language, langue, and parole (4)
Value
The value of a sign is determined by all the other signs in the langue. Saussure
realized that if linguistics was going to be an actual science, language could
not be a mere nomenclature; for otherwise it would be little more than a
fashionable version of lexicology, constructing
lists of the definitions of words. Thus he argued that the sign is ultimately
determined by the other signs in the system, which delimit its meaning and
possible range of use, rather than its internal sound-pattern and concept. Sheep,
for example, has the same meaning as the French word mouton, but not the
same value, for mouton can also be used to mean the meal lamb, whereas sheepcannot, because it has been delimited by mutton.
Language is therefore a system of interdependent entities. But not only
does it delimit a sign’s range of use, for which it is necessary, because an
isolated sign could be used for absolutely anything or nothing without first
being distinguished from another sign, but it is also what makes meaning
possible. The set of synonyms redouter (“to dread”), craindre(“to fear”), and avoir peur (“to be afraid”), for instance, have their
particular meaning so long as they exist in contrast to one another. But if two
of the terms disappeared, then the remaining sign would take on their roles,
become vaguer, less articulate, and lose its “extra something”, its extra
meaning, because it would have nothing to distinguish it from.
This is an important fact to realize for two reasons: (A) it allows
Saussure to argue that signs cannot exist in isolation, but are dependent on a
system from within which they must be deduced in analysis, rather than the
system itself being built up from isolated signs; and (B) he could discover
grammatical facts through syntagmaticand paradigmaticanalyses.