In case anyone was wondering about the life of a certain college student and her favorite late night pastimes and endeavors, this is not the post for you. If, however, you enjoy the combination of serious (or seriously confusing literary theory) and sarcastic commentary on a few things I've learned so far. Then you might be in luck. In all actuality though I've written way too much for an assignment and my late night writing self threw in a few hilarious remarks that I would never turn in, but are too good to throw away. So if you have never hear of Ferdinand de Saussure or Gerald Graff, congratulations! If you want to learn more go ahead and Google them since my account will be mostly focused on a topic trying to combine their worlds. A tongue twister before we start: Saussure is the signifier and the signified that symbolizes the sign of stressed sarcastic scholars and students who stay up subsequently to the sun's setting.
Saussure
With a Chance of Graff
Language, the interpretation of
collective sounds and signs used to communicate with other humans. In Saussure’s
lectures on General Linguistics he describes language, both written and spoken,
and the concept of signs. While these are both fixed uses in society they are
not of themselves unchangeable. As the world changes, technology advances, and
opinions and values change, so do signs and the language that has been
developed to communicate them. With this as the basis on which ideas are formed
and shared, Saussure argues that is where meaning originates. In order to
understand the majority of Saussure’s argument for the smallest units of origin
it may help to develop the conversation that Graff credits with his
understanding of meaning.
The sign is created by connecting
the signified, a concept, and a signifier, a sound image, which corresponds to
each other within language in the form of words. Once a sign is learned you
cannot think of the concept without the sound image that corresponds to it. For
example, the word “arbor” triggers the concept image of a tree. Although there
is nothing inherent about a physical tree that demands for it to be called “arbor”
or “tree,” rather was the letters A-R-B-O-R and their collective sounds Ahr-ber
that were united with the idea of a tree in the minds of people that shared the
same language. Through further development of language the word “arbor” was
connected with the word “tree” so that both words produced the same concept
image. Saussure points out that the concept image varies by person but may
still validates the sign in most general cases. For example when thinking of
trees one man might imagine an oak while his neighbor envisions a sycamore and
Santa thinks pine. Each tree is justified because it is included in the sign.
In addition to alternate words arbor and tree, Saussure addresses words in
different languages that relate to the concept image. “The succession of sounds
[that] serves as its signifier in French; that it could be represented equally
by just any other sequence is proved by differences among languages and by the
very existence of different languages.” (Saussure 67-68) When a person gains
mastery of a language it becomes easier to learn other languages because
instead of assigning a concept and sound image to everything, new words are
added to the sign they already understand.
While all the technical aspects of
language and signs and concepts are intriguing and important, it can be easy to
get lost in the smallness of individual units. If the development of language
had to include a detailed description of how language is possible and all the
physical, mental, and natural components, like Saussure compiled thoughts, the
human race would’ve been doomed. Thankfully it is only after centuries of
development and a very passionate linguist that these actions could be
explained in excruciating detail. Once Saussure is partially understood it
becomes possible to apply his theory in conversation and textual readings. However
if you were to proceed word by word to find meaning in each individual sign, it
would overcomplicate the text. Graff in his essay Disliking Books at an Early Age describes his struggle to find
meaning in the text, eventually overcoming this by exploring the conversation
and debate surrounding the text he struggled with. Criticizing those who he
thinks look too deep into the text for meaning Graff says they “have become so
obsessed with sophisticated critical theories that they have lost the passion
they once had for literature itself.” (Graff 44) While understanding the signs
is necessary for basic language and communication both spoken and written, not
paying attention to the debate could make you miss the greater meaning. Graff
is obnoxious enough to bring Saussure’s attention away from the signs alone and
back into the conversation. Graff probably connects the concept image of
Saussure to the sound image “sickly fascination with analysis and theory.”
No theory is completely true and
flawless, and all are subject to the opinions of their creators. A reader’s job
is to find meaning wherever he can and he is free to pick and choose and
combine theories. As a reader I appreciate Saussure’s intricacy and the levels
of understanding that exist within his theory. I probably won’t try to find
meaning in every sign that I know to exist because it is exhausting and quite
often, especially in this world or sarcasm, would lead away from some of the
meaning that could otherwise be found in the text. I do believe that this is a
useful tool to employ sometimes while reading and make me sound smarter when I
talk with linguistic students. By somewhat understanding Saussure I join a
community of scholars and students that has grown over the years to appreciate
and start to understand him while we roll our eyes at each other and groan.
Now time to edit out all of the things I don't think my professor would appreciate and get some sleep. I have priorities after all...
