Annotation Ferdinand de Saussure theorized that language and speech were comprised of a system of signs, which were both

products of the social environment, versus the theory that language and speech were organic in nature. Saussure debated that language was not an innate ability, but assimilated into the speaker, through his or her lifetime. Arbitrariness of the signs in linguistics is uncovered by the conceptual process of which objects are allocated; or more so that there is no natural system to explain why a particular sign is attached to its assigned concept, i.e. why does an image of a tree appear in the mind when someone speaks the word tree. To de Saussure, linguistics is a completely co-dependent system, relying on the speaker to perpetuate concepts, sound images and nomenclature to generations to come; language is merely a voluntary action to communicate. Summary Saussure tackled the concept of language and speech in an environment rich with theories that propounded the idea that language and speech were completely instinctive. He debated that language and the concepts that were associated with language and speech were a learned response, not an intrinsic behavior. "It is both a social product of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions that have been adopted by the social body to permit individuals to exercise that faculty." Saussure stated that language is agreed upon by the whole, as a way to articulate the signs observed by mankind. Speech, to de Saussure, is heterogeneous, in that the elements of speech are exclusive from each other, while language is entirely homogeneous, consisting of an amalgam of sound images and meanings circulating together. In language, with the brain, a sound image cannot exist without a meaning; the mind will search until the signified has a signifier. The connections between sound image and meaning are completely arbitrary, in that there is no natural system designed to unite a sign to a concept without the intervention of mankind. "Polite formulas, for instance, though often imbued with a certain natural expressiveness...are nonetheless fixed by rule; it is this rule and not the intrinsic value of the gestures that obliges one to use them." Saussure compliments this idea with the notion that language is born out of the needs of society, versus prior sets of concepts, from which mankind builds their words, with possibly the exception of onomatopoeia, where the word and meaning are in equality. It is the association placed between signified and signifier that allows the concept of language to continue. "...language does not offer itself as a set of predelimited signs that need only to be studied according to their meaning and arrangement; it is a confused mass, and only attentiveness and familiarization will reveal its particular elements." It is left to the speaker to determine what is being heard and deciphered in a psychological act, for there is no precise, scientific manner in which to wholly understand language and speech. Interpretation

Saussure begs the question, again, why is a bottle named a bottle, and who decided that particular nomenclature should be associated with a plastic container which holds liquid. Though he explains the process prior to the naming, the question still remains who ultimately decided on the nomenclature? Mankind? There must be a starting point, a chicken or an egg from which language originated, however, I find it important to note that de Saussure addressed the fact that language is not a product of nature, an organism in and of itself, but a product of societal needs. Speech wasn't a necessity for mankind, though language was, and the fact that we developed a sound instead of a more animalistic form of communication speaks to the fact language is simply a product of society. Either way, mankind would have developed a form of communication. Intriguing is his look at the different languages, and how they facilitate the formation of words they need. Excluding those which are onomatopoetic in nature, the words developed are similar in sound, while being different in spelling and meaning, or vice versa. Take the word Loch. In Scotland, its meaning is a body of water. In America, it's defined by the word lake. Side by side, loch and lake look somewhat similar, but not close enough to be associated, until the sound of loch is heard, and the variation of lake from loch can be seen. However this illustrates de Saussure point that society manifests its words according to their needs. Lewis Carroll, J.R.R Tolkien and several other notable authors created their own language in their writings, as a need to explain their concepts, just as modern day slang attributes meaning to words that would not necessarily by considered by the general population, such as cool being used as an adjective to describe an enjoyable event or cat being used to describe a person. It simply fits the need of the population.