Let's say, then, that the language and the various ways in which it manifests itself (oral, pictorial, musical, sculptural, narrative, poetic, cinematographic, technical, scientific, academic, etc.) is the maximum production of the civilization or rather: the language is one of the major elements involved in a dialectical complexity that has humanized us; and among those who figure primarily, and before anything else, our action on the world. Understanding it in various contexts is like understanding the impact and functions of language.
We reveal, therefore, as a contradiction, the efforts directed from the power to crush it, to straighten it, to dismember it, to diminish it. We even classify these actions as an act of enormous dehumanization, because if the limits of the universe of the speakers are given by the limits of their language (as Wittgenstein has proposed), then all efforts to prevent speakers "speak" of their The world acquires the dimension of an accomplished fact against humanity itself.
Only by "talking" about criminal acts (such as that recently committed by a power group that introduced thousands of tons of powdered milk to the country with shit and flies, even as a milk formula for babies) can we know of the consummation of those same facts against our own integrity and telling others how much courage is burning us. And not only that: we can also agree to act against those criminals, which would be the act of the most consistent humanity.
Sunk in silence, we will hardly know how much they conspire in the cellars against our organisms and against our spaces of freedom, how much the degenerates do to suck all vital signs. Consequently, this ignorance of the masses about the mafia or corrupt operations of the power groups simultaneously prevents their world from being known and transformed.
For this, it is necessary to integrate communities of speakers, who, at the same time as they recover their linguistic capacities, can dialogue and agree on the experiences they would like to enjoy. There cannot be unpublished viable without imagination and without community, which means to converse with others or to say the name of things together with others.
As the speech not only refers to the excitement that runs with others behind a ball in a meadow and the annotation that we achieved, it is clear that those who have their feet placed in the dunghill launch all kinds of strategies to outlaw this element of the greatest humanization. Roland Barthes who is a great thinker has said that language no longer refers only to objects; there is also a mythologized speech or a second semiotic circuit. It is the accumulation of culture and ideology on the basis of language.
It is convenient to make some theoretical considerations before continuing with our exercise, to decipher some keys used here and that is language and speech because we have been using them indistinctly. Here the question is: is there any conceptual difference between language and speech.
By language, some understand a set of means to express thoughts, feelings and experiences. It is also defined as a set of systems consisting of various manifestations: drawings, gestures, sounds, movements, cultural processes (myths, legend, art, monuments), etc.
Some authors reduce language to the biological function of the relationship; and that's why they talk about animal language (bees, ants, dolphins). Also, there are those who consider culture as language, because it contains a meaning.
On the other hand, language is identified as one of the specific forms of language and its nature is essentially oral. It is perpetuated by writing and converted into language and means of communication for the enlightened and marginalization for the illiterate. The language allows communication between the members of an idiomatic community.
Finally, speech is seen as proper to each person's use of their language. Age, sex, mood, occupation and other factors intervene in its characterization. In fact, the speech of a man, a woman, an adult, a healthy person, a sick person, etc. can be distinguished. Here we could add that they are also "talks" of the workers, the indigenous, the miserable, the dispossessed, the disqualified.
From Saussure, it is understood by language to the code and by speech to the message. The code or language is the linguistic knowledge, accumulated in the mind of the speaker. And the message or speech is the concrete and real realization of the code limited to a specific moment and circumstance, where part of its knowledge or code is dumped.
Each of these aspects is of a different nature and are also in a different plane, but both are needed to exist: there cannot be speech (or message) without the underlying system of the language (or code) and this only it can be manifested through the concrete act of speech.
In short, language is a system of expression and in this figure is language, whose nature is essentially oral. Now, speech corresponds to the particular use of "language."
In short, speech is a particular linguistic system and is particularly oral. However, it can be perpetuated through writing.