Bull. Hiroshima Inst. Tech. Research Vol. 50 (2016) 1– 7

ArticleSaussure’s Theory of Sign

Naoki ARAKI*(Received Oct. 30, 2015)

Abstract
Ferdinand de Saussure insists that a langue is in an individual’s brain but not perfect in any individual. An individual performs parole using this langue, which is comprised of signes. A signe is a combination of a signifié (concept) and a signifiant (acoustic image), and emerges after a langue divides themasses of both concept and sound simultaneously. Valeurs between signes are realized by syntagmaticand associative relations. Then, how can polysemous words and homonyms be explained by Saussure’s
theory of sign?
Key Words: langue, parole, signe, signifiant, signifié, valeur, syntagmatic relation, polysemous word,
homonymLanguage [langage] is a field which is complex,

Introduction

protean and heterogeneous in its various facets. One

According to Ferdinand de Saussure, we canconsequence of this is that it cannot be classified,derive a homogenous langue from a heterogeneous

when taken as a whole, with other human facts. It

langage. A langue is a fait social (social fact) in thestraddles various domains (physical domain, mental,

sense that it is perfect only in a society although it isor again: individual domain, social). One is at a loss tolocated in an individual’s brain in an imperfect state.

find any unity in it. […] In the language [langue] weAn individual performs linguistic activities called

can see something that introduces a general unity into

parole using a langue. A langue is comprised of signes,

the phenomenon of language [langage].

which are combinations of signifié (concept) and signi-(Saussure 1993: 66a–67a)

fiant (acoustic image), and relations of them are arbitrary. Signes emerge after a langue divides the masses

This langue is a social product in that it exists inof both concept and sound at the same time. Valeursa society because the langue is in every individual’s

between signes are realized by syntagmatic and asso-

brain but it is not perfect in any individual:

ciative relations. Then, how can polysemous words
and homonyms be explained by Saussure’s theory ofsign?

[…] it [the langue] is a ‘social product’; […] what
is potentially in the brains of a set of individuals(belonging to one and the same community) […]1. Langue

doubtless this hoard [langue], in any individual case,First of all, Ferdinand de Saussure derives langue

will never turn out to be absolutely complete.

from a heterogeneous langage:(Saussure 1993: 7a)* Department of Information Systems and Management, Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology,
Hiroshima 731-5193, Japan─ 1 ─

Naoki ARAKI

Furthermore, a signifié and a signifiant are insepa-

An individual performs his or her linguistic activi-

rable in a signe, so if a signifié is separated from a signe,

ties using a langue, which Saussure calls parole:then it is an object of psychology, and if a signifiant,
It [parole] is the sum total of what the people saythen phonetics:

to one another; that isa) individual combinations, sentences, depending

The first condition to be satisfied for identifying aon the will of the individual and reflecting his individ-

linguistic entity is that the association between the two

ual thought,

elements [signifiant and signifié] should be presentb) acts of phonation, which are the execution ofand maintained. If we unwittingly take only one of theelements, one of the parts, we have straight away cre-these combinations, likewise voluntary.
(Saussure 1993: 91a)

ated a spurious linguistic unit. We have made an
abstraction and it is no longer the concrete object that

2. Signe

we have before us. One must not dissociate what isThen, what is a langue that is derived from lan-associated in the linguistic sign.
(Saussure 1993: 79a)

gage like?
[…] it is the combination of the idea with a vocal

3. Signifié and Signifiant

sign which suffices to constitute the whole language

Then, how do signes emerge that constitute a[langue]. […] The acoustic image linked to an idea—

langue? Does anything like “pure concepts” or “purethat is what is essential to the language [langue].

phonemes” exist before signes come into being? If(Saussure 1993: 7a)“pure concepts” were to exist before signes emerge,what would happen?

What is a vocal sign or an acoustic image that
If words had the job of representing concepts

constitutes a langue?

fixed in advance, one would be able to find exact[…] the linguistic sign is based on an associationequivalents for them as between one language andmade by the mind between two very different things,

another. But this is not the case. French uses the same

but which are both mental and in the subject: an acous-

verb louer (‘hire, rent’) both for granting and for taking

tic image is associated with a concept. The acoustic

a lease, whereas German has two separate verbs,

image is not the material sound but the mental imprint

mieten and vermieten: so there is no exact correspon-of the sound.

dence between the values in question. The German(Saussure 1993: 74a)

verbs schätzen (‘to value’) and urteilen (‘to judge’) have
Saussure introduces three new terms: signifiant,meanings which answer roughly to those of the Frenchsignifié, and signe. A signifiant is an image acoustiqueverbs estimer and juger: but in various respects there(acoustic image); a signifié is a concept linked to an

is no one-to-one correspondence.
(Saussure 1983: 114–115)

image acoustique; and a signe is a signe linguistique(linguistic sign) that is an association of a signifiant

If Saussure is right, the common “pure concepts”

with a signifié. The relation of a signifiant to a signifié

in languages cannot be found anywhere before signes

is arbitrary:

do appear. In other words, this leads to the conclusion
The sign is arbitrary, that is to say that the concept ‘sister [sœur]’, for example, is not connected bythat the mass of concept, which is part of signe, are notdivided at all before signes do emerge.

any internal relation to the sound sequence s+ӧ+rwhich forms the corresponding acoustic image. This

Psychologically, what are our ideas, apart fromconcept could just as well be represented by any other

our language [langue]? They probably do not exist. Or

sequence of sounds.

in a form that may be described as amorphous. We(Saussure 1993: 76a)

─ 2 ─

Saussure’s Theory of Signshould probably be unable according to philosophersconcept and in sound in advance of a langue, then how

and linguists to distinguish two ideas clearly without

do signes, which are inseparable combinations of sig-

the help of a language [langue] (internal language

nifié and signifiant, emerge before us?

[langue] naturally).
Consequently, in itself, the purely conceptual

The characteristic role of a language in relation tomass of our ideas, the mass separated from the lan-thought is not to supply the material phonetic means

guage [langue], is like a kind of shapeless nebula, inby which ideas may be expressed. It is to act as inter-

which it is impossible to distinguish anything initially.

mediary between thought and sound, in such a way

The same goes, then, for the language [langue]: thethat the combination of both necessarily produces adifferent ideas represent nothing pre-existing. Theremutually

are no: a) ideas already established and quite distinct

Thought, chaotic by nature, is made precise by thisfrom one another, b) signs for these ideas. But there

process of segmentation. But what happens is neither

is nothing at all distinct in thought before the linguistica transformation of thoughts into matter, nor a trans-

sign. This is the main thing.

formation of sounds into ideas. What takes place, is a

(Saussure 1993: 137a–138a)complementarydelimitationofunits.

somewhat mysterious process by which ‘thoughtsound’ evolves divisions, and a language takes shape

If the mass of concept is not divided in advance,with its linguistic units in between those two amorphous masses.

then what of the mass of sound?

(Saussure 1983: 110–111)

On the other hand, it is also worth asking if,

Saussure explains that signes appear when the

beside this entirely indistinct realm of ideas, the realm

masses of both sound and concept are divided at theof sound offers in advance quite distinct ideas (taken

same time. This process is certainly very mysterious

in itself apart from the idea).

and compared to the waves:

There are no distinct units of sound either, delimited in advance.

One might think of it [this mysterious process] as(Saussure 1993: 138a)being like air in contact with water: change in atmoIf something like “pure phonemes” were to exist

spheric pressure break up the surface of the water into

in advance before signes appear, what would happen?

series of divisions, i.e. waves. The correlation between

Phonemes across all languages would probably cor-thought and sound, and the union of the two, is like

respond to one another, even if in part. But they actu-

that.

(Saussure 1983: 111)

ally don’t. For example, Pirahã, one of the Brazilian
languages, has only 10 phonemes, while! Xũ, one ofThus signes emerge after both concept and sound,the African languages, has as many as 141 phonemes.

which are not delimited in advance, are divided at theMoreover, in English a phoneme /p/ can be pro-same time. These signes are in an arbitrary relation tohnounced [p ] or [p] as an allophone. But Mandarin

other signes and valeur is born between them:

Chinese has two different words pronounced [p ā]hand [pā] respectively. These two sounds [ph] and [p]hEvery word in the language [langue] turns out tobelong to two clearly different phonemes /p / andbe related to other words, or rather does not exist/p/. So phonemes of these two words are /p ā/ andexcept in relation to the others and in virtue of what/pā/ (the diacritic is a tone mark). (Trask 1999: 232-

there is adjacent to it. […] The value of a word at any

233). This means that one phoneme /p/ in English is

given moment exists only in relation to other similar

treated as two phonemes /ph/ and /p/ in Mandarin

units.

h(Saussure 1993: 128a)

Chinese.
If signes were not to be in an arbitrary relation to

4. Emerging of Signes

one another, then signes across languages would be in

As we have seen, if any unit is not divided both in

the same relation to each other. But that is not the case:─ 3 ─

Naoki ARAKIThe French word mouton may have the same

domains: each of these generates a certain kind of

meaning as the English word sheep; but it does notvalue and the contrast between the two itself throws

have the same value. There are various reasons forlight on each. We are dealing with two domains or two

this, but in particular the fact that the English word forways of connecting words with one another.
(Saussure 1993: 128a)

the meat of this animal, as prepared and served for ameal, is not sheep but mutton. The difference in value
between sheep and mouton hinges on the fact that in

One way is a “syntagmatic relation,” which is an

English there is also another word mutton for the

explicit combination of signes that causes a certain

meat, whereas mouton in French covers both.

specific relation:(Saussure 1983: 114)
This combination giving rise to certain relations
Furthermore, the arbitrary relation between

may be called a syntagma. It is the combination of two

signes lead to arbitrariness between signifiés and signifi-

or several units, all present and consecutive. […] sev-

ants in signes as explained above:eral consecutive units with a connexion between themor with the whole form a syntagma. […] The contrast-

If we go back now to the diagram representing

ing terms are spatially opposed to one another and thethe signified and signifying elements [signifié and sig-

connexion established between them is based on thisnifiant] together we see that it is doubtless justified

spatial principle.

but is only a secondary product of value. The signified

The space I refer to is of course a space in time.

element [signifié] alone is nothing, it blurs into a

What coexists syntagmatically coexists extension-

shapeless mass. Likewise the signifying element [sig-ally, like the parts of a machine (but here we have one

nifiant].

(Saussure 1993: 139a)dimension only).

(Saussure 1993: 129a)

The opposition between signes is caused by com-

Another way is an “associative relation,” which isbination of differences of signifiés with differences ofmental and evoked unconsciously in the brain based

signifiants:

on being in association with signifiés, signifiants, and apart of signes:

So the whole language system can be envisaged
By mental association with other terms existing inas sound differences combined with differences

the language [langue].

between ideas.
There are no positive ideas given, and there are

E.g. a word like enseignement will unconsciously

no determinate acoustic signs that are independent of

evoke in the mind the idea in particular of a host ofideas. Thanks to the fact that the differences are mutu-

other words which in one way or another have some-ally dependent, we shall get something looking likething in common with it. This may be in very different

positive terms through the matching of a certain dif-

respects. For example, enseignement will find itself in

ference of ideas with a certain difference in signs. We

an associative series which includes:

shall then be able to speak of the opposition of terms
and so not claim that there are only differences

enseignement [‘teaching’]

because of this positive element in the combination.

enseigner [‘to teach’]enseignons [‘(we) teach’](Saussure 1993: 142a)enseigne [‘teaches’], etc.
These oppositions or values between signes are
There is something in common in the idea repre-

realized by two ways:

sented and something in common in the acoustic
The relation and the difference between words

image. The signifying and signified elements [signifi-

has its basis in two dimensions, two quite separate

ant and signifié] together form this associative series.

─ 4 ─

Saussure’s Theory of Sign

Similarly: enseignement [‘teaching’]Maruyama’s explanation can be interpreted as thearmement [‘arming’]

following Figure 1 shows:rendement [‘rendering’].

FrenchJapanese

Another associative series also based on relation

sens
meaningsensesdirection

Figure 1

between signifying and signified elements [signifiant
and signifié], but in another part of the word.

As we have seen above, there is no guarantee that

Associative series based on the signified element[signifié]:

one word in one language corresponds to anotherword in another language because the way languages
divide both sound and concept varies from one lan-ensignement [‘teaching’]

guage to another. In this case, Japanese words “mean-

instruction [‘instruction’]ing,” “senses,” and “direction” correspond to one

apprentissage [‘apprenticeship’]French word sens. In other words, three differentéducation [‘education’]Japanese words are equivalent to one and the same
French word. According to Maruyama, one French[…] Hence series of inevitable associations, sometimes based on double conformity of meaning andword corresponds to the three Japanese words,
depending on the context where it appears.

form, sometimes solely on the form or meaning. These

The same is true of the relation between an

correlations may be considered as existing in the brain

English word “brother” and two Japanese words ani

along with the words themselves. Any word immedi-“elder brother” and otouto “younger brother” as shown

ately evokes by association everything that may

in Figure 2:

resemble it.

(Saussure 1993: 129a–130a)

English5. Polysemous Words and Homonyms

Japanesebrotherelder brotheryounger brotherFigure 2

As we have seen above, Saussure says that every
signe has its own signifié and signifiant. If he is right,“Brother” corresponds to both elder brother andthen how can polysemous words be explained? Polyse-

younger brother in Japanese, but doesn’t have “values”

mous words have more than one meaning. For exam-of them. The “value” of “brother” is something like “aple, a French word sens is used as follows:male relative with the same parents (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 128).” So it is thought

1) au sens étroit (in the narrow meaning)that “brother” means “elder brother” or “younger2) cinq sens (five senses)

brother,” depending on the context where it is used.

3) rue à sens unique (one-way street).

That is to say, a signe “brother” has one signifié andone signifiant. Therefore, it is a matter of Japanese not

According to Saussure, the French word sens

English whether “brother” in English means “elder

should have only one signifié and only one signifiant.

brother” or “younger brother” in Japanese. Similarly, it

Nonetheless, does this word have more than one sig-

is a matter of Japanese not French whether sens innifié? Maruyama says:

French means “meaning,” “senses,” or “direction” inJapanese.

A French word sens is a signifiant /s :s/ and a

As we have seen above, it seems that the problem

signifié “sens” at the same time. The siginifié “sens” isof polysemous words has been solved. Then, how canvaleur as a potential, which is realized as significations“homonyms” be treated? Homonyms are words that

corresponding to Japanese words “meaning,” “senses,”

are spelled the same and sound the same as anotherand “direction,” depending on contexts where it isword but have a different meaning (Macmillan English

used. [my translation]

Dictionary, 726).

(Maruyama 1983: 211)

─ 5 ─

Naoki ARAKI

Son violon a le même son.

homonyms are explained based on their relation to(His/Her violin has the same sound.)other words, that is to say, a syntagmatic relation suchas “context” or “valence.” Then, how can they be inter-In the sentence above, the first son means “his” orpreted when used without any other words? How can“her” and the second, “sound.” According to Saussure,they be explained without a syntagmatic relation sucha signe son should have one signifiant and one signifié.

as “context” or “valence”? Suppose someone says,

Nonetheless, does the signe son have more than one“Water!” Does he or she mean cold water or hot water?

signifié? Maruyama explains the signe son as follows:

The English word “water” corresponds to two Japanesewords mizu “cold water” and oyu “hot water” as shown

This is different from a polysemous word “sens”

in Figure 4:

mentioned before. These two sons are each distinct
Englishsignes. Then, why can they have distinct signifiés while

Japanesethey have the same signifiant /s /? Does this contra-

cold water

hot water

Figure 4

dict the unity of signifié and signifiant we have considered so far? [my translation]

water(Maruyama 1983: 213)

So it may not matter to native speakers of English
whether “water” means cold water or hot water. But

So, if Maruyama is right, we have two distinct sonsas follows:

except the case where “cold water” or “hot water”
doesn’t matter to him or her, the speaker is requesting
either “cold water” or “hot water” by saying “Water!”Frenchson

sonEnglishhis/hersound

In other words, we can ask someone to bring “coldwater” or “hot water” by one and the same word

Figure 3“water.” This means that native speakers of English

Maruyama goes on to say further:can distinguish “hot water” from “cold water” independently of the fact that “water” has the value of “hotTwo words, which have the same sound, holdwater” and “cold water.” So we human beings candistinct values because their valence is different, whichperceive the world independently of Saussure’s langue.

enables words to be connected in the dimension of

We don’t divide and understand the world only throughsyntagma. This can realize the differentiation of son on

language. Needless to say, they can say, “Hot water!”the plane of syntagma. [my translation]or “Cold water!” to make clear what they want. The(Maruyama 1983: 213)

same is true of the word “brother”:

Here valence means “the possibility that a word isI went to China with my brother.

combined with another word [my translation](Maruyama 1983: 214).” In this case, the son, which

If a person, who has more than one brother, saysmeans “his” or “her,” has valence that enables it to be

the sentence above, he or she means that he or sheconnected with a noun violon while the son, which

went to China with his or her specific brother. The

means “sound,” has valence that enables it to be con-word “brother” doesn’t prevent the speaker from dis-

nected with an adjective même. So valence of these twotinguishing “younger brother” from “elder brother.”sons is different and “this can realize the differentiation

The very expressions “younger brother” and “elderof son on the plane of syntagma [my translation]

brother” prove that. The words “younger” and “elder”(Maruyama 1983: 213).”

don’t realize “the valeur as potential” of the word“brother.”

6. Saussureʼs Theor y of Sign

The same is true of homonyms. The French word

What we have considered, however, doesn’t meanson has the meanings of “bran” and “sound.” But eventhat the problem of polysemous words and homonyms

if it is uttered by itself, son can signify “bran” or

has been solved completely. Polysemous words and“sound” without being connected with any other─ 6 ─

Saussure’s Theory of Signwords. So we have two distinct words, which are thetions of phonemes, have the same sound (signifiant) as

same in sound but are different in meaning.

others. This is just a matter of probability. This may be
how polysemous words and homonyms have come7. Conclusion

into being. So the true picture of language may not be

According to Saussure, there is a system of langue

what Saussure has thought it to be. Palmer says:

and then it divides the masses of both sound and concept at the same time. That is how signes come into
being. Therefore, one signifiant comes to correspondMultiplicity of meaning is a very general characteristic of language.

to one signifié. This is a one-to-one relation. If it is true,

References

polysemous words and homonyms are explained only
by syntagmatic relation. But such an explanation is not

Longmanplausible when polysemous words and homonyms areused without any other words because there is noofContemporary

English.

Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners
2nd edition. Macmillan. 2007.
Maruyama, Keizaburo. Reading Saussure. Iwanamisyoten.
1983. (in Japanese)

ant but the signifiés of which are different from one
another, but also that signes do not come into being

Dictionary

Longman. 1978.

syntagmatic relation whatever. This means not onlythat we have some signes, which have the same signifi-(Palmer 1981: 108)

Palmer, F. R. Semantics 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. 1981.

after the langue divides the masses of both sound andconcept at the same time. Or might an associative rela-

Saussure, F. de. Cours de Linguistique Général, Coursetion be able to solve the problem of polysemous words

in General Linguistics, translated by Roy Harris.

and homonyms?

Duckworth. 1983.

In any case, a langue might be thought to have

Saussure, F. de. Troisieme Cours de Linguistiquedeveloped little by little although this is not compatible

Général (1910-1911) d’après les cahiers d’Emile

with Saussure’s theory of langue. This speculation

Constantin, Saussure’s Third Course of Lectures on

enables an idea to be plausible that every time we have

General Linguistics (1910-1911) From the note-a new concept (signifié), it is connected with a soundbooks of Emile Constantin, French text edited by(signifiant). In some cases, the same sound (signifiant)Eisuke Komatsu, English translation by Roy

may have had the different concept (signifié). As theHarris. Pergamon Press. 1993.

number of phonemes is limited in every language, it isTrask, R. L. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics.

likely to happen that some words, which are combina-

─ 7 ─Routledge. 1999.