   s translated from

the French     

© 1953 by Edtons du Seui
Transaton © 967 by Jonatan Cape Ltd.
Preface copyrght © 968 by Susan Sontag
brary of Congress cataog card numbr: 75-0525
Standard Book Number 80705458
Frst pubshed as a Beacon Paperback n 970
by arrangment wth H and Wang, Inc
Beacon Press books are pubshed under the auspces
of the Untaran Unversast Assocaton
A  v
Prnted n the Unted Stats of Amrca
Writng Degree Zeo
 Contents
Preface by an nag 

nrdcin

PAR  I
Wha i Wriing 9
Pliical de f Wring 19
Wriing and he Nvel 
 here any Peic Wriing 41

PAR II
he rimph and Breap f Brgei Wriing 
ye a Cafmanhip 62
Wriing and Revlin 7
Wriing and ilence 74
'V riing and peech 77
he pia f Langage 84

eleced Bibligraphy 89
Ne n he Ahr 90
 

To decribe Barhe a a lierary rc de him an

 obvio inice. A man f prodigio learning nag
 ging menal energy and acely original enibiliy he
ha eablihed hi credenial a aeheician lierary and
heare criic cilgi meapychlgi cial criic
hirian f idea and clral ornali. nly if he
 ideal f criicim i enlarged  ae in a ide variey of
dicre boh hereical and decripive ab clre
langage and cnempora concone can Barhe
 plaibly be called a criic Karl Kra   Adorn
 and Kenneh Bre cme o mind a her diingihed
 eample f hi rare breed f inellecal vir hile
chan gge he ri of radical nevene of
 qaliy and dgmen incrred ih hi magnide of
 inellecal appeie and ambiin. Evalain a hi vir
ally nclaiable level f achievemen may eem ome
ha frivlo ill  ld arge ha Barhe  he
 m cnienly inelligen impran and efl criic
- reching ha erm  have emerged anyhere in
he la feen year
W D Z lng verde in Englih ranla
in i Barhe r b i appeared in  een from
he perpecive f  hever W D Z
 prbably in he eaie e ih hich  ar a
 acqainance  Barhe The b i cmpac  he




 oint of ellipsis often arcane It barely suggests the vri

 ety nd intellectua obility of Barthes' subsequent wok
- which now totals six books only one of whih hs
 already been brought out in the United Sttes· nd
 nuerous uncollected essays Though exlitly tho
 retical in charcter the arguent here can't cor in
 rigor or coleteness with Barthes' later develoent
 of soe of these ideas in his "Elents de Siologi
 the systeatic treatise rst published in issue No 4 ( 194)
 of Commnications  the iportat French journl of
 wich he is an editor Moreover Witin Dee Zeo
 gives virtually no indication of Brths' sensitivity an
 iagintiveness in hndling individul literry texts nd
 nd in stting the unifying etahors of  single uthor's
 body of work skills he was to exercise in the short book
 on Michelet (1954)  and in th inuentil studies of
Brecht and RobbGrillet ritten in the id 195'S.
Lstly the rsent txt doesn't disclos th witt n
 reteness of Barthes' sensibility his tlent for sensuous
 henenological descrition videnced in the brillint
 essayeihanies ollected in 195  under the titl yto-
oies. Thus Witin Deee Zeo  is erly Brthes sei
 nal but not reresentative (Perhas only the olletion
 ublished in 194 ssais Citiqes  snning wrk fro
1953  to 193,  gives in one book anything like a resonbl
 sle of Barthes' range And even aart fro this
 roviso the book ay present considerable diultis
 to the reaer unacquainted with the background and
 rovenance of Bathes' arguent

·Sur Racine 93 was publshed by Hll and Wang in 1<4

as On Racne n a translaton by Rchard Howard.

i
 PREFAC

Witing Degree Zero  must be ated in te ntext f a

 utura situatin in tw imprtant respets unike ur
 wn
First, Bartes is addressing a terar mmunity w
as fr severa generatins, n mst eves, red and
 treated as entra a ann f nempray wrk st
 regarded as margina and suspet by te AngAerian
iterary mmunty Su "diut iterary tendenies
 as Symbism and Surreaism, and n partiar te ine
  pstnve prse narrative frm te Surreaist tins
 t tse f Brges, Bekett, and Rbberiet, are taken
 t upy te entra psitin in ntemprary etters
 wie mst nves i traditina "reaisti frms su
 as ntinue t ts day t be critical  suesss in Engand
 and meria are regarded as essentay uninterestng,
 barey ntewrty prduts f a retarded r reatnary
 nsiusness Inevitaby, tis triump f iterary "md
 ernism in Paris as ad its impat n rtia debate,
 sifting te substantve nens and te tne f serius
iterary disussin. In ts untry, f urse, a Qute
dierent taste prevais, and mparabe wrk  frm ate
Jye, Sten, and ate Virgina Wf t Burrugs- is
 sti generay regarded as a prvative minrty ur
 rent, abeed "avantgarde r "experimenta terature
Te rtia stuatn tat is  mparabe ere is te n
 sensus f "avantgarde standards fr painting wi
ave prevaied eer sine te eary   wit te n
 seratin by bt te artwrd eite and TimeLife stye
 ppuarzers f Pk, DeKning, Kine, Mtherwe,
Rtk, et al.)
Send, Bartes bk is a ate ntributn t that
 vigrus debate tat as engaged te Eurpean terar
 mmunity sine te deade befre te war n te rea
 tin between pitis and iterature N debate f sar


PREACE

ra  a langage and   syle, cite  s he wrer's

 zne f freed, fr nsdered as han nenn
 shld be evden ha Barhes' reply  arre hardly
 reassers a drne f lerae fr erare's sake
Barhes sn' lang ha lerare des r shld exs
 n a sal, hral, r ehal va. s Barhes says,
 every gven de f cite  wes s exsene  he
 wrer's nsderan f he sal se whh he has
hsen fr hs fr and hs en  hs he
B lerare, neved as an nsenaly, ann be
nned  s sal r ehal nex nssg n he
 plans f arres Kanan nepn f he rer
 as he gardan f deal ends, Barhes sggess ha
arre has sppressed he fa ha he hes ade by
 wrers always fae n two drens ward sey
 and ward he nare f lerare self Thgh he
he f a gven anner f cite  ans  he
he f ha sal area whn whh he wrer eles
 sae he nare f hs langage, he wrer an'
 plae lerare a he serve f a sal grp r ehal
 end as arre ples , dedng aers f aal n
 spn The wrer's he  whh ans  a
 way f nevng lerare- s a aer f nsene,
 n f eay
ha Barhes s ryng  llw s a re plex
 vew f lerare  a vew f lerare freed fr he
 splans psed by yeldng  ehal ephra,
 nnen f he neessy f dgen n any ways,
 f rse, arhes s lse  arres ehal and plal
 psn f a e - he vales f freed, he n
ep fr he passes f brges lre, he hrzn
 f he Revn. Wha s prfndly separaes
he s her apay fr he rals dgen, s
ha Bahes an g a eran way wh all f arre's


 PREFACE

rgments bt mst stop ell sort of ter nal crysta

lzaton - as en artre sggests tat merst ltera
 tre (t ts acceleratng fragmentato of personal
 tterance) emboes te nal copot of "borgeos
 conscosness, a efalt c can be reverse ony by
 te ascenancy of a ne, revoltonary conscosness
Bartes at tat tme a perfectly capable of sng ts
 fary cre leftHegean retorc- a goo part of te
later argment of s boo reles on te stncton be
 teen "classca langage an "borgeos langage
 an ol ave agree, probaby stl agrees, t most
 of te ngreents tat enter nto ts agnoss, sc as
 t ve tat lteratre s passng trog te most pro
 fon an esperate crss of ts lanage an means
tll, Bartes col never en t so at a jgment
F or nstance, e s snclne to attrbte ba fat or
 mora elnency to te great rters from Flabert
 forward wo ave erecte teratre into a fnamentally
poblemtic  actvty (Inee, as e ponts ot, t's ony
 recently tat lteratre, strcty speang, comes nto
 existence  as a robem) Frter, Bartes s septca
 rgty, I tn - of te soto artre envsges s e
 sys "Tere s no rtng c can be lastngly revo
tonary (catng jgment i  reserve- ts s 
 abot te ay most Commnst rters employ a
angage steepe n conventonalty, presentng "reaity
 i a prejge form an tereby perpetatng "a bor
 geos wrtng c borgeos rters ave temselves
 conemne long ago Bartes remars tat te rting
 typca of al atoraran regmes alays sees to pro
 mote "orer, e represson)
Ts, le Bartes' astere, aporstc boo lacs
 anytng comparabe to te eloence an noble psson
 of te long passages of moral exortato in Wht I




Litete? aticula th chat Wh Wit?  it

 shoul b b with what silicaios of th
 issu Sat has ai fo th thical latio of his agu
 t Baths though fa fo fusig th thical
isio of Sat's agut shws that ths atts
 uch o colx tha Sat cociv th As
Baths sas cite  is alwas a abiguous ait
 o th o ha it uqustioabl aiss fo a co
 fotatio of th wit with th socit of his ti o
 th oth had fo this social alit it fs th
 wit bck b a sot f tagic vsal to th soucs
 that is to sa th istuts f catio
 hav o ittl o tha scib so adig
 ths of Witing Deee e But bcaus of th
ag that Baths agut wil itslf b sili
 ads shoul b wa agaist big is  th
 ooks titl That titl suggsts a ath sigli
 aifsto advocatig   st tcht of litatu
 it a siccat asctic ocuicativss This
 suggstio is likl to b ifoc fo thos as
 awa tht Baths st bca wl kow i ac
 wh h g as RobGillts ost loqut
 soksa  otab i th ssas L oobt
 Littatu obctiv   a Littatu
littal   all iclu i Ei Citiqe   i
 which h chaio th igious a statgic uc
 tio of lita as i of  t e  as Baths h uss
 th wo achiv b RobbGilt b athoo
 ohiig liiatig taho tc But it wou 
 a istak to a Witing Degee e  l o v
 ai as a olic aig th wa fo th avt
 of th solutio of RobbGillt Acuall th oto
 of og utal cololss witig st iscuss
 b Sat who call it 'cite bnce  i his faous

 xx
 PREFAC

 reve  am ' - ener Barhe argmen

 nly brey n he nrdcn pp.    a he "la
 epde  a Pa  rng hch recn age by
 age he dnegran  brge cncne and
 agan a h end !p. -  a one  ln  he d
 negran  lerary lanage.
B h hrzn  lerares nal ln  nly a
darycnce generaed by h argen. I  he
lgcal eenn  e ype  rherc Barhe e B
   he grnd rle  ha rherc hch shld be 
 mch mre nere and mprance  he reader - and
have been  Barhe hmel jdgng rm he mnr
 rle ha he nn  zerdegree ng has played n
h beqen lerary de. Wha  esenal 
Barhes pn  n  apcalypc ermns b he
dagn  he verall an  lerre he make.
Barhe ve ha peclarly mdern phenmenn 
"{he mlplcan  mdes  rng as an nevable
develpmen.  erare ablihes "mre ad mre 
 cndn a a brge myh ce  phes ade
langage ad le abrbng "he hle deny  a
lerary rk. Barhe arms- and here h hnkng
 rngly reec he nence  Blanch  he ay
lerare verge n becmng a al eperence ne
hch brk n lim and cann be permanenly
 ablized r held n chec by any parclar raegy 
rng he adpn  zeregree rng ncldng.
 mdern lerare  he hsry  alenaed "rng
 r pernal erance lerare am nerably a 
 n elrancendence  a he ablin  leraure.
B Barhe pn ld eem  be ha n amn 
 mral ehran r cncepal nravelng  gng 
 aler drascally h ene paradcal sae  aair.
"In pe  he er made n r me  has prved


PEFACE

 ossb sussfuy to quat tratur ntry

Ths wou s to av th havst burn on th
 rt who ats a otng haos - a tas
Barths has hroay x n s own abtous
 boy o wor Thus n Wtng Degee Zeo Barths
 rsuoss both th ort of wrtrs  Vary Joy
St Bt an Burroughs to abosh tratur an
 th ort of othr wrtrs to onn tratur to tha
 ounaton (th noton of "ngag wrtng) It s
 n ths agonz susnso btwn th ontratory
 goas ntrtan by tratur I shou argu that th
sours o th rsonsb rt stuats tsf - wthout
 yng to an asy sssa  thr oston

O cours ths orts to quat tratur hav ft

 thr tra whh xans th ton both hct an 
 tah wth whh Barths aroahs hs to At
 t on cou srb Barths' stanc n ths boo as
 aost an anthroooga on to th xtnt that h
 s that a thnng both about an wthn tratur
 orats by as o yths Thus h sas of th nov as
 a "ythooga objt a o th "rtuas o tratur
Th othr ronnt gstur by whh h stans
hns ro hs voat subjt s through onstant r
 ours to a hsora rst (Ths s or ar
  Part Two o Wtng Degee Zeo  whh onnts
 wth rtan argunts n th attr art of Sartrs boo
 on th hstora stuaton o th ontorary wrtr
 an on wrtng as a soa nsttuton) But wh Barths
 shars wth Sartr a aar trnoogy aat fro
 th gan tahstora sh of onsousnss
Wtng Degee Zeo as th ta ort fng
 or hstora ross n vn n Sartrs boo (r
 tcuary n th na hatr "Th Stuaton of th


WRG   G R  Z   

 i awar o tm, that  vountariy ac t

nd o a r anguag at th ourc o th an
guag and not in it vntua conumtion. So tha
writing i an ambiguou raity  on th on hand, i
unustionaby ari rom a conrontation o th
witr wit th city o i tim on th othr and,
rom ti socia naity, it rr t writr bac, by a
ort o tragic rvra, to th ourc, that i to ay
th intrumnt o cration. Faiing t ow to
uy im with a ry conumd anguag, Hitory
uggst to him th dmand or on ry roducd.
hu th coic o, and atward t oni-
biity or, a mod o writing oin to th rnc o
Fdm, but thi Frdom a n th am iit a
dirnt mmnt o Hitory. It i not gantd to h
writr to coo hi mod o writing rom a ind o
nntmoa tor o itrary om. I i undr t
rur o Hitory and Tadition tat t oib
mod o witing or a givn it ar stabihd
thr i a Hitory o riting. But thi Hitory i
dua  a th vry momnt hn gnra Hitory ro
o  r imo  nw robmatic o th itrary
anguag, writng ti rmain u o t rcoction
o rviou uag, or anguag i nvr innocnt :
wor av a condord mmory which mytri
ouy rit in t mit o nw maning riting
i rciy thi comromi twn rdom and
rmmbranc it i ti dom wich rmmb
and i  ony in th tu o choic bu i no


 WHAT IS WRITI

longer s wthin duation. Tue, I can toay selec

such and such mode of wrtng and n so doing asser
my freeom asp to the feshness of novety o o 
tadtion; but it s mpossible to evelop it within
uation without gadualy becomng a prsoner of
meone ese's wods an even of my own A tub
orn after-image whch come fom al the pevous
mde of witn and even fom the pat of my own
rowns the sound of my pesent words Any witten
trace pecipitates as nside  chemical a st tans
paent nnocet ad neutra mee duation gaduay
reveas in suspension a whole past of increasing
densty like a cyptogam
Wtng as Feedom s heefoe a mee moment
But ths moment is one of the most expicit n Hs
ory snce Histoy s aways nd above al a choice
and the imit of this choice It s because witng
eives fom a meaningfu gestue of the wite that
it reaches the deepe layes of Histoy much more
palpably han does ay other cosssecton of litea
tue The unty of casscal wtng whch emained
unform for centuies the pluality of its md n
odern times ncreased n the last hunded yes
unl  came near to questoing the vey fact of
iteatue ths ind of disintegration of Fench wi
n does ndee cespond to  geat cisis in geneal
Hstory which is noticeable in iteay Hstoy
proper ony much moe confusedy What sepaates
e hgh' of a Bazac fm that f a Faubet is a
W R     G   G R  Z  R 

ariati ithi th m ch hat ctrat

thir md  writing i a ntia bra a h
prci mm h a n cnmic tructur i
id n t a dr n thrby briging abu d
ci cha i mntiy and cciu

18
 P   C   M     F
  

All mode  rtg have  commo the ac o

eg cl:ed ad thu dere rom pe la
gage Wrtg    ay  trume or om
muca, t  t a ope rute thrugh whch
here pae oy the te  peak. A hole d
order l through peech ad gve t h elf
evourg mometum hch eep t  a perpetualy
upeded tae Cverey, rtg  a hardeed
aguage hch  elctae ad   o ay
mea o elver o t o durato a moe er
o apprmat It   he cotrary mea to
mpoe, ha to the hado ca y  yem of
g, he mage o a peech hch ha a truure
eve ore  me to etece Wha mae r
g the oppote o peech  tha he ormer alay
app eas ymcal, roverted, otey tured
oar a ocu de f laguage, herea he
ecod  otg u a o of empty g, he
moveme o hch aloe  gcat The hole of
peech  epomzed  h expedablty o ord,
 h roth eely wet oard, ad peech 
ou ly here laguage elevdely fuco
WR G  GR  Z  R

lik a dvouring rocs hich allo nly th

oving crst of th ord ritng, on th contrar,
 alays rooted in omthng beynd languag, it
dvlo lik a sed, nt li a line, it manifsts an
ence and hol th thret of a secrt, it i an anti-
comunication t  ntmdating. All riting ill
therfore cntain th ambiguity of an object whch is
both languag and coercion  ther exist funda-
mentally n riting a circumstanc forin to
languag, thre , as it ere, the eight of a gaze
cnvying an ntenton hich s no longr linguistic.
Th gaze may ell xr a assion of languag, a
n iterar md of writing it m alo xress th
threat of rbution, as in olitical ones : riting i
then meant t nt at a singl trok th reality o
th ac and th idlty of th nds. Thi is hy
oer, or  shado ca b oer, alays end in
cratng a aioogical ritng in hich th dstanc
hich uuall searate fact fro value diaear
ithin th very sace of th ord, hich i gvn
at onc a decrition ad a udment. The ord
come an alibi, that  an elwhere and a jutica
tion. Th, hich is true of th iterary mod of
rting, n hich th nity of th gn is caelessy
facnated by zone of nfra or ltralanguag  vn
trur of th olitica one, in hich th alib tem
ming from languag i at th a time intimidation
ad glorication : for it is or or conict hich
rc  pst typ of ritng

20
  E   M    B    K-
O F B O   G  O     G

Tere s n prlassal erare e apparane

f a arey of moes f wrng; b s arey
seem far lss we f n p se lngs prob
les n rs of srre an no n rms of ar
Aeseally e sen an e gnnng f 
seeneen nrs sow a farly lavs profson
f lerary langages ase men ar sll ngage n
e as of geng  nw ar an no ye n
a of gvg eprsson o mans esne On s
grs e eylopa wrng f Rala  e
pre wrng f Crnell   ae only s
ypal mmens  ave as a omn frm a lan-
gage n w rnaens are no ye als b
e n eslves a m f nvesgan app
 e wole srfa f  worl Ts s a gves
o s prlassal wrng e gne aparane 
manysness an e epora w ms frm
from or a mrn rear e mpresson f
arey s all e srngr sne e ren onge
ses o  sll eperng w nsable sr
res an sne  as n ye flly sele on e


WRITIN EGREE ZER

charact of ts synta or th laws governng th n

crase of ts vabuay To tak up agan the dstnc
ton tween a languag and a mod of wrtng w
can say that untl around 1650 French teratur hd
not et gne further than the problmatcs f th
language and that by ths very fact t was as yet
unawar of mod of wrtng. For as ong as a tongu
s st uncrtan about ts ver structure an ethcs of
languag s mpossbe; mods of wrtng appear only
when th language beng estbshd on a natonal
scae comes a knd of ngatvt a lne whch
sparates what s forbddn frm what s aowed
wthout askng tsef any mr qustons aut ts
rgns or th jtcatons fr such a tao By creat
ng an ntemporal reason workng through the lan
guag th classcal grammarans hav rlved the
French from any ngustc problem and th pured
languag has com a mod f rtng that s a
languag to whch s attached a vau  and whch s
gvn mmdatey as unvrsal b ver vrtue of th
hstrcal stuaton
Th dversty of the genres and the varg
rhthms of styles wth th framwrk of classcal
dgma ar aesthetc ot structural data; neth
must dcev  : there was nded one ad only one
md of wrtng th nstrumenta and rnamental
at the dsposal of French socet durng the whol
perod when urgeos deology conquered and
trumphd Instrumnta snce form was supposd to
 BUREIS RNG

be t the rice of coet jut   gbric

uio i  he rie o  oriol roce
o ic h istrut i qusion ws
eihed wih cid eure erl to i
fucio d uoiou orrowd fr Trdi
tio o ht  ourgoi od o wriig t i
ur  dirt wrir ws eer shued or its
digr ice i w o  feiiou coth
gi which he c o though w hrow ito
ri. il wrir h ided hele ced
ros o or u h oit  iu w i o w
he uri d ig o ods of wriig i
ss he ruure o the lgug The ol thig i
uio w rhoric e the ordrig of dis-
cour i such  w s to rude To  sing
urgois writig ther corrsode therfore
erl rhetorics; cors i ws t the ver m
mt when trei o rheoric roued no mor
irs towr h ide of he ih c
tur ht cicl wriig cd o  uier d
tht odern odes o wriig ce ito ing
Thi cssic wriig is eed o s  css
wriig Bor i the eeh cur i he grou
whih ws closs to he eoe i owr hed b
for of dgtic eiios ro riig if
o  gric turs o sch forged b the
oeo uectii o orir eole d
drid o he orr or  k o deiio bour
geois wriing ws rst reted wih he cicism


RTN DGREE ZR

utomary n th rt luh of potcal cto s

th anguag of a prvleged minrt In 47
Vauga rcommnd claical wing  a de fa
not a de jue, tat of aar; clar xpreon  ll
only cout ag In 60 on th conar n th
Gaaie f PorRoal for nanc clacal an
guage war a unvr k and clat ha cm
a alu In acual fact cart  a pre rhtorcal
attrbu nt a qualty f anguag n gnral whch
 pobl at all tm and n al plac but nly th
dal appendage to a crtan tp of dcour tht
hch s gvn ovr to a prmanent nteton to pr-
uad It  cau th prurgo of th Aie
Rie and th potrvoutnar urgoie ung
h ame md of wrng hav delpd an en-
tat mythology of man that clacal wrtng un
ed and unvra rnounced a hitan n favou
of a ntnum n wch every fragmnt wa a
hie, that  the radcal lmnaton of all vrtual
 n anguag Pltcal authry pritual
ogmatm and un n  language of clacm
a thrfr aou aspc of h me htorca
mvmnt.
o t  no wdr that h Rluton cangd
nothing in urgs wing and that thre  only a
lgh ierenc twen the wrting of  Fnon
and Mrm This  cau bourg dolog r
man ntact unil 848 thout ng n h leat
haken by a Rvlutn wh gav the bougeos
 BU ING

poii nd soci power hough no h ine

ecu power, whih i hd ong hed Frm s o
endh, urgos wriing neded n  resum i
coniui er he shor inerrupio o rubd
imes Ad h romni revouion, so hri
commied  he overhrow o rdiion orms, in
h evn suk pruden o he wriing o i id
og A w cnessins suh s he mixing o genres
nd words enbd i o peserve he min eure o
ci nguge, nme, inrumeni True, his
intrumn comes more nd mor  h re (nb
in Cheubrind bu  in  i is i n insru-
me, usd wihou oones, nd no ,   n-
gug cnsiou  soiud ug one, b evoving,
ou o h concre dimnion o his own person
ime nd sce,  pricur nd hemic us o n-
guge, wich cud no nger  undrsood wih
reerenc o  rdiin, bu on in h igh o h
ormidb rei ing hnd his own exisenc,
ugo ne, hen, hrough he weigh o his se,
w be  exer me prssure on cssi wriin
nd bring i   verge o disinegrion This i
wh conemp r ugo si rves o ser up h
sesm wiing in igheenh cnur e, whih
winessed he hed o h bourgeoii, nd rmins
he nrm o ccped Frenc,  creu cosed n-
guge, pred rom socie b he wh bod o
the ier mh,  consecred mode o wriing used
ndiscrmne b e mos heerogeneous wriers 


RTNG EGREE R

an autere dut or a cooieur relih a tarnacle

o ti aweinpirig
aweinpirig mter
mter : Frnch iterature.

w th 1850 bring the concurrece o three new

and iportant act in itor the dmogaphic e-
panion in Europ the replacmnt  tetile b
heav indutr that i te birth o moder capital-
im th ciio (cmplted b th rvolution  Jue
188) o Frch ociet ito tree mutuall hotile
cl brigig th ditve ruin  liral illuio
The circumance put the bourgeiie into a ew
itrical ituaton Until then it wa urgoi ideo-
log itel which gave the meaur o the univeral
b ullling it unchallnged Th bourgeoi writer
le judge o other pople' w and without aon
l to gaze on him wa not to tween hi ocial
conditin and hi itellectual vocation Henceorth
thi vr ideolog appear merel a on among
man poible other; th univeral ecape it ic
tracndig itel would mean condemig itl
the writer all a pre to ambiguit ie hi cn
scioue no longer acout or th whole  hi
condition Thu i rn a tragic peicamnt pculiar
to iteratr
It i at thi moment that md o writig begi to
multipl Each one hencerth   it th highl
ought ppulit neutral r colquial sets itel up

60
 BRGEIS RIING

as th inital act whereby the wte acnwleg o

repuates his bourgeois cnition. Each o  n
attmpt t n  soltion to thi Ophea pobl
matc
mat c of
of me Fom Fom : wi
wi witho Liteat
F the lt hnre y, Flat alla
Rimbau th co oth th alit
Quenau Satr, Blncht o Camus hav otlin 
ine
ine ar still
stil l outlining
outlin ing  cetan
cetan wa
wa of tegat-
tegat-
ing iruptng  naturalizing litrary langag but
what i at tae i ot sme avente of liteay
fm sme succ n htoical achvmnt o so
bol us of vabulary henv th wte
aembl a ntwk of wo it i th eence f
Ltratu itself hich i call nto qston wht
rnity allows  to ea i  plality of 
of witing i the l lly wh i it ow Hitoy

6
 STYLE AS CRAFSMANSHIP

r s t Va ud answer when asked

hy e dd nt ubsh hs ecturs at te ge d
rane Yet there has en  whe er that 
tumhat urges wrtng when fr st aut
th same rce as thuht. It s ue that attentn
ws ad t ts ccseness and rder and t 
euhemst grace ut fr was a the chear snc
the wrter was usng a readmade ntrument the
rkn f wh wa hadd dwn uchaned
wthut ane n bsesse wth nvet r
as nt sn as a n;
n; the unversat 
ss nua drved frm the fact that nuae
as c rrt and that thught a r
he eht f  derent e mht sa th
tuhut ths rd r had a a vaue
w we have see at arud 850 trature 
 n t ae a be f sefjustctn  s 
 the t f kn
kn as fr ef ad reey
 he shad f a dubt gs t  cast  
usa
usa  he ss f wters axu t assue 
the fu the renst f thr trad s ut 
  rkve  t n ae f  
 S 
      R  F  M  N    P

v Wtng s now to  sed no by rt f

wht t exsts for bt thns to h work  hs cost
There gns now to gro p n ge of the wrtr
  crfn who shs hf y n some
gendry pce e  worn opertng  ho
nd ho rogh ot cs poshes nd ses hs frm
excty s  eer extrcts rt fr hs te
devotng to hs or regr hors of sotry eort
Wrters e ter (pst ster n Beesettres)
Fert (grndng y t hs sentences t Crosset)
ry (n hs roo t the crck of dwn) or Gde
(sndng t hs des   crpenter t h nch
for  kn of gd of French tertre  n whc
wor expended n fo  the sgn nd the proprty
f  corrton bour repcs gen s  e 
to spe there s  nd of ostentton n cmng to
r ng nd ovngy over the form of one's wr 
There even rs soetes  prcosty of concs-
n (for rng t one's ter sy ns
dcng t) n conrs to th gret precosty of th
boqe er (tht of Corne for nnce). For h
ter express  knwdge of Ntr whch ncss
tes  rodenng of the ngg bt th frmer
tryng to evove 2n rtocrtc terry sy ys
dwn the condtons for  hstorc rs dtned t
gn on the y when n esthc m no ongr
sces to tfy th convnton whch ths n
chrnstc gg repren tht  n the d
when Htory hs brouh u n bvos ds
RITING GR ZR

junctin teen the cia vcatin  the 

and the intument hich he ha inherited frm
Taitin

lau t a h mst methica laid th

undti  this cnceptin  iting a caf
Bef hi he existence f the ugei a 
pictureque  exti phenmenn; ugei ide
g upplied the nm f the uivesal and ptut
ing that pue an exied a uch culd expeience 
en f elling a it cnteplated the ugei
a  ctac in  ay cmmenuate ith ite
Whees r lubet the bugeis state is n in-
cuale il hich tick  the it, and hich he
can ce nl by auing it claightedly  hich
i f the essnce  gic ling Thi urgei
Necesi hich chaacize Fdic Mau,
Emma Bvay Buad and Pcuchet, require a
n as it i quarely faced and accepted, an at
hich i equally he ar f  necty, and armed
ith a La laurt funded a nmative iting
hich  an thi  a paadx  include technical
rul hich can eea path On th ne hand he
uil i narative by  uccein  ence d
nt at all b flling  phenmenlgical de (as
ut later d; he nalize the ue  vbal
  ccrdng t a nnin  a  mk hem
  TY    C R  F T M  N    

rorm the unction o ign o Lterature, n the

manr o an  draing attention t its very arti
ciaity; he eaborat a rhythm o the ritten ord
hich creates a sort o ncantaton and hch, quite
unike the rues o spoen eoquence appeas to a
ixth purey itrary, ense the prvate prorty o
prducer and conumer o Ltratue Ad  the
othr han this code o itrary aur ths um o
exrcs reated to he riters ork kep up a
isdm, o to speak, hich s aso touched th sad
ne and opnnes t, since the art o Faurt
nts to ts mak as it moves orard What ths
Gregorian codication o iterary anguage aimed at
a i nt the rconciiation o the ritr to a un
vrsa condtion, at eat the conerment upn him o
th rsponsibity or h orm the transmutation o
the wrting haned don to him by Hitory nto an
rt, n other ord, into an obvous convention, a
sincere pact hich oud enabe man to adopt a
piion he a amiiar th in a nature ti made
o matched reaitie The riter then gives to
siety a coneed a, hos rus are vibe to
a and in exchang socity is ab to accept the
ritr. Baudeair or intance, inited on tracing
the admirabe prosaicnes o his pty back to
Gautier to a kind o tih o highly wrough orm
situated no doubt outide pragmatic bourgeois
activiy bu nerted into an order o amiiar taks,
uder  e o a socy hch recognized n it not
RITING DR ZR

 drem but it metds ince Litertur cu

t be vnquid b it  epn  it 
bette t ccept it pen nd ein cndemne t
ti ite rd bur� t d d rk' in it? S
te Fubetizti f itin redeem  riter t
 trke prt becue t et ectin bnd
temeve t it itut qum d prt becu
t puret eturn t it s t  cknednt 
i t

6 6 
WRITING DEGREE ZER

m s far from ng neuta t s on th contrary

loadd th the most specacular gns of fabrcaon

Thus hen t came degradd by abandonng th

nnc on a vrbal Nature openly oregn to real
ty whl tll not preendng to revert to th lan
guage of socal Nare  a dd Qeneau laer  the
Naralst shl paradoally evolved a mhancal
art whh laned h gs o lrary convenon
h an osentao hthero nknon n Flara
wrng a pll was gadually oven and t s stll
obl to loe onelf readng Flat a f on
we n a nar ll of ehong voe n whch gn
ar rahr peras han pressve. Wherea h
wrng o Realm an nver  onvncng; t s con
dmned to mr erpton b vrt of h dalt
dogm whh orda hat ere hall onl ever 
o omum rm to epres' a raly a inert as an
b n hh the wrr an have no power e
cpt hrogh hs rt o arrangg the sgn
The authors whot a le  apasant Zola
Dadet and thr gones  hav d a mod of
rng whh repreened or them a means h o
reng and dplang he craanhp whch they
and hey had epelled rom a pely pa
athec Mapat's declaraon o th la
aoctd th form re well knon a are all th

6
 TI  N R   O   T N

nave evce of hs chl, wherb he naural sn-

ence  raore no an arcal one man o
ar ines o  purely lerary pupo, whch
eans  n h nsance o wha  cos n labour. We
know ha accorn o  Maupaan ysc h
arsc nenon  h preve of ynax h
vocabular ng mean o say on hs e of Lera-
r To wre well  nw he ole gn of eray
rely  eans navely o shf he plac of a pre
cae, o e o' a wor whle ng hpeful of
obanng by h means an epresve hyhm Bu
exprvenes   h   s only he convenon o
xpresvene
h convenonal oe o wrng has lwa
en a hapy hung grun for suy n chools
where he value of a ex  ase by he obvou
sgn of he labour  ha cos w nohng  more
pecacular han aempng o cobne precaes as
a wokan aus o elcae mechan. ha
peans are n he wrn of a Maupaan or a
Daue  a lerary gn a la eache fro  con
n, whch po Lraur unambguously as a
caegory whu any reaon o oher language a
n so ong eablhe n eal nelgby of
hngs Bween a proleara xclue from al
culue an an nellgen whch has aleay gun
o quon erue elf he average publc r
uce by pray an seconr schls aly
owrle clas, roughy spakng, wl hrfo
WRITIN EGR ZER

n n he rtstcrealtc md f wrng  whch 

tha f  gd proptn f cmmerca nvels  
mage p exee f a Lteatue whch h ll he
strng and ntellgbl n f  dny I h
c h functn f th wrtr  no  much t
creat  wor as t supply  Lterate whch  
en frm fr

Th lwerdlecss md f rn h n

taen up b comm s wrters cause f r the tm
ng, the artstc nos of he r tra nnot 
den frm tho of the peie beisie ( fc
whch nd agrees wth ther doctine), nd cau
the vey dg of sclst reals necesarly enals
he adpn f a cnventna me of wtng, t
hch  aned the task f sgnfyg n  cn
cuous a a cnten hch  pwerls t pose
tself thut a frm  entf t. Thus s uner-
st th paadx wheeby te cmmunst me f
wrtng makes mutple u f the grss sns f
terture, and far frm reakn wt a frm whch
 after al pcal ures  or c was such n
h pat, at least s n assumn tut re
- 

on th fma precupatns f te pi-bgeis

at of tn (wc s mer accreted with the
cmmunst pubc than o the as dne n h
primry schol)

0
 I ING  N D  I L E C E

ng hi on rack an craig hir w aw h
hra of comng a Fn Ar i a fa which hang
ov an anguag no ba civ o h
pch of iy In a rpea gh frwar fro
a isorr yna , h ngraion o langg
ca on  o h ince of wring. Th 
agrapha of Rimbau or f  Surrait (wh ps
faco fel n obvon), hi poignan frucin
of Liraure, ach  h for om wrr, an
guag, h r an la way ou of h irar mh
ny ror wa  ha hop  avoi, ha h
i o ing which can  aing revouionar
a h any nc of form can cap ipr
on by cmple abannmen of communcao.
Maam, h Haml of wriing, a i wr, w
rprn hs precario mom of Hor i
which irary aguag ri o h r 
ing h ncey of its eah Malam 
graphica agrapha k o cra aroun rre
wor an emp zon in whch pch ira r
 guy oca ovr ma, b  hpp cn-
ivanc, no ongr rvrbra Th wor, ia
fr h hk of habiua ich , an fr h ch-
nica rexe of h wrir, i h fr fro r-
ponbt in rlaon o al pob cone i
appar n on bref ac, whch, ing voi of r-
cion, cre it olu an hrfor i inn
cenc Ths ar ha h vry rucur of uci :  
nc i a homnu c m which rap h

7
WRITI N G DGR ZERO

word twen two lyrs and sts it o less as a frag

ment f a cryptgram than as a light a vid a
murdr, a fredm. (We know all that this hypothesis
of Mallarm a a murdrr f language owes to
Mauc Blacho) This languag of Mallarm's is
like Orphus who can sav what he lovs only by
renouncig , a who just th am cannot reist
glancig rod  litle; it is Litraur brought to th
gats f h omised Land : a world \vithout Lira-
tu bu one to whih writrs ould nevrthl
hv t bar winess

In this sam attempt twards dingaging literary

anguag, her is anthr solution : to crat a colour
ss writing, fred frm all ndag to a prrdaind
stat of languag. A simil brrwed frm inguistics
will rhaps giv a fairl accurte ida of this nw
phnomenn; we know that som liguis etablish
twn th two trms f a polar oppsition (such as
singularplual prtritprsnt) th xistenc of a
third trm, called a neutral trm r zro lmnt 
thus twn th subjunctive ad th imprativ
ms, th incave is accordng to thm an amal
orm Proprtionaly speaking writng at th zro
dgre is basiclly in th indicativ md or if you
ik amodal; it wuld  accurat to say tat it is a
oalit wrtng if it wr not rcisl th cs
 W   N G  N    L N 

that unam eveo in genra optatv or im

rativ (hat i emotv) fom Th new nutra
wrting tae  ace n t mit of a tho eacu
atn an ugment wthot becoming nvove in
any of hm t cont ecy in thr abence ut
h abnc i compt it ime no rfu no
cr on cannot threfor ay that it i an impa
v mo of wng raer that it i innocent Th
am her i to go yon Literatur by entrutng
on' fae to a ort of bac ch quay far from
iving anguag an fom itrary anguag propr.
Th tranarent form o pch iniiat by amu'
Ousde acheve a ye of abnc which i amot
an ea abnc of tye wrin i then ruc o a
ort of ngatv m in whch th ocia or mythica
charactr of a anguage ar aihe i favo f a
nutra an inr at of form thu thought rmain
whoy rpnb wihout in ovrai by a
conary commtmnt of frm to a Hitory no it
own f Faubert' wrting enhn a Law if that of
Marm potuate a enc an if othr th of
Prut n Quenau Prvrt ach in i own
way  foun on th xience of a oca natur if
a the mo of witig impy an opacity of form
an prup a probmatic of angua an
oct thu etabhng ch a an obct whch
mut rciv trtment at th han of a craftman a
magian or a crp tor but not by an nteectua
th ra wring in fact ricover th pra


,  T  N G 0  G R   Z

conitio f ssicl rt : instrumenali u hi

tim, fr as n instrumnt is no longer t th r-
i of  triumpn idolog; i is th m f 
new ituation of th writr, th w  ertin silnce
h of existing; it dlirtl forgs n elegnce or
rnment , for thes two dimensions ould reintr
u ime int wriin nd ti is  dervtive power
whih sutin Hisor If the writig is rell neu-
r, and i lge insead o being  um
nd litrnt ct, rhs the stt of  pure equ
tin, whih is no mor tngible thn n lgbr when
it confronts th innermot part f mn, then Litr
ture is nqihed the probea tis o mnin is
uncovre nd prented wihou elaborion the
writr cmes irrivbl honet. Unrtunatel,
nthn is mre cle thn  clorless writing
nil hbit re developd in he ver pl
wher frd exised,  newor o set frms em
i r nd more th prisine reshn  disose,
 m  writing er resh in liu o n in
dnite language h riter, ing his plce  
lss', oms the slvish imittr  his orignl
retion ociet demote his writing to a mre
nnr, and reurns him a rion to his on
frm th
 WIT IN N SPECH

 lttle ore ta a uded years ago, wrters

ere for te st art aare tat tere were
evral ways  a very ere o  o sakg
Frec Arou 1830 at te e we e ur
gese foud uoure etertae  evey
tg tuate o te rge o ts ow reserve,
aly  tat oserable rt o scety
wic t as wllg o sare wt eas, co
erges a ckockets tere ga to  te way
to lerary laguage roer a ew extraeous scras
lted ro ero fos of laguage rovd tey
w suably eccetrc oterw tey would ave
e a sourc o ager Tese cturesque jargos
lse erae wt reaeg ts struc
ture alac Se, Moer, Hgo oud ejoy 
sag a ew really arrat fors o proca
to a ocablary  eves argo, coury acts
Gr argo, r te lgo  te ccerg u
s scal seec, wc was a k o tearcal c
te ug o to a essce, ever volved e
saker as a toal erso te ecas  te as
so we  ucg over a ave e seec.

79
RITING DEG  EE  ER 

 was pehaps cesa to wait  oust t 

he "vite fu ctai e totally with thi la
ga, ad et his ceatues oly thoug tht
sld ad clourful guie , the way of saig
While alacs craturs, fo istace, ae easly e
ducble to the owe elatos of he city f hich
thy are, so to sak, th algbaic epesis, a
chaact f oust aiaies ito th oacity of a
articula laguage ad it is elly at this level that
his whl hstoical situatio  his ofessio, his
clss his weath, his hty, his boily fae  is
tegatd ad re  this way, ieatue gs
to kw socety as a Natue, the hoe of
which it ight has  abl to pouce. Duig
such ots whe the wit follows laguags
which a really sok, o lg fo the sak o
ictuesqueess, but as essetial bjects which fll
accout fo the whle cott of socity, wiig
taks as the locus of its ees th eal spch of
 iteatur o loge lies ie o esca , it
gs to beco a ucid act of gvig ifati as
if it had st to lea th particulas of scia e
eces by eroucig the. It takes it up itself to
giv a iiae accout, as a peliiay to a
othe essag, of the situatio of e iued b
th lagag of thei class, thi ego, the 
fs, ther hedy o thei histoy
Udstd i this way, lteay lguage foudd
o cial spch v gets rid of a desctve vit

0
   R     
e Eeen ere preented ave a teir oe am
te extration from inguiti of anaytia onept1
wi we tin a pro to e uienty genera to
tart emioogia reear on it way In aming
tem, it i not preuppoed tat tey wi remain in
tat during te oure of reear; nor tat emi
oogy wi away  fored to foow te inguiti
mode oey2 We are merey uggeting and eui
dating a terminoogy in te ope tat it may enae
an initia aeit proviiona order to e introdued
into te eterogeneou ma of igniant fat In
ft wat we purport to do i to fui a rinipe
of aiation of te quetion
ee eement of emioogy wi terefre e
roupe under four ain eadin oowe from
tutura inguiti:
inguiti:
I angage an Speech
II Sgne an Sgner
III Sntagm an Sstem
IV Denoaton an Connoaton
It wi e een tat tee eading appear in di
tomi form; te reader wi ao notie tat te
inary aiation of onept ee frequent in
trutura tougt,3 a if te metaanguage of te
inguit reprodued, ie a mirror, te inary tru
ture of te ytem it i deriing; and we a point
out, a te oaion a tat it woud proay
e very intrutive to tudy te preminene of
inary aiation in te oure of ontemporary
oia iene e taxonomy of tee iene, if
it wer we nown, woud undoutedy provid a
grat dea of information on what migt  aed te
ed of inteetua imagination in our time


 I ANGUAG (LANGUE AND
SPCH

I   N NGSTS

I n Sasse: Th dichotomic) conc of

angage/speech is cnta in Saussu* and as c
tainy a gat novty in ation
ation to air inguisics
inguisics
hich sought to nd th caus of histoica changs
 th voution of onunciatin sntanous aso
ciations and th orking of anaog and as th
fo a inguistics of h individua ac. n oking ou
this famous dichotomy Saussu stad fm h
'multifom and hognous natu of anguag
hich apas at t sight as an uncassiab aity
th unity of hich cannot b bought to igh sinc
it ataks at th sam tim of th hysia th hysi
ogica th mnta th indiidua and th socia
o this disod diapas if fom this h
gnous ho is xtactd a uy socia objct
th ytmatizd t of convntions ncssay to
ommuniation indnt to th matea of h
igna hh compo it ad hich is a angage
(ange); a opposd to hich speech (paoe covs
th uy individua pat of anguag honation a
icatin of th rus and contngn combinaions of
signs.
• Th Sassra oos of langue ad paroe prt to
t tralator to Eglsh ooro dlt, whh thr

3
 ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOGY

.. h angag ang: A angag is herefore

so o speak, language inus speech: i is a he sae
ie a social insiuion and a syse of alues As a
social insiuion, i is by no eans an ac, and i is
o subec o any preeiaion  is he social
pa of language, he indiidual canno by hiself
eiher creae or odiy i i is essenially a collece
conac hich one us accep in is enirey if one
ishes o counicae Moeoer his social pr
duc is auonoous, like a gae ih is on rules,
for i can be handled only aer a eriod of lea
ing  a syse of alues, a language is ade of a
cerain nuber o eleens, each one of hich is a
he sae ie he equialen of a gien uaniy of
hings and a er o a larger funcion, in hich are
found in a dierenial order, oher correlaie alues:
fro he poin of ie of he language he sig is
like a coin hich has he alue of a cerain aoun
of goods hich i allos one o buy, bu also has
alue in relaion o oher coins, in a greaer or lesser
degree e insiuional and he syseaic aspec
are of course conneced: i is becaue a language is a
syse of conracual alues (i par arbirary or,
ore exacly, unoiaed) ha i resiss he i
caions coing fro a single indiidual and is cose
uenly a sial isiuion
   Spch pao: n conas o he language
hich is boh insiuion and syse spch  essen-
exeo  he pe wok do oh o alleae We
hae alaed  age a 'a o 'the lauae excep whe
he coupl wh 'peech mae he mea clea Les
paoes, whehe appled o eeal people o o eeal em
oc yem, ha bee alaed by aou pephae
whch we hope do o obue he dey o mea


 L N G E
E L  N G E  ND S PEE  H
tiy n indvidu ct of seection nd ctuiztion
it is mde in the rst plce of the combintion thnks
to which the speking subject cn use the ode of
the nguge with  view to expressing hs person
thought (this extended speech could be ced
discurs) nd secndly by the psychophysic
mechnisms
mechnisms which low him to exteriorize these om- om-
bintions It is certin tht phontion for instnce
cnnot be confused with the nguge; neither the in
stitution nor the system re ltered if the individ
wh rer t them pks oudly or sfty with
sow or rpd deivery
deivery et he
 he combintive spect o
speech is of corse of cpit importnce for it
impies tht speech is constituted by the reurrene
of identic
identic signs it is becuse signs re repete
repetedd in
in
sccessive discourses nd within one nd the sme
scourse though they re combined in ordne
wi the innite dversity f vrious peopes speeh)
tht eh sign beomes n eement of the nguge
nd it is becse speech is essentily  ombintive
ctivity tht it correspon to n individu t nd
not to  pure cretion
cretion

.14.  dialctics  laua ad spc: Ln-

guge nd speech ech of these two trms
trms of ourse
chieves its fu denition only in the dieticl pr
ess which unites one to the other
other there is no n-
guge without speech nd no
n o speech outside
outs ide nguge
nguge
it is in this exchnge tht the re linguisti praxis
is situted, s MeleuPonty s pointed out And
 r�n wries, A nguge is  puely bstrct
entiy  norm which snds ve individuls  set
of essenti types, which speech culizes in n
innite vriey of wys. Lnguge nd speech re
 ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOG

therefore in a relaton of reciprocal compehensive

ns. On the one hand, the language is 'te treasue
deposited by the pactce of speech in the subjects
 belonging to he same community and since it is
a collective summa of individual impins it must
emain incomlte at the levl of each isolated ini
viual: a language does not xist pefectly except in
the sking mass; one cannot andl spech ecept
 by dawng on the language. But convesly a lan
ue is osible only stating from seech: historc
ally seech henomena always cede language
henomena (it is speech wich makes language
evolve) an genecally a language is consitutd in
the individual though his leain from the environ
ental eh (on do nt teah grammar and
vcabulary which are broadly seaing the lan
ae t bab). T s a lanae s at the same
time the ruct and the nsuent f seech: their
relationshi is heefore a genuinely dialectical one
It will be noticed (an imortant fact when we come to
semiological osec that there coul not possibly
 be (at last according to Saussure) a lingistics of
seech since any seech as soon as it is gasped as a
rocss of communicaon is  lry art of the lan
ae: the later only can be he ob of a science.
his dos of two qusions at the ouset: it is
sels to wonder whether speeh mut be studied
bf the language: the oposte is imoible: one
can only stuy seeh straight away inasmuch as it
reec he anguage (inamuch as it i lottic). It
 t  uels to woner  t h utst how t se
arate he lanuae fr seech: this is no relimina
eraion but on the conary he vy essence 
lingistic an later semioloical investation: t


 LAN G  AGE ( LAN G  E) AN  S PEE  H
spaa h languag fom spch mans p aco
consiuing h poblmaics of h maning.

 n Hjemev: jlmslv has no hown ov

Saussus concpion of anguage/peech bu h has
isibu is ms in a o fomal way. Wihin
h languag islf (which is sill oppos o h ac
of sph) jlmslv isinguish  plans: i)
h chema which is h languag as pu fom
(bfo choosing his m lmslv hsia b
wn 'sysm 'pa o 'famwok f his
plan): * his is Saussus angue in h sics
sns of h wo I migh man fo insanc h
nch r as n phonologcally by is plac in a
sis of opposiions ii) h nrm which is h lan
guag as maial fom af i has bn n by
sm g of social alizaion bu sill indpndn
of his alizaion i woul man h r in oal nch
whichv way i is ponounc bu no ha o
win nch) i) h uage which is h languag
as a s of habis pvailing in a givn sociy: his
woul man h r as i is ponounc in som gions.
h laions of minaion bwn spch
usag nom an schma a vai h nom 
mins usag an spch usag mins spch

• Hjlslv hmsl has sggstd Egsh, Grma ad

Dansh traslatons or th trms h usd  ths artcl,
hch as rtt  Frch ad pblshd n th Cahis
Fdnand d Sussu. 2 p 24-44 (1943) S Essais inuis
iqus p 81 ot  Chapn as a Frch altratv for
 schma • pattr as th Eglsh trm sust Bt, o
long Hlmslvs ampl hn h rctd  sysm n
ordr not to gv a t spcc rndrng (bd p 72 not
I)  hav prfrrd hr to p  schma nstad of th vry
gnra trm ·pattr - Translators ot


 E LEE   O F  E  O LO GY
but is also tin b it th scha is tin
at th sa ti  spch, usag an no hus
appar (in fact two funantal plns: i) th
schm th tho of which gs with that of th
for an of th linguistic institution ii) the oup
nomsgspch th tho of which gs with
that of th substanc an of th xcution As 
accoing to Hjlslv  no is a pu thoical
abstaction an spch a singl conction (a tan
sint ocunt), w n in th n a nw icho
to schm/sg which rplacs th coupl
ngg/spch his ristibution b Hjlslv is
not without intst, howv it is a raical foa
lization of th concpt of the languag (unr te
nae of schm an eliinats onct spch in
favour of a o social concept sg This fora
lization of th language an socialization of speeh
enables us to put all th positiv an substantial
eleents un th hading of spch, an all th
ientiating ons un that of th languag, an
the avantage of this, as w shall s pesntl, is
to eov on of th ontaictions brought about
b Saussus distinction btwn th language an
the spech

  6 Som pobms: hatevr its usfulnss an its

fecunit, this istinction nvthelss bings soe
probles in its wa Lt us ention onl thr
Here is the rst is it possible to intif th lan
guage with th co an th spech with the s
sag? This intication is ipossibl accoing to
Hjelslevs thor. P Guiau rfuss it for, he sas,
the onvntions of th co a xplicit, an those of
e language iplicitO but it is ertainl acceptable

8
 LANG  AGE LANG  E AND S PEE C H
prospects opened up b the laguage/seech distinc
tion we shall mention a few more suggestions con
cerning two sstem of obects ver dierent it is
true but which have in common a dependence in
each case on a deciding and manufacturing group 
cars and uiture
n the car sstem the language is made up b a
hole set o forms and details the structure o which
s establshed dierentiall b coparing the prot
tpes to each other idependentl of the number o
their copies) the scope o speech is ver narrow
becaue for a given status o buer freedom in
choosing a mel is ver restricted  it can involve
onl two or three models and within each model
colour and ttings But perhaps we should here e
change the notion of cars as obects for that f cars
as sociological facts e would hen nd in the rivig
o cars the variations in usag of the obect which
usuall make up the plane o speech For he user can
not in this nstance have a direct action on the model
and combine its units his freedom of interpretation is
ound in the usage developed in tme and within
which the forms issuing from e language must in
order to become actua be relaed b certain prac
tices
Fiall the last sstem about hich we should lke
to sa a word that o urniture is also a semantic
obect the language is fomed both b the opp
sitions of unctonall identical pieces two tpes o
ardrobe two tpes o bed etc) each of hich
accordg to its ste reers o a dierent meaning
and b the rules o assocation o the dierent units
at te level o a room urnishing) the speech is
here formed either b the insignicant variations

29
 ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOGY

which the user can introduce into one unit (by

tinkering with one element, for instance), or by free-
dom in aociating pieces of furniture together

1.2.5. Complex systems: The most interesting systems,

at least among tose which belong to the province of
masscommunications, are complex systems in which
dierent substances are engaged n cinema, television
and advertising, te senses are subjected to te con
certed action of a colection of images, sounds and
written words t wil, tereore, be premature to
decide, in their case, wich facs belong to the lan
guage and whic belong to speech on the one hand
as long as one has not discovered whether the 'lan
guage of each of tese compex systems is original
or only compounded of te subsidiary 'languages
which have their places in them, and on the other
hand as long as these subsidary languages have not
been analysed (we know the linguistic 'language but
not that of images or that of music)
As for the Press, which can be reasonably con
sidered as an autonomous signifying system, even if
we conne ourselves to its written elements only,
we are stil almost entirely ignorant of a linguisic
phnomenn which seems to play an essential part
in it : cnnotation, that is, te devlopment of a
system of secondorder meanings, which are so to
speak parasitic on the language proper.26 This second
order system is also a 'language, within which there
develop speechpenomena, idolects and duplex struc-
tures In te case of such compex or connted
systems (both caracteristics are not mutually ex-
clusive, it is therefore no longer possible to pre
determine, even in gobal and hypothetical fashion,
 LAN G U AGE ( LAN G U E) AND S PEE C H

wat belongs to te language and wat belongs to

speec.

126.Poblem (1) - he origin of he vaiou ignif y 

ing  y  tem: Te semoogcal extenson of te lan
guage/ speech noton brngs wt t some problems,
whc of course concde wt te points were the
lngustc me can no longer be followed and must
be atered. Te st probem conces the orgn o
te varous systems, and thus touc on te ver
dalectcs of language and speec. In te lngustc
mode, nothng enters te language wtout avng
been tred n speech, but conversely no speech s
possble (tat s, fulls ts functon of communca-
ton) f t s not drawn from te 'treasure of the
language. Tis process s stll, a least partally, found
n a system lke tat of food, altoug indvidual
nnovatons brough into t can become language
phenomena. But n most oter semological system,
the language s elaborated not by the 'speaking mass
but by a decding group. In ths sense, t can be hel
tha n mos semologcal languages, te sign is reall
and truly 'arbtrary27 snce t is founded n artcal
fason by a unlateral decson; hese in fact are
fabrcated languages, 'logtechnques. The user fol
lows tese languages, draws mges (or 'speech)
from tem but has no part n ter elaboraton. The
decdng group wch s at te orgin of the system
(and of ts canges) can be more or less narrow; 
can be a gly quaed technocracy (fason, motor
ndustry); t can also be a more duse and anony
mous group (te producton of standardzed fture
te mddle reaces of readytwear. If, however,
his acal caracter does no alter e ins
 I I . SIG
SIGNI F IR N
ND SIGNI
SIGNI F ID
ID

II . HE S IGN

IG N

II     h classication o signs e signied and

he signier, in Saussurean erminoogy, are he com
ponens of he sign Now his erm, sign which s
found in very dieren vocabuaries (from ha of
heoogy o ha of medicine, and whose hisory is
very rich (running from he Gospes8 o cyberneics,
is for hese very reasons very ambiguous so before we
come back o he Saussurean accepance of the word,
we ms say a wod abou he noiona ed in which
i occupies a pace, abei imprecise, as wi be seen.
For, accorng o he arbirary choice of various
auhors, the sign is paced in a series of erms which
have aniis and an d issimiari
issimiariies
ies wih i  signal
indx icon symbol allgory are he chief rivas of
sign Le us rs sae the eemen which is common
o a hese erms
erms  hey a necessariy
necessariy refe
referr us o a
rlaton beween wo rlata9 his feaure canno
hereore be use o isinguish any of he erms in
the seris o n a variaion in meaning, we sha
have o resor o oher eares, which wi be ex-
prse here in he form of an aernaive prsnc
 absnc
 abs nc   i he reaion impies, or does no impy,
he mena represenaion of one of he rlata; ii he
reaion impies, or does no mpy, an anaogy be

35
 ELE
ELEMENT
MENTS
S F SEM
SEMI  L  Y

ween he lt iii) he lin beween he wo lt
(he simul and i esponse) is immediae o is
no iv) he lt exacly coincide o, on he conrary,
one overuns he ohe; v) he elaion implies, or
does no imply, an exisenial connecion wih he
user. o Wheher hese feaues ae posiive or nega
ive (maed o unmared), each erm in he eld is
diereniaed fom is neighbours I mus be added
ha he dsrbuion of he eld varies from one
auho o anohe, a fac which produces ermi-
nological conadicions hese will be easily seen a
a lance fom a able of he incidence of feaues and
erm
ermss ini n fou
fou  dieen
dieen a uh
uho
oss : egel, Peirce, ung
ung
and Waon (he refeence o some feaures, whehe
maed o unmaed, may ma y be absen in some auhos).
W se ha he eminological conraicion bears
essenially on x (fo Peirce, he index is exisen-
ial, fo Wallon, i is no) and on ymbol (fo egel
and Wallon hee hee is
is a elai
elaion
on of analog
ana logy
y  o of
'moivaion
'moivaion  bewbewee
eenn he wo
wo lt o he symbol,
bu no for Peirce moreove, fo Peirce, he symbol
is no exisenial, whereas i is for ung). Bu we see
also ha
ha hes
hesee conrad
conradici
icions
ons  which
which in h
his
is able
able
ae ead veica
veically
lly  are ververy y well explaine
explained,d, o
ahe, ha hey compensae each ohe hrough
ransfers of meaning fom em o em in he same
auhor. These ransfer
ransferss can here be read hoizonally
hoizonally :
for insance, e symbol is analogical in egel as op-
posed o he sign which is no and if i is no in
Peirce, i is cause he icon can absorb ha feaure
ll his means, o sum up and al in semiological
ems (his being he poin of his bief analysis which
relecs, lie a mior, he subjec and mehods of ou
sudy), ha he words in he eld deive hei
     Z
     f     "      t    � > Z o f "
    Z       '

   y
   r
   0   
   8
   e
    l
   
   n
         u
         j

    +        +

   n       n          n
   o
    l     l
       o
    l
    l     l        o
   e     B
    l    g    g        a
   n
   8
   a    e   a    e   n
   u
     i
   S     W     H    W      J    W
    H

    +     +   

         n         n            n   
   o    o     l    o   e     l    o
    l      
   e
     b     B    e    l
    l    c    e    g    l    c
   r    
   a        a            a     i
   m            e    e   n
   u    W        n
   u
   y
   s     W     H    W    P     H          P     

     
   
   c
   n    
    
   o
   c
     i
   e
    P

  -   -   -

   n    n
   o      
   n
   o     l
    l    o
    B    e
   c
   x
   e     B
   a    a    r
   a    
    d
   n     W     W     W    e
    P
    

  -     +     +

   n    n    n
    l    o    o
    l    o
    B
   a     B     l
   a    a
   n
   8
   a
     i
   s     W     W     W

  
   a     l
    l         
   c    a
    
   a
        n        a     
   n        g       u    n
   e    
   e       o
    l    e    y    q     
   s    c
    M   r    n    a    m   c             e
   p
  .       o    n       m    a
       ·       ·    x   p
   s
    I    r    
 .     5    E   a
    t    2    A     3    l     d    4    A

    
   V
 ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOGY

eai oy from their oppositio to oe anoter

usuay i pairs), and tat if these oppositions are
reserved, te meaning is unambiguous In particuar,
gna and nex, ymbo and sgn, are te terms of
two dieret functions, wic can theseves be
opposed as a woe, as they do in Waon, wose
terminooy is te cearest and te most copete
con and aegory are oned to te vocabuary of
Peirce and Jung) We sha therefore say, wt Walo,
tat the sgna and te nex form a group of reata
devoid of menta represetation, wereas in te opp
site roup, tat of ymbo and sgn, this reprsenta
tio exists furtermore, the gna is immedate ad
existetia, wereas te nex is ot it is ony a
trace) ay, tt in te ybo the reprentation
is aaoica and inadequate ristianity outrus
te ross), whereas i the gn te reation is u
motivated ad exact (tere is no anaogy betwee
te word ox and te image of an ox, wic is er
fecty overed by its reatum.

II.2 he ngustc sgn:  inuistics, te otio of

si does ot give rise to any copetitio betwee
neibourin terms Wen e sougt to designate
te siifyin reationsip, Saussure imediatey
eiminated ymbo (because te term ipied te ide
of motivatio) in favour of gn wic e deed as
the unio of a sinier and a signied (in te fasion
of e reto ad verso of a seet of paper), or ese of
a acousti iage and a oncept Unti e found the
words sgner and gne, owever, sgn reained
ambiuous, for it teded to become idetied with
te sigier ony, wic Saussure wanted at a costs
to avod after avin esitated between me ad
 S   N  F   R AN  S   N  F   
 o nd da mag and concp Sussure
etted upon gni and ignid the unon o wc
orms the sgn. Ths is a paraount propositon,
wc one must always bar n mind, or thre s 
tendency to ntrprt ign as sgnir, whereas this
s a twsded Januslk ntty The (important) con-
euence s that, or Saussur, jlslev and Fr at
est snce te sgnds are signs among otr,
emantcs must be a part o structural inguistics,
wereas or the Amercan mchanists the sgnieds
are substnces which must b explled rom ngus-
tcs and let to psychology nce aussure, the theory
o the ingustc sgn has bn enchd by the doubl
culao princpl, th portance o whic has
been sown by Martint, to the xtnt that he made
t the cterion whch denes language For aong
ngustc sgns, we must distnguish betwen the
gncan uni eac one o whch s endowed wth
one meanng (the words' r to b exact the
monms' and which orm th rst articultn, and
the diciv uni which are part o the orm but
do not ve a drct manng (th sounds', or rather
te phonemes), and whch constitute the scond
atculaton. It s ths double articulation whic
accounts or th conoy o uman language or
t is a pwrul garigdown which allws, or in
snce Amricn Spanish to produce, with only 2
distnctve units ,000 sgncat units

1 1   . 3  Fo and ubanc The sign s therore 

compound o a sigir ad a sigd The plan o
the sgnirs constituts th pan of prion and
that o the sgnid th pan of conen Wthi
each o ths two pans, lsl has introducd a

39
 ELEM ENTS OF EMIOLOGY

dstntn hh may be mpta fr he study f

the semlgal ad n lger ly lgustic) sgn
Ardng t him eah plae mpises  aa 
 ad ua e must insist  the ne dei
tn f these t terms fr eah f them has a
eighty leial pas he  s hat an be
desrbed ehaustively simply ad cherely
epistemlgal rieia by liguisics wihu es
g t any etaliguist pemise he ua is the
hle e f aspets f liguisti phemea hich
annt be desrbed ihu resg  etra
lnguis premises Sine bth aa eis n the
plane f epressn ad te plae f tet e
therefre have: i a substance f epressn: f
istace the ph aiculaty -funtial
substae hh s the eld f pheics nt ph
lgy ii) a fm f epessi made f e paa
digma and syati rules (let us te that the same
frm ca have  dieet subsaces e phni
te ther graphc) iii a subsace f cet: hs 
ludes fr sace the emtial idelgical r
simply ntal aspe f the sigied is 'psiive
meaig v) a fm f e:  s the fmal
rgaizan f the sigied amg themselves
thrugh the absee r pesece f a semai mak32
his last i s dicul t gasp beause f the
impssibiliy f separaig he sigies frm he
sigieds i huma laguage bu fr his vey
reas e subdivisi orm / susa ca be made
m useful a si  adle i semilgy i
 fllwg ases:  whe we deal wih a sysem
 hch the sigis are susaied i a subsace
her a a f he w sysem is is as e
have see he case ih fashi as it is itten
 S  G N  F   R AN  S  G N  F   
ou); ii) when  sysem of oec include  su
snce which is no immeditely nd functionlly
signicnt, u cn e, t  certin level, simply utili·
trin : the function of  dish cn e to signify  situ
tion nd lso o serve s food.

4 Th mologcl gn This perhps llows us to

foresee the nture of the semiologicl sign in reltion
to the linguistic sign. The emiologicl sign is lso,
like is model compounded of  signier nd  sig
nied (he colour of  light, for instnce, is n order
to move on, in the ighwy Code), ut it diers
from it t the level f i sstnces. Mny semiologi
cl sysems (oecs, gestures, pictoril imges)8 hve
 substnce of expression whose essence is not o
signify often, they re objects of everydy use, use
by society in  derivtive wy, o signify something
clothes re used for protection nd food for nourish
ment even if they re lso used s signs. We propose
to cll these semiologicl sigs, whose orgin is utili-
trin nd functionl, gn·fnton The sign
function bers witness to  double movement which
must be tken prt. n  rst stge (this nlysis is
purely oertive nd does not imply rel temporlity)
the function ecomes pervded with mening. This
emntiztion is inevitble   oon  thr  
octy, ry g  onrtd nto  gn of tlf
the use of  rincot is to give protection from the
rin, but this use cnnot be dissocited from the very
signs of n tmospheric sitution Since our society
produces only stndrdized, normlized ojects these
ojects re unvoidbly reliztions of  model, the
seech of  lnguge the sustnces of  signicnt
form. To rediscover  nonsiifying obect, one
    N  F  E R AN     N  F E 
 reevant eature  the sign nd the symb 
sd t the indx and the signa) Sussur him
sel has clarly markd the mental nature  the
signied by calling it  cocep  the signied  te
wrd ox is nt the anial ox, but its mnt imge (ths
will rve irtant in the subsquent discssin n
the nature  th sgn5 Thes dscussins, hwever,
stil bear the stam  sychism, s the nyss
 the Stics6 will rhas be thught rerabe
hy careuly dstinguishd the �aVTa{a OY'K
the mentl reresntatin), the TYXavo te
e thing) nd the €KV the utterble) Te
sigid is nithr the caVTa{a nr th YXao,
but rathr the €KUV; being nithr n ct 
cnsciusness, nr  ra thig, it can b dnd ny
within the signiying rcss, in  quasitutlgical
wy  it is this smthing' which is ant by the
ersn wh uss the sign n this way w re back
again t a urly uctia dnitin  the signid
is ne  th t e  the sign th nly dier
ence which ss it t th sigid is that the
attr is a mdatr Th situatin culd nt be essn
tially dirt in silgy, whr bjects, iages,
gstus ec, iasuch as thy ar sgicat rer
back t sthing which can b xrssd nly
thrugh th xct that th silgical signied
can be takn u by the linguisitc signs Oe can say,
r instace that a crtain swatr means lo
m k n he oods  this cas t sigi-
ed is mdiatd nt nly by its vstintary signi-
er (the swat but als by a agt  sch
(which gaty hels in hadling it We culd give
th na  isoo t the h whby
languae wilds its signis ad sigds s that it

3
 ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOG

is impossible to dissocite nd dierentite em in

order to se side te cse of te nonisoloic sstems
(ic re inevitbl complex in ic te sini
ed cn be simply juxtaposed it its sinier

1122 Classication of the linguistic signieds: Ho

cn e classify te sinieds ? We kno tat in
semiolo tis opertion is fundmentl, since it
mounts to isoltin te orm from te content As
fr s linuistic siniers re concerned, to sorts of
clssiction cn be conceived Te rst is extel
nd mkes use f t positive' (nd not purely
dierentil content of concep : tis is te cse n
te metodicl roupins of Hli nd Wrtbur
nd in te more convincin notionl elds of Te
nd lexicoloicl elds of Mtor. But from  struc
turl point of vie, tis clssiction (especilly ose
of Halli nd Wrtbur ve te defect of restin
stil too muc on te (ideoloicl substane of te
sinieds, nd not on their form To succeed in estab
lisin  really formal classiction, one ould ve
to succeed in reconstitutin oppositions of sinie
nd in isoltin, itin ec one of tese,  relevnt
commuttive feature : 39 tis metod s been dv
cted by Hjelmslev, Srensen, Prieto nd Greims.
Hjelmslev, for instnce, decomposes  moneme like
mre' into to smller sinicnt units : Horse +
female' nd these units can be commutted nd
terefore used to reconstitute ne monemes (pi' +
femle'  s orse' + mle'  stlion';
Prieto sees in vir' to commutble fetures omo'
+ msculus'; Srensen rduces te lexicon of kin
sip to a combintion of primitives' (fter' 
mle prent prent'  rst scendent None  ese

44
 FR  F
anayses has yet been developed4 Finaly we must
remind the reader that accordng to some inguist
the signie are not a part o linguistics which is
conceed only with signiers, and that semantic
classication lies outside the eld o linguistics4

112 3  Th smioogic sigids: Structural ingu

istis however adanced has not yet elaborated a
semantics that is to say a lassication o the orm
of the verba signied One may thereore easily
imagine that it is at present impossible to put or
ward a classication of smioogical signid , unless
we choose to all back on to known notiona el
We shall enture three obserations only
The rst concrns the mode of atualiation o
semiological signids These can occur either isoogi
ally or not; in the latter case, they are taken up
through articulatd language, either by a word
(wk-d) or by a group of word (og wks i
th couty; they are therby easir to hande, since
the analyst is not forced to impose on them his own
metalanguage, but also more dangerous, since they
ceaselessly reer back to the semantic classication o
the language itel (whih is itse unknown, and not
to a classication having its bases in th ystem
under obseration The signie of the ashion gar
ment en i thy are media td by the speech o the
magazine are not nessariy distributed ike the
signi o the languag, sin thy do not always
hae the same lngth (here a word, thre a sentence
In the rst case, that o the isologi systems, the
signied has no materialization other than its typica
signir one annot thereore handle it except by
imposing on it a metalanguage One can for instance

4
 S Y  A G M A  D S Y S  E M
he Hghway Co  a fun n rel life are aated
by lng stretches evid f signicatin fragment 
rads r stret); ne culd thn ak aut yn
tagms which are temrarily) ed7

11125 Th combinaiv consins Once th sn

tagmatic unit are dene fr eac system thre
reman th task f ding the rules whch dtemne
their cminatn and arangement alng the syn
tagm; the mnemes in languag the vaus gament
in a given s he dshe in a menu th radsign
alng a stret succed each ther in an er whc
emans subjec t cerain cntaints t cmbina
tin f te sgn  free but ts freedm wic i
what eech mean remain uder uevisi
ch  wy let t  stated nce me n mu
nt cnfue the yntagm wth the syntax) n fact th
arrangment  he very cndin f the sytagm
he syntagm s any et f heterfunctnal sgns; i
is always a least) bnary an t tw terms are 
a rlatn f recrcal cntning Mikus)7
Svral mdel f cmbnatve cnstan that s f
th 'lgic f ign) cn  imagned; we hall ct
here a xamls th three ty f relatin whic
accng t Hjlmslev tw syntagmatic un can
enter int when they are cntguu  a relatn f
soidai wen hey necesaly imly each the
i) f sipl impcion, when n ml th ther
wthut city; ii) f combinaion wen neithr
imle the t he cmbnatve cntants a
ed by the laguage but 'ec cles wt
them n vaying degres thee eman theefr
me feedm in the ascatn f yntagmatic unit
 far as languag is cnceed akbsn a inted
 E L E  E N T S O  S E  O L O G Y
ut that te seaker njoys in combining linguistic
units a fredm which increases as h asses frm
th honeme t the ntence: the frdm t cn-
stuct aradigms of hnemes is nil since the ce is
e estabishd by the languag; the freedm t gu
hnmes int mnemes is limitd fr there ae
'laws for gveing the cratin of wrds; the fre
dm to cmbin veral wrds int a sentence is
real althug circmscrid by th syntax and in
sme cases by submissin t crtain steryes; the
feedm to combine sentencs is the gratst f all
fr it n lnger admits f cnstraints at th lvel f
yntax (the cnstaints rgarding th mntal c
ernce f the discurse are n lngr f a linguistic
rder).
Syntagmatic freedom is clarly rlated t cetain
alato fato  tre are robabilities f saturatin
f cetain syntactic frms by certain cntents. The
verb to a can nly  satuated by a rduced
numr f subjects; witin a certain st f clths  a
sirt is unavidably turatd by a bluse a swetr
r a jacket etc. This henmenn is calld atal
it is ossible t imagine a uely fal lxin wic
wud vide instead f te meaning f ec wrd
th set of othr wrds whic culd calys it accrd-
ing  ssibilities whic are of curse variable  the
smallest dgre f rbability would crrend to a
tic zne f sc (Valle nclan: e tide
him who ds nt have the courage t jin tw wrds
which ad never en united).
 ett a dta of tagmatc ut:
A rmark by Saussure suggsts that it is caus signs
rcur that language is sble cf. upa 13 Alng

70
 S Y N T G M N D   T M
th syntagmatic chain we  in n a ctain
numr f intica uns; th itin f the sgns
is, wv, crct y distance hnmna 
twn intica un his m as us t sa
tistca inguistics, or macingustcs, which is
ssniay a ingustics f th synagm, wihut any
rfrnc t manng W hav sn hw na t
sch h sntagm was statisica ngusics is a
ngustics f th vai fms f sch Lvi
Stauss) h synagmac sanc f inica unis
is nt, hwv, ny a m f mac-ingustics;
this istanc can  acia in systic tms a
rettin which ccus to sn ing ithr a
thcay cu  thicay cmmn)
an thn cms an mnt f th cnntativ ce

II13 T  S TM

II Similarity and dissimilaity; dierence: he

systm cnstituts th scnd axis f th anguag
Saussur has sn it in th sha of a sis f ass
ciativ s, sm tin y an anity f sun
(eucation, saturation) sm y an anty n man
ng education pbringig). Each  s a st f
tnia tms sinc ny n f hm is actuaiz
in th snt scus) Saussue insists n he w
term h susttus ths f word whch s a syn
tagmatc ui), f, h says 'as sn as w us "t
nsa f w, th ia f a systm is ught t
mn In, u atnn a t th sysm n
th suy f any s f signs accay aays tsti
s t Sausuan nunc th sch f Bm
, f instanc is uctant t cnsi asscatv

7
 S Y N T G M N D S Y S T 
anoh van fao a uly ntal tm
boaly sakng, n t ostn of I an a I s
n a commn ostv) lment, but n / t
coms a enta lmnt t s thfo e
anc hch, whle lmtng Sausss statmnt,
kees t tu;7 th manng stl en n an aiu/
aiu aton, hch ks only th dnce 
tn two thngs78
hs conguaton s qustonabl, howve what
v Saussu thought), n th semoogcal systms,
n wc the matt s nt oignally sgncant, an
n whch, consquntly, th unts coms  o
baby  a sv at wch s th  u of th
sgncaton) an a nta at, th vaant n a
ho/ong , the vstmntay manng vas
a the lmnts hch vs that w a ally
alng th a sgncant unt but th aagm
nv als t anythng but the qualfyng lmnt
(ong/ho) h th ss sut) s k a
ost alu h asuty nta valu of the
language s thefo oabl only f w man th
atculat langua n the sconay systms ch
ev fom non-sgncant usags), th languag s
mu, s to sk t os cntan a nta
 eement hat s, u langug) at th ev of th
aants, but als somthng ostv, at th v f
the suots
1132 Th oppoiion Th ntna aangmnt
f th tms n an asscatv  agmatc l s
usualy call  at last n lngustcs, an m 
csly, n honogy  an opoiin hs s nt a
y goo enmnaton, f on th on han t 
 uposs too much te antonymc chaact of th

73
 E L E M E N T O   E M  O O G 
paradigmatic rlatio Caiau would ve pe
ferred eao, ad jelmslev oeao and on t
oter and, it seems to cote a inay eatin,
au ic ere is  ctainy ta it is t fun-
dation of all semiologcal paaigms We sall, w-
vr, kep te wrd, since it is acceptd.
Te types of oppsition are vey vaied, as we sall
see u i its relations wit t plane of cntent, a
ppsitio, watv i may e, alway apeas as a
homooY as we ave already indicatd, aprps of
te commuati test: te 'lep from oe em of
te oppositio t  oter accompanies t 'lep
from oe signied to te te it is to rpect te
dieetial caracter of t systm tt one must
alwys ink of te relatio etwe signie and
sigied i terms, o simply of analg, ut f at
ls a furtend mlgy.
Bsies te leap fm ne tm t t ter is
douly altenting: t ppiti etween 
pe atug vey mll p cannt e split into
idnite inteediat staes a appoximate sud
twn and p cann in any way fe t an inter
mediate sustace etwee ee d oe tere are
two prall leaps: te oppsition is stil in t a
o-o category. We again nd te principle of
direc wic is t ftio f ppsitio: it
is is principle wic must inspir te nalysis f e
socitive spere or to del it te ppsitin ca
oly mea to srve te tins of similaity or
dieence wic may exi etween  tes f te
ppositions, tt i, quite pecisey, t classify tem
1 he aao of oppoo We kw
a since uman language is duly aicuted, i

74
 S Y N T  M  N D S Y S T E M
compss two sts of opposton th stnctv
ppostons twn phnms) n th sgncnt
opptns (twn monms) tzkoy hs
sggs  son of th sntv pposons
whh J nn hs   pt n tn
to h gnnt opsons n th ngg  t
th st gn smg nts  n t th
snc nts of th ngg thn to ts phonoogl
nt w sh gv h ntns sston,
fo vn f t nnot  sy pp (ssqntly)
to h sog oppons t hs th vn-
g of ngng o o notc th mn poms
ps y th stt f opstos9 A st sgh
hn n pss fm  hnogl to  smntc
systm th ppostons n th t  nnm
 snc ch sgn sms   opps to l
th oths;  pnc of csscton s poss,
hwv f on choss s  g  yoogy of h
reltions beween he similr elemen nd he dis-
similar elemen of he oosition. hs ntnu
otns th fowng ts of oppston  whch cn
so  comnd wth h oth

A Oosons assied oring o heir reaions

wih he whoe of he sysem
A  Blaera and mlilaera oositions. n th
oppostns th comon mn twn wo tms,
o ss fo ompsn s not fon n ny of th
th oppostons of th co ier oositions
 on th cony s fun n oh oppostons of
th co milaer oosiions. L s tk th
wn Ln ph th pposton of th gs
EF s t cs th common lt F s no

75
 E  E M E N T S O S E M O L O G Y
ds t actually xist, but udr crtai cditis
it ca b mad t appar)85 i thlgy, hr
LviStrauss cul cmpar th ti f maa t it
(.
(. . . th
th pr prpr fuc
fucti
ti
 f
f th
th zr
zr ph
ph
m
m is "
b psd
psd t th absc f th ph
phm
m . . Simi-
larly it culd b said . . . that th fucti f tis
f th maa typ is t b pps t th absc
f sigicati ithut ivlvig i islf ay par
ticular sigicati)86 ally i rhtric, hr
carrid  t h ctativ pla, th absc 
rhtrical sigirs cstituts i its tur a stylistic
sig
sigiir
r.. 8 
B.2. Eqen sns  ths ppsitis
hs rlati uld i lgic b a rlati f x-
tririty, th t trms ar quivalt, that is t
say that ty cat b csidrd as th gati
ad h armati f a pculiarity (privativ ppsi-
tis: i f/fee th is ithr mark r absc
f mark. Ths ppsitis ar smatically th ms
umrus, v if th laguag, fr cmys sak
ft attmpts t rplac quipllt ppsitis by
privativ
privati v ppsitis rst caus i t lattr th
rlati bt similarity ad dissimilarity is ll
balacd ad scd bcaus hy bl us t build
prprtial sris such as e/eess n/
ntss tc hras sn/re hich is a
quiplt
quiplt ppiti
ppiti has
has  drivati
drivati
.. 8

 Ostns ss rn  h xen 

hr erntn ve
l Cnsn sns. This i th cas f th sig
ids hich ws hav dirt siirs: je)
nge/(ns) ngens th rst prs f th sigu
 S T  G     S 

ar and that of t pura hav dirnt signirs, i
Frnch, in a vrs, tnss and mods
C2 Oppositions whih an be eliminate or netr
ie. This is t cas of th signids whic do ot
aways hav dirt sgirs, so that th two tms
o th pposition
pposition can somtims
somtims b idntica: to th
smantic opposition thir person singlarthir per
son plral thr corrspond sinirs which ar at
o tim dirnt nit/nissent at othrs phontic
ay idntica mange/mangent
11134 Semiologial oppositions What may cm
of ths tys of oppositon
oppositon in smioogy? It is
i s natur
ay much too ary to t, for th paradigmatic
pan  a nw systm cannot  anaysd without a
broad invntory. Nothing provs that th typs aid
down by Trutzkoy and paty9 adptd by Canti
au coud conc systms otr tha anguag:
w typs of opposition ar conciva, spciay
if o is prpard to dpar from t binary mod
W sha, hwvr, attmpt to sktch hr a co
frntation twn th typs of Trutzkoy ad
Cantinau and what can b known ut two vry
irnt smioica systms:
systms: th Highway Cod
ad th fashion systm.
In th Highway Cod w sha nd mutatra
proportiona oppositions (for instanc, a thos which
ar buit n a variation of coou withi th oppsi
tion of circ and triang)
triang) privat oppositions (whn
an addd mark maks th maing of a circ vary
for instanc) and constant oppositions (th sigis
aways hav drnt signirs) but nithr quipo
nt nor spprssi oppsitions is conmy is

79
 E  E  
 T S F S     L  G Y
unrsanale th Highway Ce mst  im-
meiatey and unamiguously egible i it is to
prvent accidens; thereor it eliminates tos
opposiins which need the longst time to  nder-
so, eihr caus thy are not rdcile to propr
paraigms (eqipolent oppositions) r cae thy
oer a choice of two ignied fr a ingle signer
(sppressible oppositins).
On th contrary in the fasin ytm90 hic
tn t plymy  ncoutr al typ of pp
iion xcept f curse bitera and constant
oppoiion hoe eect ou  to increase the
particlarity and th rigidity of th ystem
Semiology in the propr sense of the or at i
a a cience cmprising all systm of igns il
therefor  al to make god use of th genera
dsribtion of e ypes of ppsiion rougou 
ari
ariu
uss sys
syst
tm
m  an servation
servation hic
 hichh would a
a
o ojct at the ee of th languag ny But a
al th extension f emiological rearc il pr
ably lead to th study (which may entualy pre
fruiless) of erial  an not nly ppositional para-
digmatic reaion fr it i ot crtain  oce
cnronted it compex object deeply ie 
ome matter and in arious ag  i  ae 
reduc the fucining f th meaning to the altea-
ive of  polar ement or  te ppitio of a
mark and a er degr This ads u t rmin t
radr once mr tat the st xd uetin co-
ncted ih paradig is tat f t inary prncip
111.3. Bnasm T iportac a te impicity 
th privativ oppoitin madunmad ic
i by deniti an atati a d   

80
  Y N A G M A N D  Y   E M
tion whther all known osiion huld nt  r
ducd to th inary atte (tht i, ed n th
resenc r asnc of a mark, in othr word,
whether the inar rinile did not reect a uni-
versal fact; nd on the oter hand, whether, being
universal, it might not hav a natual founation.
Aut th rst oin, it is certain that binary
at ar vry frquently nuntrd. t i a
rinile whih h n aknledgd fr nturie,
that iormation an  tranmited by means of a
binary ode, and most of th articia cod which
have n invntd y v diernt soitie hav
en binary, from th 'uh tlgrah (and ntal
th takng dum of th Congo tris, which has tw
notes) to th morse alhat and th contmrar
devlomnt of 'digitalism,
'digitalism, or
o r alteativ c with
'digits in comuters and cytics. Hovr, if w
leave th lan f the 'logtchniques, to cm ack
t that of th ystem which ar not articil, which
conc us here th univrsalit of th inar rin
il aar far ls cetin. Paradxcall, Sa Sa
sur himlf never did conceiv th assiativ eld
as inar for him, the
t he term of a eld
e ld ar niter it
in numr, nor termind in thir orer 91 'A tr
is lik th cenr of a constellaion, the oint whr
other cornat trms, th sum f which i in
dnite, cnvrg 9 he nly rtrictin imd y
Sausure nce h lexional aradigm, whih of
our ar nit ries t i honolo wih ha
fud attntion on th inarim of languag (onl
at the level of th scond articultion, it i true); i
thi binarim asolute? akon think o 93 accord
ing t him, th hontic sytem of all languages could
 descrid y means of a doze distinive fatur,


 E  E M E N    E M I  G Y
all  tm binar that is to sa eihr present o
absnt or as the case ma be irrlevan. his inar
universalim as en uesioned and ualied b
Martin: 94 binar pposiions ar the majori not
th totali te universalit f binarism is ot cer-
tain. Qustiond in phonolog uneplored in seman
ics inarism is he grea unknown in miolog
woe pes of opposiion have no e ben outlind.
T account for cmplex opposiions one can of cour
resort t t mdel rought o light b linguisics and
wic cnsiss in a cmplicaed alteaive or four-
ermd opposiion: tw polarized terms h or ha
a mied term h and ha and a neural term
neher th no tha he opposions althou e
ar more ible than h privaive psitions will
robabl not ave u frm having to pose th problm
 te sera and not onl ppsiive paradigms e
univrsalit f binarim is not t founded.
Nr is i naturalness (and ths is the scond point
in wic it las itslf oen t discsion). t is ver
empting to found e general binarism  th cds
n phsiolcl data inasuch as i is likel at
nurocrbral percpion also funcions in an allr
noting wa and paricularl sight and earing wic
sem to work b means of a review of alteaivs95
Tus would b labrated from nature to scie a
vast dgital no analgical translation of te world
ut nothing of all thi i certain n fact and to cn
clude bri on te qusion of binarism we ma
wondr weher his is not a classicaion wic is
t necessar and transitor: in which case binarism
also wul  a metalanguag a paricular taonom
mean to be swpt awa  histr afer aving
en tru to it for a mmen.

8
 S Y NA G  A N D S Y SE 
1136 Ner In orde to nish with the
principal phenomena pertaining to the sstem, a word
has to  said at er This term means
in lingistics the phenomenon whereby a eeant
opsiion oses it relevance, that is, ceases to 
signicant In general, the neutralization of a sys-
tematic pposition crs in response to th context:
it is herefore the syntagm which cancels out the
sstem, so t speak In phnology, for insance, the
opsiion tween two phonemes can  nllied as
a conseqence of the position f one f the terms in
the sken chain: in French, ther e is normaly an
opposition tween e and  when one of these terms
is at the end of a word j'mjms this opposi-
tion ceases to  relevant anywhere else: it is ne
tralized Conersely, the eeant opposition /0
se/e is neutralized at the end f a wod,
where one nd nl the sond   m e I
this case the two netralized featre are eunited
nder a single ond which is called rhhm
and which is witten with a capia ette: e/  = E;
/0=
In semantics, netralizatin ha en the object f
onl a few sondings since the semantic ystem is
not et established  J Dbois6 has obsered that a
semantic nit can lose is releant features in certin
sntagms arond 1872 in phrases sch as  m
  he rker  em  he me
m  h rer th parts of the
phrase can  commted whut altering the mea-
ing of the cmplex semiology nit.
In miolgy, we mst nce more wait fo a certain
nm of systems to be reconstrcted fore out-
lining a theory of neutraization. Some sstems wil
 E L E M E    E M  L  Y
ra radically xclud h hnomnn by raon
 i vry uro whc is h immdia and un-
abiguou undrsnding  a mall nmr o ign
 Highway C canno olra any nraliza
n Fahion n  cnrary wic a olymic
and vn anmic ndnci admi numrou
nuralizaion whra in n cas chandal rr
back   aid and weater   munains in
anr ca i will  osibl o ak o a chandal
u un weate or  sid  rlvanc chandal/
weater i l 97 h w ics ar aord ino
 kind  arcivm  h 'woolln y. W
y ay a la as ar  h miolgical yhsi
i ccd a is wn w disrgard  rbl
rid by  cnd ariculaion a o h urly
inciv uni a r i a nuralizaion whn
o ignir all undr  adng o a singl igni
d r vicvr or i will l  sil or 
igni o  nuralizd

To uul noion u  niond in connc

ion wi hi hnomnon.  rs is ha o 
eld o deral r ecurty margn h disrsal
ld is ad u o h varii in xcuion o a
uni  a onm r insanc as long as hs
varii do no rsul in an alraion in maning
a is as lng as hy o no becom rlvan varia
in); h 'dg   dirsal ld ar is margins
o sciy. Thi i a nion whic is no vy uul
in daling wih a ym in which  langag i
vy srong in h car sysm r insanc) bu valu
abl wn  ric 'sc mulilies h ooruniis
or dirnc in xcuion in h  sysm or
insanc w can sak o h disrsal ld o a
 E  E  E    M  L  G Y
spak that th nvironmntal world invads th
systm W might say that deology is th fom (in
Hjmsls sns of th word f th signids of
nnotation whil hetoc is th form of th on
notators

    EAAGAGE

n onnotiv smitis th signirs of th sond

systm ar onstitutd b th sins of th rst;
this is rvrsd in mtalanguag : thr th signi
d of th sond systm ar onstitutd b th
signs f th t Hjms has mad th notion of
mtalangag xpliit in th following way : it bing
undrst that an opeaton is a descpton foundd
on th ia ni that is to sa on-ontra
ditr (ohrnt xhastiv and simpl sinti
smiotis or mtalanga is an opration whras
nntati mitis is not t is vidnt that smi
olg for insan is a mtalanguag sin as a
sondrdr sstm it taks ovr a rst lanuag (or
languagbjt whih s th systm undr srutiny;
and thi systm-objt is sgned through th mta
languag of miolgy Th notion f mtalanguag
must not  onnd to sinti languags; whn
ordinar languag n ts denote state taks or a
systm f signifing bjs it oms an opration'
hat is a mtalanguag This is th as for instan
with th fahion magazin whih spaks' th signi
ations of garmns just as on spaks a languag;
this hwr is only idally spaking for magazins
do nt usually xhibt a purly dnotd disours so
that vntuall w dal hr with a omplx n-


 DNAIN A ND NNAIN
embe, here agage at t dotd ee  
metaagage bt here th metaagage   t
tr caght p i a proce of ootato 

 Cnnttin

2 nttin 
S : ti
I Sd = idlg

Mtlngug  Sd

 Rl Systm S Sd

4 NNAIN AN ALANUA

Nothig  prcip prev a metaagage from

becomig   t the agagebject of a e
metaagag th wod, or amp,  the
cae wih eioogy if t wre to be poke by
aoher cice. I oe agred to dee the oca
ciece a coheret, ehative ad pe a-
gag (Hjev pirica pricip that  a
pea ach ew ciec od th appear
a a w agag wich wod have a i objct
the meaagage whch precde it, hi beig
reced owar h rabjct which i at
e root of th dcripio the htoy of the
ocia cic wod h , i a e, a iachroy
o aaga, ad ach cic, icdig o
cor ioog, wod coa th  of i o
a i h p of  agage dind to pak
 T rv, whch i an inhr par f te
ra  o aaage aow  to qay
 a wc w g a r or o a mi
oog ovrconn in e ace o conoaio th


 ELMNTS OF SMIOOGY

whol of a soogc ys u reque, 

addn to th se systm n t (dnoe)
ngg hc  mst cse tke i e a system
 contan d t mngug o t ny
w  ppd t . W g   e,
wch h t pn  cnn s 
sger  th tem csider  t i-
ogs sp  sge; h eer ee  v
t bj unc  decpe  gg
 n pr i  ren t t \rI whc nat-
az r cce  g  th fs stem une
t sgner o te secon; b  bec  ma
pr b t er st c ren me
ngug

94
 E L E E N T S OF S E  I O L O G 
pays due aeio o sepaai he ea fom he
auae which akes i ove that is hat oe ives
o thei vey heeoeeiy a sucua iepeaio.
Fuhe hmoeeous i time : i picipe he
cpu must eimiae diachoic emes to the
utost it must coicide wih a stae f the sysem
 cosssectio of hisoy \ihout hee eei io
he theoetica debae wee sychoy ad dia
choy we sha oy say ha fom a opeative
poi of view he copus mus keep as cose as possibe
o he sychoic ses. A vaied bu empoay imied
cus wi theefoe be pefeabe o a aow copus
stetched ove a eth of ime ad if oe sudies
pess phemea fo isace a sampe of ews
papes which appeaed a the sae me w  pe
feabe  the u of a sie pape ove sevea yeas
e syse esabish hei w ychoy f thei
own accd  fashio o isace which chae
eve yea but f the othes oe must chse a shot
pei  time eve if e has t cmpete oe's
each by aig soudis i the diachoy These
iiia chice ae puey opeaive ad eviaby i
pa abia : it is impoibe o uess the sed a
which sysems wi ae sice the essetia aim o
eioica eseach that is what wi  foud ast
 a ay  pecisey o discove the sysems wn
paicua time he hisoy o foms
 NOTE

 'A concpt is ssurdy not  th, but nithr is it mrly

th conscosnss o  concpt A concpt i n intrumnt
nd  hstory, tht s,  bn o possbitis nd obstcs
nvovd n th word s xpncd (G. G rngr,
Mthodologie conomique p 23.)
: A dnr strssd by C vtrss, Anthropologe tru
turale p 58 Structural Anthropology tr by Cr Jcobson
nd Brk Gunst chop (Bsc Books, Nw York nd
ondon, 1963) pp 47-8
 hs tur hs bn notd (wth msgvn by M Cohn
(nstqu mo t idsm in Recherhe nter
nationale My 98 no 7)
• It should  notd tht th rst tion o th lnug
(langue)  txonomc : t is  principl of csscton.
i C nfra II.
e Acta linguitia I ,   p  5
  Hlmsv  Eai Lnguitque (Copnhgn, 1959)
pp  
a C infra I3
 C nfra II3
JO  mcnq d nys quntittv n lnguistiqu, n
tude de linguitiqe applique 2 Dir, p 3
 A. Mrtnt : lment de linguitique gnrale (Armnd
Con, 1960), p 3 lement of General Linguti tr by
Ezbth Pmr br  Fbr, 1964) pp 33
 C infra on th sntm, Ch 
 ussur, in R o, Le ource manucrite du Cour
de Linguitque gnrale (Droz, Mnrd 1957) p 
 C infra Ch IV
 R Jkobson 'Du spcts d ngg t du typs
dhsis, in ai de Linguitique gnrale (dtio d
Minut) 1963 p 5 hs s th scond p o Fundamental
o anguage (R Jkobn n M Hl, h Hu, 1956) C.
 Ebng, ingut unit (Mouton h Hgu 19 p 9

9
 NE
A artinet, A functional vew of language (xfrd Claren
dn Prs, 962) p 5
. Writing Degree Zeo.
 Essais de Linguistique gnale Chapter 9 This is a trans
latin f Shifters vebal categories and the Russian veb
(Russian Language Prjet Department f Slavi Languages
and Literature, Harvard niersity 957).
 W. Drszewski, Langue et Parle Odbitka z Pac
Filogisznych XLV (Warsaw 930), pp 4857
   erleauPnty, Phnomnologie de la Peception
945, p. 229. Phenomenology of Perception tr by Clin Smith
(Rutledge & Kegan Paul, in njuntin with the Humanities
Press ew rk 962), pp. 96-7
  erleauPnty, Eloge de la Philosophie (Gallimard
53)
21 G Granger, vnement et struture dans les sienes de
l'hmme, in Cahies de 'nstitut de sciene conomique
applique n 55 ay 957
 S F Braudel, Histire et sienes siales : la lngue
dure in Annales tDe 958
 Anthropologie tuctuale p. 20 tuctual Antho-
pology pp 208), and Les mathmatiqu de lhmme, in
sprit t 956.
 There neer is any premeditatin r even any meditatin
r reletin n frms, utside the at the asin f speeh,
exept an unnsius nnreative ativity : that f lassi
fying (Saussure in Gdel p. it p 58).
 Principes de Phonologie (tr by  Cantineau, 957 ed.).
· 9 
z Cf infra Ch V
2  Cf infa 11.43
 . P arlier : La ntin de signe () dans
 IV vangile in Revue des sciences philosophiques et
thologiques, 1959, 43 no. 3, pp. 434-48
 This was very learly exprs by St Augustine  A sign
is smething whih, in additn t the substane absrbed by
the sens, alls t mind f itself me ther thing
 Cf the shifters and the indiial symls supra 1.8
 H Walln De lacte d la pense, 942, pp 75-250
2 Althugh very udimentary, the analysis given here
supra 11, nerns the fom f the fllwing signis 
sign symbol index, signal
 The ase f the pitrial image shuld b set aside, f
the image is immediatey mmuniative if nt signiant.
1
  N D EX
ERM : 11 13  ; ode o : 11 135
xt endle : II I2

UNCONSCIOS  12 I
Un gncant and dtnctve : 11 2; yntagmatc  11 12
Uag : 1  5

VALE : 12; 115

aant comnatve : 1  6 II1 

WRTNG , and Idolect  I   7

ZERO DEGREE : 111

EECTED BIBIOGRAPY
A t o t rncal wok o Roland Bate wt t
date o t t aeaanc

 E D E G R  Z  R  D E  ' C R  T U R E
(euil 953)
MCHEET PR U-MME
(ollcton : va de Toujou o 9 e ,
95)
MTHGES
(eui 95 7)
SUR RCNE
(eui 96)
SSS CRTQUES
(ei 96)
MENTS DE SMGE'
Coao no  ei 96
RTQUE ET VRT
(euil 966)

I
TH THOR

Rlad Bah a r i  9 5 ad udd Fch

iau ad Claic a h ivriy of Pai. 
936 h foudd a h orbo h Group Thra
iqu fr a og i h augh Frch a
uivrii i Ruaia ad gyp afr hich h
jid h Cr Nai  a Rchch ciiqu
dvoig hif o rarch i iology ad ico
gy  94 7 Barh pubihd a ub of aric
o iay citici ad th au f riig i
omat, a Pari papr h ru by Maic
Nadau Th bca vuay Le De Zo e
Lcue, hich auchd hi carr a a criic. H
ook par i foudig h agazi The Poulae
ad ha b o of h ai advoca of h Brch
ia ca i Frac bid big o of h picipa
coaor o  ori of RobbGri ad
h noueau oman  corovry abou criici
hich ha brough hi io coic ih Profor
Rayod Picard ha of a ad hi a ky gur i
Frch irary dba
Road Bah i o irc d'ud i h Vh
cto of h co Paiqu d Hau ud hr
h ach a cour o h ocioogy of ig ybo
ad ociv rpraio.