The Impact Of Saussurean Linguistics Upon 20th-Century Western Literary Theories

The twentieth century saw the rise of so many literary theories in the West which grew up and developed under the profound influence of Saussurean linguistics presented in the seminal work of the Course in General Linguistics (1916). The influence is actually constituted by the basic conceptions of Saussurean linguistics, i.e., the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign and the distinctions. Saussure argues that the sign is a bipartite union of a signifier and a signified between which there is no intrinsic tie, and therefore the sign is arbitrary. Namely, the sign unites a sound image and a concept rather than a name in language and a thing in reality, and thus both the elements are psychological entities. Saussure views this conception as the first principle that dominates all the linguistics of language, and its consequences are numberless (Saussure 1966: 66-68), which implies other conceptions are developed from it. For Saussure, meaning is relational rather than referential since there is no place for reality in Saussure's conception of the sign. The arbitrary nature of the sign also means that a language is essentially a self-contained system of interrelated signs in which each element is meaningless by itself but meaningful only by its differentiation from the other elements. The arbitrariness involves the relation between language and reality, and language and thought. Saussure argues that language is a system of pure values, which can be shown by the arbitrary relation between sound and thought. That is, language can be seen as organized thought coupled with sound, and their combination produces a form rather than a substance (Saussure 1966: 111-113). Prior to the emergence of Saussurean linguistics, linguists and philosophers had viewed language as a vehicle for expression. That is, language is used as a tool to reflect or represent the world. However, Saussurean linguistics regards language not so much as a means of naming an independent world but of forming or organizing the world of our experience (Bell 2000:16; Hu Quansheng 2003: 7-8, 2002: 55-64; Quigley 2004: 10). He emphasizes that the signified is shaped by the signifier rather than vice versa, since language involves no direct reference to reality outside the sign (Saussure 1966: 111-112). Saussure distinguishes between diachronic and synchronic linguistics. The former is an approach to linguistics which studies how a language changes over a period of time, with a focus on the perspective of their historical development while the latter is an approach to language at one particular point in time (Saussure 1966: 81). He emphasizes the importance of the synchronic approach. Since the sign comes into being through the association of a sound image and a concept, the relation between them can remain stable only synchronically, so that language system can be described.Saussure introduces the conceptions of langue and parole in the Course to distinguish between an abstract system of signs and rules and the concrete realization of language. Langue is a unified or collective system shared by its speakers in contrast with parole which refers to the particular utterance of an individual (Saussure 1966: 13-20). He emphasizes that the goal of linguistics is to uncover the langue—the system of rules underlying and governing the parole—the actualization of langue in specific situations. This new perspective has changed the way people think about linguistics and consequently led to serious and substantial attempts to apply structuralist ideas to literary criticism. Hence the conceptions of the arbitrariness and langue/parole distinction have the most significant implications for literary studies. Structuralists, for instance, by analogy, maintain that literature as a whole can be seen as a system, and that a literary work does not have a referent in reality, and the goal of literary study is to uncover the langue (system of rules) underlying the parole (individual works). Barthes declares that the author is"dead", and that the literary discourse has no truth function (Selden et al. 1997: 66-67).Saussure points out that everything in language is built on both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships—two forms of mental activity, which indicates the linear nature of language inside discourse on the one hand, and association outside discourse on the other. To put it another way, a linguistic sign exists in the two different kinds of relationship. And thus the meaning of a sign is determined both by the sequential relations between the neighbouring elements and the relations with those absent from the text.Opposition or difference is also one of the major conceptions in Saussure's theory of language. He argues,"in language there are only differences without positive terms"(Saussure 1966:120) since language is a system of relations. The linguistic value comes from or is defined by, the differences between signs rather than in reference to anything outside of language (Saussure 1966: 66, 111-113, 120). Saussure's distinctions are characterized by binary opposition as shown in the above-mentioned distinctions. From these distinctions Jakobson derived the method of binary opposition and developed his theory of distinctive features in his study of phonemes. This method of his was later applied and promoted effectively by Lévi-Strauss in his structural anthropology. The above-mentioned conceptions are applied to literary studies either as a way of thinking (its epistemological function) or as methods (methodological conceptions) in analysis of literary structure, which is addressed as the Saussurean model.The first literary theory to benefit from Saussurean linguistics (particularly his conception of langue/parole distinction) is Russian Formalism which is mainly represented by Jakobson's conception of literariness as the goal of literature. Russian Formalists argue that literary study should give priority to the formal dimension of literature, emphasizing that literature is only form, and content is merely an effect of form (Ryan 1999: 1). The other achievement is made by Vladímir Propp, who bases his morphology of Russian fairytales on Saussure's conceptions of langue/parole distinction and syntagmatic relation for extraction of the system of rules underlying and governing individual fairytales. He identifies thirty-one functions out of a corpus of 100 Russian fairytales. He believes that they are all the necessary components that can be used to generate any story of the kind. The functions always appear in this order though not all of them appear in every story.The Anglo-American New Criticism, another school of formalism, is assumed to have emerged under the influence of Saussurean linguistics though little evidence has been presented so far about the real source(s) of its ideas. The New Critics treat literary work as all sources of meaning; they reject the traditional approach involving historical or biographical data for the interpretation of the work; they lay their primary emphasis on the individual work and on the variety and subtlety of the devices for analyzing the structure of its internal relations (Abrams 1993: 246-248), which corresponds to Saussure's conception of language as a self-sufficient system.Another school of literary criticism to be related with Saussurean linguistics is Prague School Structuralism represented by Jakobson's method of binary opposition and distinctive features based on Saussure's notion of distinctions and paradigmatic relations. Jakobson coined the term"structuralism"for the notion of Saussure's"system". Prague Structuralism functions as a bridge linking Russian Formalism and French structuralism.The greatest influence of Saussurean linguistics is on French structuralism which is chiefly represented by structuralist narratology. The pioneering work is done by Lévi-Strauss in his structural analysis of cultural signs with the methods of paradigmatic analysis and binary opposition for the extraction of the system. He is noted for coining the term"mytheme"analogous to"phoneme"and"morpheme". The other achievement is made by Barthes whose influential semiological investigation of myths and fashions is based on Saussure's sign theory. Literature in this sense is treated as a system of signs like a language. The third important figure is Todorov whose contribution to narratology and structuralist poetics is seen in his works Grammaire du Décaméron (1969) in which the term"narratology"was first used and Introduction to Poetics (1981). His writings are filled with the trace of Saussurean linguistics.The Saussurean model is mainly noted for its epistemological function (as ways of thinking) and methodological function (as methods for analysis of literary structure, often addressed as methodological conceptions). It is this model that provides incessant insights and analytical methods for many areas in social sciences and humanities, including particularly literary criticism. Traditional literary studies used to be isolated and insular prior to the emergence of the Course. Structuralism founded on Saussurean linguistics establishes order in place of disorder (Quigley 2004: 16) and provides new and stable patterns for systematic thinking which has had profound and continuing consequences for literary studies.Though few in number, Saussure's conceptions have highly generative capacity which accounts, to a great extent, for the impact. They can be almost endlessly extended via analogy and are subject to a variety of interpretations for various needs when extended to literary studies. Saussure once proposed to establish semiology—a science of immense scope that would study"the role of signs as part of social life"(Saussure 1990: 15). In his view,"language, better than anything else, offers a basis for understanding the semiological problem"(Saussure 1966:16). For him,"language, the most complex and universal of all systems of expression, is also the most characteristic; in this sense linguistics can become the master-pattern for all branches of semiology"(Saussure 1966: 68). Thus, linguistics can be applicable to all other branches of semiology including literature which is also viewed as a system of signs particularly by structuralists and is studied within semiotics as well. Saussurean linguistics applicable to other cultural phenomena is based on two fundamental insights: (1) sociocultural phenomena are not simply material object or events but objects or events with meaning, and they therefore are signs; (2) they do not have essences but are defined by a network of relations, both internal and external (Culler 1975: 4).The Saussurean model has met challenges from poststructuralists with Derrida and the later Barthes in the lead who attempt to deny Saussure's conception of the stable union of signifier and signified chiefly with the notions of différance and empty signifiers respectively. They lay stress on the indeterminacy of meaning arising out of the instability of the relation between signifier and signified. (In fact this is their misinterpretation of Saussure's conception to some extent.) The Saussurean model has some difficulty in practice. Due to its emphasis on langue and its pursuit of scientificity in uncovering the system, it is charged with simplification and lack of human involvement, and focus on intra-textuality rather than extra-textuality. These, to some extent, reflect the limitations of the Saussurean model in literary studies.