Copyright Mark King 2012
Thursday 31 May 2012
Wednesday 30 May 2012
Monday 21 May 2012
Re-connecting with Nature - Part 4
Whilst Saussure’s system of
language and structuralism has been regarded as a positive movement it has been
criticized on a number of levels. Thinking is expressed through language and
for Saussure language functioned as a system but his concept overlooked the historical
origins of words. In examining the origins of words such as nature and culture
we can ascertain that a fundamental change has occurred in their meaning thus
changing the meaning in terms of their binary opposition.
Structuralism also disregards
psychology. Rather than consider an unconscious meaning structuralist analysis
does not go beyond the surface to think in terms of symptoms; origins, causes
or cures as a Freudian or Marxist reading would do. For this structuralism has
been deemed to be a modernist form of abstract thought and whilst it maintains
that language allows meaningful thinking it does not question the reasons for
using it.
In the mid 1960s French
literary theorist, philosopher, critic and semiotician Roland Barthes (1915-80)
questioned the theory regarding semiology positing the idea that it was part of
linguistics and not as Saussure postulated that structural linguistics was part
of semiology.
For Barthes there were no extensive
system of signs outside of human language and so semiology as a system could
not work autonomously. The system of signs whether images or objects, gestures
or musical sounds required the system of language to attain meaning and because
it could not function outside of language semiology was thus deemed part of
linguistics.
In regards to nature and
culture as expressions of signification their existence can not exist without
the system of language and the function of language as a system can not exist
outside of a words definition, the signified. Further to this a word exists in
a historical timeframe, it has origins.
For structuralists reality is
a structure with a centre. Structuralism put forward the idea that texts,
societies and nature are made up of and represented by fixed relationships
between signs. What are these relationships? The signs by which we form reality
are given meanings by their relationships to other signs within an overall
structure. This system of relationships which represents reality follows a coherent
and logical set of rules which at its centre for French philosopher and founder
of deconstruction Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) a single concept that guarantees
the logical coherence of the rules. What are these rules and the centre to
which Derrida suggests?
The word structure has had
many interpretations from Aristotle and Descartes through to the Romantics,
philosophy, Catholicism and Japanese poetry. All these structures including
structuralism are governed by a coherent set of rules with a centre. For
Aristotle it was the law of non-contradiction and the Prime Mover (God), for
Descartes the logical structure of science and nature had God-given reason at
its centre, for some Romantics, the structure of nature has the artist’s unique
self or emotion, for philosophy it’s logic, the rituals of Catholicism has
Jesus Christ and Japanese Tanka poetry as interpreted by Tsurayuki (872-945) has
genuine emotion whilst Haiku as interpreted by Basho (1644-94) regarded its
centre as impersonality.
For structuralists, all
reality (physical, social or verbal) like a written text is made up from the
equation that sign = signifiers + signified. This text is structured by a
coherent set of relationships between the signifiers. Their signified, their
meanings are determined by the totality of the relationships between a
structure’s signifiers and so all meanings, the signified are mediated by an
overall structure. Signifieds are representations that can change but the
centre of the structure which determines all these meanings cannot, it is deemed
unchangeable.
To highlight this notion of
the unchangeable centre Basho characterizes haiku as a coherent structure that
is made up of two different signs, the “inside world” (the soul) and the
“outside world” (nature or society). The centre of this structure is
represented by impersonality. It is impersonality which links these signs
together. The “inside world” can be represented by different people and the “outside
world” can be represented by different signs (a cherry blossom, or a solitary
tree etc) but for haiku to be haiku impersonality must not change.
At the end of his life, Basho
realised that the structure he defined as haiku could not be completely
impersonal and could actually produce emotion rather than eliminate it. This
realization put into question Basho’s notion of haiku because its central
element, impersonality could be deemed deceptive. The structure that Basho used
to describe his haiku partly misrepresented his actual haikus.
It has been said that
structuralism’s presupposition that reality is a structure with a centre
reduces signs (people, things, words) to mechanical functions and so actions
and meanings are defined by fixed religious, psychological or social rules and structures
and through these rules and structures people’s thoughts and actions are
determined.
The presupposition of reality
as a structure was unacceptable to philosophers such as Pascal (1623-62) and
Nietzsche (1844-1900) who believed that reason cannot form a logical, centred
representation of the world. For Pascal, "Nature is an infinite sphere
whose centre is everywhere, whose circumference is nowhere." (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/jhreid/Derrida.htm)
For Pascal and Nietzsche all representations of reality that consist of a
centred structure are, like Basho’s re-definition of haiku, deceptive.
Influenced by Nietzsche and
Freud post-structuralism in the 1960s began to question whether the meanings
and actions of people, things or words (signs) could be determined by a single
coherent structure. They did this by questioning the centres that constitute
structures, for instance Descartes’ reason or Romanticism’s emotion. In
questioning the structure’s centres, poststructuralists questioned the power of
religious, psychological and social structures in determining the meanings of a
sign or an individual’s actions. This analysis reopened the question of human
freedom.
It has been acknowledged that
we are all part of and influenced by a number of structures that affect us
through our own individual communities and cultures and by being part of
something bigger more worldly.
Derrida argued that language
constructs centred structures that represent relations between signs and it also
deconstructs these centred structures, a process that repeats itself through
history or in the cultural space of a diverse world. Constructed
centres that give people stability to their relations within the world and
meaning to their lives whether this is God, science or the market are, for
Derrida deconstructed over either historical time or when reality is perceived
from the perspective of a different culture from somewhere in the world.
Many philosophers, not
including Pascal and Nietzsche represented reality through centred rational
structures. When these centred structures are compared over historical time the
centre is deconstructed through changes in terms of its nature and function;
from “Plato’s remembered, rational "forms," to Aristotle’s perceived
"forms," to Descartes’ divine "natural light," to
Nietzsche’s ironic artist and herd”. (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/jhreid/Derrida.htm)
Derrida redefined the idea of
structure into what he called, “a system of differences”. Within this system
signs do not have a single meaning because the system has no centre or
structure. In contrast, signs have multiple and incompatible meanings. In
Derrida’s system of differences the origin of any structure is always
uncertain, as is the structures destination, its goal. In interpreting a
literary text in terms of a system of differences there would be no over-arching
structure to identify the author of the text (the text’s origin) or the
author’s intention (the goal of the text).
In Derrida’s system of
differences, the signified is really another signifier which in turn refers to
another signifier and so on, without ever arriving at a fixed meaning. Imagine
looking up the word cat (signifier) in a French dictionary and not
understanding all the words in the definition (the signified). You treat all
the words in the definition as signifiers and look them up. However, their
definitions (the signified) use other words you do not understand and so you
look them up, ad infinitum. This form
of regression highlights Derrida’s concept that signs do not have inherent
meanings and only have meanings in relation to other signs.
For Levi-Strauss the system
that links the world’s cultures has Western culture at its centre,
ethnocentrism. Whilst it is believed that all cultures are ethnocentric in
assuming that their culture is at the centre of the world and all other cultures
are marginal, the most dominant ethnocentric culture has been Western society,
especially Europe and the US.
In reaction to Western ethnocentrism, much contemporary thought has attempted
to de-centralise Western culture and revalue non-Western cultures viewing the
world as a system of differences rather than a centred structure.
For Derrida, we can never
truly escape from the centred structure of ethnocentrism because in questioning
the superiority of Western culture it is replaced by the superiority of
non-Western culture. Or all cultures in the world are defined by their
difference, their diversity thus replacing one deceptively centred structured
with another.
Derrida posits that the
binary oppositions with which we construct reality are misrepresentations; they
are primarily products of social convention and not accurate representations of
reality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appignanesi R et al Introducing
Postmodernism: A Graphic Guide to
Cutting-Edge Thinking Cambridge: UK
De Botton A, 2012 Religion For Atheists Penguin London: UK
Levine
D, 1971 (ed) Simmel: On individuality and
social forms Chicago University Press. p6
Macionis
G, John L, 2010 Sociology 7th Canadian Ed Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. p. 53
McClenon,
p.528-529
ONLINE
http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/syntagm_paradigm.htm
http://www-as.phy.ohiou.edu/~rouzie/307j/binary.html
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-latin-root-of-the-word-culture
http://www.totem-pole.net/rules.html
http://www.creatorix.com.au/philosophy/24/24f04.html
http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=122
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-totems2.html
http://punkk-pprincess.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/levis-strauss-vs-derrida-nature-culture.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/weekinreview/08rohter.html
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/jhreid/Derrida.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm
Image Copyright Mark King
2012
Tuesday 15 May 2012
Re-connecting with Nature - Part 3
Semiology
Binary opposition can be
applied to other systems besides text. Semiology is the cultural communication of
society based on shared conventions using signs and symbols. All signs are
learnt and not intrinsically natural.
Fig 5 M King “Semiology and
sign”
Sign
Human
action ---------------- Signifying meaning
Structural Anthropology
French anthropologist and ethnologist Claude
Levi-Strauss (1908-2009) developed structural anthropology in the late 1950s
systematizing a semiology of culture. During this time binary code was also
introduced to technological advances with the development of digital computers.
This form of binarism influenced Strauss to develop a mechanical theory of
communication. For Levi-Strauss thought and culture were organized around
binary opposites and the creative act of mythmaking in all societies was a
means to try and resolve the resulting tension.
Language, sounds put together
to form the words that signify meaning, is a system that allows thinking. To Levi-Strauss
thinking takes place in the interaction between humans (situated within
culture) and the environment (nature) which is the object of thinking.
The binary opposites of raw
and cooked for Levi-Strauss were metaphors for culture. Human nature attempts
to reconcile these opposites, it tries to find a balance between raw and
cooked. However, the dividing line is difficult to ascertain, nature thought to
be instinctive and emotional lies at the polar opposite to culture which is
formed by rules and conventions. By using the term cooked Levi-Strauss refers
to anything that has been socialized from its natural state. Whilst society and
religions have a varied idea on what is edible, Levi-Strauss maintained that
all have binary structures that separate the raw from the cooked.
For Levi-Strauss, every
culture’s mythology was constructed around binary opposites: raw/cooked,
hot/cold, animal/human and it is through these opposing concepts that humanity
makes sense of the world.
LANGUAGE ALLOWS THINKING
Nature (non-human) --------------Culture (human)
For Levi-Strauss nature is
defined as universal and culture as rule-governed.
CULTURE
What does it mean when we use
the term culture and nature to which Levi-Strauss refers?
The definition of culture to
which Levi-Strauss refers has evolved. For Saussure the meaning of language was
not held in its historical origins but as history points out meaning has
changed over time. The word culture originated from the Latin word cultura, the
tilling of the soil, and in the 18th and 19th century evolved to a process of
cultivation or improvement as in horticulture or agriculture. In the 19th
century culture was as a means of refining or bettering oneself, especially
through education. Culture then became associated with the fulfilment of
national aspirations or ideals. In the mid-nineteenth century, the term culture
was used by some scientists to refer to a universal human capacity.
In 1870 Edward Tylor
(1832-1917) applied ideas of a higher versus lower culture proposing an
evolutionary theory of religion. Tylor believed religion evolves into more
monotheistic forms from polytheism. The notion could be said to be refuted by
Perlmutter and Koppman who acknowledged monotheism as a form of subjugation and
its establishment in ancient biblical times related more to violence and
denigration than evolution.
In the process, Tylor
redefined culture as an assorted set of activities characteristic of all human
societies thus paving the way for a modern understanding of culture.
In the 20th century the term culture
was again re-defined as a concept that was central to American anthropology. Culture
most commonly referred to a universal human capacity to classify and encode
experiences symbolically and to communicate these symbolically encoded
experiences socially. It is to this definition that Strauss refers. Culture
emerged as something that encompassed all human phenomena that was not only a
result of human genetics. In American anthropology culture referred to 2
meanings
The evolved human capacity to
classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act creatively and
imaginatively
The distinct ways that people
living in different parts of the world classified and represented their
experiences and acted creatively
There is a current
distinction between the physical artefacts that society creates, its material
culture and everything else within society that is the main referent to the
term culture such as language, customs etc.
Nature
Whilst nature can be defined
as the essential qualities or the temperament or personality of a thing,
fundamentally it refers to the whole
system of the existence, forces, and events of the physical world that are not
controlled by human beings.
The binary opposite to nature
would seem to be the whole system of the existence, forces, and events of the
physical world that are controlled by human beings.
Would culture define this
notion? Culture from a 20th century anthropological point of view
refers to a universal human capacity to classify and encode experiences
symbolically and to communicate these symbolically encoded experiences
socially.
The key phrase, I feel that
defines nature from humans is control, that which is not controlled by human
beings. To classify and encode experiences symbolically and to communicate
these symbolic experiences socially is not, to my mind control. A more
contemporary definition of culture as material culture may fit with the notion
of control because these objects are made by humans and in their use control or
direct nature whether it is a wall or a jug its purpose is to control. Maybe
the differences between nature and culture relates to control? If binary
oppositions form a hierarchal structure then nature naturally supersedes
culture despite humans trying to control nature.
Do we not fit in with nature?
Are we not part of the same system? To be able to control nature seems to be an
ethnocentric idea. I am unsure whether we can control nature for to control
something is to direct it. We can direct nature to a point but we cannot
control it. When we do believe we are controlling our environment we seem to be
damaging it also. The recent study in the use of pesticides and the declining
bee population in the UK
which incidentally pollinate a large percentage of our crops is a case in
point. Whilst pesticide companies refute the data and Defra plods along
examining and re-examining the bees are still becoming extinct. There is a
faction of human society that does seem to work against nature. I guess you
could define it as capitalism. What is the binary opposition to capitalism,
communism? Maybe we need to strike a balance between the two?
There is a faction that works
with nature to produce goods that are sustainable but as consumers we are
mostly unaware or too busy to find out about the products we buy. Where are
they sourced and what involves producing them? Not just the product but every
part that goes into producing and packaging that product. With food alone can I
ever be sure that what I buy is what I believe I’m buying. A seller might
inform me that my vegetables are pesticide free but that person is trying to
sell a product, to make money, to survive. However, people lie. Watching an
episode of The Apprentice highlights
how much a person is willing to bend the truth in order to make the sale, to
achieve their goal. Society, I feel we can either work within nature or
without.
A more fitting opposition to
nature might be the west.
Nature---------------The West
CULTURAL SYMBOLISM
For Levi-Strauss thinking can
happen because language allows humans
- To form social relationships
- To categorize our environment as represented by symbols
Levi-Strauss’ notion as to
why thinking happens relates directly to the modern American anthological
definition of culture in that culture commonly refers to a universal human
capacity to classify and encode experiences symbolically and to communicate
these symbolically encoded experiences socially.
TOTEMISM
Levi-Strauss believed symbols
related to totems. A totem, the representation
of an object from nature which could be a plant or an animal, or a carving in
wood or stone is a special symbol deemed helpful to the tribe it represented.
Those which have an animal will not kill that special animal and those that
have a plant will not eat other plants of the same species. Totems are symbols that
categorize the environment.
The use of totems was
believed to be connected with primitive superstition, an ethnocentric view that
Levi-Strauss challenged. For Strauss, totems are categories that divide up,
they specify what is out there as symbols for thinking. They are binary
classifications.
Can that be eaten (and why)? Yes----No
Can I get married (and why)? Yes----No
Marriage and food are deemed
to be fundamental expressions of being human. Both food preparation and the exchange
of women are believed to be part of man's affirmation of himself as an animal
with culture, part of the language which binds the group.
How is the binary opposition
of Nature (non-human) -----------Culture (human) represented in totemism?
The vertical order of images on
a totem is widely believed to be a significant representation of importance.
The higher figures on the pole are deemed to be more
important or prestigious. However, it has been posited that figures may be
arranged in a reverse hierarchal style, with the most important representations
being on the bottom, and the least important being on top and some poles have
significant figures in the middle. Other poles have no vertical arrangement at
all, consisting of a lone figure atop an undecorated column. If this is the
case the totem may represent symbols that categorize the environment but they
are not defined by the hierarchal structural system of binary opposition.
For Levi-Strauss tribal
societies use metaphor (substitution) and metonyms (combinations) as symbols in
order to think about nature. More than things to eat animals and vegetables are
read as codes linking nature to human society through the representation of non-human
gods.
As in a sentence the totem
forms a syntagmatic structure that may represent familiar legends, clan
lineages, or notable events. Each of these symbols can be paradigmatically
replaced, substituted for another similar symbol.
Functioning in binary sets
the human mind is believed to unconsciously duplicate nature as the use of the
traffic-light system demonstrates. Within the colour spectrum green is a short
wavelength, yellow lies midway and red is a long wavelength.
In searching for a
representation for the binary opposition stop and go the human mind finds red
and green and uses the colour yellow to represent caution.
Another colour system that
relates to nature is temperature
Hot---------------Cold
Red Blue
Red has a long wavelength
whilst blue has a short wavelength. Does binary opposition when represented
through nature have a specific colour and is this colour represented in opposing
wavelengths?
Thursday 10 May 2012
Re-connecting with Nature - Part 2
Figures of speech: Metaphor and
Metonymy
Whilst syntagmatic and paradigmatic series govern how signs relate to each other they also relate to figures of speech.
Syntagm---------------Paradigm
(Combination)
(Substitution)
Paradigmatic substitution =
Metaphor
Paradigmatic substitution
requires a perception of similarity, hence the connection between the dishes in
the starter section of a menu being paradigmatically the same but different
from those in the sweets. Although it is all food in the context of a menu it
is not from the same set (starter, main, sweets). This perception of similarity
is believed to generate metaphor.
She was a lion in battle
A lion to the Native American
Indian represents amongst other traits strength, energy, courage, guardianship and
protection. The word lion has been substituted for a similar word that conveys
meaning.
Metaphoric Order –
Paradigmatic – Substitution and Selection
For
Russian linguist and literary theorist Roman Jakobson (1895-1982) metaphoric order is thought to be
responsible for lyrical songs, poetry, Romanticism, filmic metaphor as set out
in Chaplin films and surrealism.
Both metaphor and metonymy involve
the substitution of one term for another.
- Metaphor is based on some specific similarity
- Metonymy is based on some understood association (contiguity).
Syntagmatic combination =
Metonymy
Syntagmatic combination
requires a perception of contiguity, to be very near or touching. Metonymy is a
figure of speech whereby a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but
by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept.
Stu is not similar to a cat
but he is associated with style, being hip and cool. (Fig 4)
Fig 5 M King "Stu"
Metonymic Order – Syntagmatic
– Combination and Contiguity
For Jakobson metonymic order is thought to be responsible for prose, heroic epics such as War and Peace, Realism, montage and journalism.
Traditionally in literary
criticism metaphor and metonymy had been deemed as being related as figures of
speech. They are consequently believed to be opposed to one another. However, when combined
one dominates the other.
Metaphor---------------Metonymy
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appignanesi R et al Introducing
Postmodernism: A Graphic Guide to
Cutting-Edge Thinking Cambridge: UK
De Botton A, 2012 Religion For Atheists Penguin London: UK
Levine
D, 1971 (ed) Simmel: On individuality and
social forms Chicago University Press. p6
Macionis
G, John L, 2010 Sociology 7th Canadian Ed Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. p. 53
McClenon,
p.528-529
ONLINE
http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/syntagm_paradigm.htm
http://www-as.phy.ohiou.edu/~rouzie/307j/binary.html
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-latin-root-of-the-word-culture
http://www.totem-pole.net/rules.html
http://www.creatorix.com.au/philosophy/24/24f04.html
http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=122
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-totems2.html
Image Copyright Mark King
2012
Monday 7 May 2012
Re-connecting with Nature - Part 1
Fig 1 M King “A Rubbish Point of
View” 2012 Nature photographed from a cultural perspective
Re-connecting
with nature is a term de Botton posits when considering education in his book Religion for Atheists. In order to determine how we
can re-connect with nature we have to understand how we became disconnected. If
we look at the structure of language it could be said that humans and nature
were never connected because one is believed to be the binary opposite to the
other.
Nature ------------------------------ Culture
(Non-human) (Human)
What does this mean? Is the
binary opposite to nature culture? What
is nature or culture? To
understand such concepts we have to go back to glean an understanding of
postmodern theory in relation to linguistics.
Prior to the 20th century thinkers focused their attentions on analysing ideas in the mind in the quest to understand thinking. Since then thinkers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) among others had shifted their attention away from ideas in the mind towards the language in which thinking is expressed. Whilst many have questioned, “What permits meaningful thinking?” agreement has been accepted, albeit in different ways that the answer points towards, the structure of language.
Prior to the 20th century thinkers focused their attentions on analysing ideas in the mind in the quest to understand thinking. Since then thinkers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) among others had shifted their attention away from ideas in the mind towards the language in which thinking is expressed. Whilst many have questioned, “What permits meaningful thinking?” agreement has been accepted, albeit in different ways that the answer points towards, the structure of language.
THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE ALLOWS MEANINGFUL THINKING
Linguistics used to be
concerned with the historical origins of language in order to reveal
meaning. Contrary to this view, the
founder of structuralism, Swiss professor of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure
(1857-1913) regarded the meaning of language not to be held in its historical
origins but as the function of a system. In structuralism universal
structures were believed to underlie all human activity.
LANGUAGE IS THE FUNCTION OF A SYSTEM
The Structure of Language – Structuralism
Fig 2 M King "Dog"
For Saussure linguistic
meanings (whether past, present or future) are effectively made possible through
a very small set of sounds or phonemes. A phoneme is the smallest unit in the
sound system that show contrasts in meaning. Cat, for instance has 3 sounds or phonemes
c, a, t. These phonemes differ ever so slightly from the sounds that make up
words such as mat, cot, and cap. Combined, these other sounds generate
different meanings which enable us to produce extended dialogues when combined grammatically
and syntactically in a sentence. The code or system of language allows us to
express personal thought. Each unit is defined by what
it is not. We can define heaven because we know hell.
Do we define nature because we know culture?
Do we define nature because we know culture?
THE SYSTEM OF LANGUAGE ALLOWS US TO EXPRESS PERSONAL
THOUGHT
Sounds (phonemes) such as c,
a, t are distinctive units that when
combined form words. Each sound has no direct value.
Words (monemes) which are significant units hold its own value
(meaning).
Signification
Saussure proposed that
language is made up of a signifier and that which is signified. The combination
of both produces a sign.
Image of cat (sign)
Signifier cat --------------------------- Signified
cat
Fig 3 M King "Dog"
Signifier – the word or
acoustic image, is that which carries meaning - cat
Signified – the concept, the
meaning, the thing indicated, is that to which the word cat refers
Sign - the word cat (the
signifier) together with the concept of cat (signified) make up a sign - cat
Signification is the process
that binds the signifier and the signified together. The result of which is the
sign, eg cat.
Signification is the
association of sound and what it represents and is the outcome of collective
learning. The choice of sound to represent cat is not imposed upon us by
meaning itself. A cat, the animal does not determine the sound cat. The sound
for cat is different in different languages.
I’m thinking that Saussure may
have had it wrong.
Signified
Signifier-------------------------------Sign (What we see)
When we are learning we are
told and so hear the word cat and our teacher, for instance our mother points
to a cat and so we associate the sound cat to the image of a cat whether this
is a picture or an actual cat. It is only later that we learn to understand the
concept, the meaning of a cat and say the dangers associated with it whether
this be pulling its tail and getting scratched or trying to stroke a lion.
Maybe it’s the sign that came
first, followed by the signifier and signified?
I do find the thought of Ig
and Og sat around the fire in their cave remonstrating over the acoustic image
of cat or dog with the concept of cat being 1. a small domesticated mammal with
thick soft fur and whiskers 2. a wild animal related to the cat, such as lynx,
lion, or tiger and the sign for cat quite amusing.
Binary Opposition
For Saussure language is a
sign system that functions by an operational code of binary oppositions. To the
structuralists a binary opposition is a pair of opposites that are believed to
form and organize human thought and culture.
Whilst some binary
oppositions are straightforward such as raw and cooked others create a sense of
hierarchy, for instance man and woman or black and white. Black conveys a sense
of evil or darkness whilst white conveys an idea of purity and goodness. The binary
opposition rational and emotional also reinforces the notion of hierarchy; the
rational often associated with men is usually more favourable over the
emotional which can be seen as weak and is often associated with women.
LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS THROUGH BINARY OPPOSITIONS
Signifier and signified is a
binary opposition.
(Image of cat)
Signifier (cat) --------------------------- Signified (cat)
As Saussure states each unit
is defined by what it is not and so by this definition the signifier, the word
cat is defined by what it is not, the concept, or meaning, cat. What it is not
is a dog. Do we know the word cat because we know the concept cat? I would
argue no even though we can understand concepts such as heaven because we know
hell.
I’m not sure that the signified
is the binary opposition to the signifier. We know the word or acoustic image
for cat not through the signified but through the learnt sign.
Another binary opposition that is deemed fundamental to the system of language governing how signs relate to each other is syntagm and paradigm.
SYNTAGM AND PARADIGM GOVERN HOW SIGNS RELATE TO EACH
OTHER
Syntagm (combination) -------------------Paradigm
(substitution)
A syntagmatic series
(contiguity or combination) is the linear relationships between the linguistic
elements in a sentence. Signs occur in sequence or parallel operating together
to create meaning.
The cat sat on the mat.
Language operates in a
sequential manner which means that linguistic signs have syntagmatic
relationships. For example, the letters in a word have a syntagmatic
relationship with one another, as do the words in a sentence or the objects in
a picture. The syntagmatic relationship of a picture is interesting because the objects in a picture are not
sequentially set out as in a sentence.
Syntagmatic relationships are
often governed by strict rules, such as spelling and grammar. They can also
have less clear relationships, such as those of fashion and social meaning.
(What does this mean? Does this refer to the fashion of how a word is spelt?)
Paradigmatic series
(selection or substitution) is the relationship between elements within a
sentence and other elements which are syntactically interchangeable.
The cat sat on the mat
A dog led in this bed
That fish swam by a
rock
Fig 4 M King "Dog"
Items on a menu have
paradigmatic relationship when they are in the same group (starters, main
course, and sweets) as a choice or a selection is made. Courses have a
sequential (syntagmatic) relationship, as they are combined and so an item from
the starter menu does not have a paradigmatic relationship with an item from the
sweet menu.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
De Botton A, 2012 Religion For Atheists Penguin London: UK
Appignanesi R et al Introducing
Postmodernism: A Graphic Guide to
Cutting-Edge Thinking Cambridge: UK
ONLINE
http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/syntagm_paradigm.htm
Image Copyright Mark King
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)