2. Mutability

Time, which insures the continuity of language, wields another influence apparently contradictory to the first: the more or less rapid change of linguistic signs. In a certain sense, therefore, we can speak of both the immutability and the mutability of the sign. In the last analysis, the two facts are interdependent: the sign is exposed to alteration because it perpetuates itself. What predominates in all change is the persistence of the old substance; disregard for the past is only relative. That is why the principle of change is based on the principle of continuity.

Change in time takes many forms, on any one of which an important chapter in linguistics might be written.

Mutability is so inescapable that it even holds true for artificial languages. Whoever creates a language controls it only so long as it is not in circulation ; from the moment when it fulfills its mission and becomes the property of everyone, control is lost. Take Esperanto as an example ; if it succeeds, will it escape the inexorable law? Once launched, it is quite likely that Esperanto will enter upon a fully semiological life; it will be transmitted according to laws which have nothing in common with those of its logical creation, and there will be no turning backwards. A man proposing a fixed language that posterity would have to accept for what it is would be like a hen hatching a duck's egg: the language created by him would be borne along, willy-nilly, by the current that engulfs all languages.

Signs are governed by a principle of general semiology: continuity in time is coupled to change in time ; this is confirmed by orthographic systems, the speech of deaf-mutes, etc.

Lecture 6. SYNCHRONIC LINGUISTICS. THE CONCRETE ENTITIES OF LANGUAGE

1.The aim of general synchronic linguistics is to set up the fundamental principles of any idiosynchronic system, the constituents of any language-state.

To synchrony belongs everything called "general grammar," for it is only through language-states that the different relations which are the province of grammar are established.

In practice a language-state is not a point but rather a certainspan of time during which the sum of the modifications that have supervened is minimal. The span may cover ten years, a generation, a century, or even more. It is possible for a language to change hardly at all over a long span and then to undergo radical transformations within a few years. Of two languages that exist side by side during a given period, one may evolve drastically and the other practically not at all; study would have to be diachronic in the former instance, synchronic in the latter. An absolute state is defined by the absence of changes, and since language changes somewhat in spite of everything, studying a language-state means in practice disregarding changes of little importance, just as mathematicians disregard infinitesimal quantities in certain calculations, such as logarithms.

2 .Definition: Entity and Unit

The signs that make up language are not abstractions but real objects; signs and their relations are what linguistics studies; they are the concrete entities of the science.

1) The linguistic entity exists only through the associating of the

signifier with the signified. Whenever only one element is retained, the entity vanishes; instead of a concrete object we are faced with a mere abstraction. We constantly risk grasping only a part of the entity and thinking that we are embracing it in its totality; this would happen, for example, if we divided the spoken chain into syllables, for the syllable has no value except in phonology. A succession of sounds is linguistic only if it supports an idea. Considered independently, it is material for a physiological study, and nothing more than that.

The same is true of the signified as soon as it is separated from its signifier. Considered independently, concepts like "house," "white," "see," etc. belong to psychology. They become linguistic entities only when associated with sound-images; in language, a concept is a quality of its phonic substance just as a particular slice of sound is a quality of the concept.

The two-sided linguistic unit has often been compared with the human person, made up of the body and the soul. The comparison is hardly satisfactory. A better choice would be a chemical compound like water, a combination of hydrogen and oxygen; taken separately, neither element has any of the properties of water.

2) The linguistic entity is not accurately defined until it is delimited, i.e. separated from everything that surrounds it on the phonic chain. These delimited entities or units stand in opposition to each other in the mechanism of language.

One is at first tempted to liken linguistic signs to visual signs, which can exist in space without becoming confused, and to assume that separation of the significant elements can be accomplished in the same way, without recourse to any mental process. The word "form," which is often used to indicate them (cf. the expression "verbal form," "noun form") gives support to the mistake. But we know that the main characteristic of the sound-chain is that it is linear. Considered by itself, it is only a line, a continuous ribbon along which the ear perceives no self-sufficient and clear-cut division; to divide the chain, we must call in meanings. When we hear an unfamiliar language, we are at a loss to say how the succession of sounds should be analyzed, for analysis is impossible if only the phonic side of the linguistic phenomenon is considered. But when we know the meaning and function that must be attributed to each part of the chain, we see the parts detach themselves from each other and the shapeless ribbon break into segments. Yet there is nothing material in the analysis.

To summarize: language does not offer itself as a set of predelimited signs that need only be studied according to their meaning and arrangement ; it is a confused mass, and only attentiveness and familiarization will reveal its particular elements. The unit has no special phonic character, and the only definition that we can give it is this: it is a slice of sound which to the exclusion of everything that precedes and follows it in the spoken chain is the signifier of a certain concept.

Lecture 7. DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS

Diachronic linguistics studies relations between successive terms that are substituted for each other in time.

There is really no such thing as absolute immobility. Every part of language is subjected to change. To each period there corresponds some appreciable evolution. Evolution may vary in rapidity and intensity, but this does not invalidate the principle. The stream of language flows without interruption; whether its course is calm or torrential is of secondary importance.

That we often fail to see this uninterrupted evolution is due to the attention paid to the literary language which is superimposed on the vulgar language (i.e. the natural language) and is subjected to other forces. The literary language, once it has been formed, generally remains fairly stable and tends to keep its identity; its dependence on writing gives it special guarantees of preservation; therefore it cannot show us how much natural languages change when freed from any literary regimentation.

Phonetics — and all of phonetics — is the prime object of diachronic linguistics. In fact, the evolution of sounds is incompatible with the notion of states ; to compare phonemes or groups of phonemes with what they were previously means to set up a diachrony. One period may be closely related to the next, but when the two merge, phonetics ceases to play a part. Nothing is left but the description of the sounds of a language-state, and that is the task of phonology.

The diachronic character of phonetics fits in very well with the principle that anything which is phonetic is neither significant nongrammatical in the broad sense of the word phonetic. In studying the history of the sounds of a word, we may ignore meaning and, by considering only the material envelope of a word, cut out phonic slices without asking whether they have a signification. For instance, we may try to trace the meaningless group -ewo- in Attic Greek. If the evolution of language meant nothing more than the evolution of its sounds, the opposition between the objects that belong to each of the two parts of linguistics would immediately be crystal clear. It would be obvious that diachronicis equivalent to nongrammatical and synchronic to grammatical.

But sounds are not the only things that change with time. Words change their signification. Grammatical classes evolve. Some of them disappear along with the forms that were used to express them (e.g. the dual number in Latin). And if all associative and syntagmatic facts in a synchronic state have their history, how is the absolute distinction between diachrony and synchrony to be maintained? This becomes very difficult when we leave the domain of phonetics.

Lecture 8. THE DIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES

The most striking thing about the study of languages is their diversity — linguistic differences that appear when we pass from one country to another or even from one region to another. Divergences in time often escape the observer, but divergences in space immediately force themselves upon him; even savages grasp them, thanks to their contacts with other tribes that speak a different language. Indeed, these comparisons are what makes a nation aware of its idiom. This feeling makes primitive people look upon language as a habit or custom like dress or weapons. The term idiom rightly designates language as reflecting the traits peculiar to a community (Greek idioma had already acquired the meaning 'special custom'). This notion, though appropriate, becomes misleading when one goes so far as to see language as an attribute, not of the nation, but of race, in the same way as the color of the skin or the shape of the head.

It is also worth noting that each nation believes in the superiority of its own idiom and is quick to regard the man who uses a different language as incapable of speaking.

Geographical diversity was, then, the first observation made in linguistics. It determined the initial form of scientific research in language, even among the Greeks. To be sure, the Greeks were concerned only with the diversity of the different Hellenic dialects, but this was because their interest did not generally go beyond the borders of Greece proper.

Having noticed that two idioms differ, one instinctively looks for similarities. This is a natural tendency of speakers. Peasants like to compare their patois with the one spoken in a neighboring village. People who speak several languages notice their common traits. But for some strange reason science has waited a long time to make use of the results of such observations. For example, the Greeks noticed many resemblances between the Latin vocabulary and their own but were unable to draw any linguistic conclusions.

Scientific observation of linguistic similarities proves that two or more idioms may be akin, i.e. that they have a common origin.

A group of related languages makes up a family. Modern linguistics has successively identified several families: the Indo-European, Semitic, Bantu, etc. Comparing these families with each other, in turn, occasionally brings to light older and broader affiliations. There have been attempts to find similarities between Finno-Ugric and Indo-European, between the latter and Semitic, etc., but such comparisons always come up against insuperable barriers. One must not confuse what is probable with what is demonstrable. The universal kinship of languages is not probable, but even if it were true — as the Italian linguist Trombetti believes — it could not be

proved because of the excessive number of changes that have intervened.

Beside diversity within related groups, then, there is absolute diversity — differences between languages that have no recognizable or demonstrable kinship. What method should linguistics use in each of these degrees? Let us begin with the second, which is more common. As we have just noted, countless languages and families of Bantu is a group of languages spoken by South African tribes, mainly the Kaffirs.

Finno-Ugric, which includes — among other languages — Finnish proper or Suomi, Mordvinian, Lapp, etc., is a family of languages spoken in northern Russia and Siberia. Doubtless these languages all go back to a common original idiom. The family is a part of the great Ural-Altaic group of languages, which have no proven common origin although some traits appear in all of them.

A good example is Chinese with respect to the Indo-European languages. The fact that they differ does not mean that they cannot be compared, for comparison is always possible and useful; it applies to grammatical organisms and general ways of expressing thought as well as to systems of sound ; it also includes diachronic facts, the phonetic evolution of two languages, etc. The possibilities of comparison, though incalculable, are limited by certain constant phonic and psychological data that determine the make-up of any language ; reciprocally, the discovery of these constant data is always the main aim of any comparison of related languages.

The other class of differences — those that exist within families of languages — offers an unlimited field for comparison. Two idioms may differ in any degree. They may bear a striking resemblance to each other, like Zend and Sanskrit, or be as entirely dissimilar as Sanskrit and Gaelic. All intermediate degrees are possible: Greek and Latin are more closely related to each other than to Sanskrit, etc. Idioms that differ only slightly are called dialects, but this word must be used loosely. We shall see that languages and dialects differ quantitatively, not by nature.