Saussure's Hen and the Duckling Fable: The Monstrosity of Artificial Languages

 

Student (reading from a book):  The perversion of artifice engenders monsters. Writing, like all artificial languages one would wish to fix and remove from the living history of the natural language, participates in the monstrosity. It is a deviation from nature. The characteristic of the Liebnizian type and Esperanto would be here in the same position. Saussure's irritation with such possibilities drives him to pedestrian comparisons: "A man proposing a fixed language that posterity would have to accept for what it is would be like a hen hatching a duck's egg"

Saussure: Did you source that excerpt from the book you bought in Paris?

Student: Yes, maître. Would you mind revisiting the analogy of a hen hatching a duck's egg and how it relates to the potential fate of constructed languages like Esperanto?

Saussure: Of course, I'd be happy to revisit it. But before I do, I must acknowledge the remarkable literary artistry of the writer, even though I don't necessarily see myself in that quote.

Student: Why do you say that?

Saussure: Well, I have been teaching for some time now, and students who attend my lectures take notes. Once they leave the university, those notes can take on a life of their own, which may not always accurately reflect my viewpoints. Additionally, I sometimes find myself in a state of uncertainty when it comes to the perplexing ways languages seem to operate. Having said that, let's dive into the explanation of the analogy.

Imagine a hen incubating a duck's egg. Just as this process yields a duckling, not a chick, my point is that once a language is in use, it evolves independently, much like the genetic blueprint guiding a duckling's development.

The core idea here is that when a language is released into the world, beyond the control of its creators, it takes on a life of its own. It adheres to its internal logic and evolves influenced by linguistic, social, and historical factors. This analogy underscores the dynamic nature of language as it changes across generations, much like a duckling hatching from an egg laid by a duck but incubated by a hen.

Now, let's relate this to the potential fate of constructed languages, such as Esperanto. I've used Esperanto as an example to illustrate the broader linguistic principle that all languages, including constructed ones, are susceptible to change and evolution over time.

My point, as applied to Esperanto, is that even constructed languages are not immune to linguistic evolution. Once adopted and used by a community, they develop lives of their own. While the linguistic rules and initial intentions of the language's creator may guide its development to some extent, linguistic change is inevitable, much like with any natural language.

In the specific context of Esperanto, I question whether it can escape this "inevitable law" (la loi fatale). If Esperanto becomes widely adopted and used for various purposes, it will develop its own semiotic life and transmission rules. The reference to the hen hatching a duck's egg serves to illustrate the idea that even those who create constructed languages cannot fully control their long-term evolution. This analogy underscores the dynamic and evolving nature of language, whether it's natural or constructed.

Student: It appears that the interpretation of the "hen hatching a duck's egg" analogy in the paragraph we read differs significantly from your original intent. The writer suggests that, in your theory, artificial constructs like written and constructed languages, such as Esperanto, are viewed as deviations from the natural order of language. He implies that you consider these artificial creations as "monstrous" because they diverge from the organic and evolving nature of spoken language, which you see as closer to a "natural" state. His interpretation suggests that your criticism of constructed languages stems from the idea that they represent a departure from the dynamic, evolving, and natural essence of spoken language.

Saussure: As I mentioned, once my students' notes leave my classroom, they take on a life of their own, much like the duck's egg hatched by the analogy's hen. They become subject to the same "inevitable law" (la loi fatale) as writing and artificial languages.

Finally, I'd like to mention in passing that my thoughts on writing are part of a larger conversation about exploring a different approach to the study of language. This approach goes beyond the current philological emphasis on written documents and takes spoken languages into account. I'm more focused on a different methodological approach in linguistics rather than delving into deep philosophical or ontological distinctions between spoken, written, or artificial languages like esperanto—all of which, after all, are modalities of that overarching power I call 'la langue.'

Cite this text: 

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

Related post from this blog:

The Esperanto Enigma: Tracing Linguistic Connections with the Saussure Family

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-esperanto-enigma-tracing-linguistic.html

 The Esperanto-Spesmilo Nexus: Bridging Frontiers through Currency and Language Harmony

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/02/blog-post.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.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

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.

Culler, Jonathan. 1976. SAUSSURE. Fontana/Collins.

Thibault, Paul J. Re-reading Saussure: The Dynamics of Signs in Social Life. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.

Tallis, Raymond. Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory. Macmillan Press, 1988.

Daylight, Russell. What if Derrida was wrong about Saussure? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.

Harris, Roy. Saussure and his Interpreters, 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press, 2003. (First edition published 2001 by Edinburgh University Press.)

Stawarska, Beata. 2015. Saussure’s Philosophy of Language as Phenomenology: Undoing the Doctrine of the Course in General Linguistics. Oxford UP.

Derrida, Jacques. 1981. Positions. Translated and annotated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Corrected Edition. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Copyright © 1974, 1976, 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bradley, Arthur. Derrida’s Of Grammatology: An Edinburgh Philosophical Guide. Edinburgh University Press, 2008.