| Kristeva's Desire In Language: A Feminist Semiotic | Perspective on Language and Literature “This paper dess withthe challenging view of anguage an iterate tl by Jott Keisova and some of Is implcalons for poder stags and fermi etch, 1 shall Sit approach Kisteva'ssemlodes of language fa expericooe ae relates tp he Pevceas don of gence sete. 1 ‘Sha den focus onthe development by Kriteva of te pal FtheMothr, ‘me on the sexual gender distinction mulefenae, This pai appears in soveral essays by Keltova, who ues te terms "patersal” and “stem” ‘in elation othe syabollc and semlouc respectively. Its worth pointing ‘Our that when ula Kristeva ues the pl Fahe/Modie se doss so witoot ‘he leas implestlon tat father aa aot are mally exclsive polt- ties, For Kastor the paternal and maternal ace fnctions whch do nt Aomaticlly alah per sew the male a fhe o othe feral ws moter. ‘A function, tbe paler abd iateraal can be used in conection Wi ‘als other ta bology. Thos Kristeva makes wie of th difrene 19 ‘xplin te symbolic abd Selo as they ae realized in language an i= ‘eran. She sees language nd Hteratre not as binary opposes ut as factions ofthe same eadesvour, and argues tbat “thls Woald establish Doetc language a the object of lngustes" attention a spars of tut In language” 1980: 29, "The last pot to Be made fn ht fexeduction Is about Kesteva's main ‘concent in theory and pce. She is concerned both with gender and wid language, because both language and gender are phenomens of ‘Soemous seta and pole portance, but She is mln interested in ‘demyeiying language as understood Oy fora Hogue tery. Is no Serprsing, he, tat Krstove is xa of yetemates ib ngs thoory ‘sod caine llegiance to Jakobson, whose Tanclonal me ofthe comTL rmunlatve act provides hr with explanatory and deserve tools tht are or greater vale. Jala Kees’ book Desire in Language (1980) compris ten et says cignly writer n Pench and pushed in Piyage (1977) ah SELATRES Rechernes pour une Semonaise (UP), OF tas have Fee eps potty wel ned to consdraon of geper wd metatonaly to meaning aad conmanieaon: "The Hes of TiRjonus tod "The Fae, Love abd Danses" Bo says ft 2 ripen noe luependca members ein a alec relatos 1 te Tis spl of much of Kies werk, wh carck cet recs a dlc elena basen esr a prac ‘tt essay, “The Bis of Linguists 2 commentary on Takotaon's pete gusts, wile th second ne, “The Fae, Lov ad ‘Maknuwal” apes he Snags of fhe former a cometary 0 Wo PAG Bock’ shor utes parila Wel salted a dsewsion ot Saran tthe Faber Tals paper nthe rsa of my vedi of he ‘nari concent espe he eta aspects ofthe Hs 2p? nso Lingurdes” My cone swith Kiva’ ear of ‘oscar and ors purtuly wi be ary of language in eae, Mae sacar wih ow consdetsion repulse Gr) ta unr es hor wer nerf conc bowed fom varios dios to the bs ‘ene Invenugaons, be tey fom Maes, ngs, pow, 99 Seep soles pei toate (we Ts epee ie ‘thereat enn coer tht Langue i 100 complex and too decply imple in « wide vate PRBaas elvis aa concer for any one discipline or aprcach Coane to ot wes every qusson of infest Conerng It Clmeron 1992: 214) 1 his ier aspect that mas pven et work on Iangnage sd titrate its character features: originally amt concep ally, the later exacerbated by bee radlealy dialectic whnkdng, Barthes Credied ber esac on erate a art with breaking new ground 2 Be Sword of teas, as for exampo, when he wrote in “L’Brangtre” tit "lla Kestva alvays destoys the Inst preconception, the one we ‘tought we could be Comfoted by, the one of wich we could be ond” (Gans 1970: 19-20, 1 agree with Barths (1970) and Lewle (1974) on the Issve of Krister (evoldonary semioes, and tink tha external aay Ls ne neces to Dac 4 work that aubries ise oa ts own teh, fot exa ple wen 1 opposes an lead) xing nd resisting Tanguage of powex, {har of eran linguists who las waadens of epession and rationalize of tho socal comract In ts How soll sdsratum (Gscouc) cary the Stole tation 1 8 ‘Snclsio. The epistemology wedciying Haguisc andthe snelag ‘agate presen (eoustralism, ov exampse) even though cost flag s balwarksgsnet ronal desuvedon and sotclowag dog lan, sem helps anactoalade when fae with he comespo fry mao of woe an set, rag he woe Hingulste cs means above al, compellag lingua change ojo sty. (kate 1980: 24. ns Regarding the Jue of anacheonisue stoctuasm mentioned by Xiistva inte above quotation, I would ke ad after quaifeation Inbis “Invodvetion” to Desire t Language (1980, Léon Rovdlez, he fuiiot, underlines the fact that Krisova'e backproand in Russias ‘Poseoemalim preserved het fmm uneieal sccepanse of "terry Me turfs” th cutee fad im Pals a tha ie. He say at in er eideal sexy, Keltova has aways managed to maintun the presence of contextual factors such ar genesis, story, society and subject (he wring pend, which many “suctralie” ignored avoling the so-called "death of the uth” twas the tasies peerence of genuine strecteralistooght Is fer work, tough, tat allowed har co Keep ber exteal distance from ‘weaker Meaty stots, Kilstvas song strcturlsm, based on a solofuretona tio of| atrerece t dette in system roltions, owes much w Saws’ sel fofy. Noverteess, ee ewarenss of the role, noccsary but insufficient. played ty linguistics when appovehing text 6a rect product of er Second ad more fundamental research fel, seniodes as developed by Charles Sanders Pelce. Pete's msn consibutloas ter thought are, Sra te notion of “Semiols” and, second, that ofthe “sgn qua si ‘hey afe more powerful cons dha the Saussurcan neons of "ang snd sige gu Ungultle sign” Pe’ ant-essndlssemlatics hasbeen dlcovered x century late by poscstrictraisn—a mode of thinking associated with waters Uke Deetda and Foucat 1s common sense wo say with Saas hat sign ‘ut consist of two clement 4 word and 4 ting, a signified aino’ Dnt Large ‘iglied nd tht the reltlon ten bese to clement fundamentally Rtmcy, Me queson i how i meaning generate? Pee propose hat Tae to mean, signs need a (isd clement, which We called an ferret” Paice wrote san uated frgnen “Te meaning of» representation cam be ping bat a representation, Tn oct thing but the elf eoaclve 36 spt Be ant cloing. But tis leung. never can be completly tapped off iy oaly changed fo someting move aphanous. $0 Sere tne vegtession hee, Pally, he inexpea is nohing ‘BeSSabaec represen to whic he rch of rh nde ag ae epcsetaton Ie has He erent agin 0, another fine Sri (be: 18339). Tor Pk, meaning dost nt ier in cones, bt aways » Fe tion of te relaions among concep He bleed hat concepts, oF ses of Ry eo. etr to objects only touph the miadon of oer sigs his ‘solo, he basi of semiotics, snd e Believed tat objet re wo ub Sunce in themselves, Dut sigs conse easily by the laws which de Tbs ck eviour unr all posible conons: tis Is he bass of is Fragma, Fay, necegded th se or subject a jst eater sign Petce, knowing is isoprsbe om sos, the making of Sig, and ff te making of spo thee Isao ea "hoe elcrance of Pete's teoy of sign to twentet-centary pos ‘opty of language Is reqenlyresgeized: be pays a cole in the argument Pears a Tneory of Semiotics (1970), and Deriéa pays him bret hmptimeat In De ta Gramoaologe (1967) for antlpating te docon- Shion of the "tanscendntl sgl." His inten on uli Kristeva too, cab fel itexpaine the amen dltance between es suctarl fetlodcs and Bares” logocensestuctral semioiogy ‘White Baths tend to rely om he teary of he slg and signified ‘as eed In Sassurean nguss, which places laeguge in dominat ‘oaton abd makes of nguletice 4 model scene for seologcl sues Sonia Kesteva manages to escape these re stats. Her adherence 49 Palee's non ofthe sign and somlsis allows ec to e ava ht ini flrs bolt necessary ald neuer when approaching & eX necessary, Decause'n weer wovks wi and witha langape; insuiiet, tecese the ries invelved ite egniing poses that opr trou fnguage ba ‘hnmot te assimilated to language. Even language i necessary in ort {o emus oe eas, oe leance Meraure, Hoge realms ae beyond = (Suge Ths soos ile obfoat for thse who do not to a deerme view of language tut It might not he 4 oe tase who reduce siping Tengue semantics, hose who feduos semlosis co linguistic meaning, or those who siecle to aca! Whoefan positon. Resear bael ons avacenss of Perean semioss allows Keseva to approach erature at piviloged team of emlose sociation ofall ‘la which obviviy ool oct at only the agus ponte, ‘mani, syitacl, bot also the pragmatic, ieologial and symbole ‘Poetcity inthe Widest sense ofthe tem sed by Ktva sands Yeyond the ‘Scope of formal lingusticy It canbe beter explained by fanctlons prag- hale mods, for example the Prague Sche’s communicative model, tu of course, by Peuceanremloe,bocaus ey ofr a wider cognitive frame for beng tnd understanding that ean incorporate bh dint Ta soaps and language a= developed through one ois muldple pragmate functors, bent in he above mentioned essay, “The Ethics of Linguists” (1978), Kciseva leary shows her det to the soial Ideas of Jaobson, the Pragne seholfunctnalit whose leas open up anew model of language ‘vil incorporates the speaking sabject Here Krlteva acknowlodges hat, Jakobso0 ‘comes away suspecting tat he sgefngprocos spite to the fanguage system bu ha er st ao speech, gure, and within I ci er hus Holt: # hogs, ee Kristeva is here atibuing 40 Jaks the ole of precurscr ofthe ates ‘evelopment in the pragmatics of language. She I aso reaching ober Stpieatons of Jakobsen seminal noght—fr example, when she men tons causal In Unguage use which of a heterogeneous and dex tein Tn oer words, Ketva sess that language contlas he negation of language, acest of language 4 dsb by foereal Tings, a lange. Thstend she thinks te inortat for Moguls as well at for fens to take the dtinton beeen Ingoago aad discourse, This i the postion ‘lfendot by Tingits ike ack and Coward (1990), fr wom language i ‘ot intently marginaliag, sexist, patel, or autodtasan as cela ‘Schools of feminist thought sould have it. Nevertbeles, language Hs Tune tionally flexible, therefore, when organisa By isitadons ito discourse ‘often tes on these opal teu "altova alison Jason's functional mae oe de consrcton of modes of ascoute that admit, or baer embrace, otherness and ferencett Dosen ange within them, Her primary models are poctry, maternity and unthnanalyata. She slows powtic language as 2 dam, 2 tertared kt ‘re anpaage opens up fom Ie agar ough ks pe- abs tans Fogical ‘breakout a ek expensed ae ipossble bythe "west sobjet” abit rept ouster abd sacar the txt aban “bet” of research. The oem etudes the fope‘inssed scholar Stas woman eludes tose who ‘rompe wy maner and suuorre bo as an “objec.” an “ajetes” Ot rive sores thats akon ascouse and hs conception of Hingulstls, and ose of 0 ote i Sieh eould eaneibute to the theory of the unconscious — sae aps to see being made ae umade=poein—Uke TNL age Of any subject. (1980 26) “Te tast pat of tis quotation Inctudes males and females unde the words “any sublect." Language is ot the domain of males. Kristeva Totans that both men and women can have acess to the sewlouc and {he symbole, atnough sexual ciference as Is dscravely coasted in ‘heels does come to bear om ow and to wha exet, Poste Inguas, hi matey re fncions whic, though asnilad io fein, can Be peefomod By both man aod wom ‘her book om Rrstva, Kelly Ollver (1993) mules the mal points om which Krsiva's"bereties” Is founded. Materity, psycho. ets an poote tanguge are model for he evolonay ets, “x fw atic, which relations to do ther are founded on rations 10 the fir win ovesee™ (Over 1993: 8) Prychoandysle shows Bow to enbrace the stanger within ourselves, ‘aod isin tan teacbes fo embrace the strange 1 sell, Poetic lan age sage model for sties because it Includes te negativity that absngcs ny ted ideniy of meaaing and prevents the ctaltaiaism tt the symbove Hngultie Lav. Maerity calls into question te border oumeen subject and other, the maternal body encloses an other, In ‘iver terms, i many 1 pi tu ere. a nt chgngiog fh a leary eaetaion, Krseva analyses ‘crm noe auggest tu at suncton Btwenn wet 28d matey gant of nid subjects, ae ablrary (OWNEE 1383: 1 ao nt totaly ages with Over’ teading of Kristeva reqaeing the tax pola Though belonging © a symbole universe, the dsntion be v . ween subject an obec snot abinay but mouse by two aan ee Inlzng function, the nomi and ts normative. “Nome in as muh a8 4 symbole universe provides order forthe sbjectve appreenson of bio [rapicalexpertence Tat, experiences belonging to diferent spheres [tealiy are inogrfed by Incopeeaon In the sane, overarching universe of meaning, A then “normative” heciase a symbolic universe provides “owledge” ofthe cols tat defie bh “righ and “wrong” actions ‘within the sroture. As inal asttonalized relaonships, tof habe ‘alized atone cae into a pater, he dstinsons applying oral, sub [pete and objective ar nage las aleccalrlatonship. ‘Subject and object should not be ought of as extemes, tat 362d stool sella between symbolic Ia and somite wansresion, Here Krisova wopnses an woraeling ofthe doable bind between citer co ‘etlyinhabiing the symbolio—and Wereby taking up a sigld unified abject positon “ot refs the symboll—and thereby iabiting psy~ Choss, Me ces wit bo a subject inprocess and an chjctin-proces “Tin Is in pestectagrecment wih Berger and Luckmiann’s (1956) sctl- ‘ty of knowledge and With ur iniht ino the dialectic wetweea socal fealty and indvidl exiteno fn history, what they call he socal con- ‘suction of soclty a subjetve and objective cali, “The rede of ertre oc a moter, spd Beir jects, tbe poem oe the ‘fe, sand in relations of subject) eject (Othe), which in Kiistva's thought meane a dynanic ratonstip of sobject iepracess © fn Other i-procs. Tis pe of tlaoshipchllenges the reesentaton fhvough which we lie so ao provide a couealapce against a ext tut of balance: 4 counterbalance to the mutual excuson posed by nea ‘don and idenifetion, aaah and totatarianism, the semioie and the symbole “Tere is controversy between those who consider Kristeva to be & feminist and those who deny Ber that ae, IC 1s to be conceded that Kiiseva is hose towards a feminism that mersly rushes afer “pale power" o that rely ant Yo possess power, and er objection i based fn tc cris that such femlnst ends cannot work beeabe ey star ‘fom tadona reprsetaons of diference whieh ensure tat difleence ‘wil always be marginal. er own frist i concerned wit epeseattion of dreace ha allow Indvisas to express tbl Invualty without being margialzed fn scey In ars of gender, she advocates x pits In which nite be ‘or she may be perceived agkod evi fom the unmasked soaints Dow nar ‘sclctonacy in which the female should note dfins as minus male i conversely the mile sould ate defined 26 minus female; an- fuige in which the ue of tie gene “se would wot sbsitute forthe ‘ar genede he” Which tors of Popyry’s We, would be taae (Govur saying that ¢diferenia specifica sould nt be mistaken for senas ‘Th te ay wetings Krsevaasociates the western ade of exc sive allogance to he spabole fw and 1ogos wit he paternal myth, nd thon aseclatee tbe pre-and tan-logicalsefoie wih the material, A ferns ns well 4 semicla, she seems to be favouring the mater ote ove the per i he ate wings abe countralnces hers Bau plviger te synbolie over tbe semion. Yundesiand de os lon aot av selfcontadtion bt 6 mtr ofthe dlletielosciation ormeen semiotic dive and symbole aw tat hc wating den. “Kecoragy the atta symbole abd te maternal sem ae 90 to be patcelved 6 mutually exclusive polaris but as osctating ‘Somat win the al-etcompig real of salons, Here the concept tbe dominant suse Jkabson's seas AS 2 res of dominance Of fe acide, the poem is feloss Fregrounded against the bounding Tims of language tn thas construed into an integrating gos anus txt which teas inno "olsimepraion voyage toward the mother” (Kova 1980: 2. In more metahorsal terns, Keister Fara when, for example, we 0 tng associates Sun and “Tue sun paternal image hats coveted but also feared, murderous, Ti eisaded yt Hogielave seat which must 'be usurped (eer 980: 27) “Ts, fr Krstea, azure bovomes “The stags Between pet abd sun (Kestva 1980; 28)—-nodce the wordplay sown, The Restevan Toptsing of tne ea oF poste fancuon held by Roman Jakobson expe: Tey incorforts the dee of destvcvenes within the pera of change. Kelsova, following Jakobson and (Perhaps even more) Makaeovsk, ‘estes fh rebelious character of poste language. Tae pues tex resus fom ovtrannte of defamation, om the swage to beak tous files, he suuggle. between tho language of the individual aid ‘havondonatied language the stugle becwen poet and sun, sun being ‘Sfoency of language Limiting svete, pateoal law abeaing rythm” asova 1980: 29) ‘Such a contest of language (scours) versus language (langue) is only posible wih the scenario ofa culaueussemiote Melé where the ‘Sruoge ean take plae and were, ste or me Inertopuve force oF the fiat andi move of negation, a second sys movement may take Place Semis understond in alc grant the regeneration of meaning Mer the death of 1 famiar meaang. ust ike Cie Welt, which grants the eepeneration of indvidal Ife after the death of individuals. The ‘mother is Kesteva's map forthe feds of ie and seas, "There might ase the question of whcther Krstova's mtroal metaphor locorortes tne Western baary gener opposition males, ewer sot nay estalzed, Think Dat th members of he pale {isltis ose in Kristeva do ot stand Ln bnary opposition but are involved In a Galectcal tlaionship wbieh allows the words “mother” and father" to escape the pson howe of langue and skip formal ngusic pales." is effcted late noon of pout fnstion, x revolonary ton that language functonal sacs insted of axed abstraction. ‘This neion provides language with peagmate dynamism of & kind thal takes formal sucurlapprosces fo language ook Tanguage is neither father or mode a essence, bu teas function citer way-sas fiber or toer—boewse 1s snc ad the etbol i iat. clas oaigns belonging to te more generally semod. For Perce fhe togutsc sigh is «symbole saa, a sign that functions qua sign atid (qua Hogolstic sgh, within comualcaion aod wihin signification ‘Roaiogosly, ina functional approach # genet, he maletemle roles 3s ‘well asthe Pleral and materoat become fantons which canbe enacted ty a human being segues of sexual gender In conclusion, Kestova's position Is far semoved fom dat of othe ‘feminist ingulst ike Dale Spender, whose deeminite they tn Man ‘Made Lavguage (1980) makes language an unesapable amd powefl d= fcr of paarchal values trom which women are cxlode, In Kristeva's Now, Language per ve dos not nserey exclude or allenate women, Ts Inetonalved nd Indviduaiad preudice as wel 8 rested aceon to he discourses of powe that harper people's tite chances. There ae focll pacts that stand Inte way of Uberatin, Awareness of them a8 ‘hangs in beavicur wl result nace Inerveaton in mesg and viv {can That thre oting immutable abou eer language or society 63 fact at propessive dacnree and pllcs necessarily acknowledge. C8 this ype of progressive lingulete discourse that Kesteva advocates and ‘woe gldelies wee Tokobso"ssemizl wring.ons stn Larne “Tis is « path that nas boon followed by oer ingults, for example oy Haris (14%), whose ltegraonal ngs holds Dat language is a= rads languagessig, a creative process In contest. If language 18 not & [Reed code bo esble snd cerewabl, thea its possible t0 make it mean ow thus by pang alreacy existing resources to variable we. Ths, ale como over mening es theorecalImpocsblty andthe petect ced code Just langage myth. This poston If aken to exter, leads forthe seceptance of the tal Indeterminacy of meaning, 2 postion Theutecally wcless for fem, because it renders worme's relation Tanguage exacy Oe sume as a's Tis extreme view can be prevent bya prapmale consideration of the social practices though which ‘guage tie in certain contents In reglacd—sittions and regulative lvncss of iil acest to women like de Crh, sate sto, or Twsmaklng Boke, among oes. Tinaly, Kase proposcs lings eis rooted Inthe concepts of abject soley, which moves in te dection of socllyfunctosa emf ths redoing evoaon and progress posable ‘Beau PENAS IBASEZ. ‘Unieridad de Zagora Works Ged Barts, Rol. 1970. "Lge" Quine Le (1-19 May: 19.20, ‘ere, Pe an! Thomts Lass 1966. The Soa Cosactom of Realy: A Tra the coy of Kl, New Yok: Dossy. ‘lc, Mar, ad Rsatind Cow 1990. "Lingle, Soc and Senta! Reladons: ‘a vio of Dae Spends Man Made Zangage Ia Caner 190. Cameos, Dota 1990, The Fen Cg ef Language: A Reader Land wise 19 Feminism and Linguist Theory. Lond Mac in, inben.1976 A Theory of Semis. Bling: nana UP, Denia, ass, 1967 De a Grommatlge Ps Moa. ‘as Ro. 1981, The Lanange Mth, Laon: Dako, itr, 197, Plog Pat: Seal 179. Semen: Recherche pour ne mana Pus: eh — into: ese in Langage Ba Leon. Rowe: New Yee Clunbia UP “Lvs, Pip, 194, Revlon Semlos”Dicrits 4.3 (al): 28-32. ‘Olver Kel, 193, eating Kraea: Unroveig te Doublind, Bonington: tas UP Peirce, Chr, 196, Caled Paper of Care SucesPeic. Ba. Cas anor Pat Weis. Cae MA): Hare UP. Senet D180, Mor Made Language Lio: Rute.WALLACE STEVENS: PENSAMIENTO MODERNISTA SOBRE LENGUAJE Y REPRESENTACION [BEATRIZ PENAS IBANEZ 1 Introduceién. Significado y obra de arte. ‘La triple eapacidad que tiene la obra de arte de @ representar otra realidad, (3) de representarla ‘mediante una estilzaci6n semiétieo-estétiea, y Gi) de que dicha estlizacién formal sea interpretable ‘por y para un sujeto intéxprete,constituye el fina dlamento semidsieo de la obra de arte. La primera capacidad, la que fandamenta la representacion Sobre una relacién translaticia del representamen a Torepresentado, ylateroera, hacer que lo represei- tado aparezca asi aun intérprete, revelan aspectos Gefinitorios de la relacin interna constitutiva de todo signo, del signo mismo. La segunda capaci= clad, le que hace det representamen un objeto esti- lizado dirigido a eausar un efecto estético adicional, diferencia el objeto-signo artistico del que no lo es. sta segunda dimensién garantiza una perfcta adecuacion entresigniicantey sigaifieado, para un intérprete, que neutraliza cualquier arbitrariedad ‘que se postule en el caso del signo no estéteo. Es