Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary PDF
Preview Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary
Semiotics and Language Page ii ADVANCES IN SEMIOTICS General Editor, Thomas A. Sebeok Page iii Semiotics And Language An Analytical Dictionary A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés TRANSLATED BY Larry Crist and Daniel Patte and James Lee, Edward McMahon II, Gary Phillips, Michael Rengstorf INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS Bloomington Page iv Copyright© by Librairie Hachette 1979 English translation copyright © 1982 by Indiana University Press All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Greimas, Algirdas Julien. Semiotics and language: an analytical dictionary. (Advances in semiotics) Translation of: Sémiotique. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Semiotics—Dictionaries. I. Courtés, Joseph, 1936 III. Series. P99.G6913 8147828 ISBN 0253351693 AACR2 2 3 4 5 6 92 91 90 89 88 Page v Contents Translator's Note vii Preface xi Analytical Dictionary 1 Appendix 377 Selected Bibliography 384 Page vii Translators' Note This English version of the GreimasCourtés work is the result of teamwork that involved a number of stages. At the very first level, Michael Rengstorf, with some help from Daniel Patte, established English equivalents for the headwords of each entry in the French version; these are found in italics following the French headword in that text. As work on the full translation proceeded, some of these equivalents were changed (the list of changes appears at the end of this preface). Working from the dittographed form from which the French version was printed, each of the translators produced an English version of onesixth of the dictionary. The two principal translators then had the task of integrating these six parts. This work was done in two stages. First, each, once again beginning from the French text—that of the printed version now—read approximately half the entries and made extensive revisions. They then each read the translation as revised by the other and made further revisions thereon. Second, Crist, the primarily Anglophone translator, read the extensively revised translation aloud while Patte, the primarily Francophone translator, followed in the original French text. This part of the process took the most time. Quarrels erupted, cruces were agonized over, but agreement always ensued. In a limited number of cases it seemed that there were errors in the French text. All corrections made to that text were submitted to the authors for final judgments. The revised text ensuing from the oral process was then retyped and was read once more in its entirety by each of the two principal translators for consistency of terminology and style. In a last series of meetings, they made final decisions concerning their revisions. It should be understood that the principal translators—who perhaps should be called "revisers"—did not bring to the six portions (two of them, of course, from their own hands) a set of preconceived notions. Rather, they were able to profit from what was best in each individual translation so as to arrive at a version that, they hope, is more felicitous than what they could have achieved by themselves. With regard to the syntax of the original sentences, we have consciously overtranslated. As anyone who has glanced at the French version can testify, the sentences are frequently quite long and extremely convoluted. We chose a considerably simpler style, in the conviction that clarifying the development of the discussion was our mostimportant goal. Most of the choices in translating key terms were obvious, but certain changes from the originally proposed English equivalents had to be made: changes required by the very discussion in the article for which such a word was the headword. Page viii On the other hand, we have undertranslated many of the terms, often at the risk of giving the impression that by using expressions on the borderline of acceptable English, what we have produced is more a simple transposition than a translation. Such was the case with the modalities. The infinitives of the French modal verbs (vouloir, savoir, pouvoir, devoir) can correspond to English gerunds (Savoir nager est important = Knowing how to swim is important). With an article, they can also serve as nouns (Le devoir est souvent pénible = Duty is often painful). Although the purely nominal form is probably more common in English (will, knowledge, power, duty), we opted to keep the form that maintained a verbal sense, at the risk of some awkwardness. Thus, "The subject's knowing qualifies it as cognitively competent" is not the same as the "ordinarylanguage" form: "John's knowledge helps him to do things." In so doing, we aimed at underlining the very specific use of these terms in the semiotic theory proposed. In addition, many concepts found in this work have English equivalents used by linguists, logicians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc., but in a different sense; we often refrained from using them because these concepts were redefined by being inserted in the wider framework of the general semiotic theory proposed herein. That is, in fact, the great contribution of this work. It brings together in a consistent theoretical framework many very disparate partial theories and proposals stemming from a great variety of fields, which until now have been perceived as discrete or even divergent aspects of semiotic research. But to do so it was necessary for the authors to establish a terminology that would transcend all these projects, a terminology that is tantamount to a metalanguage. To give some specific examples: The pair "Sender/Receiver" was used for the more parallel pair Destinateur/Destinataire, rather than the equally parallel "Addresser/Addressee" so as to avoid confusion with the Jakobsonian theory of communication, given that the pair being translated belongs to the more abstract category of actants. "Engagement/Disengagement" was used instead of the more "mechanical" ''shifting in/shifting out" in order to avoid confusion with the equally Jakobsonian (from Jespersen) "shifter." This letter choice was also supported by the term's greater facility of use (no particles to move about in the sentence [e.g., *"The discourse shifts the enunciator in"]). A loss of symmetry was regretfully agreed to in rendering the set of parallel pairs énonciation/noncé and énonciatif/énoncif. For the first pair the translation "enunciation/enunciate" had originally been proposed so as to keep the parallelism. But we had to abandon this proposal. On the one hand, the adjectival derivative from the originally proposed neologism *enunciate would perforce have had to be *enunciative; but that is already the adjectival form corresponding to enunciation (unless, of course, we were to propose *enunciationative). On the other hand, the translation "utterance" for énoncé was already in Page ix use. Unfortunately it generated the cacophonous adjectival neologism "utterative" in place of the more euphonic "enuncive" (note that this form does not derive from *enunciate, but from the real parallel in French, énoncif), but that is a consequence we have, albeit heavyheartedly, accepted. A last remark. For the translation of the term sémiotique we used two terms: "semiotics" when the French term designates a semiotic theory; and "semiotic system" (as shorthand for "semiotic system and process") when the French term designates a signifying whole. Since we are dealing here with a sort of metalanguage, the most profitable way of using the dictionary is perhaps to plunge in, according to one's own needs, curiosity, or simple hazard, and then follow the authors' suggestions concerning their system of crossreferences. If one wishes a more reasoned method of proceeding, we would suggest that the dictionary be entered through one of the principal articles. Perhaps the most logical place to begin would be the entry SEMIOTICS or the equally programmatic STRUCTURE. In this latter connection, it should be pointed out—something not quite clear in the text—that the different levels of structure are lucidly schematized at the end of the entry GENERATIVE TRAJECTORY. Consequently, one could get an overview of the theory by reading the entries corresponding to each of the terms in this schema: SYNTAX, FUNDAMENTAL; SYNTAX, NARRATIVE; SYNTAX, DISCOURSIVE; SEMANTICS, FUNDAMENTAL; SEMANTICS, NARRATIVE; SEMANTICS, DISCOURSIVE. The following English equivalents have been changed from those proposed in the French edition: ACTE DE LANGAGE: language act speech act AGRESSEUR: aggressor villain [combined article] AVOIR: to have having BINARITÉ: binarity binarism COMBINATOIRE: tactics combinatory principle or arrangement DÉBRAYAGE: shifting out disengagement DÉNÉGATION: denegation denial DÉNOMINATION: denomination name, naming DÉPOSSESSION: depossession dispossession DESTINATEUR/DESTINATAIRE: addresser/addressee sender/ receiver DÉTENSIVITE: detensiveness detensivity DURATIVITÉ: durativeness durativity EMBRAYAGE: shifting in engagement ÉMETTEUR: sender source ENCATALYSER: to encatylize encatylizing ÉNONCÉ: enunciate utterance Page x INSTANCE: instance domain OPÉRATOIRE: instrumental operational PARENTHÉTISATION: parenthetization bracketing PERSONNAGE: personage character PERTINENCE: relevance pertinence PROPOSITION: proposition clause/proposition (two separate entities) RÉCEPTEUR: receiver destination SCIENTIFICITÉ: scientificity scientificness STRUCTURATION: structuralization structuring TRAÎTRE: traitor villain TROMPERIE: deceit trickery
The list of books you might like
