That is the reason these isotopies are concerned with sentences, al-though at first glance they seem to apply only to definite descriptions. In each case they are characterized by paradigmatic disjunction: they de-pend on the fact that the code includes lexical expressions with a multi-ple meaning. It is evident that the paradigmatic disjunction derives from a co-textual pressure that operates syntagmatically, but that does not eliminate the need to decide what reading to assign to one or more com-ponential spectrums.
Moreover, these isotopies are denotatively exclusive: the subject is either the evangelical in spirit, or it is herbs. The topic intervenes as a concur-rent, cooperative hypothesis to individuate contextual selections.3
6.2. Discursive isotopies within sentences with syntagmatic disjunction
Transformational grammar has accustomed us to ambiguous sentences such as the following:
(2) They are flying planes
which can generate two different deep structures. In disambiguating the sentence, paradigmatic disjunctions undoubtedly apply (it is necessary, for instance, to decide whether the verb should be understood as active or as passive), but the fundamental decision (always deriving from the prior selection of a topic) is whether the subject is humans doing some-thing with the airplanes or airplanes doing something. At that point, it is necessary to actuate a co-reference and establish to whom or to what they refers. We could say that the co-referential (syntagmatic) decision de-termines the paradigmatic choice concerning the meaning of the verb.
These isotopies, too, are denotatively exclusive: either the subject is a human action or it is mechanical objects.
- class="wp-block-list">
- The distinction between isotopies with paradigmatic disjunction and those with syn-tagmatic disjunction corresponds to the one between vertical and horizontal isotopies
proposed by Rastier and discussed in Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1976:24—25).
Here the topic intervenes as a concurrent hypothesis to actualize both co-references and contextual selections.
6.3. Discursive isotopies between sentences with paradigmatic disjunction
Let us examine in this connection the little story of two fellows convers-ing during a party, cited by Greimas (1966). The first praises the food, the service, the hospitality, the beauty of the women, and finally the excellence of the “toilettes.” The second replies that he has not yet been there. The second speaker, in interpreting the text uttered by the first, blunders because he superimposes two frames (cf. Eco 1979). The frame ‘party’ undoubtedly includes the host’s garments, but cannot in-clude the condition of the sanitary facilities, or it would have to consider also the electrical system, the water supply, the solidity of the walls, and the layout of the rooms. These elements are considered at most as be-longing, say, to a frame such as ‘interior architecture and furnishing’.
The party refers to a frame that is social in nature, furnishings to one that is technological. The individuation of the topic in this case is the individuation of the semantic field, so as to enable contextual selections to be effected. The French term /toilettes/ is undoubtedly polysemic and acquires two meanings according to the disjunction between the selec-tion «fashion» (which in turn belongs to a seme of social nature) and the selection «architecture». In this case, we can certainly speak of the pres-ence of a classeme or a dominant semantic category, since the text of the first speaker in fact abounded in key terms containing references to the party and to the social nature of the situation. There were no misunder-standings possible, and the story makes us laugh precisely because it constitutes a case of awkward textual cooperation.
These isotopies have paradigmatic disjunction because, if only on the basis of co-textual (syntagmatic) pressure, they concern contextual selections in lexemes with multiple meaning. These isotopies, too, are denotatively exclusive: the subject is either clothing or it is bathrooms. The topic intervenes as a concurrent cooperative hypothesis, to individuate contextual selections that hypothesize frames.
6.4. Discursive isotopies between sentences with syntagmatic disjunction
This is the case of the ambiguous sentence
(3) Charles makes love with his wife twice a week. So does John.
The point is whether this short text should be read as the story of two couples or as the story of a triangle. In this case, too, we have discursive isocopies with alternative denotations. In extensional terms, it is a matte of deciding whether there are three people involved or four (see 6.1.8 ) In order to do so, it is necessary to decide how so should be interpreted but then it is a matter of establishing a co-reference. The choice con-cerns the syntactic structure of the sentence, and only through a syntac-tic decision is the one or the other semantic result obtained. As already seen, it is through the selection of the topic that the decision is made as to whether the subject is two couples or a triangle: in the first case the logical structure of the text would be А:В = C:D, whereas in the second it would be А:В = B:C.
It is a problem of interpretive coherence; if four individuals are concerned and if A and В are compared in the first sentence, so means that in the second sentence С and D should be com-pared; if, on the other hand, three people are involved and if A and В are compared in the first sentence, so means that in the second В and С should be compared. But it is not obvious how the two interpretive de-cisions derive from the redundance of semantic categories. Here the connection is between the topic and coreferential decisions, without the mediation of contextual selections. At the most, as already seen, presuppositions of frames are involved.
The two isotopies are characterized by syntagmatic disjunction. They are mutually exclusive (the subject is either the Kinsey report or it is the story of adultery), but they are by no means denotatively alternative: some of the individuals remain the same in each case, only they are ascribed different actions and intentions.
The topic intervenes as a cooperative concurrent hypothesis to estab-lish the co-references, thus orienting the structuralization of different narrative worlds.
6.5. Narrative isotopies connected with isotopic discursive disjunctions generating mutually exclusive stories
The following text is the French translation of an extract from Machiavelli.4It is irrelevant whether the original Italian text shows the same ambiguity as the French; the French text will be examined as if it were an anonymous original:
(4) Domitian surveillait l’age des senateurs, et tous ceux qu’il voyait en position favorable pour lui succéder il les abattait. Il voulut ainsi abattre Nerva qui devait lui succéder. II se trouva qu’un calculateur de ses amis l’en dissuada, vu que lui тете [my italics] était arrive à un age trop avancé pour que sa mort ne fût toute proche; et c’est ainsi que Nerva put lui succéder.
- class="wp-block-list">
- The text was proposed by Alain Cohen in the course of a colloquium of modalities held at Urbino at the International Semiotics Center in July 1978. Cohen’s analysis, however, aimed at goals different from ours and concerned only the discourse on Power referred to below.
It is immediately evident that here we have, first of all, a choice be-tween two discursive isotopies with syntagmatic disjunction: lui-meme can refer to either Domitian or Nerva. If it refers to Domitian, the death referred to later (sa mort) is the imminent death of Domitian; otherwise, it is Nerva’s death. It is therefore necessary to decide on the co-reference on the basis of the choice of a topic: is the subject Domitian’s age or Nerva’s? Once the co-reference is decided, there is a denotatively alternative discursive sequence in respect to the other. In effect, in one case, the advisor tells Domitian not to kill Nerva because he — Domitian —will soon die and it is therefore useless to eliminate his pos-sible successors; in the other, the advisor tells Domitian that Nerva will probably die soon and therefore does not present a danger for Domitian.
But it is clear that two different stories can be derived on the basis of the two discursive isotopies. The two discursive isotopies generate two possible narrative recapitulations. In one case, it is the story of a friend of Domitian’s giving him an argument about Power: “In dying you risk losing Power, but by sparing Nerva and implicitly designating him your successor, though dying you retain control of the Power, you generate the new Power.” In the other case, it is the story of a friend of Nerva’s making Domitian the victim of a courtier’s wiles: “O Domitian, why do you want to kill Nerva? He’s so old that he’ll soon die by himself!” — and thus the courtier puts Nerva on the throne.
Thus two mutually exclusive stories emerge, whose individuation de-pends on the discursive actualization. Not only that, but at a deeper level (see Figure 6.1), there emerge different actantial structures and dif-ferent ideological structures. According to Greimas’ categories, the ad-visor can be seen as the Opponent of Domitian and Helper of Nerva, or as the Helper of Power and the Opponent of Domitian as a mortal, or as a Helper of Domitian and neutral in regard to Nerva. And it can be decided that what is defined here is an ideological opposition of Power vs. Death (in which Power overcomes even Death) or Power vs. Shrewdness, where the courtier’s wiles overcome the brutality of Power. It can also legitimately be asked whether it is the choice of co-references that generates the different deep structures or a preliminary hypothesis regarding the deep structures that, in suggesting a specific topic, controls the actualization of the co-references at the discursive level. The inter-pretive cooperation is made of leaps and short circuits at the different textual levels where it is impossible to establish logically ordered se-quences.
In each case, we have seen that here the narrative isotopies are
