【剑桥哲学指南】索绪尔 306页

CambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationTheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureFerdinanddeSaussureiswidelyconsideredtobethefounderofbothmodernlinguisticsandstructuralism.Thefirsttoestablishthestructuralstudyoflan-guage,heidentifiedthedifferencebetweenthesystemoflanguage(langue)andthespeechofindividuals(parole),andwasfirsttodistinguishbetweenthe‘synchronic’studyoflanguage(languageatagiventime),andthe‘diachronic’(languageasitchangesthroughtime).ThiscompanionbringstogetherateamofleadingscholarstoofferafreshnewaccountofSaussure’swork.AswellaslookingathispioneeringandrenownedCourseinGeneralLinguisticsof1916,theyconsiderhislesser-knownearlywork,hismorerecentlydiscoveredmanuscripts,andhisinfluenceonarangeofotherdisciplines,suchasculturalstudies,philosophy,literatureandsemiotics.Withcontributionsbyleadingspecialistsineachfield,thiscomprehensiveandaccessibleguidecreatesauniquepictureofthelastingimportanceofSaussure’sthought.carolsandersisProfessorofFrenchattheUniversityofSurrey,andhastaughtatuniversitiesacrossAustralia,France,Italy,theWestIndiesandBritain.Shehaspublishedmanyarticles,booksandtranslationsinthefieldsofFrenchlanguage,linguisticsandculture,includingamonographonSaus-sure(1979),andFrenchToday:LanguageinitsSocialContext(CambridgeUniversityPress,1993).©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationTheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSanders©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationpublishedbythepresssyndicateoftheuniversityofcambridgeThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomcambridgeuniversitypressTheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridge,CB22RU,UK40West20thStreet,NewYork,NY10011–4211,USA477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,AustraliaRuizdeAlarc´on13,28014Madrid,SpainDockHouse,TheWaterfront,CapeTown8001,SouthAfricahttp://www.cambridge.org
CCambridgeUniversityPress2004Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublished2004PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,CambridgeTypefaceTimes10/12pt.SystemLATEX2ε[tb]AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdataTheCambridgecompaniontoSaussure/editedbyCarolSanders.p.cm.Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN052180051X–ISBN0521804868(pb.)1.Saussure,Ferdinandde,1857–1913.2.Linguistics.I.Sanders,Carol.P85.S18C332004410.92–dc222004049741ISBN052180051XhardbackISBN0521804868paperback©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationContentsNotesoncontributorspageviiAcknowledgementsxiListofabbreviationsxiiIntroduction:Saussuretoday1carolsandersPartIOutofthenineteenthcentury1SaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics9annamorpurgodavies2TheParisyears30carolsandersPartIIThe‘CourseinGeneralLinguistics’3ThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´47rudolfengler4Thelinguisticsign59johne.joseph5Langueandparole76w.terrencegordon6System,arbitrariness,value88claudinenormandPartIIIAftertheCours7SaussureandAmericanlinguistics107julias.falkv©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationviContents8SaussureandstructuralistlinguisticsinEurope124christianpuech9TheRussiancritiqueofSaussure139stephenc.hutchings10Saussure,Barthesandstructuralism157stevenunger11Saussure’sanagrams174peterwunderli12SaussureandDerrida186geoffreybenningtonPartIVNewdebatesanddirections13Saussure’sunfinishedsemantics205simonbouquet14Saussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience219christophernorris15Saussure’slegacyinsemiotics240paulbouissacNotes261WorksbySaussureandfurtherreading267matthewpiresandcarolsandersReferences273Index298©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationNotesoncontributorsgeoffreybenningtonisAsaG.CandlerProfessorofModernFrenchThoughtatEmoryUniversity.HismostrecentbooksareFrontiereskanti-`ennes(Paris:Galil´ee,2000)andInterruptingDerrida(London:Routledge,2000).paulbouissacisProfessorEmeritusattheUniversityofToronto(Depart-mentofFrenchStudies).HeistheauthorofLamesuredesgestes:prolegom´enes`alas`emiotiquegestuelle´(1973),andCircusandCulture(1976),andtheeditoroftheOxfordUniversityPressEncyclopediaofSemiotics(1998).Hispublishedarticlesbearuponissuesintheepistemologyandhistoryofsemiotics,theculturalanthropologyofcircusperformances,thesemioticanalysisofgesturesandprehistoricrockart.simonbouquet’sinterestsareinlinguisticsandphilosophy.HeisaresearcherattheUniversityofBerneandlecturesattheUniversityofParis10–Nanterre.HehasdevotedhimselftomakingthemanuscripttextsofSaussurebetterknownthroughcriticaleditions(S.BouquetandR.Engler’seditionoftheEcritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´isfrequentlyreferredtointhisvolume).HeiscurrentlyworkingontheconsequencesofWittgenstein’sthoughtforsemantics.HeispresidentoftheInstitutF.deSaussureinSwitzerland.rudolfengler(1930–2003)taughtformanyyearsattheUniversityofBerne.HewroteprolificallyonSaussure,makingfrequentcontributionstotheCahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,includingbibliographicallistsuptothe1980s.HeisknowninparticularforhismonumentalcomparativecriticaleditionofthestudentnotesforSaussure’slecturesongenerallinguistics,forhischapteron‘Europeanstructuralism:Saussure’inCurrentTrendsinLinguisticsvol.XIII(ed.Sebeok,1975),andforco-editingwithSimonBouquettheEcritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´.julias.falkisProfessorEmeritus,Linguistics,MichiganStateUniver-sity,andaresidentofLaJolla,California,whereacourtesyappointmentasvisitingscholar,Linguistics,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,facilitatesvii©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationviiiNotesoncontributorshercontinuingresearchandwritingonthehistoryoflinguisticsintheUnitedStates.AmemberofNAAHoLS(NorthAmericanAssociationfortheHistoryoftheLanguageSciences),sheservedaspresidentintheyear2000.w.terrencegordon’sworksinthefieldoftwentieth-centuryintellec-tualhistoryincludeacriticallyacclaimedbiographyofMarshallMcLuhanandSaussureforBeginners,whichhasbeentranslatedintoSpanishandJapanese.GordonrecentlyrelinquishedtheAlexanderMcLeodChairinModernLanguagesatDalhousieUniversity,Halifax,Canada,toassumethefulltimegeneraleditorshipofaninternationalpublishingprogrammeforissuingneweditionsofMarshallMcLuhan’swritings.stephenhutchingsisReaderinRussianStudiesattheUniversityofSurrey.HeistheauthorofASemioticAnalysisoftheShortStoriesofLeonidAndreev(London:MHRA,1990)andRussianModernism:theTransfig-urationoftheEveryday(CambridgeUniversityPress,1997).Heiscur-rentlycompletingtwobooksforRoutledgeontherelationshipbetweenRussianliteratureandthecameramedia.Stephen’sresearchinterestsincludenineteenth-andtwentieth-centuryRussianliteratureandculture,post-Soviettelevisionculture,andRussiancriticalandculturaltheory.johne.josephisProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsattheUniversityofEdinburgh,havingpreviouslyheldchairsattheUniversityofHongKongandtheUniversityofMarylandatCollegePark.HisbooksrelatingtothehistoryoflinguisticsincludeLimitingtheArbitrary:LinguisticNaturalismanditsOppositesinPlato’sCratylusandModernTheoriesofLanguage(2000),LandmarksinLinguisticThought2:TheWesternTraditionintheTwentiethCentury(withN.LoveandT.J.Taylor,2001)andFromWhitneytoChomsky:EssaysintheHistoryofAmericanLinguistics(2002).annamorpurgodaviesisDieboldProfessorofComparativePhilol-ogyatOxfordUniversity.ShecompletedherdoctoratefortheUniversityofRome,buthasspentmostofherworkinglifeinOxfordwithfrequentperiodsintheUnitedStates.ShehasworkedandpublishedextensivelyonIndo-European(especiallyancientGreekandtheancientAnatolianlan-guages)andonthehistoryofnineteenth-centurylinguistics.SheistheauthorofNineteenthCenturyLinguistics(London:Longman,1998).ProfessorMorpurgoDaviesisaFellowoftheBritishAcademyandanHonoraryMemberoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica.claudinenormandisEmeritusProfessorattheUniversityofParisatNanterre,whereshetaughtforthirtyyears.Herresearchinterestsareinthehistoryandepistemologyoflinguisticsandsemiotics,especiallyofthenine-teenthandtwentiethcenturies.Hermainpublicationsincludeamonograph©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationNotesoncontributorsixonSaussure(Normand,2000),co-editedvolumes(withM.Arriv´e)onSaus-sureandonBenveniste,achapteron‘Laquestiondelalinguistiqueg´en´erale(1880–1930)’inHistoiredesIdeeslinguistiques´,vol.III.(ed.S.Auroux,2000).christophernorrisisDistinguishedResearchProfessorinPhilosophyattheUniversityofCardiff,Wales.Hehaspublishedmorethantwentybookstodateonvariousaspectsofphilosophy,thehistoryofideasandcriticaltheory.Atpresentheiswritingmainlyaboutissuesinphilosophicalseman-ticsandphilosophyofscience,withparticularreferencetoareasofsharedconcernbetweentheso-called‘analytic’and‘continental’linesofdescent.AmonghismostrecentbooksareDeconstructionandtheUnfinishedProjectofModernity(2000),TruthMatters:Realism,Anti-RealismandResponse-Dependence(2002)andPhilosophyofLanguageandtheChallengetoScientificRealism.matthewpireslecturesattheBritishInstituteinParis.Hisinterestsincludesyntax,stylisticsandthediscourseofpopularculture.Heisaco-translator,withCarolSanders,oftheEcritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´.christianpuechlecturesattheCentredeLinguistiqueFran¸caiseattheSorbonneNouvelle(ParisIII).HeisamemberoftheCNRSresearchgroupfortheHistoryofLinguisticTheories,andsince1978hehasbeenpublishingonthehistoryoflinguisticideasinthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.HismostrecentpublicationsincludeFondationsdelalinguistique:etudes´d’histoireetd’epist´emologie´(Louvain:Duculot,1997),(withJ.L.Chiss);Lelangageetsesdisciplines:XIX◦–XX◦siecles`(Louvain:Duculot,1999)(withJ.L.Chiss);heistheeditorofLinguistiqueetpartagesdisciplinairesalafinduXIX`◦siecled`ebutduXX´◦siecle:VictorHenry(1850–1907)`,Coll.Biblioth`equedel’InformationGrammaticale55(LouvainandParis:Peeters,2003).carolsandersisProfessorofFrenchattheUniversityofSurrey.Shehasresearchinterestsinthehistoryoflinguistics,Frenchlinguistics,applica-tionsoflinguisticsandFrench-speakingculture.Sheistheauthorof,amongotherthings,acommentaryontheCoursdelinguistiquedeFerdinanddeSaussure(Hachette,1979),andFrenchToday:LanguageinitsSocialContext(CambridgeUniversityPress,1993).Sheistheco-translatorofSaussure’sEcritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´(publishedinFrenchbyGallimardin2003).stevenungarisProfessorofFrenchandChairoftheDepartmentofCinemaandComparativeLiteratureattheUniversityofIowa,whereheteachesontwentieth-centuryFrenchfiction,poetry,filmandcriticalthought.Hisbook-lengthpublicationsincludeRolandBarthes:theProfessorofDesire©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationxNotesoncontributors(1983),ScandalandAfterEffect:BlanchotandFrancesince1930(1995),andtwoco-editedvolumes:SignsinCulture:RolandBarthesToday(1989)andIdentityPapers:ContestedNationhoodin20th-CenturyFrance(1996).Astudyco-authoredwithDudleyAndrew,PopularFrontParis:BetweenthePoliticsandPoeticsofCulture,isforthcoming.Hiscurrentresearchinvolvesurbanspacesandeverydaylife.peterwunderliisEmeritusProfessorofRomancePhilologyattheHeinrichHeineUniversityinD¨usseldorf.Hisresearchinterestsareinthehistoryoflinguistics,syntaxandmorphosyntax,semantics,intonationandmedievalphilology.Heistheauthorofnumerousbooksandarticles,amongwhichare:FerdinanddeSaussureunddieAnagramme(T¨ubingen,1972);Valerysaussurien´(FrankfurtamMain,1977);Saussure-Studien(T¨ubingen,1981);L’intonationdessequencesextrapos´eesenfranc¸ais´(T¨ubingen,1987);FranzosischeLexikologie¨(T¨ubingen,1989);Principesdediachronie(Frank-furtamMain,1990);StudiesegeticisuFerdinanddeSaussure(Rome,1993).©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationAcknowledgementsTheinitialpreparationforthisvolumewasdonewhileIhadtheprivilegeofholdingaLeverhulmeResearchFellowship,andasubsequentsmallgrantfromtheBritishAcademyalsofacilitatedthework.MatthewPires,PeterFigueroaandIhavetranslated,orwherenecessaryedited,thechaptersthatwerewritteninalanguageotherthanEnglish.ThefirstdraftofthebibliographywasveryablydrawnupbyMatthewPires.Inparticular,IamverygratefulfortheimportanteditorialassistancegenerouslygivenbyPeterFigueroa.xi©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersFrontmatterMoreinformationAbbreviationsThefollowingabbreviationsareusedinthetexttorefertoworksbySaussure;furtherinformationaboutthevariouseditionsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,andalsoabouttranslationandterminology,isgivenintheintroduc-tion,pp.3–4.CGL-BCourseinGeneralLinguistics,trans.W.Baskin(Saussure,1959,1974)CGL-HCourseinGeneralLinguistics,trans.R.Harris(Saussure,1983)CLGCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(Saussure,1916)CLG/DCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,ed.T.deMauro(Saussure,1972)CLG/ECoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,ed.R.Engler,2vols.(vol.1,Saussure,1968;vol.2,Saussure,1974)ELGEcritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´,ed.S.BouquetandR.Engler(Saussure,2002)xii©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nIntroduction:SaussuretodayCarolSandersWhy,stilltoday,dowefindthenameofFerdinanddeSaussurefeaturingpromi-nentlyinvolumespublishednotonlyonlinguistics,butonamultitudeoftopics,volumeswithtitlessuchasCultureandText:DiscourseandMethodologyinSocialResearchandCulturalStudies(LeeandPoynton,2000),ortheintriguingPlasticGlassesandChurchFathers(Kronenfeld,1996)?Itistothisquestionthatthepresentvolumeattemptstobringatleastapartialanswer,bylookingafreshattheintellectualbackgroundtoSaussure’swork,theworkitself,itsimpactonEuropeanstructuralismingeneralandlinguisticsinparticular,anditschangedbutcontinuinginfluencetoday.Thetitlesabove,then,areenoughtoshowthatnearlyacenturyandahalfafterhisbirth,theideasofthisSwisslinguistandthinkerstillexciteinterest.HeisbestknownforhisCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,editedafterhisprematuredeathfromthenotesofstudentswhohadattendedhislecturesandfirstpublishedin1916.This‘Courseingenerallinguistics’hasgonethroughnumerouseditionsinFrance,hasbeentranslatedintonumerouslanguages,andhashadaninfluencefarbeyondtheareaoflinguistics.Thisbook,however,isfarfrombeingthesolereasonforhisimportanceasathinker,therecognitionofwhichhasgonethroughvariousphasessincehisdeath.Inhisownlifetime,hewasregarded–andregardedhimself–primarilyasahistoricallinguistwhohadmadehismarkwithabrilliantandprecociousstudyinIndo-Europeanlinguistics.Attheturnofthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,generallinguistics,asadisciplinethatexamineshowlanguageworksandhowbesttodescribethecurrentstateofalivinglanguage(asopposedtotracingthehistoryofpastlanguagestates),wasbarelyconstituted;Saussurewasoneofthemainthinkerswhocontributedtoestablishingtheprinciplesofthedisciplineasweknowittoday.However,althoughtheCours,onfirstbeingpublished,wasreceivedwithpraisebyafew,andwithamoremutedmixtureofpraiseandcriticismbyothers,itwaslargelyignoredinmanyquarters.Inparticular,intheEnglish-speakingworldreferencestoitwerealmostnon-existent(seeSanders,2000a).Itwouldonlybeinthemid-twentiethcenturythatthesignificanceofSaussure’sthoughtcametoberealised,initiallyinthecontextofthestructuralistmovement.1CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n2CarolSandersStructuralismwasaschoolofthought(tosome)oramethod(toothers)whichforseveraldecadesofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturydomi-natedsomedisciplines–linguistics,literarycriticism,anthropology,filmandmediacriticism,tomentionbutafew,andwhichhadastrongimpactonothers,frompsychologyandphilosophytoeconomics.Themaintextthatinspired,andwasconstantlycitedby,thismovementwasSaussure’sCoursdelinguis-tiquegen´erale´,interpretedasablueprintfordescribinghowthestructuresofoursocialandculturallifeareconstituted,andthewayinwhichoncecon-stitutedtheyfunctionasasystemofsigns.TheconceptsoftheCoursthusinspiredsomeofthemostinterestingandbest-knownthinkersoftheperiod,inanastonishinglyfertileperiodofground-breakingworkinwhatwereoftennewdisciplines,orradicaldepartureswithinestablisheddisciplines,aswellasworkthatcrosseddisciplinaryborders.Suchwidespreadacclaimforonebook(whichwasnotevenbythethinkerwhoseideasitpurportedtorepresent)andsuchsingle-mindedenthusiasmforoneapproachwereboundtoprovokeareaction,andtowardstheendofthelastcentury,so-calledSaussureanstruc-turalismwasaccused,amongotherthings,ofahistoricism,andofpromotingareductionistviewoflanguageasacodewhileignoringrealusageandlanguageincontext.ThesecriticismsweretosomeextentcounteredbylaterstudiesbasedonmanuscriptsinwhichSaussureexploresingreatdetailcertainaspectsofclassicalandmedievalliterature,inparticularhisclaimtohavediscov-eredthewidespreaduseofanagramsconcealedinLatinpoetry.Sodifferentwasthisfacetofhisworkthatcommentatorsspokeofthe‘twoSaussures’.Evenamidstthedebates,studiescontinuedtoappearthattestifiedtotherele-vanceoftheCoursinvariousdomains(forexample,Holdcroft,1991,forthesocialsciences).Subsequently,itwaspartlywithmorebalancedreadingsoftheCours,andpartlywiththefurtherdiscoveryin1996ofnotesinSaussure’sownhand,thatthependulumbegantoswingbackagain.Interestedreadersbegantoconstructamorenuancedviewoftheincompleteandsuggestiveworkofthisfascinatingthinker,lookingafreshathisoriginalcontributiontointellec-tualhistory,eventotheextentinsomecasesofseeinginhisreflectionstheembryonicbeginningsofatheoryofutteranceandofspeechacts.Therearealso,ofcourse,thoseSaussurescholarswho,lessswayedbychang-ingintellectualfashions,havecontinuedtoworksteadilytoelucidateandmakeavailablehisideas.Thepurposeoftheschematicaccountaboveissimplytogiveaninitialoverviewwhichenablesthereadertosituatethesubjectofthisbook,andtounderstandtherationaleforthetopicsthatarecovered.Specificnamesandworkshavenotbeencitedsofar,becausethesewillemergeinthechaptersthatfollow.Saussurehimselfwasveryawareofthehistoryandepis-temologicalstatusoflinguistics,andanattempthasbeenmadetoreflectthis.ItisperhapstimetoreexaminetheplaceinSaussure’sthoughtofthetwocentresoflinguisticsinwhichhespenthisearlyyearsasayoungscholar.InthefirstCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction:Saussuretoday3chapter,Saussure’sworkasanIndo-Europeanist,anditsrelationtonineteenth-centuryGermanscholarshipaswellastotherestofhiswork,isexamined.ThesecondchapterfocusesonSaussure’syearsofteachinginParis,duringwhichhewasundoubtedlyasmuchinfluencedbycolleaguesasheinfluencedthem,althoughthismutualdebtisnotalwaysasfullyrecognisedasitmightbe.ThefourchaptersofpartIIconcerntheCoursitself:thecomplexstoryofitscompi-lation,andtheinterlockingsumofkeyconceptsthatexplainitsimpact.PartIIIdealswiththedelayed‘aftermath’oftheCours,itsreceptionandinfluencenotonlyinEuropeanstructuralismandpost-structuralism,butalsoinotherplacesandtraditions,fromRussiatoNorthAmerica.Finally,thereisanopeningouttothewiderimpactofSaussure’sthoughtandtheelementsofitthatareunderdiscussiontodayorwhicharelikelytocontinuetobeofinteresttomorrow,suchashiscontributiontotheoriesofmeaning,andtothedisciplineofsemioticswhichheforeshadowedintheCours.RatherthanduplicatingthenumerousstudiesofSaussurethatexistinFrench,theemphasisofthisvolumeisonprovidinganup-to-dateintroductionto,andassessmentof,Saussure’sideastoanEnglish-speakingreadership.Thereisthusatwo-foldperspective.Firstly,theaiminsomeofthechaptersistoshedaslightlydifferentlightontheSwisslinguistbysettinghisthoughtinthewidercontextofEnglish-speakingapproachestolinguisticsandtocontemporaryintellectualhistory(asinthechapterbyNorris).Inevitably,manymajorwritersonSaussurepublishinlanguagesotherthanEnglish,andinparticularinFrench,sothatasecondaimistotrytomakeaccessibletoreaderstheworkofcertainscholarsfromothertraditions.Chaptersmaybereadindividually;althoughcertainkeyconceptsinevitablyrecur,anattempthasbeenmadetoavoidundueoverlap.However,becauseSaussure’sideasarelookedathereinavarietyofwaysbythedifferentauthors,mostwillbegainedfrom(preferably)readingthewholevolume,or(attheveryleast)fromfollowingupthecross-referencesthataregivenfromonechaptertoothers.Inthecontextoftheabove,acommentiscalledforaboutthevariousedi-tionsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,whichcanbeconfusing,andalsoabouttranslationandterminology.TheCours,firstpublishedin1916,hasbeenrepublishedinanumberofsubsequenteditions,whichfromthesecondeditiononhavekeptthesamepagenumbering.In1972,animportantscholarlyeditionwithsubstantialnotesbyTulliodeMauro(basedonanItalianversionpublishedin1967)appearedinFrench,stillretainingtheoriginalpagenumbersforthetextoftheCours.Inthisvolume,pagereferencestotheCoursaresimplygivenwiththeabbreviationCLG,andifadistinctionneedstobemadebetweentheoriginalpublicationanddeMauro’sedition,theabbreviationCLG/Disusedorthedateisgiven.ManuscriptsourcesoftheCourswerefirstpublishedbyGodel(Godel,1957),followedbyamasterlyjuxtapositionofthevariousstu-dentnotesavailabledrawnupbyEngler(CLG/E)intwovolumespublishedinCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n4CarolSanders1968and1974.OtherworksbySaussurearelistedunderhisnameandthedateofpublicationinthefirstsectionofthefinalbibliography.ThenextsectionofthebibliographycomprisesaselectlistofmajorworksonSaussurepublishedinthelasttwodecades,mainlyinEnglish,butwithsomereferencesinotherlanguages;itishopedthatthismayproveahelpfulreferencetoolforfurtherreadingandresearch.Finally,thereisaconsolidatedlistofreferencesusedbytheauthorsofthechaptersofthisvolume.(Asmallnumberifitemsappeartwice:forexample,Godel’scompilationofthelecturenotestakenbysomestudentsiscommonlyreferredtoasGodel,1957,anditislistedassuchinthereferencesaswellasamongSaussure’sworks.)MostofthequotationsinthechaptersaregiveninEnglish,withoccasionalshortquotationsbeingprovidedinFrenchalso,inordertogivethereaderatasteoftheoriginal.TherearetwopublishedEnglishtranslationsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,andanumberofcriticalvolumesinwhichauthorshaveprovidedtheirownversions.ThefirstpublishedtranslationintoEnglish,byWadeBaskin,appearedintheUSAin1959(andtheninBritainayearlater).ItwassubsequentlyreissuedwithausefulintroductionbyJonathanCullerin1974,withthesamepagenumbering.Baskin’stranslationisreferredtoasCLG-B.ThesecondEnglishtranslationisbyRoyHarrisandwasfirstpublishedinBritainin1983(CLG-H).Becauseeachofthesetranslationshasitsstrengthsandweaknesses,itwasdecidedtoallowauthorsthefreedomtouseeitherofthem,oreventosupplytheirown,astheythoughtfit.Thetranslatedquotationstobefoundinthechaptersarenotsufficientlydifferenttoleadtomisunder-standingsorinconsistencies;rather,theyallowthereadertogettheflavourofeach,andperhapseventuallytoselectoneortheotherinordertoreadmoreoftheCours,aswell,hopefully,asappreciatingsomeofthedifficultiesinvolvedintranslatingthistext.TherearebilingualFrench/Englisheditionsofsomestu-dentnotebooks(seeSaussure,1993,1996and1997inthebibliography).SomemanuscriptnoteshavebeenpublishedovertheyearsinFrench,forexampleintheCahiersFerdinanddeSaussure;themajorpublicationofmanuscriptnotes,boththosediscoveredin1996andsomeolderones,istheEcritsdelinguis-tiquegen´erale(ELG´),editedbyBouquetandEngler(Saussure,2002),whichwillshortlyappearinEnglishpublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress.WherenoreferenceismadetoanexistingEnglishversionofatext,thetranslationistheworkoftheauthor(oroveralltranslator)ofthechapter.AtranslationproblemariseswithcertainofSaussure’sterms.Thefirstisthetranslationofthetermslangueandparole,asusedintheCours.OvertheyearsSaussure’sownterminologyvaries,anditdevelopsthroughoutthethreelectureseriesonwhichtheCoursisbased.Thesolutionwhichheadopted,andwhichhasbeenconsecratedbytheCourswithoccasionallapses,wastodividetheoverarchingtermforlanguage,orthehumanlanguagefaculty,whichhereferstoaslangage,intolangueandparole.TheformerreferstoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction:Saussuretoday5thepotentiallinguisticsystemwhichresidesinthemindofallmembersofaspeechcommunity,andwaitstobeactivatedinparole,inindividualutterances,oractsofspeech.Tocomplicatematters,unelangue,leslangues,etc.isusedwithitsnon-technicalmeaningofalanguage/languages,althoughthisusageposesnotranslationproblem.(SeeGordon’schapter,andSanders,2000b.)Thedifficultywiththeotherthreetermslangage/langue/paroleisthatEnglishonlyhastwolikelycontenders:languageandspeech.Baskinuses‘humanspeech/language/speaking’forthetriad,whereasHarristendstouse‘language’or‘languagefaculty’forlangage,‘languagestructure’or‘linguisticsystem’(orlesshappily‘thelangue’)forlangueand‘speech’forparole.Thereisnoidealsolution,butoftheEnglishterms,‘languagesystem’forlangueand‘speech’forparolewouldseemthebestinmostcontexts,aslongasanotherphrasesuchas‘languagefaculty’isretainedforlangagewherethereisanypossibleconfu-sionbetweenitandlangue.However,theFrenchtermshavenowbeenusedsofrequentlyinEnglishinanywritingonSaussureoronstructuralismingeneralthatanothersolutionistoborrowtheFrenchwords.Inthesechapters,wehavegenerallyusedeither‘languagesystem’orlanguewhentalkingaboutlangue,andeither‘speech’orparoleforthelatter.ThereareotherSaussureantermsthathavebecome‘naturalised’,suchasetatdelangue´forthesnapshotpicturethatwegetofanylanguageataparticularstageofitsdevelopment.Thereisalsoanotherwell-knownpairofterms:thelinguisticsignismadeupoftwoinseparableparts,the‘signifier’andthe‘signified’,whichareBaskin’stranslationofsignifiantandsignifie´,whileHarrisuses‘signification’and‘signal’.(Onthesign,seethechapterbyJoseph.)WehaveusedeitherBaskin’sterms,ortheFrenchloan-wordsofsignifiantandsignifie´.Theadoptionoftheseterms,whichwillbefoundinEnglishinarangeofdisciplinaryfields,isjustonemoreindicationofthelastingimpactmadebySaussure’sthought.TheseconceptsweretobefoundembryonicallypresentinotherscholarsofSaussure’stime,butheitwaswhosharpenedtheirfocusand,aboveall,whowovethemallintoacoherentsystemwhichcouldbeusedasamodelforustounderstandanddescribetheworkingsnotonlyoflanguage,butalsoofotherhumansignsystems.Inourageofcommunicationandinformationtechnologies,itisnotsurprisingthatthereisoncemoreinterestinSaussure’sthought,sothatan‘InstitutFerdinanddeSaussure’hasbeensetupwiththeaimofexploringandpromotingtherelevanceofSaussuretolinguisticsandbeyond,forexampleincognitivescience,andinwhattheFrencharecalling‘lessciencesdelaculture’.Itistruethatatonepoint,justatthetimewhenitwasfashionabletoproclaimthedeathoftheauthor,Saussure’selevationtoalmostcult-figurestatusmayhaveowedsomethingtotheenigmaticnatureofhiswork,unfinished,sometimesambiguousandposthumouslypublishedbyothers.However,ifsincethenithasshownthatitwillstandthetestoftimeinitsrelevancetoarangeofdisciplines,thisisalsoinpartduetotheindividualCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n6CarolSandersvoicethatcomesthroughboththestrikingcadencesoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´andthemorehesitanttonesofthemanuscriptnotesoftheEcritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´,despitethedifferentcircumstancesoftheirpublication.Itistobehopedthatthereaderofthisvolumewillbemotivatedtogotothetextsthemselvestopursuetheelusive,foresightfulandfascinatingthoughtofFerdinanddeSaussure.Finally,anumberofthedistinguishedcommentatorswhohavewrittenaboutSaussurehavecontributedchapterstothisCompanion.Thereareinevitablyotherimportantnamesthatareverymuchpresent,andfeatureinthebibliography,suchasHarris,KoernerandStarobinski,tonamebutthree.Amongthe‘giants’ofSaussurescholarship,however,onenamestandsout.ItisthatofRudolfEnglerwho,alongsidehisotherworks,compiledtheindis-pensablecomparativeeditionofstudentnotesfromSaussure’sGenevalectures(Saussure,1968and1974).Hepreparedachapterforthisvolumeonthemak-ingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´shortlybeforehisuntimelydeathinAugust2003.Hopefully,theentirevolumewouldhavemetwithhisapprovalandpleasure.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n1SaussureandIndo-EuropeanlinguisticsAnnaMorpurgoDaviesSaussureasseenbyhiscontemporariesIn1908theLinguisticSocietyofParis(Soci´et´eLinguistiquedeParis)dedicatedavolumeofMelanges´toFerdinanddeSaussure,thenagedfiftyandprofessorattheUniversityofGeneva(Saussure,1908).Averybriefandunsignedprefacestatedthat,sincethefewyearsthathehadspentinParisbetween1881and1891hadbeendecisiveforthedevelopmentofFrenchlinguistics,theSocietywashappytodedicatetohimoneofthefirstvolumesofitsnewseries.TheSocietyalsowishedtothanktheeminentSwisslinguistswhohadjoinedSaussure’searlierpupilsinpayingtheirrespectstotheauthoroftheMemoiresurlesyst´eme`primitifdesvoyellesenindo-europeen´.Twothingsarenowstrikingeveniftheywerenotsoatthetime.First,noattemptwasmadeintheprefaceorelsewheretodistinguishbetweenthetwomainactivitiesofSaussure:teachingandresearchincomparativeandhistoricallinguistics(grammairecomparee´)andteachingandresearchingeneralortheoreticallinguistics.Secondlythearticlescollectedinthevolumewereall,withoneexception,articlesinIndo-Europeancomparativelinguistics.TheyincludeworkbyestablishedscholarsofconsiderablefamelikeAntoineMeilletinParisorJacobWackernagelinBasle,butthesewerehistoricalandcomparativelinguistsratherthantheoreticallinguists.TheoneexceptionisapaperbyoneofSaussure’spupilsandcolleagues,indeedoneoftheeditorsoftheCours,AlbertSechehaye,whodiscussestheroleofstylisticsinthetheoryoflanguage.YetSaussure’scurrentfameistiedtohisviewsontheoreticallinguistics.SaussureasacomparativistIfSaussure’scontemporarieshadbeenasked,theywouldhavesimplycalledhimalinguistsincehistoricalandcomparativelinguistics(oftenidentifiedwithIndo-Europeanstudies)wastheprevailingformoflinguisticsatthetime.IndeedalltheworkthatSaussurepublishedinhislifetime,andwhichwascollectedposthumouslyinasinglevolume(Saussure,1922)concernedproblemsofIndo-European,andfittedinthetraditionofhistoricalandcomparativeworkwhich9CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n10AnnaMorpurgoDavieshadstartedatthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury.Saussure,incommonwithmostofhiscontemporaries,spokeofFranzBopp’sschoolandofthenewsciencefoundedbyBopp(Saussure,2002:130ff.).ThereferencewastotheGermanscholarwhoin1816hadpublishedaseminalbookwhereheineffectdemonstratedthatanumberofancientlanguages(Greek,Latin,Sanskrit,Gothic)descendedfromacommonprehistoricancestorwhichhadnotsurvived;throughcomparisonofthedaughterlanguagesitwaspossibletoidentifythecommonfeatureswhichbelongedtotheparentlanguageaswellastheinno-vationswhicheachofthedescendantshadintroducedintothecommoninheri-tance.Bopp’smoreadvancedworkincludedacomparativegrammarofSanskrit,Avestan,Greek,Latin,Lithuanian,GothicandGerman(1833–52)whichinitssecondedition(1857–61)alsodiscussedOldSlavic,ArmenianandotherIndo-Europeanlanguages.InseeinghimselfinBopp’stradition,Saussurewasinlinewithmostofhiscontemporaries;however,hewentwellbeyondtheminhavingdoubts(whichhedidnotexpressinhispublishedwork)abouttheexactnatureofthe‘newscience’foundedbyBoppandaboutthecontinuitybetweenBopp’sworkandtheworkofhiscontemporaries.1TwoSaussures?AnumberofquestionsariseforthemodernreadertrainedtothinkofSaussureasthefounderofgenerallinguisticsor,morespecifically,astheauthorofthatposthumousCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(1916)whichisoftenseenasmarkingthebeginningofgeneralortheoreticallinguistics.IfSaussurewasinfactaprofessorofSanskritandIndo-Europeanlanguagesformostofhislife,ifpracticallyallthathepublishedofhisownvolitionduringhislifetimeconcernedhistoricalandcomparativelinguistics,whatisthelink,ifany,betweenthesetwosortsofactivities?IsittruethatthereweretwoSaussures,asthetitle(thoughnotthecontent)ofafamouspaper(Redard,1978a)maysuggest?TheCoursiswellknown,butinitspublishedformitwasnotwrittenbySaussure.Wemustfocusontheworkactuallypublished.Whatwasitabout?Howinnovativewasit?Howimportant?Howmuchofit,ifany,survived?Hownecessaryisitforthecurrentpractitionersofthesubjecttogobacktotheoriginalpublications?Andaboveall,howdiditfitwiththecontemporarybeliefs?AnanswerisnoteasybecausewhatinSaussure’stimewastheobvioussubjectmatteroflinguisticsiscurrentlythepreserveofasmallandhighlyspecialisedgroupofscholars.Somebackgroundisnecessary.Nineteenth-centurylinguisticsTheveryconceptoflinguisticsasauniversitydisciplineisanoveltyofthenineteenthcentury.Initselfthisisnotsurprising.ThenineteenthcenturysawCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics11thebeginningoftheinstitutionalisationofacademicdisciplinesaswenowknowthem,aswellastheidentificationandsometimescreationofanum-berofnewdisciplines.InmostinstancestheGermanuniversitiesservedasamodelandtrend-setters,notleastbecausetheyhadintroducedtheconceptofauniversitydedicatedtoresearchaswellastoteaching.Researchinvolvedspe-cialisation.WhenSaussurestartedtostudyattheUniversityofLeipzigin1876heeitherattendedorcouldhaveattendedseminarsandlecturesbyamultitudeofspecialists:GeorgCurtius(1820–85)wasineffectteachingIndo-Europeanandthehistoricalgrammaroftheclassicallanguages;AugustLeskien(1840–1916)wasteachingSlavicandIndo-European;KarlBrugmann(1849–1919),whowastobecomeoneofthemajorIndo-Europeanists,wasinLeipzigfrom1873,asPrivatdozentfrom1877andlater(1887)returnedasafullprofessorofIndo-Europeanlinguistics.Thelistcouldcontinue.Suchaconcentrationofspecialists,eachoneofwhomatthetimewouldhavebeencalledaSprach-wissenschaftler‘linguist’(andnowwouldbelabelledIndo-Europeanist),isremarkableandwouldhavebeenunthinkablefiftyyearsearlier(itisdoubt-fulthatatthatstageasmany‘professional’linguistsexistedinthewholeofGermany).Eveninthe1880sitwasprobablyunthinkableoutsideGermany,thoughthenewconceptofresearchuniversitywasbeginningtoprevailinEuropeandtheUSA.Itmaybeusefultomentionthatintheirspecialisedfieldallofthesescholarsproducedworkwhichisstillknownandusednowadays(seeMorpurgoDavies,1998;Auroux,2000).TextualandlinguisticstudiesThelinguistsofthetimewerenottheoreticiansbuthadtohaveeruditionandscholarship.AswellaslinguiststheycouldbemedievalistslikeBrauneandhiscontemporaryEduardSievers(1850–1932),whoweremorethancapableofeditingOldEnglishorOldHighGermanorOldNorsetexts,ortheycouldbeclassicistslikeGeorgCurtius,whoalsolecturedonGreekandLatinlitera-ture.AllofthemknewGreek,LatinandsometimesHebrewfromtheirschooldaysandmostofthemhadstudiedSanskritatuniversityaswellastheancientGermaniclanguages.Allofthemhadtobecompetenttextualandliteraryschol-arsbecausethedatathattheyneededwerefoundinancienttexts(inscriptions,papyri,manuscripts)whichmadesenseonlywithincertainculturalframeworkswhichthereaderhadtounderstand.Thestudyandunderstandingofthesetextscouldbe,andoftenwas,anendinitself,butSaussure’steachersorcolleaguesinLeipzigmainlywantedtousethemasasourceoflinguisticdata.Theaimwastounderstandandexplainthedevelopmentofanancientlanguagefromtheperiodofthefirstevidencetotheperiodinwhichitwasbestknown.Toexplain,inthiscontext,mostlymeanttoaccountfortheirregularitiesinthelaterphasesofthelanguagethroughthereconstructionofsoundchangesandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n12AnnaMorpurgoDaviesmorphologicalinnovationswhichhadalteredtheearlierstateofaffairs.Totakethesimplestpossibleexample:inclassicalLatinanaccusativelikeorator-em¯‘orator’belongedwiththenominativeorator,butifsowhydidanaccusativelikehonor-em¯‘honour’correspondtoanominativehonos¯?Thisquestionwasansweredpointingoutthathonor-em¯derivedfromanearlierunattested*honos-em¯whichwastheoriginalaccusativecorrespondingtothenominativehonos¯.Butwhyhad*honos-em¯beenreplacedbyhonorem?HeretheanswerwasthatinLatinatsomestage(whichcouldbedocumented)allintervocalics-soundshadbeenreplacedby[r](thesocalledrhotacism).2Inotherwords,theoriginalformsorator,oratorem¯;honos,*hon¯osem¯hadadegreeofmor-phologicalregularitywhichtheirlaterdescendantshadlost,becauseofsoundchange.Somewhatlatertheregularitywasreintroducedthroughthecreationofanewnominativehonor,formedinordertomatchtheindirectcasesandtheregularityoftheorator:oratorem¯pattern.Thisassumptionalsoallowedthelinguisttolinkthenewlyformedhonorwiththeadjectivehonestus(theoriginal-s-ofhonos¯-waspreservedbeforeaconsonant)andinitsturntheetymologicallinkbetween‘honest’and‘honour’,whichwasinthiswaynotguessedatbutdemonstrated,couldleadtoaseriesofassumptionswhichwereimportantforanunderstandingofRomancultureanditsdevelopment.Butformostlinguists,andparticularlyforthoseoftheearliergenerations,theaimwasmainlycomparative:tocomparetheancientphasesreachedthroughthissortofanalysiswiththeearliestphasesofrelatedlanguagesandtrytodefinethepositionofthelanguageinthefamilytowhichitbelonged,whileatthesametimereconstructing,thankstocomparison,bothitsimmediateantecedentsandthemoreremoteparentlanguage.ThecomparativemethodInthelastdecadesofthenineteenthcenturyfewlinguistswouldhavehesitatedtosaythatthegreatdiscoveryoftheirdisciplinewaswhatwenowcallthecomparativemethod.Throughitsapplicationitwaspossibletodemonstrate(ratherthanguess)thatsomelanguagesbelongedtothesamelinguisticfamilyandtodefinetheirdegreeofkinship.Thelinguisticfamilytreewasmeanttoindicatewhichlanguagesbelongedtothesamefamilybutalsomarkedthetypeofrelationshipasdefinedbythedifferentwaysinwhichthetree’sbranchesweredrawn.Inthethirdquarterofthecenturyithadbecamepossibletorecon-struct–obviouslywithahighdegreeofapproximation–someoftheactualformsoftheparentlanguage,evenifthisbelongedtoaperiodearlierthantheinventionofwriting.Thisisthestageatwhichwebegintofindformslike*akvasas¯whichwastakentobetheclosestpossibleapproximationtotheIndo-Europeanfor‘horses’(nominativeplural)andtheantecedentofSanskritasv´as¯,Gr.hippoi,Lat.equ¯ı.InthefirstpartofthecenturyithadbeenassumedthatCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics13comparisonpermitteddistinctioninindividuallanguagesbetweeninnovationsandpreservations,andtheemphasishadbeenonmorphologicalanalysisandsegmentationbutnotonphonology.Bythetimetheactualformsbegantobereconstructed(eventuallywithanasteriskwhichindicatedthattheywerenotattested)itbecameimperativetomakehypothesesabout(a)thestructureofthephonologicalsystemofthereconstructedparentlanguage,(b)thephonologicaldevelopmentwhichaccountedforthedifferencesbetweenthereconstructedsystemandtheattestedsystems.Thesemayseemparochialproblems–whyshouldweworrywhetherIndo-Europeanhadavocalicsystemwhichincludedfiveshortvowels[a,e,o,i,u]likeLatinorjustthree[a,i,u]likeSanskrit?OrgiventhatnobodydisputedthatLatinsequitur,‘hefollows’GreekhepetaiandSanskritsacateallcamefromthesameoriginalroot,wasitworthwhiletodiscusswhetheroriginallythesecondconsonantwas[k],[p]oradifferentconsonant?Infacttheproblemwasmoresubstantialthanitwouldappearatfirstsightandtherewereanumberofpointsatstake.Supposeforinstancethattheverb‘tofollow’wasreconstructedwithaninternal[p]asinGreek.ThiswouldautomaticallyspeakagainsttheolderviewthatalltheserelatedlanguageswerederivedfromSanskritsincethe<-c->ofSanskritwouldthenreflectaninnovation;thesamecouldbesaidforLatin<-qu->.Ontheotherhand,theinitial[s]sharedbySanskritandLatinwaslikelytobeinheritedandspokeagainstGreek[h]beingoriginalandinitsturnagainstGreekbeingtheparentlanguage.Latincouldthenbestrepresenttheoriginalform,ifweacceptedthat
asoundlike[kw]yielded[p]inGreekand,i.e.[t]inSanskrit.Butinotherinstances(e.g.Sanskritbhar-‘tocarry’,Greekpher-,Latinfer-)therewereverygoodreasonstoassumethattheoriginalformofthefirstconsonantwasnotlikethatofLatinandwasmorelikelytobelikethatofSanskrit.Thistypeofdiscussion,ifconductedseriously,eventuallyprovidedademon-strationofwhathadbeenarguedmainlyonmorphologicalevidence,namelythattheparentlanguagecouldnotbeidentifiedwithanyoftheattestedlan-guages.Thehistoricalconsequenceswereimportant;iftheparentlanguagehadtobeidentifiedwithSanskritwewouldhavehadtoassumemovementsofpeoplefromIndiatotheWest;ifitwasidentifiedwithLatin,fromtheWesttoIndia.Butthelinguisticconsequencesofthecorrectreconstructionswereimpor-tanttoo.ThroughthereconstructionofIndo-European,theirparentlanguage,languageslikeGreekortheIndiclanguagesortheRomancelanguagesbecamelanguageswithahistoryofmorethan4,000years.Itwasnowbecomingpos-sibletodispelsomeoftheoldpreconceptions:forinstance,theviewcherishedbytheEnlightenmentthatlanguagesimprovedinrationalitywithtime,butalsotheoppositeview,supportedbyRomanticism,thattheearliestphasesofsomelanguageshadalevelofperfectionwhichwaslaterfollowedbydecayandthatchange(i.e.decay)didnotbelongtotheearlyphases.Inotherwords,acorrectCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n14AnnaMorpurgoDaviesreconstructionofIndo-European,bynowtakenaspilotstudyforsimilarana-lysesofotherlanguagefamilies,wasnotmerepastimeorpedantry;itcouldaddontheonehandtoourknowledgeofhistory,ontheothertoourunderstand-ingofthemainfeaturesoflanguagedevelopment.Italsobecamepossibletorecognisepatternsofdevelopmentwhichcouldnothavebeenidentifiedbefore.Oneoftheassumptionswhichwasacquiringcredibilityinthe1870sconcernedtheregularityofsoundchange.AsSaussurewastonoteatalaterstage([1903]1960:25),itwasastonishingthatifasound[x]changedinto[y]inacertainwordandinacertainperiod,inthesameperiodthatsound[x]wouldalsochangeinto[y]inallotherwordswhereitoccurredinthesameenvironment.Andyetitwasbecomingclearinthemidstofviolentacademicdisagreementsthatthewholeofcomparativeandhistoricallinguisticswasfoundedonthatassumption.3TheyoungSaussureSomuchforthebackground.WhentheyoungSaussurearrivedinLeipzigtopursuehisdoctoralstudiesinOctober1876hewasnotyetnineteenbuthewasnotignorantoflinguisticwork.Inhisveryearlyteenshehadbeenseducedbythe‘paleontological’reconstructionsofaneighbourandfamilyfriend,AdolphePictet,theauthoroftwovolumesofOriginesindo-europeennes´(1859–63):‘TheideathatwiththehelpofoneortwoSanskritsyllables–sincethatwasthemainideaofthebookandofallcontemporarylinguistics–onecouldreconstructthelifeofpeoplewhohaddisappeared,inflamedmewithanenthusiasmunequalledinitsna¨ıvet´e’(Saussure,[1903]1960:16).AttheageoffourteenandahalfhehadwrittenandgiventoPictetalengthyessay(Saussure,[1872]1978)inwhichhetriedtodemonstratethatitwaspossibletobringbackallbasicGreek,LatinandGermanrootstoapatternofthetypeConsonant+Vowel+Consonantwheretheconsonantsaredefinedaseitherlabials,ordentalsorgutturals.Astrikingcharacteroftheessay,inspiteofthena¨ıvet´eand,onemayevensay,absurdityofitsassumptionsandconclusions,istheimmenseclarityofargumentationandtheprofessionalstyleinwhichitiswritten.In1874SaussurestartedtoteachhimselfSanskritusingBopp’sSanskritgrammarandbegantoreadsometechnicalliterature(worksbyBoppandCurtius);oneyearattheUniversityofGenevaalsogavehimtheexperienceofattendingacoursebysomeonewhowasdefactorepeatingwhathehadheardfromGeorgCurtiusinLeipzigthepreviousyear(Saussure,[1903]1960:20).RoundthattimehealsojoinedtheSociet´edelinguistiquedeParis´(foundedin1866)andbegantosendinshortarticles.Inotherwords,theLeipzigyearswereprecededbyextensiveself-teaching.EvenbeforeenteringtheGymnasiuminGenevahehadnoticedthatthecontrastbetweenformslikeGreektetag-metha‘wearearrayed’andGreektetakh-atai‘theyarearrayed’,ifcomparedtothatbetweenlego-methaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics15‘wesay’andlego-ntai‘theysay’,ledtotheconclusionthatafteraconsonant-ntaihadbeenreplacedby-ataiandtotheassumptionthatinthatpositionGreek-a-couldbeareplacementforthe-n-ofearlierGreekorProto-Greek(Saussure,[1903]1960:18).SaussureinLeipzigandtheM´emoireSaussurewasinLeipzigforlessthantwoyearsbeforemovingforashortwhiletoBerlin.DuringthisperiodandinthepreviousyearhewroteanumberofthingsincludingfourarticlesonIndo-European,GreekandLatinmatters,allpublishedintheMemoiresdelaSoci´et´edelinguistiquedeParis´(vol.3,1977),andalengthyaccountofPictet’sworkfortheJournaldeGeneve`1878(Saussure,1922:391–402).InDecember1878hismasterpieceappeared,the300-pagemonographentitledMemoiresurlesyst´emeprimitifdesvoyellesdans`leslanguesindo-europeennes´(publishedbyTeubneranddatedLeipsick[sic]1879).4OneofthegreatestFrenchlinguists,AntoineMeillet,lateroncalleditthemostbeautifulbookofcomparativegrammareverwritten(Meillet,[1913–14]1938:183);thejudgementisstillvalid.ItremainedtheonlyfullbookthatSaussureeverpublished.LouisHavet,professorofLatininParis,whohadagreedtowriteabriefreview,endedtakingafullpageoftheTribunedeGeneve`andexplainedinalettertotheauthorthatoncehehadreadandunderstoodthebookhewasbowledoverbyitsnoveltyanditsimportance(cf.Redard,1978a:30).Thereviewendedbystatingthatthebookwaslikelytoleadtoarenewalofpartofthedisciplineandthatmuchcouldbeexpectedofitsauthorwhowasstillonlytwenty-oneyearsofage.(SeeHavet[25/2/1879]inRedard,1978b.)TheIndo-Europeanistwhorereadsthebooktodayexperiencesaseriesofdifficultiesbecauseofdifferentterminologyanddifferentconventions,butfindsthetaskmucheasierbecausemostoftheconclusionshavebecomepartoftheacquiredknowledgeinthefield;thefirstreactionisstillstunnedadmiration.IsthismasterpiecetheresultofthetrainingthatSaussurehadreceivedinLeipzig?Saussurehimself([1903]1960:15f.)explainedthat,thougheveryonewouldnormallyassumethathiswork,writtenandpublishedinLeipzigbyaLeipzigstudent,wastheproductoftheLeipzigschool,infactitwaswritteninsemi-isolationwithouthelpandwithoutvisiblesignsofinfluencebyhisteachersorcontemporaries.Thisstatementwillhavetobereconsidered,butfirstwemustmentionwhatLeipzigmeantatthetimeforpeopleinthesubject.LeipzigandtheneogrammariansTheuniversitywasjustlyfamousinanumberoffields.Incomparativelinguis-ticsitwasintheforefront.GeorgCurtiushadmoreorlesssingle-handedlypersuadedtheclassiciststhattheyhadmuchtolearnfromserioushistoricalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n16AnnaMorpurgoDaviesstudiesofbothGreekandLatin;agroupofyoungscholarshadcongregatedroundhimandhiscourseswereattendedbymorethan200students.Inthemid1870s,however,thingswerechangingandtherewasexcitementallround.TheSlavistAugustLeskien,muchyoungerthanCurtius,hadpersuadedanumberofadvancedstudents,youngassistantsandPrivat-Dozententhatanewmethod-ologywasneeded;thetitleofJunggrammatikergiventothisgroup(partlyinjest)stuckasalsodidthemistranslation‘neogrammarians’,whichmissedthepointofthejoke.Theyargued–vociferously–thattheIndo-Europeanistshadtolearnfromthoseworkingonmoremodernlanguagesandthatthestudyoflanguagechangetookpriorityoverthatoflanguagecomparison.Theyadoptedadualisticapproachtolanguagechange:phoneticchangehappeneduncon-sciously,independentlyofthewillofthespeakers,andaccordingtoregular‘laws’whichadmittedofnoexceptions;morphologicalchangewasheavilyinfluencedby‘analogy’:thespeakersreintroducedregularityinthegrammar,remodellingformsoneachother.Thesetwotypesofchangeappliedtoallperiodsandnot,aspreviouslysupposed,onlytotheperiodoflinguisticdecaywhichfollowedtheperfectionofthereconstructedparentlanguage.Inotherwordsthelinguisthadtoadoptauniformitarianapproachandstudythemoti-vationofchangeonthebasisofmoderndatainordertoreconstructwhathadhappenedinthepast.Alltheseassumptionsandbeliefs–uniformitarian-ism,exceptionlesssoundlaws,importanceofwhathadpreviouslybeencalledfalseanalogy,priorityofhistoryovercomparison,concernforrecentphasesoflanguage,extensivemethodologicaldiscussions–addedastheyweretoextensiveclaimsofnoveltyandcriticismofthepast,wereboundtoirritate.Curtiusandmostscholarsofthepreviousgenerationdidnotreactfavourably.InLeipzig,someofthebrightestyoungscholars–Brugmann,Osthoff,HermannPaul(1846–1921)–becametheleadersofthenewmovement.Theirmanifestodidnotappearuntil1878,whenOsthoffandBrugmann,afteraquar-relwithCurtius,foundedanewperiodicalwhichwasprefacedwithalengthymethodologicalstatement(OsthoffandBrugman,1878),5butbetween1875and1876anumberofbooksandarticlesappearedwhich,evenwhentheywerenotbycard-carryingneogrammarians,alteredconsiderablysomeoftheprevi-ouslyacceptedreconstructionswhileatthesametimecontributingtodefinethenewmethod(Verner,1875;H¨ubschmann,1875;Leskien,1876;Brugman,1876a,1876b,etc.;cf.Hoenigswald1978).Saussurewastooyoungtocountasoneoftheneogrammarians,evenifhehadwishedto,butinanycasehekepthimselfseparatefromaset-up–‘lec´enacledesdocteurs’–whichhedidnotfindsympathetic.However,inspiteofthislatenthostility,itislikelythathewouldhaveapprovedofthesubstanceoftheintellectualshift,evenifnotoftheformthatittook.AtthetimewhenhewrotetheMemoire´hewascompletelyaufaitwiththeconcreteresultsreachedbyLeskienandhisfollowersintheirworkaboutIndo-EuropeanCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics17andlargelyacceptedtheirconclusions.Ifso,whatistheoriginalityoftheMemoire´?ScopeandnoveltyoftheM´emoireThebookconcernsthevocalismofIndo-European;ontheonehandthisreferstothevowelsthatwecanreconstructfortheparentlanguage,ontheothertothephenomenaofvocalicalternationwhichmarkgrammaticalcontrasts,theso-calledAblautorvocalicapophony(seebelow),itsfunctionanditsorigin.AnachronisticallyitcouldbestatedthatthebookconcernsthephonologyandmorphophonologyofreconstructedIndo-Europeanandthederivedlanguages.SaussurestatesattheoutsetthathismainconcerniswhatiscalledtheIndo-Europeana,butthediscussiongraduallymakesclearthatthewholevocalicsystemhasbeenthefocusofattention.Inotherwordsitisnotonesoundwhichisdiscussedbutawholephonologicalsystem,itscontrasts,itshierarchiesanditsmorphophonemicfunctioning.Thenoveltyismanifold.Atthatmomentintimethewholesubjectwasinastateofcompleteflux.Oddbeliefshadbeeninheritedfromthebeginningofthecenturyandfromthepreviouscenturyandwereoccasionallyfoughtagainstbutinadesultoryway.(OnAblautandonthehistoryofthereconstructionofIndo-EuropeanvocalismseeMorpurgoDavies,1998;Pedersen,1962;Benware,1974;Mayrhofer,1981,1983.)Afewofthesebeliefsarenowlistedinnoparticularorder,mixingtechnicalandlesstechnicalassumptions:(a)The‘perfect’orfundamentalvowels,itwassometimesargued,were[a,i,u];itseemedtofollowthattheparentlanguage,whichwastakentobemoreperfectthanitsdescendants,couldonlyhave[a,i,u].(b)ThevocalicsystemofSanskritwasbasedon[a,i,u];consequentlyitwasalltooeasytoassumethattheparentlanguageonlyhad[a,i,u].Ifso,themorecomplexsystem[a,e,o,i,u]ofsomeEuropeanlanguages,includingGreekandLatin,wasduetoaninnovation,i.e.toasplitof[a]into[a,e,o].Itwasnotclearhowthisinnovationcouldhaveoccurred;orwhatformsofconditioninghaddeterminedthesplit.(c)Itwasoftenstatedthattheconsonantschangedaccordingtorecognisablepatternsbutthedevelopmentofvowelswasentirelyarbitrary;consequentlywhilelanguagesderivedfromthesameparentshowedregularconsonantalcorrespondencesbetweenrelatedwords(cf.Latintu¯vs.Englishthou,Latintres¯vs.Englishthree,etc.),thecorrespondencesbetweenvowelsseemedtobeunpredictable(cf.Latinpes¯vs.E.foot,Latinse-men¯vs.E.seed).(d)TheIndo-EuropeanlanguagesshowedtracesofvocalicalternationsusedtoindicategrammaticaldistinctionsasinEnglishdrive/droveorinGreekeleipon‘Iwasleaving’,elipon‘Ileft’.Thisso-calledAblaut(thetechnicaltermwhichJacobGrimmmadestandard)wasmoreprominentintheearlierCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n18AnnaMorpurgoDaviesphasesoftheIndo-Europeanlanguagesandwastreatedintheworkoftheearlycomparativistsasahallmarkofperfection.Somescholarshadevenarguedthatithadadirectlinkwithmeaning:weakeningofthevowel(asinGreek-lip-vs.-leip-)meantweakeningofmeaning.(e)TheIndiangrammarians,followedbytheEuropeanscholars,hadunder-stoodtheSanskritAblautasbasedonsuccessiveadditionsofan-a-voweltotheroot(therootoftheverb‘tomake’couldappearaskr-,kar-,kar¯-).IfthiswasalsotheIndo-Europeanpattern,alternationslikethoseofGreeklip-,leip-,loip-fortheverbmeaning‘toleave’couldnotgobacktotheparentlanguage.Moreover,eveninSanskrittherewereothertypesofalter-nations.InformslikeSanskritpuna-mi¯‘Ipurify’/pavi-tum‘topurify’/pu-ta¯-‘purified’allsortsofvocalicalternationsoccurred.Thiswasoftenignored.Eachoneoftheseassumptions,andtherewerenumerousothers,carriedaheavyideologicalbaggage.Eachcouldbetackledfromapurelytechnicalviewpointprovidedthatthelinguistwasnotmesmerisedbytheearlierbeliefs,buteachalsoaddedtothegeneralconfusion.WhichvowelscouldbeattributedtoIndo-Europeanandhowthesevowelswereexploitedtoindicategrammaticalcontrastsremainedobscure.Thequestionofthenature,roleandoriginofAblautwasalsocontroversial.Themid1870ssawsomenewdevelopments.TheassumptionthatSanskrit[a]ascontrastedwith[e,o,a]oftheEuropeanlanguageswasoriginalwasnolongertakenforgrantedbuttherewasnoagreementaboutthecorrectreconstruction.Atthesametimetherangeofreconstructedvowelsincreased.Itwasfirstsuggested–byHermannOsthoff–thatIndo-EuropeanlikeSanskrithadavocalic[r](cf.thefirstsyllableofBrno)andpossiblyavocalic[l](cf.thefinalsyllableofEnglishpeople),evenifmostdaughterlanguageshaddevelopedasupportingvowelnexttoit(Gr.ar/ra,Lat.or/ur,etc.).Inadaringarticlepublishedin1876,whichwasthemaincauseofthequarrelwithCurtius,KarlBrugmann(1876a),arguedthatIndo-Europeanalsohadvocalic[n]and[m](cf.thefinalsyllablesofGermanleben,etc.)whichinmostlanguageshaddevelopedsupportingvowelsandsometimeslostthenasalelement(cf.thelastsyllableofSanskritsapta‘7’,Greekhepta,Latinseptem,Gothicsibun).OnhisarrivalinLeipzigtheyoungSaussurewasaskedhisviewsaboutBrugmann’sdiscovery.HewasforcefullyremindedthathehadmadethesameobservationwhilestillatschoolandfounditdifficulttoacceptBrugmann’spriority,thoughhehadnopublicationwhichsupportedhisclaim(Saussure,[1903]1960).Thediscoveryofvocalicliquidsandnasals[r,(l),m,n]wasimportantnotonlybecauseitaddedtothenumberofreconstructedphonemesbutalsobecauseitaccountedforsomeoftheoddcorrespondences.IfwefoundLatin[e]corre-spondingtoGreek[e]inLat.fero¯‘Icarry’vs.Gr.phero¯,whydidtheending-emofaccusativesingularine.g.Latinpatr-em‘father’correspondtoGreek-aCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics19intheaccusativesingularpater-a?Brugmann(andSaussurebeforehim)recon-structedavocalicnasalwhichturnedinto-eminLatinandinto-ainGreek.Theolderviewwasthatthedevelopmentofvowelswasunpredictable,butinthismannerthewaywasopentoestablishingregularcorrespondencesbetweenvowelsaswellasbetweenconsonants.However,anumberofproblemswerestillnotsolved.ThestrikingcharacteroftheMemoire´isthatthetwenty-year-oldSaussuretacklesallthesedifficultiesatonceaswellasanumberofmoresubstantialproblemswhichhadnotyetemergedinthediscussion.Thereissurenessoftouchandbothwillingnessandabilitytointegrateintoanewsystemseparateconclusionswhichhadjustbeenreachedandweredeemedtobetentativeevenbytheirauthors.Thearticlesquotedandonwhichpartoftheargumentisbuiltareoftennomorethanoneortwoyearsold.Havetcomplainedthatthebookwasdifficulttofollowandrequiredtoomuchofitsreaders.Butthisisnotbecauseoflackofclarity(onthecontrary);itissimplybecausethereadermustbeaufaitwiththestateoftheart,withwhatwasknownandwhatwasbeingdiscussed.ThatiswhymodernIndo-Europeanists,oncetheyhavelearnedtorecognisesymbolsandterminologywhicharenowobsolete,findtheargumentationsoclear.TheyhaveabetterknowledgeofthestartingpointthanSaussure’scontemporariescouldhavehad.TheresultsoftheM´emoireTheconclusionsoftheMemoire´maybesummarisedbriefly,onceagainatthecostofsomeanachronism.ForSaussuretheIndo-Europeanparentlanguagehadan[e]andan[o]vowel(followingBrugmann,heusedthesymbolsa1anda2)whichmergedinSanskritbutweremostlypreservedinGreekandLatin;inadditionithadanumberofcoefficientssonantiques,i.e.resonants[i,u,r,(l),m,n]whichfunctionedasvowelsbetweenconsonantsandelsewhereandasconsonantsbetweenvowelsandinotherenvironments.Astudyofthebasicformofeachrootestablishedthatthisnormallyincludedan[e]vowelfollowedbyaconsonantorresonant;the[e]vowelregularlyalternatedwith[o]indifferentgrammaticalformsandwithno[e]or[o]vowelinotherforms(cf.Greekleip-,loip-,lip-‘leave’).Incontrastwithearlierassumptions,Saussureacceptstheviewthatthebasicformoftheroothas[e]andthat[e]islostwhentheaccentisdeplaced.Ifso,Ablaut(i.e.lossof[e])istheresultofpuresoundchangeandhasnosymbolicandsemanticvalue.Sofar,Saussureisbuildingonindividualconclusionswhichhadinonewayortheotherbeenstatedorhintedatbyothercontemporaryauthors,thoughneverinthecontextofacomprehensivestudyofroots,accentuationandAblaut.IfSaussurehadstoppedherein1878,hisbookwouldstillhavebeenanexceptionalachievement,buttherewasmoretocome.OneofthefundamentalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n20AnnaMorpurgoDaviesstepsistheobservationthataGreekrootofthetypeCei-,Ceu-,Cer-,etc.(C=anyconsonant)alternateswithCi-,Cu-,Cr-,etc.inexactlythesamecircum-stancesinwhicharootofthetypeCa¯-alternateswithCa-(Greekpha-mi¯‘Isay’,pha-men‘wesay’vs.Greekei-mi‘I(shall)go’,i-men‘we(shall)go’).ThroughskilfuluseofAblautalternationsandcomparativeevidence,Saus-sureshowsthatwehavetoreconstructforIndo-Europeananothercoefficientsonantique,A,whichwasdroppedafteraprecedingvowellengtheningit(andsometimeschangingitsquality),waslostbeforeanothervowelandinGreek,ItalicandGermanicbecame[a]betweenconsonants.InSanskritAwasreducedtoasoundwhicheventuallyemergedas[i].HencearootsuchasIndo-European*steA-‘stand’,appearsinSanskritasstha¯-andinbothGreekandItalicassta¯-,buttheparticiple/verbaladjectiveis*stA-tos´whichyieldsGreekstatos´,Latinstatus,Sanskritsthita-´.Onsimilargrounds,Saussurealsoidentifiedanothercoefficientsonantique,O,whichbetweenconsonantsappearedas[o]inGreekˇandinGreekandItalicchangedapreceding[e]or[o]into[¯o].ThelistofcoefficientssonantiquesnowincludedAandOaswellas[i,u,r,(l,)m,n].ˇThequestionofthephoneticvalueofAandOisstilldebated.Also,itisnotˇclearwhetherSaussurethoughtofthemasvowels(seeSzemer´enyi,1973)orresonants.Somefurtherdevelopmentsshouldalsobementioned.First,SaussurecouldnowexplainSanskritalternationssuchasthatoftheinfinitivepavi-tum‘topurify’vs.theverbaladjectivepu-ta-¯asderivingfrom*peuA->pavi-vs.*puA->pu-¯,withthestandardvocalicalternationbetween[e]andabsenceof[e].Hecouldgoevenfurther,assumingthattheSanskritinfinitivepari-tum‘tofill’derivedfrom*perA-andtheverbaladjectivepur-ta¯-derivedfrom*prA->pr.¯->pur.¯Inotherwords,A(andO)lengthenedapreceding[e]and[o]butˇalsoaprecedingvocalic[i,u,r,l,m,n]andalongresonantlike*r.¯yieldedur¯inSanskrit.Secondly,someoftheapparentlydifferentformationsofSanskritverbalpresentscouldbebroughtbacktothesamebasictype.TheIndiangrammariansdistinguishedaclassofpresentsoftheyunakti‘hejoins’type(classVII)fromaclassofthepunati¯‘hepurifies’type(classIX).Therootstheyquotedfortheseverbswereyug-‘join’andpu¯-‘purify’.Saussureshowedthattheformationshadidenticalorigins.Anoriginalroot*yeug-/*yug-formsthepresentfromastem*yu-ne-g-(->yunak-ti)withanasalinfix,anoriginalroot*peuA-/*puA-alsoformsapresentwitha-ne-infix,pu-ne-A-(->puna-ti¯).Everythingbecomesclear;theshort[u]ofpunati¯vs.thelong[¯u]ofpu¯-(<*puA-),thelongaofpunati¯(<*eA)vs.theshortainyunakti.Fromthepointofviewofpresentformation,-A-and-g-fulfilparallelfunctionsandinsteadoftwodifferenttypesofAblautandtwodifferentverbalclasseswearedealingwithamuchsimplifiedmorphology.ItisworthpointingoutthatSaussure’sreconstructionsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics21werenotbasedonanyphoneticconsiderationandnoattemptwasmadetodefinephoneticallyAandO.ˇReceptionandimpactoftheM´emoireThelaterhistoryofSaussure’sachievementsiswellknownandhasoftenbeenrelated.Theconclusionshadpartialacceptancebythecontemporarieswhoneverthelessthoughtthattheywerealltoomathematicalandtooabstracttocarryfullconviction.Thereweresomefirmrejections,particularlybyoneoftheleadingneogrammarians,HermannOsthoff,therewasalsohereandthereaconspiracyofsilenceandsometacittakingoverofanumberofconclusionssometimeswithoutacknowledgement.Thesilenceandtherejectionhaveper-hapsbeenexaggerated(seeRedard,1978a;Mayrhofer,1981:26ff.;Gm¨ur,1986);however,theunpublisheddocumentswhichbecameavailableovertheyears(letters,notes,etc.)madeclearthatSaussurefeltthatGermanscholar-shiphadbeenhostileandhisworkhadnotbeenfullyunderstood.Thelatterisindeedtrue.In1898WilhelmStreitberg(1864–1925),asecond-generationneogrammarian,wroteasmuchtoBrugmannregrettingthatithadtakenhimsolongtounderstandSaussure(Villani,1990:5).OfcoursetherewereflawseveninSaussure’sargumentandslowlythesecametothefore.Alist,andacorrectlist,isofferedbyStreitbergintheverysympatheticmemoireofSaus-surewrittenafterhisdeath(Streitberg,1915;cf.Szemer´enyi,1973:4f.),butsolutionswereavailableandwereindeedfound.ThefirstrealconfirmationthatSaussurewasontherighttrackcamein1927,wellafterhisdeath,whenJerzyKuryl
owiczrecognisedthatthenewlydecipheredHittite,theoldestattestedIElanguage,hadaconsonantalphoneme()whichwasetymologicallyderivedfromSaussure’sA.Conclusionsreachedlargelyonthebasisofinter-nalreconstructionwereconvalidatedbynewlyfoundcomparativedata.Atthesametimeanumberoffollowers,M¨oller,Kuryl
owicz,BenvenisteandCunycontinuedSaussure’swork(Szemer´enyi,1973;Mayrhofer,1981).Whatisnowcalledlaryngealtheoryhasitsfoundationsinthetheoriesaboutvocalicalter-nationsdemonstratedinSaussure’sMemoire´,butthetheory’sdefinitiveformisnotyetsettledandithasnotyetwontotalacceptance.Nevertheless,inthelasttwentyorthirtyyearsfewseriousscholarshavedisputeditsbasictenets.(OnthereceptionoftheMemoire´seeSaussure,1972;Szemer´enyi,1973;Redard,1978a;Mayrhofer,1981;Gm¨ur,1986.)ComparativemethodandinternalreconstructionTheMemoire´isfullofunbelievableriches–mostofwhich,sometimesinanalteredform,havebecomepartofwhatwenowfindinourbasichandbooks;CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n22AnnaMorpurgoDaviessomearestilltoberediscovered.Evennow,orperhapsmorenowthanbefore,thebeautyofthewayinwhichtheargumentdevelopsisoverpowering.Thereisaconstantinterplaybetweentwodifferentmethodsoflinguisticcomparisonandreconstruction:ontheonehand,thestandardcomparativemethodwhichwasreachingatthatstageitsmostadvancedformandwasbasedonthephonologicalcomparisonofsemanticallysimilarwordsinanumberofrelatedlanguagesandtheidentificationofregularsoundcorrespondences;ontheotherhand,internalreconstruction,themethodthatdidnotreallyreceiveanameorwasnotfor-maliseduntilaftertheSecondWorldWar(MorpurgoDavies,1994).Apparentgrammaticalirregularitiescanbeexplainedpostulatingearliersoundchangesorthealterationofanearlierphonologicalsystem.SaussureasaschoolboyhadnaturallyusedthatmethodwhenhehaddecidedthattheparallelismbetweenGreeklego-methaandlego-ntai,ontheonehand,andtetag-methaandtetakh-atai,ontheother,spokeforaderivationof-ataifrom-ntai(seeabove).TheidentificationofAandOascoefficientsonantiquesisbasedontheparallelismˇbetweenformationswhichendinaresonant[i,u,r,m,n]andformationswhichendinAorO.Theterm‘internalreconstruction’ismuchlaterthanSaussurebutthemethodhadbeenusedbefore,evenifsporadically;nowhereelse,however,arethetwomethodssoexplicitlyandsoclearlylinkedandtosuchgoodeffect.BeforeandaftertheM´emoireApartfromunpublishedpapers,SaussurehadpublishedfourarticlesandtwoshortnotesbeforetheMemoire´aswellasPictet’sreview;theywereallstrictlytechnicalarticlesaboutveryspecificproblemsofIndo-Europeancomparisonandhistoricallinguistics.Oneofthese(Saussure[1877]1922:379ff.)givesusapreviewoftheMemoire´andcomesclosetooneofthegreatdiscoveries,madeatthesametimebyanumberofscholars,theso-calledPalatalgesetz,i.e.theobservationthatthealternationbetweenandinSanskritwordslikeka-‘who’,ca‘and’andcid‘what’provedthatSanskrit[a]reflectedtwodifferentoriginalphonemes,oneofwhichwascapableofpalatalisingapreceding[k](Mayrhofer,1983:137–42).AftertheMemoire,S´aussureconcentratedonhisdoctoraldissertationontheuseofthegenitiveabsoluteinSanskritwhichhesubmittedin1880andpublishedin1881;againMeilletnoticesthecontrastbetweenanarrowexerciseonalimitedsubjectandthebroadviewsoftheMemoire´,butdeMauro(Saussure,1972:330f.)stressestheimportanceoftheworkonsyntaxandofthesynchronicandcontrastiveapproach.ThebriefinterludeinBerlinhadallowedSaussuretolearnmoreSanskritandtohaveabriefmeetingwithWhitney(Joseph,1988),butitisdoubtfulthatithadmuchinfluenceonhim.AfterLeipzig,thepublicationoftheMemoire´andthedoctorate,SaussuremovedtoParis(seeSanders,thisvolume)wherehisclassesinGermanic,inthecomparativegrammarofGreekandLatin,andinCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics23Indo-Europeanlinguisticsingeneralhadanimmenseinfluence(seeMeillet’stestimonialinSaussure,1972:334ff.).EvenwhenhereturnedtoGenevain1891histeachingactivitymostlyconcernedSanskritandotherIndo-Europeanlanguages.Itisonlyin1906thathewasalsoentrustedwithteachinggenerallinguisticsandbeganhisthreecoursesinthesubject.IfwelookattheworkpublishedaftertheMemoire´andthedoctoraldissertation,wefindaverylargenumberofshortnotesintheMemoiresdelaSoci´et´edelinguistiquedeParis´,mostlydedicatedtoindividualetymologies(seeBouquet,2003:506ff).ThereareafewlongerarticleseitherinthesameperiodicalorinvolumesinhonourofscholarstowhominsomewaySaussurefeltindebted.Between1894and1896threelongpapers,onededicatedtoLeskien,areconcernedwithLithuaniandeclensionsandaccentuationandestablishthelawonaccentshiftwhichgoesunderthenameoflexSaussure(Collinge,1985:149ff.).Some,indeedmost,ofthisworkhasagainthesamelucidity,learningandoriginalityoftheMemoire´,butthereisnotthebreathlessexcitementofdiscoverywhichthetwenty-year-oldhadmanagedtoconvey.Inthelastfifteenyearsofhislife,justwhenhewasgivingthegeneralcourseswhichprovidedthematerialfortheCours,Saussurepublishedonlythreepapers(forthelastthreeFestschriftenmentionedabove).(SeeSaussure,1972;Streitberg,1915;Meillet,1938;Gm¨ur,1990andVallini,1978.)ThehistoriographicalproblemsLetusnowreformulateandsharpenthequestionsthatwewereasking.HowdifferentwasSaussure’shistoricalandcomparativeworkfromthatofhiscontemporaries?DidhereallyreachallhisconclusionsonhisownwithoutbeinginfluencedbyhisLeipzigteachers?Morespecifically,shouldhecountasoneoftheneogrammarians?Whatcontinuity,ifany,istherebetweenthecomparative-historicalworkandSaussure’stheoreticalwork,onceweallowforthefactthatthiswasnotpublishedbytheauthor?Lessimportantinmyviewisamuch(perhapstoomuch)debatedquestion.Whydidsomeonewho,likeSaussure,hadpublishedtwobooksbythetimehewastwenty-four‘dryup’sosignificantlyatalaterstage?Thequestionwillbereturnedtoattheend,notinthehopetosettleitbutbecauseitisrelevanttoanotherandmoreimportanthistoriographicalquestion.Saussure,histeachersandcontemporariesModerndiscussionabouttheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´hasoftenturnedtothequestionofthesourcesofitsmaintenets:theconceptofsign,thecontrastbetweensynchronyanddiachrony,l’arbitrairedusigne,etc.AnanalysisoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n24AnnaMorpurgoDaviescomparativeandhistoricalworkalsoraisesthequestionofsources,thoughinadifferentcontext.WritingtoStreitbergin1903,Saussure([1903]1960)waseagertounderlinethatmostoftheconclusionsreachedintheMemoire´werehisown.InalettertoStreitbergof28November1914(Villani,1990:29f.),KarlBrugmannpointedoutthattohisknowledgeSaussurehadneveropenlyacknowledgedanydependenceonhisLeipzigteachersandnotedthatinthereviewbyHavet,Saussure’steachersinLeipzigwerenotmentioned,astheywouldhavebeenforanyyoungGermanscholar.AccordingtobothBrugmannandSaussure[1903]1960:22ff.),thelatterhadgivenupBruckmann’sclassesinLeipzigbecausealltoooftenheheardpointswhichoverlappedwithwhathewantedtosayinhisbookandfeltawkwardindecidingwhatwashisandwhatwasBrugmann’s.However,whenSaussurewasmakinghispointabouttheindependenceofhisthoughtfromtheLeipzigscholarsingeneral,andtheJunggrammatikerinparticular,hewasinallinstancesspeakingaboutsomespecificindividualresults(theroleofA,thevocalicnasals,etc.)–hejustifieshisattitudesayingthathedidnotwanttobeaccusedofplagiarismandrelatesanepisodethatshowsthatBrugmannhadneverseriouslythoughtabouttheAblautalternationofthe-a/¯aˇtype,whichwasthelinchpinofSaussure’sowndiscoveries.Fortherest,heisendlesslyscrupulousinreferringtoGermanscholars;Villani(1990:9)followsVallini(1969)incountingintheMemoire´67referencestoBrugmannand90scholarsquoted,outofwhom83wereGerman.Thisfactperhapsexplainsthemisunderstanding.BrugmannwasofcourserightinsayingthatSaussurehadlearnedmuchfromhimandfromtheotherLeipzigscholars;somuchismorethanacknowledgedinthebibliographicalreferencesoftheMemoire´anditemergesclearlyfromthecontrastbetweentheinformation(orlackofinformation)containedinthefirstpaperspublishedintheMemoiresde´laSociet´edelinguistique´andthelaterones.YetwhetherSaussurehadlearnedthenewdataandnewtechniquesfromwrittenworksorfromwordofmouthremainsobscure.Ontheotherhand,Saussurewasobsessedbytheideaofpriorityandbythefearofbeingaccusedofplagiarism,allthemoresosinceheknewfullwellthatmostofhisnewviewsintheMemoire´werehisownevenwhen,asinthecaseofvocalicnasals,theyhadalreadybeenpublishedbyothers.BrugmanninhisturnwasrightinnotingthedifferencebetweenSaussure’ssilenceandthestandardsystemofacknowledgementstoteachersandcolleagueswhichappearedinallGermandissertations.AndindeedinahierarchicalsetupsuchasthatofGermanuniversities,thislackofconventionalproprietymusthavelookedarrogantandperhapsirritating.ButtheimportantpointisthatneitherSaussurenorBrugmannaretalkingabouttheoreticalormethodologicaldivergences;SaussureandOsthoffviolentlydisagreedaboutAblaut,butaslateas1914Brugmannclearlybelievedthatinthegreatneogrammarians’controversywhichsawCurtiusandtheoldergenerationattackedbyhimselfasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics25wellasLeskien,Osthoffandothers,Saussurewasontheirside.Thequestioniswhetherinfacthewas.Saussureasaneogrammarian?Afewprincipleswhichformedthemaintenetsoftheneogrammarianshavebeenlistedabove,andthelistmayperhapsberepeatedwithsomeadditions,albeitintelegraphicstyle:uniformitarianism,i.e.theassumptionthatthesamecausesdeterminedlanguagechangeatallstages;antiorganicism,i.e.rejec-tionoftheviewsheldbyAugustSchleicher(1821–68),andpartiallysharedbyGeorgCurtius,accordingtowhichlanguagewasanindependentorganismwhichdevelopedaccordingtolawsofitsownindependentlyofthespeakers;priorityoflinguistichistoryovercomparison;theneedtotestthehistoricalmethodonattestedratherthanreconstructedlanguages;theregularityofsoundchange;theimportanceofanalogy.Paradoxicallythe‘mechanical’soundlaws,stronglyproposedbytheneogrammariansintheirfightagainsttheirpredeces-sorsansweredtothesameneedaswasservedbySchleicher’sorganicism.BoththesoundlawsandSchleicher’sorganicismweremeanttoaccountforthoseregularformsoflinguisticchangewhichhappenedwithoutthespeakersbeingawareofthem.(Ontheneogrammariansseee.g.Jankowsky,1972,Einhauser,1989andGraffi,1988.)Ashasbeenseen,thereisnoreasontosupposethatSaussuredisagreedwithanyoftheseviews;indeedSaussure([1903]1960:15)praisesLeipzigasamajorcentreofIndo-Europeanlinguistics.LateroninthesametextSaus-surestatedthathedidnotconsideranalogyasaGermanmethodologicalnov-elty,sinceitwassomethingwhichhehadalwaysknownabout.Forhim‘lefait´etonnant’wasthephoneticfact,i.e.theregularityprinciple.‘Onemustapproachlinguistics,withouttheshadowofanobservationorathoughttoputonthesamefootingaphenomenonsuchasphoneticlaws–whichcannotbeobservedbyindividualexperience–andtheanalogicalactionwhicheveryonehasexperiencedsincechildhoodonhisownbehalf.Montremoutonnieret`edes´Allemands’(1960:24f.).InspiteoftheoutburstthisisenoughtoconfirmthatSaussureacceptedbothphoneticlawsandanalogy.Italsoshows,incidentally,thatSaussure,largelyself-taughtashewas,atthatstagehadnotgraspedtheimportanceofthefightforanalogy,whichwasinessenceauniformitarianandanti-organicisticfightbythosewhohadbeenbroughtuptobelievethat‘falseanalogy’didnotapplytotheearlieststagesoflanguageor,morecorrectly,ofIndo-European,andthatalllanguagechangewasunconsciousandpredeter-mined.TheconclusionmustbethatSaussuresharedmostoftheneogrammari-ans’assumptionsbutpresumably,asineverythingelse,hehadreachedmostofthemonhisown.Thereisonedifference,however,whichmustbestressed.TheJunggrammatikerseemedconvincedthattheirsetofprinciplesamountedtoaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n26AnnaMorpurgoDaviesfullyfledgedlinguistictheory,whereasSaussuredidnotdeludehimselfthattheirsetofprinciplesprovidedanythingevenvaguelysimilartoafulltheoryofhowlanguage(langage)works.Formsofcontinuity:Saussureas‘l’hommedesfondements’andlanguageasasystemWeaskedabovewhetherthereisalinkbetweenthehistoricalcomparativeworkoftheMemoire´andrelatedpapersontheonehandandthetheoreticalworkwhichissummarisedintheCoursontheother.Inotherwords,werethereoneortwoSaussures?EmileBenveniste,perhapstheonlylinguistwhocamenearertoSaussureinhisabilitytorethinkeverythingafreshandtomovebetweentheory,historyandreconstruction,calledSaussure‘l’hommedesfondements’wholookedforthegeneralcharacteristicsunderlyingthediversityofempiricaldata(Benveniste,1963:8).ItisindeedtruethattheMemoire´tacklesthefundamentalquestions:whatarethebasicdistinctivephonologicalelements?Howdotheyfunctioninthephonologicalandmorphologicalsystem?Kuryl
owicz(1978:7f.),oneofthegreatestIndo-Europeanistsofthefollowinggeneration,sawintheMemoire´thefirstappearanceofanewpointofview,thehierarchyprinciplewhicheven-tuallycametodominatemodernstructuralism;theelementsofalanguagedonotexistnexttoeachotherbutthankstoeachother.Watkins(1978:60ff.)drewattentiontothefactthatSaussureinlateryearsreferredtohisfirstbookastotheSystemedesvoyelles`:thereislittledoubtthatthehistoricalcomparativeworkbySaussureisdominatedbytheconceptsofsystem,ofdistinctivechar-acters,ofcontrast.ThisisindeedthefondementofwhichBenvenistespeaks.ItisofcoursealsotheleitmotivoftheCoursandofthetheoreticalwork.Reichler-B´eguelin(1990)hasbrilliantlyhighlightedthesimilaritiesbetweentheglottologicalessaywrittenbythefourteen-year-oldandtheMemoire´.Inthefirstcase,assheargues,Saussureaimsatshowingthattheexistingrootscanallbelinkedtoamuchsimplerunderlyingsystem;thereisanapparentevolutionaryassumption(thesimplerootsevolveintotheattestedones),butinfactwearedealingwithasortofachronicclassificationwhereastronglevelofabstraction(alllabialstreatedasonesound,etc.)producesa‘satisfactory’account.FortheMemoire´thepositionisdifferent.Incontrastwiththestandardviewaccordingtowhichtheparentlanguagehadan[a]vowelwhichintheEuropeanlanguagessplitintotwoorthreevowels,SaussurefollowsBrugmannandothersinassumingthatthetwoorthreevowelshadmergedinSanskrit.Theresultisaremarkablealterationofthemorphologyandmorphophonology;ifthetheoryofcoefficientsonantiquesisadded,i.e.ifweacceptSaussure’sconclusions,thenthemorphologyandthemorphophonology(thepatternofrootalternations)becomesimpleandcrystalclear.ThenewversionisbothCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics27historicallyvalid,i.e.assumptionsaremadeabouttheearlierexistenceofsur-faceformssuchasthosepostulated,andinasensesynchronicallyvalidinthatitcanprovideasetofsynchronicallyunderlyingforms;it‘explains’or‘accountsfor’thefunctioningofthesystem.ItisclearwhattheimportofthisisforthegeneralquestionofthetwoSaussures.Thediscoveryoffondementsturnsouttobeadiscoveryofunderlyingstructuresandunderlyingsystems.ThisisthecharacteristicoftheearlierandlaterpapersandoftheMemoire´.Butthisisalsothemethodthatwerecogniseinthetheoreticalwork.(CounteringtheaccusationsofatomismdirectedagainstSaussure’sconceptionofdiachronyseeSaussure,1972andReichler-B´eguelin,1980.)LinguisticdescriptionandterminologyThereismore.OneofthemostfamousstatementsleftunpublishedbySaussureisfoundinalettertoMeillet(Benveniste,1964:95),probablywrittenin1894whenhewasworkingonLithuanianaccentuation,andlamentingthefactthathis‘historicalpleasure’isconstantlyinterruptedbytheinadequacyofcurrentterminologyandthepressingneedtoreformit:‘Sanscessel’ineptieabsoluedelaterminologiecourante,lan´ecessit´edelareforme,etdemontrerpourcelaquelleesp`eced’objetestlalangueeng´en´eral,vientgˆatermonplaisirhistorique,quoiquejen’aiepasdepluschervoeuqueden’avoirpas`am’occuperdelalangueeng´en´eral.’Thisneedfordefinition,foraterminologywhichisactuallyconsistentandexplicit,istypicalofSaussure’smodusoperandiatallstages.Intheessaywrittenwhenhewasfourteen,hehadintroducedtwonewterms;thesameneedfora‘correct’terminologyemergesintheMemoire´andinallthehistorical-comparativepapers.ItisofcoursecharacteristicoftheCourstoo.SaussureandabstractanalysisThesystemicnatureofSaussure’shistoricalwork,itsemphasisonstructure,hasoftenbeenstressedandnaturallythishasbeenlinkedtotheexplicitcon-trastbetweensynchronyanddiachronyandtheassumptionthatanysystemicaccountoflanguagerequiresasynchronicstudy.However,alltoooftenthecon-cealedagendabehindsuchobservationsisthedesiretounderlinethecontrastbetweenSaussureandhiscontemporaries.Ontheonehandaretheatomisticneogrammariansortheirpredecessors,strictlyconcernedwithpettydetailsofdevelopmentsstudiedinisolation,ontheotherSaussure,themanwithaglobalvisionwhoexercisesitequallyinhishistoricalandhistheoreticalwork.Atleastfortheearlyperiodthisscenarioisduetoamisunderstanding.Thedistinctionbetweensynchronicanddiachroniciswellknown(e.g.inPaul’swork).Norwasthereanything‘atomistic’inworkslikethoseofVernerorBrugmannwhichaimedatreconstructinganearlierphonologicalsystemandthewayinwhichCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n28AnnaMorpurgoDaviesitoperated.SimilarlythereisnoformofatomismintheoreticalaccountssuchasthosebyHermannPaul,theauthorofthePrincipienderSprachgeschichte(1880)whichwasconsideredthebibleoftheneogrammarians.Onthecontrary,theprevailingpsychologismwasinessenceanti-atomistic.TherealdifferencebetweenSaussureandtheneogrammariansiselsewhere.Theneogrammarianswerefarmoreinterestedinquestionsofmethodandtheorythantheirimmediatepredecessors;indeedtheyhadnoisilyrequestedanexplicitaccountoftheprin-cipleswhichdeterminedhistoricalandcomparativework.Theirinsistenceonastrictadherencetotheregularityprinciplewasamongotherthingsarequestforaconsistentandexplicitdiscoveryprocedure.However,theywerefarlessawarethanSaussureofhowmuchtheytookforgrantedinlinguisticanalysis,andinmostinstancestheywerecontentwithadoptingthetraditionalanalysesanddescriptionswithoutchallengingthem.TheyalsodifferedfromSaussureintheirstyleofargumentationandintheirattitudetoabstraction.WhileintheMemoire´andelsewhereSaussurewaspreparedtoproduceananalysisofmorphologyandmorphophonemicsandthentestitonthedata–hencethemathematicalanddeductivestyleofhisprocedure–theneogrammariansmuchpreferredanexplicitlyinductiveapproach;theystartedwithlonglistsofdataandtriedtoidentifyanypatternsthatemerged.6AndwhileSaussure’sanalysisled,aswehaveseen,totheidentificationofunderlyingstructureswhichinasenseprovidedthat‘classificationlogique’ofthelinguisticfactswhichhewasaimingat,theneogrammarianswerenotpreparedtoacceptthatlevelofabstrac-tioneitherinlinguisticdescriptionorinthestudyoflinguisticdevelopment.AfinalpuzzleThelettertoMeilletquotedaboverevealsSaussure’sdissatisfactionwiththestateofthesubject;otherremarksinthesameletterandelsewherereiteratethesamesentiments.Thedissatisfactionisbothwiththestateofthesubjectand,onefeels,withhimself.HeexplainstoMeilletthathewillhavetowrite,withoutenthusiasmorpassion,abookwherehewillexplainwhythereisnotasingletermusedinlinguisticswhichhasanysense.Onlyafterthatwillhebeabletoreturntohistoricalwork.ItislikelythatweshallneverknowwhatexactlydeterminedSaussure’s‘thirtyyearsofsilence’(healthproblemsmayhaveplayedapart),butafurtherproblemshouldbementioned.Tojudgefromtheoddobservationsinlettersorbiographicalaccounts(suchastheletterof1903meantforStreitberg),Saussurefeltallhislifethathisworkwasnotunderstoodornotquotedornotappreciated.TobetoldbyH¨ubschmannthatBrugmannhaddiscoveredthevocalicnasals,whenheknewthathehaddonesowhenstillatschool,clearlyhurtevenaquarterofacenturyaftertheevent.TofindthatGustavMayerinhisGriechischeGrammatik(1880)useddataandresultspublishedintheMemoire´withoutanexplicitquotationwasequallyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandIndo-Europeanlinguistics29areasonforseveredisappointment(Saussure,[1903]1960:23).ThequestionwhichcomestomindconcernsthelinkbetweenthefindingsoftheMemoire´andoftheotherhistorical-comparativepapersandSaussure’sgeneralscepticismaboutlinguisticwork.Putmorebluntly,Saussure’sdisappointmentinthereceptionofhiswork,hisneedtoestablishhispriorityinordertoavoidtheaccusationofplagiarism,impliescompletefaithinthevalidityofthatwork.Howisthistobereconciledwiththeassumptionthatnothingisknownaboutthenatureoressenceoflanguage?InthelettertoMeilletheexplainedthattheonlythinghestillfoundinterestingwasthepicturesqueandethnographicsideoflanguage(Benveniste,1964:95).Thisremarkhasrightlybeenadducedtoexplainsomeoftheetymologicalwork(Vallini,1978:114f.).However,thesubjectmatteroftheMemoire´andofmostoftheotherpapersbelongstothestructuralandnottothepicturesquesideoflanguage.ShouldweresorttothesimpleexplanationthatnobodylikesbeingslightedorplagiarisedandSaussurewasnoexception,evenifhehadstoppedbelievinginhiswork?Isthisnottoofacileanaccount?LetusnotforgetSaussure’swish,alsomen-tionedinthelettertoMeillet,tobeabletoreturntohiswork.TheconclusionmustbethatSaussurewasconvincedthatwhathehaddonewasquitesimplynoveland‘right’.ForthehistorianoflinguisticsinterestedinSaussure’shis-toricalworktheproblemiscrucial.Butthereisalsoanoddtwistintheinquiry.OneofthemanuscriptnotesbySaussurerecentlydiscovered(andundated)returnstothequestionofthebeginningsoflinguistics(Saussure,2002:129–31).TheschoolfoundedbyBopp,wearetold,wasinterestedinlalangueorl’idiome,i.e.thesetofmanifestationsoflanguage(langage)atacertaintimeinacertainpeople;itdidnotconsiderlanguage(langage)asaphenomenonortheapplicationofamentalfaculty.Itisnowaccusedofhavingmisunderstoodtheessenceoftheobjectwhichitpretendedtostudy.Butinfact,Saussurecontinues,thisistoattributearbitrarilytothatschoolamissionwhichithadnointentionofundertakingandwhichmanyofitsfollowerswouldnodoubthaverejected.‘Infactitistheobjectthathaschangedandwithoutrealisingitadifferentdisciplinehastakentheplaceofthepreviousone.Indoingsoithassoughttocondemnitspredecessor,withouthavingnecessarilyguaranteeditsownlegitimacy’(Saussure,2002:131).Thisisanimportantpointanditopensnewformsofhistoriographicalinquiry.However,wemissavitallink.HowdidSaussureenvisagehisownhistoricalwork?DiditbelongtothedisciplinefoundedbyBopportothenewdisciplinewhichhadreplacedit?Iftheformer,thepuzzlewithwhichwestartedwouldbesolved.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n2TheParisyearsCarolSandersSaussuredidnotarriveinParisfromLeipzigandBerlinwiththeideasthatgen-eratedtheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,andhedidnotleavePariswithoutthem.(Aarsleff,1982:393)Underlyingthischapteristheassumptionthat,inchartingthehistoryofideas,itisimportanttosituatethembroadlyintheircontemporaryintellectualcontext.IncontrasttomanycommentatorswhosoughttheoriginofsomeoftheideascontainedintheCoursintheworkofearlyGermanlinguists,theintellectualhistorianHansAarsleffhasinsistedontheroleofthe‘Parismilieu’inshapingSaussure’sideas.ThisisnottodenytheinfluenceoftheGermancomparativetradition,particularlyonhisdissertationormemoire.´Whilehistoryandcom-parativelinguisticsremainedanabidinginterestforSaussure,itisnonethelessthetheoryofasystematic,synchroniclinguisticsasitappearsintheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´whichmarksthebeginningofEuropeanlinguisticsandwhichhelpedtolaunchstructuralisminawiderarena.ItispossibletoarguethattheyoungSaussurewasalreadygoingbeyondhisGermanmasters,withtheideasoflanguageasasystem,andofthephonemeasaconceptifnotaterm,beingembryonicallypresentinthememoire´.Nevertheless,theideasthatwouldbepublishedintheCourswerealreadyshapedandarticulatedinhisParislectures,accordingtoMeillet.Inordertounderstanddevelopmentsinthestudyoflanguageattheendofthenineteenthcentury,andtheevolutionofSaussure’sownideasandtheirsubsequentimpact,weshalllookfirstatthedisciplineoflinguisticsashefounditonhisarrivalinParisintheAutumnof1880,andthenatotherdisciplines,inlinewithAarsleff’sclaimthat‘TheinnovationbegunbyBr´ealduringthe1860sformedpartofabroadmovementinFrenchintellectuallifeduringthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury’(1982:310).ThelinguisticcontextNineteenth-centuryGermanlinguistics,inwhichSaussurehadbeentrainedinLeipzigandBerlin,wasessentiallyhistorical(or‘diachronic’).Inthecaseofthecomparativegrammarians,andtheirsuccessors,theneogrammarians,this30CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears31meantthestudyoftheevolutionofformsinrelatedlanguagefamilies(seechapter1).WhenSaussurearrivedinParis,itcouldbesaidthatthereweretwoschools–oratleaststrands–oflinguistics,eachofwhichwasindebtedinitsownwaytoGermancomparativegrammar.Theadherentstowhathasbeencalled‘lalinguistiquenaturaliste’hadtheirbaseattheSorbonneandpublishedintheRevuedeLinguistiqueetPhilologiecomparee´.TheycloselyfollowedGermanlinguistssuchasSchleicherinhisDarwinistportrayaloflanguagesasnaturalorganisms,someofwhicharesuperiortoothers.HovelacqueinhisLalinguistique(1876:9),sumsuptheorganicistview:‘Leslangues...naissent,croissent,d´ep´erissentetmeurentcommetouslesˆetresvivants’(‘Languages...areborn,grow,decayanddielikealllivingbeings’).Interestingly,inthesamework(p.33),Hovelacquereferstothefacultyoflanguageasbeingdistinctfromanyindividual’sactualuseofit,demonstratingthat,outofthethreefoldterminologythatwouldbedevelopedbySaussure,thenotionoffacultedulan-´gagewascommoncurrency,whilethatofparolewasperhapsimplicitbutcouldnotbelogicallyandfullyarticulatedwithouttheSaussureanconceptoflangue(seechaptersinthisvolumebyNormand,GordonandBouquet).Althoughthemainrepresentativeoftheotherstrand,MichelBr´eal,wasevenmorefamiliarwiththeGermancomparativists,heneverthelessdistancedhimselffromthemanddevelopedamoreparticularlyFrenchperspective.Whiletherewassomeprofessionalrivalrybetweenmembersofthetwoschools,Br´ealandSaussuremaintainedcloseandcordialrelationswithmanyoftheircolleaguesattheSorbonne.Inaninvitedarticlewrittenforthejournalofthe‘opposingcamp’(Revuedephilologie,1January1878),Br´ealattemptstominimisethediffer-encesbetweenthe‘philologists’andthe‘linguists’(thelatterusedinthiscasetorefertothecomparativegrammarians,i.e.thosewhostudiedthebarephono-logicalandmorphologicalbonesoflanguageasopposedtothosewhostudiedlanguageinitsliterarytexts).ThereisnodoubtaboutwhereSaussure’saffilia-tionlay:asagraduatestudentinLeipzig,hehadalreadycometogiveapaperattheSociet´edelinguistiquedeParis´,frequentedbyBr´ealandlike-mindedlinguists,andtherecordsshowthatoncehewaslivinginParis,heattendedmeetingsofthesocietyregularlyandassistedBr´ealassecretaireadjoint´.Br´ealissometimesconsideredasthe‘institutional’founderoflinguisticsinFrance,sincehewasresponsibleforsettingupthesubjectattheEcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes,andforestablishingthefirstPhoneticsLaboratory.SaussurewasappointedtohispostbyBr´ealandworkedwithhimforthetenyearshewasinParis.BracketedtogetherbyAarsleff(1982),theyarealsocitedasthetwofoundingfathersofFrenchlinguisticsbyMeillet(1916).Certainly,Br´ealisnotonlyaninnovatoryandinterestinglinguistinhisownright,butalsoaffordsavaluableinsightintotheintellectualclimatewithinwhichSaussureworkedduringhisParisyears.Weshallspendsometimelookingathiscontribution,becausethiscanhelpustounderstandwhyitistheCLGandnottheworkofanyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n32CarolSandersotherlinguistsuchasBr´ealthatistakentomarkthebeginningsofstructuralisminEurope.AtatimewhenGermanuniversitieswerestillconsideredtobethecentreoflanguagestudy,Br´ealintroducedintoFrancetheworkoftheGermanscholarsinhistranslationofoneofitsseminalworks,Bopp’svolumesoncomparativegrammar.InhisinaugurallecturetotheColl`egedeFrance,Br´ealoutlinestheimportanceofadoptingBopp’srigorousapproach,buthedistanceshimselffromwhatheconsiderstobethelatter’snarrowviewoflanguage,withitssoleemphasisontheevolutionofforms,aswellasfromBopp’spredecessor,Schleicher,withhisgeneralisationsaboutthesuperiorityofcertainlanguagesandhisstrongformofDarwinism,strangelyalliedtoasortofRomanticmys-ticism.Wehaveseenthatformuchofthenineteenthcenturytheprevailingmetaphor,whichcametobetakenmoreandmoreliterally,comparedlanguagetonaturalorganismswiththeircyclesofgrowthanddecay.Soundchangewasconsideredtofollowblindlyitsown‘laws’,claimedbytheyoungestgroupofGermanlinguists,the‘neogrammarians’,tobewithoutexceptions.Thus,littleattentionwaspaidtofunctionandmeaningandinsofarastherelationshipbetweenlanguageandthoughtwasbroachedatall,theimplicitassumptionwasthatlanguage‘clothed’pre-existingthought.ForBr´eal,whoseviewoflanguagewasincompletecontrasttothis,languageexistsforcommunication(‘lebut,enmati`eredelangage,c’estd’ˆetrecompris’,Br´eal,1897:7;‘ThegoalofLanguageistobeunderstood’,Br´eal,1900:7).Humaninterventionisapparent,evenintheevolutionofthephonologyandmor-phologyofalanguage,andthefactthatlanguageisfirstandforemostasocialactivityinvolvingspeakerandlistenershouldalwaysbeborneinmindwhenanalysinglinguisticforms.Br´eal’sconceptionoflanguageasfirmlyrootedinitssocialcontextisonewhichhadlongbeenpresentintheFrenchintellec-tualtradition.Forexample,oneviewoflanguageasasocialinstitution,anideawhichispresentintheCLG,hadbeenarticulatedintheeighteenthcenturybythephilosopherDestuttdeTracy.Therelatedconceptoflanguageassocialinterac-tionisnotfullydevelopedinSaussure,partlybecauseoftheincompletenatureofhiswork.Br´eal,ontheotherhand,highlightslanguagefunctionsinawaythatforeshadowspragmatics.Everthepractitioner,Br´ealurgesteacherstoanalyseauthenticlanguage.Br´ealwasalsostronglycommittedtotheapplicationofthelanguagesciencestoeducation.Asaschoolinspector,herecommendedasortof‘directmethod’oflanguagelearning:associatingvocabularywithpicturesoftheobject,andlearningstructuresbyrepetitionanduseratherthanonthebasisofrules.Heconcernshimselfwithspellingreform,ahighlycontroversialsubjectinFranceattheendofthenineteenthcentury,towhichheadvocatesamoderateapproach.HestronglyrefutesSchleicher’sideathatsomelanguagesaremore‘primitive’thanothers.Advisingteacherstodrawonthechildren’sknowledgeof‘patois’toteachaboutlanguagevariationandevenetymology,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears33hedefendstheequalityoflanguages:‘Eventhehumblestpatoisissubjected,allthingsbeingequal,tothesameintellectuallawsasistheFrenchofPascalorDescartes’(Br´eal,1991:209).ThemajorityofFrenchlinguists(frombothschoolsofthoughttowhichwehavereferred)rejectedtheGermanquasi-mysticalequationoflanguagewithrace.ThisrejectionisattributedbyBergounioux(1984)totheJewishoriginofmanyofthesescholars(Br´eal,Darmesteter,Hal´evy),whowerewritingatatimewhentheyhadbeguntofeelacceptedasafullpartofeducatedFrenchsocietywhileretainingaJewishculturalandreligiousheritage.Inthearticlequotedabove,Br´ealderidestheGermanconception,remindingusthatoneofthegreatestLatinwriters,Terence,wasbornaBerber.Br´ealspeaksouttooagainsttheextremenationalismthatpromotesprejudiceeithersideofahighlycontrolledborder(nodoubtatthattimepartlywithAlsaceinmind).Thesamelackofxenophobiacharacteriseshisarticleentitled‘Qu’appelle-t-onpuret´edelalangue?’(Br´eal,1881),inwhichhepointsoutthatlanguageshavealwaysbeenenrichedbyborrowingsfromotherlanguages.Alanguageisthreatenedlessbyloan-words,claimsBr´eal,thanbypseudo-scientifictermsandalsobythedevaluingofwordsbytheoveruseofsuperlativeexpressions.Inanarticlepublishedin1879andentitled‘Lasciencedulangage’,Br´ealdemonstrateswithsomepresciencethat‘lesannoncessontunedescausesquiexercentuneinfluencepernicieusesurlesmots’(‘advertisingaffordsanexampleofperniciousinfluenceonwords’,Br´eal,1991:134).Thesearejustsomeofthe‘advanced’ideasthatwouldhavebeenenoughtoguaranteeBr´ealaplaceinthehistoryoflinguistics.However,itischieflyasthefounderofsemanticsthatheisknowntoday.HisEssaidesemantique´,publishedin1897butbasedondecadesofwork,issometimesdescribedasabookongenerallinguistics,andcertainlychallengestwoofthebasictenetsofmid-nineteenth-centuryGermanlinguistics.Firstly,itconsolidatesBr´eal’sviewthatmeaningisasimportantasforminlanguage,andsecondly,itattributesaroleto‘humanwill’(lavolontehumaine´)asopposedtoblindlinguisticchange,andtherebyredressesthebalanceagainstthosewhosawthestudyoflanguageasanaturalratherthanapredominantlyhumanscience:‘TheScienceofLanguageexpressesmantohimself...Itmustsurely,then,amazethethinkingreadertobetoldthatmancountsfornothing,andthatwords–bothinformandmeaning–livealifepeculiartothemselves’(Br´eal,1900:2–3).DespiteBr´eal’s‘modern’views,includingsomereferencestothenotionofvaleur,hefailstotakethenextlogicalstep,whichwouldbetostudymeaningfromasynchronicperspective.AlthoughinhisEssaidesemantique´,Br´ealdiscussessomeofthemaincategoriesrelevanttosemanticdescription,healmostalwaysexemplifieswhatheissayingwithhistoricalexamples.Inordertodealwiththewayinwhichmeaningoperatesandevolves,heusesbothexistingcategoriesandnewones.Amongtheformerare,forexample,metaphoricusage,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n34CarolSandersl’epaississementdusens´(‘theconcretionofmeaning’,Br´eal,1900:134)andanalogy.Analogywasacategorymuchusedbyhistoricallinguists,butBr´ealmarkshisdistancefromhispredecessors(‘itisamistaketorepresentAnalogyasacause.Analogyisnothingmorethanameans’,Br´eal,1900:60).Mostinterestingfromourpointofviewisthetermpolysemie´(one‘word’withmultiplemeanings),whichwascoinedbyBr´ealanddescribedinachapterthatbringstogethermanystrandsofhisapproachtolanguage.Hisexplanationofthewayinwhichthelisteneridentifiestherelevantmeaningofawordinvolvesboththeconceptofthelistenerasthemirrorimageofthespeakerandasanactivepartofthe‘circuitdulangage’(asSaussurewillcallit,CLG:27).Italsodrawsonthecross-fertilisationthatwastakingplaceinthelatenineteenthcenturybetweenthetwoemergentdisciplinesoflinguisticsandpsychology.VictorEgger’sbookLaparoleinterieure´towhichBr´ealmakesreferenceisofinterestinthatitusestheconceptofparoletorefertotheindividualuseoflanguageinthought,takingitbeyondthemorecommonusageof‘spokenlanguage’.Startingoncemorefromtheideaofpolysemy,Br´ealwrites:Itisnotevennecessarytosuppresstheothermeaningsoftheword:thesemeaningsdonotimpingeonus,theydonotcrossthethresholdofourawareness...fortheassociationofideasisbasedonthesenseofthingsnotontheirsound.Whatwesayaboutspeakersisnolesstrueaboutlisteners.Theseareinthesamesituation:theirthoughtrunsalongwithorprecedesthatoftheirinterlocutor.Theyspeakinwardlyatthesametimeaswedo:sotheyarenomorelikelythanwearetobetroubledbyrelatedmeaningsdormantinthedepthsoftheirminds.(Trans.ofBr´eal,1897:146)Br´ealseemstobeworkingwithanimplicitandembryonicversionofwhatwouldbecometheSaussureanconceptsoflangueandparole.Indeed,themetaphoricaldescriptionoflangueasatreasure(cf.CLG:30)ispresentinBr´eal’swritings:‘Unelanguebienfaite...estundecestr´esors...quenoustenonsdenosp`eres’(‘Awell-constructedlanguageis...aninvaluablegift...whichweowetoourancestors’,Br´eal,1991:151).EvenmorecentraltoBr´eal’ssemanticsisthenotionofvaleur,whichwillbeakeyconceptintheCLG.Ulti-mately,anddespitetheirdebttoGermanscholars,bothBr´ealandSaussurearemarkedbytheFrenchintellectualtradition.Intheeighteenth-centuryFrench(andEnglish)philosopherstowhomBr´ealpayshomage,wefindsomeoftheconceptsthatresurfaceinlatenineteenth-centuryFrenchlinguistics.Locke,Condillacandothersreferredtolanguageasasystemofsigns,thoughnotinaselaboratedawayasSaussure(seeJosephinthisvolume).Br´eal,too,distinguishesbetweenthewordandthesign.Ofpolysemycausedbytheabbre-viationofawordorcompound,hewrites:‘Thisisbecausethemeaningofthetwowordshavingcombined,theythenformjustasinglesign:asignmaybebroken,clipped,reducedbyhalf;aslongasitisrecognisable,itstillfulfilsthesamefunction’(trans.ofBr´eal,1897:152).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears35Thisideaof‘office’orfunctionbringsustothedistinctionbetweenmean-ingandvalue.ThenotionofvaleurispresentinBr´ealinhisexplorationofpolysemie´:‘Asanewmeaningisgiventoaword,thiswordseemstomultiplyandtoproducenewversions,similarinform,butdifferentinvalue’(Br´eal,1900:139).InEssaidesemantique´itcanbeseenthatBr´ealisoutliningandusingcertainconceptsthatwillbecentraltosemanticsandindeedtolinguisticsingeneral;withhisideasofvalue,functionandcontext,heseemstobeclosetoseeinglanguageasasynchronicsystem.Yetinthesamewritingswecanseethathenevertakesthefinalstep.Despitehisaspirationstothecontrary,heneverfullyshakesoffadiachronic(historical)approach,andalmosteveryexampleofmeaningincontextleadstoadiscussionofetymology.Polysemycausedbyabbreviation,forexample,isillustratedwithseveralcontemporaryexamples(everyoneinFrancereadingleCabinet,forinstance,knowsthatitmeansleCabinetdesministres),immediatelyfollowedbytheexampleoftheetymologyofprince(fromprincepssenatus),thusensuringthatthedistinctionbetweentheevolutionofthelanguageanditscurrentfunctioningremainsblurred.Indeed,thequotationaboveisprecededbythecomment:‘Thenewmeaning,whateveritmaybe,doesnotputanendtotheold.Bothexistsidebyside’(trans.ofBr´eal,1879:143).Whileanacknowledgementofthiscontinuityintheevolutionoflanguageandofthehistorical‘baggage’thataccompanieseverywordisimportant(anditiswhatBakhtineaccusesSaussureofneglecting,cf.Hutchingsinthisvolume),Br´ealfailstoseewhatSaussuresoclearlyexplainsintheCLG,thatis,themethodologicalnecessityofseparatingthesynchronicandthediachronic.Putanotherway,whilethehistoryofalanguageisofcourseanimportantobjectofstudy(anditwasSaussure’sabidinginterest),thewayinwhichlanguageactuallyfunctions,thewayinwhichourutterancesmanagetomeansomethingtothelistener,needstobestudiedindependentlyofthathistory.Asthecompetentspeakerofalanguage,Iamawareofthemultiplemeaningsofaword,andIcanappreciateaword’svariousconnotations–archaic,poeticorother–withoutrecoursetoitsetymology.Itcomesasnosurprise,then,whenBr´eal,incompletecontrasttoSaussure,insiststhatlanguageisnotasystem.Alreadyinanarticleonspellingreformpublishedin1889intheRevuedesdeuxmondes,Br´ealwasbothsocloseto,andsofarfrom,theSaussureanideaofsystem:Alanguageisnot,asistoooftenassumed,asystem.Norisit,asistoooftenrepeatednowadays,anorganism.Itisacollectionofsigns,ofdifferentagesandfromdifferentsources,whichhaveaccumulatedoverthecenturies...Agivenlanguageisahereditarypossessionwhicheachagecultivates,adaptsandtransformsaccordingtoitsneedsanditsmeans:thetruehistoricalmethodwouldbetoadheretothelatestlinguisticstate,sothatwecouldunderstanditsformationandcouldinturnuseittogreatestadvantage.(Br´eal,1991:189–90)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n36CarolSandersWhileithastobeborneinmindthatthiswaswritteninthecontextofthedebateaboutspellingreform,whereoneofthemainargumentsforretainingexistingspellingisthatitcreatesalinkwiththehistoryofthelanguage,itisstillhardtoignoretheinternalcontradictionsinherentinthesecomments.Iflanguageisnot,accordingtotheSchleicherianparadigmstillbeingpromotedbyHovelacqueinlatenineteenth-centuryParis,aliving–anddying–organism,andneitherdoesitconstituteasystematanyonemomentintime,thenthereaderfeelsentitledtoask:whatinfactisit?Moreimportantly,Br´ealcomesoncemoreclosetotheideaofsynchronicsystem,byspeakingoflanguageasa‘hereditarypossession’andbyimplyingthatthetruestudyoflanguageisthatofthelatestetatdelangue´.Hefailstosee,however,thatthiscannotbereconciledwithhisideaoflanguageasnothingmorethatanunsystematicrag-bagofitemsthrowntogetherfromdifferentages.Br´eal’selegantwritings,theresultofmanyyearsofteachingandofthinkingthroughsomeofthecentralproblemsoflinguistics,arenumerousandcom-plete.Inthisrespect,atleast,thecomparisonwithSaussureisapt.Intermsoftheirviewoflanguage,thetwohaveagooddealincommon,andtherearetimeswhenSaussureseemstoechoBr´eal–pickingup,forexample,Br´eal’srefer-encetothosewhoportraylanguageasa‘quatri`emer`egnedelanature’(‘fourthnaturalrealm’,Br´eal,1991:51;CLG:17;‘fourthnaturalkingdom’,CGL-B:4).Mostthinkers,howeverinnovatory,tendtobeablendofoldandnew,andthisistrueofbothBr´ealandSaussuretosomedegree.However,thereisasig-nificantdifferencebetweenthem:unlikeBr´eal,Saussurefullyappreciatedtheimplicationsofseeinglanguageasasynchronicsystem,andhisnewconceptionofthelinguisticsignmarkedanadvanceonthatofpreviousphilosophersandlinguists.Itisworthsignallingtheexistenceofoneother‘independent’linguist.VictorHenry,inwhomcriticalinteresthasincreasedrecently,alsorepresentsasortofhalf-wayhousebetweennineteenth-andtwentieth-centurylinguistics(seePuech,2003b).Hespeaksoflanguageasatonceasocialandpsychicfact,asdoesSaussure,andtheKantian-soundingtitletohisbookAntinomieslinguis-tiquesreflectsthefactthathetooexploressomeofthedichotomiesandapparentlogicalcontradictionswithwhichthelinguistisfaced.WhilehisrejectionoftheorganicistmodelisspokenofapprovinglybyBr´eal,Henrystillregardssoundchangeasmechanicalintheneogrammarianfashion.Likemanythinkersofhistime,Henrywrestleswiththeneedtoascertaintheroleoftheunconsciousinhumanbehaviour.Statingthattheultimateantimonieisthat‘lelangageseconfondabsolumentaveclapens´ee’(‘languageisabsolutelyindistinguishablefromthought’),hereachesthecompromisethat:‘Lelangageestleproduitdel’activit´einconsciented’unsubjectconscient’(‘Languageistheproductoftheunconsciousactivityofaconscioussubject’,Henry,1896:65).Inhislectures,hereportedlyrefinedthisfurther,distinguishingbetweenunconsciousCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears37soundchange,semi-consciousgrammaticalandanalogicalchange,andthecon-sciousanddeliberatecreationofneologisms(Desmet,1994).Towardstheendofhiscareer,Henry,likeSaussure,becameinterestedinthephenomenonofglossolalia(speakingintongues).ObservingthecaseofawomanspeakingwhathethoughttobeMartian,hedeclaresthattheabilityofhumanstoengageingenuinelanguage-likebehaviourwheninastateofdreamortranceprovesthatlanguageoperationsarethemselvesmanipulatedunconsciously(Henry,1901).InalettertoMeillet,Saussurementionsthat,althoughhedidnotknowHenrywell,hehadsomecorrespondencewithhim(CahiersF.deSaussure,21:90–130,1964).ThewiderintellectualcontextAsabrilliantscholarappointedatayoungagetoapostattheEcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes,SaussurewaspartoftheexpansionofFrenchhighereducation.Between1881and1900,thenumberofacademicsinhighereducationinFrancedoubled(Charle,1990:38),andthestudentpopulationoftherecentlyformedfacultiesofArtsandofSciencesgrewtoabout6,000ineachbetweenthe1880sand1914(Lough,1978:215).Oneofthebeneficiarieswasthenewlyemergentdisciplineoflinguistics,withtheappointmentofyoungscholarscontributingtobreakingthetraditionalmouldinwhichlanguageandliterarystudieswenthandinhand.Themoodwasbuoyant:linguistssuchasBr´ealandGastonPariswereactivemembersofahighereducationsocietywhichcalledforthewhole-salemodernisationofhighereducation,inkeepingwiththebeliefofRenan(1871)thatintellectualrenewalwasneededinthewakeofFrance’sdefeatbyGermany(cf.Bergounioux,1984).Institutionalchangeshavetheirparttoplayinintellectualhistory;theroleplayedby‘intellectuals’inFrancewasagrow-ingone,aswasthepublicroleofthescientist(seePaul,1987).JustasGermancomparativegrammarhadbeenabletoflourishpartlybecauseitsdevelopmentcoincidedwiththatoftheGermanuniversitysystem(Amsterdamska,1987),sotoointhesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturyacombinationofinstitutionalandintellectualfactorsfacilitatedtheburgeoningofaparticularapproachtothestudyoflanguageinFrench-speakinguniversities.AmongtheintellectualfactorswerethedecreasinginfluenceofpositivismthathadheldswaythroughtheinfluenceofCompte,Taine,Renanandothers,andtherevivalofinterestincertainaspectsofeighteenth-centuryphilosophy.ThinkerssuchasTainewereanxioustoestablisha‘scientific’basisfortheirdisciplines.ForlinguistslikeBr´ealandSaussurethereservationsexpressedabouttheanalogyoflan-guageandanaturalorganismbynomeansimpliedarejectionofallscientificcomparisons.Evenmoreimportant,perhaps,insituatingtheselinguistswithincontemporarycurrentsistheemergenceofthedisciplinesthatwouldcometomakeupthe‘socialsciences’.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n38CarolSandersItisnotpossibletorefertoalltheFrenchthinkerswhocontributedtotheinterdisciplinaryrichnessofthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,butTaine,describedbyAarsleff(1982:365)asthe‘rulingintellectualinfluence’,isofinterestforanumberofreasons.Hesoughttoextendthemethodofthenaturalsciencestothesocialandmoralsciences,speakingofsystemsandofstructuresasbeingmadeupofinterrelatedparts,aftertheexampleoftheanatomistCuvier.Atthesametime,hewasoneofthoseresponsibleforarenewedinterestintheeighteenth-centuryrationalists,creatingwhatin1897thesociologistDurkheimcalled‘l’empirismerationaliste’.Hemadeamajorcontributiontothestudyofhistory(Essaisdecritiqueetd’histoire1858),aswelltoartandliterature.HeranksasoneofthefoundersofpsychologyinFrance,hiswritingslinkingexperimentalpsychologytophilosophy,andcombiningtheempiricalandthetheoretical,inawaythatwouldcharacterisemuchworkintheFrenchsocialsciences–totheincomprehensionofmanyEnglish-speakingthinkers.Theonlyarticleofhisthatfocusesspecificallyonlanguageisonchildlanguageacquisition,andatranslationofthisintheEnglishjournalMindinspiredDarwintowriteuphisnotesonthesubjectforasubsequentnumberofthesamejournal.However,Taine’smoregeneralbutseminalDel’intelligenceisofgreatinteresttothelinguist.Thistwo-volumework,firstpublishedin1870,beginswithachapteronsigns,inwhichwordsareplacedalongsideothertypesofsigns.However,itwouldbelefttoSaussuretomaketheall-importantdistinctionbetweenarbitraryandnon-arbitrarysignsystems,whichwouldlaterprovecentraltosemiology.Theinsightthatthewordstandsfortheideathatwehaveofsomethingratherthanthe‘thing’itself(i.e.Saussure’ssignifie´)istobefoundinTaine,aswellasinHumboldt,Locke,andothers.WhatTaineismissingistheconceptofsignifiant,thatisthementalimageoftheword.Del’intelligenceisprimarilyanearlyworkonpsychology,anditsmainfocusisconceptformationandourknowledgeofgeneralideas(‘laconnaissancedeschosesg´en´erales’).Inhisdiscussionofthis,Tainereferstophysicalsensationanditscounterpartinthecentralnervoussystemas‘unseuletmˆeme´ev`enement`adeuxfaces,l’unementale,l’autrephysique,l’uneaccessible`alaconscience,l’autreaccessibleauxsens’(1870,vol.1:329).This‘oneandthesametwo-sidedphenomenon,onesidemental,theotherphysical,oneaccessibletothemind,theothertothesenses’iscomparedbysomewithSaussure’sdescriptionofthetwosidesofthesign(cf.CLG:99).EvencloserperhapstoSaussure’sthinkingisTaine’scommentontheinseparabilityoflanguageandthought(cf.CLG:156):‘Thereisnothoughtwithoutwords,anymorethantherearewordswithoutthought....IfImayexplainmyviewwithahomelyexample,theyresembleanorangeanditsrind’(1882:386).Inhisstudyofhistory,Tainedistinguishesbetweenthestudyofsucces-siveandsimultaneouseventsinawaythatissometimessaidtoforeshadowSaussure’ssynchronic/diachronicdistinction;moreover,heseesthehumanCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears39personasbeingconstitutedbya‘system’,nota‘heap’ofrandomscraps.Taine’sdefinitionofthegreatforcesinhistoryasthesumofindividualactionsisseenbyAarsleffastheprecursortoSaussure’sideaofparole,althoughtheessentialingredientoflangueseemstobemissinginTaine’suseofvaleur.Tainedrawsontheideaofvalueinordertocomparedifferentperiodsinthehistoryofart,and,intalkingaboutlanguage,toexplainthatthetermsDieu,Gott,Goddonotfunctionasidenticalconceptsintheirrespectivelanguages.AswithBr´eal,itisasthoughTaineisattemptingtousevaleurasaconceptwithoutdevelopingthenotionofsystem,ofwhichithastobeanintegralpart.ThereisnodirectevidencethatSaussurereadTaine,althoughsimilaritiessuchasthosementionedabovearefeltbyAarslefftobeproofenough.LikeTaine,Saussurehasapropensitytousemetaphorsandsimilesfromthenaturalsciences,butthisisscarcelyproofofknowledgeofTaine’sworks.Evenifwediscountthepopularityofthescientificturnofmindattheendofthenineteenthcentury,wehavetorememberthatSaussurecamefromafamilyofscientists,andwasinitiallyobligedbyhisfathertoenrolasastudentofnaturalsciencesattheUniversityofGeneva.Ratherthanarguingforanunproveninfluence,itmaybemoreprofitablesimplytoacceptthatTaine’sideasweresoall-pervasiveinnineteenth-centuryFranceandsowellassimilatedintovariousdisciplines,thatitisinevitablethatsomeofthesameconcernswillcropupinSaussure.Theconceptof‘influence’beingacontentiousoneanyway,whatinterestsushereistoexploretheextenttowhichSaussurewasimbuedwiththeideasofhistimeandthemannerinwhichhemadesomethingnewofthem.Aarsleffalsosuggests(1982:360)thatTaine‘gaveprimaryimpulsestonaturalisminliteratureandtoimpressionisminpainting’.Itiscertainlytruethatbetweenthesemajormovementsofthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturyanddevelopmentsinpsychology,science,sociologyandlinguistics,therewereconsiderablepointsofcontact.Indeed,certainnewdeparturesinlinguistics,suchasapproachestolanguagevariationandtotherelationbetweenlanguageandthought,ortherelationbetweenformandfunction,findaparallelintheliteratureandsocialsciencesofthetime,inwaystowhichwecanonlyalludebrieflyhere.Firstofall,twomajortenetsofmodernlinguistics,thatthemainobjectofstudyisthesynchroniclanguagesystem,and,secondly,thatalllanguagevarietiesareworthyofstudy,havetheiroriginsinthelatenineteenthcentury.Itwasthenthatseriousdialectologicalresearchgotunderway.Gilli´eron,aSwissdialectologistwhoseAtlaslinguistiquedelaFranceiscitedintheCLG(276)asthemodelforlinguisticcartography,taughtattheEcolePratiquedesHautesEtudesatthesametimeasSaussure.Intermsofsocialvariation,oneofthefirststudiesofcolloquialworking-classspeech,conductedbyNisard,appearedin1872.Thesedevelopmentsfindacounterpointinliterature,withtheattempttoportraythelifeandlanguageoftheworkingclassesinthe‘naturalist’CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n40CarolSandersnovelsofEmileZola.AsZolahimselfrecognised,his‘crime’intheeyesofthebourgeoisiewasthatheusedthelanguageofthepeople.ThatoldattitudesdiedhardisapparentfromthefactthatA.Darmesteter(whosememoryhassurvivedforhisLaviedesmots,etudi´esdansleursignifications´1886),wasobliged,whendefendinghisthesisontheformationofcompoundwordsattheSorbonnein1877,towithdrawcertaincolloquialexamples,includingthatoftheword‘soulographie’whichisfoundinthenovelsofZola.ItistruetosaythatwhenSaussurearrivedinParisin1880,areactionwassettinginagainstthedominantpositivistphilosophyanditsfaithinrationalismandprogress,andagainstrealism–naturalisminliteratureandart.Therealistnovelwouldcontinuetobeanimportantforce,butwouldatthesametimebechallengedbywritersseekingtoescapefrommaterialism,whetherinthefin-de-siecle`‘decadent’novelorinCatholicwriting.However,itwasparticularlyfrompoetrythatthechallengecame:Mallarm´e,andthenVal´ery,stressedformandcomposition,andforegroundedthelanguageofpoetry.Whiletheiruseoflanguageandtheirthoughtsonitareofcoursethoseofpoetsandnotthoseoflinguists,therearesomestrikingparallelsbetweenthetenetsoftheCLGandthepracticeofwritersfromtheSymboliststotheSurrealists,asiftheradicalshiftinthestudyoflanguagefoundanechointhebeginningsofliteraryModernism.InthecaseofMallarm´eandVal´ery,bothwriterssubscribetoabeliefintheinseparabilityoflanguageandthought,andtotheconvictionthattheformcancreatethecontent.Insteadofconsideringthatlanguageclothesthoughtasdidmanyinthenineteenthcentury(withBr´eal’smetaphoroflanguageasaglassthroughwhichweseemoreorlessclearlyasasortofhalf-wayhouse),theybelievewithSaussurethatlanguagedefinesthought(CLG:155).Val´erystartstowritewitha‘d´etaildelangage’whichsuggeststohimthesubjectofhispoem(1945CXXIX:910).Moreover,bothMallarm´eandVal´eryinvigoratelanguageandseektoextenditspowersofexpression,Mallarm´ebychallengingconventionalsyntaxandVal´eryinnumerousways,includinghisuseofmetricform.Mallarm´e,asateacherofEnglish(andauthorofLesmotsanglais)hasanobviousconcernwithlanguage,althoughasapoetheisasmuchconcernedwiththemysteryofwordsandtheirpowertoenchant.MorethanMallarm´e,itisVal´ery,inhisNotebooks(Cahiers),whoreflectsatlengthonlanguageinwaysthatremindusofsomeofhislinguistcontemporaries.Aswellashisdesiretosystematiseandtoreachamathematicaldenotation,heshowsamoderninterestinthepragmaticaspectsoflanguage.Val´eryisboththeoristandpractitioneroflanguage:amongotherthings,hewroteareviewofBr´eal’sEssaidesemantique´.AlthoughthereisnoproofofdirectSaussureaninfluence,Wunderli,inhisbookValerysaussurien´,sketchestheparallelsanddifferencesbetweenthetwo.FromadrawingintheCahiers(9/417,1923)itappearsthatVal´eryworkedwithamodelofhumancommunicationthatisstrikinglysimilartothe‘circuitdelaparole’(CLG:22).However,whenVal´eryreferstothesign,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears41hefavoursnotSaussure’s‘two-sided’model,butatripartiteonefavouredbymanyphilosophers(seechapterbyJoseph).Val´eryreferstothepotentialityoflanguage,andtoadistinctionbetweenlangageandparole:Mallarm´eandFlaubert,hewrites,bothtriedtobase‘l’artsurlelangage...etnonsurlaparole,quiestlelangageconsid´er´esurlesl`evres’(‘artonlanguage...andnotonspeech,whichislanguageasobservedonlips’,CahiersV:203).WhenwritingaboutZola,Mallarm´ehadspokenofcapturingtherelationshipsbetweenthings:‘cesontlesfilsdecesrapportsquiformentlesversetlesorchestres’(‘itisofthenetworksoftheserelationshipsthatpoemsandorchestrasaremade’)–anditisthenetworksofrelationshipsthatcreatelanguagealso,hecouldhaveadded.InhisNotebooks,Val´erystrivestogainwhathecallsa‘secondconsciousness’whichcanobserveandunderstandtheworkingsofhisownmind.Thisinterestinboththeconsciousandtheunconsciousispresentinbothofthenewlyemergingdisciplinesofpsychologyandlinguisticsinthelatenineteenthcentury,andtherecoursetointrospectionwasanearlymanifestationofatrendthatwastoplayamajorpartintwentieth-centurylinguistics.Thisbringsustothefinalareathatwewishtotouchoninthisattempttogiveaflavouroftheintellectualclimateoflatenineteenth-centuryFrance.Thiswasthetimeofthefoundingasacademicdisciplinesnotjustoflinguistics,butalsoofpsychologyandsociology.Inpsychology,theburgeoninginterestintheworkingsofthemindandinthenatureofconsciousnesswasofobviousrelevancetolinguists.SaussurecitesthediscoverybyBrocainthe1860softhelocationoflanguageinthebrain,andWernickeinthe1870s.Bergson’sEssaisurlesdonneesimm´ediatesdelaconscience´waspublishedin1889.Therewasagrowingbodyofinformationaboutdream,aswellasaboutpsychologicalconditionswhichmightrevealtheworkingsoftheunconscious,suchashys-teria.James(1995:220)tracestothelatterpartofthenineteenthcenturythepreoccupationwiththenotionofthe‘dividedpersonality’,the‘d´edoublementdumoi’,writingthatthe‘presuppositionthattheselfisaunityhadremainedconstantinnineteenthcenturythoughtuntilatleast1870’.ThemainbatchofSaussure’smanuscriptnotesdiscoveredin1996isentitledDel’essencedoubledulanguage(ELG:15–88).AccordingtoVal´ery,itislanguagewhichconstitutes‘anotherwithinyou’(‘Lelangageconstitueunautreentoi’,CahiersXVIII:708).ForVal´ery,asforothersafterhim,speechandtheidentityofthespeakingsubjectgohandinhand,makingthe‘sujetparlant’muchmorethanameremouthpiece:‘LemotMoin’adesensquedanschaquecaso`uonl’emploie.Pasdemoisansparole–sinvoce’(‘Theword“me”onlyhasmeaningineachinstanceofitsuse.Thereisno“me”withoutspeech–sinevoce’,CahiersXIX:29).Itwastheunconsciousthatwasofgreatestinteresttothenewdisciplineofpsychology,atatimewhenthefoundationsofthethreedisciplinesoflin-guistics,psychologyandsociologywerebeinglaid.TheSwisspsychologist,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n42CarolSandersJung,developedthenotionofthe‘collectiveunconscious’,anditiseasytoseewhythismightappealtothecreatorofthenotionoflangue,asopposedtoFreud’sinterestintheunconsciousoftheindividual.JungitwaswhocalleduponSaussureafterhisreturntoGenevatoadviseonacaseofglossolalia,whichwasoneofthepsychicphenomenathatarousedinterestatthattime.TwoofthefoundingfathersofsociologyaregenerallyconsideredtobeWeberandDurkheim,andattentionhasbeendrawnineachcasetoparallelswithSaussure.Ataboutthetimewhenchairsinlinguisticswerebeingcreated(SaussureheldthefirstsuchchairinGeneva)sotoowasthefirstchairofsociologyinFrancecreatedforDurkheiminBordeauxin1895.Durkheim’sfaitsocial,definedinhislectures,whichwerepublishedin1894asLesreglesdelam`ethode´sociologique,hassometimesbeenheldastheinspirationforSaussure’sfaitdelangue.This,aswellasDurkheim’sunhistoricalapproach,andhisformulations‘castintermsofstructureratherthanofprocess’havebeenseenasshowingsimilaritiestotheprincipleswithwhichSaussurelaidthebasisforlinguistics(Hughes,1959:286).AlthoughDurkheimbecameincreasinglylessinfluencedbypositivismtowardstheendofhiscareer,itissometimesclaimedthattherealreconciliationbetweenempiricismandidealism,aswellasthedisciplinaryseparationbetweensociologyandpsychology,wereeffectivelybroughtaboutbythatothersociologicalgiantoftheendofthenineteenthcentury,MaxWeber.Hughespointstoasimilarityinthelivesofseveralofthefoundersofthesocialsciences,asifaZeitgeistwereatwork.WeberlabouredunderthedifficultiesofcreatingthenecessaryviableconceptsandterminologyforanewdisciplineinthesamewayasdidSaussure.Onaverypersonallevel,alldieattheheightoftheircareers.Durkheim,heart-brokenbythedeathofhissonintheFirstWorldWar,diedin1917.Weber,ratherlikeSaussure,hadperiodswhenhefounditimpossibletoworkandsoughtrefugeintripstoItaly.Saussure,towardstheendofhislife,wrestleswiththedifficultyofwritingaboutlanguagealthoughhedoespursueinterestsintheGermanNiebelungenandinLatinanagrams(seechapterbyWunderli),and,afterseveralperiodsofillness,diesin1913attheageoffifty-six.Themoreimportantparallels,however,areintheircontributiontomodernthought,asbetweenthemtheyweretoalargedegreeresponsibleforlayingtheground-rulesandestablishingthedisciplinaryfrontierswhichstillcharacterisethesocialsciencestoday.Itisnoteasytodojusticetothesethinkersandwritersinthespaceavailable:whatwehavetriedtodoistosketchoutsomeelementsoftheintellectualclimateatthetimethatSaussurewasformulatingtheviewsthatwouldlaterformthematerialofhisGenevalectures.Wehavemovedfromthechangesinthestudyoflanguagetoitsplaceinthewiderworldofphilosophy,literatureandthesocialsciences.Finally,ifwewidenourlensevenfurther,wecantrytoimaginetheeverydaysocialandpoliticallifeofParisthatprovidedthecontextforSaussure’sdecadeoflivingandworkingthere.In1881,abrilliantyoungSwissscholarCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheParisyears43arrivedinacitythathadknownyearsofturbulence,butwaspoisedtoembarkonaperiodofprosperity,andofgreatintellectualandartisticcreativity.AfterhalfacenturyofunsettledgovernmentfollowingtheRevolution,see-sawingbetweenrepublicandmonarchy,andwithmilitaryvictoryalternatingwithdefeat,Francein1880wasbeginningtoemergeasamodernstate.In1875Francehadoncemorebecomearepublicandwouldremainsothereafter;intheearly1880stheaimofJulesFerryasprimeministerwastohealdivisionsbetweenthepoliticalrightandleft,andtoputanendtooppression,botheconomicandideological.Acommonsenseofnationhoodwasbeingforgedagain:theMarseillaisebecamethenationalanthemin1879,theannualfetedelaBastilleˆwasinstigated,andtheabolitionofthecensorshipledtotheflourishingofjournalisticandliterarycreativity.(Thisdidnotmeanthattherewouldbenomorecrises:anabidinginterestinFrenchpoliticsisevidencedinthecollectionofFrenchnewspapersrelatingtotheDreyfuscasewhichfeatureamongtheSaussurefamilypapersheldinalibraryinGeneva.)Nevertheless,thedecadethatSaussurespentinPariswasoneinwhichintellectualandartisticfermentcontinued,butagainstabackgroundofrelativesocialstability.Themid-centuryrebuildingofParisbyHaussmanhadtransformedthecityintowhatweknowtoday,anditisperhapsnottoofancifultoimaginetheexcitementthattheyoungSaussure,comingfromtheProtestantandmoreparochialtownsofLeipzigandGeneva(letterscontaininghiswrycommentsontheformeraretobefoundinBouquet,2003)musthavefeltashestrolleddownthethrongingboulevardsofwhattheVictorianwriterThackeraydescribedasthe‘wickedcity’.Ifallofthisisamerefigmentoftheimagination,whatiscertainisthat,afterwhatsomeconsideredtobehisattackontheapproachoftheGermancomparativegrammariansandthenotaltogetherwarmreceptionaccordedinGermanytohisoutstandingmemoire´,hearrivedinacitywherelinguistssuchasBr´ealwereforgingadifferentpathinthestudyoflanguageandwheretheintellectualclimatewasnewandchallenging.Intermsofthefoundingofmodernlinguisticsinthoselastdecadesofthenineteenthcentury,wecanseethatthelegacyofBoppandthecomparativegrammarianswasthatofarigorousmethodologicalattentiontoformaldetail,mainlyatthelevelsofphonologyandmorphology–eventhoughtheydidnotusethesetermsaswedo.AsBergounioux(1984)pointsout,theirmethodinvolvedtreatinglanguageasanobject,separatefromitsspeaker,anissuewhichBr´ealaddressesbutreferencetowhichremainstantalisinglyimplicitinSaussure’swritings,forexampleinhisreferencestothesujetparlant.Wehaveseen,however,thatthebiggestsplitfromtheGermanschoolcamewiththerealisationthattounderstandtheverynatureoflanguage,thewayinwhichasequenceofsoundsproducesmeaningandallowscommunicationtotakeplace,itwasnecessarytostudylanguagesynchronically,asitoperatedatanygiventime,asopposedtodocumentinglanguagechange.Oncetheattentiontoformaldetailwascombinedwithasynchronicapproach,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n44CarolSandersthewaywaspavedforthecreationofthetoolsofdescriptivelinguistics,suchas,initially,theInternationalPhoneticAlphabet,whichwouldbedevelopedbyPassy,apupilofSaussureandMeillet.WhilelanguagechangealonehadbeenseenbyBoppandothersasregularand‘rule’governed,forthemodernlinguistitislanguageinitssynchronicstatethatconstitutesasystem,orstructure.Formanylinguistsworldwide,andparticularlyinEurope,itwasprimarilyfromSaussure’sideasastheywererepresentedintheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´thatthisrealisationcame.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n3ThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´RudolfEnglerOnthehistoryoftheCours,thetaskwhichfacedits‘author-editors’BallyandSechehayein1913,andhowtheyacquittedthemselves,thereadercanconsultGodel(1957),Engler(1959,1968b,1987b),Vallini(1979)andLinda(2001).Letusmakeafewpointsclear.TheCours(orCLG)doesnotcontainSaussure’s‘actualwords’butasubsequentdigestofthreecourses(basedonlecturenoteskeptbyafewconscientiousstudents)andofcertainhandwrit-tenobservationswhichtestifytoalongstandingreflectiononthe‘essence’oflinguistics.Saussurehadalwayssaidthathewouldneverpublishanyofthesereflections.WithouttheboldandassiduousdeterminationofBallyandSechehaye,Saussure’sthoughtwouldprobablyhaveneverreachedthereadingpublic,anymorethandidthatofhiscontemporaryMarty.WithouttheCLG,theinterestshowntodayinthediscoveryofanynewSaussureandocumentwouldnotexist.HencetheexistenceoftheCLGisinitselfafactofhistoricalsignificance.Thepublicationofthefirst‘authentic’textsassociatedwiththelinguist(Godel,1957;Saussure,1968and1974(CLG/E,vols.1and2)),isthesecondeventofimportanceandithasallowedforatwo-wayevaluation.Itledtonewinterpre-tations,valuablebutprovisional,ashasbeenshownbythe1996appearanceofaSaussureanmanuscriptdatingfrom1891,andcontaininginessencethewholeofSaussure’s‘generalandsemiologicallinguistics’,aswellastotallyunexpectedthoughtson‘semantics’(Saussure,2002(ELG)).ThiswouldraisequestionsaboutthegenesisofSaussure’stheorems,whileatthesametimereaffirmingtheirradicalnature(Engler,2000a,b).TheCLG,asitwassetoutin1916,anditshistoricalimpact,hashoweverremaineduntouched,justasitwasuntouchedbytheexistenceofthesupplementarynotebooksforthe1907lectures(notesonpatois,discoveredbyKomatsu,seeSaussure,1993:97)orthespeculationsurroundingthen(Avalle,1973a;CLG/E2:75).Nevertheless,letusputtogetherapictureoftheoccurrencesofreferencesto‘generallinguistics’inSaussure,includingthoseintheevolving‘apocrypha’oftheCLG.AsearlyasLeipzig,inthecontextoftheMemoire´(andthusof‘comparative’or‘Indo-European’–GermanicandGothic–linguistics),wefindtheoreticalreflections:divination/induction(ELG:132),whichsuggestsa47CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n48RudolfEnglermovetowardsGermanidealism(Engler,2001);langage/langue/parole(ELG:129–31),whereSaussurecontraststhelinguisticobjectwiththeverydifferentobjectdefinedbyBopp.Here,however,hetakescaretodefendBoppagainstthechargeoffailingtounderstandtherealobjectoflinguistics,achargewhichwilllaterbeimplicitatthebeginningoftheIntroductiontotheCLG.In1885–6hesetout,inhisownwords,‘somegeneralremarksonlinguisticmethodandanoverviewoflanguage’(Saussure,1964/65),whichmightwellbewhatMeilletreferstoafterthepublicationoftheCLG.IntheCahierslituaniensofc.1894(Documents,1996),hedefinesthepointsofviewwhichdefineaccentuationincontemporaryLithuanianasanobjectinitsownright,withahistoricalevolutionthatistobedistinguishedfromitscurrentstate–seerespectivelythetheoreminNotespersonnelles(CLG/E2)dated1893byGodel(1957)andits1891precursor.Thelatter(Del’essencedoubledulangageinELG)isthe‘fortunate-unfortunate’workwhichSaussuresummarisesinhislettertoGastonParisof31December(D´ecimo,1994;Engler,1997).SaussurehereindicatesthatthisarisesdirectlyoutofhisInaugurallecturesofNovember1891(ELG:143–73),whichistheonlytexton‘generallinguistics’which–ifnotexactly‘published’–wasatleastmadepublicbySaussurehimself.Predictably,Del’essencedoubledulangageremainedunfinished,butitcontainstheseedsoftheteachingof1907–11,andinsomecases,suchasintheareaofsemantics,itgoesmuchfurther.Furthermore,rightfromthetextof1891,Saussureneverstoppedimproving,scatteringreflectionsalongsimilarlinesthroughouthispapers,(personal)notesonlinguistics,‘item’notes,aphorisms(seeELG:91–123),legends,andanagrams.Lastly,tracesofhisthoughtfoundtheirwayintoprintinNaville(1901),Odier(1905),Bally,andSechehaye.Itisworthasking,therefore,whetheritisconceivablethatSaussure,whocouldnotevenmakeuphismindtofinishandpublishthe1891textEssencedouble,evendespitetheadvancedstateofatextwritteninhisownhand,wouldhaveallowedpublicationofstudents’lecturenotes,jotteddowninhaste,whichwereinevitablyapproximate.Inanyevent,thepresentationofthesenotes(CLG/E,Saussure,1993,1997)showsthattheywouldhaveneededalmostasmucheditingasBallyandSechehayeputinfortheCLG;orasmuch‘falsifying’,astheirdetractorsputit.Linda(1995)hasanalysedindetailthesituationinwhichBallyandSechehayefoundthemselvesatSaussure’sdeath(22February1913),andhesetsoutthe‘events’whichdeterminedhowtheywentaboutproducingtheirtext.Withouthazardinganyinterpretation,Ireproducehereanumberofrevelatorydeclarationsbythoseprincipallyconcerned.Bally,1March1913:Anyonepresentathiscoursesingenerallinguistics,enrichedeveryyearbynewinsights,hasalastinganddependableguidetoresearchintolanguage.TheselectureswereCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´49religiouslyrecordedinhispupils’notes;anybookmadethereofwouldbeafinebook.Willitneverseethelight?(Hellmann,1988:73;Linda,1995:28)Meillet,1913:Ofthereflectionongenerallinguisticswhichtookupagreatpartof[Saussure’s]lastyears,nothinghasbeenpublished.Saussure’sgreatestwishwastodistinguishtwowaysofapproachinglinguisticfacts:bystudyinglanguageatagivenmoment,andbystudyinglinguisticdevelopmentintime.OnlythestudentswhofollowedSaussure’scoursesinGenevahavesofarhadthebenefitofthisthinking;onlytheyknowtheexactformulationsandthewell-chosenimagesheusedtothrowlightonanewsubject.(Meillet,1913:174;Linda,1995:29)Gautier,13August1916:WhatwouldSaussure’spaperscontain?Thatiswhatwewondered,quitejustifiably,afterhisprematuredeath.Exceptionalfiguresgiverisetomuchconjecture,socertainmythshadgainedcurrencyinhislifetime:wholebooksreadytogotopress,lackingonlyaconclusion–orevenjustthelastpage.Itseemedobviousthathispapers,andhispersonalnotes,wouldcontaintreasures,whichshouldofcoursebeshared.Alas,notonlyweretherenoalmost-finishedworks,buthisnoteswereunclassifiedandimpossibletofollow.Thewholemagnificentschemewasintheauthor’smindalone.(SeereviewofCLGinLinda,1995:34.)MariedeSaussuretoMeillet,25May1913:Andnowseveralofhisstudentshaveaskedmeiftheremightnotbe,amonghisnotes,somethingpublishable...Perhapsbylookingthroughthenotestakenbyvariousstudentsindifferentyearswemightgainarelativelycompleteideaofoneofhiscourses,buttodosowemustnotactinhaste–Doyounotagree?–Onemaybyatoo-hastypublicationundoabodyofworktowhichonemighthavedonejustice,giventime...–Iam,naturally,unversedinthisarea;Idohoweverknowthatmyhusbandneverrushedintoanythingandthatwhathehaslefttohisdisciplinewasthefruitofmuchmaturereflexion.(Benveniste,1964:124;Linda,1995:31)BallytoMeillet,29May1913:Asyouweretravelling,IhavenotbeenabletospeaktoyoudirectlyofaquestionIshouldhavelikedtobringupwithyoualone.AsIthinkyouareback,letmequicklyinformyouofwhathashappened,sothatwhatIdocreatesnomisunderstanding.IdidnotmyselffollowSaussure’scourseongenerallinguisticsandknowitonlythroughthenotes–admirablysetout–byoneofhisstudents[Riedlinger]whohadthefortunetofollowitovertwoyears.AssoonasIlearntofMrRegard’sinterestingproject,IquestionedsomeofSaussure’sotherstudents,particularlyL´eopoldGautierandA.Sechehaye.[OnPaulRegardandhisprojectandcritiqueofCLG(1919)seedeMauro(Saussure,1968,index:484–unfortunatelyabsentfromSaussure,1972);Amacker,1989:102;andLinda,1995:35–40.]Withoutrevealingtheplanforanarticle,soasnottoinfluencethem,Iaskedtheiropiniononthenatureofthelecturesandtheconditionsmostappropriateforapossiblepublication.Theirviewsallconcuronthefollowingpoints:whiletheprinciplesofhisteachingdidnotvary,eachyearlycourse(threeinall)hasitsowncharacter,anoriginalaspectofitsown,andmanydetailsfromeachonemayprofitablyaddtotheothertwowithoutdoingthemadisservice.Allarepersuadedthattheworkisasvaluableasawholewhichpresentsanoverallsystemasinitsindividualparts.AllinsistthatwhateverCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n50RudolfEnglerthemannerofpublicationtobeadopted,theworkmustnotbebasedonthenotesofonestudenthavingfollowedoneofthethreecourses.Itisthoughtthatbeforeanarticle,thepossibilityofabookshouldbeconsidered,attheriskofhavingtoabandonitlaterifitisfoundtobeunrealistic.–MadamedeSaussure,whomIvisitedlastweektoinformherofdevelopments,toldmethatMessrsSechehayeandL´eopoldGautierhadalreadyinformedheroftheirideasonthematter,andsheisunwillingtomakeadecisionbeforetheinquiriesmentionedabove.Finallyletmedivulgetoyouathingofsomeimportthatshould,ifyouwouldbesokind,remainbetweenus.Ihaveitfromagoodsource,onewhohasreadMrRegard’snotes,thatthesenotes,whileconscientiouslydone,donottranslatethespiritofSaussure’steaching,andevenmisrepresentitcompletelyattimes.Icannotverifythisinformation,butitconcurswithmyownimpressionofMrRegard’swayofworkinginwhichheismoreapttograspthedetailratherthanthequestionasawhole.–Allthatgivesmesomecauseforconcern;Ihope,mydearcolleague,thatyouwillseeinmywayofdoingthingsthesimplewishtopreserveamemorythatweallrespect;itmightbebettertodelaystartingtheprojectsothatitdoesnotconcealanyunpleasantsurprises.Ifyouallowme,IshallkeepyouabreastofanythingthatIundertakeinthisrespect.AtpresentIambusycollectingthestudents’notes,andIstillhopethatyouwillnotdenyusyourpreciousadvice.(Amacker,1989:102;Linda,1995:32)MeillettoBally,31May1913:IhaveindeedbeenbacksincelastMonday...AsIwrotetoMadamedeSaussure,theplanIhadsketchedoutwithyoungMrRegardhasbeenabandoned.Ithasalwaysdependedonyouragreement,andasyouhadotherideas,itmustnolongerbeentertained.–Ifinditdifficulttoevaluatetheprojectofwhichyouspeak.Inprinciple,Ihavegreatmisgivingsaboutposthumouspublications,andthatisinlargemeasurewhyIshowedRegardtheprojectinquestion.Imighthaveevenmoremisgivingsaboutthemixingthevariouscourses.Butyouareinabetterpositionthanmetoassessthesethings,andyouhaveatyourdisposalinformationIhavenot.Inanycase,Iwouldstillbegratefulifyoucouldletmeknowwhatyouhavedecided,whenyouhaveworkedoutafinalproject.(Amacker,1989:103;Linda,1995:36)BallytoMeillet,2June1913:Thankyouforyourreply.Iwillkeepyouinformed.Naturally,myideadoesnotconstituteaproject,merelyaprecautionarymeasureandaninitialgroundingforthematerialwepossess.Andifanoverallpublicationisnotpossible,Ishallbethefirsttocomeovertotheideaproposedbyyourself.LastyearSaussuredeliveredacourseonGreekandLatinetymologyandIshallbeabletoconsultthenotes;ifanythingcanbegotoutofthemitwillbeintheformofseparateextractsthistime.Iwillcomebacktoyouaboutthis.(Amacker,1989:104;Linda,1995:40)NotesonthecourseinGreekandLatinetymologyweretakenbyLouisBr¨utsch.The‘extracts’–nolongerseparate–thatBallyinsertedintheCLGareonpage265/259(CLG/E:index2834–42).ThenotesonGenerallinguisticsarethosetakenforthefirstcoursebyAlbertRiedlinger(co-editoroftheCLG),forthesecondbyRiedlinger,BouchardyandGautier,forthethirdbyD´egallier,Josephand(thefuture)MrsSechehaye.Riedlingerhadapparentlycomparedhisnoteswiththoseofhisfellow-studentsafterthelectures,insertinganyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´51strikingvariantsinthemarginsandbetweenthelinesofhisnotebooks,andhealso(later?)inspectedtheshorthandnotesmadebyCailleforthefirstcourse.Constantin(unknowntoBallyandSechehaye)continuedcollatingthethirdcourse;hisnotebooksonlycameoutin1957,inthewakeofRobertGodel’sthesis(Godel,1958/59).AsforCaille’sshorthand,inthe1960sRiedlinger,atmyrequest,dugoutthenotebooks.Hecouldnotdeciphertheshorthand,andanappealforhelpintheGenevanewspapersdrewablank;IthereforehadtogothroughguidestoFrenchshorthandintheNationalLibraryinBernebeforeImanagedtobreakthecode.1So,BallyandSechehayeusedonlyRiedlingerandhisannotationsforthefirstcourse.However,forthesubsequentonestheyconsultedotherswhowerepresent,especiallyGautierandD´egallier.SechehayeproducedaCollationofthethreecourses,whichBallysubsequentlyannotated.ThisthenprovidedabasisforthediscussionsbetweentheeditorsandfortheproductionoftheCLGtext.Linda(1995)givesadetailedanalysisoftheprocess.WhetheronelooksattheCLGindetailortakesitasawhole,whetheronepullsitapartorsituatesitinitsoverallcontext,therewillalwaysbedif-ferentandoftenirreconcilablejudgementsofBally/SechehayeandoftheirCLG.Inthefinalanalysis,theEnglereditionoftheCLGmakesnodifferencetothis.LikeWells(1947),deMauro(inSaussure,1972(CLG/D)),Amacker(1975),Stetter(1992)andWunderli(1981),IamfilledwithaweatthetaskthatBallyandSechehayeundertook.Ihaveoutlinedtheview(1987b)thatanyerrorsontheirpartwerelessacaseofinfidelitythanofexcessivefidelity,anaposteriorireactiontosomeofSaussure’scriticismsoftheirownwork.Iwillnowsumupmyanalysis(1987b)forthosewhocannotreaditintheoriginalGerman.In1913,Bally(1899–1913)andSechehaye(1902,1905,1908a,1908b)werebynomeansignorantofgenerallinguistics.Bothwouldsubsequentlydeveloptheirownperspectives(Bally,1932,1944;Sechehaye,1916,1926,aswellasanunpublished‘Morphologie’).SomehavegonesofarastopresumethatitwasnotSaussurewhoinfluencedSechehaye,buttheotherwayaround(Vallini,1974;Wunderli,1976b).ThereisnodoubtthatfourofSechehaye’s(1908a)thesesanticipatecertainSaussureantheorems:1.‘Conventionalanddiscursivelanguage[langue]manifestsitselfagainstthebackgroundofanaturallanguage[langage]faculty’.2.‘Asymbolisnotasignchosenarbitrarilytocorrespondtoanalready-existingidea,butthelinguisticpreconditionforapsychologicaloperation,thatis,theformationofaverbalidea’(p.175inFrenchversion).3.‘Symbols,aselementsofasentence,mustnotbetakeninisolation,butinsynthetic,compoundgroups’(p.178).4.‘Langue,asetofpredispositionsacquiredbyanindividual,mustnotbecon-fusedwithlangage,whichislangueputintopracticeinparolebysomeonepossessingthesepredispositions’(p.183).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n52RudolfEnglerHowever,giventheclosecontactbetweenthetwo,thisinnowayclearsupthequestionofthe‘authorship’oftheseideas.WhileitistruethatSaussurequotesSechehaye’sProgrammeetmethodesdelalinguistiqueth´eorique´(1908a)inthe1910/11Cours,itisalsoobviousthatthisworkofSechehaye’s(despitethedebtthatitacknowledgestohis‘maˆıtre’Saussure)actuallyowedmoretoWundt,whichwassomethingthatSaussurewouldreproachhimfor(CLG/E:index3330;ELG:258–61).Inanyevent,in1927SechehayesuggestedthattherelationshipbetweenthosewhoinspiredtheEcolegenevoisedelinguistiquegen´erale´wascomplex:IfwedaremakeacomparisonwithSaussure,weshouldsaythathisdisciple[Sechehaye]shareswithhimataste–andonlyataste–forlargeabstractionsandforanintellectualvisionwhichgoesbeyondandabovethefacts.However,MrSechehayeaddstothisadesiretoorganise,toconstructasystem.ThisiswhatsetshisProgrammeetmethodes´delalinguistiquetheorique´apart.(1927:234)HenceSechehaye,although(presumably)understandingthereservationsofSaussure,reaffirmshisstructuraltheses–includingthenotionofintegratinglinguisticswithinpsychology(seebelow)–whichistantamounttoassertingthatheisresponsiblefortheorganisationofthe1916CLG.AndthiscountersSaussure’scriticismthathehadsacrificedthegrammaticalbyincorporatingit,inanelegantconcession,intothe‘langage–langue–parole’theorem(whichhehadneverthelessadoptedin1908aandwhichexplainswhySaussurequoteshimin1910/11):Thesystem...,aslaidoutinMrSechehaye’sbook,isnotcompletelyconvincingbecauseithasnottakensufficientaccountoftheSaussurean[!]distinctionbetweenlangueandparole.Assoonasweapplythisnewprincipleofclassification–somethingwhichisunproblematic–wewillbefacedwithawell-orderedsystembasedonlog-icalrelationshipswhichconstitutetheinternalstructureofanyrigorouslymethodicallinguisticthought.(1927:235)Inotherwords,heisclaimingthathisbookservesasaframeworkfortheCLG.Itishere–notintheproductionoftheCLGitself–thatIthinkwefindadangerofmisinterpretingSaussure,inthesensethatSechehayeattributestohimtheideaofintegratinglinguistics(andinparticularlangue)intosocialpsychology[sociology],whichisitselfintegratedintoindividualpsychology,whileSaussureresolvedtheproblem(thisisagainmyownview)viathediffer-entviewpointsofvarioussciences,eachoneconstitutingfactsof‘analogous’realitywhenviewedasarealobject(Engler,1987b:142–9,2002).Ballyissimilarlybothincompetitionwith,andinaweof,thegreatlinguist(Redard,1982a,1982b;Engler,1987a).Onceagainthekeytextisfrom1908:Letmesayclearlythatitwasinlisteningtoyouthatthescientificbasisofourdisciplinewasrevealedtome...OneofyourGenevastudents,whoreflectstheexcellenceCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´53ofyourteaching,MrAlbertSechehaye,dedicatedtoyoutheimportantbookhehasjustpublishedontheoreticallinguisticsandthepsychologyoflanguage;hisdedicationcontainsthesentence‘Myambition,inwritingeveryoneofthesepages,hasbeentowinyourapproval.’Howperfectlyput.When,afteratimeunderyourwing,oneseeksindependence,thememoryofyourwordsemergestoconfrontone’sownthoughts,andonewonders,‘Wouldhehaveapprovedofthat?Howwouldhehaveputit?’Yes,inyou,sir,theteacherisinseparablefromthescholar;butweknowtoothatalongsidetheteacherisadevotedfriend,givingunstintinglyofhistimeandefforttoilluminatethewayforthehesitantstudent.(SpeechatthepresentationoftheFestschriftMelanges´linguistiquesF.deSaussure;Bally,1908)Thesecondtextisfrom1913:theinaugurallecturebyBally,Saussure’ssuccessortothechairofgeneralandcomparativelinguistics.Thetoneisnolongercelebratory,butoneofseriousconfrontationofconceptsandmethods.WhileSechehayeattemptedtoadaptandintegrate,albeitinhisownterms,inBallywefindopposition:IfyouhaveretainedSaussure’sdistinctionbetweenlangueandparole,youwillseeeasilythatintrospectionisthecornerstoneofthisdistinction.MayIsaythatonthispoint,andbythesemethods,Ihavereachedconclusionsalittledifferentfromthoseofmyillustriousteacher?Asyoumayjustifiablyfindthisratherbold,allowmeawordofexplanation.FerdinanddeSaussure’sfundamentalapproachwasoneofabstractintellectualising.Hisscientifictemperamentledhimtoseek,andhelpedhimdiscover,whatthereisinanylanguage,andinlanguageingeneral,thatwhichisregular,geometric,architectural...Forhimlangueistheworkofcollectiveintelligence;itisanintellectualorganism.I,formypart,happenedtoapproachhisthoughtfromtheotherendofthefieldofobservation.IntheSeminaronModernFrench...myaimwastostudytheexpressivevaluesofspontaneous,naturallanguage,everydayspokenlanguagewithoutitsliterarycladding...Thespokenlanguagethatwealluse,everydayandallday,didnotseemtomeapurelyintellectualphenomenon,butonthecontrarydeeplyemotionalandsubjectiveinitsmeansofexpressionandaction.Asitisnotintellectual,isthislanguethenmereparole?...Acloserinspectionbroughtmetothisquestion:isthisgulfsituatedattheverythresholdofintellectualexpression?Doesatermcreatedwithinspeechhaveonlytwoalternativeswhenitseekstoenterintotheacceptedlanguagesystem,eithertodrowninthemoatasittriestogainadmittance,ortobeacceptedintothelanguageasitis,withitsoriginalvalueandmeaning?...Intellectual,normal,organisedlanguecaterstothecommunicationandcomprehensionofideas;parole,ontheotherhand,servesreallife;itseekstoexpressfeeling,will,action.Thisiswhycreationswithinparoleareessentiallyemotionalandsubjective.Thequestionnowiswhetherthesecreationshaveanyfutureandcanbecomepartoflangue.Everythingleadsustoconcludethattheycan...Listentoanybodyinreallife:languageisfulltothebrimwithnon-intellectualelements;butitisnot,ineachcase,aspur-of-the-momentcreation,oranimprovisation;someonewhospeakstoexpressemotion,toprayortocommand,hardlyeverneedstoinventtobeexpressive.Meansofexpressionarereadilyfoundinthespokenlanguage;indeed,thesearethefirsttooccurtoanyone...Itis,then,langueandnotparole;andyetthislanguegiveseachindividualtheillusionofspeakinginapersonalway...Iwouldthereforesituateaffectivelanguagewithintheambitoflangueasawhole,inaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n54RudolfEnglerperipheralzonewhichsurroundsnormallanguage;itcontributestoitssocialcharacter,sinceallindividualsagreeonthevaluesitcontains;thischaracterdistinguishesitclearlyfromparole,withwhichithasanundeniableaffinityresultingfromthewayitadaptstotherequirementsoflife...Insum,whilestillfaithfultothedistinctionbetweenlangueandparole,Iwouldaddtolangueanareawhichpeoplefinddifficultyinattributingtoit:thatis,theemotional,subjectiveaspectsofspokenlanguage.Theseaspectsrequireadisciplineoftheirown,onethatIwouldcallstylistics.Oneoftheobjectsofmyteachingwillbetoshowhowstylisticsmaybeintegratedintogenerallinguistics.(1913/1952:157)Ironically,afterSaussure’sdeath,a‘reply’tosomeofthesepointswastobefoundinpaperseventuallyunearthedbyGodelafterthepublicationofhisthesis(CLG/E:index3347;Rapportsurlacreationd’unechairedestylistique´,ELG:272):Thenamestylisticsisanamemadenecessarybytheabsenceofanyother.Styleandstylisticscreateanunfortunatemisunderstanding.Afewcorrectionsareneededifwearetoseeclearlywhatismeant,viz:1.Thewordstyleevokesaperson,anindividual,anindividualprocess.(Judgeamanbyhisstyle,etc.)Infactstylistics,inthesenseillustratedbyMrBally’swork,setsouttostudytheexpressiveprocessesofalanguagewherethesehavebeenacceptedintogeneralusage,wheretheycomeundertheheadingofasocialfactandarethusdefinedoutsidethescopeoftheindividual.Thepresenceinalanguageof‘Iwasn’tbornyesterday!’,or‘Damnit!’isclearlyastylisticfact,sincetheiruseisnotindividual,andbecause,crucially,althoughtheseexpressionsareperfectlybanal,theystillindicateacertainsensibility,andallowthistobestudied.Styledependsontheindividual,andstylisticsisinitiallysituatedabovetheindividualinthelinguisticorsocialsphere.–2.Thewordstyleevokestheideaofliterarinessoratleastofwhatiswritten.–Stylistics,whilenotunconcernedbywhatiswritten,hasasitsprimaryobjecttheobservationofwhatisspoken,inlivingformsoflanguage,whethertheybesetoutinatextornot.Styledependsonthewrittenword,andstylisticsisbettersituatedoutsidethewrittenword,intherealmofthespokenword.–3.Moreover,theaimofstylisticsisnotstyle,althoughstylemayhaveitsusefulness.Itisnotanormativescience,whichlaysdownrules.Itseeksandisrighttoseektobeascienceofpureobservation,settingdownfactsandclassifyingthem.–Lastly,Ihastentoaddthatitmaydosoforanylanguagewhatsoever.Frenchturnsofphraseandexpressionsdonotexclusivelyconstituteitsmaterial[forM.Bally].Gentlemen,Ihavecometotherealdangerattachedtoachairinstylistics,whichisnotrelatedtoconcernovertheambiguitiesassociatedwiththescienceofstyle,butratheritistodowiththeobjection‘Oh,sowe’rejustgettinglinguisticsunderthenameofstylistics’.Saussure’sassertionthatstylisticswassimplylinguistics(andSaussureknewtheviewsofBally)canofcoursebeinterpretedasaffirmingthesamesynchronicviewpoint(encompassingthetheoremlangage:langue-parole).AnyonewhostillhasdoubtsaboutthistodayneedonlyconsultthepassagesrelatingtosemanticsinL’essencedoubledulangage(ELG:72–81).Theidentificationoflanguewithintellectualandparolewithaffectivecannotbewhollyjus-tified.OnonehandSaussureconsiderslangueaspassive,ontheotherhisparoleisarealactivityinvolvedwithlifeitself.OnehasonlytorecallCLG/ECambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´55index3284.10[1891]decollecte/jemed´ecolte´:ELG:162;–CLG/E3342.5[c.1908/11]vieillesse/senescence´:ELG:265;–themissionarywantingto‘instilinaprimitivepeopletheideaofsoul’:ELG:78.Moreover,oneshouldrecallthatSechehaye(1927)hadalreadytriedtoputtherecordstraight:‘notethat,inlanguageasasubjectivephenomenon,onlyelementsofexpressionwhicharegovernedbyarule,oracollectivehabit,willbestudied:stylisticscoversonlyfixedvalueswhichlanguemakesavailabletoall.AsintheSaus-sureandistinction,itdoesnotenterintotheareaofparole’(228).Withthisheisgoingbackonwhathehadnoteddownin1908:Whatisrepresentedbyourwords,orbyanyconventionalelementofourlanguage(particles,prefixes,suffixesandsyntacticcombinationsoftheseelements)?Theyjustifythemselvesaslinguisticsubstitutesforcertainnotions.Assuchtheirvalueispurelyintel-lectual.Weturnouremotionalexperiencesintoideas,liketheexperienceswhichcometousviaoursenses.Itisbyassimilatingtheexpressionandtheideaneedingexpressionthatwemaycallsomeoneprodigiousoraspendthrift[],justaswedesignateoneanimalbytheworddogandanotherbythewordcat.Theonlydifferencebetweenthefirsttwocasesandthethirdisthatinthefirsttwowedrawonthesubjectiveimpressionthatthethingleavesinoursenseswhenweconceptualisetheidea,whileinthethirditplaysnorole.(Sechehaye,1908a:167)WecanthusseethatduringSaussure’slifetimeaprolongeddebatetookplacebetweenSaussureandhisfollowers,inanattempttogodeeperintothesequestions,andthatthiscontinuedafterhisdeath.Itismoreoverfascinatingtoseehoweachofhissuccessorsrepresentedhim.Meillet,famously,referredtoSaussureasa‘poet’,with‘blueeyes’;Sechehaye,aswesaw,describedhimas‘goingbeyondthemerelyfactuallevel’.Ballyperhapstended–precociously–toconsiderhimasa‘hard-line’structuralist;afterall,itwasBallywhodeclaredhimselftoHjelmslevtobeSaussure’struesuccessor.Afterhisdeath,hiswordsandhisideaswerecapturedthroughhisstudents’notebooks;hencethecontin-uingtemptationforeachtointerprettheteachingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´accordingtohisownideas.The‘editors’aretobeadmiredforthewayinwhichtheyresistedthis.ThereareofcoursesomemisinterpretationsintheCLG;torestrictourselvestooneexample,letusexaminethetreatmentgivenintheCourstothetheoremlangage:langue-parole,whichshouldbeconsideredinthelightofSechehaye’sremark(1924:234),that:‘Itmaybenecessarytorecall...thattheorderingofsubjectsintheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´isnottheworkofSaussure.Thethreecoursesthathegavewerestructuredinthreedifferentways.Thebook’seditorshadtoadoptamoreorlesssystematicordering,whichtheyconsideredappropriate.’ObservationsbyEngler(1959,1968b),Vallini(1979)andthefinalconclusions(basedonDocuments1996)ofEngler(2002)allmakethesamepoint.In1916peoplewerewellawarethattheCLGhadbeenputtogetherfromthelecturenotesbyBallyandSechehaye.Thenthiswasforgotten.In1957Godelremindedusofthisagainandlaidthefoundationsforanewinterpretation.MyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n56RudolfEnglercomparativeedition,whichappearedin1967/68and1974,placedinparallelthetextoftheCours,alongwithsomeofSaussure’shandwrittennotes.In1962Ihadproducedananalysisofthearbitrarynatureofthesign,whichdrewonanexaminationoftheversionsoftheCLGinthelightofchronologicallyarranged‘Saussureannotes’(manuscriptandstudentnotes),andin1974ananalysisoflinearity.Itwasonlyafterthisthatthemythofthe‘authentic’Saussurebegantofindcurrency.SomemaintainedthatSaussurehadbeenbetrayedbyBallyandSechehayeandthatCLG/E,whichfollowedtheiruseofthelectures,wasnecessarilyinauthentic,andperpetuatedthedamagedonebytheCours.Yetasystemofcross-referencingallowedimmediatereconstructionoftheproperorderofthecoursesandnotes.AlthoughIwelcomeanyreflectiononSaussure’slinguistics,Idonotfeelthatsubsequentstudiesbasedon‘chronological’edi-tionshaveimprovedthingsmuch,thenewinterpretationsbeingtoodisparateInanyevent,howcouldBallyandSechehayehave‘betrayed’Saussure?TheonlywaymighthavebeenbysubstitutingtheirownviewpointforSaussure’s.Icanseenotraceofthis,suchwastheirawarenessoftheirresponsibility,whichisshownbythelettersquotedabove.Letusreturntoourdemonstration.DidSechehayeknowinglyfalsifythe‘langage:langue-parole’theorem?Hesetsouthisviewsina1908articlethatIhavenotyetquoted:Langueresidesinthebrainalone.Itisacquiredbytheassimilationofeverythingthatonehearsinone’senvironment,bylearningtoattributetosymbolsandgroupsofsymbolsthesamemeaningsthatothersattributetothem.Asthisoperationisnotcarriedoutpassively,andaseachpersonaddssomethingoriginaltoit,whatisacquiredvariesfromindividualtoindividual,andeachpersonhashislangue,orgrammaticalstate.Alangue,inthenormalsense,isanintermediatestate,bringingtogetherthecommoncharacteristicsofmanygrammaticalstateswhichexistatagiventimeandplace.Langageislangueinaction;itresidesintheindividualspeakerwhovoluntarilyactivatesittoexpressbyallavailablemeansthethoughtthathewishestoconveyandtheemotionthathefeels.Langageisconstantlyoriginalcreation,theapplicationofabstractandgeneralprocessestoaspecificend,thatofthetranslationandinterpretationofpsychicstatesintogesture,words,organisedsentences.(Sechehaye,1908b:184)Doesthisconceptionofthings,andthatofBallyquotedabove,comeacrossintheCLG?DidBallyandSechehayedrawonRiedlinger’sCoursI,especiallythepassageconfirmedbyCaille,whichshouldhavesuitedthemperfectly?2/R2.23/[CLG/E2521]Allfactsoflangage,confrontoneononehandwithparole,andontheotherwiththewholerepertoryofformsthoughtofknowntothought.[2522]Anactofcomparisonisnecessarynotonlytocreateassociationsbuttounderstandthem.AgivenwordmayenunciatesomethingintelligibleonlybecauseCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThemakingoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´57itisimmediatelycomparedwithanythatmightsignifysomethingslightlydifferent(facias:faciam,facio).[=2560]Whileitistruethatthewealthoflangueisalwaysneededforspeech,similarly>[b]anyfactwhichenterslanguewasbroughtintobeinginparole,ortoputitanotherway,everythingwhichenterslanguehasalreadybeentriedoutinparoleasufficientnumberoftimestocreatealastingimpression;languesimplymakesofficialwhathaspreviouslybeenemployedparole.<wehaveisthewayinwhichitilluminatesthestudyoflangage.Onewayofmakingthisoppositionparticularlyclearandistosetlangueagainstparolewithinanindividual(langageissocial,tobesure,butformanyfactsitiseasiertorecogniseitintheindividual).Twoalmosttangiblydistinctspherescouldthenbeidentified:langueandparole.Everythingthatreachesthelipsasaresultoftheneedsofdiscourseandbyanindividualoperationisparole.Everythingwithinanindividual’sbrain,thestockofformsandproducedandoftheirmeaning,<[b]evenwhentheindividualisnotspeaking,representswhathasbeenmadeofficial,langue.Ofthesetwospheres,thesphereofisthemoresocial,theotheristhemoretotallyindividual.Langueistheindividual’srepertory;everythingthatenterslangue,ieinthehead,isindividual.[]/[25]..Internally(thesphereoflangue)thereisneverpremeditationnorevenmeditation,norconsiderationofforms,outsidetheact,ofparole,withtheexceptionofoneunconsciousactivity,whichisalmostpassive,andinanycasenotcreative,thatofclassifying.Ifeverythingnewisnecessarilyproducedindiscourse,itfollowsthateverythingtakesplaceonthesocialsideoflangage.Moreover,byputtingtogetherthesum-totalofindividualtreasure-housesoflangueonearrivesatlalangue.>>Everythingthatistakentobeintheindividual’sinternalsphere[=langue!]mustbesocialbecausenothingthatofallspeakersintheexternalsphereofparole[=social!]haseverenteredthatsphere>.Infact,BallyandSechehayedidnotdrawonRiedlinger’sCoursI,sinceallthetextwithinthedoublediamond-shapedbrackets(<<>>)wasdeleted(despiteRiedlinger’sopposition),withCoursIII(thelatesttoappear)apparentlysignallinganewdirection.[Concerningthis‘apparently’seeEngler,2002.]ThesamegoesforCLG/E:1828(CLG2IV§1pt8):Thecharacteristicroleoflangage[ed.oflalangue]withrespecttothought,isnottobeanacoustic,physicalchannel,buttocreateanintermediateenvironmentinsuchawaythatthecomingtogetherofthoughtandsoundinevitablyresultsinspecificunits.[1829]Thought,bynaturechaotic,isforcedtodefineitselfbecauseitistakenapart,parcelledupbylangageintounits.[1826:pt3]Butoneshouldbewaryofthecommonplacethatseeslelangage[lasubstancephonique]asamould:thatwouldbetoconsideritassomethingfixed,rigid,whereasinfactacousticmatterisasinherentlychaoticasthought.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n58RudolfEnglerAllthesourceshavelangage–notehoweverthatC[onstantin]hadnotyetenrolledin1913/16.AstheCoursIIIhadineffectdeprivedthistermofanysubstance,byportrayingitasthesimplesumofparole+langue,theeditorsmusthavewonderedaboutgivingittheroletheythemselveshadaccordeditintheirownwritings(seealsoonthissubjectEngler,2002).Finally,wecometothefamouslastsentenceoftheCLG(317):‘Lalinguis-tiqueapouruniqueetveritableobjetdelalangueenvisageeenelle-m´emeetˆpourelle-memeˆ’(‘thetrueanduniqueobjectoflinguisticsislanguagestud-iedinandforitself’,CGL-B:232)–whichtooisabsolutelyopposedtoandincompatiblewiththeframeworksofBallyandSechehaye,andalmostcer-tainlyaconcessionbySechehayetoSaussure’scriticismofhisProgrammeetmethodesdelalinguistiqueth´eorique´:MrSechehaye,afterrightlycriticisingWundtforhavingneglectedtheproblemofgram-mar,managestounderestimateithimself.Thisisbecausetogiveititsduewouldrequireonetostatethegrammaticalfactinitself,andinitsdistinctnessfromanyotherpsycholog-ical,orevenlogicalact.Themoretheauthorendeavourstobreakdownanunallowablebarrierbetweenframeworkofthoughtandthought,themoreheseemstoabandonhisownstatedaim,thatofdefiningthefieldofexpression,andestablishingitslaws,notintermsofpropertiestheysharewithourpsychicmake-upingeneral,butintermsoftheirspecific,andquiteuniquepropertieswithinthephenomenonoflangue.(CLG/E:3330.6)(Thischapter,includingthequotationsfromCLG/E,wastranslatedbyMatthewPiresandCarolSanders.)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n4ThelinguisticsignJohnE.JosephLanguageasasystemofsignsAlthoughlinguistsrememberhimforawholerangeoftheoreticalandmethod-ologicalshiftsheintroduced,Saussure’smoregeneralfamestemsalmostentirelyfromhisconceptionofalanguageasasociallyshared,psychologi-callyrealsystemofsigns,eachconsistingofthearbitraryconjunctionofanabstractconceptandacousticimage.Hewasbynomeansthefirsttoconceiveoflanguageintermsofsigns(someoftheprecedentswillbediscussedinthenextsection),butinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesittendedtobephilosophersandpsychologistsratherthanlinguistsandphilologistswhotaughtandwroteaboutlanguageintheseterms.Alreadyin1894hehadnotedtheneedforasemiologie´,ascienceofsigns(seeGodel,1957:182).Inhisfirstcourseoflecturesongenerallinguisticsin1907,Saussurestatedearlyonthat‘Alanguageisasystemofsignals:whatmakesthelanguageistherelationshipwhichthemindestablishesamongthesesignals’(Saussure,1996:23;Godel,1957:54).ThefirstcoursewasplannedasanoverviewofIndo-Europeanhistoricallinguisticsaspractisedsincethelastthirdofthenineteenthcentury,withsomegeneralconsiderationsonthenatureoflanguageinsertedalongtheway,andSaussuredidnotpursuethesemiologicalperspectivefurther.Butthesecondcourse(1908–9)wouldofferamuchmorepersonalvisionoflanguageinitssynchronicdimension.Thistimethelinguisticsigntookcentrestagealmostfromthestart.Afterprojectingtheideaofsemiologyasasciencethatwillteachus‘whatsignsconsistof,whatlawsgovernthem’(CLG:33),Saussuredeclaredthat‘Forus...thelinguisticproblemisaboveallsemiological,andallourdevelopmentsderivetheirsignificancefromthisimportantfact’(34–5).However,thesecondcoursedidnotgoontoanalysetheinternalworkingsofthelinguisticsign,thoughitdidnotesomeofitscharacteristicsanddiscussedindepththerelatednotionoflinguistic‘value’(seebelow,pp.65–7).DetailedinquiryintothesignwouldfinallybeundertakeninSaussure’sthirdandlastcourse(1910–11),specificallyinitssecondhalf.FromherederivesthebulkofthematerialonthesignintheposthumouslypublishedCoursde59CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n60JohnE.Josephlinguistiquegen´erale´(1916).TheCoursdefinesalanguageasasystemofsigns(32),andmaintainsthatthesignsoflanguagehaveonlyoneessentialthingtothem:theunionofaconcept(28–9,98–9)andanacousticimage(28,32,98–9).Laterthetermssignifiant‘signifier’andsignifie´‘signified’areintroducedfortheacousticimageandconceptrespectively(99ff.).ThispairoftermsdidnotfigureinSaussure’slecturesuntillateinthethirdcourse.Inlinewiththethirdcourse,theCourssaysthatthelinguisticsignoperatesontwoprinciples.Thefirstisthat‘thelinguisticsignisarbitrary’,inthesensethatthereisnointeriorlinkbetweentheconceptandtheacousticimage(101).Laterpassageswillconstrainthisprincipleofarbitrarinessinsignificantways(seebelow,pp.67–71).Thesecondprincipleisthat‘thesignifier,beingauditoryinnature,unfoldsitselfintimeonly...andhasalinearextension’(103).Althoughthelinguisticsignisarbitrary,itisimpossibleforanyonetochangeit(104ff.).However,timecanchangethesign,specificallybybringingaboutashiftintherelationshipbetweenthesignifiedandsignifier(108–9).Saussurehimselfremarkedontheapparentcontradictionbetweenthesetwostatements,anditwillbetakenupfurtheronpp.72–4below.HadSaussurestoppedhere,hemightstillberememberedforhavingrestoredavenerableperspectiveonlanguagethathadbeenlargelylostsightofintheheydayofnineteenth-centuryhistoricallinguistics.Buthecontributedafurther,highlyoriginaldimensiontothelinguisticsignwithlittleifanyprecedentinearlierconsiderationsoflanguage,andverymuchinthemodernistspiritofitstime.AsSaussureconceivesit,eachsignifierandsignifiedconsistsofnothingbutdifferencefromeveryothersignifierandsignifiedinthesystem.Thisideaisalreadysuggestedinnoteshewroteinthemid1890s:‘Thepresentnessofaformisintheformswhichsurrounditfrommomenttomomentanddonotdependonit’,‘everysignrestspurelyonanegativeco-status’(Godel,1957:48,49).Itwasraisedlateinthefirstcourse,inthecontextofadiscussionofhistoricalreconstruction(Godel,1957:65);acquiredmoresignificanceinthesecondcourse,aspartofitsopeningdiscussionofthelinguisticsign;andbecametheclimaxofthethirdcourse,whencethefollowingpassagefromtheCoursistaken:‘inalanguagethereareonlydifferenceswithoutpositiveterms.Whetherwetakethesignifiedorthesignifier,thelanguagecontainsneitherideasnorsoundsthatpre-existthelinguisticsystem,butonlyconceptualdifferencesandphonicdifferencesissuingfromthissystem’(166).However,whensignifierandsignifiedarejoinedtogether,theyproduceasignwhichisofapositiveorder,andconcreteratherthanabstract.Thethirdcoursealsolooksindetailatjusthowtheoppositionswithinthesystemarestructured.Everywordortermorunitwithinthesystemisconnectedtoan‘entourage’ofotherunits,relatedtoiteithersyntagmatically(theunitsthatcancomebeforeorafteritinanutterance)orassociatively(theunitswithwhichithassomethingincommoninformormeaning).TherelationshipsofdifferenceinthesetwoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThelinguisticsign61domainsgeneratethe‘value’oftheunit.Ultimately,then,nolinguisticsignexistsinisolation:‘itisagrandillusion...tothinkthatwecanstartfromtheunitsandconstructthesystembyaddingthemup,whenonthecontraryitiswiththeunifiedwholethatwehavetostart,inordertoobtainbyanalysistheelementsitcontains’(157).ThetraditionofsigntheoryTothinkaboutlanguageintermsof‘signs’(ratherthan‘words’)istoemphasisethesignifyingfunction–themechanicsofmeaningandinterpretation–andtodrawanimplicitanalogybetweenlanguageandotherkindsofsignsthatpeopleinterpretandgenerate.ThiswayofthinkingaboutlanguagedatesbackatleasttoAristotle(seeBaratinandDesbordes,1981:18–25,93–103).ItwasfurtherdevelopedbytheStoics,whoexplicitlydistinguishedthesemainon¯,thethingsignifying,fromthesemainomenon¯,thethingsignified(alsocalledthelekton,thesayable),andmadeclearthatthelatterwasincorporealandnottobeconfusedwiththeexistingthing.CarriedoverintotheLatintradition,notablythroughStAugustine’sDialecticsandTheTeacher(seeBaratinandDesbordes,1981:52–6,211–46),thetheoryofsignsflourishedparticularlyattheendofthemedievalperiod,withthedevelopmentof‘speculativegrammar’focusingonthemodisignificandi,modesofsignifying.SigntheorydidnotfadeintothebackgroundasRenaissancethinkersdistancedthemselvesfromAristotelianscholasticism,buttookonnewforms,forinstanceinthewritingsofLockeandLeibniz,throughwhichitcametooccupyaprominentplaceineighteenth-centuryEnlightenmentthought.Butinthenineteenthcentury,thedesiretocreatea‘science’oflanguagebroughtaboutanemphasisonitsunconsciousdimensions,sinceonlythesewereconsideredamenabletoscientificstudy.Earlyinthecenturytheyweretreatedontheanalogyofthemechanical,thenincreasinglyas‘organic’,culminatingintheverypowerfulmetaphoroflanguagesasorganismswithalifeoftheirowndetachedfromthoseoftheirspeakers.Enlightenmentlinguisticthoughtwasnoweschewedonthegroundsthatitapproachedlanguageasaseriesofrational,andthusimplicitlywilful,operations.Signtheory,beingassociatedwiththisformofrationalistinquiry,wasconsideredold-fashionedandunscientificbylinguists.Intime,afewlinguistscametothinkthattheorganicmetaphorhadbecomesopowerful(particularlyinthewakeofDarwin)thatpeoplewereforgettingitwasametaphoratall.Resuscitatingsigntheorywasawaytocombatit.Saussure’smentorBr´ealmakesastatementpreciselytothiseffectinhisuniversallyreadEssaidesemantique´,where,interestingly,theconceptionofwordsassignsisdescribedassomethingfolksy(simpleethonneteˆ):‘OurforefathersoftheschoolofCondillac,thoseideologistswhoforfiftyyearsservedastargettoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n62JohnE.Josephacertainschoolofcriticism,werelessfarfromthetruthwhentheysaid,insimpleandhonestfashion,thatwordsaresigns.Wheretheywentwrongwaswhentheyreferredeverythingtoareasoningreason...’(Br´eal,1900:249[1897:277]).ThissuggestsoneroutewherebytheancientsemioticheritagemayhavemadeitswaytoSaussure,butitwasnottheonlyone.Philosophersandpsychologistshadneverdistancedthemselvesfromsigntheorytotheextentlinguistshaddone,andintheirdiscussionsoflanguageitcontinuedtofigureprominently.ThatSaussurereadthepsychologicalliteratureisevidentforexampleinnoteshemadeontypesofaphasia(Godel,1957:40;CLG/E1:169).Possiblephilo-sophicalsourceshavealsobeenidentified,butintruthitisprobablybecausetheideaoflanguageconsistingofsignswassowidespreadinbothfieldsthatSaussurehimselfsawnoneedtocitereferences.Onesourcedoesdemandmention,however,becauseitwasfromwithinlinguisticsandwehaveSaussure’sowntestimonyofitsimpactonhisthinking.Whitney(1875)openswithtwochaptersinwhichconsiderationoflanguageasasystemofsignsfiguresprominently.NotesSaussuremadewhilerereadingthisbookshortlyaftertheAmericanSanskritist’sdeathin1894showthatinithefoundtheproof‘thatlanguageisnothingmorethanaparticularcaseofthesign’(Godel,1957:44).Overcoming‘nomenclaturism’PartoftheappealofsigntheoryforSaussureisthatitofferedasolutiontoproblemshesawwiththeordinaryconceptionoflanguageasconsistingofwordsandtheirmeanings.BetweenthefirstandsecondcourseSaussurehadreflecteduponwhathecalledthe‘generalpublic’s’understandingoflanguageasacollectionofwords.InSaussure’stimeasindeedtoday,a‘word’wasgenerallythoughtofasagroupoflettersthattogetherexpressameaning,whichisathingoractionorstateofbeing,i.e.somethingintheworld.Thewordpageconsistsofthefourlettersshownandmeansthethingyouarereadingrightnow.Themeaningofanabstractwordlikebeautyderivesfromtheactualinstancesofbeautifulthings,beingthefeaturetheyhaveincommon.ThefirsterrorhereforSaussure(whowasbynomeansthefirsttoseeitassuch)wasthefailuretoperceivethatlanguagereallyconsistsofsounds,notwrittenletters,whicharemerelythesecondarysignsofsounds.Saussuregoesfurtherstill,however,andarguesthatsoundsarethephysicalrealisationofastilldeeperlinguisticreality.Withthewordbeauty,theactualsoundsoneproducesorhearsarenotessential(andstilllessaretheactuallettersonewritesorreads).Rather,thereisapatterninthemindthatallowsonetorecogniseasequenceofspokensoundsasthewordbeauty,eventhoughtheseactualsoundsvaryfromspeakertospeaker,sometimesquiteprofoundly,aswhenacrossdialectCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThelinguisticsign63boundaries.Thissamementalpattern,the‘acousticimage’or‘signifier’,isthestartingpointfortheproductionofsoundswhenonesaystheword.Inthesameway,themeaningofthewordvariesfrominstancetoinstance.Thestatementabovethatthewordpage‘meansthethingyouarereadingrightnow’istrue,butincomplete,sinceobviouslythisisnotallthatpagecanmean.Itcandesignateawholeclassofthings,ofwhichtheoneyouarereadingisanexample,andinthissensewhatitcorrespondstoisnotathingbutaconcept,amentalpatternthatisinthemindofthepersonwhosaysitorhearsandunderstandsit.Classesareconcepts,evenwhenthethingstheyclassifyareconcreteobjects.Thus,forSaussure,thereisnolinguisticdifferencebetweena‘concrete’wordlikepageandan‘abstract’onelikebeauty.Inthemindofthespeaker,bothrepresentaconceptualmentalpattern,a‘signified’.1TherearosetooforSaussureawholecomplexofproblemsemanatingfromourverywayoftalkingabout‘wordsandtheirmeanings’,oraboutwords‘havingmeanings’,asthoughthewordisthesoundpartonlyandthemeaningexistsseparatelyfromit.Whatawordsignifies,Saussureinsists,isitselfpartoftheword,indissociablefromit.Whetherwords‘have’meaningsor‘contain’themseemslikeasemanticquibble,butitistheverycruxofSaussure’stheoryofthelinguisticsign–andultimatelyalsoofthegreatintellectualdebatesthathaveunfoldedaroundstructuralismandpost-structuralismfromthe1940stothepresent(seeJoseph,2001).Thisbecomeslesssurprisingwhenweconsideritsimplications.Inthetradi-tionalconceptionofthe‘word’,meaningsalreadyexistpriortolanguage,whichgivesthemnamesorencodesthem.Theyaregiveninadvance,bytheworlditself,asitwere.Theyexistintheworld,anditisthroughlanguagethatwediscoverthem.Differentlanguagesdiscoverthemindifferentwaysandencodethemwithdifferentsoundpatterns.Butultimatelylanguagesandthespeakerswhousethemaretakentobeanswerabletotherealityoutsidelanguage,inwhicharegroundedthemeaningsofwords,aswellaslogicandtruth.ThiswholemistakenconceptionoflanguageasaninventoryofnamesforthingsiswhatSaussurecalls‘nomenclaturism’(CLG:34),andopposeswithhisconceptionofthelinguisticsign.Heremeaning(asthe‘signified’)isnotgiveninadvance,butiscreatedwiththeformationofthesignitself.Thisisnotidenticalwiththeearlierpointaboutallmeaningsbeingconceptual,foritcouldstillbethecasethatsignifiedsemanatedirectlyfromthewaytheworldisstructured.ToseewhySaussuredeniesthatthisisso,considertheword/signcattle.IthasatvariousperiodsinthehistoryofEnglishmeantallthepropertyorwealthapersonpossessed,orjustpropertyintheformoflivestock(includingoxen,sheep,pigs,horses,etc.),oroxenonly.Allthesespecieshaveexistedsincebeforetheoriginsofhumanlanguage,letaloneoftheEnglishlanguage,andinthatsenseare‘giveninadvance’.Yetthemeaningofcattleisnotsogiven,becausewhichanimalsdoordonotcountascattleisnotdeterminedbyanyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n64JohnE.Josephcriterionofnature.Theusageofcattlehaschanged,perhapstomeetevolvingsocialneeds.Butitisnotanykindofchangeintheanimalsdesignatedas‘cattle’thathascausedthechangesinthelinguisticmeaning.Ratherthechangeshavebeeninhowthesocialcommunitythatusestheword/signconceivesofthecategory‘cattle’.Itisthesigncattlethatestablishesthecategory‘cattle’.Moreprecisely,thetwoofthemareestablishedsimultaneouslyandinseparablybythelinguisticcommunity,throughitsusage.Whenwhatisincludedinthecategory‘cattle’changes,theentiresignchanges.Itbecomesanewsign,evenifthesoundpattern(thesignifier)remainsthesame.Thisagainisadifferencefromourusualwayoftalkingabouta‘word’likecattleashavingacontinuousexistencesinceMiddleEnglish,overthecourseofwhichithaspossessedvariousmeanings.AbstractnessofsignifierandsignifiedandconcretenessofthesignOneofthemostdifficultaspectsofthesignastheCourspresentsitisthatitisnotanabstraction,butareal,concreteobject.‘Thesignsofwhichalanguageiscomposedarenotabstractions,butrealobjects...;theycanbecalledtheconcreteentitiesofthisscience’(144).Ontheotherhand,thesignifierandthesignified,consideredseparatelyfromoneanother,are‘pureabstractions’.‘Thelinguisticentityexistsonlythroughtheassociationofthesignifierandthesignified...;takeonlyoneoftheseelements,andthelinguisticentityvanishes;insteadofaconcreteobject,younolongerhavebeforeyouanythingbutapureabstraction’(144).Whatmakesthistroublingistherepeatedinsistenceelsewherethatalanguageisaformandnotasubstance(CLG:157,169),andthatinalanguagethereareonlydifferenceswithoutpositiveterms.Mighthemeanthatsignsdonotexistwithinalanguage,butaregeneratedoutofit?Thiswouldcontradictmanyotherstatements(includingthefirstonequotedinthissection)whichmaintainthatsignsarepreciselywhatalanguageconsistsof.Howisit,then,thattwopureabstractionscombinetoformaconcreteentity,whilethewholeconglomerationoftheseconcreteentitiesisdevoidofsubstance?Thefirstthingtounderstandisthat,forSaussure,‘real’and‘concrete’hadaspecificandsomewhatidiosyncraticmeaning.Inanearlyunpublishednote,probablydatingfromaround1894,heaskedwhatcanbecalled‘real’inmor-phology,andanswered,‘whatspeakersareconsciousoftoanydegreewhatever’(Godel,1957:41).Headdsthequalifyingphrase‘toanydegreewhatever’tomakeclearthathedoesnotmeanthatspeakersarealwaysdirectlyawareoftheconcretelinguisticunitstheyareusing.Rather,theirpsychologicalrealityismostoftenrevealedunconsciously,forexampleintheformationofneolo-gismsorthecommissionoferrorsbyanalogy,someofwhichleadtopermanentCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThelinguisticsign65linguisticchange(seefurtherJoseph,2000a).Inthesecondcourse,hewouldapplythesamecriteriontothedefinitionofconcreteness.Acriterionforwhatispureabstractionfal).Ontheotherhand,itispermissibleforthediphonestoberepeated,whichcanthusberealisedseveraltimeswithinthetext(twiceal-er).TherestrictionoftheanagramtoonlyoneverseisthemostfrequentcaseoccurringinSaussure’sanalysis,butthisphenomenonwasneverproclaimedasalaworcondition.Therearemanyexamplesinwhichthecompleteanagramisonlyachievedacrossvariousverses(Starobinski,1969:21).Saussurerecognisedthisaswell(Starobinski,1964:259).AccordingtoSaussure’sview,thiskindofanagramisthebasisofIndo-Europeanpoetry,regardlessofthevalidityoftherulesfortheappearanceofthephonemesinpairsandtherepetitionofthepolyphones:Cequ’onpeuttr`esheureusementabordersansr´esoudrenilepointanilepointbconcernantled´ecomptedesmonophonesoudespolyphones,c’estlefaitindependant´–oupouvantˆetreconsider´ed’unemani´ereind`ependante´,carjenevoudraispasallerplusloin–,quelespolyphonesreproduisentvisiblement,d`esquel’occasionenestdonn´ee,lessyllabesd’unmotoud’unnomimportantpourletexte,etdeviennentalorsdespolyphonesanagrammatiques.(Benveniste,1964:111)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sanagrams177(Whatonecanquitehappilybroachevenwithoutresolvingpointaorbconcerningthebreakdownofthemonophonesorofthepolyphones,istheindependentfact(orsoatleastitcanbeconsidered)thatassoonastheoccasionarises,thepolyphonesclearlyreproducethesyllablesofawordornamethatissignificantinthetext,therebyformingapolyphonicanagram.)Thequestion,however,arisesofhowweknowwhichelementsareliabletobeanagrammatised.Saussure’sanswerwasthatitwouldnormallybeanameorawordofcentralimportanceforthetext(Benveniste,1964:109).Sincetheanagramtechniqueappearstohaveitsoriginsinreligiousliterature,themostlikelycandidateisthenameofgodinvokedbythepoet,andstrenuouseffortsaremadeaccordinglytodiscoverhis‘presence’inthetext(Starobinski,1964:250f.).Allegedly,trivialpoetryadoptedtheanagramtechniquelateron.Asa‘motto’,thenameofapatronorofanotheraddressee,ofacelebratedordeadpersonwouldhavebeenchosen,asforexampleScipiointhefollowingepigraphicverse(Carminaepigraphica;Starobinski,1964:245):TaurasiaCisaunaSamniocepitSCCIPIIOLateron,alsothename,professionorsomecharacteristicofaprotagonistwereanagrammatised,suchasforexamplethetermpictorinPolizian’sepitaph,whichwasdedicatedtoFilippoLippi(Rossi,1968:119):ArtificespotuidigitisanimarecoloresPICIC(IG)TORFinally,anywordplayingadecisiveroleinthetextmighthavebeenchosenasabasisforananagram,suchase.g.cave,awordwhichSaussurefoundCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n178PeterWunderliseveraltimesinoneofCaesar’sletterstoCicero(Starobinski,1969:26),amongothers:CondemnavisseCAVESaussure’sinvestigations,however,werebynomeansunproblematic,aboveallbecausehedidnotconsiderthediphonicbasisoftheanagramsinaconsis-tentway,andfartoooftenincludedisolatedphonemes.Hedidtrytorestricttheinvasionofisolatedphonemesbypermittingthemonlyiftheyformedakindofsupplementtoadiphoneandbelongedtothesameword(cf.forexamplecandeincavewithinthescopeofcondemnavisse);hiseffortsinthisrespect,how-ever,werenotcrownedwithmuchsuccess.TheexamplestakenfromCarminaepigraphicaandPoliziandemonstratethatSaussurecontinuouslyviolatedhisownrules.Moreover,heclaimedthattheelementsofadiphonehadtoappearinthesameorderasinthekeyword,andthatametathesiswasnotacceptable.IntheanagramLeonorainPolizian’sversequotedabove(Rossi,1968:125f.),ArtificespotuidigitisanimarecoloresLEOONORRAAhefoundhimselfcompelledtoaddthefollowingcomment:‘ar+ar=ra’,i.e.tosanctionthemetathesis(Rossi,1968:119).Alltheseconcessionsopenthedoortocoincidenceandfinallyturntheanagramintoaphenomenonofprobability.Intheendoneisleftwonderingwhetheritisnotpossibletoextractanywordoutofanytextofacertainlength.Saussurewashimselftroubledbyseriousdoubts.Ifonedisregardsthetechni-calproblemsalreadymentioned,itismostlythefrequencyoftheanagramsthatworriedhimandheaskedhimself‘sil’onnetrouveraitpastouslesanagrammesdumondedanstroislignesd’unauteurquelconque’(‘whetheronecouldn’tfindCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sanagrams179anyanagramonewishedinafewlinesbyabsolutelyanyauthor’,Benveniste,1964:112).Hisdoubtsregardingthiswereabsolutelyjustifiedasthefollowingslip-upshows:inPolizian’sepitaphforFilippoLippi,Saussurebelievedthathehadfoundtheanagrammatisednameofthepainter’sloverinseveralverses:Leonora–unfortunatelyhismusewascalledLucrezia,andthelatternameistobe‘found’aseasilyastheotherinthelittletext(Rossi,1968:121f.)!Afurtherproblemisthefactthatanentireanagramisoftenonlyrealisedacrossseverallines(Starobinski,1964:259).Onewonderswhetherananagram,whichemergesoversevenoreightverses,isproofofanythingatall.Inordertogetoutofthisimpasse,Saussureanalysedanevenvasteramountoftexts,buttheincreasedquantitydidnotleadanywhere.Therefore,hebegantosearchformetapoeticstatementsofthetechniqueoftheanagramexploringauthorsandtheoristsofthe(classical)Latinliterature–again,withoutsuccess.In1909,hefinallydecidedtoturntoalivingauthorwritinginLatinandinterviewhim:GiovanniPascoli.Saussure’sletterswerefoundinPascoli’scorrespondence(Nava,1968).Tothisday,wedon’tknowifPascolievergaveananswer.Onlyonethingseemstobecertain:SaussuregaveuphisresearchontheanagramattheendofApril1909.Onecan,ofcourse,askwhetherdiscontinuinghisresearchonanagramswasrelatedtothefactthathisanagramtheoryseemedtobecontradictoryinanumberofwaystotheviewsputforwardinthe1907–11lectures(andsubsequentlypub-lishedintheCLG).Afirstapparentinconsistencyconcernsthelinearityofthelinguisticsign.OneofthedeterminingcharacteristicsofSaussure’ssignifiantisthatitconsistsofaseriesofphonemes(Wunderli,1981:93ff.).HewroteaboutthisinhisnotesontheanagramaswellasintheCours,inwhichhedefinedtheprincipleinthefollowingway:‘Thesignifier,beingauditory,isunfoldedsolelyintimefromwhichitgetsthefollowingcharacteristics:(a)itrepresentsaspan,and(b)thespanismeasurableinasingledimension;itisaline’(CGL-B:70).Inthespecialcaseofanagrams,however,thingsaredifferent.Here,theprincipleoflinearityisabolishedfromtheoutsetwithregardtothesequenceofdiphonesorpolyphonesbecauseSaussure’sanagramisnotcompact;hiselementsareratherscatteredthroughoutthebasictext.Thisaffectstheprincipleoflinearityinsofarasthediphones/polyphonesareseparatedfromeachotherbyelementswhichdonotbelongtotheanagram.Usually,however,otherdisruptivefactorsareadded,suchastherecursivenessofsingulardiphonesorofphonemes,whichareincludedinthediphones.Forexample,intheanagramoffalernithediphonesalanderareincludedtwiceandinscipiotheiisrepresentedintwodiphones(pi–io).Inaddition,theorderofdiphonesoftendoesnotcorrespondwiththeoneinthekeyword.Itisthislatterphenomenonwhichrepresentsthemostobviousviolationoftheprinciplesoflinearity.Evenifoneevenallowsmetathesesbetweenthephonemesconstitutingthediphone(asSaussuredidveryoften),nexttonothingremainsofthe‘normal’linearorderCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n180PeterWunderliofphonemes.Nevertheless,thusfarthesephenomenaarenotneccessarilyinsuchcontradictiontothestatementsmadeintheCoursthattheywouldcauseorevenforceSaussuretogiveuphisresearch.Thedeviationfromtheprincipleoflinearityintheanagramsshouldratherbeconsideredaspoeticlicence,whichinnowaycastsdoubtontherulesoftheeverydaylanguage.Onthecontrary,poeticlicenceisakindofepiphenomenonofeverydaylanguage,forwithoutabasictextwhichissubjecttotheprincipleoflinearity,thesuperimposedanagramcouldnotberealisedatall.Thisshowsthataspecialstatusexistsforpoeticlanguagealongsidethe(communicative)rulesof‘normal’language.Saussuremadethisquiteplainwhenhesaidthefollowingabouttheanagrams:‘Dansundomaineinfinimentsp´ecialcommeceluiquenousavons`atraiter,c’esttoujoursenvertudelaloifondamentaledumothumaineng´en´eralquepeutseposerunequestioncommecelledelacons´ecutivit´eounoncons´ecutivit´e...’(‘Inahighlyspecialisedareasuchastheonewithwhichwearedealinghere,itisalwaysinaccordancewiththebasicrulesofhumanspeechthattheissueoftheconsecutiveornon-consecutivenatureoflanguagecanberaised’,Starobinski,1964:254).Apartfromtheprincipleoflinearity,thereisalsoanunusualrelationbetweensignifie´andsignifiantwhenwearedealingwithanagrams.AccordingtotheexplanationsintheCours,thetwopsychologicalcomponentsdefiningthelin-guisticsignareinseparablylinkedwitheachother.Thelinkbetweenthemisessentialtotheexistenceofthesign:‘Thelinguisticentityexistsonlythroughtheassociatingofthesignifierwiththesignified...Wheneveronlyoneelementisretained,theentityvanishes;insteadofaconcreteobjectwearefacedwithamereabstraction.Weconstantlyriskgraspingonlyapartoftheentityandthinkingthatweareembracingitinitstotality...’(CGL-B:102–3).IfIloosenthelinkbetweenthesignifie´andsignifiant,Idestroythelinguisticsign;theobjectofmyresearchisnolongerpartoftheareaoflinguistics,butofpsychologyorphonology(seeGodel,1957:190).YetithappenswithinthescopeofSaussure’sanagramtheorythatthelinkbetweenbothsidesofthesign3isatleasttemporarilyloosenedorneutralised.IfIanalyseasignifiantindiphones/polyphonesoreveninphonemes,Ileavethefieldofthesignand,thereforeIleave,strictlyspeaking,thelinguisticfield(accordingtoSaussure):theresultsofdecomposingthesignifiantsofamonemintosmallerunitsarenotsignswithameaninganymore,butonlyfragmentsofsignifiants(figures),whichhavenothingbutadistinctivefunction.Thefactthatthisispossibleandthatthelinkbetweensignifiantandsignifie´withinthescopeofananagrammaticalreadingcanberestoredbytherecipientisduetothearbitraryandatthesametimeconventionalcharacterofthe(normal)sign.OtherwisethemechanismrequiredbySaussurewouldnotworkatall.Thereisnocontradictionhereeither.Asinthecaseoflinearity,thelawsofthestandardlanguageremainuntouchedasregardsthebasictext.SincetheanagramissuperimposedonlyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sanagrams181quaepiphenomenon,looseningthelinkbetweensignifie´andsignifiantturnsouttobealawspecifictopoeticlanguage,whichleavestheregularitiesofstandardlanguageuntouched.Thingsaresimilarregardingathirdaspectofthephenomenon,thequestionoftheformalorsubstantialcharacterofthesign.WeshouldbeginwithoneofthemostfamouspassagesintheCours,whereSaussureemphasisesthatlanguageisnotsubstancebutform:‘Butlanguage[langue]beingwhatitis,weshallfindnothingsimpleinitregardlessofourapproach;everywhereandalwaysthereisthesamecomplexequilibriumoftermsthatmutuallyconditioneachother.Puttingitanotherway,languageisaformandnotasubstance’(CGL-B:122).IfIexaminesignifiantsaspurelylinguisticunits,thenIcancomparethemonlywithentitiesofthesamekindorthesamelevel,whichmeansImustcomparethemwithothersignificants.Thentheycanonlybedefinedaspuredifferentialentitiesandtheyare,therefore,pure‘forms’(CLG:166).If,how-ever,Icompareasign’ssignifiantwithitsconstituents(thephonemes),theyturnouttobesubstancesofahigherhierarchicalunit.Onceagain,anapparentcontradictionisresolvedorcanbereducedtotwodifferentpointsofview:thequestionwhetherasignifianthastobeconsideredasformorsubstanceisnotaquestionofprinciplesbutratheraquestionofperspective.Butletusnowreturntotheanagram.Thestandardlinguisticsignispureform–anythingthatisnotaform,isnotconsideredanobjectoflinguisticsbySaussure.Theanagram,however,isnotalinguistic,butapoeticphenomenon–andthisallowsSaussuretoincludealsosubstantialaspectsintohisanagramtheory,namelyphonemesandgroupsofphonemes.Inaway,histheoryplayswiththeformalandsubstantialaspectsofthesignifiant,usingthehigherorlowerlevelofthehierarchyofconstitutiveunits(signifiants–phonemes)asbefitsthecaseinpoint.Thekeywordappearstobesubstanceaslongasitisregardedinitsanagrammatisedcondition,i.e.asanaggregateofdisperseddiphones/polyphones/phonemes.Beforeitsanagrammatisationandafteritsrestitution,however,itisapureform.Astotherelationbetweenformandsubstance,poeticfreedomaccordingtoSaussure’sanagramtheoryconsistsofthefactthatthesignsarenotonlyusedasformsbutthattheirsubstantialaspectbecomesrelevantaswellandplaysafunctionalrole.ThisdoesnotcontradictthecommentsmadeintheCoursbutitrepresentsapoeticepiphenomenon,whichissuperimposedonthestandardlanguage.WheneveradivergenceisfoundbetweenthestatementsintheCoursandinSaussure’snotesregardingtheanagram,wearenotdealingwithacontradictioninthestrictsense,butratherwithdifferentgivensinthefieldsofstandardandpoeticlanguage.WhyhisattemptneverthelesshastobeconsideredafailureisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n182PeterWunderlishownbyacomparisonwithsomeperspectivesfrompoetrywhicharerelatedtohisapproach,butareneverthelessstructuredinacompletelydifferentway.Asearlyasinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,onecandetectreflectionssimilartoSaussure’s,whenlookingatLautr´eamontandothers.ThemoststrikingsimilaritiesarethosefoundinMallarm´e,towhomIshallconfinemyselfhere.AccordingtoMallarm´e,apoetictextmustappeartrivialatfirstsight,fortheessentialpartofthepoeticmessageandtheprofoundsenseofthetextunderanapparentlyirrelevantsurfacearesupposedtoberevealedtothereaderbycommittedandintensivereading:‘Aucours,seulement,dumorceau,atraversdesvoilesfeints,ceuxencorequant``anous-mˆemes,unsujetsed´egagedeleursuccessivestagnanceamass´eeetdissouteavecart...’(‘Onlygraduallyfromthefragment,throughshroudedsimulacra,especiallythoserelatingtous,asubjecttakesshapefromthemarasma,artfullygarnered,amassedanddissolved...’,Mallarm´e,1945:384;seealsop.382andpassim).Thisprocessofunveiling,ofgettingclosertothe(poetic)meaningofthetextstepbysteptakesplaceonthebasisofcertainevocativeandassociativemechanisms.Mallarm´edescribesthemasfollows:‘L’airouchantsousletexte,conduisantladivinationd’icil`a,yappliquesonmotifenfleuronetcul-de-lampeinvisibles’(‘Themelodyorsongunderthetext,leadsthedivinationforward,weavingapatternofinvisiblefleuronsandornamentalendpieces’,Mallarm´e,1945:387).Thesenseofapoeticmessage,therefore,resultsfroma‘chantsousletexte’,a‘songunderthetext’.Butwhatisthis,really?Heregardsthechant,oritsgenesis,asasortofrepetitionofamotive,arepetitivestructure:‘Cettevis´ee,jeladisTransposition–structureuneautre’(‘Thisdesign–whichIcallTransposition–producesanotherstructure’,Mallarm´e,1945:366).ForMallarm´e,too,thesestructuresarerepetitions,equivalents,couplaisons,echoeswithinatext.ThisconceptioncorrespondsinbroadoutlineswithSaussure’stheoryregardingtheappearanceofphonemesanddiphonesinpairs.Inboth,theessenceofthepoetictextisnottobeseenrightaway,ratherithastobediscoveredanduncoveredbythereaderinthecourseofhisreading.This,however,isthesumtotaloftheircommonground.ForSaussure,theelementwhichistobediscovered,isakeywordoraname;forMallarm´e,incontrast,itisallaboutthediscoveryofthepoeticmeaningassuch.InthecaseofSaussure,wearedealingwithanagramswhereaswithMallarm´e,wehavetodowithsense-evokingechoesandwithstructuralequivalents,nottomentionthefactthatthereisnostrictruleandnogivenspacefortheformationofpairs.ItmustalsobeemphasisedthatinMallarm´e’seyes,syntagmaticrelationsarenotsufficientinordertoproducethemeaningofthetext;theelements,whichformthebasisoftherelations(words,monemes,andsoon),ratherserveascentresofassociationforparadigmaticassociations,whichintheirvirtuality–independentoftheircontextualties–causethescopeofmeaning,whichiscompletelydeterminedbythelinguisticCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sanagrams183system(Mallarm´e,1945:368)whichitselfthereforeparticipatesinthemeaningofthetext:Lesmotsd’eux-mˆemes,s’exaltent`amaintefacettereconnuelaplusrareouvalantpourl’esprit,centredesuspensvibratoire;quilesper¸coitind´ependammentdelasuiteordinaire,projet´es,enparoledegrotte,tantquedureleurmobilit´eouprincipe,´etantcequineseditpasdudiscours:promptstous,avantextinction,`auner´eciprocit´edefeuxdistanteoupr´esent´eedebiaiscommecontingence.(Mallarm´e,1945:386)(Wordsaredisplayedwiththeirmyriadfacets,themostunusualandthemostaptforthespirit,ourcentreofresonance;thespiritwhichperceivesthemoutsidethenormalorderofthings,likeanechoinacavern,foraslongastheirmobilityandunspokeneffectlasts;wordseverreadyforareciprocalkindlingoflightsinthedistanceoratachanceslantingangle,untiltheyfade.)OnecanfindsimilarparallelsbetweenSaussureandFrancisPonge–atleastconsideringthelateperiodofPonge’swork,whenhegaveuphisoriginalconceptionchosisteofart.Thatiswhy,forhim,forexample,thetextinLesavon(Ponge,1967)becamea‘concertdevocables,desonssignificatifs’(‘aconcertofwords,ofmeaningfulsounds’,Ponge/Sollers,1970:156)4.ThisdoesnotmeananythingotherthanthatPongeregardstheorder,thestructureofelementsasdecisive.Inthisrelationalstructure,theindividualmeaningofsingulardiscursiveelementsisabsolutelypushedintothebackgroundforthetimebeing.Themeaningofthepoeticmessageisgeneratedbasedonthestructuresinthefieldofthesignifiant,onthebasisofechoes,harmoniesandcontrasts.ThatiswhyPonge,referringtoMalherbeandhimself,isabletosay:Ilneconnaˆıtqu’unseulth`eme,laparolecommetelle,sonnant`alalouangedelabeaut´ecommetelle.Ilr´ealise`achaqueinstantlatransmutationdelaraisonenr´eson.C’estlar´esonance,danslevideconceptueldelalyreelle-mˆemecommeinstrumentdelaraisonauplushautprix.Ilr´ealiseunconcertvari´edevocables.(Ponge/Sollers,1970:164)(Heonlyknowsonetheme,thespokenworditself,ringingthepraisesofbeautyitself.Heachievesateverymomentthetransformationofreasonintoresonance.Thisisresonanceintheconceptualvoidofthelyreastheinstrumentofreasonatthehighestpossiblelevel.Heachievesachorusofwordsrichinvariations.)Thepoetictext,therefore,doesnothavearealobject,itbecomesautonomous,impersonalandself-sufficient(Ponge/Sollers,1970:26,40).Itbecomesasortofformula,inwhicheveryreadercanandmustreplacethevariablesbypositivequantitiesofhisorherchoice.Basedontheinclusionofthereader,onecomestoaninfinitequantityofmeaningsofthetext(Ponge/Sollers,1970:113,114,170).Whenconstitutingordiscoveringthemeaningofatext,syntagmaticrelationsbasedonindividualmonemesaswellasparadigmaticrelationsplayadecisiverole,becausetheyfinallyguidetheconstitutionofthemeaning.Consequently,Pongedoesnothesitatetospeakaboutananagrammatisationwithregardtosense-constitutingstructuresofatext(Ponge/Sollers,1970:71f).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n184PeterWunderliDespiteallthesimilaritieswithSaussure,therearealsodecisivedifferencesbetweenthetwoopinions.Thesedifferences,however,aretoalargeextentcongruentwiththoserelatingtoMallarm´e.Pongeisfarfromdemandingaperfectrepetitionofphonemesandpolyphonesinthescopeofalimitedtextsegment.Heismuchmoreliberalindealingwiththephoneticequivalents.Hisaimisnotthediscoveryofagivennameorkeyword,butratherrevealingthesenseofatextassuch,whichresultsfromthemoreorlesscompleteactivationofthepossiblesyntagmaticandparadigmaticrelations.InSaussure’seyes,thereisonlytheanagram,whichisintendedbytheauthor,whereasinPonge’seyes,avarietyofmeaningsexist,whichdifferdependingonthereaderandwhichcanbelocatedatdifferentlevelsoftheinterrelationalstructure.AmutualinfluencebetweenSaussureontheonehand,andPongeandMallarm´eontheotherhand,seemshighlyunlikely.Ifthelinguistandthepoetsneverthelesscometosimilarconclusions,itonlyservestoshowthatSaussure’sanagramstudieswerenotasabsurdassomehaveclaimed(D´eguy,1969),asonthissubjectheisinverygoodcompany.ThingsaredifferentifweconsidertheauthorsoftheTelQuelgroup;theynevertiredofcitingtheGenevanlinguist,anditisevidentthattheyowehimmuch.JuliaKrist´eva,forexample,explainsthefollowing,althoughnotwithoutslightlymodifyingSaussure’sopinion:WeaccepttheprinciplessetoutbyFerdinanddeSaussureinhis‘Anagrams’,namely:a)Poeticlanguageaddsasecond,contrived,dimensiontotheoriginalwordb)Thereisacorrespondencebetweenelements,inbothmetreandrimec)Binarypoeticlawstransgresstherulesofgrammard)Theelementofthekeyword(orevenletter)‘maybespreadoverthewholelengthofthetextormaybeconcentratedinasmallspace,suchasoneortwowords’.(Trans.ofKrist´eva,1969a:175)ThemainobjectiveofthesemiologyrepresentedbytheTelQuelgroupistoeliminatethesubjectivityandtheimpressionisticqualityofliteraryanalysisasfaraspossiblebygrantingthemonlyalimitedandcontrollablescopewithinakindofprogrammaticframework.Thepurposeofliterarysemiologywouldbe,‘detrouverunformalismeisomorphe`alaproductivit´elitt´erairesepensantelle-mˆeme’(‘tofindaformalismthatcoincidedexactlywithself-reflexiveliteraryproduction’,Krist´eva,1969a:174),andthisformalismistohavemathematicalfeatures(1969a:176).Heretoo,thetextbecomesakindofformulaanditsmeaningpresentsitselfasanactualisationofthisformulathroughthereader:‘Meaningisnotonlywhatwordswanttosay,italsoindicatesadirection...Translatedintolinguisticterminology,meaningisidentifiedwiththesemioticprocess,beingpresupposedby–andpresupposing–asystemandaprogramme,whethervirtualorrealised’(trans.ofGreimas,1970:15ff.).Thesemioticprocesses,onwhichtheconstitutionofsenseisbased,presup-posethestructuresofthelangueaswellasthoseoftheparole(‘desdiscours’),CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sanagrams185theyactivatetheparadigmaticaswellasthesyntagmaticdimension.Thelimitsbetweenvirtualandcurrent,betweenparadigmaticandsyntagmaticdimen-sionsbecomeblurredandinthiswaythereader’sactivity,whichproducesthemeaning,becomesakindof‘collectivework’basedonthetext.However,eveniftheauthorsoftheTelQuelgroupliketorefertoSaussure,oneshouldnotignorethattheirconceptiondiffersinvariousrespectsfromthoseofthe‘fatherofstructuralism’.InSaussure,thereisalwaysanunderlyingkeyword,thediphonesofwhichinawayformtheskeletonofoneormoreverses.ThemembersofTelQueldonothaveanyequivalent:theyareonlyinterestedinstructuresassuchandrelationsofallsortsoftextualandintertextualkinds.Forthem,thetextcanbemuchmoreextensivethaninSaussure’sanalyses:therestrictiontooneorseveralversesisopposedtoanunrestrictedcorpusofliterature.Moreover,forSaussurethetextonly(re)producestheanagram,whereasforTelQuelitproducesthemeaningitself.AndfinallyithastobepointedoutthatforSaussureeverythingdependsonthepoet’swill,onhisintention,whereasforTelQueltheauthor’screativitysuppliesonlythebasisfortheindividualactivityoftherecipient.If,toconclude,oneraisesthequestionwhySaussure’sstudyonanagramsledtoadeadend,theanswerisquiteobvious:thefailurewascausedbythefactthatboththelawconcerningtherepetitionofphonemesandpolyphonesaswellastherulesfortheanagramareformulatedinfartoorigidaway.Ifonedispenseswithexactequivalentsandiscontentwiththepossibilityofequivalentswithinthescopeofsyntagmaticrelationsondifferenthierarchicallevelsofthetextortextcorpus,andifoneacceptstheconstitutionofmeaningasaproductofthe(individual)reader’sactivityonthebasisofagiventext,resortingtotheparadigmaticcircumstances,onereachesanacceptableconception,whichessentiallycoincideswiththeviewsofMallarm´e,Ponge,theTelQuelgroup,andsoon.Saussurewasdefinitelygoingtoofarwhenheassumedthateverystructureofaliterarytextwastheconsequenceofanintendedcreativeactonthepartoftheauthor.Nonetheless,Saussurewasnotsimplymistaken,hisstudiesontheanagramarenofolie.Hediscoveredthatcertainlawsofeverydaylanguagewere(atleastpartly)repealedinpoeticlanguage(linearnatureofthesignifiant,purelyformalcharacterofthesign,inseparabilityofthesignifierandthesignified),thatthemeaningofadiscourseistheproductofareader’sactivityonthebasisofthetext,andthatsyntagmaticandparadigmaticaspectswithinthescopeofthisprocessinterferetosuchahighdegreethattheirlimitsbecomeblurred.(ThischapterwastranslatedbyGudrunMilde,assistedbyMagdalenaTrytko.)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n12SaussureandDerridaGeoffreyBenningtonDerrida’sexplicitdiscussionofSaussureisessentiallytobefoundinthechapter‘Linguisticsandgrammatology’inhisDelagrammatologie(1967a)1,withsomeofhisfindingssummarisedinthecollectionofinterviewsentitledPositions(1972a),andintheessay‘LecerclelinguistiquedeGen`eve’(anextendedabstractofthewholeofDelagrammatologie)reprintedinthevol-umeMarges–delaphilosophie(1972b).AfurtherdiscussionofSaussure,concentratingonthelatter’sremarksaboutonomatopoeia,istobefoundinGlas(1974),andscatteredremarkscanbefoundinmanyotherbooksandessays.AlthoughthisamountstoarelativelysmallportionofDerrida’svastpublishedoutput,itwouldnotbeanexaggerationtosaythatthereadingofSaussure(weshallherebefollowingalmostexclusivelythechapterfromDelagrammatologie)allowsforoneofDerrida’smostperspicuouspresentationsofhis‘early’thinking,andoneoftheclearestderivationsofsuchfamous‘con-cepts’asdifferance,trace´andarchi-ecriture´.Incharacteristic‘deconstructive’fashion,DerridaappearsatfirsttobeconcentratingonasecondaryormarginalaspectofSaussure’stheory(thediscussionofwritinginchapter6ofpartIoftheCours),butthendrawsfromthatdiscussionstartlinglybroadandgeneralclaimsaboutSaussure’stheoryasawhole,andaboutlanguage,linguisticsandindeedphilosophyandthinkingmoregenerally.ItshouldbepointedoutfromthestartthatDerrida’sreadingofSaussureisnotthatofaprofessionallinguist,northatofaSaussurescholar:heisatpainstopointoutintheintroductiontohischapterthatSaussurefiguresinhisessayasa‘privilegedexample’,thepar-ticularityofwhichshouldnotaffectthegeneralityoftheissuesraised(Derrida,1967a:44),or,alittlelater,as‘averyconspicuousindexinagivensituation’(Derrida,1967a:67)andaimstoraisequestionswhichgowellbeyondthecon-finesofSaussure’sexplicitconcerns.Asweshallsee,thosequestionsarenotevenquitephilosophical,insofaraspartofwhatDerridaisseekinginSaussureisawayofthinkingwhichgoesbeyondthegraspofphilosophyastraditionallydefined.Thushehasalsosuggestedthatlinguistics,alongwithpsychoanalysis,isaprivilegedplaceforthedevelopmentofathinkingthatcouldhopetogobeyondwhathecalls‘metaphysicalclosure’(Derrida,1967a:35).186CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida187Derrida’sinterestinSaussure’schapteronwritingisdictatedbytheoverallinterrogationofDelagrammatologieastotheverypossibilityofascienceofwriting(a‘grammatology’,precisely).ThisinterrogationisitselfmotivatedlargelybyDerrida’searlierworkonHusserl,andhisperplexityfacedwithatensionbetweenthelatter’swhollytraditionaldeterminationoflanguageasbeingessentiallytodowithspeechorvoice,andsomelaterinsightsintotheconstitutiveimportanceofwritinginestablishingtheverypossibilityofsci-enceandhistorythroughitscapacityforensuringtransmissibilityand,thereby,traditionality.(Ontheselaterinsightsseeespeciallytheposthumoustextonthe‘Originofgeometry’,translatedbyDerridawithalongintroduction–Husserl,1963.SeealsoDerrida,1967b,1967c,1972band1990.)Writingisnotjustameansofrecordingscientificfindings,onthisaccount,butapositiveconditionofscience’sachievingscientificstatusinthefirstplace(thisHusserliandiscus-sionisrecalledbrieflyhereinDerrida,1967a:42–3and60).Theapparentlycrucialimportanceofwritinginthisrespectsitsoddlywithaphilosophicaltradition,sincePlatoatleast.Thishassystematicallytreatedwritinghostilelyoratleastdismissively,asatbestasecondary(andpotentiallydangerous)formoflanguage,andleadsDerrida,intheintroductiontohischapter,tolistanum-berofdisparateanddifficultquestionsastowhata‘scienceofwriting’couldmean,given(1)thattheveryideaofsciencewasbornatacertainmomentwithinthehistoryofwriting;(2)thattheideaofsciencewasmoreoverfor-mulatedwithinacertainwayofconstruingtherelationshipbetweenspeechandwriting;(3)thatitwaslinkedtoaspecificmodelofwriting(‘phonetic’writing);(4)thattheideaofageneralscienceofwritingwasitselfbornataspecificmomentofhistory(aroundtheeighteenthcentury);(5)thatwritingisnotonlyanauxiliarytoscience,norevenonlyapotentialobjectofscience,butaconditionofpossibilityofscientificobjectivityitself;(6)thatwritingisaconditionofpossibilityofthehistoricityofhistoryingeneral(Derrida,1967a:42–3).Derridaisstruckbythefactthatpositivehistoriesofwritingcanonlytendtorepresssuchquestionsofprinciple,andthat,foralltheirempiri-calrichness,theyarerarelyrelatedtothemodernscientificstudyoflanguage.Couldnotaprospectivegrammatology,giventhedifficultyofthequestionsitmustface,reasonablyexpecttofindtheoreticalresourcesinsuchalinguistics?Derridawilltrytoshowtwodifferentthings.Thefirstconcernslinguisticsestablishedas‘scientific’bySaussureandinhiswake–inparticularatthetimeofDerrida’swriting–providingamodelofscientificityforthe‘humansciences’ingeneral.Thislinguistics,accordingtoDerrida,continuestorelyonalargelyunthought(‘metaphysical’)viewoftherelationsbetweenspeechandwriting.Thisdetermineslanguageasessentiallyvocalandindeedoftendrawsitsstrongestclaimstoscientificityfromphonology.Secondly,however,accordingtoDerrida,linguisticsasrepresentedbySaussurealsoprovidesotherconceptualCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n188GeoffreyBenningtonresourceswhichcan‘liberatethefutureofageneralgrammatologyofwhichlinguistics-phonologywouldbemerelyadependentandcircumscribedregion’(Derrida,1967a:45).InreadingtheCours,andnotablyitschapterdevotedtowriting,Derridacallstheexplicit,andessentiallytraditional,claimsabouttherelationofspeechandwritingSaussure’s‘declaredintention’(proposdeclar´e´),butcallstheseotherconceptualresources‘anothergesture’(unautregeste)(Derrida,1967a:45):thisothergestureisnottobefoundinSaussure’sexplicitclaims(butratherelsewhereintheCours),andrequiresaneffortofreadingifitistobebroughtout.This‘othergesture’isnotexactlyanotherpropos,rathersomethingthatSaussuredoeswithoutsayingso,orwriteswithoutexplicitlysaying,andthekindof‘reading’involvedinbringingthisoutissomethingweshallhavetoaddressinduecourse.Afterthesegeneralreflections,Derrida’schapterfallsintothreemainparts,thefirstestablishingtheproposdeclar´e´byglossingSaussure’sexplicitdiscussionofwritinginpartI,chapter6,oftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(Saussure,1972,referredtohereinafterasCLG/D),theseconddrawingouttheautregestefromotherpartsoftheCours(withsomeextensiveparentheticaldiscussionsofPeirce,Jakobson,Hjelmslevandothers),andthethirddevelopingsomeofthemoregeneralphilosophicalimplicationsofDerrida’sfindings.Thefirstpartofthistaskisrelativelystraightforward.IncommonwithphilosophersfromPlatoandAristotletoRousseau,Hegelandbeyond,Saussureassignstowritingaderivativestatuswithrespecttospeech(inthegeneralsense–seeBennington,1995),whichaloneissupposedtobetheproper(oratleastprimary)formoflanguage,andthustoconstitutethetrueobjectoflin-guistics.Derrida(1972a:32)suggeststhatSaussure’s‘phonocentrism’flowsdirectlyfromhisuseoftheinheritedconceptofthesign:‘Theconceptofsign(signifier/signified)carrieswithinitthenecessityofprivilegingthephonicsub-stance...Forthephone`isindeedthesignifyingsubstancethatgivesitselftoconsciousnessasthemostintimatelylinkedtothethoughtofthesignifiedcon-cept...’(seetooDerrida,1967a:22–3).Thepositionofwritingissecondaryandderivativeinthistraditionbecauseitisseenastheexternalrepresentationorimageofspeech:inSaussure’sterminology,thewrittensignifierrepresentsaspokensignifierwhichalonestandsinanessentialandintimaterelationtothesignified.Asmereexternalrepresentativeofthe‘internalsystem’oflanguage,writingcanthenbeexcludedfromthedomainoflinguisticsproper.Saussurenonethelessrecognisestheneedforadiscussionofwriting,anditisunclearwhythisshouldbesoifwritingreallywerequitesoclearlyexternaltotheessentialobjectoflinguistics(Derrida’ssubtitleforthissectionofhischapteris‘Theoutsideandtheinside’).Heasserts,forinstance,that‘writingisinitselfforeigntotheinternalsystem...Language[Langue]andwritingaretwodistinctsign-systems;thesoleraisond’etreˆofthelatteristorepresenttheformer;theobjectoflinguisticsisnotdefinedbythecombinationofthewrittenCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida189wordandthespokenword:thislatteralone(aluiseul`)constitutesthatobject(CLG:44–5).IfwritingwereindeedmerelythekindofexternalrepresentationthatSaussureclaims(CLG:44–7),howcoulditbringwithitwhatSaussurecalls‘dangers’(CLG:44)whichneedtobepointedoutandevendenouncedinatonewhichismoreoneofmoralisticindignationthanofscientificdescription?Writing,externalandinstrumentalimageofspeech,can,itseems,onoccasioncontaminatethenotionalpurityoftheinternal(vocal)system,whatSaussurecallsthenaturallinkofsoundandsense.Thesignmaybeintrinsicallyarbitrary(i.e.non-natural),butthereremainsnonethelessasupposednaturalityinthelinkofsoundandsenseingeneral,withrespecttowhichwritingismerelyartificial–butartificialinawaythatalwaysmight,soitwouldseem,cometoaffectoreveninfectthesupposedlynatural‘inside’.Saussure’sindignationinchapter6oftheintroductionaboutthepossibleeffectsofwritingonspeechisbornofadesiretokeeptheoutsideontheoutsideandpreservethesupposednaturalpurityofthe‘internalsystem’.Accordingtoacommonmetaphysicalschemathesupposedlynaturalandoriginalpurityofaninsidehas,infactbutalsoinprinciple,alwaystobeachieved,afterthefact,asitwere,byanactofexpulsionofwhatsupposedlybelongsontheoutsidebutsomehow,unaccountably,hascometoappearontheinside,whereitshouldneverhavebeen.(DerridaprovidessomedetailedparallelswithRousseauandPlatohere,anddiscussestheirexplicittheoriesofwritingatlengthelsewhere–Derrida,1967a,and1972c.)Writing,saysSaussureinthisaugusttradition,hasnorightto‘usurp’theplaceofspeech,butasapotentiallyfascinatingandseductiveimage,alwaysmighttemptspeakersandlinguiststoinvertthenaturalorderofthings,tofallpathologically(thewordisSaussure’s:CLG:53)intothe‘trap’(CLG:46)setbywriting.Derrida’spointhereissimplytosuggestthatforthis‘usurpation’ofspeechbywritingeventobepossible,somethingaboutspeech(aboutnature,then,insofarasspeechisthenaturalplaceoflanguage)mustfromthestartlenditselftosuchapossibility:thatspeechbecomeaffectedbywritinginawayitnevershouldhavemustthereforenonethelessbeapossibility,whatDerridawouldlatercallanecessaryorstructuralpossibility,ofthesupposedly‘natural’speechfromthestart.Naturedoesnotsimplycomefirst,onlysubsequentlytobeaffectedbycultureortechnology,butis,fromthefirst,inpartconstitutedbythisverypossibility.AsDerridaputsit:Whydoesaprojectofgenerallinguistics,concerningtheinternalsystemingeneraloflanguageingeneral,drawthelimitsofitsfieldbyexcluding,asexteriorityingeneral,aparticularsystemofwriting(i.e.phoneticoralphabeticwriting),howeverimportantitbe,andevenifitwereinfactuniversal...Howeverimportant,andevenifitwereinfactuniversalordestinedtobecomeuniversal,thisparticularmodelofphoneticwritingdoesnotexist:nopracticeiseverpurelyfaithfultoitsprinciple...Andfinally,the‘usurpation’referredtobySaussure,theviolencewithwhichwritingwouldthussubstituteitselfforitsownorigin,forwhatshouldnotonlyhaveengendereditbuttohaveengenderedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n190GeoffreyBenningtonitself–suchanoverturningofpowercannotbeanaccidentalaberration.Theusurpationnecessarilyrefersustoadeepessentialpossibility.Thispossibilityiswithoutdoubtinscribedinspeechitselfanditshouldhavebeeninterrogated,andperhapsevenhavebeenthestartingpoint.(Derrida,1967a:58–9)Saussurehasnoaccountofthisessentialpossibility,andnorealconceptualmeanstoexplainit.Heseesphonetic/alphabeticwriting,quitetraditionally,aswritingparexcellence,theidealtowardwhichwritingsystemsshouldtend,thetelosoftheconceptofwritingjustbecauseitbestespousestheessentiallyvocalsign.DerridapointsoutthatSaussure,dealingwiththisphonetic/alphabeticwriting,andnotingtheaberrationshenotes,canonlyfallbackonvaguepsy-chologicalexplanations.DerridaalsonotesinpassingthatSaussureexplicitlysuggeststhatitisforpsychologytodeterminetheexactplaceofsemiology(CLG:33;quotedbyDerrida,1967a:60).Butnopsychology(oratleastnopsychologyofintuitiveconsciousness,suchasthatlooselyinvokedherebySaussure)canprovideanadequateaccountofthisessentialpossibilityof‘usurpation’.Thisisbecausetheproblemraisedbythequestionofwritinginitsapparentlymalevolentcapacityforinfectingthepurityofspeechjustisthegeneralproblemoflanguage’spotentialfunctioningintheabsenceofintuitiveplenitude,beitonthesideofthesubjectoronthesideoftheobject,apotentialmostclearlyinevidenceinwriting,butonethatinfactdefineslanguageassuch.AsDerrida(1967a:60)says:‘[Psychology]canneverencounterwithinitsspacethatthroughwhichisconstitutedtheabsenceofthesignatory,nottomentiontheabsenceofthereferent.Nowwritingisthenameofthesetwoabsences’.(SeealsoDerrida,1967b.)WhenceSaussure’stoneofindignationthatprevailsinthechapteronwriting.Indeed,hisapparentlybestexplanation(thatthefixityofthewrittenobjectgivesitafalseprestige)isincontradictionwithhisownclaimelsewherethattheoraltraditionisthemorefixedanddurable(CLG:46).Saussure’smanifestoutragefacedwithexamplessuchas‘Lef´ebure’,wherethe‘u’comesfromthepedanticrespellingofthe‘natural’evolvedform‘Lef`evre’,andthe‘b’fromapedanticreintroductionofanetymologicalmem-oryoftheLatinfaber,isbornofaninabilitytoexplain:asDerridamildlypointsout,‘Lef´ebure,cen’estpasmal’,andsoSaussure’sangrycomplaintthatsuchexamplesdonotresultfromthe‘naturalplay’oflanguage,butfrom‘external’factors,betraysatheoreticalinadequacyinthegeneralaccountoftherelationbetweenspeechandwriting,andmoreespeciallygoesagainstSaussure’sownearlierrecognitionthat‘theessentialcharacteroflanguage(langue)isforeigntothephoniccharacterofthelinguisticsign’(CLG:21–seetooCLG:164).Byallowingtheargumentfromnecessarypossibility(somethingaboutspeechmakesitessentiallycontaminablebyitssupposedlyexternal‘representation’),Derridasuggeststheconclusionthat‘writingingeneralisnotexternaltothesystemoflanguageingeneral’,andthatthisshouldinspirearethinkwherebyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida191writingwillnotonlybereinstatedasaworthyobjectofstudywithintheoreticallinguistics,butinwhichcertainfeaturestraditionallyconfinedtoawritingcon-ceivedasessentiallyexternaltothatsystembeinfactconsideredasconstitutiveofit,sothatlanguageingeneralmightbebetter(moreconsistently)describedintermsofjustthosefeatures,andtherebyasinsomesenseessentiallyakindof‘writing’.TherestofDerrida’schapterwill,then,beconcernedtobringoutthosefeatures,andhefindsthatSaussurehimselfprovidesgoodgroundsfordoingso,thoughpreciselynotinthechapteroftheCourswherewritingisexplicitlydiscussed.Theopeningpartofthissecondmanoeuvre(Derrida’sdisconcertingsubtitlehereis‘Theoutsideistheinside’,withthe‘is’crossedoutinagestureweshallcomeontoexplain)isstraightforwardandtrenchant:namelythatthebasicthesisofthearbitrarynatureofthesignoughtsimplytodisallowanyradicaltheoreticaldistinctionbetweenthevocalsign(as‘natural’)andthewrittensign(asitsmereexternalimageorrepresentation).EvenifSaussureclearlyintendshisdescriptionofthesignasbeingessentially‘unmotivated’toholdonlywithinthesupposedly‘natural’spaceofthevocalsignasdefinitiveoftheinternallanguagesystem,itlookstoDerridaasthoughconsideringsignsingeneralasunmotivatedinstitutionsshouldmakeitimpossibletopositany‘natural’hierarchyamongdifferentordersofsignortheirsubstance.Indeed,thedescriptionofthesigningeneralasanunmotivatedbutdurableinstitutionorinscriptionwillgiveDerridahisfirstreasonforthestartlingclaimthatthepredicatestraditionallyattachedtotheconceptof‘writing’betterdescribelanguageingeneralthanthosetraditionallyattachedtospeech.AndSaussurehimselfisincontradictionhere,havingfirstsuggestedthatwritingisindeeda‘systemofsigns’(andtherefore‘arbitrary’inthesenseofbeingunmotivated),onlythentocondemnittothe‘outerdarkness’(Derrida,1967a:66)onthegroundsofitsbeingmerelyanimage(andthereforemotivated,andthusnotasigninSaussure’ssense,butratherasymbol)ofspeech.Ifthethesisofthe‘arbitrarinessofthesign’istakenseriously,thenSaussureshouldattheveryleasthaveproducedamoreneutralaccountofwriting.ButDerridahasambitionsbeyondshowingthatSaussure(inkeepingwith‘thenon-criticaltradition’fromwhichheinherits)isnotentirelyconsistentor‘scientific’inhistreatmentofwriting.ThereisacertainrecognisablelogicandconsistencyinSaussure’scontradictions,andDerridatakesthis‘quasi-oneiric’(Derrida,1967a:67)coherenceasevidenceofadeepmetaphysicaldesireatwork,andnotmerelyalocalprobleminSaussure’sthinking:indeedhebelievesthatpursuingtheindexprovidedbythetreatmentofwritingwillallowhimto‘broachthede-constructionofthegreatesttotality–theconceptofepistemeandlogocentricmetaphysics–inwhich,withouttheradicalquestionofwritingeverhavingbeenraised,allWesternmethodsofanalysis,explanation,readingorinterpretationhavebeenproduced’(Derrida,1967a:68).BypursuingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n192GeoffreyBenningtonalittlefurtherSaussure’sthinkingaboutthearbitrarinessofthesign,andmoreespeciallythefamousandenigmaticthinkingaboutlanguageasasystemofdifferences,Derridawillattempttoderiveadescriptionoflanguageintermsoftrace,archi-writinganddifferance´whichhaveimplicationswellbeyondSaussure’sexplicitconcernsintheCours,andindeedwellbeyondthepurviewoflinguisticsitselfconsideredasascience.Ifwriting,asa‘systemofsigns’,cannotbethoughtofmerelyasarepresen-tationofspeech,howinfactarewetoconstrueit?Ontheonehandasmoreexternaltospeechthanitsimage,representationorsymbol,andontheotherasmoreinternaltoaspeechwhichDerridawillnowargueisitselfbetterthoughtofasaspeciesofwriting.Theclaimhererunsasfollows:thetraditionalconceptof‘writing’fundamentallysignifiesthe‘durableinstitutionofasign’(Derrida,1967a:65)oran‘institutedtrace’(Derrida,1967a:68).Derridaistryingtofindatermthatwillavoidthetraditionalconnotationsattachingto‘sign’or‘signifier’.(SeeDerrida,1967a:32,n.9and1972a.)ThisdifficultmotifofthetracewillnowbecomethecentreofDerrida’sconcern,andwillguidetherestofthispresentation.Thetraceis‘instituted’inthesensethatitisnotnaturallygiven,thatithas,asSaussuresays,glossingthesenseinwhichthesignis‘arbitrary’,no‘naturallink’withitssignified(orreferent).Saussurediscountsthetraditionalconventionalistaccountsofhowsuchaninstitutionispossible.Thishedoes,despitesometerminologicalhesitation,inhisstrongclaimthatlanguageisa‘pureinstitution’,aninstitutionlikenootherthatnonethelessshowsupsomethingoftheinstitutionalityofallinstitutions.(SeeespeciallyCLG:26,107,110andthehelpfulnotes137and157bydeMauro–CLG/D:442–3and449.)Oncethesetraditionalaccountsarediscounted,thepossibilityof‘arbitrary’institutionentailsthedefinitionintermsofdifference,againasSaussurerecognises.Hewrites:‘Sincethereisnovocalimagethatanswersbetterthananyothertowhatitischargedwithsaying,itisobvious,evenapriori,thatafragmentoflanguagecanneverbegrounded,inthelastanalysis,onanythingotherthanitsnon-coincidencewiththerest.Arbitraryanddiffer-entialaretwocorrelativecategories’(CLG:163;seeDerrida,1967a:77,n.18).Signsachievetheiridentity(i.e.theirpotentialrecognisabilityorrepeatabilityasthesignsthattheyareindistinctionfromothers),notthroughanypositiveorsubstantialfeatures,butjustinsofarastheyaredifferentfromothersigns,andthereforeinsomesensebearwiththemthetraceofallthesignstheyarenot.Thistraceisnotathinginanynormalsense,butthegeneralpossibilitythatthereberecognisablethingsatall–tothisextentSaussure’sinsightabout‘dif-ferencewithoutpositiveterms’(CLG:166)is,onDerrida’sreading,absolutelygeneralisableasaconditionofpossibilityofanyidentityorpositivitywhat-soever.WhatDerridacalls‘metaphysics’alwaysstartswiththeideaofsomefoundingororiginarypresence,butthegeneralisationoftheaccountofidentitythatSaussurebelievesdescribesonlythedomainofwhathecalls‘arbitraryCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida193signs’suggeststhatsuchapparent‘presence’isalwaysonlyasecondaryeffectofthetrace:nopresencecouldeverbefoundationaljustbecauseany‘pres-ence’(orwhatDerrida,1972a:90,wouldmorepreciselynowcallan‘effectofpresence’)alwaysonlyemergesfromthelogicallyprior,neversimplypresent,trace-relation.Withoutquiterealisingit,then,Saussure’sdefinitionofwhathebelievescanbecircumscribedastheproperobjectofaparticularscienceaffectsthefoundationaldefinitionsofwhatanyobjectorscienceatallcouldconceivablybe.Derrida’srathermoretechnicalanddifficultdescriptionofthissituation(Derrida,1967a:68–9;and1972a:37–41)derives,then,fromasimpleexten-sionofSaussure’sinsightaboutarbitrarinessanddifference.Onceanyelementinasystemisidentifiedbyitsdifferentialrelationality,asitmustbeonce‘arbi-trariness’istakenseriouslyandradically,thenthestructureisoneinwhichanygiven‘present’elementisalwayshauntedbytheother(‘absent’)elementswhichitisnot(Derrida,1993;seealsoDerrida,1967a:64and1967b).Inmorephenomenologicallanguage,Derridadescribesthisasasituationwhich‘requiresasynthesisinwhichthewhollyotherannouncesitselfassuch–withoutanysimplicity,anyidentity[exceptinthedifferentialsenseweareexploring–GB]anyresemblanceorcontinuity–inwhatisnotit’(Derrida,1967a:69).Heisalsorapidlypreparedtoclaimthatthisstructureisthatofentitiesingeneral.Metaphysicsalwaysthinksofentitiesasinsomesensepresent:Derrida,deriv-ingtheargumentfromSaussurehimself,isclaimingthatthatapparentpresencemustinfactbesubsequenttothetrace-relation,inwhich‘presence’isaffectedbyabsenceandalterityfromthestart,inanendlessmovementofbecoming,sothat,thegeneralstructureoftheunmotivatedtracehastocommunicateinthesamepossibilityandwithoutitbeingpossibletoseparatethemotherthanbyabstraction,thestructureoftherelationtotheother,themovementoftemporalisation(becauseanygivenelementisidentifiableonlywithrespecttoitsdifferencefrombothearlierandsubsequentelements)andlanguageaswriting.(Derrida,1967a:69)Thetracedoesnotsuperveneonanature(anorigin)alreadythere,butmustbealwaysalreadyatworkpriortoanyconstrualofwhatnaturemightbe,andthereforealsoitsapparentothers(institution,law,technology).This‘alwaysalready’Derridawilllaterinthechapterrefertoan‘absolutepast’;hereitisdescribedasalways(already)becomingbutneverquitebecome.DerridamakesadetourviaPeirce,withanapprovingaccountofthelatter’sdictumthat‘wethinkonlyinsigns’(Derrida,1967a:72).FromthisDerridadrawsthethoughtthat‘thethingitselfisasign’,andthatthesign-structureasdescribedbyPeirceisthereforestructurallyinterminable,neverarrivingatsomeultimatereferentorsignified–whathecallsa‘transcendentalsignified’(seeDerrida,1972a:30).DerridafurthersuggeststhatthisstructureofbecomingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n194GeoffreyBenningtonhastobethoughtofasmoreoriginarythanSaussure’sdistinctionbetweenthesynchronicandthediachronic.Giventheirreducibilityofthe‘play’(Derrida,1967a:73)thatidentifiesanyandallelementsoflanguageatalltimes,theactivemovementofthetraceisnecessarilyhappening‘in’whatevermomentonemightchoosetoidentifyas‘synchronic’,andhappeningasconstitutiveofthesynchronicitself.Themovementwearedealingwith(andwhichthe‘active’endingoftheneologism‘diff´erance’isdesignedtocapture–seeDerrida,1972bandalso1972a:16–19)isnotmerelythatofthedimensionSaussurecallsdiachronic,justbecauseitinhabitsthesynchronicitself,andaffectsany‘state’oflanguagewithanintrinsicmobility.Inageneralway,theclaimhereisthatthetrace-structurelogicallyprecedesallofSaussure’sdistinctions(seetooDerrida,1972a:40),andthatthe‘generallinguistics’withinwhichDerridafoundthehintsthatallowedhimtodevelopithastoberesituatedwithinthatpriorandmoregeneralstructure.Whencetheonlyhalf-serioussuggestionthat‘grammatology’mightreasonablyenoughreplace‘semiology’inSaussure’sdescriptionsofthemostgeneralscienceofwhichlinguisticswouldbemerelyapart,andthatthisreplacementwouldhavetheadvantageofavoidingthedominationofsemiologyingeneralbythespecificmodelofthelinguisticsign,Saussurefamouslyclaimingthatlanguageisthemost‘characteristic’ofsign-systems,andthatlinguisticscanthereforeaspiretobecomethe‘generalpattern’ofallsemiology(CLG:33and101;Derrida,1967a:74–5).Justaswesawthatthepossibilitythatwritinghassupposedlynefariouseffectsonpronunciationimpliedanecessarypossibility(whereSaussurewasreducedtothinking–orpreciselynotthinking–intermsofmonstrosityorcatastrophe),soSaussure’sregulartendencytoillustratefundamentalfeaturesofthelanguage-systemanditsdifferentialfunctioning(CLG:33and165)bycomparingittothewriting-systemimpliesa‘commonroot’ofspeechandwriting(Derrida,1967a:75–6)ratherthanthemerelyexternalimagingthatissuggestedinthechapterexplicitlydevotedtowriting.Thepointatwhichthelanguage-system(anditssupposednaturalvocality)andwritingarecompara-bleisthatbothfunctiondifferentially:butasdifferencebydefinitionisnevera‘sensoryplenitude’(Derrida,1967a:77:manycommercialslogansnotwith-standing,onecannotinfacttasteorfeeldifferenceassuch),itcannotinprinciplebegivena‘natural’placeinanyparticularsubstance,spokenorwritten.DerridaspendsseveralpagesheredefendingSaussure’sownexplicit‘reduction’ofthephoneticcomponentoflanguage(quotingnowfromthemuchlaterchaptersoftheCoursonidentityandvalue(CLG:164,166:Derrida,1967a:77–8)againstthereservationsofsuchasJakobsonandHalle,andMartinet.Derrida’spointhere,oftenmisunderstoodinspiteofhisexplicitstatements,isnotatallto‘reha-bilitate’orpromotewritinginitsstandardsense(ifphilosophersandlinguistshavehabituallyassumedorassertedthatspeechissuperiortowriting,DerridaisnotconcernedtoarguebacksymmetricallythatonthecontrarywritingisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida195superiortospeech),buttobringoutthis‘commonroot’.Logicallypriortothedistinctionbetweenspeechandwritingisthedifferentialsystemandthetrace-structure.(Iusethenotionof‘logicalpriority’forclarityandconveniencehere,butDerridaisquiteconsistentlysuspiciousofthevalueofthelogical,notatallinthatheprefersorpromotesillogicality,butinthattheconceptoflogicisitselfderivedfromlogos,andlogosispartofthe(‘logocentric’)philosophicaltraditionwhichhasmassivelydetermineditintermsofspeech–seeDerrida,1967a:366).Thepossible(andindeedperhapsinevitable)confusionhere(seeDerrida,1967a:26)stemsfromDerrida’salmostmilitantdeterminationtousetheterm‘writing’(or‘archi-writing’)torefertothis‘deeper’system.Butifarchi-writingisnotwritinginthetraditionalsense(anymorethanitisspeechinthetraditionalsense),whynotsimplychooseadifferentterm(Derridaafteralloftenusestheneologismdifferance´here)tonamethisnewconcept?HereispartofDerrida’sjustification:Thepointhereisnot,then,torehabilitatewritinginthenarrowsense,nortooverturntheorderofdependencywhenitisobvious...Wewouldliketosuggest,rather,thatthesupposedlyderivativenatureofwriting,howeverrealandmassiveitis,waspossibleonlyononecondition:thatthe‘original’,‘natural’,etc.languageneverexisted,thatitwasneverintact,untouchedbywriting,thatitalwayswasitselfawriting.Anarchi-writingthenecessityofwhichwewishtoshow,andthenewconceptofwhichwewishtosketch;andwhichwecontinuetocallwritingonlybecauseitcommunicatesessentiallywiththevulgarconceptofwriting.Thisconceptwasonlyabletoimposeitselfhistoricallybythedissimulationofarchi-writing,bythedesireforaspeechchasingoutitsotheranditsdoubleandworkingtoreduceitsdifference.Ifwepersistinnamingthisdifference‘writing’,thisisbecause,intheworkofhistoricalrepression,writingwas,byitssituation,destinedtosignifywhatwasmostfearsomeaboutdifference.Itwaswhat,attheclosestquarters,threatenedthedesireforlivingspeech,whatfromtheinsideandfromthestartbroachedit(Derrida,1967a:83).(‘Broach’heretranslatestheFrenchverbentamer:Derridaisexploitinganambiguitybetweenthesenseofstartingsomething,gettingsomethinggoing,andthesenseofcuttingintoandbreakingopen.)Thisdecisiontoretaintheword‘writing’,andtocourttheconfusionofits‘new’sense(‘archi-writing’,astructurelogicallypriortothestandardcon-ceptualdistinctionofspeechandwriting),isacomplexone.Itisjustifiedbythethoughtthatsomethingofthis‘new’senseislegibleinthetraditionaldis-cussions(andtothatextentthesenseisnotexactlynewatall,whichiswhyDerrida’sthinkingalwaystakesplaceintheformofreadingsofothertexts),andtheplaceofthatlegibilityissystematicallywherewriting(initscurrentor‘vulgar’sense)isatissue.Somethingaboutwritingintheusualsenseshowsupsomethingofthestructureofarchi-writing,evenifonlysymptomatically,sig-nallinganeffortofrepression.Metaphysicsdesireslanguagetobenormalisedonthebasisofspeechandthe‘presence’itappearstooffer:writingintheusualsenseisthenchargedwiththetaskofbearingallthenegativepredicatesaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n196GeoffreyBenningtonthinkingthatvalorisespresencewishestoexclude,butcanthenbeused,againstmetaphysics,asameanstodemonstratethatthosenegativepredicatescannotinfactbethusconfinedtowritingintheusualsense,butaffectlanguageingeneral,includingspeech.Thisdoesnotquitemeanthat,readingSaussure’slaterargumentsaboutdifferenceandvalueagainsttheexplicitclaimsinthewritingchapter,DerridaconsidersthatSaussureprovidesthegroundsfora‘positivescience’ofwriting.Thetrace-structure,insofarasitbringsoutapriorityofdifferencewithrespecttoanypresencewhatsoever,ipsofactoexceedsthetraditionalconceptofscience,whichiswedded,accordingtoDerrida,tojustthestructureofpresencewhichhedescribesasmetaphysical.HespendsseveralpageshereconsideringthepossibilitythatHjelmslevandhisfollowersinthe‘Copenhagenschool’might,however,providegroundsforsuchascience.ThiscurrentoflinguistictheoryhastheadvantageofamuchgreaterluciditywithrespecttothestatusofwritingthanwasevidentinSaussure’sexplicitdiscussion,ofallowingthethoughtthatspeechandwritingaretwosystemsequallyworthyofattention,andthusalsoallowingaccesstospecificallyliteraryaspectsofwriting(Derrida,1967a:83–9).Butevenifthis‘glossematic’approachismorelucidandconsistentinthisrespectthanSaussurehimself,inthatitdoesnotneedtoaffirmthesuperiorityorevenpriorityofspokenoverwrittenlanguage,itdoesnotbegintobringoutthe‘deeper’senseofwritingthatDerridaisconcernedtodevelop:Hjelmslevandhisfollowersstillworkwithinentirelyconventionaldefinitionsofspeechandwriting,andsimplyallowthesetwo‘substancesofexpression’equaldignityunderthegeneralformalumbrellaofglossematics.Aswehaveseen,Derridaismoreconcernedtoarguethat‘writing’,takenintheextendedsenseofthetrace,or‘archi-writing’,betterdescribesageneralstructureoflanguage(andofmorethanlanguage),andcannotbeconfinedtoitstraditionaldetermination:‘archi-writing,movementofdifferance´,irreduciblearchi-synthesis,openingatoneandthesametime,inoneandthesamepossibility,temporalisation,therelationtotheotherandlanguage,cannot,asaconditionofanylinguisticsystem,bepartofthelinguisticsystemitself,cannotbesituatedasanobjectinitsfield’(Derrida,1967a:88).Hjelmslev,inthisperhapsaccuratelyreflectingorpredictingtheinevitabledisciplinaryreactionoflinguisticstoDerrida’sconcerns,wouldhaverejectedthelatter’sconstanttendencytooverrunthelimitsoflinguisticsconsideredasascience,and‘wouldnothaveunderstoodwhythename“writing”shouldremainforthatXwhichbecomessodifferentfromwhathasalwaysbeencalled“writing”’(Derrida,1967a:89).Thefurtherargumentforretainingthattermnowgoesasfollows:Saussure’s(inherited)conceptofwritingdescribesitasa(graphic)signifierstandingfora(phonic)signifier,whichalonecorrelateswithasignifiedandconstitutesasign.ButastheSaussureofthethinkingoflinguistic‘value’and‘difference’CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida197increasinglysuggests,languageingeneralinfactfunctionsthroughthegen-eralreferralofsignifierstoothersignifiers,the‘value’ofagivensignifiersummarisingitsdifferentialrelationshipswithallothersignifiersinthesystem.ThisversionofSaussure’stheoryseemsnottoneedtheall-toofamiliardescrip-tionofthesignatall:the‘value’accountoflanguagecanreasonablybetakentodispensewithanythingasmysteriousasasignified(seeHarris,1987:1202)–ratherthe‘meaning’ofagivensignifieraccruesasaneffectofitsdifferentialrelationtoalltheothers,sothat,asDerridaputsit,a‘signified’isonlyeverasignifierplacedinacertainpositionbyothersignifiers:if,forexample,Iwishtogivethemeaning(signified)ofagivensignifier,allIcaneverdoisproducemoresignifiers,organisedinsuchawaythatoneormoreofthemcountasasignified.Signifiersingeneralreferontoothersignifiers,andtheappearanceof‘meaning’intheformofasignifiedisonlyeveran‘effect’(almostinthesenseofanillusion)ofthatreferral.Asignifierisneverinfactthesignifierofacorrelatedsignified,butalwaysthesignifierofothersignifiers.Nowifitbeacceptedthat‘signifierofsignifier...’bethepreferabledescriptionoftheoperationoflanguage,andif,aswesaw‘[graphic]signifierof[phonic]signi-fier’isthetraditionaldescriptionofwriting,thenitwouldappearjustified,onthebasisofthetraditionitself–whichmustafterallprovidethebasicmeansforourthinkingandunderstandinganythingatall,asSaussure(CLGpartI,chapter2,especiallyp.108)wellknewandasDerridafullyaccepts–toextendthereachof‘writing’todescribelanguageingeneral(seeDerrida,1967a:63).Inmovingontothistypeofclaim,DerridaisclearlydoingalittlemorethanmerelyglossingSaussure’sdoctrine.Saussurehimself(oratleastthetextoftheCoursasconstitutedbyhisstudents)wasmuchmorecautiousabouttheimplicationsofthe‘differenceswithoutpositiveterms’argument.Itwillberememberedthatinthe‘Linguisticvalue’chapteroftheCours,Saussureadvancesthe‘differenceswithoutpositivetermsargument’asvalidonlywhenthelevelofsignifierorsignifiedistakenseparately.Whenthesignis,asitwere,reconstitutedandtakenasawhole,Saussureclaimsthatwearedealingwithapositiveentity,namelythesign,andthatsignsrelatetoeachothernolongerinthemodeofdifference,butofopposition(CLG:167).Thisisasomewhatobscureclaim:Saussureclearlyneedstomaintainacertainviewofthesignasatleastpotentiallyaconcreteentity(asopposedtotheabstractioninvolvedinconsidering,fortheoreticalpurposes,signifierandsignifiedasseparablecomponentsofthesign).Butassignifierandsignifiedareinfactinseparableinthesign(chemicalcompound,CLG:145,orbetterstillrectoandversoofthesamepieceofpaper,CLG:157,intwoofSaussure’sfamousanalogies),thenheisdriventothethoughtthatthestructureofdifferenceswithoutpositivetermscannotbevalidatthelevelofthesign,justbecausesignstakenaswholesseemtohaveanindubitablerealityor,asSaussureputsit,positivity.Butthisthoughtisvulnerabletothefollowingdilemma.Either,asinthemoreclassicalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n198GeoffreyBenningtondoctrineofthesign,thesignifiedisinprincipledetachablefromanysignifierandcanideallyexistindependentlyor‘transcendentally’.However,thisisjustwhatSaussureistryingtocombat,forexampleineverythinghesaysagainsttheviewoflanguageasnomenclature,orinhisexplicitcontestationofthetraditionalanalogyofsignifierandsignifiedasbodyandsoul(CLG:145,seeDerrida,1972a:28and1967a:52).Orelsethesignifiedisindeedinseparablefromthesignifier.Butifitisinseparablefromthesignifier,andifthesignifierisindeedtobeunderstoodthroughtheargumentaboutdifference,thenweseemjustifiedinseeingtheretreatfromthenegativedifferentialdefinitiontothepositiveoppositionaloneassomethingofalossofnerveonSaussure’spart,andafallingbackintojustthemodelofthesignhewastryingtoavoid.Itseemstofolloweitherthatthesignwillremainthemetaphysicalentityitalwayshadbeen,orelsewilldissolveinthefaceofthemorepowerfulargumentaboutdifference.DerridaconsidersitjustifiabletopursuethisconsequenceonthebasisofanassessmentofwherethestrengthofSaussure’sthoughtlies,evenifmanyofSaussure’sexplicitclaimsappeartoresistjustthatconsequence.Thetensionbetweenproposdeclare´andtheautregesteinSaussure,whichwesawmostclearlyoperatingbetweenthechapteronwritingandthechapteronlinguisticvalue,continuesherewithinthatlatterchapter.DerridahimselfreflectsonthetypeofreadingheisdoingimmediatelyafterthediscussionofHjelmslevandhisfollowers,inaparentheticalreflectiononthephenomenologicalconceptof‘experience’whichneednotperhapsdetainushere,exceptinsofarasitilluminatesthegeneralstrategyofwhatwecan-notquitecallDerrida’s‘method’(seeDerrida,1967a:226–34).Derridawantstosuggestthat,whateverthemanyvirtuesofHjelmslev’sworkinrigorously(scientifically)determiningtheproperlimitsofthesystemoflanguage,itstopsshortofaskingthetranscendentalquestionastotheconditionofpossibilityofthatsystemassuch(whatDerridaisstrivingtoformulateastrace,differance´,archi-writingandsoon),andbynotaskingthatquestionheremainsvulnerabletothemetaphysicsof‘scientisticobjectivism’.Toavoidthis,certaintranscen-dentalquestionsmustbeput,eveniftheeffectofthosequestionsisultimatelytounsettlethelimitsofthescienceaboutwhichtheywereput,andeventounderminetheverytranscendentalpositionfromwhichtheywereput.HenceDerridalaterdevelopsthethoughtofa‘quasi-transcendental’(seeBennington,1991).Thedangerofthatunderminingisthat,unlesscertainprecautionsbetaken,itsresultsalwaysmightlookjustasthoughthequestionhadneverbeenputinthefirstplace,and,asDerridaputsit,‘theultra-transcendentaltext’,whichheistryingtoproduce,will‘lookjustliketheprecriticaltext’.Thisdanger(whichmustberun)canbeavoidedonlybyeschewingconfidenceinthevalueofconclusions(here,somethinglike‘it’sallwriting’)intheinterestsofmarkingthepathleadingtothoseconclusions,whatDerridacallsthesillage,thetrackorwakethatthereadingmustleaveinthetextread,andthathischapterCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida199istryingtoleaveinSaussure.3Atthepointwehavereached,suchapathhasledustotheneedtopositthatthetraceisthe‘origin’ofthelanguage-systemasawhole:butjustwhatmakes‘trace’adifficultconcepttothinkthroughisthatitunderminesthevalueofpresenceonwhichthenotionoforiginitselfrests.Ifthe‘origin’isatrace,thenitisinfactandinprinciplenooriginatall:whatDerridaherecallsthe‘archi-trace’or‘originarytrace’marksthisprobleminthatitisexplicitlyacontradictoryconcept:Forexample,thevalueoftranscendentalarkhe`mustmakeitsnecessityfeltbeforelettingitselfbecrossedthrough[raturer]itself.Theconceptofarchi-tracemustallowforboththatnecessityandthatcrossing-through.Foritisinfactcontradictorywithinthelogicofidentity.Thetraceisnotonlythedisappearanceoftheorigin,itheremeans...thattheoriginhasnotevendisappeared,thatitwasonlyeverconstitutedinreturnbyanon-origin,thetrace,whichthusbecomestheoriginoftheorigin.(Derrida,1967a:90)Anditisjustthisgestureof‘crossing-through’thatwesawinDerrida’ssubtitletothissection.Aftersomedensereflectionsondifferance´asthe‘formationofform’andthe‘being-imprintedoftheimprint’,whichgivesomefurtherphilosophicalpreci-siontothephilosophicalstatusofthetrace,Derrida’sfinalsection,entitledlabrisure,‘Thehinge’,developssomeofthesequestionsfurther.Theargumentaboutthetrace,developedfromthecorrelativenotionsofarbitrarinessanddif-ferenceinSaussure,hasestablishedaconceptualzonethatmakespossiblethescienceoflinguistics,whilefallingoutsideitspurview,andhasjustifiedtheretentionoftheword‘writing’,initsmodifiedorgeneralisedsense,todescribethatzone.Onlytheworkofthetraceasdifferance´allowseffectsofmeaningtoemerge,andprovidesthecommonrootofspeechandwritingintheirusualsenses:thiscommonroot(nolessthanthe‘originoftheexperienceofspaceandtime’,Derrida,1967a:96)thenallowsforthepossibilitythatwritten(spatial)sequencesappeartomapontospoken(temporal)sequencesoflanguage,andmoregenerallyforlanguagetobearticulated.WhatSaussure’smoreradicalinsightsaregropingtowardsisthispossibilityoflanguageasarticulation(CLG:26,quotedDerrida,1967a:96:seetooCLG:156).Thatpossibility,asSaussureisaware,impliesafundamentalpassivityofthespeakingsubjectwithrespecttothelanguages/hespeaks,andapassivitythatrelatestoakindofradicalpastinthesensethatlanguageisalwaystherebeforeme,‘alwaysalready’,thatIspeakthewayIspeakbecausethat’showpeoplespokebeforeme,thatIreceivethelanguagethewayIreceivethelaw(CLG:104,108).This‘pastness’oflanguageismoreovernotthesortofpastIcanthinkofasapastpresent,inthatatnopointwasitpresent:theveryfunctioningoflanguageassuchentailsthatthatpastnessinformitfromthestart.Thistypeof‘past’istothatextent‘absolute’,butthereby,stillfollowingthelogicoftheraturewehavejustsketchedout,notadequatelynameableaspast,insofarasthetraditionalconceptof‘past’alwaysCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n200GeoffreyBenningtonimplies‘pastpresent’.WhatDerridahasdevelopedfromSaussureintermsofthetrace,then,notonlyexceedstheconceptualresourcesofthetraditionalcharacterisationoftherelationsbetweenspeechandwriting,norevenonlytheresourcesofthetraditionalconceptionofwhatascienceis,butalsothoseofthetraditionalconceptualisationoftimeitself.ThisleadsDerridatosomebroaderreflectionsonathinkingoftimethatwouldnolongeranswertophenomeno-logicalcategories,centredonthepresent,andwouldhavetoengagewiththetemporalstructurethatFreudfamouslycalledNachtraglichkeit¨(seeDerrida,1967c),andthatagainengageswiththe‘methodological’strandofthechapter.ForjustasthedevelopmentofSaussure’sthinkingledtothestrategyofraturewehavesummarised,sotheargumentfromdifferenceaffectsthewaywecanthinkaboutDerrida’sowndiscourse,andthestatusofthetermsheproposes.Wehavealreadywitnessedanapparentlyexuberantuseofavarietyofterms–trace(asvariously‘instituted’,‘unmotivated’,‘originary’,‘pure’),differance´,(archi-)writingand,soon,espacementandtexte–tonamewhatitistemptingtothinkofas‘thesamething’(evenifthat‘thing’cannotquitebeathing,butsomethingliketheconditionofthinghoodingeneral).NowDerridareturnstothechoiceoftheterm‘trace’,andreflectsonitsusewithinthelogichehaslaidout:Whatguidedusinthechoiceofthisword?...Ifwordsandconceptstaketheirmeaningonlyinlinkingsofdifferences,onecanjustifyone’slanguage,andthechoiceofterms,onlywithinatopologyandahistoricalstrategy.Justificationcanthereforeneverbeabsoluteanddefinitive.Itrespondstoastateoftheforcesinplayandtranslatesahistoricalcalculation.(Derrida,1967a:102)Inthiscase,thatchoiceismotivatedbyreferencestootherthinkers:‘trace’appears,withvaryingdegreesofelaboration,inLevinas,FreudandNietzsche,forexample,aswellasincontemporaryscience,andDerridanecessarilydrawsonthe‘meaning-effects’thataccruetotheterminthosediscourses.‘Trace’isnot,andonthedifferenceaccountofhowlanguageworks,nevercouldbeabsolutelythe‘rightword’,whencetheapparentfreedomwithwhichitcanbesubstitutedinvariouscontextsbydifferance´or,here,‘writing’.Viatheseinputs,Derrida’s‘calculation’isthattheterm‘trace’isalreadyworkingforhimalongthelinesofaquestioningofmetaphysicalcategories,manyofwhichhesummarisesagainintheseclosingpages.Thequasi-concept4‘trace’providedaneasier(more‘economical’)wayofthinkingthegeneralconditionofdifferenceas,forexample:‘Theopeningtothefirstexteriorityingeneral,theenigmaticrelationofthelivingbeingtoitsotherandofaninsidetoanoutside:spacing.’Alittleearlier,Derridahaspointedoutthatthetermespacementgathersatemporalsensetoaspatialone(Derrida,1967a:99).WhathasDerridadonetoSaussure?Clearlymorethaniscapturedbytheusualmodelsofcommentaryorinterpretation,howevermuchcommentaryandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussureandDerrida201interpretationwecanfindinthischapter.WehavealreadynotedthatDerrida’sinterestinSaussureisnotthatofascholar,northatofaprofessionallinguist.Inthelongfinalfootnotetohischapter,Derridareturnstothissituationagain,andalsoaddressestheissueofthestatusofthetextoftheCours,fromwhichheworksalmostexclusively–althoughthisnotealsoreferstoGodel’sSourcesmanuscritesducoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(1957).AfterstressingthatthechoiceofSaussureashisobjectismotivatedbothbytheprominenceSaussure’sthinkingstillhadincontemporarylinguisticsandsemiology,andbythefactthatSaussureappearstobesituatedonalimitbetweenatraditional,‘metaphysical’thinkingofthesignanda‘beyond’ofthatmetaphysics,heproceedsasfollows:itisnottoberuledoutthatthattheliteralityoftheCours,towhichwehavebeenobligedtorefer,shouldonedayappeartobeverysuspect,inthelightofmaterialyettobepublished.WearethinkingparticularlyoftheAnagrams.TowhatextentisSaussureresponsiblefortheCoursasitwaswrittenupandgivenoutafterhisdeath?Thequestionisnotanewone.Isitnecessarytomakeitclearthat,hereatleast,wecannotallowittheslightestrelevance?Unlessonehasprofoundlymistakenthenatureofourproject,itwillhavebeenperceivedthat,caringverylittleaboutthethoughtitselfofFerdinanddeSaussurehimself,wehavebeeninterestedinatextwhoseliteralityhasplayedthewell-knownroleithasplayedsince1915,functioninginasystemofreadings,influences,misrecognitions,borrowings,refutations,etc.Whatitwaspossibletoreadinit–andalsowhatitwasnotpossibletoreadinit–underthetitleofCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´waswhatmatteredtous,totheexclusionofanyhiddenand‘true’intentionofFerdinanddeSaussure.Ifitweretobediscoveredthatthistexthashiddenanothertext–andwe’llonlyeverbedealingwithtexts–,andhiddenitinadeterminateway,ourreadingwouldnot(oratleastnotforthatreasonalone)beinvalidated.Quitethecontrary.(Derrida,1967a:107,n.38)‘Derrida’sSaussure’,then,isnotexactlyproposingatruthofSaussureorofSaussure’sthought,norevena‘semiological’ratherthan‘philological’reading.Derridawould,however,undoubtedlysubscribetomanyofthemethodologicalremarksmadebyHarris(1987)inthePrefacetoReadingSaussure,especiallyonthelimitsofhistoriographicalreadingandthenotionofthe‘unread’.Thepointofthereadingisrathertofollow,throughSaussure,alineofthoughtthatSaussurecannotbesaidtohavemastered,noreventohavecompletelyartic-ulated,butwhichopensontoquestionsthatSaussurehimself,andlinguisticsasascienceoradiscipline,certainlycannotcontain.Thisisinfactaconse-quenceoftheattempttogeneralisethe‘difference’argumentDerridafoundinSaussure:Saussure‘himself’,thesupposedidentityofhisthinking,hasnowitselftobeconceivedalongthelinesofthedifferentialidentitydescribedbythetrace-structure.Saussure’smobile,textual,placeinthetraditionispreciselyhomologouswiththatofanelementinalanguage-system.(Seetootheparallelreflexionsontheidentityof‘Rousseau’inDerrida,1967a:147–8and230–1.)Thereading,then,involvesaconstant,andnecessarilyincomplete,attempttoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n202GeoffreyBenningtonseparateouttherelativelyheterogeneousstrandsofSaussure’stext,toappreciatewithasmuchcareaspossiblethetensionbetweenthosestrandswhichremaintightlyboundupwithmetaphysicalpresuppositions,andthosewhichcanopenontosomeotherpossibility,evenifthatpossibilityisonetowhichSaussurehimselfmightverywellnothaveassented,andwhichisthereforeproducedbythereadingitself.WhatDerridaherecalls‘grammatology’wouldthen,inthewordswhichendtheinterviewinPositions,be‘lessanotherscience,anewdisciplinechargedwithanewcontent,anewclearlydefineddomain,thanthevigilantpracticeofthistextualseparation’(Derrida,1972a:50).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n13Saussure’sunfinishedsemanticsSimonBouquetSaussureaspragmatician?Saussure’spositionwithrespecttomeaningcannotbediscussedwithoutanin-depthanalysisoftheoriginaltexts,thatisthestudents’notesfromthelecturesongenerallinguisticsandwritingsbySaussurehimselfongenerallinguis-tics.WhileitisimpossibletotaketheCoursasaliteralbasisforasemanticsstructuredaroundamaximal(‘textual’)theoryofmeaning,whichIshallcallasemioticsofinterpretation,suchastructurecanbededucedbylookingattheoriginaltexts.The(re)readingofSaussurepresentedinthischapterpointsupnotonlythewaySaussure’sapproachtosemanticshasgonelargelyunnoticed(initsproduction),butalsotheimportanceforSaussure’sthoughtofthe‘actionvalue’oflanguage–inotherwords,thecentralimportanceoftheinterpreta-tivepointofview.Havingsaidthat,hislecturesandwritingsdonotcontainadevelopedtheoryofarticulationfroma‘grammatical’andaninterpretativeviewpoint–inotherwords,ifoneadoptsmydefinitionofthewordmeaning,thereisnotheoryofmeaning.Butthereareextremelyclearsuggestions–cen-sored,forgottenorignoredintheCours–whichpointthewaytowardssuchatheory.Withregardtothe‘actionvalue’oflanguage,theoriginaltextsunveilahostoftermsanddescriptionswhichsuggestaninterpretativeapproach,subordinatingthevalueofthe‘signedeparole’,orasemiologicalapproachtospeech,toadescriptiononecancallpragmatic,ifthisadjectiveisusedinitsestablishedsenseof‘appropriatetoaction’.Thus,thethirdcourse(1910–11)containstheexpressions‘actesdelangage’(‘actsoflanguage’):wehavefoundinlangue...adefinableobject,separablefromactsoflanguageasawhole(CLG/E1.42.252.5)jeudelangage(theinterplayoflanguage/language-game):westillhave...todealwiththeindividual...Wemusttakealookattheworkingoflanguageintheindividual.Thispracticeofasocialproductbytheindividual...revealstheindividualinnerworkingswhichmustultimately,inonewayoranother,haveaneffectonthegeneralproduct,butwhichmustnotbeconfused,inanalysis,withthatgeneralproduct...(CLG/E1.515.429.5)205CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n206SimonBouquetAhandwrittenpreparatorynoteforthesecondcourse(1908–9)alsousesthenotionof‘will’(volonte´),inanassertiontowhichIshallreturn,thatofthedualityofthescienceoflanguage:FromtheIndividual,orParole:a)everythingtodowithProductionofSounds,b)everythingtodowithcombination–EverythingtodowithWill.Duality:Parole;individualwill/Langue,socialpassivityHereforthefirsttimequestionoftwoLinguistics.(CLG/E1.515.429.5)Thenotionof‘discourse’isanothermisunderstoodSaussureanconceptwhichIwillconsideratlengthbelow.Inalongmanuscriptnote,theunresolvedproblemofthenatureofdiscourseissummedupinthefollowingquestion:‘Whatisnecessarytogiveustheideathatsomeonewishestosignifysome-thing,usingthecountlesstermswhichareavailableinlangue?’Thus,what‘separates’(touseSaussure’sterm)‘discourse’ononehand,andontheotherthe‘mentalstoreoflangue’concernsthespeaker’sintentionality,and,aboveall,therecognitionofthisintentionalitybytheaddressee.Thisisalongwayfromtheessentiallymechanisticand‘abstract’conceptionoflanguagewhichreadingtheCoursalonelendstoSaussure.Asagreatcomparativelinguistoftheneogrammarianschool,heinevitablydraws,viathepositivistAugusteComte,ontheepistemologyofphysicsbyapplyingthedualityofsynchronicanddiachronicviewpointstolinguisticstudy.However,thisdoesnotnecessarilymakehimpartytothemechanisticabstractionlikelytofollowfromanuncriticalviewofcomparativegrammar.Thefollowingpassage,takenfrommanuscriptsdiscoveredin1996intheconservatoryoftheSaussurefamilyhomeinGeneva,isperfectlyexplicit:ThemisunderstandingwhichinitiallydoggedtheschoolfoundedbyF.Boppwastogivelanguagesabody,animaginaryexistenceoutsidespeakingindividuals.Abstraction,withinlangue,evenwhenappropriatelyapplied,isinpracticeonlyoflimiteduse–isalogicalprocess–especiallyanabstractionwhichhasbeengivenabody...TheBoppschoolwouldhavesaidthatlangageisanapplicationoflangue...Itisnowclearthatthereisapermanentreciprocityandthatthelinguisticsystemhasitssoleapplicationandsoleorigininactsoflanguage...whilelanguage(langage)isboththeapplicationandtheconstantgeneratorofthelanguagesystem(langue),theactoflanguageistolanguebothitsapplicationanditssoleorigin.(ELG:129)ThiswayofthinkinghighlightsSaussure’sdistancefromthelogical-grammaticalparadigminlanguagescience,justashistheoryofa‘linguisticsoflangue’fitsperfectlywithinthisparadigm–andwastooccupy,afterhisdeath,afounding,redefiningplace.Thisepistemologicaldistanceiscounter-balancedbyoneofSaussure’smostmisunderstoodpropositions,theonethatdealswiththeobjectoflinguistics.ForSaussure,linguisticsinnowaycameCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sunfinishedsemantics207downtoamerelinguisticsoflangue,whateverBallyandSechehayemayhavesaid.‘...lalinguistiqueapouruniqueetveritableobjetlalangueenvisag´ee´enelle-memeetpourelle-mˆemeˆ’(‘thetrueanduniqueobjectoflinguisticsislanguagestudiedinandforitself’,CGL-B:232).ThelastsentenceoftheCoursisnotonlyapocryphal,butitisalsocompletelycontradictory.LinguisticsoflangueandlinguisticsofparoleAsunfortunateasitisfamous,thisfinalsentenceisnowheretobefoundintheGenevalecturewhichisthesourceofthelastchapteroftheCours,norelsewhereinSaussure’slecturesorwritings.BallyandSechehayechosetoroundoffthe1916volumewithaphrasedrawnfromBopp(1816),thusgivingalast-minutelogical–grammaticalturnofthescrewtothebooktheyfashionedandwroteupfromthelecturesoftheirteacherandcolleague.Saussure,infact,asweshallsee,heldaquiteoppositeview.TheregressiontowardstheGermanscholar’sviewpointisevenmorestrikingfortoday’sreaderwhohasaccesstothecritiqueofBopp’sideaoflanguageinthewritingsdiscoveredin1996.NotonlydidBallyandSechehayefalsifySaussure’sthought,theydidsousingaphraseandanauthortowhomhewasopposed.Letuslookatthetexts.Ahandwrittenpreparatorynoteforthe1908–9course,HereforthefirsttimequestionoftwoLinguistics,hasalreadyshownthatwhileSaussure’scoursesatthistimecoveredonlythelinguisticsoflangue,theomissionofalinguisticsofparolewastheresultofadeliberatedecisiontakenfordidacticreasons.ButthemostinterestingtextistheplandrawnupbySaussureforhislastcourseingenerallinguistics.Thisplan,whichrepresentsthefinalknownsynthesisofhisthoughtandwhichhasalltheappearancesofbeinganepistemologicalprogramme,wasoutlinedtohisstudentsatthebeginningofthesecondlectureofthe1910–11sessionon4November1910:‘1.Languages.2.Langue.3.Theabilityandthepracticeoflanguageintheindividual’(CLG/E1.24.122).Beforetheendofhislecture,hereturnedtohisplan,commentingonitasfollows:I.Thelanguageofhumanityasawholeismanifestedinaninfinitevarietyoflanguages...Thelinguisthasnochoicebuttobeginbystudyinglanguages...II.Thelinguistwillretainfromthestudyandobservationoftheselanguagesallthatappearsessentialanduniversal...Thecollectionofabstractionswhichresultswillbelangue...III.Theindividualremainstobedealtwith,becauseonlythecommoneffortofallindividualscancreategeneralphenomena.Itisthusnecessarytotakealookattheworkingoflanguageintheindividual.Thispracticeofasocialproductdoesnotcomeunderwhatwehavedefined[forsectionII].Thisthirdchapterthenrevealstheindividualinnerworkingswhichmustultimately,inonewayoranother,haveCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n208SimonBouquetaneffectonthegeneralproduct,butwhichmustnotbeconfused,inanalysis,withthatgeneralproductwhichisseparatefromtheproductitself.(CLG/E1.65.429.5)Ascanbeseen,thiscomment,expandingonthethirdpartoftheplan,faith-fullyreflectsSaussure’scriticismofBopp.InMay1911Saussureconfirmedhisplan,ashewasbusyworkingonitssecondpart.Thisisthepointwhere,havingdistinguishedthetwopossibleusesof‘parole’,ononehandthepro-ductionofsoundandontheotherthe‘individualcombinations,andsentences,dependentontheindividual’swillandcomingfromindividualthought’(CLG/E1.57.356.5),hestatesthatwhilelangueandparoleimplyeachother’sexistence,theyeachrequireaseparatetheory(CLG/E1.56.342.5)andasserts:Within[this]areaofinquiry,then,[one]partcoversthestudyoftheindividualaspectoflanguage,ofparole...;thisisthestudyofparoleandasecondpart[the]aspectoflanguagewhichisasocialconventionandsituatedbeyondtheindividual’swill,thestudyoflangue...Thesetwopathscannotbefollowedsimultaneously,theymustbefollowedseparatelyorexclusively.Aswesaid,itisthestudyoflanguewhichwehavechosentopursue[inthissectionofthecourse].Thequestioniswhethertoretainthenamelinguisticsforboththingstogetherortolimitittothestudyoflangue?Weneedalinguisticsoflangueandalinguisticsofparole.(CLG/E1.56.342.5)ThetextoftheCourswhichcorrespondstothispassageonceagainfalsifiesSaussure’swords,asitoccursinthemiddleofachapterwhichconfusinglymergesthetwonotionsof‘parole’,onereferringtothephonatoryaspectofthefactumloquendiandtheotherreferringtoitssemanticdimension.Inthestudents’notebooks,thesetwonotionsareactuallydistinguished.BallyandSechehayewritethatthestudyofparolemayalarigueur`beconsideredpartoflinguistics;CLG:38(CLG/E1.56–8.340–67.AM2–5).Thisalarigueur`wasanadditiontothestudents’notes,fedintothetextontheeditors’owninitiative,andmakesthewholethingmeanexactlytheoppositeoftheoriginalsentence.Asanafterthought,tojustifytheirmodificationandlendcredencetotheirfinalsentenceintheCours,theyimmediatelyinsertedanotherremarkoftheirown,unattestedinanysource:‘It[parole]mustnotbeconfusedwithlinguisticsproper,whichtakesasitssoleobjectthelanguagesystem.’Farfromexcludingalinguisticsofparole,astheCourssuggests,whatSaus-sureupheldthroughoutthe1910–11lectureserieswasthatalinguisticsoflanguemustbedevelopedbasedonnewepistemologicalprincipleswhichshouldinturnbecomethecornerstoneforotherapproachestolanguage:Thebestwaytojudge[theparolepartoflangage]istotakeuppositioninlanguefromthestart.(CLG/E1.55.339.5)Givingprioritytolangue(bytakingitasthecentreandstartingpoint)providesthebestplatformforapproachingotherelementsoflanguage,andsituatingthemaccurately.(CLG/E1.515.328.1)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sunfinishedsemantics209wehavefoundinlangue...adefinableobject,separablefromactsoflanguageasawhole.(CLG/E1.42.252.5)Theactivityofthespeakingsubjectshouldbestudiedwithinacollectionofdisci-plineswhosepositioninlinguisticsdependsontheirrelationshipwithlangue.(CLG/E1.42.252.5)ThecoexistenceoftwocomplementaryfieldswhicharecentraltolanguagescienceisonceagainexplicitlyattestedtoinSaussure’slastmanuscripttextongenerallinguistics,datingfrom1912.Ironically,itistheroughdraftofareportonthecreationofBally’schair.Itcontainsthesameargument,stilllinkedtoarefusalofthe‘misunderstandingwhichinitiallydoggedtheschoolfoundedbyF.Bopp’(cf.ELG:129):Theonlyproblem,ifImaysayso,isthevastextentoflinguistics.Andthefactthatitismadeupoftwoparts:onewhichisclosertolangue,apassivedeposit,theotherwhichisclosertoparole,anactiveforceandthetrueoriginofthephenomenasubsequentlyperceptibleintheotherhalfoflangage.(ELG:273)Ifanydoubtsremainedabouttheultimateaccommodationofobjectsdrawnfromtwofieldsrequiringdifferingmethodologicalapproaches,anequationfoundinthenewmanuscriptsdiscoveredin1996(‘Semiology=morphology,grammar,syntax,synonymy,rhetoric,stylistics,lexicologyetc.,allofwhichareinseparable’(ELG:45;seealsoELG:175–6)showsbothhowthe‘meaning’partoflanguagerequiresamultiplicityofinseparabledescriptiveapproachesandhowthesciencenamedsemiology,atermheresynonymouswithlinguisticsemiologyorlinguistics,is,forSaussure,capableofencompassingthismul-tiplicityofapproaches,aslongastheseapproachesfallwithinthetwofieldsdefinedasthestudyoflangueandthestudyofparole.Moreover,theequationcitedaboveappearstolinkthedyadlinguisticsoflangue/linguisticsofparoletotheage-olddyadoflanguagesciencedescribedbyFran¸coisRastier,withlogicandgrammarononeside(i.enon-contextual,non-compositionaltheo-riesanddescriptionsofmeaning),andrhetoricandhermeneuticsontheother(i.e.contextualandnon-exclusivecompositionaltheoriesanddescriptionsofmeaning).GiventhedistortingeffectofthepublishedCoursandthefactthattheGenevalectures,inwhichthethirdpartofthe1910–11seriesmighthavebeendeveloped,werecutshortbySaussure’sdeath,itwashighlyunlikelythathisprojectforalinguisticsofparolewouldberecognised,andofcourseintheCLGitwasnot.TheCours,particularlyintheareaofsemantics,wasreadaspurelylogical–grammaticaltreatywhichexcludedtheinterpretativefield.TheSaussureanconceptoflanguehasbeenandcontinuestobeadoptedandchampionedbymanylinguists.Theconceptofparolehashadlesssuccess.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n210SimonBouquetIndeed,theword‘discourse’seemstohavereplacedSaussure’s‘parole’,thoughthishasnotledtothefoundingofa‘discourselinguistics’onepistemologicalgroundsassolidastheSaussureandyadmighthavesuggested.Whatisstrikingisthewaythetermdiscours(discourse),whichoccursrepeatedlyintheoriginaltextswithameaningclosetothatofparole,was,withafewrareexceptions,censoredoutbyBallyandSechehaye.Thisexcisionhelpedthe‘editors’toburyalinguistiquedelaparoleonceandforall.Andthetermdiscourswasnottheonlyvictim;theeditors’tamperingmadethestructuredrelationshipbetweenlangueanddiscourse,i.e.langueandparole,practicallyunrecognisable.Weshallnowlookattheseneglectedoccurrencesof‘discourse’,andthequestionSaussurerepeatedlyposesconcerningthem,inmuchmoredetailthanissuggestedbythe1916volume.‘Discourse’asanobjectinSaussure’sgenerallinguisticsHerewearetakingintoaccountonlyreferencestodiscoursinthesenseofutterancesinuse,whethersimplenoun(lediscours),adjective(discursif),ornominalisedadjective(lediscursif).Notonlyaretheseterms,whichoccurinthelecturesongenerallinguisticsaswellinasSaussure’swritings,generallyignoredbytheeditorsoftheCours,butsotooarewholepassagesinwhichtheyoccur.(Justtwooccurrencesofdiscourscanbefound–CLG:170–1.)Thefollowingbriefpresentationoftheseoccurrencesandpassages,classifiedaccordingtothetheoreticalargumentsinwhichtheyfeature,revealsalittle-knownfacetofSaussureanthoughtandterminology.(WeshallseethatSaussureusesthetermsdiscours,discursif,languediscursive,langagediscursifinasimilarway,andthatalltheseexpressionsrefertoparole.)Firstly,theconceptof‘discourse’ischaracterisedbyitsexclusion,whichismotivatedbytheneedtoqualifycertaintheoreticalimplicationsoftakinglangueastheobjectofstudy.Inotherwords,theconceptof‘discourse’asaclearsynonymfor‘parole’makesitsappearanceasoneofthetermsofthewell-knownoppositionbetweenlangueandparole,thespecificintentionofwhichistocharacteriselangue.A.Theconceptof‘discourse’isusedwiththeintentionofprovidingageneralqualificationoflangueasa‘mentaltreasure’.ThisisthecaseintheNotesItem:thesentenceexistsonlyinparole,indiscursivelangue,whereasthewordisalivingunitindependentofanydiscourseinthementalstore.(CLG/E2.40.3323.1)(Theword)canbeconsideredashavingexisted‘before’thesentence...Moreover,evenindiscourse,therearecountlessinstanceswhereonemustsayaword,andnotasentence(allthevocatives,forone).(CLG/E2.41.3323.3)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sunfinishedsemantics211B.Theconceptof‘discourse’isusedtoqualifyabstractunitsoflangue.Forexample,inthesecondcourseingenerallinguistics:horseandhorsesarealsothesameword,buttoaffordthemunity,onemusttakeneitherhorsenorhorses,buta‘middle’encompassingboth,anabstraction;onemusttakeasaunitsomethingwhichisnotdirectlygivenbutwhichresultsfromamentaloperation.Butthereisanalternative.Bytakingcontinuityofdiscourseasabasis,thewordisseenasonesectioninachainofdiscourseandnotinsignificationasawhole(theseareinfactthetwopossiblewaysofapproachingtheword).How-ever,animmediateobjectiontothisistheimpossibilityofsodividingupaforeignlanguage.Thisimpliesthattheseunitsarenotinherentintheacousticmatter,butmustcorrespondtoanidea.So,doestakingthewordasapieceofdiscoursegiveusconcreteunits?Letusgobacktohorsesorevenmonth,andconsiderthemonthofDecemberphonologically,asifproducedbyaphonograph,withoutinterruption(asinaGreekinscription,atrue‘photograph’ofdiscourse).(CLG/E1.238–9.1730–1.2)OragaininthecourseonGreekandLatinetymologyof1911–12:Wordcanhavetwomeanings:(a)concreteword=wordasitfiguresindiscourse,thereforefreeofvariation:ρητoρσι,λγετε;(b)abstractword=abstractunitformedbyacollectionofinflected,changingforms...(CLG/E1.424.2800.3)C.Theconceptof‘discourse’isusedtoqualifyanassociativelinkinlangue.Inthesecondcourseingenerallinguistics,forinstance,tocontrastthesyn-tagmaticandassociativefields,Saussuredescribesassociationas‘every-thingthatwedonotbring,butthatwecouldbring,todiscourse’(CLG/E1.296.2087.2).Inthissamecoursetheassociativelinksareagainrepeatedlydefinedbyoppositiontosyntagmaticproductionindiscourse:Inthismassofelementswhichwehaveavirtual,buteffectiveaccessto,inthisstore,wemakeassociations:eachelementevokesanother;allthatissimilaranddissimilarinwhateverwaygathersaroundeachword,otherwisetheworkingoflanguewouldberuledout.Adeclensiontableisthereforeagroupofassociations.Thisgroupmayassertitsunity,butthisunityisabsentfromdiscourse.Insuchunityonethingvariesandanotherdoesnotvary;thisiscommontoanyassociativegroup.Inthenameofwhatdoesnotvary,dominusisassociatedwithdomino,andwhatdoesvarymakesfordifferingunitsinthisgroup:d´esireux}onecommonelement[thesuffix-eux]soucieux}onedifferentelement.[therootofeachword]malheureux}Theseassociativegroups,then,arepurelymental,andhavenosimultaneousexis-tenceindiscourse.(CLG/E1.289.2038–9.2)Wespeakonlyinsyntagms,andtheprobablemechanismisthatwehavethesetypesofsyntagmsinourhead,andwhenwewishtousethem,wecallontheassociativegroup.Whenweusethelego-methagroupforinstance,thefactthatweusetheexactCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n212SimonBouquetformlego-methaimpliesourpossessingvariousassociativegroupscontaininglego-andmetha,bracketedaboveandbelowinasortofbubble.Thecontinualoppositionbetweenmembersofthegroup,whichinsuresthechoiceofanelementatthemomentofdiscourse,ismerelychangeduetopartialvariation.(CLG/E1.294.2070–1.2)D.Theconceptof‘discourse’isusedtoqualifythewaylangueevolves,andisevokedinthechapteronanalogy.Inthefirstlecturecourse:Onecannotunderstandananalogicalcreationwithoutaclearideaoftheactofparole.ThenewformIfindisnotcreatedinameetingoflearnedlexicographers.Ifthisformistoenterlangue,1.someonemusthaveimprovisedit,and2.improviseditinparole,indiscourse,andthesamegoesforanyonecomingacrossitsubsequently.(CLG/E1.384.2561–2.2)Onthisoccasionadefinitionofparoleisgiventhroughdiscours:‘Anythingbroughttothelipsbytheneedsofdiscourseandbyaspecificoperationisparole’(CLG/E1.383.2560.2).AndtheNouvellesNotesItemcontainsthefollowingreferencetotheconceptof‘discourse’inthechapteronanalogyandotherlinguisticchange:Allchanges,betheyphonetic,orgrammatical(analogical)occurindiscoursealone.Atnotimedoestheindividualgothroughtheinnermentalstoreoflangue,anddetachedlycreatenewformsintendedfor‘insertion’intoacomingdiscourse.Allinnovationcomesinimprovisation,intheactofspeaking(andthenceenterseitherthelistener’s,orthespeaker’s,personalstore),butitsproductionthereforeconcernsdiscursivelanguage.(ELG:95)Onlyoccurrencesofdiscoursanditsderivatives,inpassagesnotreproducedintheCours,havebeendealtwithhere.Occurrencesofparole,whethertakenupintheCoursornot,whichconfirmthesynonymyofdiscoursandparole,havenotbeenconsidered.Theotherconceptof‘discourse’isgivenadefinition,althoughitisalwaysajointdefinitionoflangueanddiscours.Suchadefinitionistobefoundinthetwofirstcoursesingenerallinguistics.Inthefirstcourse:therearetwoordersofthings,correspondingtotwotypesofrelationship.Ononesidethereisadiscursiveorder,whichmustbetheorderofeachunitwithinthesentenceortheword:signi-fer.Theotheristheintuitiveorder,thatofassociation(likesignifer,fero,etc.),whichisnotinthelinearsystem,butwhichmaybereadilyunderstoodbythemind.(CLG/E1.278.1985.2)Andinthesecond:byusingalittleleeway,wecanbringtogetherthewordsdiscursiveandintuitive.[Theseterms]are,likesyntagmaticandassociative,opposed,ifintuitive=intuieri,toCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sunfinishedsemantics213contemplateplatonically[var:abstractly],withoutbeingusedindiscourse.(CLG/E1.292.2061.AM2/3)Twofunctionsconcerninglanguage...arealsoactivewithinus.Ononesideaninnerstorewhichistheequivalentofthestructuredspace(casier)ofmemory.Herewefindtheso-calledstorehousewhichisoneofthetwoplaces.Everythingwhichmaybecomeactiveinthesecondplaceisarrangedinthisstore.Andthesecondplaceisdiscourse,thechainofparole.Ourperspectivemaybethatofoneorotheroftheseplaceswherewordsarefound.Ineachcasewewillbefacedwithgroups,butgroupsofacompletelydifferenttype:Store(storehouse):associativeunits;groupsinthesenseoffamilies.Discourse(chain):discursiveunits(i.e.whichareproducedindiscourse);groupsinthesenseofsyntagms.(CLG/E1.281.1998.2)Ascanbeseen,thesebipolardefinitionsrespectivelyincorporatelangueintoanassociativeorder(posedelsewhereasthatofhavinginabsentiavalue)anddiscourseintoasyntagmaticorder(thatofinpraesentiavalue).Wewillcomebacktothis.Finally,inahandwrittentext,discoursereceivesamorespecificassess-ment,althoughitsrelationshiptolangueisstillprioritised:Langueisonlycreatedwithaviewtodiscourse,butwhatseparatesdiscoursefromlangue,orwhatdeterminesthemomentwhenlanguecomesintoactionasdiscourse?(ELG:277)Langueprovidesarangeofready-madeconcepts(i.e.equippedwithalinguisticform)suchasox,lake,sky,strong,red,sad,five,split,see.Atwhatmoment,drawingonwhatoperation,onwhatinteraction,onwhatconditions,willtheseconceptsformdiscourse?Theideasevokedbyaseriesofwords,howeverrichtheymaybe,willneverindicatetoahumanindividualthatanotherindividual,bysayingthem,wishestocommunicateameaning.Whatisnecessarytoconveytheideathatsomeonewishestocommu-nicateameaningtous,usingthecountlesstermsattheirdisposalinlangue?Thisisthesamequestionas‘Whatisdiscourse?’,andatfirstsighttheanswerissimple:discourseconsists,evenbasicallyandinwayswedonotunderstand,ofassertingalinkbetweentwoconceptswhichareprovidedwithalinguisticform,whereaslanguemerelybringsintobeingisolatedconcepts,whichmustbebroughtintoasso-ciationwithoneanothersothatthemeaningofthoughtmaybeexpressed.(Trans.ofELG:277)Thesefragmentsleadtothefollowingconclusion:theomissionofthetermdiscourse,andofthepassagesontheideasrelatingtothisterm,combinedtoobscureanimportantaspectofSaussure’sconceptionoflanguage.Clearly,thisomissionandthatoftheplanforalinguisticsofparolearemutuallystrength-ened.ButitdoesnotmeanthatbecausehistheoryhasbeendeprivedofoneofitsconstituentpartsthatSaussureseesthispartascomprisingafullydevelopedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n214SimonBouquettheoryinitsownright.Quitetheopposite:heconfessesthatthedefinitionof‘discourse’,though‘simpleatfirstsight’,isthatofanelementoflanguagewhichcreatesrelationships‘inwaysofwhichweareunaware’.Whatthencanbethestatus,intermsoflinguisticvalueforexample,ofthisideaof‘dis-course’or‘parole’,contrastedasitiswiththe‘mentalstore’oflangue,andbasedonthepremiseofsyntagmaticrelationships?Totrytoanswerthesequestions,weshallexamineanotheraspectofSaussureanthoughtwhosetrans-positionintotheCLGandsubsequentreceptionwerealsohighlyproblematic,thatisthequestionofthesesamerapportssyntagmatiques(syntagmaticrela-tionships)themselves.(SeealsoELG:258wherethepropertiesofdiscoursearediscussed.)Betweenlangueandparole:inpraesentiarelationshipsandsyntaxTheCours,then,misrepresentsSaussure’spositiononquestionsofdiscourseoralinguisticsofparolebyomissionandbydistortion.Itspresentationofthetheoryofvaluealsocoversupanimportantproblemthat,asSaussurerecognised,thesametheoryleavespartiallyunresolved:theproblemofthesemiologicalrepresentationofsyntax,linkedtothemoregeneralproblemofinpraesentiarelationships.WeknowthatSaussuresawtheincorporationofparole(ordiscourse)intothesyntagmaticdimensionasbeingwithintheframeworkofatheoryofvalue.YetacomparisonoftheCoursandthelastlecturesofJune1911showsthathiseditorsplayeddownthecrucialimportanceofsyntagmaticrelationshipsforthenotionofvalue,justastheycoveredupSaussure’scrystalclearadmissionsoftheproblematicnatureofthisaspectofhistheory.Forinstance,BallyandSechehaye’sCoursfaithfullyreproducesaquestionfromthelecturegivenon27June:‘Thesentenceisthebestexampleofthesyntagm.Butitbelongstoparole,notlangue;doesitnotfollowthatthesyntagm[belongsto]ispartofparole?’(CLG:172),andtheninsertsareplyoftheirowndevisingthatthereadernaturallyattributestoSaussure:‘Wedonotthinkso’(‘Nousnelepensonspas’;CLG:172).Yetallthestudents’notesindicatethatthelecturer,inpointoffact,indicatedthatthisquestionwasnoteasytoresolve,andperhapsbecauseofafailuretodefinethenotionof‘sentence’refusedtoanswerthisquestioninthenegative(CLG/E1.284.2013.5).Onthenextpage,theeditorsoftheCoursnowseemtoreflectthelinguist’sdoubtsbyroundingofftheparagraphonsyntagmaticrelationswiththewords‘Ithastoberecognisedthatintheareaofsyntax,thereisnocleardistinctionbetweenlinguisticphenomena,whichbearthestampofcollectiveusage,andspeechphenomena,whichdependonindividualfreedom.’YetwhatSaussuresays,inthepassagetheyaretransposing,isformulatedquitedifferently–withmuchgreateraccuracyandmoreradically:CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sunfinishedsemantics215Individualuseofthecodeoflanguethrowsupaquestion.Onlyinsyntax,essentially,dowefindacertainhazinessbetweenwhatisgiven[var.fixed]inlangueandwhatislefttoindividualinitiative.Thelimitsaredifficulttomakeout.Ithastobesaidthatinthefieldofsyntax,asocialfactandanindividualfact,aputtingintopracticeandafixedassociation,getblendedrather,endupmoreorlessmixedup.Admittedly,onthisoneboundaryaseparationbetweenlangueandparolecanbequestioned.(CLG/E1.285/286.2022.AM4/5)Thephrasingismoreaccurate:hereonlysyntaxisconsideredadifficultarea,withrespecttothepreviouslyestablishedequivalenceofdiscourse(orparole)=syntagmaticrelationships.Thephrasingismoreradical,stickingunswervinglytothelangue/paroleoppositionlaidoutsofar–inotherwordsincorporatedintotheoppositionassociativerelationships/syntagmaticrelationships,whicharethrownintoquestionbysyntax.ItfollowsfromSaussure’sadmissionthat‘aseparationbetweenlangueandparolecanbequestioned’thattheequiva-lenceheestablishedpreviously,discourse=syntagmaticrelationshipscouldbereplacedbylangue=(associativerelationships)+(syntax),whichimpliesdiscourse=(syntagmaticrelationships)–(syntax);oreven,inequivalentterms:langue=(inabsentiavalue)+(syntax),whichimpliesdiscourse=(inprae-sentiavalue)–(syntax).Suchanamendmenttothetheoryofvaluewouldmeanthatsyntaxcouldbetakenaspresentinginpraesentiarelationshipsofaspe-cialtype,‘inpraesentiarelationshipsinlangue’(or,asbelongingtoasystemoflogical–grammaticalrulesgoverninginpraesentiaplacesandpositions).Theserelationshipswouldbedescribableinasynchroniclinguisticsoflangue,designedinfactasa‘generalgrammar’,inaschemeSaussurerepeatedlyassertsanddefends.Thisproblemwiththesemiologicalstatusofsyntaxinfactformspartofalargerquestionconcerninginpraesentiarelationshipsingeneral,withwhichthetheoryofvalueisconfronted.ThisishighlightedbythefinalGenevalecturesongenerallinguistics,whicharelargelygivenovertotheinternaldyadoflinguisticvalue,andinwhichitisreassertedthatvalueistheproductof‘inabsentiarelationships’and‘inpraesentiarelationships’–inotherwordsthat,asfarasvalueisconcerned,‘thesetwotypesofrelationshipscannotbemerged,theyarebothactive’(CLG/E1.283.2005.2).Thispositionisarguedatgreaterlengththanpreviouslyinthe1910–11course,butitwasnonethelessclearlystatedintheteachingof1908–9:Thetwogroupings,inspaceandinthemind(byfamily),arebothactive...Thisistrueasfarasonelikesandinbothdirections;valuewillalwaysbearesultoffamilygroupingandsyntagmaticgrouping...Thesetwoperpetualoppositions,ofsyntagmsandofallthatdiffers(whatwedonotbringtodiscourse,butcould)–itisonthesetwooppositions,waysofbeingsimilarto,ordifferentfromsomethingelse,thattheworkingofastateoflanguedepends.(CLG/E1.295–7.2080/2087.2)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n216SimonBouquetAsfarbackas1907whatSaussurecallsthese‘twotypesofvalue’,thedyadtheyformandthewaytheyinteract,leadhimtoconcludehisanalysisofvalueininabsentiarelationshipswiththewords:‘Notethatwetooktheunitofthewordasourstartingpointquitearbitrarily;wecouldjustaseasilyhavechosentheunitofthesentence’(CLG/E1.295.2081.2).Theprincipleof‘twotypesofvalue’doesfigureintheCours,althoughitisseriouslyunderminedbytheorganisationandtheapproachadoptedinthelastfivechaptersofpart2.Payinglittleheedtothe1910–11lectureplan,BallyandSechehayereinterpretitinawaythatgivesaquitedifferentslanttotheoriginal;theirpresentationofinpraesentiarelationshipsmanagesonlytoleavethereaderinastateofuncertainty.WithoutalonganddetailedanalysisofhowtheoriginalmaterialwasreorganisedfortheCours,itcanbenotedthatpart2,chapter4,entitled‘Linguisticvalue’,thechaptertowhichonequitenaturallyrefersforadefinitionof‘value’,dealsonlywithinabsentiavalue.The‘editors’moreoverskewedthereceptionofSaussure’sthoughtonthispointbymakingupandinsertingtextsoftheirown,inthisandthefollowingchapter(whichdealswithinpraesentiarelationships),textswhichindiscriminatelylumptogethersyntagmaticproductionandparole.TheseapocryphalpassagesareinsertedattheexpenseofSaussure’soriginalones,whichraiseddoubtsaboutthedis-tinctionbetweenlangueandparolewithrespecttoinpraesentiavalue,doubtswhich,aswehaveseen,tendtobringthequestionofinpraesentiavalueintotheambitoflangue.Eveninhislastlectures,Saussuregavenoclearpositiononthistheoreticalpoint,asthestudents’notesof27and30June1911amplyshow.ButwhydidBallyandSechehayechoosetoerasehisdoubts?Or,worse,nottotranscribefaithfullyassertionssuchasthese:Inanycase,eveninthephenomenaoflangue,therearesyntagms.(CLG/E1.284.2016.5)[Onthecategorieslangueandparole]...Thesecondtypeofrelationship[inpraesentiarelationships]seemstobeaphenomenonofparole.Ourreplyisthis:uptoacertainpoint,langueitselfhassuchrelationships.(CLG/E1.284.2011.2)ByansweringinSaussure’splacequestionswhichhehimselfleftunresolved,theeditorsoftheCourspreparedthegroundforarejectionofSaussureanthoughtbynumerousresearchersmanydecadeslater,whereasamorefaithfulpresentationwouldhaveallowedthemtofind,inthepresumedincompletenessofSaussure’sspeculativetheories,aheuristicbasisforcarryingforwardtheirenquiriesintothephilosophyandscienceofmeaning.Itistobehopedthattheeditingofnewmaterialwillstillprovidethisopportunityandwilldrawpeople’sattentionbacktotheoriginaltexts.IshallthereforeconcludebytryingtosetoutjusthowSaussurean‘semiology’,ifitistocontributetoascienceofmeaninginlanguage,needstobecompleted,andhowthismightbedonebypursuingthelinesofinquirythatinitsunfinishedstateithasleftopen.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’sunfinishedsemantics217AdoublyincompletesemanticsTheSaussureanprinciplesthatthischapterhastriedtoreconstructwere,aswehavesaid,partiallyobscuredbythe1916‘vulgate’.Itseditorsmusthavefoundthemtoounwieldy,oreven,whoknows,tooheterodoxinthelightofthescientificclimateoftheearlytwentiethcenturyforthemtobereflectedintheCours.Theserelativelylittle-knownprinciples,then,correspondtoadefinitionof‘meaning’inthewidestpossiblesense,andtoadefinitionofsciencewhichcanfacilitatethestudyofthisobject‘meaning’–ascienceonecancallsemantics,regardlessofthewaythetermwasdefinedbeforeSaussureorhasbeensubsequently.Myhypothesishereisthis:thepositiontakenbySaussure,whichisnotbasedonfirm,establishedconceptions,butratherpreliminarythoughts,hedgedaboutwithexpressionsofuncertainty,followsonfromthedoublyincompletenatureoftheepistemologicalprogrammeofwhatSaussurecalledsemiologyorlinguisticsemiology,orinotherwords,fromthedoublyincompletenatureofhisconceptionofmeaning.Furthermore,thetwoelementswhichconstitutethisincompletenessshouldbekeptcarefullyapart.Thefirstwayinwhichitisincomplete,ofwhichthedoubtsaboutquestionsofsyntaxandinpraesentiarelationshipsaresymptomatic,concernsthefieldofthelinguisticsoflangue;toputitsimply,Saussure’ssemiotictheoryoflangueisincomplete.Whilethenatureofthelinguisticsignininabsentiarelationshipsisdweltonatlength,withSaussureassertingthatsomeinpraesentiarelationshipsarealsophenomenabelongingtolangue,hegivesnoproperlysemiotictheoryoftheseinpraesentiarelationships.Neithertheirworkings(i.e.thenatureoftheinpraesentiasemioticphenomenon),northevarioustypestowhichtheymightbelong,northeirinteractionwithinabsentiarelationships,areappropriatelytheorised.Theirdescription,inthechapterofthethirdcourse,whichintheCoursisentitled‘Placedelalanguedanslesfaitsdelangage’,isparticularlyshortandvague,takinguponesentence,andcominginthewakeofalengthytheoreticaldiscussionofinabsentiarelationships:‘Anothertypewillbeneeded,anactofco-ordination[var.anabilitytoco-ordinate]whichoccurswheneverseveralverbalimagesarereceived’(CLG/E1.39.212.2/5).Itwouldappearthatasaresultofthisglaringabsenceofatheoreticalfounda-tion,withaphilosophicalorsemioticgrounding,onanundeniablymajorpointofhisthought,adefinitionapparentlyascrucialandessentialasthatofthenatureofsyntax(aphenomenonoflangueorofparole?),remainsunresolvedforSaussure.Yetifhisnotionof‘syntagmatics’,designedtoincorporate‘syn-tax’,istakenattheappropriatelevelofabstraction,itiscapablebothofbringingintoonecategorythevariouscomponentsoflinguisticmeaningproducedbyalinearchainofsignifiers,andofbeingappliedtoothersystemsofsigns,thusprovidingthebeginningsofasemiotictheory.Thesameistrueofthenotionof‘value’,whichisassociatedwithtwotypesofrelationship.SaussuregivesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n218SimonBouqueteveryimpressionthatdespitehavingthewilltoproduceasemioticframework,hehadnotinvestigatedthepurelyphilosophicalaspectoflinguisticenquiryintolanguageininpraesentiarelationships,anaspectwhichhespecificallystatedtobenecessaryandwhichhestudiedindepthinthecontextofinabsentiarelationships.ItthereforeseemsthatitisthroughphilosophythatSaussure’sincompletesemioticsoflanguemaybecompleted.IwouldaddthatSaussure’sthoughtcanusefullydrawhereontheworkofCharlesSandersPeirce,alongwiththeadvantagesthatcertainadvancesintwentieth-centurylinguisticsmaybringtoPeirce’swork.ThesecondwayinwhichSaussure’sepistemologicalprogrammeisincom-pleteisconnectedwithanother‘semiotics’(presumingthatthisnamecanbeapplied,withinlanguage,outsidethefieldofalinguisticsoflangue):Saussureantheorydoesnotindicatetowhich‘semiotics’alinguisticsofparole(whichwecancallasemioticsofparole)belongs,havingestablishedthatitmaybeincor-poratedinto‘semiotics’byvirtueofthefactthatitisstrictlycomplementarytoasemioticsoflangue.Thistheory,whichcomplementsSaussure’stheoryoflangue,wasprobablyheldbackbytheveryincompletenessofSaussure’stheoryoflangueitself;itfollowsthatSaussure’stheoryofparoleremainsatthelevelofapiouswishwithpracticallynotheoreticalunderpinning.Tobesure,thisrequiresaverydifferentconceptionofsemioticphenomena,whichwouldnec-essarilytakeona‘pragmatic’value(inthephilosophicalsenseoftheword).Inthisanalysisofmeaning,semioticphenomenacannolongerrestwhollyonthelogical–grammaticaltraditionoflanguagescience,butinsteadhavetoincorporateitsrhetoricalandhermeneutictraditions.Showingthewaytosucha‘semioticsofparole’willofcourserequiremuchmorethanSaussure’stheoryoftheinabsentiasign,butneitherisPeirce’swider-rangingsemioticssuffi-cient,remainingasitdoesinthepurelylogical–grammaticaltradition.Whatisaboveallnecessaryhereistobreakwiththebuildingblockapproachofthelogical–grammaticaltradition,todisposeoftheideathatlinguisticanalysishastobeunderpinnedbytraditionallogic,andreplaceitwithadifferentsortof‘logic’whichcantakeaccountofanassessmentofpragmaticvalue,observetheinteractionbetweenthisandasemioticsoflangue,andfinallygiveshapetoasemioticsofinterpretation.Thisdeconstructionofthetraditionalviewoflogic,whenitisforcedtodealwithordinarylanguageandforgea‘newlogic’basedonthatlanguage,isaprojectwhosemainproponentwouldbethe‘later’Wittgenstein,inhisPhilosophicalInvestigations.(ThischapterwastranslatedbyMatthewPiresandCarolSanders.ReferencestoCLG/Earegivenasfollows:volume,page,segment,column;e.g.1.42.252.5=vol.1,p.42,segment252,col.5.)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n14Saussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscienceChristopherNorrisThischapterwilllookatvariousaspectsoftherelationshipbetweenSaussureanlinguisticsanddebateswithintwentieth-centuryphilosophyofscience.AfterallitwasSaussure’schiefaimtoseelinguisticsplacedonaproperly‘scientific’footing,thatis,toreconfigurethefieldinaccordancewithcertainwell-definedprinciplesthatwouldconstituteanadequate,rigorouslytheorisedaccountoflanguageandsignifyingsystemsingeneral.Thefirsttaskwastoelaboratethosevariousdistinctionsthatwouldhenceforthprovideitsworkingmethodology,amongthemthecardinaloppositionsbetweenlangueandparole,synchronyanddiachrony,theparadigmaticandthesyntagmatic,andtheordersofsignifierandsignified.Thiswouldopenthewaytoastructuralistaccountthatleftnoroomfornaive(pre-scientific)ideasabouttheone-to-one‘correspondence’betweenwordsandideasorwordsandobjects.Ratheritwouldshowhowthesystematiccharacteroflanguage–itsdifferentialstructuresofsoundandsense–canonlybedescribedbymeansofatheorywhichitselfbreaksfreeofsuchdelusive‘commonsense’beliefsandacquiresthefullrangeofconceptualresourceswherebytoarticulateitsowngraspofthosesamesignifyingstructures.Implicithereissomethingverylikethedoctrineof‘semanticascent’frommaterialtoformalorfromlinguistictometalinguisticlevelsofdescriptionthatcharacterisedmuchphilosophyoflanguage,logicandscienceinthelargelyanglophonetraditionoflogicalempiricism.Thusforanygivenfirst-order(e.g.natural)languageonecandeviseacorrespondingsecond-order(formal)lan-guagethattranslatesitintomoreperspicuousorlogicallyregimentedterms(Carnap,1959and1967;Tarski,1956;alsoAyer,1959).Whatthesephiloso-pherssoughttoachievewasaprecisenotationforthephysicalsciencesthatwouldbesubjecttononeoftheinherentliabilities–thevagueness,ambiguity,orlackofreferentialprecision–thatwerethoughttovitiatenaturallanguage.IshouldnotwishtopresstoohardonthiscomparisonbetweenSaussureanlinguisticsandthelogicalempiricistprogramme(verymuchinthetraditionofFregeandRussell)forreforminglanguagesoastomeettherequirementsofscienceandphilosophyofscience.(SeeespeciallyFrege,1952andRussell,1956.)NodoubtSaussurehadverydifferentpriorities–thoseofalinguistratherthanaformallogician–inproposingastructural–synchronictheorythat219CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n220ChristopherNorriswouldgrantlinguisticsitsrightfulplaceamongtheexactsciencesthroughaprocessofconceptualabstractionfromtheotherwiseinchoatemassofdataproducedbyearliermethods.StillthecomparisonisusefuluptoapointsinceitbringsoutonesalientfeatureofSaussureanlinguistics,namelytheideathatanydisciplinewhichaspirestoscientificstatusmustestablishacertainformaldistancebetweenitselfanditsobjectofstudy,or–moreprecisely–betweenthatobjectasconstruedonthelinguist’stheoreticaltermsandthatobjectinits‘natural’,spontaneous,oreveryday-occurrentcondition.Suchwasindeedtheparadigmof‘scientific’methodthatfoundvoiceinanumberofrepresentativetextsfromthatperiod(seeUngarinthisvolume).HencealsoLouisAlthusser’sclaimfora‘symptomatic’readingoftheMarxiantextthatwouldsharplydistinguishtheelementsofimmature(i.e.humanistorHegelian)thoughtfromtheMarxistsciencewhoseadventrequiredadeci-siveepistemologicalbreak,bothinMarx’sownthinkingatacertainstageofdevelopmentandinthatofhiscriticalexegetes(Althusser,1969;AlthusserandBalibar,1970).Thisstructuralist‘moment’hasbeenmuchdiscussedbythecommentators–whetherinaspiritofnostalgicreminiscenceorself-distancingirony–sonomorewillbesaidaboutithere(seeBenton,1984;Elliott,1987).Sufficienttoremarkthatitsoongaverisetoareactivepost-structuralisttrendwhichemphaticallyrejectedanynotionthattheorycouldachievesuchastandpointofconceptualmasteryoutsideandabovethevariousfirst-orderlan-guages,discourses,orsignifyingpracticesthatformeditsobjectsofenquiry.(Seeforinstance–fromarangeofviewpoints–Attridge,BenningtonandYoung,1987;Barthes,1975;Belsey,1980;Harari,1980;Harland,1987;Young,1981.)ThisreactionisclearlyvisibleinBarthes’slateressayswherehelooksbackonthatmomentasapassingdream–anillusionofscientificmethod–thathadonce(notsolongago)capturedhismind(Barthes,1977b).ItislikewiseevidentintheswitchofallegianceundergonebymanytheoristsontheculturalleftwiththewaningofAlthusserianMarxismaftertheeventsof1968andtheshifttowardamorescepticalstancewhosechiefinspirationwasFoucault’sNietzschean‘genealogy’ofpower-knowledge(Foucault,1977a).Forifonethingcharacterisedthisturnagainsttheoryinthehighstructuralistmodeitwassurelytheinsistencethatallsuchideasofmethodologicalrigour,conceptualgrasp,‘scientific’warrant,andsoforth,weremerelyaproductofthewill-to-powerdisguisedbehindarhetoricofpure,disinterestedseeking-after-truth.Ofcoursetherewasmuchdebateatthetimeastowhethertheprefix‘post’in‘post-structuralism’shouldbetakenasmarkingaradicalbreakwiththosesameconceptsandcategoriesorwhether,onasomewhatmoreconservativeconstrual,itshouldbetakentosignifyafurtherstageintheworking-outoftheirimplicationsforanewwayofthinkingaboutlanguage,subjectivity,andthehumansciencesingeneral.ThisambivalencewasespeciallypronouncedinCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience221thepsychoanalyticwritingsofJacquesLacanwhoseliteralistapproachtothetextsofFreudandSaussurewentalongwithafondnessformathematical,topo-logicalandother‘scientific’analogiesbutwhosetreatmentofthemwas–tosaytheleast–characterisedbyacertaindegreeofassociativewhimsy.ThusLacan’snotoriouslyobscurestylecanbeseenasresultinginpartfromacer-tain(albeithighlyidiosyncratic)ideaofscientificmethod,andinpartfromhisdeterminationtoescapetheCartesian‘tyrannyoflucidity’(Lacan,1977;Roudinesco,1990).Indeed,thisisjustthekindofambivalenceonemightexpectinathinkermuchdrawntothestructuralistdistinctionbetweenlan-guageandmetalanguage(here:thefirst-orderdiscourseoftheanalysandandthesecond-orderdiscourseoftheanalyst),yetonewhosereadingoftheFreudiantextbroughthimoutimplacablyopposedtoanynotionofthetalkingcure–likethatofthedespised(mostlyUS)egopsychologists–asaimedtowardrestoringthesubjecttoastateoflucidself-knowledgeorpsychicequilibrium(Horney,1967;alsoHale,1995;Hughes,1975;Kurzweil,1989).1Moreover,aspost-structuralistsoftenremark,thisdichotomyfindsacuriousparallelinSaussure’sdevotiontotheprojectofestablishingtheoreticallinguisticsonaproperlyscientificbasiswhileatthesametimepursuinghisstrange,obsessiveand(bymoststandards)veryunscientificresearchesintothecryptogramsorpatternsofoccultsignificancewhichhebelievedtoconstitutethesubtextofmuchGreekandLatinpoetry(Starobinski,1971).Whencetheidea–attrac-tivetosome–thatstructuralismwasitselfjustadreamofmethodwhosecommitmenttotheApollinianidealsofscience,clarityandconceptualrigourwasalwaysthreatenedbythisDionysiac(Nietzschean–Freudian)returnoftherepressed.WhatinterestsmehereistheextenttowhichSaussureanlinguisticslikewiselayopentothekindsofchargebroughtagainstit–or‘abusiveextrapola-tions’fromit,inPerryAnderson’smordantphrase–bypost-structuralists,Foucauldiansandotherswithanideologicalaxetogrind(Anderson,1983).Inbothcasesacertainconceptionofscientificmethodprovedsusceptibletoreadingsofaradicallycontextualist,holistic,orparadigm-relativistcharacterwhichwerestronglyatoddswithitsoriginalaimsandambitions.ThusQuine’sassaultonthetwolast‘dogmas’ofempiricismwasexpresslyintendedasaground-clearingexercisewhichwouldridphilosophyofitsgrandiosepreten-sions(likethatofformulatinglogicalground-rulesfortheconductofscientificthought)andrestoreittoadecentlyscaled-downconceptionofitsrolevis-a-vis`thephysicalsciences.Suchwastheprogrammeof‘naturalisedepistemology’–theattempttoexplainhowsucha‘meagerinput’ofsensorystimulicouldsome-howgiverisetosucha‘torrentialoutput’ofstatements,hypotheses,theories,etc.–whichQuinesawasthesolelegitimatetaskforphilosophyofscience.Thiscouldbeachievedbyrestrictingitselftothekindsofempiricalobser-vationthatavoidedanyrecourseto‘mentalist’talkaboutconcepts,ideas,orCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n222ChristopherNorris‘lawsofthought’,andwhichinsteadmadedowithabehaviouristaccountofwhatsubjects(whetherscientistsor‘nativeinformants’)werepromptedtosayinsomegivensituationorwhenexposedtosomegivenrangeofincomingphys-icalstimuli.Inshort,Quineconsideredthatthenaturalscienceswereourbestsourceofguidanceinsuchmattersandthathiswasanapproachthatrespectedthepriorityofscientificmethodoveranythingthatphilosophershadyetcomeupwithinthewayofformalised(metalinguistic)rulesormethodicalconstraints(Quine,1969).NeverthelessitwaslargelyonthebasisofQuine’sradical-empiricistpro-grammethatThomasKuhnwentontoproposehismorewholesaleversionoftheparadigm-relativistcase,thatis,hisideathatscientistslivingbeforeandaftersomedrasticparadigmchangemustbethoughtofassomehowquitelit-erally‘livingindifferentworlds’(Kuhn,1970).ThuswhereAristotle‘saw’aswingingstoneasaninstanceofmatterseekingoutitsproperplaceintheorderoftheelements,Galileo‘saw’acaseofgravitationallyinducedpendularmotion.Inwhichcase,accordingtoKuhn,itisonlyinthedubiouswisdomofretrospectthatwecantakeGalileotohavegotthingsrightandtreatAristotle’stheoriesasfalseonaccountoftheirreferringtonon-existentsubstancesorproperties.Ratherweshouldmakeeveryefforttosuspendthisold-fashionedWhiggishviewofthingsandacknowledgethatsuchtheoriesarestrictly‘incom-mensurable’insofarastheyinvolveawholedifferentrangeofobject-terms,predicatesandputative‘lawsofnature’.LikeFoucaultinhisearly‘archaeolog-ical’periodKuhntakesitthattheprocessoftheorychangeisonethatcomesaboutthroughsuchdeep-laidandradicalshiftsofoverallperspectivethatanytalkofprogressinourscientificknowledgeoftheworldcanonlybeaproductofselectivehindsightornaively‘presentist’bias.OnthefaceofitthereislittleincommonbetweenQuine’shard-headedempiricistoutlookandKuhn’softenrathernebuloustreatmentoftheseissues,inparticular–ascriticshavepointedout–hisequivocalusageoftheterm‘paradigm’invariouscontextsofargument.(SeeHorwich,1993.)YetitisclearfromKuhn’smethodologicalpostscripttothesecondeditionofhisbookthathetakesQuine’sradicalempiricistapproachasprovidingasourceandjustificationforhisownlineofapproach.Thusitallowshimtoanswerhisrealistcriticsbyacknowledgingthatscientistsoneithersideofamajorparadigmshiftcanproperlybesaidtosee‘thesamething’atleasttotheextentthattheirretinasaresubjecttoanidenticalrangeofphysicalstimuliwhenconfrontedwithaswingingstone.Howeverthisyieldsnogroundtotherealistwhenitcomestoexplainingwhyonesuchtheory–Galileoongravity–mightactuallypossessasuperiorclaimtohavegotthingsrightindescriptive,theoretical,orcausal-explanatoryterms.ForradicalempiricismoftheQuine–Kuhnvarietystartssofarbackoratsuchanearlystageintheprocessofsensorycognitionthatitplacesnoeffective(rational)constraintontherangeofinterpretationsorphysicaltheoriesthatcanlayequalclaimtoempiricalwarrant.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience223ThisiswhyKuhn’sPostscript(Kuhn,1970)makesacardinalpointofendors-ingtheQuineandistinctionbetweenbare,uninterpretedphysical‘stimuli’ontheonehandand‘perceptions’(eventhemostbasic,commonsense,orpre-scientificperceptions)ontheother.Thus,accordingtoKuhn,onecanplausiblymaintainthatthestimuliholdfirmacrossvariantparadigmsortheoreticalframe-workswhilenonethelessarguingthatwhatscientistsperceive–andthereafterworkupintoobservation-statements,theories,orexplanatoryconjectures–willvaryaccordingtotheaspect(orparadigm)underwhichthosestimulihavetobebroughtbeforetheycanachieveanykindofarticulateexpression.AndfromhereitisnogreatdistancetoRichardRorty’sclaimthatwhen‘GalileosawthemoonsofJupiterthroughhistelescope...theimpactonhisretinawas“hard”intherelevantsense’,eventhough–whenitcametointerpret-ingthedata–hisideaofthemas‘shatteringthecrystallinespheresonceandforall’hastobetreated(epistemologicallyspeaking)asstrictlyonaparwiththatofhisorthodoxopponents,i.e.thattheywere‘merelyonemoreanomalywhichhadsomehowtobeworkedintoamoreorlessAristoteliancosmol-ogy’(Rorty,1991:81).Tosupposeotherwise–thatGalileogotitright–isjustthekindoferrorthatrealiststypicallymakewhentheyignorethecar-dinalpointthat‘causationisnotunderadescription,butexplanationis’.Oragain,asRortymorepicturesquelyputsit:‘Tosaythatwemusthaverespectforunmediatedcausalforcesispointless.Itislikesayingthattheblankmusthaverespectfortheimpresseddie.Theblankhasnochoice,neitherdowe’(Rorty,1991:81).Thecontrastcouldscarcelybegreater–orsoitmightseem–betweenthischapterofdevelopmentsinthewakeof‘old-style’logicalempiricismandthekindsofthinkingaboutscienceandphilosophyofsciencethatemergedasaconsequenceofSaussure’srevolutionintheoreticallinguistics.Afterall,hisproposalsweresquarelybasedonarationalistconceptionofmethodwhichinvokedtheprecedentofDescartesandthePortRoyalgrammarians,andwhosechiefphilosophicalpremisewasitsclaimthatthestudyoflanguagecouldberenderedtruly‘scientific’onlythroughasharpconceptualbreakwiththelooselyempiricalorfact-gatheringproceduresofearlier(i.e.nineteenth-century)philologicalenquiry.2Suchabreakwaspreciselythatwhichoccurred–inSaussure’sestimationandthatofhisdisciples–atthepointwherehisownthinkingunderwentthedecisivetransformationfromadiachronic(historicallyoriented)approachconcernedwithreconstructingthedevelopmentofvariouslanguagestoastructural–synchronicapproachthatacknowledgedtheneedtoreconstituteitsobjectofstudy(lalangue)inproperlyscientificterms.HenceSaussure’sinsistence(inchapter3oftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´)thatatruescienceoflanguagecancomeintobeingonlybyobservingthisrigor-ousdistinctionbetweendiachronyandsynchrony,alongwiththevariousotherdistinctions–chieflythatbetweenparoleandlangue–thatfollowfromthiscardinalprecept.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n224ChristopherNorrisMoreover,thisapproachisprerequisiteforascienceoflinguisticsthatachievesthebreakwithnaive(empiricallybased)conceptionsofwhatcon-stitutesa‘fact’aboutlanguage.Thatistosay,itmakespossiblethemomentofconceptualabstractionwherebynotionsofthesignasa‘positive’correlationbetweendiscreteunitsofsoundandsensegivewaytoagraspoflinguistic‘values’asnowhereembodiedinparticular(phoneticorsemantic)featuresoflanguage,butratherasconsistinginthestructuraleconomyofdifferences‘with-outpositiveterms’.ThePortRoyalgrammariansmayhavegonewronginallsortsofways,butonthispointatleasttheywereontherighttrackandconceptu-allymoreincommandoftheirsubjectthanthoselatercomparativegrammarianswholapsedintovaguelydiachronicandnaivelypositivistorempiricistwaysofthinking.ThusthePortRoyalgrammar‘attemptstodescribethestateoftheFrenchlanguageunderLouisXIVandtosetouttherelevantsystemofvalues’.Insodoing,furthermore,‘ithasnoneedtomakereferencetotheFrenchoftheMiddleAges;itkeepsstrictlytothehorizontalaxisandneverdepartsfromit’.Tothisextent,Saussuremaintains,‘itsbasisislessobjectionableanditsobjectofstudybetterdefinedthanisthecaseforthekindoflinguisticsinauguratedbyBopp’(CGL-H:82).Wherethelatterfallsshortofscientificrigourandmethodisinattempting‘tocoveraninadequatelydefinedarea,neverknowingexactlywhereitisgoing.Ithasafootineachcamp,havingfailedtodistinguishclearlybetweenstatesandsequences.’ThesepassageshavebeencitedatlengthsincetheybringoutveryclearlytheextentofSaussure’sallegiancetoarationalistconceptionofscientificmethodwhichstressestheneedforlinguisticstoconceptualiseits‘objectofstudy’insuchawayastoestablishitsowncredentialsasadisciplineuniquelyequippedtoestablishwhatcountsasarelevant‘fact’withinitsown(properlyspec-ified)object-domain.ItmightwellbearguedthatSaussureandQuinearerepresentativesoftworadicallyopposedtraditions–Frenchrationalismandanglophoneempiricism–whoseoriginsmaybetracedtoadecisiveparting-of-the-waysduringtheseventeenthcenturyandwhosedifferenceshavelatelyre-emergedwithparticularsharpnessinsuchfieldsaslinguistics,philoso-phyoflanguageandepistemologyofscience.Fromwhichitfollows,ontheorthodoxaccount,thatanycomparisonbetweendevelopmentsafterQuineandSaussure–forinstance,betweentheKuhnian–Rortianideaofradicalparadigm-relativismandtheFoucauldian/post-structuralistconceptionofknowledgeasaproductofvarioushistoricallyshifting‘discourses’–isonethatblithelyignorestheirprovenanceintwoquitedistinct(indeedantagonistic)linesofintellectualdescent.Andthisdespitetheplainassertionsofsome,Rortyincluded,thattheir‘post-philosophical’viewofthesemattershasitssourceandinspirationatleastasmuchinthekindsof(mainlyFrench)thinkingthatemergedinresponsetotheclaimsofclassichighstructuralismasindevelopmentsnearerhome,amongthemQuine’sdeconstructionofthetwolastdogmasofold-stylelogicalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience225empiricism(Rorty,1991).Stilltheviewpersiststhatsuchpromiscuousclaimsaremerelytheresultofafailure(oramischievousrefusal)torespectthesalientdifferencesofbackgroundhistoryandstandardsofcompetentdebate.Itisnottheintentionhere–farfromit–toadvocateaRortianviewofthosestandardsassomanyirksomeandpointlessconstraintsonthefreedomofphilosopherstodevisenewlanguage-gamesorinventivemodesofself-descriptionthatwillshowthem(atlast)tohavebrokentheholdofsuchanti-quatedwaysofthinking.Whatismoretothepoint,inthiscontext,isthefactthatRortycanplausiblyexploitamajorblind-spotinthestandard(doxographic)accountofthe‘twotraditions’,namelytheideaofempiricismandrationalismasinvolvingsuchradicallydivergenttheoriesoflanguage,truthandlogicthatanycomparisonbetweenthem–otherthanforpurelycontrastivepurposes–mustbehistoricallyandphilosophicallyoffthetrack.Howeverthisgrosslysimplifiedconceptionisonethathasbeenchallengedbyrecentscholarsandwhichhardlystandsuptocloseexaminationoneithersideofthesupposedgreatrift.(SeeforinstanceNorris,2000.)Oneresulthasbeenthegrowingawareness–duetotheresearchesofHansAarsleffandothers–thatcertainofSaussure’smost‘dis-tinctive’doctrines,suchasthatofthearbitrary(i.e.non-natural)relationshipbetweensignifierandsignified,wereinfactjustascrucialtothethinkingofseventeenth-centuryBritishempiricistslikeLocke,quiteapartfromtheircom-monsourceinthedebatefirstbroachedinPlato’sCratylus(Aarsleff,1967).AnotheristherecognitionthatSaussure’smuch-vaunted‘break’withthehis-toricallybasedmethodsofnineteenth-centuryphilologywaslesscompletethansomecommentators(nottomentionSaussurehimself)areonoccasiondisposedtomaintain.ThustheCourscontainsagreatmassofphilologicalevidence–groundedinhisownearlierworkandthatofthecomparativegrammarians–concerningsuch‘strictly’diachronicorevolutionaryaspectsoflanguageasphoneticshifts,semanticchange,thedisappearanceofinflections,dialectalvariation,interlingualexchange,geographicaldiffusion,theissueoflinguisticidentityacrosstime,andsoforth.Maybeitisthecase,asSaussureconstantlystresses,that‘theneedtotakeaccountofthepassageoftimegivesrisetospecialproblemsinlinguisticsandforcesustochoosebetweentworadicallydifferentapproaches’(CGL-H:79).Allthesameitisfarfromclear–evenmakingdueallowanceforthewell-knownproblemsthatconfrontedhisearliestandsubsequenteditors–thatSaussureevermanagedtorespectthisrigorouslyformulatedaxiomofchoice.Thatistosay,theabove-mentionedpassagesofphilologicalinterestarebynomeanssosharplyorhermeticallysealedofffromhisreflectionsonlanguageinitsstructural–synchronicaspectasonemightotherwisebeledtobelievebySaussure’smoreprogrammaticstatements.Rathertheyoftentendtocropupatjustthepointwhereheismakingsomevigorousclaimabouttheneedtokeeptheseapproachesfirmlyapart–andtorespectthepriorityofasynchronicoveraCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n226ChristopherNorrisdiachronicperspective–butwherediachronyprovesavitalsourceofevidenceandtherebyplacesacertaintheoreticalstrainonthiswholelineofapproach.Thus,forinstance:Soundchange...isasourceoflinguisticdisturbance.Whereveritdoesnotgiverisetoalternations,itcontributestowardslooseningthegrammaticalconnexionswhichlinkwordstogether.Itincreasesthesumtotaloflinguisticformstonopurpose.Thelinguis-ticmechanismbecomesobscureandcomplicatedinasmuchaslinguisticirregularitiesproducedbysoundchangetakeprecedenceoverformsgroupedundergeneraltypes;inotherwords,inasmuchaswhatisabsolutelyarbitrarytakesprecedenceoverwhatisonlyrelativelyarbitrary.(CGL-H:160)NowofcourseSaussureisheretalkingaboutsoundchangeasa‘disturbance’ora‘complicating’factorinsofarasitaffectsthecommunicativepowerandefficiencyoflanguageasasocialphenomenon,oranideallyeconomicalmeansofconveyinginformationbetweenspeakerandlistener.Stillitishardtoignorethefurthersuggestionthatitcomplicateshisowntheoreticalprogrammebyintroducinganelementof‘absolutearbitrariness’–theirruptionofsheerlyran-domorunmotivateddiachronicchange–intotheotherwisesmoothfunctioningofamodel(lalangue)thatcanfindnoroomforsuchchaoticphenomena.HenceSaussure’squicknesstoinsistthatanythreatthismayposeismorethanadequatelycounterbalancedbytheworkingsoflinguistic‘analogy’,thatistosay,bythe‘regularimitationofamodel’whichactsasabrakeuponphoneticdriftorothersuchinternaldisturbances,andisbestviewedas‘responsibleforallthenormalmodificationsoftheexternalaspectofwordswhicharenotduetosoundchange’(CGL-H:160).Hencealso–apointroutinelyignoredbypost-structuralistexponentsofSaussure–hisinsistenceonthestrictly‘limited’or‘relative’degreeofarbitrarinessthatcanbeseentocharacteriselanguageassoonasonemovesfromtheparadigmatictothesyntagmaticaxis,orfromthepurelydifferential(unmotivated)orderofrelationshipthatobtainsbetweendiscretesignifyingelementsandtheorderofrationalmotivationwhichobtainswhenthoseelementsenterintoformsofsuccessiveorlinearcombination.Thusthereisnoreasonwhythetermsdixandneufshouldsignifythoseparticularnumericalvaluesbutthereiseveryreason–arithmeticallyspeaking–whytheexpressiondix-neufshouldtakethatparticularsyntagmaticform(CGL-H:131).Whatactsasarestrictiononthe‘arbitrary’characteroflanguageispreciselytherequirement(againharkingbacktothePortRoyalgrammariansandthelegacyofCartesianrationalism)thatlinguisticstructureshouldarticulatethestructuresoflogicalthought.Forif‘theentirelinguisticsystemisfoundedupontheirrationalprinciplethatthesignisarbitrary’,neverthelessapplied‘withoutrestriction,thisprinciplewouldleadtoutterchaos’(CGL-H:131).However,Saussurecontinues,‘themindsucceedsinintroducingaprincipleoforderandregularityintocertainareasofthemassofsigns’,suchthat–throughtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience227presenceof‘relativemotivation’–thelinguistisableto‘studythismechanismasawayofimposingalimitationuponwhatisarbitrary’(CGL-H:131).Inwhichcasethemostbasicpreceptofstructural–synchroniclinguisticsisonethathastobegivenup–oratanyratesubjecttodrasticrestrictions–assoonasthefocusofattentionswitchesfromlanguageconceivedinabstractoasasystemofdifferentialvalues(phoneticandsemantic)‘withoutpositiveterms’tolanguageasameansofcommunicationbetweenrationallymotivatedsubjects.Thisiswhy,asSaussurealsoremarks,theconceptof‘difference’mustlikewisebekeptwithinstrictmethodologicallimits,since‘itissuitableonlyforcomparisonsbetweensoundpatterns(e.g.pere`vs.mere`),orbetweenideas(e.g.“father”vs.“mother”)’(CGL-H:119).Whereitdoesn’tapply–although(again)post-structuralistsarepronetoignorethispoint–iswherethesignisconsideredasawhole,thatis,asamotivated(non-arbitrary)conjunctionofsignifiantandsignifie´whichalonemakesitpossibleforlanguage-userstocommunicateonabasisofsharedunderstanding.Thus:‘Themomentweconsiderthesignasawhole,weencountersomethingwhichispositiveinitsowndomain’(CGL-H:119).Andagain:althoughsignifierandsignified‘areeach,inisolation,purelydifferentialandnegative’,nevertheless‘theircombinationisafactofapositivenature’.Otherwise–lackingsuchresources–languagewouldindeedbea‘chaos’andnotsomuchasystemofdifferences‘withoutpositiveterms’asanundifferentiatedfluxdevoidofintelligiblestructureormeaning.YetthisclearlyraisesproblemsforSaussure’sclaim–hammeredhomeinnumerouspassagesoftheCours–thatiflinguisticsisevertoachievethestatusofagenuinesciencethenitmuststartoutfromthecardinaldistinctionbetweensynchronyanddiachrony.Anditisthenhardtoseewhatroomthereisforcompromiseonthoseotherrelateddistinctions(languevs.parole,theparadigmaticvs.thesyntagmatic,languageasasystemofnegativedifferentialvaluesvs.languageasachainof‘positive’,‘rational’or‘motivated’signifyingelements)whereineachcasemethodologicalpriorityattachestotheantecedentterm.Mypointinallthis–torecapitulate–isthatSaussure’sconceptionoflin-guisticscienceisonethatencounterscertainproblemsonitsowntheoreticalterrain,problemsthatfindtheirmirror-imageintheaftermathoflogicalempiri-cismfromQuinetoKuhn.WithSaussurethisdifficultyariseschieflyfromtheconflictinhisthinkingbetweenarealistconvictionthatlinguisticsciencehastodowithawell-definedobjectofstudythatshouldsomehow–ideally–besetapartfromall‘external’considerationslikethoseofhistory,culturalinflu-ence,politicalevents,conquest,colonisation,etc.,andontheotherhandhisequallyfirminsistencethatsuchanobjectisconstitutedinandbytheveryactoftheoreticalabstractionthatbringsitintobeing.Indeeditispreciselytheprin-cipledexclusionofallthoseextraneousfactorswhichleadsSaussuretodefinelalangueintermsthatwouldmakeitaproductofconceptualdefinitionratherthana‘real’(independentlyexisting)objectofempiricalstudyinanythinglikeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n228ChristopherNorristhesenseenvisagedbytheneogrammariansandotherpositivisticallyinclinedstudentsoflanguage.AsRoyHarrissuccinctlyputsit:Ascienceoflanguage,asfarasSaussurewasconcerned,hadtodealwithlinguisticrealia,notmetalinguisticfictions.Andyet,ashewasforcedtoadmit,linguistics–unlikeothersciences–hadnoobjectofstudy‘giveninadvance’:inlinguistics‘itistheviewpointadoptedwhichcreatestheobject’.ItisthetensionbetweenthisadmissionandtheclaimtoscientificstatuswhichisfeltthroughouttheCours.(Harris,1988b:126)Thatistosay,Saussure’srationalistconceptionofscientificmethodcouldbeseenasfixinganinsuperablegulfbetweenlanguage(langue)asanobject-in-thought‘created’throughanactoftheoreticalabstractionandwhatever‘reality’languagemighthaveasasetof‘positivefacts’groundedintheactualprocessoflinguisticcommunication.InthecaseoflogicalempiricismtheproblemwasthatmoststrikinglydiagnosedbyQuinewhenheshowedhowamoreradicallyempiricistapproachcouldbeseentounderminetheanalytic/syntheticdualismand,alongwithit,the‘metalinguistic’approachthatpresupposedthepossibilityofsharplydistinguishingfirst-orderempiricalorobservation-statementsfromhigher-leveltheories,‘truthsofreason’,orself-evidentlogicalaxioms(Quine,1961).Thusdespitetheirderivingfromtwoverydifferenttraditionsofthoughttheseprogrammescanbeseenaseachfallingpreytointernalconflictsofaimandmethodwhichneitherwaseffectivelyabletoresolve.Moreover,asIhaveargued,bothgaverisetoaseriesofreactivedevelop-mentswhichmightseemworldsapartinphilosophicaltermsbutwhoseunder-lyingkinshipisnothardtodiscern.Thus–totakeperhapsthemostdramaticexample–the‘eclipse’ofAlthusserianMarxismcameabout(mostcommen-tatorsagree)throughitsfailedattempttotransposetheconceptsandcategoriesofSaussureanstructurallinguisticstothedomainofpoliticaltheory,andhencetoarticulateaMarxist‘science’whoseclaimtosuchstatusrestedonitsnotionofarigorous(theoreticallyelaborated)breakbetweenthe‘realobject’andthe‘object-in-thought’(Benton,1984;Elliott,1987;Thompson,1978).Astheproblemswiththistheorycameintoview–notleastitscommitmenttowhatlookedverylikeafull-blownidealistepistemology–sothereemergedapost-structuralistandFoucault-inspiredmovementofthoughtwhichrejectedtheideaof‘scientific’methodasanythingmorethanatransientproductofthevarious,historicallyshifting‘discourses’thatdefineditsobjectsofenquiryfromoneperiodtothenext.ThisFoucauldianapproachtothe‘archaeology’ofscientificknowledgewasonethatalsotookitsbearingsfromSaussureanlinguistics,despiteFoucault’swell-knownprotestationthathehadneverbeena‘structuralist’inany–tohim–recognisablesenseoftheterm(Foucault,1970,1972).Thatistosay,itisanapproachwhichtakesforgrantedSaussure’sclaimthatlinguisticshasnoobjectofstudy‘giveninadvance’,sinceinthisfieldCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience229ofinvestigation‘itistheviewpointadoptedwhichcreatestheobject’.WhereFoucaultmostdecidedlydepartsfromSaussureisinextendingthedoctrinebeyondlinguistics–whichSaussureconsidereduniqueinthisrespect–andapplyingittoawiderangeofotherscienceswhoseobjectsarelikewisethoughtofasconstitutedinandbytheirvariousmodesofdiscursiverepresentation.Ishallnotherepursuethemanyproblemsthatresultfromthisextremeversionoftheparadigm-relativistorlinguistic-constructivistview,amongthemitstotalinabilitytoaccountforourknowledgeofthegrowthofscientificknowledge,or–whatamountstothesamething–itsfailuretoprovideanyrationalaccountofscientifictheorychange.(SeeNorris,1994,1996,1997a.)MytwochiefpointsinthiscontextarefirsttheextenttowhichFoucault’sultra-scepticalapproachderivesfromcertainproblemsandunresolvedtensionsinSaussure’slinguistictheory,andsecondthemarkedkinshipitbearstotheKuhnianaccountofparadigmchangeasaprocessthatlikewiseeludesexplanationinprogressiveorrational-reconstructiveterms(Kuhn,1970).Ofcoursetherearedifferencesthatneedtobenoted,amongthemKuhn’sallowancethat‘normal’sciencetypicallyproceedsthroughvariouskindsofproblem-solvingactivityonthepartofscientistsworkingwithinsomewell-establishedparadigm,andthatitisonlyduringperiodsofpre-revolutionary‘crisis’thattheproblems(orconflictingsolutions)pileuptothepointofcre-atingamajorupheaval.ButthisdifferencewillappearlesscrucialwhensetagainstKuhn’streatmentofsuchproblems,eventhoseofthe‘normal’variety,asthemselvestakingriseonlywithinsomeparticularparadigmandasfinding(orfailingtofind)a‘solution’onlyinparadigm-relativeterms.Andagain,theverydistinction–asKuhndrawsit–between‘normal’and‘revolutionary’scienceisonethatmustappearhighlyproblematicwhentakeninconjunctionwithhisQuinean(radical-empiricist)claimfortheholisticcharacterofscien-tificknowledgeandthelackofanyultimate,i.e.otherthanpragmatic,groundsforholdingaparticularstatementtruegiventherangeofpossiblevariantconstruals.Saussurehimselfwasveryfirminmaintainingthatmostothersciencesdif-feredcruciallyinthisrespect,i.e.thattheyrequirednosuchrigorousconcep-tualbreakbetweentheirrealobjectsofenquiry(ortheorderof‘positivefacts’concerningthem)andthoseobjectsasdefinedorspecifiedthroughanactoftheoreticalabstractionwhichrenderedthemamenabletosystematicstudyinthestructural–synchronicmode.TherelevantpassageisworthcitingatlengthsinceitbringsoutveryclearlytheextentofSaussure’sdisagreementwiththoselaterthinkers(likeFoucault)whochosetodisregardhiscautionarystatementsonthispoint.Whatsetslinguisticsapartfrom‘mostothersciences’istheirnotbeingfacedwiththeneedtooptdecisivelyforoneortheother(diachronicorsynchronic)approach.Thus:CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n230ChristopherNorrisInastronomy,itisobservedthatinthecourseoftimeheavenlybodiesundergoconsid-erablechanges.Butastronomyhasnotonthataccountbeenobligedtosplitintotwoseparatedisciplines.Geologyisconstantlyconcernedwiththereconstructionofchrono-logicalsequences.Butwhenitconcentratesonexaminingfixedstatesoftheearth’scrust,thatisnotconsideredtobeaquiteseparateobjectofstudy.Thereisadescriptivescienceoflawandahistoryoflaw:butnoonecontraststheonewiththeother.Thepoliticalhistoryofnationsisintrinsicallyconcernedwithsuccessionsofeventsintime.Nonetheless,whenahistoriandescribesthesocietyofaparticularperiod,onedoesnotfeelthatthisceasestobehistory.Thescienceofpoliticalinstitutions,ontheotherhand,isessentiallydescriptive:butoccasionallyitmaydealwithhistoricalquestions,andthatinnowaycompromisesitsunityasascience.(CGL-H:79)Withregardtoeachofthesedisciplinesitwouldbeforcingtheissue–amisconceivedtheoreticalissue–torequire,asacriterionof‘scientific’rigour,thattheyadopteitherastructural–synchronicoradiachronic(historical–developmental)perspectiveontheirobject-domain.Rathertheycangetalongperfectlywellbyrespectingthatdistinction–aspractisingastronomersorgeologistsdowhentheyalsotakeaninterestinthehistoryoftheirsubject–butnotraisingitintoahighpointofmethodologicalprecept.Fortheresultoftrans-posingthispreceptfromthescienceofstructurallinguistics(whereitproperlyapplies)to‘mostothersciences’(whereithasnolegitimateplace)istosetupafalseandmisleadingideaofscientificmethod,onewhicheffectivelyblocksthewaytoanyadequate,historicallyinformedgraspofpresent-daydevelopmentsandwhatleduptothem.Themoststrikingexception,Saussureargues,isthestudyofeconomicswherethetheoristis‘forcedtorecognisethisduality’since‘politicaleconomyandeconomichistoryconstitutetwoclearlydistinguishabledisciplinesbelongingtooneandthesamescience’.Saussure’sfirminsistenceonthispointstandsinmarkedcontrasttoFou-cault’sapproachinLesmotsetleschoseswherethesheerhistoricalsweepandinterdisciplinarybreadthofcoverageresultsfromhisfailing–orprogram-maticallyrefusing–toacknowledgeanysuchdistinction.ThusFoucaultsetsouttoprovideakindofhistorical-comparativepurviewofvariousfieldsofknowledge–rangingfromphilosophy,linguisticsandeconomics(ortheear-lier‘analysisofwealth’)tonaturalhistory,geology,botanyandtheemergentlife-sciences–whichtreatsthemdiachronicallyascharacterisedbyperiodsoflong-termrelativestabilitythatonoccasiongivewaytosuddenrupturesor‘epistemologicalbreaks’.(SeeGutting,1989.)Howeverhealsoadoptsastructural–synchronicperspectiveinsofarasthosebreaksareconceivedasoccurringthroughadrasticreconfigurationofknowledge,onewhoseeffectsareregisteredineveryfield,andwhoseadventisnomoreexplainableintermsofthehistoryanddevelopmentofthesesciencesthanthestateoflalangueatsomegivenpointintimecanbeexplainedby‘extraneous’(diachronic)factsabouttheinfluenceofgeographical,cultural,orsocio-politicalfactors.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience231IndeedthereareseveralstrikingfeaturesofFoucault’s‘archaeological’approachthatareperhapsbestseenasresultingfromhislarge-scaletransposi-tionofSaussure’sstructural–synchronicparadigmtothecomparativeanalysisofepisodesanddevelopmentsinthehistoryofthought.One,asnotedabove,isitsholistictendencytolevelthedistinctionbetweenthevariousformal,natural,orsocialandhumansciences,treatingthemallprettymuchonaparasprod-uctsofanoverarchingorderofdiscourse(or‘episteme’)whichmanifestsitsowninternaleconomyofsignifyingcontrastsandrelationships.Thus–unlikeSaussure–Foucaultpaysnoregardtothosesalientdifferencesofmethodandprocedurethatmarkoff(say)geology,chemistryandthelife-sciencesontheonehandfromanthropology,philologyandhistoriographyontheother.StilllessisheinclinedtomakethekindofsharpdistinctionthatSaussuredrawsbetweeneconomichistoryandpoliticaleconomy,sinceonFoucault’saccountanysuchdistinctionisitselfjustatransientproductofsomeperiod-specific‘discourse’orepistemewhereinithappenstoplayasignificantrole.Hencehiswell-knowndismissivereferencetoMarxisteconomictheoryasbelongingtothesamediscourseasthatofearlierpoliticaleconomistslikeSmithandRicardo,whatevertheapparent(merelysurface)indicationsofaMarxist‘revolution’inthought(Foucault,1970).Another,closelyrelatedconsequenceisFoucault’sdoctrineofparadigm-incommensurability,thatistosay,hisultra-Kuhnianideathatwheneverthereisasucharadicaltheorychangeor‘epistemologicalbreak’thenitwillsurelybringaboutsomassiveanupheavalacrosstheentirefieldofknowledgeastoruleoutanypossibilityofmeaningfulcomparisonbetweenparadigms.Alongwiththisgoestheclearimplicationthatsuchchangesoccurfornoassignablereason–leastofallanyreasonhavingtodowithscien-tificprogressortheadvancementofknowledge–sincetheiroccurrenceisamatterofseismicshiftsatalevelofdiscoursebeyondthescopeofrationalaccountability.WhatisinvolvedhereisatwofoldextrapolationfromSaussure’smodeloflanguage(langue)asanobjectofstructural–synchronicanalysis.Firstlyitinvolvestreatingentire‘discourses’(whetherinthenaturalorthehumansci-ences)aslikewisesubjecttothe‘arbitrary’linkbetweensignifierandsignified,andhenceasprovidingnopossiblebasisforcomparativejudgementsoftruthorfalsehoodwithregardtotheirvariousobject-termsandpredicates.Inwhichcase–revertingtoKuhn’swell-knownexample–wecanhavenoreasonforthinkingthatGalileo’sperceptionofgravitationallyinducedpendularmove-mentwasbasedonasoundergraspofthescientificprinciplesconcernedthanAristotle’sperceptionofmatterseekingoutitsrightfulplaceinthecosmicorderoftheelements.Ratherweshouldseethatsuchtermsacquiretheirsenseandtheirreferencethroughthefunctiontheyperforminsomeparticular‘discourse’(orQuinean‘fabric’ofbeliefs-held-trueatanygiventime),withtheresultthatinter-paradigmtranslationorcomparisonbecomesaltogetherimpossible.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n232ChristopherNorrisWhencethesecondofFoucault’sextrapolationsfromSaussure,namelytheideathatparadigm-changemustbetreatedaswholly‘unmotivated’,i.e.aspermit-tingnorationalaccountofthosedrasticchangesinthestructuraleconomyofknowledgewhichmarkan‘epistemologicalbreak’whoseeffectsextendacrosstheentirefieldofdiscursiverepresentation.WehaveseenalreadythatSaussureisadamantinrestrictingthepreceptofnon-motivationtolanguageconsideredunderitsstructural–synchronicaspect,orasasystemofpurelydifferentialrelationshipsandcontrasts‘withoutpos-itiveterms’.Nodoubtitisthecase,hewrites,that‘thesignalwaystosomeextenteludescontrolbythewill,whetheroftheindividualorofsociety:thatisitsessentialnature,eventhoughitmaybebynomeansobviousatfirstsight’(CGL-H:16).However,onceanalysisproceedsbeyondthatlevel–onceittakesaccountofmorphological,grammatical,orlarger-scaleunitsofdiscourse–thenthisprinciplehastobeabandonedoranyratequalifiedinvariousdegrees.Thus:Thefundamentalprincipleofthearbitrarynatureofthelinguisticsigndoesnotpreventusfromdistinguishinginanylanguagebetweenwhatisintrinsicallyarbitrary–thatis,unmotivated–andwhatisonlyrelativelyarbitrary.Notallsignsareabsolutelyarbitrary.Insomecases,therearefactorswhichallowustorecognisedifferentdegreesofarbitrariness,althoughnevertodiscardthenotioncompletely.Thesignmaybemotivatedtoacertainextent.(CGL-H:130)Thisrestrictionontheclaimsofarbitrarinessandnon-motivationwouldpre-sumablyapplyallthemorewhenitcomestoassessingscientifictheories,thatistosay,instanceswherethe‘discourse’inquestion(moreprecisely:itsobject-terms,predicates,inferentialprocedures,andsoforth)hasbeensubjecttointen-sivecriticalscrutinyandtestingagainsttheevidence.ThusDonaldDavidsonhaspointedoutthattheargumentforradicalparadigm-incommensurabilityadvancedbythinkerslikeQuine,Kuhn,WhorfandFoucaultisonethatcollapsesintomanifestself-contradictionassoonastheypurporttodescribeortospec-ifytheparticulardifferencesconcerned(Davidson,1984;alsoWhorf,1956).Indeed,itisacasethatlooksplausibleonlyifonefocusesonlexicalorseman-ticissues(suchasthefamousnon-translatabilityofcertaincolour-termsacrosslanguages)andignoresthewholerangeofotherlinguisticfunctions–amongthemvariouslogico-syntacticdevicesforconjunction,disjunction,anaphora,pronominalreference,andsoforth–intheabsenceofwhichnolanguagecouldcommunicateeffectively.HenceDavidson’sproposalthatphilosophersshouldtakemoreaccountoftheseinvariantortrans-paradigmstructuresandtherebyprovideamoreadequatebasisforgraspingtheconditionsofsuccess(orfailure)intranslation.Yetthisisnottosaythatsomeversionofparadigm-incommensurabilityissuretoresultifoneadoptsaprimarilysemanticoralexicalapproachtothetopicCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience233ofscientifictheorychange.HartryFieldhasofferedconvincingevidencetothecontrarybyexaminingusagesof‘mass’inNewtonianandEinsteinianphysicsandshowingthatthistermcanbeheldtoexhibitasufficient(albeitpartial)continuityofreferencejustsolongasonedistinguishesvariousspecificsenses(‘absolutemass’,‘inertialmass’,and‘rest-mass’)invarious,likewisespecifi-ablecontexts(Field,1973,1974,1975).HismaintargethereistheQuine–Kuhndoctrineofsemanticholismanditspresumptiveconsequence,i.e.theclaimthatsuchradicallydifferentscientifictheoriescannotbesubjecttocomparativeeval-uationsincewecannotbesurethatanygiventermwillhavecarriedacrosswithanypartofitsmeaningunaffectedbytheinterveningparadigmchange.How-everhisargumentalsoappliestoFoucault’squasi-Saussureanconceptionofknowledgeasashiftingfieldofdiscursiverepresentationswhichallowsfornostabilityofsenseorreferencebeyondtheappealtosomefavouredparadigm,discourse,orconceptualschemebywhichtoimposeorderontheotherwiseinchoatesignifyingflux.ItisimportanttostresshowremotethisisfromanythingsanctionedbySaussuresincehisconceptsof‘arbitrariness’andthe‘non-motivated’charac-terofthelinguisticsignhaveenjoyed(orsuffered)suchwidespreadexposureintheworkoftheoristswhopaylittleheedtohispreciseformulationsofwhatconstituteslinguisticsasagenuinescienceandwhatsetsitapartfromothersci-ences.HereitisworthnotingtheaffinitythatexistsbetweenSaussure’sprojectandcertaindevelopmentsinFrenchphilosophyofscienceduringtheearly-to-midtwentiethcenturywhichlikewiseemphasisedthenotionofabreak–acoupureepistemologique–withhithertodominantmethods,procedures,or‘commonsense’modesofthought.GastonBachelardandhisstudentGeorgesCanguilhemwerethetwochiefadvocatesofthisapproach,theonehavingdevotedhimselfchieflytoissuesinthehistoryandphilosophyofphysics,theothertobiologyandthelife-sciences.(SeeespeciallyBachelard,1938,1949,1953,1968,1984;Canguilhem,1968,1969,1978,1988;alsoLafrance,1987;Lecourt,1975;Tiles,1984.)Itsdistinctivecharacter–describedbyBachelardinqualifiedCartesiantermsasakindofrationalismeapplique´–isonethatbearsdetailedcomparisonwithSaussure’slinguistictheoryeventhoughitfirstemergedsometwodecadesafterSaussuredeliveredhislandmarkseriesoflec-turecoursesinGeneva(1907–11).Soifindeedthereisany‘influence’hereitisonethatrunsfromSaussuretoBachelardratherthanSaussure’shavingdrawnhisconceptionofanadequatelinguistictheoryfromBachelard’sepistemo-criticalresearchesintothehistoryofscience.MorelikelybothprojectstookrisefromtheconjunctureofalingeringCartesiantradition–theideaoftruthsself-evidenttoreasonthroughanexerciseofdisciplinedinvestigativethought–withastrongcountervailingtendency(mostexplicitinBachelard)todenytheexistenceofsuchaprioritruthsandconceptualisescienceasaconstantprocessofrevising,challenging,orradicallytransformingourreceivedhabitsofbelief.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n234ChristopherNorrisThusBachelardenvisagedtheprocessoftheorychangeasonethatbeganwithanintuitive(oftenmetaphorical)momentofinsightbutwhichthencon-tinuedthroughstagesof‘rectificationandcritique’tothepointwherescienceachievedthebreakwithsuch‘naively’analogical,image-based,oranthropo-morphicresidues.Amonghisexampleswasthatofthetetrahedralstructureofthecarbonatom,animagewhoseusefulnessorheuristicyieldBachelardwasfarfromdenying,butwhichmarked(ashesawit)atransitionalphaseintheprogresstowardmoreadequateconceptionsofsubatomicstructure.Thatistosay,suchadvancesmighttakerisefromastateofintuitive‘reverie’whichenabledthinkingtoperceivesomeresemblance–somemetaphoricalpointofcomparison–betweendisparaterealmsofknowledgeorexperience(Bachelard,1971).Howeverthismomenthadtobeleftbehindsince,inBachelard’swords,the‘dangerofimmediatemetaphorsintheformationofthescientificspiritisthattheyarenotalwayspassingimages;theypushtowardanautonomouskindofthought;theytendtocompletionandfulfilmentinthedomainoftheimage’(Bachelard,1938:81).3HenceBachelard’sdistinctionbetweenhistoiresanctionee´andhistoireperimee´,thefirsthavingtodowithcurrentlyacceptedtheoriesorthosethathaveplayedsomecontributoryroleinthedevelopmentofscientificknowledgetodate,thesecondwiththeoriesthathaveprovedinvalidbutwhichmightbeofinterestfromamerelyhistoricalorsocio-culturalviewpoint.Thus,forinstance,Black’s‘caloric’theoryofheatisonethatnolongerenjoysscientificcredencebutwhichnonethelesscanbeseentohavemarkedacrucialstageinthedevelopmentofatheory(thatofspecificheat)whichdoeshaveaplaceinourcurrent-bestscientificthinking.(SeealsoPsillos,1999.)Bachelard’sinsistenceonmaintainingthisdistinctionisaclearsignthatheopposesanyparadigm-relativistapproach–suchasthoseofFoucaultorKuhn–thatwouldlevelthedifferencebetweenthesetwokindsofhistorybyremovinganygroundsforrationalcomparisonacrossmajorepisodesoftheorychange.Itislikewisesharplyatoddswiththe‘principleofparity’advancedbystrongsociologistsofknowledgeandbypractitionersofscience-studiesasasub-branchofculturalcriticism.Thisprincipleholdsthatoneshouldtreateverytheory–whateveritscredentialsincurrentscientificestimation–onexactlythesameterms,i.e.withaviewtoitsmotivatinginterests,ideologicalvalues,orsocio-culturalconditionsofemergence(Barnes,1985;Bloor,1976;Collins,1985).Inotherwordsitrejectsthedistinctionbetween‘contextofdiscovery’and‘contextofjustification’whichformedamainplankinthelogical-empiricistprogrammeandwhichmostphilosophersofscience(Bachelardincluded)haveendorsed–albeitfromdifferingtheoreticalperspectives–astheonlywaytomakerationalsenseofscientificprogresstodate(Reichenbach,1938).ThatSaussureconsid-eredthisavitaldistinctioninthecontextoflinguisticmethodologyisevidentfrompassagesthroughouttheCours.ThusitfigurescruciallyinhiscomparisonCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience235betweenlanguageandgameslikechesswheretheoperativerules(or‘internal’structureofthegame)mustbetreatedas‘asystemwhichadmitsnootherorderthanitsown’andwhereonehastodistinguishclearly‘betweenwhatisexter-nalandwhatisinternal’(CGL-H:23).TothisextentSaussure’sconceptionoflinguisticsciencefallssquarewithBachelard’scritical-rationalistapproachandcomesoutfirmlyopposedtoanytheory–suchasFoucault’sarchaeologyofknowledge–whichtreatsthecurrencyof‘truth’atanygiventimeasaproductofthoseshiftingdiscoursesorparadigmsthatbelongtothedomainofsocio-historicalenquiry.Fromhis(Saussure’s)pointofviewthiscouldonlyamounttoagrossconfusionofrealms,onethatmisappliescertainstrictlysynchronicprinciples(thearbitraryrelationbetweensignifierandsignifiedandtheunmo-tivatedcharacterofthesign)toadiachronicfieldofstudyandwhichmoreoverextrapolateswildlyonthisbasistoawholerangeofscienceswherethelinguis-ticmodelisofdubiousrelevanceorvalue.OfcourseSaussurehimselfmadesomelargeclaimsfortheextensionofhistheorytoasemiologicalprojectthatwouldstudy‘theroleofsignsasapartofsociallife’,andwouldthus‘formpartofsocialpsychology,andhenceofgeneralpsychology’(CLG-H:15).Sincesuchascience‘doesnotyetexist’,heconcedes,‘onecannotsayforcertainthatitwillexist’.Allthesame,‘ithasarighttoexist,aplacereadyforitinadvance’,insofarasthestructural–synchronicapproachasappliedtoissuesintheoreticallinguisticshasbeenabletospecifyitsoperativetermsandconcepts(CGL-H:15–16).Thiswell-knownpassagefromtheCours–muchcitedbythe-oristsinvariousdisciplinesduringtheheydayof‘classic’highstructuralism–isofparticularinterestforsuggestingananalogybetweenthedistributionofsignifyingvaluesinlalangueandtheconfigurationofscientificfieldsaccordingtotheirvariousdistinctiveinterestsandconcerns.Thusintheformercase‘eachofasetofsynonymslikeredouter[“todread”],craindre[“tofear”],avoirpeur[“tobeafraid”]hasitsparticularvalueonlybecausetheystandincontrastwithoneanother’(CGL-H:114).Andinthelattercase,correspondingly,thescopethatexistsforsomenewtheoreticalendeavour(suchasSaussure’sprojectedgeneralsemiology)canbethoughtofasopenedup‘inadvance’byitspotentialyieldinrelationtoother(existing)scientificdisciplines.Afterall,‘ifredouterdidnotexist,itscontentwouldbesharedoutamongitscompetitors’,justas(itisimplied)theobject-domainofthissemiology-to-comehasuptonowbeensharedout–andpreventedfromattainingscientificautonomy–bythelackofadequateconceptualresourceswherebytodefineanddelimitthatdomain.Allofwhichmightbetakentosuggesttheideaof‘knowledge’atanygiventimeasconsisting–verymuchasFoucaultconceivesit–inthosevarioustransientconfigurationsof‘discourse’thathappentoprevailfromoneepistemetothenext.HoweveritissufficientlyclearfromSaussure’sremarkselsewhereintheCoursthatherejectsanysuchparadigm-relativistconceptionofscientificCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n236ChristopherNorrisknowledgeandregardsitasawhollyunjustifiedconflationofthe‘internal’(i.e.structural–synchronic)and‘external’(diachronicorhistorico-cultural)modesofenquiry.Thustothequestion‘Whyisitthatsemiologyisnotyetrecognisedasanautonomoussciencewithitsownobjectofstudy?’Saussuresomewhattestilyrespondsthat‘herewegoroundinacircle’,trappedbyinadequatenotionsof‘language’andafuzzygraspofwhatconstitutestheobjectofsemiologicalenquiry.‘Ontheonehand’,hewrites,‘nothingismoreappropriatethanthestudyoflanguagestobringoutthenatureofthesemiologicalproblem.Buttoformulatetheproblemsuitably,itwouldbenecessarytostudywhatalanguageisinitself;whereashithertoalanguagehasusuallybeenconsideredasafunc-tionofsomethingelse,fromotherpointsofview’(CGL-H:16).HereagainthereisacloseaffinitywithBachelard’sstressonthenormativedistinctionbetweenhistoryofscienceasadisciplinethatstudiestheconditionsofemer-genceforscientifictheoriesandphilosophyofscienceasanepistemo-criticaldisciplineconcernedwithestablishingthepointoftransitionfrominadequate(metaphorical,image-based,oranthropomorphic)thinkingtoadequatelythe-orisedscientificknowledge.Thisdistinctionworksoutascloselyequivalenttothatproposedbythelogicalempiricistswhentheyrequiredthatissuesregardingthesocio-historical‘contextofdiscovery’notbeconfusedwithissuesregardingtheproperlyscientific‘contextofjustification’.OntheotherhanditisequallyimportanttonotethatBachelard,likeSaussure,isveryfarfromdismissingdiachronicapproachesas‘unscientific’orirrele-vanttothepurposesofanadequatelyconceptualisedphilosophyofscience.InSaussure’scasethepointisbestmadewithrespecttohisearlyMemoiresurle´systemeprimitifdesvoyellesdansleslanguesindo-europ`eennes´(publishedattheageoftwenty-one)where,asHarrisremarks,‘thewordsysteme`alreadyappearsinthetitle’(Harris,1988b:39).ThemainproblemthatSaussureaddressedhere–onethathadlongpreoccupiedcomparativephilologists–washowtoreconstructthevowelsystemofapre-literateancestorlanguageforwhichnorecordssurvivedonthebasisoflater(recorded)languagespre-sumedtohavedescendedfromit.(SeeMorpurgoDavies,thisvolume.)Morespecifically,theproblemconcernedthevowelaandtheclaimthatthis‘sin-gle’vowelmustinfacthavehadtwoquitedistinctpronunciationsorphoneticrolesinprimitiveIndo-Europeansinceonlythuscouldoneexplainthoselaterdevelopments.‘Saussure’scontribution’,Harriswrites,wastoestablishthefactthatevenpostulatingtwodifferentvarietiesofastilldidnotprovideasatisfactorysolutiontotheproblem;andhepostulatedthatinadditionthelanguagemusthavehadathirdsound,amysterysoundwhichwasincertainrespectslikeavowel,butincertainrespectslikeaconsonant.Saussurecouldnotsayexactlywhatthismysterysoundsoundedlike,becausehethoughtthatnoneofthemodernEuropeanlanguageshadasoundlikeit.ButheclaimedthatitwaspossibletodescribeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience237themysterysoundinapurelyabstractway,byspecifyingitsformalproperties.Theseincludeditsdistinctivenessfromothervowelsandconsonants,itscapacitytostandaloneasasyllable,anditscapacitytocombinesyllabicallywithvowels.Thismadeit,inIndo-Europeanterms,neitheraconsonantnoravowel,andSaussuredecidedtocallita‘sonantcoefficient’.(Harris,1988b:39–40)AsHarrisfurthernotes,thismodeofinferencetothebest(mostrational)explanationonhypothetico-deductivegroundsisonethathasalsocharacterisedvarioussignalepisodesinthehistoryofthephysicalsciences.Thus,forinstance,itcomesintoplaywhenastronomerspredicttheexistenceofa‘new’(as-yetunobserved)planetfromperturbationsintheorbitofneighbouringbodies,orwhensubatomicphysicistspostulatesome‘new’particlefromitseffectonotherparticlesinacloud-chamberorcyclotron(Harman,1965;Lipton,1993;Salmon,1967).Thatistosay,Saussure’sargumenthereisastrikingexampleofscientificmethodnotonlyinsofarasitprefigureshislateremphasisontheneedtotreatlanguageina‘formal’,‘systematic’,or‘purelyabstract’way,butalsoinsofarasitadoptsthekindofreasoningthathadlongbeenapplied–oftenwithconspicuoussuccess–inthenaturalsciences.AsconcernsSaussure’sconjecture,itstruthwasborneoutahalf-centurylater‘withthedeciphermentofcuneiformHittite,anIndo-EuropeanlanguagewhichwasfoundtohaveaphonemewithexactlythepropertiesSaussurehadspecifiedforthemysterysoundofprimitiveIndo-European’(Harris,1988b:40).Harrisseesthis–justifiablyenough–asavindicationfullyonaparwithwhatastronomersproducewhentheygainaccesstomorepowerfulradio-telescopes,orwhatphysicistsobtainwiththeadventofelectronmicroscopeswithever-greaterpowersofresolution.AtthesametimeitcautionsusagainsttooreadilyacceptingtheideathatSaussure’sthoughtunderwenta‘radical’transformationbetweentheearlyperiodoftheMemoire´andtheperiodofhislecturesatGeneva.Whatemergesveryclearly,inHarris’swords,‘isSaussure’searlyinsistencethatthecorrectsolution,howevercounterintuitiveitmightseemandhoweverunprecedented,wastobefoundbytreatingthe“sound”asdefinedinrelationtoasystem’(Harris,1988b:40).Butofcoursethat‘correctsolution’wasappliedtoaproblemincomparativephilology,thatis,aproblemwhicharosefromthefieldofhistorical–developmentalresearchandwhichcouldonlyberesolvedintermsappropriatetothatfield.Soitisnotsomuchthecasethatatruly‘scientific’studyoflanguagerequiresacleanbreakbetweenthekindsofissuethatpreoccupiedthenineteenth-centuryphilologistsandthekindsofissuethatSaussureopenedupthroughhisstructural–synchronic‘revolution’.Rather,itisthecase–hereaswithBachelard’sphilosophyofscience–thatthetwoapproachescanindeedbecombinedtothebenefitofbothjustsolongasonemaintainsafirmsenseoftheirdistinctivemethods,prioritiesandconceptualresources.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n238ChristopherNorrisSothereisreasontoconcludethatSaussureandBachelardareunitedinofferinganaccountofscientifictheorychangewhichinsistsonacarefulsep-arationofrealmsandwhichthuscomesoutsharplyopposedtowholesalecontextualistdoctrineslikethoseadvancedbyFoucault,Kuhn,Rortyandthe‘strong’sociologistsofknowledge.Wheresuchthinkinggoeswrong–inSaussure’soft-statedview–isthroughthetwofolderrorofillicitlyimportingsynchronicconceptsandcategoriesintothediachronicstudyoflanguage,andillicitlytransposingdiachronicdata,methodsorassumptionsintothedomainofstructurallinguistics.WithBachelardtheemphasistypicallyfallsonthosecon-fusionsthatresultfromelidingthedistinctionbetweenpre-(orproto-)scientificstagesofthoughtandtheadventofascientifictheory,properlysocalled,whichhasreachedthepointofadequateconceptualisation.Thisisnotofcoursetosay–inhiscaseanymorethanSaussure’s–thathistoricalconcernsarerelegatedtoamerelysecond-orderorsubsidiarystatus.IndeedonedistinctivefeatureofBachelard’sworkascomparedwithmainstreamanglophonephilosophyofscienceistheprominenceitgivestoepisodesanddevelopmentsinthe‘contextofdiscovery’,evenwhileinsistingthatinterestsofthissort,thoughperfectlylegitimateontheirownterms,notbeallowedtoobtrudeuponissuesinthe‘contextofjustification’.ForSaussurelikewise,thereisabsolutelynoques-tionofdiachronicstudiesbeingsomehowrenderedobsoleteor‘pre-scientific’throughtheadventofastructural–synchronicapproachwhoseclaimistoplacelinguisticsonaproperlyscientificfooting.However,asinBachelard’scase,theoverridingmethodologicalimperativeistokeeptheseconcernseachwithinitsown,theoreticallyspecifieddomainandtherebypreventthemfromengenderingallmannerofhybridorpseudo-scientifictheoriesandconjectures.Ihavesuggestedthatthisisjustwhathappened–andwithjustsuchunfor-tunateresults–whenSaussure’sproposalforageneralsemiologybasedontheprinciplesofstructurallinguisticswastakenupandappliedtoareasofstudy(likethenaturalsciences)farbeyonditsspecificremit.Thatremit–torepeat–wasconceivedbySaussureasinvolvingsemiology’seventualassumptionofitsroleas‘partofsocialpsychology,andhenceofgeneralpsychology’.Atthisstageofas-yetunachievedbutpreordainedemergencethe‘lawswhichsemi-ologywilldiscoverwillbelawsapplicableinlinguistics,andlinguisticswillthusbeassignedtoaclearlydefinedplaceinthefieldofhumanknowledge’(CGL-H:15–16).Yetjustaslinguisticscanattainthisroleonlyonconditionofacceptingitsplacewithinalargersemiologicalscience,solikewisethatsciencemustitselfbesubjecttocertain‘clearlydefined’disciplinarylimits,namelythosewhichassignitalegitimateplacewithinthesocialsciencesandpsychology.ThusSaussureisveryfarfromenvisagingastage–thatproclaimedbyFoucaultandbyotherswithdubiousSaussureanwarrant–whenitsclaimswouldextend(inprincipleatleast)toeveryareaofthenaturalaswellasthesocialorhumansciences.MuchthesameappliestoFoucault’susageoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure,linguistictheoryandphilosophyofscience239term‘epistemologicalbreak’,ausagethatclearlyderives(viaCanguilhem)fromBachelard’saccountofscientifictheorychangebutwhichundergoesanotablelossofprecisionalongwithitsmassivelyextendedscopeasacoveringtermforallmannerofdeep-laidyetill-definedshiftsinthehistorico-discursive‘orderofthings’.Saussuremakesthispointwithmaximalemphasiswhenhedeclaresthatany‘notionofbringingtogetherfactsofsuchdisparatenaturewouldbemerefantasy’,since‘inthediachronicperspectiveoneisdealingwithphenomenawhichhavenoconnectionwithlinguisticsystems,eventhoughthesystemsareaffectedbythem’(CGL-H:85).Ifonecatchesadistantrumblehereitisthesoundofwholetheoriescollapsing,amongthemtheFoucauldianarchaeologyofscientificknowledgeand–inadifferentthoughrelatedcontext–thoseparadigm-relativistapproaches(suchasKuhn’s)whichlikewiseinvolveafailuretoobservethatcardinaldistinction.Whatresultsinbothcasesisaradicallyholisticorcontextualisttheorywhereinthetruth-valueofanygivenstatementissomehow(impossibly)decidedbytherelationshipitbearstotheentireexistingbodyofbeliefs-held-trueduringthisorthatperiodofscientificthought.MichaelDevitt–writingfromarealistviewpoint–hasdescribedthischapterofdevelopmentsasonethatplacesthelinguisticcartveryfirmlybeforethescientifichorse(Devitt,1986;alsoDevittandSterelny,1987).Thatistosay,itinvolvesthestrangeideathatcertainhighlycontestabletheoriesofmeaningordiscursiverepresentationshouldbetakenaspossessingstrongerepistemicwarrantthanthekindsofcausal-realistapproachviainferencetothebestexpla-nationwhichprovidetheonlyadequate(i.e.non-miraculist)accountofhowsciencehasachieveditsvariousadvancestodate(Boyd,1984;Putnam,1975).4ItisamongthegreatironiesofrecentintellectualhistorythatSaussure’smetic-ulousspecificationofthescopeandlimitsofhisprojectshouldsincehavegivenwaytoamovementofthoughtsomarkedlyatoddswithhisownclearlystatedaimsandpriorities.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n15Saussure’slegacyinsemioticsPaulBouissacWhiletheabstractnotionof‘sign’hasbeenintensivelydiscussedinwesternphilosophyatleastsincePlatoandtheStoics(e.g.Manetti,1993),aspecialtheoreticaldomaindevotedtothegeneralstudyofsignsdidnotemergeuntilthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Asitemancipateditselffromitsphilo-sophicalcradle,thisnewkindofinquirybecamevariouslyknownas‘semei-otic’,‘semiotic’,‘significs’(Peirce,1977),‘semiology’,‘signology’(Saussure,1916)and‘semiotics’(Sebeok,1976).WhatallthesetermshaveincommonisthattheyarecoinedfromtheancientGreekwordfor‘sign’:semeion¯anditsLatinequivalentsignum.Theiretymologyandterminologicalhistoryiswelldocumented(e.g.Sebeok,1976;MoellerandWulff,1985;Bouissac,1998).Duringthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,‘semiotics’wasincreas-inglyacceptedasreferringtothebranchofknowledgeconcernedwithformalandempiricalresearchonsigns,signification,meaningandcommunication.Itcompetedwiththeterm‘semiology’(translatedfromtheFrenchsemiologie´).Bothsemioticsandsemiologyarenowusedwithmoreorlessthesamebroadvalue,unlessspecifiedotherwise,andcoveragreatvarietyofschoolseachwithitsowntheoreticalandmethodologicalapproach.However,‘semiotics’tendstoevokethewritingsofAmericanphilosopherCharlesSandersPeirce(1839–1914)while‘semiology’sometimesexclusivelyreferstothetraditionsderivedfromtheteachingofSwisslinguistFerdinanddeSaussure(1857–1913),principallyintheGalliccontext.PeirceandSaussureareindeedgenerallycon-sideredasthetwoinitiatorsofthemodern‘scienceofsigns’forwhichtheyindependentlysketchedtentativedefinitionsandresearchblueprints.However,whilePeircewasaprolificwriterwhoproducedmanyversionsofhistheo-reticalvision,Saussuredidnotpublishanyworkonthistopicinhislifetimeandhecommunicatedhisideasexclusivelythroughhisteachingandcorre-spondence.Theseideasweresummarisedandeditedbytwoofhiscolleaguesposthumously.ThepurposeofthischapteristoreviewandassessSaussure’slegacyinsemi-otics,thedomainofenquiryhehelpeddefineunderthenamesof‘s´emiologie’or‘signologie’(Saussure,1974:48).Thistaskrequiresaclearunderstandingoftheprocessbywhichathinker’sstatementseventuallyareconsideredby240CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics241thefollowinggenerationstohavebeenseminalratherthanmerelyhistorical.Thefactthat,afteracentury,thereisstillenoughinterestinSaussure’sideastojustifyabooklikethisonebearswitnesstohiscontinuinginfluence.InspiteofsomeeffortsmadebyAmericanwriters(e.g.Sebeok,1989;Deely,2001)opportunisticallytodowngradetheSaussureansemioticstreamtothestatusofaso-called‘minortradition’,asopposedtothesupposedly‘majortradition’ofsemioticsheraldedbyPeirce,Saussureremainsoneofthemostoftenmentionedauthorsinthesemioticliterature.Althoughhisideasremainedlargelyprogram-matic,theyarestillperceivedtodaybysomeasbeingintellectuallyengaging,evenprovocativeandcontroversial(e.g.Gandon2001).Histheoreticalspecula-tionsonlanguage,andmoregenerallyonsigns(sinceheconsideredlanguagestobeparticularsubsetsofsignsystemsobeyingthelawsofallsemiologicalsystems),haveovertheyearscometotheattentionofasizableconstituencyofinfluentialresearchersinanindirectandstaggeredmanner.AnepistemologicalvisionItisimportanttounderlineattheoutsetthatthestatusofSaussureasamajorfountainheadofsemioticsisbasedonashortparagraphintheCourseinGeneralLinguisticsandonafewremarksscatteredthroughoutthebook.Thistexthasbeenquoted,paraphrasedoralludedtocountlesstimes.Itreads:Itisthereforepossibletoconceiveofasciencewhichstudiestheroleofsignsaspartofsociallife.Itwouldformpartofsocialpsychology,andhenceofgeneralpsychology.Weshallcallitsemiology(fromtheGreeksemeˆˆıon,‘sign’).Itwouldinvestigatethenatureofsignsandthelawsgoverningthem.Sinceitdoesnotyetexist,onecannotsayforcertainthatitwillexist.Butithasarighttoexist,aplacereadyforitinadvance.Linguisticsisonlyonebranchofthisgeneralscience.Thelawswhichsemiologywilldiscoverwillbelawsapplicableinlinguistics,andlinguisticswillthusbeassignedtoaclearlydefinedplaceinthefieldofhumanknowledge.(CGL-H:15–16)Saussure’sefforts,however,werefocusedonthetheoreticalstatusoflinguis-ticsignsanddidnotdealatanysignificantlengthwithanyothersemiologicalsystems.Whilenumerousanddetailedlinguisticexampleswereprovidedinhisteaching,thereisverylittlebothinthecourseandinthemanuscriptsconcern-ingthisnewsciencebeyondsomementionsofpossibledomainsofenquiry:‘Alanguageisasystemofsignsexpressingideas,andhencecomparabletowrit-ing,thedeaf-and-dumbalphabet,symbolicrites,formsofpoliteness,militarysignals,andsoon.Itissimplythemostimportantofsuchsystems’(CGL-H:15).TheepistemologicalstatusofthisvirtualscienceofsignsremainsequallyvagueasSaussure,restrictinghisowncompetencetolinguistics,leavesittogeneralpsychologytodeterminetheplaceofsemiologyinthemappingoffutureCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n242PaulBouissachumanknowledge:‘Itisforthepsychologisttodeterminetheexactplaceofsemiology.Thelinguist’staskistodefinewhatmakeslanguageaspecialtypeofsystemwithinthetotalityofsemiologicalfacts’(CGL-H:16).Withrespecttothemethod,Saussuredoesnotattempttoprovideanyexplicitguidelinesconcerningtheanalysisofanyoftheothersignsystemslistedaspotentialobjectsofstudyforsemiology.However,giventhefactthatheaimedatreachingsemiologicaldefinitionsof‘linguisticfacts’,hiselaborationsofthetheoreticalnotionoflinguisticsignsappearedgeneralenoughtoprovideabasisforextrapolationsandgeneralisationsbeyondtherealmoflanguage.ThesemioticlegacyofSaussureisthusaseriesofattemptsatmeetinghisepiste-mologicalchallengethroughapplyinghislinguisticapproachtootherculturalinstitutionsandproductions.Theabstractnessoftheprinciplesprovedtobebothfertileandperilous.Theyarestilltheobjectofdebatesandcontroversies(e.g.Thibault,1997;Harris,2000).Saussuredidnothavedirectdiscipleswhowouldhaveundertakentoimple-menttheirmaster’ssemiologicalvision.CharlesBallyandAlbertSechehaye,theeditorsofthecourse,hadtheirownlinguisticandsemanticagenda.How-ever,specialmentionshouldbemadeofRussianlinguistSerjeiKarcevskiwho,in1907,hademigratedtoSwitzerlandwhereheattendedsomeofSaussure’scourses,andlaterlecturedonSaussureanlinguistics,albeitnotuncritically,attheRussianAcademyofSciencesafterhisreturntoMoscowin1917–19.HeisconsideredtobethemainlinkwhichconveyedSaussure’soraltraditiontoSlaviclinguists,suchasRomanJakobson,whoweretobecomesomeofthemostactiveproponentsofsemioticresearch.ButthosewhosoughtinspirationinSaussure’sinsightshadtofigurethemoutfirstfromstudents’notesandrecollectionsaswellasfromtheirinterpretationandreconstructionbytheedi-torsoftheCourseinGeneralLinguistics.Tomakethingsevenworse,mostofthosewhohaverepeatedlyquotedSaussureintheformofaphorismsanddiagramspurportingtocapturethenatureofthe(linguistic)sign,principallysincethe1960s,haveconsistentlyignoredtheintellectualandhistoricalcontextinwhichSaussure’sviewstookshape,notablyduringthedecadehespentinParisbeforehewasappointedin1891totheUniversityofGeneva,firsttoteachComparativePhilology,thentotakeoverthechairofGeneralLinguisticsonlyafewyearsbeforehisdeathin1913.Saussure’sproblematictheoreticalposi-tions,whichheratherprovocativelyexpressedinthreecoursesbetween1907and1911(Saussure,1993,1996,1997)wereconceivedinthewakeofintensephilosophicaldebatesfocusedonthenatureofsigns,languageandmeaning(e.g.Schleicher,1863,Whitney,1875;Br´eal,1897)towardwhichSaussureoccasionallyexpressedmoreorlesscriticaljudgements.Inspiteofseriousattemptsatelucidatingthisintellectualtanglethroughscholarlyhistoriography(e.g.Aarsleff,1982;Koerner,1972,1973,1988;Normand,1978b),theepistemologicalcontextinwhichSaussureelaboratedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics243hissemiologicalvisionisfarfrombeingfullydocumentedandunderstood,notablywithrespecttotheinfluenceonhisthoughtoflateeighteenth-centuryFrenchphilosophy,Husserl’sphenomenology,DurkheimandTarde’ssociol-ogy,andDarwinism.Later,comparedtothepublishedworksofhisimmediatecontemporaries,Saussure’saphorismsappearedradicallydifferent.Therela-tivenoveltyofhismoreabstractandmorecomprehensiveapproachwasfore-groundedbytheepigonesofthe1960swhoconstruedhispronouncementsintotheabsolutebeginningofanewera,a‘rupture´epist´emologique’thatmarkedthebirthof‘s´emiologie’.ThismakingofasemioticherotendedtotakeSaussure’sinsightsoutoftheirhistoricalcontextandtoframetheminthewiderperspectiveofaneclecticdiscourseinwhichseveralepistemologicalstreamshadmerged,mainlyduringthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,aswewillseebelow.Newdisciplinesoftentendtoseekillustriouspredecessorsinordertoestab-lishtheirhistoricallegitimacy.Semioticsisnoexception.ButwemustnotforgetthatSaussurehimselfdidnotconsiderthathissemiologicalspeculationswereyetworthyofbeingpublished.Hishighepistemologicalstandardspreventedhimfromconsideringthat,atthetimewhenhewasgivinghislastlectures,histentativeeffortsamountedtoafoundingtreatiseongenerallinguistics,stilllessonsemiology.Rather,hewasawarethathewasstillstrugglingwiththecomplexityandimplicationsofthelinguisticandsemanticcontroversiesofthelatenineteenthcentury.SaussurismatworkSaussure’smostdefiniteimpactonthedevelopmentofsemioticsisusuallytracedalongthreepaths:(1)theSlavicstreamwhichfirstled,inthe1920sand1930s,tothePragueschooloflinguisticfunctionalismanditsextra-linguisticapplications(e.g.RomanJakobson),then,inthe1950s,totheMoscow-Tartuschool,mostlydevotedtothesemioticstudyofcultures(e.g.JuriLotman);(2)theDanishschooloftheoreticallinguisticswhich,inthe1940s,becameknownasglossematics(coinedonthemodelofmathematicswiththeGreekworkglottaorglossameaning‘tongue’)andwhosethesesweresufficientlyabstracttobeapplicablebeyondtherealmoflanguageproper(e.g.LouisHjelmslev);(3)Frenchstructuralism,whichrediscoveredSaussureinthe1950sthroughthemediationofthefirsttwostreamsandreconstitutedanintellectualgenealogyforthesemioticmovementofthe1960sandbeyond(e.g.ClaudeL´evi-Strauss,RolandBarthes,AlgirdasJulienGreimas).Naturally,thisisasomewhatsimplifiedvisionofthewayinwhichSaussure’ssemioticlegacycanbemapped,becauseother,morediscreet,oftencriticalstreamscouldbeidentified(e.g.Buyssens,1943;Prieto,1966;Malmberg,1977;Mounin,1970),andbecausethesevariouspathsdiverged,intersectedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n244PaulBouissacandformedloopsintheconstraininggeopoliticalcontextoftheSovietrevo-lution,theSecondWorldWarandtheensuingColdWar.Itmustbepointedout,however,thatexplicitreferencestoSaussureastheprimemoverarefoundinthewritingsofallthemainexponentsoftheschoolslistedabove,althoughtheyoftenendeavouredatthesametimetoestablishtheoriginalityoftheirownapproacheswithrespecttoSaussure’sassumedlackoftheoreticalcon-siderationforthesocialandtemporaldimensionsofsigns,thelimitsofhisseeminglyexcessivenotionofthearbitrarinessoftherelationbetweensignifi-antandsignifie´,orhisneglectofthespeakingsubject.ThesevariousstreamsofSaussureaninfluencehavebeenwelldocumented,althoughperhapsnotenoughattentionhasbeenpaidtothewayinwhichtheywereselectivelytransformedthroughtheirinteractionwithotheremergingepistemologicalmovementssuchasRussianFormalism,FunctionalStructuralism,Cybernetics,Chomskyanlin-guistics,andLacanianFreudism.RussianFormalismisthenamegiventoagroupofliteraryscholarswho,atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,incollaborationwithlinguists,startedtoquestionthehistoricalapproachtoliteratureandart,andtofocustheirattentionupontheformalandstructuralcharacteristicsofartisticworks,moreparticularlypoetry.Throughthe1920sand1930s,theyproducedgeneraltheoriesaimedataccountingforthecharacteristicsofthepoeticfunctionoflanguageandfortheformaldevicesthroughwhichpoems,narrativessuchasepicsandfolktales,andbyextensionallaestheticobjectsweregenerated.TheirforegroundingofformaldifferencesandsystemicfeatureswasverycompatibleindeedwithSaussurismwhichthusbecameassociatedwithresearchonartisticproductions,adomainwhichSaussurehimselfapparentlydidnotincludeinhistentativelistsofthesystemswhichshouldcomeunderthepurviewofsemiology,althoughhismanuscriptsonLatinpoetics(Starobinski,1964,1979[1971])andonancientmyths(Avalle,1973a)betrayadeep,almostobsessiveinterestintheformalpropertiesofliterarytexts.FunctionalStructuralism,alsoknownasthePragueschool,whichisoneofthemainsourcesoftwentieth-centurysemiotics,originatedinthelate1920sinPraguewheresomeoftheearlyRussian‘formalists’hademigrated.Theinflu-entiallinguistictheorytheyformulatedwasinpartinspiredbySaussure’sideas,butnotuncritically.Inparticular,theyconceptualisedphonologicalsystemsasbeingrulednotonlybyintrinsiclaws,butalsobytheconstraintsofsocialcommunicationaswellasbypsychologicalconsiderationsunderthenotableinfluenceofGermanpsychologistKarlB¨uhler(1879–1963).Formaldifferenceswereviewedasfunctionallymotivatedbycommunicativeconditions.TheyalsopursuedtheRussianformalists’agendabybringingintofocussemioticanaly-sesofliterature,theartsandothersymbolicartifacts.TheirdetailedexpositionsofphonologicalsystemsandtheirsystematicuseofSaussure’scomplementaryCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics245notionssuchasparadigm/syntagm,langue/paroleanddiachrony/synchronyservedtobuildacommonsensicalapproachfortheirmorecomprehensivesemi-oticmethod,thussomewhattrivialisingthecounterintuitivecharacterofSaus-sure’sinsights.ThisispatentinthemodelconstructedbyJakobson(1960)afteranearlierschemaofB¨uhlerandwithsomenotionsborrowedfrominforma-tiontheory,whichpurportstorepresentinadiagramthesixfunctionsthatarenecessaryforcompletingallsuccessfulactsoflinguisticcommunication.Eachfunctioncorrespondstoadistinctpoleorfactoroftheprocessthroughwhichinformationisconveyedfromanaddresser(emotivefunction)toanaddressee(conativefunction)bymeansofamessage(poeticfunction)providingthatthesenderandreceiverareincontactthroughaparticularchannel(phaticfunc-tion),thattheysharethesamecode(metalinguisticfunction)andthattheyhaveaccesstothesamecontext,atleastinpart(referentialfunction).Thispragmaticmodelobviouslyconcernsactsofspeech(parole)ratherthanthelinguisticsystemitself(langue).Accordingtoit,therelativeweightofeachfunctiondeterminesthedominantfeaturesofparticularmessages.Thismodelhasbeenwidelyappliedtosemioticdescriptionsofnon-linguisticculturaldomainswithappropriateadjustments,butcanhardlyqualifyasaSaussureanmodelinspiteofthefactthatitspromotersimpliedthat‘langue’and‘code’wereequivalentnotionsas‘message’correspondedto‘parole’.Suchsemioticgeneralisations,ortransmogrifications,ofSaussure’slinguisticcon-ceptswereachievednotonlyundertheinfluenceoffunctionalismbutalsobylooselyborrowingtermsfromthevocabularyofcyberneticsandthetheoryofinformation.Cyberneticswasindeedanotherepistemologicalmovementwhichhademergedduringthetwentiethcenturyinparallelwiththedevelopmentsofformalismandfunctionalism,andhadcreatedasetofconceptualtoolswhichseemedappropriatetorefertobothlinguisticandnon-linguisticsemioticsys-tems.ForthosewhowerefamiliarwithSaussure’sideas,thecyberneticnotionsofsystemstatesandsystemdynamics,statetransitionsandcontrol,mod-ellingofinteractingcomponentsandinteractingsystems,providedanattrac-tivemetalanguage.Differenceandinformationcouldbeeasilyconstruedaskinconcepts,aswellasthenotionsof‘langue’,‘system’and‘code’.TheworksofNorbertWiener(e.g.1961[1948]),GregoryBateson(e.g.1967),RossAshby(e.g.1956)andAbrahamMoles(e.g.1958)contributedtothediffu-sionofcyberneticmodelsamongthevariousschoolswhichthenmappedtheincipientsemioticmovementsinEuropeandNorthAmericawhileaparalleldevelopmentwastakingplaceintheSovietUnion.There,Saussure,struc-turalismandsemioticshadindeedbecomeunpalatableforthereigningide-ologybutthesortofresearchtheyinspiredwastoleratedunderthenameofcybernetics.ThesearetherootsoftheMoscow-TartuschoolofsemioticsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n246PaulBouissacwhichcametoprominenceundertheleadershipofVjaceslavIvanovandJuriLotmanwhoestablishedtheconceptofcultural‘text’onformalgroundsanddevelopedthenotionsofprimaryandsecondarymodellingsystems,blendingSaussurismandcyberneticsintheiranalysisofvariousculturalproductions(e.g.Lotman1990).ChomskyanlinguisticscapturedtheepistemologicalimaginationofsomesemioticiansassoonasSyntacticStructures(Chomsky,1957)appeared.Chomskywasadamantthatlanguage,moreexactlygrammaticalknowledge,wasauniversalspecificcompetencedefinedbyanabstractrepresentationofthesentence,thatwastotallyindependentfromthewholerangeofcommunica-tivebehaviourinwhichsemioticianswereshowinginterest.Nevertheless,themetaphorofnormative‘deepstructures’generating‘surface’phenomenaandaccountingfortheirregulatedtransformationswasappealingforagenerationwhichwasstrugglingwithSaussure’sunfinishedagenda.Chomsky’streedia-gramswereadaptedtowhateverdomainscouldbeaccountedforintermsofassumedrules,suchasmusicandpoetry(e.g.Ruwet,1972),architecture(e.g.Boudon,1973)orgestures(e.g.Bouissac,1973).Inspiteofthemisgivingsofthepromoteroflinguisticgenerativismtowardssemiotics,somesemioti-ciansconsideredChomsky–whohimselfendorsedtheideaforawhile–asafollowerofSaussureinasmuchashehadprovidedformalanalyticaltoolstooperationallyrelateabstractstructurestoconcretemanifestationsofsemioticphenomena.Theirassumption,whichwasnotsharedbyChomsky,wastheSaussureanideathatlinguisticsshouldbeconsideredapartofsemiology.LacanianFreudism,whichimpressedahostofmindsataboutthesametime,explicitlyendeavouredtoreformulateFreud’stheoryoftheunconsciousintermsofSaussureanconcepts.Claimingthattheunconsciouswasstructuredasalanguage,FrenchpsychiatristJacquesLacan(1901–81),undertheinfluenceofRomanJakobsonandClaudeL´evi-Strauss,undertookanunwieldysynthesisofSaussureandFreud(Lacan,1957),creativelytranslatingFreud’stheoryintoSaussure’sconceptualidiomasitwasperceivedthroughthelensesofthePragueschoolandFrenchstructuralism.Intheprocess,Lacanredefinedthenotionshewasborrowing,coinednewterms,anddevelopedatheoryaimedattranscend-ingSaussureansemiologythroughhisconceptuallyretooledpsychoanalysis,adirectionthatwasfullyexploitedbyJuliaKrist´eva(e.g.1981).ThiscursoryreviewshowsthatSaussure’sinsightswereputtoworkinagreatvarietyofintellectualcontexts.Atthesametime,Saussurismunderwentsomekindofhybridisingandcreolisation.Thisismostapparentinworksthathavebeendubiouslyconsideredtobeexamplesofsemiological‘applications’ofSaussure’sprogrammaticideas,andwhichcontributedtolaunchFrenchstruc-turalismasanintellectualfashionthroughanthropologyandpsychoanalysisratherthanlinguistics.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics247Thesemioticgenerationofthe1960sForthesemioticgenerationofthe1960s,theinterfacewithSaussure’sideaswasnotintheformoftextualeruditionandexegesis.Itwasratherinthecon-textofanoverarchingepistemologicalframeworkinwhichSaussureoccupiedtheunquestionedpositionofthefoundingfathertowhomregularhomagewasrendered(Mounin,1968).TheSaussureandoxa,derivedfromtheCourseinGeneralLinguistics,providedastockofnotionswhichweretakenforgranted,withthequalificationsintroducedbyotherwisesympatheticlinguistssuchasEmileBenveniste(1939,1969)andRomanJakobson(1966,1980[1959])con-cerningrespectivelytheroleofthesubjectandthelimitsoftheprincipleofarbitrariness.WhilephilosopherMauriceMerleau-Ponty(1945)hadfocusedattentiononSaussure’sviewsoflanguage,albeitwithinthehorizonofhisownphenomenologicalperspective,anthropologistClaudeL´evi-Strauss(1945,1963[1958])wasrelyingmorepreciselyonthestructuralphonologyofNikolaiTrubetzkoy(1939),towhichhehadbeenintroducedbyJakobsoninthe1940s.Later,thefolk-talenarratologyofVladimirPropp,firstpublishedinRussianin1928,whichhadbeentranslatedintoEnglish(1958),wastobeinfluentialfortheconstructingofstructuralistmodelsofmythinterpretation(L´evi-Strauss,1960).AstoliteraryscholarRolandBarthesandlexicologistA.J.Greimas,theirdirectinspirationwasadmittedlycomingfromthewritingsoftheDanishlinguistLouisHjelmslev(1899–1965)whosecomplextheoryhaddevelopedduringthe1930sinthewakeofSaussure’sideasandwasofferingamoreformalandbetter-articulatedsystemthanwhatevercouldbesurmisedfromtheCourseinGeneralLinguistics.InthefirstchapterofhisProlegomenatoaTheoryofLanguage(1961[1943]),HjelmslevhadacknowledgedSaussureashissolelinguisticprecursor.GreimasandBarthes,theninAlexandria,becameacquaintedwithHjelmslev’stextwhenitwasfirsttranslatedintoEnglishin1953(Greimas,1986:42).Inhisintroduc-toryessaytotheFrenchtranslationofHjelmslev’sSproget(1963)[Lelangage(1966)],Greimasintroducestheauthoras‘thetrue,perhapseventhesolecon-tinuatorofSaussurewhosucceededinmakingexplicithisinsightsandgivingthemadefinitiveform’(1966:12).Hjelmslev’sconceptsandmethods,whichhehadshowntobeapplicablebeyondthelinguisticdomaintoculturalartifactssuchastrafficlightsortelephonedials(1968[1943]),becamethefocusofattentionofthisnewwaveofsemioticians.Bycomparison,Saussure’snotionaldichotomiessuchaslangue/paroleordiachronie/synchroniewerethenconsid-eredtobemere‘heuristicconcepts’,asGreimasstatedafewyearslaterinaninterviewwithHermanParret(1974:57).Barthes’searlierattempttopresentacomprehensiveviewofSaussurismanditsHjelmsleviandevelopmentsinElementsdes´emiologie´(1964)hadinitiatedacriticaldebatebyquestioningoneofthebasictenetsoftheCourseinGeneralCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n248PaulBouissacLinguisticswhichcontendedthatlinguisticsshouldbeapartofsemiology.ByinvertingtherelationBarthesstartedaprocesswhichnotonly–paradoxically–putSaussureinthe‘glottocentric’camp,butalsoeventuallywastoleadtotheunderminingofthescientificambitionsofstructuralistsemiologyitself.However,asomewhatcruderviewprevailedinalargerpopulationofstudentsandresearcherswhowerepronetoassumethatsemioticsconsistedoffindingtheequivalentoflinguisticmodelsinavastarrayofculturalproductionssinceSaussureanstructuralistlinguisticswasassumedtobethe‘pilotscience’.Thesemioticpraxisofthe1960sgenerationconsistedofprojectingontoanyculturalinstitutionanditsproductionsaconceptualgridwhosebasiccategorieswerederivedfromtheprinciplesofSaussureanlinguisticsbutwhichalsoreliedonanumberofothersources,aswasnotedabove.Itwasindeedconsideredthatsemioticanalysisrequiredsupplementarymethodologicaltools,giventhepaucityofpracticalinstructionsfoundintheCourseinGeneralLinguisticsasfarastheconstructionofageneral‘semiologie´’wasconcerned.Culturalpro-ductionswereconstruedas‘texts’andinstitutionsas‘langues’.Insodoing,thesenotionsweregivenmoreformaldefinitionsthantheyhadinpoeticsandlinguisticsproper.Forinstance,‘text’washeuristicallyconstruedasafinitesetofmutuallydefinableelementsorganisedbyastructurewhichwasendowedwithrelativestability.Theseelementscouldbeanythingfromwordsorobjectstoarchitecturalorgesturalcomponents.Theresearchersfirstsetforthem-selvesthetaskofidentifyingthebasicrelevantunitswhichcorrespondedtothe‘phonemes’inthesenseinwhichthistermwasunderstoodinTrubetzkoy’stheoryofphonology(1936,1939,1964).Theresearcherstypicallywouldendeavourtoidentifytheminimalmean-inglessunitswhoseabsenceorpresencemadeameaningfuldifferencein‘tex-tual’stringsorsetsofsuchunits.Then,thenexttaskwastotakestockofthemeaningfulunitsthemselves,the‘morphemes’whichsyntacticallycombinedinlargersetscorrespondingtothesentencesanddiscoursesoflanguage.Thetransformationstakingplacewithinthetextitselfwereaccountedforthroughthedescriptivecategoriesofnarratologyrepresentedbyasetofabstractfunc-tions.Theseanalyticaleffortsgeneratedaseriesofneologismscoinedonthemodelof‘phonemes’and‘morphemes’,theending‘eme’indicatingthefunc-tionalityoftheunitsortheirrelevancetothesystem,suchas‘mythemes’(unitsofmythssuchassemanticrelationsandnarrativeortransformativefunctionsarrangedinparadigmatictables),‘gustemes’(unitsoftastewhosecombina-tionsactualisedparticularculinarysystems),‘choremes’(unitsofspace,suchascentreandperiphery,verticalityandhorizontality,conjunctionanddisjunc-tion),‘kinemes’(unitsofmovements,whichservedasakernelforahostofneologismswhichconsistedoftenofsimplyrewritingalltheanalyticalconceptsoflinguisticsaroundtheradical‘kine’,meaning‘movement’inancientGreek),‘graphemes’(unitsofwritingwhosevarietywasdesignatedbytermsborrowedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics249fromgeometryandtopology),‘vestemes’(unitsofclothingsuchasthosewhichwereusedinthedescriptivelanguageoffashionandcouldbesemioticallyrede-fined),andthelike.Thesewereassumedtobethepertinentunitswhosevariousrule-governedcombinations(orsyntagms)producedrespectivelytheparticularmeaningsofmyths,gastronomy,architecture,gesture,writing,fashionandsoon.Thisanalyticalprocesscreatedanumberoftheoreticalandmethodologicalproblems.Forinstance,itwasnotalwaysclearwhethertheunitswhichcouldbeabstractlyisolatedweretheequivalentoflinguisticphonemes(meaninglessunitssuchas/a/,/b/,/l/,/s/)ormorphemes(meaningfulunitssuchas/blue/,/go/,/-es/,/’s/).Atypicaldebateofthetimewasbearinguponthisissueofdual-ityofpatterningordoublearticulation,anotionexpoundedwithgreatclaritybyAndr´eMartinetinarticlesandbooks(e.g.1949,1967[1960]).Thislatterwork,ElementsofGeneralLinguistics,wasthenconsideredbymanytobethebibleofSaussureanlinguisticsinitsupdatedfunctionalistversion.Extrapolat-inganalyticalmethodsfromnaturallanguagestoothersemioticsystemswashoweverrifewithdifficulties.Howtofunctionallysegmentculturalproductionsisindeedrarelyobvious.Ahistoricalbuilding,adisplaywindow,amusicaloracrobaticperformance,asportseventandanadvertisementareallmeaning-fulculturalinstanceswhichinvolvemultiplesensorialmodalitiesandincludealreadyconstitutedsignifyingsubsystems.Ifarchitecture,ballet,cinema,fash-ion,etc.,areconstruedaslanguages,andmonuments,performances,films,clothing,etc.,astexts,itisnecessarytocreatetranslinguisticconceptsofparadigms,commutation,signification,code,grammarandrhetoricattheveryleast.Thesearchforthebuildingblocksandtherulesofconstructionofthesecomplexculturalproductionswasdrivenbytheepistemologicalgoalofreach-ing,beyondtheirspatialandtemporaldiversity,avisionoftheirstructure,thatis,asystemofrelationsamongabstractcategorieswhichcouldbeexpressedintheformofatableoranalgorithmresemblingthosewhichwerefoundinthemetadiscourseofstructuralphonology.Themethodologyconsistedfirstofreducingtheredundanciesofthe‘text’(thatis,identifyingandlumpingtogetherallthewordsorvisualimagesreferringtothesameconceptualobjectorclassofobjects)inordertoreachmoregeneralbinaryoppositionsorsystemsofvalues:‘First,categorise!’,asGreimasusedtoinstructhisstudents.Then,thebasiccategoriescouldbevisuallydisplayedandorderedthroughvariousschemataoralgebraicrepresentations.Theparticulartablesthuselaboratedpurportedto‘explain’culturalproductionsbyprovidingconceptualaccesstotheirdeeportruesenseintheformofsetsofrelations(theirlangue)andto‘demonstrate’howtheyweregenerated,throughsuccessivestagesofconcretisation,asparticularphenomenologicalexperiencesintimelikethedeterminateandcontextualisedinstancesoflanguage(theirparole).ThesestructuresweregivenasthenecessarygeneralconditionsfortheveryCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n250PaulBouissacpossibilityofmeaningproduction.Thisrewritingprocesswasachievedwithamixtureofself-assurancebasedontheprinciplesspelledoutbythelinguisticsmasters,andgreattheoreticalanxietycreatedbythescepticismwithwhichtheseresultswereusuallyreceivedbeyondthesmallcirclesofsemioticianswhohadstartedorganisingthemselvesinintellectualgroupsandscholarlyassociationssuchastheInternationalAssociationforSemioticStudies,whichwasincorporatedinParisin1969.SaussurismanditsdiscontentsBythetimeoftheassociation’sfirstcongressin1974inMilan,thetheoriesoftheother‘founder’ofsemiotics,C.S.Peirce,werealreadybeingpromoted,byRomanJakobsonamongothers,asanAmericanantidotetotheperceivedstaticqualityand‘glottocentrism’ofEuropeanSaussurism.Peirce’s‘semei-otic’hadbeenpopularisedbyCharlesMorrisinthe1930sinthecontextofbehaviourismandlogicalpositivism.Peirce,whohadbeenaprolificwriterinmanyscientificandphilosophicalfields,wasknownmainlyinphilosophyasthefounderofPragmatism,buthisspeculationsonsignswereprogressivelyforegroundedontheinternationalsemioticscene.LikeSaussure’s,histhoughtsonsemioticswereaccessibletothe1960sgenerationonlyinafragmentaryandindirectmanner,throughsecond-handintroductions(e.g.Morris,1938;OgdenandRichards,1923;Burks,1949)orthroughextensivelyeditedphilosophicalanthologiesofhisarticles,e.g.Buchler,1940).Peirce’scontributiontosemi-oticswasthenmostlyperceived,inasummarymanner,first,astheclassificationofsignsintothreecategories:index,iconandsymbol,then,astheintroductionofadynamicdimension,semiosis(theactionofsigns)intothegeneralcon-ceptualframeworkofascienceofsigns.AlthoughsomephilosopherssuchasGilles-GastonGranger(1968),MaxBense(1967)andG´erardDeledalle(1971,1974)wereshowingamoresophisticatedinterestinPeirce’ssystem,Barthes’sElementsdes´emiologie´madeonlyabriefallusiontohiscategorisationofsignswhichhecomparestootherclassifications.However,PeirceandSaus-sure,whoseapproacheswerecriticallycomparedasearlyas1923byCharlesK.OgdenandIvorA.Richards,wouldprogressivelybecomenarrowlyassociatedinthesemioticepist´em´e´ofthesecondhalfofthecentury.Somewouldconstruethemastheoreticalantagonists,pitchingtheassumedstaticnatureofbinarystructuresagainstthedynamismoftriadicrelations;otherswouldattempttoworkoutsomecomprehensiveorsyntheticviewsofthesetwomostinfluen-tialsystemsofthoughtwhichhadbeenelaboratedalmostsimultaneouslybutinvastlydifferentconceptualcontextsandwithmostlyincompatibleepistemolog-icalagendas(Deledalle,1976;Broden,2000).Saussurism,asitwaspackagedintheCourseinGeneralLinguistics,thusbecameentangledindefensivedia-loguesnotonlywithPeircesupportersbutalsowithMarxistsinfieldswhichCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics251werewellbeyondthedomainofrelevancethatSaussurehadclaimedforhistheoreticalviews.BenvenisteandJakobsonconsistentlyinvokedPeirceintheircriticismsofSaussure’stheses.Jakobson(1980:31–8)wentasfarasconstruingPeirceasa‘pathfinderinthescienceoflanguage’inhiseffortstobringthetwointothesameringandactastheumpire.Saussureeventuallywasassignedtheroleofthestrawmanwhoembodiedformanycriticsthelinguisticandstruc-turalistfallacies(e.g.Jameson,1972;Reiss,1988),thususheringwhat,intheiropinion,wouldbeaPeirceanorMarxistpost-Saussurean,post-structuralisteramoreconcernedwiththesubjectiveanddialogicaldimensionsofspeech,andthesocialandhistoricalprocessesofmeaning-makingthanwiththedescriptionofa-temporalsystemsoflogicaldifferences.Thiswasindeedtheviewwhichprevailedfromtheothersideofthefence,aperceptionwhichperhapsowedmoretoSaussurismthantoSaussurehimself.Interestingly,theperceptivechap-terwhichTimothyReissentitled‘Semiologyanditsdiscontents:SaussureandGreimas’(1988:56–97)isadornedwithaquotationfromJakobson’sEssaisdelinguistiquegen´erale´:‘Thoseattemptsmadetoconstructalinguisticmodelwithoutanyconnectiontoaspeakeroralistenerandwhichthereforehyposta-tizeacodedetachedfromactualcommunication,riskreducinglanguagetoascholasticfiction.’ThepurposeofthissectioninmychapterisnottoengageinanexplicitcriticismoftheSaussureanapproach,buttodocumentthetheoreticaldifficul-tiesencounteredbythepractitionersofsemioticanalysis(foranapplicationofstructuralistmethodologytoanunderstandingofcircusperformances,seeBouissac,1976).ThesedifficultiesarosefromtheambiguitiesoftheCours,aswellasfromanattempttoblenddifferentmodels.Forinstance,therelatednotionsofcode(aconventionalsystemofequivalentvalues)andiconicity(thecharacterofasignwhichsignifiesthroughsomesimilaritywithitsreferentratherthanthroughanarbitraryconvention)fedaseriesofcontroversieswhicharestillongoinginsomequarters.Whatistheextentofbiologicalconstraintsoncoding?Whatdoeshappentotheprincipleofarbitrarinesswhenonestraysawayfromlanguageproper?Whichpropertiescan,andwhichonescannot,betransferredfromalinguisticmodeltoageneralsemiologicalmodel?Areallsemiologicalprocessesnecessarilymediatedbylinguisticones?Cananymeaningbearticulatedoutsidelanguage?Varioussolutionswereproposedtothesequestions.RolandBarthes’sessay,‘Lemythe,aujourd’hui’,publishedasapostscripttohisMythologies(1957),issymptomaticofthestrategicimpor-tanceofSaussure’ssemiologicalvisionasitwasthenperceivedonthebasisoftheCourseinGeneralLinguistics.Atthesametime,Barthes’sessaystrugglesratherinconclusivelywiththeambiguitiesofwhatwasconstruedasthe‘prob-lemofmeaning’inastructuralistperspectiveandproposeseventually,afteraperfunctorydetourinthefieldofpsychoanalysis,aMarxistinterpretationofthefewvisualexamplesitdiscusses.Barthes’sinterpretativetacticsarepresentedasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n252PaulBouissacascientificenterprisewhichbearsuponwrittentextsaswellasimages,andwillbereplicatedbymany,usingthesameanalyticalnotionsascribedtoSaussureasasortofconceptualmachinegearedtogenerateadiscourseof‘semioticenlightenment’.Inthesamevein,ChristianMetz(1931–94)undertook,inthewakeofBarthes’searlierdiscussionsoffilmfroma‘semiological’pointofview,toestablishasemioticsofcinemabasedonSaussureanandHjelmsleviannotions(1968)beforeshiftinginthe1970stoapurelypsychoanalyticalapproach.Dur-inghissemiologicalphase,MetzstruggledwiththedifficultiesinvolvedinthedirectapplicationoftheconceptsandmethodsofSaussureanstructurallin-guisticstoamultimodalculturalobjectascomplexanddiverseascinema.HisownblendofsemioticoptimismandepistemologicalanxietyisvoicedinhislandmarkbookLangageetcinema´(1971).InhisEssaissurlasignificationaucinema´(1972),hecreditedPeirceforhisleadingroleintheemergenceofsemi-otics,thussignallinganepistemologicalshiftamongsomeprominentFrenchthinkers.Theintensetheoreticaldebatewhichensuedstillmapsthefieldofsemioticinquirytoday.Aswehaveseenabove,Saussure’slinguisticssoonencounteredthetheoreticalconstructscomingfromthePeirceanandMarxisttraditions.Onemaywondertowhatextentthislegacyactuallyrepresentedthegenuinecon-tinuationofSaussure’sownthoughtandproject,andtowhatextentitwasamereepistemologicalfantasy,mainlywhenSaussurecametobeconstruedasananti-Peirceinthesterilescholasticcontroversiesofbinarismversustriadism,orstatismversusdynamism.Similarly,whenMikhailBakhtin(1895–1975)andhisproxies,whohadmountedinthe1920sananti-formalistattackagainstSaussure,becameknownintheWestthroughtranslations,theyaddedanewdimensiontothedebateandcontributedtofurtherreinforcethestereotypeofaSaussureandoctrinewhichtheycontendedhadoverlookedthesocial,pro-cessual,transformationalandfundamentallytemporalnatureoflanguagesandcultures.WhilemanyresearchersdriftedawayfromSaussurismunderthepres-sureofthesemovements,othersheldontheircoursealongdirectionswhichweremoreconsistentwithparticularaspectsofSaussurismsuchasthefore-groundingofformalrelationsandtheexclusiveattentionpaidtodifferentialvaluesintherepresentationofsemiologicalsystems,althoughthisapproachalsoimpliessomeselectiveuseofthesources.ExtremeformalismGiventhepeculiarcircumstancesofSaussure’sscatteredandfragmentarywrit-ingsonthetopicofageneralscienceofsigns,andtheirprotractedandstaggeredappearanceinprint,itisimpossibletorelatetheSaussureanlegacytoacoher-enttextualbody.TryingtoreconstructSaussure’sassumedsystemfromtheseCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics253bitsandpieceshasprovedtobeafrustratingenterprise,fromtheCourson.JohnJoseph’schapteronthelinguisticsigninthisvolume,andtheentryonSaussurefoundinthemonumentalHandbookonSign-TheoreticFoundationsofNatureandCulture(Posneretal.,1997),againdemonstratethedifficultyofthetaskevenwhenitislimitedtothelinguisticdomain.ThemostlikelyreasonforthisstateofaffairsisthatsuchasystemneverexistedinSaussure’smind.Buttheabsenceofalogicallycompellingtheoryuponwhichascienceoflanguageand,byimplication,ascienceofsignscouldbecreated,doesnotmeanthatSaussure’sapproachwasnotinsightfulandvaluable.Hisnotesandfragments,whichoftenpointtoproblemsratherthansolutions,incitedmanymindstoundertaketheconstructionofasemiologicalsystem,anditislikelyhislegacyisnotyetexhausted.Saussure’saxiomstatingthatinlanguagetherearenopositivetermsbutonlydifferentialvaluesandtheirrelationsfirstledtotheapplicationofsystemsoflogicaloppositionstothephonologicaldescriptionsofthePragueschool.ButitwasclearthatgiventheabsolutehomologythatSaussureseemedtohaveassertedbetweenthesignifiantandthesignifie,thesamewasnecessarilytrue´ofthelatter.ItwasjustamatteroftimebeforesomeonewouldpursuethetaskundertakenbyNicolaiTrubetzkoy(1936,1939)andapplythemethodofhisPrinciplesofPhonologytothedomainthathadpreviouslycometobecalled‘semantic’.L´evi-Strauss’sstructuralismgeneralisedtheanalogyfromstructuralphonologytoamacro-analysisofmythsinawaythatwasonlytenuouslyrelatedtoSaussureanlinguisticprinciplesbutembodiedfortheearlystructuraliststhespiritofSaussure’sformalapproach.This,however,leftuntouchedtheproblemofaSaussureansemanticssinceanthropologicalstructuralismwasratherametasemanticenterprisethattookforgrantedtheexistenceofthesemanticsystemswhichwereanecessarypartofthelanguagespokenbythepopulationswhosemythswerescrutinisedintheversionsthathadbeenrecordedandtranslatedbyEuropeanexplorersandcolonists.A.J.GreimaspushedfurtherL´evy-Straussianformalism(Greimas,1966b),ashehaddoneafewyearsearlierwithGeorgesDum´ezil’scomparativemythol-ogy(Greimas,1963).GreimaswasalexicologistwhohadpursuedanacademiccareerattheUniversityofAlexandria(Egypt)whileobviouslykeepingabreastwiththeParisintellectualscene.Hehadpublishedtenyearsearlieranarticleentitled‘L’actualit´eduSaussurisme’(1956)inwhichhelamentedthelackofinfluenceofSaussure’sideasonFrenchlinguists,praisedtherecentdevelop-mentinFranceofstructuralanthropologyinwhichhesawanapplicationoftheprinciplesoftheCourseinGeneralLinguistics,andoutlinedaprogrammeofresearchconsistingoftryingtoachieveforthesignifiewhatthePragueand´Copenhagenschoolshaddoneforthesignifiantintheperiodbetweenthetwoworldwars.Thearticlecelebratedthedawnofstructuralismasthelong-overdueresumptionoftheSaussureanagenda,pointingoutnotonlyL´evi-Strauss’s,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n254PaulBouissacBarthes’sandafewearlystructuralists’publicationsbutalsoMerleau-Ponty’sPhenom´enologiedelaperception´(1945)whichGreimasconsidered,perhapsopportunistically,tobeacontinuationofSaussure’sapproachtolanguage.Thisarticle,atthesametime,stakedoutaterritorywithinthecontemporaryresearchinsemantics,amovewhichwastoproduceadecadelaterthebookthatlaunchedGreimasonthemodernsemioticstage:Semantiquestructurale´(1966c).‘Struc-tural’and‘structuralism’hadthenturnedintobuzzwords,andGreimaslaterclaimedthathispublisherhadinsistedthat‘structurale’beincludedinhistitleformarketingpurposes(personalcommunication),althoughthebook’stitleechoesHjelmslev’sreporttotheVIIIthInternationalCongressofLinguists:‘Pourunes´emantiquestructurale’(1959[1957]).Greimas’sinitialreluctancetosacrificetowhathadbecomeanintellectualfashionprobablywascausedbyhisconvictionthatthequalificationwouldberedundantsinceSaussure’saxiomsregardinggenerallinguisticswereindubitableandthat,consequently,therewerenottobeseveralkindsofsemanticsbutsimplya‘true’theoryofthesignifie,whichwasnecessarilystructural,astherealreadyexistedwith´Trubetzkoy’sPrincipesdePhonologie(1964)a‘true’theoryofthesignifiant.ButforGreimas,asforBarthesinhissemiologicalendeavours,implement-ingSaussure’sprogrammerequiredmorethanrelyingonSaussure’s‘heuristic’notions.GreimasstoodclearofMarxismandFreudianismwhichwerefromhispointofviewdiscoursestobesemioticallyanalysedratherthansourcesofinspirationtowardinterpretivemodelsofculturalproductions.Instead,heundertooktoderivehismethodfromothersources,notablytheformalismshefoundintheDanishlinguistsLouisHjelmslev(1953)andViggoBrøndal(1943)aswellasinlogicianssuchasHansReichenbach(1947)andRobertBlanch´e(1966).Thegoalwastouncoverthebasicalgorithmsthataccountforthearticu-lationofmeaningatthemostabstractlevel.InamannerthatevokesImmanuelKant’saprioriformsofperception,Greimascontendsthatthehumanminddoesnothavedirectaccesstomeaninginitselfbutonlyinasmuchasitisarticulatedthroughfundamentalcategoriesofoppositions,namelycontradic-tionandcontrariness,hencethenotionofelementarystructuresofsignificationthroughwhichanymeaningfulinstanceisgeneratedandcanbedescribed.Thisextremeformalism,whoseoriginisexplicitlyascribedtoSaussure’sthought,isexpressedintheformofalgebraicalgorithmsandgeometricdiagramswhichpurporttorepresentthenecessaryconditionsfortheverypossibilityofalldis-cursiveproductionsofmeaning,thusgivingsomemeasureofoperationalitytothemostradicalSaussureanaphorisms.Anearlyexpos´eofthissystematicvisionisfoundinanarticlepublishedintheYaleFrenchReviewbyGreimasincollaborationwithFran¸coisRastier,‘Theinteractionofsemioticconstraints’(1968).Naturally,thisapproachencounteredtheoppositionofthosewhoconsideredittobeamereavatarofphilosophicalidealismsinceallprocessesappearedtobeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics255ultimatelyreferredtoanabstracta-chronicbasicstructure,asortofontologismofSaussure’ssynchrony.Thestandard‘semiolinguistic’theory,asitcametobecalledbyGreimashimselfwhoattimesechoedtherhetoricofNoamChomskythroughtheuseofexpressionssuchasdeepandsurfacestructures,wassaidtobeimmunetoempiricallybasedcriticismsinceitsclaimtoscientificstatuswasfoundedonitslogicalconsistencywithrespecttoitsinitialaxioms.This,however,involvedsomedegreeofepistemologicalanxietyaswellasin-groupdebates,typicalofallattemptsatestablishinganultimatetheory.Forinstance,intheforewordtoDusens(OnMeaning),abookthatcollectedsomeofhismostsignificantarticles(Greimas,1970),Greimaswentasfarassuggestingthatsincemeaningcanbeapprehendedonlyinasmuchasitisarticulatedthroughapriorisemio-linguisticcategories,thehumanmindhasnodirectaccesstomeaninginitself.Thispromptedhimtoironicallyunderminehisownenterprisebyparadoxicallyhintingthattalkingmeaningfullyaboutmeaningwouldactuallyrequireanonsensicaldiscourse.Interestingly,thislucidremark,whichconfrontedinjestthemosthauntingaporiaofallextremeformalism,wastruncatedanddowngradedtothestatusofa‘cursoryremark’bythetranslatorofthebookintoEnglish.Thereasonforthistreatmentisnotclear:eitherGreimasrecoiledorthetranslator,whowaskeenonlaunchinginNorthAmericaGreimas’ssemiolinguisticsasacredible,teachabletheory,decidedthatsuchintellectualcandourwasinappropriateandwouldpuzzleordiscouragenaivereaders.Perhapsitisthisveryepistemologicaldifficulty,inherentinthesemiologicalenterprise,whichpreventedSaussurefromconfidentlyexpoundinginwritingthecompleteprinciplesofthesystematicscienceofsignsheadumbratedinhisremarksandfragments.In1926,NikolaiTrubetzkoywonderedwhySaussure‘didnotdaredrawalogicalconclusionfromhisownthesisthatlanguageisasystem’andhesuggestedthat‘thecausemustbesoughtinthefactthatsuchaconclusionwouldhavebeenatcross-purposeswiththeuniversallyrec-ognizednotionoflanguagehistoryandofhistoryingeneral’(Trubetzkoy,2001:183).TheextremeformalistslikeGreimaswho,inthesecondhalfofthecentury,wouldlaythemostvocalclaimtotheSaussureanheritagehadliberatedthemselvesfromsuchhesitationstothepointofconstruinghistoryitselfasameaning-producingdiscoursesubject,asalldiscourses,touniversalsemioticconstraints.Thisboldmove,however,carriedthecostofinfiniteregresswhichnotevenametaphysicalloop(intheformofstillanothermeaningfuldiscourse)couldstop.However,Saussure’sadvocatingofaradicalformalism,analgebraicormath-ematicalapproachtosemiology,whichpromptedhimtoassert,forexample,that‘forlinguisticfacts,elementandcharacterareeternallythesamething[andthat]language[langue],likeallothersemiologicalsystems,makesnodiffer-encebetweenwhatdistinguishesasignandwhatconstitutesit’(CLG/E2:47),CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n256PaulBouissacwasrootedinasomewhatesotericphilosophicaltraditiongoingbackatleasttothecharacteristicauniversalisofLeibniz(1646–1716),whosefascinationforcombinatorysystemshadledhimtostudythehexagramsoftheancientChineseYijingwhichhesawasaharbingerofhisownbinarycalculus(Leibniz,1987).Theintellectualtendencytoforegroundandsystematiseformaldifferencesfortheirownsake,whichisusuallycreditedforhavingusheredincontemporaryinformationtheory,hasbeenpursuedwithrenewedforcebeyondtheimmediatelegacyofSaussure.GeorgeSpencerBrown’sLawsofForm(1969),forinstance,bearswitnesstothisdynamisminawaywhichisnotalientotheSaussureanunfinishedagenda.ItisnotinfrequenttofindexplicitreferencestoSaussure’saphorismsincontemporaryeffortstodevelopformaltreatmentsofmeaningintheframeworkofinformationtechnology(e.g.Beust,1998).DoesSaussurestillmattertosemiotics?DoesSaussurestillmatter?Obviously,fromapurelyhistoricalpointofview,itwouldbedifficulttofullyunderstandtheemergenceofthesemioticmovementinEuropeanditspromisesanddiscontentswithouttakingintoconsiderationtheimpactofSaussure’sideas,howevertentativetheymayhavebeen.Butbeyondtheanecdotalinterestofretracingthevariouspathsofhisinfluenceacrosstheglobe,orthephilologicalfascinationofreconstructinghisvirtualsystemofthoughtfromtantalisingfragments,isitstillworthponderinghisdis-continuousinsightsaspotentialcontributionstotheadvancementoftoday’slinguisticsandsemiotics?Manyhaveselectivelygleanedfromhismanu-scriptselementsthatappeartobecompatiblewiththeirowntheoreticalviewsandthushaveconstruedtheseglimpsesasharbingersoftheirownendeavours,althoughthisisdoneusuallyatthecostofglossingoversomeproblematicstatements.OthershavesimplydiscardedSaussure’spronouncementsasonlyaveragelyinterestingorevengrosslyoverrated.Referencehasbeenmadeear-lierinthischaptertothedowngradingbysomeAmericansemioticiansoftheSaussurean‘school’tothestatusofa‘minorintellectualtradition’insemiotics.Asearlyasthe1930s,Trubetzkoyhimselfhadvoicedsuchmisgivings:‘ForinspirationIhaverereaddeSaussure,butonasecondreadingheimpressesmemuchless.Thereiscomparativelylittleinthebookthatisofvalue;mostofitisoldrubbish.Andwhatisvaluableisawfullyabstract,withoutdetails’(lettertoRomanJakobson,17May1932,Trubetzkoy,2001:255).ThissectionwillattempttoshowthatSaussure’sideasremainrelevantintoday’scontextinasmuchastheypointtoproblemswhicharestilltobesolvedanddirectionswhicharecurrentlybeingexplored.ItisthereforeasamineofheuristicquestionsanduneasytentativesolutionsthatSaussure’scontributiontoageneralscienceofsignswillbeconsideredinthisfinalsection.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics257ArecurringprobleminSaussureanlinguisticsisthenotionoflangue.SinceforSaussure,languagesconstitutedmerelyasubset,albeitanimportantone,ofamoreencompassingclassofsignsystems,thenotionoflangueneededtobegivenasemiologicalratherthanpurelylinguisticdefinition.Letusrememberthatthegreatnineteenth-centurydebatewaswhetherlan-guageswerekindsoforganismswhichchangedalongthesamepatternsasotherorganisms’lifecyclesorwhethertheyweresocialinstitutionsbasedonconventionssupportedbyhumanabilities.(SeeSanders,thisvolume.)InoneofhisrarereferencestootherlinguistsreportedintheCours,Saussuredesig-natesW.D.Whitneyasavaluableexponentofthelatterapproach,whileatthesametimecriticisingthosewhoholdcrudeDarwinistviews.However,thereferencetoWhitneyisaccompaniedbysomereservations,and,further,hisendorsementofthemovementwhichthendefineditselfbyoppositiontotheorganichypothesisisnotexpressedinawholeheartedmanner.AgainandagainSaussurereturnstothefewindicationsthatledhimtograpplewithaparadox:langueasasetofdifferentialtermsisfoundedonarbitraryconventionsthattotallyescapetheconsciousintentionsoftheindividualswhouseitsresourcesforexpressingtheirthoughtsandcommunicatingamongthemselves.Paradoxi-cally,itisacontractwithoutcontractants.Acommonmisreadinghasconstruedlangueasastatic,achronicorsynchronicsystem,butforSaussure,timeisoftheessenceforunderstandingthenotionoflangue(Choi,2002).‘Onpeutparler`alafoisdel’immutabilit´eetdelamutabilit´edusigne’(‘thesigncanbesaidtobebothimmutableandmutable’;CLG/E1:165).Thisremarkappearsinthecontextofattemptsatcircumscribingtheelusiveobjectofgenerallinguistics,andmoregenerallysemiology:‘Toutcequicomprenddesformesdoitentrerdanslas´emiologie’(‘whateverinvolvesformsmustcomeunderthepurviewofsemiology’;CLG/E1:154);butcontrarytothecomtemplativerationalityofgeometry,langueisanirrationalforcewhichimposesitselfonhumans:‘Lalangueestquelquechosequel’onsubit’(‘langueissomethingwhichimposesitselfuponus’;CLG/E1:159);itsveryfoundationsareirrationalanditisdrivenbyblindforces(‘fond´eesurl’irraisonmˆeme’,‘desforcesaveugles’;CLG/E1:162,171).Indeed,alterationsoccurinthesystemitselfandthesealterationsarenotfunctionalinthesensethattheywouldbetheeffectsofdeliberatechangesmadethroughconsensustoasocialcontractinordertoimproveitsefficiency.Instead,theyareneitherfreenorrational.‘QuandintervientleTempscombin´eaveclefaitdelapsychologiesociale,c’estalorsquenoussentonsquelalanguen’estpaslibre...parcequeprincipedecontinuit´eoudesolidarit´eind´efinieaveclesˆagespr´ec´edents.Lacontinuit´eenfermelefaitd’alt´erationquiestund´eplacementdevaleurs’(‘WhenTimecombineswiththerealityofsocialpsychology,wecometorealizethatlangueisnotfree...becauseoftheprincipleofcontinuityandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n258PaulBouissacsolidaritywithpreviousstates.Continuityincludesalterationsintheformofshiftingofvalues’;CLG/E1:173-4).ThiswayofthinkingcouldbeseenasremarkablyDarwinianandmorespecificallyadumbratescontemporaryspeculationsonevolutionarysemioticsandmemeticswhichconstruesemioticsystems,includinglanguage(s),assemi-autonomousalgorithmsendowedwithanevolutionarydynamicoftheirownakintoparasiticmodesofadaptation,survivalandreproduction(e.g.Deacon,1997;Aunger,2000,2002).Saussure’spuzzlingimageoflangueassomewhatlike‘aduckhatchedbyahen’,whoseessentialcharacteristo‘alwaysescapetosomeextentindividualorsocialwill’andwhich‘existsperfectlyonlyinthemassofbrains’(CLG/E1:40–1,51,57),evokessomekindofyetunclas-sifiedorganism(CLG/E1:169).‘Ons’estfaitscrupuled’employerletermed’organisme,parcequelalangued´ependdesˆetresvivants.Onpeutemployerlemot,enserappelantqu’ilnes’agitpasd’unˆetreind´ependant’(‘Thewordorgan-ismisusedherereluctantlybecauselanguedependsonlivingorganisms.Letususeitanyway,keepinginmindthatthisorganismisnotindependent’;CLG/E1:59).Itisinterestingtonotethatthischaracterisationmeetsthedefinitionofparasiticorganism,arecurrentthemeincontemporarymemeticliterature.Furthermore,Saussure’sparadoxicalinsightsdonotapplyonlytotheobjectoflinguisticsbuttosemiologyasawhole:‘Lacontinuit´edusignedansletemps,li´ee`al’alt´erationdansletemps,estunprincipedelas´emiologieg´en´erale’(‘thecontinuityofsignintime,linkedtoitsalteration,isaprincipleofgen-eralsemiology’;CLG/E1:171).Butthiscontinuitydependsontransmission‘selondesloisquin’ontrien`afaireaveclesloisdecr´eation’(‘accordingtolawswhicharetotallydifferentfromthelawsofcreation’;CLG/E1:170).Saussurerepeatedlyemphasisesthatthesocialnatureofsemiologicalsystemsis‘internal’ratherthan‘external’tothesesystems(CLG/E1:173).Continuityandchangebelongtotheirveryessenceandunambiguously,albeitnotexplic-itly,locatethemwithinanevolutionaryprocesswhosedescriptionfits,avantlalettre,theneo-Darwinianmodelsintheirmorecontemporaryforms.ThisvisionisemphaticallyunderlinedinthefirstGenevalecturesof1891inwhichevenpausesintheevolutionoflangue–whatsomecontemporaryevolutionistscontroversiallyterm‘punctuations’–aredenied(CLG/E2:3–14).Suchremarks,andmanyothersofthesamevein,havenotbeenforegroundedbyhisfollowersandcommentators,ortheyhavebeeninterpretedasmeremetaphors.Similarly,Saussure’sassertionsregardingtheplaceheenvisionedforsemiologyasapartofgeneralpsychologyhasbeenglossedover.However,thelatterisnotlessstriking.ManywrittenremarksbySaussureanticipatethetenetsofmoderncognitiveneurosciencesandevolutionarypsychology.HisoccasionalcriticismsofBroca’sapproachbearupontherestrictivelocalisa-tionsoflinguisticfunctions.‘Ilyaunefacult´eplusg´en´erale,cellequicom-mandeauxsignes’(‘thereexistsamoregeneralfaculty,onewhichgovernsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaussure’slegacyinsemiotics259signs’;CLG/E1:36).Thisfacultyisconceivedasabrainfunctionwhichmadelanguagepossiblewithoutbeingitsoriginsincethelawofcontinuityshowsthatany‘langue’mustbetransmitted.Aboldevolutionarytheoryemergesfromhisconcise,attimescryptic,assertions:‘L’essentieldelalangueest´etrangeraucaract`erephoniquedusignelinguistique’(‘theessenceoflangueisalientothephoniccharacteroflinguisticsigns’;CLG/E1:22);‘Lalanguen’estpasmoinsquelaparoleunobjetdenatureconcr`ete’(‘langueisasmuchasparoleacon-creteobject’;CLG/E1:44)and‘Toutestpsychologiquedanslalangue’(‘thewholeoflangueispsychological’;CLG/E1:21).ButshiftingtheproblemtogeneralpsychologyisalsoawaytoprojectitssolutionintoanunknownfuturebecauseSaussure’sconceptionofpsychologyasitwasthenisacriticalone.Itis,likesemiology,orsignologyashepreferredattimestocallthescienceofsigns(ELG:266),anemergentsciencewhichwouldcometobedifferentfromthedisciplineknownbythisnameattheturnofthecentury.Theconditionfortheemergenceofapsychologythatwouldencompasssemiologyisthatpsy-chologytakethetemporaldimensionintoaccountandovercomeitstendencytospeculateonintemporalsignsandideas:‘sortirabsolumentdesessp´eculationssurlesignemomentan´eetl’id´eemomentan´ee’(CLG/E2:47).Thisapproach,perhaps,echoesmorecloselythanissuspectedJamesMarkBaldwin’s(1861–1934)evolutionarypsychologyandepistemology.TheAmericanpsy-chologist,whoseimpactonPiagetandVygotskyisgenerallyacknowledged,wasacontemporaryofSaussureandwaswidelyreadanddiscussedinEuropeandinFranceinparticular,wherehelivedfrom1908untilhisdeath(Woz-niak,1998).Baldwin’suseofDarwinismintherethinkingofthetraditionaldisciplinesofhistimewasverydifferentfromSchleicher’sliteralapplicationsofevolutionismtothehistoryoflanguagesdenouncedbyWhitneyandSaus-sure.AseditorofThePsychologicalReviewandthefour-volumeDictionaryofPhilosophyandPsychology(1904),towhichPeircehadcontributedthearticleonsignamongothers,Baldwinnotonlyputhismarkonpsychologyattheturnofthecenturybutmadealsomanyforaysintootherdisciplines,statingforinstancethatthelawofnaturalselectionexpressesaprinciple‘whichfindsappropriateapplicationinallthesciencesoflifeandmind’(Baldwin,1909:89).Saussure,whowastheninconclusivelyengagedinanuneasyrethinkingoflinguistics,wasprojectingtowardanill-definedfuturetheemergenceofnewepistemologicalhorizons.Arehistentativeideasnowcomingofage?Cantheyprovideausefulref-erencefortoday’sresearchers,asortofreflexivetemporaldepth,aheuristicframeworkbeyondtheearlierfossilisationofsomerestrictiveinterpretations?Bringingalltheproblemsheraisedandalltheinsightshejottedonpaperinasin-glepurviewremainsoneofthemoststimulatingandchallengingtasksoftoday.Afterall,theemergenceoftheepistemologicalresourcewhichSaussurecalled‘semiologie’isnotnecessarilytobefoundundertheofficiallabelofsemiotics.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n260PaulBouissacForinstance,GeorgeSpencerBrown’slogicofdistinctionsexpoundedinLawofForms(1969)andtheuseofhiscalculusofindicationsbyFranciscoVarelainPrinciplesofBiologicalAutonomy(1979)pursueoneofthetenetsofSaussure’sconvictionthat‘toutsignereposepurementsurunco-statusn´egatif’(‘anysignisbasedpurelyuponanegativeco-status’)orthat‘l’expressionsimpleseraalg´ebriqueouneserapas’(‘simpleexpressionwillbealgebraicorwillnotbeatall’;CLG/E2:28–9).Suchisthegoaloftoday’salgorithmicandcom-putationalsemiotics.ContemporaryeffortstorethinkthesocialsciencesinsemiologicaltermsbearwitnesstothecontinuingofSaussure’sseminalideas(e.g.Baecker,1999;Luhmann,1999).Onemaywonderwhether,oncethecompletemanuscriptsleftbySaussurehavebeenpublishedintheirchronologicalorderandarenolongerseenthroughtheprismoftheCours,anovel,perhapssurprisingconceptuallandscapewillemerge.ThismayindeedshowthatSaussurehadanticipatedtheoreticaldirec-tions,suchasevolutionarysemioticsandmemetics,whichhecouldnotfullyexploreinhisowntime,giventhestateofscientificknowledgeattheturnofthetwentiethcentury,andthelinguisticdoxawhichthenprevailed,withrespecttowhichSaussure’sinsightswerecounterintuitivetothepointofbeingscan-dalous.ThiswillputtotestthevariousversionsofSaussurismthathavebeenconstructedsofaronthebasisoflimitedinformation,andstimulateanewthesemiotic,orsemiological,projectwhichSaussureenvisionedasanopen-endedprocesswhenhewrote‘O`us’arrˆeteralas´emiologie?C’estdifficile`adire’(‘Howfarwillsemiologygo?Itisdifficulttopredict’;CLG/E1:46).Saussure’sques-tionsremainvalidandhiselusiveagendastillprovidesachallengefortoday’sspiritofscientificenquiryintotherealmofsignsandsignification.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nNotes1SAUSSUREANDINDO-EUROPEANLINGUISTICS1ThefirstchapteroftheCoursascompiledbyBallyandSechehayeoffersamoreconventionalviewofthedevelopmentofthesubjectasmovingfromcomparison(Bopp)tohistory,whilestillignoringthemoregeneralproblems.Thestudents’notesofferamoremutedview.Averyinterestingnoterecentlypublished(Saussure,2002:130ff.)revealsamuchmorehesitantauthor(seebelow).2Hereandbelowweusesquarebracketstoincludephoneticsymbolsandangularbracketstoindicateletters.ThusinEnglishwecontrast,thestandardspelling,with[siŋ]aphonetictranscriptionoftheword’spronunciation.3Theso-calledsoundlaws,whichnormallywereindicatedbyformulaeofthetypeLatins>rbetweenvowels(>standsfor‘becomes’),weretheobjectofendlessdisputesbuttheseconcernedtheirstatus,theirjustification,andthepossibilityofexceptions.Thegeneralpointthatsoundchangewas–unexpectedly–regularwasnolongercontestedbytheendofthecenturyandregularorsemi-regularinstancesofsoundchangehadbeenidentifiedmuchearlier.ForSaussure’s(widelyshared)objectionstotheterm‘law’inhis1909–10courses,seeReichler-B´eguelin(1980:25)whopointsoutthatsimilarviewswereexpressedbyHermannPaul.4ThewholeMemoire´wasreprintedinSaussure(1922:1–268).WeowetoG.C.VincenzianItaliantranslationwithnotesandalongintroduction(Saussure,1979).5KarlBrugmannpublishedatfirstunderthenameofBrugmanbutafter1882thefamilychangedtheirnametoBrugmann;thisisthenameregularlyused.6SomerecentlydiscoverednotesbySaussureprovidealuminousaccountofthetypeofargumentwhichwefindinhiswork:Lalinguistiqueproc`ededefaitparinductionetdivination,etelledoitproc´ederainsipourarriveradesr´`esultatsf´econds.Seulementunefoisl’hypoth`eseaper¸cueonparttoujoursdel`a,decequiestreconstruit,pourassignerensuitesanspr´ejuger`achaquelanguecequiluirevientdecettehypoth`ese.L’expositionygagneenclart´e,certainement.Pourpreuveonsefie`al’ensemblesatisfaisantqueproduisentlesfaitsainsiexpliqu´espourquelqu’unquiaadmisl’hypoth`ese.(Saussure,2002:132)Thisstatementcouldreferbothtotheoreticaldiscussionandtocomparativeworkbuttheexamplethatfollows,whereSaussurepleadsguiltyofhavinglistedirrelevantmaterial,comesfromtheMemoire.´261CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n262Notestopages51–813THEMAKINGOFTHECOURSDELINGUISTIQUEGEN´ERALE´1Marginalnoteswrittenoutinfulloppositeunderlinedpassagesinshorthandledmetoimaginetherewassomecorrespondence(not,naturally,ofspelling,butofsounds).FromthisIwasabletodrawupalistofsigns.2AsEngler(CLG/E,1:xiiand2:i)explainsintheintroductorynotestohiscrit-icaleditionoftheCours,textcontainedwithinsinglediamond-shapedbrackets(<>)representseithercorrectionsormarginalnoteswhichhefoundinthesourcemanuscriptsthemselves.Also,emptysquarebrackets[]inthetextfromCLG/Eindicateagapinthemanuscript,whileaforwardslashfollowedbyanumberinsquarebrackets/[25]indicatesthepagenumberofthemanuscript.Otherwisethenumberinsquarebrackets[2522]referstothenumberthatEnglerhasgiventotherelevantsegmentoftheoriginallypublishedtextoftheCLG.Theletter‘R’standsforRiedlinger,i.e.forthemanuscriptofRiedlinger’snotes.Ingeneral,materialwithinsquarebracketsintextfromCLG/EhasbeenintroducedbyEngler.–Editor’snote.4THELINGUISTICSIGN1AdolphePictet,apolymathwithlong-standingtiestotheSaussurefamily,andtowhomtheadolescentFerdinandaddressedhisfirstlinguisticessay,devotedan1856bookto‘thebeautiful’,inwhichcertainaspectsofSaussure’smaturetheoryofsignsareanticipated.Saussure’sfamiliaritywiththebookisproven:hewritesaboutitinthefirstofthreearticlesonPictetandhisworkthathepennedfortheJournaldeGeneve`in1878(Saussure,1922;seeJoseph,2003).5LANGUEANDPAROLE1InadditiontotheeightpairedtermsthatstructuretheentireCGL,thefirstchapterspeaksofthetwoprinciplesthatestablishthelinguisticsign:arbitrarinessandlinearity.ArbitrarinesswilllaterformpartoftheeighthandfinalpairoftermspresentedintheCGL,arbitrariness/motivation;linearitywillnot.Thereis,inthissense,aninthpair:arbitrariness/linearity,distinctfromtheothereight,becauselinearityisadescriptivefeature,adistinguishingfeatureoflanguage,butnotafunctionalfeatureinthemannerofthosedescribedbySaussure’swell-knownpairsofanalyticalterms.(SeeGordon,1999b.)2AmongtheotherSaussureancomplementarities,onlysignifiant/signifie´isrelatedtoathirdoverarchingtermsigne.3Inthisrespect,Saussure’sterminologyconstitutesacaseforconstruingthepolysemyofasinglesignashomonymyamongsigns,indeedrequiresthatitbesoconstruedinorderforthedefinitionsofdifference/opposition´toapplyconsistentlytobothSaussure’scomplementarytermsandthepolysemyofsuchtermsasobjet.4Monosystematicity,ortheanalysisoflanguageasasinglesystem,ratherthanasinteractingsubsystems,wasFirth’schiefcomplaintagainstSaussure’sapproachtolinguistics,and,infact,theonlycomplaintnotsubvertedbyFirth’sownadherencetoprinciplesandproceduresmarkedbysomedegreeofaffinitytothosethathecriticisedintheCours.FirthidentifiedthemonosystemicapproachwithwhatistermedparadigmaticanalysisintheCours(Firth,1948:121);hisownpolysystemicCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nNotestopages83–157263approachalignedwithsyntagmaticanalysis(1948:128).Hecalledattentiontotheshortcomingsofamonosystemicapproachtolinguisticanalysis,chargingthatithadbeenpushedbeyondthelimitsofitsapplicability(1948:137).Inthisrespect,Firth’scriticismmaybeconstruednotsomuchasawholesalecondemnationofafeatureofSaussure’sprogrammeforlinguisticsbutratherasacondemnationofthefailuretomakefulluseofthesyntagmaticandtheparadigmaticascomplementarymodesofanalysis(seeGordon,1979).5WhetherthefaultlieswithSpencehimselforwithatypesettertowhoseslipSpencewasinattentiveincorrectingtheproofsofhisarticle,themodelisincorrectlyrep-resented,showingromannumeralsontheleftsideoftheequation,wherearabicnumeralsappearintheoriginalversionintheCGL.Thedeviationisdiacritical,butcritical.9THERUSSIANCRITIQUEOFSAUSSURETheauthorwouldliketothanktheAHRBforthegeneroussupportprovidedunderitsResearchGrantSchemeduringtheperiodinwhichworkonthischapterwascarriedout.1Translationsofthis,andofsubsequentquotesfromRussiansources,aretheauthor’s.2ItisPotebnia’sinfluencewhichledtotheearlyformalistemphasison‘theprincipleofthe[visual]palpableness(osˇcscutimostˇ’)offormasthespecificcriterionofperceptioninart’(Eikhenbaum,1978:12).Muchmorerecently,IuriiLotman’sSovietversionofsemioticsacknowledgesthefruitfulnessofapproachesrecognising‘thecreativefunctionasauniversalqualityoflanguageandpoeticlanguage...asthemosttypicalmanifestationoflanguageassuch’–aviewhetracesto‘Potebnya’sideathattheentiresphereoflanguagebelongstoart’(Lotman,1990:17–18).3ThedisputeoverauthorshipofthewritingsoftheBakhtincirclehasneverbeenfullyresolved.Itseemslikely,however,thatVoloshinovandMedvedev,itsotherprominentmembers,didtechnicallywritetheworkswhichbeartheirname,butundertheclosesupervisionofBakhtinhimself.4ThereseemstobelittlequestionthatBakhtin’scritiqueoftheuniformityandmonolo-gismofSaussureanlanguewasinpartacarefullycodedassaultontheincreasingconformityrequiredbytheSovietregimeunderwhichheworked.Formoreonthis,seeEmersonandMorson,1990.10SAUSSURE,BARTHESANDSTRUCTURALISM1Forthesakeofclarity,IequatethereferencebyF.DossetoParisianstructuralismwithwhatIwilldesignatethroughoutthischapterasstructuralisminFrance.Pariswas,ofcourse,notatallthesolesiteofstructuralanalysisinFranceduringtheperiodinquestion.Yetitsroleasacentreofeducationalinstitutions(EcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes,Coll`egedeFrance,Universit´edePariscampusesatVincennesandNanterre)andjournals(Critique,LesTempsModernes,Annales,Diogene`,TelQuel,Communications,Poetique,Change´)warrantsanunderstandingthattendstostandforsimilarinstitutionsandjournalsinotherpartsofFrance.Ihaverejectedtheexpression‘Frenchstructuralism’inordertoavoidconveyinganessentialdifferenceatthelevelofnationand/orlanguage,asincomparisonsthatmightbemadebetween‘French’CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n264Notestopages158–221and‘American’practices.Suchdifferencesarereductive.Inaddition,theyarebeliedbyhistoricalcircumstancessuchasthosethatbroughtmajorfiguressuchasL´evi-StraussandJakobsontogetherinNewYorkCityintheearly1940s.SeeJ.Mehlman,2000.2Wheneverpossible,IhavecitedEnglishtranslationsoftextsfirstpublishedinotherlanguages.11SAUSSURE’SANAGRAMSANDTHEANALYSISOFLITERARYTEXTS1Inprose,onlythethirdcomponentofthistriptychonremains.2u=v,i=jmustbeappliedaccordingtotheantiqueandmedievaltradition.3Bothcontents,theoneoftheordinarylinguisticsign,whichmeans,aswellastheoneofthename,whichdesignates,aresupposedtobeappliedassignifie´.4Mallarm´espeaksofasymphony.So,similarly,doesLacan:‘ilsuffitd’´ecouterlapo´esie...pourques’yfasseentendreunepolyphonieetquetoutdiscourss’av`eres’alignersurlesplusieursport´eesd’unepartition’(‘Oneonlyhastolistentopoetry...tohearapolyphonyofsoundsandtorealisethatanystretchofspeechisdisplayedovertheseveralstavesofamusicalscore’,Lacan,1966:260f.).12SAUSSUREANDDERRIDA1InEnglish:OfGrammatology,tr.G.C.Spivak,1976.InthischapteralltranslationsfromDerridaandfromSaussure’sCoursaremyown.2ThisiswhatjustifiesHarris’complaintthatSaussure’schapteronvaluegivesrisetoa‘bleakmetaphysicallimbo’(Harris,1987:120).Derrida’sreading,whichHarrismentionsonlyinpassing(p.x),suggestsalessmetaphysical(thoughperhapsstillquite‘bleak’)perspective.3Thissuggestsarelationshipbetweentextandcommentaryquitedifferentfromthatoftraditionalacademicnorms,atleastinsofarasitcannot,giventheviewoflanguagedevelopedfromSaussure,beattemptingtorecoverandpresentanyultimate‘meaning’ofthetextread(wherebydeconstructionisnotahermeneutics).ItshouldperhapsbepointedoutthatthetypeofpresentationofDerridaofferedhereisitselfessentiallystilltraditional:nothinginDerrida’sthinkingsimplydisallowsthis,ofcourse,butitshouldperhapsbepointedoutthatnothingresemblinga‘Derridean’readingofDerridahasyetbeenachievedbyDerrida’scommentators(except,arguably,byDerridahimself,whoseworkcanpersuasivelybereadas,inpart,aseriesofinventiverereadingsofhisownearliertexts).4‘Quasi-concept’becausethetraditionalconceptofwhataconceptisreliesonthe‘logocentric’assumptionoftheidealseparabilityofthesignifiedfromitssignifier(s),anassumptionthatthewholedriftofDerrida’sreadingcontests.14SAUSSURE,LINGUISTICTHEORYANDPHILOSOPHYOFSCIENCE1RogerSmithprovidesausefulbriefsummarywhichcapturespreciselywhatitwasabouttheego-psychologicalapproachthatprovokedLacantoannouncehis‘returntoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nNotestopages223–34265Freud’asanantidotetoallsuchnormalisingconceptionsofpsychoanalyticpractice.Thiswasatheory‘thatdescribedtheegoasanoriginalmentalstructurewithitsownpositivepowers.They[theegopsychologists]argued...thatthepsychiccoreofpersonalityisapowerwiththecapacityinamatureindividualtointegrateinnatedrivesandsocialpressuresinagenuinelyself-fulfillingway.Inpopularversions–incompatiblewiththespiritofFreud’sworkbutinkeepingwithUSideals–psycho-analysiswasequatedwithasearchforpersonalgrowthandforthetrueself,afantasyofpersonalityindependentofculture’(Smith,1997:732–4).Lacan,onthecontrary,stressedtheunattainabilityofanysuchunifiedegoidealandthelate-Freudianideathatpsychoanalysiswasastrictly‘interminable’process,aimedtowardachievingastateofmindthatwouldalwaysandofitsverynatureeludethebesteffortsofintegrativethought.Thusegopsychologywasitselfasymptomofthenarcissisticor‘imaginary’drivetosubstituteafalsenotionoftheintegratedegofortheendless‘detours’ofthesignifierinquestofsomesheerlyimpossibleidealisedconceptionofself-knowledgeandfulfilment(Lacan,1977).HadFreudonlyreadSaussure–soLacanimplies–thenhewouldhavecouchedhisdescriptionsofthe‘talkingcure’insuchawayastopreventthesegrossmisreadings.Thatistosay,hewouldhavelaidyetmoreemphasisonthe‘bar’betweensignifierandsignified,or‘theagencyoftheletter’asthatwhichprecludesanynotionofpsychoanalysisasameansofachievingsomewished-forharmonybetweenegoidealsandtherequirementsofabalanced,well-adjustedsociallife.Insofarastheunconsciousis‘structuredlikealanguage’–subjecttotheconstanteffectsofdesireasaprocessofdisplacementalongthechainofsignifiers–itremainsforeverbeyondreachofthespecular(‘imaginary’)ego.Tothisextentstructuralism,orLacan’sinterpretationofit,cameoutinstrongoppositiontoreceived,i.e.Cartesian,ideasofscientificknowledge,rationalityandtruth.Atthesametime–notleastinLacan’scase–itlookedtoSaussureanlinguisticsasasourceoforganisingconceptsanddistinctions(likethatbetweenlangueandparole)whichstillborewitnesstoalingeringdreamofproperly‘scientific’method.2Ontheotherhand,asDavidHoldcroftremarks,‘itisarguablethathe[Saussure]wentfurtherandmaintainedthattherearenolanguage-independentconcepts,thusturningthepositionofthePortRoyalGrammaronitshead’(Holdcroft,1991:166n).Onewayofdescribingthetransitionfromstructuralismtopost-structuralismisintermsofthisunresolvedtensioninSaussure’sthoughtbetweenarationalistapproachpremisedonthebasicallyCartesianappealto‘clearanddistinctideas’andafull-scalesemiologicaldoctrinecommittedtothethesisthatallouroperativeconceptsandcategoriesaredependentupon(or‘constructedby’)particularlanguagesorsignifyingsystems.ForfurtherdiscussionseeDucrot(1968)andHarland(1987).3ThispassageiscitedinJacquesDerrida’sessay‘Whitemythology:metaphorinthetextofphilosophy’(Derrida,1982:224).Thisisbyfarthemostdetailed,philo-sophicallyastuteandwide-rangingtreatmenttobefoundinrecentdiscussionsofthetopic,whetherthosebelongingtothebroadly‘analytic’(Anglo-American)orthe‘continental’(mainland-European)traditionsofthought.AboveallitisexplicitinrejectingtheNietzscheanidea–muchcanvassedby‘literary’deconstructionistsandstrong-descriptivistslikeRorty(1982)–thatscientificconceptsarenothingmorethanaspeciesofsublimatedmetaphor,orthatscienceamountstojustakindof‘whitemythology’,adiscoursethathaslostthecourageofitsownprimordialintu-itionsorperceptions.Thus‘thereisalsoaconceptofmetaphor:ittoohasahistory,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n266Notetopage239yieldsknowledge,demandsfromtheepistemologistconstruction,rectification,criti-calrulesofimportationandexportation’(Derrida,1982:224).NodoubtonehastomakeallowanceforDerrida’suseofanoblique(‘freeindirect’)meansofpresentationwhencitingasource-text–herethatofBachelard–whoseargumentshewishestodeploystrategicallywithoutperhapsfullyendorsingthem.AllthesameitiswrongtoassumethatDerridaisrejectingBachelard’sdistinctionbetweentherealmofintuitiveorpre-scientificmetaphorical‘reverie’andtherealmofelaboratedscientificconceptswherevaluesoftruthandfalsehoodcomeintoplay(seeNorris,1997b).IndeedthisdistinctioniseverywherepresupposedinDerrida’saccountofthehistoryofphiloso-phy’sdealingswiththeproblematictoposofmetaphor,fromAristotletoNietzsche,BachelardandCanguilhem.Foritwouldotherwisebeimpossibletoexplainhowsci-entificknowledgecouldeveradvance‘fromaninefficienttropic-conceptthatispoorlyconstructed,toanoperativetropic-conceptthatismorerefinedandmorepowerfulinagivenfieldandatadeterminedphaseofthescientificprocess’(Derrida,1982:264).4ThefollowingpassageisrepresentativeofPutnam’searly(causal-realist)approachtoissuesofmeaning,referenceandtruth.Aslanguagedevelops,thecausalandnoncausallinksbetweenbitsoflanguageandaspectsoftheworldbecomemorecomplexandmorevarious.Tolookforanyoneuniformlinkbetweenwordorthoughtandobjectofwordorthoughtistolookfortheoccult;buttoseeourevolvingandexpandingnotionofreferenceasjustaproliferatingfamilyistomisstheessenceoftherelationbetweenlanguageandreality.Theessenceoftherelationisthatlanguageandthoughtdoasymptoticallycorrespondtoreality,tosomeextentatleast.Atheoryofreferenceisatheoryofthecorrespondenceinquestion.(Putnam,1975:290)Inhislater(post-1980)workPutnamhasmovedawayfromthispositionunderpres-surefromarangeofcounter-argumentswhichhenowregardsasposinginsuperableproblemsforanysuch‘metaphysical’-realistlineofthought.Hisfirststopwasathe-oryof‘internal’(orframework-relative)realismwhichallowedstatementstopossessadeterminatetruth-valuebutonlyinsofarasthatvaluewasassignedwithreferencetosomeparticularrangeofacceptedcriteria,investigativeinterests,disciplinarystan-dards,etc.(seeespeciallyPutnam,1981).Sincethenhehasputforwardanumberofcompromiseproposalsforconservingsomeplausiblenotionoftruthandthusavoid-ingthenemesisofculturalrelativismwhilealsoacknowledgingtheimpossibility(asheseesit)ofmaintaininganystronger,i.e.objectivistorframework-transcendent,realistconception(Putnam,1987,1990,1992).WhatischieflyofinterestinthepresentcontextisthefactthatPutnam’slong-haulretreatfromcausalrealismhasbeenpromptedinlargepartbythesamekindsofargument–holistic,contextualist,paradigm-relativist–thatcanalsobeseentohaveinfluencedthereceptionhistoryofSaussureanlinguistics.Thatistosayithasresulted(inmyviewatleast)fromanover-readinesstoconcedetheforceofobjectionswhichtakeforgrantedtheideathattruthcannotpossiblytranscendthelimitsofsomegivenlanguage-game,discourse,paradigmorconceptualscheme.SeeNorris,2002,forafull-lengthstudyofPutnam’sworkthatarguesthiscaseindetail.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nWorksbySaussureandfurtherreadingWORKSBYSAUSSURE(1878).Essaid’unedistinctiondesdiff´erentsaindo-europ´eens.MemoiresdelaSoci´et´e´delinguistique,3:359–70.(1879).Memoiresurlesyst´emeprimitifdesvoyellesdansleslanguesindo-europ`eennes´.Leipzig:Teubner.(1908).Melangesdelinguistiqueofferts´aM.FerdinanddeSaussure`(noeds.).Paris:Champion.(1909).InterviewwithA.Riedlinger,19January1909.InGodel,1957/1969a.(1916).Coursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(publishedbyC.BallyandA.SechehayeincollaborationwithA.Riedlinger).LausanneandParis:Payot.(CLG)(1922).Recueildespublicationsscientifiques.Geneva:EditionsSonor.Godel,R.(1957).LessourcesmanuscritesduCoursdelinguistiquegen´eraledeF.de´Saussure(Soci´et´edepublicationsromanesetfran¸caises,61).Geneva:Droz;Paris:Minard.(1957).Coursdelinguistiqueg´en´eraleCoursII1908–1909:introduction(d’apr`esdesnotesd’´etudiants)(ed.R.Godel).CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,15:3–103.Godel,R.(1958/9).Nouveauxdocumentssaussuriens:lescahiersE.Constantin.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,16:23,32.(1960).SouvenirsdeF.deSaussureconcernantsajeunesseetses´etudes(ed.R.Godel).CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,17:12–26.Benveniste,E.(1964).LettresdeFerdinanddeSaussure`aAntoineMeillet.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,21:91–130.(1964/5).NotesetdocumentssurFerdinanddeSaussure(1880–1891)(pr´esent´eesparMichelFleury).Annuairedel’EcolepratiquedesHautesEtudes,Paris,35–67.(1968).Coursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(criticaleditionbyR.Engler,vol.1).Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.(CLG/E1).(1972[1916]).Coursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(ed.T.deMauro).Paris:Payot.(CLG/D)(1974).Coursdelinguistiquegen´erale´(Notespersonnelles)(criticaleditionbyR.Engler,vol.2).Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.(CLG/E2)(1978).Essaipourr´eduirelesmotsdugrec,dulatinetdel’allemand`aunpetitnombrederacines(ed.B.Davis).CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,32:73–101.(1979).Saggiosulvocalismoindoeuropeo(Italianedition,introd.,trans.anded.G.C.Vincenzi).Bologna:LibreriaUniversitariaEditrice.(1994).[LetterdatedSeptember1912toBally].CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,48:132.267CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n268WorksbySaussureandfurtherreading(2002).Ecritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´(ed.S.BouquetandR.Engler).Paris:Gallimard.(ELG)WORKSBYSAUSSURE,ENGLISHTRANSLATIONSANDBILINGUALEDITIONS(1959).CourseinGeneralLinguistics(trans.W.Baskin).NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary.(CGL-B)(1974[1959]).CourseinGeneralLinguistics(trans.W.Baskin,withanintroductionbyJ.Culler).London:PeterOwen.(CGL-B)(1983).CourseinGeneralLinguistics(trans.andannotatedbyR.Harris).London:Duckworth.(CGL-H)(1993).TroisiemeCoursdelinguistiqueg`en´erale´/ThirdCourseinGeneralLinguistics(1910–1911),d’apreslescahiersd’EmileConstantin`(ed.andtrans.E.KomatsuandR.Harris).Oxford:Pergamon.(1996).PremierCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´/FirstCourseinGeneralLinguistics(1907),d’apreslescahiersd’AlbertRiedlinger`(ed.andtrans.E.KomatsuandG.Wolf).Oxford:Pergamon.(1997).DeuxiemeCoursdelinguistiqueg`en´erale/SecondCourseinGenerallinguistics´(1908–1909),d’apreslescahiersd’AlbertRiedlinger&CharlesPatois`(ed.andtrans.E.KomatsuandG.Wolf).Oxford:Pergamon.ASELECTIONOFWORKSRELEVANTTOSAUSSUREPUBLISHEDINENGLISHSINCE1980(OTHERTHANTHOSEFEATURINGINTHELISTOFREFERENCES)Arriv´e,M.(1992).LinguisticsandPsychoanalysis:Freud,Saussure,Hjelmslev,LacanandOthers(trans.byJ.LeaderofLinguistiqueetpsychanalyse,1986).Amsterdam:Benjamins.15+178pages.Eschbach,A.andTrabant,J.(eds.)(1983).HistoryofSemiotics.Amsterdam,Philadel-phia:Benjamins.16+386pages.Harris,R.andTaylor,T.J.(1990).LandmarksinLinguisticThought:theWesternTraditionfromSocratestoSaussure.London:Routledge.240pages.Mauro,T.deandSugeta,S.(eds.)(1995).SaussureandLinguisticsToday.Rome:Bulzoni.352pages.Miller,J.M.(1981).FrenchStructuralism:aMultidisciplinaryBibliographywithaChecklistofSourcesforLouisAlthusser,RolandBarthes,JacquesDerrida,MichelFoucault,LucienGoldmann,JacquesLacan,andanUpdateofWorksonClaudeLevi-Strauss´.NewYork,London:Garland.13+553pages.Simone,R.(ed.)(1995).IconicityinLanguage.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:Benjamins.11+317pages.Tallis,R.(1988).NotSaussure:aCritiqueofPost-SaussureanLiteraryTheory.Hound-mills,Basingstoke,andLondon:Macmillan.9+273pages.SELECTIONOFARTICLESANDCHAPTERSAtkins,G.D.(1981).Thesignasastructureofdifference:Derrideandeconstructionandsomeofitsimplications.InR.T.DeGeorge(ed.),SemioticThemes.Lawrence:UniversityofKansas,pp.133–47.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nWorksbySaussureandfurtherreading269Bailey,C.-J.N.(1981).WhatifSaussurehadextendeddevelopmentalcomparativeanalysistodescriptioninsteadofproposingsynchronicanalysis?IndogermanischeForschungen,86:137–45.Becker,L.A.(1981).DeSaussure’slaws:theoriginofdistinctiveintonationsinLithuanian.InternationalJournalofSlavicLinguisticsandPoetics,24:7–21.Bell,A.(1986).Thearticulatorysyllable:SaussuretoStetson.ColoradoResearchinLinguistics,9:9–18.Bergman,B.(1983).TheSaussureansignanditsalgebraicproperties.Semiotica,46(1):41–8.Bezeczky,G.(1995).Thecourse,ofcourse.JournalofLiterarySemantics,24(1):57–78.Birnbaum,H.(1995).Thelinguisticsignreconsidered:arbitrariness,iconicity,motivation.Elementa,2(2):101–29.Bollag,B.(1988).Wordsonthescreen:theproblemofthelinguisticsigninthecinema.Semiotica,72(1–2):71–90.Brockman,L.(1993).Hittiteevidencefor‘Saussure’sLaw’.PhDthesis,HarvardUniversity,133pages.Brown,D.D.(1997).Structuralismandsemiotics:twokeyconceptsinlinguistictheory.ToshokanJohoDaigakukenkyuhokoku(Japan),16(2):85–96.Cermak,F.(1996a).FerdinanddeSaussureandthePragueSchoolofLinguistics.InE.Hajicovaetal.(eds.),PragueLinguisticCirclePapers,vol.2.Amsterdam:Benjamins,pp.59–72.(1996b).Synchronyanddiachronyrevisited:wasR.JakobsonandthePragueCirclerightintheircriticismofdeSaussure?Folialinguisticahistorica,17(1–2):29–40.Coseriu,E.(1995).MySaussure.InT.deMauroandS.Sugeta(eds.),SaussureandLinguisticsToday.Rome:Bulzoni,pp.187–91.Covington,F.McRee(1996).Semio-rhetoric:re-evaluatinglogosinthecontextoftheSaussureansign.IssuesinWriting,7(2):155–63.Darden,B.J.(1984).OndeSaussure’slaw.Foliaslavica,7(1–2):105–19.Deist,F.E.(1995).On‘synchronic’and‘diachronic’:wieeseigentlichgewesen.JournalofNorthwestSemiticLanguages,21(1):37–48.Derrida,J.(1982).TheLinguisticCircleofGeneva(trans.fromFrench).CriticalInquiry,8(4):675–91.Dinneen,F.P.(1990).FerdinanddeSaussure(1857–1913).TheGeorgetownJournalofLanguagesandLinguistics1(1):31–53.Engler,R.(1995).Iconicityand/orarbitrariness.InR.Simone(ed.),IconicityinLanguage.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:Benjamins,pp.39–45.Falck,C.(1986).Saussureantheoryandtheabolitionofreality.TheMonist,69(1):133–45.Fawcett,R.P.(1982).Languagesasasemiologicalsystem:are-interpretationofSaussure.LacusForum,9:59–125.Godel,R.(1984).F.deSaussure’stheoryoflanguage.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,38:83–97.Hammarstr¨om,G.(1998).Twobasicproblems:staticsynchronyandcausesforchange.Folialinguisticahistorica,19(1–2):3–6.Harris,R.(1985).Saussureandthedynamicparadigm.InC.J.N.BaileyandR.Harris(eds.),DevelopmentMechanismsofLanguage.Oxford:Pergamon,pp.167–83.(1993).Saussureandlinguisticgeography.LanguageSciences,15(1):1–14.(1995).Saussure,generativegrammarandintegrationallinguistics.InT.deMauroandS.Sugeta(eds.),SaussureandLinguisticsToday.Rome:Bulzoni,pp.203–13.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n270WorksbySaussureandfurtherreadingHarris,R.andTaylor,T.J.(1993).Saussure,Wittgensteinand‘lar`egledujeu’.InR.HarreandR.Harris(eds.),LinguisticsandPhilosophy:aControversialInterface.Oxford,NewYork,SeoulandTokyo:PergamonPress,pp.219–31.Harris,W.V.(1983).OnbeingsureofSaussure.JournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,41(4):387–97.Helsloot,N.(2003).DivineRock.FerdinanddeSaussure’sPoetics.Beitragezur¨GeschichtederSprachwissenschaft,13:187–231.Hewson,J.(1985).Saussureandthevariationists.LacusForum,12:104–9.Humphries,J.(1983).SeeingthroughLear’sblindness:Blanchot,Freud,SaussureandDerrida.Mosaic,16(3):29–43.Hurford,J.R.(1989).BiologicalevolutionoftheSaussureansignasacomponentofthelanguageacquisitiondevice.Lingua,77(2):187–222.Hussy,C.(1998).Signifierandsignified:betweeninsignificanceandoperability.Semiotica,122(3–4):297–308.Hutton,C.(1989).Thearbitrarynatureofthesign.Semiotica,75(1–2):63–78.Ihara,T.(1992).TheillusionofCommunallanguage:SaussureanandWittgensteinianarguments.Sophialinguistica,31:13–28.Itkonen,E.(1988).Acritiqueofthe‘post-structuralist’conceptionoflanguage.Semiotica,71(3–4):305–20.Jacobini,C.(1995).Saussureandgenerativemorphology.In:T.deMauroandS.Sugeta(eds.),SaussureandLinguisticsToday.Rome:Bulzoni,pp.215–30.Koerner,E.F.K.(1984a).Saussure’sFrenchconnection.CanadianJournalofLinguis-tics,29(1):20–41.(1984b).KarlB¨uhler’stheoryoflanguageandFerdinanddeSaussure’s‘Cours’.Lingua,62:3–24.(1996).Notesonthehistoryoftheconceptoflanguageasasystem‘o`utoutsetient’.Linguisticaatlantica,18–19:1–20.Komatsu,E.(1996).HowwasSaussure’sCourseingenerallinguisticswritten?Fenestra,2:41–50.Lee,B.(1985).Peirce,Frege,SaussureandWhorf:thesemioticmediationofontology.SemioticMediation,99–128.Lepschy,G.(1986).Europeanlinguisticsinthetwentiethcentury.InT.BynonandF.R.Palmer(eds.),StudiesintheHistoryofWesternLinguistics:inHonourofR.H.Robins.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.189–201.Leska,O.,Nekvapil,J.andSoltys,O.(1987).FerdinanddeSaussureandthePragueLinguisticCircle.PhilologiaPragensia,30:77–109.Lobo,F.(1995).AmadoAlonso:translatorandcriticalinterpreteroftheCLG.InT.deMauroandS.Sugeta(eds.),SaussureandLinguisticsToday.Rome:Bulzoni,pp.231ff.Matejka,L.(1997).Jakobson’sresponsetoSaussure’sCours.Cahiersdel’Institutdelinguistiqueetsciencesdulangage,Laussanne,9:177–84.Mazor,M.(1989).Reallyrelativism:dialecticinterpretationsofSaussure.LanguageandCommunication,9(1):11–21.Naito,M.(1995).ThetheoryofSaussureinChina.InT.deMauroandS.Sugeta(eds.),SaussureandLinguisticsToday.Rome:Bulzoni,pp.243–52.Nerlich,B.(1986).Saussureanlinguisticsandtheproblemofmeaning:formdynamicstaticstostaticdynamics.Languageandcommunication,6(4):267–76.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nWorksbySaussureandfurtherreading271Newmeyer,F.J.(1990).Competencevs.performance;theoreticalvs.applied:thedevel-opmentandinterplayoftwodichotomiesinmodernlinguistics.Historiographialinguistica,17(1–2):167–81.Nussbaum,A.J.(1997).The‘Saussureeffect’inLatinandItalic.InA.Lubotsky(ed.),SoundLawandAnalogy:PapersinHonorofRobertS.P.BeekesontheOccasionofhis60thBirthday.Amsterdam:Rodopi,pp.181–203.Peng,F.C.C.(1995).OndeSaussure’stheoreticalconstructionof‘Lesigne’:aneurolinguisticview.JournalofNeurolinguistics,7(1–2):1–9.Percival,W.K.(1981).TheSaussureanparadigm:factorfantasy.Semiotica,36(1–2):33–49.Polome,E.C.(1990).LanguagechangeandtheSaussureandichotomy:DiachronyversusSynchrony.In:ResearchGuideonLanguageChange.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,pp.3–9.Porter,J.I.(1986).SaussureandDerridaonthefigureofthevoice.ModernLanguageNotes,101(4):871–94.Priestly,T.M.S.(1983).ThefirstRussiantranslationofSaussure’sCours:anote.Historiographialinguistica,10(3):363–4.R´ee,J.(1997).Subjectivityinthetwentiethcentury.CriticalStudies,8:17–28.Schalkwyk,D.(1995).Saussure,namesandthegapbetweenwordandworld.JournalofLiterarySemantics,24(2):127–48.Shepheard,D.(1982).Saussure’sVedicanagrams.ModernLanguageReview,77:513–23.Simone,R.(1995).ThelanguageuserinSaussure(andafter).InL.FormigariandD.Gambarara(eds.),HistoricalRootsofLinguisticTheories.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,pp.233–49.Singh,P.(1992).SaussureandtheIndicconnection.InR.N.Srivastava(ed.),LanguageandText:StudiesinHonourofR.Kalkar.Delhi:KalingaPubl.pp.43–50.Stankiewicz,E.(1995).Saussure’sLawandthenominalaccentuationoftheLithuanianacutestems.LinguisticaBaltica,4:61–73.Strozier,R.M.(1985).Saussureandtheintellectualtraditionsofthetwentiethcentury.Semiotica,57(1–2):33–49.Tobin,Y.(1996).Reviewarticle:WilltherealProfessordeSaussuresignin,please?ThethreefacesofFerdinand.Semiotica,112(3–4):391–402.Ungerer,F.(1991).Whatmakesalinguisticsignsuccessful?Towardsapragmaticinterpretationofthelinguisticsign.Lingua,83(2–3):155–81.Vasiliu,E.(1980).‘Signifi´e’:someremarksonitsnature.Revueroumainedelinguis-tique,25:631–4.(1986).FromdeSaussuretoCratylusandbackwards.Revueroumainedelinguistique,31(6):491–502.Vaughan,G.(1981).SaussureandVygotskyviaMarx.Arssemeiotica,4(1):57–83.Yngve,V.H.(1991).Saussureandobjectsgiveninadvance.CommunicationsoftheWorkshopforScientificLinguistics(Chicago),5:83ff.SELECTIONOFRECENTWORKSINOTHERLANGUAGESAmacker,R.andEngler,R.(eds.)(1990).PresencedeSaussure:ActesduColloque´internationaldeGeneve`(21–23mars1988)(PublicationsduCercleFerdinanddeSaussure,1).Geneva:Droz.9+265pages.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n272WorksbySaussureandfurtherreadingArriv´e,M.(2002).Saussure.Paris:LesBellesLettres.Arriv´e,M.andNormand,C.(eds.)(1995).Saussureaujourd’hui:ActesduColloquedeCerisylaSalle(12aoˆut1992)(specialeditionofLinx).Nanterre:CRLUniversit´edeParisX.500pages.Badir,S.(2001).Saussure:Lalangueetsarepresentation.´Paris:L’Harmattan.Capt-Artaud,M.-C.(1994).Petittrait´ederh´etoriquesaussurienne(PublicationsduCercleFerdinanddeSaussure,2).Geneva:Droz.166pages.Maruyama,K.(1981).Saussurenoshiso[SaussureanThought].Tokyo:IwanamiShoten.311+25pages.(1983).[ReadingSaussure].Tokyo:IwanamiShoten.4,311+23pages.Malmberg,B.(1991).HistoiredelalinguistiquedeSumeraSaussure`.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.496pages.Normand,C.(2000).Saussure.Paris:LesBelleslettres.174pages.Parret,H.(1993[1994]).LesmanuscriptssaussuriensdeHarvard.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,47:179–234.Polo,J.(1992a).PresenciadeSaussureenelmundohisp´anico(introduci´on).Cuadernosdeinvestigacionfilol´ogica´,18(1–2):189–96.(1992b).Traduccionesalespa˜noldelCLGdeSaussure.Cuadernosdeinvestigacion´filologica´,18(1–2):183–96.Prampolini,M.(1994).FerdinanddeSaussure.Teramo:GiuntiLiscianieditori.128pages.Scheerer,T.M.(1980).FerdinanddeSaussure,RezeptionundKritik.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.10+222pages.Simone,R.(1992).IlsognodiSaussure.Rome,Bari:Laterza.18+218pages.Utaker,A.(2002).Laphilosophiedulangage:unearcheologiesaussurienne´.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferencesAA.VV.(1979).Anagrammi,enigrammi.Lectures3,Dec.1979.Adam,J.-M.andGoldenstein,J.-P.(1976).Linguistiqueetdiscourslitteraire:th´eorie´etpratiquedestextes.Paris:Larousse.Aarsleff,H.(1967).TheStudyofLanguageinEngland,1760–1860.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.(1982).FromLocketoSaussure:EssaysontheStudyofLanguageandIntellectualHistory.London:Athlone.Althusser,L.(1969).ForMarx(trans.B.Brewster).London:NewLeftBooks.Althusser,L.andBalibar,E.(1970).ReadingCapital(trans.B.Brewster).London:NewLeftBooks.Amacker,R.(1975).Linguistiquesaussurienne.Geneva:Droz.Amacker,R.withthecollaborationofS.Bouquet(1989).CorrespondanceBally–Meillet(1906–1932).CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,43:95–127.Amsterdamska,O.(1987).SchoolsofThought:theDevelopmentofLinguisticsfromBopptoSaussure.Dordrecht:Reidel.Anderson,P.(1983).IntheTracksofHistoricalMaterialism.London:NewLeftBooks.Anderson,S.R.(1985).PhonologyintheTwentiethCentury:TheoriesofRulesandTheoriesofRepresentations.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress.(1988).Morphologicaltheory.InF.J.Newmeyer(ed.),Linguistics:theCambridgeSurvey,vol.I.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.146–91.Andresen,J.T.(1990).LinguisticsinAmerica1769–1924:aCriticalHistory.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Andreev,N.D.andZinder,L.R.(1964).Onthenotionsofthespeechact,speech,speechprobability,andlanguage.Linguistics,4:5–13.Antal,L.(1990).Langueandparoleoronlyparole?HistoriographiaLinguistica,17(3):357–67.Ashby,R.(1956).AnIntroductiontoCybernetics.London:ChapmanandHall.Attridge,D.,Bennington,G.andYoung,R.(eds.)(1987).Post-StructuralismandtheQuestionofHistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Aunger,R.(2000).DarwinizingCulture:theStatusofMemeticsasaScience.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.(2002).TheElectricMeme:aNewTheoryofHowWeThink.NewYork:TheFreePress.Auroux,S.(1985).Deuxhypoth`esessurlessourcesdelaconceptionsaussuriennedelavaleurlinguistique.TravauxdeLinguistiqueetdeLitterature´(StrasbourgB1).273CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n274References(1988).Lanotiondelinguistiqueg´en´erale.InA.Meilletetlalinguistiquedesontemps.Histoire,Epistemologie,Langage´,10(2):37–56.(ed.)(2000).Histoiredesideeslinguistiques,´vol.3.Brussels:Mardaga.Auroux,S.andDelesalle,S.(1990).Frenchsemanticsofthelatenineteenthcentury.InH.WalterSchmitz(ed.),EssaysonSignifics.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,pp.105–31.Auroux,S.,Koerner,E.F.K.,Niederehe,H.-J.andVersteegh,K.(eds.)(2001).HistoryoftheLanguageSciences,vol.2.BerlinandNewYork:MoutondeGruyter.Avalle,d’A.S.(ed.)(1972a).FerdinanddeSaussure:notesulleleggendegermaniche.Turin:Giappichelli.(1972b).Corsodisemiologiadeitestiletterari.Turin:Giappichelli.(1972c).Daisistemidisegniallenebulosedielementi.Strumenticritici,6:229–42.(1973a).L’ontologiadelsegnoinSaussure.Turin:Giappichelli.(1973b).Las´emiologieetlanarrativit´echezSaussure.InC.Bouazis,d’A.S.AvalleandA.Brandt(eds.),Essaisdelatheoriedutexte´(coll.`alalettre).Paris:Gallil´ee,pp.17–49.Ayer,A.J.(1959).LogicalPositivism.NewYork:FreePress.Bachelard,G.(1938).Laformationdel’espritscientifique.Paris:Corti.(1949).Lerationalismeapplique´.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.(1953).Lematerialismerationnel.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.(1968).ThePhilosophyofNo:aPhilosophyoftheNewScientificMind(trans.G.C.Waterston).NewYork:OrionPress.(1971).ThePoeticsofReverie(trans.D.Russell).Boston:BeaconPress.(1985).TheNewScientificSpirit(trans.A.Goldhammer).Boston:BeaconPress.Baecker,D.(ed.)(1999).ProblemsofForms.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.Baetens,J.(1986).Post´erit´elitt´erairedesanagrammes.Poetique´,17(18):217–33.Bakhtin,M.(1986).Estetikaslovesnogotvorchestva.Moscow:Iskussto.Baldwin,J.M.(1901–5).DictionaryofPhilosophyandPsychology,vols.1–3.NewYork:Macmillan.(1909).DarwinandtheHumanities.Baltimore:ReviewPublishing.Bally,C.(1889).DeEuripidistragoediarumpartibuslyricisquaestiunculae.Diss.inaug.Berlin.(1899).Leslanguesclassiquessont-ellesdeslanguesmortes?Quelquesreflexions´surl’enseignementdugrecetdulatin.BasleandGeneva:Georg.(1905).Precisdestylistique´:esquissed’unemethodefond´eesurl’´etudedufranc´¸aismoderne.Geneva:Eggimann.(1908).Maˆıtreetdisciples.JournaldeGeneve`,18(7).(1909).Traitedestylistiquefranc´¸aise.Heidelberg:Winter,Paris:Klincksieck.(1912).Stylistiqueetlinguistiqueg´en´erale.ArchivfurdasStudiumderneueren¨SprachenundLiteraturen,128(n.s.287):97–126.(1913a).Lelangageetlavie.Geneva:Atar.(1913b).FerdinanddeSaussureetl’etatactueldes´etudeslinguistiques´(le¸cond’ouvertureducoursdelinguistiqueg´en´erale,luele27octobre,`al’Auladel’Universit´e).Geneva:Atar.(1932).Linguistiquegen´eraleetlinguistiquefranc´¸aise.Paris:ErnestLeroux.(1944).Linguistiquegen´eraleetlinguistiquefranc´¸aise,2ndedn(4threv.edn1965).Berne:Francke.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences275(1952).Lelangageetlavie,3rdedn.Geneva:DrozandLille:Giard.Bally,C.andGautier,L.(eds.)(1922).RecueildespublicationsscientifiquesdeF.deSaussure.GenevaandHeidelberg.Baratin,M.andDesbordes,F.(1981).L’analyselinguistiquedansl’antiquiteclassique,´I:Lestheories´.Paris:Klincksieck.Barnes,B.(1985).AboutScience.Oxford:Blackwell.Barthes,R.(1957).Mythologies.Paris:Seuil.(1964).Elementsdes´emiologie´.Paris:Seuil.(1966)Introduction`al’analysestructuraledesr´ecits.Communcations,8:1–27.(1967).ElementsofSemiology(trans.A.LaversandC.Smith).NewYork:HillandWang.(1968a[1953]).WritingDegreeZero(trans.ALaversandC.Smith).NewYork:HillandWang.(1968b).ElementsofSemiology(trans.ALaversandC.Smith).NewYork:HillandWang.(1972a).Mythologies(trans.A.Lavers).NewYork:HillandWang.(1972b).CriticalEssays(trans.R.Howard).Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress.(1973).Mythologies(trans.A.Lavers).London:Paladin.(1975).S/Z(trans.R.Miller).London:JonathanCape.(1977a[1975]).RolandBarthesbyRolandBarthes(trans.R.Howard).NewYork:HillandWang.(1977b).Image-Music-Text(trans.S.Heath).London:Fontana.(1978[1977]).ALover’sDiscourse:Fragments(trans.R.Howard).NewYork:HillandWang.(1982).ABarthesReader(ed.S.Sontag).NewYork:HillandWang.(1983a[1963]).OnRacine(trans.R.Howard).NewYork:HillandWang.(1983b[1967]).TheFashionSystem(trans.M.WardandR.Howard).NewYork:HillandWang.(1987a[1954]).Michelet(trans.R.Howard).NewYork:HillandWang.(1987b[1985]).TheSemioticChallenge(trans.R.Howard).NewYork:HillandWang.(1993a).Oeuvrescompletes`,vol.1,1942–1965.Paris:Seuil.(1993b).Oeuvrescompletes`,vol.2,1966–1973.Paris:Seuil.(1995).Oeuvrescompletes`,vol.3,1974–1980.Paris:Seuil.Bateson,G.(1967).Cyberneticexplanation.AmericanBehavioralScientist,10(8):29–32.Bauche,H.(1929).Lelangagepopulaire.Paris:Payot.Belsey,C.(1980).CriticalPractice.London:Methuen.Bennington,G.(1991).Derridabase.InG.BenningtonandJ.Derrida,JacquesDerrida.Paris:Seuil,pp.1–297.(1995).Legislations:thePoliticsofDeconstruction.London:Verso.Bense,M.(1967).Semiotik:allgemeineTheoriederZeichen.Baden-Baden:Agis.Benton,T.(1984).TheRiseandFallofStructuralMarxism.London:NewLeftBooks.Benveniste,E.(1939).Naturedusignelinguistique.ActaLinguistica,1:23–29.(1956).Lanaturedespronoms.InBenveniste,1966:251–7.(1963).Saussureapr`esundemi-si`ecle.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,2:7–21.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n276References(1964).LettresdeFerdinanddeSaussure`aAntoineMeillet.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,21:91–130.(1966).Problemesdelinguistiqueg`en´erale´,vol.1.Paris:Gallimard.(1969).S´emiologiedelalangue(2).Semiotica,1(2):127–35.(1970).Problemesdelinguistiqueg`en´erale´,vol.2.Paris:Gallimard.Benware,W.A.(1974).TheStudyofIndo-EuropeanVocalisminthe19thCentury,fromthebeginningstoWhitneyandScherer.Amsterdam:Benjamins.Beust,P.(1998).Contribution`aunmod`eleinteractionistedusens:amorced’unecomp´etenceinterpr´etativepourlesmachines.Th`esededoctoratdel’Universit´edeCaen.Bergounioux,G.(1984).LasciencedulangageenFrancede1870`a1885:dumarch´ecivilaumarch´e´etatique.LangueFranc¸aise,63:7–41.(ed.)(1994).Auxoriginesdelalinguistiquefranc¸aise.Paris:Pocket.Bigongiari,P.(1970).Lapoesiacomefunzionedellinguaggio.InAA.VV.Criticaestorialetteraria(StudioffertiaMarioFubini,vol.1).Padova,pp.175–200.Blanch´e,R.(1966).Structuresintellectuelles:essaisurl’organisationsystematiquedes´concepts.Paris:J.Vrin.Bloch,B.(1941).Phonemicoverlapping.AmericanSpeech,16:278–84.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:93–6.)Bloomfield,L.(1914).AnIntroductiontotheStudyofLanguage.NewYork:HenryHolt.(1917).TagalogTextswithGrammaticalAnalysis(UniversityofIllinoisStudiesinLanguageandLiterature,3).Urbana:UniversityofIllinois.(PrefacereprintedinBloomfield,1970:78–81.)(1922).ReviewofE.Sapir,Language:anIntroductiontotheStudyofSpeech,NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1921.TheClassicalWeekly,15:142–3.(ReprintedinBloomfield,1970:91–4.)(1924).ReviewofF.deSaussure,Coursdelinguistiquegen´erale´,2ndedn.Paris:Payot,1922.ModernLanguageJournal,8:317–19.(ReprintedinBloomfield,1970:106–8.)(1926).Asetofpostulatesforlinguisticanalysis.Language,2:153–64.(1927).Onrecentworkingenerallinguistics.ModernPhilology,25:211–30.(ReprintedinBloomfield,1970:173–90.)(1933).Language.NewYork:HenryHolt.(1970).ALeonardBloomfieldAnthology(ed.C.F.Hockett).Bloomington,INandLondon:IndianaUniversityPress.Bloor,D.(1976).KnowledgeandSocialImagery.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Boas,F.(1911).Introduction.InF.Boas(ed.),HandbookofAmericanIndianLanguages(BureauofAmericanEthnology,Bulletin40,Part1).Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice,pp.1–83.Bopp,F.(1816).UberdasKonjugationssystemderSanskritspracheinVergleichungmit¨jenemdergriechischen,lateinischen,persischenundgermanischenSprache(Surlesystemedeconjugaisondusanskrit,compar`e´aceluidugrec,dulatin,duperse`etdugermanique).FrankfurtamMain:K.J.Windischmann.Boudon,P.(1973).Recherchess´emiotiquessurlelieu.Semiotica,7(3):189–225.Bouissac,P.(1973).Lamesuredesgestes.TheHague:Mouton.(1976).CircusandCulture.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences277(1998).Semioticterminology.InP.Bouissac(ed.),EncyclopediaofSemiotics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.568–70.Bouquet,S.(1997).IntroductionalalecturedeSaussure.`Paris:Payot.(ed.)(2003).Saussure.Paris:Cahiersdel’Herne.Boyd,R.(1984).Thecurrentstatusofscientificrealism.InJ.Leplin(ed.),ScientificRealism.BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.41–82.Br´eal,M.(1879).Lasciencedulangage.RevuescientifiquedelaFranceetdel’etranger´,43(26April):1005–11.(1881).Qu’appelle-t-onpuret´edelalangue?(Firstpublishedin1881,andincludedasanappendixinBr´eal,1897.)(1889).Lar´eformedel’orthographefran¸caise.Revuedesdeuxmondes,59(3):592–616.(EnglishtranslationinBr´eal,1991:176–98.)(1897).Essaidesemantique:sciencedessignifications.´Paris:Hachette.(1900[1897]).Semantics:StudiesintheScienceofMeaning(trans.MrsHenry[Nina]Cust).London:WilliamHeinemann.(1991).TheBeginningsofSemantics:Essays,LecturesandReviews(ed.andtrans.G.Wolf).London:Duckworth.Broden,T.(2000).GreimasbetweenFranceandPeirce.TheAmericanJournalofSemiotics,15–16:1–4;27–89.Brøndal,V.(1943).Essaisdelinguistiquegen´erale´.Copenhagen:Munksgaard.Brugman,K.(1876a).NasalissonansinderindogermanischenGrundsprache.StudienzurgriechischenundlateinischenGrammatik(Curtius’Studien),9:285–338.(1876b).ZurGeschichtederstammabstufendenDeclinationen,ErsteAbhandlung:DieNominaauf-arund-tar.StudienzurgriechischenundlateinischenGrammatik(Curtius’Studien),9:361–406.Brunot,F.(1922).Lapenseeetlalangue.´Paris:Masson.Brown,G.S.(1969).LawsofForm.London:G.Allen&Unwin.Buchler,J.(ed.)(1940).ThePhilosophyofPeirce:SelectedWritings.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Burger,A.(1961).Significationsetvaleurdusuffixeverbalfran¸cais-e.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,18:5–15.Burks,A.(1949).Icon,index,symbol.PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch,9(4):673–89.Buyssens,E.(1943).Leslangagesetlediscours.Brussels:Officedelapublicit´e.Calvet,L.-J.(1995).RolandBarthes:aBiography(trans.S.Wykes).Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Canguilhem,G.(1968).Etudesd’histoireetdephilosophiedessciences.Paris:Vrin.(1969).Laconnaissancedelavie,2ndedn.Paris:Vrin.(1978).OntheNormalandthePathological.Dordrecht:D.Reidel.(1988).IdeologyandRationalityintheHistoryoftheLifeSciences(trans.A.Goldhammer).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Carnap,R.(1967).TheLogicalStructureoftheWorldandPseudoproblemsinPhi-losophy(trans.R.George).BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.(1959).MeaningandNecessity.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Cassirer,E.A.(1945).Structuralisminmodernlinguistics.Word,1:97–120.Cervoni,J.(1987).L’enonciation.´Paris:PUF.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n278ReferencesChao,Y.-R.(1934).Thenon-uniquenessofphonemicsolutionsofphoneticsystems.BulletinoftheInstituteofHistoryandPhilology,AcademiaSinica4,Part4:363–97.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:38–54.)Charle,C.(1990).Naissancedes‘intellectuels’(1880–1900).Paris:EditionsdeMinuit.Chervel,A.(1977).Histoiredelagrammairescolaire.Paris:Payot.Chiss,J.L.andPuech,C.(1997).Fondationsdelalinguistique,2ndedn.Louvain:Duculot.(1999).Lelangageetsesdisciplines.Louvain:Duculot.(2000).Structuralisme:structuralismelinguistique,structuralismeetphilosophie.InDictionnairedesgenresetnotionslitteraires(nouvelle´editionaugment´ee)´,EncyclopaediaUniversalis/AlbinMichel,pp.793–820.Choi,Y.-H.(2002).LeproblemedutempschezFerdinanddeSaussure`.Paris:L’Harmattan.Chomsky,N.(1957).SyntacticStructures.TheHague:Mouton.(1963).Formalpropertiesofgrammars.InR.D.Luce,R.R.BushandE.Galanter(eds.),HandbookofMathematicalPsychology,vol.2.NewYork,London:JohnWileyandSons,pp.323–418.(1964a).Currentissuesinlinguistictheory.InJ.A.FodorandJ.J.Katz(eds.),TheStructureofLanguage:ReadingsinthePhilosophyofLanguage.Engle-woodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall,pp.50–118.(Revisedandexpandedversionof1964b.)(1964b).Thelogicalbasisoflinguistictheory.InH.G.Lunt(ed.),ProceedingsoftheNinthInternationalCongressofLinguists,Cambridge,Mass.,August27–31,1962.TheHague:Mouton,pp.914–78.(AnearlierversionappearedinM.Halle(ed.),PreprintsofPapersfromtheNinthInternationalCongressofLinguists,pp.509–74.Cambridge,MA,1962.)(1966).CartesianLinguistics:aChapterintheHistoryofRationalistThought.NewYorkandLondon:Harper&Row.(1975).Questionsofformandinterpretation.LinguisticAnalysis,1:75–109.(1980).RulesandRepresentations.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.(1986).KnowledgeofLanguage:ItsNature,Origin,andUse.NewYork:Praeger.Christmann,H.H.(1974).SaussuresAnagrammstudien,RomanischeForschungen,86:229–38.Collins,H.(1985).ChangingOrder:ReplicationandInductioninScientificPractice.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Costello,J.R.(ed.)(1994).Papersinhonorofthe50thanniversaryoftheLinguisticCircleofNewYork–InternationalLinguisticAssociation.Word,45(1).Cowan,J.M.(1987).ThewhimsicalBloomfield.InR.A.HallJr(ed.),LeonardBloomfield:EssaysonhisLifeandWork.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,pp.23–37.Culioli,A.(1983).Th´eoriedulangageetth´eoriedeslangues.InEmileBenvenisteaujourd’hui,Biblioth`equedel’InformationGrammaticale.Culler,J.(1975).StructuralistPoetics:Structuralism,LinguisticsandtheStudyofLiterature.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.(1976).Saussure.Hassocks:HarvesterPress.(1977).FerdinanddeSaussure.NewYork:Penguin.(1983).RolandBarthes.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.(1986).FerdinanddeSaussure,2ndedn.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences279Damourette,J.andPichon,E.(1930–50).Desmotsalapens`ee:essaidegrammairede´lalanguefranc¸aise.Paris:D’Artrey.Darmesteter,A.(1886)Laviedesmots.Paris:Delagrave.Davidson,D.(1984).InquiriesintoTruthandInterpretation.Oxford:ClarendonPress,pp.183–98.Deacon,T.W.(1997).TheSymbolicSpecies:theCo-evolutionofLanguageandtheBrain.NewYork:Norton.D´ecimo,M.(1994).Saussure`aParis.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,48:75–90.Deely,J.(2001).FourAgesofUnderstanding.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.D´eguy,M.(1969).LafoliedeSaussure,Critique25:20–6.Deledalle,G.(1971).LePragmatisme.Paris:Bordas.(1974).Qu’est-ce-qu’unsigne?Semiotica10:383–7.(1976).PeirceouSaussure.Semiosis1:7–13.Delesalle,S.(1986).IntroductiontoL’histoiredesth´eoriesdel’´enonciation,Histoire,Epistemologie,Langage´,8(2):7–22.Derrida,J.(1967a).Delagrammatologie.Paris:Minuit.(1967b).Lavoixetlephenomene`.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.(1967c).L’ecritureetladiff´erence´.Paris:Seuil.(1972a).Positions.Paris:Minuit.(1972b).Marges–delaphilosophie.Paris:Minuit.(1972c).Ladissemination´.Paris:Seuil.(1974).Glas.Paris:Galil´ee.(Englishtrans.byJohnP.LeaveyandRichardRand,Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1978.)(1982).Whitemythology:metaphorinthetextofphilosophy.InJ.Derrida,MarginsofPhilosophy(trans.A.Bass).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,pp.207–71.(1990).Leproblemedelagen`esedanslaph`enom´enologiedeHusserl´.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.(1993).SpectresdeMarx.Paris:Galil´ee.Desmet,P.(1994a).VictorHenryetlaphilosophiedulangage.InJ.DeClerqandP.Desmet(eds.),Florilegiumhistoriographiaelinguisticae.Louvain:Peeters,pp.361–400.(1994b).LalinguistiquenaturalisteenFrance(1867–1922).Louvain:Peeters.DesmetP.andSwiggersP.(1995).Delagrammairecompar´ee`alas´emantique:textesdeM.Br´ealpubli´esentre1864et1898.OrbisSupplementa,4.Louvain:Peeters.Devitt,M.(1986).RealismandTruth,2ndedn.Oxford:Blackwell.Devitt,M.andSterelny,K.(1987).LanguageandReality:anIntroductiontothePhilosophyofLanguage.Oxford:Blackwell.Dosse,F.(1997[1993]).HistoryofStructuralism,2vols.(trans.D.Glassman).Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Ducrot,O.(1968).Lestructuralismeenlinguistique.Paris:Seuil.Eco,U.(1985).Producingsigns.InM.Blonsky(ed.),OnSigns:aSemioticReader.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.176–84.Egger,V.(1904[1881]).Laparoleinterieure:essaidepsychologiedescriptive.´Paris:Alcan.Eikhenbaum,B.(1978).TheoryoftheFormalMethod.InL.MatejkaandK.Pomorska(eds.),ReadingsinRussianPoetics:FormalistandStructuralistViews.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,pp.3–38.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n280ReferencesEinhauser,E.(1989).DieJunggrammatiker:einProblemfurdieSprachwissenschaft-¨geschichtsschreibung.Trier:WissenschaftlicherVerlagTrier.Elliott,G.(1987).Althusser:theDetourofTheory.London:Verso.Emerson,C.andMorson,G.S.(1990).MikhailBakhtin:theCreationofaProsaics.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.Engler,R.(1959).CLGundSM:einekritischeAusgabedesCoursdelinguistiqueg´en´erale.Kratylos,4(2):119–32.(1962).Th´eorieetcritiqued’unprincipesaussurien:l’arbitrairedusigne.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,19:5–66.(Diss.Berne1963.)(1968a).Lexiquedelaterminologiesaussurienne.UtrechtandAntwerp:Spectrum.(1968b).SaussureelascuoladiGinevra.Ulisse(Florence:Sansoni),9(63):158–64.(1974).Lalin´earit´edusignifiant.InR.Godel,Studisaussuriani.Bologna:Mulino,pp.111–20.(1974/75).S´emiologiessaussuriennes,1:Del’existencedusigne(Aproposd’ArcoSilvioAvallesurSaussurelinguisteetmythographe).CahiersFerdinanddeSaus-sure,29:45–73.(1987a).CharlesBally,KritikerSaussures?CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,41:55–63.(1987b).DieVerfasserdesCLG.InP.Schmitter(ed.),ZurTheorieundMethodederGeschichtsschreibungderLinguistik:AnalysenundReflexionen(GeschichtederSprachtheorie,1).T¨ubingen:Narr,pp.141–61.(1997).FerdinanddeSaussure(1857–1913).InLeslinguistiquessuissesetlavari-ationlinguistique(Actesd’uncolloqueorganis´e`al’occasionducentenaireduS´eminairedeslanguesromanesdel’Universit´edeZurich,BerneundT¨ubingen).RomanicaHelvetica,116:21–29.(2000a).Lalangue,pierred’achoppement.Modeleslinguistiques`,21(1):9–18.(2000b).StalderundSaussure.InK.Stalder,SpracheundErkenntnisderWirklichkeitGottes,TextezueinigenwissenschaftstheoretischenundsystematischenVorausset-zungenfurdieexegetischeundhomiletischeArbeit¨(ed.U.vonArxwithK.SchoriandR.Engler).OkumenischeBeihefte¨,38:122–47.(2001).EntreBally,Spitzer,...Saussure.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,54:61–81.(2002).DieZeichentheorieF.deSaussuresunddieSemantikim20.Jahrhundert.HSKGeschichtederSprachwissenschaft249.Berlin:DeGruyter.Epstein,M.(1995).AftertheFuture:theParadoxesofPostmodernismandContempo-raryRussianCulture.Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.Falk,J.S.(1992).OttoJespersen,LeonardBloomfield,andAmericanstructurallinguis-tics.Language,68:465–91.(1995).RomanJakobsonandthehistoryofSaussureanconceptsinNorthAmericanlinguistics.HistoriographiaLinguistica,22:335–67.Fehr,J.(2000).Saussureentrelinguistiqueetsemiologie´,Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.Field,H.(1973).Theorychangeandtheindeterminacyofreference.Philosophy,70:462–81.(1974).Quineandthecorrespondencetheory.PhilosophicalReview,83:200–28.(1975).Conventionalismandinstrumentalisminsemantics.Nous,9:375–405.Firth,J.R.(1935).Thetechniqueofsemantics.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,pp.36–72.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences281(1948).Soundsandprosodies.InFirth,J.R.(1957)PapersinLinguistics1934–51.London:OxfordUniversityPress(repr.fromTransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,1948).(1951).ModesofMeaning:PapersinLinguistics1934–1951.London:OxfordUniversityPress.(1968).EthnographicanalysisandlanguagewithreferencetoMalinowski’sviews[1957].InF.R.Palmer(ed.),SelectedPapersofJ.R.Firth1952–1959.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.137–67.Florenskii,P.(1990).Stolpiutverzhdenieistiny.Moscow:Pravda.Foucault,M.(1970).TheOrderofThings(trans.A.Sheridan-Smith).London:Tavistock.(1972).TheArchaeologyofKnowledge(trans.A.Sheridan-Smith).London:Tavistock.(1977a).Language,Counter-Memory,Practice(ed.D.F.Bouchard).Oxford:Blackwell.(1977b).DisciplineandPunish(trans.A.Sheridan).London:AllenLane.Frege,G.(1952).Onsenseandreference.InP.GeachandM.Black(eds.),Trans-lationsfromthePhilosophicalWritingsofGottlobFrege.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.56–78.Frei,H.(1947).Lalinguistiquesaussurienne`aGen`evedepuis1939.Word,3:107–9.Fromkin,V.A.(ed.)(2000).Linguistics:anIntroductiontoLinguisticTheory.Malden,MA,andOxford:BlackwellPublishers.Fr´yba-Reber,A.-M.(1994).AlbertSechehayeetlasyntaxeimaginative:contributional’histoiredelalinguistiquesaussurienne`(PublicationsduCercleFerdinanddeSaussure,III;avecbibliographiechronologiquedespublicationsd’A.S.183–8).Geneva:Droz.Gadet,F.(1989).SaussureandContemporaryCulture(trans.G.Elliott).London:HutchinsonRadius.(OriginallypublishedinFrench,1986.)Gallop,J.(1985).ReadingLacan.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.Gandon,F.(2001).LedernierSaussure:doublearticulation,anagrammes,brahmanisme.Semiotica,133(1–4):69–78.Gardiner,A.H.(1932).TheTheoryofSpeechandLanguage.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Gautier,L.(1916).CompterenduduCLG.GazettedeLausanneetjournalSuisse,13Aug.Gilli´eronJ.andEdmont,E.(1902–9).AtlaslinguistiquedelaFrance.Paris:H.Champion.Gleason,H.A.Jr(1961).AnIntroductiontoDescriptiveLinguistics,rev.edn.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.(1stedn,1955.)Gm¨ur,R.(1986).DasSchicksalvonF.deSaussures‘Memoire’:eineRezeptions-´geschichte.Bern:Institutf¨urSprachwissenschaftderUniversit¨at.(1990).Saussures‘M´emoire’-Prinzipieninseinensp¨aterenindogermanistischenArbeiten.InR.AmackerandR.Engler(eds.),PresencedeSaussure:Actesdu´ColloqueinternationaldeGeneve`(21–23mars1988)(PublicationsduCercleFerdinanddeSaussure,1).Geneva:Droz,pp.39–51.Godel,R.(1957).LessourcesmanuscritesduCoursdelinguistiquegen´eraledeF.de´Saussure(Soci´et´edepublicationsromanesetfran¸caises,61).Geneva:Droz,Paris:Minard.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n282References(1958/9).Nouveauxdocumentssaussuriens:lescahiersE.Constantin.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,16:23,32.(1966).F.deSaussure’stheoryoflanguage.InT.A.Sebeok(ed.),CurrentTrendsinLinguistics,vol.III:TheoreticalFoundations.TheHagueandParis:Mouton,pp.479–93.(ed.)(1969a)[1957].LessourcesmanuscritesduCoursdelinguistiquegen´eralede´F.deSaussure.Geneva:LibrairieDroz.(ed.)(1969b).AGenevaSchoolReaderinLinguistics.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Gordon,W.T.(1979).LesRapportsassociatifs.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,33:31–40.(1989).Languagephilosophyandlinguisticsininter-bellumBritain.HistoriographiaLinguistica,16(3/4):361–77.(1992).ReviewofDavidHoldcroft,Saussure:Signs,SystemandArbitrariness.HistoriographiaLinguistica,19(2/3):369–73.(1994a).BridgingSaussureanstructuralismandBritishlinguisticthought.Histori-ographiaLinguistica,21(1/2):123–36.(1994b).68ansdeg´eom´etries´emantique.InCath´erinePhliponneau(ed.),Sociolin-guistiqueetamenagementdeslangues´.Moncton,NB:Centrederechercheenlinguistiqueappliqu´eedel’Universit´edeMoncton,pp.333–47.(1996).SaussureforBeginners.LondonandNewYork:Writers&ReadersPublishing.(1997).Saussureasterminologist.InLiseLapierre,Ir`eneOoreandHansR.Runte(eds.),Melangesdelinguistiqueofferts´aRostislavKocourek.`Halifax:LesPressesd’ALFA,pp.263–9.(1999a).ReviewofPaulThibault,Re-readingSaussure:theDynamicsofSignsinSocialLife.HistoriographiaLinguistica,26(1/2),209–14.(1999b).FerdinanddeSaussure:theanagramsandtheCours(withHenryGiliusSchogt).InSheilaEmbleton,JohnE.JosephandHans-JosefNiederehe(eds.),TheEmergenceoftheModernLanguageSciences:StudiesinHonourofE.F.K.Koerner.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,pp.139–50.Graffi,G.(1988).LuoghicomunisuHermannPaulelascuolaneogrammatica.LinguaeStile,23:211–34.Granger,G.-G.(1968).Essaid’unephilosophiedustyle.Paris:A.Colin.Gray,L.H.(1939).FoundationsofLanguage.NewYork:Macmillan.Greimas,A.J.(1956).L’actualit´edusaussurisme(`al’occasiondu40eanniversairedelapublicationduCoursdelinguistiqueg´en´erale).LeFranc¸aisModerne,24(3):191–203.(1963).Ladescriptiondelasignificationetlamythologiecompar´ee.L’Homme,Sept.–Dec.:51–66.(1966a).Pr´eface`alatraductionfran¸caise.InL.Hjelmslev,LeLangage.Paris:Minuit,pp.7–21.(1966b).El´ementspouruneth´eoriedel’interpr´etationdur´ecitmythique.Communi-cation,8:28–59.(1966c).Semantiquestructurale´.Paris:Larousse.(1970).Dusens:Essaissemiotiques´.Paris:Seuil.(1986).Conversation.Versus,43:42.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences283Greimas,A.J.andRastier,F.(1968).Theinteractionofsemioticconstraints.YaleFrenchReview,41:86–105.Grosz,E.(1990).Conclusion:anoteonessentialismanddifference.InS.Gunew(ed.),FeministKnowledge:CritiqueandConstruct.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,pp.332–45.Grzybek,P.(1998).Moskow-TartuSchool.InP.Bouissac(ed.),EncyclopediaofSemi-otics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.422–5.Gu´erard,A.L.(1922).AShortHistoryoftheInternationalLanguageMovement.London:T.FisherUnwin.Guillaume,G.(1919).Leproblemedel’articleetsasolutiondanslalanguefranc`¸aise.Paris:Hachette.(1929).Tempsetverbe:theoriedesaspects,desmodesetdestemps.´Paris:Champion.(1964).Langageetsciencedulangage.Qu´ebec:Pressesdel’Universit´edeLaval.Gutting,G.(1989).MichelFoucault’sArchaeologyofScientificReason.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Guy,G.R.(1988).Languageandsocialclass.InF.J.Newmeyer(ed.),Linguistics:theCambridgeSurvey,vol.IV.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.37–63.Hale,N.G.(1995).TheRiseandCrisisofPsychoanalysisintheUnitedStates:FreudandtheAmericans,1917–1985.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Hall,R.A.Jr(1951–2).Americanlinguistics,1925–1950.ArchivumLinguisticum,3(1951):101–25,4(1952):1–16.(1990).ALifeforLanguage:aBiographicalMemoirofLeonardBloomfield.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins.Harari,J.V.(ed.)(1980).TextualStrategies:PerspectivesinPost-StructuralistCriticism.London:Methuen.Harding,SandraG.(1976).CanTheoriesBeRefuted?EssaysontheDuhem–QuineThesis.DordrechtandBoston:Reidel.Harland,R.(1987).Superstructuralism:thePhilosophyofStructuralismandPost-Structuralism.London:Methuen.Harman,G.(1965).Inferencetothebestexplanation.PhilosophicalReview,74:88–95.Harris,R.(1987).ReadingSaussure:aCriticalCommentaryontheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´.London:GeraldDuckworth.(1988a).LinguisticThoughtinEngland1914–1945.London,Duckworth.(1988b).Language,SaussureandWittgenstein:HowtoPlayGameswithWords.London:Routledge.(2000).SaussureforallSeasons.Semiotica,131(3–4):273–87.(2001).SaussureandhisInterpreters.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Harris,Z.S.(1940).ReviewofL.H.Gray,FoundationsofLanguage,NewYork:Mac-millan,1939.Language,16:216–23.(1941).ReviewofN.S.Trubetzkoy,GrundzugederPhonologie¨(TravauxduCercleLinguistiquedePrague,7),Prague,1939.Language,17:345–9.(1942).Morphemealternantsinlinguisticanalysis.Language,18:169–80.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:109–15.)(1946).Frommorphemetoutterance.Language,22:161–83.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:142–53.)(1951).MethodsinStructuralLinguistics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n284ReferencesHaugen,E.(1951).Directionsinmodernlinguistics.Language,27:211–22.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:357–63.)Hellmann,W.(1988).CharlesBally:Fruhwerk-Rezeption-Bibliographie¨(Abhand-lungenzurSpracheundLiteratur,8).Bonn:RomanistischerVerlag.Henry,V.(1896).Antimonieslinguistiques.Paris:F´elixAlcan.(1901).Lelangagemartien:etudeanalytiquedelagen´esed’unelanguedansuncas`deglossolaliesomnambulique.Paris:Maisonneuve.(2001[1896]).Antinomieslinguistique.AvecLelangagemartien.Louvain:Peeters,Coll.L’informationGrammaticale,prefacebyJ.L.ChissandC.Puech.Herdan,G.(1956).Oncommunicationbetweenlinguists.Linguistics,9:71–6.Herdan,G.(1964).LanguageasChoiceandChance.Groningen:Nordhoff.Hewson,J.(1976).LangueandparolesinceSaussure.HistoriographiaLinguistica,3(3):315–48.Hill,A.A.(1955).LinguisticssinceBloomfield.QuarterlyJournalofSpeech,41:253–60.(1964).HistoryoftheLinguisticInstitute.ACLSNewsletter15(3):1–12.Hjelmslev,L.(1953).ProlegomenatoaTheoryofLanguage(trans.F.J.Whitfield).Baltimore,MD:WaverlyPress.(1959).Pourunes´emantiquestructurale.InEssaislinguistiques.TravauxducerclelinguistiquedeCopenhague,12,pp.96–112.(1963[1943]).ProlegomenatoaTheoryofLanguage(trans.J.Whitfield).Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.(1966[1963]).Lelangage(trans.M.Olsen).Paris:Minuit.(1968[1943]).Prolegom´enes`auneth`eoriedulangage´.Paris:Minuit.(1968).Lastructurefondamentaledulangage.InProlegom´enes`auneth`eoriedu´langage.Paris:Minuit,pp.175–227.Hockett,C.F.(1942).Asystemofdescriptivephonology.Language,18:3–21.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:97–107.)(1947).Problemsofmorphemicanalysis.Language,23:321–43.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:229–42.)(1948).Anoteon‘structure’.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics,14:269–71.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:279–80.)(1982).Thechangingintellectualcontextoflinguistictheory.InJ.Morre-all(ed.),TheNinthLACUSForum1982.Columbia,SC:HornbeamPress,pp.9–42.(1987).RefurbishingOurFoundations:ElementaryLinguisticsfromanAdvancedPointofView.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins.(1989).LeonardBloomfield:afterfiftyyears.YaleGraduateJournalofAnthropology,2:1–11.Hoenigswald,H.(1978).Theannusmirabilis1876andposterity.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,pp.17–35.(ed.)(1979).TheEuropeanBackgroundofAmericanLinguistics:PapersoftheThirdGoldenAnniversarySymposiumoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica.Dordrecht:Foris.Holdcroft,D.(1991).Saussure:Signs,SystemandArbitrariness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Horney,K.(1967).FemininePsychology.NewYork:W.W.Norton.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences285Horwich,P.(ed.)(1993).TheWorldChanges:ThomasKuhnandtheNatureofScience.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Householder,F.W.Jr(1952).ReviewofZ.S.Harris,MethodsinStructuralLinguistics,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1951.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics,18:260–8.Hovelacque,A.(1876).Lalinguistique.Paris:Reinwald.H¨ubschmann,H.(1875).UberdieStellungdesarmenischenimKreisederindogerman-¨ischenSprachen,ZeitschriftfurvergleichendeSprachforschung¨,23:5–49.(1885).DasindogermanischeVocalsystem.Strassburg:Tr¨ubner.Hughes,H.S.(1959).ConsciousnessandSociety.London:MacGibbon&Kee.(1975).TheSeaChange:theMigrationofSocialThought,1930–1965.NewYork:Harper&Row.Huot,H.(ed.)(1991).Lagrammairefranc¸aiseentrecomparatismeetstructuralisme:1870–1960.Paris:ArmandColin.Husserl,E.(1963).L’originedelageom´etrie´(trans.J.Derrida).Paris:PUF.Hymes,D.(1983).Traditionsandparadigms.InEssaysintheHistoryofLinguisticAnthropology.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,pp.345–83.Hymes,D.andFought,J.(1975).AmericanStructuralism.InThomasA.Sebeok(ed.),CurrentTrendsinLinguistics,vol.13.TheHague:Mouton,pp.903–1176.(1981).AmericanStructuralism.TheHague:Mouton.(MainbodyoftextoriginallypublishedinCurrentTrendsinLinguistics,vol.13,part2,1975.)Jakobson,R.(1928).Ohl´askoslovn´emz´akonuateleologick´emhl´askoslov´ı.Casopisproˇmodern´ıfilologii,14:183–4.(PublishedinEnglishtranslation,‘Theconceptofthesoundlawandtheteleologicalcriterion’,Jakobson,1962:1–2.)(1932).‘Fon´ema’&‘Fonologie’.Ottuvslovniknaucnˇy´,Supplement2(608):611–12.(PublishedinEnglishtranslation,‘Phonemeandphonology’,Jakobson,1962:231–3.)(1933).LascuolalinguisticadiPraga.LaCultura,12:633–41.(ReprintedinJakobson,1971a:539–46.)(1939).Signez´ero.InMelangesdelinguistiqueofferts´aCharlesBally`.Geneva:Librairiedel’Universit´e,143–52.(ReprintedinJakobson,1971a:211–19.)(1944).FranzBoas’approachtolanguage.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics,10:188–95.(ReprintedinJakobson,1971a:477–88.)(1960).Linguisticsandpoetics.InT.A.Sebeok(ed.),StyleinLanguage.NewYork:Wiley,pp.350–77.(1962).SelectedWritings,vol.I:PhonologicalStudies.TheHague:Mouton.(1963).Effortstowardameans-endsmodeloflanguageininterwarcontinentallin-guistics.InC.Mohrmann,F.NormanandA.Sommerfelt(eds.),TrendsinModernLinguistics.UtrechtandAntwerp:Spectrum,pp.104–8.(ReprintedinJakobson,1971a:522–6.)(1963–70).Essaisdelinguistiquegen´erale´,vols.1and2.Paris:Minuit.(1966).Alarecherchedel’essencedulangage.InR.Jakobson,Problemesdulangage`.CollectionDiog`ene.Paris:Gallimard,pp.22–38.(1971a).SelectedWritings,vol.II:WordandLanguage.TheHague:Mouton.(1971b).TheworldresponsetoWhitney’sprinciplesoflinguisticscience.InM.Silverstein(ed.),WhitneyonLanguage:SelectedWritingsofWilliamDwightWhitney.Cambridge,MA,andLondon:MITPress,pp.xxv–xlv.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n286References(1978).SixLecturesonSoundandMeaning(trans.J.Mepham).Hassocks:HarvesterPress.(Lecturesgivenin1942andfirstpublishedasSixlec¸onssurlesonetlesens,Paris:Minuit,1976.)(1980[1959]).Signandsystemoflanguage:areassessmentofSaussure’sdoctrine.PoeticsToday,2(1a):33–8.(1980).TheFrameworkofLanguage.UniversityofMichigan:MichiganStudiesintheHumanities.(1990).OnLanguage(ed.L.R.WaughandM.Monville-Burston).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.James,T.(1995).Dream,CreativityandMadnessinNineteenth-CenturyFrance.Oxford:Clarendon.Jameson,F.(1972).ThePrison-HouseofLanguage:aCriticalAccountofStructuralism.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Jankowsky,K.R.(1972).TheNeogrammarians.TheHague:Mouton.Joos,M.(ed.)(1958).ReadingsinLinguistics:theDevelopmentofDescriptiveLin-guisticsinAmericasince1925,2ndedn.NewYork:AmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties.Joos,M.(1966[1957]).ReadingsinLinguistics,vol.1.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.Joseph,J.E.(1988).Saussure’smeetingwithWhitney,Berlin,1879.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,42:205–14.(1989a).Bloomfield’sSaussureanism.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,43:43–53.(1989b).ThegenesisofJakobson’sSixLecturesonSoundandMeaning.Histori-ographiaLinguistica,16:415–20.(1990).IdeologizingSaussure:Bloomfield’sandChomsky’sreadingsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´.InJ.E.JosephandT.J.Taylor(eds.),IdeologiesofLanguage.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,pp.51–78.(1995).Saussureantraditioninlinguistics.InE.F.K.KoernerandR.E.Asher(eds.),ConciseHistoryoftheLanguageSciences.Oxford:Pergamon/ElsevierScience,pp.233–9.(2000a).TheunconsciousandthesocialinSaussure.HistoriographiaLinguistica,27,307–34.(2000b).Languageand‘psychologicalrace’:L´eopolddeSaussureonFrenchinIndochina.LanguageandCommunication,20:29–53.(2001).Theexportationofstructuralistideasfromlinguisticstootherfields.InS.Auroux,E.F.K.Koerner,H-J.NiedereheandK.Versteegh(eds.),HistoryoftheLanguageSciences:anInternationalHandbookontheEvolutionoftheStudyofLanguagefromtheBeginningstothePresent.BerlinandNewYork:WalterdeGruyter,pp.1880–1908.(2003).Pictet’sDuBeau(1856)andthecrystallisationofSaussureanlinguistics.HistoriographiaLinguistica,30:365–88.Joseph,J.E.,Love,N.andTaylor,T.J.(2001).LandmarksinLinguisticThought,vol.II:TheWesternTraditionintheTwentiethCentury.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Katz,J.J.,andPostal,P.M.(1964).AnIntegratedTheoryofLinguisticDescriptions.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Koerner,E.F.K.(1972).BibliographiaSaussureana1870–1970.Metuchen,NJ:Scare-crowPress.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences287(1973).FerdinanddeSaussure:OriginandDevelopmentofhisLinguisticThoughtinWesternStudiesofLanguage.Braunschweig:Vieweg&Sohn.(1988).SaussureanStudies/Etudessaussuriennes.Geneva:Slatkine.(1989).LeonardBloomfieldandtheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´.InPracticingLinguisticHistoriography:SelectedEssays.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,pp.435–43.(1994).Chomsky’sreadingsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´.Linguaestile,29:267–84.(1995).Chomsky’sreadingsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegen´erale´.InProfess-ingLinguisticHistoriography.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,pp.96–114.Kravis,J.(1976).TheProseofMallarme´.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Krist´eva,J.(1969a).Semeiˆotikˆerecherchespourunesˆemanalyse´.Paris:Seuil.(1969b).L’engendrementdelaformule.TelQuel,37:34–73,38:55–81.(1981).DesireinLanguage:aSemioticApproachtoLiteratureandArt(ed.L.S.Roudiez).Oxford:Blackwell.Kronenfeld,D.(1996).PlasticGlassesandChurchFathers:SemanticExtensionfromtheEthnoscienceTradition.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Kuhn,ThomasS.(1970).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,2ndedn.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Kuryl
owicz,J.(1927).əindo-europ´eenethhittite.InSymbolaegrammaticaeinhonoremvIohannisRozwadowskiI.Cracow:Gebethner&Wolff,pp.95–104.(1978).LectureduM´emoireen1978:uncommentaire.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,32:6–26.Kurzweil,E.(1989).TheFreudians:aComparativePerspective.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Labov,W.(1972).SociolinguisticPatterns.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Lacan,J.(1957).L’instancedelalettredansl’inconscientoularaisondepuisFreud.Lapsychanalyse,3:47–81.(1966).Ecrits1,Paris.(1977[1966]).Ecrits:aSelection(trans.A.Sheridan-Smith).NewYork:Norton.Lafrance,G.(ed.)(1987).GastonBachelard.Ottawa:UniversityofOttawaPress.Lamb,S.M.(1965).Kinshipterminologyandlinguisticstructure.AmericanAnthropol-ogist,67(5),part2:37–64.(1966).OutlineofStratificationalGrammar.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.Lecourt,D.(1975).MarxismandEpistemology:Bachelard,Canguilhem,Foucault.London:NewLeftBooks.Lee,A.andPoynton,C.(eds.)(2000).CultureandText:DiscourseandMethodologyinSocialResearchandCulturalStudies.Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield.Leibniz,G.W.(1987).Discourssurlatheologienaturelledeschinois´(trans.C.Fr´emont).Paris:L’Herne.Leskien,A.(1876).DieDeclinationimSlawisch-LitauischenundGermanischen.Leipzig:Hirzel.Levin,S.R.(1965).LangueandparoleinAmericanlinguistics.FoundationsofLanguage,1:83–94.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n288ReferencesL´evi-Strauss,C.(1945).L’analysestructuraleenlinguistiqueetenanthropologie.Word,JournaloftheLinguisticCircleofNewYork,1(1):1–21.(1960).L’analysemorphologiquedescontesrusses.Cahiersdel’Institutdescienceeconomiqueappliqu´ee´,9(seriesM,7):3–36.(1963[1958]).StructuralAnthropology(trans.C.JacobsonandB.GrundfestSchoepf).NewYork:BasicBooks.(1973)Anthropologiestructurale,vol.2.Paris:Plon.(1985[1983]).TheViewfromAfar(trans.J.NeugroschelandP.Hoss).NewYork:BasicBooks.Linda,M.(1995).ZurVerstellungFerdinanddeSaussuresim‘Coursdelinguistiqueg´en´erale’:einBeitragzurRekonstruktionsgeschichtederGenesedesCLG.MAthesis,UniversityofEssen.(2001).ElementeeinerSemiologiedesHorensundSprechens:zumkommunikations-¨theoretischenAnsatzFerdinanddeSaussures(T¨ubingerBeitr¨agezurLinguistik,456).T¨ubingen:Narr.Lipton,P.(1993).InferencetotheBestExplanation.London:Routledge.Lodge,D.(1977).TheModesofModernWriting:Metaphor,MetonymyandtheTypologyofModernLiterature.London:EdwardArnold.Lossky,V.(1985).IntheImageandLikenessofGod.Crestwood,NY:StVladimir’sSeminaryPress.Lotman,Y.(1990).UniverseoftheMind:aSemioticTheoryofCulture.BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.Lough,J.(1978).AnIntroductiontoNineteenthCenturyFrance.London:Longman.Lounsbury,F.G.(1953).Themethodofdescriptivemorphology.OneidaVerbMorphol-ogy.(YaleUniversityPublicationsinAnthropology,48.)(ReprintedinJoos,1958:379–85.)(1956).AsemanticanalysisofthePawneekinshipusage.Language,32:158–94.(1964).Thestructuralanalysisofkinshipsemantics.InH.G.Lunt(ed.),ProceedingsoftheNinthInternationalCongressofLinguists,Cambridge,Mass.,August27–31,1962.TheHague:Mouton,pp.1073–90.Luhmann,N.(1999).Signasform.InD.Baecker(ed.),ProblemsofForms.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,pp.46–63.Lunt,H.G.(ed.)(1964).ProceedingsoftheNinthInternationalCongressofLinguists,Cambridge,Mass.,August27–31,1962.TheHague:Mouton.Mallarm´e,S.(1945).Œuvrescompletes`(ed.H.MondorandG.Jean-Aubry).Paris:Gallimard.Malmberg,B.(1977).Signesetsymboles.Paris:Picard.Manczak,W.(1969).Lestermes‘langue’et‘parole’d´esignent-ilsquelquechoseder´eel?Linguistics,55:48–55.Manetti,G.(1993).TheoriesoftheSigninClassicalAntiquity(trans.C.Richardson).Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Martinet,A.(1949).Ladoublearticulationlinguistique.TravauxduCercleLinguistiquedeCopenhague,5:30–37.(1955).Economiedeschangementsphonetiques:trait´edephonologiediachronique.´Berne:Francke.(1960).Elementsdelinguistiqueg´en´erale.´Paris:A.Colin.(1965).Lalinguistiquesynchronique.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences289(1967[1960]).ElementsofGeneralLinguistics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Martinet,J.(1993).Biographied’Andr´eMartinet.InA.Martinet,Memoiresd’un´linguiste:vivreleslangues.Paris:QuaiVoltaire,pp.359–64.Marty,A.(1908).UntersuchungenzurGrundlegungderallgemeinenGrammatikundSprachphilosophie.Halle:Niemeyer.Mayrhofer,M.(1981).NachhundertJahren.FerdinanddeSaussuresFruhwerkund¨seineRezeptiondurchdieheutigeIndogermanistik(withacontributionbyR.Zwanziger;Sitzber.d.HeidelbergerAkademiederWissenschaften.Phil.-hist.Kl.Jhg.1981,Bericht8).Heidelberg:Winter.(1983).SanskritunddieSprachenAlteuropas:zweiJahrhundertedesWiderspielsvonEntdeckungenundIrrtumern¨(NachrichtenderAkademiederWissenschaftlerinG¨ottingen.1.Phil.-hist.Klasse.1983Nr.5).Mehlman,J.(ed.)(1972).‘Thefloatingsignifier’:fromL´evi-StrausstoLacan.YaleFrenchStudies,no.48.(2000).EmigreNewYork:FrenchIntellectualsinWartimeManhattan,1940–1944.´Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Meillet,A.(1913).BulletindelaSociet´elinguistiquedeParis18´,1912/13,CLXXIV.(1916).Lalinguistique.InLasciencefranc¸aise.Paris:Larousse.(1921–36).Linguistiquehistoriqueetlinguistiquegen´erale.´Paris:Champion-Klincksieck.(1938).Linguistiquehistoriqueetlinguistiquegen´erale´,vol.II.Paris:Klincksieck.(1965).Linguistiquehistoriqueetlinguistiquegen´erale´,Paris:H.Champion.Merleau-Ponty,M.(1945).Phenom´enologiedelaperception´.Paris:Gallimard.(1963[1942]).TheStructureofBehavior(trans.A.L.Fisher).Boston:BeaconPress.(1964[1960]).Signs(trans.R.McCleary).Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress.Meschonnic,H.(1995).SeulcommeBenvenisteoucommentlacritiquemanquedestyle.Langages,118:31–55.Metz,C.(1968).Essaissurlasignificationaucinema´,vol.1.Paris:Klincksieck.(1971).Langageetcinema´.Paris:Larousse.(1972).Essaissurlasignificationaucinema´,vol.2.Paris:Klincksieck.Meyendorff,J.(1983).ByzantineTheology:HistoricalTrendsandDoctrinalThemes.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.Moeller,K.D.andWulff,H.J.(1985).Zeichen,FunctionundKontext.ZurTerminologiederSemiotik,I:3.M¨unster:Papmaks.Moles,A.(1968[1958])InformationTheoryandEstheticPerception.Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress.MorpurgoDavies,A.(1978).Analogy,segmentationandtheearlyneogrammarians.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,pp.36–60.(1994).EarlyandlateIndo-EuropeanfromBopptoBrugmann.InG.R.Dunkeletal.(eds.),Fruh-,Mittel-,Sp¨atindogermanisch¨.Wiesbaden:Reichert,pp.245–65.(1998).Nineteenthcenturylinguistics.InG.Lepschy(ed.),HistoryofLinguistics,vol.4.London:Longman.Morris,C.(1938).FoundationsoftheTheoryofSigns.InternationalEncyclopediaofUnifiedScience,vol.1:2.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.(1946).Signs,LanguageandBehavior.NewYork:Prentice-Hall.(1955).Signs,Language,andBehavior.NewYork:GeorgeBraziller.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n290ReferencesMounin,G.(1968).FerdinanddeSaussureoulestructuralistesanslesavoir.Paris:Seghers.(1970).Introductionalas`emiologie´.Paris:Minuit.Murray,S.O.(1994).TheoryGroupsandtheStudyofLanguageinNorthAmerica:aSocialHistory.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins.Napoli,D.J.(1996).Linguistics:anIntroduction.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Nava,G.(1968).LettresdeFerdinanddeSaussure`aGiovanniPascoli.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,24:73–81.Naville,A.(1901).Nouvelleclassificationdessciences,etudephilosophique´,2ndedn.Paris:Alcan.Nerlich,B.(1986).Lapragmatique:traditionourevolutiondanslalinguistique´franc¸aise.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.Newmeyer,F.J.(1980).LinguisticTheoryinAmerica:theFirstQuarter-CenturyofTransformationalGenerativeGrammar.NewYorkandLondon:AcademicPress.(ed.)(1988).Linguistics:theCambridgeSurvey,4vols.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Nida,E.A.(1948).Theidentificationofmorphemes.Language,24:414–41.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:255–71.)Nisard,C.(1872).Etudesurlelangagepopulaire.Paris:Franck.Normand,C.(ed.)(1970).L’arbitrairedusignecommed´eplacement,Dialectiques,1.(ed.)(1978a).AvantSaussure:choixdetextes.Brussels:EditionsComplexe.(ed.)(1978b).Saussureetlalinguistiquepr´e-saussurienne.Langages,49:66–90.(1985).Lesujetentrelangueetparole,Langages,77:33–42.(1989).Constitutiondelas´emiologiechezBenveniste.Histoire,Epistemologie,Lan-´gage,11(2):141–69.(2000).Laquestiond’unescienceg´en´erale;Lesth`emesdelalinguistiqueg´en´erale;Lag´en´eralit´edesprincipes.InS.Auroux(ed.),Histoiredesideeslinguistiques,´vol3.Brussels:Mardaga,pp.441–71.Norris,C.(1994).TruthandtheEthicsofCriticism.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.(1996).ReclaimingTruth:ContributiontoaCritiqueofCulturalRelativism.London:Lawrence&Wishart.(1997a).AgainstRelativism:PhilosophyofScience,DeconstructionandCriticalThe-ory.Oxford:Blackwell.(1997b).Deconstruction,ontology,andphilosophyofscience.InNewIdolsoftheCave:OntheLimitsofAnti-Realism.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,pp.78–116.(2000).MindingtheGap:EpistemologyandPhilosophyofScienceintheTwoTradi-tions.Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.(2002).HilaryPutnam:Realism,Reason,andtheUsesofUncertainty.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Odier,H.(1905).Essaid’analysepsychologiquedum´ecanismedulangagedanslacompr´ehension.Th`esededoctorat,UniversityofBerne.Ogden,C.K.andRichards,I.A.(1923).TheMeaningofMeaning:aStudyoftheInfluenceofLanguageuponThoughtandtheScienceofSymbolism.London:Kegan,TrenchandTr¨ubner.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences291(1927).TheMeaningofMeaning:aStudyoftheInfluenceofLanguageuponThoughtandoftheScienceofSymbolism,2ndrev.edn.London:KeganPaul,Trench,Tr¨ubner;NewYork:Harcourt,Brace.(1994[1923]).TheMeaningofMeaning(ed.W.T.Gordon).London:Routledge/Thoemmes.Osthoff,H.andBrugman,K.(1878).Foreword,MorphologischeUntersuchungen1:iii–xx.Ouspensky,L.(1982).Themeaningandlanguageoficons.InL.OuspenskyandV.Lossky(eds.),TheMeaningofIcons.Crestwood,NY:StVladimir’sSeminaryPress.Parret,H.(1974).DiscussingLanguage(JanuaLinguarum.SeriesMaior,93).TheHague:Mouton.Paul,H.(1880).PrincipienderSprachgeschichte.Halle:Niemeyer.Paul,H.W.(1987).FromKnowledgetoPower,theRiseoftheScienceEmpireinFrance(1860–1939).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Pavel,T.(1990).TheFeudofLanguage:aHistoryofStructuralistThought.Oxford:Blackwell.Pedersen,H.(1962[1924]).TheDiscoveryofLanguage:LinguisticScienceintheNineteenthCentury(trans.J.W.Spargo).Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.(Reprintof1931edition,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.)Peirce,C.S.(1931–5).CollectedPapers,6vols.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.(1977).SemioticandSignifics:theCorrespondencebetweenCharlesS.PeirceandVictoriaLadyWelby(ed.C.S.Hardwick).Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Pictet,A.(1856).Dubeau,danslanature,l’artetlapoesie:´etudesesth´etiques´.ParisandGeneva:J.Cherbuliez.(1859–63).Lesoriginesindo-europeennesoulesAryasprimitifs:essaide´paleontologielinguistique´,2vols.Paris:Cherbuliez.Pike,K.L.(1943).Taxemesandimmediateconstituents.Language,19:65–82.(1947).Grammaticalprerequisitestophonemicanalysis.Word,3:155–72.(1954).LanguageinRelationtoaUnifiedTheoryoftheStructureofHumanBehavior(partI,prelim.edn).Glendale,CA:SummerInstituteofLinguistics.(1960).LanguageinRelationtoaUnifiedTheoryoftheStructureofHumanBehavior(partIII,prelim.edn).Glendale,CA:SummerInstituteofLinguistics.Ponge,F.(1967).Lesavon.Paris:Gallimard.Ponge,F.andSollers,P.(1970).EntretiensdeFrancisPongeavecPhilippeSollers.Paris:Gallimard.Posner,R.,Robering,K.andSebeok,T.A.(eds.)(1997).Semiotics:aHandbookontheSign-theoreticFoundationofNatureandCulture,vol.1.Berlin:DeGruyter.Preston,W.D.(1948).ReviewofC.H.deGoeje,EtudeslinguistiquescaribesII,Amsterdam:North-HollandPublishing,1946.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics,14:131–4.Prieto,L.(1966).Messagesetsignaux.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.Propp,V.(1958[1928]).MorphologyoftheFolktale(trans.L.Scott).Bloomington,IN:Publication10oftheIndianaUniversityResearchCenterinAnthropology,FolkloreandLinguistics.Psillos,S.(1999).ScientificRealism:HowScienceTracksTruth.London:Routledge.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n292ReferencesPuech,C.(2000).L’espritdeSaussure–PariscontreGen`eve:l’h´eritagesaussurien.Modeleslinguistiques`(ed.S.Bouquet),20(1):79–93.(2003).L’´emergenced’unparadigmes´emiotico-structuralenFrance`alafindesann´eescinquante.InG.Bettetini,S.Cigada,S.RaynaudandE.Rigotti(eds.)SEMIOTICAII(PubblicazionidelCentrodiLinguistica).Turin:LaScuola,l’Universit`aCattolica.(ed.)(2004).Linguistiqueetpartagesdisciplinairesalacharni`eredesXIX`eetXXesiecles:VictorHenry`.LouvainandParis:Peeters.Putnam,H.(1975).Mind,LanguageandReality(PhilosophicalPapers,2).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.(1981).Reason,TruthandHistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.(1987).TheManyFacesofRealism.LaSalle,IL:OpenCourt.(1990).RealismwithaHumanFace.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.(1992).RenewingPhilosophy.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Quine,W.V.(1961).FromaLogicalPointofView,2ndedn.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.(1969).OntologicalRelativityandOtherEssays.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Redard,G.(1978a).DeuxSaussure?CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,32:27–41.(1978b).LouisHavetetleM´emoire.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,32:103–22.(1982a).CharlesBallydiscipledeFerdinanddeSaussure.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,36:3–23.(1982b).BibliographiechronologiquedespublicationsdeCharlesBally(2f´evrier1865–10avril1947).CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,36:25–41.Regard,P.-F.(1919).Contributional’`etudedespr´epositionsdanslalangueduNouveau´Testament.Paris:Leroux.Reichard,G.A.,Jakobson,R.andWerth,E.(1949).Languageandsynesthesia.Word,5:224–33.Reichenbach,H.(1938).ExperienceandPrediction.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.(1947).ElementsofSymbolicLogic.NewYork:Macmillan.Reichler-B´eguelin,M.-J.(1980).LeconsonantismegrecetlatinselonF.deSaussure:lecoursdephon´etiqueprofess´een1909–1910.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,34:17–96.(1990).Desformesobserv´eesauxformessous-jacentes.InR.AmackerandR.Engler(eds.),PresencedeSaussure:ActesduColloqueinternationaldeGen´eve`(21–23mars1988)(PublicationsduCercleFerdinanddeSaussure,1).Geneva:Droz,pp.21–37.Reiss,T.(1988).TheUncertaintiesofAnalyses:ProblemsinTruth,MeaningandCulture.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.Renan,E.(1950[1871]).Lareformeintellectuelleetmorale´(reprinteditedbyP.E.Charvet).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rorty,R.(1982).ConsequencesofPragmatism.Brighton:Harvester.(1991).Objectivity,Relativism,andTruth.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rose,J.(1986).SexualityintheFieldofVision.NewYork:Verso.Rossi,A.(1968).GlianagrammidiSaussure:Poliziano,Bach,Pascoli.Paragone,218:113–27.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences293Roudinesco,E.(1990[1985]).JacquesLacan&Co.:aHistoryofPsychoanalysisinFrance,1925–1985(trans.J.Mehlman).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Russell,B.(1956).LogicandKnowledge(ed.R.Marsh).London:Allen&Unwin.Ruwet,N.(1972).Langage,musique,poesie´.Paris:Seuil.Salmon,W.C.(1967).TheFoundationsofScientificInference.Pittsburgh,PA:UniversityofPittsburghPress.Sanders,C.(1979).Coursdelinguistiquegen´eraledeSaussure.´Paris:Hachette.(2000a).Saussure:Paris–GenevavudeLondres,ModelesLinguistiques`,20(1):94–107.(2000b).Saussuretranslated.HistoriographiaLinguistica,27:345–58.Sapir,E.(1921).Language:anIntroductiontotheStudyofSpeech.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace.Saussure,L.de(1899).Psychologiedelacolonisationfranc¸aise.Paris:F.Alcan.Sebeok,T.A.(1974).Semiotics:asurveyofthestateoftheart.InT.A.Sebeok(ed.),CurrentTrendsinLinguistics,vol.12.TheHague:Mouton,pp.218–322.(1976).ContributionstotheDoctrineofSigns.Lisse:PeterdeRidder.(1976).ContributionstotheDoctrineofSigns.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.(1979).TheSignanditsMasters.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.(1989).TheSignanditsMasters.Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica.(1991).SemioticsintheUnitedStates.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.(1994).Signs:anIntroductiontoSemiotics.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.Sebeok,T.A.,Hayes,A.S.andBateson,M.C.(eds.)(1964).ApproachestoSemiotics:CulturalAnthropology,Education,Linguistics,Psychiatry,Psychology.TheHague:Mouton.Sechehaye,A.(1902).DerKonjunktivImperfectiundseineKonkurrentenindennor-malenhypothetischenSatzgef¨ugenimFranz¨osischen.Introductionandpart3ofinauguraldissertation,UniversityofG¨ottingen.(1905).L’imparfaitdusubjonctifetsesconcurrentsdansleshypoth´etiquesnor-malesenfran¸cais:esquissedesyntaxehistorique.RomanischeForschungen,19(2):321–406.(1908a).Programmeetmethodesdelalinguistiqueth´eorique:psychologiedu´langage.Paris:Champion.(1908b).Lastylistiqueetlalinguistiqueth´eorique.Melangesdelinguistiqueofferts´aM.FerdinanddeSaussure`.Paris:Champion,pp.155–87.(1916).Lam´ethodeconstructiveensyntaxe.Revuedeslanguesromanes,59(1–2):44–76.(1926).Essaisurlastructurelogiquedelaphrase(Collectionlinguistiquepubli´eeparlaSoci´et´elinguistiquedeParis,20).Paris:Champion.(1927).L’´ecolegenevoisedelinguistiqueg´en´erale.IndogermanischeForschungen,44:217–41.Schleicher,A.(1863).DieDarwinischeTheorieunddieSprachwissensschaft.Weimar:H.B¨ohlau.Shklovskii,V.(1965).Artastechnique.InL.T.LemonandM.J.Reis(eds.),RussianFormalistCriticism.Lincoln,NB:UniversityofNebraskaPress,pp.3–24.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n294ReferencesSilverstein,M.(1971).Whitneyonlanguage.InM.Silverstein(ed.),WhitneyonLanguage:SelectedWritingsofWilliamDwightWhitney.Cambridge,MA,andLondon:MITPress,pp.x–xxiii.Smith,R.(1997).TheFontanaHistoryoftheHumanSciences.London:Fontana.Spence,N.C.W.(1957).Ahardyperennial:theproblemoflalangueandlaparole.ArchivumLinguisticum,9:1–27.Starobinski,J.(1964).LesAnagrammesdeFerdinanddeSaussure(textesin´edits).MercuredeFrance,350(Feb.):243–62.(1969).Letextedansletexte:extraitsin´editsdescahiersd’anagrammesdeFerdinanddeSaussure.TelQuel,37:3–33.(1971).Lesmotssouslesmots.Paris:Gallimard.(1979[1971]).WordsuponWords:theAnagramsofFerdinanddeSaussure.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Steiner,R.P.(1984).RussianFormalism:aMetapoetics.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.Stetter,C.(1992).FerdinanddeSaussure(1857–1913).InM.Dascal,D.Gerhardus,K.LorenzandG.Meggle(eds.),Sprachphilosophie,PhilosophyofLanguage,PhilosophieduLangage:Manuelinternationaldesrecherchescontemporaines(HandbucherzurSprach-undKommunikationsforschung¨,7.1).BerlinandNewYork:DeGruyter,pp.510–23.Streitberg,W.(1915).FerdinanddeSaussure.IndogermanischesJahrbuch,2:203–13.Strozier,R.M.(1988).Saussure,Derrida,andtheMetaphysicsofSubjectivity.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Swadesh,M.(1934).Thephonemicprinciple.Language,10:117–29.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:32–7.)Swadesh,M.andVoegelin,C.F.(1939).Aprobleminphonologicalalternation.Language,15:1–10.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:88–92.)Szemer´enyi,O.(1973).Lath´eoriedeslaryngalesdeSaussure`aKurylowiczet`aBenveniste.Bulletindelasociet´edelinguistique´,68:1–25.Taine,H.(1870).Del’intelligence,2vols.Paris:Hachette.(Referencesaretovol.2.)Tallis,R.(1995[1988]).NotSaussure.London:Macmillan.Tamba-Mecz,I.(1983).Aproposdeladistinctionentres´emiotiqueets´emantique.In:EmileBenvenisteaujourd’hui.Paris:Biblioth`equedeL’Informationgrammaticale.Tarski,A.(1956).Theconceptoftruthinformalisedlanguages.InLogic,SemanticsandMetamathematics(trans.J.H.Woodger).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Taylor,T.J.(1988).Gardiner’sTheTheoryofSpeechandLanguage:empiricistprag-matics.InR.Harris(ed.),LinguisticThoughtinEngland1914–1945.London,Duckworth,pp.132–47.Thibault,P.(1997).Re-readingSaussure:theDynamicsofSignsinSocialLife.London:Routledge.Thompson,E.P.(1978).ThePovertyofTheoryandOtherEssays.London:Merlin.Tiles,M.(1984).Bachelard:ScienceandObjectivity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Trabant,J.andWard,S.(eds.)(2001).NewEssaysontheOriginofLanguage(TrendsinLinguistics).Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences295Trubetzkoy,N.(1936).Essaid’uneth´eoriedesoppositionsphonologiques.JournaldePsychologie,33:5–18.(1939).GrundzugederPhonologie¨.Prague:TravauxduCercleLinguistiquedePrague,7.(1964).Principesdephonologie(trans.J.Cantineau).Paris:Klincksieck.(2001).StudiesinGeneralLinguisticsandLanguageStructure(ed.A.Liberman,intro.A.Liberman,trans.M.TaylorandA.Liberman).Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.Turpin,B.(1993[1994]).Mod´elisation,langageetlanguechezSaussure.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,47:159–75.(1995–6).Discours,langueetparoledanslescoursetlesnotesdelinguistiqueg´en´eraledeF.deSaussure.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,49:251–66.Twaddell,W.F.(1935).Ondefiningthephoneme.LanguageMonograph,16.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:55–79.)Tynianov,Iu.(1929).Literaturnyifakt.InArkhaistyinovatory.Leningrad:Priboi,pp.5–30.(1978).Onliteraryevolution.InL.MatejkaandK.Pomorska(eds.),ReadingsinRussianPoetics:FormalistandStructuralistViews.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,pp.66–79.Tynianov,Iu.andJakobson,R.(1978).Problemsinthestudyofliteratureandlanguage.InL.MatejkaandK.Pomorska(eds.),ReadingsinRussianPoetics:FormalistandStructuralistViews.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,pp.79–82.Ungar,S.(1983).RolandBarthes:theProfessorofDesire.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress.(1997).Fromeventtomemorysite:thoughtsonrereadingmythologies.NottinghamFrenchStudies,36,1:24–33.Val´ery,P.(1898).ReviewofBr´eal,‘Essaides´emantique’,MercuredeFrance,25(Jan.–March):254–60.(1973–77).Cahiers(ed.J.Robinson).Paris:Gallimard.Valin,R.(1954).Petiteintroductionalapsychom`ecaniquedulangage.´Qu´ebec:Pressesdel’Universit´eLaval.Vallini,C.(1969).ProblemidimetodoinFerdinanddeSaussureindoeuropeista.StudieSaggiLinguistici,9:1–85.(1974).Lalinguisticadella‘parola’:coincidenzaodivergenzafraA.SechehayeeF.deSaussure.StudilinguisticiinonorediTristanoBolelli.Pisa:Pacini.(1978).AncorasulmetododiF.deSaussure:l’etimologia.StudieSaggiLinguistici,18:75–128.(1979).Lacostituzionedeltestodel‘Coursdelinguistiqueg´en´erale’.InDeltesto(Seminariointerdisciplinaresullacostituzionedeltesto,1977–78).Naples:Istitutouniversitarioorientale,pp.65–96.(1990).Continuit`adelmetododiSaussure.InR.AmackerandR.Engler(eds.),PresencedeSaussure:ActesduColloqueinternationaldeGen´eve`(21–23mars1988)(PublicationsduCercleFerdinanddeSaussure,1).Geneva:Droz,pp.5–19.Varela,F.(1979).PrinciplesofBiologicalAutonomy.Amsterdam:Elsevier/North-Holland.Vendry`es,J.(1968[1921]).Lelangage.Paris:AlbinMichel.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n296ReferencesVerner,K.(1875).EineAusnahmedererstenLautverschiebung.ZeitschriftfurVer-¨gleichendeSprachforschung,23:97–130.Villani,P.(1990).DocumentisaussurianiconservatiaLipsiaeaBerlino,CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,44:3–33.Voegelin,C.F.(1948).Asampleoftechnicaltermsinlinguistics.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics,14:115–30.Vog¨u´e,S.de(1997).Lacrois´eedeschemins:remarquessurlatopologiedesrelationslangue/discourschezBenveniste.InC.NormandandM.Arriv´e(eds.),Benvenistevingtansapres`,Linx,specialissue,pp.145–57.Voloshinov,V.N.(1929).Marksizmifilosofijajazyka.Moscow.(1973).MarxismandthePhilosophyofLanguage(trans.L.MatejkaandI.R.Titunik).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Waterman,J.T.(1956).FerdinanddeSaussure–forerunnerofmodernstructuralism.ModernLanguageJournal,40:307–9.Watkins,C.(1978).Remarquessurlam´ethodedeFerdinanddeSaussurecomparatiste.CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure,32:59–69.Waugh,L.R.(1984).Introduction`aRomanJakobson:lath´eoriesaussurienne.Linguis-tics,22:157–96.Weisler,S.E.,andMilekic,S.(2000).TheoryofLanguage.Cambridge,MA,London:MITPress.Wells,R.S.(1947).DeSaussure’ssystemoflinguistics.Word,3(1/2):1–31.(ReprintedinJoos,1958:1–18.)(1949).ReviewofB.Russell,HumanKnowledge:ItsScopeandLimits,NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1948;P.A.Schilpp(ed.)ThePhilosophyofErnstCassirer,Evanston,IL:TheLibraryofLivingPhilosophers,1949.Language,25:322–5.Whitney,W.D.(1867).LanguageandtheStudyofLanguage:TwelveLecturesonthePrinciplesofLinguisticScience.NewYork:CharlesScribner.(Prefaceandcopyrightdated1867,1stedntitlepagedated1868.)(1874).Physei´orthesei´–naturalorconventional?TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation,5:95–116.(1875).TheLifeandGrowthofLanguage:anOutlineofLinguisticScience(TheInternationalScientificSeries,XVI).NewYork:D.Appleton.Whorf,B.L.(1956).Language,ThoughtandReality:SelectedWritingsofBenjaminLeeWhorf(ed.J.B.Carroll).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Wiener,N.(1961[1948]).CyberneticsorControlandCommunicationintheAnimalandtheMachine.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Wilmet,M.(1991).G.Guillaumeetlapsychom´ecaniquedulangage.InH.Huot(ed.),Lagrammairefranc¸aiseentrecomparatismeetstructuralisme:1870–1960.Paris:ArmandColin,pp.201–25.Wonderly,W.L.(1952).SemanticcomponentsinKechuapersonmorphemes.Language,28:366–76.Wozniak,R.H.(1998).Thoughtandthings:JamesMarkBaldwinandthebiosocialori-ginsofmind.InR.W.RieberandK.D.Salzinger(eds.),Psychology:Theoretical-HistoricalPerspectives.Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,pp.429–53.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nReferences297Wunderli,P.(1972a).FerdinanddeSaussureunddieAnagramme:LinguistikundLiteratur.T¨ubingen:Niemeyer.(1972b).Saussureetlesanagrammes.Travauxdelinguistiqueetdelitterature´,10(1):35–53.(1972c).FerdinanddeSaussure:1ercahieralirepr`eliminairement´–einBasistextseinerAnagrammstudien,Zeitschriftfurfranz¨osischeSpracheundLiteratur¨,82:193–216.(1976a).ZuSaussuresAnagrammen:DiskussionenundMißverst¨andnisse.Revueromainedelinguistique,21:571–82.(1976b).SaussurealsSch¨ulerSechehayes?ZumAbh¨angigkeitsverh¨altnishinsichtlichderKreativit¨atskonzeptioninderGenferSchule.InF.-J.NiedereheandH.Haarmann(eds.),InMemoriamFriedrichDiez:AktendesKolloquiumszurWissenschaftsgeschichtederRomanistik(Trier2–4Oct.1975).Amsterdam:Benjamins,pp.419–60.(ReprintedinWunderli,1981:180–200.)(1977).Valerysaussurien´.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.(1981).Saussure-Studien:exegetischeundwissenschaftsgeschichtlicheUnter-suchungenzumWerkvonF.deSaussure(T¨ubingerBeitr¨agezurLinguistik,148).T¨ubingen:Narr.Young,R.(ed.)(1981).UntyingtheText:aPost-StructuralistReader.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Yule,G.(1996).TheStudyofLanguage,2ndedn.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersIndexMoreinformationIndexAarsleffH.30,31,39,225CahiersFerdinanddeSaussure4,5Ablaut17–21,24Caille,L.51,56abstraction27,28,52,53,65,75,79,80,81,Canguilhem,G.23382,197,206,211–12,227,237,242,246,Cassirer,E.127255,256chiasm137acousticimage77,86Chomsky,N.85,112,119–20,246,255ahistoricism2,143,244,255,257–8Circuitdelaparole34,40,86Althusser,L.157,220,228code2,135,148,251anagrams2,42,48,161,168,174,221functioningof135analogy25,34,37,64,83,89,99,212–18,226coefficientsonantique/sonantcoefficient26,anthropology158–61,246,253237aphasia62,70,147cognitivelinguistics85arbitrary23,38,56,60,67–71,72–3,74,88,cognitivesciences25889,95–7,98,99–100,101,102,108,115,communication32,43,78,135,136,145,227,131,133,142,146,150,156,180,189,240,246,251191,192,232–3,244,251,262comparativelinguistics9,10,12,30,31,37,absolutearbitrariness102,226–743,47,101,107,206,224,237DamouretteandPichon’srejectionof132–3complimentarity76,87,209,212,213,227,relativearbitrariness88,126,226–7244Aristotle133,186,188Compte,A.37,206artificiallanguage98concept79,86,103associativeaxisseeparadigmaticaxisCondillac,E.34,61,71atomism27–8,131conative135CongressofLinguistics,FirstInternationalBachelard,G.233–8126Bakhtin,M.127,149,150,252,263conventional62,67,96,180Bally,C.47,48–58,124,129,132,242conversation134Barthes,R.118,126,144,157,220,243,Copenhagenschool118,196,253247–8,250,251–2,254Cours5,6,9,10,23–6,30,31,32,34,39,40,Benveniste,E.21,26,124,125,130,132–3,44,59–61,63,64,76–89,90,91,95,135,163,247,251100–1,103–4,107,109–11,120,145,Criticsof136152,155,157,159,161,179,188,191,Bergson,H.41194,197,199,201,205,207,217,223,bilingualism133225,234,241,247,248,251,253,261,Bloomfield,L.86,108–12262Bopp,F.10,14,29,32,43,48,206,207receptionofinFrance124–38Br´eal,M.12,30,40,43,61,128Bloomfield’sreviewof109Broca,P.41,258Courtenay,B.de114Brøndal,V.124Culioli,A.125Brugmann,K.11,18,19–21,24–5,26,28,261culturaltheory/studies140,144,156,163,164Brunot,F.126,132Curtius,E.11,14,18,19–20,24,25B¨uhler,K.244cybernetics245–6298©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersIndexMoreinformationIndex299Damourette,J.126,132etatdelangue´5,35,36,48,49,82againstSaussure132ethnographicapproach29Darmesteter,A.40,128etymology23,29,35,50Darwinism31,32,38,61,69,243,expressive135258external/internallinguistics21,94,95deconstruction169,265deductive28,47film252deixis135firstCourse47,49,50–1,53,57,59,60,207,deMauro,T.3,127212Descartes,R.223first-personpronoun135donotation/connotation173Firth,J.R.81–2,119,120Delesalle,F.134form33,60,64,86,97,181–5,237Del’EssenceDouble48,53–5formalism140,184,244,252–6Derrida,J.67,74,118,153,155,160,174,Foucault,M.222,228–9,230–2,233,235,264,265–6238,239descriptivelinguistics27,113Freud,S.42,139,157,169,200,221,246diachrony23,27,35,38,49,77,83,91,93,Frei,H.129,13294,99,109,126,130,132,143,152,206,France223,225–6,229–30,236,238,245culture124dialects39,82in1880s42–3dialogue149languagepolicy99dichotomy76,87,114–15,117,122linguisticsin9,24,95,124,125,126,129,differance´194,199–200130,132,138difference60,64,79,101,103–4,126,141,semioticsin124(seealsosemiotics)160,224,227,253SaussureinParis30–44,91discours57,85,133,135,136,137,206,Saussure’sthoughtin124–38210–14,221,231,234,248,255Frenchversushistory135Cartesianism92(seealsorationalism)discourseanalysis/theory134,136,137commentariesonSaussure3distinctivefeatures71,115linguisticsof30,31–7,39–40,50–1,53,doublearticulation249253dream41literature40–1,44duality76,148philosophy35,37–9,93,186,243,264Durkheim,E.42,131,243(seealsopositivism,rationalism)dynamic/static(alsoundersystem)115,142,seventeenth-centurythought72147,250structuralism124,125,127,129–30,157,243,246,263(seealsostructuralism)EcoleLibredesHautesEtudes114useofSaussureanterms5,89–90EcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes31,37,39,viewoflanguage133126,130,162function32,35,97,135,136,141,143,144,economics137,230147–51,181,244,245Ecritsdelinguistiquegen´erale´4,6,47,140,209,212,213,214,218Gardiner,H.80editions3–4,47,109,207,208–10,213,216,Gautier,L.49–51,174217,262generativelinguistics119,120,121,Egger,V.34246empiricism92,94,219–20,224–5Genevaschool52,118,129,133,186Engler,R.6,51,55,127genitiveabsolute13,22Enlightenment13,62,67,150Germanlinguistics(nineteenthcentury)9–10,enonciation´/enunciationtheory125,134–713–17,23,30–2,33,37,43,107episteme198–9,231Gilli´eron,J.39epistemological48,88,91–2,208,217,230–2,glossematics243(seealsoHjelmslev)241–2,247,250,255glossolalia37,42,145equilibrium94,101Godel,R.47,49,127essencedouble48,54Gougenheim,G.126©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersIndexMoreinformation300Indexgrammar22,52,56,58,90,101,102,132,Kant,I.36,254209,226Karcevski,S.242change37Katz,J.J.andPostal,P.M.121comparative131kinshipsystems121,158–9Greek10,14–15,28,50Koerner,E.F.K.6,122Greimas,A.124,126,161,162,243,247–50,Krist´eva,J.246253Kuhn,T.222–3,229,231,238,239Guillaume,G.126,130,132,133Labov,W.87Harris,R.6,111,201,228Lacan,J.118,126,157,169,221,246,264HarrisZ.116Lamb,S.M.120Havet,L.15,24langage4–5,26,29,31,51,78–9,81,85,89,Hegel,G.W.F.18890Heidegger,M.170Definitionof89Henry,V.36,128–9langage/langue/parole48,52,55–8,110–11,Hewson,J.84–5119,120,126,133–4,136historicalevolutionoflanguage70,72–4,255language59,89,94,99,100historicalnatureoflanguage72–4associalcontract96historicallinguistics1,9,10,11–29,35,60,associalfact92,95–6,98,99,100,101,12692,94,101,110,131,242associalinteraction32,134historiographyoflinguistics29,112–14,118,associalinstitution90,96124–38,261dynamic97,98,99Hittite21,237languagechange25,70,98–9,100,131,Hjelmslev,L.55,120,124,127,163,164–5,142,149–50,212167,172,196,198,243,247,254languageinuse84–5,86,210Hovelacque,A.31,36languagevariation32Humboldt,W.von38,140,150languageeducation32–3,39–40,56humansciences187,231socialnature(oflanguage)52,56,69,72,Husserl,E.160,187,24373,78,107–8,131,136,147,148–50,226,244,258iconicity249,250,251langue4–5,29,31,39,41,42,51,52,53–5,idealisation(linguistic)48,56,20666,76–87,89,90,91,92,93,94,96,97,ideolect8398,101,115,117,119,120,121,126,identity97,100135,136,137,142,144,147–51,154,idiome29158,169,188,190,206,207,217,223,indexicality135,146,172,250227,231,245,248,249,257Indicgrammarians18Latin10,11–17,29,50,174individuallaws90,92,131creativity149,150,151,185Leibniz,G.W.von61,150versuscollective144,154,207–8Leipzig47,92Indo-Europeanlinguistics9–29,174Leskien,A.11,23,25inductive28,92,261L´evinas,E.200intellectualhistory3,5,10,17–19,26,109,L´evi-Strauss,C.116,126,157–61,170,243,112–14,115,152,153,155,159,187,247,253201,220,223,224–5,238,239lexicon/vocabulary90–8,101,102,209intentionality206LexSaussure23internallinguistics94,95linearity56,59–60,67,71–2,115,146,179,InstitutFerdinanddeSaussure5185,226,262InternationalPhoneticAlphabet(IPA)44linguisticdata11,77,94inventedlanguages69linguistics/scienceoflanguage1,9,10,23,26,33,37,39,41,44,47,50,52,70,71,76,Jakobson,R.71,84,101,114–15,126,127,77,88,91,92,93,101,104,126,131,135–7,139–40,143,145,158,159,161,134,136,137,140,157,169–70,186,170,194,242,245,247,250,251189,209,229Jung,C.42linguistiquenaturaliste31©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersIndexMoreinformationIndex301listener32,34,148M¨uller,M.96literarycriticism140–5,163,174multiculturalism156literature39,40–1,196,244mutability/immutability72–4Lithuanian23,27,47myth163,253Locke,J.34,38,61,225logic209,218naturalsciences230,231,237logicalempiricism219–20,223,227–8,234negative(relations)60,64Lotman,I.243,246neogrammarians17,23–6,27–8,32,36,70,92,206,228Mallarm´e,S.40–1NewYork(LinguisticCircle)115–16Malmberg,B.83Niebelungen/legends42manuscriptnotes3,4,47,49,56,88,89,107,Nietzsche,F.139,200127,137,174,201,205–18Normand,C.136Martinet,A.126,129,164,249Marx,K.75,139,142,144,151,157,220,objet80,81,206,220,223,248228,231,250,251Ogden,C.K.andRichards,I.A.75,80–1,86,meaning32,33,34–5,43,61,63–4,65,66–7,12174,78,163,171–2,182–4,185,189,onomasiologicalapproach132205–18,240,249,254,255onomatopeia67–8,83,186collocationalmeaning80,81opposition76–9,100,126Meillet,A.9,15,23,27,28,29,30,31,37,44,organicism25,36,38,61,25847,48,49–50,54,88,91,95,99,124–5,Osthoff,H.21,24,25130–2,133,175Orthodoxtheology140,152–3Saussure’sinfluenceon130–2Memoire´9,15,17,26–7,28–9,30,43,236,pairedterms76–9,85261palatalisation22receptionof21paradigmaticaxis56,60,101,133,146–7,Merleau-Ponty,M.126,157,159–61,247,254182,211–12,213,214,226,245message135Paris,G.37,48,126,127,129metaphor147,170,171,197,234parole4–5,31,34,39,41,51–2,54,56,66,metaphors/imagesusedbySaussureto76–87,89,92,94,115,117,119,120,describelanguage49121,126,133,134,136,147,148–50,anthill99,102–3154,169,206,245chess66,94–5,97,98,100definition89duckhatchedbyhen258linguistiquedela85,208,210,213soap-bubbles103Passy,P.44,111train98‘patois’47seealsotreasurePeirce,C.S.74,75,155,193,240–1,250–1method/methodology12,15–16,21–2,27,48,phenomenology161,193,198,200,218,24352,53,93–4,101,144,154,158,159–61,philosophy/philosophers88,97,103,159–61,164,166,192–3,198,219–20,221–2,186,218,219–66223,225,228,234–7,240,242,245,247,philosophyofscience93,219–66249–50,251,252,253phoneme30,101,111,112,114,158,175–6,metonymy147,170,171190,248,249Metz,C.252phonology9–10,13,17,22,26,43,113,mind29,41,56,63,65,70–1,74,82,226,114–15,132,180,187,244,247,248254,255Pichon,E.126,132modernism40againstSaussure132Moebiusring136Pictet,A.12,14,15morpheme101,102,248,249Pike,K.L.119,120morphology12,13,17,26,32,43,50,64,70,Plato67,71–2,187,225,24090,209polysemy34,35,37–9morphophonology17,26Ponge,F.183–4motivation67–71,80,191,232,262Port-Royal132,223Mounin,G.164,172,243positivism37,40,42,92,93,139,224©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersIndexMoreinformation302Indexpost-structuralism63,74,220,226,227,228,Sechehaye,A.9,47,48,124,126,129,132,251,265242potential/actual84SecondCourse50–1,59,60,66pragmatics32,40,95,134,136,137semantics33,34,48,53–5,81,118,120,135,PragueLinguisticCircle114,118,126,129,136,217,253–4147,243,246,253semanticchange35‘presence’192,248semiologie´/semiology38,59,74,92,96–7,98,Prieto,L.129101,103,117,118,120,122,126,127,pronouns135131,136,137,140,144,151,157,163,propernames135166–9,184–5,194,209,217,238–9,Propp,V.163240–60psychoanalysis169,186,246semiotics135,136,137,205,240–60psychology34,38,41–2,51,52,62,71,97,versussemiology240129,132,133–4,144,180,190,235,241,sentence136251,258–9sens(as‘meaning’inparole)79shifters/embrayeurs135,146Quine,W.V.221–3sign5,23,34,35,38,40,50,77,78,80,91,92,96,98,99,100,119,120,133,135,‘race’andlanguage33,69140,146,151,172,180–5,188,191,192,Rastier,F.209201,233rationalism223,224–5,227–8,233,235critiqueofSaussureanconcept132–3reconstruction11–29,60scienceof137internalreconstruction21–2systemof136oflifeofapeople12,14arbitrary92,101,102reductionism2values92reference/referential74,75,80,86,102,103,signifiant/signifier5,38,60,61,62–4,65,104,135,142,25167–71,72,77,96,99,104,131,146,170,Regard,P.49171–2,179–83,227,253relations/interrelationships91,97,100,significationseemeaning101,183–4,213,214,226,231,signifi´e/signified5,38,60,61,63–4,65,67,24971,72,77,121,131,146,170,180–5,relativemotivation102,133235,253relativism74–5,235Soci´et´elinguistiquedeParis/ParisLinguisticRenan,E.37Society9,14,15,23,24,31resonants18,19–20social/individual136‘Revuedelinguistiqueetphilologiecomparee´’socialsciences2,37,39,41–2,173,230,231,31243,260rhetoric209sociolinguistics/sociolinguists87,90,95,Romanticism13115,122,134Rorty,R.223–5,238sound56,62,63,64,68,188,208Rousseau,J.J.188,201soundchange11–29,32,33,36,70,114,rule-bound101226rules,grammatical101,102soundlaw25,261speaker32,34,43,56,82,90,92,93,98,99,StAugustine146101,102,136,206,251Sanskrit10,15,17–19speakingsubject41–2,43,78,125,134Sapir,E.109,110speech5,41,52,81,92,94,99,101,108,126,Sartre,J.-P.126187–202Saussure,Madamede49,50speechacts2,134,152,205,245Saussure,noveltyof5,17–19,26,30,31–7,speechcommunity5,66,67–71,81,92,108,39–41,44,88,90,92,94,97,104,114,148,151126,128–9,133,138,225speechgenres154Saussureanparadox81Spence,N.C.W.82–4Schleicher,A.25,31,32,36static/dynamic84Sebeok,T.120,121Stoics61,74,240©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org\nCambridgeUniversityPress0521804868-TheCambridgeCompaniontoSaussureEditedbyCarolSandersIndexMoreinformationIndex303structuralism1–2,26,30,38,51,54,63–4,74,ThirdCourse50–1,59,60–1,65,67,85,147,81,108–9,116–19,123,125,132,133,205,215134–5,137,140,157,220,243,251,253,thought(andlanguage)32,34,36,39,40,56,263,26568–9,71–2USlinguistics116–19temporality/time98structure27,29,135–6,160‘trace’135,192–3,198–9sujetparlant78,80,125,135–6,151,199,tradition99227translation/translations3–5,118,119Starobinski,J.6treasure/tresor´82–3,119,120,210,213storehouseseetreasure/tresor´Trubetzkoy,N.116,158,247,248,253,255,Streitberg,W.21,28256style53Twadell,W.F.112stylistics9,52,54–5,129,209Tynianov,I.140syllable71symbol51,80–1,146,172,250unconscious25,36–7,41–2,61,64,169,170,synchrony22,23,27,30,33,35,36,38,39,171,26543,48,53,59,77,82–4,109,110,114,uniformitarianism25126,130,131–2,143,152,206,223,universals114229–30,245utterancetheory(enonciation´)2,125,135synchrony/synchroniclinguistics91,93,94,98synonymy209Val´ery,P.40–1syntagmaticaxis101,133,211,213,214–18,valeur/value33,34,35,39,54,59,61,65–7,22668,71,78,79,86,88,89,91,94,97,syntagmaticrelations56,60,146,182,245100–1,103–4,126,133,163,196,197,syntax22,40,70,209,214224,253,258system17,26–7,30,34,35,36,38,39,44,51,relative10152,59,60,65,66,69,70,78,79,80,81,Vendry`es,J.125,13088,89,90–2,94,95,96,97–8,99,100,verbforms135101,102–3,108,115,126,131–2,140,verbalcategories,generic135141,142,144–5,150,159,160,161,172,vocalism/vowels17–19190,191,194,227,237,249,255,262vocalicconsonants18–19critiqueoflanguageassystem132–3vocalicnasals24ofdifferences103–4vocalicsystem26ofequivalence100,101Vog¨u´e,S.de136ofvalues103Voloshinov,V.N.61,75seealsoBakhtinunderlyingsystem27,28Sweet,H.111Wagner,H.126Weber,M.42Taine,H.37–9Wells,R.S.82–3,112,113,119,120Tamba-Mecz,I.136Wernicke41taxonomy135Whitney,W.22,62,67,69,71,72,83,89,90,TelQuel174,184–592,95,96,99,108,257terminology3,4,27–9,76,110,111,117,164,Wilmet,M.133170,172,176,192,200,208,213,240,Wittgenstein,L.218246,248,263‘Word’115,116text184–5,248,264word38,62,158,178TGGrammar85writing/writtenword12,52,187–202,216,theory93–5241theoriesoflanguage26,30–44,59,76–87,Wundt,W.5188–9,92,103–4,107,109,115,186,191,199,212,213,237,246Zola,E.40,41©CambridgeUniversityPresswww.cambridge.org