✫ Cours de linguistique générale Books ✭ Author Ferdinand de Saussure – 91videos.co

I did it for you Sammie. A classical study of linguistics that laid the foundation of the modern science. A bit heavy on examples that break up the flow of the text, but a mustread for anyone interested in studying language and meaning. Cours De Linguistique Tlcharger Facult Licence, Master Cours De Linguistique Tlcharger Universit, Licence, Master Langages Et Tude De La Langue, Volution, Analyse, Significations, Morphologie Smantique COURS DE LINGUISTIQUE GNRALE Encyclopdia Universalis Le Cours De Linguistique Gnrale De Ferdinand De Saussurea Impos La Conception Structurale Du Langage Qui Domine Largement La Linguistique Contemporaine En Dpit Des Conflits D Coles Mais Un Vnement Des Plus Importants, Du Moins Pour La Philosophie Du Langage, Est L Apparition Et Le Dveloppement Rapide D Une Nouvelle Mthode D Analyse Du Langage, Celle De La INTRODUCTION LA LINGUISTIQUE Ferdinand De Saussure Cours De Linguistique Gnraled Payot Ex Dcrire La Grammaire D Une Langue Un Moment Donn Ex Dcrire Le Lexique D Une Langue Au Cours D Une Priode I La Linguistique En Tant Que Science Son Objet, Son Histoire Et Ses DisciplinesObjet D Tude De La LinguistiqueBr Ve Histoire De La Linguistique INTRODUCTION A LACours De Linguistique Gnrale Wikipdia Le Cours De Linguistique Gnrale Est Une Uvre Posthume De Ferdinand De Saussure, Considre Comme L Acte De Naissance De La Linguistique Moderne Document Le Plus Important Dont Nous Disposons Pour Connatre La Pense De Saussure, Il A T Rdig Par Ses Lves Charles Bally Et Albert Sechehaye, En Se Fondant Sur Leurs Notes, Sur Celles De Cinq Autres Auditeurs, Ainsi Que Celles Laisses Par Saussure Cours De Linguistique Gnrale Ferdinand De SaussureLe Cours De Linguistique Gnrale De Ferdinand De Saussure Est Une Oeuvre Posthume, Dans Laquelle On Dcouvre Un Ensemble De Notes Prises Par Ses Tudiants Elle Contient L Analyse Du Systme Que Constituent La Langue Et Le Langage Tout En Lucidant, Si Bien, Les Concepts Clefs De La Linguistique Moderne Qui Ont T Tablis ParIntroduction La Linguistique Je Tiens Remercier Tous Les Enseignants Et Collgues Qui M Ont Autorise Me Servir De Leurs Notes De Cours Pour La Conception De Ce Site, Notamment Paul Laurendeau, Mais Aussi Pierre Lon, Philippe Martin, Yves Roberge, Philippe Bourdin, Richard Patry, Ainsi Que Tous Ceux Que J Ai Pu Croiser Sur Ma Route De Linguiste Au Cours Des Annes Cours De Linguistique Gnrale Ferdinand De SaussureToutes Les Informations De La Bibliothque Nationale De France Sur Cours De Linguistique Gnrale Ferdinand De Saussure Cours De Franais Ple Linguistique Als Ple Linguistique Le Ple Linguistique, Votre Cole De Langues Als Cvennes Nmes And Beyond Votre Projet Vous Tes Responsable RH Formation Vous Souhaitez Dvelopper Les Comptences En Franais De Vos Collaborateurs Francophones Salaris Ou Demandeurs D Emploi Vous Devez Dvelopper Vos Comptences En Franais Vous Voulez Rdiger Sans Faire De Fautes VousSjours Linguistiques Et Cours De Langue L Tranger ESL% De Rduction Sur Le Logement Lors De Votre Cours D Anglais L Tranger Avec La Rouverture Des Frontires Et La Mise En Place Par Nos Coles Partenaires De Mesures De Scurit Strictes Dans Tous Leurs Locaux, Nous Souhaitons Vous Proposer Nouveau Une Exprience Unique Et Cette Fois Seulement, Vous Offrir Un % De Rduction Sur Le Logement En Rsidence En Aot Linguistique Wikipdia After wrapping up my readings of Heidegger and Husserl, I found Saussure to be rather refreshing, probably the most influential thinker on my large critical theory reading list since Gramsci. Backing up just a little bit, Heidegger really seemed to have just contributed a convoluted discussion of the word Dasein and its meaning, which at different times could encompass being, revelation, existence, human being, the universe, etc. I feel Heidegger is too open to interpretation and a discussion of the sign, which is made up of the signal and the signification, is essential after reading Being and Time. In fact, Saussure's writings on the sign can be extended to more than just language, and this is evident in the work of many poststructuralists that I have already familiarized myself with. If you are only going to read one section of this book, I recommend Part one, especially the chapter on the nature of the linguistic sign. Otherwise, part three was an intense study of grammar and sound, what Saussure refers to as Diachronic linguistics, which is really the study of the instability of language. One of the biggest take aways for me is that language is in fact arbitrary, our signals are arbitrary, the significations are what are important. This was a very fascinating read. This is not actually a work by de Saussure, but rather (a translation of) a posthumous reconstruction of his teaching by Bally and Sechehaye based on student notes of three separate courses of lectures (given between 1906 and 1911) plus some other writings of de Saussure; nevertheless, it is one of the founding texts of what is now known as "structural linguistics." I took an introductory course in structural linguistics at Columbia about 1973, or more than sixty years after this material was delivered (and of course that course itself is now almost fifty years in the past). Here we can see de Saussure working his way toward the science that was presented in a more systematic way in my textbook then; without that experience, I would probably have had much more difficulty understanding this book, because it is rather polemical and tentativehe spends much time defining the subject matter of linguistics and what he means by language, separating language ("langue") from speech acts ("parole"), and giving philosophical and methodological arguments for things that were later taken for granted as simply the facts about how language works. The most important part of the book is probably making the then new distinction of synchronic and diachronic linguistics as essentially different types of study. It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this book. It is significant not only for laying down a radical vision of linguistics as a discipline for the 20th and 21st centuries, but it also lays the foundations for all modern approaches to semiotics. Certainly Peirce had made a similar breakthrough in semiotics at around the same time, but his theory was not backed up by such a rich understanding of the study of linguisticsits subfields and divisions, the progress it had made, its mistaken steps and where it needed to go in the future. De Saussure demonstrates that language is one semiotic and so a theoretical framework is needed that encompasses both.
For a book that was delivered as lectures and then compiled posthumously by students 100 years ago, perhaps what is most surprising is just how much of the book is still relevant and important to the discipline of linguistics today. What is not surprising is just how much de Saussure has been misrepresented by modern linguists. De Saussure could not imagine syntagms without paradigms, and for him there was no signifier without a signified, so to use his name to support an autonomous syntax or to divide semantics, pragmatics, phonetics and syntax simplifies his theories beyond recognition, and makes a mockery of European linguistics.
100 years strong, this book still holds many questions waiting to be answered. 'The course' sets out major objectives in dialectology for the sociolinguistic programme, and it delves deep into phonetics from which it develops a view of historical linguistics that is not a simple rehash of philology, and that takes great care not to fall into the trap of equating language and race so popular with de Saussure's contemporaries. A grand theory of language, covering phonetics, diachronic and synchronic perspectives and grammar with a semiotic theory, to match de Saussure's has rarely been attempted in the years since his death. Currently, there are certainly just a few linguists that believe they should even try. Until that view changes we are unlikely to see another linguist with the depth of vision and inspirational views of de Saussure. This is an interesting book. The thinker behind the ideas within it was dead when it was written, and it was composed by former students from lecture notes. While reading it, one begins to presume a singular, living voice behind the ideas within; ideas that have been discussed, dissected, and evaluated to the point where this original formulation has lost its currency and its value is now that of an artefact or touchstone. The sad thing of monuments is that they are never free from piss; the face of the sphinx is disfigured, yet regardless Rilke still meditated in grateful silence before it. So too may we appreciate this work of a lost time. Clausewitz's On War has a similar anachronistic lucidity.

Parts of this book were boring, stunningly boring. And most of it is out of date. Whatever, I still give 5 stars to the revenant's voice. It's a rope just like they used to make down by the river. I want to preface this by mentioning that I only read the parts of this text that seemed to be about semiotics, rather than the parts about linguistics as such. De Saussure's text is really important to the foundations of semiotics as a discipline, and I was especially pleased to get clarification on the relationship between the sign, the signifier, and the signified. Otherwise, he had some smart insights on various things, but I think a general intro to semiology would be as useful. Obviously de Saussure was not writing specifically to develop a new discipline, and so his focus is not on semiotics so much as language itself. A semiotics intro would probably provide much fuller picture of the techniques and interests of semiotic theorists in general. Short of calling it a pioneer text, it's difficult to really say much else about Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. As dated as most of the ideas contained within this book are, most of them stand as the founding concepts of linguistics, semiotics, and structuralism. Or, a more grammatically apt way to put it would be to say that it is Saussure's particular methodology that has been the most influential aspect of his thought. His central aim above all else is to analyze language as a system with a structure. This particular quote from pg. 86 expresses his approach quite well.

"A language is a system of which all parts can and must be considered as synchronically interdependent."

What this basically means is that language is a system composed of various units, with a very elaborate structure, and that the significance or usefulness of these units can be found in their relationship to each other. This may be within the grammatical context of a syllable, word, sentence, etc. Naturally this takes much of the stress away from phonation, as well as diachronic (historical) linguistics. Saussure was also (more or less) one of the first theorists to introduce semiology as a linguistic study.

It's an important book to read if you are interested in contemporary theory at all. Saussure's influence is widespread; some notable theorists that he has influenced (or provoked) are Naom Chomsky, Claude LeviStrauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Christian Metz, Maurice MerleauPonty, and Jacques Derrida. The only issue that I have with this book is that it is essentially a translation of lecture notes edited by Saussure's students. So the style tends to be extremely dry, and the book lacks much of a flow. However, it's more important that the reader understand the basic concepts of Saussure's thought, and Harris's translation seems to do an adequate job at providing his audience with a comprehensible enough text.

Can't believe it took me so long to read this! It's so foundational to so much theory, and when you read it you will see how (it's not the same hearing about that, but isn't that always true?). And only reading it did I fully realize that I wasn't reading Saussure at all, but what his students and colleagues thought was Saussure, which clearly is something different and quite collective and thus possibly cooler than Saussure. So no one should just throw the name around as he's not a person anymore but a collection of ideas that represent the inspiration of one person as influenced and interpreted by a group of others. And we don't have a name for that but we should.

So this effort was brilliant, though I agree with almost nothing, but the Western world sure ran with it, hey? Languages are always changing, but it is impossible for humans to change them? Really? One word = one concept? Still, what he wrote is quite fascinating, and while I've decided I'm a Bakhtin/Volosinov girl myself, I enjoyed it. It has some amazing illustrations.