Page 206 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

Truth and Meaning
systems, but to give a precise outline of linguistics and its object in such a way that, from the particularity of language and linguistics, the general aspects of sign systems and the general guidelines for the study of such systems can be developed. Language has to be seen as a particular sign system and linguistics has to be seen as a branch of semiotics, which Saussure him- self calls 'semiology.'
With the notion of sign as the heart of linguistics, and with 'dichotomization' as the basic analytical device, Saussure sorts out the conceptual framework of linguistics in order to make the semiotic perspective possible. In a series of dichotomies, the opposition between system and use being the basic one, he defines a number of dimensions and elements of the language system, so that its internal structure of elements is constitutive for the sign. From a semiotic point of view, the most important among these dichotomies are those immediately connected with the sign, i.e., the distinction between the sign components, 'sig- nifier' and 'signified,' the sign levels, 'form' and 'sub- stance,' the distinction between the principles for the linkage of signs, 'paradigmatic' and 'syntagmatic' order, and, finally, the opposition between the two methodological viewpoints, 'synchrony' and 'di- achrony.'
The identity of a signifier or of a signified is its relation, i.e., its simultaneous difference and simi- larity, to other signifiers and signifieds. This relational identity is the 'value' of the signifying and signified unit. The identity of the signifiers is not bound to the material character of the expression, and the identity of the signifieds does not depend on the quality of the signified objects. Through the value of the sign components, a sign as a whole is then defined as a 'formal' and not as a 'substantial' entity: its identity depends on its relation to other signs in the same system of expression. Thus, a radical or epis- temological arbitrariness between sign and object is manifested in the sign as an internal arbitrariness between signifier and signified.
There are two kinds of arbitrariness working in cooperation in the sign system according to two rules of combination. A combination of signs or sign com- ponents can be 'syntagmatic,' i.e., bound to a sequen- tial determination or relative arbitrariness, e.g., sir- at the beginning of an English syllable must be followed by a vowel. If the combination of signs or sign com- ponents indicates simultaneous but alternating possi- bilities (as does the nominal case system), we have a 'paradigmatic' organization, based upon absolute arbitrariness.
Any system built upon arbitrarily combined signs or sign components can be studied from two view- points, the historical or 'diachronical,' or the 'syn- chronical,' i.e., that of a certain frozen situation.
With the notion of value as the key to the whole theory as a semiotic theory, Saussure succeeds in
defining language both as a specific structure in its own right, depending on the specificity of the relations involved, and as an example of a general sign struc- ture. This is due to the fact that value is a formal notion, indifferent to how it is materialized and to the character of the objects it represents, so that any system that acts like language in any medium and referring to any object, can be studied as a quasi- linguistic sign system.
With an extension of one of Saussure's own exam- ples: the 8.45 pm train from Paris to Geneva is defined in relation to other trains as listed in the timetable, not with regard to the specific carriages used at any specific moment. The timetable is the paradigmatic order, the organization of carriages with the engine in front is the syntagmatic chain. Changes in the time- table or in the position of the engine, depending on technological developments for example, will be a dia- chronical study of the Paris-Geneva transportation system, while the analysis of what is going on with regard to rail traffic between the two cities in the 1970s will constitute a synchronical investigation.
In Louis Hjelmslev's glossematics, the semiotic key notions are 'form' and 'hierarchy.' Saussure regards form, grosso modo, as equivalent to independence of substance, while Hjelmslev takes form to mean what can be formalized according to formal logic. Formal elements are elements which are exclusively defined by their reciprocal or unilateral relation to other elements. The sign is also a type of reciprocal relation, called the 'sign function,' between two units, the 'expression plane' and the 'content plane.' Elements which are related by concurrence alone have no formal definition. In this way, the formal structure is defined only by these two types of formal relation.
This formalistic or algebraic interpretation of Saus- sure puts further constraints on the basic analytical principle of dichotomization, in order to set up the final object description. The analysis is carried out as a division of the object in units which can be related and thus defined and only defined by the formal relations. This will lead to a noncontradictory object description. The analysis is exhaustive when all elements which are only characterized as concurrent are left out. They do not belong to the formal descrip- tion even if they can be repeated, e.g., the quality of Humphrey Bogart's voice, which is always concurrent with the verbal signs he utters. If more than one exhaustive description is possible, the simplest is to be preferred. With this notion of form, Hjelmslev has contributed considerably to the methodological devel- opment of semiotics.
Even if the concurrent elements are excluded from one sign system, they may acquire a formal definition by the description of another sign system. Thus, the rigid formalism opens a hierarchy of interrelated semi- otic levels. Hjelmslev's vision is a complete structure of sign systems referring to each other in order to create form out of substance on a global scale.
184