POSTMODERNISM PARADIGM AND ITS VIEW ON THE EXISTENCE OF LANGUAGE

Objective: The emergence of postmodernism as a continuation and correction of the shortcomings of modernism is expected to provide new alternatives and complement the repertoire of human thinking, especially about the existence of language and culture. Although, in principle, all paradigms of thinking have their own advantages and disadvantages. This paper aims to examine the issues surrounding the postmodernism paradigm, which is focused on two main things, namely: the concept and basic principles of the paradigm and the view of the postmodern paradigm in relation to the existence of language phenomena. Method: Methodologically, this article is based on a literature study, which is conducted by identifying various theories related to postmodernism, to answer the problems that have been raised. Results and Discussion: From the results of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the postmodernism paradigm is an approach to philosophy, art and culture that emerged as a response to the ideas and values of modernism that were dominant in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Postmodernism rejects the idea that there is a single narrative or truth that can explain the world, and instead, emphasizes the diversity, complexity and relative nature of everything. Second, in the context of its view on language, postmodernism offers several perspectives, among which the key ones are openness to the plurality of languages, the destruction of the concept of binaries and oppositions, the importance of meta-narrative, and intertextuality. Postmodernism is present to provide an alternative to new ways of thinking in knowledge, especially by prioritizing the principle of respecting differences in plural particularities, as a counter to the thesis of modernism which believes in the importance of the principle of uniformity and universality. Research Implications: Studying the postmodernist paradigm and its views on language can open insight into the complexity and dynamics of language in various contexts. This influences how we understand the world, interact with others, and organize our knowledge. Originality/Value: The value and originality of the study of postmodernism and language paradigms lies in its ability to raise new questions, provoke critical thinking, and open space for new developments in various disciplines and cultural practices.


INTRODUCTION
In the mid and late 20th century, the intellectual and cultural worlds experienced significant shifts that shook the foundations of modern thought and culture (Hughes, 2004;Griswold, 2012;Bonnell, V. E., & Hunt, 2023).In response to the absolute truth claims and universal narratives that dominated the previous era, the paradigm of postmodernism emerged.This paradigm not only presents a conceptual revolution, but also changes the way we understand language as an essential medium in the construction of meaning and reality (Hruby, 2001;Hatch, 2018;Holliday, 2020).As we know, modernist thought dominated intellectual life during the 19th and 20th centuries, with a belief in progress, objective truth, and a single ideology shaping cultural forms (Childs, 2016;Eysteinsson, 2018).However, the world wars, economic crises and social changes that characterised this period began to undermine this belief.
Questions of plurality, identity and the relative nature of truth emerged in reaction to the bitter experiences of modernity (Bendle, 2002;W. Brown, 2020).
In this context, the postmodernism paradigm emerges as a movement of thought that rejects universal truth claims and proposes an alternative understanding of reality (McKelvey, 2003;Erickson, 2009;Ife, 2016).Postmodernism highlights diversity, uncertainty and change as central elements of human life (Butler, 2002;Pakulski, 2009).With a focus on diversity and context, this paradigm presents a new perspective on language as the main tool in shaping meaning.In the world of postmodernism, language is no longer considered a neutral or objective tool, but rather a complex arena filled with social, political and cultural interests (Best, S., & Kellner, 1991;Rosenau, 1991).Language becomes a space where meanings are constructed and debated, not just a means of transmitting information.Postmodernism's view of language requires us to see every word, sentence and narrative as a social construction formed by diverse contexts (Currie, 2010;Elder-Vass, 2012;Lemert, 2015).This article aims to explore the essence of the postmodernist paradigm and its critical view of language.Through an examination of postmodernism's core concepts and interpretations of language, readers are invited to understand how this paradigm has shaken the foundations of conventional thinking.More than just a philosophical theory, postmodernism 4 carries real consequences in everyday life, opening up space for discussions on identity, power and meaning in contemporary society.This article will guide readers to explore and evaluate the impact of postmodernism paradigm on the language we have come to accept.

BASIC CONCEPTS OF THE POSTMODERNISM PARADIGM
In a scientific perspective, the term "paradigm" plays an important role, which is due to its very fundamental function and existence (Hjørland, 2009;Leinhardt, 2013;Burrell, G., & Morgan, 2019), namely as a basic framework that directs the perspective of how a science should be oriented and implemented.The term paradigm was first introduced by Thomas S. Kuhn (2012) through his monumental book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, which was first published in 1962, and then popularised by Friedrichs (1970) through his book A Sociology of Sociology.Kuhn (2012) interpreted paradigm as a set of fundamental beliefs that guide our actions, both everyday actions and in careful scientific investigations.
In line with Kuhn, Friedrichs (Lundberg, C.C. & Young, 2005:47) also asserts that the paradigm is "A fundamental image a discipline has of its subject matter".Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln (2005:105) also agree with Kuhn, defining paradigm as, "Basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistomologically fundamental ways".Thus, in principle it can be conveyed that the paradigm is, as a basic belief system that is owned for the sake of seeing or viewing the world, and which guides researchers to determine the path or method chosen to solve their research problems (Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, 1989;Sparkes, 2012).
Meanwhile, the term postmodern, etymologically, comes from two roots, namely "post" and "modern" which can literally be defined as "after modern".Meanwhile, the word "modern" comes from the Latin modernus (Anttonen, 2005), which means new age.Genealogically, the word "modern" was used in the 5th century AD (Papavramidou, N., Papavramidis, T., & Demetriou, 2010;Habermas, 2016) to mark the end of the era of Christian rule and the beginning of the era of Roman Paganism (Smart, 1990).The term modern, then, developed into derivative words such as modernity, modernisation and modernism after the Middle Ages (Goldman, 2003:7;Sollors, 2008:60).Although these words are often used interchangeably and overlappingly, it can be said that they basically represent the same thing, namely a new cultural period based primarily on rationalism (Hasan, M. & Zaidi, 2011;Levenson, 2011).
Postmodernism is an idea that comes because of dissatisfaction or disagreement with the previous system of thought, namely modernism based on the principles of structuralism (Pramanik, 2015;Yousef, 2017).Or in other words, postmodernism was born as a form of resistance or deconstruction of modernism (Campbell, D. & Bleiker, 2007:203;Hutcheon, 2013;Handler, 2017).Postmodernism is not a single entity, but a loose collection of assumptions, concepts and perspectives that mainly focus on three main themes: language and discourse; power and ideology; conflict and resistance (Breisach, 2003;Sim, 2012), which span a wide range of social theories based primarily on critical discourse analysis (Best, S., & Kellner, 1991); S. Brown & Turley, 2005).Basically, postmodernists believe that their predecessors (modernist-structuralists) have mistakenly believed in a meaningful relationship between signifier and signified (Smith, R. C., & Turner, 1995), especially in the pioneering work of Claude Lévi-Strauss as well as in Saussurian linguistic analyses, which are mainly obsessed with principles and claims of universality, when interpreting existing social phenomena or realities (Palmer, 2007;Elliott, 2009;Tremlett, 2014).
The concept of postmodernism is often used interchangeably with post-structuralism.This is due to the basic similarities that exist between the two.Poststructuralism has been variously described as a symptom of the postmodern culture it seeks to describe, as part of the matrix of postmodern theory, and especially as a discourse concerned with critiquing the discourse of modernism (Barns, I., Dudley, J., Harris, P., & Petersen, 2005:4).Postmodernism, by its very nature, is a discourse of "resistance", to avoid or get out of the confinement and shackles of a single discourse hegemony in viewing and interpreting the "universe" of reality or the world with all its dynamic variants (C.G. Brown, 2013).Or in short, postmodernism is a cluster of ideas used as a medium of analysis to counter all concepts, myths, logics, and anything related to the absurdity of modernism, which is mainly based on the notion of "logocentrism" (Greenberg, 2005:111;Toth, 2010:42).In terminology, logocentrism is a metaphysical system that assumes the existence of a transcendental truth logos, behind everything that exists in every phenomenon (Okoro, 2006;Hendricks, 2016;Suciu, 2021).The presence of logos in philosophical texts is mainly represented by the presence of the author as a subject who has authority over the meaning he wants to convey (Nancy, 1993;Sallis, 2019).
The "presence" of the author as a representation of the logos is metaphorically signalled by Derrida with the term "metaphysics of presence" (Hendricks, 2016;James, 2023;Menegalle, 2023).
The metaphysics of presence is an idea that Derrida strongly criticises.This concept is closely related to logocentrism (Schaeffer, J. D., & Gorman, 2008;White, 2017).The concept 6 explains that something is presented through language or text, hence the term metaphysics of presence.According to Derrida (Jeanrond, 1994), presence is not something that independently precedes writing, but presence always exists together with writing.Every text or writing cannot stand alone, but is always intertwined with other texts.Derrida (Silverman, 1991) emphatically states that there is no meaning apart from the text, and indirectly rejects the transcendent meaning of the text itself.Because of these criticisms, Derrida's major project of "deconstruction" emerged (Newman, 2001;Kates, 2005;Culler, 2007).
The absurdity that exists in modernism as intended, its starting point begins with the "Enlightenment" (Aufklärung) or often termed as the Renaissance, which elevates humans as the centre and benchmark of everything (Dinwiddie, R., Sparrow, G., & Weeks, 2011;Jensen & Craig, 2016).The Renaissance was a transition from medieval to modern times and is considered a time of cultural rejuvenation (Hattaway, 2005;Kriz et al., 2013;Shujaa & Shujaa, 2015), hence the Aufklärung was a time of maturation (Stiegler, 2010;Hamnett, 2015), for cultures, especially in Europe.The term Aufklärung comes from the German word for "Enlightenment", which in English is known as the Enlightenment, which occurred around the 18th century AD (Spielvogel, 2013;Vila, 2016).At that time humans were optimistic about their ability to create progress that could shed new light, in this case, the progress of science.It was especially marked by the emergence of scientists such as Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), René Descartes (1596-1650), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), François-Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1778), and Denis Diderot (1713-1784), the founders of modern science and technology (Jin, 2016) .Through the famous Aufklärung slogan "Sapere Aude!" which means "Dare to think for yourself!",Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, encouraged everyone to be more courageous and freer to use their own minds (Kors, 2002;Garrett, 2014).According to Kant (Baker & Reill, 2001;Rundell, 2020), if humans are not able to do so, it is a sign that they are immature.
The distinctive characteristics of this modern view can also be seen in the ideals of the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1999), who asserted that humans must endeavour to solve their own problems and not continue to rely on God.The way to do this is through the mastery of science.This view was conveyed through his famous notion of "knowledge is power", as Plato had also always glorified (Matthews, 2008;Burns, 2017).This idea makes Bacon a foundational figure for the birth of empiricism, as well as the first philosopher to state that experience is the most trusted source of truth (Piaia, G. & Santinello, 2015;Anstey, P. R., & Vanzo, 2023).Later, the Renaissance also gave birth to Rene Descartes, who laid the foundations of modernist philosophy, using the concept of "doubt" of all reality (Scruton, 2004;Williams, B., & Cottingham, 2014), so that humans must and only by using their minds to be able to answer these doubts (Grenz, 2001:9-10).Descartes (Watson, 2007) then concluded that the basis of everything is the thinking-self, which was then formulated in his classic expression, cogito ergo sum, which means "I exist because I think".Issac Newton, who is said to have formulated the scientific framework for modernism, described the universe as a machine with laws and regularities that could be understood, analyzed, predicted, and even "confirmed" by the human mind (Nicolescu, 2014).Therefore, based on the principles of Descartes' and Newton's thoughts, the "Enlightenment Project" was finally established -to borrow Jurgen Habermas' term (Gordon & Breckman, 2019:20), all of which are rational-mechanistic based, and universal.That was the beginning of the history of modernism, which in the dynamics of the journey later was challenged through the new paradigm of postmodernism.
The ethos of postmodernism, therefore, is to reject the harmonious, universal and consistent explanations that are the great spirit of modernity (Taylor, V. E., & Winquist, 2002;Proctor, 2012).They replace these with respect for difference and honour the particular and discard the universal.Postmodernists doubt the concept of universal truths that can only be proven by rational endeavours (Erickson, 2009).This is because there are many other ways that are equally important and fundamental as the basis of knowledge, for example through imagination, emotion and intuition (Butler, 2002).Thus, consciousness in the postmodernism paradigm adheres to the principles of relativism and pluralism (Milovanovic, 2017:448).
As a result, the relativism and pluralism of postmodernism relegate the meaning of truth to a particular or local domain that respects contextual differences (Lynch, 1998;Botz-Bornstein, 2014).Postmodernists do not feel the need to prove themselves right and others wrong.For them, the issue of belief is a matter of social context (Gellner, 2013;Lemert, 2015).
Postmoderns believe that what is right for and for us, may be wrong and unsuitable for you, and what is wrong and unsuitable for us, may be right and suitable in your context (Butler, 2002).This paradigm characteristic of postmodernism, if expressed in one stroke of an expression, is the spirit of celebrating the awareness of difference and diversity (Dumont, 2008:193;Pourgouris, 2016:2).
Therefore, to celebrate this pluralism, the awareness that exists in the discourse of postmodernism, is more as a very open space to accommodate all the differences that are very potential to be hidden in this universe, both with the dimension of past elaboration, and modern, in a format that is full of the spirit of equality (Tilley, T. W., Edwards, J. C., England, T., Felice,  Xu, 2013).Finally, the discourse of postmodernism always contains the spirit of double coding (Douzinas et al., 1994).As an implication of this celebration of the awareness of the nature of difference and diversity, it must be bought expensive with the collapse of major ideologies or in Daniel Bell, (2000) referred to as The End of Ideology (the death of ideology), and also the death of authors (artists).The great ideologies, schools, and schools that were once the main reference and mainstream in the performance of culture, as the spirit of modernism, finally have no place anymore (Armstrong, 2005).The matter of ideology, sect, school of thought, and so on, is now a matter of the individual (and perhaps a limited community group), which is exclusive, private, and personal.
Based on the points of thought referred to, and during the many characteristics that mark the characteristics that exist in the perspective of postmodernism, there are actually at least two things that can be said to be relatively basic that distinguish its existence from modernism.First, postmodernism sees the truth as being "behind" or "inside" the text (Hebdige, 2006), that is, postmodernists emphasise the nature of the meaning of the phenomenon or text , which is not placed "inside" or "behind" the text, which in fact seems to be located and even become a privilege for the creator of the text or author, but is more emphasised on the interaction between the reader and the text, in its rhythm as productivity, not otherwise consumptivity (D.Hebdige, 1986;Dick Hebdige, 2006).
In the context of such meaning, therefore, every activity of study or reading of the text, the position of the reader is not in the construction of meaning as an act of consumption of a product passively but turns into an active action.The perspective of postmodernism, therefore, critically rejects issues related to the rite of meaning of the sign system or text that exists in the tradition of modernism based on structuralism, which is more placed on the meaning of signs that are assumed to be in the inevitability of solid and permanent stability (Allan, K., & Turner, 2000) (Marshall, 2013), which is mainly based on the position and or domain of the author.The idea of postmodernism in relation to the meaning of the sign, as asserted by Roland (Barthes, 1998), results in a shift in systems and patterns from the signifier (symbol) to the signifier (meaning).A similar construction of meaning in the perspective of postmodernism is also conveyed by Derida, who affirms the shift in principles from logocentrism to deferent in the performance of understanding each text, so that claims regarding the eternal cyclical process towards truth as in structuralism, have lost their status (Aston, E., & Savona, 2013;Dews, 2020).
Second, the postmodernist perspective also questions the classical idea based on Cartesian optics regarding the subject's (author's) existential understanding of self in relation to the text, which is expected to exist together as a consciousness that is assumed to have authentic authority over the entire nature of the meaning of truth (Rosenau, 1991).Thus, postmodernism places the human subject (author) as not always existing as the main consciousness in the process of meaning-making rites, but rather relies more on the existing language structure (Somerville, 2007).This is where the postmodernist perspective critiques metaphysics, the concepts of causality, identity, subject, and truth (Sarup, 2008).The same point of view is also shared by Foucault (Matustik, 1998:101;Schrag, 2012) who removed the Cartesian principles-monological and decisionistic-from existentialism which is centered on the subject's self.
Postmodernism firmly opposes the understanding of the existence of structures that are assumed to be stable as believed in modernism, but are always in dynamic construction, and always in process and intertextual in nature (Olkowski, 2012).Postmodernism, thus, also ignores the possibility of its obsession with searching for origins, stable meaning, universal truth and direction (goal) of history.

POSTMODERNISM VIEWS THE EXISTENCE OF LANGUAGE
As is known, the phenomenon of language can be said to be fundamental and even central to its existence in human culture.This is due in principle to the existence of culture possessed by humans themselves, which consists of ideas, values and the results of work as emphasized by A.L. Kroeber & C. Kluckhon (Bickerton, 2003) is realized and can only be understood through the representation of symbols or language.In line with this view, (Weaver, 2015) in Toward an Analysis of Ethics for Rhetoric, reveals that the ability to use language symbols is one of the basic human traits.The power of symbolization through language is that it is responsible and even a guarantee for the survival of mankind (Johannesen, 2007;Cassirer, 2023).The phenomenon of human culture is so closely linked to the language symbol system that finally Ernest Cassirer (2023) in the book An Essay on Man, An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture, called human creatures "animal symbolicum".Cassier emphasized that humans never see, discover, and know their world directly, except through various symbols in the form of language (Algooneh, 2020).
The existence of a symbolic system of human culture "exists" in the form of a language system in a broad sense, which is used as a medium of communication.As is known, communication variables are the basis that determines the existence and structure of a society (Tedeschi, 2007;Leo  10 language systems and symbols, ultimately humans influence each other, so that the same collective experience is formed in one society.With language, humans develop communication systems and mechanisms, for the purpose of conveying messages of feelings and knowledge that are meaningful for life (Edwards, A. & Shepherd, 2004;Trenholm, 2020).
Communication through the symbolic system of language is thus the basis for human relations and culture (Mowlana, 2018;Shaules, 2019).Through communication, from a sociological perspective, the simplest society will be formed, namely the society that Ferdinand Toennies calls gemeinschaft (Christensen, K.S. & Levinson, 2003;Andersen, 2021), which Emile Durkheim (2013) calls a "mechanical solidarity" society, characterized by having a primitive form of social cohesion.Then, in line with the development of existing society, with an increasingly effective communication system, a society was formed which was called gesellschaft (Christensen, K.S. & Levinson, 2003) or known as a society with "organic solidarity" (Durkheim, 2013).In the context of the meaning of gesellschaft society, communication ultimately plays an increasingly vital and strategic role for humans and their civilization (Anheier, H.K. & Toepler, 2010) .
From a sociological perspective, the issue of the existence of a symbolic language system in human culture, in its early history tended to function more for the benefit of a natural means of communication, in order to build collective social understanding, as a consequence of the commitment to live together in a particular community group (Bourdieu, 1991;Bonvillain, 2019).In this context, the existence of language is closer to the meaning of "cultural text", which will be able to provide a sensory picture regarding the contextual color of the sociocultural reality of society as it really is.However, the latest developments in language theory show that language is no longer limited in its meaning as a mere reflection or mirror of reality (Odley & Horton, 2018), but on the contrary, namely that language actually has the ability (power) to shape or construct reality (Coady, 2016) itself.The factor causing language's ability to shape reality is because language always hides what is called "ideology" (Schieffelin et al., 1998;Johnson, S. & Milani, 2010).The same thing was also emphasized by Norman Fairclough (2013:2-3) in his book Language and Power, which argued that the power possessed by language is related to power over reality, because in language representation there is always an ideology that accompanies it.In this connection, Heidegger (Williams, 2019), once stated that language is a home, the place where "Existence" resides.
Based on this reality, Kenneth Burke (1968) belief in the book Language as Symbolic Action states that to a certain level, all developments in intentional language use between humans are ceremonial.This means that every use of language in society is never completely 11 neutral, but always expresses the choices, attitudes, tendencies, dispositions, and evaluations of the communicator -and thus channels the perception of the sender of the message.We do not utter words, Burke (1968) said, without simultaneously giving others the impulse to see the world, or some part of it, our way.With almost the same understanding, Berlo (1960) in The Process of Communication, expressed the view that there is reason to believe that all language use has a persuasive dimension, so that people cannot communicate without simultaneously trying to persuade, in one way or another.For this reason, through long experience in carrying out his semiotic analysis of language, Roland Barthes (Lombardo, 2010;Monticelli, 2016), concluded that language is "fascist".The discourse produced by the fascist power of language is what Barthes (Dovey, 2014;Anastassov, 2018) calls "discourse of power".Therefore, in its development, language is not merely a means of communication or a system of arbitrary codes or values pointing to one monolithic meaning of reality (Susen, 2013;Rymes, 2014).Socially, it is continuously constructed and reconstructed in certain social settings, rather than being organized according to universal scientific structural laws and rules (Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, 2011;Lizardo, 2004;Teubner, 2017).
As a representation of certain social relations, language always shapes certain subjects, strategies and themes of discourse.In fact, related to this, long ago Jurgen Habermes in the book Zur Logic der Sozialiwissenschaften (1967) indicated that social and political processes are not only woven into "work practices", but also "communication practices" (Outhwaite, 2013).That the deployment of power operations in a broad sense is ultimately not limited to controlling the means of material production systems, but what is no less important are efforts to manipulate ideational reproductive systems, especially through language (Anderson, 1990;Epstein, 2008).
Departing from this reality, awareness of the importance of language as a social cement, a way of existing and ruling, has attracted the interest and attention of many great thinkers, and has always been a dominant and strategic theme throughout the history of philosophy of science and culture so far (Wagner, 2001).Empirical facts show that language has become a dominant theme in Continental European philosophical thought as well as in British and American philosophy (Sherratt, 2005).In both French Phenomenology and English Analytical Philosophy, the focus of attention revolved around issues of language (Buckle, 2004).This project was then continued by studies of structuralism, semiotics, hermeneutics, until the emergence of critical theory driven by socio-cultural critics from the Frankfurt School, which then found its critical peak in the frame of the postmodernist approach (Lenz, G. H., & Shell, 2019;Drolet, J. F., & Williams, 2022).Therefore, it is not surprising that the 20th century until now is known as the 12 century of logocentrism (Kearney, 2003;Rorty, 2010;Hawkes, 2020).The word "logos" itself means language, text, thought content, words and speech (Burmeister, J. & Sentesy, 2007;Allan, 2010).
In line with the main ideas regarding the phenomenon of language in relation to the existence of culture as stated above, it seems important to study language, especially in the dynamics of its existence that crosses the modern world and then in the postmodern era, which is experiencing many dynamics of shifts in position and role of meaning, in supporting existing cultural construction.Among the many views related to postmodernism, it is Derrida's criticism which can be said to have attracted quite a bit of central attention, especially in relation to questioning the discourse of logocentrism in language (Althusser, L., Matheron, F., & Corpet, 2006), namely regarding the existence of belief in existential truth behind everything, as is the typical view in the modernism paradigm.What is meant by the existential owner of classical linguistic truth, believed to be in the modernist perspective, is what is called the existence of an author.
As is known, in the discourse of modernism, the position of the author is a very important and central figure (Childs, 2016;Eysteinsson, 2018).A modern text is always identified with its author or creator, whether related to desire, lust, appetite, anxiety, alienation, loneliness, joy, or the totality of their other lives (Brooks, 1993).This phenomenon is inspired by the intellectual strategy and dialectic of work developed by Hegel in Phenomenology of Spirit (1956), the general principle of which is that work is the self-expression of the subject, whose values are absorbed by the subject for further self-development (Ateşoğlu, 2003;Buchwalter, 2012).
Therefore, in modernist discourse, a work or text is considered to be the result of the author's "genius", which is legitimized through the author's signature or copyright (Will, 2000;Haynes, 2005).This concept has grown since the Middle Ages, along with the development of the philosophy of English Empiricism and French Rationalism (Grant, 2001).In France, it was Rene Descartes who established the authority of the subject as a thinker, originator of ideas and creator, with his famous statement cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) (Watson, 2007).
According to this Cartesian philosophical model, the subject is the center of ideas, notions and knowledge (Secada, 2000;Overton, 2006).
Therefore, Roland Barthes (1978), through his deconstruction perspective, emphasized what is known as the concept of the death of the author.This process of the death of the author is then accompanied by the birth of the reader, and the development of what is termed writerly text, namely text that makes the reader the center of meaning, rather than the author himself.In 13 this reader's power model, readers are freed from the tyranny of the author, and they have the opportunity to participate in producing a plurality of meanings in discourse (Staiger, 1992;Held, 2006).This type of text production model is known as "dialectical text", as opposed to "rhetorical text", which usually gives much more satisfaction to the reader (Mailloux, 1995;Fahnestock, 2009).This is caused by dialectical texts which give readers the opportunity to search and carefully study everything they believe in and in their lives (Clark, 1990;Dunning, 1997).In addition, the text is also "didactic", in a special sense -that is, it does not teach the truth, but rather, asks its readers to discover the truth for themselves, and this discovery of truth is often made at the price, not only of opinions and values, -value from the reader, but also a sense of self-worth (BarrIe's, 2011;Charlton, 2022).
Because in communication with language both orally and in writing, everyone involved in the speech event, each has the truth in the form of understanding that may be different.In oral communication, for example, the speaker when going to communicate already has a message to convey, then based on his general understanding of the interlocutor, the speaker must make a presupposition/presumption that the form of language items that will be chosen will be understood by the interlocutor.
Meanwhile, the listener, when hearing the utterance delivered, will try to connect with the knowledge he already has related to the topic being discussed and related to the speaker before determining the appropriate utterance to answer the utterance.In the context of this communication event, there is a process of negotiating meaning as well as the relationship between the text of the speaker, and the listener so that the communication can be effective, and understanding can be achieved.In line with this, the relationship between texts must also be presented in written language communication.According to the principle of deconstruction, the author is not the only determinant of meaning (Davis, 2014).When the process of composing the text is finished, the meaning that emerges is not the autonomy of the author anymore but is in the process of interaction between the reader and the text.Readers are no longer consumers of meaning but according to postmodernism, readers must also become active in producing meaning (Taylor, V. E., & Winquist, 2002).
Therefore, the sociological implication is that the postmodern perspective emphasises the importance of any analysis of the phenomenon of language in culture that always demands the necessity of a dialectical analytical relationship between the work as text, and the sociocultural background of the community as the context (Kramsch, 2014).The importance of the existence of this context analysis, by adapting Alfred Schutz's view (Turner, J. H., 2013:237;Segre, 2014:318), is as a "stock of knowledge", which will be used to build a frame of reference.This view is in line with Kristeva's thinking, which asserts that the existence of each language text representation never stands alone, and does not have an autonomous foundation or criteria in itself.For Julia Kristeva (2002), a text or language is not a cultural phenomenon that stands alone and is autonomous that exists based on relations or criteria that are internal to itself alone, without being motivated by something external, but is a game and mosaic of quotations, from the texts that surround it.Therefore, a text can only exist if, within the space of the text, various expressions, taken from other texts, criss-cross and neutralise each other.
Kristeva interprets this as "transposition", the crossing from one sign system to another (Rajan, 2013;Kołoszyc, 2014).Then in a socialological way, Kristeva (2002) concept is more popularly known as "intertextuality".In Kristeva's view, the term intertextuality is a key concept of postmodernism based on the spirit of post-structuralism, which strongly opposes the structural, synchronic, and systemic thinking model of structuralism (Lesic-Thomas, 2001;Currie, 2010;Baron, 2019).Thus, Kristeva's concept of intertextuality is closely related or like Roland Therefore, the use of a structural approach in language that emphasises the analysis of grammatical structures in obtaining meaning (Rowe, B.M. & Levine, 2018), in the understanding of postmodrnism needs to be reinterpreted, because meaning is inseparable from context (Kayes, 2002;Brownlie, 2006).Although structural analysis is still needed in language studies, however, in the context of speech meaning, there needs to be a process of interpreting meaning by starting with the analysis of grammatical components and integrating with the identification of the socio-cultural context (Slocum, 2015;Telep, O. A., Balashenko, I. V., Fedaka, P. P., Ukhach, L. I., & Sivak, 2021), where the conversation takes place, who is involved in the communication event, how the relationship between participants in the communication event and so on.In principle, to be able to obtain a complete understanding in a particular discourse, it is necessary to consider other texts that surround it and are interrelated with the text in its wholeness (Smith, 2003;Xu, 2004).
In addition, human language can also be seen as a series of symbols that need to be interpreted correctly (Bickerton, 2016).Therefore, the meaning of structural-based symbols needs to involve an analysis of the system that accompanies it.The construction of similar meanings in the perspective of postmodernism, as stated by Derida (Zima, 2002), needs to As stated earlier, postmodernism firmly opposes the notion of the existence of structures that are presupposed to be stable as believed in modernism but are always under dynamic construction and are always in process and intertextual (Butler, 2002;Breisach, 2003).
Postmodernism, thus, also dismisses the possibility of its obsession with finding the origin, stable meaning, universal truth and direction (purpose) of language history (Barker, C. & Jane, 2016;Thompson, 2017).

CONCLUSION
Postmodernism emerged as a response to the failure of modernism to provide humans with solutions to the problems they face.Postmodernism as a way of thinking or scientific paradigm emerged as a continuation, criticism, and an effort to improve the previous paradigm, namely modernism which deified rationality, homogeneity, and universality, and adhered to the understanding that truth in science is absolute and objective.Postmodernism is then present to deconstruct these principles and provide an alternative new way of thinking in knowledge by upholding the principle of respecting differences, and placing the meaning of reality in a subjective, plural-particular frame, not the other way around as believed in the modernism paradigm, namely objective, singular-universal.Apart from that, postmodernism also rejects the principle of logocentrism in knowledge and believes that there is no meaning that is independent of context but is always related to other texts that surround it.
It is hoped that the presence of postmodernism will become a new alternative way of thinking and knowing, especially in the context of language phenomena.So far, language teaching and learning, which is still based on teaching which tends to be based on the principles of logocentrism of language structure, needs to be integrated with relations of intertextuality and deconstruction, so that the hope of achieving better language acquisition is not only limited to the realm of interpersonal communication, but rather inter-and intercultural transactional, with implications for possible blessings for culture and humanity, which can be played more imperatively in future opportunities..
Barthes' concept in The Death of the Author, the concept of Deconstruction developed by Derrida, and parallel to the anthropological concept of bricolage, introduced byLevi-Strauss (1966) in The Savage Mind.

Postmodernism
Paradigm and its View on the Existence of Language ___________________________________________________________________________ Rev. Gest.Soc.Ambient.| Miami | v.18.n.7 | p.1-26 | e05157 | 2024.15 affirm the principle of shifting from logocentrism to defferent in the performance of understanding each text, so that claims regarding the eternal cyclical process towards truth as in structuralism, have lost their status.