A Glance at the History of Linguistics

Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure
Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye In collaboration with Albert Riedlinger
Translated, with an introduction and notes by Wade Baskin
m S9(6)
McGraw-Hill Book Company New York Toronto London
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
phonetic changes, for example, includes things that have been said before, and perhaps more definitively; but, aside from the fact that this part contains many valuable and original details, even a superficial reading will show to what extent its omission would detract from an understanding of the principles upon which F. de Saussure erects his system of static linguistics.
We are aware of our responsibility to our critics. We are also aware of our responsibility to the author, who probably would not have authorized the publication of these pages.
This responsibility we accept wholly, and we would willingly bear it alone. Will the critics be able to distinguish between the teacher and his interpreters? We would be grateful to them if they would direct toward us the blows which it would be unjust to heap upon one whose memory is dear to us.
Geneva, July 1915.
Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
The second edition is essentially the same as the first. The editors have made some slight changes designed to facilitate reading and clarify certain points.
Ch. B. Alb. S.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
With the exception of a few minute corrections, this edition is the same as the preceding.
Ch. B. Alb. S.
I NTRODUCTION
Chapter I
A GLANCE AT THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS
The science that has been developed around the facts of language passed through three stages before finding its true and unique object.
First something called “grammar” was studied. This study, in- itiated by the Greeks and continued mainly by the French, was based on logic. It lacked a scientific approach and was detached from language itself. Its only aim was to give rules for distinguish- ing between correct and incorrect forms; it was a normative dis- cipline, far removed from actual observation, and its scope was limited.
Next appeared philology. A “philological” school had existed much earlier in Alexandria, but this name is more often applied to the scientific movement which was started by Friedrich August Wolf in 1777 and which continues to this day. Language is not its sole object. The early philologists sought especially to correct, interpret and comment upon written texts. Their studies also led to an interest in literary history, customs, institutions, etc.’ They applied the methods of criticism for their own purposes. When they dealt with linguistic questions, it was for the express purpose of comparing texts of different periods, determining the language peculiar to each author, or deciphering and explaining inscriptions made in an archaic or obscure language. Doubtless these investi- gations broke the ground for historical linguistics. Ritschl’s studies of Plautus are actually linguistic. But philological criticism is still deficient on one point: it follows the written language too slavishly
i At the risk of offending some readers, certain stylistic characteristics of the original French are retained. [Tr.] (The bracketed abbreviations S., Ed. and Tr. indicate whether footnotes are to be attributed to De Saussure, to the editors of the Cours de linguistique generate, or to the translator.)