BubbaNub 1/22

For countless years we have been trained the rules and exceptions of English.  We have accepted in our minds that there exists a solid structure behind language, a rational and complex development of sounds.  However, from a critical perspective as de Saussure points out, these associations made between language and sound are ultimately arbitrary.  What is it then that distinguishes ourselves, and our linguistics, from other animals?  Surely apes, elephants, cats, dogs and tigers communicate to each other through their own signifiers of sound.  It could be clarified then, that we humans have the capability of precise language.  It is this assertion of both the signifier and signified that develops the more complex narrative of semiotics.  "Without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut consistent distinction between two ideas" (C, 5).  The concept of ghoti has made this point all too clear.  The inconsistency and arbitrary assertions made within our language alone shows that clearly sounds mean nothing in context, because it is the signs around us that dictate the majority of our readings.

One thing I have learned over the years is that the majority of people are liars.  Often we say one thing and do another.  In everyday life we are incapable of communicating merely through words devoid of signs.  The listener is required to constantly assess expressions, pictures, and even colors before they are capable of truly interpreting what the other is saying.  For instance, many of us have said throughout our lives, "I am fine" when our body language clearly says differently.  Constantly we are forced to evaluate more than just words to find the real meaning behind the cover.  That, in itself, is the study of semiotics.  Not just a study of signs, but perhaps one that can lead us into an examination of human nature.