Post-Structuralism: An Indian Preview - Igcollege.org

Proceedings of National Seminar on Postmodern Literary Theory and Literature , Jan. 27-28, 2012, Nanded
Structural and Post-Structural Theory: Literature as a
Chincholkar B.B.
Head, Dept. of English,
Rajarshi Shahu
Mahavidyalaya,
Parbhani.
Special Use of Language
Kharabe R. P.
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
J.J.T. University,
Rajasthan.
Siraskar K. G.
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
J.J.T. University,
Rajasthan
.
Abstract:The paper has been attempted to explore language through structural and post-structural theory. The
paper mainly focuses on the concepts of structural linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, Jakobson, structural
anthropologist, Lavi-Strauss, structural semioticians such as Greimas and Barthes and the deconstructive
philosopher, Jacus Derrda. Also further tries to present difference between the ordinary and literary language. To
sum up, it is explained that the language of literature plays crucial role to demonstrate contextual meaning of
selected text.
Key words: Structural and Post-structural theory, Ordinary and Literary language.
Structuralism originates to the Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea of
sign as a union of signifies and the
signified in his Course in General
Linguistics (1915). The term,
‘structuralism’ refers to the works of
structural linguists such as Saussure,
Jakobson and structural anthropologist,
Lavi-Strauss and structural semioticians
such as Greimas and Barthes. Ferdinand
de Saussure projects language as a sign
system that communicates in relationships
or inter-dependence. According to him, a
sign consists of a signifier (sound image)
and signified (concept) and the
relationship between the signifier and the
signified is arbitrary. A sign also gives
meaning only in relations to the totality of
other signs.
A structuralist critic views the
work of literature as a kind of meeting
place for different systems of meaning. In
this regard Roland Barthes quotes;
‘The text is not a line of words
releasing a single theological
meaning but a multidimensional
space in which a variety of
writings, none of them original,
blend and class. 1
Thus, structuralism accepted that
language does not directly latch on the
facts, but that all expressions in a given
language acquire their meaning through
contrast with the meaning of other
expressions. As applied in literary studies,
structuralist criticism conceives literature
to be a second-order signifying system that
uses the first-order structural system of
language as its medium, and is itself to be
analyzed primarily on the model of
linguistic theory. In brief, structuralism
offers a theory of literature and a mode of
interpretation. Structural analysis does not
move towards a meaning of a text. The
work, as Barthes says, is like an onion:
A construction of layers (or levels,
or systems) whose body contains,
finally no heart, no kernel, no
secret, no irreducible principle,
nothing except the infinity of its
own envelopes- which envelop
nothing other than the unity of its
own surfaces ( Style and its Image,
10)
Also, it is important to note that
structuralists apply a variety of linguistic
concepts to the analysis of a literary text,
such as the distinction between phonemic
and morphemic levels of organization, or
between paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relationships; and some critics analyze the
structure of a literary text on the model of
the syntax in a well-formed sentence.
However, the aim classic literary
105 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1