“Ronald Schleifer argues that the shortening of the distance between the signifier and signified, together with the emphasis on the materiality of language- both common to all poetic phenomena- are also features of Tourettic language. Thus, the connection between linguistic and motor activity discernable in the involuntary utterances and mechanical echoings of Tourette’s would resemble the fascination with soiund and language’s rhythms, rhymes, and repetitions inherent to the poetic funcation of literary language” (340-41).
After listening to what Michael and everyone else shared in class about this quote, and mulling over this quote for a bit, I realized that I might have been wrong in my initial assessment of the phrase, “shortening of the distance between the signifier and signified,” as garbage. Professor Tougaw mentioned that Lionel’s brain “proliferates” a bevy of additional signifiers upon seeing a new signified object. Perhaps what Ortega and Vidal are saying about the “involuntary utterances and mechanical echoings of Tourette’s” is that they, in their endless proliferation and repetition, reach the verge of not having any tangible equivalents. Once they pass that verge, the creations of the Tourettic brain shorten the gap between signifier and signified by creating signifiers that define themselves solely by the sound and utterance of these new words. The signifier is essentially an end in itself.
I also managed to further my understanding of the notion of selfhood/brainhood. In discussing the “phenomenological, affective, and embodied dimension of memory,” I understood that memory can be stored and recalled in a way that extends past the reaches of the brain itself. There are multiple instances of Lionel’s tics “plucking,” waiting behind “a straining dam,” “rising,” and “mangling” his speech, and him “squelching,” “quelling,” and soothing his Tourettes. The importance of all these words is that they describe the actual phenomenology of his Tourette’s and his physical, tangible response to his Tourette’s in these instances.
So I was trying to figure out that argument as well, the “shortening of the distance between the signifier and signified.” part. And yes, that’s a terrible sentence to write, because it’s really unclear as to what is being meant. I like your analysis, but I think I read the argument a different way. Rather, I see the Tourettic tics/involuntary utterances as “shortening the distance” by falling into some kind of nebulous space between signifier and signified. So the seemingly random words that are created are somewhere between signified (e.g., the original word that a Tourettic mind sees or hears) and the signifier (e.g., what the Tourettic mind is trying to convey, like the feeling of being in a state of anxiety and/or trying to relay associations that might be had with the original word). Although that might not make sense because of the confusion that arises from the word garbling, I feel as if there is a hasty, quicker way that the tics are indicating meaning and thus shortening distance. [Note: I’m not sure if that made any sense, and I’m probably completely off-base, but that’s my stab at it.]
I feel like I just tripped over all my words so … yeah. This is just an awfully confusing passage, so I wouldn’t even attempt to make any claim at being “right.” It would be interesting to see what other people have to say, though.
Brilliant conversation. You’ve both clarified the claim for me. Interestingly, that sentence has also been on my mind. I was thinking that perhaps the physicality of Lionel’s echolalia might put it in closer proximity to the signified. But I think both your points–that the signifiers refer to each other as much as they do to material objects and that they fall somewhere between standard signifiers and signifieds–are both on the mark. Maybe all three of these ideas can be true. Either way, Ortega and Vidal don’t express them, but you have!