Captain Outrageous, Saussure

"Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system."

Language doesn't have ideas or sounds that existed before the linguistic system. In a conundrum sort of way this is saying that language didn't exist before language (though I understand it is specifically the concept of linguistics). What we know as language is a system of sounds and words that mean things. When I read and contemplated this quote I thought of evolution, of cave man and ape. Sound, Saussure explains, cannot be in language alone. This is true. The phonic 'noises' that come out of our mouths wouldn't mean anything if they weren't forming words; or, if they didn't have associated letters and words (for example, laughing). What I found interesting about this is the idea that even without words sound must be a language. Though there are no spoken (formed words) meanings, the concepts within the brain can associate sound. This idea drove me to the concept of cave man and ape. Neither species had a signified language but grunts and utters or screeches signified emotions or purpose. I like to think of the incredibly long and vague introduction to Kubrick's "Space Odyssey" when the apes are communicating. The different pitches or manners of their yelling meant danger, or discontent. The same could be assumed for caveman. The fascinating thing is that overtime this has transitioned into cave paintings, to words, to languages, to linguistics. This, to me at least, is the overwhelming message in Saussure's piece beyond the whole 'lost in translation' concept- that this complicated system goes beyond cultural difference, phonic difference, contextual difference etc. and goes inter-species. No, I'm not saying that we could all pull a Dr. Do-little. What I am saying is that the idea of language in the terms of phonic outputs and conceptual inputs is universal. I've often wondered how it is animals communicate with one another albeit a functioning language to speak. It is clear to me now that their actions and sounds are the language. I suppose as globalizing as this is, it is also very humbling. We complicate our linguistic system enough to have Saussure right such a critical essay or, really, end up with a show like "The Hills". Yet, in everyday nature, in evolutionary time, the solid and basic fundamentals of communication (sound and meaning) apply to all.

I will end with a paraphrased fun question posed by author Chuck Klosterman in his book "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs": Let's say that cats suddenly had the ability to read and comprehend what they read to a relative level. They could feel emotion, they could interpret, however, they cannot express their findings or their emotions. This being given, do you think the domestic feline species would be offended by the "Garfield" comic series?

I ask this out of humor but also out of serious consideration for it drives a point as to perhaps why the linguistic system is so entirely complicated and 'lost'. We don't speak animal languages but as humans (and I am generalizing here) we mostly presume there is not a significant level of intellect or emotion (though studies on apes prove differently). Considering the flow charts and formulae regarding the signified and signifier etc., I think it is obvious that emotion and overwhelming additional input to language is what complicates things. I know this sounds like a "duh" sort of revelation but I at least find it to be a bit profound- are we gifted or burdened by the vulnerability of our language?