#2- “The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.”
Saussure feels that there is no meaning between a word and what it designates (Barry p40). He feels all words are arbitrary. This helps explains structuralism because structuralism is, “the belief that things can not be understood in isolation- they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of” (Barry p39). This makes sense to me because when you think of words you think of them in categories. You say dog to someone and it means nothing on it’s on, the concept you have of a dog is based on other words and larger categories such as animal, pet, furry. You have an idea of dog based on other words. No word on its own means anything. Barry used the example of hut. Hut means nothing until you put it into a category with such things as house, shed, mansion etc. then you can grasp the idea of it.
Saussure looks at patterns and functions of language. Language constitutes our world. By calling someone a terrorist or freedom fighter as Barry uses as examples, you have constructed them in a certain way. Language is powerful because of words but words mean nothing alone, they need each other to give meaning to each other.
I understand structuralism much more then I do the previous theories or so I feel. I understand that words alone mean nothing. Take it back to before language. If you said the word tree to someone, it would have absolutely no meaning. Since we have language though, you can say tree and use other words to describe it and give it an actual meaning.
Structuralism focuses on structures that are usually abstract and puts literary works into them. It looks at the bigger picture rather then the work of art as an individual.
The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary because it’s just a word. It means nothing alone. “Meanings are attributed to things by the human mind, not contained within them” (Barry 39). We give the meanings; the word has no meaning until we label it with one. I like the example of the hut; it gives me a better understanding of a complex idea. This theory almost scares me in a way to think that words as individuals mean nothing until they are put into larger structures together. I never thought in such a complex way about words and language I just always assumed every word had its own meaning but now I realize in fact it needs other words to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I completely agree with you, I always just assumed that each word has its own meaning and I just disregarded the fact that by defining a word we use other words to get its meaning across. And it is scary that no word can have a meaning on its own, and we need other words to make is substantial. Its a crazy thing.
definately! i never thought of it like that until reading Saussure either but now that i have i have a greater appreciation for language
I want to bring up a point. It's true that we get meaning from a word by having other words to compare it to, but that doesn't mean that a word can't have meaning by itself. A word is a sign used to communicate, and it represents an object in the world. As long as a sign used by person 1 is understood by person 2, it has meaning. Imagine a caveman who doesn't have language, but sees a flame and grunts "fire." If his friend hears this word in the presence of the flame (and perhaps with the help of a pointing finger) he will understand that "fire" is his friend's way of representing the flame (without having any other words to compare it to).
I agree with what you said. I was thinking about that as well while I was writing this. There is a visiual aspect to words and they dont ALWAYS need to other words in order to be defined.
When i think of the word dog i think not cat or not bunny, that is when i am thinking as a structuralist. Isn't everything in structuralism something that it's not?
Post a Comment