Although Saussure recognized the necessity of putting the phonic substance between brackets (What is essential in language, we shall see, is foreign to the phonic character of the linguistic sign [p. 21]. In its essence it [the linguistic signifier] is not at all phonic [p. 164]), Saussure, for essential, and essentially metaphysical, reasons had to privilege speech, everything that links the sign to phone. He also speaks of the natural link between thought and voice, meaning and sound (p. 46). He even speaks of thought-sound (p. 156). I have attempted elsewhere to show what is traditional in such a gesture, and to what necessities it submits. In any event, it winds up contradicting the most interesting critical motive of the Course, making of linguistics the regulatory model, the pattern for a general semiology of which it was to be, by all rights and theoretically, only a part. The theme of the arbitrary, thus, is turned away from its most fruitful paths (formalization) toward a hierarchizing teleology:... One finds exactly the same gesture and the same concepts in Hegel. The contradiction between these two moments of the Course is also marked by Saussure's recognizing elsewhere that it is not spoken language that is natural to man, but the faculty of constituting a language, that is, a system of distinct signs … , that is, the possibility of the code and of articulation, independent of any substance, for example, phonic substance.