Talk:Course in General Linguistics

Difference and Value
the comparison between differance and blackadder's joke is superflous. that is not what saussure meant at all


 * I agree with you, which is why I have replaced the section with something that is actually accurate: an explanation of value, which was missing from the page. This section links to another article, in which value is explained in much more detail and pure difference is somewhat elucidated. --Le vin blanc (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Freud Maps Wittgenstein
signifier/signified ~ latent/manifest dream content - please clarify. Can't see it myself. Also there should be a serious attempt to incorporate a critical viewpoint on his theory of meaning. Are signifiers like squares of a map? An arbitrary grid (defined by differences) with correspondences to arbitrarily areas of depicted land (which is a representation of real land)? Map ref square E5 (which does not actually exist on the earth) refers to a part of the earth. E5 means nothing apart from being a meeting of square (signifier) and area of map(signified) i.e. is a sign. But Saussure suggests the map is incoherent until there is a grid. Is that true? And do languages/societies differ in their grids and maps? Is the map a representation of 'real' land only or does it picture 'social structures' too? And mental structures? And what about a Wittgensteinian criticism? Perhaps language is several maps of different sorts taken to be one.... Etc Pliny 12:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Synchronic Linguistics
Should the link really to go synchronicity? As opposed to maybe Descriptive linguistics? I'm reluctant to make the switch because I don't know much about synchronicity.

Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Relations
Paradigms and Syntagms seem to be pretty important aspects of Saussure's linguistics, so I am surprised that they have been left out of the article. If I get the chance, I will write a section between the sections on value and the diachronic/synchronic distinction, but everyone else can feel free to have a go. --Le vin blanc (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a small section on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. It's a start, but it could use a lot of work. I felt that I could not leave the article lacking even such a small description, however, because, combined with value, these relations are essential for understanding the usefulness of Saussure's linguistics. --Le vin blanc (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that the Cours has the axes the other way around.-- ExpImp talk con 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Norman Holland
All of the articles about Saussure and structural linguistics seem to have been edited by an individual who insists on quoting the relatively unknown "Norman Holland" in an effort to create the (mistaken) impression that Saussure is completely irrelevant to Linguistics. This is in my opinion extremely misleading and inaccurate. One could just as easily (and unjustifiably) include in the opening paragraph about Albert Einstein a sentence to the effect of: "there are no contemporary physicists who hold Einstein's views." That may be true, but not because Einstein has been "disproven", but rather as a result of the evolution of the field since Einstein's (and Saussure's) work was done. Elements of Saussure's work continue to be of theoretical importance in linguistics. The fact that structuralism has been superseded in subfields such as syntax should if it all be referenced in the main part of the text. 130.231.116.205 (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to wholeheartedly endorse the above statement. There are many serious criticisms of Chomsky's linguistics, by neuroscientists like Terrence Deacon and Gerald Edelman; and by typologists like Evans (at ANU) and Levinson (at Max Planck). There is also a tradition of meaning oriented linguistics, Halliday's linguistics being one of these, in which Saussure's work is a foundation. There are important critiques to make of Saussure, but to say his work is superseded by Chomsky, or fails because it can't explain the examples given (John is eager to please, etc), is nonsense. Annabelle Lukin 04:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A further note: here is the link to the Norman Holland book being cited: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nholland/criti.htm The book has some serious misinterpretations of Saussure (that for instance, he basically held a 'dictionary' view of language; that his conception of signification is 'radical Skinnerian' stimulus response). This discussion of Saussure is put up to tear down and make way for the narrative of Chomsky coming along and revolutionizing linguistics (ho hum...). There is plenty of space on WP for people in the Chomsky tradition to explain his work; but it should not be a space for continuing the mythology of his 'revolution' in linguistics. On this mythology, see Ellis' book, 1993, Language, Thought and Logic. Northwestern U Press. Also, to quote Michael Halliday "...there are many linguists around the world who never accepted this dogma, but tried simply to get on with their own work - not that they stayed behind where they had been in the 1950s, but that they moved forward in significantly different directions" "A Recent View of "Missteps" In Linguistic Theory" in Functions of Language, 2.2. 1995, Reprinted in volume 3 of Halliday's Collected Works [Halliday, 2003/1995: 246] Annabelle Lukin 05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelle Lukin (talk • contribs)

Writings in General Linguistics
Could someone who knows linguistics/semiotics please update for Writings in General Linguistics? I've read the French edition and it seems a rather important collection. Wikiain (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)