Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Scric No.
TWPNTT
Problems in
General Linguistics
('
n
P
Un
Press
zt8
t in which thcy wcrc not cmploycd. But thc othcr signr of a lenguegc arc
ditributcd indiffcrcntly betwccn thcsc two typcc of tcxu. Bcaid this condition ofuec, which i itsclfdistinctivc, wc shll cll ttention to e fundernentrl
t'
C)
C.,.)
pcrson who is uttering the prercnt instance of the discoursc containing .I."
This instancc is uniquc by definition and has vrlidity only in itr uniqucncs.
If I perceive two succ*sive instanccs of discoursc conteining I uttrcd in
thc samc voicc, nothing guarentc to mc that onc of thcm is not rcported
discoursc, e quotetion in which f could be imputcd to another. It is thus
nocessry to strcss thir point: f can only be idcnticd by the instencc of discouc that contins it and by that alone. It has no veluc ercept in the instnce
in which it is produccd.'But in thc s:mc way it ic elso as n instnce of form
tht f must bc tahen; thc form of.I has no linguistic cxistcnce exccpt in the
act of peling in which it is uttered. Thcre is thus combincd double
instncc in this process: thc instance of.l s
of,
discourse conteining .I s thc referee. The defi
reciscly as: I is "tlrc individul who utters the
rse
Thc Naturc of
honuas
ztg
hic/istc- Here thcre is ncw end dietinctive featuc.in thi cries: it i thc
idcntifiction of the objecr by en indicetor {ostcngion concomitnt with thc
instance of discoursc cootaining the indicator of pcrson. .By simulancor.u
ostension, ,ri will bc thc objcct deoignared in thc prcsent instance of dicoursc nd the reference implicit in the form (for exemplc, luc rs opposcd
to tc), vhich associates it with I and 1r. outside this class, but on thc aamc
plenc and associated in the samc franc ofrcferenoe, we find thc tdverto hac
ad ou. Their retationship with f will be shown
being unique and particutar each time, which is thc uniquencsr of thc
from othcr linguistic signs. Yet it is a fact both original nd fundmentl tht
thcsc "pronominal" forms ddnbt refer to "reality" or to .,objc6ivc'. pooitionr
This constnt and neccesary refercncc to thc instance of discourc constitutca the feture that unites to l/yot a series of,.indictorg,, which, from
thcir form and their systcmatic capacity, belong to differcnt classes, somc
bcing pronouns, othcrc adverbs,-and still othe, adverbial locutions.
The demonstrativcs, fri, etc., ere such indicators inasmuch as their
orgenization corrcltcs with that of thc indicators of pcraon, s in Lat.
in spacc or timc but to the utterance, unique each time, thtt contins them,
nd thus
bc measu
other
th
problem
j,
horrs N GE^L
Lrnousrcs
lci mtcril
ing himlf
up.
as
!l.!urn s
discourrc nd
no othcr. If cech rpcelcr, in ordcr to cxprcss thc fecling hc h of his irreduciblc rubjccrivity, medc usc of distinct idcntifying rignr (in rhe scnsc
,in whlch crch rdio transrnitting strion hs it own cer hners), thcrc would
bc'meny lenFgc3 r individul nd communiction wouldlbccomc bso.
lutcty impoesible. Langrngc wrds off this danger by inrtituting e unique
but mobilc rigrr, r, which cn bc ssumcd by cach rpcerer on thc condition
ll
lt
I
bctwccn
(f)
-
it
rl
hc
mlc uc of whcn
ton
hc nnouncca himclf the rpcercr. Thus thc indicrtnd,1 cnnot cxigt rs potentiditict; thcy cxirt only incofr rs they ere
(,
{
Thc Natwc of
hoau
.ttt
Pnorrrs
rx Gnn Lnrcurscs
TWENlY-ONE
pcnon" ir ite propcrty of (r) combining with eny objcct rdcrcncc, (z) nevcr
bcing rcfcctivc of thc instncc of discourac, $) edmining of somctimes
rethcr ler numbcr of pronominal or demonstrtivc vlrients, end (4) not
bcing comprtiblc with thc paradigm of refcrentil tcrmc likc hac, nou, etc.
Evcn bricf endyrir of thc forms tht re imprccircly clarscd es pronominl lcds thus to thc rccognition arnong thcm of clsscs of entircly diffcrent ntureg rnd, conscquently, to the distinction bctwcen, on thc one
Subjectivity in Language
hend, lenguegc r . rcpcrtory of signa end e Bystcm for combining tlrem and,
on thc ohcr, hnguagc .s an ectvty manifcstcd in instnccs of discourse
which c chrctcizcd s such by particular eigns.
llnt,
c.'
Mclan,
rnd
Ir trcurce
it
a?
\
24
thrt
of apccch.
Oncc thi function is sccn s bclonging to thc ct of opeech, it may bc
kcd wht prcdispooition ccounts for thc fact tht thc ect of apccch ahould
hvc it. In ordcr for rpccch to bc the vchiclc of "communiction," it must
bc o cnbled by lenguegc, of which it is only thc ctuelization. Indced, it is
in lenguegc tht wc must scach for the condition of this ptitudc. It eems
(.::' to tht it rcsidc in e progcrty of language barely visible unde the cvidencc
CD I- t(concels it, which only alctchily can wc yet chractcrize.
,' (!i. in end through tenguagc that men constirutca himclf s t nbjcct,
bccaurc lenguegc lonc cstablishes the conccpt of "cgo" in reelity, in lb
. rcelity which i thr of thc being.
Thc "rubjectity" w" erc discuesing hcrc i thc cepacity of thc spcaler
to pit himclf s "subject." It is dencd not by thc fceling which cvcryonc
cxpcricncco of bcing himsclf (this fecling, to thc degre tht it cen bc teten
notc of, ir only e rcflcction) but s the psychic unity that transccnds thc
totelity of thc ctul cr[rcricnces it ssembles nd tht mhcs thc pcrmnense
of thc conciouncs. Now we hold that tht "aubjectivity," whcthcr it is
placcd in phenomcnology or in psychology, 8 one mey wirh, ir only the
Subjcabily
Laagugc
a.s
/.
T_tr_=r-T=fhorr rr Grnnr,
2t
Lxonsrca
thc urc of pcriphrrocs or of rpecid form bctsccn ccrtein groupr of indidul in ordcr to rcplecc thc dircc,t pcrsond rcfercnccr. But thcsc usagcs
only rcrvc to undcrlinc thc vatuc of the avoidcd formr; it io thc implicit
citcncc of thcc pronounr that givce ocid nd culturl vluc to thc subrtitutca impoccd by clees rcletionshipr'
I Now tlcrc pronounr erc dirtinguished from ll othcr designetione e hngurgc ertictletce in hzt thqr do aot rclct to a coiccpt or ,o 6 dfuidul.
Thcrc i no conccpt "I" tht incorporatcr ll thc f' tlrt rc uttcrcd at
cvcry momcnt in thc mouth of rll spcahcrs, in thc scnsc tht thcrc i conccpt "trcc" to which all thc individud uscs ofr rcfcr. Thc "I," thcn, docs
not dcnomintc any lcricel cntity. Could it thcn bc sad tht f rcfcrs to a
prrticuler individul? If tht were the cesc, Pcrmnent contrdidion would
It
I
7 lenguage.
It ir
cesy
to
G?
eubjec-tivity
i futhcr
cxpandcd and
mult tlc ovcr thc crprcssion of tcmpordity. No mttcr what thc typ of
hnguegc, thcrc i cvermhcre to bc ob,scrycd . ccrtin lingrirtic orgenizetion
tI
Sjectivity in I'gugc
of the notion of time. It mattcrs little whether this notion
i mrhcd in thc
inflection of thc verb or by words of other classcs (particlcs, advcrbs, lcrical variations, etc.); that is a matter of formal structurc. In onc wy or
lnothcr, a languege rlways makcs a distinction of "tcnsct"; whcthcr it bc
past end a future, scparetcd by r "present," as in Frcnch [or Englishl, or,
as in vrious Amerindin languagcs, of a preterite-prcscnt oPPosed to futurc,
or a prescnt-future dirtinguishcd frorn . Pest, thcse ditincrions bcing in
thcir turn capable of depcnding on vritions of aspect, ctc. But thc line of
rcparation is always rcferencc to thc "prcsent." Now thir "prcscnt" in itr
turn has only a linguistic fact s temporal refercnce: thc coincidcncc of thc
cvent described with thc instancc of discourse that dcscribc it. Thc tcrnporel
rcferent of the prcsent can only bc intcrnl to thc disciurrc . Thc Dictiottttoitc
gnhalc defincs the "prescnt" as "le temps du verbe qui crprimc lc tcmpa o
i'on est." But let us bewarc of this; thee is no other critcrion end no othcr
expression by which to indicatc "the time t which onc ls" crcept to talc it
"thc time at which onc is spcahing-" Thb is the etcrnally 'rpresent" momcnt,
dthough it nevcr relatcs to the gemc cvcnts of en "objcclivc" chronology
bccausc it is detcrmincd for ech speeker by each of the instncca of discourc
rclated to it. Linguistic t-lryi2y!!:19[7cnlrl. Ultimately, humen tcmPorlity
with rll its liguistic apparatus reveals thc subjcctivity inhcrent in thc vgry
possibility of subjectivity bccusc it elweyl
ppropriete to the expression of subjectivity,
ergence of subjectivity bccre it consist of
language puts forth ""-Pty" forms which
wey
In
somc
discrete nstences.
appropriates to himself and which
discoursc,
of
exercisc
in
the
speaker,
cach
hc reltes to his "person," at the same time dcfining himsclf s
and e partner
l'
Morc-
whahcr
Hcrc wc
to
illutrtc
so[rc
view
in
ordcr
in
must necssafily havc perticular languages
Wc
cen
intoducc.
which
"subjectivity"
pcrspcctive
of
change
eftccts of the
cennot say what the rengc of the particular phcnomena wc ere pointing out
may be in the univcrsc of rcal languagcs; for the momnt it is lcss importmt
to delimit rhm than to fcvcal thcm. English provideo cvcrl convcnicnt
exemPles.
zzg
horrrs
Ga.n^r Lxcursrcs
Sjcclioillt in Lguagc
is thc real utterencc, not the personal verb form that goycrns it. But o thc
out except in the first pcrson. onc cn hardly imagine rimiler.vcrbo in thc
second person exccpt for taling up an argumcnt rrgain rlbatim; thur,
lc
tuot that h has bJt'u only a wey of rcpcating what.,you,' h juat id:.,f
tuPot that he has left." But if one emovcs the expresrion of pcrron, tceving
only "hc suppses thot . . .," wc no longer hevc, from thc point of vicw of f wh
utte it, ariything but r eimple statemcnt.
We will perceive thc nature of this ,'subjectivity" cvcn morc ctcerty if wc
congider the efect on the meaning produccd by changing the p'on ofccrtin
verbs of speaking. Thcac re vcrbs that by their meaning dcnote an individul
act of social import: nar, gronc, guantc. ccrti,with locutionl vriant like llcdgc to . . ., conmit (otetelf) ro. . . . In thc ocil condition in
which lenguage is ercrcised, thc ece denoted by thcrc vcrbe rc rcgrrdcd
as binding. Now here the difference between the "subjcc{ive" uttcrncc nd
the "nonsubjective" is fully apprnt s soon s we noticc thc nturc of thc
opposition between the "persons" of thc vcrb. \AIc mut bcr in mind tht thc
"third person" is the form of the verbal (or pronomind) paradigm that docr
not rcc to e person bccause it refcr to n object locted outsidc dicct
addrcss. But it exists and is charecterizcd only by itr oppooition to thc pcrson
4
o{
.30
Pnor.rg
r Gwrrr,
TWENTY.T\TO
Lxcursirrcs
dioourc tht contin thc vcrb ctblisheg thc .ct t thc me timc tht it scts
up the rubjcct. Hcncc thc ct is pcrformcd by thc imtencc of thc uttcrancc
Frcm
Jouvl
dc
PusoprcrL INTEnpnETATots
of
ccrtin
(.3
It is thus with all thc more nterest rhat the linguist will study the conceptr
of the philosophy celled analytic. The Oxford philosophcn have dcvoted