ABSTRACT
A central problem for semiotic analysis is the problem o f enunciation. This is due to two factors. First o f all, enunciation reinvests discourse with its ‘nonlinguistic situation’; it ‘scatters’, as the Analytical Dictionary says, language ‘into an infinite num ber o f exam ples o f speech (Saussure’s parole), outside all scientific cognizance.’ (SL: 103) Greim asian analysis, Jean Calloud notes, ‘must be com plem ented by research on the problem o f enunciation, that is, o f the production o f the text’ (1976: 46; see Parret 1983 for an argum ent in favour o f a ‘pragm atic turn ’ in semiotics). In fact, he goes on, Greim as is open to such further research. In this we can see the way G reim as’s semiotics distinguishes itself from that o f many other linguists and semioticians mentioned throughout this study: he attem pts to account not only for the mechanisms o f m eanings — the structures which allow form al understanding o f signification and/or communication while excluding what Hjelmslev calls the ‘sem antics’ o f language (1961: 79) — but also to account for the ‘sense’ o f m eaning, the m eaning-effect o f semiotic systems in particular discourses.
