1
Dr. Richard Clarke LITS3304 Notes 05B
TZVETAN TODOROV "STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF NARRATIVE"
Here, Todorov declares that the goal of the structural analysis of narrative is not the description of a
concrete work of art in and for itself: the work is, rather, "considered as the manifestation of an abstract
structure, merely one of its possible reiterations" (70). Structural analysis is, as such, a theoretical rather
than a merely descriptiv e approach. It is also, however, an "internal approach" (70), that is, it does not
seek to relate the literary work to somethi ng external to language. For ex ample, Marxi sm and
Psychoanalysis seek to relate the work to an "abstract structure, social or psychic, which manifests itself
through that work" (70). However, if Structuralism seeks to relate the work to an abstract struct ure of
some kind, it seeks to do so in relation to a properly linguistic structure. Indeed, Todorov argues that
"literature must be understood in its specificity, as literature, before we seek to determine its relation to
anything else" (71). Structural analysis, in short, is not "satisfied by a pure description of t he work nor by
its interpretation in terms that are psychological or sociological or, indeed, philosophical" (70). It seeks
not a "rational resume of the concrete work" (71) but to understand the literary properties of individual
works as "particular instances that have been realized" (71) of a given set of rules, that is, as the parole
of an underlying langue. Todorov argues that Structuralist narratology i mplies to some degree an
inductive approach:
in practice, structural analysis will also refer to real works: the best stepping stone
towards theory is that of precise, empirical knowledge. But such analysis will discover in
each work what it has in common with others (studies of genres, of peri ods, for
example), or ev en with all other works (theory of liter ature). . . . [I]t i s always a question
of going continually back and forth, from abstract literary properties to individual works
and vice versa. (71)
Todorov is not shy about his goal, in so doing: that of effect ing a "propaedeutic for a future science of
literature" (my emphasis; 71). He points out that to focus on the intrinsic properties of the work in this
way constitutes a more objectiv e approach than any other critical approach. If there are still el ements of
subjectivism that inhere in this approach, Todorov asserts, this is no disgrace because no natural or
human sc ience is dev oid of al l trac es of subject iv e bias.
Todorov argues that the proper focus of structural analysis is plot. Todorov points out that the
minimal complete plot consists of a mov ement from one state of equilibrium through a state of
disequilibrium to a final state of equilibrium that is similar to, but not the same as, the first state of
equilibrium. Traditionally, narrative was analysed according to them e and rhetoric, that is, attenti on was
paid to what the text is about and the dicti on deployed to that end. Instead, Todorov wants to propose a
form of analysis that focuses on the syntax of narrative, that is, one that zeroes in on the syntagmatic
axis of the utterance (parole) that is a particular narrative. The goal of all this is to understand the
workings of plot in general (this would be the langue underlying al l plots) and to differenti ate between
various kinds of plot (i.e. the varying manifestations or paroles of this underlying langue). As in hi s other
well-known essay on narratology “The Grammar of Narrative,” Todorov draws upon Boccaccio's
collection of short stories called The Decameron to support his theory of narrative and manages to
distinguish between two types of story here: a) stories of punishment av oided, and b) stories of
conversion.
A careful study of the tal es reveals that they share some elem ents in common, for which what he
calls a "schematic formulation" predicated on the view that there is a profound analogy between a
sentence and narrative can be proposed. Todorov points out a number of things about this schematic
formulation:
a) The minim al element of t he plot can be considered as equivalent to a cl ause;
b) Each narrative ‘clause’ contains an agent / subject and a predicate t hat may consist of a v erb (an
action which will modif y the preceding situation) and / or an adjective / epithet which describes the
former;
c) Each actio n, and t hus cla use, has eithe r a posi tiv e or a negati ve status;
d) Each clause possesses a particular modality (e.g. the indicative or the imperativ e), which are
distinguished by the fact that they refer to actions that have actually transpired (the indicative) or exist in
potentiality;
e) Each clause contains a particular perspectiv e(s), the different poi nts of v iew of a character(s) and the
