At a couple of points in his Course , Saussure suggests that the “primary characteristic of the spoken sequence is its linearity.” It is a “chain,” a “line.”

I find this questionable, but he makes interesting use of the image: “In itself, it is merely a line, a continuous ribbon of sound, along which the ear picks out no adequate or clearly marked divisions. In order to do so, recourse must be had to meanings.” Listening to an unknown language, “we are not in a position to say how the sequence of sounds should be analysed.” Once we know what the sounds mean, then “we see those segments separated from another, and the shapeless ribbon is cut up into pieces.” Knowing the meaning allows us to differentiate sounds.

Now, an Augustinian gloss: Several places Augustine describes time and history as a speech act, a string of words moving from future, through the present, into the past. Before I recite a Psalm, it’s all future; halfway through, my present divides the Psalm into what-has-been-said and what-is-yet-to-be-said. If Saussure is correct, this sequence is only a line, an undifferentiated string of words, unless we know what the words mean.

If we apply Saussure’s suggestion to Augustine’s image, we can say this: The sequence of time is an undifferentiated line - one damn thing after another - unless we know the language in which it is expressed. We have to know the meaning of time and history before we can recognize that history and time are articulated into episodes.