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

 Note: This blog post is a follow-up to “A Conversation with Saussure”

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_12.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Student: Allow me to read another passage from the same book I bought in Paris, in which the author makes further reference to you:

"Sin has been defined, often by thinkers such as Malebranche and Kant, as the inversion of the natural relationship between the soul and the body through passion. Here, Saussure highlights the inversion of the natural relationship between speech and writing."

Saussure: I appreciate your sharing this excerpt. It is indeed thought-provoking, but I must confess that I am not familiar with either the context of this quote nor the work of that particular thinker. Could you, please, elucidate it for me?

Student: I'll do my best, although I'm finding it quite challenging to grasp the essence of the book. The writer's style bears a resemblance to writing itself, which makes it rather elusive to pin down.

The phrase "inversion of the natural relationship between speech and writing" alludes to a disruption of the typical connection between spoken and written language. According to the author, you think that writing should be subservient to speech, serving as a secondary representation. However, you seem to believe that it has gained excessive influence and autonomy.

He draws a parallel between the concept of "sin" and this "inversion of the natural relationship" you have detected. Just as sin is often defined as a deviation from a natural state, the disruption of the natural relationship between speech and writing is also a form of deviation. He contends that you consider the "natural" or "correct" language order to place speech as the primary form because it is "natural," with writing as its secondary representation.

By invoking the notion of "sin," he underscores the gravity of the distortion you've observed. Just as sin is seen as a transgression against a divine order, you emphasize in your work that the shift in the relationship between speech and writing is a significant departure from what's considered the "natural" or fundamental state of language.

Saussure: I see. The word "natural" caught my attention. It appeared twice in the passage you read and seven times in your elucidation of the text. Therefore, it is imperative that we address the issue of how inherently natural I think spoken language is and, consequently, how inherently unnatural writing appears to be. But before we delve into that, I would like to clarify certain aspects about “la langue” because it was not addressed in the passage you read, and it is a fundamental piece in my game of chess.

I put forward a particular definition of "langage articulé." In the context of language, "articulation" can refer to segmenting the chain of meanings into meaningful units. In German, it is defined as "gegliederte Sprache," and in Spanish as "lenguaje articulado." Focusing on this definition, one could argue that what's natural to humans is not spoken language itself, but the capacity to create a system of distinct signs for distinct ideas. I believe that beyond breath and writing, there is always already in place a more general faculty governing signs: "la langue."

This faculty, I believe, is the condition of possibility of language in general. It acts as a "principle of classification," serving as the framework that organizes and categorizes the elements of "le langage," that multifaceted construct spanning the physical, physiological, and psychological realms, encompassing both the individual and society.

 One might raise a valid objection to this principle of classification by suggesting that spoken language relies on a natural faculty, while "la langue" is acquired and conventional, seemingly subordinate to our innate instincts. As you may have noticed, this is where it becomes intriguing, as I've already started to address the issue of "nature."

In response to the objection raised above, as observed by an American colleague I met in Berlin, it cannot be definitively proven that the act of speaking is entirely natural. "It has not been established that the function of language, as manifested in speech, is entirely natural. That is to say, it's not clear that our vocal apparatus is designed for speaking in the same way our legs are for walking. Linguists are by no means in agreement on this issue."

"The question of the vocal apparatus is, therefore, secondary when it comes to the problem of language". Humans could just as well have chosen visual images as the primary means of communication instead of acoustic forms. The specific nature of the signs agreed upon, whether vocal or visual, is secondary to the question of "la langue" as a fundamental principle of classification in linguistic analysis. This is what I think. Now, I ask you, do you believe the passage you read at the beginning accurately represents my LINGUISTIQUE DE LA LANGUE?"

 Student: I must admit, I find myself truly confused. You claim that speech may not be entirely “natural” after all. You argue that what seems to be natural to humans is not spoken language itself but the capacity to create a system of distinct signs for distinct ideas. You also mentioned that humans might have just as easily chosen visual images as our primary means of communication, rather than spoken words. Here, I cannot stop thinking of logographic writing systems that rely heavily on visual images to convey ideas, like the Egyptian Hieroglyphs or the Aztec Pictograms.

However, when I go back to the book I mentioned earlier, it claims that you do point to the inversion of the natural relationship between speech and writing as a sin. I am left struggling to reconcile these seemingly contradictory ideas. 

On one hand, there is the concept of spoken language you put forward as not being inherently natural or primary, if I understood correctly. Yet, on the other hand, there's the assertion that you treat speech as natural and primary, with writing being derivative and secondary. This disparity creates a cognitive puzzle that I am eager to solve. I can't shake the feeling that there's a missing piece of this puzzle yet to be uncovered...

Cite this text: 

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

Related post from this blog:

A Conversation with Saussure

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_12.html

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.