(response essay -- structuralism and semiotics)

Structuralism points to the application of linguistic theory – the Saussurian concepts of langue and parole – to the study of a range of objects and activities outside language. Parole refers to individual speech acts, while langue is the system of speech that makes possible the production of parole. To study literature on the basis of structuralism, it seems necessary to begin with the assumption that literature is an institution. In an institution, langue acts in the same way a system of rules does: it makes possible a set of potential behaviours. In the Institution of Literature, literary conventions are the rules that make possible the production of literary texts and textual interpretations. Literary conventions act in the place of langue, while individual piece of writing occupies the place of parole. What follows is the hypothesis that readers and authors, being members of the same institution, operate in identical codes. This in turn accounts for the possibility of information transfer, which occurs in the processes of writing and reading. If langue, in regulating individual paroles, is the grammar of a language, in the Institution of Literature, literary conventions are the grammars of poetics, where poetics is the principle of literature.

In a textual analysis, the structuralist concerns herself with the process that leads to the production of meaning. The structuralist believes that the process of reading that leads to interpretation is controlled by certain regulations. If a particular reader’s interpretation is legible to others, it follows that the reading conventions that particular reader follows are familiar to other readers. These conventions, if identified, may be formulated as the ‘langue’ for reading in order to arrive at meaning. They may be put down as a system that regulates the process of interpretation, one that pre-exists individual interpretations. The problem, as Culler points out in “Literary Competence”, is the fact that most readers – while they follow particular conventions in the act of reading – are unconscious of doing so. In order to formulate conventions, one needs to be conscious of the manner in which they take place in the process of reading and interpretation, so that they can be detected and explicitly put down. What the structuralist seeks to do in a textual analysis is to trace the production of meaning in order to arrive at the conventions a reader follows in the process of interpretation.

As far as structuralism is concerned therefore, the aim of literary criticism is the idea of demystification. If the structuralist succeeds in formulating reading conventions to guide readers to the production of meaning, the assumption that there is an ideal reader is inevitable. But while the conventions operate on that assumption, the skill required to be one can be acquired, since the conventions are explicitly set down. Literature is therefore not mystifying and to be grasped only by a privileged handful, but is available to all. However, even with the formulation of conventions, there will not be one ‘correct’ interpretation of literary texts. Culler specifies three possible conventions: the conventions of significance, metaphorical coherence, and thematic unity. All readers must work by the convention of significance (that is, by bringing their socio-cultural knowledge into the process of interpretation, in order to get themselves acquainted with the text), but the nature of signification will vary, since the nature of the readers’ socio-cultural knowledge varies. There will instead be a set of plausible interpretations, which is made possible by the formulated conventions of reading.

In Bishop’s “The Fish”, the fish is a victor. So much so, in fact, that when the captor conceives its worth, she has to let it go. The fish is far too valuable to justify a death that, if received in the captor’s hands, is too commonplace. The act of letting go is the consequence of being overwhelmed.

The process of interpretation begins with the reader’s identification with the particularities of the poem. The action described – that of capturing a fish – is conventional. The physical description of the fish is conventional; it is an average fish that anybody would be familiar with. However, when the captor looks at five pieces of fish-lines hooked to the fish’s mouth and sees medals, the reader knows that the fish carries a connotative meaning. The reader’s cultural knowledge will tell her that medals carry the connotation of having won something, of triumph. The fish, provided with medals, has won something. It is logical to assume that, since the medals are five old hooks attached to its mouth, the fish has triumphed over these.

One may also arrive at this reading with the assistance of semiotics. To analyse the poem on the basis of semiotics, one needs to look at where, in text, meanings are invested. Which elements in the poem are converted into signs in order to assist interpretation of the entire poem? Medals are invested with meaning; they become a sign, a symbol of triumph. The five hooks consequently become a sign too, a symbol of triumph specifically for the fish. The readers’ familiarity with medals is the regulative matrix that determines the reading of the medals where the fish is concerned.

Further, a reader’s regulative matrix may be affected by other texts she is familiar with. Acquaintance with Santiago’s marlin or Hughes’ pike may determine the location where meaning is invested within Bishop’s “The Fish.” Hughes’ pike is monumental in its willingness and capacity to kill. The captor, who has the pikes kept behind glass, has witnessed their power, which is evident in their competence to kill. The captor has to concede that the pikes are “a hundred feet long in their world.” Santiago’s marlin is an unwilling victim. On the event of its death, it has earned the respect of its captor on such a scale that Santiago fights to defend the marlin’s carcass from being eaten by sharks. Such a sequel, if allowed to happen without a fight, will have marred the carcass’ value.

If these readings act as a regulative matrix in the interpretation of Bishop’s poem, it is Bishop’s fish that will be transformed into a sign. The connotative qualities of Hughes’ pike and Santiago’s marlin – that of being monumental, honorable and precious – will come to be associated with Bishop’s fish, turning the fish itself into a symbol that stands for these qualities. This is an instance of intertextuality, as is an example of the consequence of semiotics on textual analyses.

The syntagmatic structure of the poem too contributes to the production of meaning. The comparison between the five hooks and medals create a metaphor between them. The metaphor is created on the basis of the principle of combination. The particular combination of medals and hooks that are attached to the fish results in the connotation of triumph that is associated with the fish.

Now one needs to place the fish, the victor, alongside the captor. The captor, as the text suggests, has caught the fish rather easily. The fish, on the other hand, has survived and carries with it the marks of survival. The medals allow for connotations of triumph and power. The medals have transformed something ordinary into something extraordinary. In a similar manner, the oil around the rusted engine is transformed into rainbow. The act of letting go is the consequence of being overwhelmed.

Literary structuralism is inevitably linked to semiotics, particularly to the Saussurian concept of the sign. The Saussurian model makes use of the ideas of the signified and the signifier. A sign refers to whatever object or idea that has been invested with meaning, so that it stands for something else. The signifier is the sound image or written model of the represented object or idea. The signified is the concept or mental image that is evoked in the mind of the listener or the speaker when she comes across a particular signifier. Given the fact that a sign becomes one only if invested with meaning, the sign in necessarily arbitrary. The red light, divested of meaning, is only a red light. It is only because of social conventions that the red light, in the context of traffic, carries a value as a command for all vehicles to stop moving. Social conventions invest meaning on the red light, converting into a sign. It follows, then, that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, because other than social conventions, there is nothing inherent to account for the representation of a signified by a particular signifier. What also follows from the concept of arbitrariness is the differential quality of the sign: a sign is designated its particular signified only on the basis of its perceived difference from other signs.

In Linguistics Poetics, Culler speaks of texts as having been written in such a way that they are not immediately intelligible. Texts need to be transformed into more straightforward statements for comprehension. The transformation is in fact the process of interpretations. The Saussurian model of the sign may help with the process.

In the process of interpretation, the reader brings into the act of reading her knowledge of the world. This is the process of naturalization, during which the reader makes known whatever is initially unknown in the text. Her socio-cultural knowledge should supply information that is needed for familiarity with the particularities of the poem. The process of naturalization is similar in manner to the convention of significance that Culler proposes. While it is conventional that all readers involve their socio-cultural knowledge in the act of reading, the nature of that knowledge varies between readers. Any interpretation of the text is therefore arbitrary. It is the reader who, assisted by her social or cultural conventions, invests meaning in objects, ideas or images in the poem, making signs out of them. It is the reader who reads the text as a sign. Considered in this manner, the readers are producers, rather than consumers, of meaning.
Consider this poem:

sweet as grapes
are the stones of jejuri
said chaitanya

he popped a stone
in his mouth
and spat out gods

An interpretation of the poem may read like this: “In Jejuri, where stones, by virtue of faith or perception, can be made holy, they can also be converted into grapes. Chaitanya pops into his mouth a grape that is a stone that is a god. He spits out seeds of grape, which, inevitably, are gods. What emerges as holy in the poem are not the grapes or stones, or even gods, but the transformative power of perception, which also speaks significantly of the power of faith.”

Regulated by her cultural knowledge, the reader will first familiarize herself with the ideas of Jejuri, Chaitanya, and the stones. The stones, understood in the context of Jejuri, become invested with meaning. The reader’s cultural conventions are responsible for the investing of meaning; they construct the reader’s regulative matrix. For a reader, the regulative matrix acts like the Saussurian ‘langue’: it is a network of relations that allow an individual to produce meaning from observations. Having been supplied with meaning, the stones become a sign. It is a symbol that stands for something else – the concept of holiness, perhaps God. The naturalization process is done. Recuperation, by which the elements of the poem are integrated into one thematic unity, begins here. The poem demands that the stones are seen as grapes. At this stage, the reader is aware of the connotation of holiness the stones have acquired in the context of Jejuri. Whatever force is responsible for having transformed the stones into holy objects must now transform them into grapes. The force may be recognized as the force of faith or perception. The stones are now grapes, but also gods – from the earlier association the reader derives from the Jejuri setting. In this understanding, when Chaitanya spits out seeds of grapes, he must also spit out gods. The force that has catered to the earlier two transformations now caters to the third - from grape seeds to gods. This is how one arrives at the reading that what is holy in the poem is perception.

The arbitrary nature and differential quality of the sign in the Saussurian model is also true of the symbols in literary texts. One may, for example, consider the image of the river (which, having been invested with meaning by the context of the literary work of which it is a part, becomes a symbol) in The Mill in the Floss and Huckleberry Finn. The River Floss has a destructive quality; the Mississippi is liberating. Neither quality is inherent to rivers. To speak of the river as a sign is to speak about its connotative meaning, and this connotative meaning is relational. If cultural conventions account for the differential quality of the Saussurian model of the sign in the real world, literary contexts account for the differential quality of literary symbols. As signs, the meaning of literary symbols is relational.

Because of social conventions, signs normally become so fixed in meaning that their arbitrariness is overlooked. If readers are producers of meaning, in cases where the majority of readers share similar conventions, an image or figure in a text is given – by common consent – a specific connotation. The figure of Adam, for example, has come to denote the particular quality of innocence. The figure originates in the Bible, but one encounters another Adam in the works of Walt Whitman. In 19th century America, when Whitman was writing, (assumed) innocence is a desirable quality. It may have been a conscious attempt on the author’s part to recreate the figure of Adam. Whitman may have focussed heavily on the quality of innocence that, without having it spelt out, the figure in his work stirs up – in the readers’ mind – the figure of Adam. Nevertheless, the American Adam is created; the quality associated with the original Adam becomes the quality of the American Adam. Looking at the process from the readers’ perspective, it is the reader who, being familiar with the figure of the biblical Adam, reads the connotations of the biblical Adam into the works of Whitman, creating thereby the American Adam out of Whitman’s works. This is an example of intertextuality. The readers’ activity of sign-making in literary texts may lead to the creation of new texts, which, in turn, draw from associative meanings of previously produced signs.