Gary-Saussure

Please toss me a stick....I'm up to my neck in quicksand and I'm only on page one! Fortunately my language has developed enough for someone to understand my cry for help. Saussure says that "Without language, thought is a vague uncharted nebula". I agree, but I feel that there are many extraneous differences that create language.

Saussure says that "Language is a system of independent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others". I agree somewhat but I feel that language can be conveyed by other factors besides the comprehension of individual or groups of words.

A simple example would be with the use of tone. The tone of our speech can be used to convey ideas. For example, lets assume you are addressing a dog, who for the most part is incapable of comprehending human language. If I ask him softly and gently, "Why did you chew up my postmodern culture book?", he will tilt his head and look confused. If I yell the same phrase with the chewed remains in my hand, he will receive the "signified and signifier" directly and tuck his tail between his legs and run. Same words, but a different tone, and as Saussure points out, the phonic differences make this word distinguishable from all others.

Saussure says that "it is impossible for sound alone, a material element, to belong to language". Is this true of today's developed languages, or does it reflect an idea for the early stages of language? Our words today are basically formulated sounds. When I speak to another person, they usually understand what I am saying. In essence, they can comprehend my sound since they are trained to receive the same sounds. Sound is what makes up our language for most basic conversations. If we were standing next to each other, we may be able to use sight and smell to interact with what we are talking about. A good example for this point is the cell phone. The only thing that we have in common on the phone is sound. Again, these sounds are common between us, because they are formulated into a language that we understand, but they are still basically sounds.

Early portrayals of human interaction shows one caveman grunting or shrieking at another. This is a series of sounds that represented their language. Even though hundreds of years has passed, if a guy has a big wooden club and begins grunting at me....I'm sure that I can guess what it means. Many animals communicate with growls or barking. These sounds make up their language, and the tone and level of these sounds express their intensity. We as humans tend to do the same as we change our tone to reflect our intensity or mood. Although many elements form language, I agree that a sound alone cannot be a language, but it can certainly be an intricate member of the language. It just has to be connected with a particular action. Throw me a stick, I'm drowning in postmodern theory!