“In its modern usage, “structure” more commonly to “built up” than to “scatter, spread here and there as by scattering or sprinkling, “ in the conventional usage of the verb strew.” (Rowe, page 23)
The quotation above states that structure in the meaning of scatter, spread here and there shows that there is relation between the elements that are being scattered. The space was already there before, so the elements that are related could be scattered. In the other side, structure in the meaning of built up shows that the connection between the elements will create space. Thus, foundation is important thing in this concept. If the foundation is changed, it will change the structure too.
From the etymology of “structure”, there began come linguists who studied about structure that finally became important knowledge. One linguist that did some research about structure is Saussure. Saussure brought the theory of arbitrariness of the sign and the basic division of the sign into “signifier” and “signified”. These lead to the difference between structural linguist and philology.
“Philology is basically concerned with meaning, even though the study of historically different meaning for the same word (such as those given in the Oxford English Dictionary) made etymology a speculative venture at best. Structural linguist like Saussure are less interested in the meanings of words and more interested in how meaning is made possible.” (Rowe, page 27)
Although working in same field, philology and structural linguist had different view. Philology focused finding the proper meaning of words. Meanwhile, structural linguist revealed much more complicated system of relation even in synchronic stability of a particular moment in the history of language. Because of the view that there is such a foundation and heaped elements, in short it could be said that there is an existing construction in structure. What linguist did was not describing the function of each element, but rather describing the relation of each element. How meaning is made also related with Saussure’s theses about arbitrariness.
“Saussure insists that the world’s different language teach us that there is no necessary relation (or “motivation”) between signifier and signified.” (Rowe, page 29)
It clearly shows that the different words in different language came from the conventional of each region. There is not any relation of the sound uttered with the things or object represented. The signifier and signified cannot be separated from the historical side. The signifier and signified that is used nowadays is a result of agreement of people long time ago until finally many words are valid to use. Like Saussure’s other argument that words are not things they name and the only arbitrarily associated with those things (Miller, p.201). It related with Derida’s argument:
“Derida suggests that all language is constituted by difference, …: words are the deferred presence of the things they mean, and their meaning is grounded in difference.” (Miller, page 201)
It related with people needed to utter things to make their conversation easily. So, a word emerges along with the needed. With a word represent a thing they want to say, they will run communication well with people around.
Seeing structure in a text could emerge a term “deconstruction”. According to J.Hillis Miller;
“Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. “ (page 199)
It means that to deconstruct a text is not about describing the elements in it but rather seeing the relation, opposite “discourse”, and the arrangement of meaning. Many people misunderstand the concept of deconstruction thinking that they have to find certain meaning of the text, or show the text has the opposite meaning. As what Derida argues that we tend to think and express out thought in terms of opposite. (page 200). It shows that people just want to make it simple after they read a text with classify something is black but not white, beginning/end, speech/writing, etc. From the opposite also could be classified which is the superior and inferior. As a philosopher of language, Derida doesn’t seek to reverse the hierarchized opposition but he seeks to erase dividing line or boundary between oppositions.
Being familiar with words they utter daily, deconstruction reveal the other fact that can be seen in Deconstruction and Heart of Darkness, there is written that
“Once deconstructed, “literal” and “figurative” can exchange properties, so that the prioritizing between them is erased.” (Miller, page 206)
Related to agreement that create signifier and signified in a language, all word would stay in human mind as figures. People will not notice that it is a real figure like in their mind, but rather a result of agreement that they used for so long. Then they will forget how arbitrary, metonymic they are. There are two groups that working in the development of text. Although having similarity focus on the literary text, formalist and deconstructors have their own view of text.
“Whereas the formalist believes a complete understanding of a literary work to be possible-and understanding in which even the ambiguities will be seen to have a definite, meaningful function---post-structuralist celebrate the apparently limitless possibilities for the production of meaning that come about when the language of the critic enters the language of the text.” (Miller, page 205)
Based on that argument, it could be seen that formalist assumed that total understanding of a work is possible. Every aspect must render big role in a text that will make the text has organic unity. It strengthens the structuralist’s belief that text has “center” of meaning. Formalist will treat possible configurations or patterns that make no contribution are rejected as irrelevant. Meanwhile, post-structuralist treats every element or aspect as having important role, so they do not limit the possibilities.
Works Cited
Rowe, Carlos John. (1995). “Structure”
Miller, J. Hillis. (1989). “Deconstruction and Heart of Darkness”
No comments:
Post a Comment