Okay, so I passed in and out of consciousness while trying to decipher this pompous work. I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this post, but two things I feel the need to clarify:
Language, as they say, is intentional. The two are inseperable. Language is organized, and the purpose of language (its intention) is to communicate ideas effectively. Language, as they stated, is representational and is consitent of signifiers that are tangibles for the concepts they represent. Such that the actuality of the language is defined by the existence of that which it is trying to represent. The words on the ocean, if made by accident, represent nothing therefore the signifier is seperated from the signified, and it fails. So I think I'm with them on that.
The whole spiel about de Man's interpretation of naming Marion, or at least producing a sound that resembles Marion (seems like such an arbitrary distinction), is a bit much. Rousseau named Marion, nonetheless. He spoke words and language before the wondrous utterance of the resembling "sound," and he spoke language afterwards. But we are supposed to believe, upon Rousseau going back to the moment in his mind, that he is able to now re-interpret what the actuality of the sound was. At the moment, it seems, that he spoke 'Marion' it was language filled with intention. Going back to that moment, he has re-interpreted it as nothing but an immediate reaction, spoken by someone who speaks the language of intention, but not intending anything at all. Therefore, as author of this text 'Marion,' he himself has given to us two definitions. If we were with him when he said it and before analyzing it, we would agree with his author's intention which is the only viable thing, and called it language; now upon re-examination we call it non-language. Rousseau as author and intender leads me to believe that (1) there is an intention existant that is separate from the author's full knowledge (i.e., he doesn't know what he really means), and (2) that the concept of language itself can be separated momentarily from intention. We as readers, subscribing to author's intent now have come to believe two things. He meant it, now he didn't meat it. There is an intention existant and solid, immutable throughout this time period. Roussea's understanding of this intention is the variable. We as readers are the result of Roussea's misunderstanding of his intention. The language is mutable. And maybe there isn't such a rigid connection between the two.
I don't even know if I made sense just now. Anyways, the other thing that I meant to address is the difference between belief or knowledge, or non-difference as they put it. As if we can believe something without analysing our beliefs. I believe chocolate is good for me, but it doesn't lead me to become disinterested in studies showing that it may not be. An understanding of belief as being largely opinionated and unfounded (in a complete sense) by facts leads to an attempt to attain truth. I believe until I know. Belief is my journey, knowledge my destination. But one can also believe in facts, I guess, or that some facts are true and others skewed. However, information is nuetral, numbers I guess signifiers and defined only by the value we place on them. Interpretations exist on all levels. Without a belief that what you are saying is true, that you are speaking the truth, there is no connection between you and what you are saying. I don't know where I'm going with this anymore.
So I'll just end it here.