I have been reading some articles on the relation of writing and speech of late. One concept seemed especially interesting/relevant.
- “arbitrariness of the sign” and arche-writing: written words don’t necessarily reference anything. If we try to trace what words mean, we need to use other words, so we never arrive at a definitive referent to a word. On a deeper level, this concerns the fundamental disconnect between subjective experiences in different subjects. This is discussed mostly by Derrida.
However, I find this doesn’t apply to speech. When speech is used, there is no concern that words have no referent, as the context of speech is always accessible, as it is imminent. If I am speaking, I can if necessary, produce physical examples of what I am talking about, if appropriate, and resolve ambiguities of that kind. I am accessible for my audience to ask me questions and clarify what I am talking about.
I see this happens because there is an overlap of context for the speaker and audience. The speaker is bringing their unique subjective experience, and communicating it into the context that the speaker and audience share. This doesn’t happen in writing because the audience’s exact context is inaccessible for the author, as the work can be given to groups with no relation to the text’s original intended audience.
So then it can be said that the relationship of the speaker and audience, by sharing their immediate context (at the very least), is what guarantees meaning to the words spoken.
I believe this can be exploited in literary interpretation to guarantee its meaning also, and I see this as already being done. By understanding the author’s context, the relationship established by such is re-established, is brought back alive, and meaning is given to the otherwise arbitrary, unresolvable symbols of writing.
—
In a broader sense, I am seeing that:
- Subjectivity brings isolation
- For there to be meaning, this isolation must be defeated.
- Thus, subjectivity needs to die.
- This is not possible because (1) the subjective can’t just go away, and (2) we can only interface with the world through senses, which are inherently subjective.
- Another solution is to merge the subjectives of multiple people.
- It is thus in this sort of relationship that meaning is derived.
I have also found the two senses of ‘meaning’ to be very related:
- Meaning as in a referent to text in reality
- Meaning as in rationale for life (referent to metanarrative of reality)
This is evident especially in fields like Biblical hermeneutics, as such texts seek to explain the metanarrative while being texts themselves.
