03 Analysing Structures

1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8222 ANALYSING 9 10 STRUCTURES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1222 Semiotics is probably best known as an approach to textual analysis, 2 and in this form it is characterized by a concern with structural analy- 3 sis. Structuralist analysis focuses on the structural relations which are 4 functional in the signifying system at a particular moment in history. 5 It involves identifying the constituent units in a semiotic system (such 6 as a text or socio-cultural practice), the structural relationships 7 between them (oppositions, correlations and logical relations) and the 8 relation of the parts to the whole. This is not an empty exercise since 9 ‘relations are important for what they can explain: meaningful con- 30 trasts and permitted or forbidden combinations’ (Culler 1975, 14). 1 2 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL AXES 3 4 Saussure emphasized that meaning arises from the differences 5 between signifiers; these differences are of two kinds: syntagmatic 6 (concerning positioning) and paradigmatic (concerning substitution). 7222 Saussure called the latter associative relations (Saussure 1916/1983, 84 SEMIOTICS: THE BASICS sang paradigmatic axis girl died the man cried syntagmatic axis FIGURE 3.1 Syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes 121), but Roman Jakobson’s term is now used. The distinction is a key one in structuralist semiotic analysis in which these two structural ‘axes’ (horizontal as syntagmatic and vertical as paradigmatic) are seen as applicable to all sign systems (see Figure 3.1). The plane of the syntagm is that of the combination of ‘this-and-this-and-this’ (as in the sentence, ‘the man cried’) while the plane of the paradigm is that of the selection of ‘this-or-this-or-this’ (e.g. the replacement of the last word in the same sentence with ‘died’ or ‘sang’). While syntagmatic relations are possibilities of combination, paradigmatic relations are functional contrasts – they involve differentiation. Temporally, syntagmatic relations refer intratextually to other signifiers co-present within the text, while paradigmatic relations refer intertextually to signifiers which are absent from the text (ibid., 122). The ‘value’ of a sign is determined by both its paradigmatic and its syntagmatic relations. Syntagms and paradigms provide a structural context within which signs make sense; they are the structural forms through which signs are organized into codes. Paradigmatic relationships can operate on the level of the signifier and on the level of the signified (ibid., 121–4; Silverman 1983, 10; Harris 1987, 124). A paradigm is a set of associated signifiers or signifieds which are all members of some defining category, but in ANALYSING STRUCTURES 85 1 which each is significantly different. In natural language there are 2 grammatical paradigms such as verbs or nouns. In a given context, 3 one member of the paradigm set is structurally replaceable with 4 another; the choice of one excludes the choice of another. The use of 5 one signifier (e.g. a particular word) rather than another from the 6 same paradigm set (e.g. adjectives) shapes the preferred meaning of 7 a text. Paradigmatic relations can thus be seen as ‘contrastive’. 8222 Saussure’s notion of ‘associative’ relations was broader and less for- 9 mal than what is normally meant by ‘paradigmatic’ relations. He 10 referred to ‘mental association’ and included perceived similarities in 1 form (e.g. homophones) or meaning (e.g. synonyms). Such similari- 2 ties were diverse and ranged from strong to slight, and might refer to 3 only part of a word (such as a shared prefix or suffix). He noted that 4 there was no end (or commonly agreed order) to such associations 5 (Saussure 1983, 121–4). Jakobson rejected this conception, insisting 6 that there is a ‘hierarchical order within the paradigmatic set’ 7 (Jakobson 1962, 599; cf. 1971d, 719–20). 8 Paradigms are not confined to the verbal mode. In film and 9 television, paradigms include ways of changing shot (such as cut, 20 fade, dissolve and wipe). The medium or genre are also paradigms, 1222 and particular media texts derive meaning from the ways in which 2 the medium and genre used differ from the alternatives. The apho- 3 4 rism of the Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan that ‘the 5 medium is the message’ can thus be seen as reflecting a semiotic 6 concern: to a semiotician the medium is not neutral. 7 A syntagm is an orderly combination of interacting signifiers 8 which forms a meaningful whole within a text – sometimes, 9 following Saussure, called a ‘chain’. Such combinations are made 30 within a framework of syntactic rules and conventions (both explicit 1 and inexplicit). In language, a sentence, for instance, is a syntagm 2 of words; so too are paragraphs and chapters. ‘There are always 3 larger units, composed of smaller units, with a relation of interde- 4 pendence holding between both’ (ibid., 127): syntagms can contain 5 other syntagms. A printed advertisement is a syntagm of visual signi- 6 fiers. Syntagmatic relations are the various ways in which elements 7222 within the same text may be related to each other. Syntagms are 86 SEMIOTICS: THE BASICS created by the linking of signifiers from paradigm sets which are chosen on the basis of whether they are conventionally regarded as appropriate or may be required by some rule system (e.g. grammar). Syntagmatic relations highlight the importance of part–whole relationships: Saussure stressed that ‘the whole depends on the parts, and the parts depend on the whole’ (ibid., 126). The structure of any text or cultural practice has both syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes. Roland Barthes outlined the paradigmatic and syntagmatic elements of the ‘garment system’ (Barthes 1967a, 26–7). The paradigmatic elements are the items which cannot be worn at the same time on the same part of the body (such as hats, trousers, shoes). The syntagmatic dimension is the juxtaposition of different elements at the same time in a complete ensemble from hat to shoes. Within a genre, while the syntagmatic dimension is the textual structure, the paradigmatic dimension can be as broad as the choice of subject matter. In this framing, form is a syntagmatic dimension while content is a paradigmatic dimension. However, form is also subject to paradigmatic choices and content to syntagmatic arrange- ment. In the case of film, our interpretation of an individual shot depends on both paradigmatic analysis (comparing it, not necessarily consciously, with the use of alternative kinds of shot) and syntagmatic analysis (comparing it with preceding and following shots). The same shot used within another sequence of shots could have quite a different preferred reading. Actually, filmic syntagms are not confined to such temporal syntagms (which are manifested in montage: the sequencing of shots) but include the spatial syntagms found also in still photography (in mise-en-scène: the composition of individual frames). The determination of meaning in a narrative may seem to be primarily dependent on the syntagmatic dimension, but a recent exam- ple of a film in which the paradigmatic dimension is foregrounded is Crash (Paul Haggis 2004). This is a thematic film dealing with racial prejudice, and making sense of it (at least initially) requires the audi- ence to make comparative inferences about a series of separate (and heavily cross-cut) events – only as we move towards closure does the syntagmatic dimension resume its conventional dominance. Both syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis treat signs as part of a system – exploring their functions within codes and sub-codes – ANALYSING STRUCTURES 87 1 a topic to which we will return. Although we will discuss paradig- 2 matic and syntagmatic relations separately, it should be emphasized 3 that the semiotic analysis of a text or corpus has to tackle the system 4 as a whole, and that the two dimensions cannot be considered in iso- 5 lation. The description of any semiotic system involves specifying 6 both the membership of all of the relevant paradigmatic sets and also 7 the possible combinations of one set with another in well-formed syn- 8222 tagms. For the analyst, according to Saussure (who was, of course, 9 focusing on the language system as a whole), ‘the system as a united 10 whole is the starting point, from which it becomes possible, by a 1 process of analysis, to identify its constituent elements’; one cannot 2 try to construct the system by working upwards from the constituent 3 elements (Saussure 1983, 112). However, Roland Barthes argued that 4 ‘an important part of the semiological undertaking’ was to divide 5 texts ‘into minimal significant units . then to group these units into 6 paradigmatic classes, and finally to classify the syntagmatic relations 7 which link these units’ (Barthes 1967a, 48; cf. Leymore 1975, 21 and 8 Lévi-Strauss 1972, 211). In practice, the analyst is likely to need to 9 move back and forth between these two approaches as the analysis 20 proceeds. 1222 2 THE PARADIGMATIC DIMENSION 3 4 Whereas syntagmatic analysis studies the ‘surface structure’ of a 5 text, paradigmatic analysis seeks to identify the various paradigms 6 (or pre-existing sets of signifiers) which underlie the manifest content 7 of texts. This aspect of structural analysis involves a consideration 8 of the positive or negative connotations of each signifier (revealed 9 through the use of one signifier rather than another), and the exis- 30 tence of ‘underlying’ thematic paradigms (e.g. binary oppositions 1 such as public–private). 2 Semioticians often focus on the issue of why a particular signi- 3 fier rather than a workable alternative was used in a specific context: 4 on what they often refer to as ‘absences’.

Load more