Abstract
So far, I have provided only a negative account of such a concept. I have criticised a specific concept of I-language as the concept we absolutely do not need. For Chomsky’s philosophy of language has a number of advantages for us. Not only is it entirely explicit (and outdated), but it offers the converse of the concept of language we need. His theory is a photographic negative of the right concept — this should make our task easy: all we have to do is to say ‘black’ whenever he says ‘white’. This is, however, unduly optimistic: such simple conversion is not enough, as it is obviously still dependent on the concept of language that has been criticised. Hence the second negative account I have provided, when I suggested, as the inverse of mainstream philosophy of language, a series of six counter-principles, which go far beyond Chomsky’s theory of I-language, as they also involve a critique of Anglo-Saxon pragmatic linguistics and of phenomenological theories of language such as enunciation theories. The very names of those six principles (non-immanence; dysfunctionality; opacity; materiality; non-systematicity; historicity) smack of negative theology. Even the apparently positive names, ‘opacity’, ‘materiality’ and ‘historicity’ receive negative, or reactive, interpretations. Thus, ‘opacity’ is non-transparency, it is second to the transparency that is one of the tenets of mainstream philosophy of language; ‘materiality’ is abstract non-ideality, the reference to ‘matter’ and ‘materialism’ being at this stage only a philosophical gesture; ‘historicity’ in this context is mostly the antonym of ‘naturalism’, the name of the thesis that, as far as language is concerned, the very slow time of evolution is not fast enough to be relevant (this is what I have called, again and again, in deliberate exaggeration, the ‘non-time’ of evolution: Greek aion in its traditional, not its Deleuzean, sense as opposed to chronos).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1962, first published, 1934), p. 124.
G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Philosophy in the Flesh (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 80.
Tran Duc Thao, Recherches sur l’origine du langage et de la conscience (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1973).
Tran Duc Thao, Phénoménologie et matérialisme dialectique (Paris: Editions Minh-Tân, 1951).
L. Althusser, Pour Marx (Paris: Maspéro, 1965), p. 167 (my translation).
C. Marazzi, Il Posto dei Calzini (Bellinzona: Casagrande, 1994).
K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1965), pp. 41–2.
H. Lefebvre, Le Langage et la société (Paris: Gallimard, 1966).
See R. L. Trask, Mind the Gaffe (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2002).
P. Fussell, The Great War and Modem Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
A. Gramsci, Il Materialismo storico e la fllosopfia di Benedetto Croce (Turin: Einaudi, 1978), p. 146 (my translation).
See, for instance, Owen Barfield, History in English Words (London: Faber and Faber, 1953), or his Poetic Diction (Hanover and London: Wesleyan University Press, 1973).
R. Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973).
R. Williams, Culture and Society 1780–1950 (London: Chatto & Windus, 1958).
R. Williams, Keywords (London: Fontana, 1976).
J. J. Lecercle, The Violence of Language (London: Routledge, 1991).
P. Macherey, Pour une théorie de la production littéraire (Paris: Maspéro, 1966), p. 66.
L. Althusser, Pour Marx (Paris: Maspéro, 1965), pp. 238–43.
L. Althusser, Sur la Reproduction (Paris: PUF, 1995)
J. J. Lecercle, Interpretation as Pragmatics (London: Macmillan, 1999).
J. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
That is precisely what happens to it in Derrida’s Spectres de Marx (Paris: Galilée, 1993).
There is, however, nothing new in this: it already occurs in the famous passage on the persistence of Greek art in Marx’s Grundrisse, or in his letter to Annenkov of 28 December 1846.
R. Barthes, Mythologies (Paris: Seuil, 1957).
T. Adorno, Hegel: Three Studies (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 89–148.
P. Lafargue, ‘La langue française avant et après la Révolution’, in Critiques littéraires (Paris: Editions Sociales Internationales, 1936), pp. 35–86.
E. Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale, 2 vols (Paris: Gallimard, 1966, 1974)
A. Culioli, Pour une linguistique de renonciation, 3 vols (Gap: Ophrys, 1990 (vol. 1) and 1999 (vols 2 and 3))
Variations sur la linguistique (Paris: Klincksieck, 2002).
R. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2 vols (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987, 1991)
M. Merleau-Ponty, La Prose du monde (Paris: Gallimard, 1969)
Le Visible et l’invisible (Paris: Gallimard, 1964)
G. Deleuze, Logique du sens (Paris: Minuit, 1969), series 34.
J. J. Lecercle, ‘The Misprision of Pragmatics in Contemporary French Philosophy’, in A. Phillips Griffiths (ed.), Contemporary French Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 21–40.
S. Leclaire, Psychanalyser (Paris: Seuil, 1968).
L. Irigaray, Parler n’est jamais neutre (Paris: Minuit, 1985).
J. Favret-Saada, Les Mots, la mort, les sorts (Paris: Gallimard, 1977).
D. McNally, Bodies of Meaning: Studies in Language, Labor, and Liberation (New York: State University of New York Press, 2001).
G. Deleuze and F. Guattari, L’Anti-Oedipe (Paris: Minuit, 1972), p. 11. For a detailed analysis of this text, see J. J. Lecercle, Deleuze and Language (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), ch. 1.
See M. Fraser, ‘What is the Matter of Feminist Criticism?’, Economy and Society, vol. 31, 2002, pp. 606–25, which has an impressive bibliography.
F. Flahault, La Parole intermédiaire (Paris: Seuil, 1978).
L. Goldman, Marxisme et sciences humaines (Paris: Gallimard, 1970).
L. Venuti, The Scandals of Translation (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 29–30.
R. Balibar and D. Laporte, Le Français national (Paris: Hachette, 1974), p. 32.
On the Grégoire report, see also M. de Certeau, D. Julia and J. Revel, Une Politique de la langue (Paris: Gallimard, 1975).
L. J. Calvet, Linguistique et colonialisme (Paris: Payot, 1974).
D. Crystal, Language Death (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
D. Nettle and S. Romaine, Vanishing Voices (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
G. Deleuze and F. Guattari, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? (Paris: Minuit, 1991), p. 10.
T. Todorov, ‘Freud sur renonciation’, in Langages, 17 (Paris: Didier-Larousse, 1970), pp. 34–41.
T. Griffiths, Comedians (London: Faber, 1976).
R. Balibar, Les Français fictifs (Paris: Hachette, 1974)
P. Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire (Paris: Fayard, 1982).
On this, see F. Vandenberghe, Une Histoire critique de la sociologie allemande, vol. 2 (Paris: La Découverte, 1998).
Copyright information
© 2004 Jean-Jacques Lecercle and Denise Riley
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lecercle, JJ., Riley, D. (2004). The Concept of Language We Need. In: The Force of Language. Language, Discourse, Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503793_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503793_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-52139-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50379-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)