Ocean, as defined by dictionary.com, is a vast body of salt water that covers ¾ of the earth’s surface. However, what if ocean were not the word used to describe what we know as the ocean. What if the ocean was named thesip? For instance, on a hot summer’s day you would go to the thesip to soak up the sun. In other words, does the word ocean really have anything to do with what the ocean really is?
This week in class we were asked to study structuralism and Ferdinand Saussure . I must say I was fascinated by a structuralist’s perspective regarding language and how humans have come up with language to define/rationalize the things that surround us. Structuralists, like Saussure, believe that language is made up of signs. A sign, in my mind, is an equation,
Signified + Signifier = Sign
In this definition, the signified and signifier work together to create signs that are representative of language and sound. This relates to Saussure’s belief that the “bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary.” Structuralists believe that reality is created through language and the construction of signs. For instance, the word flower is a sign that is made up of the signified and the signifier. The signified is the concept of the flower, the signifier is the arbitrary definition of flower, and the sign is the word.
Does the word flower have anything to do with the intrinsic value of that flower? No. The term flower is merely a means of defining the idea/concept of what we see to make a rational definition. The word for flower will forever be fixed through the use of language. The term flower will help us differentiate a flower from a tree, a plant, or a blade of grass. However, since our definition is arbitrary the sign will always be unstable. Through the structuralist perspective, it is only through the opposition of signs that can we truly know the difference between signs. For instance, the sign sunflower will help designate a difference between a rose or tree. The relationship between signs is relational and dependent on difference.
I could not agree more with the arbitrarity of language. Granted arbirtarity is not a word, however, you all know what I mean. Saussure states, “philosophers and linguists have always agreed in recognizing that without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut, consistent distinction between two ideas. Without language, though it is vague, though it is an uncharted nebula. There are no pre-existing ideas and nothing us distinct before the appearance of language (34).”
Although Saussure is complicating, his theories about language are fascinating and accessible through examples. I happen to agree with the idea that language is arbitrary and symbolic. It is mind bending to think about language and all its complexities. The way we come up with signs, as a society , is really intriguing and something I would like learn more about. It makes me think, if words are arbitrary is meaning arbitrary? If that is the case, how do we glean so much meaning from texts?
3 comments:
You could start something here with 'thesip.' You should refer to the ocean as thesip from now on, and see if it catches on. Going off on this point of the name vs. meaning of words, do you ever think about foreign languages? I have the Rosetta Stone language learning program and the way it works is that it shows you a picture - lets say a ball - and then says ball in the given language. I have gone through the Italian Rosetta Stone, and found that it has different words for objects that I have already learned as something else. I think this shows the "aribitrarity" of langauge that you and Saussure speak of.
Interesting!!
Great examples Meg. Its strange to think that if we decided to create new words for things that already exist, eventually maybe it will catch on and an ocean coule be referred to as a 'thesip'. I think you have a clear grasp of Structuralism. And I agree, language is extremely 'mind bending'.
Post a Comment