An Iconic Mapping of Linguistics Into Literary Criticism—On the Linguistic Roots of Structuralist Literary Criticism

1. Introduction

It is well-known that one of Peircean trichotomies of the classifications of signs is that of index, icon, and symbol, based on the relationship between the representamen and its object. Peirce’s study of signs is intended to illustrate the process of reasoning, and so in all reasoning human beings can be said to be using a mixture of icons, indices and symbols. These three kinds of signs can be considered as three modes of thinking, as well as three types of signs. Particularly, “An icon is a sign which stands for its object because as a thing perceived it excites and an idea naturally allied to the idea that object would excite” (Peirce, 1998, p. 13). According to this definition, a sign is an icon not simply because there might be physical likeness between the representamen and its object, but more importantly because there is a parallel iconic mapping between the idea-arousing processes caused by the representamen and its object. Therefore, not only is a photograph an icon, but also are diagrams and figures of geometry. Peirce (1998, p. 13) cites an algebraic array as a typical icon:

This array establishes itself on the recognition of the analogous relations and iconic mapping between the two equations. This thinking mode of iconicity is pervasive in our life. In the present paper, we will analyze, in the light of iconicity, structuralist literary criticism as a mapped icon of structural linguistics.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in revolt against the traditional extrinsic approaches to literature, structuralist literary criticism flourished as an important literary movement by cutting off all extrinsic studies and focusing only on text itself. Structuralist literary criticism has undoubtedly made its contributions to literary criticism by providing a new method of analyzing text, but with the publication of Barthes’ S/Z, it finds itself in a dead end. In that book, Barthes points out that the structuralist process of pursuing a deep structure in all stories is tiresome, and at last receives no welcome, because texts lose their differences in this process. Moreover, structuralists keep the outside world out of the analysis of texts, which is acknowledged as the weakest point of structuralist criticism.Its failure can be attributed to logocentrism, for it is influenced by linguistic methods. In other words, the fatal weakness of structuralist criticism can be found deeply rooted in structural linguistics. The roots of structuralist criticism in linguistics are explicated in the following three aspects.

《考工记》记述：“知者创物，巧者述之守之，世谓之工。百工之事，皆圣人之作也。”在古代，能制作精美器具的手工艺人称之为工匠。然而随着生产力的发展，社会分工的日益精细化，人们对工匠的要求也越来越高。工匠不仅仅能制作精美的器物，更要具有敬业精神和创新求变的能力。因此，探析工匠精神的具体内涵对于培养具有工匠精神的当代大学生有巨大的现实意义。然而，学术界并没有对工匠精神做统一的界定，在其他学者研究的基础上，笔者提炼出工匠精神的基本内涵如下：

2. The Iconic Mapping of a Closed System

Structuralist criticism has its root in structural linguistics. The concept of “a closed system”, for example, was initially established by Ferdinand de Saussure, whose Course in General Linguistics provides an important foundation for structuralism. In this book, he contends that language should be studied as a sign system from a synchronic perspective. After making a comparison between language and human speech, Saussure gives us a definition of language: “language … is a self-contained whole” (Saussure,1959, p. 9) which “is a system of signs in which the only essential thing is the union of meanings and sound-images” (Saussure, 1959, p. 15) whose “combination produces a form, not a substance” (Saussure, 1959, p. 12). It is this system of forms that determines the meanings of linguistic elements within the system. Saussure’s definition of language cuts off the connection of language with both the subject and the world by further stating that it presupposes the exclusion of everything outside its organism or system. So, for Saussure, language is a kind of auto-effective spirit which can decompose itself into various components.

Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev, who calls himself a faithful follower of Saussure,is also a radical structural linguist. He sees four strata in language: content-substance,content-form, expression-form, and expression-substance, though he regards only the two in the middle as language proper: “a language consists purely of relationships…” (Ding,1994, p. 71) Like Saussure, Hjelmslev also defines language as an autonomous entity of inner dependences (ibid.).

Not surprisingly, the notion of the “system” occupies a predominant position in sructuralist criticism. It must be acknowledged that the purely formal description of literary systems is an important part of the structuralist methodology, and as such,structuralists always seek to establish a model of the system of literature itself. This system is also a closed one. Like Russian formalists who insist on “the autonomy of literary scholarship” (Erlich, 1955, p. 171), structuralists cannot tolerate, in their literary work as well as in cultural systems beyond the literary. In other words, they stick to the idea that certain aspects of the material be isolated and studied in their literary analysis.

冠心病是心内科最常见的疾病，而心绞痛则是冠心病的一个最常见类型，因冠脉粥样硬化导致管腔狭窄和血管痉挛引起心肌缺血，导致患者前胸阵发性、压榨性疼痛。对于冠心病心绞痛的治疗，临床上包括药物治疗和介入治疗两种方法，药物治疗对于症状较轻，持续时间不长的患者有很好的疗效，但对于心绞痛发作次数多、持续时间长的患者建议行PCI手术治疗[1] 。本次研究以我院收治的104例高龄冠心病心绞痛患者为例，探讨PCI治疗冠心病心绞痛的疗效。

The closedness of literary systems is typically illustrated by Barthes’ belief that the author is dead. Literary critics need not take into consideration the author’s intentions, for“writers only have the power to mix already existing writings, to reassemble or redeploy them; writers cannot use writing to ‘express’ themselves, but only to draw upon that immense dictionary of language and culture which is ‘always already written’” (Selden,1985, p. 52). Critics, according to structuralists, should take literary works as independent entities. For Barthes, literature should be treated as a system of units and functions excluding all the so-called “extrinsic approaches” to literary studies.

Another important concept borrowed by structuralist criticism is Saussure’s notion of sign. Saussure regards language as a system of signs that express ideas. Any sign consists of a signifier and a signified, which are, roughly speaking, sound, image, and concept.The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. By arbitrary, Saussure means that the signifier actually has no natural connection with the signified, and the relations between the two can only be the result of the accidental cutting of signifiers within a system. Hjelmslev goes even further to drive the meaning or the signified out of the language system by contending that a language consists exclusively of relationships.

3. The Iconic Mapping of Levels of Structures

Both structural linguistics and structuralist criticism emphasize the wholeness of a system. This means they put great emphasis on structuralness, for the notion of structure,as Jean Piaget defines it, is comprised of the idea of wholeness. Structural linguistics has structures at various levels: the structure of language and the structure of human speech;the structure of signifier and the structure of signified; deep structure and surface structure;diachronic structure and synchronic structure; syntagmatic structure paradigmatic structure, all of which have corresponding roles in structuralist literary analyses.

To define the object of his study in the structure of the whole linguistic system,Saussure makes in his book the distinction between language and speech. Language is a system of signs, a social institution, a set of rules and norms governing our speaking and writing behavior, while speech is the personal actualization of language. Saussure regards human speech as a mass which is governed by and has meaning only within the language system and language as “a natural order into a mass that lends itself to no other classification” (Saussure, 1959, p. 9). So, he reasons that language should be the object of his study.

“没有。”鬼算盘回答得很果断。他道：“黑旗会有今天的成就不仅有卓越的领袖，而且还有足够多的可供驱策的杀手，所以安和庄只能说暂时侥幸逃劫。只要黑旗会缓过神来三少努力制造的悬案会顷刻真相大白，那时安和庄必然会被黑旗会排山倒海的力量挤压得粉碎。”他锐利如箭的言词就像故意刺伤年少的萧飞羽。萧飞羽不为所动，他不紧不慢地推动左腕上的钢环道：“有道理，但如果黑旗会没有缓过神来我也许能祈祷侥幸能够继续。”

The notion of binarism also penetrates Barthes’ works. In S/Z, Barthes draws distinctions between readable and unreadable texts, between the traditional novel and the modern novel, between intelligible and unintelligible texts, and between the pleasure of the text and the rapture of the text. Barthes deals with Racinian tragedies in binary terms,too. The common structures derived from individual tragedies can serve as the functional oppositions and the rules of the combination of the system of tragedy. He believes he has found three oppositions or relations: “the relation of authority, the relation of rivalry and the relation of love” (Culler, 1975, pp. 99-100).

虽然吸纳创新具有较高的应用度，已经在国际上受到了许多国家的肯定和推广使用。但这种方式需要在短时间内接受较多的信息，通过收集各个国家的贸易创新方式来进行进一步筛选。由于各个国家的贸易创新方式存在较大的差异，其包含的内容也较为广泛。所以在进行资料的收集和整理时，工作人员的工作量往往较大，而工作人员在开展相应的银行融资工作时，所以难以提高相应的融资工作效率，影响了吸纳创新工作的开展，而在实际的国际贸易融资市场应用时，还缺乏相应的有效性和可行性。

In brief, as soon as a literary text comes into being, it becomes an independent entity,a closed and self-sufficient system. All other forms of literary criticism in which the world beyond literature and the human subject are the source and origin of literary meaning are objectionable to structuralists. In other words, a literary text or the whole of literature is taken by structuralist criticism as an independent and complete entity, very much in the same way as language is treated in structural linguistics.

Binary opposition also appears in the literary analyses of other structuralists, as is evidenced in the discussions of narrative by Genette and drama by Barthes. To dissolve the problems of narration, Genette explores three binary oppositions (Selden, 1985, p.62). The first, narrative/representation, presupposes a distinction between simple narrative and direct imitation. In fact, what is imitated is included in narrative because imitation involves what someone actually utters. So, the first opposition does not exist at all for Genette. The second opposition, narration/description, is about the difference between an active narration of actions and events and the narration of objects or characters.Yet, what is narrated, as Genette points out, is also descriptive. The second opposition becomes dissolved in Genette’s mind. The third binary opposition, narrative/discourse,is a distinction between a pure telling and a telling where the teller is known to us.This opposition is immediately cancelled by Genette, since even the purest narrative is subjective.

All these linguistic structures, according to structural linguistics, should be discussed at given points in language development, namely within the synchronic structure of language. The 19th century was concerned with the diachronic structure of language,which focused on external factors, not language itself. Saussure reversed this emphasis in linguistic studies—following Saussure, structuralist criticism paid little attention to the history of literature. Levi-Strauss, for example, in The Savage Mind, attacked Sartre’s emphasis on history in the Critique of Dialectical Reason. Instead, structuralists emphasize the synchronic aspect of literature, since the laws of narrative discovered by the French structuralists are not temporal laws showing causations, but “transformational”rules indicating a topological relationship, which is different from succession.

Another feature of the linguistic sign is the linear nature of the signifier. In other words, the signifier “is unfolded solely in time…; it is a line” (Saussure, 1959, p. 70). It is this linearity that supports what Saussure calls “syntagms”, which are combinations of linguistic elements arranged in sequence. There are also paradigmatic or associative structures or relations in which words “that have something in common are associated in the memory” (Saussure, 1959, p. 123). The notions of syntagms and paradigms are successfully applied by Jakobson in his analysis of poetry, in which he replaces syntagm and paradigm with the concepts of combination and selection. He argues that the basic feature of poetic language is its “unexpected, striking symmetries and antisymmetries,balanced structures, efficient accumulations of equivalent forms and salient contrasts…”(‘Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry’, p. 602, in Culler, p. 57). In highly patterned language such as poetic language, similarity is superimposed on contiguity. Hence, “the poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination” (‘Linguistics and Poetics’, p. 358, in Culler, p. 56).

4. The Iconic Mapping of Relations

There exist different relations among and within the structure discussed above.“Language”, as Saussure argues, “is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others” (Saussure,1959, p. 114). In other words, the existence of linguistic elements relies on that of other,different elements, and each linguistic element derives its significance from its difference from others. So, Saussure comes to his conclusion that there are only differences without positive terms in language. In fact, for Saussure, the language system is a series of combinations of sound differences and conceptual differences. Another way Saussure puts it is that language is a form and not a substance, and in a language, everything is based on relations. Hjelmslev proposes an even more radical idea in that there is nothing in a language but pure relationships. Two dominant relations discussed in the Course in General Linguistics are syntagmatic and associative relations. These two kinds of relations belong to what Benveniste calls “distributional relations”, which are “the relations between elements of the same level” (Culler, 1975, pp. 12-13). Benveniste also offers another kind of relations called “integrative relations”, which exist between elements of different levels. But the relations that are most important in structural analysis are the simplest: binary oppositions. No matter what else the linguistic model may have done, it has undoubtedly encouraged structuralists to think in binary terms, to search for functional oppositions in whatever material they are studying. Indeed, the notion of relations is so widely used in structuralist literary analysis that Terry Eagleton claims, in Literary Theory, that we become structuaralists only when we state that the meaning of each image is wholly a matter of its relation to the other because the images do not have a “substantial” meaning, but only a “relational” one. Greimas, for example, does a job on character analysis when he reduces Propp’s seven spheres of action to three pairs of binary oppositions of six categories: subject/object, sender/receiver, helper/opponent.These six roles are related to one another in that the object is desired by the subject and situated between the sender and receiver, and the subject itself has projections: the helper and opponent.

Similarly, since literary texts are a specific kind of linguistic phenomena, literature is also a sign system in which texts are signifiers and the meanings those texts convey are signifieds. Though in literature, “an organized surface of signifiers insistently promises meaning” (Culler, 1975, p. 19), yet what structuralists pursue is not the meaning, but the structure or grammar of literature because “the notion of a full and determinate original meaning that the text ‘expresses’ is highly problematic” (ibid.). “Poetry offers the best example of a series of signifiers whose signified is an empty… space” (ibid.). So, the signifiers lead our attention to themselves, which is the self-reflexity of literary signs,while structuralists work on the conditions of meaning, namely regulating the rules of literary signs.

This principle is borrowed by structuralist criticism. Though, according to Scholes,the notion of structure can be applied to a specific literary text (see his analysis of Ulysses, Scholes, 1974, pp. 180-200); structuralists regard individual literary texts as manifestations of literature, namely, “paroles” in Saussurean terminology. On the other hand, they consider literature as a whole to be a self-regulating system. Without the knowledge of the structure “langue” of literature, no individual text can be understood at all. To pursue a universal structure of literature or a type of literary work becomes one of the structuralists’ tasks. An obvious example is Todorov, with his advocation of a new poetics which establishes a general “grammar” of literature.

How can “langue” be related to “parole”? Noam Chomsky gives us an answer in his T. G. grammar. To distinguish himself from Saussure, he replaces “langue” and “parole”with “competence” and “performance”, respectively. He thinks linguistic study should start from performance, “to account for facts about language by constructing a formal representation of what is involved in knowing a language” (Culler, 1975, p. 269). For example, at the sentence level, what we utter or write is called the surface structure while that which is in the human mind before it is spoken out is called the deep structure.Deep structure is transformed from surface structure by a set of transformational rules.Not coincidentally, Piaget also introduces the idea of transformation into the notion of structure: “By transformational rule Piaget means the ability of parts of a structure to be interchanged or modified according to certain rules, and he specifically cites transformational linguistics as an illustration of such processes” (Scholes, 1974, p. 185).What structuralists try to do is transform literary texts into schematic models of literature.In other words, such studies aim to define the general principles of literary structures or“transformational rules”.

把李长吉与华君武拉在一起，似乎有点“关公战秦琼”，但又不能不拉在一起，因为在艺术创造的某一环节上有着惊人的一致，表明了诗、画同体。关连到“迁想妙得”，固然“妙得”必须基于“迁想”，但“迁想”未必都能“妙得”。因为从“迁想”到“妙得”正如钱锺书说的“自眼中至腕下，自腕下至毫颠，距离甚远，沿途走漏不少”。岂止“走漏不少”，更且歧路交错。再有对“似与不似”的把握，“不似”，其谬易见，然而为求似，极意形状之，不亦如《庄子》说浑沌，“日凿一窍，七日而浑沌死”。

5. Conclusion

As is shown above, structuralist criticism not only takes structural linguistics as an iconic model, but also relies on many technical terms of structural linguistics in the study of literature, which proves that the former is deeply rooted in the latter. While writers use their works as their own language system to signify the world in their experience,structuralist critics use linguistic terms and models to explain only the universal structure of literary works. Although structural linguistics helps to provide a new perspective for literary studies, structuralist literary analysis, as has been discussed, fails to discover the meaning of literary texts. In fact, what structuralists analyse is not meaning, but these abstract structures of literary texts, i.e. the conditions of meaning. It is their extreme reliance on language and linguistic models that makes structuralist criticism trapped in the“prison-house of language”.

References

Berman, A. (1988). From the New Criticism to Deconstruction. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist poetics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

De George, R. T., & De George, J. M. (1972). The structuralists from Marx to Levi-Strauss. New York: Doubleday.

Ding, E.-S. (1994). Beyond ontology. Suzhou: Soochow University Press.

Erlish, V. (1955). Russian formalism. Hague: Mouton.

Jakobson, R. (1956). Fundamentals of language. Hague: Mouton.

Jameson, F. (1972). The prison-house of language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lodge, D. (1972). 20th century literary criticism. London: Longman Group.

Peirce, C. S./Peirce Edition Project. (1998). The essential Peirce (Vol. 2). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of linguistics. London: Hutchinson.

Saussure, F. de. (1959). Course in general linguistics. London: Mcgraw-Hill.

Scholes, R. (1974). Structuralism in literature. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Selden, R. (1985). A reader's guide to contemporary literary theory. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Uitti, K. D. (1969). Linguistics and literary theory. New York: Norton.

Wellek, R., & Warren, A. (1956). Theory of literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.