Is the text merely an internal construction? And should its meaning appear on the surface? Consequently, does the relationship of the subject lie in the writer’s ability to formulate its vocabulary?
Souad Khalil | Libya
This article is presented in two parts due to the depth and complexity of the subject. The first part addresses the strangeness of the text and the structure of meaning, while the second part will explore the dynamics of style and writing.
Is the text merely an internal construction? And should its meaning appear on the surface? Consequently, does the relationship of the subject lie in the writer’s ability to formulate its vocabulary?
The text is not merely a rigid linguistic structure; rather, it is a living space in which meanings and visions intertwine, through which existence is transformed into a discourse that carries within it the imprint of human experience with all its contradictions. The strangeness of the text lies in its ability to transcend the familiar and to move from the ظاهر of language to its inner depths, where meaning is not granted directly, but is formed through a dialectical dialogue between the text and its reader.
In short, the question revolves around the structure of the text. In other words, there is a dialectical link between structure and significance. We must determine the nature of this link, considering that content is a final outcome that may be realized intuitively, but is not necessarily given.
In this regard, we find a study by Zuhair Ghanem on the importance of the text. He states that structure is the integrative form of the entire corpus. Structure cannot be of a single formation; rather, it is a connected chain composed of artistic and conceptual elements. We may differ in methods and causes, but in the end, results converge. This is because the text is a spirit that expresses a unified state or purpose. As much as the goal exists, the writer seeks to reveal it, to embody it, and even to affirm it. Here lies the issue of judging the writer’s ability to support and demonstrate their argument, idea, or theory.
If some imagine that the process of elevation is achieved through the use of “higher,” “more luxurious,” or even more complex vocabulary, then this perception lacks stylistic flexibility. That is, the ability of style to contain the inner dimension and to move it from the stage of shock—resulting from the absence of a dynamic interaction between theorist and recipient—into a stage of interpenetration, responsiveness, and dialogue, through the formulation of a logically crystallized structure.
Logic here constitutes a cumulative form of the geometric construction of the text. That is, the reader must reach a certain level of conviction, or a firm establishment of conviction in the mind, psyche, and thought of the recipient.
Regarding the relationship between the subject and its vocabulary, we must not forget the element of specialization, and the way in which the subject acquires style through the writer’s performative construction. By performance, we mean the expressive method; one may also call it stylistic expression, emphasizing the organic unity between style and expression. Here, the importance of language becomes evident.
In the 1960s, some scholars focused on language—particularly modern structural linguistics—and considered it a means of achieving an independent vision through systems of signs that operate synchronically. Ferdinand de Saussure is regarded as its foundational figure. However, this attempt neglected the modern historical perspective and remained confined within a latent temporal framework. This constitutes its greatest limitation, as the isolated sign did not fully integrate with language itself, nor did it align with historical continuity and transformation. In other words, it denied an essential issue: that language cannot exist in isolation from temporal movement with its dynamic and shifting intervals.
Although linguistic ideas influenced the Russian formalists, there remained a contradiction between structuralism and formalism. Formalism, while giving secondary attention to meaning, focused primarily on the laws and structures of literary texts.
Taking time as a fundamental factor means that the text itself becomes subject to the law of transformation and the hypothesis of change. Thus, any rule that asserts dominance in a given context will lose that authority in a different time and condition. The notion of fixed constants is inherently contradictory, as it is subject to shifting definitions and contexts, deriving its clarity from its capacity for adaptation within the continuity of time.
Time itself insists on movement forward, despite maintaining connections with what precedes it. Historical retrieval remains present in all cases. Knowledge, as a civilizational construct, is an accumulation of diverse and multiple formations. Its development did not occur spontaneously or abruptly, but through successive, interconnected, and complementary stages.
Knowledge is a continuous extension between a beginning and what appears to be an end of a phase—but not the end of knowledge itself. It is characterized by continuity and a particular capacity for addition, renewal, and innovation. Thus, knowledge, in its essence, is an ever-expanding quality without final limit.
(To be continued in Part-2 where the dynamics of style, clarity, and the communicative function of writing will be further examined.)
Read: When Dreams Drift, Drama Takes Lead
____________________
Souad Khalil, hailing from Benghazi Libya, is a writer, poet, and translator. She has been writing on culture, literature and other general topics.
