Add your thoughts/questions regarding the reading for Tuesday to this post, make sure to revist on Monday so that you can read what others have written. Again, no need for a grand thesis here, just write something that would signal a place you would like to begin the conversation regarding these pieces.
Update: One thing worth mentioning as I was rereading SEC (Signature, Event, Context), keep in mind that when Derrida writes about “code” the common contemporary referent of computer code did not exist.
Also, if you need some help deciphering what Derrida is saying consider Humpty Dumpty, “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
I was interested in what Saussure had to say about language being “concrete” as well as Derrida’s thoughts on it being based on “absence”, especially after reading about Saussure’s views on autonomy and interdependence. Saussure’s analogy of language to the game of chess for instance leaves me questioning, “What exactly can one NOT define as concrete?” Are our thoughts and feelings the only things that are not governed by a set of “rules”? It would seem one could even make an argument in opposition to this.
I’ve always been of the opinion that language could be considered abstract and/or concrete depending on context. For example, to convey a feeling or mood versus to deliver a message or set of instructions.
I enjoyed Saussure’s comparison of language to a chess game. Each piece plays a role and has certain defined movements and these movements create a system. What makes it so interesting is, unlike chess, when changes or “moves” occur in language they may not necessarily be well thought out or pre-determined. This kind of goes along with some points brought up by another book I have been reading. Mediums and new forms of expression may allow language to become something beyond text and concrete structures.
My question is what can cause an individual to change or create a new language or form to express language?
I have had the pleasure of reading the Saussure article before. I don’t know if pleasure is the correct word since I am finding myself more perplexed the more I read. What I agree with is the use of language as a series of terms that carry value based on the words surrounding it. It’s easier for me to identify with this point more then the others because of the focus on a conceptual viewpoint. An image holds a value only based on the thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and objects within and around the picture (both internal and external language). I know this is a very simple way to look at Saussure’s point of view, but the simplicity helps to subvert the massive amount of confusion I have managed to create in my brain.
What Saussure and Derrida are trying to show, in my opinion, that there is more beyond the written word. There is some expression that exist beyond the paper that can become more concrete. I don’t have any questions to raise. I think this is another one of those readings that I will sit back, read again, and try to keep the mind from spilling out of my head.
I most likely missed the main points of the readings, but from what I was able to glean from them, I started thinking about the origins of language in respect to written letters and words that may or may not be related to what the readings were about.
Derrida brings up from Condillac that thoughts of people were first represented by an image the same as the form of the existing thing. But what if they had to represent something abstract like hate, pride, or loyalty? They could draw pictures of a mob throwing stones at someone, a figure standing much taller than another, or two figures arm in arm, but then these pictures don’t solidly define hate, pride, or loyalty and can be interpreted as different sentiments—for example, retribution, domination, or love. Did language of letters and words as opposed to pictures originate from a desire or need to represent the abstract in order to communicate with others?
If not, then I wonder how letters and words were adopted in the first place. Along the lines of what makes an individual change or create a new language, what makes a society of individuals accept and understand that change or creation?
There’s a lot to talk about here, but it was when I got to Derrida that I started thinking about all of this in relation to new media. I have trouble with Derrida in that I find him nigh unreadable, but he raises interesting points in this essay. I only hope I didn’t miss the important bits! His point that all language must be citeable to be understood, and that context is never absolutely knowable raises questions about our formation of ideas on the web. On the web, it is ridiculously easy to pick something up out of its context and use it for your own nefarious purposes. Links, however, allow us to choose a context for a given idea, letting writers reference vast quantities of information without having to go into exhaustive detail themselves. While it makes for a complicated reading experience, this can help to clarify a writer’s meaning to a certain extent that was not available before without making the size of their text prohibitive to publication or reading. The problem of unknowable context is still an issue on the web, and readers face new obstacles in understanding, but maybe an easy way to provide a reader with your source material can limit problems of translation.
This is not what I expected for a new media writing class. I expected to do more “on-line reading,” so to start with Culler and Derrida it odd. And like I few others, I’m left wondering did I miss the point?
To me the readings operate as a reference point to setup our understanding how language works and how we can add our “signature” to new media. So with the Culler text, can we say that half of the class might know what new media writing is, because we have a shared understanding, a system created from previous classes? We can click and share meanings, but for someone not in a previous ATEC class or had the same professor they may not understand us as easily. Their system is not the same. I’m not saying this is bad, but to reference the text – it’s French. Together we need to find one common language path.
Are the readings telling us that New Media writing is already there, we just need to change how and to add our signature
I found both the readings of Saussure and Derrida to be very interesting and challenging to read. With Saussure, I was thinking about how we find out about news and current events and reading it over the internet. And that there is a lingustic sign, a signifier, signified, and referent to how we retrieve that information. For example, when we read the headlines of a tragedy we get a conception in our minds that express idea same as if we hear someone screaming.
With Derrida, I was thinking about how we use written communication over the internet and words and symbols to create expression, ex. lol, lmao, etc. What I got from Derrida is that words refer to things that are absent and these words do represent a feeling that is written in simple, abbreviations, even if not seen visually.
I don’t have any questions but, I did find it interesting to apply these readings to new media. I think new media (internet: youtube, myspace, online chatting etc.) much like television and radio, is very much a sort of new language of communication that I think Saussure and Derrida would find relevant in linguistics.
I actually found the readings quite relevant to new media, especially Derrida. Perhaps my obsession with social networking as communication caused me to force application.
The idea of absence as presence was very interesting to me. Blogging, podcasting, personal sites such as myspace, facebook, twitter, etc. provide a venue for presence, but one that is presented solely within the absence of the author.
However, within online worlds, such as Second Life, presence is in real time. And voice is actually written, although not necessarily archived for a future addressee. Would this, as well as chat and IM, be considered writing, speaking, performance?
I also was intrigued by Saussure’s discussion regarding the nonequivalent value of concepts within different languages, as translation could aid in what Derrida referred to as essential drifting (if I understood that correctly).
No big questions here. Just thoughts about new media as I read.