Even though some topics confused me, it was really interesting to see what Saussure had to say. In his piece “Course in General Linguistics,” he expands upon the fact that the idea of language and speech are two very different things, yet they work together at the same time. We need language in order to have speech, and that is where all the symbols come in. Saussure states on page 961, “Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signs, etc. But it is the most important of all these systems.” I agree with Saussure, because without symbols it would be impossible for us to relate common words if particular images weren’t available for interpretation. He goes on to explain that language must be studied in itself in order for people to use it correctly (962). Language has so many branches that without learning the basics, it would be difficult to relate language to other things around you. Which then runs parallel to where he states “If we are to discover the true nature of language we must learn what it has in common with all other semiological systems…” Which brings me back to what I was saying before, we as humans need to understand what language is all about in order to move foward. By relating language to sounds and letters, we will be able to better relate the language to social and general psychology.

It fascinates me how long Saussure was able to run with the Sign, Signified, and Signifier. I found this part of his writing the most interesting. Even though I already had a firm understanding of what he discussed here, it was nice to read what he had to say and understand it on a more personal level. On page 963 he states “We have seen in considering the speaking-circuit that both terms involved in the linguistic sign are psychological and are united in the brain by an associative bond.” And goes on to say “The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept.” All of this is so true because without relating pictures to words, we would be lost. We wouldn’t have a grasp of what others would be talking about without such helpful pieces to the puzzle. Sound images also plays a huge role. It is interesting where Saussure goes on to discuss how it is possible to hear ourselves without moving our lips or tongue (963). Thinking about it, you sound out words in your head and usually run thoughts through your mind before saying them out loud. You relate sound to an animal, for example a cow makes a “moo” sound. Sure, laugh, but it’s true Sound is a key element in every day language.

I really liked the part on page 965 where Sausser says “We shall see below that the individual does not have the power to change a sign in any way once it has become established in the linguistic community.” Once a word, sound, symbol are all learned, we are not subject to change. Once we understand/learn the definition of a word, we are not allowed to change it. Basically, “it is what it is!”

I found many of Sausser’s points very interesting! Finally, a reading that was a little easier to understand.

Blog Comments #1 (1/17) Kellie & John

Blog Comments #2 (1/24) Cara W. & Ryan

Blog Comments #3 (1/31) Ryan & Cara W.

Blog Comments #4 (2/7) Ryan & Michael

Blog Comments #5 (2/12) Esther & John

Blog Comments # 6 (2/21) Ryan & Brett

Blog Comments # 7 (2/28) Ryan & Kellie

Blog Comments # 8 (3/14) Cara W. & Brett

Blog Comments # 9 (3/21) Ryan & Cara W.

Blog Comments # 10 (3/28) Elizabeth & Ryan

Blog Comments # 11 (4/4) Elizabeth & Cara G.

Blog Comments # 12 (4/11) Marina & Elizabeth

What I found particularly interesting while reading Williams’ piece was on page 1570 where he stated “Literature lost its earliest sense of reading ability and reading experience, and became an apparently objective category of printed works of a certain quality.” From what I understand, Williams is saying that in today’s society, literature is much easier to read; you don’t need to concentrate too hard on what you are reading because literature today is so straight foward. I think what he is also saying is that literature used to be difficult, you’d have to narrow in on every aspect of the text in order to formulate some type of hypothesis, while now there is no need for that because literature now is right to the point.

On page 1571 Williams states “Several concepts developed together. ‘Art’ was shifted from its sense of a general human skill to a special province, defined by ‘imagination’ and ’sensibility’. ‘Aesthetic’, in the same period, shifted from its sense of general perception to a specialized category of the ‘artistic’ and the ‘beautiful’.” and so on. Williams goes on to show how many concepts basically blend in with each other. Each concept started out with their own seperate definition, but over time slightly changed, along with literature.

Back to what I was saying before about literature. At one time, literature was mainly for people of a higher status for many different reasons. Back then it wasn’t necessary to read, only the people who were in a higher class read because of their status and power. Today, everyone is expected to be able to read and write, no matter what social class you fall in.

Now on to Deleuze and Guattari. Hmm? “What is the body without organs of a book?” I suppose that makes sense, but wow, what an analogy. They start off the page, 1602, by saying “….it also has a side facing a body without organs, which is continually dismantling the organism, causing asignifying particles or pure intensities to pass or circulate, and attributing to itself subjects that it leaves with nothing more than a name as the trace of an intensity.” What?? The only part that I really understood was their little analogy that they used earlier. A body isn’t of any use without organs, while a book isn’t of any use without a body. Without a body and without text in the book, there is no book. It’s a little confusing as to why they are relating literature and biology.

First off, this was probably the hardest thing I have ever had to read. I sat here and read it multiple times and truth be told, I really didn’t get much out of it. It is so confusing and so repetative that it is very difficult to understand what exactly Bakhtin is trying to say. He uses the same words over and over just leaving me sitting here, wondering what I just read.

It seems as though Bakhtin just continues to stress the point that everyone has a different way of writing, reading, and comprehending. All people have different styles of writing, but when it comes to specific subjects (such as art), some people will feel the same while others have completely different opinions. He opens up his essay by saying that “the study of verbal art can and must overcome the divorce between an abstract “formal” approach and an equally abstract “ideological” approach” (1190). From what I understand, you have to be able to distinguish between the two because verbal art is very different from ‘the abstract, formal, and conventional styles of writing’ even if the differences aren’t clear. An ideology characterizes the thinking of a person, so everyone has their own theories, thoughts, and opinions reguarding every day life.

Something I also found interesting was when Bakhtin states “What we have in mind here is not an abstract linguistic minimum of a common language, in the sense of a system of elementary forms (linguistic symbols) guaranteeing a minimum level of comprehension in practical communication” (1198). I may be completely wrong, but I think what he is trying to say here is that even though a lot of what he is saying is difficult to understand, there needs to be a little piece that everyone understands in order to gain something from his essay; just the fact that he has many ideas of language.

When people read literary works and really get involved, thinking and analyzing, it seems like that’s all he wants because then they are interacting with what they had just read. Being involved with the literary work is a form of verbal art while poetry isn’t because everyone has a different perspective or attitude towards the subject.

I’m really sorry if none of this makes sense, I understood little bits and pieces and just tried piecing it together the best I could.

I chose to major in English (Secondary Education) because I always had a passion for it. I enjoy reading and writing, I find that I express myself the best when I write. Writing has always been a soothing method for me. When it comes to reading, especially reading a topic that really interests me, I find that I have a very difficult time putting the book down. There’s just something about it that I find so fascinating. In high school, I had the same teacher my freshman and junior year. She was a fantastic teacher, really loved the subject, and it was obvious she enjoyed teaching it. Her style of teaching really made me fall in love with the subject. We would read the assigned books, have class discussions, and participate in activities that would help us remember what we had just read. I also found that I excelled in English while I struggled in my math and science classes. English came to me more easily, I always felt as though it was more important to learn just because there are so many branches to English. After the basics in math and science, I just found myself getting lost and thinking, “When am I ever going to use this stuff?” Approaching the subject with an open mind has always worked out in my benefit. When it comes to reading poems, it’s ok to have your own views and opinions on what was just read. Most poems are up for interpretation which I find most exciting. There is no right or wrong. There is much more for me to learn, and I realize that I will always need to improve my writing, but I like the fact that there is always something more to learn to help me improve my work.

In past English classes that I have taken, we had focused on Shakespeare, Morrison, Dostoevsky, Dickens, and many more. In one of my English classes that I had taken last semester, we studied monsters and two pieces that we read were Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Beowulf. They both were very interesting and very much alike. You had to use your imagination while reading the pieces and because there is a lot of background information, the stories were very easy to believe and enjoy. Each author is very different and have their own ways of writing. Each literary work I have read have all been different and have all been able to capture my mind and make me think. I’m not really sure which authors seem to be conspicuously absent, maybe later down the road after studying English a little more in depth I’ll be able to tell.

Studying English has taught me many different things. I mentioned it earlier, but I love the fact that a group of people reading the same piece of literature, can have a completely different interpretation than the person sitting next to them. It’s interesting to see how others think and being able to learn from their interpretations is a great building block. I’ve learned that you sometimes need to re-read what you just read to get a better understanding of what is being discussed. I’ve also learned that the best thing to do when writing a paper is to go back and revise your paper as much as you can, it will only help in the end. There’s still a lot more to learn, but hopefully I’ll have my own class one day, teaching others everything I’ve learned through my English courses.