Saussure: Take two

“Signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position” – Saussure

Saussure 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?

Saussure and linguistics

While reading Barry’s chapter on structuralism I couldn’t help but notice that there appears to be an emphasis on language. The point I’m going to try and prove may be off course and not relate to the reading at all, but it was the first thing that came to mind while I was reading.

Ferdinand de Saussure’s views on language reminded me of an interview that CNN did with Frank Luntz. Luntz works primarily with the Republican Party, but political views aside, his take on what phrases to use and not to use is very interesting. He recently wrote the book; Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear. He tells politicians to eliminate the usage of words that tend to have negative connotations in the sphere of politics, and replace them with words that have similar meaning but sound more positive.

It’s the style of discourse that applies meaning to words and phrases. For instance, an example from Time Magazine’s article about Luntz reveals that using the word “investment” in place of “spending” is more appealing. The words do not have the exact same meaning, but when politicians are speaking with voters, the word “spending” could be connoted with wasteful spending and higher taxes. Whereas, the word “investment” implies that the taxpayers money will be wisely handled and accrue overtime.

This ties in (I think) with Saussure because of his views on linguistic structures. He said that the meanings we give to words are arbitrary, relational, and that language constitutes our world. The example I have given above relates mostly to how language constitutes our world and meaning is designated by the human mind. Language doesn’t reflect the world we live in, but is a composition of it. There is nothing outside of language that can do this.

One of the conclusions I’ve made is that: the meaning behind a word influences how one perceives it, but people have preconceived ideas that also shape the meanings of words. In reference to Luntz, a word that may yield a negative meaning can be replaced by a word with a similar meaning that may be perceived as positive.

Saussure’s ideas about linguistics clarified, for me, how language works. I can see how language works independently, but now I’m unsure of how it works within structuralism.