The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication? Chapter 10, Page 23
The Consequences of Language
Chapter 10.What Is the Relationship Between Language Structure and Communication?
This chapter presents the wide range of approaches made by structuralists in the analysis of texts.(Each section introduces a perspective and an example of an analysis).1. Introduction
Each of the perspectives presented in this chapter has contributed to the analysis of language and culture by proposing a specific perspective on the nature of language and then a demonstration of this perspective through the analysis of a text, dialog or component of language. The chapter does by no means exhaust the various approaches taken in this vein, but does provide a representative sampling of the types of approaches.
2. French Structuralism
Claude Lévi-Strauss has taken a structuralist approach to the analysis of culture and applied it both to the analysis of kinship systems and the grammar of myth. His approach is not easy to grasp, which has lead to a wide range of criticisms of them (Leach, Geertz, and Harris), but it is useful because an understanding of this approach helps to clarify the basic principles underling a structural approach and in the process reveals the potential of structural analysis and its limitations and it.
Fundamental Tenets of Structuralism· A semiological system consists of contrasting signs in a closed system.
· The operation of this structural system is below the level of parole ( discursive or declarative) knowledge, but not the level of awareness.
· The goal of structuralism is the recovering of the underlying system and ignoring of the analysis of the parole.
· The name given to the methodology involved in uncovering the properties of a semiological system is “reconstructive science” (Habermaas) which differs from positivist science.
The approach used by Claude Lévi-Strauss is often referred to simply as structuralism for several reasons. First it is structuralist because it adheres to the fundamental tenets of structuralism. That is, it approaches cultural systems from a semiological perspective - that underlying a cultural phenomenon like kinship or myth is a common underlying (closed) system of oppositions. For Claude Lévi-Strauss, these oppositions are binary, though this need not be the case for other semiological systems. Second, It is called structuralism because many are unaware of its affinity with other semiological systems like phonology, the lexicon or syntax. We prefer the term French Structuralism for Claude Lévi-Strauss’ approach both to distinguish it from other structuralist approaches and to show its similarity to them.
2.1 The framework. In this regard, I find his approach to myth, as opposed to kinship, more revealing, more interesting, and more understandable. We all recognize that in the elements of language (phonology, lexicon and syntax) go into the construction of a myth
The science of the concrete. Levi-Strauss proposes that humans do not ordinarily think in a rational linear sense associated with western science with its abstract concepts like gravity, intermolecular force and the like. The science of the concrete, CLS says, does not involve abstract concepts but can manipulate such concepts when they are embodied in a physical object. In this way of thinking, slyness could be portrayed by a fox, doom by a vulture, reliability by the plodding tortoise[1], and so forth. Thus, even though CLS draws a distinction between the science of the concrete and the science of the abstract, he does not value one higher than the other. The significance of the embodiment of abstract concepts is that it allows for the manipulation of these abstract concepts through the telling of a story about the objects in which they are embodied. This kind of relationship is essentially the working of metaphor. Such stories constitute, form CLS’ perspective, myth. Thus a myth tells a story at two levels, one at the level of parole and the other at the level of langue.
The level of awareness. When we read or listen to a myth at the level of parole, we encounter a story with actors, a plot and a resolution. When we encounter the same myth at the structural level we are not conscious of what is going on, but sense, according to CLS, a set of relationships ( to be found in the gross constituent units.) being juxtaposed. Furthermore, these relationships are not the product of the conscious mind, but the workings of the mind at the structural level, or as CLS put it, people don’t think in myths, but rather myths think themselves out through people.[2]
Research Issues for the Science of the Concrete. The relations that recur in myth are concerns about the nature of human beings that concern us all. The most important of these is the Culture v. Nature opposition, and that concerns the uniqueness of human beings and what makes us different from other animals. We are aware that we are animals (nature) but very unique animals because we have culture.
· Incest and Marriage. As cultural beings we, unlike animals, have (extended) families and therefore practice exogamy to avoid incest and build alliances with our in-laws’ families through the exchange of our children through marriage.
· Born from one v. born from two. As cultural beings we are also concerned about our origins. Most societies have a myth[3] about how humans came into being. This usually involves a first man who reproduced to populate the world. This myth creates a problem in that the first form of reproduction was asexual unlike the current mode which is sexual.[4] Note also that even if a second sex is introduced, it is hard to escape the likelihood of incest in the early stages of populating the world.[5] Often one finds in myths that the first couple are brother and sister, in which case their reproduction involves incest.
· Death v. Eternal Life. As cultural beings we are aware of and terrorized by the thought of our own death. Most societies have developed “myths” to deal with this which usually involve eternal life. This opposition also finds its way into the structural component of myth.
Each of these topics represents a serious (subconscious) concern for humans and it is these concerns that CLS claims are embedded into the structural component of a myth. Furthermore, the research questions posed by the science of the concrete are essentially the same as those posed by (western) scientists of the abstract.
The Units (signs). Every semiological system consists of a specific type of sign within a closed system. In the lexical system it is the word. In the representational system, it is the phoneme or letter. In the structural system it is the gross constituent unit. Like other semiological signs the gross constituent unit is below the level of discursive knowledge, but not the level of awareness. Now the concepts of culture, nature, incest and the like are abstract notions, and inaccessible to the science of the concrete. Rather, this science requires that these concepts need to be embedded into real objects and hence the fox for slyness mentioned above, but also the juxtaposition of two entities such as a domestic and a tame animal or a cultivated plant and a wild plant or a cooked and a raw fish to illustrate the culture/nature opposition. From this perspective it is easy to see why totemism, the metaphoric use of animals, is so common in myth.
2.3 The methodology.
In a reconstitutive science, such as in linguistics, the goal is to “reconstitute” the grammar of a given language that is in the heads of the users. In such a science, according to Habermaas, there are two interdependent levels of theory: 1) the theory or grammar of a language; and 2) the theory of language, also known as the metatheory. The metatheory states what is common to all languages (also know as linguistic universals and universal grammar). A grammar of a language states how a sentences are produced and understood for a given language. These levels are interdependent so that the grammar of each language must be consistent with the metatheory. If it is not, then either the grammar or the metatheory needs to revised. The interdependence of grammar and metatheory derives from the rationalist presumption (chapter 5?) that language is acquired by an existing structured mind predisposed to language (the universal grammar) which enables the acquisition of a grammar of a language, which is, as a consequence, consistent with the universal grammar.
The operation of French Structuralism follows the same methodology. The metatheory holds that all myths contain an underlying structural opposition of GCUs which contain elements of the research issues. Work on the metatheory will involve an elaboration of the research issues, the nature of the GCUs and their insertion into myths. Work on the individual myth involves separating the relevant (at this level) from that is irrelevant. (necessary v contingent) by identifying specific (pairings and patternings of) GCUs and showing how they relate to the metatheory and by comparing these with a set of related myths, looking for the same patterning of (pairs of) GCUs. The GCUs will often be paired and the parings will often be analogous to the other myths, though this does not mean involving the same totemic devices. One of the best examples of this is his paper on Four Winnebago Myths.
2.4 The Thebesian legends
- [Zeus disguised as white bull. Makes Europe queen of Crete.]
- [Kadmos told by oracle in Delphi to forget sister, she's ok. Also told to follow white cow and found city. (Thebes. Kadmos needs water for sacrifice, sends soldiers one after the other to fetch water. The dragon son of god Ares eats all the soldiers]
3. Spartoi arise from dragon's teeth and kill one another. (Kadmos told to throw stone among Spartoi to causes the Spartoi to fight among themselves.)
- [ Five Spartoi survive and they help Kadmos build Thebes].
- [Oedipus sent to another family grows up without knowing prophesy or who real parents are.]
- [Later Oedipus comes to Thebes where a Sphinx is guarding and imprisoning the city of Thebes.]
- [Oedipus is welcomed as king into Thebes.]
- [Oedipus learns of the truth of the prophesy. Jokaste commits suicide and Oedipus blinds himself.]
8. Antigone (daughter of Oedipus) buries her brother despite prohibition
9. 9. Labdakos (father of Laios = 'lame'
10. Laios (father of Oedipus = 'left footed'
11. Oedipus = 'swollen foot'
The following account is drawn from Edmund Leach’s (19xx) account of CLS’ analysis of the Greek collection of myths known as the Thebsian legends which contains the well known story of Oedipus. In the following synopsis, the numbered lines are GCUs identified by CLS. Those not numbered were ruled out on the basis that a) they did not form a pattern within the myth and b) they did not fit other myths. They have been included to help tell the parole level of the story.
Analysis
Having identified the GCUs, CLS then noted that they could be assigned to one of two sets of oppositions, one dealing with incest (the over v. undervaluation of kinship) and one dealing with humans and monsters.
I Overvaluation of Kinship / II Undervaluation of Kinship / III Culture over Nature / IV Nature over Culture1 Kadmos' (over) concern for his sister (Europe)
6 Oedipus' incest with his mother
8 Antigone's (over) concern for her brother. / 3 Spartoi (brothers) kill themselves.
4 Oedipus kills father.
7 Eteokles kills his brother Polyneikes / 2 Kadmos kills dragon (half god half animal).
5 Oedipus kills sphinx (half woman half lion) / 9 Labadakos (grandfather of Oedipus) = lame.
10 Laios (father of Oedipus) = left-sided.
11 Oedipus = Swollen-footed
To understand the last column, CLS notes that many human origin theories involve autochthonous (coming from the earth) first humans. Such is the case, for example with the Judeo-Christian view. He adds that it is generally the case that autochthonous people walk with a limp and that it is not a mere coincidence that Oedipus, his father and grandfather all have names that reflect this fact. From this persistence of lameness, reflecting autochthony, that CLS can say that the GCUs in this column reflect the persistence of nature over culture in contrast to the preceding column where humans have conquered nature in the form of mythical monsters.
Here CLS sees GCUs representing the culture/nature question in two ways: in the domain of kinship (columns I and II) and in the domain of autochthony (columns III and IV). Since the order of the appearance of the GCUs is not a significant aspect of CLS’ theory, the presentation of the question does not lead to a resolution of the problem, but it does constitute a statement of it.
"how to find a satisfactory transition between this theory and the knowledge that human beings are actually born from the union of man and woman. Although the problem obviously cannot be solved, the Oedipus myth provides a kind of logical tool which relates to the original problem -- born from one or born from two -- to the derivative problem: born from different or born from the same. By a correlation of this type, "the overrating of blood relations is to the "underrating of blood relations" is to the "impossibility to succeed in it". Although experience contradicts theory, social life validates cosmology by its similarity of structure. Hence, cosmology is true. (CLS, Structural Anthropology: 216)