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 descriptive approach. It is also, however, an "internal approach" (70), that is, it does not seek to relate the literary work to something external to language. For example, Marxism 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 structure 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 the 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 implies 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 periods, for example), or even with all other works (theory of literature). . . . [I]t is 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 effecting 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 objective approach than any other critical approach. If there are still elements of subjectivism that inhere in this approach, Todorov asserts, this is no disgrace because no natural or human science is devoid of all traces of subjective bias.

Todorov argues that the proper focus of structural analysis is plot. Todorov points out that the minimal complete plot consists of a movement 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 theme and rhetoric, that is, attention was paid to what the text is about and the diction 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 all plots) and to differentiate between various kinds of plot (i.e. the varying manifestations or paroles of this underlying langue). As in his 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 avoided, and b) stories of conversion.

A careful study of the tales reveals that they share some elements in common, for which what he calls a "schematic formulation," predicated on the view that there is a profound analogy between the structure of a sentence and that of a narrative, can be proposed. Todorov points out a number of things about this schematic formulation:

a) The minimal element of the plot can be considered as equivalent to a clause;

b) Each narrative ‘clause’ contains an agent / subject and a predicate that may consist of a verb (an action which will modify the preceding situation) and / or an adjective / epithet which describes the former;

c) Each action, and thus clause, has either a positive or a negative status;

d) Each clause possesses a particular modality (e.g. the indicative or the imperative), 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 perspective(s), the different points of view of a character(s) and the narrator;

f) There are identifiable relations between clauses: temporal (relations of succession), causal (relations of entailment versus presupposition) and spatial (parallelism);

g) The syntagmatic progression of the clauses form a sequence (sometimes the entire narrative, sometimes part of the narrative);

h) Each genre, too, may be distinguished by the modality of the clauses which prevails in a given sequence.

Todorov argues that the object of structural analysis is, ultimately, literariness, that is, what distinguishes literature from non-literary uses of language. What should be clear in the final analysis is that structural analysis, like any other form of criticism, attempts to provide, in so doing, an image of the literature it is analysing, that is, it seeks to reduce the given language of the works being investigated to a secondary or meta-language through which it can be rendered intelligible. In this sense it is no different from any other methodology. However, Structuralism is preferable to other methodologies in that this metalanguage is that of linguistics which is entirely preferable to other metalanguages.

Todorov begins by arguing that there has long been a search in linguistics and, in particular, psycholinguistics, for a "common structure that transcends the obvious differences among languages" (108) in order to establish that the "object of grammar is the same for all men" (108). The consequence of this ought to be clear: the "appearance of the most fundamental concepts in every language must be regarded as the proof of the unity of certain psychological processes" (109) in the human being. In other words, humans everywhere share the same ‘deep’ mental structures. This ‘universal grammar’ is apparent in other symbolic activities besides natural language (eg oneiric [or dream] language and narratives). Todorov's goal in offering a theory of narrative which draws upon Saussurean linguistics is to contribute to the knowledge of this universal grammar.

Traditionally, Todorov points out, narrative has been analysed according to theme and rhetoric, that is, its paradigmatic dimension is emphasised. Todorov proposes a form of analysis that focuses on the syntax of narrative, that is, one that zeroes in on its syntagmatic axis. Todorov stresses that there is an important difference between what he calls ‘histoire’ (what the Russian Formalists term the ‘fabula,’ or what we know more familiarly as the content or more recently the narrative signified) and ‘discours’ (what the Russian Formalists term ‘szujet,’ or what we know more familiarly as plot-structure or more recently the narrative signifier). In other words, we must not overlook the difference between what a given narrative is ‘about’ and how the narrative is ‘told.’ Todorov, like all narratologists, is particularly interested in the latter. To this end, Todorov argues that there is a homologous relation between narrative and language: the "analysis of narrative permits us to isolate formal units which present striking analogies with the parts of speech: proper noun, verb, adjective" (113). Indeed, his influential point is that the narrative is nothing but an extended sentence and should be treated as such: the "analysis of narrative permits us to isolate formal units which present striking analogies with the parts of speech: proper noun, verb, adjective" (113). (Nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. are what Todorov terms "primary categories" [113] in grammar which are to be distinguished from "secondary categories" [113].) In the final analysis, Todorov stresses, we should never forget that when it comes to literature, we are dealing merely with words on a page, not with real humans and their actions which the signs are designed to verbally ‘represent.’ Todorov puts it this way: we shall "understand narrative better if we know that the character is a noun, the action a verb" (119).

Todorov is of the view that the first step in analysing the "structure of a narrative’s plot" (110) is to "present this plot in the form of a summary, in which each distinct action of the story has a corresponding proposition" (110). (He calls proposition elsewhere ‘clause.’) He begins by recognising that all language is both denominative and descriptive in function:

• proper names and pronouns are the denominative; and
• common nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are chiefly descriptive.

Todorov argues that it is possible to isolate in each such proposition or clause both a denominative and a descriptive aspect. The "agents . . . of the propositions will always be ideal proper nouns" (110). This agent, however, is a "blank form" (110) which is only "completed by different predicates" (110). That is, the agent of a proposition is nothing more than a grammatical category (the ‘subject’) who is per se "devoid of internal properties, for these derive from a temporary junction with a predicate" (111). In other words, if a given proper noun or pronoun serves to denominate a grammatical subject, the predicate serves to describe or ‘fill out’ the subject through the use of common nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

Todorov argues that there are two kinds of predicates. He contends that the "minimal complete plot consists in the passage from one state of equilibrium to another" (111) that is similar to the first but not the same: an

ideal narrative begins with a stable situation which is disturbed by some power or force. There results a state of disequilibrium; by the action of a force directed in the opposite direction, the equilibrium is re-established. (111)

Consequently, there are two "types of episodes in a narrative" (111):

• "static" (111) episodes, that is, those which describe a particular state of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Static predicates would evidently correspond to "narrative ‘adjectives’" (111); and
• "dynamic" (111) episodes: those which describe the passage from one state to another. Dynamic predicates would correspond to "narrative ‘verbs.’" (111).

In terms of the secondary categories, Todorov argues that it is possible in analysing a sentence to isolate such things as "voice, aspects, mood, tense" (113) which can also be applied. like the primary categories, to narrative. Using only ‘mood’ as his example, Todorov contends that the "mood of a narrative proposition makes explicit the relationship which the character concerned shares with it" (113). Mood may be subdivided into two classes:

• the ‘indicative’: "Propositions uttered in the indicative" (113) designate "actions which have really taken place" (113); and
• all those that are not indicative: a proposition uttered in another mood refers to an action which has "not been performed but exists in potentiality, virtually" (113).

These two classes stand in a relation of "real to unreal" (113).

Todorov suggests that non-indicative moods may be subdivided into:

• "moods of will" (114): "language serves not only to describe and therefore to refer to reality, but also to express our will" (113); and
• "moods of hypothesis" (114).

Moods of will are in turn divisible into:

• the "obligative" (114), the "mood of a proposition which must occur, . . . a coded, non-individual will which constitutes the law of a society" (114) (and which most often is implied because it does not need to be stated); and
• the "optative" (114) which "corresponds to the actions desired by the character" (114). Renunciation is, he points out, a "special case of the optative: it is an optative initially affirmed, subsequently denied" (114).

Moods of hypothesis are themselves divisible into two categories:

• the "conditional" (114): the ‘conditional’ is the mood which "puts two attributive propositions into an implied relation so that the subject of the second proposition and whoever makes the condition are one and the same character" (114). The conditional sometimes takes on the character of a test; and
• the "predictive" (114): the ‘predictive’ has the "same structure as the conditional but the subject who predicts need not be the subject of the second proposition" (114). The predictive is a "special manifestation of the logic of verisimilitude" (115) in that we "suppose that one action will lead to another, because such causality corresponds to a common probability" (115).

These "offer a common semantic characteristic (hypothesis)" (114) but are "distinguished by a special syntactic structure" (114) in that they "refer to a succession of two propositions and not to an isolated proposition" (114).

At this point, Todorov turns his attention to the complex problems which appear "beyond the level of propositions" (116): to be precise, the "structure of narrative discourse" (116). At this level, the focus is not on the nature of the propositions themselves but the "relations established between propositions" (116), that is, the focus is on the "sequence" (116) which is a "syntactic unit superior to the proposition" (116). Todorov identifies three such kinds of relations:

• the "temporal" (116) (often called consecution) by which "events follow one another in the text because they follow one another in the imaginary world of the book" (116);
• the "logical" (116) (or consequence) and "based on implications and presuppositions" (116); and
• the "spatial" (116) whereby "two propositions are juxtaposed because of a certain resemblance between them" (16) and as a result of which one is dealing evidently with "parallelism and its many subdivisions" (116).

Each such ‘sequence’ will have "characteristics, according to the type of relation between propositions" (116) which will provoke an "intuitive reaction on the reader’s part" (117).

The propositions of which the sequence consists are of several kinds. Propositions correspond to:

• "logical relations of exclusion (either-or)" (117) (Todorov calls this kind "alternative" [117] for "only one among them can appear at one point of the sequence" [117]);
• "disjunction (and-or)" (117) (Todorov calls this kind "optional" [117] because the propositions’s "place is not specified" [117] and their "appearance is not obligatory" [117]); and
• "conjunction (and-and) (Todorov calls this kind "obligatory" [117] in that the propositions "must always appear at a specific place" [117]).

By studying the nature of the sequences which predominantly constitute particular narratives, Todorov argues that it is possible to construct a "typology of narratives" (118).

In the final analysis, Todorov argues, firstly, 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. Secondly, it is also an internal or what Ransom and company would call an ‘intrinsic’ approach, that is, one which does not seek to relate the literary work to something external to language. For example, Marxism and Psychoanalysis seek to relate the work to an abstract structure, social or psychic, which manifests itself through that work. However, if Structuralism relates the work to anything it is to language because literature must be understood in its specificity, as literature, before we seek to determine its relation to anything else. Structural analysis, in short, is not satisfied by a pure description of the work nor by its interpretation in terms that are psychological or sociological or, indeed, philosophical. It seeks, rather, to understand the literary properties of individual works as particular instances that have been realized of a given set of rules, that is, as the parole of an underlying langue. Of course, narratology implies to some degree an inductive approach because the best stepping stone towards theory is that of precise, empirical knowledge. However, such analysis will discover in each work what it has in common with others (studies of genres, of periods, for example), or even with all other works (theory of literature). It is always a question of going continually back and forth, from abstract literary properties to individual works and vice versa. Todorov’s goal in so doing? That of producing a science of literature: to focus on the intrinsic properties of the work, he points out, is a more objective approach than any other critical approach.