"Signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position" (39).
"In language there are only differences without positive terms (40).
"In language there are only differences without positive terms (40).
These two statements are very much related to one another. My basic understanding of this concept is that words or signs (because they lack an essential value, but are instead, constructions of thought and sound which arbitrarily create contingent meaning) do not have any meaning in and of themselves. Rather, meaning can only be attributed to them based on comparing them to what they are not. In other words, a sign, specifically a word, can never be explained in positive terms, because it has no positive, concrete (pre-existing) value--it's only value is in its "relative position" to other words or signs--a word's only value can be defined by determining what it is not.
This idea (of words lacking essential meaning) emphasizes Saussure's assertion that language is constructed, rather than essential. Therefore, it is subjected to the influence of societal structures. Saussure states "The arbitrary nature of the sign explains in turn why the social fact alone can create a linguistic system. The community is necessary if values that owe their existence solely to usage and general acceptance are to be set up; by himself the individual is incapable of fixing a single value" (35). Thus, it is clear that the meaning of language (signs, words) is only possible within the system--or community--of other signs or words, constructing meaning based on a relation to other words which point out what one word does not mean. Along the same lines, this constructed meaning of words is only valuable if the arbitrarily designated meaning is agreed upon by a community.
That Individual We Are Trying to Banish:
The above seems to negate the value of the individual in terms of the creation or maintenance of language and the construction of meaning. Then, does it follow that because language is a necessity for thought, the individual cannot exist without language; and because language cannot exist without the structure of a community, then the individual cannot think independently of that community structure?
If this is true, the illusion of the author-in-control (an assumption which we are--less than consciously even--having tremendous difficulty shedding), driving her or his own text, is herein exposed because literature is clearly a product of language, which, according to Saussure, cannot possibly be controlled by the individual.
"Thought, chaotic by nature, has to become ordered in the process of its decomposition" (34).
Is it time to admit that we are not in control?
Is it time to admit that we are not in control?
4 comments:
Language is a really interesting topic. In reading the section about linguistics-Saussure-it is apparent that language is a creation of a system. Language itself has the universal power...so i think. With out language system, classes and structure would not even really exist. Language creates literature and what inherently makes it so.
yo to the unofficial, it seems like you have a good understanding of some of the concepts that barthes is saying in "to write... i'll stay in tune if you got anything to say about that essay because some of his concepts threw me for a loop. i think you have saussure on lock.
thanks ms.b. I think you're right on about the constitutive nature of language. And winger, Barthes is still throwing me a little too. Perhaps it will be cleared up in class or after yet another reading.
Post a Comment