Benveniste, E. “The Nature of the Linguistic Sign” ch 4 Acti I.inguistica I (Copenhagen, 1939): 13 a9 (43-48).
THE IDEA OF THE linguistic sign, which is today asserted or implied in most works of general linguistics, came from Ferdinand de Saussure. And it was as an obvious truth, not yet explicit but nevertheless undeniable in fact, that Saussure taught that the nature of the sign was arbitrary. The formula, immediately commanded attention. Every utterance on the essence of language or the modalities of discourse begins with a statement of the arbitrary character of the linguistic sign. The principle is of such significance that any thinking bearing upon any part of linguistics necessarily encounters it. That it is cited everywhere and always … obvious are two good reasons for seeking at least to understand it in the sense which Saussure took it and the nature of the proofs which show it.
In the Course in General Linguistics, this definition is apllied in very simple statements. One calls sign the total resultant of the …ation of a signifier (=sound image] and what is signified [=concept]. "The idea of 'sister' is not linked by any inner relationship to …which serves as its signifier in French; that it could be represented equally by just any other sequence. is proved by …the very existence of different languages: the signified cow has as its signifier boeuf on one side of the border and …(Ocha) on the pther'. (p. 102 [1'1'. 67 -68]). This ought to establish that "The bond, between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary'" or, more simply, that "the linguistic sign is arbitrary" (67).
By "arbitrary," the author means …i.e., arbitrary in that it actually has no natural …tion with the signified (103 [po 69]). This characteristic ought then to explain the very fact by which it is verified: namely, that expressions of a given notion vary in time and space and in consequence have, no necessary relationship with it.
…Now it is only if one thinks of the animal in its concrete and substantial particularity, that one is justified in considering "arbitrary'" the relationship between ,bll/ on the.- one hand and okl on the other to the same t .r reality. There is thus a contradiction between the way in which Saussure defined the linguistic sign and the fundamental nature which he attributed to it.
Such an anomaly in Saussure's close reasoning does not seem to me to be imputable to a relaxation of his critical attention, I would see instead a distinctive trait of the historical and relativist thought of the end of the nineteenth century, an inclination often met with in the philosophical reflection to comparative thought. Different people react differently to the same phenomenon. The. infinite diversity of attitudes and judgments lead to the consideration that apparently nothing is necessary. From the universal dissimilarity, a universal contingency is inferred. The Saussurian concept is in some measure dependent on this system of thought. To decide that the linguistic sign is arbitrary because the same animal is called BOEUF in one country and Bull elsewhere, is equivalent to saying that the notion of mourning is arbitrary because in Europe it is symbolized by black, in China by
white, Arbitrary, yes, hut only under the impassive regard of …or for the person who limits himself to observing from the outside the bond established between an objective reality and human behavior and condemns himself thus' to being nothing in it but contingency. Certainly with respect to a Rame
. . . . .
Psychologically our thought- apart from its expression in words- is only a shapeless and indistinct mass, Philosophers and IinR\li8tl hive .Iwa)'s aRreed In recoRnizing'that without the help of littns we would be unable tn m.k_ I cldr-cut, consiltent distinction between two ideas, Without tanRuage, thuu..:ht il it vaJ;t\je, uncharted nebula. There are no preexiltinR ideal, and nuthin5Z il distinct be for,' t"e appr n('_ nl l..ng_l,g_Jp. 16i (pp, 111 18 2)).
Conversely, the mind accepts only a sound form that incorporates a representation identifiable for it; if it does not, it rejects it as unknown or foreign. The signifier and the signified, the mental representation and the sound image, are thus in reality the two aspects of a single notion and together make up the ensemble as tier and the embodiment, _the
phoni. translati n of'a roncc . th s' . _en1!LcaJM1_!Jhe _iKnifit:r, This consubstantialit), of the Signifier and the si,gnified assures the __al tInilY nf thc IinRu.i_tic sign, Here again we appcal to Saussure him_dr fuf what ht. I\aid of lan_uaRc:
1._I1JCUi15Ze can also be compared with a _.t ef I'aper{thought is the front nl1(1 the sUlIl1d thr back _ one cannot cut the front without cuttinR the back :1t th,. !'amt timc; likewise.- In languORf', one can neither dividt sound (rom thnul!ht rUtr thnUJlht (rum "nund; the divi!lion could bt. accc,mpli!lhf'd only ah!lltm"h'clly. and' th.. result wnultt be either pure psycholoRY or rure 1'11..11..1"10' (I'. If,_ [p. 113).
PROBLEMS IN: GENERAL LINGUISTICS
What Saussure … here about language holds above all for the linguistic sign in which the primary charactcristics of 13n_\la_c are incontestably fixed. One now sees the zone of the arbitrary and one can set limits to it. What: i_ nrhhrar_' it' that one certain I'i n an no (PlIwt..iluppli.cd tn il£e.r.tain eteml!nt nr.._c"lity. an nnt to an" uth_r, In thi" AcnAC, and only in thi" "cn"..., is it perl11iR_'ihlc to spcak of contingency, and even in AU doing we would seck Ie!'! to solve the problem than'to point it out and tht'n to take leave of it temporarily, For the problem i" nonc other than the fam()m_ (I"'_(J" or Oln,,? and can only 'he resolved by decree, It i9 indeed the t'taphy!'ical problem of the agreement hctwt'en the mind and thc world transpo_ed into lingui_tic terms, it p_ohlem which the linguist will pl'rhaps nnt' d:,)' be able to attack with results but which he will do 'better to put aside for the moment, To establish .the, i'datinnship as' arbitrar)' is for the linguist a way of defendinR himself against thil' question and also again!'t the solution which the speaker brings instincth'dy to it. For ,the speaker tllt:re is II complete equivalence.- between language and reality, The sign _",erlie8' and command. reality i even better, it ;1 that reality (flomt,,/omm, I'pee_h taboo., the magic power of the word, etc.), As a matter of fact, the roint of view of the speaker and of the linguist arc 80 different in this r__art' that the asse.-rtion of the linguist as to the arbitrariness of dc"ignations does not refute the contrary feelinR of the speaker. But, what.ever the case ma}' be, the nature of the Iingui9tic sign is not at aJl--'::---involved if one defines it 89 Saussure did, since t_e essen_e of this d_nilioif ' is preciselY to co__id_I:- only the re_tionship of the signi6er and_fied..
The domain of the arbitrary is thus left outside the extension or the Iing!Jistic sign,
…rather pointless to defend the principle of the "arbitrariness of the sign" against the objection which could be raised from onomatopoeia and expressive words (Saussure, PI 3-104 [pp, 69-70]). Not only because their (fan of use is relatively limited and because Je_pre8sivity is an, essentially
"transitory, subjective, and often' secondary effect but especially because here again, whatever the reality is that is depicted by the onomatopoeia or the expressive word, the allusion to that, reality in most cases is not immediate and is only admitted by a symbolic convention analogous to the convention that sanctions the ordinary signs of the stem. We thus get back to the definition and the characteristics which are valid for all signs. The arbitrary does not exist here either, except with respect to the phenomenon or to the …object, and does not interfere with the actual composition of the sign. Some of the conclusions which Saussure drew from the principle here discussed and which had wide effect should now be briefly considered. For instance, he demonstrated admirably that one can speak at the same time of the mutability and immutability of the sign; mutability, because since it i. 1"'" :'V """,, "I ,h,' I.lnx"i.dir -"'.en 't I ;uhit_..ry it i_ _D_e, ami ilJ1mtlhthilitJ-d \use bcing i_i'r ' it -. \not, challc 'c'd in the naml' h£ _ r ' In. "1_anguaRe - ' i_ rildicitlly I'H)w_rlrss to defend itself against the forces which from one muml'rU tn the.- ne_t arc _hiftinR the rchttionship betwl-en the signified and the t-i_nit1l'r, Thi" iK fUn' of tl,c cun!'cqUl'nc:e.'" of the arbitrary nltu", of the sign" (p, i 1 Z (p, 7_)), The nll'rit nf thi_ analy_18 il' in no way diminished, but on the ,'untrary i" rdnfurced, if one 8tates more precisely the relationlhip to whic_ it in fact appli"',,, It is ot betwcen the si nii nifled that the rdatm.nshh) ,is modifkd.J(ul at the Baine time remains immutable; it is h('_",een the siKn and the ohiect; that i!', in other terms, th_ objective ,"olilla t;ml of the d_iRnatinn, I'uhmitted, as Ruch, to the action of various hi_sJoricaL fact()r_, \Vhat Sau,ssure demonstrated, remains true, but true of the signifitatilln. nut the.- si_n. AnutlU'r problem. no I,,'s_ im rtant, which the definition of the siRn conc,,'rn, directly, is that of ('alllr in which Saussure thought to 11m) a confirmation of his vicwfo: Ie, .', the choice of a given slice or 5otJmito name a gi\'en idea i,a cn"tpletely arbitrary, If this were not true, the notion' of value wouldbc: compromiacd, for it would include an externally imposed tlement,
S.. ",_t actually values remain mtirdy rdi1iYe, and that Is why the bond between the sound and the idea is radically arbitrary" (p. 163 [po 113])' It is worth the trouble to take up in succession the several parts of this argument. The choice that invokes a certain sound slice for a certain idea is not at all 'arbitrary; this sound slice would not exist without the corresponding idea and vice versa. In reality, Saussure was always thinking of the representation of the rtal object (although he spoke of the "idea") and of the evidently unnecessary and unmotivated character of the bond which united the sign to the thing signified. The proof of this confusion lies in the following sentence in which 1 have underlined the characteristic part: "If this were not true, the notion of value would be compromised since it would i"tludt tltI txttr"ally impolld tlmtmt," It is indeed an "externally imposed element:' that is, the objective reality which this argument takes as a pole of reference, But if one considers the sign in itself and insofar as it is the carrier of value, the arbitrary is necessarily eliminated, For-the last proposition is the one which most clearly includes its own refutation-it is quite true that values remain entirely “relative" but the question is how and with respect to what. Let us state this at once: value is an element of the sign; if the sign taken in itself is not arbitrary, as we think to have sl1own, it follows that the "relative" character of the value cannot depend on the arbitrary nature of the sign. Since it is necessary to leave out of account the conformity of the sign to reality, all the more should one consider the v!J!!e as an a..!!Jij)\lte _D_e far",. No Lof substance. From then on, to say that the values are “relativc" means that
Inn_c..t I",n' with thc' i"ulalcd "iJt but with language i as a !ly _tem of sign!', and nu unt' has cnnce_\'ed nf anti dl1'rrihed the systematic economy of language as forcefully a :O;;lU!lsurC. Whuenor !lay" !Cyslcm !lay. arrangement or confnrn,it_, fir l'ortlC in a structure which transcends and explains it A elementIC. li\'crythinR i. i'n "('t"U">' in it that mtfdification the whole and of details reciprocally condition one another, The relativity of values is the bC!\t pn)uf that they (eren c o!le )' upon one another in the synchrony of a system which is always being threatened, always being restored. The point is that all values are values of position and are defined only by their difference. Opposed to each other, they maintain themselves in a mutual, relationship of necessity, An opposition is, owing to the force of circumstances, subtended by necessity, as it is necessity which gives shape to the opposition, If language is something other than a fortuitous conglomeration of erratic notions and sounds uttered at random, it is because necessity is inherent in its structure as in all structure.
It emerges, then, that the role of contingency inherent in language affects denomination insofar as denomination is a phonic symbol of reality and affects it in its relationship with reality. But the sign, the primordial element. in the linguistic system, includes a signifier and a signified whose bond has to be recognized ." "tCtSsot,', these two compliments being consubstantially _ne .me, rlt, absolute t:1rorfltltr the linguistic sign thus understood command; in its turn the dialectical necessity of values of constant opposition, and forms. the structural principle of language, It is perhaps the best evidence of the fruitfulness of a doctrine that it can engender a contradiction which promotes it. In restoring the true nature of the sign in the internal conditioning of the system, we go beyond Saussure himself to affirm the rigor of Saussure's thought.
From Acti I.inguistica I (Copenhagen, 1939): 13 a9