Josie McKenzieSaussure reading journalCritical Thinking & Writing IProf. Emily Beall9/7/14

Compiled from notes on Ferdinand de Saussure's lectures, the Course in General Linguistics delves deeply into the nature of language. In the book, Saussure presents and elaborates on the key concepts of linguistics. One of these concepts is the idea that everything in language is based on relations, which can be split into two groups. These types of relations, syntagmatic and associative, are defined through their contradistinction. Saussure highlights these dissimilar groups due to their equally crucial roles in the survival of language.While syntagmatic and associative relations, as well as the encompassing concept of relation itself, are necessities of language, the two divisions differ intrinsically. As Saussure stresses brilliantly, all language stems from relations between linguistic terms: In language, as in any semilogical system, whatever distinguishes one sign from the other constitutes it (863). Therefore, one derives the value of a term by comparing it with other terms. Distinctions between linguistic terms and, consequently, language would not exist without relations. Because the the nature of these relations changes significantly from when in discourse to when outside discourse, these relations must be divided into two indispensable categories. Saussure illustrates the groups' divergences through an analogy involving a column:From the associative and syntagmatic viewpoint a linguistic unit is like a fixed part of a building, e.g. a column. On the one hand, the column has a certain relationship to the architrave that it supports; the arrangement of the two units in space suggests the syntagmatic relation. On the other hand, if the column is Doric, it suggests a mental comparison of this style with others (Ionic, Corinthian, etc.) although none of these elements is present in space: the relation is associative. (864)Like the relationship between the column and the architrave, syntagmatic relations are linear and contain fixed numbers of elements. Contrarily, associative relations, represented by the mental correlation of column styles, lack both definite order and fixed numbers. A syntagmatic relation occurs in discourseits name branches from the concept of the syntagm, a combination supported by linearity. Consisting of two or more consecutive units, syntagms can form a chain and act as a measurement of elements. A syntagm can belong to both language, characterized by collective usage, and speaking, characterized by freedom of combinations. Regardless of a syntagm's freedom, the unit always follows an order of succession and denotes a fixed number of elements. Its opposite, associative relation, develops outside discourse. Associative relations transpire when one's memory connects words that have something in common. These connections result from any kind of commonality or combination of commonalitiesthe radical, the suffix, similarity of the concepts signified, the similarity of both form and meaning, etc. In any case, they are determined by the inner workings of a person's mind. And within the mind, these relations exist in no absolute order and with no fixed numbers. While both forms of relation contradict one another, they represent two forms of mental activity connecting in order to create a distinct and meaningful language. In this manner, the two divisions of the vital principle of relation are both converse and essential. Although Saussure explains the differences between and the applications of the two relation groups clearly, his theory is not without flaws. In fact, Saussure notes a loophole within the concept of associative relationinflectional paradigms. Due to the rules of inflection, some associative relations possess fixed numbers of elements. Technicalities aside, Saussure's categorizing of relations implies a clear messagedistinct differences between the language employed in thought and the language employed in speech exist, but both languages are necessary for the endurance of language as a whole.