Critical Theory

The relationship between language and literature

This essay explores, the implications Saussure’s statement, “language is a social institution”, has in the study of literature, and a study of literature with other kinds of language and communication. In order to achieve this, two of the theorists, Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Derrida, from the Norton anthology of Critical Theory are going to be examined closely. Moreover, a brief encounter of Bakhtin’s essay, “Discourse in the Novel”, is going to be included in terms of analyzing the study of literature, in this instance, the novel.

According to the sociology dictionary, social institution is a major structural entity in socio-cultural systems, it addresses a basic need of the system. It involves fixed modes of behaviour backed by norms and sanctions that need to be followed by most members of a society. “Language is a social institution”, a statement made by Saussure, which has implications for the study of literature, defined as “a totality of written or printed works that has given way to more exclusive definitions based on criteria of imaginative, creative or artistic value, usually related to a work’s absence of factual or practical reference”. To a broader sense, any work for whatever reason deserves to be preserved as part of the current reproduction of meanings within a given culture (Bldick, 189). Literature evolves from following traditions to eventually breaking conventions, establishing new forms of literary genres and periods, and bringing innovations to each era and culture. Writers play major parts in the creation of literary works, whereas critics drive written works to a higher dimension, to fit imagination into the theoretical and stylistic. According to Bakhtin, general stylistic analysis of novels tends to either fall on investigating the linguistic descriptions of the language, or focus on elements that characterize the traditional stylistic forms, consequently undermining the importance of the investigators (Bakhtin, 1080). Producing literature involves creativity, improvisation and distinctiveness. Language, according to Saussure, is outside the grasp of any individual. It exists by virtue of an expression. Bahktin differs in his view by enunciating that a unity of literary style is a combination of a unity of language and the unity of individual realizing himself in the language (Bakhtin, 1079). Literature however, is a product of imaginative creation based on life and experience. It is expressed by language. It cannot be separated from its historical and social contexts. Thus, the critical analysis of literature should not be restricted to stylistic observation, i.e. linguistic description of the language. Bakhtin states that to define the style of a piece of work, the treatment of the expressiveness of language and speech elements does not match a stylistic analysis of the work, as the system of language or speech, linguistic entities differ from that of the artistic work (Bahktin, 1081).

Language articulates the external world, which pre-exists any forms of communication, but remains nebulous until it is expressed (Saussure, 846). The viewing of concrete items and the visual imagery of tangible articles all form our images of these objects. Thoughts, ideas and feelings are transcendental values, which before the appearance of language, possessed no distinction, nor significance. Therefore language serves as an organizer for thoughts and ideas, but it does not offer a concrete form to these abstract entities, they are transformed to mental concepts that can only be described through language. The concept is coupled with sound-image and the relationship is a counterpart between the two. Language is formed by a structured system of conventional signs. Saussure sees the study of language as constructing a science of signs in culture, which he calls semiology (Saussure, 847). The signs are arbitrary and differential in nature (Saussure, 854). Thus, it is fair to conclude that the bond between sound-images and concepts is arbitrary. Language is a storehouse of sound-images and writing is the tangible form of these images (Saussure, 850). Speech then is the utterance of these images, connecting sounds with images. According to Derrida, speech signifies the importance of presence, whereas writing is designed for absence, there is a temporal and spatial difference between the two (Derrida, 61-63). While one is speaking, it is an immediate action and is at the present. Writing, on the other hand, suggests absence of the author.

The sign, for Derrida, is deferred presence, is the promise of presence. It is when the thing in the present cannot be present, it becomes absent, a signifier is then employed to indicate a sign (Derrida, 61). A sign is different from other signs, and it also differs to itself in time. Meaning is only activated by differences. It is not in the signifier itself, it only exists in relation to the other signs, in its difference. However, in poetry, this is not a categorical truth or norm, rhyming contradicts with the idea. In many cases, poets specifically use similar words or pronunciations to compose visual and sound agreement. These are a few examples among many more: land and hand (sound and visual); cough and rough and slaughter and laughter (visual). Literature study, thereupon, does not necessary base on differences of signs. Absence and presence are binary, they depend on each other integrally, and one cannot survive without the other. This implies to the two forms of communication: speech and writing. In the study of literature, the importance of neither can be overlooked. Traditionally, speech is a privileged force in the binary of language. By inventing a new word, différance, Derrida undermines the importance of speech. Différance can only be distinguished from différence through writing (Derrida, 59-60). Therefore, speech is insufficient in deciphering meanings between words. It is also important to note that certain words can only be separated by virtue of pronunciation. The same word “tear” can mean both, to pull apart with force or a drop of salty liquid produced by a person’s eye. As an adjunct to this argument, words of nearly absolute similarity can cause just as much confusion in establishing meanings. As witnessed by the reading of “Différance at the origin”, the two words “temporisation” and “temporalisation” were treated indifferently, it could indicate a lack of individual’s attention to detail, or to a greater extent, it could be due to the visual similarity. It is fair to state that in literature, ambiguity and amphibolous is created precisely because language is arbitrary, and also inasmuch as speech and writing is treated separately in its study. Bakhtin states that a unity of style is performed by a unity of individual language or the individual speech (parole). “It is precisely the individuality of speaking subject that is recognized to be that style-generating factor transforming a phenomenon of language” (Bahktin, 1079).

Différance disrupts any notion of binary, it serves to deconstruct the defining process of différance because that process in itself, by negating certain significations is also giving it another interpretation. Meaning is based on differences (Saussure, 860). Therefore, the transcendental truth only exists in virtue of difference. Nothing stands outside the influence of difference (Derrida, 64-65). Derrida suggests that the conflicting readings of a text reenact the conflicts within the work. Therefore, each study of literary works would mean to simplify the reciprocation of meanings within a text. Texts deconstruct themselves, literature is self-conscious about words and meaning, which already exists in language, and serves to give readers a fragmented reality. Therefore, to echo Saussure’s statement, “language is a social institution”, Derrida also undermines the influence and consequences that human subjectivity has on literature. According to Bakhtin, “the stylistic nature of the novel slips hopelessly away from the investigator” (Bakhtin, 1080).

Signs can be learned, children acquire language through constant and gradual process. However, language does not subject itself to individual will, one cannot modify or create it (Saussure, 850). We humans are shaped into consciousness by language, language controls us while being controlled. It exists in the form of a contract signed by members within a community (Saussure, 850), to use it we are obliged to follow the agreement and respect the rules. There are restrictions in the applications of language, semiology serves as a scrutiny to monitor improper usage. In literature, however, new words or compounds are sometimes invented specific to a time period or generation to create a certain atmosphere that could later be recognized in lexicology. Hartnett writes in his “Moonsnow 78”: “Moonsnow dripping through a rook’s nest, Moonmilk pouring through a twig sieve” (Hartnett, 35). He creates an image of snow dropping in the light of the moon, coining new words to describe the scene, words which have instant resonance with us. In poetry, combinations of words and sentences can sometimes be unfamiliar or even alien to language used in general terms in order to create layers of meaning, tension and atmosphere. Other examples for contemporary audience would be facebook, google, and many more terms that are branded and then adapted in everyday usage. To google has the same connotation as to search information online, rather than describing the action in many words, it is moderated to one.

“Language is a social institution”, therefore it has control over shaping our thoughts and behaviour. It is incorporated into the Ideological State Apparatus, the term used by Althusser to describe “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (Althusser, 1341). Literature is the cultural ISA, but it is not separated from the Repressive State Apparatus. Censorship is the RSA used to suppress material that are unaccepted to the State or the Church (Althusser, 1342), who maintain the ultimate power in deciding what is to be published, essentially to be studied. Therefore, it is clear that the study of literature is part of an educational ideological apparatus, functions to tailor the society into a unified, unequivocal and balanced social order. Each individual is subjected to different types of literature in school, and derive from the literature what may be the most interesting. In a more realistic sense, each individual selects from the categories of literature what is most profitable, and hence deserves the investment of time and effort in order to establish a social role. This role then eventually becomes their profession, their position in the society. Language serves the purpose to decode literature, i.e. science, mathematics, physics and medicine, etc., and transforms abstract textual material to intelligible and communicative components. In this sense, language is the tool for each individual to integrate into society, with approved skills and ideologies. It is an apparatus used by the power holder to maintain a stabilised and homogeneous social order.

The study of literature cannot be separated from language, but it goes beyond the mere linguistic and stylistic analysis that consists part of language. “Language is a social institution” is treated as an inadequate statement in terms of the study of literature, as well as an imperative to the political and social ideology. Literature cannot be simply viewed as written texts, it is an incorporation of both speech and writing. It is a discourse and has a relationship with all kinds of language and communication. In novels and short stories, dialogues can sometimes be major features. In drama, only through stage performance, can readers and audiences fully grasp its essence. Lastly, poetry is the ultimate innovation and imagination of a writer constantly seeking to break the boundaries of conventional language precept.

Bibliography:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/. 24.02.2012

http://sociology.socialsciencedictionary.com/Sociology-Dictionary/SOCIAL_INSTITUTIONS. 24.02.2012

Saussure, Ferdinand De. “Course in General Linguistics”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 846-866. Print

Bakhtin, Mikhail, M. “Discourse in the Novel” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 1074-1085. Print

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 1341-1344. Print

Derrida, Jacques. “Différance”. Margins of Philosophy. Ed. Alan Bass. University of Chicago Press, 1982. 61-69. Print

Baldick, Chris. Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Page 189. Print

Hartnett, Michael. A Necklace of Wrens. Ireland: The Gallery Press. 35. 1987. Print

Bibliography: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/. 24.02.2012 http://sociology.socialsciencedictionary.com/Sociology-Dictionary/SOCIAL_INSTITUTIONS. 24.02.2012 Saussure, Ferdinand De. “Course in General Linguistics”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 846-866. Print Bakhtin, Mikhail, M. “Discourse in the Novel” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 1074-1085. Print Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. 1341-1344. Print Derrida, Jacques. “Différance”. Margins of Philosophy. Ed. Alan Bass. University of Chicago Press, 1982. 61-69. Print Baldick, Chris. Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Page 189. Print Hartnett, Michael. A Necklace of Wrens. Ireland: The Gallery Press. 35. 1987. Print