ENCYCTOPHDIA

Edited by

LHSTER EMBRH,EHLTZABET}{ A. BEHNKE

DAVIN CARRJ. CLAUDH EVANS

JOSE HUERTAS-JOURDAJOSEPH J" KOCKELMANSWILLIAM R. McKENI$A

ALGIS MICKUNASJITEhIDRA NATH MOHANTY

THOMAS lvf. SEEBOHMRICHARD M.Z,ANER

CITATION;Richard L. Lanrgan, "structuralism" rnEncy clop edia of Phenomenolo gy,general editot, Lester Embree(Boston; Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academicpp.683-689. fSBI{ 0792929562

Publishers, 1997),

!:r ,r..;#t

',.'l+;fiiji*: : i l . :9 i i : : i i t l r .&gj i

i{:* rjli ljril {il.t!r:it: r!$

!l:!" '+'

KLTJWtrR ACADEMICD0llDR.f:Cl"I'f I S{}STON

PUBTIS}{trRS/ LONDON

1 Sg7

S'TR[,ICTU ITAL ISM

n could not be printed in Cermany in 1936 due lFV.itings af Ertith Stein. Hd. rn Irans.to an\ti-semitic publishing ban? reported tlrat "the Ciracf.Westminster, Mf): Newnran tr)ressr 986.fascinatin).$ing about Edith Srein was that truth did

Stein, Waltraut. "Edith Stcin.'Iwcnrv-Fi v cars I.,ater.

not exist as ari\aQstraction for her, trut as sornethingi {ut t l L i lb l3 (19f,7),24+Sl.

S rr I I ivan, J cthn, *d. E tl i t h S t ei n .Si,rr;ir.,incarnated in perso\." Iror Edith stein, philosophy ICIS Publications. I 987.

and life rvere one. [-ike rhbqrlier Carmelite mysti*, St. Steirr'sNttrhla,s.s is lretrd in the Ar

683

l'Ii ida

" -S;rir"-

lbrk; Alba l{ouse" 1988.Ilosclt, T'eresa Renata. Edith ,Stein. J"rans. fl. l{astings and fJ.

Nicholl. New Yrrrk: Shecd & Ward. 1952.secretan, Philiberr. "Eclith Stein on T'he 'Order ancl Chain

I]e ing."' Anttlec:ta Husserlisna I l. Ilarclrelcht: D. Il"ei1981,113-"23.

Stein, Eclith. Zum Proble:nr der Ein/iihlLtng. Dio., Hall

John of the Cross, Edith SteinhElnprlifies her writings. Stein, L,euven.

FOR F URl ' l {nR Sl ' tJDry '

Ilaschcart. Iv{ary Catherinc, and t-incla l,tipez McAIistor. witfrWaltrirut Stein. "fldith Sfein." In A Fli,rtor.v of' I*?smenPhilo.rosther.s. Ed. Mary Bllen \tr'Iaitlie. \bl. 4. l)orcirechr:Klur,ver Academic Publishers. 1995. 1 57--tt7.

IieLz.,, Reto, Mathias Rath, and Petcr schr-rlz, eds. studie.s zurPhilo,rophie von Edith Stein srmpo.tion {l ggl Hichstarr,Gernrany) I;rieburg: .o\lber, I 993.

Grire{, Hilda tl. T'he ,Stltolar en{{ the Cia,rs. wcstminsrer,MD: Tlre Newrnan llrtrss, 1955

f{erbstrith, Waltraud" l:.dith Stein. J"rans. Bcrnard Bonowitz.San Francisco: l 'Iarper & Row. Igtts.

Oben. Frcria Mary. Edith Stein; Stl,tolqri F'eminist, Seint. Nr:w

ST-RUCTURALISN.I

ivum Canrl*, t tanum [dith

K,qrHLLEN }{ar.,.*riv{Jt jyer'.r i t.1, 17i 11 tt r,r.q t0 fl

t-ike phenornenologv,structuralism is more a nrethad of analysis thirn asubject matter. Because of its origins in thc H[rlv,{Al-!s{-ltjNc[s, structuralisnr is usuallSz considerecl fi sci_entific method thar studies systems, relations. i lndfortns, i.e., strztt:tuls*, of' in the trlore current rjcs-ignation, tocles. .S;rrerrs nre phenonlena that inter-relate l 'vith one another according to a discover-able logic usually expresserti as a key relation anclits transformations through deduction, incluction., ab-duction, aclduction, etc, A.q a "here ancl now'o phe-llOrnenon, a s.vstem is usuallv c0ntrasted with i{ts-IoRY as *'tht:re and then." Fanril iar systenric re-lations are similar"ityidiffbrence (rnetaphor)., oppo-sit ion/apposit ion (sinri le; i rony), partrwhole {synec-doche), substancelattritrute (metouyrny), selfl iorher/*world, couse/€ff'ect, space/time, q ua Iitativsr'q uantita-tive, and {brm/content. }rlote that most relaticlns arebinary or trinary as a resuit rif the sysrem logic t:e-ittg used. Irr this structural context, eicJetic tr:rhenomcpaare ref'erred to as mentifnc:/s Or c:ontents, while entpiri-cal plrenomena are specified as arti/ac,r.r ol./i; t n?,t. Thestructurai nrethod is ciosely assnciated with (:o. rN4LINI-colocv" t .ANClrr\clr ' and sign systems, al l ot ' lvhich areviewed as ql.,rr{i rnr:ocles and are grouped together uncJerthe general name *fsenrlotlcs (or semiology) in currenfusage.

while semiotics now has an internetional scope,strucfural isrn as a dcctr ine is popularly known becauseits French origins in the 196{}s. As Vincent Descombessuggested in 1980,, there are basical iy three histori-cal anci phi losophical progressions of "strucrural isrn'. :structural analysis, stnrctural ism per se, ancl semiotics.

et7;On the Prrshlenr ttJ' [:'mpath.r'. Trans. Waltraut S in. TIreI{ague: Mart inus Nijhof}, 1q64.

"Beifrage z,ur philosophische n Bcgrunclu der Psy-chologie und clt:r Ceisteswissenschaften."'ahrhuch fr.irP h i I ct,s o 1t h i e u n tt 7s hci no rn e n o I o gi,s t: I'te F o rs; ung 5 (1922),l-"284: ryt. Tiibingen: Max h{ielneyer, !

"Einc Untersuchung iiber den St t.'n .lahrbuc:h filrPhiIo.sr"tphie und phrinomeno\ogi.t,t hc/F orsr:hung 7 i.IgZS\,1-"1'24.

"Ffuisserls Phrinornenologie nfr die philosophie cles'fhonras von Aquino. versuclt Sncr Gegeniiberstellung."F'est.sr::hrifi Edmund Hus,sert fum G ehurt,s tag g€w,idnrct),sultplcmen t-hant{, Ja hr564:l/ li'ir f' h i lo.rophie und phtinrs-murulogi.tc:he: F'orschunsy{ F{alle ; h{ax lriiemeyer,1 929"315"38; rpt , In ] { t ts.r t : r ln{Ed. Fl . l ,Joack. Darmsradr: wis-senschaftl iche RuclrgEftllschaft,, 1973, d l*86.

--"'" Krcttze.ivt'i.r.ten,st:haj{. T'lze science of' the (lru.ir'. Trans.Hilda Gracf . Cltic.a$o: f{enry Regner,v, 1q6CI.

-* , Endlic:hcs und /vviges sein. Edith steins \yerke z. Ed.I". cclber and fi.amaeus L.cuvcn. Louvirin: Nauu,elaerts,I 950.

-"*-. llie Frau.frans" Fr

ta.fgohe nuclr !,futur und Gnotte. {)n kl/rstlr{ltt.Ir{ary Obcn, lVershington" DC: ICS publica-

tions, Wtn"*""', .4u,t d/n Lelrcn einer.itidischen F utnilie. Lr{a in u Jew'i,sh

F'amy'v. ' l ' rans. Joesphine Koeppel, Washington, DC: ICSP ullli cati on s, I 9 tl(r.

'dith steins w'erke. r:d. L. fielbg' ancl Rornaeus Lsuven.;reiburg: 1950 ff .

6ri4

Civen current developments, two more categcries need

to be added; poststructuralism and phenornettoiogical

struCtural ism,' l 'hese types Ol ' "StruCtUral i$i l10' are dis-

t inguished bry their ontological {systernic) and episte-

rnological (rel ir t ional ) orierttat ions tovvard cultural phe-

nomena in consciousness (corttetrts or mcntifacts) itnd

in experience {forrns or art i facts}.

( l) Sftwturf i analvsrs refers to t lre various schools

of anthropology and especial ly l inguist ics that rcjcctcd

a diachronic (historical) approaclt to analyzrng speech

(parolct) as a Series of events, itt farror of a s7'nchronic

approach to langua ge $ungue) as a present fi lolnent in

a systent. 'I"he diachronic relation is tenlporal and sig-

nif ies a l inear progression of changc over t ime that is

lr istorical. , whereasi the sylrchronic relat ion is an atem'

poral relation that signifies a reffexive moment existing

at the present time. {n sl'rort, the tJiachronic expresses

a " ' t l ' lel l" relat iOn, while the synchronic eXpreSSeS i l

"l low" relatiOn" The parerllel spatial system exprt:sses

a syntagrnatic relation of "thef€," wltersas a paraclig-

matic. re lation exprersses a position <lf 'ohere.o'

Having rnade these dist inct ions, we Inust take ac-

count of a discipl inary anontaly ' in l inguist ics, i "e. . ,

the diilchronic approarrh is called Arnerican structural-

ism {the Rloomfieldian schooli and the sync}:ronic

approach is known as liuropcriln stl'Ltcturalisrn (the

Mosccw, Prague" ilnd Clopenhagon [*irc]es). The Ar]ler-

ican traditi*n is grounded in the work of Franz Boas

( I S58-- I 942). especial ly as discussed in his rnajor work

Re(::e, Lanattuge, ancl Culture (1940). trn adclitisn, it

was Boas rvho founded The Intetrnatittnnl Jtsurnal of'

Ame rican {..,irrgui,stir:s, which brought together the par-

allel rvork r:l ' Edr.vard Sapir { I 884*1939} and l"eonard

Bloomfield ( l8B7--l q39). Conten"lporary work in this

context is best i l lustrated by i 'Joarn Chomsky's many

publications on the place of syntax in language-use.'lhe Europeau tradition follows the work of Fer-

<Jinancl de Saussure ( 1 S5 7^""19 I 3), who is commonly

held to be the undisputed founder of rnoclern linguis-

tics. 'ilre principal formulation in Cours de lingttistique

gentrale t19 l6), tbr which Sar,r$$ure is tnost famous,

is his system definition of the srgr? (S) as a ,s^v'nchronic

relation composed of t 'wo elements: (a) the srgni.fier

(Sr) or .signift-ing eidetic eletnent that we understand

as the linguistic concept {content), and ib) the srgrui-

fied (Sd) or empirical elenrent that we comprehend as

the l inguist ic sounc!- image (forrn). Saussure offerecJ the

[ :NC.Y{l l ,OPIIDI A Oi; P}-l HNON4 [NOLOGY

fbllowing fbrmula:

s - $Scl

Further, he argued that ther syste mic oper"ation of signswas both {a} arbitrary and (b) conventional in thc so-cial use o1'language (lmrgue). -fhus the study of speak-

ing ftrnrc{e) tvas condc:mntcl as diachronic and of sec-

onclar-v importance.Among the impo$ant contribut*rs to the Saussurian

n:odel arc thc mcmbcrs of the lVloscow linguistic cir-

cle { 191 tt 1), inclurl ing H.ot\ 'tAN JAKotlsuN, wito tvrote

no major book, hut left an extensive res{-rarch corpus.

The circle also included Husserl's stitdent" cusll,\\/ tpt:'r'.'fhis l\{oscor,v grc,up set the interdisciplinitry tone fbr

the birth of structuralism by combinirrg the stud1, of'

l inguistics with that of poetics^ rnetrics, and {blkiore,

along vi, ith logic and philosophy.

Also important to the Saussurian tradition was

the Prague L.inguistic Circle founded in i92fr by Jan

Mukarosky ( I 891 - I 975) and others, includirtg the no-table F-rench nlernbers Ernile Benverniste i 1902-_1976)

and Andre .N{artinet, and again ldoman Jakoi:son. aRussian emigre. Finally, the Copenhagen l. inguistic

Circle marked its beginning with the publication of

tlre first issue of fta:ta l-inguisrrc:cr in 1939. lt containeda nranifesto hy Viggo Brondal { I887*-1q42} eirtitlsd"structnral Linguistics." It is important to note thatBr6ndal's article aclvocateri a phenr)rrenological cor-rection to the dontinant fornralist theory of tlre cir-cle later articulatecl in Otnkring spnsgtt'oriens grund-

loeggelse (Prolegoruena to a theory *{'language. I 94J )by Louis Hjelmslev { 1 8q9- I q65 } as g/o ssetna{rr:s. i.e .,a formal homology hretween expression anrt content inlangr,rage. I'{jehnslev's theory may tre lbrrnalized as anextension of the Saussure lnqrdel:

S__ Sr lSd//Sr/Sd

with these definitiorls:

Express i on- S utrstance

Sign :Expression-Forrn

Content-ForrnContent-Substance

In this fornruiation, the signifier is renanred e"ypres-

$ f l{ tJC'f URAi-lsh' l

, t i t t r ranr l rJ i r , ' ic lesi tsel fssrniot ical l , r " i l r to*nt : i r ls i i r :Sr

,f tsrnt ancl Sd snlsstgrtt t€. ' tr" 'he signif icd is nsw cal led

1]1s (:outett lancl setni i l t ical l .V diyides into &n empi{ ic*l

Sr litrm etnd Sd 5nltsttt nt(. l-tjellnsle v's k*;r re iatiotl

is the neitiolt r>f dclse ndent:eiintle;-tend(n{'e that Ogcurs

bstureen trrhe*ornc*r]. rt is in this r:rl i l icxt thftt trSriintlal

silggested1 agairtst f-{jclnrsl*v's clcciuctive tt:rlrralism'

that "Liu5serl 's petlc ' tr i l t i l rg ntedit t t t ions on plt*n6men-

ology rn,il l in this tra$e lrc a .soilrcc *f ipspiration ti:r

every krgician of language"'"

[t nrust be tlotcd tl i itt i ls Brtll iJal $ilspt]ctcd' $jclm*

slev ,s Proltg\tTl€r?dr wllti a firilltre as il ciertr"rctir''e sys-

tenr r-ar languagc. b*t vierryed es *n alrdrrctio*, it has

provicle{ the stitnclnrrl r"ocabttlnrv ancl rn*del uscd in

cotnrnltnicology tr:r dcscribe t, i re opcri l t ign 1;f i tnirnal '

hurran, Ancl nrachine cornr*uni i : t i t ion svstcrn$. Ir : this

re spect, ht jelr lslev'S grErate$t irr f lue I lCs |as becn on the

senr iot ic theor ies t : { 'Algirdas J. { i re i tnan (1917 -199 1i

aud the Paris school ol Sel l iot ics nn*l, i t ' t part ' ott the

theory ()f l jn1bert0 Eco; both tl ieE:rists hitvc hiid an es-

pecial ly notable interr iat ional inipact olr the stucly of

aesthetic fexts in the rllnss l: ' leclitl.

{2),-$f4 tc:ttg'all.Tn? per se re{brs to the tfieory of'sigl1$

as a specificarion {}{." srructural anniysis ilr th* 1"rul]uilr

sciences l 'here therc is an enrphasis *n the clescript i*n

crt, rvh0le sl.,s/cnls. ' l-he goal is a nelv thi:ory tt{ tu*ttttittg

based 1:ri si.gl tit'icrtfil,ilrJi gentlrated b3'' r"aritllt$ S,v*9tgtll*

*ocles inchirJi*g langlrsgc- a*d ti isc*iir"se, ki*si"rip, n*rl

*cor1o'ric exchaligc. i\ r: 'raj *r i:rtcI Iectua I cr.rn{r,,nlati*n

clevsloperrJ inasnruclr as structur*lisnr i ' l t i ie traditio* of

Sarissure {)pposctt thc tr i l t i i t i* i : ui . l - luss*ri : ts i t was

tekc,tt up altd trallsforrnctl in Fr*nch pl:erl0ll1*llt)1*:9"v.

lrr particular, strlicturerlisi:r t-rfl 'cr*d its*lf '3$ 11 r]1$jcx *l-

tr,rnative or) the French :$r..erls ro ti-re post-*\\'$r"ld wilr

t I popu I ari t-y o f ti x t s'I 11 Nl' I A I- 1 $h{. e sltec i tr I l-v"- t ?rnt * l" J r:'q x -

pAiJr. sART'Rr:. " l 'he tai lur* of existeit t i tr l isnr as si:cial and

por-,r. ;1r Ar. pr{!r.{ jsr}p}{y enc$rirng*t l the sciei-rt i t ic *xit l i -

fl at i on s o {, struictural ;rn at3,'s i s.'rirc erisii irr g i r"it*l lei--tri a i

clebats rvil$ rl straightitlr*,arri cppilsitic* bctu'ecri tire

".new,, structuralist colrcept *{- tfi 'f l*ret?.r{J $rnbadied in

language 35 a syst*rn de{inirlg 'rrx'iel.l ' '--* a text-ceide

{i.e ., grammnt{}lr-rgy } perspfictivs *"'"'ancl tl ie "*1d" l:xls-

T.l1i{'I tztL PHIiN{.}t\4I1NOL.{;(;l{:n l. COnCep[ * f icill'tlfifl' er":r]:Ud-

ied in speakirig ils a syster' ctslit: ing tttc grt' 's#ti ** an

er*bodied il iscourse perspc"ctive. T"he p*ri*cl of' $il 'rlc-

turafistn'S popularity r1rr,rgil l,v began rvith the pubiica-

f ion of Anclre h{art in*t 's La i ingtt ist iqtte s1'nt l tronique

f)85

i* i 949 ancl cii lrraxcti n,itit the irtr:psarilnco o1' t l larreie

Levi-strauss*s,4nlh'nttrtpt 'ogit ' q{t 'ut ' t t t t '* le t 1 t)5t i} *t tcJ

Lrs pensce,trlrlt i#Se {'flt* savi}g{-} r"nittcl. l lXrl}., t}i* lat-

ter decl icater: l to M,rr;rrr( E \1ERl. rrn{1-p{}Nr' \ ' " i tat irer thatt

a fne re ge stul 0^ the cle ttricali*n iincl the pt'etace to l"it

perri.rdr, .r{ru1l,#gri r*rn incl u :i o {' thc i n llucn t i ir} pl rei} o ilt erit -

o l o gi c n l c ri t i {.1.r $ a n il lev i s i *n c t' s ir ri s su r"rl t h il t h{ c t"l t": a u -

Ponty off lrs in his cssa3, 's cf this Pr,r iot] , pt l [r i ishcti as

.\'i '4ria.r t i 96U l.

(3) , 'ft lrirstir:,r (1r .r*:Jltiglg-gt' re fbrs to tlte th*gry ot'

sig*s as e ! inguis/ i<: strrer: i f icnt irxr 0t 'st* l l r tural analvsis

in philost:phv itrtd the ltr-rr11.1t1 scien';e 5 rVire re tlttrrc is

ari emphasis on r.cr l* t i r tr ts. I* t i r is rn*r l i f iecl r '* i"sic* uf

StrurCturalisnt" the rer,isecl gilal is i l thei-lr,v of it lt 'rrri it;g

based an sjgri i l ir:ati*n girneratccl in th* lirst instfir ' lr"c L'1r'

r/j,s'r:r.,r#tr:, \ffhile $&rtsst'tl '* ltarl argned that scr:li+tics

wss th* rvl ' l r ' r}* *nd l ipgrr ist ics Ll i l { ;" gi ' the parts- senti-

ot icinns conr,ended rhat i ingri ist ics wfis t t" ie r lr igin anri

se*ri*tic$ rvas tlrei d*riverl science. Fr"*nch setltit it ir-'s

crir*$ into i*cus rryith the ptrl:lrcetion ul' Vltnrsrils c/r: '

,r*ni#!tsgir: in i Q64 by l{oiand l}ttr"th';rs { 1q i5- l9"qt}}

arrd St:rynrttit1ttt: Slt'tt( '{ttt"ttlt:: f l,t:t ' lterChe tlt nretltofit

in 1966 by {ireittras. Iiarthes sssentiall3t sdapttd lhe

I-l,jelrnslcviarr rn*rjel of structlirftl annlvsis to litcrarv

anrJ c*irural criticisrn by cliscourrrir"rg prrlrlerils *f f-ontt

i* favor ot relat ions and systenrs. I . le at oncr tna'eci

a\vay f ronl the infJLisl' lce of"ctnpirical scierlce anci ttl-

\ l ,ard phl los*phical rss$es o1'c*ncr:rn try *raki l ig scrrui-

oi*gy il ,"crriiri l.* lrcti ' it. io'in lit '*rar1,' scir-rrlc13. l-{is stucl-

ies of niytirtrl$gy., rhet*r' ic. and id*oltlg-V have Lrcetl it

nril. i*r fbrce i* ttic p()puiaritr- cf- srruct*rnlisr* Lr*tl: i*-

sii it nntj outsicte ttrs ei:i lclcrnic *'o[lcl. [ 'he trttrit: i ' 'r-r|i.r

p*putrari t l , ' t l1 'struct*r i t i isnr thu:; Lri l f l l rr to Cisplnc* thut

of existcrrt ial islr"r in prr l i l ic disc*rtrsc.

As a rroulltelLrii lanc* t* th* [3i.rr"th*s ttr*c]e], (ir*ilrlas

constructecl n n:oclel that he clt i l*d ths s{-:r i i r t t i t ' . \ ' { l i {J/ ' f '

-l ' l : lc uroriet altir:ulateiJ in his t'ri-,r:k S*rirrr'ri i lrrr ( 1i}?9)

Llses re lati*r:.s *J'' conlraclit-:ti itn. {:*niriirietS'' t incl c{1111*

plcrnentarity tr) spir.r.:ifu,- a -rf r"iirdii'r? iitsntt! r-'cr/riqrii-l' o1'

n:eaning at one gl,tl irrc l*ve ls t-rf sr:nrirntic sigr:i i i*ati*r1"

I* rn{}re furni} iar usage, Hnrthe s nar} le$ th*se }e Vcls c{-}n-

nr- l tar icln, d*lrr: tet ion, auei the real. r \ ,hi ie " larqucs l--acart

in the psychuanirl-vtical ct)ntelt reitrs to tl i i ' :tt1 tls the

synlfu*1ic" tl le inrilginrif!, *rtd tlte reitl ' f ireinr*s il l 'gLlgS

that at 11 rhird {reality} levei cf' s*nt*rtti l g*tlci ' i i i it itt '

a crirnbipftr,oty* "horhi'ilnd" r'e lafii";n lrclw*';il c{lntrftrv

teril l$ creuiteli \,rL,i\Nr\i{ri, nnij. c*incideutrll iy, c*nJ lrrns

the r,vcrk of Brdndal in bridgirrg the logic of pheno-

. menology with that of stntc'turalism" i' The :most extensive:expression of the connsctieln

; botwpen phenomenglogy and itr,trc'turalisrn is "ltol,nfin

'Jrikobson'S theory qf corninunication and hip mqdel

of the hurnan sciences, which irrcorporates much of

Hnsser l 's phenolnenology in , thU expl icat ion of l in-

guistics as a conrplex eicletic and empirical science.

For the momeflt, suffice it t0 say that Jakobson also

, ad\,ocafes a hierarchical rnoclel of the human sciences

gr,ounderJ,itr l inguistic-s enlberirrg that ftir Jakob-' ,sorr, spokqn larrguage is an inheretrtly existential and

entbr:cli'ed hutn'tan capacity. The gl'aphic mclclel begins

rvith ling'uistics as th'e study of vertral tnessages at the

centel witlr i l siecolrcl circle containing semiotic's ss tt

'contextual extedsiott fbr the study of 'any messages.

A thrird circle contains the arttftl"tspologkal scienc'e o'f'

I caftIrn#nicatiort,which is the domain of, implied mbs-

( sages in social l lnthrtlpology and econolnics. A fourth

circle specifying thd rnessage systetns of l i l ' ing or-

ganisnts aS the biologit:ul sr:ience a.{ contmttnication

campletes fhe rnodel. Jakobson's model became quite

poptilar irr France, then ir: the United Kingdom and

the United States, with the expl icat ion of his theory

in the "Que sais-je'l" book series puhlication of La

senzioksgie { I 97 I ) by Pierre Guiriiud. T'his book cov-

ers the full range of semiotic concerns from languagei

anci sign systems to logicai anrJ aesthetic codes as rve ll

as the mass media and social practiccs.'There is also an American school of serniotics based

on the u'ork of the philosopher Clharles Sanders Peirce

( 183+*1914), , but Peirce's r ,vork is nei ther related to

American structural l irrguristics nor to the Europeart

traditicn of structlrralisrn. hJonethelcss. Peirce has had

a rnajor impact ol' l r:ontemporary semiotics" especially

the rvclrk of tJmberto Eco. A major connection betw'eelr

semiotics and phenomenology exists in Pei loe's work

and htrs beerr stttdiecl in recent year$ bry Karl-Otto Apel.

(4) Poststructl4rdtlism also rei'ers to the theory of

signs as a tl isccu'^sive Specification of structural analy-

sis in phi losophy and the hurrlan sciences wltere there

is an emphasis on c:onlertfs anci .ftsnns. As such, post-

structural ism is largely a cri t ique of classical pheno-

menolclgy and semiclogy. A fundamental distinction is

nrade between discourse Qturole; langurr). wltich is the

verbal Lltterance or statir.rg (tvllcHIL rolicAULr's enonce')

of a message-&s-code, and lunguctge {lurtgcrge\, rvhich

INCYCLOTE.I}IA OIT PH ENOMI1NOLOCY

is the ernpirical manifbstation of' a code-as-message

ar tnoncint ion. hr botlr casss" note that the sirnpl is-I

tic hypostatizittion of a nlessage or code give s'way to

the realistic notir:rn that both lressages and cocles are,I r ,

' interconnected (Jakobson's p*etic functipn). irnd tnutu;

itty rnr:tir.,ated lMartinet's drsuhle ar{it 'ult '/t ion} as one

phenomenon. In short, the phenorneua ol-discourse afc

simultaneously eidetic in content ( i .e., cocles), w'hi lc

those clf language are empirical, ltence a font of tnes

sage. WhilEr ttris distinctlon mu)' at first seenl i l logicai,

, recall the Hjelmselvian mociel rvhere !v0:otlfi view rJis-

cct rse as an Sr re{uiion of clpr-essirsrt contairring its'

, own snbstance ancl forin. In fttrtl. languago is nn' Sd

i:elstion *f content available to perception as another

substance and fbrm. J'hus ths cLrffibination o1'cliscourse

and language is the actual phenotttenott (a) of lvhich we

are Roetically {'ons(i$lt.r and (b1 that we tloelll i lt ically

experience in the "here and now" ntorn/eni of, httmarir '

, eonlffIunication.

, trn the medieval sense oi the tr ivi l l tn" we mighr i l -

I 'ustrate the distinction by saying that for ti iscourse, e;K-

pression (message-cocie) is a cumbination of rhtr{trit '

or statir?g aS the substance and the sfrrf ement or .rpeal-

ing as tlre actual forrn, just ils g/'dtlnmdr is expressed in

the fexl r:r nrilrng, attd logit: is expressed in tlte []ru]po-

sition or thinking. While rhetoric, {railtn}ar, and logic

have basical ly the same eidetic substatrce (persuasion,

information, reffection, etc., as expression), they itre

di ffcrent crnpirical {brrns of' exprcssiott.

In turn, for perception in language {code-mes$age)'

content is a coinbination of /i,vrening as tl ie fornt and

rhetoric as the subsfance, i.e.., narratology. [n parallel

tashion. READINT; of"fers a sense af grur?"tt?tilt' as grnttl-

matology, r,vhile judgirrg constructs a lr:gir: or senliotic.

The rnethod of structural analysis lbr this poststruc-

turalist approach to researc:h is callctl decollstruction.

While largely arl *ppl iect method in l i terary cr" i t ic ism,

especially in the United Stittes, cleconstruc'tiott as a

theory in the human sciences or as : l phi losopl i ical po-

sit ion is usually associated with the French theorists

in a nurnber of cliLl-tjttAL tltsctPt.lNtrs. Arnong others^

these include l ,ott is Althusser-(Marxism),, Michel Fou-

cault (systenrs of thought: histttry), Cilles Deleuze and

Jacques Lacan {psychoanalysis)' nnd JAc'eur:s I.x:ttRII}A

{phi losophy}. Recall ing thc Saussurian clef irr i t ion of

the sign as the c{)llLrination of both a signifier (exprcs-

sion) and a signif ied (pc'rception), deconstructionists

- .

1- .n

656 ;

-f

S'TRL}C]TURAI"ISM

focus their analysis exclusively ern the srgnifier as acor:tent or fornr, while dismissing the reievance of thesignified as a socially determined referent in a signsystem. I-lence the ernphasis is upon cliscourse to theexclusion o{' language. The synchronic (..n{}w,.) andparadignratic {o'here") interplay of contents anci farmsss a vehicle of expression is pushecl to its outer l imitsso that the polit icaily and s*ciaily dorninant language(languge) is critiqued and ruptureot by thc discot4r.se rnthe emergent text or practice. simply put, the opposi-tion betrveren a rnessage-as-cclde {parole) and a corje-as-message (langue) is tralrsformed into an apposition"

That is to say, an opprssition ccunterpoises one thingagainst another as different (c"g. , a hinnr.],, relation ofex'pression rrer'sr{s perception), which is the diacriticalfi,rnction of' language {t.t irtfrsrnrutirn, i,e., an either/orchoice in a pregiven ceintext. Rut iLn appositiott ooun-terpoises fwo parallel, trut similar., phenornena (e.g.,both expression and perception) to a third referentphenomenon (e.g., a trtudic relation of emlradimentas perception and cxpression), which is the cornbina-tclry tnnction of di.st:oltrse es comlwrlnicorictn, i.e., aboth/and cheiice of a nelv context.

Unlike other appr'aches to cliscourse analysis, tJe-construction aims tn ;rrt icurate a space icrr this appusi-tion in such a rvay that any existential or social refer-ence point is lost to tlre auditor of the text or practicc. Inthis s.gnse, deconstnrction utirizes rtrre rheforical, gram-matological, or tropic logic o{'relations to confi-ontsysfenrs with their owrl constituent contents and fanns.However, rhe pr:ststrur-:turarist cJislocation antJ decen-tering of the speaking subject, the writing author, andthe thinking philosopher as a result ol'the cleconstruc-tionist nrethod has in itself prorrokecl a structuralistre$pclnse by pherromenologists.

(5) Phenometzrslogical struc:tttrali^srtr refcrs in thefirst instance to Roman Jakobson's phenorne*ologicalrevisions of stt 'ucturalist l inguistics and senriorics inthe European tradition. 'l ' ' lre sanre theoretical point hasbeen made by the l inguist-psychoanalyst Julia K*stevaand the serniotician Llnrherto Eco. Jak*bsCIn's theor.v-of discoursr and language is basecl npon rwo lrasicconcepts about the eidetic and ernpirical features ofhuman comffrunication as a semiotic practice.

First, the concept of distittr:tit;t:./baturvs is a phon*-logical description *f how sounds conrbi* e put"adig-matir:alty {vertical substitution) with one amother to be

687

recognizable in commluricaticln. 'fhere ars the inhc'r-ent sonnd featurcs of sontlrity, protensity, anc! tonalitv,together with the prclsoclic features of'fi:rce. quantity,and tone. Distinctive fbatures in a generil l izecl sensefunction to manifest certain paradigrnatic re latio's ofcOnjunction srich that when lve compsre clr corrtrast [11.ophenornerA, we do so q' i th a borhiand analog*e logic ofinclusiorr. As Jakohson suggest$, a rnetaphoric relaticnis created in rvhich selection. subsri fut ion, antl sirni-larity deternrirre a meaningiirl unit that is synchronic(existential)' Sirnply put, clistinctive featurcs comirinetwo phenor]rena $o as ro disploy the positiv e olry)o,sitirsn(distinction) that each phenornenon posses$es whenplaced in conjunction. Similari ty (both/and relat ion)in expression causes a diffbrcnce {eithe#or relation)in perceptian. our ahirity to change arlJ* noun for anyother noun in a sentsnce and untlerstancl the ditTbrencebetween the two .ftsrms of'the sente'ces based on the

, similari ty of their c 'ontent i l lustrates this relat iolship.The prCIces$ also occurs rvhen a speaker's meaningand a listen$r's understandirrg are linkercl lry the sfimecognitive propCI$ition

second, the concept tll' r*dunrJanr:! .featurts is ephonol*gic:al dcscripti 'n of hou, sou*cls join ,s',,/r/#g*matir:rtl l3' ' {horizontal e:onrbination) with one anot*ert* beccme relr:ognizable in cornmllfl ication. hr thisca$e, an eithenor digitai logic of exclusion creaters umetonyrnic relation of combina.tion, contexture, ancic**t iguity that is diachronic (hist*r ical). [n shclrr, re-clundancy fbatures cornbine two phenornenfi so as todisptay the npposition (reriunrtancy) that erach phe_nclmenon possesses with reference fo a third phe_noffienon. Diffurence {either/or rclation) in expressioncause$ similarity {bothland relatio*) in perception. Forexample, our abiliry to c,hange any statenrent into aquestion and unclerstiind the difference hrerween thetwo Jbrrn,r *f the sentences basecl on the sirnilarity oi.their conlent il lustrates this relationship. T'he processalso occurs when a speaker'' ' m,,a*ing and a f i.sfener,sunderstanding are linked by the diffbrence between theutterance as spoken ffnrl as heard, crr as intencted versusspokerr (e.g., Freud's o'sl ip

of the tongue").I-ast, i t is impclrtant to nate thepoe t ic,f i tnt, t ionbuii t

irrto all me,r.rdrges, namely that the paradigrnatic andsyntagmatic features are reversible. That is f o sayla cttde clr ntetalinguistic function operates such thatdistinctive and reclundanfiy features are the context

688 ENCIYCLCIPEDIA Ol- PH E NOM [:hiOLOGY

of choice fbr each other. In this sensc' system-codes

are always nlgtivatcrl atld constitutive, Or put another

way that is irnportant both tg a poststructuralist and

phenomenological structural ist perspective, a choice-

of-context apposition as a translbrmation always mCI-

tivates (occurs first) a context-olichoice opposition as

a constitutigtt or fortnatiott toccurs second). One of

the best exarnples of this type of analysis that applres

and extends Jakobson's phenomenological structural-

ism in a cont$n-tporafy context is the thecrry a{ uutrt-

{:on'tmltnir:ation Suggested by Yur:i M' Lcltnran. 'l'his

ther:ry links the existential percepti*n of the person tt:

the universal expresfiion of cultural r'alues in tl ie prac-

tice ot'human colrlmunication. Chairn Perelman ancl I",-

Olbechts-T.v-teca offer a parallcri nrodel af rh,etorit: as

the universal practice of discourse.

P henrtrnenologicul,ytrrtcttrruli.s m irt a mors gerteral

setlse refbrs to various rnodifications of l{usserlian

phenclmenoltlgY, Inost notably by i\{, '\. i-iRIC}: N'{[Rl"l;Ati-

pON1y and N,llCllEI-, F(JLj(lAtiLT: as sxt.tf ential and semirttit

phenomenolrtgti. 'fhe theor-y suggested by Merleau-

Ponty in his er;says oll speech ancl language paral-

lels that of Rornan Jakobson, narnely that sigps are

(a) mativtttecl rather than arbitriiry ancl (b) t:tttt,stittt*

tive rather thirtr collventiorlal or regulative. l 'hese signs

in their mult ipl ici ty afe the emhodinrent ot" human

expression and perception that fule rleau-Ponty des-

ignates anrJ il lustrates with the consciclt-ts experience

of hrtman speaking antJ gt:sture ip his rrraior lvork,

Phenhmertologie de la perc:eptirtn (1945). A sirniiar

approach is the fbcused study of cr:mmunication in

C[iORtiLiS fiLiSI)ORIr'S Lu Starole {Spe aking, 1953) anr{

more recently in FRANC'Is JACQLittS' llilJt:rer"!{e et ,wh*

.iec:tit,ift," Anthntlxtlogie d'un pttint dc vlte re ltttionnel

( le82),Following his teacher Merleau-Potrty, the theme of '

semiotic phenomenolctgy alstl emergcs in Michel Fot"t*

cault's f 'arnous quaclrilateral rngdel o1'le mime et l 'uutre

that translates as both selfTothcrr ancl same/different.

I loucault 's corpus should be viewed as (a) a pheno-

menological exatrination of sulrj ect trtatter contextuai-

ized by (b) a strrlctural view of that subject matter that

progressesi from {i) contents and firrms to (ii} relatiolls

ancl on ter (c) system-cocles. Fgucirult vier'vs tl iscourse

as a contest {agttrt} between 'suhiecf and ohiet:t, and

betwee n plrler ancl tlesire in larrguage and other so-

cial prar:t ices. ' [ 'he conscious experience of stat ing or

speaking tenttnce) c/rsc'ntti'.re is the coutcst be trl'een

tlre subjectlobier:t phenolnt:non attd yct the prttt'titl{:r of

trrticulating or utter-ing {enonciutirsrt) lunguuge is tire

contest between the powerldesire phenol"Ilenoll. Sttch

cliscourse/language is the problematic tlr*t is studiecl Lrl '

the method of archa*oksg1.i. a concept borrowed fiom

Merleau-Potl ty. AS a f irst level t f attalysis { i 'e.} { ' {} t ' t*

{ents and .fbrms itl a system-cocle}' archaeologv ct)t}l*

pal'es antl contrasts the subjectr'ohject *1v7i'sJ.!J()/r over

against the por,ver/clesire pcrc::(:ptirtn. The rtrethocJ is

discussed most notably in Faucault's l"(s mots et les

cho,ses (\fo'ortls anci things" 1966 ftransiaterl as The Or-

der of Thir?gs]) and his t 'rtrchertlogir: du silt'it:t' {'fhe

archaeology of knowtredge, 1q69)'

Foucault firrfher developeci his firethod eif artalysis

by suggesting a Secolrd level cf inrtestigation (.i.e. , t '€-

Intion,s in a systeltr-code) that he called the tnstltgci

af genefilr;g3;, a concept taken fi:om Nietzsche. trn this

context, fhe suhjet:tipow'et" r$lation is explol"ecl as the

COnCept OfUnclerStanding or "k11o\,v-hOw=' (snt't.i it '). anCl

then the o&7er:t/de,sire relation is exantined as the no*

tion of knowIedge or "'knorving abollt" {cttnttt 't i.s.rttnt'e}'

While this genealogical rnethod is most apparent in

F6ucauit 's rnany stucl ies of inst i tut ional practice in such

are&S as meciical cliagnosis, the penal s1'steln. and so-

cial cleviance, the theoretical discussion ol ' the tnethod

is best articulated in his three volume /-'hisforie t{t: ltr

sexualiti fiq76-*94).As a th i rd rnethodological level of i tnalysis ( i .e, ,

the s3x tetn in the system-code),, frtlucault suggests in

[,'ordre c{u disctolu"s(: ( l97l ) that thr: methods tlf ar-

chaecl logy (diacl ironic ancl syntaglttat ic) anrJ geneal-

ogy (synchronic attd paradigrnatic) arc rer,'ersible as a

context tor one another, tltus establishing a milhrtd of'

siticisrn. Hence Foucault adopts the poetic {'unctioit

principle suggestcd try Romatt .lakobsott"

As a clarification clf the nlanY crosliovers and ctlun-

terinfluence s that charact efi/.e structttralistl. se '"t '1

iotics,

and phenortenology, the iollorving sLlll ltnarv rnay ire

helpful. In the discussiolr, keep in mind that a (oln-

ttr.trticatiott medirt*t is discourse Or praL:tice, r'vhile a

cotntnltnic:utiort (:hilfitrerl is a language or pcr{brmattce

in the con$ciorts experiei lce o f,people"

First. stntt-trtrutli^srn is the general vier,r' tlrat the pro-

ces$ of comtnunicatiun rS a prat:tit:e (s-y*stern) in ra'hich

a hunran g:t"oltp (society) is the n:eclitttn of cotll i l1Llnica-

t ion for any given chatlnel. such as latrguage, kinship.,

STRUCTURALISM {:89

comnlerce, eto. Individual performance is a represen-

tation of practice (relation), rvhile grorrp perfornlance

is a relationship that is signilication per se {c*trtents

and ftrrurs).

Seconrl . .s€nziotics maintains the view that the pro-

cess o1' conLmunicaticn is a peqfilrft1untp in which

an individual p{:yson is the tnedium of cclmntunica-

tion (system i. e.g., speilkerll istener, writer/reader. sgb-

.ieCtiobject. etc.. {or cultrtre as the channel of col}11}ltl-

nication (relatiott)" as suggested by Kristel'3" l{ere tlre

group practice is tl representatiott of indiviclual per-

forntance (content) atrcl practice is a relationship that

signifies tl 'brm).'l-hird, plrenrsrneft{;!a,g.}' is the perspective that ti:e

process of comtTlllnication, as rneaning, is a presen-

tation of per{ornlal' lce in rvhich the per"st)n {system}

is the enrbocliertr chaltnel o{' communicittion {relati*n)

for given practices icontent) of* repre$sntatiott such as

speaking. interacting, sharing, *tc. ' thaf are thg nredia

of cgmrnuuication (flrlns). Fr:r the phenomeilologist.

perftirmancs is the practice of human being' i.e.' the

pertbrmance cornprises the enrbodied practice of ex-

istential meaning, e.g.., Merleau-Pttt"tty'5 expiication of

g,es ture,

rOR FIJItl-i IHIT S]'LJDY

Ilarthes" Rolald , Elemrents de st:miolttgier' Paris: Liditions clu

Serril, I964; EItmrnt,s rtf'Semio|o,g1'" 'I'rans' Annettc l-,avers

ancl Clolin Snrith. jliew }'ork: t{ill .t Wang. I g6ti.

Benveniste, limile. "t-'Ol11n]unicatiq)n." In his Prt.il: ltimes de

lingui.rtiqtrt: genernle. Paris. Hditions $illlilirard, 1q6$;"f;ontmtinicaiictn." In his Piu hten;s in, {"ieneral l,fngrris-

tir:s. Trans. fu141' [:. hrteek" Coral Gables, FL: ["ipiversitir

rrl' Mialni Press , 197 I . 4 l--75 "Descpmb*s, Vincerrt . Le mtme et, I 'uultr- Paris: Editians dc'

Minuit. llt79; h,lodern Frent:h f'hilosttpltq'"Trens. l-. Scott-

I;ox anrl J. M. t{ardirrg. lrlew \ork. Carrrbriclge UniversityPress, I q80.

L,c0, tjrnbert rt. A '{hettrt' of'Serniotit,s. Rlgolrringt6n, lN: Ip-

ditna [-]niversity Press, 1Q76"Greinras, Algirclas Julien. 7]rci Shc:iil! Scienrd$.' A Se/niotit:

I'iev," Trans. Paul J. Perron attd [::rarlk H. {]otrlins- fulitt-

neapolis: University of Mintie sota Pre ss, I qEO, [selutc-tions frnrn his ou .sein.q / ( lt 70). rlu ,$sr?,r' // { 1983), and

Semi6tique c{.1'c:icnr:er,s slrc:irrles { 197ti), Paris: Hditions du

Seui I l .

' ancl Joseph Clourtes. ,stwtict l ique:. Paris: l- ibrair iu l- la-

clretts. I979; Scmiotit:,s unrl l-rtngua,g{:r.' -4r} Anulvtit.ul I}it'

tiofiata,. Trans. l,irrry Crist arrd Dani*r-l Patte, lvith Jait:cs

l-.ee, Eclward McMairon II, f iary Phil l ips, anci Miclrael

Rengstorf. f}looniinston, IN: trndiana lJrrivcrsity Prcss,

1982.Ggirarrcl, Pierre. Lu $erniologie. Faris: Prcsses LJrrivcrsitaires

de France, 1971 ; S'*,rniclt)311.'. J-rans. Gcorge {lross. l,on-

don: Rcirt ledge & Kcgan Paui' I9?5.

l"lcrlenstein, filrnar. Juktthsan ilH lc st,'ttclttt'sli 'vtrrt'

phenowenologit1ue. Paris: Eclitiorrs Segircrs, lg74: &o-

meft Jakoh,son ir Apprrs$c:h /o l,rrrlg uage : Phenontttnologi-

rctl Sfnu'lurulisru. 'I'rans. Catheritte ancl 'farcisius Sr:hel-

lrert. Bl*omingtr-in, lN: Indiane {-. lniv*rsitY Prcss, l9?6.

-*-. "Tlte Stnrcture af t,fnderstanding: Structurirlisrn Vcrsus

Hermensutic$." PT']-:,4 Jrtttrnaf cf' /)csc'ri1tti.ve Poerlic,r

arrd ThertrV, oJ'Literuture I ( 1q?6), 223-"38.

Jirkotrson, Rttnatt. .Se/Err:'te:d tr#i"itrng.r, lbl, ll; Itbrul uncl l-'trn-

E:u{tg,e."fhe }lague: Mt:uton, lgT l .

Kristeva, .lutria. Ilrr .fi.u ttfti afitl the lipraking Suhieu:t. -Scnii-rst i t : Thetsrv: /. Lisse : P*ter IJe Ridder Press" 197-5.

.*--. tr-e lang*ge, cs/ in{r>nrtu. Paris: h,clitions clu Sc,nil, iQS l.

L*nguuge, the Llnknov'n; Atr Initiutitttt into l.lrt,gtli'rtfr:s.

f'rans, Anne fuI. M*nke. Ner,v Ygrk: {.'olumhia ljniversity-

I l ress, 1q89.L,arrigan, RichartJ L.. Speulring untl -leini,"rlt;fl'.' ilfsuritr

Merl*srrf'onty".s Phr:rtomt:ntslogir:nl Theor'.v c,l/ f::is | (fi'

r ial Cor'nnruyrit: t t . l i t trt I lq721. Jnd etl. Berl in: ]!{nttttrn dc

Ciru,vter, 19c] I .- "--.'{h e l { urrt u n Sr, i e nts o {' t.' ct m tn tt n i c' i,.t log3,',' "l" h tt I:> h e tt 0 fiI e n'

o/rlg-r' oJ'ilist:o tJl',t{r in F'rtut.:ttull. ttnd fu{erletru-f}r>tttt;' Pitts-

lrurgh: f]uquesne Lirrivcr"sity Prcss, I q92"

[,cach, EdmUnrt . {'.'ttltur"e: *nd {".omrnunic'al ittrc," Tlre I'ogit:

fi1; n:hic'h S1.s.ir6r:r/.1 ,.,{ re Crtnnett€d; ,4n Inlrodut-'tion l(t ths

{.,r,sC r:l'-St rut:lttrttlis{ ,'Lrt#ly,5i,s i rt .$oc,i'n/ ,4nthrOpr;lrryp'. lt{e rv

l 'ork: Can;hridge Unir, 'ersity } lrcss. I976.

l,ctl:ran,}'uli {Iun'ii}N'{' L'rli}re}:tg tf&''{ind" i{ "lenruotir {htrsr]'

of 'Cultu,, 'e:. Tj 'rtns. Ann Shukrnan. Blo*mington, I l{: Irr i i i -

ana Uliversity Pri:$s;, 1990 fsimulfancous Russian publi-

cation b:" I. IJ" Tiruris, l i) !)t)].Noflr. Winfiie d. I{undbouk *f' ,serniofrcs. Illooruinglun" trFl:

h:diana LJnivcrsitrv Press" I t!XJ.

t]'Strllivan, l' im. et al., eds. ̂ Keil' Cont:eplr I'it ('.lowmunit'ufi*rr

antl {u!lur*/ S}rrlicr.s. 2nd. cc{" hiei.r' \brk: Routledge" I qq-l.

Perslmal, Chaim. antl t-. Olbr"eclrts-'Iitec:a. [,tt vtrtr'tt'tllr:

rlre trt r iq u e :'fi 'tt i te d tt l ' urgu tu ctt t u ti rstt. Pari s : Presscs Uni-

versitlrit'es clc, Frallclr" 1958; Thcr i\"'err Rlttltsrit:." "l

Tt"*it-

fr;sg c;n ,4r'.rtfirlcfi{ati{}tt "Ii'ans" Johll \\tilkinsolt atrcl Purceil

Weaver. l\iotrs Dame, lN: l.lniver-sity of Notre DnmQ Pre$s,

l 969.Wilclen. Anthony. 'l 'he: Rr.l/es Are !'io $u*re: The Strfite,.3'

of '( ornrnutt iccttforl. New York: Itnutletlgc & Kegan Paui,

1987"

RII-:HA ttD Lgo I-Ahj IG,tN

South,tr"n I I I i nois Lifi it;sisirt''