Text & Connotation's Role in Interpreting Images: Photographic Significance, Slides of Music

Download Text & Connotation's Role in Interpreting Images: Photographic Significance and more Slides Music in PDF only on Docsity! ÿ ÿ IMAGE-MUSIC-TEXTÿÿ ROLANDÿBARTHESÿ EssaysÿselectedÿandÿtranslatedÿbyÿStephenÿHeathÿ ÿ Theÿpressÿphotographÿ isÿ aÿmessage.ÿConsideredÿoverallÿ thisÿmessageÿ isÿ formedÿbyÿaÿ sourceÿofÿemission,ÿaÿchannelÿofÿ transmissionÿandÿaÿpointÿofÿ reception.ÿTheÿsourceÿ ofÿemissionÿisÿ theÿstaffÿofÿ theÿnewspaper,ÿ theÿgroupÿofÿ techniciansÿcertainÿofÿwhomÿ takeÿtheÿphoto,ÿsomeÿofÿwhomÿchoose,ÿcomposeÿandÿtreatÿit,ÿwhileÿothers,ÿfinally,ÿgiveÿ itÿ aÿ title,ÿ aÿ captionÿ andÿ aÿ commentary.ÿ Theÿ pointÿ ofÿ receptionÿ isÿ theÿ publicÿ whichÿ readsÿ theÿ paper.ÿ Asÿ forÿ theÿ channelÿ ofÿ transmission,ÿ thisÿ isÿ theÿ newspaperÿ itself,ÿ or,ÿ moreÿprecisely,ÿaÿcomplexÿofÿconcurrentÿmessagesÿwithÿtheÿphotographÿasÿcentreÿandÿ surroundsÿ constitutedÿ byÿ theÿ text,ÿ theÿ title,ÿ theÿ caption,ÿ theÿ lay-outÿ and,ÿ inÿ aÿmoreÿ abstractÿ butÿ noÿ lessÿ `informative'ÿ way,ÿ byÿ theÿ veryÿ nameÿ ofÿ theÿ paperÿ (thisÿ nameÿ representsÿ aÿ knowledgeÿ thatÿ canÿ heavilyÿ orientateÿ theÿ readingÿ ofÿ theÿ messageÿ strictlyÿ speaking:ÿ aÿ photographÿ canÿ changeÿ itsÿ meaningÿ asÿ itÿ passesÿ fromÿ theÿ veryÿ conservativeÿ L'Auroreÿ toÿ theÿ communistÿ L'Humanite).ÿ Theseÿ observationsÿ areÿ notÿ withoutÿ theirÿ importanceÿ forÿ itÿ canÿ readilyÿ beÿ seenÿ thatÿ inÿ theÿ caseÿ ofÿ theÿ pressÿ photographÿ theÿ threeÿ traditionalÿ partsÿ ofÿ theÿ messageÿ doÿ notÿ callÿ forÿ theÿ sameÿ methodÿofÿinvestigation.ÿTheÿemissionÿandÿtheÿreceptionÿofÿtheÿmessageÿbothÿlieÿwithinÿ theÿfieldÿofÿaÿsociology:ÿitÿ isÿaÿmatterÿofÿstudyingÿhumanÿgroups,ÿofÿdefiningÿmotivesÿ andÿattitudes,ÿandÿofÿtryingÿtoÿlinkÿtheÿbehaviourÿofÿtheseÿgroupsÿtoÿtheÿsocialÿtotalityÿ ofÿ whichÿ theyÿ areÿ aÿ part.ÿ Forÿ theÿ messageÿ itself,ÿ however,ÿ theÿmethodÿ isÿ inevitablyÿ different:ÿwhateverÿ theÿoriginÿandÿ theÿdestinationÿofÿ theÿmessage,ÿ theÿphotographÿ isÿ notÿ simplyÿ aÿ productÿ orÿ aÿ channelÿ butÿ alsoÿ anÿ objectÿ endowedÿwithÿ aÿ structuralÿ autonomy.ÿWithoutÿ inÿ anyÿ wayÿ intendingÿ toÿ divorceÿ thisÿ objectÿ fromÿ itsÿ use,ÿ itÿ isÿ necessaryÿ toÿ provideÿ forÿ aÿ specificÿmethodÿ priorÿ toÿ sociologicalÿ analysisÿ andÿwhichÿ canÿ onlyÿbeÿtheÿimmanentÿanalysisÿofÿtheÿuniqueÿstructureÿthatÿaÿphotographÿconstitutes.ÿ ÿ Naturally,ÿevenÿfromÿtheÿperspectiveÿofÿaÿpurelyÿimmanentÿanalysis,ÿtheÿstructureÿofÿtheÿ photographÿ isÿ notÿ anÿ isolatedÿ structure;ÿ itÿ isÿ inÿ communicationÿ withÿ atÿ leastÿ oneÿ otherÿ structure,ÿ namelyÿ theÿ textÿ -ÿ title,ÿ captionÿ orÿ articleÿ -ÿ accompanyingÿ everyÿ pressÿ photograph.ÿTheÿtotalityÿofÿtheÿinformationÿisÿthusÿcarriedÿbyÿtwoÿdifferentÿstructuresÿ(oneÿ ofÿwhichÿisÿlinguistic).ÿTheseÿtwoÿstructuresÿareÿco-operativeÿbut,ÿsinceÿtheirÿunitsÿareÿ heterogeneous,ÿ necessarilyÿ remainÿ separateÿ fromÿ oneÿ another:ÿ hereÿ (inÿ theÿ text)ÿ theÿ substanceÿ ofÿ theÿ messageÿ isÿ madeÿ upÿ ofÿ words;ÿ thereÿ (inÿ theÿ photograph)ÿ ofÿ lines,ÿ surfaces,ÿ shades.ÿMoreover,ÿ theÿ twoÿ structuresÿofÿ theÿmessageÿeachÿoccupyÿ theirÿownÿ definedÿspaces,ÿtheseÿbeingÿcontiguousÿbutÿnotÿ`homogenized',ÿasÿtheyÿareÿforÿexampleÿinÿ theÿ rebusÿwhichÿ fusesÿwordsÿ andÿ imagesÿ inÿ aÿ singleÿ lineÿ ofÿ reading.ÿHence,ÿ althoughÿ aÿ pressÿphotographÿisÿneverÿwithoutÿaÿwrittenÿcommentary,ÿtheÿanalysisÿmustÿfirstÿofÿallÿ bearÿ onÿ eachÿ separateÿ structure;ÿ itÿ isÿ onlyÿwhenÿ theÿ studyÿofÿ eachÿ structureÿhasÿbeenÿ exhaustedÿ thatÿ itÿ willÿ beÿ possibleÿ toÿ understandÿ theÿ mannerÿ inÿ whichÿ theyÿ complementÿ oneÿ another.ÿ Ofÿ theÿ twoÿ structures,ÿ oneÿ isÿ alreadyÿ familiar,ÿ thatÿ ofÿ languageÿ (butÿ not,ÿ itÿ isÿ true,ÿ thatÿ ofÿ theÿ `literature'ÿ formedÿbyÿ theÿ language-useÿofÿ theÿ newspaper;ÿanÿenormousÿamountÿofÿworkÿisÿstillÿtoÿbeÿdoneÿinÿthisÿconnection),ÿwhileÿ almostÿnothingÿisÿknownÿaboutÿtheÿother,ÿthatÿofÿtheÿphotograph.ÿWhatÿfollowsÿwillÿbeÿ limitedÿtoÿ theÿdefinitionÿofÿ theÿ initialÿdifficultiesÿ inÿprovidingÿaÿstructuralÿanalysisÿofÿ ÿ ÿ theÿphotographicÿmessage.ÿ Theÿphotographicÿparadoxÿ ÿ Whatÿ isÿ theÿ contentÿ ofÿ theÿ photographicÿ message?ÿ Whatÿ doesÿ theÿ photographÿ transmit?ÿ Byÿ definition,ÿ theÿ sceneÿ itself,ÿ theÿ literalÿ reality.ÿ Fromÿ theÿ objectÿ toÿ itsÿ imageÿthereÿisÿofÿcourseÿaÿreductionÿ-ÿinÿproportion,ÿperspective,ÿcolourÿ-ÿbutÿatÿnoÿtimeÿ isÿ thisÿ reductionÿ aÿ transformationÿ (inÿ theÿ mathematicalÿ senseÿ ofÿ theÿ term).ÿ Inÿ orderÿtoÿmoveÿfromÿtheÿ realityÿ toÿ itsÿphotographÿ itÿ isÿ inÿnoÿwayÿnecessaryÿ toÿdivideÿ upÿ thisÿ realityÿ intoÿ unitsÿ andÿ toÿ constituteÿ theseÿ unitsÿ asÿ signs,ÿ substantiallyÿ differentÿfromÿtheÿobjectÿtheyÿcommunicate;ÿthereÿisÿnoÿnecessityÿtoÿsetÿupÿaÿrelay,ÿthatÿ isÿtoÿsayÿaÿcode,ÿbetweenÿtheÿobjectÿandÿitsÿimage.ÿCertainlyÿtheÿimageÿisÿnotÿtheÿrealityÿ butÿ atÿ leastÿ itÿ isÿ itsÿ perfectÿ analogonÿ andÿ itÿ isÿ exactlyÿ thisÿ analogicalÿ perfectionÿ which,ÿ toÿ commonÿ sense,ÿ definesÿ theÿ photograph.ÿ Thusÿ canÿ beÿ seenÿ theÿ specialÿ statusÿ ofÿ theÿ photographicÿ image:ÿ itÿ isÿ aÿ messageÿwithoutÿ aÿ code;ÿ fromÿwhichÿ propositionÿ anÿ importantÿ corollaryÿ mustÿ immediatelyÿ beÿ drawn:ÿ theÿ photographicÿ messageÿisÿaÿcontinuousÿmessage.ÿ ÿ Areÿthereÿotherÿmessagesÿwithoutÿaÿcode?ÿAtÿfirstÿsight,ÿyes:ÿpreciselyÿtheÿwholeÿrangeÿ ofÿ analogicalÿ reproductionsÿ ofÿ realityÿ -ÿ drawings,ÿ paintings,ÿ cinema,ÿ theatre.ÿ Inÿ fact,ÿ however,ÿ eachÿ ofÿ thoseÿ messagesÿ developsÿ inÿ anÿ immediateÿ andÿ obviousÿ wayÿ aÿ supplementaryÿ message,ÿ inÿ additionÿ toÿ theÿ analogicalÿ contentÿ itselfÿ (scene,ÿ object,ÿ landscape),ÿwhichÿ isÿwhatÿ isÿ commonlyÿcalledÿ theÿstyleÿofÿ theÿ reproduction;ÿ secondÿ meaning,ÿwhoseÿsignifierÿ isÿaÿcertainÿ 'treatment'ÿofÿtheÿimageÿ(resultÿofÿtheÿactionÿofÿ theÿ creator)ÿ andÿwhoseÿ signified,ÿwhetherÿ aestheticÿ orÿ ideological,ÿ refersÿ toÿ aÿ certainÿ `culture'ÿofÿtheÿsocietyÿreceivingÿtheÿmessage.ÿInÿshort,ÿallÿtheseÿ`imitative'ÿartsÿcompriseÿ twoÿ messages:ÿ aÿdenotedÿ message,ÿ whichÿ isÿ theÿ analogonÿ itself,ÿ andÿ aÿ connotedÿ message,ÿwhichÿisÿtheÿmannerÿinÿwhichÿtheÿsocietyÿtoÿaÿcertainÿextentÿcommunicatesÿ whatÿ itÿ thinksÿ ofÿ it.ÿ Thisÿ dualityÿ ofÿmessagesÿ isÿ evidentÿ inÿ allÿ reproductionsÿ otherÿ thanÿ photographicÿ ones:ÿ thereÿ isÿ noÿ drawing,ÿ noÿ matterÿ howÿ exact,ÿ whoseÿ veryÿ exactitudeÿ isÿ notÿ turnedÿ intoÿ aÿ styleÿ (theÿ styleÿ ofÿ `verism');ÿ noÿ filmedÿ sceneÿ whoseÿ objectivityÿisÿnotÿfinallyÿreadÿasÿtheÿveryÿsignÿofÿobjectivity.ÿHereÿagain,ÿtheÿstudyÿofÿtheseÿ connotedÿmessagesÿhasÿstillÿ toÿbeÿcarriedÿoutÿ(inÿparticularÿitÿhasÿtoÿbeÿdecidedÿwhetherÿ whatÿisÿcalledÿaÿworkÿofÿartÿcanÿbeÿreducedÿtoÿaÿsystemÿofÿsignifications);ÿoneÿcanÿonlyÿ anticipateÿ thatÿ forÿ allÿ theseÿ imitativeÿ artsÿ -ÿwhenÿcommonÿ-ÿ theÿcodeÿofÿ theÿconnotedÿ systemÿ isÿ veryÿ likelyÿ constitutedÿ eitherÿ byÿ aÿ universalÿ symbolicÿ orderÿ orÿ byÿ aÿ periodÿ rhetoric,ÿ inÿ shortÿ byÿ aÿ stockÿ ofÿ stereotypesÿ (schemes,ÿ colours,ÿ graphisms,ÿ gestures,ÿ expressions,ÿarrangementsÿofÿelements).ÿ ÿ Whenÿweÿ comeÿ toÿ theÿ photograph,ÿ however,ÿweÿ findÿ inÿ principleÿ nothingÿ ofÿ theÿ kind,ÿ atÿ anyÿ rateÿ asÿ regardsÿ theÿ pressÿ photographÿ (whichÿ isÿ neverÿ anÿ `artistic'ÿ photograph).ÿ Theÿ photographÿ professingÿ toÿ beÿ aÿmechanicalÿ analogueÿ ofÿ reality,ÿ itsÿ first-orderÿmessageÿinÿsomeÿsortÿcompletelyÿfillsÿitsÿsubstanceÿandÿleavesÿnoÿplaceÿforÿtheÿ developmentÿ ofÿ aÿ second-orderÿ message.ÿ Ofÿ allÿ theÿ structuresÿ ofÿ information,ÿ theÿ photographÿappearsÿasÿ theÿonlyÿoneÿ thatÿ isÿ exclusivelyÿconstitutedÿandÿoccupiedÿbyÿaÿ `denoted'ÿmessage,ÿaÿmessageÿwhichÿtotallyÿexhaustsÿitsÿmodeÿofÿexistence.ÿInÿfrontÿofÿaÿ ÿ ÿ itsÿobjectivity,ÿ theÿconnotationÿofÿ languageÿ isÿ 'innocented'ÿ throughÿtheÿphotograph'sÿ denotation.ÿItÿisÿtrueÿthatÿthereÿisÿneverÿaÿrealÿincorporationÿsinceÿtheÿsubstancesÿofÿtheÿ twoÿ structuresÿ (graphicÿ andÿ iconic)ÿ areÿ irreducible,ÿ butÿ thereÿ areÿmostÿ likelyÿdegreesÿ ofÿamalgamation.ÿTheÿcaptionÿprobablyÿhasÿaÿlessÿobviousÿeffectÿofÿconnotationÿthanÿ theÿheadlineÿorÿaccompanyingÿarticleÿ:ÿheadlineÿandÿarticleÿareÿpalpablyÿseparateÿfromÿ theÿ image,ÿ theÿ formerÿ byÿ itsÿ emphasis,ÿ theÿ latterÿ byÿ itsÿ distance;ÿ theÿ firstÿ becauseÿ itÿ breaks,ÿ theÿ otherÿ becauseÿ itÿ distancesÿ theÿ contentÿ ofÿ theÿ image.ÿ Theÿ caption,ÿ onÿ theÿ contrary,ÿ byÿ itsÿ veryÿ disposition,ÿ byÿ itsÿ averageÿ measureÿ ofÿ reading,ÿ appearsÿ toÿ duplicateÿtheÿimage,ÿthatÿis,ÿtoÿbeÿincludedÿinÿitsÿdenotation.ÿ ÿItÿisÿimpossibleÿhoweverÿ(andÿthisÿwillÿbeÿtheÿfinalÿremarkÿhereÿconcerningÿtheÿtext)ÿ thatÿ theÿ wordsÿ `duplicate'ÿ theÿ image;ÿ inÿ theÿ movementÿ fromÿ oneÿ structureÿ toÿ theÿ otherÿ secondÿ signifiedsÿ areÿ inevitablyÿ developed.ÿ Whatÿ isÿ theÿ relationshipÿ ofÿ theseÿ signifiedsÿ ofÿ connotationÿ toÿ theÿ image?ÿ Toÿ allÿ appearances,ÿ itÿ isÿ oneÿ ofÿ makingÿ explicit,ÿ ofÿ providingÿ aÿ stress;ÿ theÿ textÿ mostÿ oftenÿ simplyÿ amplifyingÿ aÿ setÿ ofÿ connotationsÿ alreadyÿ givenÿ inÿ theÿ photograph.ÿ Sometimes,ÿ however,ÿ theÿ textÿ producesÿ (invents)ÿ anÿ entirelyÿ newÿ signifiedÿ whichÿ isÿ retroactivelyÿ projectedÿ intoÿ theÿ image,ÿ soÿmuchÿsoÿasÿ toÿappearÿdenotedÿ there.ÿ `Theyÿwereÿnearÿ toÿdeath,ÿ theirÿ facesÿ proveÿ it',ÿ readsÿ theÿheadlineÿ toÿaÿphotographÿshowingÿElizabethÿandÿPhilipÿ leavingÿaÿ planeÿ-ÿbutÿatÿtheÿmomentÿofÿtheÿphotographÿtheÿtwoÿstillÿknewÿnothingÿofÿ theÿaccidentÿ theyÿhadÿjustÿescaped.ÿSometimesÿtoo,ÿtheÿtextÿcanÿevenÿcontradictÿtheÿimageÿsoÿasÿ toÿ produceÿ aÿ compensatoryÿ connotation.ÿ Anÿ analysisÿ byÿ Gerbnerÿ (Theÿ Socialÿ AnatomyÿofÿtheÿRomanceÿConfessionÿCover-girl)ÿdemonstratedÿthatÿinÿcertainÿromanceÿ magazinesÿtheÿverbalÿmessageÿofÿ theÿheadlines,ÿgloomyÿandÿanguished,ÿonÿtheÿcoverÿ alwaysÿ accompaniedÿ theÿ imageÿ ofÿ aÿ radiantÿ covergirl;ÿ hereÿ theÿ twoÿmessagesÿ enterÿ intoÿ aÿ compromise,ÿ theÿ connotationÿ havingÿ aÿ regulatingÿ function,ÿ preservingÿ theÿ irrationalÿmovementÿofÿprojection-identification.ÿ Photographicÿinsignificanceÿ ÿ Weÿ sawÿ thatÿ theÿ codeÿ ofÿ connotationÿ wasÿ inÿ allÿ likelihoodÿ neitherÿ `natural'ÿ norÿ `artificial'ÿ butÿhistorical,ÿor,ÿ ifÿ itÿbeÿpreferred,ÿ `cultural'.ÿ Itsÿ signsÿareÿgestures,ÿ attitudes,ÿ expressions,ÿcoloursÿorÿeffects,ÿendowedÿwithÿcertainÿmeaningsÿbyÿvirtueÿofÿ theÿpracticeÿ ofÿ aÿ certainÿ society:ÿ theÿ linkÿ betweenÿ signifierÿ andÿ signifiedÿ remainsÿ ifÿ notÿ un- motivated,ÿ atÿ leastÿ entirelyÿ historical.ÿ Henceÿ itÿ isÿ wrongÿ toÿ sayÿ thatÿ modernÿ manÿ projectsÿ intoÿ readingÿ photographsÿ feelingsÿ andÿ valuesÿ whichÿ areÿ characterialÿ orÿ `eternal'ÿ (infra-ÿ orÿ trans-historical),ÿ unlessÿ itÿ beÿ firmlyÿ specifiedÿ thatÿ significationÿ isÿ alwaysÿ developedÿ byÿ aÿ givenÿ societyÿ andÿ history.ÿ Signification,ÿ inÿ short,ÿ isÿ theÿ dialecticalÿmovementÿwhichÿ solvesÿtheÿcontradictionÿbetweenÿculturalÿandÿnaturalÿman.ÿ ÿÿThanksÿ toÿ itsÿ codeÿofÿ connotationÿ theÿ readingÿo fÿ theÿphotographÿ isÿ thusÿ alwaysÿ historical;ÿ itÿdependsÿonÿtheÿreader'sÿ `knowledge'ÿ justÿasÿ thoughÿitÿwereÿaÿmatterÿofÿ aÿ realÿ languageÿ [langue],ÿ intelligibleÿ onlyÿ ifÿ oneÿ hasÿ learnedÿ theÿ signs.ÿ Allÿ thingsÿ considered,ÿ theÿ photographicÿ `language'ÿ [`langage]ÿ isÿ notÿ unlikeÿ certainÿ ideographicÿ languagesÿ whichÿ mixÿ analogicalÿ andÿ specifyingÿ units,ÿ theÿ differenceÿ beingÿ thatÿ theÿ ideogramÿisÿexperiencedÿasÿaÿsignÿwhereasÿtheÿphotographicÿ`copy'ÿ isÿ takenÿasÿ theÿ pureÿ andÿ simpleÿ denotationÿofÿ reality.ÿToÿ findÿ thisÿ codeÿofÿ connotationÿwouldÿ thusÿ beÿtoÿisolate,ÿinventoriateÿandÿstructureÿallÿtheÿ`historical'ÿelementsÿofÿtheÿphotograph,ÿ ÿ ÿ allÿ theÿ partsÿ ofÿ theÿ photographicÿ surfaceÿwhichÿ deriveÿ theirÿ veryÿ discontinuityÿ fromÿ aÿ certainÿ knowledgeÿ onÿ theÿ reader'sÿ part,ÿ or,ÿ ifÿ oneÿprefers,ÿ fromÿ theÿ reader'sÿ culturalÿ situation.ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿThisÿ taskÿ willÿ perhapsÿ takeÿ usÿ aÿ veryÿ longÿ wayÿ indeed.ÿ Nothingÿ tellsÿ usÿ thatÿ theÿ photographÿcontainsÿ`neutral'ÿparts,ÿorÿatÿleastÿitÿmayÿbeÿthatÿcompleteÿinsignificanceÿinÿ theÿ photographÿ isÿ quiteÿ exceptional.ÿ Toÿ resolveÿ theÿ problem,ÿ weÿ wouldÿ firstÿ ofÿ allÿ needÿ toÿ elucidateÿ fullyÿ theÿmechanismsÿ ofÿ readingÿ (inÿ theÿ physical,ÿ andÿ noÿ longerÿ theÿ semantic,ÿ senseÿ ofÿ theÿ term),ÿ ofÿ theÿ perceptionÿ ofÿ theÿ photograph.ÿ Butÿ onÿ thisÿ pointÿweÿknowÿveryÿlittle.ÿHowÿdoÿweÿreadÿaÿphotograph?ÿWhatÿdoÿweÿperceive?ÿInÿwhatÿ order,ÿ accordingÿ toÿwhatÿ progression?ÿ If,ÿ asÿ isÿ suggestedÿ byÿ certainÿ hypothesesÿofÿ Brunerÿ andÿPiaget,ÿ thereÿ isÿ noÿ perceptionÿwithoutÿ immediateÿcategorization,ÿ thenÿ theÿ photographÿisÿverbalizedÿinÿ theÿveryÿmomentÿ itÿisÿperceived;ÿbetter,ÿ itÿ isÿonlyÿperceivedÿ verbalizedÿ(ifÿthereÿisÿaÿdelayÿinÿverbalization,ÿthereÿisÿdisorderÿinÿperception,ÿquestioning,ÿ anguishÿforÿtheÿsubject,ÿtraumatism,ÿfollowingÿG.ÿCohen-Seat'sÿhypothesisÿwithÿregardÿtoÿ filmicÿperception).ÿFromÿthisÿpointÿofÿview,ÿtheÿimageÿ-ÿgraspedÿimmediatelyÿbyÿanÿinnerÿ metalanguage,ÿlanguageÿitselfÿ-ÿinÿactualÿfactÿhasÿnoÿdenotedÿstate,ÿisÿimmersedÿforÿitsÿ veryÿsocialÿexistenceÿinÿatÿleastÿanÿinitialÿlayerÿofÿconnotation,ÿthatÿofÿtheÿcategoriesÿofÿ language.ÿWeÿknowÿthatÿeveryÿlanguageÿtakesÿupÿaÿpositionÿwithÿregardÿtoÿthings,ÿthatÿitÿ connotesÿ reality,ÿ ifÿ onlyÿ inÿ dividingÿ itÿup;ÿ theÿconnotationsÿofÿ theÿphotographÿwouldÿ thusÿcoincide,ÿgrossoÿmodo,ÿwithÿtheÿoverallÿconnotativeÿplanesÿofÿlanguage.ÿ ÿÿInÿ additionÿ toÿ `perceptive'ÿ connotation,ÿ hypotheticalÿ butÿ possible,ÿ oneÿ thenÿ encountersÿ other,ÿ moreÿ particular,ÿ modesÿ ofÿ connotation,ÿ andÿ firstlyÿ aÿ `cognitive'ÿ connotationÿwhoseÿsignifiersÿareÿpickedÿout,ÿlocalized,ÿinÿcertainÿpartsÿofÿtheÿanalogon.ÿ Facedÿwithÿ suchÿ andÿ suchÿ aÿ townscape,ÿ Iÿknowÿ thatÿ thisÿ isÿ aÿNorthÿAfricanÿ countryÿ becauseÿ onÿ theÿ leftÿ Iÿ canÿ seeÿ aÿ signÿ inÿ Arabicÿ script,ÿ inÿ theÿ centreÿ aÿmanÿwearingÿ aÿ gandoura,ÿ andÿ soÿ on.ÿ Hereÿ theÿ readingÿ closelyÿ dependsÿ onÿ myÿ culture,ÿ onÿ myÿ knowledgeÿofÿtheÿworld,ÿandÿitÿisÿprobableÿthatÿaÿgoodÿpressÿphotographÿ(andÿtheyÿ areÿ allÿ good,ÿ beingÿ selected)ÿ makesÿ readyÿ playÿ withÿ theÿ supposedÿ knowledgeÿ ofÿ itsÿ readers,ÿ thoseÿ printsÿ beingÿ chosenÿ whichÿ compriseÿ theÿ greatestÿ possibleÿ quantityÿ ofÿ informationÿ ofÿ thisÿ kindÿ inÿ suchÿ aÿwayÿ asÿ toÿ renderÿ theÿ readingÿ fullyÿ satisfying.ÿ Ifÿ oneÿ photographsÿ Agadirÿ inÿ ruins,ÿ itÿ isÿ betterÿ toÿ haveÿ aÿ fewÿ signsÿ ofÿ 'Arabness'ÿ atÿ one'sÿ disposal,ÿ evenÿ thoughÿ 'Arabness'ÿ hasÿ nothingÿ toÿ doÿ withÿ theÿ disasterÿ itself;ÿ connotationÿ drawnÿ fromÿknowledgeÿ isÿalwaysÿ aÿ reassuringÿ forceÿ -ÿmanÿ likesÿ signsÿ andÿ likesÿthemÿclear.ÿ ÿÿPerceptiveÿ connotation,ÿ cognitiveÿ connotation;ÿ thereÿ remainsÿ theÿ problemÿ ofÿ ideologicalÿ (inÿ theÿ veryÿ wideÿ senseÿ ofÿ theÿ term)ÿ orÿ ethicalÿ connotation,ÿ thatÿ whichÿ introducesÿ reasonsÿ orÿ valuesÿ intoÿ theÿ readingÿ ofÿ theÿ image.ÿ Thisÿ isÿ aÿ strongÿ connotationÿ requiringÿ aÿ highlyÿ elaboratedÿ signifierÿ ofÿ aÿ readilyÿ syntacticalÿ order:ÿ conjunctionÿ ofÿ peopleÿ (asÿ wasÿ seenÿ inÿ theÿ discussionÿ ofÿ trickÿ effects),ÿ developmentÿ ofÿ attitudes,ÿconstellationÿofÿobjects.ÿAÿsonÿhasÿjustÿbeenÿbornÿtoÿtheÿShahÿofÿIranÿandÿ inÿaÿphotographÿweÿhave:ÿroyaltyÿ(cotÿworshippedÿbyÿaÿcrowdÿofÿservantsÿgatheringÿ round),ÿwealthÿ (severalÿnursemaids),ÿhygieneÿ (whiteÿcoats,ÿ cotÿcoveredÿ inÿPlexiglass),ÿ theÿneverthelessÿhumanÿconditionÿofÿkingsÿ(theÿbabyÿisÿcrying)ÿ-ÿallÿtheÿelements,ÿthatÿ is,ÿofÿtheÿmythÿofÿprincelyÿbirthÿasÿitÿisÿconsumedÿtoday.ÿInÿthisÿinstanceÿtheÿvaluesÿareÿ apoliticalÿ andÿ theirÿ lexiconÿ isÿ abundantÿ andÿ clear.ÿ Itÿ isÿ possibleÿ (butÿ thisÿ isÿ onlyÿ aÿ hypothesis)ÿ thatÿ politicalÿ connotationÿ isÿ generallyÿ entrustedÿ toÿ theÿ text,ÿ insofarÿ asÿ ÿ ÿ politicalÿ choicesÿ areÿ always,ÿ asÿ itÿ were,ÿ inÿ badÿ faith:ÿ forÿ aÿ particularÿ photographÿ Iÿ canÿgiveÿaÿright-wingÿreadingÿorÿaÿleft-wingÿreadingÿ(seeÿinÿthisÿconnectionÿanÿIFOPÿ surveyÿ publishedÿ byÿLesÿ Tempsÿmodernesÿ inÿ 1955).ÿDenotation,ÿ orÿ theÿ appearanceÿ ofÿ denotation,ÿisÿpowerlessÿtoÿalterÿpoliticalÿopinions:ÿnoÿphotographÿhasÿeverÿconvincedÿorÿ refutedÿanyoneÿ(butÿ theÿphotographÿcanÿ`confirm')ÿ insofarÿasÿpoliticalÿconsciousnessÿ isÿperhapsÿnon-existentÿoutsideÿtheÿlogos:ÿpoliticsÿisÿwhatÿallowsÿallÿlanguages.ÿ ÿ Theseÿ fewÿ remarksÿ sketchÿaÿkindÿofÿdifferentialÿ tableÿofÿphotographicÿconnotations,ÿ showing,ÿ ifÿ nothingÿ else,ÿ thatÿ connotationÿ extendsÿ aÿ longÿ way.ÿ Isÿ thisÿ toÿ sayÿ thatÿ aÿ pureÿdenotation,ÿaÿthis-sideÿofÿlanguage,ÿisÿimpossible?ÿIfÿsuchÿaÿdenotationÿexists,ÿitÿisÿ perhapsÿnotÿatÿtheÿlevelÿofÿwhatÿordinaryÿlanguageÿcallsÿtheÿinsignificant,ÿtheÿneutral,ÿ theÿ objective,ÿ but,ÿ onÿ theÿ contrary,ÿ atÿ theÿ levelÿ ofÿ absolutelyÿ traumaticÿ images.ÿ Theÿ traumaÿisÿaÿsuspensionÿofÿlanguage,ÿaÿblockingÿofÿmeaning.ÿCertainlyÿsituationsÿwhichÿ areÿ normallyÿ traumaticÿ canÿ beÿ seizedÿ inÿ aÿ processÿ ofÿ photographicÿ significationÿ butÿ thenÿ preciselyÿ theyÿ areÿ indicatedÿ viaÿ aÿ rhetoricalÿ codeÿwhichÿ distances,ÿ sublimatesÿ andÿ pacifiesÿ them.ÿTrulyÿ traumaticÿphotographsÿareÿ rare,ÿ forÿ inÿphotographyÿtheÿtraumaÿ isÿwhollyÿdependentÿonÿtheÿcertaintyÿthatÿtheÿsceneÿ`really'ÿhappened:ÿtheÿphotographerÿ hadÿtoÿbeÿthereÿ(theÿmythicalÿdefinitionÿofÿdenotation).ÿAssumingÿthisÿ(which,ÿinÿfact,ÿ isÿ alreadyÿ aÿ connotation),ÿ theÿ traumaticÿ photographÿ (fires,ÿ shipwrecks,ÿ catastrophes,ÿ violentÿ deaths,ÿ allÿ capturedÿ `fromÿ lifeÿ asÿ lived')ÿ isÿ theÿ photographÿ aboutÿ whichÿ thereÿ isÿ nothingÿ toÿ say;ÿ theÿ shockphotoÿ isÿ byÿ structureÿ insignificant:ÿ noÿ value,ÿ noÿ knowledge,ÿ atÿ theÿ limitÿ noÿ verbalÿ categorizationÿ canÿ haveÿ aÿ holdÿ onÿ theÿ processÿ institutingÿ theÿ signification.ÿ Oneÿ couldÿ imagineÿ aÿ kindÿ ofÿ law:ÿ theÿ moreÿ directÿ theÿ trauma,ÿ theÿmoreÿdifficultÿ isÿ connotation;ÿorÿ again,ÿ theÿ `mythological'ÿ effectÿofÿ aÿ photographÿisÿinverselyÿproportionalÿtoÿitsÿtraumaticÿeffect.ÿ Why?ÿ Doubtlessÿ becauseÿ photographicÿ connotation,ÿ likeÿ everyÿ well-structuredÿ signification,ÿ isÿ anÿ institutionalÿ activity;ÿ inÿ relationÿ toÿ societyÿ overall,ÿ itsÿ functionÿ isÿ toÿ integrateÿ man,ÿ toÿ reassureÿ him.ÿ Everyÿ codeÿ isÿ atÿ onceÿ arbitraryÿ andÿ rational;ÿ recourseÿ toÿ aÿ codeÿ isÿ thusÿ alwaysÿ anÿ opportunityÿ forÿmanÿ toÿ proveÿ himself,ÿ toÿ testÿ himselfÿ throughÿaÿ reasonÿ andÿ aÿ liberty.ÿ Inÿ thisÿ sense,ÿ theÿanalysisÿofÿ codesÿperhapsÿ allowsÿ anÿ easierÿ andÿ surerÿ historicalÿ definitionÿ ofÿ aÿ societyÿ thanÿ theÿ analysisÿ ofÿ itsÿ signifieds,ÿ forÿ theÿ latterÿ canÿ oftenÿ appearÿ asÿ trans-historical,ÿ belongingÿmoreÿ toÿ anÿ anthropologicalÿ baseÿ thanÿ toÿ aÿ properÿ history.ÿ Hegelÿ gaveÿ aÿ betterÿ definitionÿ ofÿ theÿ ancientÿGreeksÿbyÿoutliningÿ theÿmannerÿ inÿwhichÿ theyÿmadeÿ natureÿ signifyÿ thanÿ byÿ describingÿ theÿ totalityÿ ofÿ theirÿ `feelingsÿ andÿ beliefs'ÿ onÿ theÿ subject.ÿ Similarly,ÿweÿ canÿ perhapsÿdoÿbetterÿ thanÿ toÿ takeÿstockÿdirectlyÿ ofÿ theÿ ideologicalÿcontentsÿofÿourÿage;ÿ byÿtryingÿtoÿreconstituteÿinÿitsÿspecificÿstructureÿtheÿcodeÿofÿconnotationÿofÿaÿmodeÿofÿ communicationÿasÿimportantÿasÿtheÿpressÿphotographÿweÿmayÿhopeÿtoÿfind,ÿinÿtheirÿveryÿ subtlety,ÿ theÿ formsÿourÿsocietyÿusesÿ toÿ ensureÿ itsÿpeaceÿofÿmindÿandÿ toÿgraspÿ therebyÿ theÿmagnitude,ÿtheÿdetoursÿandÿtheÿunderlyingÿfunctionÿofÿthatÿactivity.ÿTheÿprospectÿisÿ theÿmoreÿappealingÿinÿthat,ÿasÿwasÿsaidÿatÿtheÿbeginning,ÿitÿdevelopsÿwithÿregardÿtoÿtheÿ photographÿinÿtheÿformÿofÿaÿparadoxÿ-ÿthatÿwhichÿmakesÿofÿanÿinertÿobjectÿaÿlanguageÿ andÿ whichÿ transformsÿ theÿ uncultureÿ ofÿ aÿ `mechanical'ÿ artÿ intoÿ theÿ mostÿ socialÿ ofÿ institutions.ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ eventuallyÿ beÿ inÿ oppositionÿ toÿ oneÿ anotherÿ -ÿ willÿ clearlyÿ onlyÿ beÿ possibleÿ onceÿ aÿ massiveÿinventoryÿofÿ theÿsystemsÿofÿconnotationÿhasÿbeenÿcarriedÿout,ÿanÿinventoryÿnotÿ merelyÿofÿtheÿconnotativeÿsystemÿofÿtheÿimageÿbutÿalsoÿofÿthoseÿofÿotherÿsubstances,ÿforÿ ifÿ connotationÿ hasÿ typicalÿ signifiersÿ dependentÿ onÿ theÿ differentÿ substancesÿ utilizedÿ (image,ÿ language,ÿobjects,ÿmodesÿofÿbehaviour)ÿ itÿholdsÿallÿ itsÿsignifiedsÿinÿcommon:ÿ theÿsameÿsignifiedsÿareÿtoÿbeÿfoundÿinÿtheÿwrittenÿpress,ÿtheÿimageÿorÿtheÿactor'sÿgesturesÿ (whichÿisÿwhyÿsemiologyÿcanÿonlyÿbeÿconceivedÿinÿaÿsoÿtoÿspeakÿtotalÿframework).ÿThisÿ commonÿdomainÿofÿtheÿsignifiedsÿofÿconnotationÿisÿthatÿofÿideology,ÿwhichÿcannotÿbutÿ beÿsingleÿforÿaÿgivenÿsocietyÿandÿhistory,ÿnoÿmatterÿwhatÿsignifiersÿofÿconnotationÿitÿmayÿ use.ÿ ÿ Toÿ theÿ generalÿ ideology,ÿ thatÿ is,ÿ correspondÿ signifiersÿ ofÿ connotationÿ whichÿ areÿ specifiedÿaccordingÿtoÿtheÿchosenÿsubstance.ÿTheseÿsignifiersÿwillÿbeÿcalledÿconnotatorsÿ andÿtheÿsetÿofÿconnotatorsÿaÿrhetoric,ÿrhetoricÿthusÿappearingÿasÿtheÿsignifyingÿaspectÿofÿ ideology.ÿ Rhetoricsÿ inevitablyÿ varyÿ byÿ theirÿ substanceÿ (hereÿ articulatedÿ sound,ÿ thereÿ image,ÿgestureÿorÿwhatever)ÿbutÿnotÿnecessarilyÿbyÿtheirÿform;ÿitÿisÿevenÿprobableÿthatÿ thereÿ existsÿ aÿ singleÿ rhetoricalÿ form,ÿ commonÿ forÿ instanceÿ toÿ dream,ÿ literatureÿ andÿ image.'ÿ Thusÿ theÿ rhetoricÿ ofÿ theÿ imageÿ (thatÿ isÿ toÿ say,ÿ theÿ classificationÿ ofÿ itsÿ connotators)ÿ isÿ specificÿ toÿ theÿ extentÿ thatÿ itÿ isÿ subjectÿ toÿ theÿ physicalÿ constraintsÿ ofÿ visionÿ (different,ÿ forÿ example,ÿ fromÿphonatoryÿ constraints)ÿ butÿ generalÿ toÿ theÿ extentÿ thatÿ theÿ `figures'ÿ areÿ neverÿ moreÿ thanÿ formalÿ relationsÿ ofÿ elements.ÿ Thisÿ rhetoricÿ couldÿ onlyÿ beÿ establishedÿ onÿ theÿ basisÿ ofÿ aÿ quiteÿ considerableÿ inventory,ÿ butÿ itÿ isÿ possibleÿnowÿtoÿforeseeÿthatÿoneÿwillÿfindÿinÿitÿsomeÿofÿtheÿfiguresÿformerlyÿidentifiedÿ byÿ theÿ Ancientsÿ andÿ theÿ Classics;'ÿ theÿ tomato,ÿ forÿ example,ÿ signifiesÿ Italianicityÿ byÿ metonymyÿ andÿ inÿ anotherÿ advertisementÿ theÿ sequenceÿ ofÿ threeÿ scenesÿ (coffeeÿ inÿ beans,ÿ coffeeÿ inÿpowder,ÿcoffeeÿsippedÿ inÿ theÿcup)ÿreleasesÿaÿcertainÿ logicalÿ relationshipÿ inÿ theÿ sameÿwayÿasÿanÿasyndeton.ÿItÿisÿprobableÿindeedÿthatÿamongÿtheÿmetabolasÿ(orÿfiguresÿ ofÿ theÿ substitutionÿofÿoneÿ signifierÿ forÿanother2),ÿ itÿ isÿmetonymyÿwhichÿfurnishesÿ theÿ imageÿwithÿ theÿ greatestÿ numberÿ ofÿ itsÿ connotators,ÿ andÿ thatÿ amongÿ theÿparataxesÿ (orÿ syntagmaticÿfigures),ÿitÿisÿasyndetonÿwhichÿpredominates.ÿ ÿ Itÿ canÿ thusÿbeÿseenÿ thatÿ inÿ theÿ totalÿ systemÿofÿ theÿ imageÿ theÿ structuralÿ functionsÿareÿpolarized:ÿonÿtheÿoneÿhandÿthereÿisÿaÿsortÿofÿparadigmaticÿ condensationÿatÿtheÿlevelÿofÿtheÿconnotatorsÿ(thatÿis,ÿbroadlyÿspeaking,ÿ ofÿ theÿ symbols),ÿ whichÿ areÿ strongÿ signs,ÿ scattered,ÿ `reified';ÿ onÿ theÿ otherÿaÿsyntagmaticÿ`flow'ÿatÿtheÿlevelÿofÿtheÿdenotationÿ-ÿitÿwillÿnotÿbeÿ forgottenÿ thatÿ theÿ syntagmÿ isÿ alwaysÿ veryÿ closeÿ toÿ speech,ÿ andÿ itÿ isÿ indeedÿ theÿ iconicÿ `discourse'ÿ whichÿ naturalizesÿ itsÿ symbols.ÿ Withoutÿ wishingÿ toÿ inferÿ tooÿ quicklyÿ fromÿ theÿ imageÿ toÿ semiologyÿ inÿ general,ÿ oneÿ canÿ neverthelessÿ ventureÿ thatÿ theÿworldÿ ofÿ totalÿmeaningÿ isÿ tornÿ internallyÿ (structurally)ÿ betweenÿ theÿ systemÿ asÿ cultureÿ andÿ theÿ syn- tagmÿasÿnature:ÿtheÿworksÿofÿmassÿcommunicationsÿallÿcombine,ÿthroughÿ diverseÿ andÿ diverselyÿ successfulÿ dialectics,ÿ theÿ fascinationÿ ofÿ aÿ nature,ÿ thatÿ ofÿ story,ÿ diegesis,ÿ syntagm,ÿ andÿ theÿ intelligibilityÿ ofÿ aÿ culture,ÿ withdrawnÿintoÿaÿfewÿdiscontinuousÿsymbolsÿwhichÿmenÿ`decline'ÿinÿtheÿ shelterÿofÿtheirÿlivingÿspeech.ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ IntroductionÿtoÿtheÿStructuralÿAnalysisÿofÿNarrativesÿ ÿ Theÿ narrativesÿ ofÿ theÿ worldÿ areÿ numberless.ÿ Narrativeÿ isÿ firstÿ andÿ foremostÿ aÿ prodigiousÿ varietyÿ ofÿ genres,ÿ themselvesÿ distributedÿ amongstÿ differentÿ substancesÿ -ÿ asÿ thoughÿanyÿmaterialÿwereÿfitÿ toÿ receiveÿman'sÿstories.ÿAbleÿ toÿbeÿcarriedÿbyÿaryiculatedÿ language,ÿ spokenÿ orÿ written,ÿ fixedÿ orÿ movingÿ images,ÿ gestures,ÿ andÿ theÿ orderedÿ mixtureÿ ofÿ allÿ theseÿ substances;ÿ narrativeÿ isÿ presentÿ inÿ myth,ÿ legend,ÿ fable,ÿ tale,ÿ novella,ÿ epic,ÿhistory,ÿ tragedy,ÿdrama,ÿ comedy,ÿmime,ÿpaintingÿ(thinkÿofÿCarpaccio'sÿ SaintÿUrsula),ÿstainedÿglassÿwindows,ÿcinema,ÿcomics,ÿnewsÿitem,ÿconversation.ÿMore- over,ÿ underÿ thisÿ almostÿ infiniteÿdiversityÿofÿ forms,ÿnarrativeÿ isÿpresentÿ inÿeveryÿage,ÿ inÿ everyÿ place,ÿ inÿ everyÿ society;ÿ itÿ beginsÿ withÿ theÿ veryÿ historyÿ ofÿ mankindÿ andÿ thereÿ nowhereÿisÿnorÿhasÿbeenÿaÿpeopleÿwithoutÿnarrative.ÿAllÿclasses,ÿallÿhumanÿgroups,ÿhaveÿ theirÿ narratives,ÿ enjoymentÿ ofÿwhichÿ isÿ veryÿ oftenÿ sharedÿ byÿmenÿwithÿ different,ÿ evenÿ opposing,'ÿ culturalÿ backgrounds.ÿ Caringÿ nothingÿ forÿ theÿ divisionÿ betweenÿ goodÿ andÿ badÿ literature,ÿ narrativeÿ isÿ international,ÿ transhistorical,ÿ transcultural:ÿ itÿ isÿ simplyÿ there,ÿlikeÿlifeÿitself.ÿ ÿ Mustÿweÿconcludeÿ fromÿ thisÿuniversalityÿ thatÿnarrativeÿ isÿ insignificant?ÿ Isÿ itÿ soÿgeneralÿ thatÿweÿcanÿhaveÿnothingÿ toÿ sayÿ aboutÿ itÿ exceptÿ forÿ theÿmodestÿ descriptionÿ ofÿ aÿ fewÿ highlyÿ individualizedÿ varieties,ÿ somethingÿ literaryÿ historyÿ occasionallyÿ undertakes?ÿ Butÿ thenÿhowÿareÿweÿtoÿmasterÿevenÿtheseÿvarieties,ÿhowÿareÿweÿtoÿ justifyÿourÿrightÿ toÿ differentiateÿ andÿ identifyÿ them?ÿ Howÿ isÿ novelÿ toÿ beÿ setÿ againstÿ novella,ÿ taleÿ againstÿ myth,ÿ dramaÿ againstÿ tragedyÿ (asÿ hasÿ beenÿ doneÿ aÿ thousandÿ times)ÿ withoutÿ referenceÿtoÿaÿcommonÿmodel?ÿSuchÿaÿmodelÿisÿimpliedÿbyÿeveryÿpropositionÿrelatingÿ toÿ theÿmostÿ individual,ÿ theÿmostÿ historical,ÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ forms.ÿ Itÿ isÿ thusÿ legitimateÿ that,ÿ farÿ fromÿ theÿ abandoningÿofÿ anyÿ ideaÿofÿdealingÿwithÿnarrativeÿonÿ theÿgroundsÿ ofÿ itsÿ universality,ÿ thereÿ shouldÿ haveÿ beenÿ (fromÿAristotleÿ on)ÿ aÿ periodicÿ interestÿ inÿ narrativeÿformÿandÿitÿisÿnormalÿthatÿtheÿnewlyÿdevelopingÿstructuralismÿshouldÿmakeÿthisÿ formÿoneÿofÿitsÿfirstÿconcernsÿ-ÿisÿnotÿstructuralism'sÿconstantÿaimÿtoÿmasterÿtheÿinfinityÿ ofÿ utterancesÿ [paroles]ÿ byÿ describingÿ theÿ `language'ÿ ['langue]ÿ ofÿ whichÿ theyÿ areÿ theÿ productsÿandÿfromÿwhichÿtheyÿcanÿbeÿgenerated.ÿFacedÿwithÿtheÿinfinityÿofÿnarratives,ÿtheÿ multiplicityÿofÿstandpointsÿ-ÿhistorical,ÿpsychological,ÿsociological,ÿethnological,ÿaesthetic,ÿ etc.ÿ -ÿ fromÿwhichÿ theyÿ canÿ beÿ studied,ÿ theÿ analystÿ findsÿ himselfÿ inÿmoreÿ orÿ lessÿ theÿ sameÿ situationÿ asÿ Saussureÿ confrontedÿ byÿ theÿ heterogeneityÿ ofÿ languageÿ[langage]ÿandÿ seekingÿtoÿextractÿaÿprincipleÿofÿclassificationÿandÿaÿcentralÿfocusÿforÿdescriptionÿfromÿ theÿ apparentÿ confusionÿ ofÿ theÿ individualÿmessages.ÿKeepingÿ simplyÿ toÿmodernÿ times,ÿ theÿ Russianÿ Formalists,ÿ Proppÿ andÿ Levi-Straussÿ haveÿ taughtÿ usÿ toÿ recognizeÿ theÿ followingÿdilemma:ÿeitherÿaÿnarrativeÿisÿmerelyÿaÿramblingÿcollectionÿofÿevents,ÿinÿwhichÿ caseÿnothingÿcanÿbeÿsaidÿaboutÿitÿotherÿthanÿbyÿreferringÿbackÿtoÿtheÿstoryteller'sÿ(theÿ author's)ÿart,ÿtalentÿorÿgeniusÿ-ÿallÿmythicalÿformsÿofÿchance'ÿ-ÿorÿelseÿitÿsharesÿwithÿotherÿ narrativesÿ aÿ commonÿ structureÿ whichÿ isÿ openÿ toÿ analysis,ÿ noÿ matterÿ howÿ muchÿ patienceÿ itsÿ formulationÿ requires.ÿ Thereÿ isÿ aÿ worldÿ ofÿ differenceÿ betweenÿ theÿ mostÿ complexÿ randomnessÿ andÿ theÿ mostÿ elementaryÿ combinatoryÿ scheme,ÿ andÿ itÿ isÿ impossibleÿ toÿ combineÿ (toÿ produce)ÿ aÿ narrativeÿ withoutÿ referenceÿ toÿ anÿ implicitÿ systemÿofÿunitsÿandÿrules.ÿ ÿ ÿ Whereÿ thenÿ areÿ weÿ toÿ lookÿ forÿ theÿ structuresÿ ofÿ narrative?ÿ Doubtless,ÿ inÿ narrativesÿ themselves.ÿEachÿandÿeveryÿnarrative?ÿManyÿcommentatorsÿwhoÿacceptÿ theÿ ideaÿofÿaÿ narrativeÿ structureÿ areÿ neverthelessÿ unableÿ toÿ resignÿ themselvesÿ toÿ dissociatingÿ literaryÿ analysisÿfromÿtheÿexampleÿofÿtheÿexperimentalÿsciences;ÿnothingÿdaunted,ÿtheyÿaskÿthatÿaÿ purelyÿinductiveÿmethodÿbeÿappliedÿtoÿnarrativeÿandÿthatÿorieÿstartÿbyÿstudyingÿallÿtheÿ narrativesÿwithinÿ aÿ genre,ÿ aÿ period,ÿ aÿ society.ÿ Thisÿ commonsenseÿ viewÿ isÿ utopian.ÿ Linguisticsÿitself,ÿwithÿonlyÿsomeÿthreeÿthousandÿlanguagesÿtoÿembrace,ÿcannotÿmanageÿ suchÿaÿprogrammeÿandÿhasÿwiselyÿturnedÿdeductive,ÿaÿstepÿwhichÿinÿfactÿmarkedÿitsÿ veritableÿconstitutionÿasÿaÿscienceÿandÿtheÿbeginningÿofÿitsÿspectacularÿprogress,ÿitÿevenÿ succeedingÿ inÿ anticipatingÿ factsÿ priorÿ toÿ theirÿ discovery.'ÿ Soÿ whatÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ analysis,ÿfacedÿasÿitÿisÿwithÿmillionsÿofÿnarratives?ÿOfÿnecessity,ÿitÿisÿcondemnedÿtoÿaÿ deductiveÿprocedure,ÿobligedÿfirstÿ toÿdeviseÿaÿhypotheticalÿmodelÿofÿdescriptionÿ(whatÿ Americanÿlinguistsÿcallÿaÿ`theory')ÿandÿthenÿgraduallyÿtoÿworkÿdownÿfromÿthisÿmodelÿ towardsÿtheÿdifferent.ÿnarrativeÿspeciesÿwhichÿatÿonceÿconformÿtoÿandÿdepartÿfromÿ theÿ model.ÿ Itÿ isÿ onlyÿ atÿ theÿ levelÿ ofÿ theseÿ conformitiesÿ andÿ departuresÿ thatÿ analysisÿ willÿ beÿ ableÿ toÿ comeÿ backÿ to,ÿ butÿ nowÿ equippedÿ withÿ aÿ singleÿ descriptiveÿ tool,ÿ theÿ pluralityÿofÿnarratives,ÿtoÿtheirÿhistorical,ÿgeographicalÿandÿculturalÿdiversity.ÿ ÿ Thus,ÿ inÿ orderÿ toÿ describeÿ andÿ classifyÿ theÿ infiniteÿ numberÿofÿ narratives,ÿ aÿ `theory'ÿ (inÿ thisÿ pragmaticÿ sense)ÿ isÿ neededÿ andÿ theÿ immediateÿ taskÿ isÿ thatÿ ofÿ findingÿ it,ÿ ofÿ startingÿ toÿ defineÿ it.ÿ Itsÿ developmentÿ canÿ beÿ greatlyÿ facilitatedÿ ifÿ oneÿbeginsÿ fromÿaÿ modelÿ ableÿ toÿ provideÿ itÿwithÿ itsÿ initialÿ termsÿ andÿ principles.ÿ Inÿ theÿ currentÿ stateÿ ofÿ research,ÿ itÿ seemsÿ reasonable'ÿ thatÿ theÿ structuralÿ analysisÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ beÿ givenÿ linguisticsÿitselfÿasÿfoundingÿmodel.ÿ I.ÿTheÿLanguageÿofÿNarrativeÿ1.ÿBeyondÿtheÿsentenceÿ ÿ Asÿ weÿ know,ÿ linguisticsÿ stopsÿ atÿ theÿ sentence,ÿ theÿ lastÿ unitÿwhichÿ itÿ considersÿ toÿ fallÿ withinÿitsÿscope.ÿIfÿtheÿsentence,ÿbeingÿanÿorderÿandÿnotÿaÿseries,ÿcannotÿbeÿreducedÿtoÿtheÿ sumÿofÿtheÿwordsÿwhichÿcomposeÿitÿandÿconstitutesÿtherebyÿaÿspecificÿunit,ÿaÿpieceÿofÿ discourse,ÿ onÿ theÿ contrary,ÿ isÿ noÿ moreÿ thanÿ theÿ successionÿ ofÿ theÿ sentencesÿ composingÿit.ÿFromÿtheÿpointÿofÿviewÿofÿlinguistics,ÿthereÿisÿnothingÿinÿdiscourseÿthatÿ isÿ notÿ toÿ beÿ foundÿ inÿ theÿ sentence:ÿ `Theÿ sentence,'ÿ writesÿMartinet,ÿ `isÿ theÿ smallestÿ segmentÿthatÿisÿperfectlyÿandÿwhollyÿrepresentativeÿofÿdiscourse.'ÿHenceÿthereÿcanÿbeÿnoÿ questionÿofÿlinguisticsÿsettingÿitselfÿanÿobjectÿsuperiorÿtoÿtheÿsentence,ÿsinceÿbeyondÿtheÿ sentenceÿareÿonlyÿmoreÿsentencesÿ-ÿhavingÿdescribedÿtheÿflower,ÿtheÿbotanistÿisÿnotÿtoÿgetÿ involvedÿinÿdescribingÿtheÿbouquet.ÿ ÿ Andÿyetÿ itÿ isÿevidentÿ thatÿdiscourseÿ itselfÿ (asÿaÿ setÿofÿ sentences)ÿ isÿorganizedÿandÿ that,ÿ throughÿ thisÿ organization,ÿ itÿ canÿ beÿ seenÿ asÿ theÿ messageÿ ofÿ anotherÿ language,ÿ oneÿ operatingÿatÿaÿhigherÿ levelÿ thanÿ theÿ languageÿofÿ theÿ linguists.'ÿDiscourseÿ hasÿ itsÿ units,ÿ itsÿ rules,ÿ itsÿ `grammar':ÿ beyondÿ theÿ sentence,ÿ andÿ thoughÿ consistingÿ solelyÿ ofÿ sentences,ÿitÿmustÿnaturallyÿformÿtheÿobjectÿofÿaÿsecondÿlinguistics.ÿForÿaÿlongÿtimeÿindeed,ÿ suchÿaÿ linguisticsÿofÿdiscourseÿboreÿaÿgloriousÿname,ÿ thatÿ ofÿRhetoric.ÿAsÿ aÿ resultÿ ofÿ aÿ complexÿ historicalÿ movement,ÿ however,ÿ inÿ whichÿ Rhetoricÿ wentÿ overÿ toÿ belles- lettresÿ andÿ theÿ latterÿ wasÿ divorcedÿ fromÿ theÿ studyÿ ofÿ language,ÿ itÿ hasÿ recentlyÿ ÿ ÿ locateÿandÿgroupÿtogetherÿ theÿdifferentÿproblems,ÿandÿthisÿwithout,ÿIÿ think,ÿbeingÿatÿ varianceÿwithÿ theÿ fewÿ analysesÿ soÿ far.'ÿ Itÿ isÿ proposedÿ toÿ distinguishÿ threeÿ levelsÿ ofÿ descriptionÿ inÿ theÿnarrativeÿwork:ÿtheÿlevelÿofÿ`functions'ÿ(inÿ theÿsenseÿ thisÿwordÿhasÿ inÿ ProppÿandÿBremond),ÿtheÿlevelÿofÿ`actions'ÿ(inÿtheÿsenseÿthisÿwordÿhasÿinÿGreimasÿwhenÿ heÿtalksÿofÿcharactersÿasÿactants)ÿandÿtheÿlevelÿofÿ`narration'ÿ(whichÿisÿroughlyÿtheÿlevelÿ ofÿ`discourse'ÿinÿTodorov).ÿTheseÿthreeÿlevelsÿareÿboundÿtogetherÿaccordingÿtoÿaÿmodeÿofÿ progressiveÿ integration:ÿ aÿfunctionÿonlyÿhasÿmeaningÿ insofarÿasÿ itÿoccupiesÿaÿplaceÿ inÿ theÿ generalÿ actionÿ ofÿ anÿ actant,ÿ andÿ thisÿ actionÿ inÿ turnÿ receivesÿ itsÿ finalÿmeaningÿ fromÿtheÿfactÿthatÿitÿisÿnarrated,ÿentrustedÿtoÿaÿdiscourseÿwhichÿpossessesÿitsÿownÿcode.ÿ ÿ Narrationÿ 1.ÿNarrativeÿcommunicationÿ Justÿ asÿ thereÿ isÿwithinÿnarrativeÿaÿmajorÿ functionÿofÿexchangeÿ (setÿoutÿbetweenÿaÿdonorÿ andÿaÿbeneficiary),ÿso,ÿhomologically,ÿnarrativeÿasÿobjectÿisÿtheÿpointÿofÿaÿcommunication:ÿ thereÿ isÿ aÿ donorÿ ofÿ theÿ narrativeÿ andÿ aÿ receiverÿ ofÿ theÿ narrative.ÿ Inÿ linguisticÿ communication,ÿ jeÿ andÿ toÿ (Iÿ andÿ you)ÿ areÿ absolutelyÿ presupposedÿ byÿ oneÿ another;ÿ similarly,ÿ thereÿ canÿ beÿ noÿ narrativeÿwithoutÿ aÿ narratorÿ andÿ aÿ listenerÿ (orÿ reader).ÿBanalÿ perhaps,ÿ butÿ stillÿ littleÿ developed.ÿCertainlyÿ theÿ roleÿ ofÿ theÿ senderÿ hasÿ beenÿ abundantlyÿ enlargedÿuponÿ(muchÿstudyÿofÿ theÿ`author'ÿofÿaÿnovel,ÿ thoughÿwithoutÿanyÿconsiderationÿ ofÿwhetherÿheÿreallyÿisÿtheÿ'narrator');ÿwhenÿitÿcomesÿtoÿtheÿreader,ÿhowever,ÿliteraryÿ theoryÿ isÿmuchÿmoreÿmodest.ÿ Inÿ fact,ÿ theÿproblemÿisÿnotÿ toÿ introspectÿ theÿmotivesÿofÿ theÿnarratorÿorÿ theÿ effectsÿ theÿ narrationÿproducesÿonÿ theÿ reader,ÿ itÿ isÿ toÿdescribeÿ theÿ codeÿbyÿwhichÿnarratorÿandÿreaderÿareÿsignifiedÿthroughoutÿtheÿnarrativeÿitself.ÿAtÿfirstÿ sight,ÿtheÿsignsÿofÿtheÿnarratorÿappearÿmoreÿevidentÿandÿmoreÿnumerousÿthanÿthoseÿofÿ theÿ readerÿ (aÿ narrativeÿmoreÿ frequentlyÿ saysÿ Iÿ thanÿyou);ÿ inÿactualÿ fact,ÿ theÿ latterÿ areÿ simplyÿ moreÿ obliqueÿ thanÿ theÿ former.ÿ Thus,ÿ eachÿ timeÿ theÿ narratorÿ stopsÿ `representing'ÿandÿreportsÿdetailsÿwhichÿheÿknowsÿperfectlyÿwellÿbutÿwhichÿareÿunknownÿ toÿ theÿreader,ÿ thereÿoccurs,ÿbyÿsignifyingÿfailure,ÿaÿsignÿofÿ reading,ÿ forÿ thereÿwouldÿ beÿ noÿ senseÿ inÿ theÿ narratorÿ givingÿ himselfÿ aÿ pieceÿ ofÿ information.ÿ Leoÿ wasÿ theÿ ownerÿofÿtheÿjoint,lÿweÿareÿtoldÿinÿaÿfirst-personÿnovel:ÿaÿsignÿofÿtheÿreader,ÿcloseÿtoÿwhatÿ Jakobsonÿcallsÿ theÿconativeÿfunctionÿofÿcommunication.ÿLackingÿanÿ inventoryÿhowever,ÿ weÿshallÿ leaveÿasideÿ forÿ theÿmomentÿ theseÿsignsÿofÿ receptionÿ (thoughÿ theyÿareÿofÿequalÿ importance)ÿandÿsayÿaÿfewÿwordsÿconcerningÿtheÿsignsÿofÿnarration.ÿ ÿ Whoÿ isÿ theÿ donorÿ ofÿ theÿ narrative?ÿ Soÿ far,ÿ threeÿ conceptionsÿ seemÿ toÿ haveÿ beenÿ formulated.ÿ Theÿ firstÿ holdsÿ thatÿ aÿ narrativeÿ emanatesÿ fromÿ aÿ personÿ (inÿ theÿ fullyÿ psychologicalÿsenseÿofÿtheÿterm).ÿThisÿpersonÿhasÿaÿname,ÿtheÿauthor,ÿinÿwhomÿthereÿisÿanÿ endlessÿexchangeÿbetweenÿtheÿ'personality'ÿandÿtheÿ`art'ÿofÿaÿperfectlyÿidentifiedÿindividualÿ whoÿperiodicallyÿtakesÿupÿhisÿpenÿtoÿwriteÿaÿstory:ÿtheÿnarrativeÿ(notablyÿtheÿnovel)ÿthenÿ beingÿ simplyÿ theÿ expressionÿ ofÿ anÿ Iÿ asÿ aÿ sortÿ ofÿ omniscient,ÿ apparentlyÿ impersonal,ÿ consciousnessÿ thatÿ tellsÿ theÿ storyÿ fromÿ aÿ superiorÿ pointÿ ofÿ view,ÿ thatÿ ofÿ God:'ÿ theÿ narratorÿ isÿ atÿ onceÿ insideÿ hisÿ charactersÿ (sinceÿ heÿ knowsÿ everythingÿ thatÿ goesÿ onÿ inÿ them)ÿandÿoutsideÿthemÿ(sinceÿheÿneverÿ identifiesÿwithÿanyÿoneÿmoreÿ thanÿanother).ÿ Theÿ thirdÿ andÿ mostÿ recentÿ conceptionÿ (Henryÿ James,ÿ Sartre)ÿ decreesÿ thatÿ theÿ ÿ ÿ narratorÿ mustÿ limitÿ hisÿ narrativeÿ toÿ whatÿ theÿ charactersÿ canÿ observeÿ orÿ know,ÿ everythingÿ proceedingÿ asÿ ifÿ eachÿ ofÿ theÿ charactersÿ inÿ turnÿ wereÿ theÿ senderÿ ofÿ theÿ narrative.ÿ Allÿ threeÿ conceptionsÿ areÿ equallyÿ difficultÿ inÿ thatÿ theyÿ seemÿ toÿ considerÿ narratorÿandÿcharactersÿasÿrealÿ-ÿ`living'ÿ-ÿpeopleÿ(theÿunfailingÿpowerÿofÿthisÿliteraryÿmythÿ isÿwellÿknown),ÿasÿthoughÿaÿnarrativeÿwereÿoriginallyÿdeterminedÿatÿitsÿreferentialÿlevelÿ (itÿisÿaÿmatterÿofÿequallyÿ`realist'ÿconceptions).ÿNarratorÿandÿcharacters,ÿhowever,ÿatÿ leastÿ fromÿ ourÿ perspective,ÿ areÿ essentiallyÿ `paperÿ beings';ÿ theÿ (material)ÿ authorÿ ofÿ aÿ narrativeÿisÿinÿnoÿwayÿtoÿbeÿconfusedÿwithÿtheÿnarratorÿofÿthatÿnarrative.ÿTheÿsignsÿofÿ theÿ narratorÿ areÿ immanentÿ toÿ theÿ narrativeÿ andÿ henceÿ readilyÿ accessibleÿ toÿ aÿ semiologicalÿ analysis;ÿ butÿ inÿ orderÿ toÿ concludeÿ thatÿ theÿ authorÿ himselfÿ (whetherÿ declared,ÿ hiddenÿ orÿwithdrawn)ÿ hasÿ `signs'ÿ atÿ hisÿ disposalÿwhichÿ heÿ sprinklesÿ throughÿ hisÿ work,ÿ itÿ isÿ necessaryÿ toÿ assumeÿ theÿ existenceÿ betweenÿ thisÿ `person'ÿ andÿ hisÿ languageÿofÿaÿstraightÿdescriptiveÿrelationÿwhichÿmakesÿtheÿauthorÿaÿfullÿsubjectÿandÿandÿ theÿnarrativeÿtheÿinstrumentalÿexpressionÿofÿthatÿfullness.ÿStructuralÿanalysisÿisÿunwillingÿ toÿacceptÿsuchÿanÿassumption:ÿwhoÿspeaksÿ(inÿtheÿnarrative)ÿisÿnotÿwhoÿwritesÿ(inÿrealÿlife)ÿ andÿwhoÿwritesÿisÿnotÿwhoÿis.'ÿ ÿ 2.ÿNarrativeÿsituationÿ ÿ Theÿnarrationalÿ levelÿ isÿ thusÿoccupiedÿbyÿtheÿsignsÿofÿnarrativity,ÿ theÿsetÿofÿoperatorsÿ whichÿreintegrateÿ functionsÿandÿactionsÿ inÿ theÿnarrativeÿcommunicationÿarticulatedÿonÿ itsÿdonorÿandÿitsÿaddressee.ÿSomeÿofÿtheseÿsignsÿhaveÿalreadyÿreceivedÿstudy;ÿweÿareÿfamiliarÿ inÿ oralÿ literaturesÿ withÿ certainÿ codesÿ ofÿ recitationÿ (metricalÿ formulae,ÿ conventionalÿ presentationÿprotocols)ÿandÿweÿknowÿthatÿhereÿtheÿ`author'ÿ isÿnotÿtheÿpersonÿwhoÿinventsÿ theÿfinestÿstoriesÿbutÿtheÿpersonÿwhoÿbestÿmastersÿ theÿcodeÿwhichÿ isÿpractisedÿequallyÿbyÿ hisÿ listeners:ÿ inÿ suchÿ literaturesÿ theÿ narrationalÿ levelÿ isÿ soÿ clearlyÿ defined,ÿ itsÿ rulesÿ soÿ binding,ÿ thatÿ itÿ isÿ difficultÿ toÿ conceiveÿ ofÿ aÿ `tale'ÿ devoidÿ ofÿ theÿ codedÿ signsÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ('onceÿuponÿaÿtime',ÿetc.).ÿInÿourÿwrittenÿliteratures,ÿtheÿ`formsÿofÿdiscourse'ÿ (whichÿ areÿ inÿ factÿ signsÿ ofÿ narrativity)ÿ wereÿ earlyÿ identified:ÿ classificationÿ ofÿ theÿ modesÿ ofÿ authorialÿ interventionÿ (outlinedÿ byÿ Platoÿandÿ developedÿbyÿDiomedes'),ÿ codingÿofÿtheÿbeginningsÿandÿendingsÿofÿnarratives,ÿdefinitionÿofÿtheÿdifferentÿstylesÿofÿ representationÿ (oratioÿdirecta,ÿoratioÿindirectaÿwithÿ itsÿ inÿquit,ÿoratioÿ tecta),ÿstudyÿofÿ `pointsÿ ofÿ view'ÿ andÿ soÿ on.ÿAllÿ theseÿ elementsÿ formÿpartÿ ofÿ theÿ narrationalÿ level,ÿ toÿ whichÿmustÿobviouslyÿbeÿaddedÿtheÿwritingÿasÿaÿwhole,ÿitsÿroleÿbeingÿnotÿtoÿ`transmit'ÿ theÿnarrativeÿbutÿtoÿdisplayÿit.ÿ ÿ Itÿisÿindeedÿpreciselyÿinÿaÿdisplayÿofÿtheÿnarrativeÿthatÿtheÿunitsÿofÿtheÿlowerÿlevelsÿfindÿ integration:ÿtheÿultimateÿformÿofÿtheÿnarrative,ÿasÿnarrative,ÿtranscendsÿitsÿcontentsÿandÿ itsÿstrictlyÿnarrativeÿformsÿ(functionsÿandÿactions).ÿThisÿexplainsÿwhyÿtheÿnarrationalÿ codeÿshouldÿbeÿtheÿfinalÿ levelÿattainableÿbyÿourÿanalysis,ÿotherÿthanÿbyÿgoingÿoutsideÿofÿ theÿ narrative-object,ÿ other,ÿ thatÿ is,ÿ thanÿ byÿ transgressingÿ theÿ ruleÿ ofÿ immanenceÿ onÿ whichÿ theÿ analysisÿ isÿ based.ÿ Narrat ionÿ canÿ onlyÿ receiveÿ itsÿ meaningÿ fromÿ theÿ worldÿwhichÿ makesÿ useÿ ofÿ it:ÿ beyondÿ theÿ narrationalÿ levelÿ beginsÿ theÿworld,ÿ otherÿ systemsÿ(social,ÿeconomic,ÿideological)ÿwhoseÿtermsÿareÿnoÿlongerÿsimplyÿnarrativesÿ butÿ elementsÿ ofÿ aÿ differentÿ substanceÿ (historicalÿ facts,ÿ determinations,ÿ behaviours,ÿ etc.).ÿ Justÿasÿ linguisticsÿstopsÿatÿ theÿsentence,ÿsoÿnarrativeÿanalysisÿstopsÿatÿdiscourseÿ-ÿ ÿ ÿ fromÿ thereÿ itÿ isÿ necessaryÿ toÿ shiftÿ toÿ anotherÿ semiotics.ÿ Linguisticsÿ isÿ acquaintedÿwithÿ suchÿ boundariesÿwhichÿ itÿ hasÿ alreadyÿ postulatedÿ -ÿ ifÿ notÿ exploredÿ -ÿ underÿ theÿ nameÿ ofÿ situations.ÿHallidayÿdefinesÿ theÿ `situation'ÿ (inÿ relationÿ toÿ aÿ sentence)ÿ asÿ `theÿ associatedÿ non-linguisticÿ factors','ÿPrietoÿasÿ `theÿ setÿofÿfactsÿknownÿbyÿtheÿreceiverÿatÿtheÿmomentÿ ofÿtheÿsemicÿactÿandÿindependentlyÿofÿthisÿact'ÿ.2ÿInÿtheÿsameÿway,ÿoneÿcanÿsayÿthatÿeveryÿ narrativeÿisÿdependentÿonÿaÿ`narrativeÿsituation',ÿ theÿsetÿofÿprotocolsÿaccordingÿtoÿwhichÿ theÿ narrativeÿ isÿ `consumed'.ÿ Inÿ so-calledÿ `archaic'ÿ societies,ÿ theÿ narrativeÿ situationÿ isÿ heavilyÿcodedÿ;3ÿnowadays,ÿavant-gardeÿliteratureÿaloneÿstillÿdreamsÿofÿreadingÿprotocolsÿ-ÿ spectacularÿ inÿ theÿ caseÿ ofÿ Mallarmeÿ whoÿ wantedÿ theÿ bookÿ toÿ beÿ recitedÿ inÿ publicÿ accordingÿtoÿaÿpreciseÿcombinatoryÿscheme,ÿtypographicalÿinÿthatÿofÿButorÿwhoÿtriesÿtoÿ provideÿtheÿbookÿwithÿitsÿownÿspecificÿsigns.ÿGenerally,ÿhowever,ÿourÿsocietyÿtakesÿ theÿ greatestÿ painsÿ toÿ conjureÿ awayÿ theÿ codingÿ ofÿ theÿ narrativeÿ situation:ÿ thereÿ isÿ noÿ countingÿ theÿ numberÿ ofÿ narrationalÿ devicesÿ whichÿ seekÿ toÿ naturalizeÿ theÿ subsequentÿ narrativeÿbyÿfeigningÿ toÿmakeÿ itÿ theÿoutcomeÿofÿ someÿnaturalÿ circumstanceÿ andÿ thus,ÿ asÿitÿwere,ÿ'disinaugurating'ÿit:ÿepistolaryÿnovels,ÿsupposedlyÿrediscoveredÿmanuscripts,ÿ authorÿ whoÿ metÿ theÿ narrator,ÿ filmsÿ whichÿ beginÿ theÿ storyÿ beforeÿ theÿ credits.ÿ Theÿ reluctanceÿ toÿ declareÿ itsÿ codesÿ characterizesÿ bourgeoisÿ societyÿ andÿ theÿ massÿ cultureÿ issuingÿfromÿit:ÿbothÿdemandÿsignsÿwhichÿdoÿnotÿlookÿlikeÿsigns.ÿYetÿthisÿisÿonly,ÿsoÿ toÿspeak,ÿaÿstructuralÿepiphenomenonÿ:ÿhoweverÿfamiliar,ÿhoweverÿcasualÿmayÿtodayÿbeÿ theÿ actÿofÿ openingÿ aÿ novelÿ orÿ aÿ newspaperÿ orÿ ofÿ turningÿ onÿ theÿ television,ÿ nothingÿ canÿ preventÿ thatÿ humbleÿ actÿ fromÿ installingÿ inÿ us,ÿ allÿ atÿ onceÿ andÿ inÿ itsÿ entirety,ÿ theÿ narrativeÿ codeÿweÿ areÿ goingÿ toÿ need.ÿHenceÿ theÿ narrationalÿ levelÿ hasÿ anÿ ambiguousÿ role:ÿcontiguousÿtoÿtheÿnarrativeÿsituationÿ(andÿsometimesÿevenÿincludingÿit),ÿitÿgivesÿonÿ toÿ theÿ worldÿ inÿ whichÿ theÿ narrativeÿ isÿ undoneÿ (consumed),ÿ whileÿ atÿ theÿ sameÿ time,ÿ cappingÿ theÿ precedingÿ levels,ÿ itÿ closesÿ theÿ narrative,ÿ constitutesÿ itÿ definitivelyÿ asÿ utteranceÿ ofÿ aÿ languageÿ [langue]ÿ whichÿ providesÿ forÿ andÿ bearsÿ alongÿ itsÿ ownÿ metalanguage.ÿ ÿ V.ÿTheÿSystemÿofÿNarrativeÿ ÿ Languageÿ [langue]ÿ properÿ canÿ beÿ definedÿ byÿ theÿ concurrenceÿ ofÿ twoÿ fundamentalÿ processesÿ :ÿ articulation,ÿ orÿ segmentation,ÿ whichÿ producesÿ unitsÿ (thisÿ beingÿ whatÿ Benvenisteÿ callsÿ form),ÿ andÿ integration,ÿ whichÿ gathersÿ theseÿ unitsÿ intoÿ unitsÿ ofÿ aÿ higherÿ rankÿ(thisÿbeingÿmeaning).ÿThisÿdualÿprocessÿcanÿbeÿ foundÿ inÿ theÿ languageÿofÿ narrativeÿ [1aÿ langueÿ duÿ recit]ÿwhichÿ alsoÿ hasÿ anÿ articulationÿ andÿ anÿ integration,ÿ aÿ formÿandÿaÿmeaning.ÿ ÿ 1.ÿDistortionÿandÿexpansionÿ ÿ Theÿformÿofÿnarrativeÿisÿessentiallyÿcharacterizedÿbyÿtwoÿpowers:ÿthatÿofÿdistendingÿitsÿ signsÿ overÿ theÿ lengthÿ ofÿ theÿ storyÿ andÿ thatÿ ofÿ insertingÿ unforeseeableÿ expansionsÿ intoÿ theseÿ distortions.ÿ Theÿ twoÿ powersÿ appearÿ toÿ beÿ pointsÿ ofÿ freedomÿ butÿ theÿ natureÿ ofÿ narrativeÿisÿpreciselyÿtoÿincludeÿtheseÿ`deviations'ÿwithinÿitsÿlanguage.'ÿ ÿ Theÿdistortionÿofÿsignsÿexistsÿinÿlinguisticÿlanguageÿ[langue]ÿandÿwasÿstudiedÿbyÿBallyÿ withÿreferenceÿtoÿFrenchÿandÿGerman.'ÿDystaxiaÿoccursÿwhenÿtheÿsignsÿ(ofÿaÿmessage)ÿareÿ ÿ ÿ isotopyÿtoÿtheÿunitsÿofÿtheÿlevelÿbelow,ÿpreventsÿtheÿmeaningÿfromÿ'dangling'-ÿinevitableÿ ifÿ theÿ staggeringÿ ofÿ levelsÿwereÿ notÿ perceived.ÿNarrativeÿ integration,ÿ however,ÿ doesÿ notÿ presentÿ itselfÿ inÿ aÿ serenelyÿ regularÿmannerÿ likeÿ someÿ fineÿ architecturalÿ styleÿ leadingÿ byÿ symmetricalÿchicaneriesÿ fromÿanÿ infiniteÿvarietyÿofÿsimpleÿelementsÿ toÿaÿfewÿcomplexÿ masses.ÿVeryÿoftenÿaÿsingleÿunitÿwillÿhaveÿtwoÿcorrelates,ÿoneÿonÿoneÿlevelÿ(functionÿ ofÿaÿsequence),ÿtheÿotherÿonÿanotherÿ(indiceÿwithÿreferenceÿtoÿanÿactant).ÿNarrativeÿthusÿ appearsÿasÿaÿsuccessionÿofÿtightlyÿinterlockingÿmediateÿandÿimmediateÿelements;ÿdystaxiaÿ determinesÿ aÿ `horizontal'ÿ reading,ÿ whileÿ integrationÿ superimposesÿ aÿ `vertical'ÿ reading:ÿ thereÿ isÿaÿ sortÿofÿ structuralÿ `limping';ÿ anÿ incessantÿplayÿofÿpotentialsÿwhoseÿvaryingÿ fallsÿ giveÿ theÿ narrativeÿ itsÿ dynamismÿ orÿ energy:ÿ eachÿ unitÿ isÿ perceivedÿ atÿ onceÿ inÿ itsÿ surfacingÿ andÿ inÿ itsÿ depthÿ andÿ itÿ isÿ thusÿ thatÿ theÿ narrativeÿ `works';ÿ throughÿ theÿ concourseÿofÿtheseÿtwoÿmovementsÿtheÿstructureÿramifies,ÿproliferates,ÿuncoversÿitselfÿ-ÿ andÿrecoversÿ itself,ÿpullsÿ itselfÿ together:ÿtheÿnewÿneverÿ failsÿ inÿ itsÿ regularity.ÿThereÿ is,ÿ ofÿ course,ÿ aÿ freedomÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ (justÿ asÿ thereÿ isÿ aÿ freedomÿ forÿ everyÿspeakerÿwithÿ regardÿtoÿhisÿorÿherÿlanguage),ÿbutÿ thisÿfreedomÿisÿ limited,ÿ literallyÿhemmedÿin:ÿbetweenÿ theÿpowerfulÿcodeÿofÿ languageÿ[langue]ÿandÿ theÿpowerfulÿcodeÿofÿnarrativeÿaÿhollowÿisÿ setÿupÿ-ÿtheÿsentence.ÿIfÿoneÿattemptsÿtoÿembraceÿtheÿwholeÿofÿaÿwrittenÿnarrative,ÿoneÿ findsÿ thatÿ itÿ startsÿ fromÿ theÿ mostÿ highlyÿ codedÿ (theÿ phonematic,ÿ orÿ evenÿ theÿ merismatic,ÿ level),ÿgraduallyÿrelaxesÿuntilÿ itÿ reachesÿ theÿsentence,ÿ theÿfarthestÿpointÿ ofÿ combinatorialÿ freedom,ÿ andÿ thenÿ beginsÿ toÿ tightenÿ upÿ again,ÿ movingÿ progressivelyÿ fromÿ smallÿ groupsÿ ofÿ sentencesÿ (micro-sequences),ÿ whichÿ areÿ stillÿ veryÿ free,ÿ untilÿ itÿ comesÿ toÿ theÿmainÿactions,ÿwhichÿ formÿaÿstrongÿandÿ restrictedÿcode.ÿTheÿcreativityÿofÿ narrativeÿ(atÿleastÿunderÿitsÿmythicalÿappearanceÿofÿ`life')ÿisÿthusÿsituatedÿbetweenÿtwoÿ codes,ÿ theÿ linguisticÿ andÿ theÿ translinguistic.ÿThatÿ isÿwhyÿ itÿ canÿbeÿ saidÿ paradoxicallyÿ thatÿartÿ (inÿ theÿRomanticÿsenseÿofÿ theÿterm)ÿisÿaÿmatterÿofÿstatementsÿofÿdetail,ÿwhereasÿ imaginationÿ isÿmasteryÿ ofÿ theÿ code:ÿ `Itÿ willÿ beÿ foundÿ inÿ fact,'ÿ wroteÿ Poe,ÿ `thatÿ theÿ ingeniousÿareÿalwaysÿfanciful,ÿandÿtheÿtrulyÿimaginativeÿneverÿotherwiseÿthanÿanalyticÿ...'ÿ ÿ Claimsÿ concerningÿ theÿ `realism'ÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ areÿ thereforeÿ toÿ beÿ discounted.ÿ Whenÿ aÿ telephoneÿcallÿcomesÿthroughÿinÿtheÿofficeÿwhereÿheÿisÿonÿduty,ÿBond,ÿsoÿtheÿauthorÿtellsÿ us,ÿreflectsÿ thatÿ`CommunicationsÿwithÿHong-Kongÿareÿasÿbadÿasÿ theyÿalwaysÿwereÿandÿ justÿ asÿ difficultÿ toÿ obtain'.ÿ Neitherÿ Bond'sÿ `reflection'ÿ norÿ theÿ poorÿ qualityÿ ofÿ theÿ telephoneÿ callÿ isÿ theÿ realÿ pieceÿ ofÿ information;ÿ thisÿ contingencyÿ perhapsÿgivesÿ thingsÿ moreÿ`life'ÿbutÿtheÿtrueÿinformation,ÿwhichÿwillÿcomeÿtoÿfruitionÿlater,ÿisÿtheÿlocalizationÿ ofÿtheÿtelephoneÿcall,ÿHong-Kong.ÿInÿallÿnarrativeÿimitationÿremainsÿcontingentÿ.sÿTheÿ functionÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ isÿ notÿ toÿ `represent',ÿ itÿ isÿ toÿ constituteÿ aÿ spectacleÿ stillÿ veryÿ enigmaticÿforÿusÿbutÿinÿanyÿcaseÿnotÿofÿaÿmimeticÿorder.ÿTheÿ`reality'ÿofÿaÿsequenceÿliesÿnotÿ inÿ theÿ `natural'ÿ successionÿ ofÿ theÿ actionsÿ composingÿ itÿ butÿ inÿ theÿ logicÿ thereÿ exposed,ÿ riskedÿandÿsatisfied.ÿPuttingÿitÿanotherÿway,ÿoneÿcouldÿsayÿthatÿtheÿoriginÿofÿaÿsequenceÿisÿ notÿtheÿobservationÿofÿreality,ÿbutÿtheÿneedÿtoÿvaryÿandÿtranscendÿtheÿfirstÿformÿgivenÿ man,ÿ namelyÿ repetition:ÿ aÿ sequenceÿ isÿ essentiallyÿ aÿ wholeÿ withinÿ whichÿ nothingÿ isÿ repeated.ÿ Logicÿ hasÿ hereÿ anÿ emancipatoryÿ valueÿ -ÿ andÿwithÿ itÿ theÿ entireÿ narrative.ÿ Itÿ mayÿbeÿ thatÿmenÿceaselesslyÿ re-injectÿ intoÿnarrativeÿwhatÿtheyÿhaveÿknown,ÿwhatÿtheyÿ haveÿexperienced;ÿbutÿifÿtheyÿdo,ÿatÿleastÿitÿisÿinÿaÿformÿwhichÿhasÿvanquishedÿrepetitionÿ andÿ institutedÿ theÿmodelÿ ofÿ aÿ processÿ ofÿ becoming.ÿNarrativeÿ doesÿ notÿ show,ÿ doesÿ notÿ imitate;ÿtheÿpassionÿwhichÿmayÿexciteÿusÿinÿreadingÿaÿnovelÿisÿnotÿthatÿofÿaÿ`vision'ÿ(inÿ ÿ ÿ actualÿ fact,ÿ weÿ doÿ notÿ `see'ÿ anything).ÿ Ratherÿ itÿ isÿ thatÿ ofÿ meaning,ÿ thatÿ ofÿ aÿ higherÿ orderÿ ofÿ relationÿ whichÿ alsoÿ hasÿ itsÿ emotions,ÿ itsÿ hopes,ÿ itsÿ dangers,ÿ itsÿ triumphs.ÿ `Whatÿ takesÿ place'ÿ inÿ aÿ narrativeÿ isÿ fromÿ theÿ referentialÿ (reality)ÿ pointÿ ofÿ viewÿliterallyÿnothing;'ÿ`whatÿhappens'ÿisÿlanguageÿalone,ÿtheÿadventureÿofÿlanguage,ÿtheÿ unceasingÿ celebrationÿ ofÿ itsÿ coming.ÿ Althoughÿ weÿ knowÿ scarcelyÿ moreÿ aboutÿ theÿ originsÿ ofÿ narrativeÿ thanÿ weÿ doÿ aboutÿ theÿ originsÿ ofÿ language,ÿ itÿ canÿ reasonablyÿ beÿ suggestedÿ thatÿ narrativeÿ isÿ contemporaneousÿ withÿ monologue,ÿ aÿ creationÿ seeminglyÿ posteriorÿ toÿ thatÿ ofÿ dialogue.ÿAtÿ allÿ events,ÿwithoutÿwantingÿ toÿ strainÿ theÿ phylogeneticÿ hypothesis,ÿitÿmayÿbeÿsignificantÿthatÿitÿisÿatÿtheÿsameÿmomentÿ(aroundÿtheÿageÿofÿthree)ÿ thatÿtheÿlittleÿhumanÿ`invents'ÿatÿonceÿsentence,ÿnarrative,ÿandÿtheÿOedipus.ÿ ÿ ÿ 1966ÿ ÿ