Rousseau on Language

One of the more intriguing points that Rousseau discusses is the origin (or lack thereof) of language. In several different places, he presents somewhat of a dilemma regarding the possible events that led up to the invention of language.

First, he tackles the relationship between language and thought, and if the two are dependent on one another. If they are dependent, which came first? He says, “For if men needed speech in order to learn to think, they had a still greater need for knowing how to think in order to discover the art of speaking” (57). It’s a type of chicken-egg dilemma: was speech necessary in order for form thought, even if it wasn’t vocalized, or do these people need to know how to think in order to form thoughts about speech? This idea goes along with what Hobbes has to say about language and thought, which I referenced in a previous blog post, only substituting reason for thought. The concept is not exactly the same, but the entwined nature of language and thought is still present.

            Then, he brings up the fact that “speech appears to have been necessary in order to establish the use of speech” (58). Where did speech come from, and how did it come to be, if the very result of this invention was necessary to its beginning?

            Finally, Rousseau applies this duality relationship to society: “Which was the more necessary, an already formed society for the invention of languages, or already invented languages for the establishment of society?” (60). Did language form societies? If so, how would societies have been formed if not by discussion?

            So, throughout this section, Rousseau seems to be articulating that pinning down the true origin of language is very difficult, since it is so deeply embedded within thought, society, and reason.