Post Number Four: Benveniste's Crackpot Theories

1. Benveniste argues that language is not a man-made tool like a wheel or a pick, but is instead "the very definition of man." He discounts the idea that fully formed men discovered each other and slowly created language as a tool for themselves, and argues that because language is immaterial and has content, it doesn't make sense to compare it to a "thing." Instead, he argues, that "thing" that people are talking about when they compare language to an instrument is really speech, or discourse. 

I agree with this idea for the most part, but I think that it is a little stupid to say that language is completely not developed by humans. Compare the languages we speak today to those of hunter gatherer societies thousands of years ago, and you will find that ours are far more complex and useful to us. Also, I speak a language that includes slang and computer lingo that my parents don't understand because it was created after I was born.

2. Benveniste writes that the word "I" only has meaning when there is also a "you" who is being addressed. He says that there is a "polarity of persons" which creates the fundamental difference between "I" and "you," which makes language function. This, he argues, is the basis for the consciousness of self.

I think the counter argument to this, which I find equally compelling, is that people (babies) and animals without language DO have a sense of self, they just can't express it to anyone else because they don't have language--and if they did express it to someone else, Benveniste would argue that it was the expression that created the sense of self. So since it's impossible to prove correct or incorrect, I think this would have been better presented as a tentative explanation for where our sense of self comes from rather than an all-encompassing theory.

3. Benveniste argues that the notion of time is contained within the expression of language. He points out that linguistic time is self-referential, and is denoted with verb tenses and other structural signifiers.

I think this is a strong point to make, and it's interesting, too. While many argue that time is a human construct, which is an idea that's easy to resist and argue against, Benveniste is pointing out that the time that we think of and talk about in every day life is a linguistic construct composed of different words and turns of phrase. It takes the notion out of the existential realm that is so hard to argue in, and brings it down to a more sensible arena.