meaning and significance

8/13/2019 Meaning and Significance

1/11


2/11

discourse the text, otherwise a dead structure, becomes known

through the act of reading ' it is enacted.

lthough a harmonious unity between the worlds of writer and

reader and the structures of coherence mediating between audience

and author, on one level, and nature irrational, incoherence,dreams( and culture rational, signs and symbols( on another level

seems granted in the presence of discourse, their situation in

dichotic relationships must be signaled) irrational!rational,

chaotic!coherent, non*meaning!signs and symbols. +hese

relationships are made fluid once they are embedded in discourse,

which meaningfully articulates structures of signification.

hat Beckett's trilogy prompts us to consider is the inner being

contribution to the events enacted in discourse, resulting from the

former's associations with structured reality. +hus the voice in The

Unnamablecan be seen as a literary event in which textualstructures are enacted in discourse.

2.Nature and Literary Discourse

In order to investigate nature Beckett exposes in his work the

frames within which the two events of being and of signification

and symboli-ation( are produced.

or Beckett, nature is dis(placed between intervals when the

faculty of reason is asleep, and when it is active. /ature isapprehended differently, at distance from reason metaphorically(

and from within reason metonymically(.

/ature belongs to a realm beyond rationality, and therefore beyond

such organi-ation as would coherently establish human identity.

0et we may reasonably assume that the substance nature is made

of inheres in what is called the human nature. fine distinction

between nature as a realm of indifferentiation and human nature,

which, although partaking in the former, allows the articulation of

theI must be made. This articulation acknowledges nature and

renders it as matter for formalizing attempts. The forming ofnature, recogni-ed as substance through the articulation of theI,

into expression 1I1( is not controlled by the individual human

being theI(.

ccording to 2eirdre Bair, Beckett claimed that) 'I don't know

where the writing comes from and I am often quite surprised when

I see what I have committed to paper' Bair in 3ennedy) #45, #6&6(

+he ruling idea behind Beckett's literary works seems to be that the

shaping of nature is controlled by what is collectively inherited and

shared in cultural tradition as structured rational discourse throughan assumption which both creates and undermines humanity.


3/11

7umanity is thus rendered conceptually at the expense of theI.

S!S n" #$, p.#%6

In his critique of Beckett, ndrew 3. 3ennedy asserts) '+he feeling

of direct immersion, in a wholly verbal universe gone wrong, is

1created1 in the trilogy, where all experience is filtered through or

refracted by the words of the first person narrator's diminishing

self.' 3ennedy) #4&, #6&6(

+he 1I1 of humanity is the 1I1 of the discourse of reason and of

literary discourse(, a double of theIarticulating human nature ' and

its expression.

+hese expressions can be grasped in reading as nature can be

remembered. 8emory, a faculty of reason, is involved in

acknowledging the events of nature. /ature itself can only exist in

its own present. 8emory gives it a place in time, a historical

dimension so that it is acknowledged and can be narrated. By

virtue of memory, literary( tradition is summoned to attend upon

expression thus shaping literary discourse.

9iterary discourse exists because reason works out human( nature

into something which humans acknowledge as un(familiar shapes.In a sense, the shapes of nature as they are remembered are

negotiated between reason and theI, with reason holding the

position of authority.

3. Meaning in Beckett's The Unnamable

/ature can be articulated in discourse. Its meaning can be

acknowledged through a process which involves a perception of

similarity. /arrated forms resemble shapes and phenomena of the

reality beyond discourse. The Unnamableis metaphoricallyordered in that it reas(sembles nature by articulating it as a voice.

+hrough its metaphoric order the discourse of The Unnamableis

brought closer to the reality of nature which is thus rendered

meaningful.

+he reality of theIis lived in its own present, is a*historical. +he

inner being is unique and irreproducible.

+hrough metaphors structured reality of the text( is breached, its

rational coherence cancelled even though only to be eventually re*

produced in a new order. 8etaphoric incursions in a realm beyondthat of reason make literary discourse share in such space where
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No13/Article4en.html#TOP%23TOPhttp://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No13/Article4en.html#TOP%23TOP


4/11

theIexists, where it encounters the presence of nature. 8eaning,

as rendered in The Unnamable, is the result of a negotiation

between the enacted staged( 1I1 and the beingI. If we locate being

beyond reason, then we must associate it with the unconscious

which is the realm of non* meaning(. Being becomes meaningful

when it is rendered substance for textual organi-ation in the realmof sub:ective consciousness. +he discourse of The Unnamable is

the point of convergence of the two realms, that of the unconscious

and of reason ; the very threshold, which both separates and

unites them. It becomes meaningful when its connections with that

space beyond reason, where from intuitive perceptions forming

relationships of similarity are pro:ected onto the text, thus

discovering its metaphorical order, are apprehended. +heI,

inherent in the voice of The Unnamable, thus becomes meaningful,

distanced from the realm of indifferentiation, aroused and

articulated yet impotent and non*signifying. +he voicedI

substitutes nature by assimilating it without naming it, withoutestablishing its identity and significance.

S!S n" #$, p.#. 2. 7irsch, ?r. in his '+hree 2imensions of 7ermeneutics'

distinguishes between meaning and significance. ccording to

7irsch)

'e, not our texts, are the makers of the meanings we understand, a

text being only an occasion for meaning, in itself an ambiguous

form devoid of the consciousness where meaning abides.' 7irsch)
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No13/Article4en.html#TOP%23TOPhttp://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No13/Article4en.html#TOP%23TOP


5/11

@5%, #6


6/11

meaning cannot be found in the signification process, in the

presence of discourse. 0et meaning can be found in the articulation

of discourse, sharing with discourse that which can be discovered

in its metaphoric order.

or meaning to become referable, in which reference culture isestablished, we must employ reason, to however little extent. 0et

in order to acquire meaning, situated within culture as we are, we

must negotiate it in the literary event.

4. Significance in Beckett's The Unnamable

I shall analy-e now the events of signification and symboli-ation,

taking place in the presence and under the reign of reason. +he

laws governing signification and symboli-ation belong to the realm

of reason. +hrough them theIis given place in the world, theiridentity 1I1( is established. It is through the laws of reason that

humans organi-e their nature into forms, formal categories, thus

establishing general truths. +he shaping of nature into forms

through reason appears to be deceptively under human control. It is

the 1I1 of literary tradition and of reason which institutes formal

structures. lthough these are inherited, pre*given, external, the 1I1

itself is more than a construct. It is a double, a form in whose

distorted embrace lives theI. +heIis manipulated under contextual

constraints to misrecogni-e itself as an 1I1.

+he voice of The Unnamablespeaks in this way)

'll these 8urphys, 8olloys and 8alones do not fool me. +hey

have made me waste my time, suffer for nothing, speak of them,

when, in order to stop speaking, I should have spoken of me and of

me alone.' Beckett) #6, #6E&(

S!S n" #$, p.#


7/11

existence as literary characters. +hey are expressions, names by

which theIis given identity and place in the ordered discourse as

an 1I1. +he voice in The Unnamablehowever cannot be deceived.

By stating it 'll these 1I1's( do not fool me'( it recogni-es an I

able to meaningfully acknowledge itself yet only able to signify to

the extent to which it becomes named in discourse.

+he voice of The Unnamablenegotiates its being between anIand

an 1I1.

It isIto the extent of refusing to be named, while being present. In

order to be acknowledged as anIit appeals to its incarnations from

MolloyandMalone Dieswith which it establishes relationships of

similarity, yet it requires a leap of faith on the part of the reader to

trust it is not an 1I1 while refusing to be anything else under a

name. It is through this leap of faith that we recogni-e the meaning

ofIas disembodied 1I1( in the metaphoric order of the textwithout attributing it significance, without integrating it

metonymically which would transformIinto an 1I1(.

9ike 2errida'spharmakos, the I, in order to be led out of the city

discourse walled in by contexts( and distilled into purifiedI, must

have already been the 1I1 within the city. +he voice in The

Unnamabledoubles for and supplements theI. It adds an 1I1 to it

in the attempt to make its presence full and complete yet it only

always presents fully but its own yearning presence. +o paraphrase

2errida, the voice in The Unnamablecannot be assigned a fixed

spotA sly, slippery, masked, an intriguer, the voice is neither of Inor of 1I1, but rather a sort of :oker, a floating signifier signifying

nothing by partaking in the discourse's metonymic order( but

articulating itself by partaking in the discourse's metaphoric

order(. /either a representative nor an imitator it merely mimes

itself thus putting into play the either!or betweenIand 1I1,

endlessly re*producing difference.

+he voice in The Unnamableis an 1I1, to the extent to which it

pronounces itself in discourse, thus allowing itself contained within

structures of contiguity, by which we recogni-e its presence, be

that only as 'the unnamable'.

By lending itself to discourse yet refusing to be named the voice in

Beckett's discourse partakes in a process which demands a finality

which can never be reached since naming by what requires a

reference which is denied would subvert the very dialectic of that

process. +hus the purpose of that process naming in discourse( is

in fact already defeated which defeats dialectic in order to lay bare

but its mechanisms. e are thus allowed a glimpse at theI,

distorted in the process of signification into 1I1. +he voice in The

Unnamableis neither unnamed nor named, it is unnamable, its self

I( trapped in the either!or of 'I can't go on, I'll go on'.


8/11

S!S n" #$, p.#


9/11

It seems that the discourse of The Unnamablenegotiates the

presence of meaning in daylight, into the human world.

Signification, like meaning, as a cultural event, is also the result of

a negotiation between the 1I1 of discourse and the beingI. If we

locate signs and symbols within the realm of reason then we must

associate them with consciousness. The Unnamableis the point ofconvergence of two realms, that of consciousness and that beyond

it, of the other, a threshold both separating and uniting them. +he

discourse of The Unnamableis able to signify to the extent to

which theIsurrenders to conventions of significance, thus limiting

the 1I1's competence to uncover essential meaning by reference

which always defers it.

S!S n" #$, p.#


10/11

negotiation between the realm of reason and that beyond it, the

unconscious. +he event's text is the interface which both unites and

separates the two realms, the interface between nature non*

human( and culture human( constituted through a process of

substitutions metaphors( and combinations metonyms( in the

realm of sub:ective consciousness, the realm where theIisarticulated and uttered forth as 1I1. +heIarticulates meaning in the

metaphoric order of discourse while the 1I1 establishes

signification in its metonymic order. 8etaphorically and

metonymically ordered, discourse negotiates a voice ' it becomes

uttered forth.

S!S n" #$, p.#


11/11

by which it lends itself as sub:ect of an event of culture in literary

discourse.

Bi!liogra"#y$

Beckett, Samuel #6$&(.Murphy, Houtledge, 9ondon.

LLLLLLLLLLLL #6E. 2., ?r. #6

meaning and significance

Documents