1. In her piece Barbara Johnson distinguishes a difference between how the affable character Billy reads things and the way that Claggart reads things. In fact they are on completely different wavelengths when it comes to how they see the world around them, which is one of the many reasons that puts them on opposing sides from one and another. The way that Billy reads is incredibly simplistic, which is what leads to his own downfall. In fact, his reading of things is so simplistic he takes everything to be what it is. He wouldn’t find any deeper meaning in the words that someone says or why they would say. In a sense, Billy views the world in a binary black and white way, where no grey can be found. This lack of nuance on his viewing of the world makes him unable to properly express himself and that leads him to throwing punches as he unable to see why others would perceive him as guilty, since he himself knows that he is not. On the other hand we have Claggart who seems to find a deeper meaning in whatever a person says, which causes him to become a distrustful person. He can’t grasp the thought that someone might simply express themselves the way that they are, and must have a certain ulterior motive, which in turn makes him unable to trust a word that Billy says. Instead, when Billy punches him it just reaffirms his belief that Billy was indeed guilty. The way Jhonson shows this difference is through Saussere’s theory of signifier/signified. Billy is unable to see the distinction between the signifier and the signified. In his mind they are the same thing, and can’t be separated in no sense of the word. A chair is simply a chair for Billy. Claggart on the other side of things is able to make a clear distinction between the signifier and the signified but this leads to him becoming more suspicious of language, since he can see how arbitrary words are. He is able to mold what people say to him into whatever fits best into his view of the language. He can’t trust what people say are what they mean because their words can’t be trusted to signify what their true intentions are. This makes Claggart questioning what the others around truly mean, when they say what they say.

As promised, here’s a 15 minute lecture on Johnson:

Johnson480p

Brief lecture unpacking Barbara Johnson’s “Melville’s Fist” for 306 students

After you’ve finished reading and watching, please post on one of the following questions, which will serve as your Blog Post #3:

1. What kind of reader is Billy? What kind is Claggart? How does Johnson use Saussure’s theory of signifier/signified to clarify this difference?
2. On 2268-9, Johnson reads the plot of BB against the grain: that is, as if Claggart were right and Billy were guilty of a willful mutiny. What is the point of this? What does it say about BB that either reading is equally defensible?
3. How does Johnson distinguish, on one hand, a “difference within” and, on the other, a “difference between” in her discussion of Vere’s act of judging? What does Melville’s text tell us about these two different kinds of differences?
4. What does the example of Vere suggest about our commonsensical notion that judges are “above politics”: that is, that they decide on guilt/innocence independently of the practical effects of this judgement (2275)?

“Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics, and the latter will circumscribe a well-defined area within the mass of anthropological facts.” -Saussure

Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics chapter III. The Object of Linguistics describes the origin of language as NOT simply a way of naming an object or an action as most may assume (I must admit before entering Intro to Theory I also thought the same), but more so a verbal art form that can be transformed into a symbolic form of written words. Saussure goes on to describe the relationship between linguistics (the study of language and its structure) and Semiology/semiotics furthermore as two different studies that go hand in hand. As Semiology is considered the study of the use or interpretation of signs and/or symbols that one would be unable to transcribe if not for language and the use of literal concept along with it.

Saussure’s belief within the General Linguistics course that language is an especially interesting object to study rather than, say, the symbolic systems that govern cinema or fashion or pantomime or ballet stems from the concept that linguistic signs are tangible assets capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value through various roots originating from a reasonable system. As I previously mentioned linguistics as viewed as an art form, so is the use of symbolic systems that govern cinema or fashion or pantomime or ballet considered such. However, when it comes down to the topic of cinema or fashion or pantomime or ballet linguistics acts as a source for such branches of semiology. Differentiating from language itself as it is considered to be its own semiological system alone.

Forming sentences to talk to a friend or family member is an action we consistently do every day. But what do our words mean? Why do we form them in this manner? Roman Jakobson‘s Linguistics and Poetics goes on to deconstruct our way of sending verbal communications. As we naturally say what we want to say, why do we choose these words? Words are like these puzzle pieces that we must attach to one another in order to construct a complete sentence. But how do we know what pieces to choose?

This connects to “code”. A code consists of specific keywords that we’re able to use to talk to other people. If you send off this code to another person, will they understand that code? Do they speak the same code as you? According to Jakobson, “No doubt, for any speech community, for any speaker, there exists a unity of language, but this overall code represents a system of inter-connected subcodes; every language encompasses several concurrent patterns, each characterized by different functions”(1147). By what Jakobson means, we humans only understand certain codes (which in this case is referring to languages). Whenever it comes to me talking to my mother, I have to use one of the two codes I know (English and Spanish). If I were to talk to my mother in English, she would not grasp my code, since it makes no sense, and cannot comprehend the pattern to whatever I want to say.

The way we see our own language is nothing more. But questioning why we choose the way we speak can be a bit complex. Talking from one person to another may be a simple task, but there are questions as to what is the message really about? There are 4 functions that are used: Context(What the addresser is saying), Message(Why is the message being sent, the reason), Contact(A physical connection or psychological connection allowing them both to hear the message), and Code(The language that is being spoken and can it be understood?). These steps are always used whenever a phrase or sentence is put into action.

I’ve had no idea that there were special concepts that are used whenever we talk in our everyday lives. We just speak as it’s normal to us and does not think about how are our words forged. After reading through Jakob’s texts, deconstructing sentences can further challenge the way we see/hear important speeches or readings that influence the masses. Some may interpret a speech as it is, while others analyze the intentions of the messages (while it varies differently and gets interpreted in numerous ways).

Upon starting “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”, I was a bit skeptical of Nietzche’s take on people. He starts off by discussing how we’re insignificant based on how short of a time we’ve existed in the universe (764). He continued on almost a tangent, a rant, or almost just hating on humans, which felt a bit much. He called the creation of our existence the “most mendacious minute in the ‘history of the world’” (764). His view on people seemed quite harsh and pessimistic. He continued to say how people thought so highly of themselves: “The arrogance inherent in cognition…contains within itself the most flattering evaluation of cognition” (765).  After learning the context and time period Nietzche writes this, I can now understand where he is coming from—during a time of a lot of innovations. But when I first read this I strongly disagreed. I think people nowadays are constantly acknowledging what we don’t know and that a lot of things need to change. To change it takes an awareness from people that we are very flawed and don’t understand/know everything and as a result are ever evolving. In present day I find that people are questioning a lot of the traditional methods and ways of thinking. Many people, especially younger generation are challenging big companies, the expected 9-5 jobs, and addressing issues of climate change/ social justice/ racial issues…etc. There’s a lot of turmoil and change in the air. The fact that innovation, self awareness, and self growth is very prevalent right now–challenges Nietzche’s idea that we are arrogant. I think he owes people more credit. We’re definitely flawed and of course have times of arrogance, but if one really considers the human thinking it is very fascinating and impressive, which Nietzche is able to admit. Nietzche says that people create “infinitely complicated cathedral of concepts on moving foundations, or even, one might say, on flowing water” (769). I really liked how Nietzche phrased how people create concepts and ultimately attempt to find/create their truth. I also agree with the idea that to come to a consensus of truth and thinking is very difficult and almost can feel impossible like building on moving water. Moving water also implies that truth and concepts are in constant change because the definition of truth and our language is on a shaky foundation. Because we created our own definition of truth it can easily come toppling down if we decide it’s wrong or simply if we have a change of heart.

Saussure dives into linguistics so much so that the reader questions their presumptions about language, despite Saussure saying that language is concrete. The reader may overthink how they present themselves in everyday conversations or how they write a scholarly article. Language is extremely specific and it must be performed properly so that others can understand the point that one is making. It’s way more technical than it may seem. Saussure discusses the idea of the signifier and the signified. The average person does not think of this concept when speaking in everyday life. Saussure talks about how the signifier is the sound/image while the signified is the concept. In simpler terms, in a conversation, the signifier is what is being said while the concept is the meaning behind what is being said. Saussure states, “The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other…I call the combination of a concept and a sound-image a sign, but a current usage the term generally designates only a sound-image, a word…” (Saussure). The signifier and the signified cannot exist without each other. As Saussure said in the latter part of the quote, the usage of the term “sign” has changed recently. Many often think it refers to just a word. While it isn’t incorrect, Saussure made it very clear that the word “sign” is much broader than that.

In addition, Saussure discusses communication in the most general terms. He lays down a blueprint for all forms of communication, specifically verbal and written. The addresser must clearly communicate context, a message, contact, and code to an addressee. These four elements are necessary, no matter what form of communication is being considered.

Saussure emphasizes the need to study linguistics: “Why has semiology not yet been recognized as an independent science with its own object like all the other sciences? Linguists have been going around in circles: language, better than anything else, offers a basis for understanding the semiological problem; but the language must, to put it correctly, be studied in itself; heretofore language has almost always been studied in connection with something else, from other Viewpoints” (Saussure). Saussure wants linguistics to be given the same amount of attention that any other science receives. Language can be studied in a scientific way, contrary to the thought process of many. Saussure convinced me, a reader, that linguistics should be considered a science because it is way more intricate than I originally thought.

The Linguistics and Poetics definitely felt dense and confusing in the beginning. But it felt a lot more accessible and graspable when the parts of poetics and language were broken down and discussed in clear factors and their relationship to each other. Jakobson started off with the question, what makes a verbal message a work of art (1145). I felt that this was not really the main focus of argument. It didn’t seem like the idea of art and what makes art, art was discussed. The reading felt more like a discussion of how poetic function goes beyond poetry (1150) and encompasses verbal communication. Solely identifying poetic function to poetry is a very narrow minded way of seeing things. Then he further delves into the parts of language that are important to consider in our understanding of linguistics and poetics. I liked how he started off by listing and unpacking the arguments against the claim that a verbal message is a work of art. This is very gutsy approach because he isn’t shying away from opposition but rather addressing it head on. Addressing the counter argument makes for a stronger case on his end because it leaves little room for casting doubt on his argument so I’d admire the approach he takes in the paper. He acknowledges that many people approach poetry as having a purposeful structure while other forms of language are more casual (1445). I have to admit this was my own take on poetry compared to other forms of writing. Jakobson breaks down the major functions of language being: focused on the speaker, focused on the reader, the method/channel of communication, explanation of code—message behind the language, context, and contact: the way in which speaker and reader connect (1147). He also breaks down the traditional models of language: emotive—speakers attitude towards what he’s speaking about, referential, conative—which I understood to be the grammar and orientation towards the reader (1150-1151). I found it real interesting when Jakobson talked about meta language. He defined it as simply speaking about language (1150). I realized how metalanguage doesn’t always have to be something so complex and full of analysis of language and communication. Rather metalanguage can be as simple as asking what did you mean. Or as simple as a baby trying to learn the language (1150). It was funny considering how meta it was that Jakobson was discussing about metalanguage. And just taking a step back and realizing how reading/discussing/analyzing metalanguage feels like going down a rabbit hole.

 Jakobson introduced himself and his studies of language, he mentioned linguistics and poetics along with metaphor and metonymy. He traveled around and studied the shaping of anthropology, philosophy and psychoanalysis. Jakobson also cofound the linguistics circle of New York. There’s verbal behavior and verbal structure which is tied into language. When I thought of the different aspects of language all I really thought about was body language, tone, mood, the way you’re getting your message across such as in person, phone calls or texting. One thing I didn’t think of was “the foundation” which he mentioned is basically past, present and future. The example he gave which helped my understanding was “drink & drank”. The way you use those two words in a sentence has to do with the time you’re speaking about. There are six factors involved with verbal communication. Referential, emotive, poetic, conative, phatic and metalingual. These six features help the understanding of how to speak and digest/ process language and all of there aspects. Emotive is having to do with personality and it emphasizes on the “I” the person speaking, first person. Conative focuses on the “you’re”, second person. Referential which is third person and what’s being said is all facts. Phatic is speaking and focusing upon a certain topic. Metalingual is spending time on a conversation and saying something that will lead the conversation to be extended. Lastly poetic which is learning about the who what where and when. This aspect uses tension and is a strategic use of language that can express the message differently. We were also introduced to the addresser, addressee and context which also is intertwined into the six aspects listed above. Emotive is the addresser and conative is the addressee. When first reading the text I was a bit confused because I didn’t fully understand what these aspects did but after class discussion I got a better understanding that these aspects do make language more meaningful. In my perspectives tone plays a big role and I think he should have included that as a whole, messages can be misread or misunderstood based on the emotive. I say emotive because your personality has a lot to do with the way you give or understand a message. I guess we can say that without these aspects there would be no meaning or emotion behind a certain message and without that we wouldn’t know how to feel, react or respond to certain messages.

         The essay “from Linguistics and Poetics” was written by linguist Roman Jakobson. Readers will gain an understanding of his concepts in this work, which revolve around the study of both poetics and linguistics. Jakobson begins by explaining what both of these concepts are and how they are similar and different from one another. He also considers how poetics and linguistics are applied in everyday situations as well as in the literary realm. We wonder how linguistics as a whole relates to poetics. Roman Jakobson argues that there is a system in which a speaking act must be analyzed. This speaking act is significant because it allows for varied interpretations of different sentences and art genres. Poetics, according to Jakobson, does not entail the study of poetry. Rather, it is a literary form of attention devoted to a literary subset of language usage. The way one reads a pizza menu is not the same as reading Robert Frost. Because close reading approaches are not appropriate for all areas of literature, Jakobson demonstrates how to assess the poetic dimension of language. We’ve arrived at the point where we have to ask ourselves, what makes anything poetic? This is what Jakobson is trying to get through in his essay. Both Saussure and Jakobson refer to linguistics and literacy theory in the same way. Saussure explains how sign systems function. Jakobson now narrows it down and explains how poetics differs from linguistic analysis. We learn about Jakobson’s train of thought, which helps humans to evaluate language in order to determine what is poetic about a text and whether or not a text is poetic in and of itself. As previously indicated, language must be investigated. In such an investigation, Jakobson identifies the variables that occur in all acts of verbal communication.

 The ADDRESSER sends a MESSAGE to the ADDRESSEE. To’ be operative the message requires CONTEXT referred to “(the   “referent” in another, somewhat ambiguous,’ nomenclature), graspable by the addressee, and·either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a CODE fully or at least partially, common to the addresser and addressee (or in other words, to the encoder and decoder of the message); and, finally, a CONTACT. a physical channel and psychological connection ~between the addresser and· the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication. 

        To clarify, the addresser is the speaker who speaks first and then transmits a message to the addressee. The message is the act of receiving a spoken message from the sender to the receiver. The addressee is the individual who hears or receives the message. The context, or the type of term, thing, or significance being expressed, is then examined. Then there’s a code, which is just a common language. Finally, there’s the channel, which is the contact. The connection between the addresser and the addressee is known as the channel.

      When comparing Jakobson’s theories to Saussure, Saussure stated that language is similar to a chess board with rules. Grammar, immaterial/ abstract thoughts, absent/ unseen ideas, and other rules. Saussure is the source of Jakobson’s ideas, as he describes rules that allow someone to draw linguistic connections in order to determine whether something is poetic. Saussure also talks about the signifier and the signified. The signified, which is the sound picture, and the signified, which is the concept derived from the sound image, can both be related to Jakobson’s concepts. I can see the relationship between the message and the setting in respect to the signifier and the signified in Jakobsons discussion of elements in verbal discourse. 

     Additionally, Jakobson discusses six communication functions which allows people to determine what makes something poetic. These functions include, referential, poetic, emotive, conative, phatic and metalingual. Referential is the facts and the information. Emotive is self-expression. Such as making the statement that “I am pretty”. Conative is when you are addressing the addressee. Phatic is basically when a conversation isn’t emotive or referential but just about the channel itself. Metalingual is confirming whether you share codes and if not find ways to relate your codes/ form of language. Finally, we have poetic. Poetic is the use of language as a language. It’s the strategic use of language that creates effect, rich description and calls attention to the message itself. The definition of poetic is crucial because it affirms the fact about whether something is poetic and what qualities something exhibited to make it poetic. Interpretation of poetic language makes us more awake to dichotomy and the division/ separation of ways in which we speak and analyze messages. 

Saussure has an interesting view on language. Basically the point of Language is semiology which is a wider subject in which language falls into. By google definition semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. Saussure interprets that language is different over all the languages. For example, if in English we call a tree,“tree” but in Latin it’s called “arbor”. They mean the same exact thing and can be portrayed physically as the same thing to the human eye but just have different names they are addressed by. The signifier and the signified need to always be together in a language. This means the image that is shown has the same meaning just like the example of the tree in both languages. The signified is the concept behind the signifier. There is also langue and parole involved with language. Basically, languge is invisible and learned. They are commonly referred to as the rules of language . Just as if a child is learning to read and write they are taught the basic grammar rules that were established by who knows because it’s a social concept. Langue helps parole to be understood. Parole however is present and infinitely perceived. There is a sense of individuality in parole. For example this is the language an average human uses on an everyday basis. They are not looking for perfect grammar, they are just speaking. It’s also the way we experience everyday language whether it’s written or actually spoken. The ability to gain an understanding from a sign or image and understand the concept is what he is primarily trying to help people understand. Saussure believes that semiotics in language ultimately are arbitrary. So the next time you see a tree on the internet or in a book, stop and think about the ability to process the concept behind it then maybe you can get a taste of what Saussure is trying to get us to understand.