---
layout: is-chapter
section: into-semiotics
permalink: /into-semiotics/chapters/ch3/
title: The Saussurean Model
chapter: 3
order: 3
count: 5
book_sections: "§3.1–3.7"
summary: "Signifier and signified, arbitrariness, langue/parole, synchrony/diachrony, and value/difference, made concrete with Thai words, sounds, pronouns, and menus."
---

Saussure's model is abstract but each concept has a vivid Thai handle. These activities let students *feel* arbitrariness by comparing languages they know, and *see* value-through-difference in systems they use every day (pronouns, color terms, menus).

<div class="activity" markdown="1">

## Activity 3.1 — Signifier / Signified Across Your Languages ★

<div class="meta">
<span class="tag type">Pair</span>
<span class="tag time">30 min</span>
</div>

<p class="concept">Practices: the dyadic sign and the arbitrariness of the signifier (§3.1–3.2).</p>

Most students in Thailand know at least two codes (Thai + English, often plus Isan, Lanna, Chinese, Malay, etc.). Pick **five concepts** and write the **signifier** in every language you share, then the **signified** (the shared concept) once.

| Concept (signified) | Thai | English | Other language |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree | ต้นไม้ (ton mai) | tree | |
| water | | | |
| love | | | |
| ghost/spirit | | | |
| (your choice) | | | |

Then answer: If the link between sound and meaning were natural, what would you expect these rows to look like? What does the *actual* variation prove?

<details class="notes" markdown="1">
<summary>Instructor notes</summary>

- The variation across columns is direct evidence for **arbitrariness** (§3.2): different signifiers, same signified. If the link were natural, the signifiers would resemble one another.
- Watch for the signified that does *not* map cleanly (e.g. "ghost/spirit": Thai <em>phi</em> covers a range English splits into ghost/spirit/demon). This previews **value** (§3.6): languages carve up the conceptual field differently.
- Careful teaching point: the signified is the **concept**, not the real object (§3.1). "Tree" the signified is the idea of a tree, not any particular tree in the courtyard.
</details>
</div>

<div class="activity" markdown="1">

## Activity 3.2 — How Roosters Speak Thai: The Onomatopoeia Test

<div class="meta">
<span class="tag type">Group (3–4)</span>
<span class="tag time">25 min</span>
</div>

<p class="concept">Practices: the limit case of arbitrariness: even "natural" imitative words are conventional (§3.2).</p>

The book notes that English roosters say *cock-a-doodle-doo* but Thai roosters say *ekiekek* (เอ้กอี้เอ้ก). Build a **cross-language animal-sound table** for sounds you all know:

| Animal | Thai | English | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| rooster | เอ้กอี้เอ้ก (ek-i-ek) | cock-a-doodle-doo | |
| dog | โฮ่งโฮ่ง (hong hong) | woof | |
| cat | เหมียว (miao) | meow | |
| frog | อ๊บอ๊บ (op op) | ribbit | |

Discuss: onomatopoeia is the *most natural* kind of word, so why don't the columns match? What does this tell us about arbitrariness even where we least expect it?

<details class="notes" markdown="1">
<summary>Instructor notes</summary>

- Real animals make the same sounds worldwide, yet each language conventionalizes them differently, so onomatopoeia is only **relatively** motivated; convention still dominates (§3.2). This is the exception that proves Saussure's rule.
- "meow" is the near-universal one (cat sounds are simple) but roosters and frogs diverge wildly, a nice gradient of motivation.
- Light and fun; good energizer. Bridges to Peirce's **icon** (§4.2): onomatopoeia is an *iconic* aspect layered onto an otherwise symbolic sign.
</details>
</div>

<div class="activity" markdown="1">

## Activity 3.3 — Value and Difference: The Thai Pronoun Grid

<div class="meta">
<span class="tag type">Pair → Whole-class</span>
<span class="tag time">35 min</span>
</div>

<p class="concept">Practices: value as difference, a sign means by not being the others in its system (§3.6).</p>

English has essentially one word for the first person: *I*. Thai has many, each with a different **value** fixed by its difference from the others. Map a set onto a grid. For example: **ผม (phom), ดิฉัน (dichan), ฉัน (chan), กู (ku), หนู (nu), เรา (rao), อาตมา (atma)**:

| Pronoun | Who typically uses it | To whom / in what setting | What choosing it signals |
|---|---|---|---|
| ผม (phom) | male speaker | polite/neutral | politeness, standard masculinity |
| กู (ku) | | | |
| หนู (nu) | | | |

Key question: none of these means simply "I." Each takes its meaning from its **contrast** with the others. What happens to the meaning of ผม if กู did not exist?

<details class="notes" markdown="1">
<summary>Instructor notes</summary>

- This is Saussure's *value* made visible: phom is "polite/standard" **only because** ku (blunt/intimate), atma (monastic), nu (junior/female) occupy the other positions. Remove one and the values of the rest shift. This is exactly the chess-piece analogy (§3.6).
- Also previews **social semiotics** (§7.4): pronoun choice constructs identity and relative status (a deeply Thai concern).
- Sensitivity: some pronouns (กู/มึง) are intimate or rude depending on relationship. Keep the discussion analytic, not performative.
- Extension: run the same grid on Thai color terms (light blue *sii faa* vs dark blue *sii nam-ngoen*, both "blue" in English) to show value differs *across* languages (§3.6).
</details>
</div>

<div class="activity" markdown="1">

## Activity 3.4 — Langue or Parole? A Sorting Game

<div class="meta">
<span class="tag type">Individual → Pair</span>
<span class="tag time">20 min</span>
</div>

<p class="concept">Practices: the distinction between the abstract system (langue) and concrete use (parole) (§3.4).</p>

Sort each item below into **LANGUE** (part of the shared system/rules) or **PAROLE** (a concrete act of use):

1. The rule that Thai polite particles are ครับ (male) / ค่ะ (female).
2. Your friend saying "สวัสดีครับ" as you arrive.
3. The fact that Thai has five phonemic tones.
4. A specific vendor mispronouncing a word in the market this morning.
5. The SOV-flexible word order patterns of Thai grammar.
6. A politician's particular speech last night.

<details class="notes" markdown="1">
<summary>Instructor notes</summary>

- **Langue:** 1, 3, 5 (rules, conventions, the abstract system). **Parole:** 2, 4, 6 (individual, dated, context-bound acts).
- The instructive borderline is item 4: a mispronunciation is *parole*, but if enough speakers adopt it, it can eventually change the *langue*. The point post-Saussurean linguists press (§3.4, and Bakhtin in §3.7). Use it to complicate the neat dichotomy.
- Tie to Chomsky's competence/performance, mentioned in §3.4.
</details>
</div>

<div class="activity" markdown="1">

## Activity 3.5 — The Som Tam Paradigm

<div class="meta">
<span class="tag type">Group (3–4)</span>
<span class="tag time">25 min</span>
</div>

<p class="concept">Practices: paradigmatic (selection) vs syntagmatic (combination) relations (§3.6).</p>

Ordering food is a semiotic system. Take **som tam** (papaya salad) or a **kuaytiaw** (noodle) order.

- The **paradigm** is the set of choices at each slot: type (som tam thai / som tam pu / som tam pla ra), spice level (no chili → 10 chilies), add-ons (salted egg, crab, peanuts).
- The **syntagm** is the actual ordered combination you assemble into one dish.

**Task:** (a) List the paradigm at each slot. (b) Compose two different syntagms. (c) Show how changing one paradigmatic choice (pla ra vs no pla ra) changes the meaning/identity of the whole dish, and what it signals socially.

<details class="notes" markdown="1">
<summary>Instructor notes</summary>

- Selection (which item from the column) = **paradigmatic**; combination (the assembled order) = **syntagmatic** (§3.6, revisited in Ch 6). Food is an ideal first non-linguistic system.
- The pla ra (fermented fish) choice is socially loaded (often indexing Isan identity) which previews **connotation** (§6.6) and **social semiotics** (§7.4).
- Extend to the 7-day shirt-color system or a coffee order for a second example.
</details>
</div>