Ferdinand de Saussure was a highly skilled linguist who spent his life trying to master something, which is impossible to master…language.

We all think we know what language is, however Saussure attempts to plunges his bare hands right into the pure essence of language. After acquiring his own understanding of what he grasped with his hands, he comes to a conclusion that he must explain this to everyone. What he does is a most excellent way of explanation. He first address a negation and then he brings about affirmation.

First, he says, “Some people regard language, when reduced to its elements, as a naming-process only – a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names.” (Saussure 852). He addresses a conception that the general people have about what language really is. However, almost right after that, he explains the criticisms of this approach and says that this approach is “rather naive” (Saussure 852). In doing this, he has brought about complete negation of the common conception and strips it naked, exposing its misconception.

After wiping the dark slate clean of its ignorance, he enlightens us with affirmation of the truth. He says, “The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image.” (Saussure 852). The eternal meaning of language is first having a sound image in our thoughts and then turning it into a concept. If we didn’t have an image, then there is no thought and we are unable to think, thus unable to come up with a concept. Vice versa, there can never exist a concept that does not have a sound image because for there to exist a concept, there had to have first exited a sound image.  It is with this, that Saussure says, “The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other.” (Saussure 853). Sound image and concept are, in my eyes, two eternal dancers, whose eyes are infinitely and eagerly locked with each other, as they dance forever, inseparable.

It is with the beauty of Saussure’s method of approach that the reader is able to properly understand what language really is. The poetic method of negation followed by affirmation makes it easy for us to accept Saussure’s ideology.

Saussure then gives these two lovers new names for each. A set of names that only strengthens their bond. He names the sound image, signified, and concept, signifier. Together, he names the couple, sign.

Because of this beautiful link that this married couple shares with each other, Saussure explains that, “Language can also be compared with a sheet of paper: thought is the front and the sound the back; one cannot cut the front without cutting the back at the same time; likewise in language, one can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound” (Saussure 857). Sign is one entity that moves in unison and that feels in unison. What benefits one, benefits the other and what harms one, harms the other. If a new thing was discovered, whether it be an organism, an object, or an alternative meaning, then sign takes benefit. This is because with this new thing, there has to now be a new signified and signifier that is implicitly attached to it. This is an example of how they both acquire simultaneous benefit. Other the other hand if a mind threatens the existence of an already existing signified or signifier, than the existence of the other is immediately threatened as well. In this way, what affects one, always and immediately affects the other. Two sides of the same paper, of the same coin, of the same sign.

At the end of the day, when these two halves, signified and signifier, come together, they produce a most interesting offspring and that offspring is none other than variety. To explain, I’ll quote Saussure when he says, “…in language there are only differences.” and “A linguistic system is a series of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas” (Saussure 862). My interpretation of this is that signified gets a choice of what it wants to be. At any point in time it can change its decision and decide to become something else. This in turn affects signifier because now it needs to match with its other half so that the sign makes sense. This creates countless upon countless combinations of difference choices that one can take and that the other can respond and follow up upon. Sign needs to make sense in order to be recognized as being in a transcendental state of perfect unity. The vast amount of difference choice that each have due to each others’ will, is the reason why there is so much variety and potential in language. So much metaphor, so much romance, so much thunderous and phantasmagorical meaning behind difference uses of language. It is due to this existence of variety, infinite variety, in understanding, use and application that this skill of language, will never be mastered by any living soul, not even a notably, highly skillful one, such as Ferdinand de Saussure.

When something is present to the world as a symbol of power, it is given different variations by different people. The Eiffel Tower is one of the most significant examples of this power, particularly because of its apparent uselessness. As Barthes puts it: “This pure – virtually empty- sign- is ineluctable, because it means everything”  I took this to mean because of this apparent uselessness people are able to assign its use or rather its meaning and importance, therefore allowing everyone to think differently of this single symbol and expand on its importance individually. When things, specifically in this text the Eiffel Tower, are assigned such meaning by humanity the things become infinite aside from something that is “finite and fixed” never changing or evolving. Specifically the Eiffel Tower is infinite because it is known and viewed by many in many different ways and is therefore never fixed.

One of the main points of this reading, I think, is to understand that the tower itself is empty, there is nothing to see inside and no real use for it, but when one travels to the top it creates a whole other reality for that individual. An aspect Barthes focuses on is the fact that the tower is one of the tallest architectural creations in Paris so wherever you go in Paris you are able to see it. However when you enter the tower you are able to see everything but the tower. It brings new views and aspects to the individual and this feeling of a “birds eye view” which allows people to see the structure of the city from above. I appreciated the idea that this birds eye view added a sort of romantic aspect to the urban jungle that industrialism created. It turns the city into its own sort of nature and therefore creates a sort of understanding within the individual. Barthes says that this birds eye view “… gives us the world to read and not only to perceive” meaning that the understanding that this view creates is both within the individual as well as because of the towers ability to make the unintelligible understandable.

Barthes goes through the layers and “duality” as one of my classmates put it that the tower represents. He sheds light on the meaning of this specific monument to people as well as elaborates on the meaning behind “useless” yet important things. This idea of seeing things as “structures” from the top of the Eiffel Tower really shows a breakdown of the understanding that people have of the world from the ground and how different views and vantage points. Looking at the Eiffel Tower in such a close way shows how it means everything for the sole reason that it means no one thing, which can be said about a lot. What I got from this reading in particular is the way people view things can change from where they’re viewing it as well as just being different to different people, which is an important thing to understand.

I found both the article “The Eiffel Tower” by Roland Barthes and “Egg McNothin'” by Ian Bogost to be fascinating as both article seems to interconnect at a certain point. In the “The Eiffel Tower”, Barthes wrote, “the Tower is there; incorporated into daily life until you can no longer grant it any specific attribute, determined merely to persist, like a rock or the river…”(Barthes, 3). The tower seen by Parisians becomes nothing to them because they see it everyday. It is nothing special as it is not a luxury. Like Bogost said, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have – or at least, the one we cannot have very often.”(Barthes, 1). When tourists come to Paris, they want to see the Eiffel Tower because it is a sight they never see before, therefore they look at it as a luxurious object.

Furthermore, both Hugo and Michelet’s bird’s – eye view contributed to making the Eiffel Tower a landmark therefore attracting people who never saw it come to Paris and look at it.(Barthes, 11). It becomes a rite and will feel like something is amiss if you don’t visit the Eiffel Tower. This can relate to looking at a panorama. As we look at a panorama, we try to look for things we are familiar with, but as we see something different or something missing, we try to decipher it.(Barthes, 10). We don’t want difference to what we know, but have familiarity to our history.

In the article “The Eiffel Tower”, Barthes writes about how the tower is useless and that humanity made the tower natural by Hugo and Michelet’s bird’s – eye view.(Barthes, 8). Before the bird’s – eye view, Gustave Eiffel, would say the tower is not completely useless as it can server future purposes such as aerodynamic measurements and studies of the resistance of substances, but Barthes believes that this is nothing but excuses.(Barhtes, 6). Barthes believe this is nothing more than a dream created by Gustave’s imagination where he wants to satisfy  a great function.

The tower can further seen as useless because as tourists come and look at the tower, they will get confused as to what they are suppose to do. They can look at the tower from the outside and marvel at the architecture, but there is nothing inside the tower.(Barthes, 7). There is nothing particularly special about the Eiffel Tower. It is just a hunk of metal in Paris made special by Romanticism. Without Romanticism, the Eiffel Tower can be seen as useless. Only a tower that scrapes the sky. It is basically what Ian Bogost says. “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have – or at least, the one we cannot have very often.”(Bogost, 1). The tower becomes luxurious due to its Romanticism and anyone who hasn’t seen it wants to see what the big deal is. Without the Romanticism, it would just be another tower that anyone can see as just a tower. This is related to McDonald’s breakfast menu. The breakfast menu is served during a certain time making it special. A person have to come at a certain time interval just to have an Egg McMuffin therefore making it luxurious. Without the time interval, the breakfast menu will slowly lose its value as special. It becomes ordinary as anyone can buy it and eat it at any time. What was luxurious will become ordinary as there is no special meaning behind the object.

Ian Bogost makes what appears to be a simple argument surrounding something as mundane as the Egg McMuffin. However, I believe he is ultimately pointing out a flaw in human beings and not so much a flaw in McDonald’s marketing decisions. Bogost points out that by introducing All Day Breakfast, McDonald’s sells went down because there was no longer the anticipation and limitation that came with serving breakfast until 10:30am. It was this limitation that caused people to rush to McDonald’s before breakfast was over. As in it was the fear of missing out that drove people. It was the anticipation of getting there before 10:30am and the anticipation that came with having to wait until tomorrow morning if you did not get there in time that drove people to want to get there on time. In other words, Bogost argues that it was the feeling of anticipation, need for something limited and actual limitation that made people want the breakfast sandwich and not the actual sandwich itself.

Bogost also states, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have-or at least, the one we cannot have often.” In McDonald’s case, the excitement for the breakfast food was lost by making the breakfast food available all day. Ironically, human beings do not find something that is easily handed to them or always available exciting anymore. By pointing this out, Bogost presents the Egg McMuffin as an idea rather than a reality. He states that the Egg McMuffin symbolized “an indulgence meant mostly to be missed rather than savored.” In doing so, he is pointing out human beings’ flaw of wanting something they cannot have. In this case, once humans have something always available they don’t want it anymore or don’t want it as much as something that is limited or something they can’t have. It is this basic human flaw that McDonald’s failed to keep in mind when making the decision to make All Day Breakfast. By removing the exclusivity of breakfast, it removed the interest of many. I think the human flaw that Bogost points out is important because it seems so simple yet it can have huge impacts in financial marketing strategies. In other words, keeping in mind human flaws can help a huge corporation like McDonald’s make better marketing decisions in the future. In addition, it shows that human beings have to keep in mind whether they really want something for what it is or whether they want just the idea of it.

Ian Bogost’s Egg Mc Nothin was an interesting read to say the least. As a person who really does not like McDonald’s I could not understand all the hype about All Day Breakfast. Bogost interpretation is that making something as iconic as the Egg McMuffin all day devalues it and people do not feel as antsy to rush and buy it before 10:30 am hits.

In this article Bogost two main points that he would like the reader to understand. First, that the McMuffin could easily be linked with something of luxury value. In the beginning of the article he stated, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have—or at least, the one we cannot have very often.” He proceeds by saying that that’s what luxury is something we long for and if we end up getting it, it would not be on a daily basis. It is true that one must long or have a craving for something beforehand in order to get it. I do not think that Bogost is making the argument that any food from McDonald’s is luxurious but that the wanting of something that is limited makes it as luxurious as jewels for instance.

When Bogost makes the point that about McDonald’s breakfast ending at 10:30 and people rushing to the drive thru at 10:25 to get it before it’s availability has ended is important as well. He shows us that nothing in life is always available. It made me think about the times when I want a certain fruit and I’m told by the person in the supermarket that it is out of season. When anything is limited in it’s availability it is wanted more. Bogost is also trying to state that McDonald’s by making breakfast all day made people’s want for breakfast less. If you can get Breakfast at anytime what’s the rush to get it in the morning.

The biggest thing that he wraps up the article with is that the Anticipation for something will always remain a luxury. The only way to keep people wanting more is to make them antsy and make them want something and not give it away all the time. He also makes the reader believe that nothing in this world is always available so take advantage of it when you can.

Bogost writes about how having breakfast at McDonald’s loses it’s charm when the anticipation for the Egg McMuffin is sacrificed for the convenience of all day breakfast menus. He argues that it was the feeling of needing, rather than food, was what was driving people to get the breakfast sandwich.

There is merit to the argument in other ways as well. The values of people come from the excitement or anticipation of release. One can find this in a somewhat new trend of sneaker collectors, where people buy shoes at extravagant prices solely on the feeling of needing. Whether it is the need to look good, the need to impress others, or the need to expand their collection, it is need that drive the people. This need is taken advantage of by sneaker companies, by limiting stock and increasing prices, which in turn drive those needs in a frenzy.

McDonald’s, on the other hand, is completely accessible. The prices are low, the stores are everywhere, and many of them run 24/7. It is a food that is there only when one feels like having something cheap and quick. The excitement for food is lost and the all-day breakfast is the last nail on the coffin.

The issue at hand doesn’t seem to be the loss of the anticipation of this breakfast item. What writer in the right mind would write about something as trivial as the loss of a time for breakfast in a restaurant? Convenience is and will always be the leading driver of the McDonald’s corporation. The addition of the 24/7 breakfast is just another movement to appeal to the general audience of the brand. The issue the author may be trying to suggest is the societal shift from necessity of food to the necessity of self. The self is an aspect of building a world that each person is the center of. The convenience of the internet and the Silicon Valley style of simplifying every aspect of life creates a feeling of complacency towards most necessities. If a person is bored, they have all the entertainment at hand. If a person is hungry, they have delivery options at their fingertips. Life isn’t exciting when everything is taken care of. The author is making an example of McDonald’s showing that it’s not what people want anymore. The food seems like an unhealthy staple food in comparison to other options from a multitude of cultures and styles. The diversity and extravagance of many other options make the McDonald’s seem small.

Being a part of today’s generation, I can confirm that technology, cellphones in particular, is an important factor in our daily lives. I honestly do not know someone who doesn’t have a smartphone of some kind. It is so easy to contact someone thru a text message or with a post on social media. What surprises me is the reluctance that people have when they have to make a phone call. Personally, I have always preferred making a call rather than texting multiple times to contact someone. In his article, Don’t Hate the Phone Call, Hate the Phone, Ian Bogost explains why people are so afraid to pick up their phone and make a call as easily as they can text, and it is not because people are anxious or lazy.

Bogost argues that the reason why people hesitate to make a phone call is not because we are lazy or anxious, but rather that it is an inconvenience to us. The phone that was once primarily used for communication is now used for a multitude of other things to a point where it’s not even good enough as a phone anymore. He writes, “When asked, people with a distaste for phone calls argue that they are presumptuous and intrusive, especially given alternative methods of contact that don’t make unbidden demands for someone’s undivided attention.”, telling us that a phone call is merely an interruption, causing people to drop whatever it is they are doing to pick up their phone. Rather than addressing the phone call and partaking in a conversation, people prefer any other means of communication that won’t require them to talk. It is much simpler to just connect through text message or email because it gives the person more time to reply back, and sometimes to just not reply at all.

Another reason why Bogost thinks that the concept of the phone has deteriorated is because of the fact that as we have moved away from using landlines to cellphones, the quality of the call has diminished. The design change in phones from the round shape to the flat rectangular boxes we have now have resulted in less noise being able to pass through either microphones or speakers on the telephone, and as a result, it’s harder to hear people as well as be heard. Privacy is also an issue. Before, landlines were installed into homes for a means of private communication. Calls were much clearer and precise. Phone calls brought people together; they relayed warmth and intimacy, and kept relationships well maintained. Nowadays, the settings and circumstances where people answer their phones now are usually louder than they have ever been due to the fact that people don’t typically “step out to take a call” anymore, because they  are in public areas for the most of their day. There is also a disdain for having actual phone conversations in the fear that you will make a mistake in speaking or be misunderstood.

It is agreed that smartphones are indeed convenient in today’s time and age. I personally will always prefer phone calls over a text or email, but it is understandable why some people may not think the same way. Rather than letting it become a hindrance and making us socially awkward, we should strive to communicate wholly, starting with a phone call.

     In America’s streamlined culture of 2017, the idea of specialty catered to the individual has long been lost.  Ian Bogost touches upon this idea in his article, Egg McNothin’, where he discusses the distinctive nature of the Egg McMuffin, offered as a breakfast by the fast-food chain McDonalds. He argues that there were many losses suffered once the chain began offering this breakfast as an all-day option in 2015. With this offer came a lack of anticipation, creating a generally impersonal nature about it, and in turn, the misplacement of luxury. As a department head at Urban Outfitters, one of the world’s highly recognized fast-fashion retailers, I find truth in this argument of the losses found in mass-produced specialties, and argue that the true failure in this is the clash with human nature.

     Bogost begins his article with a definition of luxury, which is essential to the crux of his argument. He states, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have – or at least the one we cannot have very often… a decadence limited…” This rings true in my own exploration of human nature, where one major rule is that we want what we cannot have. For me, it is a private villa in Cancun: something I cannot have, but I can imagine and aspire to, and maybe even sample for a week in January in one opulent moment. This is key to Bogost’s following arguments against McDonald’s introduction of all-day breakfast, including the famed Egg McMuffin. He claims that the glory in the specialty of breakfast, meant just for the morning, is now lost, and the sheer anticipation of the egg McMuffin can no longer exist as it is available all day. Just like my villa, Bogost presents “The Egg McMuffin as an idea rather than a reality.” He works with the idea that while the McMuffin in itself is not necessarily something to rave over, it was the limitation of access that made it unique, and therefore sought after. Its distinction was the fact that the McMuffin symbolized “an indulgence meant mostly to be missed rather than savored.” Americans might not have made it in time for the 10:30 McMuffin deadline, but they could try. Even if they missed it, it was the hunt that mattered and the chase they could pursue yet again the next day.

     It is most apropos when Bogost quotes Adam Chandler, author for The Atlantic, who argues  that with the all-day breakfast, “‘America is reverting to its adolescence.’” The impulsivity in indulging in one’s wants, generally associated with teenagers, has instantly been granted to all Americans, as the structure of breakfast found strictly in the morning has been replaced with all day gratification. The McMuffin has become all the more impersonal with its increasing mass-production. As Bogost says, “The surest way to spoil an extravagance is to destroy the suspense that animates it.” Just like so many other mass-produced items in American culture, the suspense is robbed from consumers, and companies cut a loss from it. Bogost notes that even with the introduction of the all-day breakfast, McDonalds still closed more stores than it opened in 2015. So the issue clearly lies in the fact that, as human nature dictates, we want what we cannot have. It   is the chase as opposed to the result that makes a product special.

     Having worked at Urban Outfitters for a few years now, Bogost’s argument strongly resonates with me. The company carries clothing defined as “fast-fashion,” referring to  the quick transition from runway to retailer, to capture the moment’s trends at an easily accessible price point for fleeting moments followed by replacement on-trend items. I began my career there with wide eyes that were fascinated with the individuality the company proposed, and I wondered why managers discussed the company’s dipping numbers during our team meetings. As I made my way through the ranks and landed myself a position as a women’s department head, I found that the dwindling numbers speak for themselves. The issue lies, yet again, in the fact that humans want what they cannot have. Take, for example, the embroidered mesh shirt. High-end designers showcased this style during global fashion weeks presenting Spring 2017’s anticipated trends. The moment I turned my head, Urban Outfitters began allocating this style to my small-volume store, but in copious amounts. Hundreds of units of different styles of embroidered mesh shirts hit the floor, in varying degrees: short-sleeve, long-sleeve, sleeveless, cropped, long, and every other variation one could even dream of, leaving nothing left to imagine anymore. Now this special style that seemed to be of limited quantity and available to only those with $900 to spend on a single piece of their wardrobe, became available to everyone, using  mass-produced labels stamped with the impersonal sizing of small, medium, and large all for the reasonable price of $59. The chase is gone, as the shirt has been practically handed out to the masses. The specialty of the item once considered a “luxury good” and looked at as unattainable by young ladies flipping through Vogue magazine has now lost its anticipation as it hit various retailers in overwhelming amounts. The idea of “humans want what they cannot have” simply became “humans want and therefore they can have.” And so the sales of this mesh shirt have decreased with each coming week, and the specialty in the suspense and anticipation found consume culture has been lost to the regularity in the fastness and accessibility that replaced it. America has slowed down to the all-day Egg McMuffins of the times, and has forgotten what it is to truly chase what they want.

What is verbal art? How can the study of verbal art (poetics) inform the science of language? How can the study of language (linguistics) elucidate the field of verbal art? In “Linguistics and Poetics,” Roman Jakobson attempts to tackle these difficult questions. For Jakobson, “poetics may be regarded as an integral part of linguistics” (1145). Hence, the field of linguistics is incomplete without poetics, and poetics is void of context when studied without linguistics.

Before establishing the poetic function of language, Jakobson first lays out a general framework of the various factors present in any form of verbal communication. In its most basic form, an event of verbal communication is made up of an ADDRESSER (the one who is speaking, writing, etc.), who sends a MESSAGE (the content of the verbal communication) to an ADDRESSEE (the one who listens, reads, etc.). The thing to which a message refers to is called the CONTEXT. The transfer of the message relies upon an agreed upon CODE, or system of communication (such as the English language), as well as a CONTACT, which is the actual mode by which the communication happens (speaking/listening, writing/reading, etc.).

With the factors of language established, Jakobson then lays out its various functions. However, he prefaces this by saying: “The diversity lies not in a monopoly of some one of these several functions but in a different hierarchal order of functions. The verbal structure of a message depends primarily on the predominant function” (1148). In other words, every function of language combines various linguistic factors in different ways, yet each of these functions employs every factor, albeit in varying degrees. After this disclaimer, Jakobson lays out the six different functions of language, in correspondence with their predominant factors. The functions are: REFERENTIAL (context), EMOTIVE (addresser), CONATIVE (addressee), PHATIC (contact), METALINGUAL (code), and POETIC (message).

By placing poetics within the matrix of all verbal functions, Jakobson provides reasoning for why poetics is an essential field of study for linguists, and vice versa. “The poetic function is not the sole function of verbal art but only its dominant, determining function, whereas in all other verbal activities it acts as a subsidiary, accessory constituent” (1150). If one is to better understand the functioning of language, they must understand poetics, as it is active in all verbal communication, if only as an “accessory.” Also, if one is to better understand verbal art, they must understand the other functions of language as well, for they are all active within verbal art.

With all of the groundwork laid out, Jakobson attempts to define the distinctive characteristic that designates a work of verbal art as such. To do so, he considers how poetics interacts with the two “modes of arrangement” (1151) used in verbal communication: selection and combination. Using the vernacular of Saussure, these are equivalent to the syntagmatic and associative qualities of language, respectively. Selection is primarily concerned with similarities Whereas equivalence is usually a quality of selection (e.g. choosing between the terms ‘woman,’ ‘girl,’ ‘dame,’ or ‘lady’), while combination is concerned with continuity (i.e. creating a logical sequence). Jakobson uses these ideas to define the poetic function as such:  “The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination” (1152). Whereas equivalence is usually a quality of selection, poetics applies it to the verbal combination as well. Hence, “Equivalence is promoted to the constitutive device of the sequence” (1152).

In an attempt to better grasp the implications of this assertion, and the functions of language in general, I will apply Jakobson’s ideas to a poem by the masterful Shel Silverstein.

                Turkey?

I only ate one drumstick
At the picnic dance this summer,
Just one little drumstick–
They say I couldn’t be dumber.
One tough and skinny drumstick,
Why was that such a bummer?
But everybody’s mad at me,
Especially the drummer.

In this poem, we see the poetic function at play, with a “focus on the message for its own sake,” (1150). The poem, as a whole, serves no other function than to exist as a message, and to be enjoyed as such. Delving into a closer analysis, we can see some of the other functions of language throughout the poem. Most of the sentences are primarily referential, as the narrator tells the tale of the drumstick he ate, describing the “context”, or referent, as “one little drumstick,” or “tough and skinny drumstick.” We see the emotive function as the narrator betrays his belief that he did nothing wrong. This can be seen in the use of “only” in the first line, “just one little” in the third line, and “Why was the such a bummer?” in the sixth line. Though there are many other functions at work, they are all serving the greater purpose of the poetic function, by crafting a message whose value lies in itself.

If we look at the poem in view of Jakobson’s claim about the principle of equivalence, we see that equivalence was clearly the determining factor in forming this particular combination of words. The first, third, and fifth lines all end with the word “drumstick.” Also, the last words of the second, fourth, sixth and eighth lines all rhyme. None of these words could have been changed without dramatically altering the message. In a broader sense, the essence of the poem is derived from the non-equivalence of the last line. While the whole poem had been structured as if the referent (drumstick) were a piece of poultry, the non-equivalence of the last line makes us realize that the referent was actually part of an instrument, and gives a retrospective meaning the whole verbal construction. So, thank goodness, Shel Silverstein passes Jakobson’s test, and can be counted among the ranks of verbal artists.