In our class as we reviewed last Friday and opened a discussion mostly pertaining to Lacan, there was a lot of discussion about the role which language plays in our emotions and desires and the question of whether animals can have developed capacities for emotions without having the capacity to articulate that language. The Lacanian response to this question was primarily that language has significant hold over our emotions and that without language we would not have the ability to feel as we do. From the perspective of a student with some experience in linguistics I find this idea somewhat troublesome however.
There is much scientific evidence in the field of linguistics that would suggest otherwise. There are quite a few examples of humans who developed outside of exposure to language and after being introduced later in life to language and society, although they never were able to communicate like a typical native speaker, they achieved a communicative degree of success and were able to convey emotions and feeling. In fact in the case of Genie, an abused a 13 year old who was kept in such isolation that she did not learn to speak as a child, she struggled with the grammar of verbal speech, but excelled so well at expressing her emotions and desires through non-verbal communication that researchers eventually began teaching her sign language to aid in her expression (Curtiss 1975). Likewise we know from the introduction of American Sign Language to chimpanzees that although they do not typically use any form of language that when taught they are able to express feeling of happiness, anger, and sadness (Garner 1989). A much more casual example of the existence of emotions without language, could be seen in common sayings along the lines of, “I just can’t put it in to words.” Emotions can be notoriously challenging to express, and it would seem this suggests that the existence of emotions and desires does not rely upon words.
In fact, I feel it would be easier to argue that the signifiers which we use to articulate ideas much more closely impact our socialized logical associations as opposed to our more visceral and personal emotions. Such an idea is famously represented in Orwell’s 1984 as the government deletes words from the public’s vocabulary in order to stem certain actions and ideas. In a similar manner, it could be argued that the vocabulary which the speakers of a particular language have at their disposal has a considerable social and cultural impact on the corresponding society that relies upon that language. A fantastic example of this can be seen in our own discussion of Barthes, as we began by dissecting the differing nature of French sexual terminology, from our own. As see in French a very romantic array of sexual terms such as “jouissance” which dually refers to both bliss and orgasm, and we are called to note in our own language the way in which the vast majority of sexual words have strong connotations to either scientific terminology or uncleanliness. It is hard to ignore strong corresponding differences between English-speaking and French-speaking sexual culture; where French culture is more open about sexual themes and less inclined to assign sexual behavior the shameful stigma often given to it in English cultures. These being just a few examples of the social and logical impacts which the signifiers in our language might offer.
Meaning and Pleasure2014 