Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
I read this years ago because writers referred to this work or to this author so often. It proved too much a challenge for me and my appreciation of de Saussure did not match that of others. Years later, I began an unplanned reread of this course for the same reasons that spurred me the first time. Other authors kept referring to this author, this work, and his school of thought.
Being monolingual, I know the odds are against me when approaching this work. Littered with word comparisons across many languages, grammatical terminology I have long forgotten or never knew in the first place...this dense work can leave one behind rather swiftly. However, stay engaged and lock onto the more basic concepts and an appreciation for the challenges of the study of languages will blossom. The arbitrary nature of signifiers and the marvelous fact that language is a "product of the collective mind of linguistic groups" drives its evolution which is uniquely unlike that of an organism and is even less able to be deliberately driven willfully by groups in a direction of their choosing. De Saussure's detailed outlining of concepts governing linguistic study shows why the disciplined linguist must resist the temptation of convenient solutions, shortcuts and assumptions. Although pitfalls and limitations may appear overemphasized, the correct path is being laboriously set stone by stone.
Being monolingual, I know the odds are against me when approaching this work. Littered with word comparisons across many languages, grammatical terminology I have long forgotten or never knew in the first place...this dense work can leave one behind rather swiftly. However, stay engaged and lock onto the more basic concepts and an appreciation for the challenges of the study of languages will blossom. The arbitrary nature of signifiers and the marvelous fact that language is a "product of the collective mind of linguistic groups" drives its evolution which is uniquely unlike that of an organism and is even less able to be deliberately driven willfully by groups in a direction of their choosing. De Saussure's detailed outlining of concepts governing linguistic study shows why the disciplined linguist must resist the temptation of convenient solutions, shortcuts and assumptions. Although pitfalls and limitations may appear overemphasized, the correct path is being laboriously set stone by stone.
A very clear (despite some translation inconsistencies, apparently) outline of semiotics and the structure of language. Though not really how linguistics works anymore, a very useful book if you're at all interested in understanding how signs work. Plus the influence of Saussure on other humanities disciplines (ie film studies) is not to be underestimated.
If you’re “Saussure” about how language works, why’d ya write such a boring book? Hahahah jk. I liked it.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
I declare that I only read chapters that were interesting/relevant to me and my studies, but that doesn't take away from how engaging the text is.
I had to study this book for Linguistics and, as I don't like the subject, I didn't like it either. However, I found it quite clear and succint, considering what it addresses. Maybe a little bit repetitive, but I reckon Linguistics are quite that way.
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
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 opposition to others. A dog is a dog not because of any internal quality linking a "dog" with the concept, but because it's not a cat, a rat, or an elephant. We thus find language in symbiosis with our perception while we're defining the world.
The common view was, and still is, that the sign simply mirrors a pre-defined concept and language thus matches an already existing conceptual framework. There we'd find "dog" serving as a link to the concept of dog, which would exist irregardless of the language. But then we look at the Sámi people and the fact that they have over 10 words for snow. We slowly realize that language define the world around us. We differentiate between things as much as language enables us to. The analogy then acts as the creative principle, the method for differentiating further.
In systematics the form-over-substance outlook extends far further than language itself. Another way to say it would be that it redefines everything in terms of language. Saussure now helps us redefine our understanding of reality. Learning guitar, or a new job, or that tough math class, or Hegel, is in reality the same thing. You start by defining the very small building blocks. You define them in relation to each-other. Then you combine them, and go even further using analogy. You build up a system, an aptic structure (as we find Julian Jaynes saying), by assimilating the previously conscious actions to the unconscious, freeing your mind to look at the bigger picture. Like syllables build the word, words the sentence, sentences the paragraph and paragraphs the essay, so we find that in math we must first learn the basics of algebra before we can solve differential equations (with over 10 years of steps in-between). Embracing the systematic outlook we never have to start from scratch again, because every particularity is just another reinforcing point in the system.
----
Although this book is extremely interesting philosophically and in connection with the entire scientific field of sociology, there's a lot of uninteresting fluff in form of endless french examples (I do not speak french) and way too specific discussions (eg. about the anatomy of the mouth) which must be slogged through.
"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 opposition to others. A dog is a dog not because of any internal quality linking a "dog" with the concept, but because it's not a cat, a rat, or an elephant. We thus find language in symbiosis with our perception while we're defining the world.
The common view was, and still is, that the sign simply mirrors a pre-defined concept and language thus matches an already existing conceptual framework. There we'd find "dog" serving as a link to the concept of dog, which would exist irregardless of the language. But then we look at the Sámi people and the fact that they have over 10 words for snow. We slowly realize that language define the world around us. We differentiate between things as much as language enables us to. The analogy then acts as the creative principle, the method for differentiating further.
In systematics the form-over-substance outlook extends far further than language itself. Another way to say it would be that it redefines everything in terms of language. Saussure now helps us redefine our understanding of reality. Learning guitar, or a new job, or that tough math class, or Hegel, is in reality the same thing. You start by defining the very small building blocks. You define them in relation to each-other. Then you combine them, and go even further using analogy. You build up a system, an aptic structure (as we find Julian Jaynes saying), by assimilating the previously conscious actions to the unconscious, freeing your mind to look at the bigger picture. Like syllables build the word, words the sentence, sentences the paragraph and paragraphs the essay, so we find that in math we must first learn the basics of algebra before we can solve differential equations (with over 10 years of steps in-between). Embracing the systematic outlook we never have to start from scratch again, because every particularity is just another reinforcing point in the system.
----
Although this book is extremely interesting philosophically and in connection with the entire scientific field of sociology, there's a lot of uninteresting fluff in form of endless french examples (I do not speak french) and way too specific discussions (eg. about the anatomy of the mouth) which must be slogged through.