‫ﲰﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﳕﻮﺫﺟﺎ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﺷﺘﻐﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻮﺍﺩﻫﺎ ‪ :‬ﻧﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﺃﺩﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺷﻬﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻮﻥ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ ﺍﱁ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ‪ :‬ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺍﻹﺷﻬﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﺄﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺳﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﻨﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﲤﺜﻼﺕ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﺘﺠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ " ﻳﻔﻀﺢ" ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ /‬ﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲣﺘﺒﺊ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻳﺘﺪﺍﻭﳍﺎ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺑﺪﺍﻫﺔ ﻭﻋﻔﻮﻳﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ " ﺃﺳﺎﻃﲑ" ‪ ،1957‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻌﻮﺍﱂ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻫﲑﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﱂ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ‪ :‬ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻧﺼﺎ‪ ،‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺳﻠﻮﻛﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ " ﺃﺳﺎﻃﲑ" ﻫﻮ ﲰﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻺﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﺑﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻪ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺒﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﳍﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻠﺘﺼﻘﲔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻱ ﻭ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺗﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﲨﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻻﻻﺕ ﳍﺎ ﺟﺬﻭﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻼﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ‪.‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺮﺩﺍ ﻟﺪﻭﺍﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ "ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ"‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﺷﺘﻐﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺷﺘﻐﺎﳍﺎ ؟ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺒﺎﺭﺙ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺇﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻹﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻱ ﻧﺴﻘﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻻﻟﻴﺎ‪/‬ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺎ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﺘﺠﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻃﲑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﻠﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪.‬‬

‫‪96‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕﻋﺪﺩ ‪16‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﻧﺴﻖ ﲰﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﻳﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ‪ :‬ﺩﺍﻝ ﻭﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲡﻤﻌﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻓﻴﺴﻤﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ " ﻧﺴﻘﺎ‬
‫ﲰﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺎ " ﻭﻳﺴﻤﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ " ﻧﺴﻘﺎ ﲰﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ "ﳚﺪ ﺩﻋﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺩﺍﻝ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ‪:‬‬
‫‪- 2‬ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ‬ ‫‪ - 1‬ﺩﺍﻝ‬ ‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ - 3‬ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬

‫‪ II‬ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ‬ ‫‪ I‬ﺩﺍﻝ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ‬

‫‪ III‬ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﳏﺾ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ ‪-‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻧﺴﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺻﻔﺔ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ " ﻟﻐﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ " )‪. (1‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪ ﻣﻦ ﲢﻠﻴﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺩﺍﻝ ﻭﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫)ﺣﺠﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ‪-،‬ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻬﺎ ﺍﱁ ( ﻓﻬﻮ ﳛﺘﻔﻆ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ) ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ( ﻓﻴﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﻛﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺃﺧﲑ ﻟﻠﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻜﻼ ﻛﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻓﻴﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫‪- 2‬ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ‬ ‫‪ - 1‬ﺩﺍﻝ‬
‫‪ - 3‬ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺏ ﺷﻜﻞ ) ﻧﺴﻖ ‪ (2‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ) ﻧﺴﻖ ‪II (2‬‬ ‫ﺃ‪-‬ﻣﻌﲎ ) ﻧﺴﻖ ‪ I (1‬ﺩﺍﻝ‬
‫‪ III‬ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃ ﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻛﻤﻌﲎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻛﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻛﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺩﻭﺍﻟﻴﻚ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﻳﺸﺘﻐﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻛﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟىﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﺗﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻗﻮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻭﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻭﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﳎﺮﺩﺍ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮﻣﻠﻲﺀ "ﺑﻈﺮﻑ ﻣﺎ » ﻭﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ‬

‫‪97‬‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﳝﻸ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﺭﻳﺦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﺭﺉ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺮﳎﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﺳﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺃﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ " ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻊ" ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺛﻘﺎﰲ ) ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ (‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﺰﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1961‬ﺳﻴﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﲢﻆ ﺑﺎﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ " ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ "‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻨﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺴﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ؟ ﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺇﺭﺳﺎﻟﻴﺔ ؟ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﺷﺘﻐﺎﳍﺎ ؟‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮﻱ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺳﻨﻦ » ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻭﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻻ‬
‫ﻟﺰﻭﻡ ﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺃﻱ ﺳﻨﻦ » )‪ (2‬ﻭﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﻤﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻄﻴﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻏﻲ ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻭﲣﻀﻊ ﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﻴﺐ ﻻ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻻ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳒﺪ ﺳﻨﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ )ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮﻳﺔ‪-‬ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻘﻄﻴﻊ‪ -‬ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻦ( ﺗﻀﻊ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﹼﺮ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﺳﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ‪» :‬ﻫﻞ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮﻱ )ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ( ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﺃﻧﺴﺎﻗﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺘﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺳﻨﻦ ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮﻱ )ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﻨﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺭﻗﻤﻴﺎ ( ؟ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ؟ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ؟ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳒﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ« )‪(3‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻪ ﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﺍ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺻﻔﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫‪- 1. 3‬ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ‪ :‬ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﺮﰲ ﻭﺭﻣﺰﻱ ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﻓﺈ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﲣﻀﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺺ ‪ :‬ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺺ ﺍﳊﺠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺺ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ‬
‫)ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ(‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ‪» :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻻ‬

‫‪98‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕﻋﺪﺩ ‪16‬‬

‫ﻳﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺣﺘﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻄﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ« )‪.(4‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ‪ :‬ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ''ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺣﺮﰲ'' ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ''ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﺮﰲ'' ‪‬ﺗﻘﹶﺎ‪‬ﺑ ُﹸﻞ ﻳﻨﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻼﺋﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ؛ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻳﺴﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻠﺘﻤﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺬﻑ ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺎ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ » ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺘﻐﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻦ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ''ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ'' ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺸﻬﺪ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎ ) ﻷﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺿﻤﺎﻧﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺘﻪ« ‪ (5).‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ''ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ'' ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﻭﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺇﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺳﻴﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ''ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ''‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻗﺒﻼ ﻣﺮﺳﻼ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﲨﺎﻋﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3.2‬ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﺰﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ »ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻱ »ﺗﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﲔ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻵﻥ ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺳﻨﻦ )ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﰲ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﻣﺴﻨﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﻨﲔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ »ﺍﻟﺼﻨﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ« ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻲ »ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺇﳛﺎﺋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺴﻨﻦ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺳﻨﻦ« )‪ .(6‬ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻧﺴﻖ ﻭﺳﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻳﻨﺒﲏ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﺮﰲ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻨﺴﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺰﺍﻣﻨﺔ ﻟﻸﻭﱃ‪» ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ »ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻊ‬
‫» ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺭﻣﺰﻱ ﳝﺴﺢ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻣﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺮﻣﻴﺰ ﻣﻜﺜﻒ ﺟﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﻬﺎﺭﻳﺔ«)‪ ،(7‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﺩﺍﻻ ﻣﻮﺣﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻺﳛﺎﺀ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﺘﻐﻞ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺫﻫﺎﻥ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺗﺰﺍﻣﻨﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ '' ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺢ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳊﺎﺫﻕ( ؟‬

‫‪99‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ‪،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ‪ ،‬ﰲ »ﻧﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﺮﻛﻪ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻨﻌﻪ ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻫﺪ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻳﻌﻲ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻵﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻴﻨﻮﻧﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﲣﺘﻠﻖ ﺻﻨﻔﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ‪/‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺑﲔ ''ﻫﻨﺎ'' ﻭ ''ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ'' ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺆﺳﺲ ﳌﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ »ﻻ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﰲ« ﺃﻱ ﺇﻥ ''ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﳊﺮﰲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻱ‬
‫''ﻳﻄﺒﻊ'' ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﺔ ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻫﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﳛﻠﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺇﺩﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺰﺍﻣﻨﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺘﻪ ﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﺣﻲ ﲟﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺃﻭ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻳﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎ ﺑﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﲡﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﲨﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺺ ﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺿﻤﻨﻴﺎ ﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﻣﲔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﻣﲔ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻀﺎﻣﲔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ‪،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺡ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺣﻮﻝ " ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ" ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﻣﺴﻨﻦ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ " ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ "‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﳝﺰﺝ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺘﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺘﲔ ) ﻻﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﻮﻧﻎ(‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻖ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻣﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻻﺷﻌﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﲨﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺆﻃﺮﺓ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﺳﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻮﺻﻒ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺇﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ‪ » :‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺛﺎﻥ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ) ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ( ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﳛﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻗﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺼﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻈﻬﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ » )‪(8‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ " ﺑﻼﻏﺔﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ "‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺻﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻧﺴﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﺻﻔﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻓﻮﳉﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬

‫‪100‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕﻋﺪﺩ ‪16‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺘﻤﺎ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺩﻻﻻﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻫﻮﺇﳛﺎﺀ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺇﳛﺎﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺻﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﺮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﻗﺒﻼ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﻥ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﲢﺖ‪ -‬ﻟﻐﻮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻱ‪/‬ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺻﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﺒﺪﺋﻴﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻧﺴﻖ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪﻩ ﻭﺃﺷﻜﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ‪ :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﻐﺔ ﲢﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﳌﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺻﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ ﳊﻘﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﲔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺟﺰﺀﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﲨﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﱪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺟﺰﺀﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﺴﺒﺒﲔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻠﻬﻤﺖ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺠﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﲑﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻗﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﲞﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﲡﺪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ " ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ " ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ‬
‫‪Mythologies, Paris , Seuil , 1957 , p 200 -1‬‬
‫‪Le message photographique, in Lobvie et l'obus ; p 11" -2‬‬
‫‪Rhétorique de l' image" , in Lobvie et l'obus, Seuil, 1982 , p 25" -3‬‬
‫‪Le message photographique Op ; p cit 11" -4‬‬
‫‪Rhétorique de l'image, Op, cit" -5‬‬
‫‪Le message photographique" op, cit , p 12-13" -6‬‬
‫‪Rhétorique de l'image" op cit p 36 " -7‬‬
‫‪Le messge photographique : op cit , p 13 -8‬‬

‫‪101‬‬