In the second reading "The Pleasure of the Text" Barthes explains the concept of tmesis, the "source or figure or pleasure." This concept opened my eyes to various new ideas. I had never thought of how different texts could be interpreted differently, i always had thought that texts such as poetry were open for interpretation but even simple phrases can have different interpretations. At first i thought this concept was an obstacle for authors who write novels or any text with a certain code, but different readers decode those novels in different ways. This may seem like an obstacle, but i think the open interpretation may be beneficial for the authors because more readers can relate to their novels with their own interpretations.
I also found this concept to be similar to that of de Saussure's linguistics. Both concepts reveal how different ideas, terms, texts, have different values to each individual, the signified is different to each signifier, just as each source of pleasure is different to each reader. Both concepts are very interesting and eye opening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I didnt mean to post that, here is my full post:
The second reading "The Pleasure of the Text" Barthes explains the concept of tmesis, the "source or figure or pleasure." This concept opened my eyes to various new ideas. I had never thought of how different texts could be interpreted differently, i always had thought that texts such as poetry were open for interpretation but even simple phrases can have different interpretations. At first i thought this concept was an obstacle for authors who write novels or any text with a certain code, but different readers decode those novels in different ways. This may seem like an obstacle, but i think the open interpretation may be beneficial for the authors because more readers can relate to their novels with their own interpretations.
I also found this concept to be similar to that of de Saussure's linguistics. Both concepts reveal how different ideas, terms, texts, have different values to each individual, the signified is different to each signifier, just as each source of pleasure is different to each reader. In de Saussure’s reading he explains, “the role of language with respect to thought is not to create a material phonic means for expressing ideas but to serve as a link between thought and sound.” When I began reading this text I was very confused as to what de Saussure was trying to explain, I had trouble understanding between value and signification (and still am a little!), but at the end of the text I began to clear up. Just as Barthes explains tmesis, de Saussure shows the difference in values between terms, such as when he explains the difference between he French word “mouton” and the English word “sheep.” He explains that in both languages the word has the same signification but different value, “speaking as a piece of meat read to be served on the table, English uses “mutton” and not “sheep.” The words signify the same thing, but because the word English “sheep” has a second term and the French doesn’t their values differ. Both these concepts are similar and quite eye opening to my views of linguistics and textual interpretation.
There are some good points bought up in your blog and I'm glad you revised your old blog to elaborate on some of these ideas. I like how you use CMC terms with describing the way we interpret language. Just to expand on your ideas a little, I ask: if language is decoded differently on an individual level, why do you think there are many cross-cultural understandings of words and phrases (such as your English vs French example)?
Smiley Face :)
Post a Comment