Langue and parole are concepts belonging to an argument made by Saussure for the

autonomy of linguistics as a scientific discipline. Saussure declares language to

be a social fact, relating it to cultural and social sciences. In this, he is
opposed to 19th century European views, which remain dominant in America, that the
study of language is a sub-field of psychology or biology. This is part of a
structuralist programme initiated in sociology by Émile Durkheim.[3]

Structural linguistics, as proposed by Saussure, assumes a humanistic standpoint of

culture within the nature–nurture divide. Langue and parole make up two parts of
Saussure's speech circuit (Fr. circuit de la parole), the third being the brain
where the individual's knowledge of language is located. The speech circuit is a
feedback loop between the individual speakers of a given language. It is an
interactive phenomenon: knowledge of language arises from language usage, and
language usage arises from knowledge of language. Saussure however argues that the
true locus of the language is neither in the verbal behaviour (parole) nor in the
mind of the speakers, but is situated in the loop between speech and the
individual, existing as such nowhere else but only as a social phenomenon within
the speech community.[2]

Consequently, Saussure rejects other contemporary views of language and argues for
the autonomy of linguistics:

General linguistics is not the study of human mind, as thought by structural

psychologists such as Wilhelm Wundt (and, later, generative and cognitive
linguists).
General linguistics is not the study of evolutionary psychology or the biological
research of living organisms as claimed by Charles Darwin[4] and the evolutionary
linguists[5] (which would later include 'usage-based linguistics' which also argues
for a similar feedback loop, but not for a humanistic view of language[6]).
General linguistics is not an empirical discipline in the same way that natural
sciences are because the true object of study has no physical substance. Saussure
however argues that linguistic structures can be scientifically uncovered through
text analysis.[2]
Instead, it is properly regarded as the study of 'semiology' or languages as
semiotic systems.

Saussure did not concern himself overly with parole; however, the structure of
langue is revealed through the study of parole. The distinction is similar to that
made about language by Wilhelm von Humboldt, between energeia (active doing) and
ergon (the product of that doing)[7], as well as the distinction between language
and speech made by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay.[8] Saussure drew an analogy to chess
to explain the concept of langue and parole. He compared langue to the rules of
chess—the norms for playing the game—and compared the moves that an individual
chooses to make—the individual's preferences in playing the game—to the parole. The
rules of the game – or language – are systematised and solidified in each
historical stage. Languages change diachronically, but the previous historical
stages are irrelevant to the language users. What is essential is that the current
norms must always support a coherent functional system.