Muzyka jako forma symboliczna. Strukturalna semiotyka dzieła muzycznego
Authors: Krupińska Eliza 
Published: October 2021

The book Muzyka jako forma symboliczna. Strukturalna semiotyka dzieła muzycznego (Music as a Symbolic Form: The Structural Semiotics of a Musical Work) contains a reconstruction of a structuralist orientation in musicology. Although the importance of structuralism declined in favor of methods basing on the theory of information or mathematic set theory in the late 1970s, its inspiration was evident in the 1980s in the form of the generative theory of tonal music of Fred Lerdhal and Ray Jackendoff. This is an important and symptomatic fact that bears witness to the fact that structuralism remains an important research perspective amidst the volatility of theoretical trends because after the experiences of the twentieth century it is difficult to question the systematic nature of signs and symbols, including musical ones, in a responsible way.	In the first chapter, W kręgu językoznawstwa strukturalnego (In the Circle of Structural Linguistics), the assumptions of structuralism as an intellectual current are discussed, referring to specific positions that have been elaborated in linguistics and developed linguistic thought. The relationship between Saussare’s proposal and the position of the Leipzig Neogrammarians, the Kazan School of linguistics, and the views of Georg von der Gabelentz and Michel Bréal was exposed. Next, the basic elements of Saussurian linguistic theory are reconstructed: the understanding of language in the category of a social fact that is systematic in nature; the binary model of the linguistic sign; and the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships of linguistic units. Piaget expands the concept of structuralism to a general cognitive style in the field of the social sciences, mathematics, and natural sciences and modifies the assumptions of Saussurian structuralism, replacing the synchronic and static conception of phenomena, a conception that from the perspective of evolution directed towards the perfection of the system. When discussing modifications to Saussure’s ideals, the views of the Prague linguistic circle, which has created the basic assumptions of structuralism within the concept of “dynamic synchrony” tied to Janusz Sławiński, are questioned. Sławiński emphasizes the dialectic understanding of the relationship between langue and parole to a large degree and treats language as a concrete being that is subjected to metamorphoses of a teleological nature. Taking into consideration its achievements in phonology and the model of linguistic communication along with the distinguished functions of language, the contribution of the Prague linguistic circle to the development of structuralism is invaluable. Finally, American structuralism, which encompasses an essentially mentalist theory of language (Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Benjamin L. Whorf) as well as a conception of language with behavioral assumptions (Leonard Bloomfield) are discussed.	The significant influence of structuralism on musicology was tied to the concept of the taxonomic analysis of music proposed by Nicolas Ruwet and later elaborated in the works of Jean-Jacques Nattiez, among others. In the second chapter, Od Ruweta do Nattieza: od strukturalnej do referencyjnej semiotyki dzieła muzycznego (From Ruwet to Nattiez: From the Structural to the Referential Semiotics of the Musical Work), the author discusses the assumptions of the two structural-semiotic concepts of the musical work: the theories of Ruwet and Nattiez. Their juxtapositions demonstrate a structural-semiotic evolution of the theory of the musical work and moves the point of gravity from the structuralist paradigm (Ruwet) to the referential one (Nattiez). The boundary conditions of Ruwet’s proposal are Roman Jakobson’s principle of equivalence and introversive semiosis. The principle of equivalence legitimizes the procedure of the segmentation of the musical work in the framework of taxonomic analysis proposed by Ruwet, while introversive semiosis expresses the image of the musical work as solely a repository of meanings. Apart from the contribution of Jakobson’s idea to Ruwet’s semiotics, the relationship of taxonomic analysis itself with Louis Hjelmslev’s theory of language (glossomatics) and the methodology of the American distributionists (primarily Zellig S. Harris) is discussed.	Nattiez’s proposal is the second theory of the musical work discussed in semiotic work. The process of symbolization, which, according to Nattiez, is the fundament of all research on systems of signs, carries all other components of his theory in the form of Jean Molino’s tripartition of symbolic activity and “Paul Veyne’s conception of intrigue.” It should be emphasized that Nattiez’s semiotics synthesizes the structural and referential semiotic paradigm in a unique way. The former is tied to the application of Ruwet’s taxonomic analysis at the neutral level in the Molino tripartition; meanwhile, the latter directs the entirety of the proposal of Charles S. Peirce’s concept of the interpretant. The author concisely presents the elementary assumptions of Peirce’s semiotics, whose meaning in Nattiez’s theory she later discusses.	The concepts of Ruwet and Nattiez can be placed on two separate poles of the semiotic conception of music. The former is completely established based on the structuralist tradition, which begins with Saussure, goes to Jakobson, and ends with American distributionism; finally, the latter, which places the former in a new context (Molino’s tripartition), transcends structuralism to ultimately move towards semiotic reflection of a referential type. In the third chapter, Analiza substancjalno–formalna dzieła muzycznego (A Substantial-Formal Analysis of the Musical Work), the author proposes her own method of the interpretation of musical, called a substantial-formal analysis, which is a synthesis of semiotics that is structural and referential in nature. The structural component of substantial-formal analysis is the model of Hjelmslev’s sign that was adopted in the sphere of the musical work. Unlike Saussure, Hjelmslev treats substance and form as the equal components of a linguistic sign, which consequently distinguishes four of its layers: the substance of its contents, the substance of expression, the form of the contents, and the form of expression. Furthermore, it introduces another element, called the meritum, which conditions the functional combination of substance and form. Peirce’s concept of the interpretant is the referential component in substantive-formal analysis. Taking into consideration a synthesis of the positions of Hjelmslev and Peirce within one model, one above all notes the complementarity of their views. Dynamic semiosis overcomes the static image of structure in glossematics and in this way optimally conditions the interpretive procedures in the case of a musical work. Later, the book characterizes other layers of the musical work according to Hjelmslev’s model. The musical substance of contents is found in the substantive-formal analysis, which is tied to the expressive contents of a work or of its intentional aspect. The substance of expression is the physical-acoustic side of music or the means of the realization of music. The form of the contents is the means of shaping a work; it is its formal plan. Meanwhile, the form of expression is the broadly understood stylistic aspect of music.	Substantive-formal analysis, which does move towards the betrayal of the objectivity of research, aims to reject the relict of neo-positive objectivity, which in the natural sciences was subjected to criticism in the late 1950s. When Carl F. von Weizsäcker told his fellow physicists that they were treading on the “marshes of relativity,” he cautioned those who found themselves in these marshes against catastrophe; from a methodological point of view, they acted as if they were walking on hard pavement. At the same time, he pushed for the concretization and toughening of methodological rigors rather than their relaxation. Those who are in the marshes of relativity and are aware of this fact search for the hardest possible ground beneath their feet with great attention. Among others, this is one of the aims of a substantial-formal analysis: to create a research tool that will generate neither firm illusions nor ultimate facts of the theory or aesthetics of music, nor will it lead to methodological anarchism.