He frightened sincerity

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: “A noun is partly defined by the combinations into which it can enter with prefixes and suffixes.” Friend can take be- and -ly but we don’t find “disfriend, friender, friendation, subfriend, overfriend, defriendize.”

What is the force of Culler’s “can”? Why “can’t” we say “I disfriended him” or “he’s more a subfriend than an overfriend”? The answer is, we can, and the sentences are sensible.

Culler, though, following Saussure is talking about the “can” of langue rather than parole . In the linguistic system of English, we don’t add de – or sub- to friend . 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.

Culler makes the same point about syntactical relations. There are pre-ordained syntags that might go with “he frightened,” which might include “George, the man standing on the corner, thirty-one fieldmice” but not “the stone, sincerity, purple, in.” Again, Culler uses the word “can”: “Our knowledge of the syntagmatic relations enables us to define for he frightened a paradigmatic class of items that can follow it.”

But we can say “he frightened the stone” or “he frightened sincerity.” 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.

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 , but that says relatively little about the possibilities of the actual exercise of language or the interpretation of literature.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…