Perspectives: Insights from the Grammarian, the Grammatologist and the Language-User

 

“…it is one thing to sense this rapid and subtle interplay of units, but quite another thing to give an account of it by means of a systematic analysis.” [CGL] [148].

Introduction

Language, unlike the object of study of other sciences, resists the grammarian's classification. But is it the same from the perspective of the language user? Language users seem to effortlessly perform complex operations, such as delimiting linguistic units and delineating word families, with the precision of a Swiss watch. As linguists try to explain the intricate workings of language, they grapple with articulating their implicit knowledge—the understanding gained from being both linguists and language users. This dual role poses a unique challenge: while they possess a fair grasp of language, translating this implicit knowledge into explicit gloss proves daunting, as exemplified in our examination of Saussure's concepts of syntagmatic and associative relations, as well as the delineation of their boundaries.

However, as we delve deeper into our analysis, we encounter another fascinating aspect—the related concept of DifférAnce coined by Derrida. This term aims to describe the apparent perpetual process of differing and deferring meaning within language, adding a new layer to our discussion. Yet, as we attempt to understand this concept, we must ponder whether this perpetual process of differing and deferring meaning is perceived in the same way from both the grammatologist's and the language user's points of view.

Syntagmatic and Associative Relations in a Linguistic State: How do they work?

In his analysis of syntagmatic and associative relations, Saussure posits that in a state of language, everything is based on relations and differences between terms. These unfold in two distinct spheres corresponding to two forms of our mental activity, each generating a certain order of values, both indispensable for the life of language.

First, he analyzes syntagmatic relations, which are in praesentia. Placing a term in a syntagm, he explains, it only acquires its value because it opposes the elements that precede it or those that follows it, or both. On the other hand, outside the syntagm, the associative relations link terms in absentia in a virtual mnemonic series.

While a syntagm inherently implies a predetermined order and specific number of elements, terms within an associative grouping lack such constraints, existing without a defined order or numerical limit, though exceptions exist.

“While a syntagma brings in straight away the idea of a fixed sequence, with a specific number of elements, an associative group has no particular number of items in it; it is impossible to say in advance how many words the memory will suggest, or in what order. Any given term acts as the centre of a constellation, from which connected terms radiate ad infinitum.” [CGL] [174].

Saussure underscores that the arrangement of terms within an associative series is not spatially determined, if grammarians group, for example, paradigms of inflection in one way and not another, it is by a purely arbitrary act; for the consciousness of speakers, the nominative is by no means the first case of declension, and terms may arise, depending on the occasion, in one order or another.

“It is purely arbitrary that grammarians list them in one order rather than another. As far as language-users are concerned, the nominative is not in any sense the ‘first’ case in the declension: the forms may be thought of in any variety of orders, depending on circumstances.” [CGL] [175].

As Saussure introduces the distinction between the grammarian and the language user, some questions regarding the limits of associative families start to emerge. We might ask, for example, whether the terms within an associative group are indefinite for the grammarian or for the language user. Can we not consider that the mind (l'esprit), besides understanding the relationships among shared domains, also comprehends their boundaries?

Explicit and Implicit Knowledge: Viewpoints of the Grammarian and the Language-User

When discussing the pragmatic challenges linguists confront as they endeavor to delimit linguistic units, Saussure observes:

"Doubtless these difficulties do not arise for the language-users themselves. However, it is one thing to sense this rapid and subtle interplay of units, but quite another thing to give an account of it by means of a systematic analysis." [CGL] [148].

Building upon the preceding quote, one could argue that although linguists may face formidable challenges in delineating the boundaries of associative groups, speakers effortlessly navigate these limits, even if they don't explicitly articulate their methods.

The Grammatologist and the Language-User: Considering their Modus Operandi

This prompts us to consider the related concept of DifférAnce coined by Derrida, viewing it through the same lens and questioning whether the differing and deferring of meaning are perpetual solely for the grammatologist or also for the subject.

Derrida introduces the concept of DifférAnce in his work 'Of Grammatology,' which Arthur Bradley elucidates as the fusion of two distinct nuances of the French word 'différer': differing and deferring. According to Bradley, DifférAnce encapsulates the dual nature of meaning formation within language. It encompasses the spatial dispersion of meaning, where a sign necessarily relates to other elements within the linguistic system, as well as the temporal postponement of meaning, where a sign always refers to elements preceding or succeeding it. Derrida argues that language operates through this perpetual process of differing and deferring, wherein the fulfillment of meaning is constantly deferred to the next sign in both space and time, leading to the impossibility of ever reaching a fully present and stable signified." (Bradley, 2008)

This phenomenon of endlessly differing and deferring meaning—is it only experienced by the grammatologist due to an incapacity to consciously articulate it, or does it also extend to the language-user? Does the process of signification never reach an end from the perspective of the language-user?

Saussure writes:

"Anything which is significant in any way strikes them (language-users) as being a concrete unit, and they do not fail to notice it in discourse." [CGL] [148].

Based on our experiences, aren't we inclined to believe that for the language-user, there exists a "point in the signifying chain at which 'the signifier stops the otherwise endless movement of the signification' and produces the necessary illusion of a fixed meaning"? (Evans, 1996)

Conclusion

Is the infinite play of différAnce the result of methodological distinctions? While linguists may find it daunting to fully articulate language-related phenomena, such as identifying where the chain of meaning halts, this is an operation effortlessly performed by language users, thereby ensuring their existence. The ability to understand and be understood forms the foundation of human interaction on a grand scale.

Despite the challenges faced by linguists in translating implicit knowledge into explicit analysis, the seamless navigation of language by users underscores the existence of a “point de capiton” (E, 303). This concept, though labeled a “necessary illusion” by theorists, stands as a tangible reality for speakers of a language. As we reflect on Saussure's connected terms, which radiate ad infinitum [CGL] [174], and Derrida's notion of DifférAnce, we are reminded of the difficulties of making explicit our implicit knowledge and the relevance of the point of view adopted when describing reality.

Bibliography

Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. Translated by Bruce Fink. New York – London: W. W. Norton, 2006.

Ferdinand de Saussure. Ecrits de linguistique générale, edited by Simon Bouquet and Rudolf Engler, Gallimard, 2002.

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. 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.