Literary Theory as a Theory of the Sign

By

Obododimma Oha

Literary theories generally try to help readers of literary texts to understand what they are reading but from a particular angle. We have been familiarized with many of these literary theories and their pursuits in literary science. Each, however, tries to show that it is better than some others in the science of the text. Yet we could view literary theory as not just a science of the text but as a theory of the sign.

What do we mean by this? The idea is that, whether we are looking at the text as a picture of life, whether from the writer as somebody talking, whether from the angle of readers as audience, whether from the angle of the text as the meeting point of signs, etc, we are exploring signs and signification at work. Literary theory is signification itself. So, it is trying to comprehend itself.

Endless Replacement of Sign with Sign:

One aspect I would like us to look into is the replacement of sign with another sign in definition, clarification, and interpretation. A sign is used in explaining another sign. This is often in literary theorizing. We think the sign in replacement is a better means of grasping a situation or action that another sign conveys. But it is more sign we have to wrestle with, and are helpless in our design.

Arbitrariness:

The next, which is typical of the sign, is that a sign that explores another is doing so arbitrarily. Every literary theory is not the natural guideline we must follow but an intervention of a form that represents.  In that case, we just have to be tentative and not couch our observations as absolute truth. It is still a case of what is arbitrary commenting on arbitrariness.

I believe that, along this line, Jonathan Culler was right in titling his book, *The Pursuit of Signs*. It is not that signs are running and one is pursuing them. No. Signs are chasing signs!

We return to one point that linguists have been making: that language, our sign system mainly, is species specific. Others would say that we are "homo  loquens" (talking animals). In that case, other beings outside our world may not be using our signs to communicate. So, literary theory being a theory that is based on our sign is to be expected, but we have to consider how it treats the sign.

It was Volosinov who once pointed out that the sign is a "site" for struggle. He was saying that

-- every sign is ideological
-- no sign is neutral or innocuous
-- every sign looks for an interest to cater for
-- if a sign is not directed towards a goal, a group will seek to use it
-- a sign always contains something to be conveyed, or a message and needs to be processed.

In that case, the person or item that processes the message matters. Who is processing it? What is the person's ideological inclination? Who chose or is using the sign? What are the users of the sign trying to do or "do to us"? Is part of a larger sign or design that we are aware or unaware of?

The Processor of the Sign:

Processing a sign involves weighing it, evaluating it, comparing it with other previously received signs, etc. Processing a sign is being critical in receiving it and noting how it affects us.

Processing a sign is taking it in, consuming it, reacting to it. It is not a passive or mindless consumption. The consumer has to be awake fully.

The processor or receiver of the sign may be the addressee or audience. It may be a third party or witness. What is crucial is the processing of the sign. This involves comparing what is received with the previously received. This comparison is a process of familiarization or recognizing the newly received. If the incoming sign is not recognized, there is a problem.

But can cause a sign not to be recognized?

(1) If the sign has no resemblance or relationship with the previous.
(2) If there is a relationship but it is not clear, or
(3) If there are obstacles to recognition, such as interferences, alternative meanings, vague meaning, or bad presentation.
(4) Conflict of meaning between existing sign and the incoming one.

This last point means that creators of signs and their audiences as imagined in literary theory have to be motivated and ideologically committed. Literary theorising cannot be done for its sake or for the joy of writing.

In case of the third above, obstacles are to expected to processing. Sometimes, they are deliberately created as part of literary enterprise. The creator wants to challenge our imagination. In order, there is a design to involve us in the literary enterprise.

Vagueness may be unintentional. It may be accidental or out of ignorance.

But where there is no relationship! This may be deliberate, anyway, just like asking us to find one. Obviously, it is in violation of H. P. Grice's Maxim of Relation. Let us hope that the relationship is not imposed. But if not, it can be seen as part of the creative activity involving signs.

Perhaps, we should add the independent sign or textuality itself. Is the sign complete when incoming? Is the text self-sufficient?   

Independent Existence of the Sign:

This is also a phenomenon worth considering. In literary theory, it is the independent existence of the text, an issue that structuralists and functionalists have argued about extensively. It has been claimed that the text can exist on its own. Well, can a sign exist on its own? It is for us to decide or to argue. Whether we can dispense with sign users or its context and just talk about the signifies and the signified. Anyway, the sign is an important category that critics also have to consider in discussing a work.

The Use of the Sign:

This is another important issue worth discussing. What use is made of the text? The text is something that can be used in many ways and it is for to discover them in our discussion. In other words, the signs are used in trying to accomplish something in society. What is that goal?

Every sign invites us to talk about its use in society. This means bringing users and context in. So, it is not enough to classify or describe the composition of a sign. How and where is it deployed? Does that involve other signs? Does that transform other signs?

Concluding Remarks:

In this lecture, we have briefly tried to locate what critics of literary texts do as a signifying practice. That has enabled us to examine some important dimensions of the sign: the issue of its independent existence and its use. It is important to react to these which have also featured in the scholarship of structuralists a lot.