choose a unique object such as a less unknown flower rather than a rose more common symbol for love to reappear in a romantic story.
Concerning the symbolic function of the motif, it should be “appropriate to what it symbolizes” Freedman, 1971: 127. Although an author has the freedom to
choose hisher own motif, the motif should be make sense, related to the larger and whole text. Fre
edman cites the example of “constant references to doors, fences, gates, and the like are patently appropriate as symbolic representations of a
character‟s physical and spiritual isolation.” Motif is free-chosen, but it also should maintain the logicality and reasonableness.
The fourth factor should be considered about motif is the significance of the contexts in which it occurs. A
motif should be “relevant to the principal end as a whole and to which they fit together into a recognizable and coherent unit
” Freedman, 1971: 127. It is clearly seen that motif helps the reader to understand the
general theme of the text, or “the closer the association between the components of
the cluster the more unified their effects ” Freedman, 1971: 127.
To conclude this part, the motif has a great potential in structuralism analysis, as Freedman 1971: 125 settles, “the motif may become a part of the total
perspective, pervading the book‟s atmosphere and becoming and important thread in the fabric of the work
”. Motif contributes to the development of the novel‟s progress as it
“elaborate into a more general theme” Chris Baldick, 1996: 142. Motif gives the text medium to show the readers another way to absorb a novel‟s complete ideas.
2. Theory of Binary Opposition
Before examining theory of binary opposition, firstly it is better to understand structuralism approach because those two are interrelated and inseparable concepts.
Barry 2009: 50-51 confirms the difference between traditional criticism of liberal humanist wh
ich searches “any wider moral significance and going straight into the content of the literary work
” and structuralism which is more interested in commenting the structure of the work by presenting “a serial of parallels, echoes,
reflections, patterns, and contrasts; so that the narrative becomes highly schematized.” Additionally, Tory Young 2008: 31 defines that “structuralist
criticism is a highly systematic, and even scientific, approach to the analysis of the text. The critical act should focus on the underlying systems that make meaning
possible.” Structuralism‟s task, as Tyson 2006: 209 explains, is not “to describe the
structure of a short story to interpret what the work means or evaluate whether or not it‟s good literature.” Rather, structuralism‟s activity is to “describe the structure of a
literary work to discover how its composition demonstrates the underlying principles of a given structural system.” Structuralism begins with Saussure‟s linguistic
approach, then scholars realize that it can also be applied in the field of literature because, as Tyson 2006: 220 explains,
“narratives provide fertile ground for structuralist criticism because, despite their range of forms, narratives share certain
structural features, such as plot, setting, an d character.”
One of structuralism‟s main device is binary opposition. Cuddon 1998: 82 defines binary opposition from the term binary, it means
“denotes composed of two.” Baldick 1996: 24 describes that binary opposition is
“the principle of contrast between two mutually exclusive terms: onoff, updown, leftright etc; an important
concept of structuralism, which sees such distinctions as fundamental to all language and thought.” Furthermore, Mario J. Valdes in Irena R. Makaryk 1993: 511 stresses
that “in binary opposition the two poles must not only be opposed to each other but
must also be in exclusive opposition to each other; in other words, they are bound in polar opposition like the positive and negative charge of an electric current.” So, not
only one paired has some opposite quality of another, but it must complete the full contradiction value of the opposite.
Structuralism claims that human being perceives meaning of something by referring to its opposition, e.g. human understand „dark‟ as the condition of „light‟
absence. Saussure in Michael Payne 2010: 665 founds that meaning is “structured
as a relation of difference between elements, that a word has its meaning not because of what it refers to, but because it does not mean the same as oth
er words.” Michael Ryan 2012: 20-21 stresses the significant role of binary opposition:
“The different- ial principle is an important feature of structural analysis. No single part of language
has meaning in and of itself. Its identity is made possible by its difference from and its connection to other parts of the language.”
Jack Solomon in Gregory Castle 2011: 439 states that some structuralist critics such as Levi-Strauss, A.J. Greimas, Tzvetan Todorov, and Roland Barthes use
“Saussure‟s and Levi-Staruss‟ structuralist methods to analyze cultural texts.” As Roland Barthes 1977: 92-
93 states “the structuralist literary critic sought to describe the meaningful units of literary language
—for example, distributional and integrational units of narrative
—in terms of differential relations.” In other word, the text makes meaning by its component of the smallest difference, that is, two opposing
pair or binary oppositions. As Young 2008: 31 implies, the role of oppositions have great importance in
the prod uction of meaning, and structuralism views the binary opposition as “the
basic structure that underlies the sense- making operations of language.” Yet it is true
that human being could not value something without referring to its opposite. The reason for this judgment, as Culler 2008: 17 emphasizes the importance of binary
opposition in literature, is because “when two things are set in opposition to one
another the reader is forced to explore qualitative similarities and differences, to make a connection so as to derive
meaning from the disjunction.” For structuralist, binary opposition is the perfect device to bring their concept into realization of structuralism
analysis. Finally Barry 2009: 54 remarks the role of binary opposition, that “narrative structures are found upon such underlying paired opposites, or dyads, so
that contrasts such as these are the skeletal structure on which all narratives are fleshed out.”
3. Theory of Narrative Structure: Greim
as’ Actants
Tyson 2006: 224 gives example that to analyze the narrative structure of a text one can try “to discover the fundamental structural units such as units of
narrative progression or functions such as character functions”. Character functions itself is described by A.J. Greimas as “actants”. Character functions are different from
characters. Character functions perform as the underlying structure which is filled by the actual characters surface phenomena in a given story. In the narratives, this
structure is embodied in the form of plot formulas, such as conflict and resolution, struggle and reconciliation, and separation and union.
Solomon in Castle 2011: 440 states that “the variety of attempts to find the literary equivalent to the phoneme has led to innovative studies of narrative function.
A.J. Greimas pursued an underlying semantic structure for literary narrative.” Greimas rearranges and simplifies Vladimir Propp‟s analysis in order to call attention
to the “grammar” of narrative functions; which he argues that narratives are constructed around three basic oppositional pairs called actants.
Moreover, John N. Duvall 1982: 192 compares actants‟ function in literature as phonemes in language. Greimas in Duvall 1982: 192 states that “literature is a
language, and the individual narrati ve is a sentence”. Actants help the reader to
understand the grammar of the narrative sentence, to find the paradigmatic langue of narrative, and to see how it is embodied in the parole of the individual narrative. Just
as Jakobson isolates phonemes and Levi-Strauss seeks out mythemes, Greimas looks
for sememes, the smallest unit of a semantic signification, which he finds in the actant.
Duvall 1982: 192 adds that actantial analysis looks at the entities that act. In the Greimasian analysis, every narrative has six actants operating on three axes.
Tyson 2006: 227 describe this axes as three patterns of plots consist of six actants: 1. SubjectObject: stories of questdesire a subject or hero searches for an object: a
person, thing, or state of being. 2. SenderReceiver: stories of communication a sender: a person, god, or institution
sends the subject in search of the object. 3. HelperOpponent: subplots of stories of questdesire or communication a helper
aids the subject in the quest; an opponent tries to hinder the subject. It is clear that actants are different with characters. Characters represent individual or
person, whether actants represent the functions of the characters according to Greimas subject, object, sender, receiver, helper, or opponent.
These six pairing of actans can be used to flesh out the narrative structure of a text. By classifying the surface phenomena e.g. characters into its functions, the
narrative structure could be explained, as for Greimas, “the forwarding of the plot invo
lves the transfer of some entity from one actant to another” Tyson, 2006: 225. Actans act as “subject and object” and the transfer action, change act as “verb”.
Thus, Greimas suggests that “the fundamental structure of narrative is the same as the fundamental structure of language: subject-verb-
object” Tyson, 2006: 225. The actants reveal how the story goes and makes meaning for itself.
