The Burden of the Word: Examining the Limits of Speech in Science and Fiction

Introduction

The question of whether our organs of speech are truly meant for language has intrigued linguists, philosophers, and artists alike. Anatomical and evolutionary studies reveal that the parts of our vocal apparatus—the lungs, vocal cords, tongue, teeth, and lips—serve primary functions that have little to do with language. The lungs are built for breathing, the vocal cords for protecting the airway, the teeth for chewing, and the tongue for manipulating food. Speech, it seems, is a clever secondary use of these organs rather than their original purpose.

This understanding has sparked debate among linguists. Some argue that speech is a natural evolutionary adaptation, suggesting that our vocal apparatus has been shaped, at least in part, by the demands of communication. Noam Chomsky notes that while humans could have adopted other systems like sign language, we have overwhelmingly chosen speech as our primary mode of communication. However, others, notably Ferdinand de Saussure, challenge this view. Saussure argues that spoken language is not the natural endowment of the human vocal apparatus but rather the ability to create and use signs, regardless of the medium. For him, language is less about the mechanics of speech and more about the cognitive system that allows us to symbolize and communicate.

The debate, which straddles the thin line between science and science fiction, has resonated across various fields, from linguistics to literature to film. In this article, we will explore how these ideas are examined through the works of Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics, Jonathan Swift’s satirical masterpiece Gulliver’s Travels, and Ridley Scott’s sci-fi film Prometheus. Each approaches the question of spoken language from a different angle, offering unique insights into the complexities of human communication.

Ferdinand de Saussure: Challenging the Naturalness of Spoken Language

Ferdinand de Saussure, often regarded as the father of modern linguistics, challenges the idea that spoken language is a natural function of the human vocal apparatus. In the Introduction of his seminal work, Course in General Linguistics, Chapter 3, Saussure draws a critical distinction between "la langue"—the structured, conventional system of language—and "le langage," the broader human capacity for communication. This differentiation underpins his argument that while language itself is a human faculty, the use of the vocal organs for speech is not an inherent, predetermined natural function.

He questions the widely held belief that speech is an intrinsic outcome of our biological design. He argues that, unlike legs which are clearly evolved for walking, it has never been definitively established that our organs of speech evolved specifically for speaking. “It has not been established that the function of language, as manifested in speech, is entirely natural: that is to say, it is not clear that our vocal apparatus is made for speaking as our legs for walking,” he writes. By drawing this comparison, Saussure underscores the uncertainty surrounding the specialization of the vocal organs for speech, suggesting that speaking is more of an adaptive use rather than an evolutionary certainty.

Saussure’s critique is further supported by the American linguist William Dwight Whitney, whom he references to highlight the arbitrary nature of using the vocal organs for communication. Whitney views languages as social constructs, equating them with other social institutions, and argues that the use of vocal organs for language is more about convenience than necessity: “It is a matter of chance or mere convenience that it is our vocal apparatus we use for linguistic purposes.” Saussure acknowledges that while Whitney’s perspective might be somewhat extreme, it aligns with the broader argument that language is fundamentally a social convention, not a biologically predetermined act tied specifically to speech.

According to Saussure, the true natural endowment lies not in the physical act of speaking but in the cognitive faculty to create and use a system of signs. He emphasizes that the essence of language is the ability to construct a system of distinct signs corresponding to distinct ideas. This view is further reinforced by neurological evidence from the work of Paul Broca, who identified that the brain’s language centers are not exclusive to spoken language but are equally involved in other forms of symbolic communication, including writing. Saussure points out that disorders like aphasia, which affect both speech and writing, demonstrate that what is impaired is not the ability to vocalize but the broader capacity to produce and understand signs in any form.

Ultimately, Saussure’s arguments reposition the debate around language, suggesting that while speech is a powerful and pervasive form of communication, it is just one of many possible manifestations of our deeper cognitive abilities. This perspective opens the door to viewing language as an adaptable, sign-based system rather than a rigid, speech-bound function, challenging the primacy of spoken language and inviting us to rethink the supposed naturalness of our vocal expressions.

From this theoretical groundwork, we can turn to a more imaginative and satirical exploration of these ideas in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, where the gullibility of spoken language takes center stage at the Grand Academy of Lagado.

Jonathan Swift: Satire and the Gullibility of Language in the Grand Academy of Lagado

In Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, the absurdity of human endeavors is brought to life through biting satire, none more so than in his depiction of the Grand Academy of Lagado. In Part III, Chapter V, Gulliver finds himself in the kingdom of Balnibarbi, where he is invited to visit this so-called center of scientific learning and innovation. Instead of encountering groundbreaking discoveries, Gulliver is met with chaos: impractical, pointless, and often ridiculous experiments conducted by “projectors”—mad scientists obsessed with their bizarre inventions. Swift uses the Academy as a sharp critique of the Royal Society and the Enlightenment era, highlighting the absurd disconnect between theory and practical application.

Within the Grand Academy, one of the most striking and satirical moments unfolds in the School of Languages. Here, Gulliver observes three professors engaged in discussions about radical linguistic reforms. These projects, as Swift presents them, border on the absurd, exposing the folly of trying to rationalize and improve language beyond its natural use.

The first of these projects aims to simplify language by reducing polysyllabic words to single syllables and eliminating verbs and participles, reasoning that all things imaginable are but nouns. This effort to streamline language into something supposedly more efficient reflects the broader Enlightenment obsession with order and reductionism, while simultaneously mocking it as both impractical and devoid of common sense.

The second project, however, takes this logic to an even more extreme—and ludicrous—conclusion: the complete abolition of spoken words. The rationale behind this is framed in pseudo-scientific terms, arguing that speech wears out the lungs and shortens life, so abolishing spoken words would be healthier and more efficient. Swift describes the scene as follows:

“We next went to the school of languages, where three professors sat in consultation upon improving that of their own country.
The first project was to shorten discourse by cutting polysyllables into one, and leaving out verbs and participles, because, in reality, all things imaginable are but nouns.
The other project was, a scheme for entirely abolishing all words whatsoever; and this was urged as a great advantage in point of health, as well as brevity. For it is plain, that every word we speak is, in some degree, a diminution of our lungs by corrosion, and, consequently, contributes to the shortening of our lives.”

Swift’s satire here serves to ridicule not only the overzealous quest for linguistic reform but also to highlight a deeper skepticism about the very nature of speech. The idea that speaking could harm the body echoes an underlying belief: that the organs of speech were never truly designed for talking. The lungs are meant for breathing, the teeth for chewing, the tongue for manipulating food—language is, therefore, an unnatural imposition on these organs, straining them beyond their original purpose. Both Swift’s satire and Saussure’s critique illuminate the same fundamental question: Is speech an inevitable and natural outcome of human evolution, or simply a convenient, yet ultimately arbitrary, choice?

With Swift’s playful yet pointed critique as a backdrop, we are led into a conversation about the peculiarities of language, one that resonates with the broader philosophical and linguistic debates of his time and beyond. This tension between the perceived naturalness of speech and the reality of its use continues to unfold in other realms, such as Ridley Scott’s Prometheus, where the act of speaking takes on a powerful, almost mythological weight.

Ridley Scott’s Prometheus: The High Cost of Speech in a Dystopian Vision

Ridley Scott's Prometheus delves into themes that resonate with the notion that spoken language is an unnatural, taxing endeavor—a perspective reminiscent of the arguments posed by Saussure, Whitney, and even the absurd linguistic experiments at the Grand Academy of Lagado. In the film, the Engineers—an ancient and powerful alien race—communicate in a reconstructed version of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the hypothetical common ancestor of many modern languages. This linguistic choice not only emphasizes the Engineers' deep connection to humanity but also aligns with Saussure’s expertise and theories, drawing a line between the primal roots of language and its burdensome nature.

The scene where David, the android, awakens an Engineer highlights the physical toll that speech takes on these god-like beings. As the Engineer begins to speak, his exhaustion becomes palpable: he appears disoriented, breathes heavily, and seems physically strained by the mere act of speaking. His body language suggests that uttering words is not a natural or easy task; he has to pause frequently to catch his breath, reinforcing the idea that speaking is an arduous process for him. This visible fatigue adds a layer of complexity to the Engineers, hinting that speech is either physiologically taxing or perhaps metaphysically disruptive to their being.

The Engineers might have evolved—or been designed—in a way that makes verbal communication an energy-draining act, reserved for moments of utmost necessity. This hints at a primary mode of communication that bypasses spoken language entirely, such as telepathy or other forms of non-verbal interaction. The suggestion that speaking is not their default mode emphasizes the unnaturalness of speech, aligning with the idea that language—though deeply embedded in human civilization—is not as inherent as it seems.

This energetic drain could also serve as a metaphor for the profound impact of their words. In Prometheus, each utterance from an Engineer carries immense weight, almost as if speaking is an act of creation or destruction in itself. The Engineers, as creators, mirror a god-like capacity where speech is more than just communication; it is an exertion of power that comes at a cost. This idea is not unlike the biblical concept from John 1:1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Here, the “Word” represents the ultimate force of creation, underscoring that language is not just a tool but a force that shapes reality. In this sense, the Engineer’s fatigue can be seen as symbolic of the immense responsibility and the physical and metaphysical toll of wielding such power.

During the scene, David speaks to the Engineer, articulating the desires of his creator, Weyland, with the words, "This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life." The Engineer’s strained reaction, culminating in a violent outburst, suggests that his weariness is not just physical but also emotional and psychological. Speaking in this ancient, powerful language is an act that disrupts the natural order for the Engineers, manifesting as a profound exhaustion.

The scene encapsulates the film’s underlying message about the burdens of speech and communication. The Engineers’ struggle to speak reflects the broader theme that language, especially when imbued with great significance, carries a weight that goes beyond mere words. It is a dynamic force that shapes reality but does so at a high cost, a concept that echoes through myth, philosophy, and even the earliest biblical narratives.

In Prometheus, language is not a simple, natural function but a profound, demanding act that speaks to the very nature of creation and existence itself. The Engineers’ exhaustion becomes a powerful symbol of the inherent power—and peril—of the spoken word.

Conclusion

From Saussure’s linguistic theories to Swift’s satirical critique and Scott’s dystopian vision, the question of whether spoken language is a natural function of our anatomy or an imposed, energy-draining artifice reveals deep tensions at the heart of human communication. Language, though central to our identity, is portrayed as something that stretches the limits of our natural capabilities, often at a profound cost. Whether it’s the absurd experiments at the Grand Academy of Lagado, the strained utterances of the Engineers in Prometheus, or Saussure’s challenge to the supposed naturalness of speech, each perspective invites us to reconsider the burdens and mysteries of language. Far from being just a tool, speech emerges as a complex, powerful force—capable of creation and destruction, yet always demanding something of those who wield it.

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

Related Posts

A Conversation with Saussure

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

 The Links in the Chain of Meaning: Charting the “Sign Convolution”

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/03/blog-post_27.html

Beyond Gulliver’s Travels: Lessons from the Grand Academy of Lagado

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_28.html

Bibliography

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.

Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s Travels. Project Gutenberg eBook #829. February 20, 1997. Updated September 6, 2023. Produced by David Price.

Deleted Engineer Dialogue FULLY TRANSLATED from the Script of Prometheus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFjTxnb2l04