“Signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position” – SaussureSaussure means that the meanings of words are based on the relations they have to the presence of other words. “…value is made up solely of relations and differences with respect to the other terms of language” (39). Words cannot be independently defined; they depend on different words with similar meanings to determine their value.
I understand Saussure’s statement that signs function in relation to other signs. I don’t necessarily agree with the argument that a word’s worth is based on the similar meaning of a different word. The ‘hut’ example that Barry gives on page 42 clarifies what Saussure is saying, but I think it’s obvious that if the word ‘hut’ didn’t exist that a different word would encompass its meaning. I don’t think that the meaning of what a ‘hut’ is would go without a sign being assigned to it.
He explains that a sign’s value functions through its relative position by using an example of money. A coin’s value is not determined by the metal that composes it. Instead, it is the value we place on it. If it is used within its designated political boundaries, then it is worth the amount stamped on it. But as soon as it leaves those boundaries it is valued in, it loses its value. In terms of words, their meaning is fixed by the differences that separate it from other words.
Saussure’s idea supports his theory that the structure of language is a system of values. I have never considered the idea that a sign is defined by not what it is, but what it is not. I’ve always assumed a word gains its definition because of what it is, and not because of its relation to words of similar meanings. I think maybe language and literature could be compared in the sense that: in language the function of the word gives it value, so maybe in literature, it’s the function of the literature that determines its value.
If language is relational does that make literature relational?
3 comments:
Don't be so sure that a hut by some another name would appear if "hut" suddenly disappeared from the dictionary. The problem is that different cultures have varying perceptions of need when it comes to taxonomy, so for some, a concept of a hut may matter because there exists sufficient alternatives to a hut, but if all anyone has is a hut, well, it can be called a home without much need for some other nominal qualification. Other, easier examples: the 30 names for snow apocryphally awarded to natives in the Canadian north, or the fact that some cultures stop counting after 6 or 7, replacing anything higher than that with the word "many".
As for literature, it's hard to say. The problem with Saussure, as I'm sure yall will discover, is that the whole system he outlines has a sort of regressiveness built into it. By which I mean that if all language is diacritical/functions through negation, and if it all makes sense thanks to a larger system or syntax and whatnot, how can we trust the distinction Saussure makes between signifier and signified? And why exclude the referent from the formula? The answer to both is that, strangely enough, Saussure doesn't really care about the functionality of a particular term as much as he cares about the possible functionality of language as a total system of signification. So if the analogy was to hold for literature, it would not be what any particular piece of literature does, but rather how and why any piece of literature is understood as a piece of literature. To name one example of how this might play out in terms of the critical approach to literature: genre studies.
Still, it's fascinating to realize how influential Saussure has been to our thinking of language relative to the alternative models (semiology, which includes a discussion of the referent, for example) given his somewhat limited ability to explain anything other than the most general level of linguistic mechanics.
Looking back on it, I think I took the example of the hut the wrong way. When I was thinking about the concept of what a hut is, I thought that if the word 'hut' didn't exist the concept would be designated a sign to describe it anyways. But now, I see that if the word 'hut' didn't exist to represent the concept of the hut, then it would have a sign even if that sign possesses multiple meanings. I think I made a mistake when I concentrated on the function of the parts that make up the system of language instead of the function of it as an entire system.
So when I was comparing language and literature it was along the lines that, a word gains its meaning by what it is not; so a piece of literature would also gain its meaning by what it is not. But I'm glad you pointed out that it wouldn't be what literture does but how it is understood as a piece of literature.
I'm happy you commented. I think I might understand it better now. Although, time will tell.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Post a Comment