Course-in-General-Linguistics

CourseinGeneralLinguisticsFerdinanddeSaussureEditedbyCharlesBallyandAlbertSechehayeIncollaborationwithAlbertRiedlingerTranslated,withanintroductionandnotesbyWadeBaskinmS9(6)McGraw-HillBookCompanyNewYorkTorontoLondonPREFACETOFIRSTEDITIONphoneticchanges,forexample,includesthingsthathavebeensaidbefore,andperhapsmoredefinitively;but,asidefromthefactthatthispartcontainsmanyvaluableandoriginaldetails,evenasuperficialreadingwillshowtowhatextentitsomissionwoulddetractfromanunderstandingoftheprinciplesuponwhichF.deSaussureerectshissystemofstaticlinguistics.Weareawareofourresponsibilitytoourcritics.Wearealsoawareofourresponsibilitytotheauthor,whoprobablywouldnothaveauthorizedthepublicationofthesepages.Thisresponsibilityweacceptwholly,andwewouldwillinglybearitalone.Willthecriticsbeabletodistinguishbetweentheteacherandhisinterpreters?Wewouldbegratefultothemiftheywoulddirecttowardustheblowswhichitwouldbeunjusttoheapupononewhosememoryisdeartous.Geneva,July1915. CharlesBally,AlbertSechehayePREFACETOTHESECONDEDITIONThesecondeditionisessentiallythesameasthefirst.Theeditorshavemadesomeslightchangesdesignedtofacilitatereadingandclarifycertainpoints. Ch.B.Alb.S.PREFACETOTHETHIRDEDITIONWiththeexceptionofafewminutecorrections,thiseditionisthesameasthepreceding. Ch.B.Alb.S.INTRODUCTIONChapterIAGLANCEATTHEHISTORYOFLINGUISTICSThesciencethathasbeendevelopedaroundthefactsoflanguagepassedthroughthreestagesbeforefindingitstrueanduniqueobject.Firstsomethingcalledgrammarwasstudied.Thisstudy,in-itiatedbytheGreeksandcontinuedmainlybytheFrench,wasbasedonlogic.Itlackedascientificapproachandwasdetachedfromlanguageitself.Itsonlyaimwastogiverulesfordistinguish-ingbetweencorrectandincorrectforms;itwasanormativedis-cipline,farremovedfromactualobservation,anditsscopewaslimited.Nextappearedphilology.AphilologicalschoolhadexistedmuchearlierinAlexandria,butthisnameismoreoftenappliedtothescientificmovementwhichwasstartedbyFriedrichAugustWolfin1777andwhichcontinuestothisday.Languageisnotitssoleobject.Theearlyphilologistssoughtespeciallytocorrect,interpretandcommentuponwrittentexts.Theirstudiesalsoledtoaninterestinliteraryhistory,customs,institutions,etc.'Theyappliedthemethodsofcriticismfortheirownpurposes.Whentheydealtwithlinguisticquestions,itwasfortheexpresspurposeofcomparingtextsofdifferentperiods,determiningthelanguagepeculiartoeachauthor,ordecipheringandexplaininginscriptionsmadeinanarchaicorobscurelanguage.Doubtlesstheseinvesti-gationsbrokethegroundforhistoricallinguistics.Ritschl'sstudiesofPlautusareactuallylinguistic.Butphilologicalcriticismisstilldeficientononepoint:itfollowsthewrittenlanguagetooslavishlyiAttheriskofoffendingsomereaders,certainstylisticcharacteristicsoftheoriginalFrenchareretained.[Tr.](ThebracketedabbreviationsS.,Ed.andTr.indicatewhetherfootnotesaretobeattributedtoDeSaussure,totheeditorsoftheCoursdelinguistiquegenerate,ortothetranslator.)12 COURSEINGENERALLINGUISTICSandneglectsthelivinglanguage.Moreover,itisconcernedwithlittleexceptGreekandLatinantiquity.Thethirdstagebeganwhenscholarsdiscoveredthatlanguagescanbecomparedwithoneanother.Thisdiscoverywastheoriginofcomparativerhilology.In1816,inaworkentitled(1berdasConjugationssystemderSanskritsprache,FranzBoppcomparedSanskritwithGerman,Greek,Latin,etc.Boppwasnotthefirsttorecordtheirsimilaritiesandstatethatalltheselanguagesbelongtoasinglefamily.Thathadbeendonebeforehim,notablyby,theEnglishorientalistW.Jones(diedin1794);butJones'fewisolatedstatementsdonotprovethatthesignificanceandimportanceofcomparisonhadbeengenerallyunderstoodbefore1816.WhileBoppcannotbecreditedwiththediscoverythatSanskritisre-latedtocertainlanguagesofEuropeandAsia,hedidrealizethatthecomparisonofrelatedlanguagescouldbecomethesubjectmatterofanindependentscience.Toilluminateonelanguagebymeansofanother,toexplaintheformsofonethroughtheformsoftheother,thatiswhatnoonehaddonebeforehim.WhetherBoppcouldhavecreatedhisscience-soquicklyatleast-withoutthepriordiscoveryofSanskritisdoubtful.WithSanskritasathirdwitnessbesideLatinandGreek,Bopphadalargerandfirmerbasisforhisstudies.Fortunately,Sanskritwasexceptionallywell-fittedtotheroleofilluminatingthecomparison.Forexample,acomparisonoftheparadigmsofLatingenus(genus,generic,genere,genera,generum,etc.)andGreek(g&nos,geneos,genei,genea,genoon,etc.)revealsnothing.ButthepicturechangesassoonasweaddthecorrespondingSanskritseries(danas,¢anasas,1anasi,¢anasu,#anasam,etc.).Aglancerevealsthesimi-laritybetweentheGreekformsandtheLatinforms.Ifweac-cepttentativelythehypothesisthat§analrepresentstheprimi-tivestate-andthisstepfacilitatesexplanation-thenweconcludethatsmusthavefalleninGreekformswhereveritoccurredbe-tweentwovowels.NextweconcludethatsbecamerinLatinunderthesameconditions.Grammatically,then,theSanskritparadigmexemplifiestheconceptofradical,aunit(fans)thatisquitedefiniteandstable.LatinandGreekhadthesameformsasSan-skritonlyintheirearlierstages.HereSanskritisinstructivepre-ciselybecauseithaspreservedalltheIndo-Europeans's.OfcourseAGLANCEATTELHISTORYOFLINGUISTICS 3Sanskritfailedinotherres