Enough Comprehension to Ask Questions…
Saussure was a little bit of relief after all the chaos that has been going on in my head since the very first second that I opened this anthology. I thought I understood more of Williams…and then I went to class. After discussing it I realized I was way off and that the concept was not nearly as easy to grasp as I had initially thought. I hope I find that this piece is actually about what I thought it was. While I did not grasp the concepts fully or agree with all of them, it was a sign of comprehension for me to know that I understood it enough to formulate questions and argue against it.
One of the points that I found to be interesting is the concept of semiology itself. Is it true that we do not have this as a topic of study in an age when language and linguistics is so deeply researched? I had to look this up and I found that it is something that is studied…and that Saussure was the basis for the study. The following is a definition found on this web site: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0020310.html
Semiology - The study of the function of signs and symbols in human communication, both in language and by various nonlinguistic means. Beginning with the notion of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure that no word or other sign (signifier) is intrinsically linked with its meaning (signified), it was developed as a scientific discipline, especially by Claude Lévi-Strauss and Roland Barthes. Signs and symbols can also be used in design drawings such as electrical circuits or computer flowcharts. Semiotics has combined with structuralism in order to explore the ‘production’ of meaning in language and other sign systems and has emphasized the conventional nature of this production.
This was probably the thing I found most fascinating, especially because the bibliography states that he did not even write his own book, it was created from a compilation of student notes! He had no idea that he was about to create an entirely new type of study in the field of linguistics.
Ok, back to the text itself. I found the use of the words signified and signifier a little confusing even though I took the time to write the meaning on the top of every single page (I’m desperately trying to make sense of at least ONE piece that we read this semester…) I think the original use of the sound-image and concept were a little easier for me to separate, but it was a minor issue compared to the struggles I have had so far with the other works. I also found myself questioning a few of his concepts. He elaborates on the idea of a word not simply being a name for something and that the problem in assuming this is that it “assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words” (963). To me this seems like a perfectly logical way of thinking. A horse did exist before we called it a horse and gave it a name, correct? And we did walk before we called our method of locomotion “walking.” I imagine that in not fully grasping this idea I am missing the main and basic concept of his argument. Since I did not agree or understand this, it was a little difficult for me to progress and understand the other points he makes. However as I said before, I’m happy that I can at least put into words a specific aspect that confused me and not just say that it was the entire reading.
Hopefully class discussion will clear this up, but the last time I thought that I realized I was really clueless as to what the hell Williams was trying to say…See you all tomorrow!
***I have no idea why this is posting with two different color fonts and I can’t figure out how to fix it. I’m not very good with computers so if anyone wants to offer up any knowledge, I’d love to hear it!***
brett glasser said,
January 31, 2007 @ 6:34 am
Well as far as your computer problems, I cant help you there. i actually came to you looking for help regarding Saussures outlook on language and Semiology. I found myself writing many notes on each page and trying to map out his exact points on language. At the end of it all I felt that his view towards the way it is being studed as wrong was where he got my attention. The numerous diagrams got me a liittle confused so I hope to get things cleared up in class tomorrow.
estherspace said,
February 2, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Sherri, thanks for the information on semiology, I was interested myself, but unfortunately too lazy to be bothered to look it up (now there’s an A+ student). Like others have argued, if it is not currently being studied, it should be. However, it’s important to remember that Saussure made this declaration at the beginning of the 20th century (1914-1917 I think), so we’ve had almost 100 years to think about it. I found this website: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/semiolog.htm , which provides a great and relatively concise overview of the structuralism and semiology movements.
Even though we discussed it in class, I don’t feel that I fully understand the “signified” and “signifier” thing either, and preferred the terms “concept” and “sound-image,” even though I now realize that I was misled by them, too. In response to your statement, “He elaborates on the idea of a word not simply being a name for something and that the problem in assuming this is that it “assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words” (963). To me this seems like a perfectly logical way of thinking. A horse did exist before we called it a horse and gave it a name, correct?”-I think this can go backt to the arbitraryness of words, as well as to the association factor. That horse is a horse because we have termed it ‘horse.’ It could very well have been ‘teapot’ instead. However, language is necessary to term it ‘horse’ and establish that it is not ‘teapot’ or ’stick’ or anything else. So, without langauge to specify what it is and what it is not, we would not have a clear idea of what it is. Hmm, well, it made more sense in my head, sorry if I have just added to the confusion!
atticfox said,
February 3, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Hi Sherri,
I think your point that a horse existed before it was named “horse” is a good one. I think I can expound on the quote you chose, explaing how it is faulty logic to “[assume] that ready-made ideas exist before words” (963).
Saussure believes we use language to define and shape our world. Do objects or concepts exist before we name them or can they exist outside our language? Absolutely, but the only reason they don’t is because we have devised a different way of sizing up the place, defining our world as a culture.
Consider the myth that Eskimos, in their native language, have over 100 terms to describe snow. Surely they don’t, but if they did, it would make sense. Their lives are situated smack dab in the world of snow and thusly affected by its many forms. Even in English, whether Doppler Radar calls for slush, sleet, hail, flurries, or ice determines our driving behavior. We accelerate slowly on ice, use wipers in sleet, and care little when flurries melt on the pavement. In this way our behavior is proof that our reality is shaped by words.
Barry does a great job of explaining this using the idea of color on page 44 in Beginning Theory:
(Fooey on the lack of formatting for the comments section. I want my underline, block quote and smell check! … See?)
” Wherever we look, we see language constituting the world in this way, not just reflecting it. For instance, the words for colors make a reality, they don’t just name things which are ‘there’: the spectrum isn’t divided into seven primary colors; all the colors merge into one another. So we might have had fourteen names rather than seven … they are a way of seeing … not an objective fact of nature.”
From what I understand, certain tribes in Africa divide the spectrum differently than we do. And as for us, just look at the 64 pack of Crayolas. The system for naming our reality can be divided any which way. What is important is that a society agrees on one particular structure so that individuals within that society share a common understanding. Thus, “TADA!” language is that cultural structure.
Hope that helps!
Kim