Talk:Ferdinand de Saussure

message: The sentence beginning with "saussure is all but universally considered to be the father of modern ling..." is pretty bad.   Too long, confused, comma splices, etc.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.186.5 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro paragraph needs reworking, pretty badly

message: His entire name was Ferdinand Mongin de Saussure!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.91.249.103 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I changed "Saussure is widely considered to be one of the fathers of 20th-century linguistics, though modern linguists generally consider his ideas outdated and inadequate" to "Saussure is widely considered to be one of the fathers of 20th-century linguistics, though at least two modern linguists generally consider his ideas outdated and inadequate." The reason why is because the references for the claim that "though modern linguists generally consider..." are inadequate. The references point to two works by two individuals, neither of which are even specifically evaluating the impact or relevance of Saussure. Rather, both citations are, in context, dismissive, throwaway quotes. In order to substantiate the claim that "modern linguists generally consider..." a more substantive citation should be provided from a source that addresses the issue of Saussure's impact and relevance today.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.182.180 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, excellent job catching this and making the changes. I'm in complete agreement with how you handled this. Of course, even as it stands (and even with additional "substantive citations") these observations don't belong in what Wikipedia calls "the Lead section". I'll have to look up the style sheet on this. I may revisit this on the talk page here in the future. But thanks again for catching this and making responsible changes. Christian Roess (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree entirely that the claim that "modern linguists and philosophers of language all but universally consider his ideas outdated and inadequate" is a preposterous misrepresentation of the esteem in which Saussure is held by contemporary linguists, the overwhelming majority of whom unquestionably recognize Saussure's historical importance and many contributions to the field.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.116.205 (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then we ran into citation overkill in that line. I've bundled the citations to make it more readable. Roseclearfield (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everyone else here. Good job all. warshytalk 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: I find the second paragraph under the "Later critics" heading to suffer from strongly POV language throughout.  I believe this section should be tagged NPOV but will await responses here before doing so. Lazarusloafer (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have tagged that subsection accordingly.  --Lambiam 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in "Later Critics" subsection 

message: According to our article on the Hittite Language, Ferdinand de Saussure announced in 1879, on theoretical grounds, that the Indo-European ancestral tongue contained a group of laryngeal sounds that did not occur in any known descendant tongue.  This remained an interesting theoretical point for some thirty years, until the ancient language miscalled Hittite was deciphered and found to contain two of these sounds.
I think that de Saussure was also active in the auxiliary language (specifically Esperanto) movement, and himself proposed two separate modifications of Esperanto.  Can anyone provide further information? J S Ayer 01:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Topics 

message: Jonathan Culler, in his work on Saussure, says that Saussure was not familiar with Freud and Jung and that while it is has been theorized that Saussure was influenced by Durkheim there is no evidence for that apart from some similarities between their thoughts. This page claims otherwise. Anyone have any citations to back this page's claim about Saussure's relationship to those thinkers? Danielsilliman 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saussure's relationship to Durkheim and Freud/Jung 

message: Would somebody write about the eppisode of Joseph Wertheimer? (Timetable, german) --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  as the successor to Joseph Wertheimer 

message: Please put reference / source in quotes. Typewritten 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Is there a specific reason, or is it an oversight, that the title of de Saussure's Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européenes has not also been stated in English in the article?   Athænara   ✉  09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Memoir on the Primitive System of Vowels in the Indo-European Languages found here and elsewhere.  I have added it to the article.  Æ.   ✉  22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation of title

message: Who are the idiots that are ok with copying the opening line ("Ferdinand de Saussure [...] was a Geneva-born Swiss linguist whose ideas laid the foundation for many of the significant developments in linguistics in the 20th century.")  straight from Encyclopedia Britannica ("Swiss linguist whose ideas on structure in language laid the foundation for much of the approach to and progress of the linguistic sciences in the 20th century.") Sure, they are slightly different in content, but the syntax, structure, etc. are all intact from the original source. At the very best, this deserves a serious citation, and at the very worst, this deserves a total rewrite, one with a bit more content that isn't straight lifted from somewhere.--Blingice 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To preempt the question "why don't you do it," the answer is that I have little to no knowledge of Saussure or linguistics, but I'm eager to begin a study soon. Perhaps I'll be able to up this article from Start-Class when I have a little more time.--Blingice 02:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the... 

message: The "Cultural references" section has no value.Lestrade (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some culture

message: Article said: "The impact of Saussure's ideas on the development of linguistic theory in the first half of the 20th century cannot be overstated."
Easily falsifiable ("Saussure directly caused every discovery in theoretical linguistics from 1900-1950"--there, I overstated it) and unencyclopedic.
Changed to:
"Saussure's ideas had a major impact on on the development of linguistic theory in the first half of the 20th century."
74.105.132.151 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed an unencyclopedic sentence 

message: This page seems to give undue weight to Saussure's lasting contributions to linguistics, where his ideas are said to be outdated. However, his realm of influence is vast in the field of literary theory, and yet there is only one sentence regarding this influence. The sentence currently reads:
:The principles and methods employed by structuralism were soon adopted by scholars and literary thinkers, such as Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Such scholars implemented Saussure's ideas in their areas of study (literary studies/philosophy, psychoanalysis, anthropology, respectively). 
Then, the article goes on to undercut this influence with an unreferenced claim:
:However, their expansive interpretations of Saussure's theories and their application of those theories to non-linguistic fields of study such as sociology or anthropology led to proclamations of the end of structuralism in those two disciplines.
This is a major problem on the page of a hugely influential thinker. I am no expert, but I could do more work on this over the summer when I have time. Anyone else interested, please help balance the somewhat dismissive tone of this article. Roseclearfield (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good! I like your reading of these passages and of Saussure's huge influence on Structuralism. I am defitely interested in helping you with the project you outline. I should also be around over the summer and looking into stuff and brushing up a bit on my Saussure knowledge, which is a yet not so good. My interest in Saussure comes from my bigger interest so far in Claude Lévi-Strauss, some of whose works I've read a little more in depth. I feel some of his ideas are also today a bit underestimated, as are some of Saussure's. Very interested in what you may come up with. Enjoy your study! warshytalk 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence outside linguistics 

message: It's a bit weird, the angle taken at the top. Sure, there might be mention of criticism, but not like that. Shouldn't the lead present the big picture first, and the details of the criticisms and positives be dealt with below? Tony (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In general terms I do agree with you, for one. But we would have to look at details and specific suggested edits, I believe, as a matter of procedure? warshytalk 17:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be effective to paste a proposed new lead, then, right here in this section. Would that be acceptable? Tony (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think that would be the way to go! Thanks. warshytalk 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swerves from negative to positive in the lead, without explanation 

message: What does some random indy pop band have to do with Ferdinand de Saussure? It is always cringeworthy to see such references on Wikipedia. Would Ferdinand de Saussure or his colleagues find it appropriate that some irrelevant pop band is tagged onto an encyclopedic article about his life and work? Why would anyone? It is nonsense that has nothing to do with de Saussure. It is a parasitical relationship, exploitation. There have been probably thousands of academic articles written about de Saussure and his work that actually provide something worthwhile, a counterargument, a clarification, an extension of his ideas, or whatever else you can think of. Such papers are not listed on the page, for understandable reasons, but at the same time some utterly meaningless reference in a pop song is supposed to qualify as important information? Such references should never be included in encyclopedic articles because they have no relevance at all. Anyone can mention the name of some thinker or book or whatever in a song, but it doesn't mean it should be automatically added to an encyclopedic article about said person, book, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.248.163 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference has since been removed; readers can find such obscure references with the "What links here" tool. -- Beland (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Indy pop music relevance to article

message: From the article:
:languages have a relational conception of their elements: words and their meanings are defined by comparing and contrasting their meanings to one another. For instance, the sound images for and the conception of a book differ from the sound images for and the conception of a table.
* What is a "sound image", another term for "sound of a word"?
* What is the compare/contrast relationship between a book and a table?  They seem unrelated.
-- Beland (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: How about not using a polysyllabic confabulation to disguise your ignorance of the subject. In other words, stop using words with four syllables when single syllable words would reveal more meaning; rather than disguising the fact you know less about the subject of creating meaning than you know about camouflaging ignorance.
This will prove incredibly useful. CORNFLICKER (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a paper to impress your doctorate advisor 

message: The law of Saussure and Fortunatov seems to refer to Baltic and Slavonic languages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.7.189 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound law 

message: The whole structuralist enterprise was and is primarily about theories and methods of the scientific study of the world. Structuralist ideas and methods (e.g. 'phonemes' in linguistics) have been and are used by people without any connection to their politics. Yes, some structuralists in some fields of science have connected their work and views to their politics in various ways during various historical periods, but there is no general political project normally associated with structuralism as such. That section, instead, makes it sound as the primary goal of structuralism was political and even the rise of various theories and philosophies that reject much of it (poststructuralism, deconstruction and so on) was also politically motivated - all apparently part of a single 'radical left' agenda to subvert everything that is dear to Jordan Peterson's heart or something.--87.126.23.130 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the politics you're talking about is only in "that section", not all over the article. So there were political disputes, too. It is a rather general argument that structuralism (note! this is article is not about Leonard Bloomfield!) was too "conservative" for the poststructuralists. That is, for their purposes of transforming the academic left. Therefore, you need to know this to understand the criticism from the poststructuralists. Like you said, the goal of structuralism was to establish a scientific humanism; and it was particularly this 'scientific' inclination that was considered as an obstacle for a politics of change. But post-structuralism is also based on Saussure's idea. Secondly, it's a historical fact that the Prague school were persecuted by the Marxists. This is not to say that the structuralists were "right wing", though. Weidorje (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who Jordan Peterson is. Neither do I know who Leonard Bloomfield is. But overall I agree much more with the argument made by the IP editor who started this thread, than with the regular user who has made most of the latest changes to this page. If I remember correctly, it was s/he who made that section a separate section with that title. If I had the time I would completely rewrite that section, including changing the misleading title. I also, made those remarks previously above, at the time this latest changes were made. warshy (¥¥) 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. But first, I'd like to know if you two guys actually agree. So, Warshy says he doesn't like post-structuralists and thinks of Claude Lévi-Strauss as a structuralist. Now we have the other person who likes post-structuralists and... to be honest, I'm not sure what kind of arguments are made here. There's clearly some confusion, but what? Weidorje (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Anyway, it's an undisputed fact that post-structuralism grew out of a criticism of structuralism. How hard is that to believe? I'll get the citations asap, but I'm busy just now. Weidorje (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

text: warshy, I believe you act in good faith, but what you're saying is kind of nonsense. You're being clear enough that you're not an expert of Saussure or structural linguistics. So how do you think you're going to improve this article? I think you should at least read Course in General Linguistics. I have used that and other recommendable sources, too. Dosse's two volumes are highly accredited and represent the French structuralist viewpoint. I'm not an anti-structuralist or an anti-socialist. I'm an expert of structural linguistics and related theories, or at least trying to be. I have to repeat that I haven't written anything bad about Lévi-Strauss or the academic left. What I've done was to clean up the page which was not correct from the Saussurean point and tradition. It was claimed that Chomsky had replaced Saussure, and that structural linguistics had fallen into oblivion. That is not true. I renamed the criticism section because I don't think person bio's need a 'criticism'. Instead, I've been working on an account of different kinds of famous criticisms and added an answer that is satisfactory from the French structuralist perspective and which I believe represents the opinion of today's European structuralist institutions. This is however stuff that we're working on, not only here in Wikipedia, but also out there; to better understand the terminology and ideological history. Weidorje (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I am more interested in what the other commenter, who appears to have echoed what I asserted here before, would have to say about how to clean up this page from the unwarranted political bias that was recently introduced. I agree with everything s/he said above, as I wrote, and I'd hope s/he would have further ideas on how to improve the page. As for your views, I believe I understand where you're coming from, and overall I feel your contributions have not really improved the page. In fact, I think the page as it is today is actually less clear, straightforward, and encyclopedic than it was before your edits. But I've said this before, and I have also said I don't have the time to go into research into this area now, so this and other sections can be rewritten and improved. But maybe with the help of a new interested editor we can do something to really improve the page. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 19:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this will help. warshy, since you agree 100% with the anonymous commenter, can you please explain to me what you guys mean exactly? Like, how does this page reflect a right-wing conspiracy theory or Jordan Peterson's opinions? Weidorje (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Political controversies' reads like a right-wing conspiracy theory