Abstract
ABSTRACTThis article deals with the use of language in historiography and with this usage's implications for the conception of history and the historiographical operation/practice. Whereas theorists of “presence” believe that “presence” and “reality” can be grasped in spoken language and written texts, thus generally considering them as a medium that enables access to a “reality” that lies beyond texts and language, I argue that language and texts should themselves be considered as a “reality.” We need to distinguish the process of “presentification” performed by words from the presence of language as a lexical and physical reality; though the two aspects are strictly connected, the presence of language needs to be emphasized as a lexical‐semantic system and as a thing in the world. In this article, I consider language as a “living witness” of the narrated events; it is a presence in the moment that events occurred and a presence that is still present. We should think of language as we think of the material world around us—that is, as a transformed landscape that contains present and absent pasts. Historians of “presence” consider the meanings associated with language as a major obstacle obstructing the understanding of history in a new unmediated way; to some extent, this article is an attempt to hold meaning and presence together.