This is where I see Longinus and Bakhtin coincide. One way that Bakhtin addresses sublimity is in his discussion about the role of the listener. “The fact is that when the listener perceives and understands the meaning (the language meaning) of speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude toward it… Any understanding is imbued with response and necessarily elicits it in one form or another: the listener becomes the speaker” (Bakhtin 68). An instance of the sublime could encourage a listener to become the speaker. He or she might talk or write about the interaction with the sublime. Encountering the sublime seems like it would be so awe-inspiring that a listener couldn’t help but acknowledge it verbally, in text or at least in his or her head. The sublime elicits a reaction in the listener.
March 5, 2012
The Sublime in Bakhtin
In class we came to the conclusion that sublimity is predominantly characterized by the intense impact an author’s words have upon the reader. Longinus illustrates this phenomenon by saying, “Sublimity… produced at the right moment, tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibits the orator’s whole power at a single blow” (Longinus 347). In the introduction, the authors explain, “Longinus sees [sublimity] as a quality that has a powerful emotional impact on its audience or, more specifically, an impact that awakens the audience members to their ‘higher natures’” (Longinus 345). I’m sure that, especially as lovers of literature, we can all recall a moment or many moments when we were deeply moved or affected in some intense way by literature. That is the reason why I am studying literature and plan to teach it in the future.
Example of "Form and Content"
I was reminded of Bakhtin's concept on "“form and content in
discourse are one” in "Discourse in the Novel" while discussing a new
installation at the art museum with some peers (261). The installation is "Urban Landscape: A Selection of Papercuts by Qiao
Xiaoguang." It features
several pieces depicting differing themes on the urbanization
of Beijing.
I was curious about some of the repeated images
across the pieces and asked my roommate from Beijing if she had any
interpretations. She explained that one of the Chinese characters featured in
the piece was a typical sign the Beijing government would use to mark
a building for deconstruction. Birds, also, often repeating in the pieces,
she told me, could stand for a certain species of bird that
the Beijing government was killing off due to
their devastation of farm crops.
Considering her interpretation, I was able to see
how the form and content of the piece work together. In traditional Chinese
paper cutting, an artist takes one sheet of paper and cuts shapes into it to
create depictions. This art form reflects how the Beijing government "cut
away" at natural Beijing in order to urbanize. By removing parts
from pre-existing "places", both the government and art form create new places.
The authorial intention of the piece appears to me
to be a desire to reclaim Chinese traditions in an urbanized China which are
being lost in its "cutting away" of the natural state. This intent
becomes apparent by considering both the content of the pictures and the art
form through which the pictures are presented. Without considering them together,
the form and content still have their own meanings. The form stands for
tradition, and the pictures stand for city life, but when they are stratified by the author, these meanings become juxtaposed and their differences apparent. Through the space created by this difference, the author's intent, a new meaning combing the two separate meanings, manifests.
Bakhtin describes
this kind of stratification as “…a hybrid construction...an utterance that
belongs, by its grammatical [syntactic] and compositional markers to a single
speaker, but that actually contains mixed within it two utterances…two
languages, two semantic and axiological belief systems” (304).
The artist is the "single speaker" in this instance. The form and content of the piece come together as the "hybrid construction."
Longinus and Barthes
When I was reading Longinus' On the Sublime I began to think a lot about Barthes' The Death of the Author. Longinus' and Barthes' arguments both seem to give a fair amount of agency to the audience but each in their own way and for different purposes. In Barthes' argument, the author is removed from criticism of the text in order for the text to stand up on its own. In this way the reader determines the meaning and quality of the text. Longinus has a very similar approach to criticism. He again gives agency to the reader but he uses the reader to measure an author's sublimity instead of using him gauging the quality of the text. We see this when he says "sublimity, on the other hand, produced at the right moment, tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibits the orator's whole power at a single blow" (347).We see the emotion of the reader in the "whirlwind" and this attribute is directly credited to the orator. So to Longinus, the reader's emotional reaction to the text tells a critic how sublime the author is.
It is interesting that Longinus and Barthes use the reader to reach such different ends. I think both theories can coexist even though they seem a little at odds with each other. The reader has a very specific relationship with the text. He can read it and interpret it and decide what it means, and this is done without acknowledging or considering the author according to Barthes. At the same time, though, the reader can determine the sublimity of an author just by measuring their own emotions according to Longinus. I picture a triangle (since those are getting so trendy) with the reader, author and text on each of the corners. "Reader" and "author" are connected by a solid line as determined by Longinus and his emotional connection between the author and reader. "Reader" and "text" are also connected by a solid line as determined by Barthes and the reader's agency to uncover text. "Author" and "text" would be connected by a dotted line. Their relationship now seems very complicated. I think that connection is implicitly sought after by most of the theorists we read and would require much more analysis than what I've offered here.
It is interesting that Longinus and Barthes use the reader to reach such different ends. I think both theories can coexist even though they seem a little at odds with each other. The reader has a very specific relationship with the text. He can read it and interpret it and decide what it means, and this is done without acknowledging or considering the author according to Barthes. At the same time, though, the reader can determine the sublimity of an author just by measuring their own emotions according to Longinus. I picture a triangle (since those are getting so trendy) with the reader, author and text on each of the corners. "Reader" and "author" are connected by a solid line as determined by Longinus and his emotional connection between the author and reader. "Reader" and "text" are also connected by a solid line as determined by Barthes and the reader's agency to uncover text. "Author" and "text" would be connected by a dotted line. Their relationship now seems very complicated. I think that connection is implicitly sought after by most of the theorists we read and would require much more analysis than what I've offered here.
A promise kept
I told professor Graban I'd relate intentional fallacy to Bakhtin. Here we go. Allow me to define intentional fallacy as described in the Bedford Glossary:
"The practice of basing interpretations on the expressed or implied intentions of authors...the critic's task is to show what is actually in the text, not what an author intended to put there" (Murfin and Ray 246).
Holy Cow. This totally relates to Bakhtin. My last post mentioned heteroglossia--the "double-voiced discourse" in the novel that reiterates the notion of utterances: what we say versus what we mean versus how we take it.
Intentional fallacy wants to combat this tendency by removing the "implied intentions of authors" and focusing only on what's actually written in the text. I find the problematic because, while they believe that it's not about "what the author intended to put there," they still must interpret the text within their own language. Therefore, a lawyer reading Hemingway isn't the same as a child reading Hemingway--even if they don't focus on the "intentions" of the author they're still making interpretations based on text. But we all read texts differently. Which means the critic, in a way, becomes the author. It's not what the author says, but what the critic means and how the reader takes it.
"The practice of basing interpretations on the expressed or implied intentions of authors...the critic's task is to show what is actually in the text, not what an author intended to put there" (Murfin and Ray 246).
Holy Cow. This totally relates to Bakhtin. My last post mentioned heteroglossia--the "double-voiced discourse" in the novel that reiterates the notion of utterances: what we say versus what we mean versus how we take it.
Intentional fallacy wants to combat this tendency by removing the "implied intentions of authors" and focusing only on what's actually written in the text. I find the problematic because, while they believe that it's not about "what the author intended to put there," they still must interpret the text within their own language. Therefore, a lawyer reading Hemingway isn't the same as a child reading Hemingway--even if they don't focus on the "intentions" of the author they're still making interpretations based on text. But we all read texts differently. Which means the critic, in a way, becomes the author. It's not what the author says, but what the critic means and how the reader takes it.
March 4, 2012
Utterances
I'm working through the idea of speech genres because I sense they're both necessary and important--especially to my 'intentional fallacy' definition. I'd also like to add that I'm currently very much under the influence of codeine syrup and Nyquil (super ill) so if this seems spastic it's because I've got the attention span of a peanut right now.
Recall that Bakhtin refers to 'heteroglossia' as an avenue by which to define speech genres. He explores the notion of 'double-voiced discourse' that derives from heteroglossia and determines that it serves "the direct intention of the character who is speaking, and the refracted intention of the author" (Bakhtin 324). Many of you may view this as irony. That's because, in most aspects of the word, it is.
I can listen to one of my music major friends discussing tri-tones and say "Wow. That is so interesting." The irony being it's not. Such is the realm of discourse. It's what we say versus what we mean versus how they take it. Now let's apply this to utterances.
In my children's literature lecture we discussed the idea of utterances as well. There's the locutionary utterance which refers to what we say (the words in and of themselves). Illocutionary refers to what we mean. And perlocutionary explores the interpretation of the verbalized or written utterance. I don't know how to cite this, but if anyone's interested just chat with professor Michael Adams. Great guy. Anyway.
In terms of speech genres this is relevant because it forms the framework from which Bakhtin's speech genre derives. He writes of two different kinds: primary ad secondary.
Primary is the simpler of the two. It's the external forces of communication or "rejoinders of everyday dialogue or letters" (Bakhtin 62) that form the secondary source which are "novels, dramas, all kinds of scientific research" (62). This is awful. I can't remember my point. I think I was going with--
Because the "rejoinders of everyday dialogue" make up the secondary source then the secondary source from which we read depends upon the different utterances from different people. Recall with heteroglossia there are different kinds of speech genres. The language of the lawyer differs from the language of the doctor which influences the primary source that creates the secondary. This brings me to intentional fallacy.
Please see other post.
Recall that Bakhtin refers to 'heteroglossia' as an avenue by which to define speech genres. He explores the notion of 'double-voiced discourse' that derives from heteroglossia and determines that it serves "the direct intention of the character who is speaking, and the refracted intention of the author" (Bakhtin 324). Many of you may view this as irony. That's because, in most aspects of the word, it is.
I can listen to one of my music major friends discussing tri-tones and say "Wow. That is so interesting." The irony being it's not. Such is the realm of discourse. It's what we say versus what we mean versus how they take it. Now let's apply this to utterances.
In my children's literature lecture we discussed the idea of utterances as well. There's the locutionary utterance which refers to what we say (the words in and of themselves). Illocutionary refers to what we mean. And perlocutionary explores the interpretation of the verbalized or written utterance. I don't know how to cite this, but if anyone's interested just chat with professor Michael Adams. Great guy. Anyway.
In terms of speech genres this is relevant because it forms the framework from which Bakhtin's speech genre derives. He writes of two different kinds: primary ad secondary.
Primary is the simpler of the two. It's the external forces of communication or "rejoinders of everyday dialogue or letters" (Bakhtin 62) that form the secondary source which are "novels, dramas, all kinds of scientific research" (62). This is awful. I can't remember my point. I think I was going with--
Because the "rejoinders of everyday dialogue" make up the secondary source then the secondary source from which we read depends upon the different utterances from different people. Recall with heteroglossia there are different kinds of speech genres. The language of the lawyer differs from the language of the doctor which influences the primary source that creates the secondary. This brings me to intentional fallacy.
Please see other post.
"Dude." "What?" "See that girl?" and other utterances
"Dude." "What?" "See that girl?" "Where?" "Over there." "Her?" "Yeah." "What about her?" "Well damn, just look at her. I would totally take her home with me just to sit on the couch and listen to Honky Tonk by Miles Davis as loud as the speakers will play on repeat until the vibrations of the music break the couch in two, sending us flying together at the center where, words long abandoned, we will tear clothes off as if the couch had split due to some world-ending catastrophe." "You would?" "Bet yer ass I would."
What is an utterance and what is it's value? The brief dialogue above contains a number of utterances that were never spoken, which only ever existed within my own conscious mind and now in text. I could have kept going because the final utterance could be paired with a response.
Bakhtin grappled with the nature of the utterance and its place in interpreting speech genres. He said that utterances are the vehicles through which "language is realized" (60). His idea of what an utterance is, however, was never entirely nailed down. He suggests that utterances may span from complex forms such as the novel to single words. He emphasizes the role of the actively responsive listener in relation to the speaker, claiming that the unit of an utterance is defined by the boundaries of the change of spaking subjects. Speaking subjects may shift within a single text by a single author and may shift from sentence to sentence, Bakhtin says. So, though I do not remember him ever saying this explicitly, an utterance is that which can be recognized by an actively responsive listener as something which may be responded to. As seen above, this may be as simple as a single word or as a complex (run-on) sentence. Taken out of context, however, one of these utterances will not be recognized as an utterance which warrants a response. For this reason Bakhtin says, "any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of other utterances" (69). This natural quality of utterances, which are the foundations of all speech, lends itself to the manifestation of speech genres.
Longinus and Bakhitn
In my reading of Bakhtin's "The Problem of Speech Genres", I understood that the role of the listener is to struggle toward or against identification with the speaker, and also that this relationship is the silent function that works through Longinus' understanding of sublimity. Longinus' failure to name this principle, however, causes unanswered gaps in his treatise.
Bakhtin claims that the speaker "does not expect passive understanding that, so to speak, only duplicates his own idea in someone else's mind. Rather, he expects response, agreement, sympathy, objections, execution, and so forth." (Bakhitin 69)
Longinus understands sublimity through the active relationship--the speaker's communicated message and the listener's response--between the listener and speaker identified by Bakhtin in his discussion of emotion: "Some people often get carried away, like drunkards, into emotions unconnected with the subject, which are simply pedantic invention. The audiences feels nothing, so that they inevitably make an exhibition of themselves, parading their ecstatises before an audience which does not share them." (Longinus 348)
Here, the "subject" acts simiraly to Bakhitkin's "speech genre." It tells the audience what kinds of emotions to expect from the author and what kind of attitude they should take toward those emotions. When a speaker fails to exemplify those emotions, he fails to illicit any kind of emotive response from the audience. Successful communication therefore relies on the author's awareness of the listener's potential response, and sublimity relies on that response "agreeing" with the speaker's utterances.
Longinus, however, mostly studies this relationship from the perspective of the author. I found this exemplified in his dicussion of "visualization: “Had it not been up among those heavenly bodies and moved in their courses, he could never have visualized such things” (Longinus 356).
Originally, I had mistakenly thought that the "he" of the sentence was the audience, but reading it over again, I realize that the "he" is the author. Longinus is explaining how the author visualizes his own internal realities through words. He claims visualization is "the situation in which enthusiasm and emotion make the speaker see what he is saying and bring it visually before his audience" (356). The audience's role in visualization is left unexplained in this discussion. Longinus never addresses the transfer of the author's visualization to the audience's responding visualization of the same idea. How the audience comes to accept or see this visualization for themselves is a relationship never explicitly identified by Longinus.
Bakhtin claims that the speaker "does not expect passive understanding that, so to speak, only duplicates his own idea in someone else's mind. Rather, he expects response, agreement, sympathy, objections, execution, and so forth." (Bakhitin 69)
Longinus understands sublimity through the active relationship--the speaker's communicated message and the listener's response--between the listener and speaker identified by Bakhtin in his discussion of emotion: "Some people often get carried away, like drunkards, into emotions unconnected with the subject, which are simply pedantic invention. The audiences feels nothing, so that they inevitably make an exhibition of themselves, parading their ecstatises before an audience which does not share them." (Longinus 348)
Here, the "subject" acts simiraly to Bakhitkin's "speech genre." It tells the audience what kinds of emotions to expect from the author and what kind of attitude they should take toward those emotions. When a speaker fails to exemplify those emotions, he fails to illicit any kind of emotive response from the audience. Successful communication therefore relies on the author's awareness of the listener's potential response, and sublimity relies on that response "agreeing" with the speaker's utterances.
Longinus, however, mostly studies this relationship from the perspective of the author. I found this exemplified in his dicussion of "visualization: “Had it not been up among those heavenly bodies and moved in their courses, he could never have visualized such things” (Longinus 356).
Originally, I had mistakenly thought that the "he" of the sentence was the audience, but reading it over again, I realize that the "he" is the author. Longinus is explaining how the author visualizes his own internal realities through words. He claims visualization is "the situation in which enthusiasm and emotion make the speaker see what he is saying and bring it visually before his audience" (356). The audience's role in visualization is left unexplained in this discussion. Longinus never addresses the transfer of the author's visualization to the audience's responding visualization of the same idea. How the audience comes to accept or see this visualization for themselves is a relationship never explicitly identified by Longinus.
The "Wealth" of Speech
Bakhtin definitely managed to generate quite a bit of confusion last class, and I have to admit I am not exactly innocent of this confusion myself. So in an effort to understand a bit more, I am going to try to focus on only a small concept within the essay.
The part of the essay I am most interested in is when he writes, "The wealth and diversity of speech genres are boundless because the various possibilities of human activity are inexhaustible, and because each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire of speech genres that differentiate and grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex." (Bakhtin 60) I really like this idea that speech genres are essentially endless because human activity is inexhaustible. I think that this is a kind of complex way of saying that with so much potential for activity, there must be equal outputs. Thus, we have developed many speech genres to fit our needs.
It also seems that Baktin believes that an individual should have an understanding of all speech genres. That is to say, one should be well-versed in areas from daily dialogue to the most complex form of writing, and one should also understand the differences between the two (simple and complex) forms of speech genres.
I guess that what I don't understand is how we can be expected to develop and understanding of all of these genres, when Bakhtin himself calls them "boundless?"
The part of the essay I am most interested in is when he writes, "The wealth and diversity of speech genres are boundless because the various possibilities of human activity are inexhaustible, and because each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire of speech genres that differentiate and grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex." (Bakhtin 60) I really like this idea that speech genres are essentially endless because human activity is inexhaustible. I think that this is a kind of complex way of saying that with so much potential for activity, there must be equal outputs. Thus, we have developed many speech genres to fit our needs.
It also seems that Baktin believes that an individual should have an understanding of all speech genres. That is to say, one should be well-versed in areas from daily dialogue to the most complex form of writing, and one should also understand the differences between the two (simple and complex) forms of speech genres.
I guess that what I don't understand is how we can be expected to develop and understanding of all of these genres, when Bakhtin himself calls them "boundless?"
Bakhtin, A Small Dabble of Implication
Utterances are “relatively stable” according to Bakhtin and these stabilities form “speech genres” (60, Bakhtin). Speech genres themselves fall into two categories: “primary (simple) and secondary (complex) speech genres (Bakhtin, 61). According to Bakhtin, the secondary speech genres “lose their immediate relation to actual reality” (Bakhtin, 62). Their reality, from what I can tell, is based in their “event.” That is to say that these types of speech genres function “as a literary-artistic event and not as everyday life” (Bakhtin, 62). Essentially, he is proposing that a secondary speech genre is a single utterance as a whole collective work. Since utterances are a kind of response to outside forces (whether that be people or events) to Bakhtin, the novel (or letter even) is a kind of response.
This is massively important for literary criticism, as is much of what I am to explore next. The previous propositions set up a frame of inquiry for what is to come, which I will explain. Basically, Bakthin proposes all of this and then says, “Any utterance…is individual and therefore can reflect the individual speaker…that is, it possess individual style” (Bakhtin, 63). Really that seems rather obvious, especially given that every teacher I have had since the fifth grade has emphasized the use of “voice” (which I still don’t really know how it is possible to teach. “Be yourself” is a strange thing to grade). However, It is important nonetheless.
Bakhtin also proposes that “the most conducive genres [to individual style] are those of artistic literature” (Bakhtin, 63). This also seems intuitive, but it is again important. The implication of all this information is that the author has a voice. If the author has a voice, then he has some level of control over his language, even if it only goes as far as staking out a place for himself. In fact, “various genres can reveal various layers and facets of the individual personality, and individual style can be found in various interrelations with the national language” (Bakhtin, 63). By this proposition we can say that voice can give evidence into some kind of psychological realm, at least in regards to the author.
However! More importantly, as an event and utterance, literature can interact or impact “the national language” (Bakhtin, 63). This is incredibly important and also incredibly evident. As Bakhtin points out, listeners (and by extension, readers) are not passive (Bakhtin, 68). We know that literature can impact language. The term “cyberspace” was more-or-less invented by William Gibson. It has now become a common idea and word to describe the area of the Internet. Thus, novels and really any utterance can affect other speech genres. It can also provide useful clues to interpretation, such as the psychology of the person who wrote it. If some level of this psychology can be understood, it would be easier to offer a more concrete interpretation of their work. Although that gets into the “intentional fallacy” which I have heard of before, despite the fact that the reading for it was cancelled.
Icon: The Malleable Form
Icons have a distinct advantage over words in their ability to evolve quickly over time. While words can and do change over time, the process of their alteration takes place over much larger timescales than icons. The malleability of icons is evident in Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, through the icon of Marji herself. As the story progresses our understanding of her image grows to encompass all it encounters from frame to frame. She becomes a flowing symbol of personality. Marji grows to stand as a part of Marxism, sexism, racism, and prejudice held in her image. Words are not capable of holding as much detail as an image. Pictures are indeed worth more than words, in the sense of information held. Persepolis is a sort of autobiography for Marjane, and as such it chronicles her life and growth. So, we can travel through a lifetime in Persepolis, and with each frame more information is packed into the image of Marji. This phenomenon is not limited to the scope of Marji, but all of sequential art and beyond. A familiar form absorbs its surroundings from viewing to viewing, and begins to be associated them. A words meaning can be drawn from the surrounding text, but cannot encompass as much as an image. What Persepolis teaches us about icons as language is that they have a great capacity to encompass and evolve with information rapidly, as well as be a more relatable medium than words, but at the loss of potential interpretations.
Language: A Comical Concept
A language is any set of stimuli used or conceived as a method of communicating. Within human language, there are various sub-languages. In nearly all human languages, one will find text and images. However, it is easy to see a difference in the amount of information each can provide. Why is this? What are the trade-offs between words and symbols, images, and icons? I believe the difference is in the amount of moving parts, there is simply less to go wrong in the translation of an image than a text.
Text is taken in and processed as a word, then relayed through the various connections in the brain until it is associated with the concept for which it stands. Without a doubt, one will almost always think of associated images during this process. The image or stored visual representation is much closer to the concept for which it stands than the word. From point A to point B, a word must cover more ground to generate understanding than an image. However, when viewing an image it is hard not to think of words associated with it. With words, the images associated are almost always fewer than the amount of words associated with an image. In this way, images are almost a compressed language or a collection possible understandings. Moreover, they allow us an almost universal medium for communication. "As the twenty-first century approaches, visual iconography may finally help us realize a form of universal communication" (McCloud 58). I believe the approachability of iconographic language is due to its compressed nature. However, with the potential for universality there are trade-offs. There is less room for interpretation with images. There is room for interpretation between frames in a comic, but far less than the empty spaces between words in a text. In a text, the reader also takes on the role of creator, and fashions the story to meet their understanding of words. In a comic, the reader also takes on this role, but to a lesser extent. Most of the work has already been done for the comic reader, there is less room for interpretation, and consequently a greater capacity for universality. Freedom for interpretation is traded for capability of understanding.
Text is taken in and processed as a word, then relayed through the various connections in the brain until it is associated with the concept for which it stands. Without a doubt, one will almost always think of associated images during this process. The image or stored visual representation is much closer to the concept for which it stands than the word. From point A to point B, a word must cover more ground to generate understanding than an image. However, when viewing an image it is hard not to think of words associated with it. With words, the images associated are almost always fewer than the amount of words associated with an image. In this way, images are almost a compressed language or a collection possible understandings. Moreover, they allow us an almost universal medium for communication. "As the twenty-first century approaches, visual iconography may finally help us realize a form of universal communication" (McCloud 58). I believe the approachability of iconographic language is due to its compressed nature. However, with the potential for universality there are trade-offs. There is less room for interpretation with images. There is room for interpretation between frames in a comic, but far less than the empty spaces between words in a text. In a text, the reader also takes on the role of creator, and fashions the story to meet their understanding of words. In a comic, the reader also takes on this role, but to a lesser extent. Most of the work has already been done for the comic reader, there is less room for interpretation, and consequently a greater capacity for universality. Freedom for interpretation is traded for capability of understanding.
Communicating Language
One of the most interesting aspects of Bakhtin's essay on speech genres is this notion of the units of language becoming realized in communicated language. When I say "realized" I don't mean that language is contingent upon it's ability to be communicated, but rather that language is able to be demonstrated through communication because the units of language exist independently of communication. He writes "the language collective, the plurality of speakers, cannot be ignored when speaking of language, but when defining the essence of language this aspect is not a necessary one that determines the nature of language" (68). He divides the way we communicate language into active (speaker) and passive (listener) roles. But these roles are insufficient because all speakers are respondents to one degree or another. "An he presupposes not only the existence of the language system he is using, but also the existence of preceding utterances - his own and others' - with which his given utterance enters into one kind of relation or another" (69). Thus all speech is reaction, and in relation, to another set of utterances attributed to various individuals. This seems contradictory to the notion that the essence of language is not contingent upon a plurality of speakers because the relationships between utterances and individuals is inescapable when discussing speakers (and even speakers who have no listeners; internal language meant for reflection). While it is true that the things which language signify exist independently of language, does language itself exist independent of speakers and the plurality of voices that give it shape? Or is language a tool, with a defined essence, that speakers use in order to signify and communicate objects and things? Can we understand language outside of communication, if even our internal communication is inevitably a response to a series of individual utterances?