Chapter 50

From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics

ofA. J. Greimas

Peter Pericles Trifonas

Structuralism in linguistics (see de Saussure 1916) has influenced A. J. Greimas

semiotic methodology of text analysis as detailed in structural semantics (1983).
The method itself has become the core technique of semiotic text analysis of the
influential School of Paris (see Barthes 1970; Greimas 1983; Derrida 1974). Se-
miotic theory is founded upon the premise of the existence of a semantic universe
or the totality of significations, postulated as prior to articulation (Greimas and
Courts 1982, p.361). The semantic universe embodied in a natural language is too
vast to conceive in its totality; thus, any discourse presupposes a semantic universe,
on a microscale, that is actualized in part as discourse and that can be defined as
the set of the system of values (also p.361). Meaning is achieved through articula-
tion of such a microscale semantics and can be described by means of elementary
axiological structures according to the categories of life/death (individual universe),
or nature/culture (collective universe) (Greimas 1970, p.xvi). These arbitrary uni-
versals are the starting point for the analysis of the semantic universe yet can never
be isolated in pure form, but only when articulated. Greimas (1970) explains,
the production of meaning is meaningful only if it is the transformation of a meaning
already given; the production of meaning is, consequently, in itself, a signifying endowing
with form, indifferent to the contents to be transformed. Meaning, in the sense of the form
of meaning, can thus be defined as the possibility of transforming meaning. (p.15)

Defining the text as a discursive micro-universe places the text in the position of
autonomy excluded from extralinguisitic phenomena in text analysis. The organiza-
tion of discursive structures as narrative creates a distinction between the two levels
of representation and analysis: a manifest, or surface level and an immanent, or
deep level (Fig.50.1).
This principle can be applied to other systems not necessarily dependent upon
natural language (e.g., cinema, painting, architecture, sculpture, etc.) in order to
isolate and explain the structural aspects of the medium as text. For example, in

P. P. Trifonas()
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
e-mail: peter.trifonas@utoronto.ca
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 1099
P. P. Trifonas (ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics,
DOI10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_50
1100 P. P. Trifonas

Fig. 50.1 Types and levels of 6(0$17,&

semantic analysis ,00$1(1&( 0$1,)(67$7,21 6,*1,),&$7,21

VHPH OH[HPH VHPHPH

PLQLPDOFRQWHQWXQLW OH[LFDOPDQLIHVWDWLRQ PHDQLQJVLJQLILHU

GHHSOHYHO VXUIDFH SRO\VHPRXV

attempting to bring to light the interrelations between the structural elements con-
stituting a pictorial text (e.g., color, texture, form, composition, etc.) and, thereby,
isolate and explain the means of signification as well as the content, it is possible to
avoid speculation and ground the analysis within the structural aspects of the text
itself. The analysis can then be extended to examining the role of the viewer in rela-
tion to the production of the text (Eco 1976, 1984).
Greimas linguistic framework is based on de Saussures (1916) concept of dif-
ference (see Derrida 1974), or the notion of binary oppositions and distinctiveness
of functional phonology as presence and absence, and the glossematic sign model
(see Appendix A) of Hjelmslev (1943). Structural lexicology forms the basis for the
semantic analysis of textual structures. Semiotics, according to Greimas and Cour-
ts (1979), is operational as a theory of signification when it situates its analyses
on levels both higher and lower than the sign (p.147).
On the lower level, semes, or the minimal unit of semantic componential analy-
sis, function to differentiate significations and form semic systems subdivided into
semic categories. On the higher levels, are textual units which produce semantic
entities greater than signs. Perron (cited from Greimas 1988) explains the model of
generative discourse analysis as defined by generative trajectory,
generative trajectory designates the way in which the components and sub-components
fit together and are linked together. Three autonomous general areas: semio-narrative struc-
tures, discursive structures and textual structures have been identified within the general
economy of the theory first to construct the ab quo instance of the generation of significa-
tion where semantic substance is first articulated and constituted into a signifying form, and
then to set up the intermediate mediating stages which transform the semantic substance
into the last instances ad quem where signification is manifested. (p. xviii)

Discourse production through developing stages, each containing a syntactic and a

semantic subcomponent, is postulated as beginning at a deep level with elemen-
tary structures and extending over more complex structures at higher levels which
govern organization of the discourse prior to its manifestation in a given natural
language (Greimas and Courts 1979, p.85; see also Hjelmslev 1943). Manifest
textual structures of expression (linear or spatial, phonetic, written or visual) are
external to generative trajectory.
At the level of discursive structures, the seme forms the deepest and most
elementary structure of signification; however, it is a theoretical postulate and must
be considered as such. Greimas (1983) explains the following.
This minimal unit, however, which we have called seme, has no existence on its
own and can be imagined and described only in relation to something that is not,
inasmuch as it is only part of a structure of signification.
50 From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics of A. J. Greimas 1101

By situating the seme within perception, in a place where significations are con-
stituted, we noticed that it received there a kind of existence because of its partici-
pation in two signifying ensembles at the same time: the seme, indeed is affirmed
by disjunction within the semic categories, and it is confirmed by junction with
other semes within semic groupings which we have called semic figures and bases
(p.118).
It is a minimalist definition of structure where primacy is given to relations be-
tween elements based on difference. For example, the difference between son and
daughter at the lexical level is due to the disjunction characterized metalinguisti-
cally by the features male and female as part of a semic hierarchy of the content
substance sense (see Appendix A). The common semic category of the two features,
sex, presupposes any semantic resemblance or conjunction between the two fea-
tures and sets the ground from which the articulation of signification emerges (Grei-
mas 1983). A linear semantic axis with the differential terms male and female would
represent the semes involved as elementary structures of signification. A semantic
axis may have different articulations, or lexical fields, in different languages, thus,
transforming the content form at the word level. The deep level is organized in
the visual representation of the semiotic square where the substance of content is
articulated and constituted as form of content (Perron cited from Greimas 1988,
p.xviii) (Fig.50.2)
The oppositions constituting semantic axes may be represented in the semiotic
square as two types of logical relations: contradiction, or the relation existing be-
tween two terms of the binary category assertion/negation, and contrariety, or the
implied contrariness of one term with the other. For example, the seme s1, male,
is described as the opposition (in terms of presence or absence) of non-s1 ( s1 ),
nonmale, in which the seme male is absent. The contrary of s1, male, is s2,
female, which expands the square to a four-term constellation to include the con-
trary of s2 which is non-s2 ( s2 ), nonfemale. Complimentarity or implication now
appears between the terms s1 and s2 or s2 and s1 : male implies nonfemale and
female implies nonmale (see Greimas 1970). The deep structural nature of

Fig. 50.2 The semiotic Male Female

square

Non-Male Non-Female
1102 P. P. Trifonas

the semiotic square can be seen in the fact that there may be no lexical equivalent
at the surface levels of manifestation to express nonmale or nonfemale as con-
cepts. Therefore, the fundamental semantics at the deep level contains the neces-
sary semantic categories that form the elementary structures of signification and the
fundamental syntax consisting of the relations and transformations which derive
and constitute those structures.

50.1Discourse and Narrative

Enunciation mediates between the semiotic narrative structures, organized as a se-

ries of strata along the entire generative trajectory, and their actualization in dis-
course produced by an enunciator. The discursive structures manifest the surface
semiotic structures and set them into discourse by making them pass through the
domain of enunciation (Greimas 1988). As Perron (cited from Greimas 1988) notes,
It is the place where, by becoming actualized as operations, the semio-narrative
structures make up the competence of the subject of enunciation (p.xix). Charged
with the discoursivization of the narrative structures and comprising of three sub-
components of actorialization, temporalization and spatialization (Greimas and
Courts 1979, p.134), the syntactic component is joined with a semantic com-
ponent and its sub-components of thematization and figurativization (Greimas
and Courts 1979, p.134). At the surface level, narrative semantics subsumes the
semantic values selected from the deep level of structure that are actualized in the
form of lexical actants which, in turn, operate at the level of narrative syntax (e.g.,
subject, object, and predicate; Greimas and Courts 1979) as part of a narrative
syntagm (or a larger discursive unit, e.g., a sentence or discourse).
In essence, the lexicology of the text is built both horizontally on a syntagmatic
axis consisting of formal structural elements within a text (be it a word, sentence,
or narrative tract) and vertically on a paradigmatic axis where possible substitu-
tions between linguistic elements occupying the same structural position within the
same expressive context may occur (e.g., the phoneme/s/being substituted for/g/
in the lexeme/go/to make/so/). The juxtaposition of structural elements in a text,
at the interpretive level, occurs in relation to syntagmatic indexes (e.g., contradic-
tion, graphic codes, discontinuity, repetition, inconsistency, superfluity, and non-
verisimilitude; Todorov 1977). Paradigmatic indexes, at the interpretive level, may
consist of: (1) intertextual paradigms referring to cultural conventions of human be-
havior and psychology established external to the text (e.g., characterization, event,
and discourse) or (2) internalized paradigms constructed from within the text by
connecting two or more syntagmatically linked indexes of interpretation referring
exclusively to the textual world (Eco 1979; Greimas 1970; Kristeva 1969; Todor-
ov 1977). Thus, a text is said to mean: (1) lexically at the syntagmatic and para-
digmatic levels due to organization and substitution, respectively and (2) themati-
cally, by the syntagmatic and paradigmatic conjunctions and disjunctions created at
the levels of organization and substitution, within and without the text, resulting in
50 From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics of A. J. Greimas 1103

interpretive indexes. The second set are extensional operations that go beyond the
conscious decoding of lexical meaning as a communicative act intended to realize
the virtual possibilities of language, or intensional operations, and into the realm
of activating possible worlds by determining the coherence and plausibility of the
vision. For example, the representation of a character or event may be incorporated
into the syntagmatic structure of the plot and fabula constituting the text, yet, at the
paradigmatic level they have no intertextual or cultural validity, and be relevant only
to the textual world as an intratextual paradigm. Mythological or fairy tale genres
refer to creatures such as dragons, ghosts, and goblins that are unrealistic in a cultur-
al sense because they do not exist in the external world; however, within the world
of fairy tales and mythology, as determined by the story and fabula within specific
genres, dragons, ghosts, and goblins are perfectly plausible and realistic characters.
It is at this point that actors (like these characters) are formed as the result of genre
function and influences upon the form and perception of narrative utterance (NU).

50.2Isotopy

Isotopy describes the coherence and homogeneity of text which allows for the se-
mantic concatenation, or chain linking, of utterances (Greimas and Courts 1979).
In order to semantically disambiguate terms within a text and assure textual coher-
ence and homogeneity, there must be iterativity, or recurrence, of a classeme (either
semic category or repeated contextual seme) which connects the semantic elements
of discourse (sememes). Eco (1984) explains,
The term isotopy designated dabord, a phenomenon of semic iterativity throughout a syn-
tagmatic chain; thus any syntagm (be it a phrase, a sentence, a sequence of sentences com-
posing a narrative text) comprehending at least two content figurae (in Hjelmslevs sense)
is to be considered as the minimal context for a possible isotopy. (p.190)

On a semantic level, Greimas (1983) uses two expressions le chien aboye (the dog
barks) and le commissaire aboye (the commissioner barks; p.81) to illustrate that
aboye (barks) has two classemes: human and canine. It is the presence of the sub-
jects, the dog or the commissioner, that reiterates one of the two classemes and
establishes the contextual selection for a literal or figurative reading of the text. A
syntagmatic extension of an isotopy is constituted by the textual segments that are
connected by one classeme. Ultimately, a text which fosters a single interpreta-
tion in its semantic structure is a simple isotopy, whereas, bi-isotopy is the result of
textual ambiguities or metaphorical elements that promote polysemous readings.
Pluri- or poly-isotopy is the superimposition of multiple semantic levels in a text
(Eco 1984).
The first stage of the theory considered: (1) syntactical (grammarial) isotopies,
(2) semantic isotopies, (3) actorial isotopies, (4) partial isotopies (or smaller textual
units that are condensed into a text as the result of summarizing macropositions),
and (5) global isotopies (as the result of partial isotopies) (Eco 1984). The second
stage incorporates recurrent thematic and figurative categories where the typology
1104 P. P. Trifonas

of isotopies is extended to semiological isotopies covering iterativities in terms of

exteroceptivity (referring to properties of the external world; see Greimas 1983).

50.3Function and Actantial Structures

Traditional motif research in narrative has considered actors (on two levels as char-
acters, in anthropomorphic or zoomorphic forms, and lexical subjects, or actants,
of discourse within a sentence engaged in a thematic role), items (or objects), and
incidents as minimal units of narrative analysis (Greimas and Courts 1979). Propp
(1928), however, identified the minimal unit of narrative analysis as the function in
terms of an action which cannot be defined apart from its place in the context of
narration (p.21). Nth (1990) explains,
Functions as units of action are narrative invariants, while the agents performing those
actions are textual variables. Within his corpus of one hundred fairy tales, Propp discovered
a relatively small number of 31 such invariant functions, as opposed to a large number of
persons, objects or events (corresponding to the traditional motif). (p.371)

For example, after the initial situation is established in a narrative text, a series of
functions may be cited to explain the narrative syntax and progression of the fabula
(story; see Appendix C). The 31 functions are distributed across seven spheres of
action as performed by various characters such as (1) the villain, (2) the donor,
(3) the helper, (4) the sought-for person, (5) the dispatcher, (6) the hero, and (7)
the false hero (cf. Greimas 1983, p.201). From Propp (1928), Souriau (1950; see
Greimas 1983) and Tesnier (1959; see Greimas 1983), Greimas (1966) formulated
a mythical model of narrative actants containing three binary oppositions: (1)
subject vs. object, (2) sender vs. receiver, and (3) helper vs. opponent.
Essentially, the fabula (or story elements of the narrative) and every other nar-
rative structure is reduced to purely formal positions as actants (defined lexically
as that which accomplishes or undergoes an act, e.g., subjectobject, sender and
receiver, and narratively as classifications of an actor according to genre) which
produce actantial roles (Eco 1979). The syntactic order of the actantial categories
correspond to a subject wants an object, encounters an opponent, finds a helper,
obtains the object from a sender, and gives it to a receiver sequence or variations
thereof. The NU is, therefore, defined as a process composed of a function (F), in
the Proppian sense, and an actant (A), or NU=F(A). The logic of relationships is
based upon knowledge, desire, and power where the transmission of a mes-
sage can be analyzed syntactically as the transferal of knowledge and the drama of
the acquisition of power (desire being the motivating force behind the action).
The helperopponent dichotomy was later abandoned (see Greimas 1970) as a
major actantial category and the value transfer occurring among the major actants
explained as relationships of conjunction and disjunction according to the semiotic
square. Following from the latter model, a narrative sequence can then be said to
begin with a relation of conjunction between two actants (subject or object), fol-
lowed by a disjunction (as a problem or transition phase) which is reconciled in the
50 From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics of A. J. Greimas 1105

Fig. 50.3 Bremonds narra- Satisfactory

tive cycle state

Procedure of Procedure of
improvement degradation

State of
deficiency

redistribution of semantic values as a new conjunction (Greimas 1970): (1) initial

state transition final state or (2) problem final stage (see Todorov 1977).
Time and causality are the basic dimensions of the narrative process (Ricoeur 1983)
that suggest a linear macrostructure, or overall sequence. However, the semantic
connection between the initial event and the final event may also suggest a cyclical
model such as the following containing four phases beginning with either a state of
deficiency or a satisfactory state (Bremond 1970, p.251) (Fig.50.3):

50.4Conclusion

The epistemological, theoretical, and methodological principles of structural se-

mantics (see Eco 1979; Greimas 1983) incorporated within the method of semiotics
I have detailed provide the basic tools and metalanguage for the semiotic analysis
of text and are useful only to the extent that they allow for the phenomena being
studied to be accounted for in terms comprehensible to the human intellect (Eco
1979). It is in this sense that a methodological structuralism of semioticsas an
operational procedure for analyzing lexical textsis necessary, because without
the metalanguage required, there would be no way to achieve the purpose(s) of
semiotic inquiry relevant to the study textuality (see also Eco 1976). A semiotic
method of textual analysis is therefore considered to encompass metatextual means
or devices (e.g., a metalanguage, a model, figures or other visual schemata, etc.)
which conceptualize in hypothetical, rather than empirical, terms the intensions and
extensions made by the reader in the act of meaning-making relative to the lexical
structures of signification manifest in a text as formal elements of structure. Inten-
sional responses are defined as the consciously motivated acts of meaning-making
required of, or initiated in, the reader/viewer to realize the signifying potential of
the total text.

References

Arnheim, R. 1954. Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barthes, R. 1964. Rhetoric of the image. In Image-music-text, ed. R. Barthes, 3251. New York:
Hill & Wang.
Barthes, R. 1967. Criticism and truth. (Trans: K. Kevnenan). London: Athlone Press.
1106 P. P. Trifonas

Barthes, R. 1970. S/Z. (Trans: Richard Miller). New York: Hill & Wang.
Bogdan, D. 1986. Virtual and actual forms of literary response. Journal of Aesthetic Education 20
(2): 5157.
Bogdan, D. 1989. From stubborn structure to double mirror: The evolution of Northrup Frye's
theory of poetic creation and response. Journal of Aesthetic Education 3 (2): 3443.
Bremond, C. 1970. Morphology of the French folktale. Semiotica 2:247276.
Carter, C. 1972. Syntax in language and painting. The Structuralist 12:5054.
Cassidy, M. F. 1982. Toward integration: Education, instructional technology and semiotics. ECTJ
30 (2): 7589.
Dasenbrock, R. W. 1991. Do we write the text we read? College English 53 (1): 718.
Derrida, J. 1974. Of grammatology. (Trans: G. C. Spivak). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Dewey, J. 1922. Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court.
Eco, U. 1968. La struttura assente. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1979. The role of the reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U., and M. Constantino, eds. 1989. On the medieval theory of signs. In Foundations of semi-
otics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Finnegan, J. 1982. Aristotelian causality and the teaching of literary theory. Journal of Aesthetic
Education 16 (1): 1128.
Frow, J. 1982. The literary frame. Journal of Aesthetic Education 16 (2): 2530.
Frye, N. 1957. Anatomy of criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gombrich, E. 1960. Art and illusion. London: Phaidon Press.
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of art. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Greimas, A. J. 1970. On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory (Trans: P. J. Perron & F. H.
Collins). Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Greimas, A. J. 1983. Structural semantics: An attempt at method (Trans: D. MacDowell, R. Schle-
ifer & A. Velie). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1966).
Greimas, A. J., and J. Courtes. 1979. Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary (Trans: L.
Crist, D. Patte, J. Lee, E. McMahon II, G. Phillips, & M. Rengstorf). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. (Original work published 1979).
Hjelmslev, L. 1943. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Hodge, R. 1990. Literature as discourse: Textual strategies in English and History. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Hunt, E. 1978. Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological Review 85:109130.
Hunt, E. 1979. Intelligence as information processing concept. Journal of British Psychology
71:449474.
Hunt, E., and F. Agnoli. 1991. The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychological perspective.
Psychological Review 98 (3): 377389.
Hunt, E., and M. R. Banaji. 1988. The Whorfian hypothesis revisited: A cognitive science view
of linguistic and cultural effects on thought. In Indigenous cognition: Functioning in cultural
context, eds. J. W. Berry, S. H. Irvine, and E. Hunt, 5784. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Iser, W. 1978. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: John Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Krampen, M. 1973. Iconic signs, supersigns and models. Versus 4:101108.
Kristeva, J. 1969. Semiotike. Paris: Seuil.
Lotman, Y. 1990. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. (Trans: A. Shukman). New
York: Taurus & Co.
Martinet, A. 1962. A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon.
Mateescu, C. A. 1974. Toward a structural approach to poetic language. Poetics 11:4661.
Metz, C. 1968. Film language: A semiology of the cinema. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1986. Iconology: Image, text, ideology. Chicago: University Press.
Mitias, M. 1982. The ontological status of the literary work of art. Journal of Aesthetic Education
16 (4): 4252.
50 From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics of A. J. Greimas 1107

Morris, C. 1946. Signs, language and behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Noth, W. (1985). Handbook of semiotics. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Piaget, J., and R. Inhelder. 1971. Mental imagery in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pierce, C. S. 1931. Collected papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Prieto, L. J. 1966. Message et signaux. Paris: Presses Universitaires.
Propp, V. J. 1928. Morphology of the folktale. 2nd ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ricoeur, P. 19831984. Time and narrative, Vols.12. Chicago: University Press.
Saint-Martin, F. 1987. Semiotics of visual language. Indiana: University of Indiana Press.
de Saussure, F. 1916. Course in linguistics (Trans: W. Baskin). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sonesson, G. 1989. Pictorial concepts: Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance to the
interpretation of the visual world. Sweden: Lund University Press.
Schwarcz, J. H. 1982. Ways of the illustrator: Visual communication in childrens literature. Chi-
cago: American Library Association.
Todorov, T. 1977. Theories of the symbol. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ullian, J. 1991. Truth. Journal of Aesthetic Education 25 (1): 5765.
Winston, P. 1977. Artificial intelligence. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Wollheim, R. 1991. The core of aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetic Education 25 (1): 3945.

Peter Pericles Trifonas is a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/Uni-
versity of Toronto. His areas of interest include ethics, philosophy of education, cultural
studies, literacy, and technology. Among his books are the following: Revolutionary Pedago-
gies: Cultural Politics, Instituting Education, and the Discourse of Theory, The Ethics of Writing:
Derrida, Deconstruction, and Pedagogy, Ethics, Institutions and The Right to Philosophy (with
Jacques Derrida), Roland Barthes and the Empire of Signs, Umberto Eco & Football, Pedago-
gies of Difference, Deconstructing the Machine (with Jacques Derrida), International Handbook
of Semiotics, CounterTexts: Reading Culture.