Talk:Langue and parole

Poor definitions

I modified the definitions of both parole and langue used in the article, as they frankly made no sense in terms of Saussurian linguistics (they were clearly Chomskyian). As these two approaches to the discipline are fairly antagonistic, it seemed silly to render concepts deployed by Saussure through analogies made with concepts used by Chomsky. I am currently working my way through Cours de Linguistique Generale, and will try to find specific passages to cite in the article. RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the needed reference. RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to 'Langue' and 'parole' we also have 'langage' which Saussure also distinguishes. --Tibetologist (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt

The reference to Humboldt strikes me as somewhat arbitrary, and not even so correct an analogy. If Humboldt used the word energeia, he was probably using the Aristotelian concept anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.63.12 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

This article has not one citation after the introduction. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so is it permissible to assume that an entire page is drawing from a single reference provided in the beginning? In particular, phrases such as "However, it is known Saussure intended ..." should surely have a specific citation, right? And are there any other relevant sources that could contribute to discussion of this topic, maybe give an idea of responses from others in the field? Hwxec (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]