0-108

Quotes
I. LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND SPEECH
II. SIGNIFIER AND SIGINIFIED
III. SYNTAGM AND SYSTEM
IV. DENOTATION AND CONNOTATION
/Meaning/
II.5.2 
“…original conception of the production of meaning: no longer as the mere correlation of a signifier and a signified, but perhaps more essentially as an act of simultaneously cutting out two amorphous masses, two “floating kingdoms” as Saussure says. Fr Saussure imagines that at the (entirely theoretical) origin of meaning, ideas and sounds form two floating, labile, continuous and parallel masses of substances; meaning intervenes when one cuts at the same time and at a single stroke into these two masses. The signs (thus produced) are therefore articuli; meaning is therefore an order with chaos on either side, but this order is essentially a division. The language is an intermediate object between sound and thought: it consists in uniting both while simultaneously decomposing them.”
“…that language is the domain of articulations, and the meaning is above all a cutting-out of shapes. It follows that the future task of semiology is far less to establish lexicons of objects than to rediscover the articulations which men impose on reality…”
/Metaphor/
III.1.2
“… the analyst is better equipped to speak about metaphor than about metonymy, because the metalanguage in which he must conduct his analysis is itself metaphorical, and consequently homogeneous with the metaphor which is the object…”
III.3.7
“Any metaphoric series is a syntagmatized paradigm, and any metonymy a syntagma which is frozen and absorbed in a system; in metaphor, selection becomes contiguity, and in metonymy, contiguity becomes a field to select from. Therefore it seems that it is always on the frontiers of the two planes that creation has a chance to occur.”
/Language/Meaning/
III.2.2
“Meaning can only arise from articulation, that is, from a simultaneous division of the signifying layer, and the signified mass: language is, as it were, that which divides reality.”
/Language/
I. 2
“a collective consciousness independent of its individual manifestations”
/Rhetoric/
IV. 2
“We might say that ideology is the form of the signifieds of the connotation, while rhetoric is the form of the connotators”
/Science/
IV. 4
“Each science would then appear as a new language which would have as its object the metalanguage which precedes it, while being directed towards the reality-objects which is at the root of these ‘descriptions’; the history of social science would thus be, in a sense, a diachrony of metalanguages, and each science, including of course semiology, would contain the seed of its own death , in the shape of the language destined to speak it.”
/Social/Language/
IV. 4
“We might say that society, which holds the plane of connotation, speaks the signifiers of the system considered, while the semiologists speaks its signifieds; he therefore seems to have the objective function of decipher (his language is an operation) in relation to the world which naturalizes or conceals the signs of the first system under the signifier of the second; but his objectivity is made provisional by the very history which renews metalanguages.”
Definitions
“LANGUAGE(LANGUE)”: 
I. I. I
a purely social object;
the systematized set of conventions necessary to communication;
I. I. 2
language minus speech;
a social institution and a set of values;
II. 6
Domain of articulation;
“SPEECH(PAROLE)”: 
I. I. I
purely individual part of language;
I. I. 3
both institution and system;
an individual act of selection and actualization;
III.2.1
the nature of which was syntagmatic;
“SIGN”
II. I. I.
(defined in the form of an alternative(presence/absence); relata: mental representation (Stoics), analogy, immediate, coincide/overrun, existential connection)
II. I.2 
“Significant Unit”: endowed with one meaning (the words/monems);
which form the first articulation;
“Distinctive Units”: part of the form, without a direct meaning (the sounds/phonemes);
which constitute the second articulation;
II. I.3
a compound of a SIGNIFIER and a SIGNIFIED;
the plane of the SIGNIFIER constitutes the plane of expression, which has two strata: form & substance;
the plane of the SIGNIFIED constitutes the plane of content, which has two strata: form & substance;
“Form”: is what can be described exhaustively, simply and coherently by linguistics without resorting to any extralinguistic premise;
“Substance”: the whole set of aspects of linguistic phenomenon that can bot be described without resorting to extralinguistic premises; (definition by opposition)
II. 2
“SIGNIFIED”:  the utterable;
II. 3
“SIGNIFIER”: purely a relatum;
a mediator;
the substance of which is always material;
II. 4
“SIGNIFICATION”: the act that binds SIGNIFIER & SIGNIFIED, whose product is the SIGN;
II. 5
“VALUE”: bears a close relation to the notion of language as opposed to the speech;
the effect of which is to de-psychologize linguistics and to bring it closer to economics;
II. 6
“ARTICULATION”: account for the double phenomenon of signification and value;
the act of cutting at the same time and in a single stroke into the two masses formed by ideas(substance) and sounds(expression);
production of meaning;
“Meaning”: an order with chaos on either side;
Essentially a division;
“SYNTAGM”: 
III.1.1
a combination of signs, which has space as a support;
Linear and irreversible in articulated language;
the analytical activity applies is that of carving out;
relation of contiguity with other parts;
III.2.2
“Discontinuity”:
III.2.4
“Significant Unit”:
III.2.5:
“Combinative Constraints”:
“Syntagmatic Freedom”: 
“ASSOCIATION”:
III.1.1
beside discourse (syntagmatic plane), the units are associated in memory and thus form groups within which various relationships can be ‘found’;
The analytical activity applies is that of classification;
Potential relation of substitution (associative relation);
III.3
“SYSTEM”: a series of associative fields, some defined by an affinity of sound, some by an affinity in meaning (Sassure);
The two planes are linked in such a way that the syntagm cannot ‘progress’ except by calling successively on new units from the associative plane. 
Associative plane==paradigmatic plane==systematic plane 
III.1.2
“Metonymy”:  of syntagmatic order;
Syntagmatic associations oredominate;
To which belongs: the heroic epics, the narratives of the Realistic schools,…, oneiric projections by displacement or condensation;
“Metaphor”: of systematic order; 
Associations of substitution dominate;
To which belongs: Russian lyric songs, works of Romanticism and Symbolism, …, didactic expositions (which make use of definitions by substitution);
III.2
III.3
“Similarity”
“Dissimilarity”
“Contrast”: relations of contiguity between syntagmatic units;
“Oppositions”:  relations between the terms of the associative field;
III.3.2 the internal arrangement of the terms in an associative or paradigmatic field; 
III.3.3 “Classification of Opposition”
A. Classified according to relations with the whole of the system
Bilateral: the common element between two terms is not found in any of the other oppositions;
Multilateral: the common element between two terms is found in any of the other oppositions;
Proportional: difference constituted into a model;
Isolated oppositions: not proportional;
B. Classified according to relations between the terms
Privative oppositions: the signifier of a term is characterized by the presence of a significant element (or mark), which is missing in the signifier of the other;
“Zero degree of opposition” therefore is not a total absence; it is a significant absence; the absence of any explicit signifier functions by itself as a signifier.
Equipollent oppositions: a relation of exteriority;
C. Classified according to the extent of the differentiating value
Constant opposition: the signifieds always have different signifiers;
Oppositions which can be eliminated or neutralized;
III.3.5 “Binarism”:  the privative opposition (marked/unmarked) by definition is an alternative;
whether all known oppositions should not be reduced to the binary pattern (based on the presence/absence of a mark);
III.3.6 “Neutralization”: 
the phenomenon whereby a relevant opposition loses its relevance, that is, ceases to be significant;
the neutralization of a syntagm cancels out the system;
represents a sort of pressure of the syntagm on the system; syntagma being close to “Speech”, is to a certain extent a factor of “defaulting”;
III.3.7 “Transgression”;
The phenomenon in which one plane overlaps the other, in a way which is “teratological”, compared with the normal relations of the system and the syntagm;
“CONNOTATION”
IV. I a “Connoted System” is a system whose plane of expression is itself constituted by a signifying system;
the first system E(expression)R(relation)C(content) becomes the plane of expression, or signifier, of the second system; the first plane – Denotation, the second plane – Connotation, which is wider than the first;
IV. II the signifier of which is a fragment of ideology;
IV. II “Connotator”: 
signifiers of COONOTATION;
“DENNOTATION”
IV. I the first system E(expression)R(relation)C(content) becomes the plane of content, or signified, of the second system;
which is the case with all Metalanguages;
“Metalanguage”:
IV.2 a system whose plane of content is itself constituted by a signifying system;
It is a semiotics which treats of a semiotics;
IV.3 it being understood that an operation is a description founded on the empirical principle, that is to say non-contradictory (coherent), exhaustive and simple, scientific semiotics, or metalanguages, is an operation, whereas connotative semiotics is not;