The code model of communication: a powerful - SIL International

3. The Code Model Decoded 41
The Saussurean answer to the question ‘What fixes the code?’ is that what fixes the
individual signs is their reciprocal interdependence in a system, which in turn is fixed simply
by the totality of internal relations between its constituent signs. That explains simultaneously
why altering just one set of relations disturbs the whole system, and also why, in spite of the
arbitrary connexion between any one signifiant and any one signifié, it is not easy to break that
connexion. Altering just one sign encounters the passive resistance of the entire structure.
Thus everything in la langue is fixed by its structural interdependence with the rest, in the
same way that the rungs of a ladder are held in position by being inserted into the vertical
struts, which in turn are held in position by the rungs. (Harris 1987:220)
In Saussure’s view, the conception of langue as an integrated, fixed system mandated
the dichotomization of diachronic and synchronic perspectives:
It was a position which committed Saussure to drawing a radical distinction between
diachronic (or evolutionary) linguistics and synchronic (or static) linguistics, and giving
priority to the latter. For words, sounds, and constructions connected solely by processes of
historical development over the centuries cannot possibly, according to Saussure’s analysis,
enter into structural relations with one another, any more than Napoleon’s France and Caesar’s
Rome can be structurally united under one and the same political system. (Harris 1983:x)
The term synchronic describes an approach “concerned with the complex of events
existing in a limited time period and ignoring historical antecedents” (Mish 1983:1197).
The idea that language should, or even could, be regarded in such a manner was largely a
Saussurean innovation. Harris and Taylor explain the necessity of this move:
It made no sense to suppose that the earlier b was ‘the same consonant’ as its later manifestation
p, or that ‘the same word’ appeared in Latin as causa but later in French as chose. For if
linguistic units did not exist except as structural units defined within a single linguistic system,
it was impossible for any given unit to ‘survive’ from one system A into a different system B at
a later point in time. (Harris and Taylor 1997:215)
3.2.2.2. Saussure’s theory of communication
Saussure introduces his model of communication in chapter 3 of Cours, calling the
model circuit de la parole, sometimes translated as the ‘speech circuit’. Because of its
title in French, some readers have considered the model and its related discussion to be a
presentation of parole. As Harris points out, such a reading unnecessarily threatens the
logical argument offered in Cours, for viewed in that manner it would seem that Saussure
is begging the question, presuming the parole half of his langue-parole dichotomy and
then using parole in arguing for langue. While such an interpretation remains open for
debate, it may be more reasonable to interpret the circuit de la parole simply as a model
of communication, rather than a model of speech (parole) per se. Such an account would
explain why the model occurs so early in Cours, for as a model of communication, it
serves to establish a foundation for the main argument of Cours. If the material is,
indeed, intended to be foundational, that is, setting the stage for later argumentation, then
it comes as no surprise that it appears early in the Cours (Harris 1987:21–25, 204–205).
Saussure introduces the model in the following manner: