Questions: Structuralism (Saussure, Levi-Strauss)

Question 1

Saussure's principle that linguistic signs are 'arbitrary' means:

• A. Words can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean
• B. There is no natural or necessary connection between a word's sound (signifier) and its concept (signified) — the link is established by convention within a language system
• C. Languages have no rules and are purely random
• D. The meaning of words changes randomly over time without any pattern

Answer: (B)

The arbitrariness of the sign is Saussure's foundational principle. There is nothing about the sound 'tree' that inherently connects it to the concept of a tree — French uses 'arbre,' German uses 'Baum,' and any sound could serve the purpose. The connection is conventional, maintained by the language community. But this does not mean meaning is random or individual: the system of differences (tree/free/three) constrains meaning, and individual speakers cannot change the system at will. Meaning is produced by the structure of differences, not by individual intention.

Question 2

Structuralism argues that meaning originates in the creative intentions of individual speakers and authors.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This is precisely what structuralism denies. Meaning is produced by the system of differences (langue) within which individual speech acts (parole) occur. The speaker does not create meaning ex nihilo — she selects from a pre-existing system of signs whose meaning is determined by their differential relations to other signs. This anti-subjectivist stance is one of structuralism's most radical features: the individual subject is not the origin of meaning but its vehicle. Levi-Strauss made the same point about myth: myths think themselves through people, not the reverse.

Question 3

What does Saussure mean by the distinction between langue and parole, and why is it methodologically important?

Model answer: Langue is the abstract system of language — its rules, structures, and differential relations — shared by a language community. Parole is the individual speech act — a particular utterance by a particular person. Saussure argues that linguistics should study langue, not parole, because the system is what makes individual utterances meaningful. This is methodologically important because it shifts the object of study from observable behavior (speech) to underlying structure (the system of differences).

The langue/parole distinction became the model for structuralist methodology across disciplines. Levi-Strauss applied it to myth (the underlying structure vs. particular tellings), kinship (the system of exchange rules vs. particular marriages), and cuisine (the structural grammar of food preparation vs. particular meals). In each case, structuralism looks past surface variation to find the deep structure that generates and constrains it.

Question 4

Levi-Strauss's structural analysis of myth aims to show that myths across different cultures share deep structural patterns based on binary oppositions.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Levi-Strauss analyzed myths from diverse cultures and argued that beneath their surface differences lie common structural patterns organized around binary oppositions: nature/culture, raw/cooked, life/death, human/animal. These oppositions are not imposed by the analyst but are the deep grammar of mythic thought. A myth 'works' by mediating a fundamental opposition — offering a narrative resolution to a structural contradiction. The specific content varies across cultures, but the structural logic is universal. This is structuralism's boldest claim: the human mind everywhere operates through the same structural principles.