This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
It alters at every moment in perceived time. The sum of linguistic events is not only increased but qualified by each new event. If they occur in temporal sequence, no two statements are perfectly equal. Though homologous, they interact. («) In short : so far as we experience and ¶realize¶ them in liniar progression, time and language are intimately related : they move and the arrow is never in the same place. But ordinary language is, literally at every moment, subject to mutation. («) New words enter as old words lapse. Grammatical conventions are changed under pressure of idiomatic use or by cultural ordinance. («) Different civilizations, different epochs do not necessarily produce the same µspeech mass¶; certain cultures speak less than others; some modes of sensibility prize taciturnity and elision, others reward proxility and semantic ornamentation. One thing is clear : every language-act has a temporal determinant. No semantic form is timeless. When using a word we wake into resonance, as it were, its entire previous history. A text is embedded in specific historical time; it has what linguistis call a diachronic structure. To read fully is to restore all that one can of the immediacies of value and salient in which speech actually occurs.(«) A true reader is a dictionary addict. The complete penetrative grasp of a text, the complete discovery and recreative apprehension of its life-forms (prise de conscience), is an act whose realization can be precisely felt but is nearly impossible to paraphrase or systematize. Every musical realization is a new poiesis. It differs from the other performances of the same composition. Its ontological relationship to the original score and to all previous renditions is twofold : it is at the same time reproductive and innovatory. When we read or hear any language-statement from the past, be it Leviticus or last year¶s best-seller, we translate. («) The schematic model of translation is one in which a message from a source-language passes into a receptor-language via transformational process. The barrier is the obvious fact that one language differs from the other, that an interpretative transfer, sometimes, albeit misleadingly, described as encoding and decoding, must occur so that the message ¶gets through¶. Exactly the same model ± and this is what is rarely stressed ± is operative within a single language. But here the barrier or distance between source and receptor is time. (...) the tools employed in both operations are
correlate : both the external and internal translator/interprète have recourse to lexica, historical grammars, glossaries of particular periods, professions, or social millieux, dictionaries of argot, manuals of technical terminology. ( ) Certain elements will elude complete comprehension or revival. The time-barrier may be more interactable than that of linguistic difference. ( ) The translator
seemingly unprecedented needs. as the Opies have shown. In the event of autism. and omission. The fracture of words. mnemonics. the speech-battle between child and master can reach a grim finality. have a rebellious aim : by refusing. a selective use of the past tense. Surrounded by incomprehensible or hostile . ( ) We remember culturally. the business of internal translation tends towards being a bilingual process : eye and ear are kept alert to the necessity of decipherment. outside our interpretative belief in essentially linguistic records (silence knows no history) ? ( ) We have no total history. the child seeks to keep the world open to his own. by conventions of emphasis. History is a speech-act. Words rarely show any outward mark of altered meaning. The more seemingly standardized the language ( ) the more covert are indices of semantic dating. ( ). no history which could be defined as objectly real because it contained the literal sum of past life. the body forth their history only in a fully established context. We read as if time has had a stop.( ) What material reality has history outside language. and secret parlance of childhood. foreshortening. as we do individually. At moments of historical stress. mythologies of the true past follow on each other at such speed that entirely different perspectives coexist and blur at the edges.within has to cope with subtler treasons. for a time. out of a vital compulsion for immediacy and precise echo. the maltreatment of grammatical norms which. As every generation retranslates the classics. Where a passage historically remote. to accept the rules of the grown-up speech. so every generation uses language to build its own resonant past. constitute a vital part of the lore.
They are transmissions from the self inside the skin to reality outside. Intercourse and discourse. Eros and language mesh at every point. Semen. Impotence and speech-blocks. no two social classes. No two historical epochs. presumably millenary and marked by ennumerable regression. Sex is a profoundly semantic act. no two localities use words and syntax to signify exactly the same things. whereby we have hammered out the notion of self and otherness. masturbation seems to be correlative with the pulse of monologue or of internalized address. They arise from the life-need of the ego to reach out and comprehend. rules of proceeding. to destroy his imagined enemy. another human being. excreta. it is a subject to the shaping force of social convention. are sub-classes of the dominant fact of comunication. and accumulated precedent. To speak and to make love is to enact a distinctive twofold universality : both forms of communication are universals of human physiology as well as of social evolution. the autistic child breaks off verbal contact. the process. perhaps. of vertical or horizontal transfer of significance. in the two vital senses of understanding and containment . to send identical signals of valuation and inference. He seems to choose silence to shield his identity but even more. ( ) Ejaculation is at once a physiological and a linguistic concept. Neither do two human . Any model of communucation is at the same time a model of trans-lation. involuntary ejaculation and the word-river of dreams are phenomena whose interrelations seem to lead back to the central knot of our humanity. Like language.reality. Together they generate the history of self-consciousness. premature emission and stuttering.( ) If coitus can be schematized as dialogue. It is likely that human sexuality and speech developed in close-knit reciprocity. copula and copulation. and words are communicative products.
connotations. semantic moves current in public discourse. the . to leave unspoken. we speak to communicate. The ability of human being to misinform modulates through every wavelength from outright lying to silence. They form what linguists call an idiolect . and of the singular. deliberately or in immediate habit. Obviously. is a special case of the arc of communication which every successful speech-act closes within a given language. In both schemes there is in the middle an operation of interpretative decipherment. Where two or more languages are in articulate interconnection. irreducibly specific ensemble of his somatic and psychological identity. Translation . Part of the answer to the notorious logical conundrum as to whether or not there can be private language is that aspects of every language-act are unique and individual.beings. an encoding-decoding function or synapse. The personal lexicon in every one of us inevitably qualifies the definitions. The latter is inextricably a part of his subconscious. Each living person draws. This ability is based on the dual structure of discourse : our outward speech has behind it a concurrent flow of articulate consciousness. But also to conceal. properly understood. and a private thesaurus. on two sources of linguistic supply : the current vulgate corresponding to his level of literacy. Each communicatory gesture has a private residue. ( ) The model sender to receiver which represents any semiological and semantic process is ontologically equivalent to the model source-language to receptor-language used in the theory of translation. of his memories so far as they may be verbalized.
Because language is expressive action in time. time passes. LANGUAGE and GNOSIS A true translator knows that his labour belongs to oblivion (inevitably. as we posit and experience it. contributes largely to the definition of µinterior time¶. WORD AGAINST OBJECT A cognate duality marks the coexistance of language and of time. different social modes further divide languages. exhaustation. Language largely composes and segments time. accelerate. hunger. can be seen as a function of language. human communication equals translation. in the moment in which it is realised. or simply blur our feeling and recording of time. and precedent shadow. µbackward¶. or to the other one . There is a sense. linguistic operations may . there can be no unsaying. to the ways in which the language-flow in and amid which we pass much of our experience of temporality. but also what repair we can make of the broken Tower. it passes again as I articulate it. only denial or contradiction. which are themselves forward motions. («) It is likely that the current of language passing through the mind. («) Time.barriers in the middle will obviously be more salient. The weak sense relates to the actual psychology of time-perception. Thus there occurs a cumulative dialectic of differentiation : languages generate different social modes. in which language occurs in time. Drugs. common stress. It can be measured temporally. his occasion. The mind has as many chronometries as it has hopes and fears. and many other factors can bend. schizophrenic disturbances. as a system of location and refferal whose main co-ordinates are linguistic. either in voluntary self-address or in the perhaps random but almost certainly uninterrupted soliloquy of mental activity. intuitively compelling. there are the µweak¶ forms of the co-ordination of language with time. ( ) In short : inside or between languages. Other agencies do as much or more to structure and to alter our time consciousness. the sequence of speech signals or named images may well be the principal clock. In that transubstantial ignorance I find no simpler. Every speech act. and the entreprise of inteligibility more conscious. but that organization is constantly acted upon by the collective behaviour of the particular group of speakers. What we find here is a µdynamic mentalism¶ : language organizes experience. During these states of temporal distortion. begetter. He does not know which of us two is writing this page . each generation retranslates). Nevertheless. I mean this in both a µweak¶ and a µstrong¶ sense. It shares with the sensation of the irreversible. The spoken word cannot be called back. Here. of that which streams away from us. As I think my thought. less unwidely term lies the misery of this whole business of translation. inhibit. whether it is an audible utterance or only voice innerly. µtakes time¶ ± itself a suggestive phrase.
indecidable.. ( ) The provision of concepts and speech acts emboding the future is as indispensable as is that of dreams to the economy of the brain. There is a vital sense in which grammar has developed man . a pointer backward and forward along a plane which the speaker intersects as would a vertical. Through his constant use of a tense-logic and . Orpheus walking to the light but with his eyes resoultely turned back. («) our uses of time are mainly generated by the grammar of the verb. («) The past-present-future axis is a feature of grammar which runs through our experience of self and of being like a palpable backbone. («) What is psychoanalysis if it is not an attempt to derive and give substantive authority to a verbal construct of the past ? The past is to be re-called by present discourse. ( ) Through shared habits of articulate futurity the individual forgets. ( ) The syntactic development is inextricably inwowen with historical self-awareness. No raw data from the past have absolute intrinsec authority. Memory is articulated as a function of the past tense of the verb. Cut off from futurity. momentarily at rest yet convincing of itself as in constant forward motion. The axiomatic fictions of forward inference and anticipation are far more than a specialized gain of human consciousness.. reason would wither. (. the certainty absoluteness of his own extinction. but what was meant to be said and at what diverse levels of understanding the saying was to be received.or may not exhibit a normal rhythm. in which we can be defined as a mammal that uses the future of the verb to be . He must determine not only what was said (which may prove exceedingly difficult given the state of documents and the conflicts of testimony).. Their meaning is relational to the present and that relation is realized linguistically. literally overlooks . («) Does past have any existence outside grammar ? The notorious logical teaser ± µcan it be shown that the world was not created an instant ago with a complete programme of memories ?¶ is. The µstrong¶ sense of the time-language relation is grammatical. The historian must get it right .(.) Proust¶s minutely discriminated narrative pasts are reconnaissances of the µlanguage-distances¶ which we postulate and traverse when stating memories.) Our conjugations of verb tenses have a literal and physical force. in fact..
in part mental. In what way can language. In language utility and mutual intelligibility are indivisible. A person who is privately referring with a word is not a logical . be regarded as private ? To what degree is the verbal expression. which is by operative definition a shared code of exchange. A privately referring-with-a-word person is not a referring-with-a-word person at all. the semiotic field in which an individual functions. Meaning and public verification are reciprocal aspects of a genuine speech-act. They are a part of the capacity of language for the fictional and illustrate the absolute central power of the human word to go beyond and against that which is the case .time-scale beyond that personal being. however abstractly with the survival of his species. Its grammar is temporal and also seems to create and inform our experience of time. physical. a unique idiom or idiolect ? How does this personal privacy relate to the larger privacy of context in the speech of a given community or national language ? The paradoxically possibility of the existence of private language has widely exercised modern logic and linguistic philosophy. It may be that a muddle between idiolect and privacy has frustrated the whole debate. It is worth looking at closely because it poses the question of translation in its purest form. A third polarity is that of private and public. of the more general framework of non. Language is in part. Wittgenstein insists that any given sign which has a use cannot simply be associated with a personal sensation. through one of the most important. private man identifies.factuality.and counter. ( ) Future tenses are an example.
no twin psyches. The names of the cards and the rules of the manipulation are publicly given and the latter enable the player to play without the participation of other players. There are no facsimiles of sensibility. even in a game of solitaire others participate. therefore. there is no reason why a word should not refer to a private object and yet have a meaning that is publicly ascertainable and publicy checkable . Locke) G. in a very important sense. So. entail a latent or realized element of individual specificity. it wiil differ from person to person. Weiler : To use a language <<in isolation>> is like playing a game of solitaire. and a language which only one person can use and understand. ( ) a distinction must be drawn between a language which only one person does use and understand (the last member of a moribund community or speech-culture). The zone of private specification can extend to minimal phonetic units. The fact that a word has a private reference does not mean that it has a private meaning. because it comprehends not only the sum of personal memory and experience but also the reservoir of the particular subconscious.possibility . Every counter of commnunication carries with it a potential or externalized aspect of personal content. No two human beings share an identical associative context. They are in part an idiolect. ( ) Because every speech form and symbolic code is open to contingencies of memory . namely those who had made up the rules of the game. (D. All speech forms and notations. Because such a context is made up of the totality of an individual existence.
. semantic values are necessarily affected by individual and/or historical-cultural factors.and of new experience.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.