The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints Author(s): A. J.

Greimas and Franois Rastier Reviewed work(s): Source: Yale French Studies, No. 41, Game, Play, Literature (1968), pp. 86-105 Published by: Yale University Press Stable URL: [Link] . Accessed: 07/11/2012 11:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . [Link]

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French Studies.

[Link]

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier The Interaction semiotic of constraints

One should beware believing of that the inventive mindoperates according to chance.
-

Destutt Tracy. de

The play in question here is not to be understoodas a free activity productiveof literary objects, but as a long journey punctuated with compelling choices that leads, a through series of exclusions and of options,manifesting to personaland social phobias and euphorias, the constitution of an originaland unique [Link] of analysing coma pletedtext,the authorshave triedto see how, starting from kernelsof meaning,fromcategoriesof meaningwhich are at once simple and basic, the creativefacultyoperates, a faculty which,proceedingfromthe simple to the complex, a fromthe generalto the particular, makes its way, through numberof determinisms, towardan exaltationof liberty. It is obvious that,in the first part of its journey,there is nothing specifically literary the play of the creativemind, in obvious thatit drawsfromthe same sourcesas the whole of meaningful humanactivity: the theoretical aim of this study is thus largelyanthropological, open oppositionto the in suspect tradition occidental humanismwhich sets forth of literature a basic [Link] the textto be read, while as illustrating possible semioticapproach to literary a objects, is at the same timea callingintoquestionof the literary phenomenon. we Perhaps out of a desire for intelligibility, can imaginethat the humanmind,in orderto achieve the construction culturalobjects of 86

Yale FrenchStudies pictural,etc.) starts with simple elementsand (literary, mythical, to on follows a complex course, encountering its way constraints whichit mustsubmit, well as choiceswhichit can make. as Our aim is to givea roughidea of [Link] maybe considered in to to move fromimmanence manifestation, threeprincipalstages: - deep structures, of mode of existence whichdefine fundamental the of the an individualor a society,and subsequently conditions existconence of semioticobjects. As far as we know, the elementary logical status. stituants deep structures of have a definable - superficial which system structures constitute semioticgrammar a susceptible manifestaof formsthe contents arrangesinto discursive of tion. The productsof this grammarsystemare independent the apwhichrevealsthem,in as far as theycan theoretically expression objects, in any pear in any substance,and, in the case of linguistic language. - the structures manifestation of produce and organize the signifitheyremainpartheycan includequasi-universals, cances. Although ticularto any givenlanguage (or more precisely theydefinethe particularcharacteristics languages), or to any given [Link] of shapes, colors, stylistics morphemes, of are studiedby the superficial etc. We are concerned stage. herewiththefirst

Model. of The Structure the Constitutional I. 1. The elementary of structure meaning. If the meaning (the universeof meaning,or any semiotic _ grasped,as a semantic on thelevel at whichit is first system)appears, and axis, it is opposed to S, takenas an absoluteabsence of meaning, contradictory the termS. which describesthe human world as a to can, moreover, opposed to be significant whole. Any semioticsystem another whichis itscontrary: thusSi vs S2. system If we accept thatthe semanticaxis S (substanceof content) in is articulated, the level of theformof the content, two contrary at semes: I. 87

Yale French Studies

thesetwo semes,takenseparately, of indicatethe existence theircontradictory terms:

Allowingforthe factthatS may be redefined, afterits semic articulations have been set in place, as a complexseme uniting and si S2 in a double relation of disjunction and conjunction, elementary the structure meaning of maybe represented as: S
sI < a .. . . --- .......>
S2

52 <

> 51

S This model is constructed using a small numberof unby defined concepts: a) The conceptsof conjunctionand disjunctionnecessary forinterpreting structural the relation; b) Two typesof disjunction, the disjunction contraries of (indicatedby the dottedline) and the disjunction contradictories of (indicatedby the continuous line). Note: The model above is only an adapted formulation that of formerly proposedby one of the presentauthors (Greimas, Semantique structurale. Larousse, 1966). This new presentation makes it isomorphic thelogicalhexagonof R. Blanche (cf. Claude Chabrol, to Structures intellectuelles, Social Science Information, in 1967, VI-5) as well as to the structures the called, in mathematics, Klein group, and, in psychology, Piaget group. the and By taking intoconsideration onlytheform the content of different formulation only simplesemic terms, can give a slightly we to the same structure. appears then as the correlating two It of categoriesof opposites,the correlation itselfbeing definedas a relationof homologized contradictions:
SI
51

S2
52

88

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier This new presentation allows one to see thatwhat is first of all the structure an permitting account of the mode of existenceof the meaning,findsits application,as a constitutional model of the in investedcontents, veryvaried spheres: indeed,it is the model of myth propoundedby Claude Levi-Strauss, is the formof the achit ronicarticulation the folk-tale, it is also the model justifying of but a certain number particular of semantic universes (Bernanos,Mallarme, Destuttde Tracy). It is comforting the semiotician note thata for to deductive approach encountersmodels constructed empiricallyto accountforthelimited corpora. I. 2. The structure semioticsystems. of If deductiveconsiderations inductive thus encounter descriptions,it is because the elementary structure meaningformsinto of the takenas a whole. Indeed, each of the systems semantic universes contentswhich it definescan, as a semanticaxis, include others, whichare in turn organized intoa structure isomorphic thesuperior to in hierarchic structure. Thus, the elementary articulates the structure same way the semes and the constituent instances of systematic For example,the contents semioticsystems. Life and Death embrace the whole semantic universeof Bernanos: thatis Si vs S2. Each one in articulates two systematic instances(negativeand positivedefinitions) which are written respectively: vs -2; S2 VS si. They are SI articulated theirturnintosemicsystems. in Let us first all define formalproperties the constituof the of tionalmodel; thenwe shall giveexamplesof investments. The terms themodel: usingeach of thefourterms point of as of departure, can obtainthe threeothersby the two operations: one by takingthe contradictory by takingthe contrary. and Their definitionis formal, and anterior any investment. to The relations: a) hierarchical:a hyponymic relationis established betweenSi and S2, and S; another between -SI2 and S. b) categorical:- a relationof contradiction is established between and S; and at thehierarchically S inferior level,

between andSi, between andS2. Si S2

a relationof "contraries" articulates and S2 on the one hand, -Si si 89

Yale French Studies and s2 on the [Link] the termsof Hjelmslev,it may be identified as solidarity, double presupposition. or Note: The two operations, thatof takingthe contradictory that and of takingthe opposite,are involutive:the oppositeof the oppositeof s is s; thecontradictory the contradictory s is s. of of - a relation of implication(or simplepresupposition) established is betweenSi and s2 on the one hand, and S2 and Si on the other: `S2 impliesSi (and not the inverse); -i impliesS2 (and not the inverse). In fact,si and s2 may be defined negatively -S2 and s-irespectively. by If one proposessi or S2, one impliesat the same timethe presenceof S2 or si respectively. thelanguageof the logic of classification, In one can say thatsi is includedin S-2, and S2 in -[Link] two termsof each relation inclusion of may be termed complementary. The dimensions: theirrelateddefinitions, semic terms By the are groupedin pairs into six systematic [Link] can distinguish: - twoaxes, S and S. Theirrelationship thatof contradiction. may is S be termed axis of the complex: it embracesSi and S2. S is the axis of the contradictories and S2 (of S2 and si); it is therefore neutral -i the axis in relation Si and S2, forit can be defined neither nor S2. to si by: - two schemas: Si + -Si define schema 1; S2 + -2 defineschema 2. Each of the schemas is formedby the relation of contradiction. -two deixes: the first defined Si and the termwhichit implies: is by s2; the second by s2 and the term whichthatimplies: Si. Thus we have: Constituant relations contrary Structuraldimensions S axis (complex) S axis (neutral) Semic structures
Si + S1 + -2 Si
S2

contradiction
simpleimplication

schema1 schema 2
deixis 1

Si
S2
?2

S2 +

Si +
S2 +

deixis2

S1

90

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier betweenthe different One can foreseethe relations systematic dimensions. The two axes, formedby relationsof contraries, themare selves in a relationof contradiction. The two schemas,definedby relationsof contradiction, are themselves a relation opposition. in of We propose callingthe double presupposition the two schemas semiosis. We reservefor later of studythe questionof whether thisdouble presupposition corresponds to that of linguistic consideredas the two contentand expression, schemasof a singlemodel. I. 3. The typologyof the rules. Every systemcomprisesby definition group of rules; they a are definedpositively, but one can also definethem negatively by whattheyare not: so S represents positivedefinition the rules the of of the system, and S theirnegativedefinition. example,everyone For nowadays agrees that a grammarsystemmust include not only a definition whatis grammatical, also a definition whatis not of but of grammatical. Unfortunately the concept of agrammaticality can cover several things, the rules of constituent interdiction the grammar of under consideration, well as the infringements its presystem as of and scriptions, even the insufficient validity the same grammar. of We could say thatwithrespect themanifestation,appears to S as a groupof injunctions, S as a groupof non-injunctions. and The rulesof injunction a system of describeby definition comand incompatibilities systemwithoutincompatibilities patibilities (a could not be ordered). Withregardto the manifestation, these rules appear respectively prescriptions as (positive injunctions;say si), and interdictions (negativeinjunctions; S2). say Each of these two typesof rule impliesa contradictory systematicinstance;say S2 and Si, which are, withrespectto the manifestation, non-interdictions non-prescriptions and respectively. We can establishthe following table: 91

Yale French Studies Permissible relations incompatibilities (deixis 1) S injunctionsprescriptions t (positiveinjunctions)

Forbidden relations incompatibilities (deixis 2) interdictions (negative injunctions) <7

< .>

S2

T
S2 < ..

SI

F non-interdictions non-prescriptions non-injunctionst (negative (positive [ non-injunctions) non-injunctions) Examples: - In traffic lights, greensignifies the prescription (say si), the red interdiction proceed (say S2), and the orange sometimesnonto prescription, when it followsthe green,sometimes non-interdiction, when it followsthe red; sometimes + S2, when it is functioning -SI alone. - In as far as the two modes of semic articulation whichwe have distinguished identicalin formto the modes of phemicarticulaare tion' (at least in the description R. Jakobson: for example, the of compactfeatureis opposed to all the otherfeaturesof the phonoin logical system whichit is includedas si to -1, and opposed also to thediffuse feature SI to S2, by a relation double presupposition), as of whatwe have said is also valid fortheformsof linguistic expression.
In a phonological system therewould be: phi: system distinctive of phemicgroupings; ph2: system forbidden of phemicgroupings; phi: system relevant of groupings realised; not ph2: systemof groupingsof consistentredundantphemes of the phemicvariants.
u1n the same way as the term seme, employed to designate the minimal distinctive features of content, we shall employ the term pheme to designate the distinctive feature of expression (understanding that phemes, like semes, are semantic by nature).

92

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier II. of The Investment the Contents II. of 1. The system sexual relations

of We shall begin by givingan example of investments the of model as shownby the studyof the sexual relations constitutional themfroma semiotic pointof view. a humangroup,considering A
-

The social model of sexual relations:

of It is accepted,in accordance with the description Claude that human societies divide their semanticuniverses L6vi-Strauss, defined the conby Cultureand Nature,the first intotwo dimensions, the tentstheyassume and withwhichtheyinvestthemselves, second by thosewhichtheyreject. In the instancein point, culturethus embraces permissible and naturethe unacceptableones. We have: sexual relations, Culture (permissible relations) vs Nature (unacceptablerelations) society The permissiblerelations are codified differently: relationson the of regulatesthemby the prescription matrimonial other"normal" relations. one hand, acceptingin anotherconnection To these two types of relationsare opposed, in the natural relations (incest for example) and the nondeixis, the forbidden The social model may be prescribedrelations (non-matrimonial). formulated: relations Permitted (Culture) Matrimonial relations (prescribed)
c1
<

Unacceptable relations (Nature ) "Abnormal"relations (forbidden)

7~~
c2< >ci

"Normal" relations (not forbidden)

relations Non-matrimonial (not prescribed) 93

Yale French Studies Note: In traditional Frenchsociety, example,we have the followfor ing equivalences:
Ci C2

conjugal love;

Z2

incest,homosexuality; adultery the man (over and above conjugallove); by c-l adultery the woman (over and above homosexuality, by etc.).

Whateverthe investment the model, it is a question,in of the case of natureas in thatof culture, social values (and not of of the rejection natureoutsidemeaning). of The termsof the social model have no "objective" content: thus,homosexuality sometimes is forbidden(New Zealand), sometimesnot forbidden (among the Bororo); theyare always situated, however, an axis otherthanthatof matrimonial on relations, which in heterosexuality alone is permitted. Schema 1 of the model seems reservedfor socialized sexual relations(definedin relation marriage); on the otherhand schema to 2 embraces "natural"relations, moreprecisely, the or, non-socialized, whether"anti-social" (forbiddenrelations), or withoutdirectconnectionto the social structure (permitted relations otherthan matrimonialrelations).The description Claude Levi-Strauss confined of is to socialized heterosexualrelations (schema 1) which define the relationship; schema 2 is only defined in negatively, connection with the prohibition incest,forexample. of We shall now study the relationsof the social model of sexual values with the semioticsubstructures susceptibleof interaction with it. B
-

The economicmodel of sexual relations:

The system economicvalues is also a social system of which are a kind of regulatessexual [Link] we accept that profits and prescription, losses a kind of interdiction of (the consumption wealthseems to be a ritualtransgression), systemof economic the values maybe formulated thus: 94

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier Permitted relations sexual relations Profitable (prescribed)

Unacceptablerelations Harmfulsexual relations (forbidden)

7/~7
e2 <

.....

ei

Non-harmful sexual relations (not forbidden)

sexual relations Unprofitable (not prescribed)

In as far as they are socialized sexual relationswhich give rise to the exchange of goods (dowry, etc.), the economic subis structure in relationto schema 1 of the systemof social values. Eightpossiblerelationships may be specified: relations: ci - el Matrimonial ci - e2 cl / el ci - e2 (profitable) (harmful) (non profitable) (non harmful) (profitable) (harmful) (not profitable) (not harmful)

Non matrimonial relations: cl - el

cl Z, cl - e2

Note: One can also foreseethatrelationsof typec2 and -C2 combine withthe termsof the economicsystem, defining eightotherpossible [Link] example, Balzac's Rabouilleuse has with her masternon-prescribed profitable and relations. However,in thiscase thereis no conformity betweenthe social system sexual values and of its economic substructure: theirprescriptions in a contradictory are relationship. C
-

The model of individual values:

Let us take as a hypothesis thatthe individualis defined, in a way analogous to society, the assumption contents which by of in 95

Yale French Studies his and he investsand whichconstitute personality, by the disclaimwhichhe [Link] individual cultureand this ingof othercontents and forbiddenrelaindividualnature definerespectively permitted tions; desiresare includedin the first group,phobias in the second. The system individual values could thusbe written: of Personality (permitted relations) Desired sexual relations (prescribed) "Non-personality" (forbidden relations) Feared sexual relations (forbidden)
. >
p2

PI <
P2 <

........

>

Pi

Sexual relations not feared (not forbidden)

Sexual relations not desired (not prescribed)

The termsof thissystem withschema seem to be articulated 2 of social values,in as faras theindividual appearsoutsidesocialized relations. have eightmorepossible relations: We Forbidden relations:
c2 C2

~
-

p1

(desired)

c2

Pi
C2

p2 P

(feared)
(not desired) (not feared)

C2 - P2

Relationsnotforbidden:

(desired) C2 ? P2 (feared) C2- pi (not desired) c-2 - P2 (not feared)

~ pI

We can also foreseecombinations withthe termscl and cl, giving eightfurther possibilities. We shall now attempt define to more accurately structure the of the combinations about by the interaction the different brought of Let A and B equal the two systems systems. facingone another;let 96

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier Several typesof and pr. equal the prescriptions i. the interdictions. relations can be forseen: - relations betweenhomologousterms: /I/ pr. (A) + pr. (B) ; i. (A) + L (B).
/2/ nonpr. (A) + non pr. (B) ; noni. (A) + noni. (B).
- relationsbetween non-homologous termsbelongingto a homologousdeixis: /3/ pr. (A) + non i. (B); pr. (B) + non i. (A).

/4/ i. (A)

non pr. (B)

; i. (B)

non pr. (A).

balanced, of The relations groups/1/ and /2/ maybe termed of and therelations groups/3/ and /4/ compatible. - relations to terms belonging nonbetweennon-homologous relations. conflictual homologousdeixes may be termed betweenopposing termsmay be disTwo typesof conflicts it according whether is a questionof the axis of injuncto tinguished, tionsor the axis of non-injunctions: (strong conflicts) /5/ pr. (A) + i. (B) ; pr. (B) + i. (A)
/6/ non pr. (A) + noni. (B) ; nonpr. (B) + noni. (B)

(weak conflicts) terms according and two types of conflicts between contradictory or to whether is a questionof a schema of interdictions prescripit tions: /7/ pr. (A) + nonpr. (B) ; pr. (B) + nonpr. (A)
/8/ i. (A) + noni. (B) ; i. (B) + noni. (A).

Let us take the case of socially permitted sexual relations; if we considerpermissible ci marriageas invariant and C-2 as being to of submitted the substitutions individualvalues, we obtain four typesof possible marriages: Formulaof the combination
Ci +
C2

Structure the combination of balanced /1/ conflictual /5/

ci + pi
C- + p2

(desired) (phobic)
(not desired)

c-

+pi

C] +p2

(non phobic)

compatible /3/ 97

Yale French Studies Let us take another [Link] we consired as an invariant C2 and cl as beingsubmitted variation(with economicsubstitutions) to we obtainfourtypesof possible sexual relations: Formula of the combination
C2 + C1 c2 +
C2 +

Structure the combination of

ei
e2

c2 + e2 c2 + e2

(profitable) (harmful) (not profitable) (not harmful)

compatible /3/ conflictual /8/ conflictual /6/ balanced /2/

A generalized combinatory the termsof the threesystems of would producesixteenpossible situations the sociallypermissible for sexual relations; shall see, however, we canthatall the combinations not be equally manifested. This combinatory could, for example, furnishan organon adequate to describeinterpersonal relationsin narrative. Thus, if we are describing sexual relations the novels of Balzac, we noticethat in in generalthe situationof the protagonists dissymetrical: exis for ample therelations FatherRigou withhis servant of girlwill be nonwithFather forbidden, desired,and non-harmful; thoseof the servant Rigou are non-permissible, feared,and non-profitable; thereis a thus conflict whatever manifestation the [Link] non-homolthe of ogy of the semioticsituations unmay serve to define"the romantic the love is the manifestation relationsfrom satisfaction"; perfect of groups/1/ or /3/. II. 2. The individualand society. A - The integrated substrucand substructures the correlated tures: of The system economicvalues and thatof individualvalues, regulatenot only sexual relations;in other respects,they combine the withsocializedsexual relations, secondwith the preferentially, first non-socialized relations. for These two substructures must be distinguished, theyare 98

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier not in the same relationship the social system. to The economicvalues are integrated thetotalsocial system into (althougheconomicegoismdoes exist): forexampleit would be difficult imaginethatincestcould be profitable a societywhereit to in is forbidden;certain theoretically possible combinations,such as thoseof group/5/ could not appear. On the otherhand, the system individualvalues does not of to and relations necessarily appear integrated the social system, from group/5/ are possible: theymay,forexample,appears as transgressions. The individualsystemmay be said to be correlatedto the social system(moreoverpersonality includessocialized instances).

B - The Human world:

(desires are non-forbidden) (social prescriptions non-feared) are things not desired) are -Pi~ c2 (forbidden Z things feared) are P2 (non-prescribed
C2

jp2

deIn otherterms, schema assumedforthe social system the fines negativelythe schema assumed for the individual system. Schema 1 of theindividual and schema2 of the social system system of overlap,the injunctions the one being combinedwiththe non injunctions the other;likewiseforschema2 of the individual of system and schema 1 of the social system. In this situation, axes of the two systems are correlated the withthe neutralaxis of thus: the complex axis of the social system the withthe the individualsystem, neutralaxis of the social system complexaxis of theindividual system. The conjunctionof the two culturaldeixes (social and in99

Yale French Studies humanvalues; thatof thetwonaturaldeixes defines dividual) defines thenon-human world. of The conjunction individualculturewith social naturedethat withindividual finesthe space of transgression; of social culture nature,the space of alienation. that Note: It has been pointedout, in a studyon thisliterary form, in the Russian folk-tale transgression alienationare correlative. and That is, in the semanticuniversedescribed, the enjoyment values of is defined the compatibility the social and individualsystems, by of so thatcl _ P2 ; and C2 ? pi. But then,therecannotbe transgression without alienation; we have: if - p4, and -C2 P a) cl p2, we mustalso have: b) C2 - p2, and cl - pi, and conversely, we have b), we mustalso have a). if These reflections could be extendedto balanced relationsor conflictual relationsbetweenthe individualand society;in the case of balanced relations,for example, there is homologationof the two systems, giving definition a fullysocializedindividual. the of

III.

TowardsManifestation III. 1. The interaction semioticsystems. of

The concept of usage was introduced Hjelmslev to acby in count for the closure of manifestation relationto the possibilities defined thestructure. by The rare attempts studyusage have been carriedout by to means of problematical calculation: it has been pointedout for example, that an Indian community two hundredmemberscannot of exhaustthe possibilities a matrimonial of systemwhich permitsof millionsof combinations. Agreed,but that does not mean that the are effected random; it is probable that the historic at marriages and not of other situation determines choice of some marriages, the ones. We shall attempt definethishistoricity. to equally possible 100

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier It mustnot be concludedfromthe preceding conjectures on thatthe manifestation a systemis definedsolely sexual relations, of would be relations:in such a case, the manifestation by its permitted quite simplythe productof rules of type si and S2. This seems unfor in likely, the deixis of the permitted defined relationto thatof is the excluded. That is doubtlesswhy certainAmericanlinguistsdo relanot choose corpora (conforming hypothetically the permitted to tions in the systemdescribed), but create for theirown use nongrammatical corporawhichmanifest "hidden"rulesof typeS2 and the it One thingcan guide us: whether is a questionof words or of marriages, nothingpermitsan assertionthat a semioticmanifestation dependenton only one [Link] in as far as it is is dependent several,its closurecan be attributed the interaction on to of the different systemswhich produce it. Take, for example, any non-forbidden sexual relation;it is possible,but it is not certainthat it will appear. It can not coincidewiththepermissible relations the of economic systemin question,or of the systemof individualvalues of each of the protagonists. the case of therebeing a free comIn binatory, there is one chance in eight that the permitted relations will coincide,and one in sixty-four, a term of the threesystems that of the social model will appear in a balanced combination. One can see that numerouscombinations foreseenabove cannot appear: for example,a sexual relationwhichis sociallyforbidden, economically harmful phobicto the individual. and We propose giving the term usage to the interaction of semiotic structures whichis responsible manifestations fornonfor as manifestations. Several typesof interaction foreseeable: are - Absence of permission the two systems in concerned:we have the combinations /1/ b) ; /2/ a) ; /4/. It would seem that therecan be no manifestation. -Permission in one systembut interdiction the other: we have in

2Cf. M. Gross, Langages, 9, p. 5: "In an article of modern linguisticsthere are as many non-grammatical examples as acceptable examples."

101

Yale French Studies the combinations /5/ ; /6/ ; /7/ ; /8/. We cannotsay whether the manifestation take place. will -Permission in the two systems:we have /1/ a) ; /2/ b) ; /3/. The manifestation take place. may The inventory combinations of which can bringabout the manifestation further is restricted we accept the hypothesis if that at least one prescription needed forit to take place: thereremain is only /1/ a) and /3/. Here is an example of usage: in the Frenchphonologicsystem the variant/R/ of the phoneme /r/ is non-forbidden the in working classes and non-prescribed "politesociety".It is connoted in by the content"rusticity". will thus appear or not accordingto It social classes; the interaction betweenthe social axiological system and the phonologicalsystemappears clearlyhere3. The functioning usage must be [Link] of our presentation sexual relations, different of the systems question in are in a hierarchical relationship:in relationto the manifestation, each content thesocial system values appears mediatized two of of by or substructures, economicsystem stages the and the individualsystem. It remainsto be seen what determines the hierarchy the of systems. has a significance: hierarchy thesystems This problem the of allows one to decide, in the case of conflictual combinations(/5/; /6/ ; /7/ and /8/) if therewill be a manifestation. Will a marriage conforming the social prescriptions both phobic (or non-deto but sired) and profitable takeplace? There are severalexamplesin Balzac of "businessmarriages";thismeans thatin the societywhichhe inventsor describesthe system economicvalues dominatesthat of of individualvalues. It even dominatesthat of social sexual values etc.) 4. (prostitution, We proposecallingthe structure whichdefines hierarchy the of the semiotic in systems questionepistemy (here, bourgeoisor bal3Althoughfacts of this type are frequentlycited in Jakobson's Phonological Studies, we know of no scientific study of them; doubtless the phonologistshave preferred eliminate to the non-injunctions from the systemsthey have studied. 41n the French Civil Code, the firstparagraph of the chapter Des moyens d'acquerir la proprietg(On the means of acquiring property)is entitled: "Le Mariage".

102

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier zacian epistemy, whichever one prefers).In this case, it definesthe combinations which may appear; and thus not only the closure of of the manifestation (negativedefinition usage by the non-manifestations) but the natureof realized manifestations (positive definition of usage). Note: The termchoice can be givento the processeswhichproduce the realized manifestations and defineusage positively: and conand to straints the processeswhichcause the non-manifestations deor fineusage negatively (the constraints determine asemanticity, incompatibility the interacting of termsof the systems). In otherterms, epistemy takesinto accountthe historicity of its the manifestations; social componentappears as common sense, implicitor not, which is an axiological and dialectical systemimmanentin all the semioticstructures the societyunder consideraof tion. III. 2. The statusof manifested contents. a We have just seen underwhat conditions contentcan apthe We pear in manifestation. can now define littlemore accurately a natureof the semioticmanifestation, the movement and fromdeep to superficial structures. An author, producerof any semiotic a object,operateswithin an epistemy, which is the resultant his individuality of and the in society whichhe is situated. Within it is possibleforhimto make it, a limitednumberof choices,whichhave as an initialresultthe investment organizedcontents, of that is, contentsendowed with valencies (possibilities relations). of of Without goingso faras to prejudgethe structure semiotic grammar, must specify we how these contentsappear in [Link] shall take onlythemostsimplecases. As each termof a semioticstructure defined relations is by of conjunctionand disjunction, can appear on the mode of the it conjunctor on themode of the disjunct. a) The mode of the disjunct: each contentof a semiotic structure may appear: 103

Yale French Studies disjunctof the other three terms;it is then isolated in the manifestation; example, we have: S (vs S2, S1, S2); thus for thereis one manifestation possible for each of the fourterms. - disjunct another of term;it enterswithin distinctive a opvs S2 ; S1 VS 1 ; si VSS2. The other position;we have, forexample: Si possibilities manifestation the same structure si vs S2 S1 VS of are: of S2 ; S2 VS S2. Thus thereare six possiblemanifestations. manb) The mode of the conjunct: to the six immanent ifestations the constitutional of in structure correspond the mancan ifestation binaryconjunctions six which definewhat are called the complexterms. Therewould thusbe two deicticcomplexes, two complexes of contraries, and two complexesof contradictories. The neutralterm, whichis a simpletermin the description of Brondal,could in reality the complex (s, + S2). be It is uncertain whether what is called a balanced complex termis the conjunctmanifestation two contraries of two conof or tradictories; limited the experiment thedescription allowedthe of has identification the complexes of the two types, of the type of ("white"+ "black"), and ("white" + "non white"). We must also envisage the problemof extension:Bryndal and one does come across,complextermswitha positiveor defines, of negativedominance;theyare perhapsproducedby the interaction hierarchically unequal systems. Our ignorance theselast threepointswill onlylessenafter on numerous descriptions. Whateverthe case, we can understand efficacity the of the descriptionof semic structures, since an elementarystructureis theoretically susceptible a numberof manifestations to equal to the square of the number its terms. of These exploratory reflexions could be extended in two directions: The study mustbe made,of how theproduction a semiotic of object meets,withthe superficial a second level of constructures, straints and choices: it is a question of discursivestructures (narratives,for example). They account for the syntagmatic aspect of
-

104

A. J. Greimasand F. Rastier like They impose the choice of certainoperations, the manifestation. of of theplaying roles (contents theactants), and of "archifunctions" (contentsof the functions). The studymustthenbe made of the relationsbetweenthe system grammar and of form deep structures therulesof the semiotic could, forexample,definethe orientaemployed:the deep structure tion of dialecticalgorithms. the it But first, would be as well to define mode of existence and, once their structures, at of the contents the level of superficial logical statusis described,to establishthe calculationof theircombinations.

105