Study Resource 1, Continental Philosophy

ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOGY
By Roland Barthes
CHAPTER 1: LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND SPEECH
SECTION 1: IN LINGUISTICS
Prior to Saussure's time, linguistics focused on the individual acts such that owing to the 'multiform and heterogeneous' nature of language which included within it the physical, mental, physiological and the social along with the individual, it seemed as though language could not be an "unclassified reality" (13), a unity. Saussure introduces the dichotomy of langue and parole such that langue/language emerges as "a purely social object, the systematized set of conventions necessary to communication, indifferent to the material of the signals which compose it"- these set of conventions made communication possible irrespective of the material (sound, visual, olfactory and others) in which the signals arrived and parole is the individual part of language (application of roles, contingent combination of the signs and phonation).
Language (langue): Langue is language excluding speech- it is a social institution and system of values.
Social institution- An individual cannot either create or modify the langue. It is a collective contract which is a pre-requisite for anyone who wishes to communicate. It is analogous to a game with its own rules.
System of values- Langue is made up of certain number of elements where each element is equal to a given quantity of things and is also a term of a larger function- found in a differential order with other correlative values. Sign is analogous to a coin- it has value of a certain amount of goods which it allows one to buy and it also has a value in relation to other coins, in greater or lesser degree.
The systematic and institutional aspects of the langue are connected: Because it is a system of contractual values, it does not permit the modifications coming from a single individual and thus, is a social institution.
Speech (parole): Speech is an individual act of selection and actualization.
It is a combination of signs. The individual uses code of language to express his personal thoughts.
It also includes the psycho-physical mechanism which allows him to exteriorize these combinations.
Speech contains the recurrence of identical signs where the signs are repeated in successive discourses and also within a single discourse. The expression of personal thought through extended speech is called discourse.
The dialectics of language and speech: There is no language without speech and no speech outside language. As Ponty points out, it is in this dialectic that the "real linguistic praxis" is located. Brondal also says: "A language is a purely abstract entity, a norm which stands above individuals, a set of essential types, which speech actualized in an infinite variety of ways."
The dialectic relation explicated-
Language is product of speech- Language is a "treasure deposited by the practice of speech, in the subjects belonging to the same community". Language does not exist perfectly except in the 'speaking mass'.
Language is instrument of speech- Language is only starting from speech historically and genetically
Historical: Language phenomena are always preceded by speech phenomena- it is speech which makes language evolve.
Genetic: Language is contained in an individual through his learning from the environmental speech- one does not teach grammar and vocabulary to a baby, the latter picks it up from her environment.
Two remarks on this dialectic relation-
Firstly, there cannot be a linguistic of speech, because the moment speech is received as a process of communication, it becomes part of language. Speech can only be studied to the extent it reflects language- it is as though you were to use a mirror to study yourself- you cannot use the mirror in itself for the purpose but only the mirror inasmuch as it reflects you.
Secondly, there is no point in wondering how to separate language from speech or in thinking if language should be studied before speech. Why? Because language is not like a preliminary operation to be studied before engaging in speech. Speech is the essence of linguistic. In separating language from speech, we lead to the semiological investigation- what is meaning once we separate speech from language?
Hjelmslev: Hjelmslev formalizes Saussure's conception of language and speech. He puts forward three planes within language:
Schema: Language in its pure form- this would be Saussure's langue in the strictest sense. Hjelmslev also attempted to use the following words instead of schema: framework, pattern, system. For instance, French 'r' as defined phonologically by its place in a series of oppositions.
^ Phonology: branch of linguistics which is the study of speech sounds used in a language
Norm: Language in its material form- when it has been realized to an extent by social realization but is still independent of this realization. For instance, 'r' in oral French in whichever way it is pronounced (except for in written French).
Usage: Language as a set of habits prevailing in the given society. For instance, 'r' as it is pronounced in some regions.
Relation of determination between these: Two fundamental planes arise from their relation to one another:
Schema: The theory of schema is derived from the form and the linguistic institution;
Group of norm-usage-speech: The theory of this group is derived from substance and the way in which it is executed.
Norm becomes the pure methodical abstraction and speech is the single concretion. Saussure's dichotomy of langue and parole is replaced by that of schema and usage. Here, usage forms a more social concept in place of parole and schema is the "radical formalization of the concept of language" (18).
Pro of Hjelmslev's theory: Saussure's distinction brought contradictions which are removed when it is replaced by the schema/usage one. Schema becomes the differentiating element of language through its formalization while usage becomes the positive and substantial element through its socialization of concept of parole.
Cons of Hjelmslev's theory:
It is not possible to identify language as a code with speech being a message. Generally, the conventions of code are explicit but those of language are implicit. While such a distinction between language as code and speech as message is not appropriate for Hjelmslev's theory, it is acceptable in Saussure's.
Relation between speech and syntagm: Speech has been defined as varied combination of recurrent signs. However, within language itself, we can find many fixed syntagms (like- compound words such as magnanimous). By Hjelmslev's definition, the line between speech and syntagm becomes blurred. Because language itself becomes characterized by combination. Even though there are different paradigms, it is possible to find fixed syntagms whose nature is linguistic. These fixed syntagms need to be studied. Such a study is called analysis morpho-syntax by Hjelmslev. Saussure had also noticed this transition where whole series of sentences might begin to belong to language which an individual does not have to combine himself. Under such conditions where sentences begin to belong to language than to speech, we will be confronted with a linguistics of syntagm used for all stereotypes 'modes of writing'.
Relation of language with relevance (with the signifying element proper in the unit): Sometimes, the relevance and the language have been identified with one another. Because of this, the non-relevant elements- the combinative variants- have been kept outside. However, there are combinative variants which are imposed (arbitrary). For instance, in French, 'l' must be voiceless after a voiceless consonant (oncle) and voiced after a voiced consonant (ongle). These are facts of phonetics and are not considered under phonology. Even though these elements do not have a differential value, they are combinative variants which are arbitrary and thus, part of language (without place in the differential value ordering). But by Saussure's definition, these are not admissible in language as they don't have differential value. While Martinet says that Saussure is contradictory, Frei tries to rescue Saussure by localizing the differences in sub-phonemes. For instance, 'p' could not be differentiating in itself but only in its consonantic, occlusive voiceless labial features and others. Thus, it can be said that there can be variations and syntagms which are non-signifying and even then, part of language (linguistic). These non-signifying variations form second-order corpus of signifiers. This is especially the case in mass languages. For instance, while 'r' is a mere combinative variant at the denotative level, it is a sign for country accent in speech of theater.
^ Phonetics: Science or study of speech sounds and their production, transmission, and reception and their analysis, classification and transcription.
^ Phonology: Study of distribution and patterning of speech sounds in language and of the tacit rules governing their pronunciation
^ Difference between phonetics and phonology: Phonetics is the physical aspect of sounds, studying the production and perception of sounds (called phones). Phonology is the abstract aspect of sounds and it studies the phonemes. Phonology talks about what are the phonemes in a given language- what are those sounds which can make a difference in meaning between two words. A phoneme is a phonic segment with a meaning value. For instance, in minimal pairs:
1. bat-pat
2. had-hat
Idiolect: Idiolect is "language inasmuch as it is spoken by a single individual" (Martinet) or "the whole set of habits of a single individual at a given point" (Ebeling). Jacobson questioned this notion and points out that: language is always socialized, even at an individual level, so idiolect seems only to be an illusion. Barthes states that we can hold on to the following senses of an idiolect:
Language of an aphasic- someone who has lost a previously held ability to speak or understand spoken or written language, due to disease or injury to the brain
Style of a writer- this will still be affected by certain verbal patterns coming from tradition- from community
Idiolect can be broadly defined as language of a linguistic community- a group of person who interpret in the same way all linguistic statements.
Need for intermediary between speech and language: The problem with defining idiolect shows the need for an intermediary entity between speech and language (the role of usage in Hjelmslev's theory). This would refer to speech which is already institutionalized but not completely open to formalization, as a language is.
Duplex structures:
After identitying language/speech with code/message, Jacobeson puts forward the concept of duplex structures where he puts forward special cases of general relation 'code/message': two cases of circularity and two cases of overlapping.
Reported speech- messages within a message (M/M): general case of indirect styles
Proper names- the name signifies any person to whom the name is attributed- circularity of code (C/C): for instance, John means a person names John.
Cases of autonymy: "Rat is a syllable"- the word is here used as its own designation- the message overlaps the code (M/C)
Shifters: Personal pronoun (I, thou)- an indical symbol which unites within itself the conventional and existential bonds- by conventional rule, it designates its object but since it refers to the person who utters it, it can only refer existentially to the utterance. (C/M): the personal pronouns are the last elements acquired in the child's speech and first to be lost in aphasia- they are terms of transference difficult to handle.
SECTION 2: SEMIOLOGICAL PROSPECTS
The language, speech and the social sciences:
Why sociological aspect of language has not been given importance earlier? Saussure is said to have been closely interested in the debate between Gabriel Tarde and Emile Durkheim- from where he is said to have affected his concept of language (from Durkheim) and his concept of speech (a compensation on Tarde's idea on the individual element). Since study of language has primarily developed within the 'system of values' aspect, there has only been acceptance of the need for an immanent analysis of linguistic institution while sociological aspect has not been given importance.
Saussure's impact on other disciplines:
Philosophy: Marleau-Ponty
Took up the Saussurean distinction of language/speech as opposition between speaking speech (a signifying intention in its embryonic state) and spoken speech (an 'acquired welath' of language).
Every process presupposes a system: every process is placed within a system.
Anthropology: Claude Levi-Strauss
Opposition between process and system (speech and language) is found in concrete guise in transition from exchange of women to structures of kinship.
This opposition has epistemological value:
Study of linguistic phenomena is the domain of mechanistic (as opposed to statistical) and structural interpretation
Study of speech phenomena is the domain of theory of probabilities
The unconscious character of the language- it is not the contents which are unconscious but the forms, that is, the symbolical function
Lacan
Libido can be described as a system of significations. This will lead to a new type of description of collective field of imagination- by its forms and its functions- by its signifiers more than by its signifieds.
The general category of language/speech can be applied to all systems of signs.
The garment system:
In applying the language/speech distinction to other semiological systems, we can classify certain classes of facts to category of language and others to speech.
In garment system, there are three different sub-systems classified according to substance used for communication:
Written
Photographed
Worn
Written:
Descriptions in fashion magazine using articulate language
Here, there is practically no speech.
The described garment does not correspond to individual handling rules of fashion. The descriptions are placed within a systematized set of signs and rules: it is language in its pure state.
Even though according to Saussure, there can be no language without speech, it is acceptable here because of two reasons:
Specific source of language: Language of fashion does not arise from 'speaking mass' (as the language in case of spoken does) but from a group which makes deliberate decisions, elaborates the code.
The abstraction which is essential to language is materialized here as written language- fashion clothes which are written about:
Language- Fashion clothes which are written about are language at the level of vestimentary communication (communication about clothes). When written about, they are language putting forward system of signs and rules (which cloth holds what value in the system of clothing).
Speech- Clothes play role of speech at level of verbal communication. When talked about, they become speech. (in actualizing the rules laid down by the magazines).
Photographed:
Language issued from fashion group- not given in abstract form because the photographed garment is always worn by an individual woman. This is the semi-formalized state of garment system.
The photographed garment: Elements
The photograph is the language of fashion represented by a pseudo-real garment;
The wearer of the garment (the photographed model) is the normative individual chosen for her canonic generality (her belonging to a particular fashion canon) which is fixed (the fashion group decides the structure of clothing to be worm) without any combinative freedom (the model does not have the freedom to mix up the elements of fashion according to her whims).
Worn: (real clothes)
Classic distinction between language and speech is visible
Language is made by:
Oppositions of pieces, parts of garments and details- depending on the various ways in which it is worn, it gives rise to different meanings (wearing a beret or bowler hat doesn't have the same meaning);
Rules that governs the association of piece among each other- either on length of body or in depth.
Speech is made of: All phenomena of-
Anomic fabrication (anomic meaning state of individuals or society chracterised by breakdown or absence of social norms and values, like uprooted people).
Individual way of wearing (size of garment, degree of cleanliness and wear, personal quirks).
The relation of language (costume) and speech (clothing): This is not similar to that of verbal language. The clothing does draw on costume (except in cases of eccentricity which also has its signs). Costume precedes clothing, since it comes from ready-made industry- from a minority group.
Food system:
Alimentary language is made up of:
Rules of exclusion- alimentary taboos;
Signifying opposition of units- for instance, the type savory/sweet;
Rules of association
Simultaneous- at the level of dish;
Successive- at the level of a menu.
Rituals of use which function as a king of alimentary rhetoric.
Alimentary speech: Personal or family variations of preparation and association.
Menu exhibits the relation between language and speech. Every menu is invented according to a structure (national, regional and social). This structure is filled according to days and users, as a linguistic 'form' is filled by the free variations and combinations that a speaker needs for a particular message.
There is no deciding group, as in the fashion system. While the scope of individual innovation is present which can acquire institutional value within the system, the alimentary language evolves from collective usage or from purely individual speech.
Car system, the furniture system:
Car system:
Language: whole set of forms and details- structure established differentially by comparing prototypes to each other.
Speech:
Car as an object- scope is very narrow as the freedom to choose a model for a buyer is limited- involves only 2 to 3 models and within each model, color and fittings.
Car as a sociological fact- If car is not seen as object, but a sociological fact, then the scope of speech widens. Speech is then the individual variations in way of driving developed in time.
Furniture system:
Language:
Oppositions of functionally identical pieces (two types of wardrobe, two types of bed and others).
Each of these pieces, according to its type, refers to a different meaning.
Rules of association which determine the putting together of different units at level of room.
Speech:
Insignificant variations which user can introduce into one unit
Freedom in association pieces of furniture together
Complex systems:
Systems in which different substances are involved.
Cinema, television and advertising:
Concerted action of image, sound and written word
Need to figure the language of each of complex systems and their subsidiaries
Language of linguistics is known, but not of image and music
Press:
Need to study connotations- development of system of second-order meanings which are parasitic on language proper
This second-order system is also a language, within which there is speech-phenomena, idiolects and duplex structures
There is problem in distinguishing between language and speech
Problems:
Origin of various signifying systems
In linguistic model, nothing can be part of language without being tried in speech but on the other hand, no speech is possible if it is not drawn from the treasure of the language.
However, in most of the other semiological systems except for food, there is a deciding group which elaborates the language. These are fabricated languages: 'logo-techniques'.
Nature of the deciding groups: more or less narrow
Highly qualified technocracy- fashion, motor
Diffused and anonymous group- production of standardized furniture, middle reaches of ready-wear
Limitations on the deciding group: The deciding group is not completely free ('arbirtrary'). It is determined by community in following ways at least:
Rising of new needs following development of societies (move to semi-European clothing in contemporary African countries, birth of new patterns of quick feeding in industrial and urban societies/fast food chains);
Economic requirements due to disappearance or promotion of certain materials (like artificial textiles);
Limitation on invention of forms due to ideology, subjecting it to taboos and reduces the margins of normal.
The elaboration of the deciding group is reflection of "collective field of imagination of the epoch".
Proportion between 'language' and 'speech' in the various systems:
Volume which can be established between the language and the corresponding speech in any system
Verbal language: high disproportion between the language (finite set of rules) and speech (practically unlimited in its diversity).
Food system: the proportion between language and speech is up to a level maintained since within the culinary forms, there are modalities and combinations.
Car or furniture system: scope for combinative variations and free associations is small.
There are systems where there is poor dialectic between the language and speech. In written fashion, speech is almost non-existent- thus, we face ourselves with a semiological system of language without speech.
Keeping in mind the above problems, there is a need to revise the Saussurean theory which states that language is nothing but a system of differences and also include within the couple of language/speech, a third signifying element. In semiological systems, we can find three planes (not just two):
Matter
Language
Usage
The need for matter arises in semiological systems because unlike human language, they are generally utilitarian and not signifying.



Continental Philosophy
Study Resource-1
15-April-2015