Roland Barthes
As a famous writer and philosopher, Roland Barthes is also a genius critic and thinker. Barthes is a versatile person, his ideas touched upon a wide range of fields, it’s hard to classify his categories according to the styles of his works. I’d like to talk about my impressions of several arguments of Barthes after reading 《Image Music Text》 and《Mythologies》.
In 《The Death of the Author》, Barthes mentioned that language reigns the work instead of author, language itself is the origin. As a general rule, we take the work as a “product” of the author, because the author turns his/her view into the language to narrate the story, the work should be connected with author’s biography, life and passions, all is connected to the author. Nevertheless, Barthes believed writer’s interiority is less important, the relation between writer and work should be diluted, the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text, is not the subject with the book as predicate. Writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original (P7). To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing (P8). And Barthes took one instance—in Surrealism, language desacralizes author’s image. Reader is the destination of a text’s unity which gives writing its future.
In 《From Work to Text》, Barthes summed up the characters of text and the differences between Text and Work, the fifth point of the arguments concerns the importance of writer. Work has to be finished in conformity with the author’s intentions, but the Text is a result of a combinatory systematic, it can be broken and read without the guarantee of the author.
Actually, I’ve been interest in the connection between author and literary works for a long while, but I have an intimate knowledge of the significance of language on literary works in this post-structuralist work of Barthes.
In addition, through the study of several articles in 《Mythologies》, I found Barthes is really talented and creative. He decomposed daily life problems and analysed the essence and connotations with an original view. Those specific problems or cultural materials, which seem very common and regular, could be cut apart to two parts–positive one and negative one— from different points of view. In 《The Romans in Films》, fringes and sweat were designed to express emotional sentiments, but Barthes took it as the most benign symptom, it’s ambiguous, shallow, intermediate and degraded, it’s a kind of sarcasm to regard itself as “nature”; in 《Toys》, Barthes thought toys are socialized, as a microcosm of adult world, they prepare the children to accept adult opinions instead of their own consciousness of inventing other original things, besides, artificial materials of toys instead of wood makes children far from the nature, Barthes thought this phenomenon is pathetic; in 《Soap-powders and Detergents》, through the comparison between the quality and nature of two objects, it turned out they are abrasive, people are always conceived by their own imagination; in 《The Blue Guide》 , Barthes thought it’s just a tool of keeping images of graceless landscapes and inane phrases without the bliss and significance of travel, it turns travel into a method of senseless approach instead of an art or a culture; in 《The Brain of Einstein》, from a different viewpoint, Barthes took Einstein’s death as the condition of myth in the universe signifying Einstein is still the most sublime representation of the human being. Barthes amplified the problem with a lively description and explicated its dual character as his critique, and he exposed how bourgeois values and motivations were asserted through those materials.
Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics
Language vs. Speech
Ferdinand de Saussure was one of the most influential figures of 20th century linguistics. He believed language (langue) to be “a product that is passively assimilated by the individual” (59) as opposed to being a function of the speaker and speaking (parole) to be an “individual act”. Language and speaking are thus separate entities. In other words, language is a set of socially shared rules whereas speech is simply the verbal mode of communication. Speaking is premeditated but language is in a way conventionally determined by the members of a society (this is the social side of speech that cannot be modified). He makes an important distinction between speech and language: speech is heterogeneous whereas language is homogenous. Saussure defines language to be a “system of signs that express ideas” and that is made up of a union of meanings and sound-images that are both psychological. Speech is composed of several different elements since the speaker can express his thoughts in various different ways. Although Saussure defines language to be a “social institution”, he regards it as being systematic – the association between an auditory image and a concept (as opposed to a thing and a name). He calls this semiology – “the science that studies the life of signs within society” (60).
What is a sign?
Language according to Saussure is not a simple naming process. It involves a rather complex operation whereby a concept and sound-image “are united in the brain by an associative bond” (61). It is precisely this combination that is defined as a sign. A sign is a double entity, comprised of both a signifier (signifiant) and a signified (signifié). The signifier refers to the sound image (psychological concept, spoken word, linguistic part of the sign) whereas the signified refers to the concept (mental image). Like two sides of a sheet of paper, these are inseparable.
Key Principles
Saussure names two fundamental principles: the arbitrary nature of the sign (Principle I) and the linear nature of the signifier (Principle II). Principle I states that signs are arbitrary, meaning there is no particular reason why a signifier is linked to a signified. There is no natural connection between the two. And in fact, because of the unmotivated nature of the sign, the relationship is thus based on convention. That is why a sign cannot be changed once it has been established by a particular community. The word “cat” refers to a four-legged animal that “meows” only because this has been agreed upon by the members of a society and not based upon a natural link between the mental image of cat and the succession of sounds c-a-t. One problem is the issue of onomatopoeia and interjections. Saussure dismisses this however by citing examples such as the English bow-wow and the French oua-oua, illustrating that both are conventional imitations of one another. The argument against interjections is very much the same. Principle II states that the signifier represents a span that is measurable only in the dimension of time. In other words, auditory images have duration and are linear. As stated by Saussure, this is obvious when signifiers are represented in writing.
Synchrony vs. Diachrony
Synchrony refers to “everything that relates to the static side of our science” (AB axis) whereas diachrony refers to “everything that has to do with evolution” (CD axis) (64). Saussure compares the functioning of language to the game of chess in aims of stressing the importance of synchrony or the language-state. Essentially, he argues that language is always momentary and varies from one position to the next. In chess, the rules of the game exist throughout the entire game and are based on unchangeable conventions (this is much like language in that rules have been equally agreed upon). Furthermore, by joining the game at any moment, one can still play based on the pieces positioned on the board. Thus, there is no benefit for knowing how the pieces came to be arranged in a certain way or by following the entire match. The chess metaphor stresses Saussure’s desire for studying language as a complete system at any given point in time. This makes sense since speakers generally perceive language in its current state and do not have access to its history.
Linguistic Value
The value of a sign is dependent upon all other signs in the language. From a conceptual viewpoint, terms are interdependent, deriving their value from other terms. One example Saussure uses are the French synonyms “redouter” (to dread), “craindre” (to fear) and “avoir peur” (be afraid) to show that these words have their particular meaning as long they are contrasted with each other. By removing two of the words, the remaining word has no point of reference and thus, becomes nebulous. This is why signs cannot exist alone; their value is determined by their environment. The same argument can also be applied to grammatical entities. From a material viewpoint, it is not only the sound but also the phonic differences that make it possible to distinguish one word from all others. Signs used in writing are arbitrary (the writing of the letter “t” is arbitrary with respect to the sound that it makes), the value of the letters are negative and differential (“t” can be written in different ways), the forms depend uniquely on the limitations imposed by a given system and the means of sign production is irrelevant (engraved, pen, chisel etc.).
Last word
Saussure states that in language, “there are only differences without positive terms” (70). Signs are purely differential, not defined positively by their content but rather negatively by contrast with other signs within the same system. There are no positive preexisting ideas within a linguistic system. However, why then do we have something positive if the sign is considered in its totality?
Barthes: Myth/Signification
In Mythology Barthes addresses the myth as a semiological system that uses Saussure´s linguistic system as its base. The sign becomes the signifier which Barthes chooses to call form, and then a different signified is incorporated, this is called the concept. Finally, the result of the union of these two terms is the myth or signification.
Signification is nothing more than a further meaning behind the pure linguistic one. In the text Barthes gives plenty of examples from different kinds of representations. Perhaps, the most useful in terms of literature is this sentence: my name is lion. This sentence has a simple straight forward meaning that anyone who is familiar with the English language can understand, however placed in a certain context it can signify something more than the initial meaning . In this case, the sentence was found in a grammar book so the reader understands that the sentence is not only about a creature whose name is “lion” but it is also a grammatical example, the unification of these two notions creates a complete new “global signification”.
The example of the portrayal of Romans in film and especially the segment where Barthes explained what the sweaty foreheads of the Romans meant in one particular film, made me think about the exercise we made previously with Maupassant’s Toine. In the text’s example Barthes says that the sweaty foreheads of everyone but the Caesar are there to symbolize “preoccupation”, moral dilemma. With a little bit of knowledge in history one can easily understand why everyone is so troubled, except for the Caesar, but that is not the point. My point is that what Barthes did here is exactly what we did with Toine, we didn’t focus only on the linguistic meaning of the story we took the signs and gave them further signification. That was how Toine´s fatness and laziness signified a socio-economic system for some or the condition of peasants on XIX century France for others.
These train of thought led me to the following questions: How does one learn to understand these significations? Are significations different for everyone? Are there universal significations? Furthermore, according to Barthes signification should be represented either openly, intellectual and remote or deeply rooted and invented on each occasion. Failing to do so is considered deceitful. So in the case of literature, is the author always aware of the existence of significations in his text, of how they are represented? Are they there on purpose?
What I get from Saussure
According to Saussure language is the social aspect of speech in the sense that it is not a natural function of the speaker and it can’t be created nor modified by an individual but only assimilated. It is a system of signs in which the essential thing is the union of concepts and sound-images (the “formal” representation of a concept). One aspect that is constantly stressed throughout the text is the psychological quality of these two entities that form the sign which are joined in the brain by an “associative bond”.
Saussure continues to explain that one of the main problems of the common use of the word “sign” is the perception that it only designates a sound-image and forgetting that it always carries with it a concept. These two terms are like two sides of one page, he says. To further differentiate (and the same time relate ¿?) these two terms and with the purpose of creating a proper terminology for the study of the sign, Saussure renames them as signified (concept) and signifier (sound-image). It is important to note that the relation of the two and the sign created as a consequence is a product of arbitrariness. That is, there is no actual reason behind the connection between the sign and what it designates, not even in the case of onomatopoeia or interjections, it is mere convention. It is all in our minds.
For Saussure the most important thing is to understand that language is a system and the sign only has value as part of that system which can be analyzed synchronically (in its present state) or diachronically (through its evolution). Going back to the value of the sign, it should not get confused with its signification. Two words can have the same signification but not the same value. For example, dedos in Spanish has the same signification as fingers in English, however when referring to the wiggly appendages on your feet, English uses toes while Spanish still uses dedos, it has a double value. Furthermore, the value of a word may be modified without affecting its meaning or idea but because another term of the system’s been modified. Value is completely determined by the environment.
In terms of the material value of a word, written or spoken, it is completely arbitrary, negative and differential; we know an R is an R because it is not a T as easy as that, or at least that is how I understand it.
It is made evident that the differential characteristic is true for most linguistic relations; the signifier and signified exist in opposition to each other and even when the product of these two creates the sign, something that Saussure considers positive, it only exists in opposition to other signs in the system. If this is true, then language doesn’t have the capability of actually apprehending reality because it can only be defined in terms of its relationship with it itself. This is probably what Saussure means when he says that “language is only form and no substance”.
*I apologize for this entry. I realize it is more of summary than an actual commentary on the reading. I’m still having trouble fully understanding the text, however after Tuesday’s seminary I promise I’ll have something better to share.
Course in General Linguistics
Saussure, one of the fathers of 20th century linguistics, said:” The linguist must take the study of linguistic structure as his primary concern and relate all other manifestations of language.” Language is a social product passively assimilated by the individual. Saussure raised the idea of setting up a science that studies the life of signs within society –semiology. Language is a part of the general science of semiology, it’s not a process of naming those ready-made ideas, but a system of signs that express ideas, the essential part of all similar systems.
The linguistic unit (sign) is a double entity formed by the associating of two psychological systems –a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). The concept is abstract, the sound-image is sensory, language signs are inevitably psychological. All the information and signification expressed by signs only exist in the mind of language users. And we can summarize the other characteristics of language: it is a social side of speech, its social nature is inherent; it could be studied separately; language, as well as language sings, is concrete and changeable. Saussure proposed to retain the word sign to designate the sound-image, the concept and the word.
The sign has two principles: Principle I is arbitrary nature. One signified could have many signifier in different languages; signifier is unmotivated, the connection between signified and signifier is arbitrary. Even though Onomatopoeia and Interjections could be raised as objections to Principle I, Principle I still dominate all the linguistics of language and its consequences are numberless. Principle II is linear nature. Although sometimes this principle is not obvious, it’s fundamental and its consequences are incalculable. The signifiers have at their command only the dimension of time. Their elements are presented in succession; they form a chain.
Then Saussure spoke of synchrony and diachrony that designate respectively a language-state and an evolutionary phase. Synchrony has both the autonomy and the interdependence, through a comparison between the functioning of language and a game of chess, we found each linguistic term derives its value from its opposition to all the other terms; values depend above all else on an unchangeable convention in the changing system. Studying the language from the viewpoint of language-state, synchrony is more important than diachrony because of its reality.
Linguistic value is doubtless one element in signification. We all know the concept is the counterpart of the sound-image, however, sign itself is the counterpart of the other signs of language, since language is a system of interdependence, terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others. To solve this paradox, we can exchange a dissimilar thing for the thing of which the value is determined or compare the similar value of the same system with the thing. So word can be exchanged to a different idea or another word. The value of term is accordingly determined by its environment. The concept is only a value determined by its relations with other similar values. Both the conceptual and the material sides of value are made up of relations and differences with respect to the other terms of language. For example, phonic differences have their signification, signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position, even lots of linguistic signs changed in the history, their value didn’t change.
The linguistic signifier is constituted not by its material substance but by the differences that separate its sound-image from all others. Although the pronunciations of two phonemes are same, they could be taken as the same, they have different meanings and values. The signs used in writing are arbitrary, the value of letters is negative, differential, values function only through reciprocal opposition within a fixed system that consists of a set number of letters, the sign doesn’t affect the system at all, it still have the same signification.
Saussure’s ideas laid a foundation for the development of linguistics, I noticed that it’s important and meaningful to compare the similarities and distinctions between different languages and to study their structures. However, Saussure’s opinions may have epochal character and limitations, as he said, “Changes in the system are unintentional and fortuitous”, we should develop a more comprehensive research on linguistics.
Art as a Technique by viktor Shklovsky
Art as a Technique by viktor Shklovsky
Shklovsky brings out that there comes a point were perceptions become habitual thus 
becoming unconsciously automatic. Here he refers to things we do in everyday life and that are repetitive. He gives the example of holding a pen where we no longer have to cognitively think on how to do it, we just unconsciously do, this act of holding a pen now is very different to the first time we try to hold a pen, which we do at a very early age so we might not remember but it does remind me of the first time I tried using a chop stick and once you get enough practice it becomes natural to you. He also brings out that that these types of acts are done unconscious. And if an act is doen uncouncsiously and we can’t remember doing it, then really there is not act and this extends to life he says: “If the whole complex lives of many people go unconsciously, then such lives are as if they have never been” (16). Shklovsky explains that the technique of art is, the process of making objects different and difficult; and there is a connection; the more different the more difficult and object is, the more time you will spend perceiving it. He gives the example of Tolstoy and the idea of flogging. The example I found most appealing was Kholstomer story telling from the perception of a horse. Shklovsky later mentions that “a work is created “artistically” so that its perception is impeded and the greatest possible effect is produced through the slowness of the perception (19) and that is why poetic language/ speech is a formed speech that is roughened and difficult. Here is where I really think that art is more than just causing a person to ponder in its perception, I think that the idea that art is something out of the ordinary unconscious life is true, there has to be a distinction between every day mundane things and art. But in everyday life we do spend more perceptive time in things that don’t involve art. I think that the definition of art has to be concise and selective if not almost everything could go under the term art.
Art as a Technique by viktor Shklovsky
Art as a Technique by viktor Shklovsky
Shklovsky brings out that there comes a point were perceptions become habitual thus 
becoming unconsciously automatic. Here he refers to things we do in everyday life and that are repetitive. He gives the example of holding a pen where we no longer have to cognitively think on how to do it, we just unconsciously do, this act of holding a pen now is very different to the first time we try to hold a pen, which we do at a very early age so we might not remember but it does remind me of the first time I tried using a chop stick and once you get enough practice it becomes natural to you. He also brings out that that these types of acts are done unconscious. And if an act is doen uncouncsiously and we can’t remember doing it, then really there is not act and this extends to life he says: “If the whole complex lives of many people go unconsciously, then such lives are as if they have never been” (16). Shklovsky explains that the technique of art is, the process of making objects different and difficult; and there is a connection; the more different the more difficult and object is, the more time you will spend perceiving it. He gives the example of Tolstoy and the idea of flogging. The example I found most appealing was Kholstomer story telling from the perception of a horse. Shklovsky later mentions that “a work is created “artistically” so that its perception is impeded and the greatest possible effect is produced through the slowness of the perception (19) and that is why poetic language/ speech is a formed speech that is roughened and difficult. Here is where I really think that art is more than just causing a person to ponder in its perception, I think that the idea that art is something out of the ordinary unconscious life is true, there has to be a distinction between every day mundane things and art. But in everyday life we do spend more perceptive time in things that don’t involve art. I think that the definition of art has to be concise and selective if not almost everything could go under the term art.
The Dialogical Imagination by M.M Bakhtin
When reading this essay I had a really hard time understanding it as a whole, but instead I think there are various ideas that are very important and thought-provoking. First there is an attempt to define language, I found it very interesting that he mentions: “We are talking language not as a system of abstract grammatical categories but rather language conceived as ideologically saturated, language as a world view, even as a concrete opinion”( 271). This definition is accurate because of the cultural weight you find in language. As time passes words and phrases obtain different meanings because they are connected to certain events and cultural phenomena’s. That is why I believe language is always changing and evolving, and why even though there are attempts to define language in terms of grammatical laws, this is impossible, since these are also affected by their environment. In the essay Bakhtin brings out time and again the idea of heteroglossia which is defined as “The coexistence of district varieties with in a single language” That is having a variety of difference in one single language, Bakhtin mentions that in a moment in time “each generation at each social level has its own language, moreover every age group has a matter of fact its own language, its own vocabulary, its own particular accentual system”(290) So we can see how diverse a language can be.
Bakhtin later incorporates this heteroglossia into writing a novel and he talks about the “double voice” which he defines as two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions”( 324). Here the double voice is that of the character in a novel and what the author is saying.
Bakhtin also compares and contrast scientific discourse with discourse in humanities he mentions that in science discourse is just a “operational necessity, and does not affect the subject matter itself of the science…Acquiring knowledge here is not connected with receiving and interpreting words”( 351). He compares this scientific discourse to humanities where you need to transmit and interpret words, there is work involved where you need to reach deeply to understand and interpret the real meaning of the word.
Reading this essay really makes me think about the importance of language outside of just communicating. Language helps us in almost every cognitive function; for instance without language we have no memories and without memory we have no essence as a person.
The Dialogical Imagination by M.M Bakhtin
When reading this essay I had a really hard time understanding it as a whole, but instead I think there are various ideas that are very important and thought-provoking. First there is an attempt to define language, I found it very interesting that he mentions: “We are talking language not as a system of abstract grammatical categories but rather language conceived as ideologically saturated, language as a world view, even as a concrete opinion”( 271). This definition is accurate because of the cultural weight you find in language. As time passes words and phrases obtain different meanings because they are connected to certain events and cultural phenomena’s. That is why I believe language is always changing and evolving, and why even though there are attempts to define language in terms of grammatical laws, this is impossible, since these are also affected by their environment. In the essay Bakhtin brings out time and again the idea of heteroglossia which is defined as “The coexistence of district varieties with in a single language” That is having a variety of difference in one single language, Bakhtin mentions that in a moment in time “each generation at each social level has its own language, moreover every age group has a matter of fact its own language, its own vocabulary, its own particular accentual system”(290) So we can see how diverse a language can be.
Bakhtin later incorporates this heteroglossia into writing a novel and he talks about the “double voice” which he defines as two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions”( 324). Here the double voice is that of the character in a novel and what the author is saying.
Bakhtin also compares and contrast scientific discourse with discourse in humanities he mentions that in science discourse is just a “operational necessity, and does not affect the subject matter itself of the science…Acquiring knowledge here is not connected with receiving and interpreting words”( 351). He compares this scientific discourse to humanities where you need to transmit and interpret words, there is work involved where you need to reach deeply to understand and interpret the real meaning of the word.
Reading this essay really makes me think about the importance of language outside of just communicating. Language helps us in almost every cognitive function; for instance without language we have no memories and without memory we have no essence as a person.
