A Conversation with Saussure

 A Conversation with Le Maître

Student: I arrived in Geneva last night from France, taking the 8.45 train from Paris. I was eager to meet you because I stumbled upon a book that references your teachings. I'd like to read a passage from it and hear your thoughts:

"In the eyes of Saussure, writing is a garb of perversion and debauchery, a cloak of corruption and disguise, a masquerade that must be exorcised – in other words, fended off – by the virtuous word: 'Writing veils the appearance of language; it is not a guise for language but a disguise'. A peculiar 'image.' One might already suspect that if writing is an 'image' and an external 'figuration,' this 'representation' is not without its implications. The exterior and interior share a relationship that is, as usual, anything but mere externalization."

What's your perspective on this?

Saussure: Before I dive into the topic, I'd like to acknowledge that the passage you just shared is exceptionally well-crafted, the author certainly has a remarkable way with words. That said, let's address your question. The apparent disparity between his interpretation and my theory, as I've presented it in my lectures and writings, can be attributed to several factors, including differences in interpretation, context, and emphasis.

Philosophers often scrutinize and challenge the ideas of other thinkers, seeking hidden meanings, contradictions, and nuances. In the passage you cited, the writer seems to be accentuating a specific aspect of my work to stimulate thought and discussion, rather than providing a comprehensive analysis of my entire linguistic theory.

It seems that the focus in the passage lies on the notion that I regard phonetic writing as a form of disguise or corruption of spoken language. Here he may be underscoring a facet of my thought to explore the intricate relationship between speech and writing in linguistics and philosophy, but in my lectures, restricted to the phonetic system of writing, and in particular to the system in use today, I do acknowledge the significance of both spoken and written language as manifestations of 'la langue'.

However, like any thinker, my ideas have evolved over time and have been subject to various interpretations. It's plausible that the author is emphasizing a particular facet of my thought that aligns with his own philosophical agenda. Different scholars may interpret my work in diverse ways, accentuating different aspects based on their objectives and perspectives. This interpretive variability can lead to distinct portrayals of my ideas. 

In essence, the ideas presented in the passage you cited should be viewed as one particular interpretation rather than a definitive representation of my entire linguistic theory.

Student: I understand that, but what's your stance on writing? Do you really view it as "a garment of perversion and debauchery, a dress of corruption and disguise, a festival mask that must be exorcised"?

Saussure: My dear Rodeux, you've been studying with me for a while now, and you know how much I cherish all the facets of that elusive beast, that wild horse we call le langage. I laid the foundation for my theory right at the outset of our Cours three years ago, but I'll gladly revisit it for you. Language can be quite slippery; sometimes I struggle to explain it even to myself.

In our Cours we explored the intricate relationship between spoken language, writing, and this overarching linguistic faculty I call la langue.

To start, we put forward a particular definition of "langage articulé," where "articulus" in Latin means "a part or subdivision in a series of things." In the context of language, "articulation" can refer to breaking spoken language into syllables or segmenting the chain of meanings into meaningful units. I even mentioned the German term "gegliederte Sprache," which relates to this second definition. Focusing on this definition, one could argue that what's innate to humans is not spoken language itself but the capacity to create a system of distinct signs for distinct ideas. Please remember this point, it's crucial.

I also pointed out that Broca's research pinpointed the faculty of speech in the left third frontal convolution of the brain, suggesting a natural basis for language. However, it's noteworthy that this localization is observed in all language-related functions, including writing. I argued that various disorders in oral language are intimately linked with those in written language, and in cases of aphasia or agraphia, it's less about producing specific sounds or writing specific signs, and more about invoking the signs of a regular language. This suggested me that beyond the functioning of specific organs, there exists a more general faculty—one governing signs and representing the quintessential linguistic faculty. As I mentioned earlier, this point is worth keeping in mind.

The nature of the sign used (spoken or written) is secondary to this underlying faculty, which I call la langue but could bear any other name. In essence, I contend that the natural aspect of human language resides not in the specific mode (spoken or written), but in the faculty to create and use linguistic signs, implying that language, in its broader sense, is a product of the operation of this linguistic faculty which is always already in place.

From my explanation, it's evident that I consider "le langage oral" (spoken language) and "le langage écrit" (written language) as interconnected manifestations of "la langue" (language). As I mentioned earlier, various disorders or issues in spoken language (like aphasia) are intricately linked with those in written language (agraphia) and both involve the same underlying linguistic faculty.  This is what I meant when I said in the Cours "que les troubles divers du langage oral sont enchevêtrés de cent façons avec ceux du langage écrit" . It indicates that I see a close relationship between the two modes of language expression. I don't discriminate between them; I recognize their interconnection as different manifestations of the same linguistic system, "la langue." This view aligns with my broader linguistic theory, emphasizing that both spoken and written language are part of the same underlying faculty.

Student: Thank you, maître. As you spoke, it became clear that you addressed all these points in the "Introduction" of your Cours when you discussed “The Object of Study” in linguistics and the challenges of “Defining la Langue," that underlying faculty that cannot be compared to any living organism because it is atemporal, having no beginning and no end...

Cite this text: 

Rodie. (2024). Return to Saussure. Retrieved from http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

Related posts from this blog:

- Speech, Writing, and Sin: The Nature vs. Nurture Dilemma

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_14.html

- Parisian Pages: A Pedestrian Comparison

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/parisian-pages-pedestrian-comparison.html

Other related posts from this blog:

 Return to Saussure: The Nature or Nurture Dilemma in Linguistics

·         Derrida's Appropriation of Saussure's Terminology: A Philosophical Risk

·         Derrida's Impact on the Perception of Saussure in Contemporary Linguistics

·         Kant, Saussure, and Derrida: Exploring the Interplay of Language

·    Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Derrida, Jacques. 1998. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bouquet, Simon, Rudolf Engler, and Antoinette Weil, eds. ESCRITOS SOBRE LINGÜÍSTICA GENERAL. Translated by Clara Ubaldina Lorda Mur. Original title: Écrits de linguistique générale, de Ferdinand de Saussure. © Éditions Gallimard, 2002.