Day: July 31, 2024

The Concept of the Linguistic Sign by Ferdinand de Saussure

1. Sign, Signified, Signifier

• Major Points:
  • Rejects the simplistic view of language as mere naming: Saussure criticizes the notion that language is just a list of words corresponding to things, emphasizing that the connection between words and ideas is more complex.

This conception is open to criticism at several points… it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation—an assumption that is anything but true.  

• Defines the linguistic sign as a two-sided psychological entity: Saussure introduces the concept of the sign as a combination of a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier).

The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image.

• Clarifies the nature of the sound-image: The sound-image is not the physical sound itself but the psychological imprint it leaves on our senses.

The sound-image is sensory… the impression that it makes on our senses.

• Key Terms:
  • Sign: The whole that results from the association of the signifier and the signified.
  • Signified: The concept or idea represented by the signifier.
  • Signifier: The sound-image or form that represents the signified.

2. Principle I: The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign

• Major Points:
  • States that the connection between signifier and signified is arbitrary: There is no inherent or natural relationship between the sound-image of a word and the concept it represents.

The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary… the linguistic sign is arbitrary.

• Supports the claim with evidence from different languages: The fact that different languages use different sounds to represent the same concept proves the arbitrary nature of the sign.

The signified “ox” has as its signifier b-ö-f on one side of the border and o-k-s (Ochs) on the other.

• Emphasizes the importance of this principle in linguistics: The arbitrariness of the sign is a fundamental principle with far-reaching consequences for the study of language.

Principle I dominates all the linguistics of language; its consequences are numberless.

·  Overcoming Abstract Approaches:

• Bakhtin argues that the study of verbal art must integrate both form and content as a unified entity. He criticizes the separation of “formal” and “ideological” approaches, emphasizing that verbal discourse is inherently social. This means that every aspect of language, from sound to meaning, is shaped by social interactions and contexts.
• Quotation: “Form and content in discourse are one, once we understand that verbal discourse is a social phenomenon.”

·  Stylistics of Genre:

• Bakhtin highlights the importance of examining stylistics within the context of genre. He points out that isolating style from genre has led to a narrow focus on individual and period-specific nuances, ignoring the broader social implications and historical destinies of genres. This has resulted in a lack of a comprehensive philosophical and sociological approach in stylistics.
• Quotation: “The separation of style and language from the question of genre has deprived stylistics of an authentic philosophical and sociological approach.”

·  Social Life of Discourse:

• According to Bakhtin, traditional stylistics often neglects the social dimension of discourse, treating it as a static, abstract construct. He argues that discourse should be understood as a living phenomenon, thriving in public spaces and social interactions, rather than confined to the isolated creativity of individual artists.
• Quotation: “Stylistics is concerned not with living discourse but with a histological specimen made from it.”

·  Stylistic Uniqueness of the Novel:

• Bakhtin asserts that novelistic discourse is fundamentally different from other forms of artistic expression. He explains that traditional stylistic categories, which are often based on poetic discourse, fail to capture the unique, multi-voiced nature of the novel. This highlights the need for new approaches to analyzing novelistic style.
• Quotation: “Novelistic discourse proved to be the acid test for this whole way of conceiving style.”

·  Heterogeneity in Style:

• The novel is characterized by a diversity of styles and voices, making it a complex and multifaceted genre. Bakhtin argues that this heterogeneity is what defines the novel, as it encompasses various speech types and stylistic unities, each contributing to the overall artistic system of the work.
• Quotation: “The novel as a whole is a phenomenon multiform in style and variform in speech and voice.”

·  Compositional-Stylistic Unities:

• Bakhtin identifies several key compositional-stylistic unities within the novel, such as direct authorial narration, stylization of everyday speech, and individualized character speech. These unities interact and combine to create a higher stylistic unity in the novel, which cannot be reduced to any single one of its parts.
• Quotation: Lists unities such as “Direct authorial literary-artistic narration” and “The stylistically individualized speech of characters.”

·  Dialogized Heteroglossia:

• Bakhtin introduces the concept of heteroglossia, referring to the coexistence and interaction of multiple social voices and speech types within the novel. This dialogized heteroglossia is a fundamental characteristic of the novel, enabling it to represent a wide range of social and ideological perspectives.
• Quotation: “The novel orchestrates all its themes… by means of the social diversity of speech types.”

·  Critical View on Traditional Stylistics:

• Bakhtin critiques traditional stylistics for its inability to address the unique features of novelistic discourse. He argues that the conventional categories of stylistics, rooted in poetic discourse, are insufficient for analyzing the novel. This highlights the need for a new, more nuanced approach to studying novelistic style.
• Quotation: “All the categories of traditional stylistics… were not applicable to novelistic discourse.”

·  Novel’s Artistic System:

• Bakhtin emphasizes that the novel’s artistic system is created through the integration of diverse stylistic unities. Each unity, whether it be direct narration, character speech, or other forms, contributes to the higher stylistic unity of the work as a whole. This system reflects the complexity and richness of novelistic discourse.
• Quotation: “These heterogeneous stylistic unities… combine to form a structured artistic system.”

·  Introduction of Dialogism:

• Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism emphasizes the interaction and coexistence of multiple voices within a text, challenging the notion of a single, authoritative perspective in narrative.

·  Concept of Heteroglossia:

• Heteroglossia highlights the presence of diverse social languages within a text, reflecting the complexity of social life and communication. This concept underscores the multiplicity of voices and perspectives in novels.

·  Development of Polyphony:

• Polyphony refers to a narrative structure where multiple, distinct voices coexist without being subordinated to a single, authorial perspective. This idea revolutionized the understanding of character and narrative structure in literary theory.

·  Carnivalesque Elements:

• Bakhtin’s notion of the carnivalesque introduces elements of humor, chaos, and the subversion of established norms, enriching the understanding of narrative dynamics and cultural commentary in literature.

·  Chronotope Theory:

• The chronotope, or the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships, provides a framework for analyzing how different narrative events are shaped by their temporal and spatial context.

·  Identification of Speech Genres:

• Bakhtin identifies various speech genres, such as everyday conversation, scientific discourse, and literary genres, each with its own conventions and rules. This categorization helps in understanding the stylistic diversity within texts.

·  Architectonics of Narrative:

• Architectonics refers to the overall structural and thematic organization of a literary work, emphasizing how different elements of the text are arranged to create a cohesive artistic whole.

·  Dialogized Heteroglossia:

• Dialogized heteroglossia highlights the active and dynamic interaction of different social languages and voices within a text, shaping meaning and contributing to the richness of the narrative.

·  Double-voiced Discourse:

• Double-voiced discourse reflects multiple, often conflicting perspectives or intentions within a single utterance, offering insights into the complexity of character speech and narrative techniques.

Overemphasis on Dialogism:

• Critics argue that Bakhtin’s emphasis on dialogism and polyphony may overlook the importance of narrative coherence and unity. They suggest that while multiple voices can enrich a text, excessive fragmentation can lead to a loss of overall narrative direction and clarity.

Neglect of Authorial Control:

• Some scholars believe that Bakhtin underestimates the role of the author in shaping the narrative. They argue that the author’s voice and intent are crucial in guiding readers through the text and providing a cohesive interpretation, which Bakhtin’s model of dialogism might diminish.

Limited Applicability to All Genres:

• Critics point out that Bakhtin’s theories are heavily focused on the novel, potentially limiting their applicability to other literary forms such as poetry, drama, or non-fiction. This focus might restrict the broader relevance of his concepts across different genres and mediums.

Idealization of Heteroglossia:

• Some critics argue that Bakhtin’s celebration of heteroglossia might overlook the potential for confusion and incoherence that can arise from the coexistence of multiple voices and languages within a single text. They suggest that this idealization may ignore practical challenges in maintaining narrative clarity.

Historical and Cultural Specificity:

• Bakhtin’s theories are often seen as closely tied to the specific historical and cultural contexts in which he wrote. Critics argue that his ideas may not be as universally applicable as he suggests, and that different literary traditions and cultural contexts might require different analytical approaches.

Insufficient Attention to Reader Response:

• Some scholars believe that Bakhtin’s focus on the text and its voices does not adequately consider the role of the reader in interpreting and making meaning of the text. They argue that reader response and individual interpretation are critical components of literary analysis that Bakhtin’s framework does not fully address.