REVIEWS

ever-increasing examinations of discourse (as opposed to sentence) mechanisms.

Moreover, the very immanence of semiotic description can lead to a fruitful
revision of cultural classifications: in fact, the comparison between parables and
accounts of miracles - two types of texts that have often been thought to contain
few comparable elements - is made possible by semiotic (pre-'literary1) charac-
terization. Finally, as A. J. Greimas notes in an excellent postface, the Groupe
d'Entrevernes makes a contribution to the functional typology of narrative acts:
if some stories - say, Russian folktales - represent a conservative discourse (in
which an initial order finds itself threatened but is ultimately triumphant) and if
some other stories - say, classical myths - constitute a reassuring discourse (in
which the contradictions between two orders are transcended), some stories - say,
evangelical narrative - constitute an innovative discourse: they indicate a way of
going from an old order to a new one.
Signes etparaboles is not the first encounter between semiotics and the Gospels:
I need only mention the studies by Chabrol (1974) and Marin (1971) and the
work which has been appearing regularly in Semeia: An Experimental Journalfor
Bible Criticism. But the Groupe d'Entrevernes breaks new ground and does it
very well indeed.

REFERENCES '
Chabrol, Cl. (1974). Structure(s) narrative(s) du texte de la Passion et de la Resurrection.
In Cl. Chabrol and L. Marin (eds), Le rich evangilique. Paris: Aubier. 41—63.
Greimas, A. J. (1966). Semantique structurale. Paris: Larousse.
(1970). Du sens. Paris: Seuil.
(1976). Maupassant: la semiotique du texte, exercises pratiques. Paris: Seuil.
Marin, L. (1971). Simiotique de la Passion. Topiques etfigures.Paris: Aubier.
Reviewed by GERALD PRINCE
Department of Romance Languages
(Received 11 January 1978) University of Pennsylvania

JEAN CALLOUD, Structural analysis of narrative. Translated by Daniel Patte.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press and Missoula, Montana: Scholar's Press, 1976.
Pp. ix+108.
DANIEL PATTE, An analysis of narrative structure and the Good Samaritan. Semeia,
1974, 2. 1-26.
JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN, Structural analysis and the Parables of Jesus. Semeia,
1974, 1, 192-221.
JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN, The Good Samaritan: towards a generic definition of a
parable. Semeia, 1974, 2. 82-112.
Jean Calloud's book and the three articles from the journal Semeia are repre-
sentative of a series of analyses of biblical narrative published by biblical scholars
267
 LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY

in recent years, employing a structural model developed by the French linguist

A. J. Greimas and his students. Most of these articles and books have appeared
either in Semeia, an experimental journal for biblical criticism, or as Semeia
supplements (J. Calloud's book and others) published by the Society of Biblical
Literature, and edited by William A. Beardslee.
Rather than reviewing Jean Calloud's book and the other articles from Semeia
separately, I will attempt to summarize A. J. Greimas' model showing its
strengths and weaknesses as displayed in these analyses. All quotes from the
Bible will be taken from the Good News Bible: Today's English version, published
by the United Bible Societies.
A. J. Greimas' structural model views structure as having a syntagmatic and a
paradigmatic dimension. Both Greimas and his followers in Europe and the
United States criticize V. Propp's model for the analysis of Russian folktales
(1928a) as dealing only with a syntagmatic dimension. Alan Dundes in the second
English edition of Propp (1928a: xi-xii) comments on this fact. He says:
First of all, there seem to be at least two distinct types of structural analysis in
folklore. One is the type of which Propp's Morphology is the exemplar par
excellence. In this type, the structure or formal organization of a folkloristic
text is described following the chronological order of the linear sequence of
elements in the texts as reported from the informant. . . this linear sequential
structural analysis we might term 'syntagmatic' structural analysis, borrowing
from the notion of syntax in the study of language . . .
He goes on to argue that in contradistinction to this syntagmatic model, a. paradig-
matic dimension allows for regrouping or transforming of the basic elements of a
narrative. Greimas, Calloud, Patte, Crossan and others stress that the addition
of this dimension makes their model superior to Propp's.
The model as formulated by Greimas and modified by Patte and Calloud has
the following steps:
(1) List the lexies. The analyst reads the narrative text and jots down all the
lexies. These are normally clauses or a combination of two or more clauses - e.g.,
'Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the Devil' (Matthew
4:1). Lexies, as a linguist would instinctively recognize, contain participants or
dramatis personae (Calloud and Patte call these personages or actors) and events
(Calloud terms these happenings and Patte calls them actions). In the above lexie
from the Gospel of Matthew there are three participants and two events. These
structuralists caution that one should not spend too much time on this first step.
As soon as the analyst has determined the lexies and ascertained all the partici-
pants and events he should proceed immediately to the next step.
(2) Ascertain the canonic narrative statements. Patte in his translation of
Calloud employs the term canonic narrative statements but in his own article he
uses the word utterances. I will use statements throughout this review as being
268
 REVIEWS

more representative of what this model presents. On this canonic level the
analyst reduces the events which have been found in the lexies at the surface or
manifestation level, to abstract sets of functions and qualifications, and the partici-
pants to a set of octants. The/unctions are 'doing' predicates and the qualifications
are 'being' predicates. There are seven functions as follows:
(a) arrival vs. departure
or departure vs. return
(b) conjuction vs. disjunction
(c) mandate vs. acceptance
or refusal
(d) confrontation
(e) domination vs. submission
(f) communication vs. reception
(g) attribution vs. deprivation
There are six actants which form the actantial grid model. These octants should
not'be confused with particular participants on the surface level of the narrative,
but are abstract actantial positions occupied by participants in the narrative. A
participant can gain or lose a position depending on the transformations which
occur. I will capitalize these actants from now on in this review in order to dis-
tinguish them from case or role relations in linguistics. The six actants are as
follows:
SENDER-> OBJECT-* RECEIVER
T
HELPER-* SUBJECT <-OPPONENT
There are three axes in this actantial grid. The upper horizontal axis: SENDER
-•OBJECT-• RECEIVER is the axis of communication, while the vertical axis:
OBJECT-* SUBJECT is one of volition, search or quest, and the lower horizontal
axis: HELPER->SUBJECT<-OPPONENT is a symmetrical one involving
power, test, trial or ordeal. In this last axis the HELPER is in a sense the hero,
and the OPPONENT is the villian. The SUBJECT can choose to receive help
from the HELPER and as a result certain transformations are triggered; or on
the other hand he is confronted by an OPPONENT and has the option to submit
to or to defeat the OPPONENT.
(3) The functions, which were listed under (1) above, reduce to three main
syntagms: the contractual syntagm, the disjunctional syntagm and the performancial
syntagm.
(3.1) Contractual syntagm. This is made up of two narrative statements, CS 1
and CS 2. Patte's discussion concerning these and other syntagms is the most
explicit, so I will essentially follow his presentation:
CS 1. This first statement includes two successive and symmetrical func-
269
 LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY

tions: mandate + acceptance, of mandate+refusal. Someone (SENDER) gives a

mandate or contract to a participant. If the mandate is refused then the sequence
aborts. However, if it is accepted, then the participant is placed in the actantial
position of SUBJECT and the sequence can proceed to CS 2.
CS 2. This statement includes the functions of communication + reception.
Among the OBJECTS which are communicated are HELPERS of various
sorts. These can include goods, health or a variety of other things. These
HELPERS are supposed to assist the SUBJECT, who is the receptor of a
mandate, to carry out this task. If the SUBJECT receives his HELPERS then
the disjunctional syntagm is operative.
(3.2) Disjunctional syntagm. This syntagm is composed of two statements
(DSs) which include the successive functions of arrival+ departure or departure +
return. The syntagm represents the first stage of the carrying out of the mandate.
If the mandate is accepted the SUBJECT leaves one set of acquaintances, friends
and so on and becomes associated with a new set. After the completion of this
first disjunctional syntagm there can be a second one which is often symmetrical
with the first one.
(3.3) Performancial syntagm. This syntagm is composed of a succession of three
statements which are characterized by the following functions:
PS 1. Confrontation. The SUBJECT is confronted with the need which the
RECEIVER has for the OBJECT, a need which has been directly or indirectly
provoked by the OPPONENT. This confrontation can be accepted or refused.
If the SUBJECT refuses it, then the sequence aborts, but if the confrontation is
accepted a second PS occurs.
PS 2. Domination vs. Submission. If the SUBJECT is forced to submit to the
OPPONENT the sequence aborts. However, if the SUBJECT dominates the
OPPONENT, he can carry out his mandate and another PS is introduced.
PS 3. Attribution. The OBJECT which fulfills the lack or need is given to the
RECEIVER by the SUBJECT and the RECEIVER gains back the actantial
position of SUBJECT.
Patte and Crossan apply this model to the story of the Good Samaritan in
Luke 10:30^35 with dramatically different results. Patte maintains that the man
travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho is the SUBJECT who has received a
mandate from some unknown person. The robbers who attack him, stealing all
his possessions and leaving him wounded by the wayside, are the OPPONENTS.
Because the traveller submits to the confrontation he vacates the actantial
position of SUBJECT and loses his HELPER (possessions and health or vigor).
The Good Samaritan in the end of the story performs the PS 3 by restoring the
traveller's health and subsequently places him back in the actantial position of
SUBJECT.
The second lexie of the narrative in Patte's analysis is the part of verse 30
starting after the initial clause: '. . . when robbers attacked him, stripped him,
270
 REVIEWS

and beat him up, leaving him half dead'. The actantial schema of this second
lexie as Patte describes it is as follows:
?-• Belongings of the man-* Robbers
T
Their number-* Robbers <-The man and his vigor
(robbers)
The SENDER or the giver of the mandate is unknown, thus the question mark.
The robbers have received a mandate and when they win the confrontation with
the traveller they then occupy the SUBJECT position which the traveller occu-
pied in the first lexie. They gain the possessions of the man (OBJECT) and the
traveller then moves from the actantial position of SUBJECT to that of
OPPONENT. The three statements involved, according to Patte, are PS 2, PS 3
and DS 2.
Crossan in his two articles proposes a completely different actantial schema.
He wants to bring in a social dimension. The original narrator is a Jew speaking
to other Jews, and the traveller is identified as a Jew, although in a rather oblique
fashion. So, in Crossan's opinion, the SUBJECT should be the Samaritan and
the implicit RECEIVER the Jewish traveller. The robbers are props or back-
ground. Crossan points out that the story could have begun with a traveller
falling into a roadside ravine and lying there unconscious, no robbers being
involved at all. The OPPONENT, then, is not the robbers, priest or Levite, but
'prejudice or socio-religious exclusivism.' Crossan suggests the following actan-
tial schema:
Samaritan->Aid and Healing->Jewish traveller
T
Samaritan—»Priest and Levite—»Prejudice
Samaritan
Notice that the Samaritan maintains the actantial position of SUBJECT through-
out, although the priest and Levite share it with him part of the time.
In Semeia (1974, 2: 117-28) Patte and Crossan have critiques of each other's
analyses. Patte claims that Crossan's analysis is on a different structural level,
namely a mythical one, while his own is on the level of narrative structure. I won't
comment on the merits of either scholar's arguments regarding this issue, as the
subject is beyond the main thrust of this review; but I found Crossan's discussion
on myth and parable in his article 'Toward a generic definition of a parable' to
contain some valuable insights. Patte further criticizes Crossan for applying the
actantial model to the whole narrative rather than to one lexie at a time. Crossan
concedes that Patte's criticism is well taken and says that from now on he will
follow Patte's methodology. However he still maintains that the traveller cannot
be considered the main SUBJECT, as only the robbers (PS 1, PS 2, and PS 3)
271
 LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY

and the Samaritan (PS i, PS 2, PS 3) receive a comparatively full 'semantization

of the performancial syntagm.' Presumably the difference of opinion between
these two scholars and others will become less marked as they refine this model
while applying it to the analysis of a greater number of biblical narratives. My
criticisms will be addressed to the weaknesses of the presentation of the model as
provided in the book and articles under review.
First of all, Patte's translation of Calloud's book is replete with translationese,
making it difficult to follow at points, unless the reader is familiar with the lin-
guistic vocabulary of the Greimas school. Patte reveals little knowledge of
linguistics outside the reading he has done of de Saussure, A. J. Greimas and L.
Hjelmslev. A familiarity with research on narrative structure done by Labov
(1972), or on discourse analysis by Grimes (1974) and Halliday & Hasan (1973)
and many others, would have aided him in translating Calloud's French into a
more 'dynamic equivalent' (Nida 1964) translation, employing English linguistic
terminology which is more generally accepted. However, a more accurate English
translation still would not, I believe, clear up many of the difficulties in Calloud's
presentation of this model. I will come back to this point later. Patte's own
article, while more easy to follow than Calloud's book, is still replete with tortuous
prose and employs vocabulary borrowed from the Greimas school.
Secondly, even a linguist following Calloud's or Patte's presentation would
have trouble discovering lexies, the first step in the structural analysis carried on
by this school. Calloud defines the lexie as follows:
The 'lexie' is a unit of reading. It is not yet a unit of the system. It is part of the
text, which can include several sentences, or a single sentence, or again only
part of a sentence . . . Dividing the text into lexies does not modify the text
surface. It is done on the basis of a simple reading which suggests the obvious
meaning and notes the interrelation of textual units. A definition of the lexie
in terms of its minimal scope could be that in this textual space something
must happen. Yet there should not be too many 'happenings' in it - otherwise,
its interpretation will be difficult [my italics].
This definition is rather vague and impressionistic, and Calloud's subsequent
discussion on how to discover lexies is difficult to follow. Patte, though, makes no
attempt to define a lexie at all. For him, a lexie seems to be a sort of given. He
explains in detail the methodology which is involved in setting up an actantial
grid and then when the model is applied to the story of the Good Samaritan, the
reader is suddenly confronted with lexies; but no guidelines are provided for
deciding the boundaries of these chunks of discourse. I find this imprecision
rather discomfiting. The scholars who are presently working with this model can
always challenge each other's schema merely on the grounds of where the lexie
boundaries have been placed in a particular narrative. Yet it seems to me that this
first step is of prime importance, as it determines which participants and events
272
 REVIEWS

will be applicable in a particular actantial schema. A more precise definition of a

lexie is needed if this actantial grid model is to be of any serious value.
Thirdly, I find this school's use of the terms semanticize and semantization
confusing. Patte says (p. 4):
I intend to study the semantic narrative structure. That is, the investigation is
limited to the structure of the forms of the content of a specific type of sign, the
narrative.
The semantic narrative structure is one of the two paradigmatic structures
which organize narratives into a system of signs. Thus one should not expect
to find the whole structure in a specific narrative: the form of its content
semanticizes part of the semantic narrative structure.
It appears that Patte and the others are using the terms semantic, semanticize,
meaning and so on in a different fashion from their normal usage in linguistics.
Their structural model, if I understand it correctly, 'belongs to the phase of
discourse analysis which is concerned with the metaphoric leap by which a
narrative is understood to mean something other than a recital of events'
(William A. Smalley, unpublished review of Calloud's book). But what Patte and
the others mean by semantization seems to be 'the realization of an actantial
statement at the surface level of the language'. This, of course, as V. Propp
demonstrated, can be in many different forms. For instance, Crossan in his
critique of Patte in Semeia (1974, 2: 123) says:
You can easily imagine various semantizations of that missing CS 2 that would
change the story drastically. For example: So the man recovered, joined the
bandits, and they robbed the Samaritan on his way back [my italics].
Patte says (p. 16):
It is presupposed, and not semanticized, that the robbers accepted a contract,
and that they moved to the proper location, the road [my italics].
I suggest that what these scholars are talking about is the realization (Lamb
1965: 40) of these abstract elements in the surface level of the language. Reali-
zation or some similar term employed in linguistics would be less confusing than
semantization.
Fourthly, although these scholars detail the importance of functions ('doing'
predicates) for the actantial grid model, they have little to say about qualifications
('being' predicates). Calloud (21-4) presents a method for separating modalities
and other qualification event words from the functions; but his discussion 'proves
to be downright amateurish. Patte (12) gives 12 lines to a discussion of qualifica-
tions and sub-sequences (dialogue and so on), but does not show where these fit
into his model. Later (19) he states that the request from the Samaritan to the
innkeeper, 'Take care of him, and when I come back this way, I will pay you

273
 LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY

whatever else you spend on him', is an example of a dialogue (sub-sequence)

interrupting a narrative. He remarks:
It [dialogue] can have various functions, for example, qualifications which
further semanticize one or several actantial positions. Here it further semanti-
cizes the role of one of the HELPERS, the innkeeper. This could have been
semanticized by telling the story of the innkeeper helping the man to recover
his vigor. This would have been a sub-narrative or sub-sequence which would
have qualified the HELPER of the topical sequence. In it the innkeeper would
have become SUBJECT, the Samaritan's money the HELPER, etc.
The fact remains, though, that the narrator of this story employed dialogue
rather than a sequence of narrative clauses to realize (semanticize?) the under-
lying actantial schema. So, what is Patte going to do with this dialogue? He chooses
to do nothing but admit its presence. I feel that the inability of these scholars
to deal with evaluative devices in narrative (Labov 1972) stems from their scant
orientation in linguistics and discourse analysis. Their discussion of modalities is
particularly embarrassing. Why could they not set up a typology of canonic forms
which are abstractions of qualifications, dialogue and other evaluative devices,
showing how these join the functions together? Until this is done the various
evaluative devices will remain dangling with no canonic place in the system.
Crossan did attempt to bring sociocultural presuppositions into his analysis, but
then gave in to Patte's critique. Presuppositions such as this do penetrate the
linguistic system through the modalities and other evaluative devices. It would
be interesting to see a serious attempt made by these scholars to deal with this
important area of discourse.
In summary, I feel that if these scholars can define lexies with more precision
and show where evaluative devices of various kinds fit into their model, scholars
in other fields such as folklore and linguistics will be able to tune into their model
more readily. However, at its present stage of development the model remains
rather impressionistic, dependent to a large extent on the 'feelings' of the indi-
vidual scholar. Here is one area where the insights of biblical scholarship and the
rigorous application of sound linguistic principles could result in some interest-
ing developments in the area of the structural analysis of narrative.

REFERENCES
Grimes, J. E. (1974). The thread of discourse. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1973). Cohesion in spoken and written English. London:
Longmans (Longman's English Language Series).
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lamb, S. (1965). Kinship terminology and linguistic structure. American Anthropologist.
Special publication. Part II, 67. (5). 37-64.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
274
 REVIEWS
Propp, V. (1928a). Morphology of the folktale. 2nd ed. rev. Austin: University of Texas
1968.
Reviewed by HOWARD A. HATTON
Translation Consultant
United Bible Societies
(Received 11 January 1978) Bangkok, Thailand

PERSONAL COLLECTIONS

YUEN REN CHAO, Aspects of Chinese sociolingusistics. Selected and introduced by

Anwar S. Dil. (Language Science and National Development Series, edited by
Anwar S. Dil). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976. Pp. xiv + 415.
To review a book of essays by Yuen Ren Chao is a privilege; reading it was a
delight, and more, an education, for an apprentice historian of Sung China whose
own linguistics is as much familio- as socio- and for whom Chinese is chiefly the
medium of research rather than its object. That this will consequently not be a
sociolinguist's review is, I hope, made appropriate by the essays themselves,
whose interest is far from limited to sociolinguists.
The book brings together 26 essays written between 1943 and 1976, 24 of
which have been, or as of the date of publication were to be, published elsewhere
(though not all previously in English), and two of which ('A preliminary sketch of
general Chinese' and 'The phonology and grammar of "skipants" in Chinese')
appear only in this volume. They have been selected by Anwar S. Dil, who has
grouped them into four general 'perspectives' and provided a brief but fascina-
ting account of Professor Chao's long and unparalleled career, and a bibliography
of his works. Professor Chao himself adds a very brief postscript.
There is not space here to discuss each essay extensively, and a simple list
would serve little purpose; but several in particular should be mentioned. In the
first section, entitled 'Chinese language and dialect divergence and unification',
the several essays on Chinese dialects, including a brief and nontechnical account
of Professor Chao's monumental fieldwork surveying and recording major dialect
groups during the 1920s, '30s and '40s, may stand as background to 'Contrastive
aspects of the Chinese national language movement', a general examination of
dialect differences in Chinese from the point of view of the prospects for (and prob-
lems facing) any attempt at a unified national language. This essay in turn leads
naturally into Professor Chao's new essay giving his own outline for a General
Chinese, a project he plans to pursue further. Also in this section is the extra-
ordinary 'My linguistic autobiography', which paints a hair-raising picture of
bi- and multilingualism in China and comments interestingly on functional
specialization of dialects (idiosyncratic, to be sure) within a single family.
The second section, 'Interlingual perspectives', includes two essays on trans-

275