semiotic square

A graphic figure used by the Paris-based Lithuanian linguist Greimas, Algirdas Julien to map out the deep structure of meaning, and more especially meaning-production. Premised on the principle of difference established by Swiss linguist Saussure, Ferdinand de that something means what it does by power of its ability to simultaneously differentiate itself from and negate what it doesn’t mean, the semiotic square is built from a combination of simple opposition and complex negation. The four corners of the ‘square’ designated S1, S2, S1â€Č and S2â€Č respectively, represent different positions in the production of meaning. The resulting graphic (see illustration) should be read from left to right as well as vertically and transversally.

diaspora

diaspora

Derived from the Greek for ‘scattering of seeds’, it is used to describe population migration and dispersal (voluntary and involuntary). Originally used to refer to the Jewish peoples’ forced exile from Israel (as it is now known) in the pre-Christian era and their subsequent removals from Spain, Portugal, and Russia, where they had resided for well over a thousand years, diaspora is now used to refer to virtually any mass migration. Slavery in Europe and the Americas resulted in an African diaspora, whereby millions of Africans were forcibly relocated to distant lands. Similarly, European colonialism resulted in millions of Europeans relocating to far-off continents. This in turn led to Indian and Chinese diasporas as cheap labour was imported to South Africa, Australia, Fiji and elsewhere to solve various production problems. Diaspora is generally thought in terms of ‘homelessness’, a sense of trauma and exile, but lately it has come to be viewed more positively as a kind of post-national cosmopolitanism or Creoleness in which the diasporic subject represents a new, more advanced stage of politically and culturally heterogeneous citizenry. See also globalization; multitude. Further Reading: E. Said Reflections on Exile (2000).

Link to original
{width=“3.986111111111111in” height=“3.4027777777777777in”} As Jameson, Fredric puts it in his foreword to the translation of Greimas’s On Meaning (1987), a compilation of his writings on the theme of meaning, it takes a lot of ‘working out’ to establish exactly how these terms should be distributed. For example, take the term ‘freedom’ if we place that in the S1 position then we can say that its simple opposite S2 is ‘unfreedom’, whereas its negation S2â€Č might be something like ‘enslaved’, suggesting that the final term S1â€Č, normally reserved for the negation of the negation should be ‘liberation’. By juxtaposing freedom and liberation the semiotic square compels us to think through the ‘gap’ or ‘distance’ between these two terms, thus asking what is at stake in choosing one over the other. It is for this reason that Jameson suggests that the semiotic square (as is amply evidenced by his own use of the device) can be utilized to develop a dialectic reading of texts. Further Reading: F. Jameson The Prison-House of Language (1972).