Article published in:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 5:1/2 (1978) ► pp. 121148
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Hayashi, Tetsuro
1984. Edward Sapir in Japan. Historiographia Linguistica 11:3  pp. 461 ff. Crossref logo
Sanders, C.
2006.  In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics,  pp. 769 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Translations (in chronological order, 1928–1976)

2.1Translations (in chronological order, 1928–1976)

01. Gengogaku Genron [Principles of linguistics] Transl, by Hideo Kobayashi. Tokyo: Oka Shoin 1928, 20* + [3] + 574 pp. 2 maps. [First Jap. transl. of CLG (2nd ed., Paris: Payot, 1922). The vol. consists of the following sections: Editors’ [i. e., Bally & Sechehaye’s] preface (1*–8*), translator’s preface (9*–16*), table of contents ([1]–[3]), transl. of the Fr. text (1–478), marginal notes (479–82), abbreviations (483–84), bibliography (485–87), appendix, including maps (489–501), detailed index of names and subjects (502–68), and an analysis of the book’s contents (569–74). – As is obvious from the above description, this book includes numerous additions by the translator, several of which do not reappear in the later translations (cf. items 02 and 05 below). (The official date of publication is 15 January 1928, although the book actually appeared on 25 December 1927.)]Google Scholar
02. Gengogaku Genron [Principles of linguistics] Transl. by Hideo Kobayashi. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 1940, 14* + 332 pp. [Thoroughly rev. ed. of K’s 1928 transl. (see above). This text was re-edited in 1941 and 1950, with altogether 23 printings appearing by 1970. Tr.’s introd. (1*–14*).]Google Scholar
03. Saussure – Kozoshugi no genten [Saussure: Roots of structuralism]. By Georges Mounin Transl. by Yoshio Fukui, Akira Ito, and Keizaburo Maruyama. Tokyo: Taishukan 1970 [Jap. transl. of G. Mounin, Saussure, ou le structuraliste sans le savoir (Paris: Seghers, 1968), a book of a more popular nature which includes text selections from the CLG.]Google Scholar
04. Gengogaku Josetsu [Introduction to general linguistics] Transl, by Kimio Yamanouchi. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo 1971, XVIII + 252 + 20 pp. (7th printing 1976.) [Jap. transl, of FdS, Deuxième Cours de linguistique générale: Introduction, ed. by Robert Godel (Geneva: Droz, 1957) = CFS 15.3[6]-103 (1957). – The vol. consists of R. Godel’s preface to the Jap. transl. (i–v), Godel’s original preface (vii–xi), table of contents (xiii–xvi), explanations of the conventions used by the translator (xvii–xviii), transl. of the Fr. text (1–176), notes and variant readings (178–226), translator’s commentary, “On FdS” (229–50), postscript, incl. acknowledgments (251f.), followed by an index of names and subjects (1*–20*). – Cf. Willem A. Grootaers’ critical review of 1972, and Yamanouchi’s reply (items 93 and 101 below).]Google Scholar
05. Ippan Gengogaku Kogi [Course in general linguistics] Transl. by Hideo Kobayashi [on the basis of CLG, 4th ed. (Paris: Payot 1949)] Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, XXVIII + 495 pp. (1st ed. 1972; 5th printing 1977.) [Newly rev. ed. of K’s 1940 transl. of CLG (then based on the 3rd ed. of the Fr. original [Paris: Payot,1931]). The vol. consists of: Translator’s preface (v–xii) and commentary (xiii–xxviii), the (original) editors’s prefaces to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd eds. of CLG (1–6), transl. of the Fr. text (9–327), variant readings (329–31), index of subjects (334–46), brief index of names (447), and an index of quotations’ of linguistic examples from Fr., incl. Old French (354–55), G., OHG and MHG, 0E, Lat., Greek, Slavic and in fact IE reconstructions (348–67). There follow detailed notes by the translator (371–475), which take into account recent scholarship in the field, declension and conjugation tables of PIE, Skt, Gk and Hebrew (477–81), and an index of subjects and names of the translator’s notes (483–88). Table of contents (489–95).]Google Scholar
06. Saussure Ippan Gengogaku Kogi: Kochu [Saussure’s Course of general linguistics: Critical edition]. Transl. [on the basis of CLG/D] by Kimio Yamanouchi. Tokyo: Jiritsu Shobo 1976, LIII + 513 + 36 pp. [An entirely new transl. of the CLG inspired by Tullio De Mauro’s Corso (3rd ed., Bari: Laterza, 1970). To the Jap. transl. of the CLG (pp. 3–285) Y. has added the following items: Table of contents (ii–vii), explanations of conventions used in the transl. (viii), and translations, from the Italian, of De Mauro’s Introd. to CLG/D (xi–xxxiii), introd. to the 3rd It. ed. and addenda to the notes (xxxiv–lix), bibliographical and critical notes on FdS (384–96), notes and comments on the CLG (398–510), and a translator’s postscript (511–13). Finally, there is a list of bibliographical abbreviations (16*–36*) and an index of subjects and authors (2*–15*).]Google Scholar

2.2General Evaluations of Saussure’s Linguistic Theory

07. Chino, Eiichi 1973Gengogaku no zento [The future of linguistics]”. GS 1:10.37–45. [In this rather general discussion the author refers to FdS’s concepts of langage, langue, snàparole and the synchrony/diachrony dichotomy.]Google Scholar
08. Chino, Eiichi 1978Soviet gengogaku to Saussure [Soviet linguistics and S.]”. Gengo 7:3.38–43. [Ch. discusses the impact of FdS on Soviet linguistics, on the one hand, and the influence of J. Baudouin de Courtenay on FdS, on the other.]Google Scholar
09. Fukumoto, Kinosuke 1966Ferdinand de Saussure to gendai doitsugogaku – toku ni Trier, Weisgerber, Glinz o chushin ni shite [FdS and present-day German linguistics, with special reference to (the work of Jost) Trier, (Leo) Weisgerber, (and Hans) Glinz]”. Doitsu-bungaku Ronko/Forschungsberichte zur Germanistik (Osaka-Kobe: Han-shin Doitsubungakkai) 8.53–66 (G. summary, p.66). [F. analyzes FdS’s impact on 20th-century German linguistics; in particular, he focusses on 3 distinct areas of influence of FdS’s teachings, all of which ultimately surrounding his theory of language as a system of signs, namely (a) the langue/parole/ langage distinction, (b) the question of method of language description, and (c) the concept of value in relation to the concept of linguistic field.]Google Scholar
10. Hasegawa, Kinsuke 1972Seiseibunpo ni okeru ‘kozo’ [‘Structure’ in generative grammar]”. Gengo 1:3.186–93. [In this brief article on TG H. points to 2 defects in FdS’s linguistic theory, namely, that it ignores phonetic and semantic substance of language, and that it lacks sentence-structure rules.]Google Scholar
11. Hattori, Shirô 1957aGengo-katei-setsu ni tsuite [On ‘language-process-theory’ ]”. KK 26:1.1–18. [H. contradicts Motoki Tokieda’s (1900–1967) criticism of FdS’s linguistic theory. Cf. Tokieda’s Gengogaku Genron (Tokyo, 1941), pp. 57–83, and his reply to Hattori (item 49), but also Nos. 55 and 56.]Google Scholar
12. Hayashi, Tetsuro 1974Whitney to de Saussure [Whitney and de Saussure]”. Eigo-Seinen / The Rising Generation 120:4.167. [A brief note on William Dwight Whitney’s (1827–94) influence on FdS.]Google Scholar
13. Higuchi, Masayuki 1974Saussure ni kansuru oboegaki [Some notes on S.]”. Fukuoka Daigaku Jinmon Ronshu (Fukuoka City: Fukuoka Univ.) 6:2/3.1085–1105.Google Scholar
14. Izui, Hisanosuke 1963Recent Trends in Japanese Linguistics”. Trends in Modern Linguistics (on the occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 27 August – 1 September 1962) ed. by Christine Mohrmann, Frederick Norman, and Alf Sommerfelt, 38–58. Utrecht & Antwerp: Spectrum Pubs. [Although I. speaks of FdS’s “enormous influence upon linguistic views and grammatical treatment in Japan, particularly in the field of Japanese studies” (p. 54), he hardly adduces any evidence for this claim.]Google Scholar
15. Iwakura, Tomotada 1978Aru Saussure zo – De Mauro no shiten [An image of S.: De Mauro’s viewpoint]”. Gengo 7:3.22–30. [I. summarizes De Mauro’s evaluation of FdS as presented in CLG/D, and subsequently touches upon De M’s position in present-day Saussurean studies.]Google Scholar
16. Kadomae, Shinichi 1956Gengo-kcatei-setsu to ‘langue’, ‘parole’ [(Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory and langue / parole] ”. Tenri Daigaku Gakuho (Tenri, Nara: Tenri Univ.) 8:2.1–16.Google Scholar
17. Kadomae, Shinichi 1957aGengogaku no taikei to Gengo-katei-setsu [The system of linguistics and (Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory]. Ibid. 9:1.1–21.Google Scholar
18. Kadomae, Shinichi 1957bGengo-katei-setsu to kozoshugi-gengo-kan [(Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory and the structuralist view of language]”. Yamanobe no michi (Tenri, Nara: Dept. of Japanese Literature, Tenri Univ.) 3.38–52. [In this and the 2 proceeding articles K. analyzes Tokieda’s linguistic theory critically, defending Saussurean and post-Saussurean views of language.]Google Scholar
19. Kadomae, Shinichi 1958Gengo-dankai-kan – kaishaku-bunpo no koyo to genkai [The concept of language stage: The utility and limitations of interpretative grammars]”. Ibid. 4. 1–16.Google Scholar
20. Kamei, Takashi 1970Saussure e no izanai [An invitation to Saussure]”. Chuo-Koron 85:11.174–87.Google Scholar
21. Kazama, Rikizo 1951Gengo Kenkyu no taisho – Gengo-katei-setsu ni tsuite no hitotsu no gimon [The object of linguistic studies: A doubt (raised) concerning (Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory]”. KK 20:6.41–63.Google Scholar
22. Kobayashi, Hideo 1937 Gengogaku-tsuron [An outline of linguistics]. Tokyo: Sanseido, III + 265 pp. (2nd rev. ed. 1941, V + 286 pp.; extensively rev. 3rd ed. 1947, VIII + 268 pp.) [As the author himself declares, this book is imbued with Saussurean ideas. Together with K’s (1928) transl. of the CLG (cf. item 01 above), this introd. to linguistics contributed in many ways to the growing interest of Jap. scholars in FdS.]Google Scholar
23. Kobayashi, Hideo 1942Gengogakugenron chushaku (I) [A commentary on the CLG: (Part) I]”. GK 10/11.69–124. [A detailed analysis of particular passages in the CLG (3rd ed., 1931). – Part II was never published.]Google Scholar
24. Kobayashi, Hideo 1978Nippon ni okeru Saussure no eikyo [S’s influence in Japan]”. Gengo 7:3.44–49. [In an autobiographical manner the author reports how he chanced to encounter FdS and translated the CLG, and how subsequently this translation as well as his own book (see item 22 above), inspired by FdS’s teachings, influenced Jap. linguistic scholarship. – Large portions of Sect.1.3 (above) are indebted to this and other writings by Kobayashi.]Google Scholar
25. Maeda, Hideki 1978aSaussure to ‘Gengo-katei-setsu’ [S. and (Tokieda’s) ‘language-process-theory’]”. Gengo 7:3.50–55. [M. tries to clarify why, despite a general agreement between FdS’s and Tokieda’s ideas concerning the fundamentals of language, their procedures of language analysis differ substantially.]Google Scholar
26. Maeda, Hideki 1978bSaussure hogo bunken ichiran [A list of Saussure studies in Japan]”. Ibid., 58–60. [This listing of altogether 62 publications which bear on Saussurean studies and/or Tokieda’s Language-process-theory, largely founded on his criticism of FdS’s doctrine, fails to supply details such as place of publication of (frequently obscure) journals, pagination, and other pieces of bibliographical information.]Google Scholar
27. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1974Merleau-Ponty to Saussure – kataru shutai e no kanki [Merleau-Ponty and S.: The speaker and (the concept of) structure]”. GS 2:8/9.192–204. [M. tries to demonstrate that, despite the disapproval of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s (1908–61) theory of language by scholars such as G. Mounin, his ideas are surprisingly similar to those held by FdS.]Google Scholar
28. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1977aSaussure ‘ippan gengogaku kogi’ [Saussure: CLG]”. Gengo 6:5.14–15. [A brief, general comment on the CLG.]Google Scholar
29. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1977bSaussure no shakai-gengogaku [Saussurean sociolinguistics]”. Nihongo to Bunka – Shakai 2: Kotoba to Shakai [Japanese language and culture – Society 2: Language and society], ed. by Kikuo Nomoto and Masamichi Nobayashi, 253–76. Tokyo: Sanseido. [In this introductory essay M. discusses pre-Saussurean linguistics and FdS’s linguistic theory with regard to sociolinguistic notions.]Google Scholar
30. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1978 “ ‘Ippan Gengogaku Kogi’ no kihon gainen [Fundamental concepts in the CLG]”. Gengo 7:3.2–13. [A commentary on fundamental concepts such as the langue/langage/parole distinction, syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic relations, synchrony vs. diachrony as well as the dichotomies of form/substance in language, signifie/signifiant of the language sign, etc., and also the ‘arbitraire’.]Google Scholar
31. Miyake, Koh 1972aGengogaku meicho kaidai – Saussure [Commentary on good linguistics books: Saussure]”. Eigogaku to gengogaku [English philology and linguistics], by K. Miyake, 15–21. Tokyo: Sanseido. [M. discusses FdS’s linguistic theory as presented in the CLG.]Google Scholar
32. Miyake, Koh 1972bSaussure no ningen to gakumon [Saussure, man and work]”. Op. oit., 37–43. [A general survey of FdS’s life and work. – This article was previously published in 1970 in the journal “Eigo Bungaku Sekai” (Tokyo: Eichosha).]Google Scholar
33. Miyake, Koh 1975Soji to sodo to kachi – Saussure/Sapir/Bloomfield [Similarity, identity, and value: Saussure/Sapir/Bloomfield]”. GS 3:6.180–88. [M. compares FdS’s concepts with those in the work of Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and Leonard Bloomfield (1887–1949).]Google Scholar
34. Nomura, Hideo 1968Saussure no kaishaku ni tsuite – Gengo-katei-setsu o megutte [On interpreting S.; concerning (Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory]”. Bungaku 36:2.53- to 67. [N. shows M. Tokieda’s distorted interpretation of FdS’s doctrine.]Google Scholar
35. Nomura, Hideo 1973a “ ‘Ippan Gengogaku Kogi’ no ‘Jobun’”. Misuzu 15:8 (= No.166), 16–26. [M. tries to elucidate the hidden meaning of Bally and Sechehaye’s preface to the CLG.]Google Scholar
36. Ohashi, Yasuo 1973aSaussure to Nippon (Jo) [Saussure and Japan (Part I)]”. Ibid., 2–15.Google Scholar
37. Ohashi, Yasuo 1973bSaussure to Nippon (Ge) [S. and Japan (Part II)]”. Misuzu 15:9 (= No.167), 12–22. [In these two articles 0. first delineates the importance of H. Kobayashi’s transl. of the CLG, and then reviews the Hattori-Tokieda controversy over FdS’s linguistic theory, with particular reference to the Saussurean concepts of ‘entité’ and ‘langue’ (cf. Tokiéda 1941 and 1957, and Hattori 1957 a + b).]Google Scholar
38. Okada, Noriko 1967Gengo-katei-setsu no saikento [(Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory re-examined]”. Riso No.414. 37–47.Google Scholar
39. Okitsu, Tatsuro 1976 Gengogaku-shi [History of linguistics]. (= Eigogaku-taikei [Outline of English linguistics], ed. by Akira Ota, 14.) Tokyo: Taishukan, XIII + 253 pp. [0. frequently refers to FdS in this historical survey of Western linguistics. In fact, he devotes an entire chap. to FdS’s ideas (pp. 70–85) and has a brief section on ‘Chomsky and Saussure’ (179–80), but there is no mention of FdS’s impact on Jap. scholarship in linguistics.]Google Scholar
40. Okubo, Tadatoshi 1951Tokieda Motoki shi no Saussure hihan o saikentosuru – Tokieda ‘Gengo-katei-kan’ hihan no josetsu to shite [Mr. Motoki Tokieda’s criticism of Saussute re-examined; by way of a critical introduction to Mr. Tokieda’s Language-process-theory]”. Bungaku 19:6.78–87. [Cf. Tokieda’s (1951) reply – item 48 below.]Google Scholar
41. Okubo, Tadatoshi 1952Gengo no honshitsu o motomete – Saussure gakusetsu hatten no ue ni [In search of the essence of language: A contribution to the development of S’s doctrine]”. Kokugo no Chikara 4.2–4.Google Scholar
42. Sato, Kiyoji 1948Gengo-katei-setsu ni tsuite no gimon [Some doubts concerning (Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory]”. Kokugogaku 1:2.17–30. [Cf. Tokieda’s (1949) reply – item 47 below.]Google Scholar
43. Shirai, Koji, and Keizaburo Maruyama 1973Naze gengo o tou ka – Saussure to gendai no gengoron [Why question (the concept of) ‘language’? -Saussure and modern views of language]”. GS 1:10. 180–93. [Shirai, the philosopher, and Maruyama, the linguist, discuss, in the form of a dialogue, the impact of FdS on modern linguistic ideas.]Google Scholar
44. Sugeta, Shigeaki 1978Saussure kenkyu ni okeru kihon tosho [Basic books for the study of Saussure]”. Gengo 7:3.56–57. [A brief comment on R. Godel’s Sources manuscrites du CLG de FdS (Geneva: Droz, 1957; 2nd printing, 1969) and CLG/D.]Google Scholar
45. Tajima, Hiroshi, and Hiroshi Ohama 1975Charles Bally”. Gengo 4:11.86–90 [in Jap.]. [The authors present Ch. Bally (1865–1947) as a pupil of FdS.]Google Scholar
46. Tokieda, Motoki (1900–1967) 1941Ferdinand de Saussure no gengoriron ni taisuru hihan [A criticism of FdS’s linguistic theory]”. Kokugogaku Genvon [Principles of Japanese Linguistics], by M. Tokieda, 57–83. Tokyo: Iwanamishoten. (25th printing 1969.) [In this chap, of his voluminous book T. devotes 26 pages to a flat disapproval of FdS’s theory, in particular his concept of ‘langue’, advocating instead his own Language-process-theory.]Google Scholar
47. Tokieda, Motoki (1900–1967) 1949Sato Kiyoji shi no ‘Gengo-katei-setsu ni tsuite no gimon’ ni kotaete [In reply to Mr. Kiyoji Sato’s ‘Some doubts concerning Language-process-theory’]”. Kokugogaku 2:4.70–74. [T’s reply to Sato’s (1948) criticism – cf. item 42 above.]Google Scholar
48. Tokieda, Motoki (1900–1967) 1951Gengo no shakai-sei ni tsuite – Okubo Tadatoshi shi no ‘Gengo-katei-kan hihan no josetsu’ ni taisuru kotae o mo fukumete [On the social nature of language: In reply to Mr. Tadatoshi Okubo’s ‘A critical introduction to Language-process-theory’]”. Bungaku 19:9.75–84. [A reply to Okubo (1951) – cf. item 40 above.]Google Scholar
49. Tokieda, Motoki (1900–1967) 1957Hattori Shirô kyoju no ‘Gengo-katei-setsu ni tsuite’ o yomu [In reply to Shirô Hattori’s ‘On Language-process-theory’]”. KK 26:4.24–29. [T. refutes Hattori’s criticism of his linguistic theory, thereby discrediting the Western tradition of linguistic science in general, and FdS’s theory in particular. – Cf. Hattori (1957a) above.]Google Scholar
50. Tsuyuzaki, Hatsuo 1972Saussure riron no genkai to sono yuko-sei [The limitations and the validity of S’s doctrine]”. Osaka Shogyo Daigaku Honshu (Osaka: Osaka College of Commerce) 34.84–105.Google Scholar
51. Yamamoto, Makoto, Shozo Omori, and Yujiro Nakamura 1975Kyodo togi – Gengoron no shoten o saguru [Joint discussion: In search of a focus in theories of language]”. Gengo 4:12.2–25. [The authors, all of them Japanese philosophers, refer, in their debate on language theory, to FdS as a philosopher of language.]Google Scholar
52. Yamanouchi, Kimio 1970Saussure to ningenkagaku [Saussure and the human sciences]”. Chuo-Koron 85:1.188–99. [In an attempt to view FdS’s linguistic ideas in the light of the discipline at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century when his theory evolved, Y. discusses the relationship of FdS to contemporary sociology, psychology, and other social or human sciences.]Google Scholar
53. Yamanouchi, Kimio 1971F. de Saussure ni tsuite [On FdS]”. Gengogaku Josetsu [Introduction to general linguistics] by FdS, 229–50. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. [Cf. item 04 (above); a biographical sketch of FdS and a general evaluation of his work.]Google Scholar

2.3Discussion of Particular Aspects of Saussure’s Theory

54. Hattori, Shirô 1956The Analysis of Meaning”. For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 11 October 1956 comp. by Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt, et al., 207–12. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
55. Hattori, Shirô 1957bSaussure no ‘langue’ to Gengo-katei-setsu [Saussure’s ‘langue’ and (Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory]. GK 32.1–41 (E. summary, 41–42). [Cf. also Hattori (1957a) – item 11 (above). – Redefining FdS’s langue/parole distinction H. introduces his own distinction between social habits and individual features, both of which, in his view, are found in FdS’s concepts of ‘parole’ and ‘la partie passive du circuit’. On the basis of this pre-understanding H. criticizes Tokieda’s theory in terms of his own concepts of ‘utterance’, ‘sentence’, ‘form’, and also ‘utterer’, ‘expresser’, ‘first personer’ and ‘indefinite personer’.]Google Scholar
56. Hattori, Shirô 1960Saussure no ‘langue’ to Gengo-katei-setsu: Fuki [Additional remarks on S’s ‘langue’ and (Tokieda’s) Language-process-theory]”. Gengo no hoho [Methods in linguistics], by Sh. Hattori, 215–18. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. [In this addendum to his 1957b article H. concludes that, very suggestive as they may be, S’s concepts of ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ are not acceptable without redefinition.]Google Scholar
57. Hattori, Shirô 1964Gengo no onsei to imi [The sound and meaning of language]”. Kokugogaku No.56.1–15 (E. summary, p.16). [H. contends that, although FdS says that language is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the union of meanings and sound-images, and in which both parts of the sign are psychological in nature, he does not show us the procedure for the investigation of these ‘psychological entities’. H. advocates his own approach to such analysis. – Cf. item 58 for an E. version.]Google Scholar
58. Hattori, Shirô 1965The Sound and Meaning of Language”. Foundations of Language 1.95–111. [E. transl. of Hattori (1964); see above.]Google Scholar
59. Hattori, Shirô 1967aThe Sense of Sentence and the Meaning of Utterance”. To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays presented on the occasion of his seventieth birthday vol. 2. 850–54. The Hague: Mouton. [In this article as well as in Hattori’s earlier studies of 1956, 1964 and 1965 (cf. items 54, 57, and 58) the author makes frequent references to FdS’s linguistic theory, especially to the following components: (1) the concept of the linguistic sign, (2) the langue/parole dichotomy, and (3) the definition of language as a system of signs. H. subsequently sketches a semantic theory.]Google Scholar
60. Hattori, Shirô 1967bDescriptive Linguistics in Japan”. Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.2: Linguistics in East Asia and South East Asia, 530–84. The Hague: Mouton. [In this historical account of the evolution of descriptive linguistics in Japan H. refers to FdS in several places. Pp. 536–37 H. points to the work of the eminent Japanese linguist Kaku Jimbo who, independently of FdS, formulated a distinction quite similar to the Saussurean langue/parole dichotomy in his Gengogaku-gairon [Outline of linguistics] of 1922 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten).]Google Scholar
61. Hattori, Shirô 1975Furui gengogaku to atarashii gengogaku [Old linguistics and new linguistics]”. GK 68.1–14 (E. summary, p. 14). [The author discusses FdS’s ‘linguistique synchronique’ in the context of the history of linguistics.]Google Scholar
62. Hattori, Shirô 1977 “ ‘Utterance’ to ‘Sentence’ [Utterance and sentence]”. Romansugo Kenkyu / Studia Romanica (Tokyo: Nihon Romansugo-gakkai / Societas Japonica Studiorum Romanicorum) 11.78–90. [H. alludes to a number of Western linguists and refers particularly to FdS’s concepts of ‘langue’ and ‘parole’, trying to demonstrate at the same time where his own distinction between ‘utterance’ and ‘sentence’ differs from FdS’s concepts.]Google Scholar
63. Horii, Reiichi 1960 Langue to parole no riron ni tsuite [On the theory of ‘langue’ and ‘parole’]”. GK 37.56–67. [A review article on R. Godel, Les Sources manuscrites du CLG de FdS (Geneva: Droz, 1957).]Google Scholar
64. Horii, Reiichi 1972Gengo kigo no riron [The theory of the linguistic sign]”. Aichi Daigaku Bungaku Ronso (Toyohashi: Aichi Univ.) 47.51–75. [In this lengthy article the author discusses the relationship between semiology and linguistics.]Google Scholar
65. Izumi, Kunitoshi 1973Saussure no gengokigoron to jakkan no mondai [Some problems surrounding S’s theory of the linguistic sign]”. Jochi Daigaku Gaikokugo-gakubo Kiyo (Tokyo: Jochi [= Sophia] Univ.) 7.1–21.Google Scholar
66. Jimbo, Kaku 1939Saussure no gengoriron ni tsuite [On S’s linguistic theory]”. GK 1.18–38. [J. discusses mainly FdS’s terms ‘langue’, ‘parole’, and ‘langage’ and their relationship.]Google Scholar
67. Kamei, Takashi 1961Imi no hanashi [About meaning]”. GK 40.1–20 (E. summary, 20–21). [K. examines FdS’s signifiant/signifié distinction and points to the problem involved in defining meaning, namely, how to abstract the notion of ‘signifie’ in a more unequivocal way.]Google Scholar
68. Kawamoto, Shigeo 1973a Signifié ni tsuite – Saussure bekken (Jo) [On the ‘signifié’: A glance at S. (Part I)]”. GS 1:10.46-to 52.Google Scholar
69. Kawamoto, Shigeo 1973b Signifié ni tsuite – Saussure bekken (Ge) [On the ‘signifié’: A glance at S. (Part II)]”. GS 1:11.215–22.Google Scholar
70. Kazama, Kiyozo 1978Saussure Mémoire no ichi [The place of S’s Mêmoire ]”. Gengo 7:3.14–21. [K. gives an analysis of FdS’s Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes (Leipzig: Teubner, 1879 [published in December 1878]) and discusses its position in IE studies.]Google Scholar
71. Kobayashi, Hideo 1932 Langage no gainen no gigi kaishaku [Clearing up doubts concerning the concept of ‘langage’]”. Kokugo 9:7.1–23. [A discussion of the concept of ‘langage’ as advanced in the CLG.]Google Scholar
72. Kobayashi, Hideo 1964L’esthétique et la stylistique”. GK 47.1–6 (Fr. summary, 6–7). [K. refers to FdS’s langue/parole distinction, associating the former concept with Charles Bally’s stylistics, and the latter with ideas proposed by Karl Vossler and developed by Leo Spitzer.]Google Scholar
73. Kodzu, Harushige 1956Gengo no kozo to gengo no henka [Linguistic structure and linguistic change]”. GK 31.1–6 (E. summary, 6–7). [While admitting the validity of FdS’s distinction between synchrony and diachrony as operational postulates, K. contends that these concepts oversimplify the realities in language.]Google Scholar
74. Kuroiwa, Komao 1952Gengo no katei-sei to kigo keiyaku-sei [The nature of language process and the conventional nature of the (language) sign]”. Kurume Daigaku Ronso (Kurume, Fukuoka: Kurume Univ.) 4:1.17–21.Google Scholar
75. Maeda, Hideki 1976Gengo ishiki to sai [Linguistic consciousness and difference]”. Chuo Daigaku Daigakuin Kenkyu Nenpo (Tokyo: Chuo Univ.) 6.275–88. [The article is devoted to a discussion of FdS’s concept of ‘différence’ (cf. CLG 166–67).]Google Scholar
76. Maeda, Hideki 1977Kotoba ni okeru tan-i no hassei [The generation of units in language]”. Ibid. 7.1–16. [On FdS’s concept of ‘unite’ (linguistique).]Google Scholar
77. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1971aSaussure ni okeru taikei no gainen to futatsu no ‘kozo’ [The concept of system and two (uses of the term) ‘structure’ in Saussure]”. Riso No.456.26–43.Google Scholar
78. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1971b Signe linguistique no shii-sei o megutte [On the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign]”. Furansugogaku Kenkyu / Etudes en linguistique française 6.13–24. [Cf. Maruyama 1975 (item 80 below) for comment.]Google Scholar
79. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1973Saussure ni okeru parole no gainen [FdS’s concept of ‘parole’]”. GS 1:10.72–92. [Republished in Gengo ni okeru shiso-sei to gijutsu-sei [Thought and technique in language], ed. by Energeia Kankokai (Tokyo: Asahishuppan-sha, 1974), pp. 36–53, this article constitutes a condensed version of the one that first appeared in vol.61/1971 of Chuo Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyo (Tokyo: Chuo Univ.) – On the basis of CLG/E and SM the author re-examines FdS’s notion of ‘parole’ and traces the development of Saussurean linguistics.]Google Scholar
80. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1975Saussure kenkyu noto – signe no shii-sei o megutte [A few notes on S.: Concerning the arbitrary nature of the (linguistic) sign]”. GS 3:6.124–33. [Slightly altered version of Maruyama 1971b (item 78 above). M. discusses the significance of the arbitrariness of the language sign, referring in particular to Emile Benveniste’s (1939) article, “Nature du signe linguistique” (Acta Linguistica 1.23–29), and Niels Ege’s paper, “Le signe linguistique est arbitraire” (TCLC 5.11–29), published in 1949.]Google Scholar
81. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1976aGengo ni okeru ‘imi’ to ‘kachi’ no gainen o megutte [On the notions of ‘signification’ and ‘value’ in language]”. Chuo Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyo (Tokyo: Chuo Univ.) 78/79.87–140. [A detailed treatment of various problems concerning FdS’s concepts of ‘signification’ and ‘valeur’, on the basis of a textual criticism of the CLG.]Google Scholar
82. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1976bKigogaku-teki kigo to gengo kigo [Semiological sign and linguistic sign]”. GS 4:10.169–77. [Starting from Louis J. Prieto’s studies, Principes de noologie (The Hague: Mouton, 1964) and Messages et signaux (Paris: PUF, 1966), the author ventures an analysis of FdS’s semiological ideas.]Google Scholar
83. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1977aKahei to gengo kigo no analogy [The analogy between a piece of money and the linguistic sign]”. GS 5:10.77–89. [M., after a close analysis of the three instances in the CLG in which FdS compares the bilateral nature of the language sign with a coin, offers his own interpretation of this analogy.]Google Scholar
84. Maruyama, Keizaburo 1977bGengo no hi-kigo-sei to imi sozo [The nature of the linguistic sign, and the creation of meaning]”. GS 5:11.108–21. [M. first discusses J.-P. Sartre’s ideas about language and then comments on the difference between his understanding of language and FdS’s (as well as Merleau-Ponty’s [cf. item 27 above]) theory.]Google Scholar
85. Matsumoto, Katsumi 1963Gengo no hataraki no futatsu no so: Syntagmatica to paradigmatica [Two aspects of the function of language: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic (processes)]”. Kanazawa Daigaku Hobungakubu Ronshu: Bungaku-hen (Kanazawa, Ishikawa: Kanazawa Univ.) 11. 95–131. [A detailed analysis of FdS’s dichotomy of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships in language.]Google Scholar
86. Naito, Kobun 1967Phonem, Morphem, Semem”. Doitsu Bungaku / Die deutsehe Literatur (Osaka: Kansai Univ.) 12.1–13 (G. summary, 14). [In Jap. A discussion of structuralist notions.]Google Scholar
87. Nomura, Hideo 1972Saussure ni okeru hiteiteki na mono ni tsuite [On negative terms in S.]”. Jinbun Honshu (Tokyo: Waseda Univ.) 10.97–141. [A detailed theoretical-philosophical analysis of FdS’s conception of the negative (oppositional, etc.) nature of linguistic relationships.]Google Scholar
88. Nomura, Hideo 1973bSaussure no ikku o megutte – ‘Ippan gengogaku’ to Ippan Gengogaku Kogi no mondai [On a passage in S.: Problems in ‘general linguistics’ and the CLG]”. GS 1:10.53–71. [The author analyzes what he believes to be a misleading interpretation by R. Engler of the following statement in Emile Constantin’s MS of FdS’s lectures on general linguistics: “… le concept devient une qualité de la substance acoustique comme la sonorité devient une qualité de la substance conceptuelle”.]Google Scholar
89. Oiwa, Masanobu 1949Bun no teigi [The definition of sentence]”. Kokugogaku 2:3.309–32. [0, discusses the concepts of ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ in connection with the definition of sentence.]Google Scholar
90. Tanaka, Toshimitsu 1971Saussure no gengoriron ni kansuru jakkan no kosatsu – ‘Henkei Bunpo’ riron to no kanren de [Some deliberations concerning S’s linguistic theory; with reference to ‘Transformational Grammar’]”. Hokkaido Daigaku Jinmon-Kagaku Honshu (Sapporo: Hokkaido Univ.) 8.69–91 (E. summary, 91–92). [T. discusses the following two points: (1) Whether or not Chomsky’s understanding of FdS’s concept of ‘langue’ is correct, and (2) how Chomsky’s competence/performance distinction is in fact related to Saussure’s langue/parole dichotomy.]Google Scholar
91. Tanaka, Toshimitsu 1972Saussure no gengoriron ni kansuru ichi-kosatsu [A study of S’s linguistic theory]”. GK 61.93–94. [A condensed version of Tanaka’s 1971 article; see item 90 (above).]Google Scholar
92. Yamanouchi, Kimio 1972aKigoshi-ron – Saussure riron tenkai no tame no sobyo [On the signified: A preliminary attempt to develop S’s theory]”. Bungaku 40:5.65–81.Google Scholar

2.4Miscellaneous Writings concerning Saussure

93. Grootaers, Willem A. 1972Saussure cho Yamanouchi Kimio yaku Gengo Josetsu [On S’s Introduction to General Linguistics translated by Kimio Yamanouchi]”. Kokugogaku No.88.8–12. [A critical review of Yamanouchi’s (1971) translation of FdS’s introd. to his second course on general linguistics (1908/09) – cf. item 04 above -largely directed against Y’s style and his translation of Saussurean terminology, arguing, for instance, that FdS’s distinction between form and substance must be understood in relation to Aristotle’s concepts. – Cf. Yamanouchi’s reply (item 101 below).]Google Scholar
94. Kazama, Kiyozo 1973 Review article on E. F. K. Koerner, Bibliographia Saussureana 1870–1970: An annotated, classified bibliography on the background, development and actual relevance of Ferdinand de Saussure’s general theory of language (Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press 1972) GK 63.88–96. [The reviewer refers to several Jap. articles which in his view ought to have been included. However, since these references were incomplete (and no cooperation by the author in sight), we have been unable to include all of them in the present bibliographical survey.]Google Scholar
95. Kodzu, Harushige 1939In-o-go boin henka no kenkyu to ‘laryngales’ no hakken [Indo-Europ. vowel change and the discovery of laryngeal sounds]”. GK 3.53–76. [In his research report of studies regarding IE phonology K. comments at length on FdS’s epoch-making contribution to the field in his Memoire of 1878 (cf. item 70 above).]Google Scholar
96. Murata, Ikuo 1971Baudouin de Courtenay e no Saussure no shokan ni tsuite” [On S’s letters to Baudouin de Courtenay]”. Tokyo Keizai Daigaku Jinmon-Shizen Kagaku Ronshu (Tokyo: Tokyo College of Economics) No.28.36–51. [Jap. transl. of FdS’s letters to J. Baudouin de Courtenay (1845–1929) of 26 Oct. and 9 Dec. 1899, which first were published by N. A. Sljusareva in Russ. in Baltistica 6:1.117–24 (1970), together with explanatory notes.]Google Scholar
97. Murata, Ikuo 1975aFerdinand de Saussure to Kazimiers Jaunius [FdS and K. Jaunius]”. Ibid. No.39.127–49. [Jap. transl. of FdS’s letter of 23 Nov. 1899 to the Lithuanian linguist Kazimiers Jaunius (1842–1908) in which FdS asked for particulars regarding Lithuanian accentuation. M. comments on present-day scholarship concerning this subject.]Google Scholar
98. Murata, Ikuo 1975bJaunius e no Saussure no shokan – Litoaniago no accento o megutte [S’s letter to Jaunius: Concerning accents in Lithuanian]”. GK 68.128–30. [M. summarizes suggestions made by Z. Zinkevičius (Prof. of Dialectology at the Univ. of Vilnius) regarding FdS’s letter to Jaunius, which was first published in CFS 28.13–15, together with Jaunius’ reply, pp. 15–22 (1973).]Google Scholar
99. Tomimori, Nobuo 1978Mo hitori no Saussure – mikan shiryo kara [Another Saussure: From his unpublished materials]”. Gengo 7:3.32–36. [T. discusses FdS’s studies of proverbs and place-names on the basis of unpublished writings (deposited at the Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire in Geneva under code MS. fr. 3596).]Google Scholar
100. Ukaji, Masatorno 1974 Review of E. F. K. Koerner, Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development of his Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language. A contribution to the history and theory of linguistics (Braunschweig: F. Vieweg 1973) Gakuto (Tokyo: Maruzen) 70:2.62–63.Google Scholar
101. Yamanouchi, Kimio 1972Saussure gengogaku ni yosete – Grootaers shi e no hanron ni kaete [Toward Saussurean linguistics: In reply to Mr. Grootaers’ review]”. Kokugogaku No.90. 125–28. [In his reply to W. A. Grootaers’s review (see item 93 above) Y. points to a number of factual errors committed by G. and refutes G’s Aristotelian understanding of ‘forme’ and ‘substance’, commenting on the place that these concepts have in FdS’s theory of language.]Google Scholar