Saussure’s mental world of signs and language. Image by Dave Bleasdale
Due to his theories on the structure of language, the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) is often known as the founder of modern linguistics.
In order to understand Saussure’s linguistic theories, you have to be able to grasp the basics of his psycho-linguistic terminology and his explanation of the nature of language units.
Understanding the basic concepts of his linguistic theory is not only essential for linguistic students, but for anyone studying semiotics, or the use of various types of signs to communicate. Semiotics is also a basic element in film theory studies.
In Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics, a book summarising his lectures at the University of Geneva from 1906 to 1911, he explained the relationship between speech and the evolution of language, investigating language as a structured system of signs.
It is important to note that Saussure perceived a linguistic unit to be a ‘double entity,’ meaning that it is composed of two parts. He viewed the linguistic unit as a combination of:
1. a concept or meaning
2. a sound-image
Linguistic Units and Sound – Images are Mental Impressions
The first point to understand is when Saussure mentioned ‘linguistic units,’ sound-images’ and ‘concepts,’ he was referring to the mental processes that create these entities. He was not referring to spoken or written words, but to the mental impressions made on our senses by a certain ‘thing.’ It is our perception, or how we view this ‘thing,’ together with the sound system of our language that creates the two-part mental linguistic unit he referred to as a ‘sign.’
Let’s take for example the fairly new concept of ‘Google.’ The sound image, or impression in our minds is of the logo representing Google, and through our language system we know how that image sounds mentally. We know the concept or meaning associated with this ‘sound impression’ that ‘Google’ is a large search engine on the Internet. The connections between the two elements are made mentally without uttering or writing the word ‘Google,’ and the two parts formed are joined and become united as a mental linguistic unit. Saussure calls this two-part linguistic unit a ‘sign.’
Understanding the Terms Sign, Signified and Signifier
The part of the sign Saussure calls the ‘concept’ or ‘meaning’ (mental impression/association of the ‘thing’) he named, ‘signified.’ The idea of what ‘Google’ is, for example, is signified. The part he calls the ‘sound-image’ (the mental ‘linguistic sign’ given to the ‘thing’) he named the ‘signifier’ – this is the sound Google’s logo creates in our minds.
As Saussure explains, the connection between all ‘signifiers’ which are ‘sound images’ or ‘linguistic signs’ and what they are signifying – their signified object or concept – is arbitrary. In other words, there is not necessarily any logical connection between the two. Again, the word ‘Google’ exemplifies this well.
There is nothing in the word ‘Google’ that would suggest that it is a digital means of searching for information on the Internet. It is a random invented word. With the arrival of the Internet, in the waning years of Yahoo! a name, or ‘sound image’/’linguistic sign’ had to be created to describe a new search engine. However, now, when you see the ‘linguistic unit’ ‘Google’ (the ‘sign’), you automatically connect it to its sound image, the signifier ‘Google’ – a ‘linguistic sign‘ which signifies a ‘large search engine on the internet.’
Resources:
Ferdinand de Saussure. Course in General Linguistics. (1959). The Philosophical Library, New York City.
I appreciate this article on Saussure very much, but it is also inaccurate. While it represents a common understanding of Saussure’s way of looking at language, it is not how Saussure saw it. A linguistic unit is not an entity made of two parts (sound-image & concept). For Saussure, there were no linguistic entities or parts. The concepts of signifier (sound-image) and signified (concept), for example are not two different entities; they are two different ways to look at language.
Signifier and signified are inseparably one. They are two different ways to describe language. What I am trying to explain seems strange, but it is exactly what Saussure explains over and over again in his writings. He was rejecting the Western tradition that treats language like an entity or an instrument. For him language is creative action, not a thing.
To put it another way, the signifier (‘Google’) and the signified (“a search engine on the internet”) are inseparably one. You can’t have one without the other. And if we did have one without the other, it would no longer be language.
The signifier is the point of view that connects ‘Google’ to the physical world (of sounds); the signified is the point of view that connects the meaning “search engine” to the mental world. When someone says “Google”, it is not purely physical event, nor is it a purely mental event — it is something else (which we call language, or the semiotic world.) . Because the word “Google” is not bound by the physical and mental worlds, it can change meaning. Compare for example, “Did you google him?” vs. “Google is a search engine” vs. “He’s so obsessed with Google, they call him Mr. Google”. The variation in meaning here is due to a change in context, NOT because I put different, pre-existing parts (signifiers/signifieds) together.
There’s a lot more to say here, but I should also add that Saussure eventually rejected the linguistic sign as a basis for linguistic study. Instead, he saw texts and contexts as the most important point of view. Texts are not made out of words; rather, words are made from (con)texts. In the examples above, the text around the word “google” is what made the meaning of “Google” different.
For more on this, see my article: http://www.billcarrasco.com/upLoads/Carrasco_Babel_Saussure_Article.pdf
Thanks for this piece
It is said that the arbitrariness in the bond between signified and signifier is because of onomatapoeia and interjection can please explain this as it would be helpful to many students like me.
Thank you for good explanation
What are the characteristics of signifier and signified??
thaks for your explanation.I copletely agree with your ideas.I am kirui wilbon a great kenyan linguist.
thank you so much for the explanation.
Thanks a lot sir
It really helped in my MA exams Linguistics section.
Thanku so much for an easy explanation. It cleared all my confusion.
Thanks a lot for this explanation now i can make the difference between the signifier and the signified.
Its easily understandable.? I want to know about how sign is differential?
This explanation is very useful . Thanks a lot for giving a simple clear cut explanation of Saussuarian concept of sign.
i love his explanation thanks yhis is very well