69249454-chandler-semiotics

ANALYSING STRUCTURES 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8222
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1222
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7222
They add that, while these are all continuous syntagms (single shots
or successive shots), there are also discontinuous syntagms (related
shots separated by others). Beyond the fourfold distinction between
frames, shots, scenes and sequences, the interpretive frameworks of
film theorists differ considerably. In this sense at least, there is no
cinematic ‘language’.
Semioticians have led the quest to identify and describe structural
relations underlying texts and cultural practices. Sociological
critics note that structural elements need not only to be related to
one another and interpreted, but also to be contextualized in terms
of the social systems which give rise to them. A psychologist objects
that ‘the question of whether categories like sacred/profane and
happiness/misery are psychologically real in any meaningful sense
is not posed and the internal logic of structuralism would suggest it
need not be posed’ (Young 1990, 184). It is also true that those who
use structuralist approaches sometimes claim to be analysing the
‘latent meaning’ in a text – what it is ‘really’ about; such approaches
understate the subjectivity of the interpreter’s framework. Nor can it
be claimed that oppositions are ‘contained within’ texts rather than
generated by interpretation. None of these criticisms are unanswerable,
however, and we would be foolish to forego the insights which
may still be gained from exploring the structural analysis of texts
and social practices.