<\/p>
Culler points out that there are both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations at every level of language. Nouns combine with prefixes and suffixes, and the possible syntagmatic combinations help to define the noun: \u201cA noun is partly defined by the combinations into which it can enter with prefixes and suffixes.\u201d Friend <\/em> can take be- <\/em> and -ly <\/em> but we don\u2019t find \u201cdisfriend, friender, friendation, subfriend, overfriend, defriendize.\u201d <\/p>\n What is the force of Culler\u2019s \u201ccan\u201d? Why \u201ccan\u2019t\u201d we say \u201cI disfriended him\u201d or \u201che\u2019s more a subfriend than an overfriend\u201d? The answer is, we can, and the sentences are sensible. <\/p>\n Culler, though, following Saussure is talking about the \u201ccan\u201d of langue <\/em> rather than parole <\/em> . In the linguistic system of English, we don\u2019t add de <\/em> \u2013 or sub- <\/em> to friend <\/em> . The fact that when we do add such prefixes we get arrestingly odd words is a sign that this is not part of the English sign-system. <\/p>\n Culler makes the same point about syntactical relations. There are pre-ordained syntags that might go with \u201che frightened,\u201d which might include \u201cGeorge, the man standing on the corner, thirty-one fieldmice\u201d but not \u201cthe stone, sincerity, purple, in.\u201d Again, Culler uses the word \u201ccan\u201d: \u201cOur knowledge of the syntagmatic relations enables us to define for he frightened <\/em> a paradigmatic class of items that can follow it.\u201d <\/p>\n But we can <\/em> say \u201che frightened the stone\u201d or \u201che frightened sincerity.\u201d In isolation these sentences make little sense, but put them in a narrative or a poem and they might well be enriching. Inventing utterances that violate the syntagmatic expectations, in fact, is stock-in-trade for many poets, especially modern(ist) ones. <\/p>\n This is not a refutation of Saussure or Culler. But it does suggest the limitations (which Saussure and Culler are quite well aware of) of the structuralist focus on synchronic system. Saussure and Culler may be entirely correct about langue <\/em> , but that says relatively little about the possibilities of the actual exercise of language or the interpretation of literature. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Culler points out that there are both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations at every level of language. Nouns combine with prefixes and suffixes, and the possible syntagmatic combinations help to define the noun: \u201cA noun is partly defined by the combinations into which it can enter with prefixes and suffixes.\u201d Friend can take be- and -ly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hermeneutics"],"yoast_head":"\n