The definition
It can be seen that in myth there are two semiological systems, one of which is staggered in relation to the other: a linguistic system, the language (or the modes of representation, which are assimilated to it), which I shall call the language-object, because it is the language which myth gets a hold of in order to build its own system; and myth itself, which I shall call a metalanguage, because it is a second language in which one speaks about the first.
Barthes Elements of Semiology (1967),
The signified in the relationship Barthes imposes is defined as “the mental representation of a thing. . .a concept” (42-3). It incorporates such elements as practices, techniques, and ideologies. It is this component of the triadic relationship which triggers Barthes’ discussion of metalanguages (languages about languages—that is, a discourse employed to make sense of another discourse.)
http://cltrlstdies.blogspot.com/2007/09/barthes-intro-signifier-and-signified.html
The problem
Barthes uses the discussion of denotation and connotation to branch off and further explore metalanguages, those discourses employed to speak about and analyze discourses. In this model, a language (in the linguistic sense) is a first-order language, and the ensuing metalanguage is a second-order language. The role of the semiologist, then, is to decipher the first-order language through the lens of the second, but in doing so there is a danger: just as connotation served as an extension of denotation in the system above, so too can each subsequent metalanguage serve as a segue into another and another, a self-sustaining and destructive cycle. As each language rises, another takes its place, “a diachrony of metalanguages, and each science, including of course semiology, would contain the seeds of its own death, in the shape of the language destined to speak it" (93).
Deconstruction is in danger of becoming a Meta-language?
(Chain of signification)
Discourse analysis: a Meta Language?
Lee B (1997)
It can be seen that in myth there are two semiological systems, one of which is staggered in relation to the other: a linguistic system, the language (or the modes of representation, which are assimilated to it), which I shall call the language-object, because it is the language which myth gets a hold of in order to build its own system; and myth itself, which I shall call a metalanguage, because it is a second language in which one speaks about the first.
Barthes Elements of Semiology (1967),
The signified in the relationship Barthes imposes is defined as “the mental representation of a thing. . .a concept” (42-3). It incorporates such elements as practices, techniques, and ideologies. It is this component of the triadic relationship which triggers Barthes’ discussion of metalanguages (languages about languages—that is, a discourse employed to make sense of another discourse.)
http://cltrlstdies.blogspot.com/2007/09/barthes-intro-signifier-and-signified.html
The problem
Barthes uses the discussion of denotation and connotation to branch off and further explore metalanguages, those discourses employed to speak about and analyze discourses. In this model, a language (in the linguistic sense) is a first-order language, and the ensuing metalanguage is a second-order language. The role of the semiologist, then, is to decipher the first-order language through the lens of the second, but in doing so there is a danger: just as connotation served as an extension of denotation in the system above, so too can each subsequent metalanguage serve as a segue into another and another, a self-sustaining and destructive cycle. As each language rises, another takes its place, “a diachrony of metalanguages, and each science, including of course semiology, would contain the seeds of its own death, in the shape of the language destined to speak it" (93).
Deconstruction is in danger of becoming a Meta-language?
(Chain of signification)
Discourse analysis: a Meta Language?
Lee B (1997)
No comments:
Post a Comment