René de Saussure and the theory of word formation

Front matter

René de Saussure and the theory of word formation

Edited by

Classics in Linguistics 6

Contents

I The 1911 text

Principes logiques de la formation des mots - Logical principles of the formation of words

Reviews of de Saussure 1911

Part I

Principes logiques de la formation des mots — Logical principles of the formation of words

Te TEXT OF RENÉ DE SAUSSURE'S FIRST LITTLE BOOK follows here together with an English translation. In the translation, French words cited as examples have been preserved as such and italicized, with the first instance of a given word on a page provided with an English gloss in the early pages. Since the range of French examples cited by de Saussure is quite limited, however, glosses are dispensed with in later portions of the work for words that should be familiar. French words cited as concepts or ideas, in contrast, have generally been translated except where this would impair the sense of the text (in which case they have been treated in the same manner as examples). Words from other languages (in particular, German) presented without glosses by de Saussure have been left in that form.

The translation has attempted to follow the original as closely as possible: Our goal is to make the French original accessible to the English reader, rather than to recreate the work as René de Saussure might have written it in English. The pagination of the original text has been preserved and indicated at the top of each page, although no attempt has been made to maintain the division of pages into lines. We have retained the original typography to the extent possible. Inserted material (e.g. opening or closing quotes missing in the original) is enclosed in square brackets; we trust no confusion will result from confusion with the use of such brackets in the text.

The volume is dedicated to “M. le Professeur Th. Flournoy”, without further elaboration, and some remarks on this scholar are in order here. Théodore Flournoy was born in Geneva in 1854 and died there in 1920. He studied philosophy and medicine before turning to psychology, and held a chair in Experimental Psychology at the University of Geneva from 1891 until his death. A member of another of Geneva's socially prominent protestant families (the Claparédes), he would naturally have come into contact with the de Saussures, and in particular with René's brother Ferdinand. The two attended the same schools, and both eventually held chairs at the University, although since Flournoy was three years older, they were not particularly close in their youth.

Figure 3: Théodore Flournoy (1854-1920 )

Flournoy was a significant figure in the early development of psychology in Europe, and his best known work, From India to the Planet Mars (Flournoy 1900) was a major influence on Carl Jung. This book involved a detailed recounting and analysis of a series of séances with a Geneva medium Cathérine-Élise Müller (identified in the book by the pseudonym Mlle. Héléne Smith). Mlle. “Smith” in a series of trances over a five year period recounted a series of supposed experiences in past lives, including a life on Mars, life as Marie Antoinette, and a life in India. Flournoy takes her experience quite seriously and does not treat it as fraudulent, but rather works out in detail the ways in which what she describes originates in her own early experience and reflects the operations of a subconscious mental life. All of this was quite congenial to those such as Jung (and William James, with whom he was also in contact) developing similar views of the mind (Witzig 1982).

Important to Flournoy’s connection with the Saussures, however, is the fact that he involved Ferdinand with the analysis of the series of the medium’s “Hindoo Cycle” séances, several of which he attended (Joseph 2012: 426ff.). Ferdinand was consulted especially with regard to the idea that some of Mlle. “Smith’s” utterances on these occasions were in (some form of) Sanskrit, since Ferdinand was an authority on that language. Flournoy had also consulted Ferdinand earlier in connection with his ideas about synæsthesia, and indeed they maintained cordially collegial relations for much of their joint careers at the University of Geneva. Apart from this, however, and the connections between the families

(Flournoy’s daughter Ariane married Ferdinand’s son Raymond in 1919), there is little evidence for a close association specifically between Flournoy and René, apart from one point: in 1909, Flournoy hosted the International Congress of Psychology at the University of Geneva, and René was one of the plenary speakers, speaking on the advantages of Esperanto (Joseph 2012: 561). René’s dedication of the 1911 book, therefore, appears to reflect more in the way of general respect for a notable figure in the science of the mind than a more specific and more personal link.

Flournoy, Théodore. 1900. From India to the planet Mars. New York: Harper & Bros. [translation by Daniel B. Vermilye of Des Indes à la planète Mars].

Joseph, John E. 2012. Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Witzig, James S. 1982. Theodore Flournoy — a friend indeed. Journal of Analytical Psychology 27. 131-148.

PRINCIPES LOGIQUES DE LA FORMATION DES MOTS par René DE SAUSSURE Privat-docent à l'Université de Genève

GENÈVE IMPRIMERIE ALBERT KUNDIG

AM. le Professeur Th. Flournoy

PRINCIPES LOGIQUES DE LA

FORMATION DES MOTS

Un mot est le symbole d’une idée.

Les idées simples, ou considérées comme telles, sont représentées généralement par des mots simples, tels que : «homme», «grand», «table», etc., c’est-à-dire par des mots indécomposables en plusieurs parties. Les idées plus complexes sont représentées par des mots composés, tels que : «porte-plume» en français, «Dampfschiff» en allemand, etc., ou par des mots dérivés, tels que : «grandeur», «humanité», etc., décomposables en plusieurs parties («hum-an-ité»)

On est donc naturellement conduit a examiner les deux questions suivantes :

1° Etant donné un mot composé, quelle est l’idée complexe représentée par ce mot? C’est là le probléme de l'analyse des mots composés.

LOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE

FORMATION OF WORDS

A word is the symbol of an idea.

Ideas that are simple, or regarded as such, are generally represented by simple words, such as homme ‘man’, grand ‘tall’, table ‘table’, etc. — that is, by words that cannot be decomposed into several parts. More complex ideas are represented by compound words, such as porte-plume ‘penholder’ in French, Dampfschiff ‘steamship’ in German, etc., or by derived words such as grandeur ‘size, height’, humanité ‘humanity’, etc. which can be decomposed into several parts (hum-an-ité).

We are thus naturally led to examine the following two questions:

1° Given a compound word, what is the complex idea that this word represents?

This is the problem of the analysis of compound words.

2° Etant donnée une idée complexe, quel est le mot composé qui la représente ? C’est le problème de la synthèse des mots composés.

Pour résoudre ce double problème, il faut des données; ces données sont les mots simples. Peu importe, du reste, la forme de ces mots simples : que l’on dise «homme», comme en français, ou «Mensch», comme en allemand, pour symboliser l’idée «homme», cela ne modifie en rien les lois qui régissent la formation des mots. Peu importe aussi l'étymologie des mots simples; ces questions peuvent intéresser le linguiste, mais pour le logicien les mots simples sont des données conventionnelles analogues aux symboles mathématiques, et ce qui importe, c'est la définition de chaque symbole, c'est-à-dire l'idée représentée par chaque mot simple.

Les principes logiques de la formation des mots sont donc les mémes pour toutes les langues, du moins pour toutes celles qui partent des mémes éléments primitifs. Ainsi, dans nos langues européennes (les seules dont je m’occuperai), il y a deux sortes d'éléments primitifs : les mots-radicaux, tels que : «homme», «grand», etc., et les affixes, tels que : «violoniste»), «pré» (dans «prévenir»), etc. Au point de vue logique, il n'y a pas de différence essentielle entre un radical et un affixe; ceux-ci sont, du reste, souvent

«iste» (dans

2* Given a complex idea, what is the compound word that represents it? This is the problem of the synthesis of compound words.

To resolve this double problem, data are required: these data are the simple words. Apart from that, the form of the simple words does not matter: whether one says homme 'man' as in French or Mensch as in German to symbolize the idea "man", it does not at all change the laws that govern the formation of words.

The etymology of simple words also does not matter; those questions may interest the linguist, but for the logician simple words are conventional givens analogous to mathematical symbols, and what matters is the definition of each symbol, that is the idea represented by each simple word.

The logical principles of the formation of words are thus the same for all languages, or at least for all those that begin from the same primitive elements. Thus, in our European languages (the only ones with which I will be concerned), there are two kinds of primitive element: root words, such as homme ‘man’, grand ‘tall’, etc., and affixes, such as -iste (in violoniste ‘violinist’), pré (in prévenir 'forwarn' [literally ‘precede’]), etc. From the logical point of view, there is no essential difference between a root and an affix: these are often d'anciens radicaux. Il est vrai que la soudure entre un affixe et un radical n’est pas, en général, de meme nature que la soudure entre deux radicaux, mais cela ne tient pas à une différence spécifique entre les affixes et les radicaux; cela tient à d’autres causes que nous examinerons plus loin.

On peut donc considérer les affixes comme des mots simples, et les mots dérivés au moyen d’affixes, comme de véritables mots composés. Il n’y a plus alors que deux sortes de mots : les mots simples (radicaux, préfixes, suffixes), et les mots composés par combinaison de mots simples.

On peut comparer un mot composé à une molécule construite au moyen de trois sortes d’atomes (radicaux, préfixes, suffixes); l’analyse et la synthèse logique des mots est alors comparable à l'étude d'une molécule dont les atomes sont connus, et le double probléme que nous cherchons à résoudre peut s'énoncer : «Trouver l'idée exprimée par une molécule donnée», ou réciproquement «construire la molécule représentant une idée donnée».

Or, la condition essentielle pour que ce probléme soit susceptible d'une solution logique et précise est que les atomes (radicaux, préfixes et suffixes) qui représentent les matériaux primitifs de la formation des mots soient des éléments absolument invariables et indépendants, dont on connait exactement le contenu individuel, c'est-àdire qu'il faut former roots. It is true that the juncture between an affix and a root is not in general of the same type as the juncture between two roots, but that has nothing to do with a specific difference between affixes and roots; it has other causes that we will examine below.

We can therefore consider affixes as simple words, and words derived by means of an affix as real compound words.

There are then only two sorts of word: simple words (roots, prefixes, suffixes) and compound words formed by combining simple words.

A compound word can be compared to a molecule built by means of three sorts of atoms (roots, prefixes, suffixes); the analysis ofthe logical synthesis of words is thus comparable to the study of a molecule of which the atoms are known, and the double problem which we are trying to solve can be formulated as “Find the idea that a given molecule expresses" or inversely "construct the molecule that represents a given idea?

Now the essential condition for this problem to be subject to a logical and precise solution is that the atoms (roots, prefixes, suffixes) that represent the basic material for word formation should be absolutely invariant and independent elements, whose individual content is known exactly. That is, it is necessary que le sens et le contenu de chaque radical ou affixe reste toujours le même, quelles que soient les circonstances particulières où il se trouve. Cela signifie que dans une molécule comme, par exemple, «grandeur», composée de plusieurs atomes (radical «grand», suffixe «eur»), l’atome «grand» est exactement le même mot que l'adjectif «grand» considéré isolément!.

Le but de la présente étude est qu'à part quelques exceptions qui, du reste, ne sont qu’apparentes, il en est bien ainsi précisément de montrer dans les langues naturelles et que, par conséquent, il est possible d’établir une théorie logique et précise du mécanisme de la formation des mots.

IIT est bien entendu que le principe de l'invariabilité des atomes se rapporte non à la forme extérieure, mais au sens de ces atomes. Ainsi, dans les mots homme, humain, humanité, l'atome homme se transforme en hum et l'atome ain devient an; mais ces atomes, variables de forme, sont invariables de sens, c'est-à-dire que dans le mot hum-an-ité, l'atome hum est exactement le méme mot que le substantif homme considéré isolément. Les causes qui ont ici transformé les atomes réguliers homme, ain en hum et an sont d'ordre purement physiologique et peuvent intéresser le philologue, non le logicien. Du reste, cette variation de forme des atomes ne se produit guére que dans les langues latines. Dans les langues germaniques, slaves, etc., les atomes restent presque toujours invariables de sens et de forme. Ex. : Mensch, mensch-lich, Mensch-lichkeit.

that the sense and content of each root or affix should always remain the same, whatever the particular circumstances in which it is found. This means that in a molecule such as, for example, grandeur ‘size, height”, composed of multiple atoms (root grand ‘large, tall’, suffix eur ‘-ness’), the atom grand is exactly the same word as the adjective grand considered in isolation.!

The aim ofthe present work is precisely to show that apart from some exceptions which are, however, only apparent, this is indeed the case in natural languages, and that consequently it is possible to establish a logical and precise theory of the mechanism of word formation.

!It is to be understood that the principle of the invariability of atoms relates not to the exterior form, but to the sense ofthese atoms. Thus, in the words homme 'man', humain 'human', humanité 'humanity', the atom homme is transformed into hum and the atom ain becomes an; but these atoms, while variable in form, are invariant in sense. That is, in the word hum-an-ité, the atom hum is exactly the same word as the noun homme considered by itself. The causes that have transformed the regular atoms homme, ain into hum and an are of a purely physiological order, and may interest the philologist but not the logician. On the other hand, this variation in form of atoms is almost exclusive to the Romance languages. In the Germanic, Slavic, etc. languages, the atoms are almost always invariable in sense and in form. E.g. Mensch ‘man’, mensch-lich *human’, Mensch-lich-keit ‘humanity’.