خلاصة:
Reaching out to history and subject in terms of meaning variation, Kristeva could show that language cannot simply be a Saussurean sign system. Rather, she went on to delineate that language, beyond signs, is associated with a dynamic system of signification where the 'speaking subject' is constantly involved in processing. Julia Kristeva, a French critic, psychoanalyst, theoretician, a post-structuralist philosopher of Hungarian origin, dwells upon ideas from linguistics, psychoanalysis, sociology while representing text analysis, sign and subject from emotional and motivational perspectives. She believes that processing language structure and subject depend upon semiotic and symbolic domains that emerge in the scope of 'signifiance' process whereby the semiotic domain processes and primary structures against the symbolic realm. In Kristeva's view, the sign Chora, while being the milieu for energy, dynamism, and motility, shows the internal and signification drives of the language, and will involve changes in signification mutation of subjectivity.
ملخص الجهاز:
Julia Kristeva, a French critic, psychoanalyst, theoretician, a post-structuralist philosopher of Hungarian origin, dwells upon ideas from linguistics, psychoanalysis, sociology while representing text analysis, sign and subject from emotional and motivational perspectives.
In Kristeva's view, the sign Chora, while being the milieu for energy, dynamism, and motility, shows the internal and signification drives of the language, and will involve changes in signification mutation of subjectivity.
These pre-oedipal processes, Kristeva states, are associated with maternal body: “The process of signifiance in language is two-fold: semiotic which comprises the subject's internal drives by means of which physical energy and emotions are expressed in language and symbolic that are governed by rules, grammar and transparency and are used for expressing the situation”.
(Kristeva, 1974: 22-23) Kristeva drawing on the distinction introduces a contrast between semiotic language on the one hand and formal or symbolic language (which is father-centerd) on the other as noted by Lacan since the semiotic form suggests the first configuration in which mother and child interaction at pre- oedipal stage takes place.
Kristeva and Lacan Publicizing the hypothesis that “unconscious is structured like language” and drawing on the views of Saussure and Freud, Lacan believed that the child upon entering the semiotic realm experiences language domain and is separated from others (maternal body).
The géno-text with its signifiance process comprises semiotic (drives and oedipal) forms because the subject is born committed to the biological and social constructs.
In such a process, the subject releases feelings, internal drives in the form of symbols and signification.
(
, 
, 
)
