Camera Lucida could probably lead to a million topics to discuss (maybe even more?)

When I opened my book I saw a little not on the corner of p 76 that said "What is meaning in terms of language" After re-reading page 76, I realize that note was clearly not for that page, but it is nonetheless a very significant topic that I cannot stop thinking about.

Barthes has stated that photography "aspires, perhaps, to become, as certain, as noble as a sign, which would afford it access to the dignity of language..." (p 6) At first I could not wrap my head around the idea that a photograph is not a sign. What is the difference from Professor Bergman drawing a tree (signify) and labeling it as tree (signifier) and that being a sign from showing a picture of a tree and that equally being a sign?

After re-reading and thinking about it some more I came to the conclusion that photography is not a sign because you have to take a photograph. There is deliberate human intention when you pick up a camera, point and purposely photograph an object. A sign just is. There is no intention behind it; it just exists. A photograph, on the other hand, brings the idea of why? Why take that photograph instead of something else. What was the person thinking of when they took that picture? What is the story behind that picture? What does that tree represent? All of these questions take place instantaneously, instead of us just excepting that is a tree and that's it.

I was pretty confident with this realization until I went back to page 76 and saw again my little note on the top left hand corner. Then I started thinking about what exactly is language and where is the meaning of language?

I did a little exercise with the dictionary on dashboard of my Mac. I typed up simple words like "no" and "yes". What came out were, of course, more words. For no the definition was "absolutely not, under no circumstances, not at all, negative" more words that seem more like synonyms to me than a proper definition. So if we cannot define a word, without using other words what is the meaning of that word? I then thought of, how would a parent teach a child what no is? They would most likely shake their head or waggle their fingers. But that is not a meaning either, it is a bodily gesture that attaches to the meaning of no.

In class I mentioned that meaning is the general idea of what that is. Or as Professor Bergman stated the -ness of that (i.e. table-ness). Then I started thinking. Putting all words aside what is language? It is obviously a means of communication mostly related to words, but what about those that don't know words. Of course 99% of the population has some kind of language through which they communicate. But what about those few that were separated from the world.

For example, I remember watching a television show about a girl who was kept chained in a basement and wasn't taken out until she was about 12. How then did she communicate? She could not speak or use proper physical gestures that would communicate with the rest of the world. Or is that in itself considered language as well? Were her "ness'" similar at all to ours?
Do each of us have our own form of languages, despite what we speak. And if language is a form of self-expression, does that constitute itself as art? Now I don’t meant like poetry or songs. I mean real-life daily conversation? I don't actually think so.

Language is such a difficult topic and Barthes has made it clear that photography is equally as intricate to think about and define.