not a designatio at the signified is, n; and it is there: ore at that level that the

am speaking of linguistics four court, even the

= e re. negales] S:'us's:mons linguistic rescarch that apprently iignores or even

to reject outright Saussure’s asse ; e rtion that 0N e si

p

R

£

si ider the term improper.

|

en

we may consider them valid.

*

my inquirics, a5 à modetof rescard intin his Cours : established the fun= :“damental_distin=nctions that_subsequentl _determin ed the developm ent y

e ns

be

or to offer an exegesis of his

n ide in work: rather, what I have attempted l:o_d:aoxî% ht: \;Ëeîî\îï‘l‘ :gîï“î“ My ey

y limitar, Leistungen und

|

189

H—fi:fl

c EUGENIO Cosemu

My SAUSSURE

distinctions derived from Saussure’ = knowledge of things One Ïï‘n“;n between whic distincti that the and was ‘which comprises

q

ot linguistics. Let

things. did something of chris es_flï_\‘ï& O already G uistic knowledge. o (Saussure

;

< Kindi he 8ÿ theory of the sign: he distin guished betwec iy Cuerngl nl :;ÏÂÊÏXËW… involved distinction Another Wandetlts l ’eférence) = I : the use of lan. … p iErent primary and 8uage fi“ he use of metalanguage requires à differentë Ki nq‘wéfl‘“r_g_ Saadtsis 8% Ÿ ; led to distinguishing_wiederbolte Rede

< o

1

>

rs and Zellig Harris, T was led to distinguish

in

hi

ake into consideration(]

ut that, in

d A1 and thus sc. it reality. I had no desire, however.ver, ((o sacrifice sifice reality, That is why, in order to grasp languages F e

S, ment place, social stra

U

DO AT TG

Al that mduret

—

2s S TL

|

à 7

s

eaïng with

e

o

&

4

:

B

cm T fn ä“î“' e I, d oL I conceived liinguistic structures as dynamic structures, v Bs" Saus- Gy | ure left clues to that effect, a3 waÿ ns seen in his chapter on à analo

; s às à oflachmm-c synchronic« ".-fi:fifi;’?fie longing to languageY. The problem virtually. wWhich he portrays as a

oty e antie to the same solution. linguistic structures are dynarm ln VATIQUS e o agesMyexist remarlwithin the Same spcaRer”

T have cond

e

;

4992

a new science

d[w%

nowing things”, à skeuology (from the Greek skertos, “object, gadget, (i Thing} Cognitive semantics practices skeuology, for it investigates the _ g cpou el o o5 lanthe of cs semanti the just not things, oF ge Semanties of our knowied we e, T also proposed

a special grammar of metalinguistics and

language stylisécaling with varicty: dialectology, sociolinguistics, andSaussure requested, às speaker, e h t for room leave ics Al this was (o

W@…

eJ Finally,

| @

à synchronic linguistics comprehending ihe three_major_disciplines

forged by our expressive activity (someë Antonino Pagliaroniques thing had said). To consider lans and theiri ;mechanismsn, g not as

”‘îï“ r°;]““3““gfiîs:ï l;(')o‘f-’;l' mfi"fil’i&'&ifi"fifififi.i‘“ >

ussure was well aware. This has led me (o propose

Fvage

(o them). To consider the

e Æ,æ ;x

# es or brackets — the existence of which, as Engler has clearly shown,of

of viewing language. It led me to con-

s ! ung unconscious, cio s, , but as iven given nandu and und lerstood intuiti intuitivel ly intuiti and ! believe that is what Saussure meant in saying that the linguistic mechani: nisms speakers use are unconscious

=

the parole obliges us to recuperate, within the domain

2 Vg -

‘wuandu-

3 integral linguistics, all that which immanent linguistics ignores, climi- _ 253

12

—

dn

ns langue, the linguisics &Fiscourse r oTa txt (s canly 33 1955),

4 ud the linguistics ofthe parole.

3

5

and descriptive linguisties. . ——

other b thouel % constitutes the foundation. Explaining the parole . requires Thus, in cons of knowledge belonging to the domain of linguistics “ dering linguistics generally, I distinguished three levels: the linguistics

iven mo-— systems belongi rally (as2Ss tum, style), I distinguished various levelsSyysicm

sider …—"—W_?

al linguistics

M‘Dfl:fl

&

T material is the parole, the activity of speaking, What we know alof the langue does not explain ATl fhère s 15 know about the parole,

; nd/

dn

e

the end, we are forced 10 cir

studiedby integr

[

de

s4

* guage Gn 15 homogenci

us now attempt to recuperate the material that e

o climinate in circumscribing our object, the material

|

the object of immaemec_establishing

!

190

|

2 i _> and particularly in the field of applied linguistics (ranslation theory, linon s0 and ion, planificat guistic policy, linguist€ my terpretation of the concept of arbi- fl?- £ st ming

=—Dneit word conce

—>

serariness and all the other fundamental distinctions formulaiedby Saus- Aérouol 04 inherent real, as inctions e.5 ! mentioned, ! consider Saussure's disti

U B ee es hs o e sk e g odecessors on him; it isorather an eattempt eto uncover previous formula- 6< Ê

Cowapur

= of language. It would # Z of a shared vision ; as autonomous expressions tions

be wrong to reduce Saussure 10 à product of some tradition; and yet, it

would be wrong to consider him as a starting point without recognizing that he was, at the same time, a point of artival. He tied together what

others had seen as disiecta membra and itis from this synthesis that we,

as contemporary linguists, have taken our first steps. 191