Linguistics

2. The concept of norm in integral linguistics 
As already known, Eugeniu Coșeriu’s starting point in developing the concept of 
norm 
is one of Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic oppositions, namely that of langue and 
parole
, an opposition upon which, as Eugeniu Coșeriu himself emphasizes, there is no 
general agreement among linguists. Integrating the notion of norm within the above-
mentioned Saussurean opposition, Eugeniu Coșeriu proposes a monistic theory, 
grounded in the concrete reality of articulate human language, more precisely in speech 
acts, in place of Ferdinand de Saussure’s dualistic conception. Moreover, instead of the 
distinction between langue and parole, 
Eugeniu Coșeriu advances a far broader theory, 
based on concepts such as language
, understood by Eugeniu Coșeriu in a specific 
sense, as a historical notion, system and norm, seen as structural concepts, and speech. 
In other studies of great explanatory force, Eugeniu Coșeriu also includes in this 
relationship the concept of linguistic type
, which “contains the functional principles and 
technical categories of a language: the types of processes and functions, the categories 
of distinctions, oppositions and structures which characterize it” (Coșeriu 2000, 284). 
Analysing previous approaches of the concepts of langue and parole, taken 
individually, such as those of Alan Gardiner, Otto Jespersen or W. von Wartburg, 
Eugeniu Coșeriu highlights the various “inner contradictions” within them. Comparing the 
way in which various linguists define the Saussurean notions of langue and parole, 
Eugeniu Coșeriu concludes that these definitions display “a series of discrepancies 
regarding their nature and extent,” discrepancies resulting from the variety of the criteria 
adop
ted and from the levels at which the respective oppositions operate: “the level of 
the external determination of language,” “the morphological level of language,” the level 
of the “essence of the language” (Coșeriu 1993, 53-54). In his view, the “theoretical” 
divergence between these two notions stems from the fact that the researchers in 
question do not understand the same thing by langue and parole. 
In his analysis of Saussure’s approach in the delineation of the notions of langue 
and parole
, Eugeniu Coșeriu underlines that the opposition between langue and parole 
appears to be established by Ferdinand de Saussure, in his work Course in General 
Linguistics, exclusively based on the opposition society/individual, since he frequently 
insists upon the social character of langue. By comparing the formulas of parole and 
langue 
advanced by Ferdinand de Saussure, Eugeniu Coșeriu concludes that langue 
should not be differentiated from parole based on its social character, but due to the fact 
that langue is where ev
erything that is invariable in linguistic acts is preserved (Coșeriu 
1993, 55). 
A significant point in Eugeniu Coșeriu’s interpretative approach is the comparison of 
Ferdinand de Saussure’s above-mentioned opposition (langue/parole) with Wilhelm von 
Humbol
dt’s earlier one between Tätigkeit and Werk, based on Aristotle’s view of the 
concepts of enérgeia and ergon, 
as well as with Karl Bühler’s distinction among 
Sprechhandlung (speech action), Sprachwerk (language work), Sprechakt (speech act) 
and Sprachgebilde 
(linguistic structure) (Coșeriu 1993, 55-56). This comparison is 
undertaken by Eugeniu Coșeriu by operating the distinctions that lie at its core, namely 

---