To understand why the correct answer is 4, let’s break down each option in relation to post-structuralism:
1. It seeks to undermine the idea that meaning pre-exists its linguistic expression.
This is true of post-structuralism. Post-structuralism challenges the idea that meaning exists independently of language. Instead, it argues that meaning is created through language and that there is no pre-existing essence outside of linguistic constructs.
2. There can be no meaning which is not formulated and no language formulation reaches anywhere beyond language.
This is also true of post-structuralism. It asserts that meaning is always mediated through language and that language is the only way we can construct and communicate meaning. There’s no "outside" of language that provides meaning.
3. There is no a-textual ‘origin’ of a text.
This is a true statement in the context of post-structuralism. According to post-structuralist theory, texts do not have a fixed origin or an ultimate source of meaning; rather, meaning is generated through the interplay of signs within the text and their relation to other texts.
4. Every sign refers to every other sign adequately.
This statement is not true of post-structuralism. Post-structuralism argues that signs do not refer to each other adequately. Instead, it emphasizes the instability and fluidity of meaning, arguing that signs are part of a network of signifiers that defer meaning indefinitely (a concept known as “différance” by Derrida). According to post-structuralism, no sign can fully encapsulate or refer to a fixed meaning; meaning is always shifting and contextual.
So, the reason option 4 is the correct answer is because it contradicts the fundamental ideas of post-structuralism, which asserts that meaning is not stable or fully adequate.
Year-wise PYQs
