Structuralism Theory
When one focuses on the term structure, what one has in mind is the outlook or appearance of an entity: one can suggest this as the physical properties or features of an entity. Thus, when a student of language comes across the term structuralism as a linguistic theory, he or she may take it for the analysis of a text or discourse by focusing on its composition, or structure. In reality there is a clear boundary between the latter assertion and what structuralism is.
Thus, what is structuralism?
Structuralism refers to a set of general principles shared by prominent European linguists of the inter-war period who were all deeply influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique generale.
The father of semiotics, Ferdinand de Saussure helps to serve as a precursor to what we have now as structuralism. Therefore, one needs to define what semiotics is so as to have a premise to what structuralism is. Marcel Danesi (2014) defines semiotics as “the science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable.” Here, one's focus is not about the field of semiotics, but to actually enumerate a very important concept in semiotics and how it will help in the study of semiotics. The term to look at is the term “sign”. Marcel Danesi (2014) that a sign is anything-a color, a gesture, a wink, an object, a mathematical equation, etc.-that stands for something other than itself.” Thus one can state that a sign stands for something or has the value of something other than itself. The term sign comes with two different sides, whereby each side can be taken as a flip of a coin of what sign is.
These sides are: signifier and signified. Signifier is an entity that refers to an entity, value or something, while the signified is the entity being referred to. Relating it to structuralism, one will find out that what the structuralists take for structure is different from what we suppose it is. The term structure here also has two sides like the term sign.
Thus what is structure?
“Structures are not physical entities; they are conceptual frameworks that we use to organize and understand physical entities”. (Lois Tyson). With this definition, one can assert that structures do not refer to just physical properties, but denotes concepts, ideas and thoughts behind a physical entity. Thus, a structuralist will not focus on the physical properties but rather focus on concepts behind a work of art. For instance, a structuralist will not analyse a sonnet by paying attention to the form (rhyme scheme, number of lines and so on), rather he subtly looks at the underlining elements behind the form and the content (thematic preoccupation, subject matter and so on) of a work of art. The form suggests the surface phenomena; “the visible world consists of what might be called surface phenomena: all the countless objects, activities, and behaviors we observe, participate in, and interact with every day. The invisible world consists of the structures that underlie and organize all of these phenomena so that we can make sense of them.” (Lois Tyson). Hence, what is being propelled to as the question “what makes up the structure?” “A structure is any conceptual system that has the following three properties: (1) wholeness, (2) transformation, and (3) self-regulation.” (Lois Tyson). Subsequently these three conceptual frameworks will be examined one after the other.
The first one is the concept of wholeness. Wholeness: this suggests that “the system functions as a unit; it is not merely a collection of independent items. The whole is different from the sum of its parts because the parts working together create something new.” (Lois Tyson). Thus, the structuralist focuses on the parts of a text as a system and as such examines them altogether. For instance, the human body has many parts: hands, legs, respiratory system and many more. These parts make up the body and therefore if one is examining the body as an entity, one does not focus on a part but all the parts that compose the body and make it up. In relation to the theory of structuralism, one will examine the whole system of a work rather than on a single part.
The second concept to be examined is the concept of transformation. Transformation means that the system is not static; it is dynamic, capable of change. The system is not merely a structure (a noun); it also structures (a verb). In other words, new material is always being structured by the system. (Lois Tyson). Exemplifying this to the English language phonological system, one will find out that it has 44 phonemes and these phonemes when combined turns to morphemes, in turn morphemes turns into words, words into phrases, phrases into clauses and the latter into sentences. The ability to transform to these different cycle suggest the transformational framework.
The last concept to be examined is the concept of self-regulation. Self-regulation “means that the transformations of which a structure is capable never lead beyond its own structural system. The elements engendered by transformations (for example, new linguistic utterances) always belong to the system and obey its laws”. (Lois Tyson). This simply implies that the structures are able to guide one another in the transformation of one process to the other. For instance, the English phonological rule gives room for the composition of the phonemes /s/, /p/, and /l/ whereby the phoneme /s/ functions as the first onset while /p/ occurs at the second onset and the last phoneme /l/ functions as the third onset. A redistribution of these three phonemes will go against the phonological laws of English.
Furthermore, one needs to know some questions to be asked when performing a structuralist analysis. Some of the questions are given by Lois Tyson, and they are:
How should the text be classified in terms of its genre?
Can you speculate about the relationship between the text’s “grammar” and that of similar texts?
What rules or codes of interpretation must be internalized in order to “make sense” of the text?
What is the semiotics of a given category of cultural phenomena, or “texts”?
In conclusion, one can affirm that structuralism does not examine the physical properties of texts alone; rather it pays attention to the underlining factors, conceptual frameworks and the units that make up the whole of the work. Thus, one can affirm that the structuralism theory is a very cogent tool for the investigation of a literary work.
REFERENCE
Tyson, Lois. (2014). Critical Theory Today. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Danesi, Marcel. (2014). Dictionary of Media and Communication. Hauppauge, New York: Barron
Oluwole Taiwo Adebowale
When one focuses on the term structure, what one has in mind is the outlook or appearance of an entity: one can suggest this as the physical properties or features of an entity. Thus, when a student of language comes across the term structuralism as a linguistic theory, he or she may take it for the analysis of a text or discourse by focusing on its composition, or structure. In reality there is a clear boundary between the latter assertion and what structuralism is.
Thus, what is structuralism?
Structuralism refers to a set of general principles shared by prominent European linguists of the inter-war period who were all deeply influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique generale.
The father of semiotics, Ferdinand de Saussure helps to serve as a precursor to what we have now as structuralism. Therefore, one needs to define what semiotics is so as to have a premise to what structuralism is. Marcel Danesi (2014) defines semiotics as “the science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable.” Here, one's focus is not about the field of semiotics, but to actually enumerate a very important concept in semiotics and how it will help in the study of semiotics. The term to look at is the term “sign”. Marcel Danesi (2014) that a sign is anything-a color, a gesture, a wink, an object, a mathematical equation, etc.-that stands for something other than itself.” Thus one can state that a sign stands for something or has the value of something other than itself. The term sign comes with two different sides, whereby each side can be taken as a flip of a coin of what sign is.
These sides are: signifier and signified. Signifier is an entity that refers to an entity, value or something, while the signified is the entity being referred to. Relating it to structuralism, one will find out that what the structuralists take for structure is different from what we suppose it is. The term structure here also has two sides like the term sign.
Thus what is structure?
“Structures are not physical entities; they are conceptual frameworks that we use to organize and understand physical entities”. (Lois Tyson). With this definition, one can assert that structures do not refer to just physical properties, but denotes concepts, ideas and thoughts behind a physical entity. Thus, a structuralist will not focus on the physical properties but rather focus on concepts behind a work of art. For instance, a structuralist will not analyse a sonnet by paying attention to the form (rhyme scheme, number of lines and so on), rather he subtly looks at the underlining elements behind the form and the content (thematic preoccupation, subject matter and so on) of a work of art. The form suggests the surface phenomena; “the visible world consists of what might be called surface phenomena: all the countless objects, activities, and behaviors we observe, participate in, and interact with every day. The invisible world consists of the structures that underlie and organize all of these phenomena so that we can make sense of them.” (Lois Tyson). Hence, what is being propelled to as the question “what makes up the structure?” “A structure is any conceptual system that has the following three properties: (1) wholeness, (2) transformation, and (3) self-regulation.” (Lois Tyson). Subsequently these three conceptual frameworks will be examined one after the other.
The first one is the concept of wholeness. Wholeness: this suggests that “the system functions as a unit; it is not merely a collection of independent items. The whole is different from the sum of its parts because the parts working together create something new.” (Lois Tyson). Thus, the structuralist focuses on the parts of a text as a system and as such examines them altogether. For instance, the human body has many parts: hands, legs, respiratory system and many more. These parts make up the body and therefore if one is examining the body as an entity, one does not focus on a part but all the parts that compose the body and make it up. In relation to the theory of structuralism, one will examine the whole system of a work rather than on a single part.
The second concept to be examined is the concept of transformation. Transformation means that the system is not static; it is dynamic, capable of change. The system is not merely a structure (a noun); it also structures (a verb). In other words, new material is always being structured by the system. (Lois Tyson). Exemplifying this to the English language phonological system, one will find out that it has 44 phonemes and these phonemes when combined turns to morphemes, in turn morphemes turns into words, words into phrases, phrases into clauses and the latter into sentences. The ability to transform to these different cycle suggest the transformational framework.
The last concept to be examined is the concept of self-regulation. Self-regulation “means that the transformations of which a structure is capable never lead beyond its own structural system. The elements engendered by transformations (for example, new linguistic utterances) always belong to the system and obey its laws”. (Lois Tyson). This simply implies that the structures are able to guide one another in the transformation of one process to the other. For instance, the English phonological rule gives room for the composition of the phonemes /s/, /p/, and /l/ whereby the phoneme /s/ functions as the first onset while /p/ occurs at the second onset and the last phoneme /l/ functions as the third onset. A redistribution of these three phonemes will go against the phonological laws of English.
Furthermore, one needs to know some questions to be asked when performing a structuralist analysis. Some of the questions are given by Lois Tyson, and they are:
How should the text be classified in terms of its genre?
Can you speculate about the relationship between the text’s “grammar” and that of similar texts?
What rules or codes of interpretation must be internalized in order to “make sense” of the text?
What is the semiotics of a given category of cultural phenomena, or “texts”?
In conclusion, one can affirm that structuralism does not examine the physical properties of texts alone; rather it pays attention to the underlining factors, conceptual frameworks and the units that make up the whole of the work. Thus, one can affirm that the structuralism theory is a very cogent tool for the investigation of a literary work.
REFERENCE
Tyson, Lois. (2014). Critical Theory Today. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Danesi, Marcel. (2014). Dictionary of Media and Communication. Hauppauge, New York: Barron
Oluwole Taiwo Adebowale
Comments
Post a Comment
This platform is not liable for any comment by visitors on this blog.