Probably a pertinent question at the beginning of this class would be why utilize a method when reading a text, why know various technical approaches when a text should require simply a free style reading that trigers what Barthes calls “le plaisir du texte”. The answer to this question seems natural in Trubetkoi work (Phonology Today), which states that we do not deal only with conscious linguistic processes, but also with the unconscious ones. Or these unconscious linguistic phenomenas predetermines author and lecturer in the same time. For a long time, literature has been considered a message without a code. Gerard Genette, points out that the structuralist method defines the moment where its message is found in the code, which is visible in the analysis of the textual structures. This represents already an opposition. The text is not analyzed through exterior constraints, but through its immanent structures. If the historical method uses social paradigms, genetical forms and a certain sense in the evolution of thinking, the structural method focuses exclusively on form. The origin of structuralism is in general the linguistic model proposed by Saussure. He makes a distinction between language and speech. Language is a system of signs where what matters is sound and sense differences; in language there are only differences, says Saussure. Also, for him, the link between sign and sense is arbitrary in the same way the unconscious is an arbitrary construction. This is an idea that forced Lacan later to say that the unconscious itself is structured as language. Troubetkoi influenced Levi-Strauss through this authentic existence established at the unconscious level of the spirit. But this approach is rather helpful when we deal with language itself. Although the structuralist method remains the most valid, there are also limits linked to it. These limits are considered by Paul Ricoeur in his book, The Conflict of interpretations. Ricoeur analyses the work of Levi-Strauss (La pensee sauvage) and sees a problem when structuralism shifts from its status of structuralist science to the status of structuralist philosophy. The structuralism is pertinent when the analysis deal with a fix object, which is the written text. When it extrapolates to cultural phenomenas or discursive structures such as for example the oral tradition (a system taken into consideration by Gadamer), the structural method can not be productive anymore, simply because, says Ricoeur, it is not able to play out all its meanings.