This harangue focuses upon denunciation itself. It asks most questions. What is Language? How do you take as well as make use of language? Do you exist inside/outside of language? The word is a commencement as well as a end, so where do you fit in to a word. Ferdinand de Saussure, linguist, as well as Jacques Lacan, psychologist, assistance us try a biased as well as design realities of a word as well as a attribute to it. Enjoy this key to a inlet of “The Word.”
WHAT IS LANGUAGE?
24 Responses
Leave a Comment
August 19th, 2009 at 5:07 am
As someone applying to read Linguistics at an English University this year, this is a very interesting and valuable video to me. Thanks.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:10 am
body language, part of language.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
woow, thanx to post that, now I finally understand De Saussure!
August 25th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
The power of language is so strong, that you need your hands so much?
August 29th, 2009 at 7:01 am
HOw about this? There are passive use of language and active use of langanguage. Passive type are like empirical statements. One observe and turn that into language. (A description.) While active use of language, humans enter the field of language. One may defend his position or one may attack other’s position. (Of course, what I am doing here is description. But you will get the point.) One stand on some description. And then put a spin towards what is going on.
August 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I think CJM04 has a point. That things can be signifiers too. But as I said I think the most wise way to deal with is to admit that there are two things: concepts (collection of signifiers) and empirical objects.
What did Plato say?
September 1st, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“Signified is the actual object”: I would not say this is correct. ‘Signified’ is our mental representation of the actual object. I think this representation might actually be influenced by the word we (do not) have for it.
I suggest you all to read “Cratylus” by Plato.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 am
ONe thing. signifier which is the label of an object and such as the combination of letter to make a word: “dog” is made out of “d”"o”"g”. And the target of the word is different. The target of “dog” is dog-ness. (Which in my argument is the signified.) These two things are different.
September 5th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I am trying hard to argue that there maybe a bifurcation in language.
signifier–>otherSignifier(s) or experience.
signifier=digital;experience=analog.
Someone may object, our brain is digital. Because neurons fires as on/off. BUT I will argue, the neurons firing is not cordinated like the computer is. The timing between the neurons are analog. Computer is working with a “clock”.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
let me fix everything I been saying. signifier is the label (or speech/writing). (Therefore signifiers are arbitrary made.) And signified can be two things: concept (collection of signifiers) or empirical object(s).
…thinking…
“Where one draws the line bewteen the sig/sig is arbitrary”. Now that is a new thought for me. OK I got it. So structure includes sig/sig. Right? Therefore you do not want to tolerate the empirical signified. The world must be all sig/sig.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Ok I must admit, if one picks up any continental philosophy book, you are bound to read the world is through and through language. But to be realistic that does not seem what I experince. True if one tries to express one’s experience it will always be in language. But in experience there is no tag (or label or signifier) attached to it. Pure experience.Its a mess, because language and experience is mixed. We need to separate them out. Ask D.Davidson.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Convincing, but I can not make you out.How are you useing the term “arbitrary”?What is it to mean “signified and signifier is arbitrary”?For me it is better put, the constitute of signifier is arbitrary. Say, a “dog” can be anything. “alkhdfgl;w” could suit for “dog” as well. So the label is arbitrary. “Structure is also arbitrary”?Structure is arbitrary connected to the label (or signifier); but I can not see, structure it self is arbitrary. Is this a consipiracy against the empirical langauge?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
i disagree. Because the relationship between the signified and the signifier is arbitrary, the structure is also arbitrary. This is not to say the function of language is arbitrary but examine the very idea of an “object of a word.” The signified is nothing more than a signifier in terms of human perception, and is often a chain of differential signifiers. In a sense, where one draws the line between the sig/sig is arbitrary because the referent is undecidable and radically subjective
September 13th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Excellent video excellent ideas!!!
September 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am
“language is arbitraray seems to make a lot of sense.” I am not sure you got it. The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. (Signifier is the spelling/vocalizing of the word. Signified is the actual object. Signified is the actual structure in the world. Nothing arbitrary about it.)
September 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I been thinking of language between the binary: empirical language (collection of all the empirical objects) and conceptual language (the word given by the system of language). And the two merge in the structure of the structuralism. (Well, I really don’t know what structurealism is. So, I am just throwing it out there so that someone will correct me.) (signified=empirical. signifier=conceptual.)
September 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
thank you very much for this lecture, you are very good!
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
To me, language is a matter of definition. Every form of life has some form of language or communication, even insects.
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
this is very interesting, thank you for posting it. i feel the assertion that language is arbitrary seems to make a lot of sense. however, it seems that there is at least one exception- onomatopoeia. the words ‘moo’ or ‘buzz’ were created with a very specific purpose in mind- to emulate a sound. is there anyway you could clear that up for me?
also, just a side note- the idea that one’s ability to communicate a ‘thing’ defines that ‘thing’ itself is an absolutely terrifying thought!
September 25th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Love this video, great work, friend! In an excellent class on Cultural Studies currently and came across your link in the recommended links section. So lovely to hear God’s name mentioned along with the names of great human thinkers. May He bless you richly, and keep up the great work
sally b
September 25th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
why are there so many relegious folks hanging around the philosophy stuff on youtube? It must be an american thing! I hate it when they put relegion and philosophy togeather in a bookstore as much as when they put philosophy and self help togeather (ouch!)
when theology enters a debate, i really think it has no relevance to any of the issue at hand.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Very nice video and explanations. My interest in language came about very recently as a sort of realization about what the limitation of language could be. I realized that each time i’d try to consolidate my world-experiences I was restricted to using words like illusory, evil, benevolent, meaningless, only those concepts that language offers. Can there be limits of what language offers? looking forward to your lectures..thanks.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:41 am
That’s really cool. I already knew Ferdinand’s theories but not about Lacan. If you know any book that I could read more about, send me the name pleeeease! I was studying that in the college…
I’m reading Geoffrey Flinch now…
Well, anyway, nice explanations!
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 am
Rock on.
In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD, and the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us. Get ready for the WORD to shine forth miracles and wonders like never before.