Re: Nightmares and deterritorialization

Van: Chris Jones <ccjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Aan: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Datum: woensdag 8 november 2000 11:18
Onderwerp: Re: Nightmares and deterritorialization

>I find this interesting. the way some people like spoken language
>over written or whatever. Sure, I hate long phone messages, but...
>what i want to quickly address is the difference between spoken and
>written language.

If you want to know more about this, and about the differences between oral and literary cultures, start from Ong (1982), Orality and literacy, -a literary approach, or from Goody, J. (1968) Literacy in traditional societies -an anthropological approach.

>Normally, writing is done in sentences, each
>sentence having a verb and  other basic grammar rules we were
>taught in school. Speech works differently. Here clause chains and
>groups or single words, not in sentence form are used. 

In fact it is exactly the other way round; spoken speech contains relatively more verbs, while written texts has more nouns. Spoken speech has more parataxis, while text more hypotaxis. The effect of these two modes on language and cognition is described in the references above. There is also another issue: imagine what it is, to have really no texts at all!! That does not only mean not to have yr Deleuze at your night table, but also to have no material memory at yr disposal. All cultural, symbolic systems, laws, genealogies, world knowledge, religious systems, and conventions must be memorized by heart. This lays a special condition on the mode of memorizing. There are no infinite hard disks to stock up all the information. Everything goes thru the bottleneck of the human mind, and this lays special conditions on the form of the memorization: do not use too complicated sentence structure; use repetition of information, make use of rhyme for more easy remembrance, etc. I wonder how this would fit in with Deleuzian nomadism?

>It poses a
>problem if one has to transcribe speech. Do you translate it into
>sentences or find some other way to represent was is spoken? (Also
>the technical problems of needing very high quality voice recording
>equipment to make out the breaths, how long a phrase is before the
>next intake of air, etc, if you chose to transcribe in lines of
>breath.)

Speech is simply phonetically transcribed, in this translation process of course losing information, like visual cues, and intonation patterns. However, it is only translated into neat RP sentences when there is a need for, somehow.

>So I would suspect that to approach speech as linear, there are gaps
>that are filled in by the listener, or are sensed, or however you
>may wish to put it.

Of course.

>Also, I understand voice as affect in both speech and writing. In
>literature the creation of these voices and affects can also question
>the above distinction between the spoken and written language in the
>way, for example, a good novel or poem doesn't write at you but talks
>to you (albeit in a nonhuman way, as well.) So there is another type
>of writing called literature which is very different to the writing 
>first mentioned. 

With as a prime example, of course, oral literature.

>ps... the classic example of voice is the passive and active verb
>usage as in: I love you. Active verb. You are loved by me. Passive
>verb.

The use of "voice" -and also "subject" by Deleuze in their two meanings, is also a classic example of a rape from behind. Of course it is quite suggestive to connect the linguistic notion of "voice", that is, active voice, against passive voice, to the ordinary language use of "voice" (same applies to "subject"). however it remains to be seen whether one does not fall into the huge trap laying open there for every mystic etymologist and language fetishist. 

Greetings

Wouter Kusters