In Saussure’s, Course in General Linguistics, he conceives of the linguistic sign as a psychological entity with a concept and a sound-image (Saussure, 66). He does this in order to avoid the fallacy of examining only the sound-image, or phonetic pronunciation of the word, for according to him, each recalls the other, and a concept without a sound-image is voiceless, and a sound-image without a concept is meaningless (Saussure, 67). The main crux of Saussure’s argument is that because “because the sign is arbitrary, it follows no law other than that of tradition, and because it is based on tradition, it is arbitrary” (Saussure, 74). This brings us to the trouble with Saussure. His base concept of the sign as sound-image and concept being an
…show more content…
By reconstructing it in this way, Saussure is subordinating the “signifier” to the “signified”, attempting to convey that they signifier is a stand-in, or emblem of the signified-the thing that is real. This subordination is crucial because Saussure believes that “A particular language state is always the product of historical forces, and these forces explain why the sign is unchangeable, i.e. why it resists any arbitrary substitution” (Saussure, 72). Saussure is clearly stating that, though language is arbitrary because it is based on arbitrary historical and social processes, the relationship between signifier and signified cannot be changed at any time or by any person. A sign, composed of the thing signified, and the sound used to signify it are subject to historical processes- processes that cause and constitute institutions which rise and fall; and these institutions collectively constitute society. Saussure further corroborates this when he says, “language-and this consideration surpasses all the others- is at every moment everybody’s concern; spread throughout society and manipulated by it” (Saussure, 75). At this point, one would think that Saussure and Bourdieu are in perfect agreement. But then, Saussure says the
By reconstructing it in this way, Saussure is subordinating the “signifier” to the “signified”, attempting to convey that they signifier is a stand-in, or emblem of the signified-the thing that is real. This subordination is crucial because Saussure believes that “A particular language state is always the product of historical forces, and these forces explain why the sign is unchangeable, i.e. why it resists any arbitrary substitution” (Saussure, 72). Saussure is clearly stating that, though language is arbitrary because it is based on arbitrary historical and social processes, the relationship between signifier and signified cannot be changed at any time or by any person. A sign, composed of the thing signified, and the sound used to signify it are subject to historical processes- processes that cause and constitute institutions which rise and fall; and these institutions collectively constitute society. Saussure further corroborates this when he says, “language-and this consideration surpasses all the others- is at every moment everybody’s concern; spread throughout society and manipulated by it” (Saussure, 75). At this point, one would think that Saussure and Bourdieu are in perfect agreement. But then, Saussure says the