Thought without language? Saussure’s theory of communication
3. The Code Model Decoded 45
It is evident that both Locke and Saussure draw upon theoretical tradition much older than themselves. Even Plato’s account of Socrates’ teaching demonstrates dependence
upon such a theory see Cratylus; Harris and Taylor 1997
:1–19, for Plato’s theory reveals an “underlying assumption … that every common name must have a fixed
meaning, which we think of when we hear the name spoken: speaker and hearer thus have the same object before their minds. Only so can they understand one another at all
and any discourse be possible”
Cornford 1935 :9; see
Harris 1987 :205. Parkinson
1977 suggests such models involve a ‘translation theory’ of understanding. Harris comments:
The term ‘translation theory’ refers to the fact that, according to the theory in question, when language is the vehicle of communication understanding requires a double process of
‘translation’: a speaker’s thoughts are first translated into sounds, and then the sounds uttered are translated back again into thoughts by the hearer.
Harris 1987 :205
Concerning the theoretical perspective borrowed from Locke, Harris comments:
Saussure simply takes over two basic claims of this old psychological theory and incorporates them as premisses in his model. These are: i that communication is a process of ‘telemen-
tation’ that is, of the transference of thoughts from one human mind to another, and ii that a necessary and sufficient condition for successful telementation is that the process of
communication, by whatever mechanisms it employs, should result in the hearer’s thoughts being identical with the speaker’s.
Harris 1987 :205
3.2.2.2.1. Thought without language?
An understanding of Locke’s theory is important to the present discussion because of the relationship between the theories of Locke and Saussure. As mentioned, Locke was
concerned with epistemology and in particular with how the objects of thought, which he calls ideas rather than the more contemporary term concepts, are acquired through the
faculties available. As an empiricist, he was concerned with developing an experientialist account which would elevate experience and counter elements of the Cartesian method,
wherein Descartes presumed certain categories of thought to be innate and experience to be questionable. Locke did not, however, assume that language was necessary for either
the construction of thought, or for its organization. This position was of course related to his ideas regarding links between linguistic and non-linguistic referents. It was also to be
a point upon which Saussure defined his own theory, but in opposition to Locke’s, rather than in agreement see figure
3.5 . Harris explains:
Locke evidently supposed that there could be thought without language, and that the mind could engage in it without the aid of any linguistic instrument. ‘Language does not exist, then,
because man is a rational being; it exists, according to Locke, because man is “a sociable creature”, and language is “the great instrument and common tie of society”’
Parkinson 1977
:2. Saussure emerges as a sceptic on this score. He does not explicitly discuss the question of whether or to what extent human beings could think without language, but he
describes prelinguistic thought as amorphous. ‘Psychologically, setting aside its expression in words, our thought is simply a vague, shapeless mass’ [155]. More specifically still, ‘… were
it not for signs, we should be incapable of differentiating any two ideas in a clear and consistent way … No ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the
introduction of la langue’ [155]. This marks a significant shift of emphasis away from Locke, and meshes with an important historical evolution in the philosophical status of
46 3. The Code Model Decoded
linguistic inquiry, which is characteristic of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The evolution in question tends toward seeing language not as a gratuitous social bonus for
purposes of communication, but as a sine qua non for the articulation of any analytic structure of ideas whatsoever.
Harris 1987 :209; bracketed references refer to Saussure’s Cours
Figure 3.5. Three views of the relationship between linguistic and nonlinguistic referents: a
nomenclaturistsurrogationalist, b Lockean, c Saussurean