Revista Comunicación. Volumen 17, año 29, No. 1, Enero-Julio, 2008 (pp. 29-41) 29 Deconstruction and figurative language: An analysis of the way language works Karla Araya Araya Universidad de Costa Rica [email protected] Recibido: 19-XI-07 / Aprobado: 27-III-08 Abstract Resumen Far from discussing whether deconstruction is Deconstrucción y figuras literarias: Un análi- obscure, dogmatic or a problematic approach, the sis de la forma en que trabaja la lengua aim of this article is to demonstrate that the use of figurative language constitutes a clear exam- Karla Araya Araya ple of the deconstructive processes undertaken in El presente artículo tiene como objetivo prin- the processes of meaning-making. When people cipal demostrar que las figuras literarias, que tan try to express and share their ideas and feelings frecuentemente usamos para expresar nuestras about their world, language acquires more mean- ideas, constituyen un ejemplo claro de la forma ings than the literal ones. Firstly, a brief histori- deconstrucionista como utilizamos la lengua cal background on the development and interests para comunicarnos y para crear significados. of linguistics is provided to evidence the struc- Inicialmente, se realiza una revisión básica sobre tural view upon which studies and conceptions el desarrollo histórico de la lingüística in términos about language have been based on. Also, a theo- de los intereses de varias disciplinas relacionadas retical juxtaposition between structuralism and con ésta y sus visiones de la naturaleza de la len- deconstruction is developed in order to establish gua. Además, se desarrolla una contraposición PALABRAS CLAVE: the impact they have in the way language works teórica entre los postulados del estructuralismo y estructuralismo, deconstruc- through the use of figurative language. Then, an la deconstrucción para establecer el impacto que ción, figuras literarias, lengua, analysis –in terms of deconstruction- of some of estas teorías han tenido en la concepción de la lingüística, reconstrucción, the most common literary figures (metaphor, simile, lenguaje figurativo. forma como la lengua funciona. Seguidamente, se personification, paradox, hyperbole, metonymy, analizan y relacionan los principios deconstruc- synecdoche, allegory and idiom) is provided. cionistas con respecto a la naturaleza y uso de las KEY WORDS: Finally, it is concluded that using figurative lan- figuras literarias. Finalmente, se concluye que el structuralism, deconstruction, guage represents an act of deconstructing con- uso de figuras literarias representa un claro ejem- literary figures, language, ventional meaning. Literal meaning is destroyed plo de reconstrucción, debido a que el significado linguistics, reconstruction, to generate different significations to words and convencional de las palabras se destruye a partir figurative language. to the world. de las múltiples y diferentes significaciones que las personas asignan a éstas. 30 Deconstruction and figurative language: An analysis of the way language works INTRODUCTION: A GENERAL processes undertaken in the con- separate phonology from LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND stitution, creation, function and syntax, synchrony from dia- use of language. In this regard, chrony, child language from The study and perception of Joan Bybee ponders that adult language, and so on, language have been eclipsed by constantly bearing in mind the different principles linguistics Since language is such a that interactions exist that will and other disciples have devel- complex phenomenon, it has eventually have to be taken oped and proposed. Throughout been necessary to narrow the into account. We then go to the time, there have been many field of study to make it man- formulate theories for these attempts to explain the complex ageable. Thus we commonly domains –a theory for syntax, Revista Comunicación. Volumen 17, año 29, No. 1, Enero-Julio, 2008 (pp. 29-41) 31 a theory for phonology, a the- pand some other language proper- pioneers. He thought that “the ory for language acquisition- ties like arbitrariness, différance, inner form of language (innere knowing all the while that the duality, tension, discreteness and Sprachform) is a fundamental ultimate goal is to encompass socio-cultural constitution in the component of the human spirit all these subfields in one theo- study of language. Rather than and every language form, then, ry of language. (2001: 1) thinking of language as an orga- can be considered as a way to nized structural system, language characterize speaking groups” Even though the development has a social constitution that makes (Leroy 1976: 52). Author’s trans- of the linguistic field has been of it a very complex phenomenon. lation. In other words, language marked by different trends and As Joan Bybee states “language is the manifestation of the human interests, the main general cor- use includes not just the process- spirit. Far from developing a dif- pus conception about language ing of language, but all the social ferent position about the compo- has been maintained. Language and international uses to which sition of language, Humboldt’s has been considered an organic language is put” (2001: 2). The ideas had strong repercussions on composition; that is, a systematic historical development of linguis- politics which justified racist theo- construct. Most of language stud- tics has emphasized the function- ries. The premises concerning the ies have implicitly or explicitly as- ing and characteristics of language grammatical systematization of sumed that the construction and following the notions of derivation language were never questioned; use of language operate in struc- and essence –mostly- which has that is why, Humboldt “was inter- tural terms. Because the configu- supported a logocentric position ested in the structural differences ration of language has not tradi- about the world. among languages” (Leroy 1976: tionally questioned, the interests 53) Author’s translation. of linguists have been oriented to Since the eighteenth century, study the apparent structural com- linguistics has been marked by By the year 1870, the develop- ponents of language: semantic, the study of grammar. A lot of ment of linguistics took a different semiotics, phonology, phonetics, work was done under the sys- direction. This field grammar, syntax, and so on. All tematical approach proposed by these components of language ex- Panini. Arturo Agüero states that Abandon[ed] the romantic plain linguistic processes follow- the Panini’s grammar was based conceptions about the purity ing the theoretical precepts of their on a deep and detailed study of of the “primitive” language disciplines but taking for granted the grammatical components of and rejecting to do genetic the organized structural nature of language which main concern analysis of the grammatical language. The frameworks of these was “to analyze words in terms of forms; it is proposed that com- disciples are organized under the their parts (root, theme, heritage). parative grammar does not common sense assumption of lan- Such study was sometimes em- deal with the confrontation guage as a structure. By presup- phasized on everything related to of languages under an origi- posing that language implies an the formation of roots” (1997: 11) nal idealized system. Instead, organization of different elements, Author’s translation. The Panini’s it is a procedure that can be terms such as essence, truth, rea- meticulous work was developed used to reconstruct the history son and origin have been used to as a model in the field of linguistic of languages belonging to the venerate logocentric worldviews. studies. The result of such gram- same family.” (Leroy 1976: 57) matical view of language set the Author’s translation In this sense, it is necessary bases for comparative analysis to develop critical analyses that “working as a point of reference This new linguistic perception could open the field of linguistics … it proposed along with the was called neogrammar. August to some other possibilities about Sanskrit knowledge the birth of the Scheleicher’s work present the the chaotic constitution and use real linguistics” (Agüero 1977: 12) first scientific attempts to recon- of language. The assumptions re- Author’s translation. struct a genealogic tree among lated to the structural language- Indo-European languages; that is, organization need to be enriched Other approaches to study lan- the first theoretical formulations with other perspectives about lan- guage were related to the “spirit” about the evolution of language. guage functioning and usage as of speaking communities. In this Neogrammarians insisted that lan- those proposed by deconstruction; regard, Wilhelm von Humboldt guage was a collective product a view that could include and ex- is considered one of the main with a common root. They “main- 32 Deconstruction and figurative language: An analysis of the way language works tain the interest on the formal as- and sentences. In semantic –entity affected by the action: pects of language, the formal and analysis, there is always an cook- do not match their corre- material structure of words …; they attempt to focus on what the sponding semantic features. In se- consider that a meticulous study of words conventionally mean, mantic terms, a dog is an animate the actual condition of language rather than on what a speaker entity that does not possess human –from a static perspective- lead might want words to mean like characteristics as a cook