Critic speak is tough, but we've got you covered.
Quote :Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature
The notion that linguistics might be useful in studying other cultural phenomena is based on two fundamental insights; first, that social and cultural phenomena are not simply material objects or events but objects or events with meaning, and hence signs; and second, that they do not have essences but are defined by a network of relations, both internal and external. Stress may fall on one or the other of these propositions—it would be in these terms, for example, that one might try to distinguish semiology from structuralism—but in fact the two are inseparable, for in studying signs one must investigate the system of relations that enables meaning to be produced and, reciprocally, one can only determine what are the pertinent relations among items by considering them as signs.
Though Ferdinand de Saussure was all about linguistics, other theorists (including Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco) have explored the ways in which we might extend semiotic analysis into other areas. Discussing this, Culler points out that there’s no such thing as just an object or just an event. Instead, he gives us a neat little formula:
Every aspect of culture, and every cultural text, is:
a) invested with meaning and
b) exists as part of a network of relations.
Don’t bullet points and semiotics go great together?
Anyway, discussing points a and b, Culler notes that we may place greater stress on one than the other but that really, it’s impossible to separate them: we can’t study signs without considering the system of relations through which they operate, and, likewise, we can’t study systems unless we consider the items within them as signs. In other words, it’s a two-way street.
To sum up, Culler emphasizes that signs come in all shapes and forms, and guess what that means? That the insights gained from linguistics may be relevant to culture in a wider sense. Sure, there may be differences between various texts and mediums, but what Culler argues is that all aspects of culture have an internal structure and are part of wider structures.
Structure is a key term here, because, as we know, Saussure’s original linguistic theory took a structuralist angle. So it makes sense that, if other elements of culture also work as structures, then we can probably approach them from a linguistic angle too. Tah-dah!
Still despite its possible usefulness, the extent to which we can apply linguistics to different forms of cultural texts is something that’s open to debate—as theorists have suggested, it might be that the Saussurian model needs to be adjusted in some way. Nevertheless, the scope of linguistics is something that we need to think about when we’re analyzing different areas of culture.