I.  Overview
 Combining elements of mythology and structuralism, Claude Levi-Strauss proposes a method by which myth can be interpreted, studied and classified.   While paralleling and expanding on the principles involved in linguistic analysis, Levi-Strauss envisions a theory which reduces myths to their “gross constituent units” or “mythemes” and their relations to one another.  He then proceeds to illustrate the universality of the logic behind them.

II. Analysis
 Levi-Strauss makes connections between mythology and the study of linguistics while carefully noting that myth goes beyond language in its complexity.  Expanding on Saussure’s langue (structural side of language) and parole (speech) which represent reversible (diachronic) and non-reversible (synchronic) time, respectively, Levi-Strauss states that myth “explains the present and the past as well as the future” (837).  Additionally, myth transcends language barriers and, unlike poetry for example, it remains unaffected by the loss of meaning through translation (838).

  The constituent units of myth exist on a “higher level” than other kinds of speech.  Myth deals with the relations between those constituent parts at the sentence level, rather than the more elementary level of phonemes or morphemes.  Furthermore, the significance of this lies not merely in the individual relations between these parts but “bundles of such relations” which “can be put to use. . . so as to produce a meaning” (839).

 Levi-Strauss likens the analysis of myth to that of an orchestra score wherein recurring patterns of notes are examined along both diachronic and synchronic axes.  Using the analogy of deck of cards, he further postulates that if sufficient resource material exists, then the nature of a myth can be reconstructed.  To illustrate his overall theory, Levi-Strauss provides the example of the Oedipus myth.  Here, he categorizes the found? mythemes into two pairs according to their relationship with each other.  Addressing the problem of variation among different versions of the myth, Levi-Strauss recalls the definition of myth “as consisting of all its versions” (842) and points out that many mythologists make the error of selecting only preferred versions, rather than all of them, when making their analyses.  He deems it necessary to include all possible versions of the myth in order to “render the structure or the myth apparent” (843) and carefully points out the need for the inclusion of mathematics in the analysis of the potentially limitless variation among myths.  Levi-Strauss notes that myth exhibits a discontinuous “slated” structure due to its organization along diachronic and chronic axes but that its “growth is a continuous process” (843).  Ultimately it becomes apparent that the logic involved with mythical thought differs from thought found in traditional science.  Levi-Strauss states, “the difference lies, not in the quality of the intellectual process, but in the nature of the thing to which it is applied” (844).

III. Questions
1.  How does Levi Strauss’s discipline inform his reading of myth and, by extension, literature?