Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints

    Uploaded by

    Nasir
    169 views10 pages
    Literature and semantic

    Original Title

    The_Interaction_of_Semiotic_Constraints

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Literature and semantic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    169 views10 pages

    The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints

    Uploaded by

    Nasir
    Literature and semantic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    ‘A. J. Greimas and F. Rastier ‘The Interaction of semiotic constraints One should beware of believing that the inventive mind operates accord- ing t0 chance. — De de Tracy. The play in question here is not to be understood as a free activity productive of literary objects, but as a long journey punctuated with compelling choices that leads, through @ series of exclusions and of options, manifesting personal and social phobias and euphorias, to the cons of an original and unique work. Instead of analysing a com- pleted text, the authors have tried to see how 1g from kernels of meaning, from categories of meaning which are at once simple and basic, the creative faculty operates, a faculty which, proceeding from the simple to the complex, from the general to the particular, makes its way, through a ta draws from the same sources as the whole of, yy: the theoretical aim of this study is thus largely anthropological, in open opposition to the ing a possi at the same time a calling into question of the literary phe- Perhaps out of a desire for intelligibility, we can imagine that the human mind, in order to achieve the construction of cultural objects 86 4d 1968 (Our aim is to give a rough idea of this course. It may to move from immanence to manifestation, in three an individual or a society, and subsequen ence of semiotic objects. As far as we know, the stituants of deep structures have a definable log — superficial structures constitute a semiotic gf arranges into discursive forms the contents susce ‘The products of this grammar system are expression which reveals them, in as far as they ear in any substance, and, in the case of language, — the structures of manifestation produce cular to any given language (or more pr lar characteristics of languages), or to any glven are studied by the supe! et. We are concerned here with the first stage. 1. The Structure I. 1. The elementary structure If the meaning § (the universe of system) appears, on the level at which it axis, it is opposed to §, taken as an absol contradictory to the term $, which describes significant whole. Any semiotic system can, n another system which is its contrary: thus S: vx S%, is artic semes: Yale French Studies <> these two semes, taken separately, indicate the existence of their con- tradictory terms: uc >h lowing for the fact that $ may be redefined, after its semic articulations have been set , as a. complex seme us sv in a double relation of disjunction and conjunction, the elementary structure of meaning may be represented as: ‘This model is constructed by using a small number of un- defined concepts: a) The concepts of conjunction and disjunction necessary for interpreting the structural re b) Two types of disjunction, the disjunction of contraries (indicated by the dotted line) and the disjunction of contradictories indicated by the continuous line). Note: The model above is only an adapted formulation of that formerly proposed by one of the present authors (Greimas, Séman- tique structurale, Larousse, 1966). This new presentation makes it isomorphic to the logical hexagon of R. Blanché (cf. Claude Chabrol Structures intellectuelles, in Social Science Information, 1967, VI-S) as well as to the structures call and, in psychology, the Piaget By taking into consideration only the form of the content and only simple semic terms, we can give a slightly different formulation to the same structure. It appears then as the correlating of two categories of opp lation of homologized contradictions: 8 a ale 88 A.J, Greimas and F. Rastier ‘This new presentation allows one to see that what is first of all the structure permitting an account of the mode of existence of the meaning, finds its 9 invested contents, in very varied spheres: indeed, myth propounded by Claude Lévi-Strauss ronic articulation of the folk-tale, b certain number of ps Destutt de Tracy). deductive approach encounters models constructed empirically to account for the limited corpora. 2. The structure of semiotic systems. If deductive considerations thus encounter inductive descrip- is because the elementary structure of meaning forms into are in turn organized into a structure isomorphic to the superior hierarchic structure. Thus, the elementary structure articulates in the same way the semes and the constituent. system: systems. For example, the contents Life and Death embrace universe of Bernanos: 1 in two systematic instances (negative and positive defini- tions) which are written respectively: s vs 2; 2 vs &1. They are articulated in their turn into semie systems. Let us first of all define the formal properties of the constitu- tional model; then we shall give examples of investments, The terms of the model: using each of the four terms as point of departure, one can obtain the three others by the two operations: by taking the contradictory and by taking the contrary, Their defni- tion is formal, and anterior to any investment. ‘The relations: a) hierarchical: a hyponymi tablished between s: and sp, and S; another between ) categorical: — a relation of contradi is established between $ and S; and at the hierarchically inferior le between s; and &;, between s2 and 3s. —a relation of “contraries” articulates s; and s2 on the one hand, ¥1 instances of is S; vs Sp. Each one 49. Yale French Studies and % on the other. In the terms of Hjelms! as solidarity, or double presupposition. :: The two operations, that of taking the contradictory and that ing the opposite, are involutive: the opposite of the opposite of Fy of the contradictory of s is s. —a relation of implication (or simple presupposition) is established between s: and & on the one hand, and sz and 3 on the other: implies si (and not the inverse); &: implies se (and not the inverse). In fact, s: and s» may be defined negatively by & and &; respectively. If one proposes s1 or se, one implies at the same time the presence of 3: or & respectively. In the language of the logic of classification, one can say that s1 is included in &2, and sz in 3:. The two terms of each relation of inclusion may be termed complementary. ‘The dimensions: By their related definitions, the semi are grouped in pairs into six systematic dimensions. One can dis- tinguish: —two axes, § and 5, Their relationship is that of contradiction. § may of the complex: it embraces s: and so, S is the axis of ries 5 and S: (of se and axis in relation to s: and ss, for it can be defined by: = two schemas: si + 51 define schema 1; ss -+ Se define scl Each of the schemas is formed by the relation of — two deixes: the first is defined by si and the term which 4s; the second by sp and the term which that implies: 8, , it may be identified terms therefore the neutral ther 51 nor ss ‘Thus we have: Constituant Structural dimensions Semic relations structures contrary axis (complex) sits 3 axis (neutral) ith ‘contradiction schema 1 +a schema 2 Sth simple implication deixis 1 si +f deixis 2 ati 90 A. J. Greimas and F. Rastier One can foresee the relations between the different systematle dimensions. The two axes, formed by relations of contraries, are theme selves in a relation of contradiction, The two schemas, defined by relations of contradiction, aA themselves in a relation of opposition. We propose calling the double presupposition of the two schemas semiosis. We reserve for lai? study the question of whether this double presupposition correapodd@ to that of linguistic content and expression, considered ux the Schemas ofa single model L. 3. The typology of the rules. Every system comprises by definition a group of are defined positively, but one can also define them ney what they are not: so S represents the postive defn of the system, and 5 their negative defi nowadays agrees that a grammar system mus ion of what is grammatical, but also ‘grammatical. Unfortunately the concept of agramma several things, the rules of constituent interdi We could say that with respect to the ma 25 group of injunctions, and S as a group of Each of these two types of rule impli instance; say and 5, which are, wi ictions and_non-pre ‘can establish the following table Yale French Studies Permissible relations Forbidden relations ae Sos, >& Non-matrimoni (not forbidden) (not prescribed) 93 Yale French Studies : In traditional French society, for example, we have the follow- equivalences: 1 conjugal love; 2 incest, homosexuality; % adultery by the man (over and above conjugal love) &% adultery by the woman (over and above homosexual etc). Whatever the investment of the model, it is a question, in the cato of nature as in that of culture, of social values (and not of the rejection of nature outside meaning). The terms of the social model have no “objective” content: thus, homosexuality is sometimes forbidden (New Zealand), some- limes not forbidden (among the Bororo); they are always situated, hhowaver, on an axis other than that of matrimonial relations, in which betarouexuality alone is permitted. Schema 1 of the model seems reserved for socialized sexual falations (defined in relation to marriage); on the other hand schema only defined negatively, in connection with incest, for example. iow study the relations of the social model of th the semiotic substructures susceptible of inter- xual values uation with it B — The economic model of sexual relations: ‘The system of economic values is also a social system which fagulaten xexusl relations, If we accept that profits are a kind of Prawcription, and losses a kind of interdi 1 consumption of wealth socms to be a the system of economic values may be forr 4 _ ‘A.J, Greimas and F. Rastier Permitted relations Unacceptable relations Profitable sexual relations _-Hlarmful sexual relations (prescribed) (forbidden) a< Se e a< > a ‘Non-harmful sexual relati Unprofitable sexual relations (not forbidden) (not prescribed) In as far as they are socialized sexual rel rise to the exchange of goods (dowry, etc.), the economic sub- structure is in relation to schema 1 of the system of social values. Eight possible relationships may be specified: Matrimonial relations: c:~ ex (profitable) c:~es (harmful) 8 (non profitabl = (non harmful Non matrimonial relations: ~er (profitable) &~es (harmful) (not profitable) (not harmful) mis of type c2 and & combine the terms of the econor jons. For example, ler non-prescribed and profitable relations. However, in this case there is no conformity between its economic substructure: their pres relationship, C— The model of individual values: Let us take as a hypothesis that the individual is defined, in @ way analogous to society, by the assumption of contents in which 95 ‘Yale French Studies he invests and which constitute his personality, and by the disclaim- ing of other contents which he rejects. This individual culture and this individual nature define respectively permitted and forbidden rela- tions; desires are included in the first group, phobias in the second ‘The system of individual values could thus be written: Personality “Non-personality” (permitted relations) (forbidden relations) Desired sexual relations Feared sexual relations (prescribed) (forbidden) PB ae P —™ B

    You might also like