Introduction
When one thinks about one of the many human languages, it may be easy to look at words as fixed in their meaning, regardless of what tongue is being spoken. Words can be translated and retain their meaning, so why not assume that they can each be neatly defined once and for all? Critical Terms for Media Studies and its chapter concerning language challenges this notion as it spotlights various theorists that emphasize the importance of context that supports language. They assert that meaning does not exist inside words themselves, rather it emerges through the contexts in which words are used. Whether it is a colloquialism shifting over time, systems of communication shaping interpretation, or theories that emphasize the instability of meaning – there exists a strong argument that language only makes sense when placed in relation to a wider social, and perhaps psychological frame. Theorists like Saussure, Luhmann, Derida, and Bateson each highlight this principle with different beliefs, reasoning, and specifications. In this blog post, we will delve into their ideas and examine the significance of context in the realm of language.
Saussure
While Cary Wolfe–our chapter’s author–cites many theorists, he describes Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics as “arguably the most important [linguistic text] of the twentieth century”(233). Saussure’s describes language as comprised of “two fundamental dimensions: the abstract system of rules that constitutes any language system at a given moment in time (langue), and the heterogeneous utterances and speech acts in which individual speakers engage (parole)”(Wolfe, 234). Additionally, Saussure explains how language systems are developed over time, existing solely through the instances of their use while only remaining meaningful because of the context of rules in which they are situated (Wolfe 234).
This philosophy of language arguably mirrors John Locke’s two-headed approach to communication studies (Communication Presentation, Slide 4). The social aspect of intentionally exchanging ideas that partially defines communication is largely made possible through instances of parole, while the ideas that this communication embodies would not be properly transmittable without the structural understanding of langue. Essentially, Saussure’s two dimensions of language coexist with Locke’s dimensions of communication.
The relationship between language structures and their use is reciprocal. Without parole there would be no use for langue, and without langue there would be no basis for parole. This relationship makes differentiating between the individual and social aspects of language difficult. To do so, Saussure emphasizes the importance of langue, as it is “the norm of all other manifestations of speech” and consequently attributes order to systems that are otherwise relatively ambiguous (Wolfe 234). He objects to an object-centred approach to language–which views words as “derived from their referents”–arguing that if words were to stand for pre-existing concepts, they would directly translate across different languages (Wolfe 234). Instead he proposes a “relational understanding” of language–viewing it as established and dictated by social conventions–and theorizing that language is not complete in, or determined by, any one speaker (Wolfe 234).
A prime example of this social approach to understanding language is the everchanging meanings of words in slang dialects and colloquialisms. The efficacy of slang lies in the extent to which it is adopted in parole. Our society emphasizes langue, setting semi-stagnant definitions and uses for its words and rules. As such, if only some people are using words intending to mean something outside of their understandings in langue, others will not understand their potential alternate meanings in parole. In this way, the developments of colloquialisms and slang perfectly encapsulate both the functions of langue in everyday life, and Saussure’s idea that language is not complete in any one speaker, but instead a collective effort to reinterpret the meanings of words.
Ultimately, Saussure highlights the ambiguity of language through his breakdown of its dimensions. By defining language systems through their occurrence in parole, he delineates these systems by the contexts in which they are used. A sentence could mean one thing according to langue, yet have its meaning completely altered in a different instance of parole.
Derrida
Derrida, too, subscribes to the idea of signifiers or “concepts” being referred only as a system of signs, in which it “refers to one another,” hence, being a “chain” of sorts (1982, 11). This, in relation to context, provides evidence for how the necessary context of the chain of concepts is required for the referential nature of language. Unlike Saussure, Derrida insists on the inseparable and “unmediated” existence of “consciousness” and “conceptuality,” largely rejecting the purely psychic perspective of language. For Derrida, the context arguably cannot be taken out of the signified itself. In such discussions regarding the mediation of “psychological” and “communicational” aspects of language, examining Luhmann’s theories will support our exploration of language in its necessary context.
Infographic created by Christine Choi (made on Canva)
Luhmann’s Theory on Systems of Communication
When examining Cary Wolfe’s chapter on Language, an overarching argument emerges:
meaning is inherently tied to context; hence, language does not exist in isolation but is shaped by surrounding systems. Language is regulated by the structures in which it operates. Wolfe analyzes the work of Nikolas Luhmann, a German sociologist who developed a theory on systems of communication. Luhmann distinguishes between two systems: the psychic system and the social system. The psychic system is a self regulating system that reproduces itself through perceptions and consciousness. The social system reproduces itself through communication with language serving as its primary medium. He argues that both systems are closed off, meaning that the mind cannot directly transfer thoughts into society, and society cannot directly communicate meaning into one’s consciousness. Within his framework, language does not transmit ideas within a system but works as a medium that makes communication possible through context.
These ideas are further developed in Bruce Clarke’s chapter on Communication, which
was touched upon during the presentations. Clarke expands on the connection between Luhmann’s system theory and language. Luhmann claims that “Communication… takes place only when a difference of utterance and information is first understood. This distinguishes it from a mere perception of others’ behavior.”(Luhmann 2002, 157). In other words, communication does not depend on the transmission of perceptions but on shared ideas of meaning and the context surrounding them. Meaning is seen as a form in which“the actual and the possible can appear simultaneously.”( Luhmann 1995, 63). He argues that language operates through codes, differences, and context that allow humans to have a sense of understanding. For language to function as a medium of communication, humans must depend on the codes that provide the system with meaning.
Luhmann’s work helps reiterate that context provides meaning to language. His work
states that the psychic system and social system are closed off, which means humans are unable to transfer ideas. Due to this, meaning cannot simply exist in words or be communicated directly. It has to be interpreted within context, which Luhmann refers to as codes and distinctions that are utilized by each system. Luhmann’s argument raises important questions surrounding the media. If these systems are closed off, then the media cannot assure the transmission of an artist’s internal thoughts or intentions. This challenges the idea that the media allows the audience to perceive an artist’s intentionality. It suggests that the media functions more as a medium, similarly to language, having the ability to shape communication, but never fully bridging the gap between internal and external systems. This leaves us with the question: when we create media, are we truly able to express our perceptions, or will these internal thoughts always be reshaped by the context in which they are received?
Bateson (/Kac)
This brings us back to a broader point: what theorists like Bateson remind us is that language only exists through context, and contemporary artworks like Eduardo Kac’s Genesis make that insight visible in surprising ways. Gregory Bateson defines context as essential by referring to communication via language as “the difference that makes a difference” (Bateson 235). Essentially, he explains that a word or sign only really carries meaning when placed within a specific frame of context that allows humans to interpret it. For example, a phrase that is spoken ironically will communicate something entirely different than the same phrase spoken earnestly. Bateson reminds us that language does not exist in a vacuum – it is always dependent on the situation that surrounds it. Eduardo Kac’s artwork Genesis is a great representation of this idea. Kac began with a biblical verse, translated it into Morse code, then converted it again into genetic code and implanted it into living bacteria. Visitors online could then manipulate the bacteria, which in result, altered the biblical text itself. What began as a scripture became a coded message, then a biological sequence, then an interactive artwork. Its meaning shifted at every stage because of the context in which it appeared. Genesis embodies the central argument that language, whether in everyday conversation or in art form, can only be truly understood within the context it exists in.
Citations
Bateson, Gregory. “Language”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp 235.
Clarke, Bruce. “Communciation”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp 132-144.
Wolfe, Cary. “Language”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 233-248.
Written by: Molly Kingsley, Lea Lavalley, Christine Choi, Aminata Chipembere
Featured Graphic created by Molly Kingsley
Hi everyone! Great post! Since language can only be understood in the context for which it is in, I am just wondering what can be independent of context. Are there intrinsic things we understand, and if so can we understand them without language? For example, in the Space & Time presentation it was stated that we attribute the process of mediation linearly due to the language of time. My question is could we have intrinsically understood the concept of time without transferring it to language (i.e. dates and times, sun dials, etc.).
If you could clarify the context OF context and how to understand when context comes into play.
Hi Bridghet, thank you for this thoughtful comment :)! You raise an interesting point concerning whether anything can really exist or be understood outside of its context. Plus, the example you mention about time really points towards the complexity here. While humans may experience something like the passing of time (sun rising/setting, bodily rhythms, aging) in an immediate way, those sensations still need to be placed inside some sort of frame of context to become communicable or shareable. In other worss, the experience of aging, for example, may exist independently, but once we try to explain it, we end up relying on language, signs, and systems, which in all – is context.
So, in a sense, “context” is always in play when meaning of a word or an item is exchanged or produced. Bateson would probably argue that what we think of as intrinsic only becomes meaningful through “a difference that makes a difference”, which is the moment that something is interpreted. With the subject of time specifically, raw perception of it may be universally subjective, but how it is organized, described and understood depends heavily on context.
I really enjoyed reading this post! Coming from the group that read about the chapter on writing, I found that this especially related to our presentation, specifically how writing essentially materialises the langue/parole relationship mentioned in the post. I would be interested to know how you guys think the relationship and distinction between langue and parole has evolved in the digital age, where writing has transformed beyond a communication tool and rather a material technology.
Great post! I found it insightful how you tied the theories together to show that language is always relational and shaped by its surroundings. What stood out to me was the emphasis on context as something that actively shapes meaning. It made me think about how often we assume that words “just mean” something, when in reality they only come alive in the moment of use. The example of slang evolving was especially relatable.
I’m left wondering if meaning is always shifting with context, is true understanding ever possible? Or are we always only approximating one another’s ideas through these imperfect chains of signs? That tension feels at the heart of both communication and miscommunication.
Hi Maryam, thank you for your response! I appreciate how you picked up on the relational aspect of language and the role of context in shaping meaning. If meaning is always shifting, can we ever achieve a true understanding of things?
One way of looking at it, especially through Luhmann and Derrida’s thoughts, is that communication is less about perfectly transmitting an idea and more about negotiating shared frames of meaning, in the moment. In that sense, “understanding” something is almost always subjective to the individual, but that doesn’t make language ineffective. Even approximations can be powerful enough for connection. Slang is a good example of this, as it evolves constantly, yet groups do understand each other within certain contexts, showing that meaning is sustained even if it is everchanging.
So, maybe true understading isn’t a final destination, but more of an ongoing process of aligning and realigning when we interact, as our society evolves.
“Meaning is inherently tied to context; hence, language does not exist in isolation but is shaped by surrounding systems.”
Great blogpost! I found this statement in particular extremely well-put and profound, especially in relation to the concepts that we’ve recently learned in class in regards to media affordances and how we glean meaning from concepts, objects, and media. In this case, context mediates are understanding of language, and affords us communication and information. However, I’m curious about what it limits from us in turn.
Hi Xelena!
Thank you for your comment! I appreciate your mention of affordances, as I agree! These ideas on language made me wonder about affordances, as most of these findings show that language limits us more than allows us to communicate fully! This can especially be seen in Luhmann’s work, as he describes that we can’t truly communicate our inner thoughts and perceptions. This theory is inherently limiting us. Telling us that our inner thoughts will always be locked off to others and that our art will never be able to fully capture those closed-off perceptions. It’s interesting to think about what this means for media and how we can work around these limitations.
This is a fascinating exploration of language! I love the way you matched the perspectives of Saussure, Derrida, Luhmann, and Bateson in your writing; it really helps me to clarify how deeply context shapes meaning in language. However, I have a question about Luhmann’s idea on how internal thoughts cannot be directly transferred to others. Thus in that case, how is your thinking about our expectations of media, e.g., film, literature, and visual art, to accurately convey the artist’s intent?
Hi Eira,
Thank you for this response!
When writing this expansion on Luhmann’s ideas, I also had the question: Is media or art ever truly able to express our intent, or will this intent always be reshaped by context? I think the answer to this question truly lies in which author’s ideas you choose to be influenced by. According to Luhmann, internal thoughts and perceptions cannot be directly transferred, meaning arises through interpretation. Since this system is closed off, when we observe media, art, and literature, we are not accessing the artist’s exact intent but generating meaning based on how we interpret the work. The work itself can try to guide the viewer, but ultimately, we have our interpretations. Art does not serve as a channel in which the artist’s intent is “delivered” to the audience. Rather media, provides a set of signals often influenced by social context (social system) that the viewers interpret within their own context.
Within this blog post, I found this quote interesting; “language does not transmit ideas within a system but works as a medium that makes communication possible through context”. I agree with this statement; language, or the sounds we emit to each other do not disseminate ideas. However, the meanings we ascribe to these sounds do.
I find your presentation’s overall question, “When we create media, are we truly able to express our perceptions, or will these internal thoughts always be reshaped by the context in which they are received?”, to be extremely complex. However, I lean towards the belief that we are never truly able to express our perceptions through language or other media.
Like Luhmann states, “the mind cannot directly transfer thoughts into society”. Even if I were to voice a statement and thoroughly explain my thinking behind that statement to another individual, that individual would still comprehend my statement based on their own live experiences and personal views. As a result, they may agree with my statement; however, they will do so differently from me. They will never comprehensively understand my entire point of view.
This leads me to wonder if we wonder if we will ever live in a world where technological advancement allows us to simply transmit our ideas from brain-to-brain rather than through written or verbal language. Perhaps this could look like information being transferred through “brain layers” stored on “hard drive[s]”, as Bernadette Wegenstein notes in the second chapter of Critical Terms for Media Studies (27).
Hi Emily!
Thank you for your comment! I was left with similar thoughts when writing this post! Working on this post made me wonder about the limitations of language and media. As this idea of physical system and our thoughts are closed off to one another. I am of a similar opinion. I believe that our art will never truly be able to capture all of our perceptions and intentions, as the audience will always have their own perspective on the work.
As stated, we can’t transfer our ideas into society. Like you said, a person will always interpret your ideas based on their own life experience. As much as this might seem like a negative thing, I believe that this distance between the physical system and social system can be a good thing. Would we truly enjoy art or media as much if there were only one way to interpret it? If the artist could fully transmit their intentions, would we have the same pronounced thoughts about the piece?
I think these differences in opinion, in perspectives, can actually be a powerful thing for art, as it allows agency to the audience rather than there being a single all-defining idea attached to each piece. I really think these are the affordances that come with language and communication. As much as it can lead to misunderstandings and differences in thought. I think the fact that we can all comprehend things as we want makes art more beautiful!
I really appreciate your comment, as it made me rethink the affordance of language and how this distance could be a positive thing 🙂
I really enjoy your blog. Although language wasn’t a primary topic in our group’s research on communication, reading your writings has made me realize that language is an essential component of communication. Communication between people relies on language. And language isn’t limited to words. For example, sign language uses body language to translate and convey information. Every medium we use, whether text, images, or sound, becomes a language, enabling us to understand and express ourselves in communication.
Hi Saber!
Thank you for your comment! I appreciate how you pointed out the connection between the chapter on communication and language. When writing this blog, I read the communication chapter and found interesting connections. It helps back up the main idea of the language chapter, that language is ultimately shaped by its surrounding systems or context. I think this is even more apparent in the communication chapter, as it points out that we can use other media to communicate. This reinforces the idea that communication lies in context, which subsequently means language, as it is a method of communication that relies on context as well!
I really loved how your entry broke down the idea that language cannot exist without context! It was clear, readable, and made convoluted theories sound plausible. The way you explained Saussure’s langue and parole was particularly beneficial in explaining how language is both an individual and social system. Your slang example was particularly good because it was so well-suited in explaining how meaning is changed depending on the way people use words and who uses them. I also liked reading the Luhmann section. His idea that only if meaning has been realized is communication said to take place and not if behavior has been observed is exactly what you’re saying about how media cannot transmit an artist’s mind precisely. It caused me to reflect on how every message we put out there on the internet—texts, posts, even paintings—is reshaped by its website and audience. Using Kac’s Genesis as the finale was so wonderful a display of how to bridge the theory with something real. Seeing language transform from scripture to code to viable bacteria illustrate how context can remake meaning literally. This post generally made me reflect on how language is not just a form of communication but a living organism that keeps evolving through use and interpretation.
Hi Mio!
Thanks for your comment! I’m glad the comparison between langue and parole was helpful, that and the Luhmann’s emphasis on the importance of meaning behind language also stood out to me when I first read this chapter. I think the connection between us as humans and our communication through language is something that is taken so for granted. Language, whichever it may be, is something we quite literally learn from birth and it’s such an intrinsic part of the human experience that I think we forget that while it is a part of us, we are also a part of it! I really enjoyed drawing these parallels to the everchanging nature of internet slang, so I’m glad you enjoyed it!