What you quoted is written in the 3rd person, and it appears not to be Heidegger's style of writing. Therefore this must be somebody else's interpretation of what Heidegger said. I'm not familiar with any work by Heidegger called "Heidegger 1950 contemplation".
This person is writing as if languaging
is a 'thing' called "speech, and therefore language".
In your post you quoted, "Heidegger is entirely dedicated to turning this argument on its head, insisting that language is the only pre-existing condition, not humankind."
This is exactly what I said in my reference to languaging
, only I said languaging
, not 'language'.
More to your point. You also quoted, "He argues that “language speaks man,” (1120) a complete reversal of the traditional contention that speech, and therefore language, is the expression, presentation and representation of the real and unreal."
Again, this is not written in the style that Heidegger would write it. I suggest to you that the author has taken interpretive liberties with what Heiddgger said. Of course, we all do. So lets dig into what that author actually wrote.
It is very easy to make a leap of faith and say that what Heidegger said was "languaging speaks Be-ing into existence", instead of "language speaks man".
The word 'language' is a combination of characteristics (a concept) which could mean Spanish, German, bad language, etc. 'Language' could also be a conclusion that references what happens between the beginning and end of speaking.
Languaging happens before you use German, Spanish, or English to speak Be-ing into existence. How would you tell your audience that languaging happens before you speak the English language
Can you see the problem the author was faced with?
Once the author turned languaging
into a thing called speech the only thing he could do was complete the string of accepted thought with ”and therefore language, is the expression, presentation and representation of the real and unreal.”
Coupled with all of that and knowing what I know about what Heidgegger says in the book “On the Way to Language”
(1959) it's not hard to see why the author changed 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' to the 'real' and 'unreal'. Authenticity is re-presenting your 'self' as what happens before the concept creation, the theorizing, and the conjecture (real). Inauthenticity is re-presenting your 'self' as a thing of the world (the unreal). (from my earlier post with additions)
And, if you'll take a moment to notice, the title of the book points to something occurring prior to language, or, ”On the Way to Language”
Since our proclivity as humans Be-ing is to find comfort in 'substantiality' and the fact that this author had to write for an audience that probably wouldn't understand what Heidegger was talking about when he spoke of 'languaging' and 'Be-ing', I think the author took some 'interpretive liberties' for the benefit of his audience, he thought.
All of the above I am intimately aware of which is why in my post to NAACP & fresco, I said:
“Actually, what Heidegger said was that "Be-ing languages
". I take that to mean that who you are Be-ing languages
it's 'self' from it's existence prior to entering
into the world. Languaging
comes before all concept creation, theorizing, and conjecture. 'You' show up long before speaking and thinking. What occurs before all speaking, thinking, concept creation, theorizing, and conjecture is Be-ing.
This is your authentic 'self'. 'You' show up long before the world, before talking about the world, and before representing your 'self' as a thing of the 'world'.
Authenticity is re-presenting your 'self' as what happens before the concept creation, the theorizing, and the conjecture. Inauthenticity is re-presenting your 'self' as a thing of the world.”
I have added the italicized “prior to entering” for clarity, I hope.