1. Explain the three major discoveries of Saussure.

A. Sign is arbitrary. There is no connection between sign (object) and

meaning.
For Saussure, there is no essential or natural reason why a particular
signifier should be attached to a particular signified. Saussure calls this
the "arbitrariness of the sign" (l'arbitraire du signe). No two people
have precisely the same concept of "tree," since no two people have
precisely the same experiences or psychology. We can communicate
"tree," however, for the same reason we can communicate at all:
because we have agreed to use it in a consistent way. If we agreed to
use the word and sound for "horse" instead, it would be called "horse"
to the same effect. Since all that is important is agreement and
consistency, the connection is arbitrary.
B. According to Saussure sign has two properties or functions one is
signifier (sound) and another is signified (what is refers to the image
of the object shared (mutually understood) between listener and the
speaker)
The sign (signe) is described as a "double entity", made up of the
signifier, or sound pattern (referred to by Saussure as a 'signal'), and
the signified, or concept (referred to by Saussure as 'signification'). The
sound pattern is a psychological, not a material concept, belonging to
the system. Both components of the linguistic sign are inseparable.
One way to appreciate this is to think of them as being like either side
of a piece of paper one side simply cannot exist without the other.
C. Differentiating process becomes meaning making process. We get
meaning only by differentiating. Saussure says in language there are
no possibilities, but there are only differences. Suppose I say arya is a
good girl. It means arya is not a bad girl. Only through differentiating it
makes meaning. There is no positive terms, but everywhere there is
negative terms.

2. Highlight the difference word and sign and explain how they
open up two fields of enquiry linguistics and semiotics.
Word and sign:
Word is verbal comes through only mouth. Signs can be verbal and
non-verbal. It can come through various other medium.
If you study word and its functions it will be linguistics. There are three
aspects to this study: language form, language meaning, and language

in context. Linguistics analyzes human language as a system for

relating sounds (or signs in signed languages) and meaning.
[6]
Phonetics studies acoustic and articulatory properties of the
production and perception of speech sounds and non-speech sounds.
The study of language meaning, on the other hand, deals with how
languages encode relations between entities, properties, and other
aspects of the world to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well
as to manage and resolve ambiguity.
If you study sign, its nature and its functions then it will be called
semiotics. It is the study of meaning-making, the study of sign
processes and meaningful communication. Semiotics is the study of
signs and sign systems of human culture which is basically against
philosophy (philosophy is all about metaphysical terms souls, spirits,
how life entered into a species, where will the spirit go after death. It is
not concerned about the living.) So semiotics is a challenge to the
history of philosophy. Because it studies the signs and sign systems of
living human phenomena what you do, how you live. No one can
definitely say where we go after death so it is useless to study about
after death.
3. What is meant by signifier and signified?
Signifier is a sound or a material aspect. When you say signifier is a
sound you limit yourself to linguistics (refers only to the verbal). The
physical act of writing/drawing/manifestation/listening is signifier
(thats why it is a material aspect.)
Signified is a mental aspect. It is mental and social. It is Social
because the meaning is shared between the speaker and the listener.
In the case of two tribal groups exchanging goods, the goods function
as sign, the manner in which it is given is the signifier and the
communicated message (the underlying message) is the signified.
4. Explain la langue and la parole.
Langue is competence. We can simply understand it as knowledge.
Parole is performance or delivery.
Noam Chomsky also used the same words competence and
performance. By competence he meant the grammatical rules. If you
know the grammatical rules you can produce sentence. Performance is
the sentence.

According to Saussure, langue mean the godown of language which

includes past and present uses of a word or a sentence.
Langue means competence, the knowledge of different uses of signs.
Performance means (According to Chomsky) individual sentences
(grammatically correct sentence) or (Accord to Saussure) utterances
(which include gesture, sentences or small expressions. It can be
grammatically wrong sentences but understood).
Parole refers to the individual language acts which occur when anyone
audibly voices letters, words, sentences, etc. Parole is the physical
manifestation of speech. Langue is the abstract system of principles
language out of which acts of speech (parole) occur. Consider the
analogy that the game of chess is the langue and the individual moves
of chess itself comprise the parole.
5. Comment on the implications of Saussures theory of sign.
Saussures theory of sign is different from linguistics understanding of
word. Sign is verbal as well as non-verbal. The sign refers to language
and non-verbal communication.
So, it (Saussures theory of sign) helps us to study cultural signs or
behavioral patterns.
6. How does Levi-Strauss expand Saussures theory of sign?
He looked at culture as a sign system. He looked at culture as a kind of
language (sign system). Just as words communicate, a bindi or a
purdah also communicates. So purdah is not simply an object, but a
level of language as it communicates. It is kind of language as it is
different from verbal, i.e. it is non-verbal.
According to Levi-Strauss, all rituals, festivals, eating habits, dress
patternare all signifiers. i.e. the Material aspects. Levi-Strauss
regarded all material aspects of culture food, dress, taboos, rituals,
festivalsall are seen as signifiers with a meaning. The mutually
shared meaning of the ritual becomes the signified. Example, ritual of
exchanging ring has a meaning only for the people in a community,
those who use ring for marriage. If a person not related to that
particular community exchanges rings it doesnt have a meaning or .
But it gains a meaning only when used within a particular context

within particular community. Signifier means culturally coded meaning

of the ritual, festival, etc.
7. Explain how Levi-Strauss challenges the discipline of
anthropology. What is meant by structural anthropology?
Levi-Strauss broke the opposition between old and new, primitive and
modern. All can suffer from any disease. Different groups have
different ways of curing it. Because you have a new technology of
curing it doesnt mean that you are superior. There is no hierarchy
between them.
He breaks this opposition by giving importance to one aspect
difference and all the Saussurian theories. He gave focus on the
meaning. So the modern period i.e. early 20th century is all about
problems of meaning. So Levi-Strauss was also concerned about the
same meaning of the cultural signs (meaning of behavior, rituals,
food habits, festival, bindi, hairstyle, etc. the problem of meaning has
been extended to the culture). (Saussure was concerned with problems
of meaning of signs phonetic, graphic.). When we talk about meaning
we limit ourselves only to word that only word has a meaning. But,
even the non-verbal acts also carry meaning. You raise or make a
gesture. When you think of communication it is not only the words that
communicate. But non-verbal also communicates. This is what
Saussure suggested. When talking about signs in general. Throughout
his research he was talking only words (phonetic signs). What LeviStrauss is trying to say is that Saussure hinted at the possibility of
extending semiotics to culture. Signs include behavioral patterns. This
is an extension of Saussure theory to anthropology.
8. Who is a bricolor? Why does Gennet equate bricolor and
literary critic??
A person who makes something from any available material is called a
bricolor. Bricolage refers to combining the available material and
creating a new object. This is the nature of primitive thinking/savage
thinking.
1 This is economical
2 It is creative i.e. youre free to create
3 It is aesthetic. i.e. You can also give a design or shape

Gennet equates bricolor and literary critic because, critic has limited in
his medium i.e. language. It cannot go beyond. Art or any other critic
doesnt have this problem but only literary critic has this problem.
Levi-Strauss defines mythical thought as a kind of bricolage. The
primitives have a powerful thinking. The nature of bricolage is to make
use of whatever available. Literary criticism is almost a tribal act. The
poem and short stories are written in language, its criticism is also in
language and the teacher also uses language. In literary criticism
everything is in language. For other criticism it is not the same case. If
you merely describe a painting or dance it will be in language. But in
case of literary criticism you have to dismantle the text and
reassemble in your language. Object and product are in the same
medium i.e. language. When you read The Lady of shallot, you
dismantle the lines, words, combinations and then you talk about the
central focus. It is almost like a childrens play of building blocks how
he dismantles and arranges it. This is like the tribal act. The literary
criticism cannot go beyond language. What is available for them is only
language. The point of comparison is just as the tribal create with what
is available, the lit critic is creating a piece with what is available
language and words. This is the limitation he cant go beyond
language. Lit criticism is like a primitive act which operates within the
limited material language. Both object and criticism are in the same
medium i.e. language.
9. What is meant by structuralism? List atleast 4 structuralist and
their contribution or works.
Structuralism is study of common patterns or convention or principles
that underlie one and many, the particular and general corpus. It can
be literature, culture, etc. It studies the underlying principles, common
patterns, structural similarities, etc.
Levi-Strauss - The structuralist approach to myth
Lvi-Strauss sees a basic paradox in the study of myth. On one hand,
mythical stories are fantastic and unpredictable: the content of myth
seems completely arbitrary. On the other hand, the myths of different
cultures are surprisingly similar.
Gerrard gennet - Gerard Genette writes at the outset in his essay
Structuralism and Literary Criticismthat methods developed for the

study of one discipline could be satisfactorily applied to the study of

other discipline as well. This is what he calls intellectual bricolage,
borrowing a term from Claude Levi-Strauss. This is precisely so, so far
as structuralism is concerned. Structuralism is the name given to
Saussures approach to language as a system of relationship. But it is
applied also to the study of philosophy, literature and other sciences of
humanity.
A key essay by Barthes is called "From Work to Text".
10.
Explain how structuralist literary criticism shares and
differs from formalism or new criticism.
It differs as this one work is only a repetition of earlier works. The one
work/novel/poem is a repetition or demonstration of the genre. So
structuralist literary criticism is study of genre or narrative.