I agree with Derrida’s questioning of the binary between speech and writing; however, I was thrown a little by the thinking used to get there – particularly the use of the term “linear.” Derrida points out that Saussure refers to speech as being linear. Johnson, paraphrasing Derrida, says that linear is a “spatial term more applicable to writing than speech” (344). And in class today, we discussed how there are no linear aspects of speech. I disagree.
As writing is linear in structure on a page or screen, speech is linear in time. I understand that I am expanding linear beyond the spatial, but I don’t think it is a stretch. To state the obvious – a recording of voice can be transcribed into writing and vice-versa. Words in speech are spoken in a particular order – only one word can be spoken at a time. (Though I suppose you could try speaking multiple words at once – but good luck! That’d be quite a talent!)
If we accept the idea that speech is linear on its own, then Saussure’s use of the word linear to describe speech does not show a reliance on writing. I don’t see how the use of the word linear is proof of an inability to understand speech without writing.
The thinking of Derrida is that because we have to rely on writing’s linear aspects as a way of understanding speech, the binary between the two is defunct. However, I tend to believe the binary is defunct because both are inherently linear on their own. They are both systems of language – systems of signifiers, where one is visual and the other is auditory. Language is linear. Therefore, both speech and writing are linear. I do not know a lot about neuroscience, but I believe language’s linearity has something to do with the way the human brain works – the way we process information.
Perhaps I am missing something or have missed the point – I’d be interested in hearing others’ opinions.
Meaning and Pleasure2014 