In David Hume's essay, Moral and Political, he wrote, “Beauty
in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." This means
that the meaning of beauty is subjective and it is open to different ideas and
interpretations depending on the experience of the individual. The same concept
can be applied to the theory of language. According to John Locke, “the
imperfection of words is the doubtfulness or ambiguity of their signification,
which is caused by the sort of ideas they stand for" (817). The ambiguity
and doubtfulness that come from the words are caused by the different ideas
that the words can stand for. Therefore, the meaning of language is always up
for interpretation and it varies in meaning depending on the artist (writer) and
the audience (reader).
Mikhail Bakhtin focuses more on stylistics and characterization
of language. He says that genres are developed from stylistic modifications,
which derive from individual acts and artistic movements. On page 259 he
suggests that stylistic approach is a ”private craftsmanship" meaning
that the text is uniquely crafted by the writer depending on his style of
writing. This goes in accordance to Locke's theory of language that words are
only signs of internal conceptions of ideas (818) or "names" we apply
to ideas. Signs are culturally derived which means that one word or sign can
have a different meaning depending on the region in which it is being utilized
or the significance that is given to it by a group of individuals.
Later Locke goes more in depth mixed modes, which includes
simple and complex ideas. He said that complex ideas are “formed by the
connections among simple ideas”. To understand the concept of simple and
complex ideas he uses an example of the words sham, wheedle and banter. Locke explains that words fit
the idea that someone makes them stand for. The mind makes up names, which stand
for a collection of ideas. Words like sacrilege
or murder hold a significance that
could never mean the same on their own. The significance of words such as names
that are not intelligible is recognized as simple ideas.
Language just like beauty is subjective. What some might
think is beautiful others might now and some might understand the significance
of a word differently than somebody else. Beauty and Language have so many different
meanings, some are simple but for the most part, they are complex words to
define. Language can be a group of words or symbols that hold a special meaning
to one group of people but this is always subject to change dependent on its
intended purpose or the style of the language. In one of her books, Margaret
Wolfe Hungerford wrote, “Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder”. Therefore, beauty should not be defined by the socially constructed
definitions that have given beauty a predisposed significance. Just like beauty,
language should not be limited to one narrow understanding but rather extended
to an endless degree of meanings and interpretations.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic
Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U
of Texas P, 1981. 259-331, excerpted.
Locke, John. “From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.”
The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, Second
Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2001. 814-827.
Hi, Karla!
ReplyDeleteI like your explanation of the stylistic approach to private craftsmanship and Locke’s theory of language! It’s weird to think that everything we know (language-wise) has been created by us and is therefore only a construction of our ideas. Words are subjective, like you said, and I think that’s crazy to think that then every concept we know is simply a social construction, as well. Your rationalization of the diverse significations of different words is also interesting, because there are simple and complex words, but their consequences can be the difference between life and death, as in the case of “murder,” for example.
This all reminds me of when I say a word over and over again (why I do this, I don’t know) and it eventually almost loses its meaning. For example, you can say “tree,” “tree,” “tree,” and at some point, you are likely to ask yourself, “Why is it called ‘tree?’ Why not woterline?” (Just made that up. But you get the point?) If you haven’t tried it, I encourage you to! But you can use something other than “tree.” Your name is always a good one!