Twists in meaning
About language, social communication and invisible links
In a study in whales
ethology[1],
Gregory Bateson gave a definition of the concept of “meta-communication”. With
this, he meant to refer to any kind of communication that would help to define
the status of whales when they communicate (being aggressive or dominant for
example) instead of giving any other meaning apart from that of their
relationship – such as when facing a
potential danger for example. We developed this idea in previous works[2],
through the concepts of “social communication” (“communication relationnelle”
in French) and “meta-text”. The first concept refers to oral communication, the
second to written communication. In both cases the point is to study the links
between communicants in their speech –be it oral or written. It deals about the
“who am I speaking to” signals found in a “what I am speaking about” message.
Let’s consider the example of two runners who relax with some jogging in the hills after a hard working day. While they are running, they speak a bit about their day of work and how they feel. In the middle of their conversation, one of the two says “My legs feel heavy”. The conscious meaning- what the speaker is telling about- is evident. It is about his legs and his being tired. But, let’s assume that the speaker takes a look at his friend at the very moment he pronounces the word “heavy”, and that he says it slightly louder than the rest of the phrase. We could assume that, in addition to the first evident meaning, there is a second one, one that is hidden and subconscious. Maybe this word “heavy” is polysemic and presents two meanings: first of all it describes the state of his legs, but it may also qualify the other runner. The fact he is looking at the other one while pronouncing it can detach the word from its original context and apply it to another context : the listener is unconsciously said to be “heavy”, maybe because he runs too slowly or, let’s imagine, because he speaks too much about his work and does not give time to his partner to answer. This example of “social communication” shows how words can take a double meaning and , thus, help to define social relationship (who I am speaking to) at the same time they are used to speak about a different topic (what I am speaking about).
As for written communication, we can easily find other examples in texts : how will the author consider his “imaginary reader” (Umberto Ecco). Will he assume that the reader knows what he is speaking about or will he consider him as a beginner ? In French, will he show respect through the use of “Vous” or will he be familiar with the use of “Tu” ? (or “Usted” and “Tu” in Spanish ; “Você” and “Tu” in Portuguese). All these details about the relationship between the author and his imaginary reader are said to be “meta-textual” signals.
In both cases, oral or written, we use the polysemic nature of words : they can mean many things at a time, depending on the context we use to interpret them. But we can go even further and twist the meanings of words even more. In addition to telling us about the relationship between two speakers, communication can also let us know about their environment. Let’s take the example of our two joggers again. If we assume that a car passes by exactly when the speaker says his words and that he looks at (shows with his eyes ?) the car when he pronounces the word “heavy”. We can imagine that the double meaning is not in this case about the relationship with the other jogger but about their surroundings. Henceforth the speaker is actually delivering two messages at a time : 1/ he is tired and his legs are heavy ; 2/ the car hinders his breathing with its nocuous fumes. Language, in this case, weaves invisible links between the speakers and their environment.
We can generalise this example and imagine a place where many people are speaking –like in a restaurant. If someone, seated at table with a couple of friends, orders what he wants to eat, the waiter can answer using the word “good” while speaking about a special dish in the menu. But, with the same mechanism we’ve seen before, he can turn his head so that he shows someone else at an other table and apply the word “good” to him or to a joke that he just has made. Hence a unity is made out of the two groups of the two tables. Many words are said with a first and conscious meaning (what the speaker wants to say directly : “this dish is ‘good’”) but also with a second and unconscious meaning (the words link the speaker to his environment like the people at other tables of the restaurant : “this joke is ‘good’”). And this second meaning creates an invisible and very often unconscious link for all the environment.
We can compare language to a flash lightening. In the middle of a dark night, a storm puts light on a landscape. Each flash lightening, and thunder strokes which go with it, can be compared to words. Words have an evident and direct meaning : the point touched by the electricity of the flash lightening. But they also have a second meaning : the other elements of the surroundings highlightened by the flash lightening. Hence, flash lightening after flash lightening, the landscape comes out of the dark. Each word unveiling a set of new shapes, giving unity to the world.
[1] Vers une écologie de l’esprit, 1991,Gregory Bateson
[2] Le son et
le sens. De la musique dans les mots, 2003, Olivier Marty, Le Manuscrit. See also the
introduction of the web personal web site : http://voila.net/olivier.txt/index.html