Mlri Linguiltic

Scric No.

TWPNTT

The Nature of Pronouns

Emile Benveniste

Problems in
General Linguistics
('

n
P

tnnltcd by M".y Elizbcth Mcct

Un

Press

Ix rn grtt.I. opEN DTaATB on thc ntuc of pronounr, h b utl to conlcr

thoc linguirtic form o conrtituting cl both forml nd funcioorl, in
thc mnncr of nominl or vcrbd fonnr, for cnarplc. Now ll l$rSG.
possc.s pronoum. rnd in ll of hcm thcy rc dcncd o rcfcrring to thc mc
catcgoricr of crprcobn (pcrrond prooounl dcnontntivc, ac.). Tbc
univcrulity of thcc form nd thcc notion lcd to thc thought th.t c
problcm of pronounr i both problem of hnguegc in ocrl end e problcm

of individud lengurgcr; or bctter, tht it i e problcnr of nvdurl ln3rryc.

only bccausc it ia primerily e problcm of hngue in gcncrd. lt L
phcnomcnon of languegc tht wc poc thc problcm hcrc, in ordcr to ho
thet pronounr do not comtitutc a unitery cl but rrc of diffcrcot typcr
dcpcnding on thc modc of lmguegc of which thcy erc thc rign Sooc bdong
to thc ryntar of r hngurge, othcr e chrctcritic of wht wc hdl cll
"instnccs of diroounc," thet L, thc dicrc rnd dveyr uniqr rar by
which thc lrngrryc i ctulizcd in apccch by e rpcetcr.
Tlc itution of thc pcrrond pronoun hould bc conidcrcd 6r. It b
not cnough to dirtinguirh thcm from thc othcr pronounr by r dcnocrinrtioo
th.t prtc! thcm. It must bc ccn tht thc ordinry dcfinion of thc pcrrond pronouru u conteining thc thrcc tcrm!, f,Jpr,.nd rimply dcrtrop
thc notion of "pcnon." "Pcnon" bclongr only to l/yott nd ir lrcling in
. Thi bic diffcrcrcc will bc cvidcnt from n rndyr of L
Bctwccn f nd noun rcfcrring to e lericl notion, hcc c not only thc
grcatly varying formd diffcrcncc thr thc morphologicrl od tyntctc.tnc'
turc of perticrrler lenuagcs impooca thcrc rc lo otlcn tht rcult fror
thc vcry pri of lingrirtic uttcr.ncc nd which e of, morc gcncnl ud
morc basic nturc. Thc uttcr.noe containing / bclongr to tht tcvcl or typc of
lenguegc which Chlc Morri cll pngmetic, which includc, with thc dgru,
thooc n,ho mLc usc of thcm. A linguistic tcxt of grcet lcngth-r rictlic
trcatirc, for crarnplc-can bc imegincd in which I nd y would not rppar
a einglc timc; convcrrcly, it would bc difrqlt to concdvc of e rhort rpolan

zt8

hor,nrs r Gg.nr, Lncursrrcs

t in which thcy wcrc not cmploycd. But thc othcr signr of a lenguegc arc
ditributcd indiffcrcntly betwccn thcsc two typcc of tcxu. Bcaid this condition ofuec, which i itsclfdistinctivc, wc shll cll ttention to e fundernentrl

t'

C)
C.,.)

is no "dbjcct" definblc as f to which thesc instnces cn refer in idcnticl

pcrson who is uttering the prercnt instance of the discoursc containing .I."
This instancc is uniquc by definition and has vrlidity only in itr uniqucncs.
If I perceive two succ*sive instanccs of discoursc conteining I uttrcd in
thc samc voicc, nothing guarentc to mc that onc of thcm is not rcported
discoursc, e quotetion in which f could be imputcd to another. It is thus
nocessry to strcss thir point: f can only be idcnticd by the instencc of discouc that contins it and by that alone. It has no veluc ercept in the instnce
in which it is produccd.'But in thc s:mc way it ic elso as n instnce of form
tht f must bc tahen; thc form of.I has no linguistic cxistcnce exccpt in the
act of peling in which it is uttered. Thcre is thus combincd double
instncc in this process: thc instance of.l s
of,
discourse conteining .I s thc referee. The defi
reciscly as: I is "tlrc individul who utters the
rse

Thc Naturc of

honuas

ztg

hic/istc- Here thcre is ncw end dietinctive featuc.in thi cries: it i thc
idcntifiction of the objecr by en indicetor {ostcngion concomitnt with thc
instance of discoursc cootaining the indicator of pcrson. .By simulancor.u
ostension, ,ri will bc thc objcct deoignared in thc prcsent instance of dicoursc nd the reference implicit in the form (for exemplc, luc rs opposcd
to tc), vhich associates it with I and 1r. outside this class, but on thc aamc
plenc and associated in the samc franc ofrcferenoe, we find thc tdverto hac
ad ou. Their retationship with f will be shown

oo delimit the spetial and temporal instance coe

with the prsent instance of discoursc containing
to hac zind no1 it is incrcascd by e great number of aimplc or complcr
trms that proceed from the samc retationship: tdqt,
,ornortot .
in thtcc da1s, etc, It is pointlcss to define thesc terms and thc dcmonstratirs
in gencral by dcixis, as is nerelly donc, unlcss onc dd that thc deixig lr
contcmporary with the instncc of discoursc tht crric! thc indictor of
person; it is from this refeience that the demonstrative talc its propcrty of

being unique and particutar each time, which is thc uniquencsr of thc

instance of discoursc to which it refers.

The cssential thing, then, is rhe rcltion between thoindietor (of pcrron,
time, place, object shown, etc.) and the ctclt.istancc of discoursc. For
from the moment that one no longer refers, by thc expression itsclf, to thir
rclation ofthe indicator to the unique instance that manifcsts it, thc languagc
hes recours to a series of diltinct tcrms that have a onc-tGonc gorrepondcncc
with thc first and which refcr, not to thc inatance of discourrc, but to ..rcal',
objects, to "historical" times and places. Hcnce correletion such s I z tuhrc: tha-ou; thar-tqt: thc va!
: ttu day bforclutao :, thc dal aftct-ncrl cch : lhc lollouing ucch,-th dalts ago: lhrcc
days bcfoc, etc. The lenguage itsclf reveals the profound diffcrcncc bctwecn
thesc two plancs.

Thc rcfcrcnce to the "spceler" implicit in this whole group of cxpressionr

hes been treeted too lightly end as being sclf-evident. Wc rob this rcfercncc
of its inherent meaning if wc do not sec thc feature by which it i distinguished

from othcr linguistic signs. Yet it is a fact both original nd fundmentl tht
thcsc "pronominal" forms ddnbt refer to "reality" or to .,objc6ivc'. pooitionr

This constnt and neccesary refercncc to thc instance of discourc constitutca the feture that unites to l/yot a series of,.indictorg,, which, from
thcir form and their systcmatic capacity, belong to differcnt classes, somc
bcing pronouns, othcrc adverbs,-and still othe, adverbial locutions.
The demonstrativcs, fri, etc., ere such indicators inasmuch as their
orgenization corrcltcs with that of thc indicators of pcraon, s in Lat.

in spacc or timc but to the utterance, unique each time, thtt contins them,
nd thus
bc measu

other

th

problem

with respecr to "reality." Thcre rigns rre dways vailable nd become.,full"

a soon es a spealer introduces them into each instancc of his discoursc,

j,

horrs N GE^L

Lrnousrcs

lci mtcril

rcfcrcnce, tlrcy cannot bc misuccd; oincc they do not

urcrt enything, thcy erc not subjcd to the condition of truth end cacepc all
dcnid. Thcir rolc i to providc thc instrumcnt of convcrion that onc could
Sincc rhcy

ing himlf
up.

as

!l.!urn s

discourrc nd

no othcr. If cech rpcelcr, in ordcr to cxprcss thc fecling hc h of his irreduciblc rubjccrivity, medc usc of distinct idcntifying rignr (in rhe scnsc
,in whlch crch rdio transrnitting strion hs it own cer hners), thcrc would
bc'meny lenFgc3 r individul nd communiction wouldlbccomc bso.
lutcty impoesible. Langrngc wrds off this danger by inrtituting e unique
but mobilc rigrr, r, which cn bc ssumcd by cach rpcerer on thc condition

ll

lt
I

bchlf. Hbit cesily rnetcs

u! unwrc of this profound diftcrcncc

bctwccn

(f)
-

it
rl

hc

mlc uc of whcn

ton

hc nnouncca himclf the rpcercr. Thus thc indicrtnd,1 cnnot cxigt rs potentiditict; thcy cxirt only incofr rs they ere

aulizcd in thc instncc of dicoursc, in *hich, bj, ach of their ow

imtnocr, they mrrt the proccss of epproprietion by thc rpcalcr.
T'he ryrtcnrrtic nature of languege ceuses thc epproprietion trcsc indictora

dgnd to eppcer in thc instancc of discou'c inll thc elcncnis cepeblc of

"egrccing" formdly, cspccially in thc vcrb, by mcanr of proccuca tiret vary
.,vcrb
lcco{ing to thc typc of idiom. Wc must cmphasiz rhir point: thc
form" is n inertricblc part of thc individur in$ncc of discounc: it is
dweyr and neccararily ctutized by thc ect of discourc end in dcpcndcnce
on tht ct. It cnnot edmit of eny potcntiel and "objcctivc" form. Ii the vcrb
i ruudly rcprcrcntcd by itr infinitivc as thc lcicl entry in numbcr of
hngurgcr, thir ir purcly by convcntion; thc infinitivc in ienguagc is somcnitivc in thc lericographic mctlend prndigm-upGct, tcrlc, gcndcr,
ion nd from tht depcndcncc with
lly thc "tcnrc" of the vcrb, which
hich thc vcrb form figures. A finitc

(,
{

pcrrond uncr.ncc is thus constituted on a doublc ptanc: it puts the

dcnominetivc function of lenguege into opcntion for rcfcrcncco to the objcct,
which

Thc Natwc of

hoau

.ttt

langua establishcs as dstinctive lcrical signs, and errangcr thec rcfcrcncc

to thc object with thc id ofself-refcrcntid indictors corrcrponding to cc
of the formal clss tht thc idiom rccognizcs.
But i this always trucl If languagc, as it is cxercsd, L by neccrsity ptoduced in discretc instenccs, docs not thir ncccssity obligc it to conit only of
t'personal" instanccsl We know
cmpirielly tht thi is not thc csc. Thcrc
re utternccs in discoursc tht cpc thc condition of pcraon in opi of
thcir individual nature; that iq they refer not to thcmsclvcr but to n..objoctivc" situation. This is thc domain tht wc cll thc .'third pcnon.,,
Thc "third person" in frct represcnts thc unmrlcd mcrrbcr of thc corrcltion of prson. Tht is why it is not tnism to ffrm tht thc non-pcrroo
is the only modc of uttcrncc possiblc for thc instncc. of dicouc ot
meant to refcr to themclvc but to prcdicetc thc proccss of rlnGonG ot lorcthing outside the instnce itaclf, md this somconc or romcthing cen dwen
bc providcd with n objcctive refcrcnce.
Thus, in thc forml clo of pronouno, thooc id to bc of ttc "third pcrron,'
erc, by their function end by thcir naturc, complcly different from f rd
tN. b has long bccn scn, forms like hc, him, that, c. only rcwc bbc
vitcd ubstitutca (Picrrc ir sick; e hrs a "fcvcr"); they rcplecc or rchy oDG
or anothcr of thc mtcrial clcmcnts of thc uttcrnce. But tli function i not
attchcd only to pronouns; it cn be acrvcd by clcmcnt of othcr dslc!-in
Frcnch, on occasion by certain vcrbo ("cct enfnt crit mintcnnt micu
qu'il ne.f&ar'r l'nnc dcrnire" [similarly in English: rht child writc bcttcr
now than hc dd lst ycerl). This is function of syntactic "rcprcscntatio"
which cxtcnds to tertns tahcn from diffcrent "parts of ercech" nd whic.h
ansvert to nced for cconomy by replacing onc sqgmcot of thc uttcrence,
or evcn n entirc utcrenoc, with e morc menrgeablc srbotintc. Hcocc thc
function of thcgc substitutca has nothing in comnon with tht of thc indicton
of pcrson.
Certin languegcs show tht thc "third pcnon" is indccd litcrdly "nonpcrlon."l To talc just one cxamplc enong mny, hcrc is how thc pcesivc
pronominel prcrcr erc prcscntcd in two cries (oomahing lilc indicnblc
end alicneb in Yum (Cdifornie): first pcrson, ?-,?t-l tccond pcnon,
;-, md-3 third pcreon, zto, it .r Thc pcrsond refercncc ir e zcro cfcrcncc
outside thc l/yu rcbtionship. In othcr languega (IndeEuropce chicfiy)
thc regu.larity of thc formd structurc and e eymrnetry of rccondrry origio
producc the imprcssion of thrcc coordinatcd pcrso. Thb i crpccidly thc
csc with modcrn languagcs with an obligetory pronoun in which ccm to
be mcrnber of a peredigm with thrcc tcrms, on r prr with I znd yott, ot in
thc inflcction of the prcscnt in IndeEuropczn with -ru, -rr, -fr'. In fict, t[c
.ymmctry is only formd. lrlht mult bc conidcrcd dhincrivc of thc '.thid

Pnorrrs

rx Gnn Lnrcurscs

TWENlY-ONE

pcnon" ir ite propcrty of (r) combining with eny objcct rdcrcncc, (z) nevcr
bcing rcfcctivc of thc instncc of discourac, $) edmining of somctimes
rethcr ler numbcr of pronominal or demonstrtivc vlrients, end (4) not
bcing comprtiblc with thc paradigm of refcrentil tcrmc likc hac, nou, etc.
Evcn bricf endyrir of thc forms tht re imprccircly clarscd es pronominl lcds thus to thc rccognition arnong thcm of clsscs of entircly diffcrent ntureg rnd, conscquently, to the distinction bctwcen, on thc one

Subjectivity in Language

hend, lenguegc r . rcpcrtory of signa end e Bystcm for combining tlrem and,
on thc ohcr, hnguagc .s an ectvty manifcstcd in instnccs of discourse
which c chrctcizcd s such by particular eigns.

llnt,

From Fo Rorrlt JaLoq Morrir Hellc, Horrcc G.

Hrryh
Concli H. vn Schooocvcld, cd. (Thc He5re, r9S). pp. 34-3?

c.'

Mclan,

rnd

Ir trcurce

rs, as thcy say, the instrument of communiction, to whet doce

owe this property? Thc question may caus surprise, s do evcrythint
that seems to challenge an obvious fact, but it is somaimc uscful to rcquirc
proof of the obvious. Two answers com to mind. The onc would bc tht
language is in facl employed as the instiument of commniction, probably
bccausc men have not found a bettcr or morc effective way in which to oommunicate. This amounts to statng whet one wishcs to undcrstand. Onc
raight alro think of replying that lenguegc has such quditicr a mahc it suitcd
to serve s an instrument; it lends itsclf to transmitting wht I cntrrst to ittn order, a question, n announccment-nd it clicits from the intcrlocutor
bchavior which is.dequ.te each time. Developing a morc tcchnicel eapcct
of this idce, one might add that thc behavior of languagc dmts of . bchaviorist description, in terms of stimulus end responsc, frorn which onc
might draw conclusions as to the intermediary and instrumentl nature of
lengua. But is it really language of which we are speaking here? Ac we not
confusing it with discoursc? If we posit that discourse is lrnguage Put into
rction, end neccssarily between prtne, we show amidt thc confusion,
that wc arc begging the question, since the naturc of this "instrumcnt" it
cxplaincd by its situation as n "instrument." As for the rolc of trnsmision
thrt language phys, one should not fil to obaerve, on thc onc hand, tht thi
rotc cen devolvc upon nonlinguistic means-gestures and mimicry-end, on

it

the other hand, that, in speahing here of n "instrumentr" we erc lctting

oursclvcs bc dcccived by ccrtain proccsses of transmission which in humn
ocictics without cxception come eftcr language and imit its functiooing.
All aystcms of signals, rudirnentary or complex, arc in thi ituation.
In fact, the comparison of languagc to n instrumcnt-od it hould necc'

a?
\

rarily be a materiat instrumcnt for the comparison to cvcn bc comprehcnsiblc

fill us with mistrust, a should every simplistic notion ebout langurgc.
-must
To spcak of an instrument is to put man and neture in opposition. Thc pick,
tlrc arrow, and the whecl are not in nturc. Thcy arc febrictions. Languegc

24

hours x Gmrnrl Lncusrcs

i in thc naturc of men, nd hc did not fabric it. We re alweyr inclincd to

ner-vc conccpt of a primordial period in which a complcte mn discovcrcd
notlcr onc, cqudly complctc, and bctwccn thc two of thcm lenguagc wes
, worlcd out littlc by littlc. This is purc fiction. We cn nevcr gct back to man
I cprtcd from lenguagc nd wc shall ncvcr cc him invcnting it. We shall
ncvcr gct becl to mn rcduced to himsclf nd cxercieing hi wits to conceive of
tccxistenccof anothcr. It is a spealing man whomwe find in thc world, a man
apceking to anothcr man, and language provides thc very dcfinition of man.
Al the chracristics of language, its immatcrial naturc, its symbolic
functioning, its rticulatd arrangement, thc fct thet it hs conteat, are in
thcmselvcs cnough to rende suspcct thie comparison of language to an
inrtrumcnt, which tends to dissociate the proprty of lenguagc from man.
Certeinly in cvcryday pncticc thc give and tlc of rpceking suggests an
cxch:ngc, hcncc "thing" which wc cxchengc, end opeling ccm thus to
.saumc n instrumentl or vchiculr function which wc erc quich to hypoctaizc as n "objcct." But, once agein, this role bclonge to thc individual ct

thrt

of apccch.
Oncc thi function is sccn s bclonging to thc ct of opeech, it may bc
kcd wht prcdispooition ccounts for thc fact tht thc ect of apccch ahould
hvc it. In ordcr for rpccch to bc the vchiclc of "communiction," it must
bc o cnbled by lenguegc, of which it is only thc ctuelization. Indced, it is
in lenguegc tht wc must scach for the condition of this ptitudc. It eems
(.::' to tht it rcsidc in e progcrty of language barely visible unde the cvidencc
CD I- t(concels it, which only alctchily can wc yet chractcrize.
,' (!i. in end through tenguagc that men constirutca himclf s t nbjcct,
bccaurc lenguegc lonc cstablishes the conccpt of "cgo" in reelity, in lb
. rcelity which i thr of thc being.
Thc "rubjectity" w" erc discuesing hcrc i thc cepacity of thc spcaler
to pit himclf s "subject." It is dencd not by thc fceling which cvcryonc
cxpcricncco of bcing himsclf (this fecling, to thc degre tht it cen bc teten
notc of, ir only e rcflcction) but s the psychic unity that transccnds thc
totelity of thc ctul cr[rcricnces it ssembles nd tht mhcs thc pcrmnense
of thc conciouncs. Now we hold that tht "aubjectivity," whcthcr it is
placcd in phenomcnology or in psychology, 8 one mey wirh, ir only the

Subjcabily

Laagugc

a.s

/.

Here we see e principle whose consequcnoes rc to tprced

becaued eech spealcr rctr
himself up as z sabjca by rcferring to himsclf es f in his dicoursc. Becusc of
this, f posits another person, the one who, bcing, rs hc is, completcly cxtcrio
to "me," becomes my ccho to whom I szy yt and who s! lu to mc. li '
polarity of persons is thc fundemental condition in languege, of which thc
process of communicetion, in which we share, is only e mere pngmtc ;
conselgenoe. It is a polarity, morovr, very peculiar in itself, as it offcrs
a type of opposition whose equivalent is encountcrcd nowhere elsc outidc
of language. This polerity does not mean cither equality or symmetry: i:ggg|
alw_ays has a position of tanscendencc with rcgard to ror. Nevcrthclcss,
neither of the terms can be conceived of without the othcr; thcy ere complcmentary, although according to an "intcrior/extcrior" oppoeition, end, rt il
the same time, they ere rcvcsible. If we scck a parallel to this, we will not find ,
it. Thc condition of man in language is unique.
nd so the old antinomies of "I" nd "the other," of thc individud rnd
society, fall. It is a duality rvhich it is illegitimate nd crroncous to rcducc
to a single primordial tcrm, whether this unique term bc thc "I," which
must be established in the individual's own consciousncss in order to bccomc
ccessible to tht of the fcllow human bcing, or whethcr it bc, on thc contrary, society, which s e totality would preexist the individual nd from
which the individul could only be disengagcd gradually, in proportion to hir
ecquisition of sclf-consciousncss. It is in a dialeaic reelity tht will incorporate the two terms nd define them by mutul relationship thet thc lioguistic basis of subjectivity is discovered.
But must this basis bc linguistic? By what right does language csteblilh
the basis of subjectivity?
{s matter of fact, language is responsible for it in all it parts. Languegc
is marlcd so deeply by thc expression of subjectivity that onc might l if it
could still function and bc called lenguage if it were constructed othcrwic.
We arc of course talking of language in gcncral, not simPly of particuler
lenguegcs. But thc concordnt fects of particular lengurgca givc evidcncc for
l""gu"C. vlte shall givc only a few of the most obvious cxemplcs.
Thc vcry tenns wc arc using hese, I an,d yur, arc not to bc tlcn es figurca
but as linguistic forms indicating "person." It is remrlblc fct-but who
would notice it, since it is so femiliar?-that the "pcraonJ pronouns" trc
never missing from among the signs of a languagc, no mttcr what its typc,
epoch, or region may bc- A languac without thc cxprcssion of pcrron cennot
bc imagined. It can only happen that in certain languagca, under ccrtrin
circumstances, thesc "pronouns" are deliberately omitted; this is thc casc in
most of the Far Eastern societics, in which convention of politcness imposco
nates himself as

out in all directions. Language is possiblc only

T_tr_=r-T=fhorr rr Grnnr,

2t

Lxonsrca

thc urc of pcriphrrocs or of rpecid form bctsccn ccrtein groupr of indidul in ordcr to rcplecc thc dircc,t pcrsond rcfercnccr. But thcsc usagcs
only rcrvc to undcrlinc thc vatuc of the avoidcd formr; it io thc implicit
citcncc of thcc pronounr that givce ocid nd culturl vluc to thc subrtitutca impoccd by clees rcletionshipr'
I Now tlcrc pronounr erc dirtinguished from ll othcr designetione e hngurgc ertictletce in hzt thqr do aot rclct to a coiccpt or ,o 6 dfuidul.
Thcrc i no conccpt "I" tht incorporatcr ll thc f' tlrt rc uttcrcd at
cvcry momcnt in thc mouth of rll spcahcrs, in thc scnsc tht thcrc i conccpt "trcc" to which all thc individud uscs ofr rcfcr. Thc "I," thcn, docs
not dcnomintc any lcricel cntity. Could it thcn bc sad tht f rcfcrs to a
prrticuler individul? If tht were the cesc, Pcrmnent contrdidion would

It
I

Thcn, whet docs f refer to? To omcthing vcry pcculiar which is

crclurivcly
linguistic: .f refcrg to thc .ct of individud dicousc in which it ic
/
pronounced, end by thir it dceignatcs the apeakcr. It it tcrm that cnnot bc
idcnticd crccpt in wht wc hvc cllcd elcwhcrc n intncc of dicoursc
nd tht heo only momcntry rcfcrcnce. Thc rcality to which it rcfcr is thc
rcality ofthc dicoursc. It i in thc intncc ofdiscoursc in which fdcoignetca
thc spceler tht thc epcalcr procleimr himclf rs the "subjcct." And so it i
If
litenlly truc tht the bsis of aubjcctivity is io thc cxcrcisc of languagc.
' onc really thinl bout it, one will sce tht thcrc is no othcr objectivc testimony to thc idcntity of the rubjcct cxccpt th.t which he himclf thus giver
bout himclf.
Lenguagc io ro organizcd that it pcrmits cach opcalcr to apopiatc to
hinscf n cntire lenguagc by dcsignrting himrclf es L
Thc pcroond pronours providc thc fint atep in thir bringing out of ubjcctity in lenguagc. Otlcr clsscs of pronounr tht shrc thc amc tatus
dcpcnd in thcir turn upon thcoc pronouns. Thcc other clcs re thc indicatore of dcinr, thc dcontrtives, edvcrbo, end edjectivcs, which organize thc
rpetiel end tcmpord rclationohipa around thc "subjccl" tLcn refcrent:
"thit, hcrc, now," md thcir numcrous corrclativco, "thrt, ycatcrdey, lst yc.r,
tomorrow," ac. Thqr hevc in common thc fcture of bcing dcfncd only with
rcrPcct to thc imt nccr of discoursc in which thcy occur, tht is, in dcpcndcnor upon the f which ir proclaimed in the discoursc-

7 lenguage.

It ir

cesy

to

G?

tht thc domin of

eubjec-tivity

i futhcr

cxpandcd and

mult tlc ovcr thc crprcssion of tcmpordity. No mttcr what thc typ of
hnguegc, thcrc i cvermhcre to bc ob,scrycd . ccrtin lingrirtic orgenizetion

tI

Sjectivity in I'gugc
of the notion of time. It mattcrs little whether this notion

i mrhcd in thc
inflection of thc verb or by words of other classcs (particlcs, advcrbs, lcrical variations, etc.); that is a matter of formal structurc. In onc wy or
lnothcr, a languege rlways makcs a distinction of "tcnsct"; whcthcr it bc
past end a future, scparetcd by r "present," as in Frcnch [or Englishl, or,
as in vrious Amerindin languagcs, of a preterite-prcscnt oPPosed to futurc,
or a prescnt-future dirtinguishcd frorn . Pest, thcse ditincrions bcing in
thcir turn capable of depcnding on vritions of aspect, ctc. But thc line of
rcparation is always rcferencc to thc "prcsent." Now thir "prcscnt" in itr
turn has only a linguistic fact s temporal refercnce: thc coincidcncc of thc
cvent described with thc instancc of discourse that dcscribc it. Thc tcrnporel
rcferent of the prcsent can only bc intcrnl to thc disciurrc . Thc Dictiottttoitc
gnhalc defincs the "prescnt" as "le temps du verbe qui crprimc lc tcmpa o
i'on est." But let us bewarc of this; thee is no other critcrion end no othcr
expression by which to indicatc "the time t which onc ls" crcept to talc it
"thc time at which onc is spcahing-" Thb is the etcrnally 'rpresent" momcnt,
dthough it nevcr relatcs to the gemc cvcnts of en "objcclivc" chronology
bccausc it is detcrmincd for ech speeker by each of the instncca of discourc
rclated to it. Linguistic t-lryi2y!!:19[7cnlrl. Ultimately, humen tcmPorlity
with rll its liguistic apparatus reveals thc subjcctivity inhcrent in thc vgry
possibility of subjectivity bccusc it elweyl
ppropriete to the expression of subjectivity,
ergence of subjectivity bccre it consist of
language puts forth ""-Pty" forms which
wey
In
somc
discrete nstences.
appropriates to himself and which
discoursc,
of
exercisc
in
the
speaker,
cach
hc reltes to his "person," at the same time dcfining himsclf s

and e partner

ts lo. The instence of discourse is thus constitutive of ll thc coordintc

that define the subject nd of which we hve bricfly pointcd out only thc
most obvious'

,,subjcctivity" in language crctc thc ctcgory of

Thc establihment of

pcrson-both in languegc and a

".r, it has quitc varicd effects
it bc in the arrengemcnt of the

l'

Morc-

whahcr

Hcrc wc
to
illutrtc
so[rc
view
in
ordcr
in
must necssafily havc perticular languages
Wc
cen
intoducc.
which
"subjectivity"
pcrspcctive
of
change
eftccts of the
cennot say what the rengc of the particular phcnomena wc ere pointing out
may be in the univcrsc of rcal languagcs; for the momnt it is lcss importmt
to delimit rhm than to fcvcal thcm. English provideo cvcrl convcnicnt
exemPles.

zzg

horrrs

Ga.n^r Lxcursrcs

Sjcclioillt in Lguagc

is thc real utterencc, not the personal verb form that goycrns it. But o thc

out except in the first pcrson. onc cn hardly imagine rimiler.vcrbo in thc
second person exccpt for taling up an argumcnt rrgain rlbatim; thur,
lc
tuot that h has bJt'u only a wey of rcpcating what.,you,' h juat id:.,f
tuPot that he has left." But if one emovcs the expresrion of pcrron, tceving
only "hc suppses thot . . .," wc no longer hevc, from thc point of vicw of f wh
utte it, ariything but r eimple statemcnt.
We will perceive thc nature of this ,'subjectivity" cvcn morc ctcerty if wc
congider the efect on the meaning produccd by changing the p'on ofccrtin
verbs of speaking. Thcac re vcrbs that by their meaning dcnote an individul
act of social import: nar, gronc, guantc. ccrti,with locutionl vriant like llcdgc to . . ., conmit (otetelf) ro. . . . In thc ocil condition in
which lenguage is ercrcised, thc ece denoted by thcrc vcrbe rc rcgrrdcd
as binding. Now here the difference between the "subjcc{ive" uttcrncc nd
the "nonsubjective" is fully apprnt s soon s we noticc thc nturc of thc
opposition between the "persons" of thc vcrb. \AIc mut bcr in mind tht thc
"third person" is the form of the verbal (or pronomind) paradigm that docr
not rcc to e person bccause it refcr to n object locted outsidc dicct
addrcss. But it exists and is charecterizcd only by itr oppooition to thc pcrson

of the speaker who, in uttcring t, stuatca it as ,,non-pcnon.,, Hcrc i it

gtatus. The fom hc, . . tales its value fom thc fct tht it is necesserily pert

4
o{

of a discourse uttcred by "I."

Now .I oer is form of pcculiar vatue in that it plecce thc reality of thc
oath upon the onc who says .L This utterancc is a p{unancc; .,to cwc',
consbts cxectly of thc utternce I sucar, by which Ego ir bound. Thc uttcencc I sua is th ycry cr which pledges me, nor thc dcrcription of th 1ct
that I am pcrforming. In saying I pomisc, I guanailcc,I em ectudly ming
e promise or a guerntcc. The conscquenccs (sociel, judicid, ctc.) of my
sweering, of my promisc, flow from the instancc of diure conteining f
swe, I 2ronisc. The uttcrance is idcntified with thc ct itcf. But thi condition is not givcn in thc meaning of the verb, it is thc .,rubjcctivity,' of dir
courac which makcs it possiblc. The diffcrence will bc cen whcr I nus
is rcplaccd by hc at While .t tpat is e pledgc, hc tua io simpty r docription, on the rame phne as hc rllllts, hc ntohs. Herc it
r rht,
""nvcrb, eccording
within the condition bclonging to thcsc expressions, thc lrmc
a it is assumed by a "eubjcct" or is placcd outsidc ,.pcrron,,, tlc on
a diffcrent vduc. This is consqucncc of the fact tht thc inarcc of

.30

Pnor.rg

r Gwrrr,

TWENTY.T\TO

Lxcursirrcs

dioourc tht contin thc vcrb ctblisheg thc .ct t thc me timc tht it scts
up the rubjcct. Hcncc thc ct is pcrformcd by thc imtencc of thc uttcrancc

Analytical Philosophy and Language

Frcm

Jouvl

dc

tstclulqi,55 (tuly-Scptcmbcr r95g) : 267ff

PusoprcrL INTEnpnETATots

of

lenguage generally rouse

ccrtin

apprehension in the linguist. Sincc he is little informcd bout the movcmcnt

of idcas, the linguist is prone to think that the problems bclonging to lengu.gc
which are primarily formal problcms, cennot attrect the philosophcr end,
conversely, that the philosopher is especially interested within languegc in
notions that he, the linguist, cannot make use of. A certein timidity in thc
face of general ideas probably entes into this attitudc. But thc version of

the linguist for everything that hc summarily qualifica es "rnetaphysical"

proceeds above all from a more and more vivid awirencss of the formal
specificity of linguistic facts, to which philosophers are not scnsitive enough.

(.3

It is thus with all thc more nterest rhat the linguist will study the conceptr
of the philosophy celled analytic. The Oxford philosophcn have dcvoted

themselves to the analysis of ordinary hnguage, as it is spoken, in ordcr to

rencw the vcry basis of philosophy by freeing it from bstractions nd convcntional frmes of rcfercnce. A colloquium was hcld et Royaumont whocc
objcct was preciscly the exposition and discussion of this philoeophy.l
According to one of ts reprsentetives, J. O. IJrmson, thc Oxford school
grentr to naturl languagcs the vdue of an exceptional object that mcrits the
most ctabortc invcstigations. The reasons wcrc clearly ttcd. It is worth-

while to quotc thcm:

. . . Thc Orford philosopher, lmost without crccption, epproech philorophy eftcr r vcry crtended study ofthc classicl humnitie. Ttrey ere thur
rpontancourly intectcd in words, in eyntax, in idiom. Thcy would not
wih to utilizc linguirtic enalysis for thc sole purposc of rolving problcnu
of philosophy, since thc cxmintion of lenguege intcrc them for itclf.
Hcrcc thec philoaopbcn ere perhaps thc more reedy for and more inclincd
to linguistic ditinction thn other philosophers.
For them, naturel lenguages, which philosophers urually stigmltizc er
wkward and unsuitcd to thought, contain in reqlity n bundancc ofcorccptr rnd tlrc most ubtc distinctions, and 6lt a ve\iety of functons to whch
philosophers ordinerily remein blind. In additign, aince thee lengurgcr