Metaphors, Language, and Time.

The text from this week was difficult for me to fully grasp – I’m entirely new to the field of linguistics, and to considering text and language outside of its role within the context of stories and conveyed meaning. De Saussure was especially difficult. He dealt with language in its essence, while Barthes explored its meaning in its textual form. Because Barthes’ argument is something I’m more comfortable with, I’ll try and explore the points of de Saussure to further my understanding.

As Morgan mentioned in her post, the metaphors utilized by both authors helped me grasp their arguments; metaphors are one of the most effective ways for me to fully visualize a point; it helps me to translate their argument into a framework I already understand. De Saussure, for example, states that the value of a word is determined by “its relation with other similar values,” and the “differences that make it possible to distinguish this word from all others” (9).  I’m sure that I’m oversimplifying the concept, but I couldn’t help but visualize the words as beings, given value and significance through their differences and unique characteristics, as well as their role within a community. Without words’ relationship to other sounds and signifiers, they lose meaning.  As humans, changes within our larger community can redefine our role within society, without us necessarily changing as individuals. This acts as a parallel to de Saussure’s assertion that “the value of a term may be modified without either its meaning or its sound being affected, solely because a neighboring term has been modified” (10).  I doubt that this is a full and complex understanding of the text, but it aided me in contextualizing the argument and thus, lending it a more easily sought out meaning.

Another part of de Saussure’s argument that I found fascinating was his discussion of distinctions of time (or lack thereof) within varying languages. As he relates, “Hebrew does not recognize even the fundamental distinctions between the past, present, and future” (8). This ties into his following definition of concepts as being “purely differential” and defined solely by its counterparts. It seems that Hebrew’s concept of time is fundamentally changed by its lack of distinction: the past, present, and future exist without counterparts in the language, and thus, without significance.

I look forward to discussing these readings further in class – I’d really like to understand them more clearly.