Meaning, Language, and Time
Porter, Kevin J. Meaning, Language, and Time. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2006. Print.
SummaryPorter’s links the concept of "meaning" to the concept of "time." Early in the text, Porter distinguishes between two sorts of theories of meaning—"meaning apriorism" (17, 43) and "meaning consequentialism" (17, 53, 108). He argues apriorism is a problem, and argues for meaning consequentialism.
Porter organizes his analysis around the past and future: apriorism says that meanings lie in the past; consequentialism says they emerge in the future. He openly admits that he has no answer to the question, "What is meaning?" Most of the book is a critique of what he calls "meaning apriorism" organized about three "temporal principles" (47). His main argument seems to be that we must end "the neglect of the question of meaning" (16) in the field of rhetoric and composition, as the field "is uniquely positioned to pursue such a theory because of its interdisciplinary" (16). Further, we must "take a wider perspective, tracing as far as possible the myriad of ways meaning has been theorized" (16). ResponsePorter seems to assume that utterances, texts, and signs can mean something, limiting the meaning of an act to events that occur after that act. This seems to limit the concept of meaning.
In class we discussed how Porter suggests the meaning of a sign is its consequences. We spent time thinking about consequences as ripples; thus, meaning comes from the rippling effect. This was a powerful visual for me. At one point in class, someone said, "Meaning is a race we never win," while we were discussing page 54 of Porter's text. Dr. Murray went on to discuss the "myth of finitude," using the example of learning. There is never an end in learning, as we in academia can especially relate to. There is always more learning to be had. Connections/QuestionsWhat Porter calls the "principle of completion" (43) goes against Berthoff's claim.
Our conversation about meaning as a race we never win (54) and what Dr. Murray called the "myth of finitude" reminds me ofHeidegger's concept of enframing. Porter says, "An utterance has meaning only after its use" (53). This statement made me think of Langer's discussion on art. Something may still exist without evident meaning. |
Key Quotes
"The very act of rejecting the question of meaning requires that one has already answered to one's own satisfaction" (7).
"Understanding how discourse works requires understanding what makes discourse meaningful" (9).
"A reader's encounter with a text should be consequential, transformative" (25).
"The meaning of a sign is its consequences" (52).
"Communication is less a matter of sharing space ... than it is of sharing time" (55).
"Texts ... are experienced immediately" (112).
'The experience of time is, rather, a 'dissension' of the soul into its tripartite aspects of memory, awareness, and expectation” (72).
“There are limitations to what a representation represents; it cannot . . . represent its form as a representation, but can only display that form. This is the doctrine of showing” (93).
"Understanding how discourse works requires understanding what makes discourse meaningful" (9).
"A reader's encounter with a text should be consequential, transformative" (25).
"The meaning of a sign is its consequences" (52).
"Communication is less a matter of sharing space ... than it is of sharing time" (55).
"Texts ... are experienced immediately" (112).
'The experience of time is, rather, a 'dissension' of the soul into its tripartite aspects of memory, awareness, and expectation” (72).
“There are limitations to what a representation represents; it cannot . . . represent its form as a representation, but can only display that form. This is the doctrine of showing” (93).