"in language there are only differences without positive terms"
Saussure continues: “Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic substance that have issued from the system.” (40)
He goes on to explain, however, that this is only true when words are considered in isolation. Once a collection of terms is brought together in a coherent way, a positive value comes into existence. But on its own, each signifier has no positive meaning. It requires a point of reference. In other words, language is a system of differences.
As I understand it, this concept is integral to the structuralist approach to literature. If we accept that language has no inherent meaning in itself (no positive meaning), then it naturally follows that in literature a text could have no meaning in and of itself, independent of the larger structure of which it is a part.
I think that in pointing out the relational quality of language, Saussure makes a good observation about how we understand things. At the risk of oversimplification, I think it could be explained in this way: that the state of being “warm” has much more meaning for me if I’ve just come in out of the cold…. And perhaps Saussure would say that if we were never cold at all, there would be no “warm.”
As far as the study of literature is concerned, it seems that there is some merit in saying that a text only achieves full, “positive” meaning in the larger context of its genre, structure, etc. Although whether I’d personally go so far as to say that on its own it holds only negative meaning, I’m not sure.
Ask me again after we’ve finished post-structuralism!
H.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hello! I really liked your use of text in this weeks post. I find it a lot easier to understand theory when other people break it down and contextualize it. However, I would really like some more personal reflection in your blog.
The idea of binary opposites is quite fascinating. I never really though about binary opposition until reading structuralism. Point blank, I am not sure I could define darkness without defining it as an absence of light. (Isn’t it all arbitrary anyway?) I don’t think I could define anything without making reference to its opposite. However, I am not sure I understand binary opposition in reference to a whole text or body of work.
I think that you did not over simplify in your example of what Saussure was saying. In fact, it really helped me relate what he was writing and what we were talking about in class. I found this quote that you took on to be one of the more difficult ones and I did not totally understand it. However, having another student talk about it seems to have helped me! I also never really thought of things like you cannot know day without knowing what night is until I took this class. Anyways, thanks for the help on trying to understand this whole concept!
I'm not in your class but can you guess who I am.
I am learning a lot on your blog. :) Very interesting stuff...stretches the mind. Good points about language. I've never given it much thought.
Post a Comment