Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure's Doctrine

8/17/2019 Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure's Doctrine

1/7

Duke University Press and Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org

uke University Press

Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure's DoctrineAuthor(s): Roman Jakobson and B. HrushovskiSource: Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 1a, Roman Jakobson: Language and Poetry (Autumn, 1980), pp.

33-38

Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772350Accessed: 23-10-2015 10:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:18:42 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1772350http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1772350http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/


2/7

SIGN AND

SYSTEM OF

LANGUAGE

A

Reassessmentf

Saussure's

octrine*

ROMAN

JAKOBSON

It

is

remarkable

hat

Suassure's Cours de

linguistique

endrale

was

frequently

mentioned

n

this

ymposium,

s

if

one wished o establishwhathas

changed

n

the

basic

assumption

f

general inguistics

verthe

fifty ears

which

eparate

us

from

he

lectures

f

the Genevan

master.

For

the

theory

f

language

and for

linguistics

s

a

whole t was

indeed

half

century

f cardinal

ransformations.

t

seems

o

me that ur

fruitful

iscussion

onveys

clearnotion

s

to what n

this

famous

heritage

equires

far-reaching

evisions,

nd

which

parts

of

Saussure's

teaching

in

the version dited

by

his

pupils

-

remains alid to this

day.

Of the two basic prinicples f the Cours, les deuxprincipesgendraux, s

Suassure

labeled

them,

one

may

see

today

the firstbasic

proposition

-

I'arbitraire

u

signe,

the

arbitrariness

f

the

anguage ign

-

as

an

arbitrary

principle.

As

Beneviste as shown t

beautifully

n

Acta

Linguistica

,

from

he

synchronic

oint

of

viewof a

language ommunity

sing

he

anguage

igns,

ne

mustnot

ascribe o them n

arbitrary

ature. t

s not

at

all

arbitrary

ut

rather

obligatory

o

say

fromage

for

cheese n

French,

nd to

say

cheese

n

English.

believe

hat

one

may

concludefrom

he

whole

discussion n

arbitrariness

nd

unmotivated

igns,

hat

'arbitraire

as a

most

unfortunate

hoice of

a

term.

This

questionwas dealtwithmuchbetter ythePolish inguistM. Kruszewski,

contemporary

f

Saussure

and

highly

stimated

y

the

atter),

s

early

s

in

the

beginning

f

the

1880s.

Kruszewskimade a

distinction

etween wo

basic

factors

in

the ife

of a

language,

wo

associations:

by

similarity

nd

by

contiguity.

he

relation

etween

signans

nd a

signatum,

which

aussure

rbitrarily

escribed

as

arbitrary,

s

in

reality

habitual,

earned

ontiguity,

hich

s

obligatory

or ll

members f a

given

anguage

community.

ut

along

with

his

contiguity

he

principle

f

similarity,

a

ressemblance,

sserts

tself.As it

was mentioned

ere,

and

as

Kruszewski

lready

aw

it,

this

principle

lays

an

enormous ole in

the

area of

derivations nd in

the

area of

word

families,

where

imilarity

etween

*Lecture n

Erfurt,

ast

Germany,

Oct.

1959,

t

the st

nternational

ymposium

Sign

nd

System

of

Language,

ublished

n

German n R.

Jakobson's

elected

Writings,

ol.

I

(The

Hague:

Mouton,

1971).

Authorized

ranslation rom

German

by

B.

Hrushovski.

@

Poetics

Today,

Vol.

2:la

(1980),

33-38


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

34

ROMAN

JAKOBSON

words

of

one root s

decisive,

nd where t

becomes

mpossible

o

speak

about

arbitrariness.

n

morphophonological

ssues,

he

question

f similar

tructuress

ofprimarymportance henwerecognizehat here xist ertainmodels, ertain

structural

ypes

f

the

distribution

nd

selection

f

phonemes

n

roots,

nd other

types

f

prefixes

r

suffixes

f derivation

nd

conjugation.

Finally,

he

ssue of

sound

symbolism,

n which shallnot furtherwell

here, emains,

n

spite

f all

skepticism

oiced

n

the

past,

an

important

nd

fascinating

roblem

n

the

tudy

of

language.

And

so are all

questions

concerning

he

foundation f

language

symbols

n

image

and indication

or,

as

Charles Sanders

Pierce,

the

pioneer

of

the

heory

f

signs,

would

have said: the

problem

f

conic

r

ndexical

ymbols).

It

seems to

me that the

second

principle

n

Saussure's

Cours,

the so-called

linearite,

must lso

be

seen

s a

dangerous implification.

ctually

we encounter

two-dimensionalnitsnotonlyon the evelof the ignatum,s demonstratedy

Ch.

Bally,

but lso

in thefield

f

the

ignans.

f

we

recognize

hat he

phoneme

s

not

the

ultimate nitof

language,

but

can

be

decomposed

nto

distinctive

ea-

tures,

hen

t

becomes

elf-evident

hatwe

may peak

n

phonology

oo

about

two

dimensions,

as

we have accords

n

music),

hedimensions

f

successivity

nd

of

simultaneity.

his,

however,

must

ead

to

abandoning

number

f Saussure's

theses n basic

aws of

anguage

tructure.

hus,

believe hat he

erm

syntag-

matic s

often

misleading,

ince

when

eferring

o

syntagmatic

elations

we think

of

successivity

n

time;however,

esides

he ombination

n

temporal

uccession,

we mustdeal alsowith ombination fsimultaneous eatures.

t would

be

advis-

able in this

respect

o

speak

simply

bout

combination,

een as contrasted

y

another

factor,

namely,

election.

Selection

of units

or of

combinations,

n

contrast

o combination

er

se,

belongs

o the

paradigmatic

evel

of

anguage.

t

is

substitution,

s

distinguished

rom

both

simultaneity

nd

successivity.

n

selection,

he

principle

f

equivalence,

r association

by

similarity,

sserts

tself.

While

observing

he

paradigmatic

xes rather

han

uccessivity

nd

simultaneity,

I

do

not believe

that

we abandon

the

domain

of

the

objective

nd

plunge

nto

subjectivity.

inguistic

esearches

f recent

ears

have shown

hat n this rea

an

objective

tratification,

hierarchy

f

components,

xists.

One

encounters

ere

theproblem fpredictability,heproblem fprimarynd secondary unctions,

which

has

been

outlined

brilliantly y

Kurytowicz

n the

thirties

nd

whichhas

been

recently

eveloped

n America

n the

theory

f

syntactical

ransformations

-

one

of

the

most

opical

problems

f

inguistic

nalysis.

At

the same

time,

he

even

more

mportant

nd

ndispensable

uestion

rises,

s to the

relationship

nd

the

difference

etween

aradigmatic

eries

nd combinational eries

chains

or

clusters).

We

deal

here,

pparently,

s

in all modern

ciences,

with he

ignificant

dea of

invariance.

We

speak

about

combinational,

ontext-dependent

ariants

n

the

level

of

sound as

well

as on the

evelof

grammar.

ut t

would be

impossible

o

speak

about variants s

long

as we have not clarified he natureof thebasic

invariant,

he

unit to

whichall these

variants re related. The search

for

the

invariants

s now

the most substantial

roblem

not

only

n

phonology,

ut

in

grammar

s well.

When

dealing

withthe

sign,

the

bilateral

ignum

s a

link




4/7

SIGN AND SYSTEM OF LANGUAGE

35

between he

signans

nd

signatum,

ow do we discover

uch nvariants

n

one

hand in the domain

of

the

signans

and on the otherhand

in the fieldof

the

signatum?

he basic

differenceetween

he

wo,

from

linguisticoint

f

view,is thatthe

signans

must

necessarily

e

perceptible

whereasthe

signatum

s

translatable.

n

both ases the

principle

f

equivalence

btains. n

the

domain

of

the

signans

the relative

quivalence

must be

externally

erceivable;

t can

be

ascertained, owever,

nly

n

respect

f thefunction

f these ound

relationsn

a

given anguage.

We

recognize

uch distinctive

eatures

nd,

by

means

of

a

spec-

trograph,

we are

able

to

translate hemfrom he acoustic

field nto

the

visual

level.And

ike

he

ignans,

he

ignatum

oo must e studied

n

a

purely

inguistic

and

objective

manner. A

purely inguistic

emantics an and

must

be

con-

structed,

f we

agree

withPeirce hat

hebasic

property

f

any

verbal

ign

ies

n

its capabilityof being translated nto anotherverbal sign, either a more

deployed, xplicit

ign,

or,

on the

contrary,

more

elliptical

ign,

of the

same

language

ystem

r of a

differentne. This

translatability

ays

bare

that

emantic

invariant or

whichwe

are

searching

n

the

ignatum.

n

such a

way

t

becomes

possible

to

submit emantic

problems

of

language

to

distributional

nalysis.

Metalinguistic

dentifying

entences,

uch s

A

rooster s a male of a

hen

belong

to

the ext

nventory

f

the

English

anguage ommunity;

he

reversibility

f

both

expressions

A

male

of

a hen

s

a

rooster

demonstrates ow

the

meaning

f

wordsbecomesa

real

inguistic roblem

hrough

distributive

nalysis

f

such

common

metalingual

tterances.

Among

the basic features f theCours de

linguistique

ednrale

s the

split

nature f

inguistics:

he

eparation

f

synchrony

rom

iachrony.

he

thorough

work done

over

several

decades

in

both

partial

areas,

as well

as

the

refined

methodology

eveloped

n

this

research,

rought

bout a

serious

danger

of a

flagrant

gap

between

these two

descriptions,

nd

also the

necessity

of

overcoming

his

gap.

Saussure's

dentificationf

the

ontrast

etween

ynchrony

and

diachrony

with

he

ontrast etween

tatisticsnd

dynamics

urned ut

to

be

misleading.

n

actual

reality

ynchrony

s

not

at

all

static;

changes

re

always

emerging

nd are

a

part

of

synchrony.

ctual

synchrony

s

dynamic.

Static

synchronysan abstraction, hichmaybeuseful othe nvestigationf anguage

for

specific

purposes;

however,

an

exhaustive

true-to-the

acts

synchronic

description

f

language

must

consistently

onsider

he

dynamics

f

language.

Both

elements,

he

point

of

origin

nd

the final

phase

of

any

change,

xistfor

some time

simultaneously

ithin

one

language

community.

hey

coexist as

stylistic

ariants.

When

taking

his

mportant

act nto

consideration,

e

realize

that

he

mage

of

anguage

s

a

uniform

nd

monolithic

ystem

s

oversimplified.

Language

is a

system

of

systems,

n

overall

code

which

includes

various

subcodes.

These

variagated

language

styles

do

not

make an

accidental,

mechanical

aggregation,

ut

rathera

rule-governed

ierarchy

f

subcodes.

Thoughwe can tellwhichof thesubcodes s the basiccode, it s nevertheless

dangerous

implification

o exclude

he

discussion f

the other

ubcodes.

f

we

consider

angue

as

a

totality

f

the

conventions f a

language,

hen

we

mustbe

very

areful

not to be

researching

ictions.




5/7

36

ROMAN

JAKOBSON

I

believe

that

today

our

chief

task

should

be

to

become

realists,

o

build

a

realistic

tudy

f language

nd combat

anyfictionalism

n

linguistics.

We must

ask ourselves:

what s the real

linguistic

onvention hat

enables

exchange

of

speech

n a

given anguage ommunity

nd serves

ffectively

hevarious asksof

communication?

ome

linguists

sk,

why

hould

inguistics

iffer rom

hysics

in

its

methodology?

Why

could

not

the scholar of

language mpose

his

own

system

f

symbols,

his creative

model,

upon

the

investigated

material,

s is

common

n

the

natural

ciences?

ndeed,

one

observes,

n

many

espects,

n

ever

more

meaningful

nd

fruitful ontact betweenthe

natural sciences

and lin-

guistics;

neverthelessne

must

keep

n

mind he

specific

ifferencess

well. n

theLondon

school

of

mathematical

nformation

heory

he

cardinal

difference

was

clearly ecognized

nd the

problemof

communication as

separated rom

otheraspectsof information. irstof all, one mustdistinguish etween wo

classes of

signs

indices nd

symbols,

s Pierce alled

them.

ndices,

which he

physicist

xtracts

rom

he external

world,

are not reversible.

He transforms

these ndices

given

n nature

nto

his

own

system

f

scientific

ymbols.

n

the

science

of

language

the situation

s

cardinally

different.

he

symbols

exist

immediately

n

language.

Instead

of the

scientist,

ho extracts

ertain ndices

from he

external

world and

reshapes

hem

nto

symbols,

here

an

exhange

of

symbols

ccursbetween

he

participants

f a communication.

ere the roles

of

addresser

nd

addressee

re

interchangeable.

ence

the task

of the science

of

language

s

quite

different.

e are

simply rying

o translate

nto

metalanguage

this

ode,

which s

objectively

iven

n the

anguage

ommunity.

or thenatural

scientist

ymbols

re a scientific

ool,

whereasfor

the

inguist

hey

re

beyond

that,

and first

f

all,

the true

object

of

his

research.

The

physicist

iels

Bohr

understood

erspicaciously

his

natural ealism

f the

inguist's

osition.

Having

mentioned

iels

Bohr,

would ike

o

recall

his

methodological

ictum

essential

oth

for

physics

nd

linguistics.

amely,

hat,

when

n

observation

s

made,

t

s

imperative

o

determine

xactly

herelation etween

heobserver

nd

the observed

hing.

A

description

hatdoes

not

comply

with

his

requirement

s

imprecise

rom he

point

of view

of

today'sphysics,

s it s from

oday's inguis-

tics. t is our taskto clarifyhevariouspositions f scholarsvis-A-visanguage.

The so-called

rypto-analytical

osition

s the

point

of view

of

an observer

who

does

not

know

the

language

code,

and who could be

compared

to a

military

crypto-analyst,

ttempting

o

decipher

n

enemy's

ncoded

message.

He tries

o

break

the

foreign

ode

through

careful

nalysis

of the text.

n the

study

f

unknown

anguages

such

devices

may

obviouslybring

fruitful

esults.

This,

however,

s

merely

he

first

tage

of

research,

nd it s

by

no means

the

only,

but

rather

ne

of

many

methodologies,

first

pproximation.

hen the

observer

attempts

o

reach

the

second,

more advanced

stage,

the

stage

of a

pseudo-

participant

n

the

given

anguage

ommunity.

e does not

any

moremove

from

thetext o thecode, butrather bsorbs the code and tries o use the code for

better

nderstanding

f the

message.

Such

s the

ssential

ssumption

f

descriptive

inguistics.

ut

here

difference

emerges,

which s

rarely

onsidered.

We must

not

hypostatize

he

code,

but




6/7

SIGN

AND

SYSTEM

OF

LANGUAGE

37

rather

nvisage

t from he

point

of view of the

speech

exchange.

One

must

distinguish

harply

between wo

positions,of

the encoder

nd

the

decoder,

n

otherwords:

between he role

of

the addresser

nd that

of

the

addressee.

This

seemsto be a

banality,

utindeed,banalities re most often

disregarded.

he

whole mode of

observing message

s

cardinally

ifferentor

the

two

partici-

pants

in a

speech

event. The

hearer s lead

through

he distinctive

eatures,

through

the

phonemes

he

recognizes,

to

the

grammatical

form and

to

understanding

he

meanings.

n

this

process

the

probability

actor

plays

an

enormous

ole.

The

probabilities

f thetransition

elp

one to

perceive

text,

ts

phonology

nd

then ts

grammar;

fter

ertain

nits ther nits

ollow,

ndowed

with

higher

or

lower

probabilities,

nd

many

are a

priorily

xcluded. The

perceiver

s

endowedwith

subliminal

tatistical

et;

homonymy

s

for

him

an

essential rocess.On theotherhand,for hespeaker, heorder fthe anguage

stages

s

reversed.His road

leads from

he

sentence

hrough

he

hierarchy

f

immediate

onstituents,

nd

finally

hrough

he

morphological

units to the

sound form n

which

hey

re

manifested. oth

orders ccur

qually

n

anguage

exchange;

heir

mutual

elations

ie,

as Bohr

would

have

said,

n

the

principle

f

complementarity.

oth

anguage spects

xistfor

he

encoder

s well as for

he

decoder,

but the

direction hat

s

primary

or

one

becomes

secondary

or the

other.

For

the

speaker ua

speaker

no

homonymy

xists.For

example,

whenhe

pronounces

n

English

sAN/

e

knows

recisely

hether

e meant

son or a

sun;

whereas

he hearer

must

use

a

different

ethod f

probability

n

order o

solve

this uestion.Bothattitudes, roductionndperception,aveequal claims o be

described

y

the

inguist.

t

would

be

a

mistake o

reduce

his

wo-sided

anguage

reality

o

merely

ne

side. Both

methodsof

description

articipate

nd

have

equal

rights.

Using only

one of

the two

without

keeping

n

mind

whether ne

represents

he

position

of

the

speaker

or

the

hearer

s

like

playing

he

role

of

Jourdain,

who

spoke

prose

without

having

known

that t

is

prose.

The real

danger

arises

when

one

makes

compromises

between

both

positions,

contradictory

o

the

rules

f

each

side. For

example,

f

linguist

elects

ncoding

as the

point

of

departure

f

his

language

description

nd

analysis,

nd

hence

forgoes heuse of statisticsnd theory f probability, roceedswith gram-

matical

analysis

of

immediate

constituents,

nd

observes

the

primacy

of

morphology

ver

phonology,

henhe

cannot

-

if

he

follows

logical

direction

-

exclude

meaning.

Meaning

can

be

excluded

only

whenone

works

from

he

position

of

the

decoder,

ince for

him

meaning

merges nly

as a

conclusion,

whereasfor

he

speaker

meaning

s

primary.

he

speaker

proceeds

de

verbo

d

vocem,

whereas he

hearer

roceeds

n

the

oppositedirection,

s Saint

Augustine

had

already

tressedn

his

deliberations n

the

theory

f

language.

Many

things

will

become

clearer n

liguistic

escriptions

nd in

the

theory

f

language

when

clean

demarcation

s

undertaken

nd

the

proper

ttention

aid

tothedifferent odes ofobservation ftheencoder nddecoder.Themodesof

observation,

owever,

re

not

exhausted

by

those two

kinds.

One

should

also

take

into

account

the

considerable

process

of

recoding :

n

this

case one

language

s

interpreted

n

the

ight

f

another

anguage,

r

one

style

f

speech

n




7/7

38

ROMAN

JAKOBSON

the

ight

f another

ne;

one code or

subcode s translated

nto another ode or

subcode.

This s

a

most

lluminatingroblem,

ince ranslations one of themost

essential

nd

increasinglymportantinguistic

ctivities,

nd the

methodology

f

translation,

s wellas the consistent

nalysis

f

translation,

re

placed

on the

daily

order

of

contemporaryure

and

applied inguistics.

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:18:42 UTCAll bj S O d C di i

Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure's Doctrine

Documents

Transcript of Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure's Doctrine