Signification through Language, as according to Saussure: On the Course in General Linguistics

Language can confuse anyone. That’s what Ferdinand de Saussure is trying to explain his essay, the Course in General Linguistics.

Saussure stated that there are 3 criticisms he noted in the origins of language: the historical background & etymology; the expressivist view of language in the individual level; & the referential theory.

He then went to say that words or language work/s at all given moments throughout its development within a specific area, in other words, it’s synchronic.  Then he states about the nature of signs & how they work. Signs refer to anything, he said. He also debunks the idea that there are such things as ‘ready-made words exist before the world’ & said that ‘our thought… is only a shapeless & indistinct mass’; what he means is that language is the one necessary matrix without which meaningful thought can’t occur.

He called signs as the basic elements involved in producing meaning; they don’t simply label or even refer to a prior reality or referent; the old formula once said that sign = referent; Saussure didn’t agree so. He insisted that a sign is composed of the signifier (sound image) & the signified (an idea about reality itself). Also, he said that signs are arbitrarily, since that some singfiers are attached to the signifieds by conventions, instead of necessity. He also proposed a new formula: Signifier + Signified = the Referent/ the real object.

Then, he also state that language doesn’t provide us an unmediated access to or a window into ‘reality’, what it does is it shapes of how we see & grasp reality, or just confuse us to no end, he claimed. He also said that we can never the ‘real’ anymore, for different languages have offered their versions of reality, hence different languages signify ‘real’ differently. There’s also the fact that a certain sign means what it means, only because it’s a part of the sign-system, & different is the major cornerstone of the functioning of all sign-systems. Then there’s an emphasis on the phonetic component of a word.

Of course, he provided the terms: Langue & Parole (not a civil law term for repentance for a criminal). Langue is the abstract system within or the basic rules by which all signs mean; parole, on the other hand, is the concrete/ physical applications and/ or instances of such rules. One example would be the English Renaissance, back then William Shakespeare’s sonnets were prominent of his times and many writers & poets attempted to follow his style of writing.

The author notes that, in conclusion, that sometimes language can make one confuse about reality, to the point everyone doesn’t know to pin-point it after all. But keep in mind, this is just one theory one can learn, but don’t take it for grant.

Source:

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York City, New York, United States of America: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

A little reminder of this lesson:

This figure shows arbitrariness of the sign. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Is this a Work or a Text?: A Look at Roland Barthes’ From Word to Text

Is a Text an object, like a Work? The answer: no, as said by Roland Barthes‘ essay ‘From Work to Text’. One may want remember him from the previous entry in the Literary Theory Journal:

• Same Song, Different Renditions: The Application of Roland Barthes’ ‘The Death of the Author’ on the Voice of the Philippines Pilot episode (asianambutterfly93.wordpress.com)

Roland Barthes made a distinction between a Work and a Text. He said that a Work is a physical output of the author; the Text a ‘field’ of meanings when a work of an author becomes a strand in a huge web of interpretation. He states that a Text is subjective to multiple interpretations. One may ask: Can a Work be separated from a text? He said that the Text is an event, it turns into a ‘field’ whereas the Work enters in & becomes.

The Differences:

* A Work has 2 meanings: the literal & the concealed, the Text goes beyond them.

* The Text is plural: The Work’s meaning is integrated into the Text. It ‘explodes’ with meanings & is highly inter-textual; in the Text, there’s no definite beginning & end.

* The Work’s source is the Author, but the Text doesn’t have a source, hence the author is merely a guest in a work.

* The Work is meant to be consumed by the reader, yet the Text is entangled with free play of collaborative reading, making the gap between the author & the reader narrower.

* The Text is always superior to the Work, but one must not disregard the Work itself.

Barthes said that one is able to lose oneself in the Text: linked to a kind of pleasure that’s not separated from (the Text) itself. Hence, it is turned into a social construction, turning the reader from being a passive consumer to one who can interact with the Text. He also mentions the Seven Propositions when reading a Text: Method, Genre, Signs, Plurality, Filtration, Reading & Pleasure .

The author have been interested with the difference between the two. And has been glad it had a good point describing about the Text & how it is different from the Work.  Good piece of work, indeed…

Source:
* Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York City, New York, United States of America: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

Of Travelling Theories: A Opinion on Edward Said’s ‘Travelling Theory’

Theories, like timeless classics and even influential ideas, go around circulating across time, geography, situations and people. This is the concern of Edward Said‘s Travelling Theory which dealt with how theories go on in life and how they can be abused and misused. There are four stages of how a theory travels: point of origin; distance traveled; a set of condition; and full/partial accommodated/ incorporated idea.

He cautions that a theory can misread by a reader almost all the time. Oh, how terrible if a theory can be so misunderstood by one audience as time goes on. He went on to mention Lukacs’ History & Class Consciousness & Lucien Goldmann’s Le Dieu cache as examples. As Said has mentioned, to read a text/theory in a local & detailed view on how theories travel is to betray some fundamental uncertainty concerning delimiting a field of which a text/idea/theory might have belong to. One theory was somehow misread by one person and inspired another theory. There are some examples of why Lukacs’ theory was so misread years, situations & places later.  First & foremost, Lukacs was wrote his essay at the height of a struggle in Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919, Goldmann was a historian at the Sorbonne in Paris, France after World War II at the time of the publishing of his own essay in 1955. Second, Lukacs’ class consciousness defies at the face of capitalism, Goldmann’s work, on the other hand, reflected the works of Pascal  and Racine.

It should be known that a text/ theory is always static, fluid & has mobility. Somehow, along the way, the Reader can get a theory/ text a wrong reading, something the author might get mad about. However, the author of this article will give her own opinion on this and how does distance can affect a theory.

It’s true that theories & ideas can’t stay in one place, in one time period for too long. Theories should go out to the rest of the world. They are there to reflect the author’s opinions & ideas. Everyone should know what was going on the life & situation of the author’s time, and sometimes they can reflect on it & compare it to their current situation. However, they can get misread by others: some take them literally, some just don’t get the whole idea. For example, religious extremists sometimes take their Holy Scripture too literally, to the point of actually harming the lives of so many people, even their own lives, as if they just don’t care at all… Sounds tragic, isn’t it? The idea is that one has to be careful when reading a text/ theory, not take them too literally nor think of it as a nuisance, nor even calling it blasphemous, nor lower its importance & relevance of its time as well as its relevance today.

The Author has no grudges towards the Theory involved, but felt it needs to expound on how misreading can occur in one’s mind & what are the full, known effects on the reader & the text itself. Then again, it’s one theory that this author doesn’t have to worry so much on…

Thou Shall Not Harm the Royal (Thai) Family: When The King & I meets Edward Said’s Orientalism

Last May 2013, the Resorts World Manila run of Rodgers and Hammerstein‘s The King & I ended with great success. What not many play-goers know this is that the play have made fatal errors in portraying King Mongkut (the King in the story) in a bad light, leading to a ban on this play in Siam/ Thailand, even until now. Why, you may ask? That’s because of the lese majeste law in Thailand that no one shouldn’t insult the Royal Thai Family, whether intentional or not and regardless of what method or source of outlet is used. But it also unintentionally committed another foul: it’s an ironic example of Orientalism.

The top row consists of the original play, the 1990’s cartoon film, the 1956 live-action film & the 2012-2013 Resorts World Manila run of The King and I.
The bottom row has the real King Mongkut & Anna Leonowens.
What do they have in common? They’re all victims of Orientalism.

For this analysis, the author will use some elements found in Edward Said‘s Orientalism, which paved the background for Post-Colonialism. The background on this essay is that Said is Arabic (Palestinian) but was educated in the United States for his higher education & taught comparative literature at Columbia University until his death in 2003. Said mentioned about Arabs much in the essay due to his personal background but rarely mentioned India (one of the most diverse in culture, but one of most baldy-portrayed & criticized of all nations) & left out East Asia (particularly China and Japan), and Southeast Asia (but it doesn’t mean that anyone can apply it to these other forgotten places even when in need, too). Another fallacy he unintentionally made was that the essay assumes that all harmful political actions are done by the West onto the East, while in reality, all Asians also do this onto each other & also to the West, and it was strangely forgiving to French Orientalist writers. Yet, one point is clear though, the reason why the West made a distinction between the Orient & the Occident is one, they want to control the East, and, ironically, two, the West lacked an identity, a cultural identity. The East has a lot of cultural identity (from the Great Wall of China, to pogodas in Myanmar to the Banaue Rice Terraces of Benguet), deeply rooted in the past, even until today; the West, on the other hand, is too future-oriented, they were too busy competing against each other & building empires, until they’re reduced into social climbers, power hungry mongrels & economic clogs. Not to say that all Westerners are like this, though, but it’s in a historical sense.

The author notes that the problem Thailand has with the play is that at the time the play, or rather, musical was opened, the lese majeste law was already implemented since 1908. According to Dr. Borwornsak Uwanno in his article for Thailand Today called Lese Majeste: A Distinctive Character of Thai Democracy admist the Global Democratic Movement, it mentions about the concept of Deva-rāja (god-king) or Dhamma-rāja (righteous king). The article says that some foreign writers wrote that Thais look at their king as a god-king which is based on the Brahmic concept of deva-raja, despite the fact that most Thais are Buddhists. In the Agganna Sutta, Buddha spoke about that a king is Khattiya or “mahāsammata” (“the people’s choice” or one whom the public acclaims as their leader), and also,a “rāja” (one who brings happiness or contentment to others); he went to say that a king attains these qualities through his virtues, not one’s vices. He concludes that ‘the king is best among those who values clans. But who has knowledge and virtue (dhamma) is best among gods and men.’

Now what is lese majeste? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, lese majeste came from the Middle French phrase, which is also derived from the Latin laesa majestas, both meaning injured majesty. It means a crime (as treason) committed or done against a sovereign power, or in this case, royalty.

But the law doesn’t extend to the king alone, it goes out to the rest of the Royal Family. Several travel & tourism (including Thai websites) websites cautions tourists that the monarchy there is still in high reverence (akin to that of any Royal Family in the world), saying that if one commits any insult to the Family (direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, etc.), they could face imprisonment for a certain number of years with a possible threat of execution. The Thais loved their King so much. Speaking of lese majeste in Thailand, Uwanno also cited other laws in other countries as well, such as Denmark, Norway, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, to name a few. What these all have in common is that a the person of the King/ Queen (or any other member of the (state monarchical country’s name) Royal/Imperial/(or anything that deals with royalty) family is considered sacred, hence one must not question or even accused him/ her/ them of anything whatsoever that is negative. Also, it goes down to culture & politics. Look what happened in the United Kingdom’s history. Sure, they overthrew the Royal Family (which was then the House of Stuart) and replaced it with a Commonwealth at one point of their history, but even now, the Royal British Family (currently the House of Winsdor) is still alive & kicking, still well-loved by their subjects.

Back to the Musical, the problem with it is that it portrayed King Mongkut in a bad, negative light, and made real inaccurate points at its history. The following are taken from the Internet Movie Database’s Goofs & Trivia pages:
The film is riddled with numerous inaccuracies about the biographies of King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn (see trivia), causing the film to be banned and shunned in Thailand/Siam as libelous and slanderous.

In Thailand (previously called Siam) the royal family is held in very high esteem. This film is banned in Thailand due to its real historical inaccuracies and the perceived disrespect to the monarchy. The real Prince Chulalongkorn grew up to be an especially good King Chulalongkorn and led the way for modernization, improved relations with the West, and instituted many important cultural and social reforms in Thailand.

See the points noted. The playwrights have made a terrible mistake that Said would’ve roll his eyes in dismay. Why did they humiliate the Royal Thai Family for the sake of promoting Anna Leonowens as some Mary Sue, and for the sake of entertaining countless people, even until today? The author admits she’s a victim of Orientalism: American by birth, Filipino-Chinese by blood, educated in Philippine schools yet have watched the movie & cartoon versions herself. Looking back, she felt bad for the Royal Thai Family now. The author recommends anyone to do careful research on any historical film before & after watching them. And to all tourists and Thais, please don’t insult the Royal Thai family or any Royal Family at all times, at all costs…

Sources:

* Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York City, New York, United States of America: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049408/goofs?item=gf1146334

* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049408/trivia?item=tr0794683
* http://goasia.about.com/od/Customs-and-Traditions/a/Thailand-Etiquette.htm
* http://goseasia.about.com/od/thaipeopleculture/a/lesemajeste.htm

* http://www.horizonmuaythai.com/thai-culture-and-customs5

* http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lèse-majesté
* http://www.thailandtoday.org/monarchy/elibrary/article/200

Same Song, Different Renditions: The Application of Roland Barthes’ ‘The Death of the Author’ on the Voice of the Philippines Pilot episode

In the pilot episode of the Voice of the Philippines, one of the first contestants who made it into the competition is Darryl Shy who sang ‘Tatsulok‘, a song from a local Philippine band Bamboo. This is a surprise to one of the 4 coaches/ judges Bamboo Manalac, although Darryl went with Lea Salonga as his mentor.
In line of this, the author will use elements of Roland Barthes‘ essay ‘The Death of the Author‘ with the comparison of Darryl & Bamboo’s renditions of the song in mention. The essay is a proof of the essayist’s shift from Structuralism (his original background) to Post-Structuralism, which the essay of mention falls under.
Barthes once said that the author is a product of a culture, a reflection of a capitalist society concerned with the ownership & prestige of a certain individual. In this case, the author will name Bamboo as the author since he co-wrote the song, Darryl as the reader, the song as the text. He went on to say that the author doesn’t do the speaking, rather it’s the language that does the job. In other words, Bamboo doesn’t speak out, the lyrics stands as its own & speaks for itself for this matter.
Also, Barthes said that when analyzing a text, one must need to explore the writing & its structure, not finding the speaking voice. In this case, potential singing competition contestants should not focus on who’s singing the sing, rather they should analyze, or in this case, sing their chosen song as if they’re the ones singing them in the first place. In Darryl’s case, he sang Tatsulok as if he performed it many times.
Barthes went on to say that when a reader detaches a text from a specific source, this set the Text free from a ‘anchor’. Writing then turns into the very destruction of every voice and point of view. Therefore, the author dies in the moment of writing & ceases to exist. Amazingly, Darryl’s performance is far different from Bamboo’s rendition. Bamboo’s background on alternative and rock gave the song a rock tone everyone expects from a rock band, Darryl’s rendition gave it a softer, acoustic tone. Given this note, Bamboo dies a figurative death the moment Darryl sang his (Bamboo’s) masterpiece.
Barthes added that when the author dies, real writing begins, hence leading to the birth of real reading. He also said writing is a performance, not a documentation. The example here is a literal example of Barthes’ theory. He said that the birth of the Reader begins with the death of the Author. Here, Bamboo has to die a figurative death for him to listen Darryl’s own reading/ performance of one of his own songs (he mentions that at the beginning of the performance that ‘That’s mine’ in a sarcastic & joking tone) to see if he makes the final cut. The author of this is a witness of this, hence, her claim is true.
If a reader want to analyze the text, s/he must remove the author from the text for awhile, hence, a figurative death. Darryl had taken Bamboo from Tatsulok for awhile, therefore Bamboo die out figuratively for once. The author doesn’t mean that someone who made a piece of art or text dies the moment the reader takes him or her out of their masterpiece doesn’t really mean they die literally, it’s temporary. Hopefully, this application isn’t taken too literally to be understood. And hopefully, the two of them will agree with her with this article.

Both versions of the song:
* Bamboo version

* Darryl version

Sources:

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York City, New York, United States of America: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

The Voice of the Philippines Pilot Episode (06-15-2013), ABS-CBN

Literary Theory Journal

In this new category, the writer is asked to write her opinions & some applications of some of the well-known literary theories as a part of the requirements for Literary Theory or Lit 208.

The main purpose for this is to discuss literary theories in an academic language without literally going overboard. The author knows she cannot promise an entirely full discussion on them, but promises to talk about them in full detail.