[image error]Q: I’ve recently become particulary interested in structural linguistics, more specifically laryngeal theory. I’m wondering if anyone has read something on why the original laryngeals have disappeared? ...assuming they existed, of course.And then my A: All I’m familiar with regarding structural linguistics is the foundational text of Saussure’s, Course in General Linguistics, which when I read it a few year ago I mostly found to be tedious and unsurprising. I can appreciate it as a

Short of calling it a pioneer text, it's difficult to really say much else about Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. As dated as most of the ideas contained within this book are, most of them stand as the founding concepts of linguistics, semiotics, and structuralism. Or, a more grammatically apt way to put it would be to say that it is Saussure's particular methodology that has been the most influential aspect of his thought. His central aim above all else is to analyze language as a syst...

Read for Saussure's influence on continental thought in 20th/21st century. Written in a clear yet somewhat dry manner. The differential notion of language (a word signifies primarily through it's contrast with other words in the same system - i.e. "philosophy" constitutes its value immanently in the linguistic system because it is not "philology" or "theosophy") is one of the more important concepts it seems, as Derrida and Merleau-Ponty end up taking it up and modifying/criticizing it... along

After wrapping up my readings of Heidegger and Husserl, I found Saussure to be rather refreshing, probably the most influential thinker on my large critical theory reading list since Gramsci. Backing up just a little bit, Heidegger really seemed to have just contributed a convoluted discussion of the word Dasein and its meaning, which at different times could encompass being, revelation, existence, human being, the universe, etc. I feel Heidegger is too open to interpretation and a discussion of...

Can't believe it took me so long to read this! It's so foundational to so much theory, and when you read it you will see how (it's not the same hearing about that, but isn't that always true?). And only reading it did I fully realize that I wasn't reading Saussure at all, but what his students and colleagues thought was Saussure, which clearly is something different and quite collective and thus possibly cooler than Saussure. So no one should just throw the name around as he's not a person anymo...

this was annoying to read but interesting... at some extent

how am i supposed to rate a theory

A classical study of linguistics that laid the foundation of the modern science. A bit heavy on examples that break up the flow of the text, but a must-read for anyone interested in studying language and meaning.

It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this book. It is significant not only for laying down a radical vision of linguistics as a discipline for the 20th and 21st centuries, but it also lays the foundations for all modern approaches to semiotics. Certainly Peirce had made a similar breakthrough in semiotics at around the same time, but his theory was not backed up by such a rich understanding of the study of linguistics - its sub-fields and divisions, the progress it had made, it...

This is not actually a work by de Saussure, but rather (a translation of) a posthumous reconstruction of his teaching by Bally and Sechehaye based on student notes of three separate courses of lectures (given between 1906 and 1911) plus some other writings of de Saussure; nevertheless, it is one of the founding texts of what is now known as "structural linguistics." I took an introductory course in structural linguistics at Columbia about 1973, or more than sixty years after this material was de...

This is an interesting book. The thinker behind the ideas within it was dead when it was written, and it was composed by former students from lecture notes. While reading it, one begins to presume a singular, living voice behind the ideas within; ideas that have been discussed, dissected, and evaluated to the point where this original formulation has lost its currency and its value is now that of an artefact or touchstone. The sad thing of monuments is that they are never free from piss; the fac...

I want to preface this by mentioning that I only read the parts of this text that seemed to be about semiotics, rather than the parts about linguistics as such. De Saussure's text is really important to the foundations of semiotics as a discipline, and I was especially pleased to get clarification on the relationship between the sign, the signifier, and the signified. Otherwise, he had some smart insights on various things, but I think a general intro to semiology would be as useful. Obviously d...

After reading through the many introductions and the first part I think I've got what I came for. In the first half of this volume Saussure introduced his many inventions in linguistics (physiological phonetics, structural linguistics, synchronic linguistics, semiology, etc) and brought forward his form of structuralism. I find his view on the unreliability/distance of writing interesting, as it is pretty much a blend of Rousseau’s appeal to naturalism and Plato's argument of originality (form->...

If you, like I, have some troubles getting into and understanding the later, French structuralists, then this work might help with the understanding. While it mainly is a scientific work on linguistics, de Saussure's work on linguistics signs creates an easy to understand basis from which to approach more dense works of philosophy.

If you’re approaching this book like me to understand French structuralism, be aware that 99 percent of it is a deep study in linguistic. You don’t need that to understand the basic facts of how the structuralists adopted his methods.

Comte had a day in his positivist calendar named for a Saussure but it’s a different one cause this saus was born like a month after Com died. It’s kinda cool that the distinction Saus made between synchronic and diachronic linguistics pretty much parallels com’s social statics vs soc dynamics tho. anyway this book is essential if you still think that the subject is an effect of the signifying chain or what have you (ei all those guys Chomsky called charlatans w/o actually reading their works [i...

It's a classic

Really interesting stuff, a groundbreaking work in the field of linguistics. The Swiss are a scourge on this earth and should be wiped clean from the plane of existence.

I did it for you Sammie.

For literary critic, author, and professor Terry Eagleton, Structuralism is "rather like killing a person in order to examine more conveniently the circulation of the blood" (Literary Theory: An Introduction, 95), and indeed Roland Barthes had something like this analogy in mind when he wrote the monumental little essay "The Death of the Author." As Mary Klages defines it, "In any field, a structuralist is interested in discovering the elements - the units - that make up any system, and in disco...

Definitely not for the uninitiated. If you want to read this and understand more than half of it, its better you get acquainted with Linguistics 101.What I learned:1. A language item (like a word) is a sign. A sign, in turn, is composed of two parts: the signal (letters, sound) and the signified (meaning, ideas, concept).The between the sign and the signified is largely arbritary. Thus, there is no logical explanation on why a dog is called a dog, and spelt as d o g, but in Malay, it is called a...

I always have a difficult time articulating my views on a book as canonical and influential as the Cours, especially when it's in a rather technical field that I have negligible amounts of experience with. Despite this, it's impossible to read this book and not see why it had the influence it did. Prefiguring Baudrillard's notion of the simulacrum, Saussure's revelations about language transforms it into a network of simulacra that can't be referred to some definitive "truth" or "reality." The r...

One of the most foundational books in the modern approach to linguistics, especially when it represents a pure structuralist approach; which, while considered as refuted by the Chomskyan approach, still is useful as a perceptual lens. It also is one of the founding texts of the modern approach to semiotics, and thus is an essential read to anyone who wishes to have some understanding of topics and outdated schools of linguistics.

Not sure if I'm convinced by structuralist theory and the static positioning of signifier and signified. I’m much more drawn to Derrida's free-floating signifier and his concept of différance. i.e. the multiplicity of concepts that a single signifier can indicate and the ever-present gap between signifier and signified that leads to the endless deference of meaning.

Sign Language: Form and Meaning- semiotics, signified, signifier- Syntagmatic relations- signs are arbitrary - etc.

I would write a review of this but it feels like signifying my thoughts and opinions would be an arbitrary endeavor.

I think the importance of Saussure's course in general linguistics cannot reasonably be overstated. It birthed the field of semiotics and structuralism, and defined linguistics as we know it today. With structuralism stemming from linguistics, we find not only language but man himself being defined anew."The language itself is a form, not a substance". Saussure shows us how language is defined solely in contrast with itself, the sign having no internal logic and merely finding its meaning in opp...

I, in some ways, have two very different opinions about this book:First, I realize that this is a historically important perspective that is really novel in its approach to semiotics and linguistics. This is one of the most concise, well arranged, and innovative arguments for its time on language and meaning making. Also some parts of this ring true, even if I have axiomatic differences.That said, secondly, many of the fundamental arguments of this work seem under-motivated by overly simplified

Saussure proudly takes the cake as the most tedious and boring 'philosopher' (not technically a philosopher, mind you) that I've read. I shouldn't bash him too hard, though, since this was a bunch of lecture notes transcribed by a couple of his students, but nonetheless, this makes the structure and tone of the book quite frustrating.A lot of the times Saussure brings up discredited linguistics and specific examples (which will most likely fly over your head, if you're not a linguistics student-...

The book is indubitably an important landmark in the history of linguistics, but it is of only very limited interest in the context of contemporary linguistics. Many of the ideas presented therein are mostly obsolete nowadays, while the ones which are not can be learned from many other sources (including numerous summaries of de Saussure).I wonder who could benefit from reading this book today (2020)?*Professional linguists and researchers? Not really, since the obsolete state of knowledge prese...