The Saussurean Model

Activity 3.1 — Signifier / Signified Across Your Languages ★

Practices: the dyadic sign and the arbitrariness of the signifier (§3.1–3.2).

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?

Instructor notes

• 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 phi 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.

Activity 3.2 — How Roosters Speak Thai: The Onomatopoeia Test

Practices: the limit case of arbitrariness: even "natural" imitative words are conventional (§3.2).

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?

Instructor notes

• 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.

Activity 3.3 — Value and Difference: The Thai Pronoun Grid

Practices: value as difference, a sign means by not being the others in its system (§3.6).

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?

Instructor notes

• 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).

Activity 3.4 — Langue or Parole? A Sorting Game

Practices: the distinction between the abstract system (langue) and concrete use (parole) (§3.4).

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.

Instructor notes

• 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.

Activity 3.5 — The Som Tam Paradigm

Practices: paradigmatic (selection) vs syntagmatic (combination) relations (§3.6).

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.

Instructor notes

• 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.