ððððĪ ðĢððĄðĢððĪðĪðð ð ð ð ðĄðĢð ððĶððĨðð ð ðĨððððĪ ðĄðððð ðððððĶðĪð ðĢðððððĪð ðððĪ ððĨðĪ ðððĪðð ðĄðððð ðĪð ðĄððŠ ð ð ðððððĶððð ðð ðĨ ð ðĄðĢð ððĶððĨðð ð ððĶðĨ ðððððĨððĨðŠ: ðĨðð ðĪððððððððĢ ððĪ ðĨðĢðððĨðð ððĪ ðððððĨðððð ðĨð ð (ðĄðĢð-ððĐððĪðĨðððĨ) ðĪðððððððð. ððð ðĪððððððððĢ ððĢð ðð ðĨ ðĪððð ððĪ ðððĶðððĨ ðĶðĄ ðĨð ðððĨðððĢ ðð ð ðĄðĢð ðððĪðĪ ð ð ðĄðĢð ððĶððĨðð ð, ðĨðððŠ ððĢð ðĨðĢðððĨðð ððĪ ððĒðĶðð§ðððððĨðĪ: ðĨðð ðĪððððððððĢ ððĪ ðððĢðððŠ ðĨðð ððĒðĶðð§ðððððĨ ð ð ððĨðĪ ðĄðĢð-ððĪðĨðððððĪððð ðð ððððĄðĨ.
-
âð ðĪððððð âð ðĻððĢð & ðð ðð ðžððððĪ
The
passage, here, critiques the philosophy of language underlying realism,
particularly in how it conceptualizes the relationship between signifiers
(words, symbols, or signs) and signifieds (the concepts or meanings they
represent).
ð. ððēð ððžðŧð°ðēð―ðð:
ð.ð ðĨðēðŪðđðķððš ðŪðŧðą ðĢðĩðķðđðžððžð―ðĩð ðžðģ ððŪðŧðīððŪðīðē:
Realism,
in this context, likely refers to a literary or artistic approach that aims to
represent reality as it is, without idealization or abstraction. Its philosophy
of language assumes that language directly mirrors or reflects reality. In this
view, language is not seen as a creative or productive force but as a system of
fixed correspondences between words (signifiers) and their meanings
(signifieds).
ð.ðŪ ðĶðķðīðŧðķðģðķðēðŋ ðŪðŧðą ðĶðķðīðŧðķðģðķðēðą:
The
signifier is the form of a sign (e.g., the word "tree" or the sound
/triË/). The signified is the concept or meaning the signifier refers to (e.g.,
the mental image or idea of a tree). In realist philosophy, the signifier is
treated as identical to the signified, meaning the word is assumed to directly
and unproblematically represent a pre-existing concept or reality.
ð.ðŊ ðĨðēð―ðŋðēðððķðžðŧ ðžðģ ðĢðŋðžðąðð°ððķðžðŧ:
The
phrase "repression of production" suggests that realism stifles the
dynamic, creative process of meaning-making in language. Instead of viewing
language as a process where signifiers actively produce or generate meanings
through their interactions, realism reduces language to a static system of
equivalence. Each signifier is seen as a mirror or equivalent of a pre-existing
concept, leaving no room for ambiguity, transformation, or the creation of new
meanings.
ð.ð° ððąðēðŧððķðð ðð. ðĢðŋðžðąðð°ððķðžðŧ:
ð.ð°.ð ððąðēðŧððķðð: Realism assumes a
one-to-one correspondence between signifier and signified. For example, the
word "cat" is treated as directly equivalent to the concept of a cat,
as if the word simply names a pre-existing reality.
ð.ð°.ðŪ ðĢðŋðžðąðð°ððķðžðŧ: In contrast, a
productive view of language (as opposed to realism’s static view) sees
signifiers as part of a dynamic system where meanings are generated through
relationships, contexts, and differences. For example, the meaning of
"cat" emerges not just from a fixed concept but from how it relates
to other words (e.g., "dog," "pet," "feline") in
each context.
ðŪ. ððŋðķððķðūððē ðķðŧ ððĩðē ðĢðŪðððŪðīðē:
The
passage argues that realism’s philosophy of language is limiting because:
•
It treats language as a system of fixed equivalences, where each signifier
directly corresponds to a pre-established signified. This ignores the
complexity and fluidity of how language actually works.
•
By doing so, realism represses the productive potential of language—the ability
of signifiers to interact, shift, and create new meanings through their use in
different contexts.
•
This static view assumes that meanings are pre-existent and unchanging, rather
than being constructed or negotiated through the use of language in social,
cultural, or historical contexts.
ðŊ. ðð
ðŪðšð―ðđðē ððž ððđðđððððŋðŪððē:
Consider
the word "freedom":
In
a realist framework, "freedom" would be seen as directly referring to
a fixed, universal concept of freedom (e.g., the state of being free). The word
is treated as a transparent label for a pre-existing idea.
In
a productive view, the meaning of "freedom" is not fixed but emerges
through its use in specific contexts. For example, "freedom" in a
political speech might evoke different meanings than in a philosophical
treatise or a personal diary. Its meaning is produced through its relationship
with other words, the speaker’s intent, and the audience’s interpretation.
ð°. ððŋðžðŪðąðēðŋ ððšð―ðđðķð°ðŪððķðžðŧð:
This
critique aligns with poststructuralist or deconstructionist views of language,
particularly those of thinkers like Jacques Derrida, who argued that meaning is
not fixed but arises from the interplay of signifiers within a system of
differences. Realism’s approach, by contrast, is seen as reductive because it:
•
Ignores the instability and multiplicity of meanings.
•
Suppresses the creative, transformative potential of language.
•
Assumes a direct, unproblematic link between language and reality, which
oversimplifies how humans interpret and construct the world.
ðą. ðĶððšðšðŪðŋð:
The
passage criticizes realism’s philosophy of language for treating signifiers as
mere equivalents of pre-existing signifieds, rather than as part of a dynamic
process of meaning production. This "identity" approach represses the
creative potential of language, reducing it to a static system of naming, which
limits its ability to generate new meanings or reflect the complexity of
reality.
#Sign #Signifier #Signified #Realism #Representation #Identity #Production #RosalindCoward #JohnEllis
Comments
Post a Comment