What you will get from this article
- Who made the Course in General Linguistics, and from what materials
- What the editors themselves admit in their preface
- What to watch out for when reading and citing the Course
The answer first. The Course (1916) is not a book Saussure wrote. He gave three series of lectures on general linguistics at the University of Geneva between 1906 and 1911 and died in 1913. After his death his colleagues Bally and Sechehaye “reconstructed” the whole from students’ lecture notes. The editors themselves call it a “recreation” in the preface.
Quotations are from the 1916 French original (first-edition preface). English renderings are ToL’s.
The original text
After outlining the three courses, the preface reveals how little Saussure left in writing.
Tous ceux qui eurent le privilège de suivre cet enseignement si fécond regrettèrent qu’un livre n’en fût pas sorti. Après la mort du maître, nous espérions trouver dans ses manuscrits, mis obligeamment à notre disposition par Mme de Saussure, l’image fidèle ou du moins suffisante de ces géniales leçons ; nous entrevoyions la possibilité d’une publication fondée sur une simple mise au point des notes personnelles de Ferdinand de Saussure, combinées avec les notes d’étudiants. Grande fut notre déception : nous ne trouvâmes rien ou presque rien qui correspondît aux cahiers de ses disciples ; F. de Saussure détruisait à mesure les brouillons hâtifs où il traçait au jour le jour l’esquisse de son exposé ! Les tiroirs de son secrétaire ne nous livrèrent que des ébauches assez anciennes, non certes sans valeur, mais impossibles à utiliser et à combiner avec la matière des trois cours.
ToL translation All who had the privilege of following this fruitful teaching regretted that no book came of it. After the master’s death we hoped to find in his manuscripts, kindly placed at our disposal by Madame de Saussure, a faithful or at least sufficient picture of these brilliant lessons; we glimpsed the possibility of a publication based on a simple tidying-up of Ferdinand de Saussure’s personal notes, combined with students’ notes. Great was our disappointment: we found nothing, or almost nothing, corresponding to his disciples’ notebooks; Saussure destroyed, as he went, the hasty drafts on which he sketched day by day the outline of his exposition! The drawers of his desk yielded only rather old sketches, certainly not without value, but impossible to use and to combine with the material of the three courses.
So what did they do?
Nous nous sommes arrêtés à une solution plus hardie, mais aussi, croyons-nous, plus rationnelle : tenter une reconstitution, une synthèse, sur la base du troisième cours, en utilisant tous les matériaux dont nous disposions, y compris les notes personnelles de F. de Saussure. Il s’agissait donc d’une recréation, d’autant plus malaisée qu’elle devait être entièrement objective ; sur chaque point, en pénétrant jusqu’au fond de chaque pensée particulière, il fallait, à la lumière du système tout entier, essayer de la voir sous sa forme définitive en la dégageant des variations, des flottements inhérents à la leçon parlée, puis l’enchâsser dans son milieu naturel, toutes les parties étant présentées dans un ordre conforme à l’intention de l’auteur, même lorsque cette intention se devinait plutôt qu’elle n’apparaissait.
ToL translation We settled on a bolder solution, but also, we believe, a more rational one: to attempt a reconstitution, a synthesis, on the basis of the third course, using all the materials at our disposal, including Saussure’s personal notes. It was thus a recreation, all the more difficult for having to be entirely objective. On each point, penetrating to the depth of each particular thought, it was necessary, in the light of the whole system, to try to see it in its definitive form, freeing it from the variations and wavering inherent in the spoken lesson, and then to set it in its natural place, all the parts being presented in an order conforming to the author’s intention, even when that intention was divined rather than apparent.
Commentary 1: three lecture series and where the notes came from
Elsewhere in the preface we learn where the materials came from (ToL’s summary).
| Course | Period | Note |
|---|---|---|
| First | 1906–1907 | Saussure took over the chair at Geneva in 1906 |
| Second | 1908–1909 | |
| Third | 1910–1911 | The preface calls it the most important of the three; the Course is built on it |
- Saussure had to devote half of each course to the history and description of the Indo-European languages, so the core of general linguistics was sharply reduced, says the preface.
- The editors compared students’ notebooks (the preface thanks several students by name) and tried to reach Saussure’s thought from “echoes, sometimes discordant.”
- In the work itself, for the first two courses the student Riedlinger collaborated; for the third, Sechehaye did the collation and tidying himself. The editors also say that professional duties had kept them almost entirely from hearing the last lectures themselves.
Commentary 2: what “recreation” means
The editors give several reasons for rejecting a straight publication of the materials.
- Spoken lectures contain repetitions, overlaps, and varying formulations, which would give the book a motley look.
- Using one course only would lose what is scattered through the other two; even the third alone could not give a complete picture.
- Printing fragments as they stand would harm the value of a construction that appears only as a whole.
So they chose “recreation”: thinking through the whole of Saussure’s system and putting each part in its final form. The editors say it had to be “entirely objective,” yet admit that the intention was sometimes “divined rather than apparent.” In other words, the editors’ interpretation entered the book.
Commentary 3: who is the “Saussure” of the Course?
Given this, calling a claim in the Course “Saussure’s words” needs care.
- The shape of the book (chapter order, sequence, some formulas) owes much to the editors’ construction.
- Much of the content comes from Saussure’s lectures, through students’ records.
- Some elements were added by the editors. The last sentence of the Course is often quoted as the book’s conclusion.
la linguistique a pour unique et véritable objet la langue envisagée en elle-même et pour elle-même.
ToL translation The sole and true object of linguistics is language (langue) considered in itself and for itself.
The sentence stands at the end of the final chapter, and in a footnote signed “Ed.” the editors say that although that chapter does not treat “retrospective linguistics” (Part 5), they placed it there because it can serve as a conclusion to the whole work. The placement as conclusion is thus an editorial decision. Later research, comparing the students’ notes, has also suggested that the sentence itself is an editorial summary. (ToL’s note; check the details in specialist studies.)
Commentary 4: later research
Saussure scholarship continued after the Course. (ToL’s note; verify details yourself.)
- From the 1950s, studies appeared that sorted and compared the original student notebooks, showing where the Course departs from the notes.
- Toward the end of the twentieth century, a cache of Saussure’s own manuscripts is said to have been found in the orangery of the family house in Geneva. These were later published as Writings in General Linguistics (2002).
As a result, gaps between the “Saussure” of the Course and Saussure’s own thinking have been discussed in detail.
Commentary 5: tips for reading and citing
Practical guidance for reading and citing the Course. (ToL’s summary.)
| Situation | Tip |
|---|---|
| Giving the title | add “edited by Bally and Sechehaye” rather than “Saussure’s Course” alone |
| Presenting a claim | “according to the Course” or “the Course states” rather than “Saussure said” |
| Using terms | treat “langue,” “parole,” “signifier/signified” as terms of the Course (editors’ text) |
| When doubts remain | do not settle it on the Course alone; consult studies of the student notes and manuscripts |
None of this belittles the Course. It is because the editors turned Saussure’s thought into a book that lasted that linguistics could start from it.
Summary
- The Course is a book reconstructed by Bally and Sechehaye after Saussure’s death from students’ notes on three lecture series.
- The editors admit in the preface that Saussure had destroyed his drafts, that the materials were incomplete, and that they “recreated” the work.
- When reading, it is more accurate to write “the Course states,” keeping one step of distance.
Next
- The big picture: Overview of Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics
- Previous: What does linguistics study, and what does it leave out?
- Saussure and the birth of linguistics: Saussure and the birth of linguistics