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.

Whether in college or in high school everyone has experienced having to read and analyze a poem, which can possibly be considered as a dreadful task due to the “complicated” and “confusing” phrases used. But what if someone told you that our everyday use of language and linguistics is our own version of poems. As Roman Jakobson explains in his piece “Linguistics and Poetics”, poetics can be considered a foundation for linguistics as the structure for a poem is similar to the structure in which we communicate.

Poetics is often considered to be too complex to read and even to write. Jakobson offers a different look into this and explains how similar the process of writing a poem is to the process of writing a message to someone, even if we do not realize it. Jakobson states:

The addresser sends a message to the addressee. To be operative the message requires a 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 (Jakobson 1069).

When doing something so simple such as sending a message it requires one to think about what language we should use, how the addressee will interpret it, and what exactly we will say to them. This process and system of communicating with others seems to be non existent to us now only because of how natural and often we do it. Understanding and creating poetics requires just the same process, but we avoid it due to it being so abnormal for us. If it had been taught and explained to us as children it would not be considered to be so “non-casual”.

Jakobson is attempting to separate poetics from poetry and explain how it takes place in every mode of speech. Emotive, referential, poetic, phatic, metalingual, and conative all require a process to understand and do. A process that may only be associated with poetics. Where you must consider what you are saying, what words you will use for this form of speech, and finally consider the addressee. Each form of speech requires a part of poetics where you must evaluate every aspect before saying it out loud. For instance, when using the emotive form of speech one must pick out their words carefully in order to make the other feel a certain way. Poetics being a strong part of linguistics automatically makes it part of each form of speech.

As Nietzsche’s beliefs and ideas explained previously, we as a society accept everything that is told to us, we do not question why certain things are named as so or why 1 plus 1 equals 2. Society teaches us to do things without anyone realizing, which makes it impossible to create your own ideas without being influenced. In this case poetry in society is portrayed to be this intricate piece of writing filled with metaphors and similes. Poetry is poetry because that is what we are told. We do not question or consider more of what there is in communicating with others or the process of it. Leading us to miss out on the big portion of poetics there is in our daily communication with others.

I think Roman Jacobson is a bit puzzled here. It seems like he’s trying to address whether poetics and linguistics have a connection. Or whether it seems poetics is a tenet of linguistics or not. Towards the beginning he says “Since linguistics is the global science of verbal structure,poetics may be regarded as an integral part of linguistics.” I think since poetry is “verbal art” as he says maybe they’re not exactly the same. Linguistics is the scientific study of language while poetry or poetics if I understand it right is simply a form of expression. Not that language isn’t expression but I don’t exactly perceive linguistics as an art form.  He goes on to say that poetics is not confined to verbal art. He claims that forms of poetry or stories can be transferred into music or say ballet. He doesn’t seem to have the same feeling about linguistics however. Jacobson confuses me a bit. I wonder if my interpretation is off or if I’m not getting him. Later on he gets on what we call or should call a “Literary critic”. He says “Why is a clear-cut discrimination made between pure and applied linguistics or between phonetics and orthepy, but not between literary studies and criticism?” I think maybe he wants them to be seen as one and the same but academia may be getting in the way of that. Maybe he seems to think that linguistics and poetics should be more seen as siblings rather than neighbors. He says language must be investigated in all of it’s forms and functions. He seems to think that the position of poetics has to be accurately placed among other types of language. It also seems like he think some are essentially reducing language or cutting it in half. He says ” No doubt,for any speech community,for any speaker,there exists a unity of language,but this over-all code represents a system of inter-connected subcodes; every language encompasses several concurrent patterns, each characterized by different functions.” Later on he talks about the addresser and the addressee.  Which to me tackles the bridge between the speaker and the listener. I believe he sees language more as a tool. He says how simple statements like “Are you listening?” can serve to essentially hook the other person in. He says these comments essentially are supposed to either bring attention to something or prolong it. He says that the lingustic scrutiny of poetry should not limit or confine itself within the function of poetics. 

What is the weight of a breath ?If you ask someone you would come across two different answers . Some people would say nothing . I mean air is weightless . Others would say it’s invaluable . Those people aren’t technically wrong but they aren’t talking about the weight of a breath but the value of living .But who’s wrong comes down to who’s asking and they’re subjective opinion . A philosopher or a physicist ? And about there being two different answers I lied . I could only think of two answers. There’s probably more wrong than right but after all that’s up to you ,or me ,or both ,or either ,or someone ,or no one. In Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying Nietzsche says he first laws of truth. “For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time.. The liar .. uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real. .. He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. “ explaining that truths and lies are closer than we think and is apart of the game we humans play for perceived superiority over each other in a battle of intellect and the very idea of right and wrong are a figment of our imagination
Additionally Nietzsche also says “The pride connected with knowing and sensing lies like a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, thus deceiving them concerning the value of existence. For this pride contains within itself the most flattering estimation of the value of knowing.” . In this quote he draws humankind as a ignorant creature that names to give reason to live through lies again mention blur between truth and lies as a system of oppression in which we shackle ourselves and gain superiority over others giving us a reason to live and without it we would have no desire to live or value life as much as we do. However I disagree with this notion as knowledge existing in the first place is the reason we place value on things and creates a as we would never think to place value in existence or anything for that matter without knowledge . Also us being living beings our existence inherently has value to us regardless of if we place a certain value and or priority to it. We don’t have to think about doing something as simple as breathing; it’s done without much thought. The toddler or newborn instinctively place value in staying alive in breathing despite not knowing yet the meaning of death and therefore the value of life. Therefore one could argue the will to live being tied with a self importance from the hubris we gain through the construct of intellect can be proven false dismantling Nietzsche’s argument of language and fact or truth being an illusion rather than a natural evolution of intellect that mankind was gifted. All in all we in both lies and truth fill the content of what and how we live . But as living being the choice and desire to live was given to us the minute we were born and transcend beyond the grand scheme of things even what we think we know.

Language is how humans are able to communicate with one another. Since everyone has the capability of understanding and speaking a language, some scientists don’t recognize the value of studying semiology (the study of signs and their interpretation which is a core aspect of language). Language is based upon the fluid relationship between the signifier and the signified. People can view a tree with wilted leaves and discuss their feelings towards it because language has created a space to share ideas. Scientists tend to forget that language is not “a name-giving system” (Saussure 851). The true nature of language can reveal a tremendous mystery, the tendencies of all individuals. Ferdinand De Saussure wants to deconstruct the notion, “language is a simple naming process”, and appreciate the complexities of language to showcase human nature as erratic. 

Psychologists and philosophers have taken steps to understanding how the human brain operates and actions executed by people, respectively; however, certain components of language can demonstrate the convoluted nature of humans. First off, language and individuals have an extensive connection because language follows an individual from the moment that they are born to their last moment of life. As an individual develops and experiences different points of their lives, their language is also going to evolve. A fifth grader’s language is not the same as a college professor’s language and it is a result of their different points in life. A fifth grader has not been exposed to a wide range of vocabulary, they have not endured high school and college level courses, and they have not interacted with as many people in comparison to a college professor. New words and phrases are picked up as a person enters different stages of their lives. Also, it is important to acknowledge that language is not completely arbitrary. Due to different circumstances that an individual can encounter, it can be difficult to pinpoint how and why a person’s language has changed. However, every language has a set of grammar rules that are evident in a person’s speech. A fifth grader and a college professor both deliver sentences, questions, and different kinds of phrases to speak with other people. In addition, they are both able to view an image and draw their own conclusions based upon it. Yes, their use of language and vocabulary could be different, but there are grammar rules set in place to guide conversations. Regardless if an individual has been studying language for the past decade or if an individual has just graduated elementary school, they both use language to communicate their ideas and understand the world through signifers and the signified. 

Now stepping away from the individual, the characteristics of a language came to be because of different communities. Language is a combination of arbitrariness and structure. The arbitrariness stems from the relationship between words and concepts. The relation between the signifier (word or sound-image) and the signified (concept) is random. For example, there is no sturdy reasoning as to why the word “horse” is related to the concept of a horse. Furthermore, “the signs used in writing are arbitrary; there is no connection, for example, between the letter t and the sound that it designates” (Saussure 861). Based upon these examples, it is evident that language is based upon differences. Since, “words do not stand for preexisting concepts, there are differences in meaning from one language to the next” (Saussure 859). Different communities come together to create different social contracts that bring meaning to a particular image. Also, different languages have different grammar rules that are set in place. Though language is mutable by nature, the meaning of a word can not change overnight. People have to come together, evaluate how and why the word is changing, see how the change is applied and seen in their own fluid lives, and socially approve the change. The social contract different communities have created for words are proof of the structure that is consistent through language. People are heavily involved in their languages. 

A concrete component of all humans is their use of language, regardless of the changes that occur in their lives. The innate relationship between language and humans allows for linguistics to understand how the complexities in language are mirrored in the complexities that surround a human. Language is organic, it is always evolving because humans are always evolving.  Language demonstrates how no one can accurately predict an individual’s thoughts and actions. An individual’s words can reveal a person’s thoughts and motive behind their actions. Further, writing (a tangible expression) helps linguists understand complicated humans. I say complicated because even with all of those resources, there is a possibility that someone could be lying. So why try to dissect the actions of a human through language? Because it is fascinating how a human is able to be concrete, yet fluid at the same time. 

When it comes to Saussure, his ideas on semiotics and the general linguistics, he has many abstract ideas. However, unlike Nietzsche, he takes his ideas and elaborates on it more. While Nietzsche describes an abstract idea on language and entertains the idea that language is a lie and deception that people collectively agree to be true, Saussure takes his idea and elaborates on it by breaking it down and explaining his ideas as opposed to Nietzsches venting. When it comes to Saussure’s beliefs in general linguistics, object and subject are fundamentally separate. Linguistic Language fits into a broader subject known as Semiotics/Semiology. Examples of semiotics are fashion, coding, music, dance, math. However, the most important of these is linguistics. In linguistics subtle change can have major complications. Language is the most arbitrary because it is often a removed version from the signs and where they are located. Language varies across different cultures and locations. Anything you say can describe anything in the world because language as arbitrary. In Saussure’s “Course in General Linguistics (850-66),” he brings up a contrast between “Langue vs Parole”, Langue is compared to a chessboard and its rules. Langue is the grammar and the visual structure of rules that create “Parole.” What does Grammar and Rules have in common? Grammar is absent and rules are invisible. They aren’t a tangible thing that people can touch and feel. Grammar, Langue, is just there. Its Immaterial, Abstract, Social/Collective/Sparse. Parole refers to the specific moves and these moves consist of utterances which form words which create sound-image. While Langue is Absent and invisible, Parole is Present and Material. It is Individual and free within its own limits of Langue. Words are unlimited. Words can be created as long as people collectively agree on that word being part of language. The system of signs (language) is a construct where we agree to these signs where we agree to them as fact and true. Its nice to see here that Saussure takes Nietzsches idea and elaborates on this by breaking it down and understanding the why. Another idea that Saussure brings up is the contrast between the Signifier vs the Signified. They both revolve around the “sign” but the signifier refers to the sound-image as it relates to the signified concept. When it comes to the signified vs the signifier, the both have to mutually create each other as their cannot be one without the other. In language there are only differences without positive terms.