Structuralism is interested in the relationship
between the elements of a structure that results in meaning. Since it believes
that meaning is the effect of the coming together of elements, it follows that
if we understand the rules governing the relationship between elements we can explain
the processes of meaning-production. A pithy summary of structuralist literary
criticism is proved by Jonathan Culler in his book on Barthes in which he says
that structuralism
1. is an attempt to describe the language of
literature in linguistic terms so as to capture the distinctiveness of literary
structures,
2. is the
development of a 'narratology' that identifies the constituents of a narrative
and their various combinations,
3. Is an
attempt to show how literary meaning depends upon the codes produced by prior
discourses of a culture,
Structuralism emerged as the most rigorous form
of critical analysis in the 1950s. However, its origins lay further back, in
the work of early twentieth century linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure.
Ferdinand de Saussure's 1915 work, A Course
in General Linguistics, proposed that language was a system in which
various components existed in relation to each other .It is not enough to see
how words acquire meaning over time. We need to see how words mean within
period and as part of a general system of language. Saussure makes three
significant moves in his analysis of language. First of all, he divides
language into two main components
1.
The set of rules by which we combine words into sentences, use certain
words in certain ways, rules which are rarely altered and which all users of a
language follow. This he termed langue.
2.
Everyday speech where we use words in particular contexts. This he called
parole.
If langue is the system of rules and conventions
that govern how we use words and meanings, then parole is context. In most
cases we are not aware of the langue component; we use the system of
conventions by habit, and are not always alert to the large structure of
language in everyday use. Parole, therefore, is live language.
Then, in his second move, Saussure proposes a relational theory of
language where
1.
‘Words' existed in relation to other
words and
2. The
meaning of each word was dependent upon the meaning of other words. Thus,
meaning was the result of being able to recognize the difference between words
'cat' is "cat' because is not bat or 'hat'. It is different in terms of
the sound produced and the way in which it written. We work with binary or
paired oppositions to make sense of words and sound speech. "Cat', 'bat',
and ‘hat’ are all words in the system of language: they are related to each
because they belong to same system, and because they make sense only in being
different from each other.
Finally, we have Saussure’s third moves. Saussure
suggests that words and their
meaning are not ‘natural’ but created through repeated use and convention. The word’
cat’ does not naturally refer to a four-legged furry animal of a particular
kind with particular habits. The pronunciation or the writing of the word does
not invoke the animal. We have come to associate the name or word 'cat' to the
animal thorough long use. There is no real relationship between the word and
its meaning. Meaning is attributed through its use by a community of
language-users. The animal 'cat' does not declare its ‘catness’; we attribute
the ‘catness’ to it by giving it a name. The cat might very well see itself as
man' or 'tiger', But humans have given the name 'cat' to it, whatever the cat
may think of itself. The word (or signifier') is connected to the meaning or
concept (the 'signified') in a popularly arbitrary relationship. Together the
signifier and signified constitute a sign
Signified
For Saussure,
Words are signs that enable us to understand the concept or the object. Words
are like a form of transport that takes us to understand the concept or the
object. They help us create the concept in our mind
Saussure’s
move is apparently very simple, but its consequences are far-reaching. He was
undermining the very notion of language by proposing the relationship between
word and meaning as arbitrary. The structure of the language ensure that when
we use words, however there meaning might be, we register certain differences
and makes sense of them. Thus, even though the term “cats” only arbitrary
connected to the animal, we still make sense of it because it is different from
other words that are equally arbitrary in their relationship with things.
Comments
Post a Comment