The Clash of Titans: Abel and Saussure on the Nature of Language

In Abel's ancient presence, contradictions abound; In Saussure's silent absence, identity is found.

Introduction

Karl Abel's work, "Über den Gegensinn der Urworte," has had a profound impact on the development of psychoanalytic and linguistic theory. Sigmund Freud, in particular, was significantly influenced by Abel, citing his ideas extensively in his essay "The Antithetical Meaning of Primordial Words." Freud’s engagement with Abel's theory highlighted the psychoanalytic implications of language's inherent contradictions:

"I did not succeed in understanding the dream-work’s singular tendency to disregard negation and to employ the same means of representation for expressing contraries until I happened by chance to read a work by philologist Karl Abel." (Freud, 1957)

Later, Jacques Derrida drew upon both Abel and Freud, incorporating the concept of antithetical homophones (The Hinge/La Brisure) in his seminal work, Of Grammatology, where he outlines his foundational ideas.

Abel's theory posits that a characteristic feature of ancient Egyptian language was the presence of homophones—words that sounded identical but "had" different, sometimes contradictory meanings. This intriguing notion underscores a dynamic and fluid understanding of linguistic signification, suggesting a complex interplay between sound and meaning in early language systems. However, this thesis becomes problematic when viewed through the lens of modern linguistics, particularly within Ferdinand de Saussure's framework, which emphasizes the differential nature of linguistic signs. Saussure's theory suggests that language functions on differences and oppositions, complicating the idea of a single word "having" two meanings simultaneously:

For some people a language, reduced to its essentials, is a nomenclature: a list of terms corresponding to a list of things. This conception is open to a number of objections. It assumes that ideas already exist independently of words. [CGL] [97]

In this article, I will examine Abel's theory of antithetical homophones and the compelling counterarguments raised by Saussure's linguistic framework. By exploring how language functions through differences and oppositions, we can better understand the limitations and implications of Abel's hypothesis. Ultimately, I argue that while Abel's observations offer valuable insights, they must be contextualized within a broader linguistic theory that accounts for the differential and relational nature of language.

Abel's Observation of Antithetical Homophones in Ancient Egyptian

Philologist Karl Abel observed a fascinating feature of the ancient Egyptian language: the presence of many words with diametrically opposite meanings, known as antithetical homophones (also auto-antonyms, contronyms, or enantiosemes). This phenomenon is illustrated by examples where a single word could mean both "strong" and "weak," "light" and "dark," etc. These words often had “the same pronunciation or slight phonetic variations” but were written using different symbols or pictograms to convey their distinct meanings. Abel noted, "In der ägyptischen Sprache nun, dieser einzigen Reliquie einer primitiven Welt, findet sich eine ziemliche Anzahl von Worten mit zwei Bedeutungen, deren eine das gerade Gegentheil der anderen besagt" (Abel, 1884).

For example, when the Egyptians wanted to say "cover, wrap, envelop," they used the word "unx." However, for "uncover, expose," they used the same sound, perhaps with a slight, phonetic modification, "unh." Similarly, the word "at" was used for both "to hear" and "to be deaf" (ãt' = hear; ät, = deaf). In addition to the meaning "to hear," "at" also included the meaning "spoken words," thus presenting another inversion:

(Abel, 1884)

This duality in meaning is significant because it highlights the dynamic and fluid nature of linguistic signification in early language systems. It suggests a complex interplay between sound and meaning, where the same phonetic expression could be adapted to convey different, often opposing, concepts.

Saussure's Concept of Identity in Linguistics

Saussure's framework challenges Abel's theory by questioning the notion that words possess inherent meaning. This issue brings us to the systemic nature of language, as elucidated in Course in General Linguistics. According to Saussure, identity in language is forged through contrast rather than through positive terms.

In Saussurean linguistics, the identity of a linguistic sign emerges from its distinction from other elements within the language system. A linguistic sign isn't defined by intrinsic characteristics but rather by its differentiation from others. This relational and differential aspect is crucial for comprehending the functioning of language (CGL 161; 164-165; 168).

This perspective casts doubt on Abel's hypothesis regarding the ancient Egyptian language, where certain words, though pronounced the same, held two distinct, sometimes contradictory meanings. Saussure argues that language heavily depends on opposition and differentiation, which undermines this notion. He states, "Speech sounds are first and foremost entities which are contrastive, relative and negative. What proves this is the latitude speakers are allowed in pronunciation, provided they distinguish one sound from another" [CGL] [164]

By emphasizing the importance of contrasts and oppositions, Saussure’s theory challenges the idea that a single phonetic form could simultaneously convey opposite meanings, as proposed by Abel. Instead, it suggests that the perceived duality in meaning would likely be understood through the context and the relational aspects of the language system.

The Distinction Between Linguist and Language User

Linguists must distinguish between the perspectives of the language user (speaker) and the analyst. This distinction is crucial for understanding how language operates in real-life contexts versus how it is analyzed scientifically.

Modern linguists, including Abel, when examining these Egyptian terms in isolation and thousands of years later, might struggle to differentiate them without the original contextual backdrop. This analytical approach often leads to assigning fixed pronunciations and meanings to words, which can obscure the fluid and dynamic nature of language as experienced by its users. This situation evokes the historical debate between Erasmians and anti-Erasmians on the pronunciation of classical Greek. The expectation that the pronunciation of Greek should remain unchanged over centuries highlights the complexities surrounding linguistic evolution.

However, for ancient Egyptian speakers, what might appear to modern linguists as one term with two opposite meanings was likely perceived as two distinct terms. Actually, every time we say a word, its pronunciation varies (Potamois tois autois embainomen te kai ouk embainomen, eimen te kai ouk eimen):

"For example, we may hear in the course of a lecture several repetitions of the word Messieurs! (‘Gentlemen!’). We feel that in each case it is the same expression: and yet there are variations of delivery and intonation which give rise in the several instances to very noticeable phonic differences" [CGL] [150-51]

Native speakers relied on subtle phonetic variations and rich contextual cues to disambiguate these terms. This implicit understanding and contextual reliance meant that speakers rarely experienced confusion:

"…it is extremely difficult to unravel in a sequence of sounds the arrangement of units present, and to say which are the concrete elements the language is using. Doubtless these difficulties do not arise for the language-users themselves. Anything which is significant in any way strikes them as being a concrete unit, and they do not fail to notice it in discourse. 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]

This highlights the contrast between the implicit, intuitive understanding of language by native speakers and the more rigid, structured approach of linguistic analysis. Returning to Abel's observations, it becomes clear that while his identification of antithetical homophones provides valuable insights, it must be viewed through the lens of how language is actually used and understood in context.

Conclusion

In both ancient and modern languages, words do not exist in isolation, akin to mere entries in a dictionary. Rather, they constitute integral components of a dynamic and ever-evolving system, where their meanings and identities are intricately intertwined with context. The essence of words in language emerges from their nuanced distinctions and interconnectedness within the linguistic framework.

Ultimately, language's very essence resides in its inherently differential nature. Whether identifying a linguistic sign, analyzing grammatical structures such as plurals, scrutinizing the distinct features of phonemes, or, as in this case, disentangling homophones, we continually confront the same reality: these elements are defined by their contrasts with all other elements within the system, delineating what they are by what they are not. This intrinsic quality renders the linguist's task remarkably challenging yet endlessly fascinating.

By examining Abel's theory through the lens of Saussure's principles, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and fluidities inherent in language. While Abel's observations of antithetical homophones offer intriguing insights, it is essential to consider them within the broader context of linguistic structures and the relational nature of meaning. This nuanced approach not only enriches our comprehension of ancient languages but also underscores the dynamic interplay between sound, meaning, and context in all linguistic systems.

Cite this page: "Return to Saussure." http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

Related Post: 

The Differential Nature of Language: An Analysis of Linguistic Levels

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/02/blog-post_12.html

Bibliography

Abel, Carl, Dr. Ph. Über den Gegensinn der Urworte. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Friedrich Königl. Hofbuchhandlung, 1884.

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.

Freud, Sigmund. The Antithetical Meaning of Primordial Words. Translated by James Strachey. General Editor James Strachey. Collaboration with Anna Freud, Alix Strachey, and Alan Tyson. Volume 10. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1957.

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.