The problem with words is that they serve as placeholders in a language, trying to express the feelings and opinions of the speaker or writer. With this in mind, words and the structure of those words can create deeper meanings than we really imagine. Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, expressed his views on language in terms of relationships and interactions between words. He explains the arbitrariness of words and how there are only conventional relationships between words and their meanings, but then also mentions the dichotomy that defines what a word means by describing what it is not (Palmer 20). Sojourner Truth, an African-American abolitionist and women's rights advocate, discussed these word phrases and their meaning in her infamous "Am I Not a Woman" speech at the Women's Rights Convention in Akron , Ohio. In this speech, however, she strategically uses language as a way to influence listeners and steer them toward her cause. In her speech "Am I Not a Woman", Truth highlights how language constructs reality by manipulating the conventional idea behind the word "woman" and explaining the dichotomy that exists between the two genders and the similar relationship that exists between the two. Saussure agreed with Plato who said that words do not name things in the world simply because there are too many things. It would be far too difficult to differentiate one thing from another and that is why words are used to name concepts or ideas. Because of this idea, language is a tool used to construct reality and influence how one perceives a particular concept or idea. It is with this in mind that Saussure explained his belief on arbitrariness......middle of the article......the nature of language and the words chosen to describe an idea are discussed in the Truth's argument for both abolition and abolition. feminism. Since there is no finite meaning to a word, the definition of something can be changed and manipulated from person to person or society to society. Following this logic, the titles people are given are really just placeholders attempting to describe something that really can't be described. From a cross-cultural perspective, in particular, a word is just a word and cannot be truly understood in all languages. With this in mind, can there never be a language barrier? All words constantly change their meaning due to the addition of ideas and concepts (the signified). The signifier therefore has no meaning because the signified is constantly changing. And if the signified always changes, then the sign, or the word, has no meaning either..