Symbols and Meaning

We are a species who live through meaning. We use symbols to tie things, ideas, concepts, feelings etc. together. This means that; that means something else.There is a sound that matches a bunch of squiggles (called "letters") that "points to" something else. A sound symbol = a visual symbol = a "real" thing or feeling or concept, which may "stand for" something else which some of us may associate with something different again. This is how we communicate?!?

On CBC News tonight, a story about teaching infants who aren't deaf to sign because they can communicate through signing at 8 or 9 months, much before they can use their tongue and lips to enunciate words. Human children can use language before they can talk; they can sign at a very young age. Think of those months of frustration before we could get our parents and others to understand what we wanted, even though we had language tools.

There is some speculation that this early "languaging" can affect the brain and make kids smarter. The researcher warns that parents who take the trouble to learn and teach signing to their kids are also providing a rich environment otherwise. So the kids who were signed with at an early age having higher I.Q.s than the non-signing kids may simply be the result of having a richer environment and more parental attention.

What I find truly fascinating is how early and intense our need to use symbols for communicating is. Humans are the species who connect. We link. We construct meaning. We try to share meanings and symbols. We connect sounds with things to connect what we "think" with other humans. We connect in order to connect. Meaning is what we live for and through.

And it is never a simple one-to-one connection. There are tones, nuances, hidden links, and surprising new readings - because we can't read each other's minds. If we are both "coming from the same place" we may be able to communicate very thoroughly with very few words and/or signs. Vygotsky, I think, points out that couples who have long been together can sometimes know what their partners are thinking with almost no overt communication, but that is knowledge of the person and the situation more than "mind-reading."

Post-modernism, as I understand it, is fascinated by how we create meaning, how we communicate. The first book that really helped me understand how people use language was Word Play by Peter Farb, and what I remember most clearly is his example of how an authority figure could use language to demean to hold power. When someone implicitly "defines the situation" they rule. The "other" is ruled by the assumptions established.

Two people, angry at each other - Who is the aggressor? The one who tells about how the other hurt her feelings, or the other who is surprised by the accusations which don't match her memory of what happened? Is it simply a misunderstanding or is the one presenting herself as the victim of the other making a rather nasty power play? Who is the aggressor, the one who labels the other as an aggressor or the accuser? One signals innocence, and the other is the screen on which she projects her malevolence.

"She doth protest too much."

Symbols and interpretation = meaning, which causes actions which create more use of symbols and continuing interpretations, which all adds up to stories and plots.