Skip to content
There are two different ways of speaking; “apodictic” and “depositional.”The key difference lies in apodictic speakers use of verbs, especially the copula verb “to be.”Apodictic speakers see their words as repeating what reality “says”.They focus on a subject and a predicate by joining the two through the use of usually action verbs. They use “to be” to connect words when no action is involved.This way of speaking leads to confusion because their words don’t necessarily match the speaker’s intention. This is to say that, for apodictic speakers, the subject (as figure of speech) and the predicate (as figure of speech) are assumed to be what reality itself is saying, and not what the speaker is asserting. Apodictic speakers do not take ultimate responsibility for what they say. The way that they attempt to validate the truth of assertions is achieved by removing their own (subjective) experience from what is being said in order to let (objective) reality “speak” for itself. This is precisely one example of how aspects of consciousness are projected onto reality.Depositional speakers are more aware of themselves as speakers.They see their words as their own statements about reality.They don’t need the copula verb “to be” to connect words because they are more direct in their speaking.This way of speaking is both more honest and responsible because it reflects the speaker’s experience of reality rather than what reality “says”.Depositional speech is the more natural way of speaking.Apodictic speech may have developed because some people were less aware of themselves as speakers.This led them to create a way of speaking that focused on repeating reality instead of asserting their own experience.The two types of speech have led to different ways of thinking about the world.Apodictic speakers see reality as something separate from themselves. Reality is driven by invisible forces, or powers, to be uncovered; Reality then is something that must be obeyed. Once the true nature of forces are uncovered they become sources of power for the experiencer that can be adapted and taken advantage of. Apodictic speakers are able to develop a quite dangerous relation to reality, themselves, as well as to each other.Depositional speakers see reality as something they are a part of and can interact with more directly.The invention of phonetic writing, where symbols represent sounds, is linked to apodictic speech.This is because apodictic speakers are more likely to see written words as repeating the voice of the writer.Depositional speakers, being more aware of their own role in communication, did not develop phonetic writing.
Chapter VII: The Emergence of the Self-Defining Consciousness in Variant Forms
In Chapter VII Dewart explores the concept of thematic speech and its role in the development of self-defining consciousness. He argues that thematic speech exists in two variants: apodictic and depositional. Apodictic speech, characterized by verbal predication and the use of “to be”, reflects an absent-minded consciousness that projects its assertiveness onto reality. Depositional speech, lacking “to be” and relying on juxtaposition of thesis and theme, indicates a present-minded consciousness aware of its own assertive nature. The chapter further explores the grammatical and cultural implications of these two variants, suggesting that they lead to distinct types of mentality and culture.
Both the apodictic and the depositional language groups contain their own different implicit and non-conscious assumption or “idea” of what is happening when speaking occurs. Dewart refers to this as the “idea of speech”.
Apodictic speakers implicitly (existentially?) skirt responsibility for what they say assuming that the source of speech (and truth) is not them but reality itself. Depositional speakers, on the other hand, make no such assumption and assume responsibility for the truth of what they say.
Two Types of Language:
Apodictic Speech:
Depositional Speech:
Origins of Apodictic and Depositional Speech:
The verb “to be” evolved from a non-verbal word signifying attributability, such as the Sanskrit “as-” which denoted belonging, resulting, or tending towards. This word, originally used to express the relationship between realities, became grammaticalized as a verb due to the apodictic speaker’s need to signify that reality itself was responsible for the relationship being mirrored in speech.
Both Indo-European languages and Sumerian developed verbal predication, employing a verb “to be” to signify the relationship between subject and predicate. While the specific words and grammatical structures differ, both reflect the apodictic speaker’s projection of assertiveness onto reality.
Cultural Implications:
Phonetic Writing and Absent-Mindedness:
Sumerian absent-mindedness facilitated their transition from ideographic to phonetic writing. This is because phonetic writing, unlike ideographic writing, requires the reader to obey the phonetic instructions embedded in the signs, effectively allowing the absent writer to “speak” through the written word. This aligns with the apodictic speaker’s tendency to view speech as a repetition of reality’s assertion, making them more receptive to the concept of written signs as carriers of an external voice.
Apodictic speech is characterized by verbal predication, requiring a verb to relate a thesis to a theme. This is exemplified by the mandatory use of “to be”, or analogous copulas, even when the predicate does not signify an action. This grammatical structure reflects the apodictic speaker’s assumption that the object of speech that we call the subject is the ground or cause of the object of speech that we call the predicate. Apodictic speakers assume that their speech mirrors the objective relationships between realities. Depositional speech, on the other hand, lacks “to be” and relies on the juxtaposition of thesis and theme to convey the assertion. This reflects the depositional speaker’s understanding of speech as a direct expression of their own experience, rather than a repetition of reality’s assertion.
Apodictic speakers, projecting their own temporality onto reality, assume that objects inherently possess temporal characteristics. This is reflected in the mandatory inclusion of a temporal index in every verbal predicate. Depositional speakers, recognizing that temporality is a relationship between objects and consciousness, do not inherently include temporal markers in their assertions. They specify time only when necessary to convey the temporal relationship of the experience being communicated.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.