Sorted by date | |||
page135from Building Ideas
the system and it is this limitation of the
individual’s free expression that has proved the most controversial of Saussure’s
ideas. As the philosopher Richard Kearney has succinctly pointed out:
It
implied a fundamental rejection of the romantic and existentialist doctrines
that the individual consciousness or ‘genius’ is the privileged locus of the
creation of meaning. In answer to Sartre’s view, for example, that each
individual existence is what each individual makes of it, the structuralist
replies that the meaning of each person’s parole is governed by the collective
pre-personal system of langue.5
Saussure’s
third important principle is founded on a further binary opposition, this time
concerned with the question of history and its relevance to the underlying
structure of language. As Saussure had dismissed the notion of meaning as a
product of the relationships between words and things, he was thereby also able
to dispense with the ways these might have changed with the passage of time. He
thus made the distinction between the diachronic study of language, which looks
at its development across historical time, and his preferred synchronic analysis
which isolates the system at a particular moment in a “frozen” state. It is
here that Saussure departs most dramatically from the traditional habits of
linguistic study, with its usual emphasis on philology and etymology and the
complex interactions of cultural forces. Saussure concluded that while
particular acts of parole may be continually changing with the passage of time,
beneath these “surface” effects lay the deep and timeless structure of langue.
At any point in history this deep structure could be subjected to analysis and
this would always yield the most informative picture of the systems of meaning
at work in language.
What
Saussure laid out was a method of analysis which those who followed him applied
in practice – he did not himself live long enough to develop the science of
signs which he had already dreamt of and christened semiology:
|
|||
|
|||
|