As we saw in our discussion of How Language Works, there are two major disciplines in Linguistics: Semantics and Semiotics. Often Computational Linguistics depends upon statistical methods for counting words and using frequency to determine importance. To wit, the more a word is used the more important it must be as a concept. This is a semiotic approach, looking to individual words and their meaning. In contrast, Semantics is the relationship of words to each other within the sentence and paragraphs of a text, the context that gives a greater intent to the individual words.
Why does this matter to NLP and Machine Learning? Basically, if you don’t
understand how language functions, how can you teach a machine to process it?
It’s as simple as that. For too long, Computational Linguistics has been
dependent on pure mathematics and ignored the deeper structures of language. It
only touches the most essential elements with Part of Speech (POS) tagging and
parsing of grammar for a few languages. The grammar parsers look at simple
Subject → Verb → Direct Object relationships. This stuff is hard to perform,
and, in the meantime, the discipline has come a long way by just counting words
and looking at how close or far they are from each other in a text. But it is
long past time that the Linguistics of Computational Linguistics takes on a
greater role.
In simplest terms, structuralists take linguistics as a model and attempt to
develop “grammars”—systematic inventories of elements and their possibilities
of combination—that would account for the form and meaning of literary works;
post-structuralists investigate the way in which this project is subverted by
the workings of the texts themselves. Structuralists are convinced that
systematic knowledge is achievable by moving the focus of criticism from
thematics to the conditions of signification, the different sorts of structures
and processes involved in the production of meaning. Semiotics, the successor
to structuralism, is best defined as the science of signs. It involves the
study of any medium as a semiotic study of signs. While the analysis of content
involves a quantitative approach to the analysis of a text, semantics seeks to
analyze texts as structured wholes.
The history of this discipline goes back to the early 1900s and a gentleman
named Ferdinand de Saussure, who kicked things off with his seminal work Cours
de Linguistique Générale (1918). Things really took hold as a
school of thought in 1950’s and 60’s with contributions from A. J. Greimas and
François Rastier. Let’s take a moment to understand the importance of how this
systemic breakdown of grammar and words works.
Key to Saussure's theory is the concept of “signs” in that each language is
composed of linguistic units of sound patterns that are represented by written
symbols. These symbols are referred to as signs which reference a concept, or
the thing signified. This is a psychological and not necessarily a material
concept, and therefore a social construct. Both components of the “sign” are
inseparable, like two sides of a coin. The value of a sign is determined by all
other signs in the corpus of the language, adding to its nature as a social
construct. Therefore the signs in French are the sum total of the French
culture just as the signs in English reflect English culture and its sum total
history of melding various languages through invasions and conquest. This leads
to the maxim that "culture is instantiated in language."
Meaning
 |
For signs there are syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships. A syntagmatic relationship involves a sequence of signs that together create meaning. A paradigmatic relationship involves signs that can replace each other, usually changing the meaning slightly with the substitution. Think of it as a syntagmatic relationship as grammatical, and a paradigmatic relationship as a list of synonyms.
A syntagma is an elementary constituent segment within a text. Such a
segment can be a phoneme, a word, a grammatical phrase, a sentence, or an event
within a larger narrative structure, depending on the level of analysis.
Syntagmatic analysis involves the study of relationships among syntagmas.
Paradigmatic analysis is the analysis of paradigms embedded in the text
rather than of the surface structure of the text which is termed syntagmatic
analysis.
The concept of syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis was extended to
narrative discourse by A. J. Greimas best known for his Semiotic Square.
Vladimir Propp, in his analysis of Russian folk tales,
Morphologie du conte (1928), concentrated on an internal analysis
rather than historical explanations to formulate his classifications for folk
tales. In distinguishing between form and structure, he argued that structure
included both form and content, whereas form restricted one to examining the
medium of a given system of communication. Propp’s seminal work greatly
influenced Greimas,[1]
who replaced Propp’s concept of “functions” with that of “actants.” Greimas
developed a semiotic approach to narrative structure, the “semiotic square”[2] and the “actantial
model.”[3] He uses the term
“seme” (seed) to refer to the smallest unit of meaning in a sign.
Greimas’ model of the semiotic square, where the interaction of opposing
symbolic interpretations creates semantic categories, is based on three
relationships: contradiction, contrariety, and complementarity.
“Cette structure
élémentaire (...) doit être conçue comme le développement logique d’une
catégorie sémique binaire du type blanc vs. noir, dont les termes sont, entre
eux, dans une relation de contrariété, chacun étant en même temps susceptible
de projeter un nouveau terme qui serait son contradictoire, les termes
contradictoires pouvant à leur tour contracter une relation de présupposition à
l’égard du terme contraire opposé.”[4]
"This elementary structure (…) must be conceived as the
logical development of a binary semic category of the type white vs. black,
whose terms are, between them, in a relation of contrariety, each being at the
same time capable of projecting a new term which would be his contradictory,
the contradictory terms being able in their turn to contract a relation of
presupposition with regard to the term opposite opposite. ”
Courtés uses this figure to summarize the theories of semantic relations
proposed by Greimas in both Sémantique structurale (1966)
and Du Sens (1970). Using the example of true and false,
S1 represents true, S2 represents false, not true, and not false.
Its primary value resides in its usefulness as a means of establishing for a
text the pertinent opposition(s) which generate(s) signification.
One may substitute any valid set of contradictory terms into the semiotic
square. For example, discussing theories of the Fantastic, Fantasy, or Science
Fiction, “real” and “supernatural” provide the contradictory pair. One of the
most prominent types of operations anticipated by the model of veridiction[5] is the
narrativization of /otherness/ in the process of linking, or concatenating,
episodes that contain examples of the supernatural. The narrative dimension of
a text signifies itself as a series of states and the transformations linking
them.[6] There are two
states, conjunction (symbolized as ∩) and disjunction (symbolized as Ụ) , while
there can be numerous types of transformations.
Semiotic analysis details the relations between these static and dynamic
aspects of narrative by studying the characters and the roles that they play in
the succession of transformations between states. According to Greimas, the
actantial model defines the relationships between characters according to six
categories of actants:[7] the subject
(who desires the object), the object (which is desired by
the subject), the helper (who aids the
subject), the opponent (who opposes the
subject), the sender (who initiates the
quest of the subject), and the receiver (who benefits from
the acquisition of the object). Greimas’ system is particularly appealing
because of the way it highlights the Subject and the desire for the Object. The
actantial model is often represented in the following diagram:[8]
The Greimassian method of narrative analysis creates correspondences among the various themes of a story, which serve as the spatio-temporal coordinates for the continuity of the intrigue. The narration of a story that is encoded by the author thus encourages the cognitive and pragmatic act of decoding the meaning of a text by the reader.[9]
Stages of a structural analysis
A structural analysis can be said to have three major stages. First, it is
necessary to determine the principal actants, their relationships, and the
resulting episodes of the narrative (syntagmatic analysis). Segmenting the text
in this manner leads to the problem of deciding what is significant and what is
secondary. Next, the critic must establish major divisions or units of the text
that underlie the episodic structure in order to determine the larger, overall
meaning of the narrative pattern. As a final step, the relationship between
episodes is defined (paradigmatic analysis).
The syntagmatic analysis usually involves studying the text as a narrative
sequence. The first step in such an analysis is to identify the actants and
their relationship to each other. Who is the subject? Can there be multiple
subjects (and therefore multiple points of view) within a single narrative? Can
a subject desire multiple objects and how do the conflicting desires affect the
outcome of the narration? The relationship of desire between the subject and
object provides motivation and closure to the narrative. The social
implications of desire are manifested in the motivation of the subject. Does
his desire for the object benefit the society at large or is it self-serving?
On another level, the consequences of desire are played out within the “sender–object–receiver”
relationship. The “sender” is the agent who grants the subject permission to
pursue the object—for example, King Arthur initiates the quest for Guinevere in
Le Chevalier de la Charrette by sending Gawain to
search for Kay and the queen. The most frequent example of the receiver, the
one who possesses the object at the end of the story, is the hero’s society. In
this example Arthur’s court and kingdom benefit from the return of their queen
and seneschal. Secondary characters fulfill the roles of helper if they aid the
hero in acquiring the object. When hindering the hero from reaching the object,
secondary characters take on the function of opponent. By identifying the major
roles in the text, one is able to divide the text into units and episodes. A
unit represents a major segment of the text, while episodes are subdivisions of
units.
The next stage of a structural analysis is to formulate a narrative
structure, or outline, for a given text. That structure is often expressed in
terms of equations. These serve as a means of summarizing the relationship of
desire between the subject and object. When linked together, the narrative
units permit one to quantify the structure of the whole text. These equations
reveal the narrative development of actants as they interact with each other
and the object of desire. Greimas, in his Sémantique structurale,
proposed a mathematical representation of semiotic structures in order to more
precisely reveal the hierarchical structure.[10]
In the preface to Courtés’ book, Greimas reemphasizes that the division of a
text may be based on the various actantial and thematic roles of interaction
with the object.[11]
Courtés builds upon the work of Greimas by incorporating the concept of
“isotopes,” which are defined by Greimas as a redundant set of semantic
categories which makes possible a uniform reading of the narrative.[12]
Courtés’ work specifies a method of equations used to describe the
disjunctive and conjunctive states of characters.[13]
When a subject (S), such as the hero, obtains an object (O),
he is said to be in a state of conjunction (symbolized as ∩) with that object,
represented by the formula UN = S ∩ O, where UN is
the narrative unit. When the hero is separated from the object he desires, he
is said to be in a state of disjunction (symbolized as Ụ),
represented in the formula as UN = S Ụ O.
At any given moment in a text, the opponent may possess the object
desired by the subject. The subject is thus a potential agent of the function(s)
that will bring him into a state of conjunction with the object. The
transformation enacted in this instance is an exchange by transfer of the
object from the opponent to the subject. The process whereby the subject
realizes this objective is called a narrative program.[14]
According to Greimas, the final step in this type of structural analysis is
to examine the ways in which the various narrative units (or situations) relate
to each other. This is referred to as the paradigmatic analysis. The
distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic structures is a key concept in
structuralist semiotic analysis. These two dimensions are often represented as
axes, where the vertical axis is the paradigmatic and the horizontal axis is
the syntagmatic. A paradigm is a set of associated signs which form a defining
category of meaning or significance, such as “love.” A paradigmatic analysis of
a text studies patterns other than internal relationships (which are covered by
the syntagmatic analysis). The use of one paradigm rather than another shapes
the preferred meaning of a text. This is the author’s encoded meaning for the
text which the reader must decode.
François Rastier continues the work of Greimas by developing a unified
theory of Interpretive Semantics. You can learn more about Interpretive
Semantics and Semantic Classes by reading this
overview.
Again, why should we care in this modern age? What relationship does
narratology and storytelling have to the business world seeking answers to
domain-specific issues such as finding bad people before they commit
cybercrimes, creating algorithms to sell more widgets, or automating boring
tasks in the back office so that people can focus on the creative work they do
best? In reality, there is always some object that someone is seeking:
- A business
is seeking profits by providing a service to clients.
- The
clients are seeking a product or service that facilitates or eases their
way of operating.
- A hacker
is trying to steal your data.
Each of these use cases is a story in progress, there is a Subject seeking
an Object. Sometimes there is an Opponent or Villain trying to keep the Subject
from the Object. It’s a tale as old as time. Whether talking about mythologies
or common business practices Subject → Verb → Direct Object is the formula with
variations on that theme. It’s the variations that make the story interesting.
“In the end, we’ll all become stories. Or else we’ll become entities.
Maybe it’s the same.” –Margaret Atwood, Moral Disorder
S. Bolding, Copyright © 2021 · Boldingbroke.com
[1] “ ...
la sémiotique française a voulu voir dans l’œuvre de Propp un modèle permettant
de mieux comprendre les principes mêmes de l’organisation des discours
narratifs dans leur ensemble.” A. J. Greimas, “Préface,” in Joseph Courtés,
Introduction à la sémiotique narrative et discursive (Paris: Hachette, 1976) 5.
[2] A. J.
Greimas, Du sens: Essais sémiotiques (Paris: Seuil, 1970); Dictionnaire
raisonné de la théorie du langage (Paris: Hachette, 1979).
[3]
Greimas described the actantial system in Sémantique structurale (Paris:
Larousse, 1966); he has elaborated upon his concepts somewhat in later
writings, such as Du sens (1970), and in Sémiotique narrative et textuelle (Paris:
Larousse, 1973).
[4] A. J.
Greimas, Du Sens…, 160.
[5]
Veridiction concerns the manner in which the intertextual category “true”
signifies differentially from the other categories in the model. J. Courtés,
Introduction à la sémiotique…, 131–36; see also A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés,
“The Cognitive Dimension of Narrative Discourse,” New Literary History
7 (1976): 433–47.
[6]
A. J. Greimas, Du Sens…, 157–83; Claude Bremond, Logique du récit (Paris:
Seuil, 1973) 11–128; Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse:
Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, N.Y. and London:
Cornell UP, 1978) 15–145.
[7]
The English translations of Greimas’ terms are taken from Gerald Prince, Dictionary…,
40, 67, 80, 86, 93.
[8]
Reproduced from A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structurale (Paris: Larousse, 1966)
180. For a discussion of the various actantial roles and models, see
specifically pages 129–134, 172–191.
[9] A. J.
Greimas, Maupassant: La Sémiotique du texte (Paris: Seuil, 1976) 167.
[10] “L’exemple des
mathématiques, mais aussi de la logique symbolique et, plus récemment encore,
de la linguistique, montre ce qu’on peut gagner en précision dans le
raisonnement et en facilité opératoire si, en disposant d’un corps de concepts
défini de façon univoque, on abandonne la langue « naturelle » pour noter ces
concepts symboliquement, à l’aide de caractères et de chiffres.” Greimas,
Sémantique structurale…, 17.
[11] Greimas gives a
clear summary of his actantial model as it relates to the formulaic
representation of narrative structures in “Préface,” Introduction à la
sémiotique narrative et discursive (Paris: Hachette, 1976) 5–25.
[12] “Par isotopie
nous entendons un ensemble redondant de catégories sémantiques qui rend
possible la lecture uniforme du récit...” Greimas, Du Sens…, 188.
[13] For an
example of the application of such formulas to a text, see Part II of Courtés’
book, where he applies this method to Cinderella.
Courtés, op. cit., 111–138. François Rastier is another
critic who uses similar formulas to represent structural relations on a
semantic level. François
Rastier, Sémantique interprétative (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
1987). In particular, see Part III, “Le Sémème dans tous ses états” and Part
IV, “Le Concept d’isotopie.” Donald Maddox applies the theories of
Greimas to Erec et Enide in Structuring and Sacring: The Systematic
Kingdom in Chrétien’s Erec et Enide (Lexington: French Forum,
1978). See especially Chapter 3, “Segmental Reading: The Structure of Content,”
41–72.
[14] J.
Courtés, op. cit., 62–100.
No comments:
Post a Comment