The Utility of the Written Word.

Katherine Hayles points out that speech, writing and code are each a system “for creating signification” and each of these modes comes complete “with its own world view and associated technologies” (Speech Writing Code 39.  It stands to reason, that each mode of meaning creation also has its own worldview and technologies.  Hayles argues that while “speech and writing issuing from programmed media may still be recognizable as spoken utterances and print documents” they are not “unchanged by the encounter with code” (Speech, Writing, Code 39).  Because of this, she suggests, “commonly accepted ideas about signification need to be reevaluated in the context of coding technologies” (39).

 Addressing “Saussure’s view of speech” (40), Hayles first explains that Saussure suggests, “That the sign has no ‘natural’…relation to that which it refers”(42) which ultimately means, “the linguistic sign is arbitrary” (Hayles qf. Saussure).  In referring to “Derrida’s grammatological view of writing” Hayles suggests that much of Derrida’s writing is such that one would write in trying to explain how “writing differs from speech” (40).  She also explains that Saussure “makes clear in a number of places, that … speech [is] the true locus of the language system and [that] writing…[is] derivative of speech” (42).  This creates tension when coupled with Hayles explanation of Derrida’s opinion that “writing exceeds speech and cannot be...conceptualized as speech’s written form (40)” because he (Derrida) feels that “the linguistic sign implies an original writing” (42).

Ultimately, this argument between Saussure and Derrida comes down to which came first speech or writing?  I’m not sure that it matters, but the tension is quite interesting in considering the nature of signs and symbols and our human ability to manipulate them. 

This plays in interestingly with Hayles discussion of code.  She points out in various places that code is intended for humans and intelligent machines, and that “code is intelligible only to a specialized community of experts who understand its complexities and can read and write it with fleuncy” (51).  Is this not then so different from speech or writing?  One must be literate in order to communicate using a form of literacy, regardless of whether the goal is speech or writing.   This points out that code and writing are not so different and that code is, essentially a kind of writing.  Ultimately, linguistic writing is more practical at present because it speaks to a more broad audience, unless of course you are referring to the product of code and not the code itself.