Comparative study of structuralism and deconstructionist literary thoughts - all in order to trace the meaning of the text. It is wrong to completely oppose structuralism and deconstruction. Structuralism and deconstruction are related. The basic ideas of text interpretation should be complementary. In the final analysis, they are essentially to pursue and explore the deep meaning of the text. 1. Structuralism and deconstruction: the marriage behind the “confrontation” Saussure’s theory of signs divides signs into signifiers and signifieds. Any language, from words to sentences, consists of the signifier and the signified as the basic meaning. Saussure's concepts of signifier and signified formed a structural model for finding the meaning of language, which played a decisive role in the interest and development of structuralist thought. However, in Derrida's view, Saussure's structuralist language is an offshoot of logocentrism in Western metaphysics and must be dispelled. Logocentrism originates from the Greek word "logos", which means "language" or "definition". The New Testament of the Bible says that "all things begin with words", so language is elevated to a central position as the ultimate source of all truth. From the perspective of differences in language views, structuralism and deconstruction seem to be in opposition, but there is a certain connection between them in origin and a certain degree of complementarity in their thoughts on text interpretation. 1 from center to edge. Starting from Saussure, structuralism has moved towards the steps of form, pattern and structure, and its purpose is to construct a discourse authority center that tracks the deep meaning structure. Jacobson used phonological methods to analyze poetry and form a functional structure. The principle that its various elements can only be understood within the same framework has in fact established a structural center of poetic authority for the creation and interpretation of poetry. Lévi-Strauss created the structuralist analysis method through the analysis of mythological structures such as Oedipus. In fact, he was moving towards an authoritative discourse center on mythical structures. Barthes advocates an authoritative center for meaning-making activities. The "center" then forms some reliable deep discourse structure. The binomial opposition text analysis method is an analysis mode, that is, the research object is regarded as some structural components, and the opposition, connection, and arrangement transformation relationships are found from these components to understand the composite structure of the object. [1](P17) This structural pattern of binomial opposition exists in large numbers in the history of literature. Balzac wrote in a letter to the Duchess Aberrantes: "As far as I know, I have the most extraordinary character. I observe myself as I observe others; my five-foot-two-inch body contains all possibilities There are some differences and contradictions. Some people think that I am arrogant, romantic, stubborn, frivolous, undisciplined, arrogant, negligent, lazy, lazy, reckless, lack of perseverance, talkative, inconsiderate, ill-mannered, surly, and arrogant. Although others say that I am frugal, humble, brave, tenacious, resolute, unkempt, diligent, perseverant, quiet, careful, polite, and often quick, those who say that I am as timid as a mouse actually have a point. It is not necessarily less unreasonable than saying that I am brave, and the same is true for saying that I am knowledgeable or ignorant, capable or stupid." [2] Balzac's two contradictory characters are reflected in his works. , forming a complex group of characters in which beauty and ugliness coexist, good and evil coexist, and truth and falsehood arise. [1] (P172) The specific thoughts and contents of these two oppositions are completed by the description of the language structure, and literature has become a language of the language state itself. Barthes therefore concluded, "In narrative works, 'what happens' is completely non-existent from the point of view of the (real) referent, and what 'happens' is only language, which is language." Experience, the emergence of language has been warmly welcomed." [3] Lacan also introduced some linguistic perspectives in his psychoanalysis, believing that the subconscious can only be scientifically described with the help of structural linguistics: "The unconscious. "The discourse has the structure of a language." He also reinterpreted Freud's psychoanalytic concepts from a linguistic perspective. [4] (P258) In this way, a structuralist discourse authority center modeled on language structure is constructed. All text creation, analysis, interpretation, and criticism are directed to this discourse authority center, so that no one dares to go beyond the limits. . The "May storm" in France in 1968 proved this point. At that time, during the "May Storm", passionate students took to the streets to demonstrate, which threatened and frightened the French capitalist state machine to a certain extent. However, structuralist scholars hid in their studies and did not come forward to support the student movement. In order to maintain the balance and stability of the overall structural order, it appears to be very conservative. At this time, the fierce student movement began to trigger a fierce attack on the whole, structure, order, hierarchy and authority-centrism, and instead believed in deconstruction represented by Derrida. This is a rebellious act of doubt and alienation from the "center", marking the beginning of deconstruction. Derrida's paper "Structure, Symbols and Games in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" read at Johns Hopkins University in 1966 clearly indicated the end of structuralism and the arrival of the period of deconstruction. From then on, Derrida began his deconstructive attack on structuralism. Derrida's deconstruction begins with structural linguistics, the originator of structuralism. Saussure believed: "Language can be compared to a piece of paper: thoughts are the front and sounds are the back. We cannot cut the front without cutting the back.
Similarly, in sound, we cannot separate the sound (signifier) ??from the thought (signified), nor can we separate the thought from the sound. "[5] (P151) Derrida calls this kind of signifier and signified theocentrism of metaphysics, because he believes that this kind of principle of arbitrariness and difference is limited to the signifier, rather than being used to include all things. The overall approach of signification shows that signifiers have a direct relationship with theological logocentrism. Such signifiers are always attached to the object they refer to, always resorting to a created existence or a given ideological nature. Speech. [4] (P368) Derrida clearly understands the historical task before him: he must break this metaphysical thought that has existed for thousands of years in order to eliminate logocentrism. The deconstruction of centrism means that future texts and text languages ??will begin to drift away from and alienate the center of discourse authority of mainstream ideologies, causing the mainstream ideologies of texts and text languages ??to continue to be marginalized. This also provides the basis for the "aphasia" that emerged in the postmodernist period. "Provides a footnote to the theory. 2 From wholeness to fragmentation. Structure is the core concept of structuralism, but it has also caused different interpretations by scholars. Swiss psychologist Piaget believes that "a structure includes three characteristics: wholeness "nature, transformation and self-adjustment". Integrity is an overall system with inherent organic connections that is combined according to certain rules. Transformation is also called isomorphism, that is, the elements within the structure are exchanged according to certain rules, and these transformation rules play a role in building the structure. Function, determines the boundaries of the structure. Autonomy refers to the nature of the internal elements of the structure that restrict each other and cannot be influenced by the outside. [6] The integrity of structuralism (as well as the study of text narrative) provides a way for text interpretation. A very meaningful tool. For example, Propp’s method of systematically describing mythological stories without paying attention to the exploration of origins was praised by Lévi-Strauss [4] (P234) Propp found that “fairy tales have duality: 1. On the one hand, it is all kinds of strange and colorful; on the other hand, it is all the same" [4] (P235), which reflects his logical judgment under the overall view of the fairy tale text. "The same and the same" is the surface structure of fairy tales. It is perceptible, and it is clear without too much analysis, but the most puzzling thing is the deep structure, which is the deep meaning unit lurking in the text. It is invisible and intangible and requires abstract techniques. , find out this deep meaning unit under the integrity of the narrative. In "Structure Analysis of Stories", Ayugremas summarizes myths into three major elements: [1] (P186) (1) Structure—— —The structural legal system of myth: A. The narrative type is the sum of the structural attributes of all mythological stories; B. The narrative type must not only regard myth as a cross-sentence unit, that is, a normative system, but also reflect the internal structure displayed by the narrative method (2). Regulation - classify the narrative units (meaning groups): A. Experimental mind group (test); B. Contract mind group (conclusion and cancellation of contract); C. Separation mind group (departure and return journey) - (3) Information. That is, the special meanings of mythical phonetic symbols: A. Narrative information—interpretation at the narrative level; B. Interpretation at the structural level—structural information. Judging from Ayugremas's classification of myth into three major elements, structuralist narratology is to regard genre as a systematic semiotic norm to highlight the integrity of text thinking and analysis. Deconstruction also starts from the systematization and wholeness of the text, but its purpose is not to make the "systematization" and "wholeness" of the text more perfect, but to destroy the system and wholeness and dismember them into pieces. Derrida achieved his deconstruction by overturning and inverting the fixed system or overall order. He believes that “in the traditional philosophical concept of binomial opposition, the parallel juxtaposition of opposites does not exist. In a violent hierarchical relationship, one of the opposite parties always dominates the other (in an axiological sense, In a logical sense, etc.). To deconstruct this opposition, we must first subvert this hierarchical relationship under specific circumstances." [7] In order to realize his subversive idea, he first started by dissolving linguistic centrism. To begin with, we purposely created a very difficult and difficult concept: "differance". This means that there is no longer a so-called constant meaning of words and origins. All symbolic meanings are temporarily determined in a huge symbolic network, and new meanings constantly emerge through differentiation and delay. The new meaning of the text is also differentiated in the delay, and in the delay, another new meaning appears. In this way, the system is disintegrated, the whole is broken, and a text can create endless meanings through "distinction" and "delay" like a "Rubik's Cube". In addition to extension, Derrida also created three important concepts: "sow", "trace" and "substitute". "Sowing" is Derrida's further expansion of the concept of "diffusion". The extension of words makes it impossible for the transmission of meaning to be linear, nor to radiate from the center to the surroundings like metaphysics. Instead, it is like sowing seeds, spreading a little here and a little there. "Trace" represents the original loss, it is the absence in the presence, the shadow of existence. "Substitute" is a supplement and addition, but it implies a fundamental vacancy. These concepts have fundamentally dismantled the systematicness, integrity and stability of structuralism, just like a watch that can never be put back on again after being disassembled (Miller's words). 3 From meaning to nothingness.
Both structuralism and deconstruction are concerned with the same topic: the meaning of texts. Structuralism is to establish a meaningful structure to reveal the deep meaning of the text. American linguist Chomsky believes that "Language is not exhausted by its specific expressions. It contains potential sentences that have never been spoken so far, and these sentences can present meaning and grammatical structure; for a person who has learned English For a person, because he has the ability to understand sentences he has never been exposed to, he has language abilities beyond his language expression. "[8] (P30) Structuralism is to use rationality in a stable structure. attitude to find the underlying meaning of the discourse. In fact, long before structuralism appeared as an "ism", Italian Vico had already tried to find a certain textual meaning structure. In "New Science", he tried to find a universal formula for humanistic phenomena and construct a This kind of "human physics" seeks to find out the "structure" of early human thinking. By the time Lévi-Strauss came up with "Structural Anthropology", he discovered that: (1) Changes in any one component of the structure will cause changes in other components. (2) For any structure, it is possible to list a series of changes in the same type. In this way, the meaning of the text can be framed in a constant pattern so that it cannot be "misread". This repetitive structure highlights the deeper meaning of the text: the meaninglessness and illogic of human language and the emptiness, hopelessness and careless cruelty of life. Although the purpose of deconstruction in caring about texts is to discover the existence of meaning, it makes meaning ethereal by destroying the eternal structure of meaning. Derrida replaces "structure" with "chain of meaning". Because the chain of meaning is unlimited and non-purposeful, it excludes the idea that there is a dominant overall idea in the system; and because it is both spatial and temporal, it itself will not be reduced to the whole. Or the status of the object goes up. [4](Ｐ365) The "meaning chain" has lost its "object status" and can only float in the air without any foundation, so the meaning will always become uncertain. In this case, the text interpretation will always be a " Misreading”. De Man emphasizes the inconsistency between text language symbols and meaning, and believes that all languages ??have modification elements (such as metaphors, symbols, etc.), so all languages ??are deceptive, unreliable and uncertain. In his book "Blindsight and Insight", he pointed out that the contradiction in reading that is formed by the critic's unintentional shifting of the center and that constantly appears in its own deconstruction is a kind of "blindsight", and the critic only has "Insight" can be gained with the help of some blindsight. In this sense, de Man's point of view is that insight is based on the assumptions that insight refutes, and insight resides in blindness.
[10] Undoubtedly, this concept caused de Man to completely slip into the abyss of nihilism. Therefore, for deconstructionism, the meaning of the text, such as "the flower in the mirror and the moon in the water", is an "illusion" that cannot be touched at all. That’s it!