regime of signs. The list that comes into consideration is limited. Based on Deleuze and Guattari’s idea, A Thousand Plateaus, all semiotics are mixed and not only combine with various forms of content but also combine different regimes of signs, “presignifying elements are always active in the signifying regime; countersignifying element are always present and at work within it; and postsignifying elements are already there”( A Thousand Plateaus 119). The semiotics and their mixture may appear in a history of confrontation and intermingling of peoples, but also in languages in which there are several competing functions. Doubtless, every regime of signs effectuates the condition of possibility of language and utilizes language elements, but that is all. As Foucault clearly shows, regimes of signs are only function of existence of language that sometimes span a number of languages and are sometimes distributed within a single language (Anti-Oedipus 367-378).
As mentioned above, Deleuze and Guattari discuss regimes of signs thoroughly. The main points extract to be followed:
A certain number of semiotics displaying very diverse characteristics. The presigni-fying semiotics, in which the “overcoding” marking the privileged status of language operates diffusel: enunciation is collective, statements themselves are polyvocal, and substances of expression are multiple; relative deterritorialization is determined by the confrontation between the territorialities and segmentary lineages that ward off the State apparatus. The signifying semiotic: overcoding is fully effectuated by the signifier, and by the State apparatus that emits it; there is uniformity of enunciation, unification of the substance of expression, and control over statements in a regime of circularity; relative deterritorialization is taken as far as it can go by a redundant and perpetual referral from sign to sign ( A Thousand Plateaus 135).
According to this explanation, the text can finally convey the meaning and this is a kind of representation of ordinary language that is supposed to transfer the meaning to the reader or listener. In fact, this group of signs cannot include Beckett’s use of language, for as far as we know he negates the meaning in literary texts through literature. On the other hand, two other signs according to Deleuze and Guattari’s view have different characteristics that can be taken into consideration:
The countersign-nifying semiotics: here, overcoding is assured by the number as form of expression or enunciation, and by the War Machine upon which it depends; deterritorialization follows a line of active destruction or abolition. The postsignifying semiotics, in which overcoding is assured by the redundancy of consciousness; a subjectification of enunciation occurs on a passional line that makes the organization of power immanent and raises deterritorialization to the absolute, although in a way that is still negative( A Thousand Plateaus 135).
In Not I these two signifying systems are operative in a way to demonstrate that there is no final meaning in. Consequently, mouth takes the place of the body which is hidden and the responsibility is given to mouth to explain everything, by which she manifests herself through voice. But what is heard in sound is the nonbody, just as what is seen in the play are words. The mouth has become the body of the woman, just as the mouth was the body of the signifier. It is now the body, the most deterritorialized of things. As the play proceeds the woman is talking through the mouth but I would say that it is not talking, it is just the chain of words which come from unconscious part of her mind. These words don’t make sense; In fact, you, as a reader don’t get any specific meaning through these words because they are not even a sentence; they are just words next to each other that you can see here
out . . . into this world . . . this world . . . tiny little thing . . . before its time . . . in a god for- . . . what? . . girl? . . yes . . . tiny little girl . . . into this . . . out into this . . . before her time . . . godforsaken hole called . . . called . . . no matter . . . parents unknown . . . unheard of . . . he having vanished . . . thin air . . . no sooner buttoned up his breeches . . . she similarly . . . eight months later . . . almost to the tick . . . so no love . . . spared that . . . no love such as normally vented on the . . . speechless infant . . . in the home (67).
As mentioned above, all through these assertions mind is talking without any control and meaning. This mouth relates a tale of woe in somewhat fragmented and disjointed sentences talking about past traumas and a very empty and painful life. The images include a flicker of light, the dull buzzing and roaring in her skull, a moving mouth, and a field in April, at first light but then entirely dark. These repeated images, however, each drawn to the same conclusion- a rebirth of sorts of nothingness. The woman’s younger self, the girl, first unleashes her torrent of words upon the world. Stalwartly in the third person, is repeated several times in several different angles, but each coming to the same conclusion, one of a fresh, new beginning and no meaning. There is no longer a center of significance connected to expanding circles or an expanding spiral as Deleuze and Guattari mentioned, but a point of subjectification constituting the point of departure of the line. There is no longer a signifier-signified relation here, there is no longer sign- to- sign circularity. One can argue that no signifier comes to any signified and in this way no meaning can be achieved.
As a matter of fact, the woman withdraws her body for becoming a point of subjectification for the drawing of a line of flight or deterritorialization. The mouth is the subject of enunciation, constituted on the basis of the woman that replaces the body. She talks about darkness but whether this darkness was real, from an eclipse, a cloud, simply imagined, or from something more serious like a seizure is unknown, but it is during this darkness that “she could still hear the buzzing … so-called … in the ears … and a ray of light came and went” (217). This darkness, buzzing, and light is repeated over and over in the play, and, again, whether real or imagined, are obvious precursors to a great meaninglessness. In the woman’s third examination of the scene, she finally comes to the true result of the nothingness through her speech. She states that:
it was all dead still but for the buzzing … when suddenly she realized … words were — what ? … who? … no! … she! … realized … words were coming … imagine! Words were coming … a voice she did not recognize … at first … so long since it had sounded…, then finally had to admit … could be none other … than her own (219)
and also in the moment it’s clear to see that the buzzing, the ray of light culminated in her first words. This is the nothingness and meaninglessness that she is mulling over, again and again.
Too many words have been said haphazardly without referring to any specific meaning that can represent a-signifying sign system. This regime is not supposed to represent any meaning; this is the regime of literal language. In fact the whole story does not have any interpretation. The two figures of thought-consciousness and unconscious can be seen in postsignifying regime. This can be read as a line of flight for the woman to escape her loneliness and silence during the past years. In these lines we come across redundancy in the unconscious part of the mind that throws out lot of words based on her repressed desire in everything even talking. As a matter of fact, in the signifying regime “redundancy is a phenomenon of objective frequency involving signs or element of signs (the phonemes, letters, and groups of letters in a language): there is both a maximum frequency of the signifier in relation to each sign” (A Thousand Plateaus 132). In the postsignifying regime, on the other hand, “the redundancy is one of the subjective resonance involving all shifters, personal pronouns and proper names” (133). Here again we can see personal pronoun of she and her that she used over and over in order to clarify her speech to the listener:
all that early April morning light . . . and she found herself in the— . . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 1.] . . . found herself in the dark . . . and if not exactly . . . insentient . . . insentient . . . for she could still hear the buzzing . . . (67).
Moreover, one can come across proper nouns used in the play:
sitting staring at her hand . . . where was it? . . Croker’s Acres . . . one evening on the way home . . . home! . . a little mound in Croker’s Acres . . . dusk . . . sitting staring at her hand . . . there in her lap . . . palm upward . . . suddenly saw it wet . . . the palm . . . tears presumably . . . hers presumably . . . no one else for miles . . . no sound . . . just the tears . . . sat and watched them dry . . (78)
These are testimony to indicate the postsignifying regime deployed in the play.
The most essential distinction between the signifying regime and asignifying regime and their respective redundancies is the movement of deterritorialization they effectuate. Since the signifying sign refers only to other signs, and the set of all signs to the signifier itself, the corresponding semiotic enjoys the high level of deterritorialization; but this is a deteritorialization that is still relative, expressed as frequency. In this system, the

دسته بندی : No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید