{"id":52,"date":"2025-09-25T22:15:37","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T05:15:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=52"},"modified":"2025-09-25T22:18:39","modified_gmt":"2025-09-26T05:18:39","slug":"the-ambiguity-of-language","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/52","title":{"rendered":"The Ambiguity of Language"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 <\/em>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<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saussure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Cary Wolfe\u2013our chapter\u2019s author\u2013cites many theorists, he describes Ferdinand de Saussure\u2019s Course in General Linguistics <\/em>as \u201carguably the most important [linguistic text] of the twentieth century\u201d(233). <\/em>Saussure\u2019s describes language as comprised of \u201ctwo fundamental dimensions: the abstract system of rules that constitutes any language system at a given moment in time (langue<\/em>), and the heterogeneous utterances and speech acts in which individual speakers engage (parole<\/em>)\u201d(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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This philosophy of language arguably mirrors John Locke\u2019s 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<\/em>, while the ideas that this communication embodies would not be properly transmittable without the structural understanding of langue<\/em>. Essentially, Saussure\u2019s two dimensions of language coexist with Locke\u2019s dimensions of communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship between language structures and their use is reciprocal. Without parole<\/em> there would be no use for langue<\/em>, and without langue<\/em> there would be no basis for parole<\/em>. This relationship makes differentiating between the individual and social aspects of language difficult. To do so, Saussure emphasizes the importance of langue<\/em>, as it is \u201cthe norm of all other manifestations of speech\u201d and consequently attributes order to systems that are otherwise relatively ambiguous (Wolfe 234). He objects to an object-centred approach to language\u2013which views words as \u201cderived from their referents\u201d\u2013arguing that if words were to stand for pre-existing concepts, they would directly translate across different languages (Wolfe 234). Instead he proposes a \u201crelational understanding\u201d of language\u2013viewing it as established and dictated by social conventions\u2013and theorizing that language is not complete in, or determined by, any one speaker (Wolfe 234). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em>. Our society emphasizes langue<\/em>, 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<\/em>, others will not understand their potential alternate meanings in parole<\/em>. In this way, the developments of colloquialisms and slang perfectly encapsulate both the functions of langue<\/em> in everyday life, and Saussure\u2019s idea that language is not complete in any one speaker, but instead a collective effort to reinterpret the meanings of words. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, Saussure highlights the ambiguity of language through his breakdown of its dimensions. By defining language systems through their occurrence in parole<\/em>, he delineates these systems by the contexts in which they are used. A sentence could mean one thing according to langue<\/em>, yet have its meaning completely altered in a different instance of parole<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Derrida<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Derrida, too, subscribes to the idea of signifiers or \u201cconcepts\u201d being referred only as a system of signs, in which it \u201crefers to one another,\u201d hence, being a \u201cchain\u201d 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 \u201cunmediated\u201d existence of \u201cconsciousness\u201d and \u201cconceptuality,\u201d 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 \u201cpsychological\u201d and \u201ccommunicational\u201d aspects of language, examining Luhmann\u2019s theories will support our exploration of language in its necessary context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Infographic created by Christine Choi (made on Canva)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luhmann\u2019s Theory on Systems of Communication<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When examining Cary Wolfe\u2019s chapter on Language, <\/em>an overarching argument emerges: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s consciousness. Within his framework, language does not transmit ideas within a system but works as a medium that makes communication possible through context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These ideas are further developed in Bruce Clarke\u2019s chapter on Communication, <\/em>which <\/p>\n\n\n\n

was touched upon during the presentations. Clarke expands on the connection between Luhmann\u2019s system theory and language. Luhmann claims that  <\/em>\u201cCommunication… takes place only when a difference of utterance and information is first understood. This distinguishes it from a mere perception of others\u2019 behavior.\u201d(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\u201cthe actual and the possible can appear simultaneously.\u201d( 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luhmann\u2019s work helps reiterate that context provides meaning to language. His work <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bateson (\/Kac)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s Genesis<\/em> make that insight visible in surprising ways. Gregory Bateson defines context as essential by referring to communication via language as \u201cthe difference that makes a difference\u201d (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\u2019s artwork Genesis<\/em> 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<\/em> of the context in which it appeared. Genesis<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bateson, Gregory. \u201cLanguage\u201d, Critical Terms for Media Studies<\/em>, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp 235. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clarke, Bruce. \u201cCommunciation\u201d, Critical Terms for Media Studies, <\/em>edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp 132-144. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wolfe, Cary. \u201cLanguage\u201d,  Critical Terms for Media Studies, <\/em>edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 233-248.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Written by: Molly Kingsley, Lea Lavalley, Christine Choi, Aminata Chipembere<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Featured Graphic created by Molly Kingsley<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 … Continue reading The Ambiguity of Language<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100869,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[16,12,13,11,15],"class_list":["post-52","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-other","tag-bateson","tag-communication","tag-derrida","tag-language","tag-luhmann"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100869"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52\/revisions\/58"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}