Chess is a game with many rules; in the same way, language and the use of language are controlled by many fixed rules. For our first language, most of these rules do not need learning, they are innate. However, when we are learning foreign languages, it is essential to learn all of the rules relevant to that language, for example in French, the general rule, with but a few exceptions, is that adjectives come after the noun, whereas in English, adjectives tend to come before a noun in a sentence. Likewise with Chess, before a full game can be played, it is essential that we know every rule for every piece; for example, we need to be clear that a bishop can only move across the board diagonally, whereas a rook can only move vertically or horizontally. Everyone playing the game needs to know every rule, and if any rules are going to be changed, it is imperative that every player knows about the changes and has the same clear understanding of what the new rules are. The rules constitute the unchanging principles of semiology.
An important dichotomy of Saussure’s, which is evident in the analogy drawn between linguistics and the game of Chess, is the idea of diachrony against synchrony. Diachronic linguistics is the study of language with reference to change over time, while synchronic linguistics is the study of language from the perspective of a single moment in time, in abstraction from its history. In a sense, synchronic linguistics involves taking slices through language at any particular moment in time. This is certainly similar to the situation created at each different move in the game of Chess: the system is only ever a temporary one, and it varies from one position to the next. Although a game of Chess does have a historical context, for example we could trace every move of the Queen throughout the entire game, the main importance is the state of play at each move. A frozen moment in time and the dynamics of the board at that moment are the only essential things to know when playing. For example, in the position of check, the way the players reached that situation is irrelevant, instead what must be focussed on is the situation as it stands, and what can be done next to change that situation. Similarly with linguistics, according to Saussure, the way in which language has evolved over time is fascinating but to a degree irrelevant when studying its present state as a system in a scientific way. When looking at a game of Chess it is important to realise that any given state of the board is totally independent of any previous state of the board. The sequence of moves which have led to this state is irrelevant.
In Chess, only one piece is moved at a time. In linguistics, changes only affect isolated elements. However, one simple move can have a repercussion upon the whole system. This repercussion could be mild, moderate or of extreme importance. A sole move from one piece on the Chessboard could be responsible for putting the opponent into checkmate, or it could only have a very mild effect on the overall pattern on the whole game. One move could mark a turning point in the whole game, and could have consequences even for the pieces which are not for the moment directly involved. In linguistics, a movement of one word in a sentence can end up dramatically altering the entire meaning of that sentence, or alternatively could have very little effect on the meaning.
Although it is not a game, another analogy which Saussure drew was to compare language with the cross section of a plant stem. This relates to his idea of diachrony versus synchrony. The cross section can either be taken horizontally or vertically, and in a way, one perspective depends on the other. The longitudinal section shows the fibres which make up the plant, while the transversal section shows their arrangement on one particular level. Just as with language, diachrony explains the history which has over time made up language, while synchrony shows the system of language and how it is working in one particular cross section or moment in time.
Language can also be thought of as a system which is built up, little by little, until it is at a stage where it can be played around with, or ‘modified’. In this way, language is comparable to the game of Jenga, or Tumbledown. Blocks are added one by one until a tower is formed. In the same way, words are pieced together one at a time until a sentence has been formed. Each block is individually responsible for keeping the tower standing; each has its own unique purpose to keep the block above it from falling down. In language, each word is important grammatically to make a clear, sensible sentence. The game of Jenga then proceeds as players take out a piece at a time. Some of the pieces are of much greater importance than others, so the removal of certain pieces leads to an overall collapse of the original structure. In sentences, some words are more vital to the overall construct than others. Take for example the sentence, ‘John ran quickly to get to the shops’. If ‘quickly’ is removed, the sentence still makes grammatical sense even though the overall construction is now somewhat different. If, on the other hand, ‘shops’ is removed, the entire sentence becomes nonsense and thus the structure collapse, making no sense. Other words can be taken out one at a time, and sometimes the sense changes, but the sentence still works grammatically. At other times, the ‘tower’ will fall down and the sentence becomes nonsense.
To summarise, Saussure uses analogies to describe language. In particular, he uses the Chess analogy to describe language transactions between people. Just as two people come to a Chess game with a predetermined and pre-agreed view of how to play the game, so people come to language transactions with a similar predetermined view. Chess has two characteristics that make it suitable for pre-agreed rules. Firstly, it is a limited model: there are only 32 pieces and 64 squares, which implies that even if there were no rules about moving pieces within the limits of the board, then there would still be a limited number of moves available. Second, Chess is an old game with simple rules. Whilst the strategies are complex, they are based in a regulated structure of rules. He also uses the cross-section of a plant stem to demonstrate the significance of his two dichotomies, diachrony against synchrony. The general sense is that whilst the history of how a particular language develops is fascinating (diachrony), it can be considered irrelevant to the scientific study of a language at any given moment in time (synchrony). Finally, I have compared language to the game of Jenga to demonstrate how sentences are built up of words and whilst the removal of certain words can still leave the sentence grammatically intact, there are words which cannot be removed and if they are, the entire structure collapses leaving nonsense.
_______________________________________________________
Bibliography:
- Saussure, F. de (1974) ‘Course in General Linguistics’, edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, translated by Wade Baskin. London: Peter Owen.
- Beaugrande, R. de (1991) ‘Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works’. London: Longman.
- Trask, R. L. (1996) ‘A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics’. London: Routledge
- Culler, Jonathon (1985) ‘Saussure’. London: Fontana Press
