COMPARATIVE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONCEPTS OF SEMIOLOGY AND MYTHOLOGEMA: A STRUCTURALIST SYNTHESIS

Аннотация

This article explores the comparative theoretical foundations of semiology, as developed by Ferdinand de Saussure and extended by Roland Barthes, and the concept of the mythologema, primarily articulated by Claude Lévi-Strauss. We analyze the core tenets of Saussurean semiotics – the arbitrary nature of the sign, the relationality of meaning, and the distinction between “langue” and “parole” – and examine how Barthes applies these to decipher cultural systems. Lévi-Strauss's structuralist approach to myth, emphasizing the mythologema as a fundamental building block of meaning within narrative structures, is then analyzed. The article compares and contrasts these perspectives, highlighting their shared emphasis on underlying structures and systems ofsignification whileacknowledging their methodological and analytical differences. We argue that while distinct, semiology and the concept of the mythologema offer complementary approaches to understanding cultural meaning, ultimately suggestinga synergisticpotential fordeeper interpretive analysis. Keywords: semiology, saussure, barthes, lévi-strauss, mythologema, structuralism, sign, signifier, signified, myth, cultural analysis, binary oppositions. Introduction. The study of cultural meaning has been significantly influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure's semiology, Roland Barthes's extension of it to broader cultural analysis, and Claude Lévi-Strauss's structuralist approach to myth, which introduces the concept of the mythologema. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the theoretical foundations of these perspectives, exploring their convergences and divergences in understanding how meaning is constructed and communicated within cultural systems. Semiology, or the science of signs, emerged in the early 20th century as a tool to decipher the structures underlying language and culture. Concurrently, analytical psychology, particularly through thework of Carl Jung, introduced the concept of themythologema—a basic unit ofmyth reflective of collective archetypes. Though originating from distinct epistemologies—linguistics and depth psychology—these frameworks intersect in their treatment of latent meaning systems. Structuralism, as advanced by Claude Lévi-Strauss, provides the conceptual bridge for integrating semiotic theory with myth analysis. This paper seeks to explore how mythologema andsign systems can be synthesized into acoherent structuralist paradigm. Semiology, the study of signs and their role in constructing meaning, and mythologem, a fundamental unit of myth, represent distinct yet interconnected frameworks for analyzing cultural narratives. This article synthesizes structuralist semiology (rooted in Saussure and Lévi- Strauss) with Jungian mythologem theory, examining their comparative foundations. While semiology focuses on latent structures in sign systems, mythologem centers on archetypal motifs in the collective unconscious. Their convergence reveals how meaning is generated through relational patterns, whether inlinguistic signs or mythological narratives. Theoretical Foundations of Semiology Semiology, pioneered by Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce, analyzes signs as dualisticunits: - Signifier: The material form (e.g., sound, image). https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi volume 4,issue5,2025 1136 - Signified: Theconceptual meaning. Peircefurther classified signs intothree types: 1. Iconic: Resembles itsreferent (e.g., a portrait). 2. Indexical:Causally linked (e.g., smokeindicating fire). 3. Symbolic: Conventionallyassociated (e.g., language). Structuralist semiology, advanced by Roland Barthes and ClaudeLévi-Strauss, emphasizes latent content over manifest surface meaning. It treats all cultural units—words, images, gestures—as equally significant components within relational systems. For instance, a rose’s denotation (flower) contrasts with its cultural connotations (passion, ideology). Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of the Oedipus myth exemplifies this, decomposing narratives into “mythemes” (constituent units) toreveal universal cognitivestructures. Mythologem inJungian Theory Carl Jung defined mythologem as an irreducible motif within myths, reflecting archetypes of the collective unconscious. Unlike structuralist "mythemes," which prioritize relational syntax, mythologems are psychodynamic: -They express unconscious processes, acting as "natural products" of thepsyche. -Examples includeuniversal motifslikethe hero’s journey orrebirth. Jung viewed myths as "original revelations" that mediate conscious and unconscious realms, contrasting Lévi-Strauss’slinguistic treatment of myth as a coded "language". Lévi-Strauss’s assertion that "myth is language" bridges these frameworks: Both treat cultural outputas systems where meaning arises from “relationships” (e.g., syntagmatic chains in myth or symbolic codes in semiology). However, Jung’s mythologem introduces a transcendent dimension, framing myths as expressions of innate psychic