What you will get from this article
- What “syntagmatic” and “associative” relations each refer to
- A simple test for telling them apart in a sentence
- How they map onto the modern terms (paradigmatic, etc.)
The answer first. Words relate to one another in two ways: words actually side by side (syntagmatic) and words absent from the sentence but called up in the mind (associative). Saussure labelled the first in praesentia (“present”) and the second in absentia (“absent”).
Quotations are from the 1916 French original (Part 2, chapter 5, §1). English renderings are ToL’s.
The original text
Just before, Saussure says that in a language state “everything rests on relations” (see Value and difference). How do those relations work? First, the side-by-side kind.
D’une part, dans le discours, les mots contractent entre eux, en vertu de leur enchaînement, des rapports fondés sur le caractère linéaire de la langue, qui exclut la possibilité de prononcer deux éléments à la fois (voir p. 103). Ceux-ci se rangent les uns à la suite des autres sur la chaîne de la parole. Ces combinaisons qui ont pour support l’étendue peuvent être appelées syntagmes. Le syntagme se compose donc toujours de deux ou plusieurs unités consécutives (par exemple : re-lire ; contre tous ; la vie humaine ; Dieu est bon ; s’il fait beau temps, nous sortirons, etc.). Placé dans un syntagme, un terme n’acquiert sa valeur que parce qu’il est opposé à ce qui précède ou ce qui suit, ou à tous les deux.
ToL translation On one hand, in discourse, words enter into relations with one another by virtue of their linking, relations founded on the linear character of language, which excludes the possibility of pronouncing two elements at once (see p. 103 of the original). They line up one after another on the chain of speech. Combinations that rest on extension may be called syntagms. A syntagm is therefore always made of two or more consecutive units (for example: re-read; against all; human life; God is good; if the weather is fine, we’ll go out). Placed in a syntagm, a term acquires its value only because it is opposed to what precedes, what follows, or both.
Next, the kind that is not side by side.
D’autre part, en dehors du discours, les mots offrant quelque chose de commun s’associent dans la mémoire, et il se forme ainsi des groupes au sein desquels régnent des rapports très divers. Ainsi le mot enseignement fera surgir inconsciemment devant l’esprit une foule d’autres mots (enseigner, renseigner, etc., ou bien armement, changement, etc., ou bien éducation, apprentissage) ; par un côté ou un autre, tous ont quelque chose de commun entre eux.
ToL translation On the other hand, outside discourse, words with something in common become associated in memory, and so groups form within which very varied relations hold. Thus the word enseignement (“teaching”) unconsciously brings a crowd of other words before the mind (enseigner, renseigner, and so on; or armement, changement; or éducation, apprentissage); in one respect or another they all have something in common.
Finally, the contrast.
Le rapport syntagmatique est in praesentia ; il repose sur deux ou plusieurs termes également présents dans une série effective. Au contraire le rapport associatif unit des termes in absentia dans une série mnémonique virtuelle.
ToL translation The syntagmatic relation is in praesentia; it rests on two or more terms equally present in an actual series. By contrast the associative relation unites terms in absentia in a virtual series in memory.
Commentary 1: side-by-side relations in English
The core of the syntagmatic relation is “they cannot be said at once, so they line up.” It rests directly on linearity, as seen in the previous article.
Saussure’s examples run from the inside of a word (re-lire) to whole sentences. In English:
- Inside a word: “re-read,” “student-s”
- Phrase: “a big dog,” “in front of the station”
- Sentence: “The student reads a book,” “If the weather is fine, we’ll go out”
What he stresses is that a word’s value is decided in the line: a term gets its value by opposition to what precedes and follows. The verb “reads,” coming after “The student … a book,” gets a role: what the student reads is a book.
Commentary 2: brought-to-mind relations in English
The core of the associative relation is “called up in the mind as members of the same family.” His enseignement example gives three kinds (ToL’s sorting):
| Kind of family | Original example | Shared feature |
|---|---|---|
| Same stem | enseigner, renseigner | the stem “teach” |
| Same ending | armement, changement | the form -ment |
| Close meaning | éducation, apprentissage | semantic field |
In English, “teacher” calls up:
- Same form: “teach,” “teaching,” “taught”
- Same ending: “worker,” “singer,” “driver” (-er)
- Close meaning: “instructor,” “tutor,” “educator”
These family members do not appear in the sentence. Saying “The teacher explains” leaves “instructor” and “teaching” absent, yet in the mind they work in the background and fix the value of “teacher.”
Commentary 3: a test for telling them apart
| Question | Syntagmatic | Associative |
|---|---|---|
| Can both occur in the same sentence? | Yes (adjacent) | No (you choose one) |
| Where is the relation? | in the chain of speech | in memory |
| Direction | horizontal (arrangement) | vertical (substitution candidates) |
Writing a sentence as a grid makes it clear.
| Horizontal: syntagmatic → | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vertical: associative ↓ | The student | reads | a book |
| The teacher | writes | a letter | |
| The child | draws | a picture |
Words along a row are in adjacent relations (syntagmatic); words down a column are interchangeable in the same slot (associative). Later linguistics inherited this horizontal/vertical view, calling the horizontal relation syntagmatic and the vertical one paradigmatic. (This is ToL’s note; the Course’s own term here is “associative relations.”)
Commentary 4: the column
Saussure compares the two to a building’s column (the text continues). The column stands, on one hand, in a relation to the architrave it supports: two units equally present in space, like the syntagmatic relation. On the other hand, if it is a Doric column it evokes, in the mind, a comparison with other orders not present (Ionic, Corinthian): an associative relation.
English works the same way. In “a red flower,” “red” sits beside “flower” (syntagmatic) and is also silently compared with “blue,” “white,” and “yellow,” which are not there (associative). The meaning of “red” is fixed partly by differences from such companions.
Commentary 5: isn’t a sentence “parole”?
Saussure then raises a key objection. A sentence is the typical syntagm, yet sentences belong to parole (individual speech). Doesn’t it follow that the syntagm belongs to parole?
He answers: not necessarily. Parole is characterized by freedom of combination, but many syntagms are not free.
- Set phrases and idioms: in English, “kick the bucket,” “by and large.” They cannot be reshuffled and behave as one unit. They belong to langue, not parole.
- Regular types: new words can be formed because the type is backed by many remembered examples. That a coinage like “unfriendable” is understood owes to our knowing the “un-…-able” type. (ToL’s example.)
And he admits that between the two there is no sharp boundary: in many cases both social habit and individual freedom contribute, in proportions impossible to determine.
Summary
- Syntagmatic relation: words actually side by side in an utterance (horizontal).
- Associative relation: absent companions called up in the mind (vertical).
- A word’s value is fixed within both. The next article reads in the original how that value also changes over time.
Next
- How value works: Value and difference
- Previous: Why can words only be lined up in a row?
- Next: Why does language change if we cannot choose it?