Course in General Linguistics

1. Introduction

Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale) is a posthumous treatise that presents, in systematic form, the ideas attributed to the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure on the nature of language and the proper object of linguistic science. Compiled from student lecture notes and a limited number of manuscripts after Saussure’s death, it has functioned both as a textbook-like introduction to “general linguistics” and as a programmatic manifesto for a new, structural approach.

At its core, the work proposes that language is a system of signs governed by internal relations rather than a mere collection of words or a repository of names for things. It argues that a scientific linguistics should focus on langue—the shared, abstract system underlying speech—rather than on parole, the individual acts of speaking. It further distinguishes the study of a language at a given moment (synchronic) from its historical evolution (diachronic), according methodological priority to the former.

Because of these theses, the Course has been treated as a founding document for structural linguistics and modern semiotics, and as a crucial reference point for later work in anthropology, literary theory, psychoanalysis, and philosophy of language. At the same time, its reconstructed status has made it a central object of philological and interpretive debate.

2. Historical and Intellectual Context

2.1 Linguistics before Saussure

When Saussure was lecturing in Geneva (1907–1911), European linguistics was dominated by historical-comparative philology, especially Indo‑European studies and the Neogrammarian emphasis on regular sound laws. The main focus lay on reconstructing proto-languages and charting phonological change across time.

Many linguists discussed “general” issues, but there was no widely accepted, unified theory of language as a system.

2.2 Intellectual Milieu

The Course also reflects broader currents in late 19th- and early 20th‑century thought:

Scholars often compare Saussure’s sign theory to that of Charles Sanders Peirce, whose work on semiotics developed contemporaneously but independently. While Peirce’s triadic model (icon–index–symbol) emphasizes types of sign-referent relations, Saussure’s dyadic sign (signifier–signified) highlights internal structure within a linguistic system.

The Course thus emerges at a turning point: it crystallizes dissatisfaction with purely diachronic philology and articulates a framework that later structuralists would generalize far beyond linguistics.

3. Author, Composition, and Textual Reconstruction

3.1 Saussure and His Lectures

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), initially known for early work in Indo‑European philology, held the chair of general linguistics at the University of Geneva. Between 1907 and 1911 he delivered three courses on general linguistics that form the basis of the Cours de linguistique générale. Saussure himself did not prepare the lectures for publication and reportedly regarded his ideas as still in flux.

3.2 Reconstruction by Bally and Sechehaye

After Saussure’s death, his former students Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, assisted by Albert Riedlinger, undertook to reconstruct a coherent treatise from:

• Students’ notebooks from the three lecture series
• A small number of surviving manuscript fragments and preparatory notes

They organized, edited, and sometimes rephrased this material to produce a continuous exposition, published in 1916. The editors presented the book as faithfully conveying Saussure’s doctrine, while acknowledging their role in shaping its form.

3.3 Debates on Textual Status

Later scholarship has emphasized that the Course is a reconstructed rather than author‑approved text. Critics argue that Bally and Sechehaye’s conceptual unification may smooth over inconsistencies among different lecture series, or attribute to Saussure positions he only tentatively explored.

Critical editions, especially Tullio De Mauro’s 1972 edition, and systematic study of newly discovered manuscripts aim to disentangle Saussure’s formulations from editorial overlay. Some researchers speak of a contrast between the “Saussure of the Course” and the “manuscript Saussure,” suggesting that the canonical text may not exhaust—or may partially misrepresent—his thought, particularly on semiology and discourse.

4. Structure and Organization of the Work

The Course in General Linguistics is conventionally divided into three main parts, sometimes followed by appendices. This architecture reflects a movement from methodological foundations to synchronic analysis and then to historical change.

4.1 Overview of Parts

4.2 Editorial Framing and Appendices

Different editions include varying concluding remarks and supplementary fragments:

• Editorial prefaces explain the reconstruction method and Saussure’s teaching context.
• Later critical editions (e.g., De Mauro) append notes, alternative formulations, and previously unpublished materials, which sometimes nuance or complicate central theses.

The progression from Part I to Part III is structured so that:

1. Part I establishes what counts as the object of linguistics and how it should be studied.
2. Part II applies these principles to describe a language as a system at a given time.
3. Part III reinterprets historical phenomena in light of this systemic, synchronic baseline.

Readers often note that, despite this orderly plan, the text retains traces of its lecture origins, including repetitions, abrupt transitions, and overlapping treatments of certain topics across parts.

5. Central Arguments and Key Concepts

5.1 Langue and Parole

Saussure distinguishes langue (the shared, socially instituted system of signs and rules) from parole (individual, concrete acts of speaking and writing). Linguistics, he contends, should primarily study langue as a structured whole accessible through the collective competence of speakers, rather than the limitless variability of parole.

5.2 The Linguistic Sign and Arbitrariness

The basic unit of language is the linguistic sign, a two‑sided mental entity uniting signifier (sound‑image) and signified (concept). Saussure asserts the arbitrariness of the sign: no inherent, natural bond ties a specific sound‑form to a concept.

"

“The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.”

— Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics

Proponents of this reading emphasize his insistence that signs derive their identity from contrasts within the system, not from resemblance to extra‑linguistic things. Critics and alternative traditions (e.g., those influenced by Peirce or by studies of sound symbolism) argue that many signs show varying degrees of motivation, and that Saussure’s formulation is best read as a methodological idealization.

5.3 Value, Difference, and System

A further claim is that linguistic units possess value only through their relations and oppositions to other units in the system. A word’s function is determined by what it is not, as much as by any positive content. This leads to a conception of language as a network of differences without positive terms, as later interpreters summarize it.

5.4 Synchronic vs. Diachronic Linguistics

The Course sharply distinguishes:

Saussure assigns methodological priority to synchronic analysis, arguing that sound changes and other historical processes can be understood only as transformations of already structured systems. Some later linguists accept the utility of this distinction while contesting its strictness, proposing that synchronic structure and diachronic change mutually influence one another.

5.5 Semiology

Finally, the Course sketches a broader science of signs, semiology, of which linguistics would be one part. Saussure proposes that principles discovered for language—arbitrariness, differential value, systemic organization—might apply to other sign systems (gestures, symbols, cultural codes). Later structuralist and semiotic theories develop this suggestion in divergent ways, with some emphasizing continuity with Saussure’s program and others questioning how fully he elaborated this generalization.

6. Legacy and Historical Significance

6.1 Impact on Linguistics

The Course is widely regarded as foundational for structural linguistics. It influenced the Prague Linguistic Circle (e.g., Roman Jakobson, Nikolai Trubetzkoy), Louis Hjelmslev’s glossematics, and various strands of American structuralism. These traditions drew on Saussure’s notions of system, opposition, and phonological/grammatical structure, even when reinterpreting or extending them.

At the same time, generative grammar, sociolinguistics, functional linguistics, and cognitive linguistics have positioned themselves partly in response to Saussurean ideas—adopting, revising, or rejecting concepts such as langue, structural relations, and the primacy of synchronic description.

6.2 Broader Structuralism and Semiotics

Beyond linguistics, the Course became a key text for structuralism in the mid‑20th century:

These thinkers often foregrounded Saussure’s emphasis on relational structure, difference, and the constructed character of meaning.

6.3 Critiques and Reassessments

Key criticisms have shaped the work’s subsequent reception:

• Textual status: Scholars highlight the reconstructed nature of the Course, leading to attempts to recover a more nuanced “real Saussure” from manuscripts and alternative notes.
• Arbitrariness and motivation: Semiotic and cognitive approaches point to iconicity, indexicality, and embodied motivation as underplayed in the Saussurean model.
• Langue/parole and synchronic/diachronic dichotomies: Usage-based, sociolinguistic, and historical research stresses continuous interaction between system and use, challenging strict separations.
• Limited pragmatics and reference: Philosophers and pragmaticians argue that the focus on internal structure leaves underdeveloped accounts of truth, reference, and context-dependent meaning.

Despite these debates, the Course in General Linguistics remains a central reference in the history of ideas about language. It continues to function simultaneously as a classic to be transmitted and as a contested text to be re-edited, reinterpreted, and critically revised.