This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
This new edition of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics (1916) is the first critical edition of Saussure to appear in English. It also restores Wade Baskin's delightful original English translation (1959), which has long been unavailable. The founder of modern linguistics, Saussure inaugurated semiology, structuralism, and deconstruction and made possible the work of Jacques Lacan, French feminism, cultural studies, New Historicism, and postcolonialism. Based on the lectures that Saussure gave at the end of his life at the University of Geneva, the text of th… (more)
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" ([b:Literary Theory: An Introduction|16939|Literary Theory An Introduction|Terry Eagleton|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1429361191s/16939.jpg|2454022], 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" ([b:Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed|771189|Literary Theory A Guide for the Perplexed|Mary Klages|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1347401535s/771189.jpg|757247], 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). ( )
Basado en notas de su cátedra, correspondientes a los tres cursos sobre lingüística general dictados en 1906-1907, 1908-1909 y 1910-1911, cursos desarrollados en la Universidad de Ginebra, tras suceder a Jospeh Wertheimer en 1906. El texto es una reconstrucción hecha por sus alumnos, basándose particularmente en el último de los tres cursos y las notas recuperadas del maestro.
This is a linguistics classic and a must-read for anyone wanting to delve into the history of linguistics. Just to be sure, however, this is a collection of notes from his course painstakingly collected into this volume by his students. The notes are based on a series of lectures, so it doesn't really read so much like a textbook.
If you're looking for a more specific understanding of general linguistics as the field stands today, I recommend picking up a contemporary introductory text and reading this after you've got a basic grounding in linguistics terms and concepts. ( )
Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale occupies a place of unique importance in the history of Western thinking about man in society. It is a key text not only within the development of linguistics but also in the formation of that broader intellectual movement of the twentieth century known as ‘structuralism’. With the sole exception of Wittgenstein, no thinker has had a profound an influence on the modern view of homo loquens as Saussure. [From Roy Harris' "Translator's Introduction" (1986/1997: [ix])]
Ferdinand de Saussure's criticism of the inadequate tenets and methods characteristic of the linguistics which prevailed during the period of his own intellectual development we heard from his own lips on many occasions. All his life he pursued a determined search for guiding principles to direct the course of his thinking through that chaos. But it was not until 1906, when he had succeeded Joseph Wertheimer at the University of Geneva, that he was able to expound his own views. They were the mature product of many years' reflexion. He gave three courses of lectures on general linguistics, in 1906–1907, 1908–1909, and 1910–1911. The requirements of the curriculum, however, obliged him to devote half of each course to a historical and descriptive survey of the Indo-European languages, and the essential core of his subject was thus considerably reduced. [From Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye's "Preface to the First Edition" (1916/1997: [xvii])]
The science which has grown up around linguistic facts passed through three successive phases before coming to terms with its one and only true object of study. [From "A Brief Survey of the History of Linguistics", chapter 1 of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics (1916/1997: [1])]
Quotations
Last words
From the excursions made above into regions bordering upon linguistics, there emerges a negative lesson, but one which is all the more interesting in that it supports the fundamental thesis of this course: the only true object of study in linguistics is the language, considered in itself and for its own sake. [From "Language Families and Linguistic Types", chapter V of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics (1916/1997: 230)]
This new edition of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics (1916) is the first critical edition of Saussure to appear in English. It also restores Wade Baskin's delightful original English translation (1959), which has long been unavailable. The founder of modern linguistics, Saussure inaugurated semiology, structuralism, and deconstruction and made possible the work of Jacques Lacan, French feminism, cultural studies, New Historicism, and postcolonialism. Based on the lectures that Saussure gave at the end of his life at the University of Geneva, the text of th
)
Google Books — Loading...
Wikipedia in English (3)
2
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). (