I am interested in structuralism and poststructuralism, so I have been reading Ferdinand de Saussure’s “Course in General Linguisticsâ€. In this book, Saussure keeps using the term value, which has bewildered me somewhat, since the term autonomously registers ideas of ethical and aesthetic evaluations in my mind. I was wondering if I could use the term quality as a substitute, or if it is not equivalent to Saussure’s notion. For example, Saussure demonstrates his notion of value by explicating the difference between the French word mouton and the English word sheep. Both mean the animal, but mouton also means the food mutton, which has its own word in English. Therefore it seems to me that value is qualitative: the distinction between sheep and mutton causes sheep to lose the capability of giving rise to the notion of food, so it lacks that certain quality.
Furthermore, I was wondering to what extent the sign can have meaning without values for Saussure. Saussure says value is an element of meaning, but the two are distinct. Yet it seems to me that his notion meaning arises from a kind of process of individuation: from the qualitative differences between signs within a fixed system emerges meaning. For example, when you first read the title of this thread, I expect you thought I was going to ask about Saussure’s relevance to linguistics, due to the word value’s relation to the other signs in the sign. But perhaps a better example is the word win. You cannot seem to have the notion of winning without also having the notion of losing. The notion of winning is essentially not losing, and the notion of losing is essentially not winning.
Ferdinand de Saussure’s notion of value appears to be the most important aspect of his semiology, so I hope someone will respond. I want to have it down pat. I’m afraid that otherwise comprehending people like Lacan, Barthes and even Foucault may become much harder.