Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) was a Swiss linguist whose revolutionary ideas profoundly reshaped the study of language, laying the groundwork for structuralism, semiotics, and modern literary theory. Often called the "father of modern linguistics," Saussure shifted linguistic study from historical (diachronic) analysis to a focus on the underlying structures of language (synchronic analysis). His most influential work, Course in General Linguistics (1916), was compiled posthumously by his students and introduced key concepts that extended far beyond linguistics, influencing philosophy, anthropology, and literary criticism.
One of Saussure’s most significant contributions was his distinction between langue and parole. Langue refers to the abstract, rule-governed structure of language—the shared system that makes communication possible—while parole denotes individual speech acts or utterances. A language consists of the interrelationship between langue and parole. Langue is the particular language system, the elements of which we learn as children and which is codified in our grammar and dictionary, whereas parole is the language occasion. This separation allowed scholars to analyze language as a structured system rather than merely a collection of individual expressions.
Additionally, Saussure introduced the concept of the linguistic sign, composed of the signifier (the sound or written form) and the signified (the mental concept it represents). He emphasized the arbitrary nature of this relationship, meaning there is no inherent connection between a word and its meaning, only a conventional one. This idea became foundational for semiotics, the study of signs and symbols in culture.
Saussure’s structuralist approach also distinguished between synchronic (studying language at a fixed point in time) and diachronic (studying its evolution over time) analysis. In Saussure's "Words Upon Words," the assertion that no new language birth has been reported means that languages don’t emerge suddenly from a void. Instead, they are continuous evolutions of pre-existing linguistic systems. He argues that there's never been a situation where a language appeared overnight, fully formed, with no prior linguistic heritage. Saussure says, the actual birth of a new language has never been reported in the world because we have never known of a language which was not spoken the day before, or which was not spoken in the same way, the day before. He means that a language does not get born; it evolves out of the previously existing linguistic situation.
The Theory of Sign, Signifier, and Signified
At the heart of Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theory lies his revolutionary conception of the linguistic sign, which fundamentally changed how we understand language and meaning. The Swiss linguist argued that a sign is not simply a word attached to a thing in the real world, but rather a psychological entity composed of two inseparable components: the signifier (the sound-image or written form) and the signified (the mental concept it evokes). This binary model challenged traditional notions of language as a mere naming system, proposing instead that meaning emerges from the relationship between these two elements within a structured linguistic system.
Let’s take the word "tree". Here, the signifier is the sound /triː/ (when spoken) or the letters T-R-E-E (when written), the signified is the mental concept of a tree—tall, with a trunk, branches, and leaves. The sign is the complete association between the sound/letters ("tree") and the idea of a tree. The actual tree in nature (the physical object) is not part of the sign—it is the referent, which exists outside language.
The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign
To illustrate this concept, let us examine the word "book." The signifier here consists of the particular sequence of sounds (/bʊk/) when spoken or the four letters B-O-O-K when written. The signified is not any physical book you might hold in your hands, but rather the abstract concept of a book that comes to mind, perhaps a bound collection of pages containing text. Importantly, Saussure emphasized that the connection between these two components is entirely arbitrary; there is no natural reason why this particular combination of sounds should represent this concept, as evidenced by different words for the same concept in other languages (like "livre" in French, pustak’ in Hindi, or "kitab" in Urdu).
Take another example, the word Dog. Here, the signifier is the sound /dɒɡ/ or the letters D-O-G. Signified is the mental image of a furry, four-legged, barking animal. Sign is the complete link between the sound/letters and the concept. However, this connection or link is completely arbitrary; it is not natural or objective. In French, the same animal is chien; in Spanish, perro—proving no natural connection exists.
The radical implications of Saussure's model become even clearer when we consider how signs function within the broader language system. Meaning is relational. Meaning does not reside in individual signs themselves, but rather emerges from their differences and relationships with other signs. Ferdinand De Saussure argued that meaning is generated through a system of structured differences in language. Saussure demonstrated how meaning is produced through differences within a system, such as how "light" gains meaning in opposition to "dark." For instance, the meaning of "day" becomes clear primarily through its contrast with "night," just as "hot" derives significance from its opposition to "cold." This relational aspect of meaning demonstrates how language operates as a self-contained system where signs gain value through their position relative to other signs, rather than through any direct connection to external reality. Structuralist critics, such as Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss, applied Saussurean principles to literature, myth, and culture, analyzing narratives through binary oppositions and underlying codes.
Language is a system. Signs only make sense within the larger structure of language. Saussure's theory of the linguistic sign has had profound consequences beyond linguistics, particularly in literary theory and cultural studies. By revealing language as a system of arbitrary signs whose meanings are determined by internal structures rather than external references, he laid the groundwork for structuralist approaches to literature that analyze texts as networks of interrelated signs. Saussure’s model influenced the study of signs in culture and became the foundation of Semiotics (e.g., Roland Barthes’ analysis of myths in advertising). Saussure’s sign = signifier + signified model explains how language constructs meaning through arbitrary but socially agreed-upon associations, shaping not just linguistics but also philosophy, anthropology, and literary studies. The term Semiotics was coined by Charles Sanders Pierce (C. S. Pierce). Semiotics traces its lineage to Saussure's concept of the signifier (the word) and signified (the concept).
The Theory of Langue and Parole:
Ferdinand de Saussure’s differentiation between langue and parole is fundamental to structural linguistics and has profoundly influenced literary theory, semiotics, and cultural studies. These two concepts help explain how language functions as both a collective system and an individual act of expression.
Langue: The Abstract System of Language
Langue refers to the underlying structure of language—the set of rules, conventions, and grammatical patterns shared by a linguistic community. It exists as a social institution, independent of any single speaker, and provides the necessary framework for communication. For example, the English language as a whole—with its syntax, vocabulary, and grammar—constitutes langue. It is stable, systematic, and learned collectively rather than invented by individuals.
Saussure emphasized that langue is purely abstract—it is not the actual speech we hear but the invisible structure that makes speech possible. Without this shared system, communication would be impossible, as speakers rely on common rules to produce and interpret meaning. Langue exists in the mind as a structure.
Parole: The Individual Act of Speaking
In contrast, parole refers to the concrete, individual instances of language use—the actual utterances, writings, or speech acts produced by speakers. While langue is the system, parole is its execution. For example, when someone says, "The cat sat on the mat," they are engaging in parole—an individual realization of the English language system (langue).
Unlike langue, parole is variable; each speaker produces unique utterances. It is inherently temporary because it exists only in the moment of utterance. Unlike langue (the stable, abstract system of language), parole is ephemeral—it emerges in real-time communication and vanishes once spoken or written, unless preserved through recording or writing. Unlike langue (which persists as a mental structure), parole is tied to a specific time and place. A shouted warning like "Watch out!" exists only for the seconds it takes to hear it—then it’s gone unless memorized or documented.
Parole is context-dependent. It gets influenced by context. Factors like tone, accent, and situation affect meaning. Each act of parole is shaped by its immediate situation (tone, audience, environment). The same sentence (e.g., "It’s cold in here") can mean different things depending on whether it’s a complaint, a request to close a window, or small talk. Once the moment passes, the exact meaning may be lost or reinterpreted. No two acts of parole are identical, even if the words are the same. A live joke, a spontaneous apology, or a heated argument cannot be perfectly replicated—their impact relies on the original context.
Technically, writing or audio preserves parole, but Saussure considered these secondary. Writing is a "representation" of speech, not speech itself. Similarly, a recorded speech is fixed—it loses the spontaneity of the original parole. Parole is temporary because it’s alive only in the act of speaking—a key reason Saussure prioritized langue as the true object of linguistic study.
Despite their differences, langue and parole are interdependent. Langue makes parole possible, while parole continually reinforces and sometimes modifies langue over time. Without langue, speech would be chaotic; without parole, language would remain an unused system.
Julia Kristeva’s Intertextuality derives from Ferdinand De Saussure’s concept of Sign. Julia Kristeva coined the term "intertextuality" in the late 1960s, and it derives from her synthesis of Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotics and Mikhail Bakhtin's theories of language and literature.
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the evolution of literary theory. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!
No comments:
Post a Comment