Handbook of Semiotics

Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Neostructuralism

Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Neostructuralism Structuralism extends over linguistics, anthropology , mathematics, biology, psychology (cf. Piaget 1968), the social sciences, psychoanalysis , history, philosophy, and literary criticism (see Text Semiotics). For general surveys see Ehrmann, ed. (1966), Auzias (1967), Fages (1968), Ducrot et al. (1968), Corvez (1969), Schiwy (1969a; 1971; 1973), Lane, ed. (1970), Millet &: Varin d'Ainvelle (1970), De George &: De George, eds. (1972), Jameson (1972), Robey, ed. (1973), Pettit (1975), Hawkes (1977), Sturrock, ed. (1979), Kurzweil (1980), Fietz (1982), Fussel (1983), and Mounin (1985). Structuralism has its roots in Saussure's semiology, the Prague Linguistic School, and Russian Formalism. With their interest in structure as a relation among the phenomena rather than in the nature of the phenomena themselves, structuralists have characterized themselves as non-empiricists, non-atomists, and non-positivists (Wilden 1972: 7). Structuralism became a dominant intellectual paradigm in the 1960s and even a fashion or ideology (cf. Jaeggi 1968, Schiwy 1969a). Not long after having replaced existentialism as the dominant intellectual fashion in France, structuralism was already declared to be dead (Posner 1969: 130, Benoist 1970: 50, pace Koch 1971b: 1; 1986b: 49). Soon after, new paradigms were introduced under the designation of poststructuralism (cf. Harari, ed. 1979, Schiwy 1985). But some of the most prominent poststructuralists (and among them Derrida) are already being discussed as neostructuralists (Frank 1984) or even superstructuralists (Harland 1987). The gradual development from structuralism to semiotics is particularly evident in the field of literary criticism and mass media analysis. This development is discussed in detail in the chapters on text semiotics. 1. Structuralism in Linguistics Structuralist linguistics has played the role of the patron general ofstructuralism, a role which Saussure (q.v. 2.3.2) predicted for linguistics with respect to semiology. Within linguistics, two groups of structuralist schools have been distinguished, European structuralism (cf. Engler 1975a, Koerner 1975, Lepschy 1975) and American structuralism. Foundations of European linguistic structuralism were laid by Saussure and Hjelmslev. Since these scholars are discussed in separate chapters, the survey of European structuralism will be restricted to its third major structuralist school, that of the Prague linguists. As a continuation of this genealogy , the French structuralist A. Martinet (b. 1908) must be mentioned at this point. His thesis of the double articulation of language played a decisive role in the development 298 • STRUCTURALISM, POSTSTRUCTURALISM, AND NEOSTRUCTURALISM which led from structuralism to semiotics (see Code 4.). 1.1 Prague School Structuralism The Cercle Linguistique de Prague was founded in 1926. Among its major contributors were the Czechs V. Mathesius (1882-1946), B. Havranek (1893-1978), and J. Mukatovsky (1891-1975), and the Russians N. Trubetzkoy (1890-1938) and R. Jakobson (1896-1982). It was Jakobson whose structuralist theory of language had the most direct influence on the development of French structuralism. For surveys of the Prague School, see Garvin, ed. (1964), Vachek (1960; 1966), Vachek, ed. (1964), Szemerenyi (1971), Helbig (1974), Lepschy (1975), and Bellert &: Ohlin, eds. (1978). In opposition to the "pure" structuralists Saussure and Hjelmslev, the Prague School refused to consider language as an isolated synchronic system ofpure form. Their approach to structure in language was based on key terms such as function and communication. In contradistinction to other structuralisms, Prague School linguists have therefore specified their own approach as functionalist structuralism (cf. Vachek, ed. 1964: 469, Ducrot &: Todorov 1972: 24). The core of the Prague School contribution to linguistics lies in the field of phonology . The discovery of the distinctive features as the "atoms of language" and the functional principles of phonological analysis contributed significantly to structural research in sign systems . But the contribution of the Prague School to semiotics was not restricted to linguistics alone. Jakobson, Mukatovsky, and others were influential contributors to aesthetics, poetics, stylistics, and the theory of literature. 1.1.1 FUNCTION, COMMUNICATION, AND SYSTEM Among the programmatic innovations of the Prague School linguists was their attempt to overcome the antinomy between statics and dynamics in synchronic and diachronic linguistics . Language is described as a functional system serving the purpose of communication. Because of this, the language system cannot remain static but has to maintain a dynamic equilibrium . The dynamic approach to language was also extended to the study of syntax and texts. In the theory of junctional sentence perspective , the distribution of given and new elements of information in sentences and texts is analyzed. The dynamic distribution and progression of these elements within texts is described as a communicative dynamism. 1.1.2 THE DISCOVERY OF THE PHONEME With his research in...