Page 101 - Culture Society and the Media

MESSAGES AND MEANINGS 91
whereas in language it would be the ‘word of the group’ which circulated
between individuals. The priority of the language model suggested here is
typical of semiological treatment whether it be of kinship systems, furniture and
fashion, of films and television programmes or of toys and cars. Saussure, who
laid down the outlines of semiology as a ‘science of signs’, contended that the
advantage of the linguistic model was that it cut through the apparent naturalness
of actions or objects, to show that their meaning is founded on shared
assumptions or conventions. In this sense, the methods of linguistics compel the
researcher to study the system of rules underlying speech rather than any
external influences or determinants.
As the example of gangster films referred to earlier indicates, another
characteristic feature of semiological analysis is that it appears to concentrate on
the internal structuring of a text or message. Barthes points to this concern of
semiologists with immanent analysis:

The relevance shown by semiological research concerns by definition, the
meaning of the analysed objects: we consider the objects solely in relation
to their meaning without bringing in, at least not prematurely, that is, not
before the system be reconstituted as far as possible, the other determinants
(psychological, sociological or physical) of these objects; we must
certainly not deny these other determinants, which each depend upon
another relevancy; but we must treat them also in semiological terms, that
situate their place and function in the system of meaning…. The principle
of relevancy obviously requires of the analyst a situation of ‘immanence’,
we observe the given system from within. (Barthes, 1967, p. 95)

The internal relationships of any structure are therefore, what gives meaning to
any element in the structure. Hence if a particular action is impolite, it is not
because of its intrinsic qualities but because of certain relational features which
differentiate it from polite actions. Structural analysis tends to stress binary
oppositions of this type as a heuristic device, ‘a technique for stimulating
perception, when faced with a mass of apparently homogenous data to which the
mind and eye are numb: a way of forcing ourselves to perceive difference and
identity in a wholly new language the sounds of which we cannot yet distinguish
from each other. It is a decoding or deciphering device, or alternatively a
technique of language learning’ (Jameson, 1972, p. 113).
The focus on the internal relationships of a text does raise certain problems.
Many of the Russian formalist studies, for example, attempt to examine literature
in terms of its internal structure. Propp’s The morphology of the folk tale (1968)
attempts to identify the narrative structure of the Russian folk tale. Propp was
reacting strongly against the treatment of isolated elements in folk tales whereby
tales were separated and classified according to whether their principal
characters are animals, ogres, magical figures, humorous figures and so forth.
Propp argues that the identity of character and landscape and the nature of