Words and Meanings

So I've been thinking about Derrida's Under Erasure where the word is split between sign and meaning, and also thinking about how this concept could be applied at a systemic level possibly.  In a linguistic sense, the sign or the word remains but the meaning is called into question.  The notion is that the word is both written and erased at the same time.  But what does this really mean?  We need to use 'the word' in order to communicate what we're talking about but as [ ] (under erasure) signifies that we are resisting the word's agreed meaning in some way.  Yet even in resistance there remains an element of embedding.  For example, just as we resist the meaning of a word when we address it as under erasure we are always initially reminding the reader of that very meaning which we are resisting.  In this respect, prior to any production of a new or replacement meaning we are really reminding the reader twice about the meaning of the word.  Once when we intially mention the word and the second time when we resist its meaning.  Yet there remains a seed of disruption to our previous assumptions.  In future, we question the connection of the word and it's meaning in the particular instance we've experience but also with words and their meanings more generally.  And when 'the word' becomes associated with its 'new' meaning a new word and meaning connection gradually begins to take hold and the previous meaning fades to the background.  It is only when the void is replaced that we can really move beyond both the 'old' and the 'negation of the old'.

Words and language keep a concept alive, but there are instances where one reads between the lines and concepts can form where there is no word to articulate such a concept, or the word exists but its connection to the concept is unknown.  It seems there is a 'world' of free floating words that 'sink' and 'float' in terms of everyday usage, and also a 'world' of free floating concepts or thoughts which emerge and disappear.  Words and meanings swap and change over time, they change their partners, each group may also change its 'volume' or amount.  What's interesting is the neologism which occurs where two words each split and only use a portion of each to form a new word when combined eg. produser.  It is interesting to think about what occurs with regards to meaning here.  Is all the meaning of both previous and individual meanings retained?  This seems to be where negotiation and power come into play.  Perhaps it is a struggle for what meaning is to be included and excluded in the new word.

In everyday language we both reproduce and modify the meanings attached to words.  But then there's the notion of the loss of both the word and the concept.  There was a period where the meaning of 'dialectic' and the word were lost until revived by Hegel and adopted by Marx.  Similarly, Lenin recovered the word and meaning of hegemony which had been lost for over 2000 years.  Obviously, power, struggle and time played a role in both these instances with regards to both their disappearance and resurection.

Not only is there the 'volume' or amount of the denoted and connoted 'groups' as discussed above, there is also the 'volume' or amount of meaning held within the word ie. the power held within the word.  In terms of meaning, a word can be conceived as either laden or barren.  At different times and places, different people place different 'strengths' on particular words.  The words most laden with meaning at any particular point in time would be words associated with a wide and vivid field of connotation, the words which hold the greatest 'volume'.  Volume would be determined by such things as proximity, force, duration and reach.  Words at the face of contestation would be unstable and would become weaker and more watered-down.