Saussure: Signifier and Signified

Research record

Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotic ideas are central to understanding the linguistic basis of structuralism. But the terms ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ are often reduced to simple formulas as if signifier = sound, signified = object. Sassure's actual assertion is more nuanced than this: the linguistic sign is not a straightforward addition of extrinsic objects and sound transcripts, but a combined unit of sound-image and conceptual aspects. The phonemic structure of the word ‘tree’, for example, would not be directly a single tree-object; In a linguistic community, it is associated with a conceptual aspect. Both signifiers and signifieds work within linguistic systems. For this reason, linguistic signs are not just simple lists of object-naming. The second question is that of ‘arbitrariness’. If the signifier–signified relation is arbitrary, is language entirely arbitrary? Can a word ever carry any meaning? Obviously not. Social traditions, histories and systemic differences give stability to the indicator. Arbitrariness does not mean ‘the will of the individual’, but the absence of natural necessity. The basic assertion of this chapter is that Sassard understands language as a social system of signs. The signifier is the acoustic/morphological aspect; signified (signified) conceptual aspects; sign A combined linguistic unit of the two. Extrinsic objects are not direct components of this definition, although linguistic usage may ultimately relate to the world. The signifier–signified relationship is not naturally obligatory; is socially established. For this reason, to say ‘arbitrary’ is not personal capriciousness, but rather an indication that there is no natural causal bond of the tree-concept with the ‘tree’ sound-form. Linguistic values ​​are differentiating. A signifier gains value because it occupies a different position from other signifiers/signifieds. Language not affixing labels to a finished list of items; He also creates a system of division and classification.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first form of the former states that conceptualizing the signified makes the external world too remote. how language connects to real objects and facts—Sassure's model would not provide an adequate answer. The second precedent is arbitrary. Sound imitation, phonetic symbolism, morphological inspiration and historical connections show that not all signs are equally arbitrary. The third premise is on the language/parole distinction. Social norms and individual usage are not so different; Speakers create new forms, change rules, innovation becomes part of social systems. The fourth precedent is from history. An excessive emphasis on synchronous structures can entangle linguistic change, dialects, power, colonial influences, standardization and social struggles. The fifth premise is from comparative philosophy. It is historically misleading to declare Bhartrihari, Mimansa, Panini or Apoh as precursors of Saussurean structuralism.

Uttarapakṣa

Answer to the first premise—Saussure's goal is not a complete theory of reference. The signifier–signified model clarifies one level of the linguistic sign-system. Parallel philosophy links questions of external reference and truth to Frege, justice, science, and the judgment of proof. Answer to the second precedent—may be a question of arbitrary degree. The basic formula is ‘natural necessity’; Iconicity or partial motivation shows a limitation/modification of this theory, not a complete refutation. Answer to the third premise—language/parole is an analytic distinction, not an ontological wall. Actual language change occurs through the combined processes of individual experimentation, group-experimentation, institutions and history. Answer to the fourth premise—synchronous and chronological analyzes should be complementary. Understand the current system, then examine its historical creation/change. Answer to the fifth precedent—dialogue with the Indian tradition should be limited to problem-solving. ‘Word–meaning relations natural or social?’, ‘What is a sentence/word unit?’, ‘Do differences make sense?’—these can be shared questions; The principles are not the same.

Parallel conclusion

Sassure puts a crucial relational turn in the philosophy of language. The signifier and the signified together form the linguistic sign; Their relationship is not a natural imperative, but socially established; Linguistic values ​​are formed by systemic differences. The language/parole and synchronic/diachronic distinctions clarify the level of analysis, but the reciprocity of the two in real language life must be acknowledged. Sassure’s power lies in elucidating semiotics and differential value; Boundaries pay relatively little attention to external contexts, truth conditions, pragmatics, power and historical conflict. Problem-dialogues with Indian Panini, Bhartrihari, Nyaya, Mimansa and Apoha are fruitful, but not historical parallels: Bhartrihari = not Sasyur; apoh = not Saussurean difference; Panini = not structuralism.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 5 source passages
2. Central thesis · 4 source passages
3. Major arguments · 12 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 5 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 5 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 6 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 6 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 6 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 5 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 16 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Saussure: Signifier and Signified.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-23/