Analytical #1

In his Course in General Linguistics, Saussure discusses the basic principles of language and speech through semiotics and language structure. I am interested in how those principles can be applied to the deeper concept of language change over time. Saussure’s discussion of language leads to intriguing questions regarding at which point in language development a language becomes a new language. I will explore this concept through a Saussurean lens to determine whether Old English and Modern English are considered the same or different languages. Although Saussure takes linguistic structure to be the primary concern of linguistic study, he also acknowledges that one cannot study language without the social aspects. The social aspects can be explored through Saussure’s concept of variability/invariability of the sign. To examine the topic of language change, I argue that Old English and Modern English are different languages by expanding Saussure’s interpretation of sign and variability/invariability.

Saussure’s concept of sign is pivotal to his definition of language. Saussure defines a linguistic sign as a link “between a concept and a sound pattern” (1972, p. 66). If one or both of the psychological entities in the linguistic sign, the concept or the sound pattern, has changed then a change in the relationship has occurred. Each relationship change in the linguistic sign creates a gradual change and overhaul in the language, which supports the idea that Old English and Modern English are different languages. To expand, once the sound pattern of a word changes, the natural representation of the word as an abstract linguistic item has shifted. In some instances, a concept remains the same but the signal has become unanalyzable due to phonetic and grammatical changes. Consider the following examples: (Saussure, 1972:75).

  1. Sound pattern and Concept change: Latin word necāre ‘to kill’ became French noyer ‘to drown’
  2. Concept change: Latin word necāre ‘to kill’ and Vulgar Latin necare ‘to drown’

In the above examples, the original relationship between the signal and signification changed in either sound pattern or concept change. If enough of these changes occur between Old English and Modern English then the languages are distinct from one another. “Whatever the factors involved in change, whether they act in isolation or in combination, they always result in a shift in the relationship between signal and signification” (Saussure, 1972: 75). Regardless of the reasons for the changes, which will be discussed in the following section, changes in linguistic sign over time cause major changes in languages. This argument can be studied both qualitatively and quantitatively. I argue that there is no exact quantitative number of signs that must change in order to call one language different from another but that the change can instead be a spectrum studied qualitatively. The spectrum broadly is if the languages are unrecognizable to each other. Even if Old English and Modern English come from the same linear trajectory, over time, language change will always be seen to have taken place. This language change can be measured through linguistic sign.

In connection to Saussure’s understanding of the linguistic sign, the social connections institutionalized in the language over time play an undisputable role in the discussion of language change. Saussure’s perspective on variability/invariability of the sign supports the argument that Old English and Modern English can be viewed as different languages. Saussure defines the internal system of a language as invariable because of society’s inability to force change upon a language. Saussure defines variability as the change that is accepted over time by the collective society. Although no individual or linguistic community can decide to change a language at a single time, over time there is the ability of change due to many external factors. “A language cannot therefore be treated simply as a form of contract.” (Saussure, 1972: 71). Considering all changes in linguistic sign over time, big or small, new correlations are made and thus new ideas emerge. Social communities enforce these new ideas and that is when language change occurs. “A language is situated socially and chronologically by reference to a certain community and a certain period of time.” (Saussure, 1972: 76). At a specific place and time, the language is invariable but at two different places and times the language is variable. When discussing the social nature, the context is the concept that needs to be of focus. For example, a contemporary speaker of Modern English is unable to understand Old English. Old English versus Modern English showcases the variability of language. This argument can be made because Saussure studies language change linearly. Language must take into consideration the language, the linguistic community, and time. Although it may seem obvious, the importance of adding the aspect of time in the discussion of language cannot go understated. Auditory signals are limiting in that they only have available what is in the linearity of time and cannot exploit more than one dimension simultaneously. If over time there is great variability in the auditory signals, there is visible language change.

Based off this analysis of language change, it is worthwhile to further examine to what extent old and new languages are the same or different. Using a Saussurean perspective on sign and variability/invariability I argue that Old English and Modern English are different languages. Although one cannot quantify the exact number of sign changes that must occur, the changes in the relationship between the concepts are significant in that the two languages are noticeably different from each other. Old English and Modern English exist as an example of variability in the linear form and offer an interesting question for future research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *