Kurs obecné lingvistiky

Seri ILDEP #35

by Ferdinand de Saussure

The Cours de linguistique generale, reconstructed from students' notes after Saussure's death in 1913, founded modern linguistic theory by breaking the study of language free from a merely historical and comparativist approach. Saussure's new method, now known as Structuralism, has since been applied to such diverse areas as art, architecture, folklore, literary criticism, and philosophy.

Genres: Linguistics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Language, Theory, France, Semiotics

487 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1916

About the author

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist whose ideas laid a foundation for many significant developments in linguistics in the 20th century. Saussure is widely considered to be one of the fathers of 20th-century linguistics and his ideas have had a monumental impact throughout the humanities and social sciences.

Reviews

[محمد یوسفی‌شیرازی · Rating 3 out of 5]

فردینان دوسوسور را پایه‌گذار دانش زبان‌شناسی نو دانسته‌اند. به‌گفتۀ صاحب‌نظران، دیدگاه‌های او دربارۀ شناسایی جنبه‌های مختلف زبان و تحلیل عمیق و موشکافانۀ آن، راهی نو دراین‌زمینه فراروی پژوهندگان گشوده است.
سوسور به‌رغم اهمیت و جایگاهش در دانش زبان، هیچ‌گاه خود کتابی دراین‌باره ننوشته است. آنچه از او مانده، همین کتاب است که حاصل کنارهم‌چیدن یادداشت‌های چند تن از دانشجویان او است از کلاس‌هایی که در دانشگاه ژنو برگزار می‌کرده است. بنابراین، در صحت‌وسقم پاره‌ای از مطلب‌هایی که در این کتاب آمده، ممکن است بتوان چون‌وچراهایی کرد. بااین‌حال، یگانه سند مستقیمی که از نظرگاه‌های سوسور در اختیار است، همین کتاب است و ناگزیر برای آگاهی از دیدگاه‌های او می‌باید به آن رجوع کرد.
به‌هرروی، در این کتاب اصول کلی دانش زبان به‌شکلی طبقه‌بندی‌شده آمده است؛ از مبحث‌های ابتدایی‌ای نظیر تعریف زبان و سازکار آن گرفته تا آواشناسی و دستور و زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی و مسئلۀ تحول زبان در ساحت‌های گونه‌گونش.
با همۀ این‌ها، تصور می‌کنم ترجمۀ فارسیِ این کتاب چندان برای مخاطب فارسی‌زبان کارا نباشد. این امر زاییدۀ چند عامل است. عامل نخست این است که ترجمۀ کتاب بی‌اینکه ظاهراً غلط باشد، چندان روان و خوش‌خوان نیست و در غالب جاها به‌شدت بوی ترجمه می‌دهد. به‌عبارت روشن‌تر، چنین می‌نماید که مترجم ساختارهای نحوی زبانِ مبدأ را بی‌سبب به زبان مقصد وارد کرده و درنتیجه، اثری پردست‌انداز و تااندازه‌ای دشوارخوان پدید آورده است. عامل دوم عبارت است از غیربومی‌بودن همۀ مثال‌هایی که در تأیید نظرات زبان‌شناختی در کتاب آمده است. سوسور در تأیید اصولی که پیش می‌کشد و صحیح می‌شمارد، نمونه‌هایی به‌دست می‌دهد. این نمونه‌ها در درجۀ اول غالباً از زبان فرانسوی است و سپس از زبان‌های آلمانی و لاتین و انگلیسی. پیامد این امر آن است که تا مخاطب به این زبان‌ها آشنا نباشد، قاعده‌ها و اصل‌های به‌میان‌آمده را درنیابد یا دست‌کم کاملاً آن‌ها را متوجه نشود. سومین عاملی که می‌توان درخصوص کم‌فایده‌بودن این اثر برای مخاطب فارسی‌زبان خاطرنشان کرد، این است که سوسور بسیاری از موضوع‌ها را سربسته گفته است. به‌علاوه، چنان‌که مترجم نیز در پیشگفتارش اشاره کرده، پاره‌ای از اصطلاحاتی که سوسور در این کتاب برای تبیین دیدگاه‌هایش به‌کار بسته، با آنچه بعدها زبان‌شناسان به‌کار برده‌اند، یکی نیست. این تفاوتِ اصطلاحات موجب می‌شود خوانندۀ کم‌آشنا با این موضوعات، در فهمیدن مطلب‌هایی ازاین‌دست به دشواری بیفتد. بااین‌اوصاف، پیدا است که مخاطب برای خواندن و فهمیدن این کتاب به پیش‌زمینه‌هایی حاجتمند است. درواقع، بهتر است مخاطب پیش از اینکه به‌سراغ این کتاب برود، درزمینۀ زبان‌شناسی آثاری مقدماتی را مطالعه کند و تا حدودی درخصوص اصطلاحات و موضوعات این دانش، آگاهی کسب کند. خواندن این کتاب برای چنین فردی فایده‌هایی شایان‌توجه دارد؛ به‌ویژه دربارۀ نکته‌های ریز و جزئیاتِ نظرگیر.

[Jimmy Cline · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short of calling it a pioneer text, it's difficult to really say much else about Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. As dated as most of the ideas contained within this book are, most of them stand as the founding concepts of linguistics, semiotics, and structuralism. Or, a more grammatically apt way to put it would be to say that it is Saussure's particular methodology that has been the most influential aspect of his thought. His central aim above all else is to analyze language as a system with a structure. This particular quote from pg. 86 expresses his approach quite well.

"A language is a system of which all parts can and must be considered as synchronically interdependent."

What this basically means is that language is a system composed of various units, with a very elaborate structure, and that the significance or usefulness of these units can be found in their relationship to each other. This may be within the grammatical context of a syllable, word, sentence, etc. Naturally this takes much of the stress away from phonation, as well as diachronic (historical) linguistics. Saussure was also (more or less) one of the first theorists to introduce semiology as a linguistic study.

It's an important book to read if you are interested in contemporary theory at all. Saussure's influence is widespread; some notable theorists that he has influenced (or provoked) are Naom Chomsky, Claude Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Christian Metz, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jacques Derrida. The only issue that I have with this book is that it is essentially a translation of lecture notes edited by Saussure's students. So the style tends to be extremely dry, and the book lacks much of a flow. However, it's more important that the reader understand the basic concepts of Saussure's thought, and Harris's translation seems to do an adequate job at providing his audience with a comprehensible enough text.

[Joshua Nomen-Mutatio · Rating 3 out of 5]

[image error]

Q: I’ve recently become particulary interested in structural linguistics, more specifically laryngeal theory. I’m wondering if anyone has read something on why the original laryngeals have disappeared? ...assuming they existed, of course.

And then my A: All I’m familiar with regarding structural linguistics is the foundational text of Saussure’s, Course in General Linguistics, which when I read it a few year ago I mostly found to be tedious and unsurprising. I can appreciate it as a historical landmark but that’s about it. I’m also a little familiar with Foucault’s structuralist work as well, but this focuses less on linguistics as far as I know and Foucault is also often described (never by himself as he characteristically rejected both labels) as post-structuralist/deconstructionist as well. I’m not a huge fan of Foucault but I do think he is perhaps lumped in with these movements a bit unfairly and is then written off due to this non-chosen association. I’ve liked much of the relatively small amount of his work that I read years ago. But then again, my philosophical alignments have changed a bit sense then as well, so who knows... I also see him mostly as a philosopher of history, or a historian with a philosophical bent, considering that most of what I’ve read of his has been historical analysis.

[Verba Non Res · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Lejos de preceder el objeto al punto de vista, se diría que es el punto de vista el que crea el objeto”

Si lo vemos desde una perspectiva histórica, el mayor mérito de Ferdinand de Saussure no fue el de inventar el estructuralismo (que, de todas formas, es ya un logro considerable) sino el de avizorar todo lo que la lingüística podía llegar a ser. ¿Qué había antes de Saussure? No lingüística per se; sí estudios sobre la lengua. Estaba por ejemplo la escuela historicista, inaugurada por Sir William Jones. Los historicistas buscaban establecer parentescos, árboles genealógicos, estudiar la evolución de las lenguas y, en lo posible, descubrir las leyes que regulaban esa evolución (la tesis de Saussure, y creo que el único libro que publicó en su vida, se titulaba Estudio sobre el sistema vocálico primitivo en las lenguas indoeuropeas).

En el mejor de los casos, los estudios sobre la lengua se quedaban en ese nivel puramente descriptivo y clasificatorio. En el peor, apuntaban a un programa normativo; o sea, a establecer cómo tenía la gente que hablar y escribir para mantener la pretendida pureza de la lengua (y siempre se hablaba de una lengua concreta). Por otro lado tenemos a la filosofía y a la semiótica de Charles S. Pierce, no tan preocupadas por la integridad del lenguaje como por la relación entre el lenguaje y el mundo. El Curso se asienta en estas tradiciones, aunque muchas de sus ideas son tan originales que cuesta encontrarles más que algún antecesor difuso.

Entre sus aportes concretos están la noción de sistema, fundamento del estructuralismo; el par significante-significado, que haría las delicias de Lacan y de Levi-Strauss; y la distinción entre lengua y habla, a la que Chomsky le debe mucho, por más que no quiera reconocerlo. Más allá de todo esto, creo que lo más original en Saussure es la manera en la que se para ante el fenómeno que pretende estudiar. Es el primero en decir que el lenguaje es “heteróclito y multiforme”, a la vez un objeto social, individual, físico, fisiológico, psíquico, histórico, institucional: y que “no se deja clasificar en ninguna de las categorías de los hechos humanos, porque no se sabe cómo desembrollar su unidad”.

Anticipándose, se me antoja, al Principio de Incertidumbre de la mecánica cuántica, Saussure dirá que estudiar un aspecto del lenguaje es renunciar a estudiar todos los otros. Podemos tomar su dimensión histórica o su carácter de sistema; lo que no se puede es analizar ambos a la vez. Lo mismo habrá que elegir entre estudiarlo como un fenómeno social o como un fenómeno psicológico; en su carácter abstracto o en su realización concreta; como objeto en sí mismo o en relación con alguna otra disciplina. De ahí que el punto de vista, como dice Saussure, preceda al objeto.

Aunque la escuela específica que él fundó tiene hoy poca relevancia en general, y sobre todo dentro de la lingüística (excepto que el generativismo pueda ser considerado su continuación natural, no sé), el verdadero acto fundador de Saussure fue marcar la infinidad de posibilidades, todavía inexploradas, que existían para la disciplina. Hoy están los generativistas, los funcionalistas, los cognitivistas, los pragmatistas, los sociolingüistas… podríamos decir, parafraseando aquella frase de Perón, que en el fondo todos son saussureanos.

[Hesham Khaled · Rating 5 out of 5]

تحديث

سوسور والنظر للغة كشطرنج
قبل دي سوسور؛ في القرن 19 كانت الأسبقية في دراسة اللغة للتوجه التاريخي وتتبع ومقارنة تطور اللغة تاريخيا.
بالنسبة لسوسور فهو يرى أن اللغة توجد ككيان كلي أو لا توجد اطلاقا، فيهمنا النظر إليها كتشكيل على رقعة شطرنج لا يهم كيف وصل الشكل لهذه الصورة . . المهم كيفية التعاطي مع الوضع القائم الذي تكوّن على الرقعة . . كما أنه يمكن استبدال قطعة الملك بزر قميص!
فالأهم العلاقة التفاضلية والتمايزية بين القطع وليست قيمتها في نفسها والإسقاط على حروف الهجاء.
فاللغة عند سوسور نسق من العلامات وكل علامة تتكون من جزئين: دال (النمط الصوتي) ومدلول (المفهوم والمعنى) . . فالعلاقة بين الدال والمدلول علاقة اعتباطية.
فعلى الأقل لا تستكشف بنية اللغة بواسطة الإتيمولوجيا (دراسة الكلمات واشتقاقاتها) أو الفيلولوجيا (فقه اللغة التاريخي والمقارن).
ففي النسق أو البنية لا يكون للعنصر الفردي أي معنى خارج حدود تلك البنية.

===================

الكتاب عبارة عن محاضرات لـ دي سوسور قام بجمعها أثنين من تلامذته، وهو كتاب شاق ومرهق ليس لهواة القراءة بل هو في أعلى درجات التخصص . . لا أنصح به أيْ قارئ هاوي . . والكتاب تأسيس لما أسماه سوسور (علم اللغة العام) وهو علم يهتم بدراسة جزء مخصص من (اللسان) بوصف اللغة هي الجزء المتجانس المنظم من الشئ الأكبر وهو اللسان الذي يحتوي على تركيبة غير متجانسة من أبعاد فيزيائية وسيكولوجية وفسيولوجية . . فاللغة هي النتاج الإجتماعي لملكة اللسان،

واللغة عند دي سوسور هي: نظام من الإشارات جوهره الوحيد الربط بين المعاني والصور الحياتية وهي البعد السيكولوجي للسان

مادة علم اللغة هي جميع مظاهر الكلام عند الإنسان

مجال علم اللغة هو : ��صف لتاريخ جميع اللغات المعروفة ونسبتها للأسرة الأم التي تنتمي لها؛ ومحاولة استنتاج القواعد العامة التي تحكمها

[Chadi Raheb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dès que j'avais commencé à lire sur la phonétique et la phonologie, il y un an, je me suis mise à les détester profondément car celles-ci n'ont aucune application pour moi ni personnellement ni dans mon propre métier comme linguiste. Mais sur les autres parties, surtout quand on parle du point du vue de Saussure sur le sign, ça m'intéresse beaucoup et j'en ai vraiment beaucoup appris, bien que je me sente encore pas si forte ni autant profonde dans cette partie et j'ai encore besoin d'en étudier plus, mais de toute façon, ça m'a vraiment plu car le lisant, c'était comme être là dans les cours de lui, à sa présence, moi-même :)

Ce livre était dans ma liste-à-lire pour si longtemps et enfin grace à un article d'un cours universitaire que je devais écrire sur l'École linguistique de Genève j'ai finalement réussi à le lire ou bien de m'en profiter au maximum MDR.

قصد ندارم بیام خلاصه تاریخچه سوسور و نوشن هاش و مکتب ژنو رو اینجا بنویسم, که با یه گوگل کردن میشه خیلی چیزها راجع بهش خوند.
فقط چند تا نکته:
توی گودریدز اسم نویسنده رو زده سوسور.
اما این کتاب بیشتر منسوب به سوسور هست
یکی از دانشجوهاش که توی کلاساش شرکت میکرده, لکچرهای سوسور رو می‌نوشته و بعدا دو تا دانشجوی دیگه این یادداشت ها رو از این بنده خدا میگیرن و به اسم خودشون و منسوب به سوسور -با گذاشتن اسم جمع کننده نوت ها در آخر :))- کتاب رو چاپ میکنن.

یه نکته دیگه که خیلی روی اعصابمه :))
در این اسم سوسور که حتا ندیدم یک نفر برای نمونه درست تلفظش کنه هر دوی اون سین های لامصب رو با ضمه تلفظ نکنین! سین اول با ضمه تلفظ میشه. و سین دوم با اووووووی بلند.
یعنی شاید اگه نوشته میشد سسور اونوقت درست خونده میشد؟ نمیدونم
انی وی
اینجوری خونده میشه عزیزان:
سُ
سووووووووور
گات ایت؟ :)))

نکته دیگه
یک سری از زبان‌شناس ها معتقدن که فقط قسمتی از این کتاب میتونه واقعا حرفای خود سوسور باشه و رد تفکرات خود اون دو دانشجو هم توی کتاب مشخصه که آمیخته شده با حرفای سوسور
به هر حال چیزی از باارزش بودن این کتاب کم نمیکنه

نکته شخصی :))
باورم نمیشه که چقدر الکی از این کتاب میترسیدم و چقدر صبر کردم برای خوندنش و چقدر الکی فکر میکردم به خاطر قدیمی بودنش حتما باید کتاب سنگینی باشه امااااا چقدر ساده چقدر روان چقدر زیبا و چقدر قابل فهم و با توضیحات کافی بود این کتاب! چقدر سوسور استاد خوبی بوده و خوش به حال دانشجوهاش! چقدر کانکشن ایجاد کرد با من. چقدر بیشتر از همه کورسای فارسی و انگلیسی فهمیدمش.
شایدم چون آلردی با خیلی از مفاهیم دیگه آشنا شده بودم فهمیدنش راحتتر شده الان. اما باز هم این کتابی نیست که یک دور خونده بشه و تمام. میشه مدام بهش برگشت.
با اینکه هنوزم نوشتن مقاله مکتب ژنو این ترم رو اتلاف وقت میدونم چون به درد چاپ نمیخوره اما خوشحالم که باعث شد بالاخره این کتاب رو بخونم.
و چقدر خوشحالترم که تونستم به زبان خود سوسور بخونمش. هر صفحه ای که میخوندم و راحت جلو میرفت به خودم افتخار میکردم و لذت میبردم :))) انگیزه یاد گرفتن زبان‌های دیگه هم حتی در من بیشتر شد :)) آیا زیباتر از خوندن کتاب نویسنده ای به زبان خودش چیزی هست؟
اوف که چقدر این آدم از زمان خودش جلوتر بوده!
آیا هرگز روزی این کتاب کنار گذاشته خواهد شد؟ خیلی بعیده. خیلی بعید


پینوشت روی دل مانده :))
دانشمندای واقعی هرچقدر دانششون عمیقتر, نحوه انتقال علم‌شون هم ساده تر, روان‌تر و قابل فهم تر
حالا ورژن وطنی معمولا برعکسه. هرچقد غیرقابل فهم تر و قلمبه سلمبه تر مطلبی رو ادا کنی و بیشتر بپیچونیش اینجور فرض میشه که بهتر فهمیدی :)) درحالیکه فقط یک معنی داره: تو اونقدر اون مطلب رو نفهمیدی که مجبوری پشت کلمات سخت قایم بشی که بقیه هم نفهمن که یه جماعتی باشین دور همدیگه و همه با هم هیچی نفهمین :))))

[karo]

nie polecam zjeba

[Minh Nhật · Rating 5 out of 5]

Đọc cuốn này thú vị hơn mình tưởng, sách viết rõ ràng, cô động, trọng điểm thì được nhắc lại kĩ nhưng không nhàm, hình minh họa và ví dụ tuyệt vời. Phải nói lại là giáo trình này là do đệ tử chân truyền của Saussure biên tập lại từ các bài giảng của ông.

Gợi mở 1 điểm ở đây thử ai có hứng đọc không :)). từ lâu đã biết là Saussure xem xét ngôn ngữ như một hệ thống/cấu trúc, thì cụ thể nó là gì ??? Đó là hệ thống của sự di biệt(system of differences), tư tưởng này chi phối tất cả.

Đầu tiên nói tới tính cấu trúc, một hình ảnh hay được Saussure lấy làm ví dụ là bàn cờ. Vai trò của một quân cờ nằm ở đâu, đó là quan hệ của nó với các quân cờ khác. Nghĩa là ta có thể thay thế một quân hậu bằng bất kì một vật nào không hẳn phải là hình dáng quân hậu, vd cái nắp chai(điều đã được Duncamp làm), miễn là cái vật thay thế đó thừa hưởng nguyên vẹn cái quan hệ của cái vật mà nó thay thế. Hoặc ngược lại nếu đem con hậu đó ra khỏi bàn cờ thì nó không có bất cứ một giá trị nào.

Lấy một ví dụ thú vị hơn là sự hoạt động của đèn giao thông. Giả sử đèn xanh không hoạt động, thì khi không thấy 2 đèn còn lại sáng ta vẫn biết là được đi. Tính thú vị của sự quy ước là chổ đó, không phải quy ước màu xanh là được đi mà là cái quan hệ của cái đèn đó với 2 cái đèn còn lại.

Với cái sự phân biệt đó, Saussure đăt cho ngôn ngữ giá trị âm, giá trị âm là giá trị của một từ(tạm cho là từ vì chọn cái gì là cái đơn vị cơ bản của ngôn ngữ cũng rất nhiêu khê) phản ảnh sự phân biệt của nó với với các từ khác TRONG HỆ THỐNG NGÔN NGỮ. Trong khi người ta thường quan niệm giá trị dương là sự phản sự tương ứng giữa từ đó và khái niệm mà nó tượng trưng.

Và thú vị nhất là Saussure nêu lên mối liên hệ giữa tư duy-ngôn ngữ-hiện thực. Trong một sự phân biệt thì theo một cách nhìn ngôn ngữ chỉ được xem như một tấm gương phản ánh hiện thực, còn cách kia thì ngôn ngữ chính là cái tạo ra cơ sở cho việc tư duy và tạo ra/bóp méo hiện thực.

Nếu khi nghe người ta nói một ngôn ngữ mà mình không biết thì con người chỉ tiếp nhận dòng âm thanh đó ở khía cạnh vật lý, chỉ khi biết ngôn ngữ đó chúng ta mới phân biệt được người ta đang nói từ nào, bao nhiêu âm tiêc. Ở mặt kia thì khó hình dung hơn là tư duy thuần túy mà không có ngôn ngữ thì nó như nào, thật sự mình cũng không thể hình dung được vì nó như là điều bất khả, chỉ nói 1 cách mù mờ là nó như một dòng ý thức mà mình không có cách gì nắm bắt được.

Thì ngôn ngữ với hệ thống của sự di biệt ở trên nó cắt rời được dòng ý thức và dòng âm thanh thành nhưng đơn vị như ý niệm và sound-image rồi gắn 2 cái đó lại với nhau. Từ đó việc tư duy mới có thể diễn ra được.

Một lưu ý cuối cùng là cái sound-image được nói tới đó là cái ấn tượng tâm lý của một âm nào đó, như khi ta đọc thầm thì dù không phát ra bất kì âm thanh nào nhưng câu chữ vẫn nảy ra vậy.



Còn mấy cái sở biểu/năng biểu, đồng đại/lịch đại cảm thấy bị nói quá nhàm rồi nên không hứng thú =))

[Emily Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I might not tell people when I’m reading Saussure, but there will be signs..

[آلاء شرف الدين · Rating 5 out of 5]

تأخرت في قراءة الكتاب المؤسس هذا .. ولكنك عند قراءته تشعر أنك قرأته وخبرت أفكاره لكثرة ما رأيت من تمثلها في دراسة اللغة من بعده

[Michael A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for Saussure's influence on continental thought in 20th/21st century. Written in a clear yet somewhat dry manner. The differential notion of language (a word signifies primarily through it's contrast with other words in the same system - i.e. "philosophy" constitutes its value immanently in the linguistic system because it is not "philology" or "theosophy") is one of the more important concepts it seems, as Derrida and Merleau-Ponty end up taking it up and modifying/criticizing it... along with the arbitrariness of the sign (there is no necessary connection between the sound-pattern 'philosophy' and the concept that it represents - the word could have been something different, which seems like a distinct shift away from Platonic view of language like in Cratylus [I'm probably butchering it here], that there is a right word for each concept and the word matches up with the concept in some harmonious way)... and of course can't forget the signifier/signified/sign distinction which is so important for later thinkers in continental thought!

Of course all of the linguistics stuff is not why I read it, but seems interesting if not outdated if one is interested in linguistics.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can't believe it took me so long to read this! It's so foundational to so much theory, and when you read it you will see how (it's not the same hearing about that, but isn't that always true?). And only reading it did I fully realize that I wasn't reading Saussure at all, but what his students and colleagues thought was Saussure, which clearly is something different and quite collective and thus possibly cooler than Saussure. So no one should just throw the name around as he's not a person anymore but a collection of ideas that represent the inspiration of one person as influenced and interpreted by a group of others. And we don't have a name for that but we should.

So this effort was brilliant, though I agree with almost nothing, but the Western world sure ran with it, hey? Languages are always changing, but it is impossible for humans to change them? Really? One word = one concept? Still, what he wrote is quite fascinating, and while I've decided I'm a Bakhtin/Volosinov girl myself, I enjoyed it. It has some amazing illustrations.

[Puella Sole · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nije da mi pažnja nije popuštala i nije da bih zaista mogla pratiti kako treba bez nekog prethodnog znanja i malo jasnijeg poretka kad je riječ o Sosirovom učenju, ali ovo ostaje "the knjiga", bez obzira na to koliko je tu čijeg udjela.

[Valentin · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is fucking gold

[مهسا · Rating 4 out of 5]

زبان‌شناسی زیباست، آقا.
باید دانست.

[Naz · Rating 4 out of 5]

how am i supposed to rate a theory

[lou]

this was annoying to read but interesting... at some extent

[Czarny Pies · Rating 5 out of 5]

J'ai lu le "Cours de linguistique générale" de Ferdinand de Saussure afin de mieux comprendre "De la grammatologie" de Jacques Derrida ce qui est très pervers. J'ai fait la même chose il y a quarante-cinq ans quand j'ai lu les "Leçons sur la philosophie de l'histoire" d'Hegel afin de comprendre "Das Kapital" de Marx. Effectivement j'ai trouvé que les liens entre Derrida et de Saussure d'être aussi illusoire que ceux entre Hegel et Marx. Au lieu d'une critique du "Cours de linguistique générale", je vous offre ma réflexion sur l'abysse qui sépare Derrida de Saussure et quelques petits commentaires sur les grandes mérites du "Cours de linguistique générale.")
Le projet de Derrida, un philosophe, est de démontrer que les mots ne représentent pas des vérités absolues qui proviennent du Logos (c'est-à-dire l'entendement infini de Dieu.) Il reproche à Derrida d'être logocentrique. Saussure, un linguiste, a pour but d'étudier les structures et l'évolution des langues parlées et écrites D'après Saussure les mots parlés (constitués de sons) sont des images acoustiques des idées et que les mots écrits avec des alphabets phonétiques sont des images visuelles des mots parlés. Saussure ne dit nulle part que les mots représentent des vérités absolues et divines. En fait il ne dit même pas que les idées dont les mots sont les signes ou images sont vraies. Il s'intéresse uniquement aux systèmes linguistiques. En gros Derrida pêche à gauche et à droite dans les écrits de Saussure afin de créer un paternité honorable pour les propres thèses douteuses.
Pourtant, on ne lit pas le "Cours de linguistique générale" seulement afin de constater les erreurs de Derrida. Ses qualités n'ont rien à faire avec "De la grammatologie." Il expose de façon magistrale les structures du langage, de la phonétique, des langues et les dialectes. Il explique que les langues et les dialectes ne déterminent pas les événements historiques et politiques des peuples. Il montre comment les langues et dialectes évoluent dans le temps. Il fait voir que la race humaine a la capacité innée d'élaborer des systèmes de signes (les langues, la mathématique, la musique, etc.) Finalement il prouve que les lois linguistiques existent que gouvernent les langues (l'anglais, le francais, l'allemand, etc.) Bref, dan "Cours de linguistique générale" Saussure fait une apologie brillant de son métier.
La lecture est très divertissant. Comme il fallait s'y attendre Saussure raconte beaucoup d'anecdotes très amusants sur l'évolution du francais, de l'allemand, du latin et du grec. Ce qui m'a très agréable surpris a été ses connaissances des langues slaves. Notamment il m'a expliqué pourquoi le mot polonais pour 'l'Allemagne" est "Niemcy"; il vient de "nie mówić" (ne parlent pas); dans un mot l'Allemagne est le pays des gens qui ne parlent pas polonais. Le "Cours de linguistique générale" m'a beaucoup plu meme si je l'ai lu pour les mauvaises raisons.

[Shafiq Razak Rajan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely not for the uninitiated. If you want to read this and understand more than half of it, its better you get acquainted with Linguistics 101.

What I learned:

1. A language item (like a word) is a sign. A sign, in turn, is composed of two parts: the signal (letters, sound) and the signified (meaning, ideas, concept).

The between the sign and the signified is largely arbritary. Thus, there is no logical explanation on why a dog is called a dog, and spelt as d o g, but in Malay, it is called anjing and spelt as such.

2. There are two ways of studying a language: diachronic study and synchronic study.

Diachronic study looks on language from a historical perspective, like how a sound evolve from one era to another.

Synchronic study, meanwhile focuses on language from one moment in time. It focuses more on relationship between signs that make up a language.

3. Discerning a language basically involves differentiating between various signals (sound patterns) and matching them to their corresponding ideas (signified) to become a signal.

A sign by itself has no inherent meaning. Its meaning can only be understood by its relations, or difference, to other signs (like a pen is a pen because other objects are not pens). If there is no difference from one sign to another, then our conception of meanings will be chaotic.

4. Language is beyond the control of a single individual. Any changes in a language depends on collective effort of the community of speakers. A language is accessible to all, but can never be the domain of a single person.

Now, if all of mankind's wealth have the same feature, wouldn't the world be a bit better?

5. Anyway, language can never be dormant. Change is the only constant, as the cliche goes. It is not simply distance between groups of people that enable language fragmentation or evolution. Rather, if any language is left alone, it will eventually change by itself, given time.

[Lemon Platt]

I’ll admit the deck was stacked against poor Ferdinand from the start. One doesn’t suffer exposure to the inanity of literary theory without wishing “signifiers” never were. As with Nietzsche and Freud, I’m sure de Saussure would have been not a tad bit distressed to see what certain French professors and runners of the clinics for unhappy folk were doing with his concepts.

But de Saussure can be more or less entirely dismissed for the reason ANY social science can be dismissed: he takes his phenomena as separate from the totalizing life process. For all he says about the synchronic development of language, he has a transcendental form with no human content.

That the phonetic utterance depends for itself on the differentiation of its constituent parts is an attractive explanation. Anyone who’s studied another language for any time comes to observe the truth. Yet de Saussure’s explanation of phonetic utterances is made into a transcendental deduction that simply holds no water.

Words aren’t simple. Very well. What IS simple is the signifier, which derives its simplicity from the uniformly negative relation each signifier (an atomic unit in absolute dependence) has to every other. This evidently convinces many; it certainly doesn’t convince me.

It assumes that what is primary is the phonetic utterance as an ontic object, emptied of all intentional content and its determinations in a concrete life process. The criticism of de Saussure by Derrida is of phonocentricism; yet not even the so called phonocentric conception of the world can be accommodated by such a reification.

In a way, this reduction of linguistic phenomena to the phonetic utterance as a physical fact carries with it — far from the preSocratic utterances of Lacan and Derrida — the basic logic of the will to disenchantment so characteristic of de Saussure’s intellectual milieu (it’s worth noting that his brother, Leopold, was a colonial officer who did similar studies of Chinese astronomy as formal system). Just as psychologists and biologists were demonstrating that various cultural phenomena were actually expressions of disruptions and excitements of digestive and psychological processes (a project that still lives on in figures like Dennett and other Victorian remnants masquerading as 18th century philosophes with Nietzschean moustache), de Saussure demonstrates is really the movement of what Homer called ἕρκος ὀδόντων — “the gate of the tongue,” that wonderful vocal apparatus we have. All remarks that seem to suggest a notion of intersubjectivity are merely conceptual conveniences to serve this reduction of ontology to physical cause (again, the same method that was formerly the pride of the human sciences as the highest development of rational civilization, and that now has its last line of defenders in the Steven Pinkers, the pop scientists of mass culture selling their humanist manifestos alongside self-help literature and studies of the Kennedy assassination in any American bookseller).

The basic ethic of disenchantment, with all its metaphysical scaffolding, is more clearly expressed in the notion of which de Saussure seems most proud. Supplementing the category of mutual negativity among irreducible phonetic units is “arbitrariness,” the principle which states that no essential correspondence exists between a particular signifier and its signified (a phonetic unit and presumably what it indicates; we’re asked to take signification as primordial without further explanation). Like most synthetic a priori in the human sciences, its assumed primordiality is, upon insight, revealed to be not a little derivative.

To whom does it occur that an essential relation adheres?* Language at this point has already become something abstract; something which presents itself over and above man.

It is not the connection between signifier and signified that has been snapped by the man of science, but the connection between language and life activity that developments within that activity sundered. In this actual material abstraction of language, the human scientist can claim he himself has revealed an original object when he has merely made synthetic derivations from a foundational concept.

Not unlike Locke’s world bereaved of secondary qualities a few centuries prior, and Dennett’s world where consciousness has been expelled by a Stirnerian fiat later, the assumption of a world which is primordially without linguistic significance is a fiction of man’s own alienation. Husserl declared that, in contrast to the Galilean conception of the universe, the original earth does not move; so too the original earth is a not a dead thing in which language comes from without, but primordially linguistic,

Derrida sought to demonstrate (certainly with a debt to, if not de Saussure himself, then at least his ubiquity) that Difference is itself is a kind of Ur-category, so radically original that it must be repressed for the presentation of the world to take place. Derrida’s notion marks him as an important contribution to the transcendental philosophical project (that is, what his non French advocates — flag waving liberals like Rorty and heavy breathing multi culturalist lit studies personalities like Spivak and Culler alike — have sought to prove he isn’t, a project they were so insistent upon they even convinced me for a time). He did this by taking advantage of the Sausserian notion of difference, and for that, Saussure is owed some kind of debt.

Otherwise, Saussure demonstrates the basic Marxist judgment upon the study of cultural from the “positive” (that is, bourgeois) lens: that it can get nowhere for its denial of the actual life process. If only a few supposed followers of Marx in critical theory could see this (looking at you, Fred Jameson)

*and please have the good taste to not cite the Cratylus of Plato

[Gustavo Iván · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not only did I finished this book with a deeper understanding of linguistics, but also in Social Sciences as well. Cours de linguistique générale put me in the place of a student attentively listening to the teacher. If you want to get started in the realm of semiology, linguistics, and even sociology and psychology, this book is a tremendous find that one should dedicate a bit of time. In some moments it can be technical and overwhelming, but the simplicity of the language and various examples will always bring you back to the tracks.

[Airácula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Segunda vez que lo leo y, genuinamente, Negroni y Gelbes son excelentes desarmando y armando todos los componentes del "Curso de lingüística". 10/10

[Pavelas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Struktūralizmo biblija. Nors šios Ženevos profesoriaus studentų užfiksuotos paskaitos yra apie kalbotyrą, jų metodika buvo vėliau plačiai naudojama kituose humanitariniuose ir socialiniuose moksluose: semiotikoje, sociologijoje, filosofijoje ir kitur.

Pasak Saussure’o, kiekvieną kalbos ženklą (žodį ar posakį) sudaro du elementai: idėja (sąvoka) ir ją atitinkanti garsinė išraiška. Čia svarbu, kad ryšys yra tarp garsų ir idėjų (sąvokų), o ne realių objektų. Žodis “mėlynas” sieja jį sudarančius garsus su žmogaus supratimu apie tai, kuris šviesos spektro fragmentas laikytinas mėlynumu, tai nėra tam spektro fragmentui betarpiškai būdingas dalykas, o yra tik žmonių susitarimas, ką jie laiko mėlyna spalva.

Kokia yra sąvokos (signifikatų, žymimųjų dalykų) ir fonetinės žodžio išraiškos (signifikantų, žyminčiųjų dalykų) funkcija? Išsiskirti iš visų kitų sąvokų ir jų garsinių atitikmenų. Idėjos turi pasižymėti tam tikromis savybėmis, kad išsiskirtų iš kitų idėjų, o garsai - išsiskirti iš garsų, žyminčių kitas sąvokas. Jeigu tų skirtumų nebūtų, tai tiek mūsų mąstyme (juk mąstome sąvokomis), tiek kalbėsenoje būtų košė, kur vienų elementų negalima atskirti nuo kitų ir gaunasi visiškas nonsensas.

Dar knygoje gvildenamas kalbos ir šnekos skirtumas. Kalba - tai visų kalbančiųjų galvose esanti kalbos sistema, kuri atspindi tam tikrą konsensusą dėl to, kaip reikia kalbėti. Šneka - tai konkrečiam kalbančiajam ar santykinai nedidelei jų grupei būdinga kalbėsena, kurioje gali būti tam tikrų anomalijų, lyginant su bendruomenei būdinga kalba. Šnekoje vartojami žodžiai ilgainiui gali prasiskinti kelią į kalbą ir tapti kalbos dalimi, bet kol pokyčiai neįgyja tam tikro visuotinimo, jie netampa kalba. Reikia turėti omenyje, kad visos kalbos nuolat keičiasi, nors tie pokyčiai ir nėra labai greiti (tai yra, tam tikri šnekos elementai palaipsniui įsitvirtina kalboje). Pavyzdžiui, italų, ispanų ir prancūzų kalbos visos išsivystė iš lotynų kalbos, bet pakitimai moderniose romanų kalbose, lyginant su lotyniškuoju protėviu, buvo gana ženklūs. Iliustracijai: lotynų kalboje buvo nusistovėjusi linksnių sistema, o iš jos tiesiogiai išsivysčiusiose romanų kalbose linksnių pėdsakų beveik nebeliko.

Nesu studijavęs nei filologijos, nei filosofijos, bet ši knyga parašyta gana prieinamai, nes paskaitos skirtos studentams, tad vartojamos sąvokos yra paaiškinamos ir argumentacija yra išplėtota, nesitikint, kad skaitantieji turės išankstinių žinių apie dalyką. Taigi veikalas įkandamas visiems, ir tikriausiai gali būti nebloga pradžia pažindinantis su struktūralizmu.

[Bohdan Pechenyak · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classical study of linguistics that laid the foundation of the modern science. A bit heavy on examples that break up the flow of the text, but a must-read for anyone interested in studying language and meaning.

[Chris Via]

For literary critic, author, and professor Terry Eagleton, Structuralism is "rather like killing a person in order to examine more conveniently the circulation of the blood" (Literary Theory: An Introduction, 95), and indeed Roland Barthes had something like this analogy in mind when he wrote the monumental little essay "The Death of the Author." As Mary Klages defines it, "In any field, a structuralist is interested in discovering the elements - the units - that make up any system, and in discovering the rules that govern how those units can be combined. And that's all" (Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed, 31). For those of us far removed from the Russian formalists and the compiled lectures of Saussure, captivated as we are with the magic of literature, these aforementioned definitions must be borne in mind to keep a hold on Saussure's project.

Saussure is interested in bringing the field of linguistics up to a scientific standard. Taking cues from the historical progression of linguistics (from the Greeks' logical system of grammar to comparative literature to the Neogrammarians), he seeks to outline a rigorous discipline for the science of a language. Language, in his view, is composed of, at base, linguistic signs. These signs are themselves composed of a concept (signified) and a sound pattern (signifier). Here we see the foundation of the Structuralist mode: reductivism; hence, we're dealing with phonemes and morphemes which send or receive a concept/image. A crucial rule with these linguistic signs is that they have negative meaning--meaning, they have a specific correct meaning because they have not the meaning of other signs.

In terms of using the Structuralist mode to perform literary criticism, one would distill the text down to its most basic parts: again, down to the phonemes. What about the content, the story? Unnecessary. What about the author? Irrelevant. I cannot think of a single useful application of the Structuralist methodology in literary criticism that does not lead to the content or the author in some way except perhaps to yield the underlying symbols of the text. And still: now what? But, to be fair to Saussure's considerable work, we must bear in mind that his goal was linguistics, not literary criticism. In his own (or his students') words, at the close of this critical book: "...the only true object of study in linguistics is the language, considered in itself and for its own sake" (230).

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this book. It is significant not only for laying down a radical vision of linguistics as a discipline for the 20th and 21st centuries, but it also lays the foundations for all modern approaches to semiotics. Certainly Peirce had made a similar breakthrough in semiotics at around the same time, but his theory was not backed up by such a rich understanding of the study of linguistics - its sub-fields and divisions, the progress it had made, its mistaken steps and where it needed to go in the future. De Saussure demonstrates that language is one semiotic and so a theoretical framework is needed that encompasses both.
For a book that was delivered as lectures and then compiled posthumously by students 100 years ago, perhaps what is most surprising is just how much of the book is still relevant and important to the discipline of linguistics today. What is not surprising is just how much de Saussure has been misrepresented by modern linguists. De Saussure could not imagine syntagms without paradigms, and for him there was no signifier without a signified, so to use his name to support an autonomous syntax or to divide semantics, pragmatics, phonetics and syntax simplifies his theories beyond recognition, and makes a mockery of European linguistics.
100 years strong, this book still holds many questions waiting to be answered. 'The course' sets out major objectives in dialectology for the sociolinguistic programme, and it delves deep into phonetics from which it develops a view of historical linguistics that is not a simple rehash of philology, and that takes great care not to fall into the trap of equating language and race so popular with de Saussure's contemporaries. A grand theory of language, covering phonetics, diachronic and synchronic perspectives and grammar with a semiotic theory, to match de Saussure's has rarely been attempted in the years since his death. Currently, there are certainly just a few linguists that believe they should even try. Until that view changes we are unlikely to see another linguist with the depth of vision and inspirational views of de Saussure.

[Phillip · Rating 4 out of 5]

I want to preface this by mentioning that I only read the parts of this text that seemed to be about semiotics, rather than the parts about linguistics as such. De Saussure's text is really important to the foundations of semiotics as a discipline, and I was especially pleased to get clarification on the relationship between the sign, the signifier, and the signified. Otherwise, he had some smart insights on various things, but I think a general intro to semiology would be as useful. Obviously de Saussure was not writing specifically to develop a new discipline, and so his focus is not on semiotics so much as language itself. A semiotics intro would probably provide much fuller picture of the techniques and interests of semiotic theorists in general.

[Mahdi Karami · Rating 5 out of 5]

مهمتر از بررسی علمی زبان به عنوان یک پدیده نامشخص بین ذهن و زبان، نگاه کل گرایانه و پایه گرفتن زبان به عنوان یک نظام کلی، و سپس تلاش برای تحلیل اجزای این نظام در قالب یک نظام دوگانه و ارتباط عناصر با یکدیگر، یک نگاه انقلابی و فوق العاده است که سوسور به ما آموزش می دهد. دوگانگی و ارتباط بین اجزای مختلف، در قالب هایی همچون دال و مدلول، صورت و ماهیت، مغز و دستگاه اوایی، شناخت و آوا، در زمانی و همزمانی، همبستگی زنجیره ای و همبستگی متداعی، اختیار و انگیزه و بسیاری از دوگان های دیگر و استخراج قوانینی کلی به کمک همین رویکرد نگاه به اختلافات بین این دوگان ها، باعث میشه که این کتاب یک بینش جدید برای تحلیل پدیده ها به انسان هدیه کنه. بینشی که پایه و اساس نگاه ساختارگرایانه و پساساختارگرایانه به پدیده ها را شکل میدهد.

[L · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading through the many introductions and the first part I think I've got what I came for. In the first half of this volume Saussure introduced his many inventions in linguistics (physiological phonetics, structural linguistics, synchronic linguistics, semiology, etc) and brought forward his form of structuralism.

I find his view on the unreliability/distance of writing interesting, as it is pretty much a blend of Rousseau’s appeal to naturalism and Plato's argument of originality (form->thought->speech->writing). Derrida's response to this in Plato's Pharmacy pretty much covers this argument.

I may come back to this when I have more time. Linguistics is an area that I am interested in, and I couldn't imagine a better teacher of it than Saussure.

[charta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Long seller con cui chiunque abbia a che fare con date scienze umane doverosamente si imbatte, opera pluritradotta, base, culla, pietra angolare della linguistica, è davvero da presuntuosi pretendere commentarla.
Ventiduenne e laureando, l'autore si sente domandare da un dotto professore di Lipsia se per caso è parente del grande linguista svizzero Ferdinand De Saussure... Credo non serva sapere altro per valutare la portata di questa figura.