Note should be like …..Structuralism defn…detailed….. signifier and signified…..

application in literature…

Abstract:

Structuralism is an intellectual movement to the human sciences with a profound effect on linguistics, sociology, literature and other
fields as well as philosophy which tries to analyze a specific field as a sophisticated system of interrelated parts. Structuralism believes
that all human activity and its products are constructed . It also holds that everything has meaning

Structuralism can best be described, to adapt a term proposed by Basil Bernstein. as a "thematic region", that brings together "
disciplines and the technologies they make possible, much as cognitive science, management, engineering and medicine do "
(Thibault 1998: 598
https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/22680/1/Unit-1.pdf

Roughly speaking Structuralism derives from two terms: structure and ism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "structure" as "
manner in which a complete whole is constructed, or a whole of the essential parts of something." Look at the pen you use. It is a
structure made up of smaller units: the body, the refill, the spring, etc. So, when we speak of a structure we refer to a whole with
certain essential constituents. "Ism" is a suffix, which suggests a system, or principle based on the word / concept to which it is
appended. So, Marxism suggests a system or body of principles deriving primarily from the writings of Marx. Thus, Structuralism would
refer to a system or body of principles deriving from the belief that any phenomenon is a structure, that is, a whole with certain
essential constituents. It would attempt to investigate the nature of the structure and the general laws by which it works.

The belief that everything could be studied as a structure seems to be firmly grounded in the 19th and early 20th century Western
thought. Both Marx and Freud considered that certain phenomena ( in society or psychology), were made possible by underlying
systems and structures: for Marx the superstructure was a manifestation of a system of relations at the base; for Freud, human
behaviour could be explained in terms of the operations of an unconscious. Similarly, Saussure believed that a linguistic phenomena
could be explained in terms of an underlying system or structure. In his lectures, he tried to outline this structure and the laws
governing its functioning.

The foundational principles of structural-functional linguistics were based on the lecture notes of the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure(1857-19 13) published posthumously as Cours de Linguistique Gerzerrrb (CLG).The presence of de Saussure’s works really
perceived as a revolution. Therefore, it is not surprising that de Saussure was given the title as the "Father of Structuralism" and at the
same time as the "Father of Modern Linguistics”.

The following are the general methodological principles of Saussure:

1. Langue and Parole [language structure vs. speaking in a language],

2. Signifier and Signified,

3. Synchronic and Diachronic, and,

4. Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic.

1. Langue and Parole [language structure vs. speaking in a language]

While making distinctions between the linguistic system and its actual manifestations we arrive at the crucial opposition between
LANGUE and PAROLE.

Langage = as the general capacity that distinguishes man from the animal.

Langue = as language structure which consists of vocabulary, principles of construction, idioms, rules of pronunciation, etc.

Parole= as language, both speech and writing used in a context.

Langue is the property of the society while Parole is an individual’s property. Langue is fixed while Parole is free from restrictions like
grammar or rules of pronunciation. Langue –Parole distinction has formed a basis for all later structuralist model of linguistics.

2. The arbitrariness of the sign

Any sentence for Saussure is a sequence of signs i.e: words.

The linguistic sign is an arbitrary linkage between a signifier and a signified. The former is a sound-image while the latter is a
concept. Saussure believed that there is no natural connection between sound and meaning. There is no natural or intrinsic
connection between sound-images and concepts. It is purely arbitrary or conventional.
SIGN

The linguistic sign is an arbitrary linkage between a signifier and a

signified.

Signifier=sound-image
Signified=concept

The relation between the whole sign (signifier+signified) and what it refers to, which Saussure called the referent, ( the real funy four-
legged creature) is therefore also arbitrary. That is, Saussure argued about two arbitrary links: between a signifier and the signified,
and the sign and the referent.

3. The Diachronic and the Synchronic Study of Language [history vs. structure]

• Diachronic - the study of linguistic development through time.

• Synchronic - the study of language at a given point in time

Saussure argued that there is a need for a radical distinction between the two branches of linguistics; synchronic and diachronic
linguistics.
Synchronic linguistics studies 'Langue'. Synchronic linguistics is a system that is psychologically real. It is the study of language in a
particular state at a point of time. It is the study of fixed language.

Diachronic linguistics is concerned with 'Parole" and the relations of succession between individual items. Diachronic linguistics is not
systematic and it is the study of language of its evolution in time.

4. The Oppositional Structure of Language [Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic]

Any sentence for Saussure is a sequence of signs i.e words. The relationship of each sign to other signs can be seen in two ways:

1. the Syntagmatic, and,

2. the Paradigmatic.

SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONSHIP IS LINEAR.

PARADIGMATIC RELATIONSHIP IS ASSOCIATIVE.

Syntagmatic Relationship
In the syntagmatic relationship, units as sounds, phrases, clauses, sentences and discourses are chained together in a fixed sequence
and combination, and they get their force by standing in opposition to what precedes or follows them. This relationship holds at
various levels of language. If we take a sentence ,I am a boy, this is how syntagmatic relationship of different words(or signs) in this
sentence can be shown.

I >am >a > boy.

Thus syntagmatic relationships :

Are Chain relationships

Are relationships between words/signs which are present.

Give an inner logic to the words /signs of a sentence.

PARADIGMATIC RELATIONSHIP
Paradigmatic relationship on the otherhand, refers to the relationship that holds between units that are there and the units that are
not there but potentially could have been there. Let us take a simple example:

C A T

The first unit of the word cat is /c/. There are many other sounds which could have come at this place, for instance /p/ or /b/ or /m/
giving words like pat, bat and mat. These probable candidates are paradigmatic.

Syntagmatc relationship is the relationship in PRESENTIA .

The Paradigmatic relationship is the relationship in ABSENTIA.

Thus paradigmatic relations:

Are the relations of contrast.

Are relations with other signs which are absent. As Saussure said about paradigmatic relations:

“ They are relations in absentia and are vertical type relations. Their seat is in the brain, they are part of the inner storehouse that
makes up the language of each speaker.”

The Two Relationships-- a diagramatical presentation.

Paradigmatic relations occur with words whose number or order is not fixed.We know that syntagmatic relations figure with words
given in a sentence.Therefore, their umber is certain and their order is fixed. But in paradigmatic relations, we can think of any
number of words to contrast with the given word. For example:

STRUCTURALISM AND ITS APPLICATION IN LITERATURE

Structuralism which emerged as a trend in the 1950s challenged New Criticism and rejected Sartre‘s existentialism and its notion of
radical human freedom; it focused instead how human behaviour is determined by cultural, social and psychological structures. It
tended to offer a single unified approach to human life that would embrace all disciplines. Roland Barthes and Jacques
Derrida explored the possibilities of applying structuralist principles to literature. Jacques Lacan studied psychology in the light of
structuralism, blending Freud and Saussure. Michel Foucault‘s The Order of Things examined the history of science to study the
structures of epistemology (though he later denied affiliation with the structuralist movement). Louis Althusser combined Marxism and
Structuralism to create his own brand of social analysis.

https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english-literature/literary-criticism-and-theory/structuralism-literary-theory/

Structuralism literary theory: writers

Structuralism comes from a branch of language study called ‘structural linguistics’. This approach was originally developed by a
French linguist called Ferdinand de Saussure.

Saussure developed an approach to the study of language which saw the linguistic sign (a word) as the relationship between a ‘sound
image’ (a spoken word or written word), which he called a ‘signifier’, and the concept itself, which he called the ‘signified’. This
differed from earlier ways of understanding the relationship between words and things. Until Saussure, words and the things they
denoted were thought to have a direct relationship.

Structuralism literary theory and criticism

Because linguistics and literary theory are closely related, the ideas proposed in linguistics by Saussure were easily adapted to the
study of literature. When a literary text is studied using Structuralism, the text is connected to a wider ‘structure’. This might include
the kind of literature the text is part of (its genre), or the universal ways stories are told around the world.

In this case, the structuralist mines the text for certain common themes or patterns. The idea here is that human consciousness has
universal features, and it is the job of the literary critic to find them and explain them. Any literary text can be reduced to its basic
parts. Once that is done, the text can be compared to other stories with a similar narrative structure.

For example, ‘Boy meets girl. Girl finds herself in danger of some kind. Boy rescues girl’. This is a common story in books and films. No
matter what style of writing this narrative structure is found in (an epic poem, a novel, a play), the basic parts of the story are the
same. It’s a classic hero+tension+resolution kind of story.
So a novel or a poem, or a painting, gives information about something much deeper (the underlying structure of consciousness).
Structuralists believe that the underlying structures which organise rules and units into meaningful systems are
generated by the human mind itself and not by sense perception.¹
This means that our minds manage information so that it becomes meaningful. It is the mind itself which makes meaning out of the
world around us.

Structuralism literary theory examples

Structuralism uses some basic questions to interpret literary texts:

1. Are there any patterns in text A which are similar to patterns in text B? Structuralism is interested in similarities between texts.

2. Are there any opposites in the text which are set against each other? In Structuralism, opposites are called ‘binary oppositions’,
such as good/evil, light/dark, tall/short etc.

In his book Literary Theory (1983), Terry Eagleton says that Structuralism represents a ‘remorseless demystification of literature’.²
This means that when Structuralism is applied to a literary text, it strips the text of its aesthetic form and subjective meaning and
reduces it to its bare essentials. All that is left is the underlying structure.

Eagleton writes:

… the literary work, like any other product of language, is a construct, whose mechanisms could be classified and
analysed like the objects of any other science.2
As such, Structuralism is explicitly anti-individual and to a certain extent, anti-artist. It is not interested in individuality or artistic
creativity in and of itself, nor as a unique manifestation of an author's personality. It is only interested in the underlying and shared
structures of consciousness found in the work of art or literature. It is a unifying approach. But as it unifies, it also obliterates. This idea
is found in a famous essay by Roland Barthes called 'The Death of the Author' (1977).

Take a popular example: Romeo and Juliet (published in 1597). The story is beautifully written, of course. The language is memorable,
and productions are put on all over the world. But stripped down to its bare essentials, the story is simple: ‘Boy meets girl. They fall in
love. They kill themselves.’ There is also a parallel plot: ‘a conflict between two families’. The two levels of the plot are interrelated
and affect each other during the course of the play. The Prologue provides the ‘structure' of the whole:

Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. From forth the fatal loins of these two foes A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life; Whose
misadventured piteous overthrows Do with their death bury their parents' strife. The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, And the continuance of their parents' rage, Which, but their children's end, nought could remove, Is now the two hours' traffic of our
stage; The which if you with patient ears attend, What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
A structuralist interpretation focuses on the overall plot and the binary oppositions in the play. In Romeo and Juliet, the main binary
opposition is love/hate; it is found throughout the play in the opposition between Romeo and Juliet’s love for each other, compared to
the hatred that the two families have for each other.

Main characteristics of Structuralism literary theory

The main characteristics of Structuralism in literary theory are as follows:

1. A focus on the underlying structure of a literary text.

2. The meaning of a text is in the inter-relationship of its parts.

3. Binary oppositions are key to understanding a text.

4. The individuality and personality of the author are unimportant. What matters are the deep structures.

5. Literary texts are constructs. Meaning does not come from inside the text. Instead, meaning comes from the relationship of each
part of the text with other parts.

Structuralism - Key takeaways

 Structuralism is a way of understanding culture and meaning in the arts by relating the individual piece of art (a novel, a

painting, a symphony) to something larger.

 Structuralism comes from a branch of language study called ‘structural linguistics’.

 Structuralism is explicitly anti-individual.

 Structuralism is about a shared structure of meaning.

 Binary oppositions are key to understanding a text.