Eng 205: Advance Literary Criticism

Report Summary
STRUCTURALIST THEORIES

Structuralism gives importance to the underlying structure of a literary text. It pays great importance to the
structural similarities within various texts, whereas the individual work content are neglected. Furthermore,
a text is free from context, history, readers’ interpretation, and isolated from the author itself.
Different to what we know about literary works, structuralists argued that literary discourse has no truth
function. Structuralists contrasted all kinds of literary criticism in which the human subject is the source
and origin of literary meaning. As said by Roland Barthes in his 1968 essay that writers only have the ability
to combine present writings, to reconstruct or reorganize them; thus, writers cannot ‘express’ themselves
through writing, but only to relate upon that vast dictionary of language and culture which is ‘always already
written’.

Linguistic Background
Relied initially on the ideas of the Swiss linguists, Ferdinand de Saussure. His works compiled and
published in Course in General Linguistics (1915) has been a great influence for contemporary literary
theory. In this book, the focus is on the underlying system of language which is called “langue” and not on
the use or utterance of language which is called “parole”
The proper object of linguistic study is the system which underlies any particular human signifying practice,
not the individual utterance. Saussure refused that words are used to refer to things in the world, or simply
he refused:
SYMBOL = THINGS
However, he viewed that words are not symbols which correspond to referents but are ‘signs’ which are
made up of two parts: signifier (the sound pattern of the word) and signified (the concept or meaning of
the word). He regarded the signifier as arbitrary and unrelated to the signified to which it relates. Thus, his
model can be drawn as:
signifier red
SIGN = example: Traffic Light =
signified stop

In the example, the relationship of the signifier and signified is arbitrary. The color signifies not by asserting
positive univocal meaning but by marking difference, a system of opposites and contrast.
Language is one among many sign-systems and the science of such system is called ‘semiotics’ or
‘semiology’. It is usual to regard both as belonging to the same theoretical universe. C. S. Peirce made three
types of signs: iconic (where the sign resembles its referent: eg. the road sign of falling rocks); indexical
(the sign is associated with its referent: eg. smoke is a sign of fire); and symbolic (the sign has arbitrary
relation to its referent: eg. language).
The first major developments in structuralist studies were based upon advances in the study of phonemes.
Hundreds of different ‘sounds’ may be made by speakers of particular languages, but number of phonemes
will be limited. We do not recognize sounds as meaningful bits of noise in their own right, but register them
as different in some respect from other sounds. Roland Barthes draws attention to this principle. The
essential point of this view is that underlying our use of language is a system, a pattern of paired opposites
(binary opposition). At the level of phoneme: nasalized/ non-nasalized, vocalic/ non-vocalic, voiced/
unvoiced, tense/ lax.
The anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss develop a phonemic analysis. Instead of asking questions about
origins or causes of the prohibitions, myths or rites, the structuralist looks for the system of differences
which underlies a particular human practice.
Barthes applied the principle that human performances presuppose a received system of differential
relation. He recognizes that the language system may change, and that changes must be initiated in ‘speech’;
nevertheless, at any given moment there exists a working system, a set of rules from which all ‘speeches’
may be derived.
Structuralist Narratology
Structuralist narratology illustrates how a story’s meaning develops from its overall structure (the langue)
rather than from each individual story’s isolated theme (the parole).
It is true that literature uses language as its medium, but this does not mean that the structure of literature
is identical with the structure of language. Structuralist agree that literature has a special relationship with
language: it draws attention to the very nature and specific properties of language.
Syntax is the basic model of narrative rules. The most elementary syntactic division of the sentence unit is
between subject and predicate. Vladimir Propp developed his theory of Russian fairy stories. His approach
can be understood if we compare the ‘subject’ of a sentence with the typical characters (hero, villain, etc.)
and the ‘predicate’ with the typical actions in such stories. This shows that the whole body of tales is
constructed upon the same basic set of thirty-one ‘function’. These follow a logical sequence, and although
no tales include them all, in every tale the functions always remain in sequence. The last group of function
is as follows:
25. A difficult task is proposed to the hero 29. The false hero is given a new appearance
26. The task is resolved 30. The villain is punished
27. The hero is recognized 31. The hero is married and ascends the throne
28. The false hero or villain is exposed
Propp added seven ‘spheres of action’ or roles to the thirty-one action: villain, donor (provider), helper,
princess (sought-after person) and her father, dispatcher, hero (seeker or victim), false hero.
However, Propp’s functions have a certain archetypal simplicity and cannot be applied to complex texts.
Claude Levi-Strauss is not interested in the narrative sequence, but in the structural pattern which gives the
myth its meaning. He looks for the phonemic structure of the myth. He believes that this linguistic model
will uncover the basic structure of the human mind. Propp thinks in terms of relations between entities
rather than of the character of entities in themselves.
Propp focused on a single genre which is Russian fairy stories, A.J. Greimas aims to arrive at the universal
‘grammar’ of narrative by applying to it a semantic analysis of sentence structure. He propses three pairs
of binary oppositions which include all six roles (actants) with three basic pattern:
1. Desire, search, or aim - subject/object
2. Communication - sender/receiver
3. Auxiliary support or hindrance - helper/opponent
Tzvetan Todorov summarized the different views by stating that all syntactic rules of language are restated
in their narrative guise – rules of agency, predication, adjectival and verbal functions, mood and aspect, and
so on. The minimal narrative unit is the ‘proposition’, which can be either an ‘agent’ or a ‘predicate’. The
propositional structure of a narrative can be described in the most abstract and universal fashion.
Todorov describes two higher levels of organization; the sequence and the text. A group of propositions
forms a sequence. Finally a succession of sequences forms a text. The sequences may be organized in a
variety of ways, by embedding, linking, alternation, or by mixture of these.
Gerard Genette developed his complex and powerful theory of discourse by dividing narrative into three
levels: story (histoire), discourse (recit), and narration which he derives from the three qualities of the verb:
tense, mood, and voice. He considers the problem of narrative theory by exploring three binary oppositions.
1. Diegesis and mimesis (narration and representation)
2. Narration and description
3. Narrative and discourse

Metaphor and Metonymy

There are some instances when structuralist theory provides the practical critic with a fertile ground for
interpretative applications. This is true of Roman Jakobson’s study of aphasia (speech defect). The first
type of aphasia exhibited ‘contiguity disorder’ or the inability to combine elements in a sequence; the
second is the ‘similarity disorder’ or the inability to substitute one element for another. The first type
corresponds to metaphor (eg. ‘den’ for ‘hut’) and the second corresponds to metonymy (eg. ‘burnt out’ for
‘hut).
Metonymy involves the shift from one element in a sequence to another, or one element in a context to
another; hence Jakobson linking metonymy to realism which speaks of its object by offering the reader
aspects, parts and contextual details, in order to evoke a whole.
David Lodge applied the theory to modern literature, adding further stages to cyclical process: modernism
and symbolism are essentially metaphoric, while anti-modernism is realistic and metonymic. He also rightly
points out that ‘context is all-important’. He shows that changing context can change the figures.

Structuralist Poetics
Jonathan Culler accepts the premise that linguistics affords the best model of knowledge for the
humanities and societies; however, he prefers Noam Chomsky’s distinction between ‘competence’ and
‘performance’ than Saussure’s ‘langue’ and ‘parole’. He believes that we can determine the rules that
govern the interpretation of texts, but not those rules that govern the writing of texts. If we begin by
establishing a range of interpretations which seem acceptable to skilled readers, we can then establish what
norms and procedures led to the interpretations.
Culler sees the structure not in the system underlying the text but in the system underlying the reader’s act
of interpretation. He holds that a theory of structure of texts or genres is not possible because there is no
underlying form of ‘competence’ which produces them: all we can talk about is the competence of readers
to make sense of what they read. In order to read texts as literature we must possess a ‘literary competence’
to make sense of the ordinary linguistic utterances we encounter.
Culler recognized that the conventions which apply to one genre will not apply to another, and that the
conventions of interpretation will differ from one period to another, but as a structuralist he believed that
theory is concerned with static, synchronic systems of meaning and not diachronic historical ones.

STRUCTURALISM attracted some literary critics because it promised to introduce a certain rigour and
objectivity into the impressionistic realm of literature. By subordinating parole to langue the structuralist
neglects the specificity of actual texts.
According to structuralists, writing has no origin. Every individual utterance is preceded by language: in
this sense, every text is made up of the ‘already written’. Consequently making it static, ahistorical and
exclude change and innovation just to isolate the system. Therefore, structuralists are interested not in the
development of the novel, but in the structure of the narrative.
The Saussurean perspective draws attention to the pre-existence of language. In the beginning was the word,
and the word created the text. Instead of saying that an author’s language reflects reality, the structuralists
argue that the structure of language produces ‘reality’.
Meaning is determined no longer by individual but by the system which governs the individual.

References:

Essays, UK. (November 2018). Analysis of Structuralism in Literary Texts English Literature Essay. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]?vref=l

Selden, R., Widdowson, P., & Brooker, P. (2005). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (5th ed.). Great Britain:
Pearson Education Limited.

Prepared by:

MARIEL B. CARABUENA