Structural Importance

"the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35)

While much of what Saussure writes did not hold particular value or meaning to me, I was somewhat intrigued by his concept of the “bond between the signifier and the signified.” As Saussure says, this bond is completely arbitrary. His comparison of the front and back of a piece of paper being the signifier and the signified was very fitting. Even if I try not to carry a certain connotation with a sound, my brain connects the sound to the meaning. What is even more intriguing is the fact that certain sounds can carry with them meanings far beyond the base definition of the word. For example, to take a “signifier” that has been altered lately, I think of the words Barry Bonds. This is merely a name, does not hold a definition, and yet when I hear it, my brain immediately has a connection. I think of steroids and dishonesty. The fact that a signifier is not only connected to a definition but is in fact responsible for word associations plays an important part in the method we use to choose such signifiers. One example of how this is used in every day life is in trial law. While a prosecutor might not be able to refer to the defendant using inflammatory and suggestive language, he is allowed to use words that carry negative connotations with them. Lawyers know that these signifiers have an arbitrary bond with the signified, which will lead jury members to lean toward the nature of the signified language. This concept is key to Saussure’s method of breaking down language because his point was that the placement and structure of a word carries with it the meaning.