In this article, inspired by the work of Émile Benveniste, we explore the nature of the linguistic sign and the levels of language analysis. By revisiting Saussure’s theories, Benveniste proposes a key distinction between semiotics and semantics, while revealing the unique character of human language. This reflection is essential for understanding the mechanisms that underlie our ability to communicate and interpret the world.
Benveniste’s work on general linguistics profoundly renewed the understanding of fundamental concepts such as the linguistic sign and levels of analysis. By revisiting and critiquing Ferdinand de Saussure’s approaches, Benveniste proposed a theoretical revision that highlights the tensions inherent in the relationship between language and thought, while also offering analytical tools for examining the workings of human language.
In his reflections on the nature of the linguistic sign, Benveniste highlights the limitations of Saussure’s semiological approach. Saussure defined the sign as an entity composed of a signifier (an acoustic image) and a signified (a mental image), linked arbitrarily. However, Benveniste criticizes this conception by pointing out a fundamental contradiction: despite Saussure’s assertion of an arbitrary link between signifier and signified, the analysis seems implicitly to rely on an external substance or reality to validate this relationship. According to Benveniste, this inconsistency stems from a scientific relativism characteristic of Saussure’s era, which limits the truly formal scope of his theory.
To overcome this contradiction, Benveniste redefines the link between signifier and signified as necessary in the speaker’s mind. According to him, these two dimensions of the sign are inseparable and coexist in the consciousness of the speaking subject, creating an indivisible unity. Arbitrariness, on the other hand, resides in the relationship between the sign and the referent, that is, in the choice of a particular sign to designate a particular reality. This distinction allows us to exclude the arbitrary relationship from the strictly linguistic domain, relegating it to either a pragmatic or philosophical level. This theoretical shift refocuses linguistic analysis on the internal structure of language, without depending on an external substance.
This revision of the concept of the linguistic sign has direct implications for levels of linguistic analysis. Benveniste establishes that each linguistic unit only has meaning in relation to a higher-level unit into which it is integrated. For example, a phoneme only acquires meaning within the context of a word, and a word within that of a sentence. However, words and sentences pose specific problems: while the word acts as a hinge between the formal system of language and discourse, the sentence constitutes an autonomous unit, irreducible to its components. Indeed, the sentence, through its predication, transcends the sum of its parts and establishes a global meaning that cannot be reconstructed from isolated units. This duality of linguistic units reflects an organization into two distinct systems: the semiotic system, specific to signs, and the semantic system, specific to discourse.
Benveniste thus distinguishes two modes of signification: the semiotic mode and the semantic mode. The semiotic mode focuses on the formal analysis of signs as oppositional units recognized within a linguistic community. It involves identifying the distinctive criteria that allow us to differentiate one sign from another. In contrast, the semantic mode, specific to discourse, is concerned with the interpretation of words in context. Here, words acquire their value in a concrete reference situation, where the overall meaning precedes and determines the particular units. This dichotomy highlights two complementary dimensions of language: on the one hand, its internal organization into signs, and on the other hand, its communicative function in discourse.
Benveniste thus distinguishes two modes of signification: the semiotic mode and the semantic mode. The semiotic mode focuses on the formal analysis of signs as oppositional units recognized within a linguistic community. It involves identifying the distinctive criteria that allow us to differentiate one sign from another. In contrast, the semantic mode, specific to discourse, is concerned with the interpretation of words in context. Here, words acquire their value in a concrete reference situation, where the overall meaning precedes and determines the particular units. This dichotomy highlights two complementary dimensions of language: on the one hand, its internal organization into signs, and on the other hand, its communicative function in discourse.
Finally, Benveniste emphasizes the specificity of human language compared to other signal systems. While systems like traffic codes or polite gestures can be described in semiotic or semantic terms, only language simultaneously integrates these two dimensions. This dual capacity allows language to interpret not only itself, but also all other signal systems, a unique property that Benveniste calls “the capacity for interpretation.” Human language thus becomes the meta-system par excellence, capable of categorizing and giving meaning to all other semiotic systems.
In conclusion, Benveniste’s work offers a rich and nuanced perspective on linguistics, reconciling the formal analysis of signs with the dynamics of discourse. His distinction between semiotics and semantics, as well as his emphasis on the specificity of human language, provides essential tools for exploring the complexity of linguistic phenomena. This approach, by revisiting the foundations of Saussurean semiology, opens new avenues for understanding how language structures our experience of the world and our relationship to others.
Jocelyn Godson HÉRARD, Copywriter H-Translation
