[lit-ideas] Re: The Order of Aurality
- From: Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:14:29 +0000 (GMT)
Phil wrote:
In short, while
intentionality is a necessary part of language use, signification is
equally necessary. This, however, would expand our understanding of
what constitutes language use, including even music, with its
intentionality and repetition of notes. Music is possible only if
intentionality and signification are possible.
So, yes, we can consider birds as using language when they sing
insofar as we can discern intentionality and repetition. This would be
in contrast to, for example, the burbling of a brook or the whistling
of the wind through the branches of a tree.
>>>
Intentionality is -- as Derrida knew -- such a tricky term. How do we work our
way from the words of an utterance to an /intended/ meaning? As others on this
list will explain more eloquently the meaning of an utterance doesn't rest with
its most immediate, 'surface' meaning. This is why the meaning of an utterance
goes beyond the intended meaning -- however we arrive at the latter. Of course,
in legal discourse the notion of intentionality takes on a special
significance. Is it perhaps because of the increasing status of such discourse
as the primary legitimating device of the current socioeconomic order that we
now tend to /reduce/ meaning to intentionality?
Also, One doesn't have to enlist Derrida to question the status of
intentionality in meaning production. A bit of Foucault or even Barthes would
do.
At ease -- and meaning it,
Torgeir Fjeld
Oslo, Norway
http://independent.academia.edu/TorgeirFjeld // http://facebook.com/phatic
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
