Sunday, October 17, 2004

Shannon Weaver II

I have to say that the online class has a slight disadvantage on this one, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

The whole idea that meanings are not found in words themselves, but rather networks is rather interesting. This is to say that networks are what shape the meaning behind a word instead of a word shaping a meaning and then delivering it into a network. I would have to say that it makes total sense when you look at it. In a way I think it combines both Jakobson's point of view while incorporating that of Sassures (now take into consideration that I may be completely wrong and blowing hot air). To me it seems to combine the idea that there can be many different meanings per word and the idea that words may need subcodes to be understood and that by incorporating them together you can sort of get a network effect. Danielle points out that to understand the idea of this network, one really must understand the importance of subcodes. The networks give our words meanings while the subcodes can change from person to person or culture to culture. This allows the ability for meanings to be different in endless amounts of ways.

Melissa had a neat point when looking at the word God and its meaning to people and the origin that it is understood to be from. To a person who takes the word as holy it is very signifigant, but to someone who doesn't than it is just another word.

Everyone picks up words differently from the time they start speaking. Our words meanings however aren't shaped alone by each of us or even a group of us, but perhaps by the network of society and the connotations that each person places upon it the things they area given.


Post a Comment

<< Home