[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...

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...

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...

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->...

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.

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...

how am i supposed to rate a theory

I did it for you Sammie.

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...

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.

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, 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...

Short review:- Groundbreaking text that is remarkably high in clarity, despite its depth of engagement.- Parts One and Two deal with semiotics and the structure of language, a must-read for anyone interested in critical theory or related fields.- Parts Three and Four relate to more "pure" linguistics, which will probably be less compelling for those reading the book for the reasons mentioned above (I admittedly found myself skimming a lot of these parts, though is is not to suggest they are in a...

A particular word is like the center of a constellation; it is the point of convergence of an indefinite number of co-ordinated terms.I once wondered how cavemen thought without language. Did they think in images? And for a person who’s bilingual: which language do they reason in? While in both cases I took for granted the thinking-in-words phenomenon I didn’t put 2+2 together. I didn’t realize, not fully, how integrated language and abstraction were. Little did I know that Ferdinand de Saussure...

I had planned to read this years ago but for some reason was under the impression that it was a difficult and precise text. That's not true, Saussure is especially intuitive if you know anything about linguistics or semiotics, and the first two chapters are essential reading. Certainly clarified a lot for me regarding structuralism.

A sign is a meaningful unit of measuring the space between two consenting homosapien discourse vulcanous ineptitude vis a vis photosynthetic discombobulation. Read this with your LING 100 professor or you're fuc*ed.

Pretty interesting and really good at making you better understand languages and their constructions, usage and importance. Also, it's a very important classic, so it's awesome to see how linguistics actually came about.It's for study, so I have nothing else to add.

Very nice book for a semiotic beginner.

A must read for communication scholars. Set the basis right.

cool S

This was soooooooo boring. If you do not enjoy linguistics do not even try this one.

Metaphysics + Language = StructuralismThis is the moment where language was taken as an absolute and since then we have been down the hill .