Derman 1 Natalia Soledad Derman M.A., M.Phil.

Silvia Rivero Lingstica 2 April 30, 2010 Analysis of a Saussurian metaphor The aim of this paper is to analyze Saussures method of argumentation in his theories, as well as to provide the relevant theoretical background for the understanding of what is hereby presented. The focus is placed upon one particular example to illustrate Saussure's use of nonlinguistic metaphors in his setting forth of ideas. Ferdinand de Saussure, considered "the father of modern Linguistics," never saw his Course in General Linguistics published. The work we are able to analyze nowadays is a compilation of notes taken by his students during his lectures at the University of Geneva, and it is not organized chronologically but rather by thematic chapters. Even so, this book can be considered essential in the analysis of language and the nature of the linguistic sign. Saussures main concerns were two: 1. finding the object of study for Linguistics and 2. providing the method, in order to give Linguistics the category of science as independent from others. It can be read from Reflexiones sobre un proceso de inscripcin semiolgica, that in order to achieve his goal, Saussure presents his ideas through a series of dichotomies, or a partir de [una] doble formulacin lingustico-semiolgica (Benveniste et.al, 1971:14). This means that, as method of argumentation for his theories, he chose the use of non-linguistic metaphors. Several are the instances of these kinds of analogies used to show how language works. One of these metaphors appears in Part II, Chapter III: Identities, Realities, Values. In order to explain the notion of identity of the linguistic sign, Saussure used the example of two 8.45 trains from Geneva to Paris, departing on two different days. Still, we call both of them the

Derman 2 8.45 train from Geneva to Paris. As he pointed out, We treat [them] as the same train, even though probably the locomotive, the carriages, the staff etc. are not the same (Saussure, 1916:107). What Saussure was trying to explain is that both trains fulfill the same function within the system -in this case, of transport- even though they are materially different. Taken to the realm of language, this means that the identity of a unit is not determined by the fact that a concept relates back to a specific material object, as the nomenclaturists used to discuss. Rather, identity is based upon the differences against other linguistic units. In an ambitious attempt to imitate Saussures method of argumentation, it is possible to consider the following non-linguistic metaphor: in a course in Literature, three different people claim, I have read the book Ulysses by James Joyce. They have three different editions, with different covers and each one has been printed by a different publisher. Still, these three people have read the same work by the same author, i.e., those three materially different books fulfill the same function, and hence, they are distinguished from other works. In other words, the book that each of the students possesses, in the same case as the Geneva train, presents the features which distinguish it from other [literary pieces] (Saussure, 1916:107). Having analyzed Saussure's method of argumentation together with relevant theoretical notes, it is possible to conclude that his main objective in using non-linguistic metaphors, was to disambiguate and clarify, among other misconceptions, that the identity of the linguistic signs can only be conceived of in opposition with others. In language, similarly to the case of the trains and the books, the identity of the units depends on the differences that separate them from other units, and not on their material existence.