Ist Yr in course Exam for Prose-- The Gift of the Magi

The Gift of the Magi

The story opens with $1.87. That's all Della Dillingham Young has to buy a present for her beloved husband, Jim. And the next day is Christmas. Faced with such a situation, Della promptly bursts into tears on the couch, which gives the narrator the opportunity to tell us a bit more about the situation of Jim and Della. The short of it is they live in a shabby flat and they're poor. But they love each other.

Once Della's recovered herself, she goes to a mirror to let down her hair and examine it. Della's beautiful, brown, knee-length hair is one of the two great treasures of the poor couple. The other is Jim's gold watch. Her hair examined, Della puts it back up, sheds a tear, and bundles up to head out into the cold. She leaves the flat and walks to Madame Sofronie's hair goods shop, where she sells her hair for twenty bucks. Now she has $21.87 cents.

With her new funds, Della is able to find Jim the perfect present: an elegant platinum watch chain for his watch. It's $21, and she buys it. Excited by her gift, Della returns home and tries to make her now-short hair presentable (with a curling iron). She's not convinced Jim will approve, but she did what she had to do to get him a good present. When she finishes with her hair, she gets to work preparing coffee and dinner.

Jim arrives at 7pm to find Della waiting by the door and stares fixedly at her, not able to understand that Della's hair is gone. Della can't understand quite what his reaction means. 

After a little while, Jim snaps out of it and gives Della her present, explaining that his reaction will make sense when she opens it. Della opens it and cries out in joy, only to burst into tears immediately afterward. Jim has given her the set of fancy combs she's wanted for ages, only now she has no hair for them. Jim nurses Della out of her sobs. Once she's recovered she gives Jim his present, holding out the watch chain. Jim smiles, falling back on the couch. He sold his watch to buy Della's combs, he explains. He recommends they put away their presents and have dinner. As they do so, the narrator brings the story to a close by pronouncing that Della and Jim are the wisest of everyone who gives gifts. They are the magi.

"Gift of the Magi" is the story of a poor, young couple whose love for each other is the most important thing in their lives. Such is their love that they're led to sacrifice their most valuable possessions to find Christmas gifts for each other. The warm home they make together contrasts with the drabness of their poverty and the dreary world outside. Their love seems to know no bounds, though Della (the wife) worries about how her sacrifice will affect her husband because of how it affects her looks. If ever there were a story with the message that all you need to be happy is love, this is it.

The two main characters in "Gift of the Magi" are a husband and wife who give up their most precious possessions to be able to afford gifts for each other on Christmas Eve. The story seems to be all about sacrifice. We watch Della go through the process of deciding to make the sacrifice and going through with it, only to discover that her husband has made the same sacrifice. The story's narrator assures us that in their willingness to give up all they have, they have proven themselves the wisest of all gift-givers. It might remain unclear, though, exactly what their sacrifice has accomplished, or how it has affected them.

In many ways, "Gift of the Magi" is a story about what it means for something to be valuable. Does something's value lie in how much money it is worth? Or are other things more valuable than money? The main characters are very poor – this is repeatedly emphasized – and yet the story suggests that their love for each other makes them very rich. It is that love, which motivates them to give up the only things of monetary (or personal) value they have to buy presents for each other. Perhaps their poverty is what enables them to appreciate what really matters.

M.H

A Prayer for my Daughter

It is important to read this poem alongside another famous poem by Yeats, which was actually written just a few months before this poem, "The Second Coming." In this earlier work, Yeats sets out his prophecy of doom and gloom, anticipating the "Mere anarchy" and "blood-dimmed tide" that was set loose on the world due to political changes such as the Russian Revolution and the rise of fascism. Many critics view "A Prayer for My Daughter" as being a discussion of how to live and transcend such disturbing events.

The poem begins with an account of the speaker praying for his daughter in the midst of a "howling" storm because of a "great gloom" that dominates his mind. Having effectively prophesied a massive upheaval in the world order, now that he has a daughter, Yeats is concerned about the kind of world that she will grow up in. Note how the violence of nature finds a parallel in the violence that is to come as the speaker in the second stanza imagines the future years "Dancing to a frenzied drum" as the storm rages outside.

He prays that his daughter will develop the kind of characteristics that the women he loved did not possess. His former lover, Maud Gonne, was beautiful and aware of it and also fired by nationalistic fervour. Yeats prays that his daughter, by contrast, will be given beauty, but not too much, because too much beauty can lead to vanity and an inability to relate to others. He wishes her to learn "courtesy" and hopes that she can have a life marked by stability and security, becoming a "flourishing hidden tree." Above all he wants her to marry into a home where tradition dominates, for as he says:

How but in custom and in ceremony 
Are innocence and beauty born? 
Ceremony's a name for the rich horn, 
And custom for the spreading laurel tree.

In an uncertain world with an uncertain future, therefore, Yeats seems to argue that the disturbing changes in the world can be overcome through a life lived focusing on traditional values and the importance of human kindness.

We can assume that W.B. Yeats' experiences have served to influence the things he wishes for his daughter in the poem, "A Prayer for My Daughter."

The first thing Yeats wishes is that his daughter will be given beauty, but not the kind that will distract others or herself—that others might become "distraught" by her beauty, or that shemight become too preoccupied with her own image in the mirror. For some people, beauty becomes more important than anything and the pursuit of beauty leads one to believe that having it means that nothing else is important in life. For some, having beauty robs them of "natural kindness," as well as honest "intimacy," which allow one to make the right choices—rather than to idolize beauty to the extent of all else, and not ever be able to find a true friend.

Yeats alludes to famous women who were considered beautiful, and that life wasn't actually so great for them. He speaks of Helen of Troy and Venus, the goddess of love. Yeats knows that beauty is fleeting: what he wishes for his daughter is to have knowledge or "have her chiefly learned..." of "courtesy."

Yeats has experience the pain that accompanies great beauty in a woman, in his love for Maud Gonne (an "actress and political activist"). While beautiful, this woman (who he met at twenty-two and wooed for almost thirty years) did not have the special qualities of the woman who Yeats ultimately married, Georgie Hyde-Lees. Gonne's beauty brought her no satisfaction, and left Yeats greatly frustrated:

Yeats suggests that kindness and generosity breed trust and affection between people. Yeats would also wish his daughter a life of stability and deep-rootedness—that is, a quiet life away from noisy thoroughfares.

Yeats did not want his daughter deeply involved with the very things that seemed in his mind to be distressful:

..."intellectual, political, financial, or emotional struggle."

He wanted his daughter to think less about her appearance and "cultivate her own personal worth...and her soul." Yeats' experiences with Gonne and then his wife showed two very different women, and based upon his relationships with both women, he seemed to believe that the characteristics his wife had were the qualities most admirable, and those he hoped his daughter would also have also.

In this poem we see yeats in the role of an anxious father brooding over his young daughter's future. the storm that howls outside is symbolic of the turbulent times in which Yeats lived. The future to Yeats is an apocalyptic vision. Yeats wants his daughter to inherit the traits and and a character that would allow her to lead a complete and fulfilling life in the world. he wants her to be beautiful but not to the exten 'to make a strnager's eye disraught,/Or hers before a looking-glass'. An excess of beauty is rather a curse than a blessing because not only does it deceive those who look upon it but also its possesor.

It’s interesting that the first request and also the large portion of the poem have to do with the daughter’s looks, and not who she is as a person. Although the way Yeats sees it, the two go hand-in-hand. He believes the beauty has the ability to corrupt (both his daughter and everyone around her).

Yeats cites the example of Helen of Troy and of Aphrodite(Venus) to drive in this point.The father shudders at the thought of her daughter turning out to be like Helen who couldn't hepl being unfaithful as she was so beautiful. He goes on to say that some lovely women like the Queen, who didn't have an imposing father who would restrain her, chose an ordinaty smith instead of marrying a hansome yet virtuous man matching her social standing.

Yeats says he would ; have her chiefly learned;/ Hearts are not had as gifts but hearts are earned' He wishes his daughter to be humble and like a 'flourishing hidden tree'. He wants her to be rooted in the same social class of her family. She shouldn't be crafty like some women who employ their charms to use people to their advantage. He mentions that it is a woman's compassion that enamours a man in the end.

Yeats then appears to take a very conservative outmoded view of wome.He speaks of how “intellectual hatred is the worst” (57). This is a curious pronouncement which he clarifies in the next line: “So let her think opinions are accursed” (58). Thus Yeats seemingly wants his daughter to have few thoughts and opinions of her own. He later wishes that “she can… be happy still” in the face of great adversity (65-67). This conjures pictures of the stereotypical 1950′s house wife to the modern reader. A quiet, respectful woman who knows her place in the home and family. While this would be quite an anachronism for Yeats, it nevertheless can be interpreted by a modern mind as overly conservative. Yeats seals this conservative attitude with “how but in custom and in ceremony are innocence and beauty born?” (72-73)

MH

HONS First year In course Exam Topic for READING skill: 2015. Exam date: 21-01-2015

Men usually want to have their own way. They want to think and act as they like. No one, however, can have his own way all the time. A man cannot live in society without considering the interests of others as well as his own interests. 'Society' means a group of people with the same laws and the same way of life. People in society may make their own decisions, but these decisions ought not to be unjust or harmful to others. One man's decision may so easily harm another person. For example, a motorist may be in a hurry to get to a friend's house. He sets out, driving at full speed like a competitor in a motor race. There are other vehicles and also pedestrians on the road. Suddenly there is a crash. There are screams  and confusions. One careless motorist has struck another car. The collision has injured two of the passengers and killed the third. Too many road accidents happen through the thoughtlessness of selfish drivers.

We have governments, the police and the law courts to prevent or to punish such criminal acts. But in addition, all men ought to observe certain rules of conduct. Every man ought to behave with consideration for other men. He ought not to steal, cheat or destroy the property of others. There is no place for this sort of behaviour in a civilized society.

Men in a free society have certain privileges. The govt. and the police do not watch all their movements. Officials do not dictate to them everything they may or may not do. Men in free society may think as they please. They may even choose their own govt. In return for these privileges they ought not to act selfishly. They ought always to respect the rights of others. It is very important for men to remember this. Wherever they may live, whether In a  town or in a village, in a large or small community, they ought not to behave thoughtlessly. The happiness of a community depends on the behaviour of its individual members. It is every good citizen's responsibility to give as well as to receive.

MH

3rd YR. linguistics, Language

language, a system of conventional spoken or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. The functions of language include communication, the expression of identity, play, imaginative expression, and emotional release.

Characteristics of language

Definitions of language

Many definitions of language have been proposed. Henry Sweet, an English phonetician and language scholar, stated: “Language is the expression of ideas by means of speech-sounds combined into words. Words are combined into sentences, this combination answering to that of ideas into thoughts.” The American linguists Bernard Bloch and George L. Trager formulated the following definition: “A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates.” Any succinct definition of language makes a number of presuppositions and begs a number of questions. The first, for example, puts excessive weight on “thought,” and the second uses “arbitrary” in a specialized, though legitimate, way.

A number of considerations enter into a proper understanding of language as a subject:

1. Every physiologically and mentally normal person acquires in childhood the ability to make use, as both speaker and hearer, of a system of vocal communication that comprises a circumscribed set of noises resulting from movements of certain organs within the throat and mouth. By means of these noises, people are able to impart information, to express feelings and emotions, to influence the activities of others, and to comport themselves with varying degrees of friendliness or hostility toward persons who make use of substantially the same set of noises.

2. Different systems of vocal communication constitute different languages; the degree of difference needed to establish a different language cannot be stated exactly. No two people speak exactly alike; hence, one is able to recognize the voices of friends over the telephone and to keep distinct a number of unseen speakers in a radio broadcast. Yet, clearly, no one would say that they speak different languages. Generally, systems of vocal communication are recognized as different languages if they cannot be understood without specific learning by both parties, though the precise limits of mutual intelligibility are hard to draw and belong on a scale rather than on either side of a definite dividing line. Substantially different systems of communication that may impede but do not prevent mutual comprehension are called dialects of a language. In order to describe in detail the actual different speech patterns of individuals, the term idiolect, meaning the speech habits of a single person, has been coined.

3. Normally, people acquire a single language initially—their first language, or mother tongue, the language spoken by their parents or by those with whom they are brought up from infancy. Subsequent “second” languages are learned to different degrees of competence under various conditions. Complete mastery of two languages is designated as bilingualism; in many cases—such as upbringing by parents speaking different languages at home or being raised within a multilingual community (a routine experience in Africa and Southeast Asia, for example)—speakers grow up as bilinguals. In traditionally monolingual cultures, such as those of Britain and the United States, the learning, to any extent, of a second or other language is an activity superimposed on the prior mastery of one’s first language and is a different process intellectually.

4. Language, as described above, is species-specific to human beings. Other members of the animal kingdom have the ability to communicate, through vocal noises or by other means, but the most important single feature characterizing human language (that is, every individual language), against every known mode of animal communication, is its infinite productivity and creativity. Human beings are unrestricted in what they can talk about; no area of experience is accepted as necessarily incommunicable, though it may be necessary to adapt one’s language in order to cope with new discoveries or new modes of thought.

Animal communication systems are by contrast very tightly circumscribed in what may be communicated. Indeed, displaced reference, the ability to communicate about things outside immediate temporal and spatial contiguity, which is fundamental to speech, is found elsewhere only in the so-called language of bees. Bees are able, by carrying out various conventionalized movements (referred to as bee dances) in or near the hive, to indicate to others the locations and strengths of nectar sources. But nectar sources are the only known theme of this communication system. Surprisingly, however, this system, nearest to human language in function, belongs to a species remote from man in the animal kingdom and is achieved by very different physiological activities from those involved in speech. On the other hand, the animal performance superficially most like human speech, the mimicry of parrots and of some other birds that have been kept in the company of humans, is wholly derivative and serves no independent communicative function. Humankind’s nearest relatives among the primates, though possessing a vocal physiology similar to that of humans, have not developed anything like a spoken language. Attempts to teach sign language to chimpanzees and other apes through imitation have achieved limited success, though the interpretation of the significance of ape signing ability remains controversial.

5. In most accounts, the primary purpose of language is to facilitate communication, in the sense of transmission of information from one person to another. However, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic studies have drawn attention to a range of other functions for language. Among these is the use of language to express a national or local identity (a common source of conflict in situations of multiethnicity around the world, such as in Belgium, India, and Quebec). Also important are the “ludic” (playful) function of language—encountered in such phenomena as puns, riddles, and crossword puzzles—and the range of functions seen in imaginative or symbolic contexts, such as poetry, drama, and religious expression.

Language interacts with every aspect of human life in society, and it can be understood only if it is considered in relation to society. This article attempts to survey language (both spoken and written) in this light and to consider its various functions and the purposes it can and has been made to serve. Because each language is both a working system of communication in the period and in the community wherein it is used and also the product of its history and the source of its future development, any account of language must consider it from both these points of view.

The science of language is known as linguistics. It includes what are generally distinguished as descriptive linguistics and historical linguistics. Linguistics is now a highly technical subject; it embraces, both descriptively and historically, such major divisions as phonetics, grammar (includingsyntax and morphology), semantics, and pragmatics, dealing in detail with these various aspects of language.

Characteristics and Features of Language

Language is, today, an inseparable part of human society. Human civilization has been possible only through language. It is through language only that humanity has come out of the stone age and has developed science, art and technology in a big way.  Language is a means of communication, it is arbitrary, it is a system of systems. We know that Speech is primary while writing is secondary.

Language is human so it differs from animal communication in several ways.  Language can have scores of characteristics but the following are the most important ones: language is arbitrary, productive, creative, systematic, vocalic, social, non-instinctive and conventional. These characteristics of language set human language apart from animal communication. Some of these features may be part of animal communication; yet they do not form part of it in total.

Language is Arbitrary: Language is arbitrary in the sense that there is no inherent relation between the words of a language and their meanings or the ideas conveyed by them. There is no reason why a female adult human being be called a woman in English, aurat in Urdu, Zen in Persian and Femine in French. The choice of a word selected to mean a particular thing or idea is purely arbitrary but once a word is selected for a particular referent, it comes to stay as such. It may be noted that had language not been arbitrary, there would have been only one language in the world.

Language is Social: Language is a set of conventional communicative signals used by humans for communication in a community. Language in this sense is a possession of a social group, comprising an indispensable set of rules which permits its members to relate to each other, to interact with each other, to co-operate with each other; it is a social institution. Language exists in society; it is a means of nourishing and developing culture and establishing human relations.

Language is Symbolic: Language consists of various sound symbols and their graphological counterparts that are employed to denote some objects, occurrences or meaning. These symbols are arbitrarily chosen and conventionally accepted and employed. Words in a language are not mere signs or figures, but symbols of meaning. The intelligibility of a language depends on a correct interpretation of these symbols.

Language is Systematic: Although language is symbolic, yet its symbols are arranged in a particular system. All languages have their system of arrangements. Every language is a system of systems. All languages have phonological and grammatical systems, and within a system there are several sub-systems. For example, within the grammatical system we have morphological and syntactic systems, and within these two sub-systems we have systems such as those of plural, of mood, of aspect, of tense, etc.

Language is Vocal: Language is primarily made up of vocal sounds only produced by a physiological articulatory mechanism in the human body. In the beginning, it appeared as vocal sounds only. Writing came much later, as an intelligent attempt to represent vocal sounds. Writing is only the graphic representation of the sounds of the language. So the linguists say that speech is primary.

Language is Non-instinctive, Conventional: No language was created in a day out of a mutually agreed upon formula by a group of humans. Language is the outcome of evolution and convention. Each generation transmits this convention on to the next. Like all human institutions languages also change and die, grow and expand. Every language then is a convention in a community. It is non-instinctive because it is acquired by human beings. Nobody gets a language in heritage; he acquires it because he an innate ability.

Language is Productive and Creative: Language has creativity and productivity. The structural elements of human language can be combined to produce new utterances, which neither the speaker nor his hearers may ever have made or heard before any, listener, yet which both sides understand without difficulty. Language changes according to the needs of society. 

Finally, language has other characteristics such as Duality referring to the two systems of sound and meaning, Displacement which means the ability to talk across time and space, Humanness which means that animals cannot acquire it, Universality which refers to the equilibrium across humanity on linguistic grounds, Competence and Performance which means that language is innate and produced is society and furthermore, language is culturally transmitted. It is learnt by an individual from his elders, and is transmitted from one generation to another.  Thus using J. Firth’s term, language is a ‘polysystametic’. It is also open to be studied from multifaceted angles. 

Language and parole

These are Saussure's terms. Langue refers to the abstract system of rules and conventions of a signifying system-it is independent of, and pre-exists, individual users. Parole refers to concrete instances of its use. To the Saussurean semiotician, what matters most are the underlying structures and rules of a semiotic system as a whole rather than specific performances or practices which are merely instances of its use. Whilst Saussure did not concern himself with parole, the structure of langue is of course revealed by the study of parole. Applying the notion to semiotic systems in general rather than simply to language, the distinction is one between the semiotic system and its usage in specific texts and practices. For instance, in a semiotic system such as cinema, any specific film can be seen as the parole of the underlying system of cinema'language'(although note that the eminent film theorist Christian Metz rejected the idea of a cinematic langue). Saussure emphasized the importance of studying the'language-state'synchronically-as it exists as a relatively stable system during a certain period-rather than diachronically (studying its evolution). Description Langue and parole are more than just 'language and speech' (although this is a useful quick way of remembering them). Langue La langue is the whole system of language that precedes and makes speech possible. A sign is a basic unit of langue. Learning a language, we master the system of grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation. These are all elements of langue. Langue is a system in that it has a large number of elements whereby meaning is created in the arrangements of its elements and the consequent relationships between these arranged elements. Parole Parole is the concrete use of the language, the actual utterances. It is an external manifestation of langue. It is the usage of the system, but not the system. Discussion By defining Langue and Parole, Saussure differentiates between the language and how it is used, and therefore enabling these two very different things to be studied as separate entities. As a structuralist, Saussure was interested more in la langue than parole. It was the system by which meaning could be created that was of interest rather than individual instances of its use. Marxist Mikhail Bakhtin (1929) criticized the splitting of langue and parole as separating individuals and society where it matters most, at the point of production. He developed a 'dialogic' theory of utterances where language is understood in terms of how it orients the speaker/writer to the listener/reader. Words are subject to negotiation, contest and struggle. Language is strongly affected by social context. Modification of langue at the point of parole is used to create new meaning, either where the speaker has limited grasp of language or where deliberate distortion is used. In linguistics, language as an abstract system of signs (the underlying structure of a language), in contrast to parole, the individual expressions of language (speech acts that are the products of langue). Etymology: French term for "language" as defined by Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure in Course in General Linguistics (1916) Observations: ·         "Saussure distinguished between; - langue, the rules of sign system (which might be grammar) and - parole, the articulation of signs (for example, speech or writing), the sum of which is language: language = langue + parole While langue could be the rules of, say, English grammar, it does not mean parole always has to conform to the rules of standard English (what some people erroneously call 'proper' English). Langue is less rigid than the phrase 'set of rules' implies, it is more a guideline and is inferred from the parole. Language is often likened to an iceberg: the parole is visible, but the rules, the supporting structure, are hidden." (Nick Lacey, Image and Representation: Key Concepts in Media Studies. Palgrave, 1998) ·         "Langue/Parole--The reference here is to the distinction made by the Swiss linguist Saussure. Where parole is the realm of the individual moments of language use, of particular 'utterances' or 'messages,' whether spoken or written, langue is the system or code (le code de la langue') which allows the realization of the individual messages. As the language-system, object of linguistics, langue is thus totally to be differentiated from language, the heterogeneous totality with which the linguist is initially faced and which may be studied from a variety of points of view, partaking as it does of the physical, the physiological, the mental, the individual and the social. It is precisely by delimiting its specific object (that is, of the langue, the system of the language) that Saussure founds linguistics as a science." (Stephen Heath, Translator's Note in Image-Music-Text by Roland Barthes. Macmillan, 1988) ·         "The language system [langue] is not a function of the speaking subject, it is the product which the individual registers passively; it never presupposes premeditation, and reflection only comes into it for the activity of classification which will be discussed later." (Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 1916; translated by Wade Baskin, 1959)  Inter dependency of Langue and Parole "Saussure's Course does not overlook the importance of reciprocal conditioning between langue and parole. If it is true that langue is implied by parole, parole, on the other hand, takes priority on two levels, namely that of learning and that of development: 'it is in hearing others that we learn our mother tongue; it manages to settle in our brain only after countless experiences. Finally, it is parole that makes langue develop: it is the impressions received by hearing others that alter our linguistic habits. Thus langue and parole are interdependent; the former is both the instrument and the product of the latter' (1952, 27)." SYNTAGMATIC AND PARADIGMATIC RELATIONS: LANGUE AS FORM, NOT SUBSTANCE  Ferdinand de Saussure in Linguistics Saussure distinguishes between the “syntagmatic” relations a linguistic clement has with the elements preceding and following it in an utterance, and “associative” (now usually called paradigmatic) relations it has to other elements with which it shares partial identity, but which do not occur in the particular utterance at hand. For example, in the sentence “Crime pays” the clement crime has asyntagmatic relationship with “pays” that determines, among other things, their order relative to one another and the fact that pays has the inflectional -s. At the same time, crime has paradigmatic relations with countless other elements, including the inflcctionally related crimes, the derivationally related criminal, the conceptually related misdemeanour (and the conceptually opposite legality), and the phonetically related “grime”. Langue, Saussure insisted, is form, not substance. According to Saussure the value of each linguistic sign determined by its relationship to other signs within an utterance (syntgmatic), and by its relationship to other signs that could replace it in its position (paradigamtic relationship – F. de Saussure himself used the term “associative”). Saussurean notion of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations became the hallmark of the 20th century Linguistics: first, because it proposed that a single principle of structure unites all the levels at which language functions — sound, forms, and meaning; second, because it suggested a Way of analyzing language that would not depend on a simple listing of elements with their “translation” into either another language or some sort of philosophical interpretation. Elements could henceforth be analyzed according to the relations they maintained with other elements, and the language could be understood as the vast system — not of these elements — but of these relations. Paradigms and Syntagms Semiotics is probably best-known as an approach to textual analysis, and in this form it is characterized by a concern with structural analysis. Structuralist semiotic analysis involves identifying the constituent units in a semiotic system (such as a text or socio-cultural practice) and the structural relationships between them (oppositions, correlations and logical relations). Saussure was 'concerned exclusively with three sorts of systemic relationships: that between a   signifier and a signified; those between a sign and all of the other elements of its system; and those between a sign and the elements which surround it within a concrete signifying instance' (Silverman 1983, 10). He emphasized that meaning arises from the differences between signifiers; these differences are of two kinds: syntagmatic (concerning positioning) and paradigmatic (concerning substitution). Saussure called the latterassociative relations (Saussure 1983, 121; Saussure 1974, 122). but Roman Jakobson's term is now used. The distinction is a key one in structuralist semiotic analysis. These two dimensions are often presented as 'axes', where the horizontal axis is the syntagmatic and the vertical axis is the paradigmatic. The plane of the syntagm is that of the combination of 'this-and-this-and-this' (as in the sentence, 'the man cried') whilst the plane of the paradigm is that of the selection of 'this-or-this-or-this' (e.g. the replacement of the last word in the same sentence with 'died' or 'sang'). Whilst syntagmatic relations are possibilities of combination, paradigmatic relations are functional contrasts - they involve differentiation. Temporally, syntagmatic relations refer intratextually to other signifiers co-present within the text, whilst paradigmatic relations refer intertextually to signifiers which are absent from the text (Saussure 1983, 122; Saussure 1974, 123). The 'value' of a sign is determined by both its paradigmatic and its syntagmatic relations. Syntagms and paradigms provide a structural context within which signs make sense; they are the structural forms through which signs are organized into codes. Paradigmatic relationships can operate on the level of the signifier, the signified or both (Saussure 1983, 121-124; Saussure 1974, 123-126; Silverman 1983, 10; Harris 1987, 124). A paradigm is a set of associated signifiers or signifieds which are all members of some defining category, but in which each is significantly different. In natural language there are grammatical paradigms such as verbs or nouns. 'Paradigmatic relations are those which belong to the same set by virtue of a function they share... A sign enters into paradigmatic relations with all the signs which can also occur in the same context but not at the same time' (Langholz Leymore 1975, 8). In a given context, one member of the paradigm set is structurally replaceable with another. 'Signs are in paradigmatic relation when the choice of one excludes the choice of another' (Silverman & Torode 1980, 255). The use of one signifier (e.g. a particular word or a garment) rather than another from the same paradigm set (e.g. respectively, adjectives or hats) shapes the preferred meaning of a text. Paradigmatic relations can thus be seen as 'contrastive'. Note that the significance of the differences between even apparently synonymous signifiers is at the heart of Whorfian theories about language. Saussure's notion of 'associative' relations was broader and less formal than what is normally meant by 'paradigmatic' relations. He referred to 'mental association' and included perceived similarities in form (e.g. homophones) or meaning (e.g. synonyms). Such similarities were diverse and ranged from strong to slight, and might refer to only part of a word (such as a shared prefix or suffix). He noted that there was no end (or commonly agreed order) to such associations (Saussure 1983, 121-124; Saussure 1974, 123-126). In film and television, paradigms include ways of changing shot (such as cut, fade, dissolve and wipe). The medium or genre are also paradigms, and particular media texts derive meaning from the ways in which the medium and genre used differs from the alternatives. The aphorism of Marshall McLuhan (1911-80) that 'the medium is the message' can thus be seen as reflecting a semiotic concern: to a semiotician the medium is not 'neutral'. A syntagm is an orderly combination of interacting signifiers which forms a meaningful whole within a text - sometimes, following Saussure, called a 'chain'. Such combinations are made within a framework of syntactic rules and conventions (both explicit and inexplicit). In language, a sentence, for instance, is a syntagm of words; so too are paragraphs and chapters. 'There are always larger units, composed of smaller units, with a relation of interdependence holding between both' (Saussure 1983, 127; Saussure 1974, 128): syntagms can contain other syntagms. A printed advertisement is a syntagm of visual signifiers. Syntagmatic relations are the various ways in which elements within the same text may be related to each other. Syntagms are created by the linking of signifiers from paradigm sets which are chosen on the basis of whether they are conventionally regarded as appropriate or may be required by some rule system (e.g. grammar). Synatagmatic relations highlight the importance of part-whole relationships: Saussure stressed that 'the whole depends on the parts, and the parts depend on the whole' (Saussure 1983, 126; Saussure 1974, 128). Syntagms are often defined as 'sequential' (and thus temporal - as in speech and music), but they can represent spatial relationships. Saussure himself (who emphasized 'auditory signifiers' which 'are presented one after another' and 'form a chain') noted that visual signifiers (he instanced nautical flags) 'can exploit more than one dimension simultaneously' (Saussure 1983, 70; Saussure 1974, 70). Spatial syntagmatic relations are found in drawing, painting and photography. Many semiotic systems - such as drama, cinema, television and the world wide web - include both spatial and temporal syntagms. Thwaites et al. argue that within a genre, whilst the syntagmatic dimension is the textual structure, the paradigmatic dimension can be as broad as the choice of subject matter (Thwaites et al. 1994, 95). In this framing, form is a syntagmatic dimension whilst content is a paradigmatic dimension. However, form is also subject to paradigmatic choices and content to syntagmatic arrangement. Jonathan Culler offers an example of the syntagmatic relations and paradigmatic contrasts involved in Western menus: In the food system... one defines on the syntagmatic axis the combinations of courses which can make up meals of various sorts; and each course or slot can be filled by one of a number of dishes which are in paradigmatic contrast with one another (one wouldn't combine roast beef and lamb chops in a single meal; they would be alternatives on any menu). These dishes which are alternative to one another often bear different meanings in that they connote varying degrees of luxury, elegance, etc. (Culler 1985, 104). Roland Barthes (1967) outlined the paradigmatic and syntagmatic elements of the 'garment system' in similar terms. The paradigmatic elements are the items which cannot be worn at the same time on the same part of the body (such as hats, trousers, shoes). The syntagmatic dimension is the juxtaposition of different elements at the same time in a complete ensemble from hat to shoes. Expanding on an example offered by David Lodge, Susan Spiggle explains in more detail how this might apply to a girl wearing a tee-shirt, jeans and sandals: 1. She selects signs from three paradigms (i.e. sets of possible signs - upper body garments, lower body garments, and footwear). Each paradigm contains a possible set of pieces from which she can choose only one. From the upper-body-garment paradigm (including blouses, tee-shirts, tunics, sweaters), she selects one. These items share a similar structure, function, and/or other attribute with others in the set: they are related to one another on the basis of similarity. She further selects items related by similarity from the lower-body-garment and footwear paradigms. A socially defined, shared classification system or code shapes her selections. 2. She combines the selected signs through rules (i.e., tee-shirts go with sandals, not high heels), sending a message through the ensemble - the syntagm. Selection requires her to perceive similarity and opposition among signs within the set (the paradigm), classifying them as items having the same function or structure, only one of which she needs. She can substitute, or select, a blouse for the tee-shirt - conveying a different message. The combination, tee-shirt–jeans–sandals, requires her to know the 'rules by which garments are acceptably combined... The combination... is, in short, a kind of sentence' (Lodge 1977, 74). The tee-shirt–jeans–sandals syntagm conveys a different meaning (sends a different message) at the beach than at a formal occasion. (Spiggle 1998, 159) In the case of film, our interpretation of an individual shot depends on both paradigmatic analysis (comparing it, not necessarily consciously, with the use of alternative kinds of shot) and syntagmatic analysis (comparing it with preceding and following shots). The same shot used within another sequence of shots could have quite a different preferred reading. Actually, filmic syntagms are not confined to such temporal syntagms (which are manifested in montage: the sequencing of shots) but include the spatial syntagms found also in still photography (in mise-en-scène: the composition of individual frames). Both syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis treat signs as part of a system - exploring their functions within codes and sub-codes - a topic to which we will return. Although we will discuss syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations separately, it should be emphasized that the semiotic analysis of a text or corpus has to tackle the system as a whole, and that the two dimensions cannot be considered in isolation. The description of any semiotic system involves specifying both the membership of all of the relevant paradigmatic sets and also the possible combinations of one set with another in well-formed syntagms. For the analyst, according to Saussure (who was, of course, focusing on the language system as a whole), 'the system as a united whole is the starting point, from which it becomes possible, by a process of analysis, to identify its constituent elements'; one cannot try to construct the system by working upwards from the constituent elements (Saussure 1983, 112; Saussure 1974, 113). However, Roland Barthes argued that 'an important part of the semiological undertaking' was to divide texts 'into minimal significant units... then to group these units into paradigmatic classes, and finally to classify the syntagmatic relations which link these units' (Barthes 1967, 48; cf. Langholz Leymore 1975, 21 and Lévi-Strauss 1972, 211). In practice, the analyst is likely to need to move back and forth between these two approaches as the analysis proceeds. M.H