Structuralist theory helps us to understand that language is paramount to our existence. In Saussure’s essay, “Course in General Linguistics,” he states that “There are no pre-existing ideas and nothing is distinct before language” (34). Without language, we have nothing. There is no recognition or comprehension of the world without the language necessary to name and compare things to one another, and the terms we use are completely arbitrary.
Saussure goes on to explain that within language, there are three fundamental pieces. The sign (the term we recognize), the signifier (the sound image) and the signified (the mental concept). For example:
Saussure goes on to explain that within language, there are three fundamental pieces. The sign (the term we recognize), the signifier (the sound image) and the signified (the mental concept). For example:
Let us say that a flower, perhaps an orchid, is our sign.
The signifier, or sound-image, is the sounds that form the word orchid.
The signified, or mental concept, is the idea of an orchid and it is unrelated to an actual orchid, but they cannot be separated from one another.
Signs consist of the signified combined with the signifier, and signs constitute language. Without the mental concept of an orchid, and the sound-image of said orchid, we could not recognize the plant as an orchid. We would not recognize it at all. Because language is a system of differences without positive terms, there is no essential value of a sign. If we did not have the sign "orchid" we would understand it in relation to other things around it. An orchid is not a butterfly, and an orchid is also not a dandelion. We can name it as a flower because there are other flowers similar to it, which speaks to another point of Saussure's: signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position.
Signs are given meaning through their position within a structure of differences. Saussure's famous example is of the 8:25 train. It doesn't arrive or depart at 8:25, and perhaps the 8:25 train is a bus, but we still recognize it as the 8:25 train because it comes between the 7:25 and 9:25 trains. Without the 7:25 and 9:25 trains, there would be no point of comparison for the 8:25 train. It is only the 8:25 train because it is not the 7:25 or 9:25 train.
Another example of this could perhaps be given through a paradigmatic chain.
fetus infant toddler child adolescent adult
The shift in title from one stage of development to the next is based upon several things: age, activity, ability, etc. An infant is an infant because they are no longer inside the womb (as a fetus would be) but they cannot do anything for themselves, like walk or begin to speak like a toddler. Likewise, an adolescent is an adolescent because they have gained far more independence than a child, but they are not fully grown and (supposedly) responsible like an adult. Because of differences, we can determine which category a person falls into. There is no value without comparison or exchange. Signs mean nothing without other signs within the same system of language. Outside of the language that signs exist within, they can only have meaning if there is a point of comparison, as explained with Saussure's example of the French mouton with the English mutton and sheep.
The signs we utilize, and their relationships to one another, as well as the relationship between the signified and signifier are arbitrary. Simplistically, you could argue that the word used for one thing could have been used for another thing. The signifier (sound-image) of "orchid" has nothing to do with the plant. The orchid doesn't simply pop out of the ground and say "Hey world, I'm an orchid" (clearly, because orchids are plants and they don't have consciousness and therefore they do not have access to language but that is another story entirely). It could have easily been named potato, cat, gobbeldigook, etc.
In discussing the arbitrary nature of signs, I think of something rather silly. A friend of mine takes issue with the term eggplant. An eggplant, he says, is not shaped like an egg, and it doesn't resemble an egg in any way. He argues that oranges are called oranges, because they're orange, and since eggplants are purple, they should be called purples, and every time he eats eggplant he says "Mmm, that's a mighty delicious purple, it must be prime purple season." As silly and comical as my friend's position on eggplant may be, I am not too quick to discredit it. He has taken an issue with the sign eggplant, and the lack of connection between the sound-image "eggplant" and his mental concept of eggplant. There is no essential value in the term eggplant, and we know eggplants as eggplants because they are not zucchini, and they are not oranges.
As for "The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure" by the Magnetic Fields, the lyric "You can't use a bulldozer to study orchids" deals with the complexity of language. The lyric appears at the end of a verse, which goes as follows:
Love is a concept, and as the song suggests there is little understanding of it and all of it's complexities. "I'm not so sure I even know what it is," illustrates that it is impossible to understand love, and because it is so complex, it is fair to surmise that there are many mental concepts for which love signifies. Love has no intrinsic meaning or value, and therefore cannot have a universal meaning. The complexities of love are supposed to be what makes it beautiful, somewhat like an orchid, and in using a bulldozer to study an orchid you would undoubtedly destroy it, much like assigning a universal meaning to love would destroy it (whatever it is).
The rest of the song goes as follows:
The signs we utilize, and their relationships to one another, as well as the relationship between the signified and signifier are arbitrary. Simplistically, you could argue that the word used for one thing could have been used for another thing. The signifier (sound-image) of "orchid" has nothing to do with the plant. The orchid doesn't simply pop out of the ground and say "Hey world, I'm an orchid" (clearly, because orchids are plants and they don't have consciousness and therefore they do not have access to language but that is another story entirely). It could have easily been named potato, cat, gobbeldigook, etc.
In discussing the arbitrary nature of signs, I think of something rather silly. A friend of mine takes issue with the term eggplant. An eggplant, he says, is not shaped like an egg, and it doesn't resemble an egg in any way. He argues that oranges are called oranges, because they're orange, and since eggplants are purple, they should be called purples, and every time he eats eggplant he says "Mmm, that's a mighty delicious purple, it must be prime purple season." As silly and comical as my friend's position on eggplant may be, I am not too quick to discredit it. He has taken an issue with the sign eggplant, and the lack of connection between the sound-image "eggplant" and his mental concept of eggplant. There is no essential value in the term eggplant, and we know eggplants as eggplants because they are not zucchini, and they are not oranges.
As for "The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure" by the Magnetic Fields, the lyric "You can't use a bulldozer to study orchids" deals with the complexity of language. The lyric appears at the end of a verse, which goes as follows:
I met Ferdinand de Saussure on a night like this
On love, he said, I'm not so sure I even know what it is
No understanding, no closure, it is a nemesis
You can't use a bulldozer to study orchids, he said so
Love is a concept, and as the song suggests there is little understanding of it and all of it's complexities. "I'm not so sure I even know what it is," illustrates that it is impossible to understand love, and because it is so complex, it is fair to surmise that there are many mental concepts for which love signifies. Love has no intrinsic meaning or value, and therefore cannot have a universal meaning. The complexities of love are supposed to be what makes it beautiful, somewhat like an orchid, and in using a bulldozer to study an orchid you would undoubtedly destroy it, much like assigning a universal meaning to love would destroy it (whatever it is).
The rest of the song goes as follows:
We don't know anything
You don't know anything
I don't know anything
About love
And we are nothing
You are nothing
I am nothing
Without love
I'm just a great composer and not a violent man
But I lost my composure and I shot Ferdinand
Crying, it's well and kosher to say you don't understand
But this is for Holland Dozier Holland, his last words were
We don't know anything
You don't know anything
I don't know anything
About love
But we are nothing
You are nothing
I am nothing
Without love
His fading words were
We don't know anything
You don't know anything
I don't know anything
About love
But we are nothing
You are nothing
I am nothing
Without love
The line concerning Holland-Dozier-Holland refers to a Motown songwriting team that often wrote about love, but they didn't provide any sort of meaning. They wrote songs like, "Stop! In the Name of Love!" and "You Can't Hurry Love." Holland-Dozier-Holland wrote about why love hurts so much, and what you have to do to obtain it. Saussure is correct in saying that we know nothing about love, because it is something that can't be understood through language, but the artist may be suggesting that although we know not what it means, we need to embrace that it exists.
Additionally, if we are to accept that we are nothing without language, could the same be said about love?
ReplyDelete