Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

of the translator who, in actuality, is the message's transcriber and
perpetuator.
The message remains mute unless voiced in a language form. The
concept, which is the nucleus of the message, cannot exist or survive
in a linguistic vacuum. It has to assume a language form in order to
function as a philosophical construct, reconstructible in another sign
system. The message derives its viability from its relevant text, co-
text, and context. The text, co-text, and context constitute the
linguistic-socio-cultural fabric in which the message is inter-woven.
Roland Barthes, in an article entitled 'From Work to Text', writes:
"The text is plural. This does not mean just that it has
several meanings, but rather that it achieves plurality of
meaning, an irreducible plurality. The text is not co-
existence of meanings but passage, traversal; thus it answers
not to an interpretation, liberal though it may be, but to an
explosion, a dissemination. The text's plurality does not
depend on the ambiguity of its contents, but rather on what
could be called the stereographic plurality of the signifiers
that weave it (etymologically the text is a cloth; textus,
from which text derives, means "woven")." (see 'Textual
Strategies', ed. by Josue W Harari, 1980, p.76).
But does every stereographic plurality of meaning constitute a
text? And are all texts, with messages therein interwoven, qualified
78