My Theory of Everything

(clinique de anthropologique)

San Francisco

by: Chris Bertram

Saussure, Linguistics and Self

 
It is in language that we have established ourselves. In the universal question of: who am I? – It is in our language that we know who we are. Ferdinand de Saussure was a contemporary of Freud and was the founder of modern linguistics. Ferdinand de Saussure was born in Geneva and taught at the University of Geneva as a professor of linguistics. His students gathered his papers after his death and they became the current model of language as the: “Cours de Linguistique”. The science of Semiology was wrought and the structured concepts of language for the sign, the signifier, and the signified became the current model. Because it was a milestone, the Saussure’s systematic study of language has not changed since the 19^th century. Lacanian Psychoanalysis would not have been possible without the Saussure Semiotics of the language and the structured approach to language. It was Ferdinand de Saussure who brought us the structured form of the study of linguistics. In this paper I will discuss Ferdinand de Saussure’s ideas and brief applications to us and who we are.

The first thought of language to any one would be grammar. Intuitively it would be thought of as the only thing necessary for language and that would be it. Perhaps at the point of establishing grammar rules the work was in itself establishing grammar rules and to have the participants agree on the grammar rules. There must have been a point in our history where grammar was important and the study of it necessary for the thing of language to survive. After the first thought of language grammar then what did they do?

In our human history of linguistics after the basics of their scholarly local grammar was established it was discovered or possibly rediscovered that systems of languages were related and that they could be broken down in to families. In time these studies established that most languages were similar and in fact very similar. It wasn’t until much later that questions of why languages were similar in linguistics. There were ways and systems to languages that transcended the studies of the facts of grammar of any one particular language.

According to Ferdinand de Saussure the history of linguistics went through three stages and he traced the origins to the ancient Greeks who had a discipline of grammar that had been taken up by the recently modern French. At the ancient school and library of Alexandria there had been a Philology school where they were seeking to establish, interpret, and comment upon texts. Then it was discovered that languages could be compared with one another. There were then discovered systems of languages. In 1816 a work was titled The Sanskrit Conjugation System by Franz Bopp (Bopp, 1856) that linked Sanskrit, Germanic, Greek, and Latin languages where it was summarized that all of the above languages belonged to the same family. The three stages were then grammar, philology, and the comparative studies – each of primary concern even today (Saussure, 1986).

Ferdinand Mongin de Saussure was born in Geneva in 1857. He was precocious and showed early signs of great intellect. He studied undergraduate work and Sanskrit at the University of Geneva before going on to graduate work. He went on to graduate work at the University of Leipzig and wrote his paper Thesis on the Primitive Vowel System in Indo European Languages. With his undergraduate work and thesis it could be seen where he would spend his studies. “Saussure lectured on Sanskrit and Indo-European at the University of Geneva for the remainder of his life. It was not until 1906 that Saussure began teaching the Course of General Linguistics that would consume the greater part of his attention until his death in 1913 (wikipedia, 2009).”

According to Ferdinand de Saussure the previous stages of the facts of linguistics had limitations. The Grammar studies although based upon logic brought about a whole series of mistaken notions. The Philologists failed to inquire in to the significance of the linguistic comparisons they established. The Philologists and comparative Philologists and comparative grammarians gave rise to the new school of thought at the time – the Neogrammarians. Even so, according to Ferdinand de Saussure there were fundamental problems in general linguistics that still awaited solutions despite the previous stages of the linguistics (Saussure, 1986).

“In general, the philological movement opened up countless sources relevant to linguistic
issues, treating them in quite a different spirit from traditional grammar; for
instance, the study of inscriptions and their language. But not yet in the
spirit of linguistics.[1] “-Ferdinand de Saussure

If it were possible to use the thoughts at that time and construct a computer program to use their rules for language it would produce nothing intelligible. There was a sense that there needed to be something else to discover in language and the way it was purveyed. The language was much more than the thing that is chiseled in stone on a Stella or a thing drawn on the papyrus scroll. A gathering of a bunch of rules of language was not enough for a study in linguistics.

Saussure further broke down language families and language types in his work General Linguistics. The writings of General Linguistics would seem to be from part of a greater whole in the field of linguistics. The continuation of the families of languages was important work at the time and highlighted the tremendous work that would still need to be done but is not the focus of this paper.

Saussure described those languages changes over time. The language is the thing and the linguistic community as he describes it exist and neither have control of the changing of the language. The language changes over time during the usage by the community of language users according to Saussure (Saussure, 1986).

Saussure wrote about what he termed Semiology. He defined it as a science that studies the role of signs in society. He explained that Semiology was a new science in that he describes that it should be in the realm of Psychology and also the Linguist. The mechanism of the sign in the individual is the realm of the Psychologist, however; the linguist takes on the realm of systems of languages and their signs and what they have in common with one another. Semiology was written about and created by mentioning it and was established by Saussure in passing where he looked apparently like he meant to get back to it at a later date (Saussure, 1986).

It is on the discussions of Semiology for the first time that we get the idea in taking the course of Ferdinand de Saussure that what we are talking about is essentially a discussion of the Psychology of the person’s mind that uses language and what language represents. Reading the book in this case is taking the course since it reads like some one’s binder full of paper lecture notes. Saussure takes Linguistics and connects it to Psychology as perhaps a multidisciplinary approach or perhaps simplifies one or both fields in the Semiology discussions.

Saussure described the way of a Speech Circuit. Language was spoken from the brain of one individual and received to the brain of another individual. He described hearing and vocalization conducted by both individuals in a Circuit. There was the approach that used Psychology and Physiology as part of Linguistics. He described the internal concept and sound pattern conducted inside the heads of the individuals. He called the whole scenario a Circuit (Saussure, 1986).

Saussure went in to the Physiology of Phonetics. He labeled the biological machinations that were conducted in the act of speaking itself. The palate was conducted in charts and graphs in such a manner as to flesh out the sound types as he described them. He then broke down the language origins, history, and philology of the sounds made on particular aspects of the human palate. In such a manner the Physiology of Phonetics was mapped out in great detail (Saussure, 1986).

Saussure broke down the sign itself in a systematic way that lead to general usefulness in breaking down language. In my personal way I was able to deconstruct middle ancient Egyptian glyphs in such a way as to indicate that the system is useful for a once removed circumstance that the author could not have tested as an indication of in fact a new science.

Saussure stated:

“A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound pattern. (Saussure, p.66, 1986)”

In the Egyptian Glyphs example the transliteration of the glyph for the Horned Viper makes the sound for the English sound of the consonant “f”. He makes the case that the sign has a sound pattern attached to it. In my transliteration I could have just wrote the glyph and the secondary stage and then the English equivalent but the verbal portion of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics is an integral part of the transliteration process and it wasn’t until the transliteration itself was perfected that the language then revealed its meaning to ethnographers. Translating the Egyptian glyphs has been made easier by the Saussure methods and perhaps would not have been possible without the discussions of Saussure.

Saussure had two principles:

1. The Sign is Arbitrary
2. The Linear Character of the Signal

In these two principles he made a point that in linear time a sign is transmitted in a straight line from a temporal space (Saussure, p. 70, 1986). The statements of temporal space made the point that the linguistics was by nature a partial discussion of Psychology and the storage area of a function of the human brain.

It turns out that there are two areas of the brain involved in language, Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, both discovered by medical doctors investigating language. According to Wikipedia Paul Broca was doing Anthropological research as a medical doctor and discovered that certain impairments to a certain region of the brain could be isolated to a certain region of the brain (Kalat, 2007). Also according to Wikipedia Carl Wenicke had discovered a region of the brain that could be isolated that involved speech (Kalat, 2007). The two regions of the brain linked to biological psychology as it turns out were directly involved with the formation of language processing and producing the physiology of speech in much the same way if not exactly as Saussure described in the speech circuit discussions (Saussure, 1986).

How could it be that; most languages have been derived form the same source in forgotten antiquity; certain areas of our physical brain could be responsible for producing speech and representing language? I have given a loaded question because I have taken the reader on to my already previously derived conclusion in that language is tied to Psychology because language represents who we are. At some point in antiquity we must have been essentially hard wired with components of language and it is evident in the discussions of linguistics.

“Any psychology of sign systems will be part of social psychology – that is to say, will be exclusively social; it will involve the same psychology as is applicable in the case of languages.[2]” -Ferdinand de Saussure

In Ecrits, a Freudian Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan states:

“We shall see that philologists and ethnographers reveal enough to us about the combinatory sureness found in the completely unconscious… (Lacan, p. 59, 2002)”

Lacan’s work goes on to glorify Freud and the concept of the unconscious and how it is revealed to the Psychoanalyst by language. Roberto Harari in breaking down the Psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan states:

“In my view…Lacan employs…his true wisdom. In terms of its episteme, his reasoning is very similar…language as a code, serves the purpose of communication with all the traits linguists have painstakingly developed. What will be nodal for us, however, is the function of the signifier… (Harari, p. 130, 2004)”

Harari goes on in his work to discuss Lacan’s Psychoanalysis techniques for the Unconscious, Transference, Drive, and Repetition in terms of Ferdinand de Saussure’s Semiology. In the example we have a contemporary Psychoanalyst quoting Lacan who himself considered himself a Freudian Psychoanalyst whom Sigmund Freud was a contemporary of Ferdinand de Saussure (perhaps the time was right for the Linguists and the Psychoanalysts).

In the Psychoanalysts minds they have no doubt come to the conclusion that our language determines who we are and that our complete unconscious is unknowingly revealed to the world in our spoken and formed language. They have determined that using the signs of Saussure they can write extensive analysis of our unconscious mind.

Let’s take a John Doe and see what would be done to see who he is. Could we take a bunch of his diaries and correct the grammar and come to a conclusion? We would need to get a language circuit in Saussure’s method to get at the signs, signifiers, and signified. We would need to see how the language was spoken to another person and received to process the signal of the linear transmitted sign. We would need a verbal discussion between a John Doe and a Jane Doe to see the language circuit and the Biological Psychology to work properly. Of coursen the observed spoken exchange of conversation would be analyzed by the Psychoanalysts for the clues as to the unconscious desires of the Jane Doe and John Doe exchange of language. In order to really see who John Doe is we would need to do all of the above to find out who he is and perhaps no one has yet devised such a method as yet because I didn’t come across any in my readings: however, in my exercise in seeing who a John Doe is I have shown that it is not a case of correcting John Doe’s grammar to see who he is.

In the work General Linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure he stated that Linguistics is a science of a general topic of systems of languages. Linguistics comprises the physiology of the way language is formed and spoken on the palate according to Saussure. Language exists in a community of language speakers that change over time according to Saussure. The language in Saussurean methodology is linked to our Psychology in that we have a linear storage system of output of the language in our mind that is transmitted to the receiver of the language that must be picked up also in a linear way. Saussure described a speech circuit involving parts of the brain that were later determined to exist in actual lobes and grooves of the brain cortex. One can draw the conclusion by the similarity of languages that we must be hard wired for languages. The sign and signifier of Saussure was a concept picked up by the Freudian Psychoanalysts and the Lacanian Psychoanalysts to such an extent that the idea that language as a way of determining who we are now has become embedded in thought as to be inexorably inextricable.

 

Bibliography

 
Bopp, P. F. (1856). A Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic German and Sclavonic Languages (2nd ed., Vol. II). (E. B. Eastwick, Trans.) 14 Henrietta Street, Convent Garden, London, England: Williams and Norgate.
 
Harari, R. (2004). Lacan’s Four Fundamental Concepts Of Psychoanalysis: An Introduction. (J. Filc,
Trans.) New York, N.Y.: Other Press LLC.
 
Lacan, J. (2002). Ecrits. (B. Fink, Trans.) New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company.
 
Saussure, F. d. (1986). Course in General Linguistics. (C. B. Riedlinger, Ed., &
R. Harris, Trans.) La Salle, Illinois, United States: Open Court.
 
Kalat, W.J. (2007). Biological Psychology Belmont, Ca.: Thomson Wadsworth, Thomson Corporation.
 
wikipedia. (2009, July 7). Ferdinand de Saussure.