36 3. The Code Model Decoded
In considering the influence of Saussure’s teaching on the development of modern linguistics, one should note that the majority of his influence has been somewhat indirect.
While Saussure was apparently a powerful and insightful instructor and researcher, he was not an especially prolific writer. Best known today for his work in general
linguistics, Saussure never actually published on the topic. His most influential work, Cours de linguistique générale,
was not directly authored by Saussure. Rather, it is an edited assemblage of his lecture notes and his students’ class notes, published post-
humously in 1816 by colleagues. Interestingly, Saussure only lectured on general linguistics three terms, in 1907, 1908–1909, and 1910–1911.
It should not be surprising, considering the nature of its construction, that within Cours
there are at points apparent contradictions, both in theory and emphases. Students of linguistics have sometimes focused on certain sections of Cours to the relative neglect
of others. In sections where Saussure himself seems to have been less than consistent, an inherent duality results, giving rise to internal debate.
22
Commenting upon this duality, Jonathan Culler notes that occasionally theorists will even “draw upon Saussurian
insights in order to contest what they take to be the principles of structuralism.” Culler continues, stating, “the possibility of using Saussure, the original structuralist, in a
critique of structuralism suggests, of course, that his work contains different lines of argument, whose angles and force must be calculated”
1986 :9–10.
Considering the manner in which Cours was assembled, those who would engage the work with the hope of discovering the authentic Saussure do indeed pursue a daunting, if
not elusive goal. Several useful works are available for those interested in studying the whole of the Cours. While such review is certainly worthwhile, it will not be the goal of
the discussion here. Rather, the goal here is to describe how Saussure’s work is related to the code model. The material covered is limited accordingly.
3.2.2.1. Saussure’s innovations
During his lifetime, Saussure was best known for his work in historical-comparative linguistics. He was quite accomplished in that domain, even publishing a landmark paper
on the topic when he was but a twenty-one-year-old student. The audience of today knows him better for two other developments which are typically attached to his name,
namely synchronic linguistics and structuralism, both of which ultimately extend from his work and theory building in the historical-comparative arena.
23
The audience of today is perhaps less familiar with the history of linguistics preceding Saussure and how that
history moved Saussure to innovation. J. E. Joseph explains:
22
For example, Saussure first offers a strong view of arbitrariness, but later seems to back off from that strong position, adding the concept of ‘relative arbitrariness’ for commentary on such issues, see
Joseph 1994 :3667.
23
Synchronic linguistics was developed during teaching in general linguistics and is detailed in the subsequent publication of Cours. While the framework for structuralism is spelled out in Cours, Saussure himself never even
used the term Harris and Taylor 1997
:211. Structuralism was developed more through the work of Saussure’s readers than through his direct influence.
3. The Code Model Decoded 37
At the time of Saussure’s lectures, the study of language had been dominated for over 30 years by a historical work on the language of written texts work which had only gradually
come to be distinguished from ‘philology,’ inquiry aimed not at the language but at better understanding of the text itself; b dialectological work based on field investigation of local
dialects; c phonetics, which demanded increasingly minute observation in strong adherence to the positivistic spirit; and d psychology, the principal domain of a global perspective on
language ….
Joseph 1994 :3664
Dissatisfied with the direction in which the discipline seemed to be proceeding, Saussure taught an alternative perspective. Albeit unwittingly as far as Saussure was
concerned, the result was to redirect the course of the entire discipline.
Saussure’s problem was to delineate a study of language that would be neither historical nor ahistorical, neither psychological nor apsychological; yet more systematic than Whitneyan
general linguistics [Whitney had died in 1894], so as to be at least the equal in intellectual and methodological rigor to the historical, psychological, and phonetic approaches. His
solution was to make a strong distinction between the study of language as a static system, which he called ‘synchronic’ linguistics, and the study of language change, which he called
‘diachronic’ linguistics or, until 1908, ‘evolutive’.
Joseph 1994 :3664
Harris and Taylor argue that these developments each align with a basic goal, so that the total impact was to break the surrogationalist tradition that had affected linguistic
science for centuries, even from the time of the ancient Greeks:
24
The whole of the Cours de linguistique générale is, in effect, dedicated to arguing that a language is not to be confused with a nomenclature. This confusion Saussure saw—rightly—
as a major obstacle to understanding the systematicity of language. It is a confusion which is central to the thesis which is sometimes called ‘surrogationalism’, which has a venerable
history in the Western tradition of theorizing about language. The surrogationalist views words as surrogates or proxies, having meaning by ‘standing for’ something else of a non-
linguistic nature, and the central task of elucidating how language works as consisting in showing the various types of relationship between words and what they stand for. In short,
surrogationalism seeks to explain language in terms of relationship between language and what exists independently outside language. For Saussure, surrogationalism embodies a
profound misconception of how language works. The systematicity of language cannot be explained simply by seeking correlations between individual linguistic signs and objects, or
events, or classes thereof in the world outside.
Harris and Taylor 1997 :221
Contemporary readers may not readily grasp the significance of Saussure’s struggle against nomenclaturism. The historical-comparative tradition, then the prevailing
approach to linguistic studies, was a somewhat different science than is historical- comparative linguistics of today. Historical-comparativists saw as their task the tracing of
‘evolutionary’ patterns in sound change; the linguist would identify individual words, then trace their history through time and through the various daughter languages where
they were represented. In Saussure’s opinion, this was an entirely inadequate account of language, if indeed it was accounting for language at all. Harris explains:
Where historical philology had failed, in Saussure’s opinion, was in simply not recognising the structural nature of the sign. As a result, it had concentrated upon features
24
See Harris 1980
:44f. for a general discussion of surrogationalism in Western thought.
38 3. The Code Model Decoded
which were merely superficially and adventitiously describable in mankind’s recorded lin- guistic history. The explanations philological historians provided were in the final analysis
appeals to the past. They did not—and could not—offer any analysis of what a language is from the viewpoint of its current speakers. Whereas for Saussure it was only by adopting the
users’ point of view that a language could be seen to be a coherently organized structure, amenable to scientific study. For linguistic signs, Saussure insisted, do not exist independently
of the complex system of contrasts implicitly recognised in the day-to-day vocal interactions of a given community of speakers.
Harris 1983 :xi
The notion of signs was not itself a new invention, even being anticipated in the philosophy of Aristotle see
Harris and Taylor 1997 :20–35;
Joseph 1994 :3666. For
example, Aristotle writes:
Spoken sounds are symbols of impressions in the mind, and what is written are symbols of what is spoken. Speech, like writing, is not the same for all mankind, although the mental
impressions directly expressed by these signs are the same for all, as are the things of which these mental impressions are likenesses. Aristotle: De Interpretatione I; trans. in
Harris and Taylor 1997
:21
In part, this tradition continued with Saussure, but Saussure made two very significant adjustments:
1. He considered the sign to be independent of both actual objects to which the concept may be related and actual sounds to which the signifying word may
relate. 2. He insisted that if one was to engage in a linguistic analysis, then the sign must
remain intact; signified and signifier could not be isolated. Cours
describes the relationship so: “A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is not actually a
sound; for a sound is something physical. … The linguistic sign is, then, a two-sided psychological entity ….”
Saussure 1983 :[98–99].
25
See figure 3.2
.
Figure 3.2. Saussure’s graphic representation of the sign, translation by Harris after
Saussure 1983 :[99]
25
French editions of Cours have maintained the same pagination since the 1922 edition. In order to cross-reference that pagination, the English translation quoted in this study
Saussure 1983 indicates the page breaks and page numbers
of the 1922 French edition in the margins, identifying them with square brackets. Harris’s 1987
commentary references those bracketed page numbers, rather than the actual pages of the English translation. In an effort to
provide consistency and ease of cross-referencing, this study follows Harris’s convention.
3. The Code Model Decoded 39
Joseph elaborates on Saussure’s notion of the sign:
For Saussure, the network of linguistic signs which constitute langue is made up of the conjunction of a signifiant ‘signifier’, understood as a sound pattern deposited in the mind,
and a signifié ‘signified’, a concept that is also deposited in the mind. … It is important to note that the signifier is wholly distinct from the actual uttered word, as is the signified from
the actual physical thing conceived of if one exists. Although the distinction between concept and object has existed since antiquity, that between sound pattern and actual sound is
Saussure’s own contribution ….
Joseph 1994 :3666–3667
Saussure employs a powerful analogy in describing this relationship between signifier and signified, one which helps to emphasize its importance within the system he
envisioned:
Linguistic structure might be described as the domain of articulation …. Every linguistic sign is a part or member, an articulus, where an idea is fixed in a sound, and a sound becomes
the sign of an idea. Just as it is impossible to take a pair of scissors and cut one side of paper without at the same
time cutting the other, so it is impossible in a language to isolate sound from thought, or thought from sound. To separate the two for theoretical purposes takes us into either pure
psychology or pure phonetics, not linguistics.
Linguistics, then, operates along this margin, where sound and thought meet. The contact between them gives rise to a form, not a substance.
Saussure 1983 :[156–157]; italics in
original
In isolating the sign from the actual articulation of the sound as well as from the external object, Saussure dichotomized language as it had previously been conceived.
Developing two senses of the term language langage into individual concepts by extending senses of the terms langue and parole, Saussure argued that the focus of
linguistics should be langue, the shared system of signs which made communication possible. This system was to be distinguished from actual production, which he termed
parole.
Previous generations of linguists had focused their efforts on studying elements of production, such as written texts, spoken dialects, and phonetics, all of which were
accessible and open to scrutiny within the positivistic tradition. In contrast, Saussure argued for the study of the system underlying production, even though that system was
not directly observable
Joseph 1994 :3665.
The relationships between signs in mental space were to be a crucial component in Saussure’s concept of langue. He categorized this network of relationships as being of
two kinds: a “syntagmatic i.e., items are arranged in a consecutive, linear order,” and b “associative, later termed ‘paradigmatic’ i.e., the organization of units in a deeper
fashion dealing with grammatical and semantic relations”
Koerner 1994 :3663.
Insightfully, he regarded sounds and meanings to be organized in a similar manner:
Before Saussure, the syntagmatic relations of morphemes within a given utterance were certainly recognized as a matter of linguistic concern, though relatively neglected. But there
was little or no precedent for the idea suggested by the Cours implicitly if not explicitly that there exists a syntax not only of words, but of sounds, meanings, and the relations uniting
them; or that every time a sound, word, or meaning is chosen, a vast network of related elements is summoned up in absentia. The latter concept in particular set the study of language
40 3. The Code Model Decoded
on a new course of abstraction that did not rely on psychological theorizing, but remained internal to language.
In many ways, the Saussurean notion of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations would become the hallmark of twentieth-century linguistics: first, because it proposed that a single
principle of structure unites all the levels at which language functions—sound, forms, and meanings; second, because it suggests a way of analyzing language that would not depend on
a simple listing of elements with their ‘translation’ into either another language or some sort of philosophical interpretation. Elements could henceforth be analyzed according to the relations
they maintained with other elements, and the language could be understood as the vast system—not of these elements—but of these relations. This was the point of departure for
structuralism.
Joseph 1994 :3668
The structuralist tradition developed in response to Cours is a direct result of this characterization of langue, which may be described as “a network of pure relations”
Joseph 1994 :3668.
Certainly the most wide-reaching Saussurean intellectual tradition, both within and outside of linguistics, derived from Saussure’s characterization of langue as a wholly self-
contained network of relationships among elements which … have no positive content or value, but only the negative value generated by their differing from one another.
Joseph 1994
:3668
The notion of value was a key component in Saussure’s characterization of langue 1983
:[155–169]. As Saussure conceived it, the signs were defined in terms of one another, much as the values of the commodities in an economic system are defined by the
system of exchange employed in that system. This is not to say that the value of a dollar is defined as ten dimes—a simple change in denomination. Rather, Saussure considered
the relations in langue to be analogous to the values established, as in the exchange of ninety cents for a dozen eggs, or a dozen eggs for a loaf of bread
1983 :[160]. Saussure
recognizes that individual exchanges were arbitrary, but considered the system as a whole to be fixed by the totality of internal relations. In other words, if the rate were
altered for a single exchange, then, in turn, all other exchanges would be affected by the disturbance in equilibrium.
26
The system is fixed through this equilibrium, so that the system maintains itself through its inherent resistance to change.
Saussure saw a similar system of values in the relationships between signs. The result was his characterization of the langue, the system of signs and their relations, as a fixed
system. Harris explains:
26
A physical analogy for langue exists in a form of sculpture sometimes called tension-grid. This form of sculpture involves the suspension of numerous rods from elastic bands. The ends of several bands are attached to the ends of
each rod, with the rods being attached to each other via the bands. The tension of the bands equalizes so that the rods are suspended, causing the sculpture to assume a particular three-dimensional shape. Pressure may be applied to one
or another of the rods, causing the shape to change, but once the pressure is removed, the bands resume equilibrium, so that the sculpture resumes its shape. If one of the bands is cut, however, the shape of the sculpture changes
permanently, for the original equilibrium has been disrupted and a new equilibrium must be attained. Several children’s toys have been marketed which employ this type of sculptural construction. One version of this toy is
marketed under the name “tensegritoy.”
3. The Code Model Decoded 41
The Saussurean answer to the question ‘What fixes the code?’ is that what fixes the individual signs is their reciprocal interdependence in a system, which in turn is fixed simply
by the totality of internal relations between its constituent signs. That explains simultaneously why altering just one set of relations disturbs the whole system, and also why, in spite of the
arbitrary connexion between any one signifiant and any one signifié, it is not easy to break that connexion. Altering just one sign encounters the passive resistance of the entire structure.
Thus everything in la langue is fixed by its structural interdependence with the rest, in the same way that the rungs of a ladder are held in position by being inserted into the vertical
struts, which in turn are held in position by the rungs.
Harris 1987 :220
In Saussure’s view, the conception of langue as an integrated, fixed system mandated the dichotomization of diachronic and synchronic perspectives:
It was a position which committed Saussure to drawing a radical distinction between diachronic or evolutionary linguistics and synchronic or static linguistics, and giving
priority to the latter. For words, sounds, and constructions connected solely by processes of historical development over the centuries cannot possibly, according to Saussure’s analysis,
enter into structural relations with one another, any more than Napoleon’s France and Caesar’s Rome can be structurally united under one and the same political system.
Harris 1983 :x
The term synchronic describes an approach “concerned with the complex of events existing in a limited time period and ignoring historical antecedents”
Mish 1983 :1197.
The idea that language should, or even could, be regarded in such a manner was largely a Saussurean innovation. Harris and Taylor explain the necessity of this move:
It made no sense to suppose that the earlier b was ‘the same consonant’ as its later manifesta- tion p, or that ‘the same word’ appeared in Latin as causa but later in French as chose. For if
linguistic units did not exist except as structural units defined within a single linguistic system, it was impossible for any given unit to ‘survive’ from one system A into a different system B at
a later point in time.
Harris and Taylor 1997 :215
3.2.2.2. Saussure’s theory of communication
