Наукова концепція Ф. де Соссюра у світлі нових автографічних матеріалів

Abstract

Концепція Ф. де Соссюра відома насамперед у викладі «Курсу загальної лінгвістики», створеного колегами вченого. Опубліковані 2002 р. автографічні матеріали Соссюра ставлять під сумнів автентичність тексту «Курсу». У статті представлено короткий нарис історії публікації соссюрівських автографів та ключові відмінності між викладеними у них поглядами та традиційним розумінням концепції вченого.

It is known that the work of the «Course of General Linguistics» was written by A. Scheche and S. Ballie and contained largely their interpretation of the views of F. de Saussure. R. Godel’s attempts, who first drew attention to significant conceptual differences between the text of the «Course» and autographs-notes to lectures and articles, as well as R. Engler, who compared all handwritten materials with the canonical text of the «Course of General Linguistics», which made it possible to establish, how the interpretation by publishers correlate with the original sources of the «Course», did not have much publicity in the scientific world. Published in 2002 the autographic Saussure materials confirm that the «Course of General Linguistics» veils, significantly distorts, and sometimes even contradicts the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure. It is found that for F. de Saussure the basic and complete object of linguistics is not langue (language), namely langage (linguistic activity) as an integral dynamic system of symbolic relations, as linguosemiotic activity of a person, one of the forms of his/her semiotic activity. It is established that one of the key categories in the conception of F. de Saussure is the category of relation. The basic relation that constitutes each unit of language activity as well as their structural elements in the conception of F. de Saussure is the difference / distinction (différence). It is found that in contrast to the traditional bialaterial understanding of a sign as a semiotic relation of the concept with an acoustic image, the linguist offers a complex system of proper semiotic relations of meanings, forms and their differences, connected, on the one hand, with concepts, and on the other — with the phonetic figures. Neither concepts (as extra linguistic functions) nor phonetic figures are the parts of semiotic relationship.