What you will get from this article

The answer first. Saussure divided language study in two: external linguistics, which covers the environment and history of a language (ethnology, politics, institutions, geography), and internal linguistics, which covers the system itself. The only criterion is: “does it change the system?” If so it is internal; if not, external. He showed this with chess.

Quotations are from the 1916 French original (Introduction, chapter 5). English renderings are ToL’s.

The original text

At the start of chapter 5 Saussure lists four areas of external linguistics (relations with ethnology and the history of a people or civilization, with political history, with institutions such as church and school, and the geographic spread and dialect splitting of languages). He does not say these are unimportant. He says the two studies differ in method.

La meilleure preuve en est que chacun d’eux crée une méthode distincte. La linguistique externe peut accumuler détail sur détail sans se sentir serrée dans l’étau d’un système. Par exemple, chaque auteur groupera comme il l’entend les faits relatifs à l’expansion d’une langue en dehors de son territoire ; si l’on cherche les facteurs qui ont créé une langue littéraire en face des dialectes, on pourra toujours user de la simple énumération ; si l’on ordonne les faits d’une façon plus ou moins systématique, ce sera uniquement pour les besoins de la clarté.

ToL translation The best proof is that each creates a distinct method. External linguistics can pile detail upon detail without feeling squeezed in the vice of a system. For example, each author will group as he sees fit the facts relating to the spread of a language beyond its territory; if one looks for the factors that created a literary language against the dialects, one can always use simple enumeration; if one arranges the facts in a more or less systematic way, it will be solely for the sake of clarity.

Internal linguistics is quite different.

Pour la linguistique interne, il en va tout autrement : elle n’admet pas une disposition quelconque ; la langue est un système qui ne connaît que son ordre propre. Une comparaison avec le jeu d’échecs le fera mieux sentir. Là, il est relativement facile de distinguer ce qui est externe de ce qui est interne : le fait qu’il a passé de Perse en Europe est d’ordre externe ; interne, au contraire, tout ce qui concerne le système et les règles. Si je remplace des pièces de bois par des pièces d’ivoire, le changement est indifférent pour le système : mais si je diminue ou augmente le nombre des pièces, ce changement-là atteint profondément la « grammaire » du jeu. Il n’en est pas moins vrai qu’une certaine attention est nécessaire pour faire des distinctions de ce genre. Ainsi dans chaque cas on posera la question de la nature du phénomène, et pour la résoudre on observera cette règle : est interne tout ce qui change le système à un degré quelconque.

ToL translation For internal linguistics things are quite otherwise: it admits no arrangement whatever; language is a system that knows only its own order. A comparison with the game of chess will make this clearer. There it is relatively easy to distinguish what is external from what is internal: that the game passed from Persia to Europe is external; internal, by contrast, is everything that concerns the system and the rules. If I replace wooden pieces with ivory ones, the change is indifferent to the system; but if I reduce or increase the number of pieces, that change profoundly affects the “grammar” of the game. Still, some attention is needed to make distinctions of this kind. So in each case one asks about the nature of the phenomenon, and to settle it one observes this rule: whatever changes the system to any degree is internal.

Commentary 1: external linguistics is “anything goes”

What Saussure says of external linguistics is that it can gather facts and arrange them freely, unbound by a system. Phrases like “each author groups as he sees fit” and “simple enumeration will do” are not dismissive; they reflect that the object is a collection of facts, not a system.

Pulled toward English, the areas look like this (examples in brackets are ToL’s):

Area (the original four)English example
Ethnology and civilizationthe effect of the Norman Conquest on English vocabulary
Political historystandardization of English, language policy in education
Institutionsschooling and how “correct” grammar is taught
Geographic spread and dialectsthe distribution of dialects across Britain and America

He explicitly says that the study of external phenomena is “very fruitful”; it is just not indispensable to understanding the system.

Commentary 2: reading the chess analogy

ChangeEffect on the systemClass
The game passed from Persia to Europenoneexternal
Wooden pieces replaced by ivorynone (same game)external
Number of pieces increased or reducedchanges the “grammar” of the gameinternal

The key point is that the material of the pieces is irrelevant to the game. Wood or ivory, if the rules of movement are the same, it is the same game. Change the number of pieces and the very mechanism of play changes.

Shogi works the same way. (ToL’s note.)

In language, pitch, word order, and inflection patterns, the relations inside the system, are internal, while who spoke, where, and when is external.

Commentary 3: the criterion, “does it change the system?”

The last sentence of the quotation is Saussure’s criterion.

Whatever changes the system to any degree is internal.

Using it is simple.

  1. Pick one phenomenon you want to study.
  2. Ask: “If this were different, would the language’s system (the values of words, their relations to one another) change?”
  3. If yes, internal. If no, external.

Take loanwords. Saussure says in an earlier passage that a borrowed word no longer counts as such once it is studied within the system. Within the system there are only the other words it relates to and contrasts with. English “tea” comes from Chinese, but in the English system its value is fixed by relations with “coffee,” “juice,” “water.” Where it came from does not bear on its value.

But Saussure himself says to use the criterion carefully: “some attention is needed,” and one should ask each time about the nature of the phenomenon.

Commentary 4: why separate them at all?

The reason for insisting on the split comes from the discussion just before: the objection that without external circumstances the inner system cannot be understood.

So it is not “do not study external things” but “mixing them makes it unclear what you are studying.”

Commentary 5: applying it to your own question

Let us apply the test to common questions. (ToL’s sorting.)

QuestionClassReason
“When did this slang spread?”externaltiming and spread are facts outside the system
“What grammatical pattern is the slang ‘-able’ coinage?”internalasks how words are built and how they relate
“How do Scottish and American English differ in vowels?”internalcompares sound systems
“What share of people speak a given dialect?”externala social fact about distribution

Boundary cases appear too. “Mapping where a dialect is spoken” is external. “Describing that dialect’s vowel system” is internal. Even with the same dialect as the object, a different question changes the class.

Summary

Next