UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Julia Kristeva’s Semanalysis and the Legacy of Émile Benveniste
van Mechelen, M.
DOI
10.24308/iass-2014-161
Publication date
2017
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
New Semiotics : Between Tradition and Innovation
License
Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act ([Link]
dutch-copyright-law-taverne-amendment)
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
van Mechelen, M. (2017). Julia Kristeva’s Semanalysis and the Legacy of Émile Benveniste.
In K. Bankov (Ed.), New Semiotics : Between Tradition and Innovation: 12th World Congress
of Semiotics : Sofia 2014 New Bulgarian University (pp. 1473-1480). (Proceedings of the
world congress of the IASS/AIS). IASS Publications. [Link]
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: [Link] or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam ([Link]
Download date:25 May 2025
The International Association for Semiotic Studies
L'Association internationale de Sémiotique
Asociación internacional de semiótica
Internationale Vereinigung für Semiotik
Southeast European Center
for Semiotic Studies
NEW SEMIOTICS
Between Tradition and Innovation
12th WORLD CONGRESS OF SEMIOTICS
Sofia 2014 New Bulgarian University
DOI 10.24308/iass-2014-161
1473
JULIA KRISTEVA’S SEMANALYSIS AND THE
LEGACY OF ÉMILE BENVENISTE
Marga van Mechelen
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
[Link]@[Link]
Abstract
This essay describes the legacy of Émile Benveniste in the semanalysis of Julia Kristeva and
their Wahlverwantschaft, also on a more personal level. They shared her criticism on semiotics,
she followed his footsteps in looking for support in psychoanalytic theory in order to understand
the genealogy of the signifying process better, as well as the heterogeneity of “texts” and the na-
ture of the speaking subject. His influence becomes abundantly clear in her “L’engendrement de
la formule” of 1969 in which she introduces her concept of semanalysis. While making Benven-
iste’s concept of signifiance central to her vocabulary, she, at the same time and more so in later
years, re-worked this and other notions of Benveniste, such as histoire in relation to discours.
1. The roots of semanalysis
Two years ago, Seuil and Gallimard published Émile Benveniste’s final lectures at the Collège
de France, from the years 1968 and 1969 (Benveniste 2012). Thirty eight years after his death
on October 3, 1976, and forty five years after his career was cut short by an irreversible cardio-
vascular accident in late 1969 (Sebeok 1981: v). The publishers asked Julia Kristeva to write the
preface to this collection of his final lectures. In it, she is able to summarize Émile Benveniste’s
general significance and what became so crucial to her own thinking: the speaking subject.
It was not the first time she paid tribute to Benveniste. An earlier account was Langue, Dis-
cours et Société (Kristeva, Milner & Ruwet 1975), a collection of articles intended as an homage
to Benveniste. But the significance of Benveniste’s thoughts for the development of Kristeva’s
semanalysis began with her reading of Benveniste’s best-known articles, published in the two
volumes of Problèmes de linguistique générale (1966 and 1974), some of which date from the
mid-fifties.
1474 SEMANALYSIS AND LINGUISTICS IN JULIA KRISTEVA. LITERARY WRITING...
In her first publications on semiotics, Kristeva already finds support in Benveniste for her
criticism on semiotics. Her criticism brings two points into sharp focus. Firstly, the static char-
acter of semiotics and secondly, its a-historical character (Mechelen 2005). The first is directly
related to the notions central to semiotics, namely “sign” and “signification”. The second relates
to two different practices: how semioticians deal with the history of their own field of study
and secondly, how they basically conduct their research. Kristeva reproaches semiotics both
for its lack of (historical) reflection and the a-historical manner in which the signifying prac-
tices undertaken by semioticians are researched. Her criticism acquires its first programmatic
form in 1966 when she introduces the notion of the paragram (Kristeva 1966). It refers to De
Saussure’s study of the “anagrams”, which he started in 1906, but left unfinished a few years later
(Starobinksi 1971).1 While De Saussure was searching for codes to decipher the intentional hid-
den “text”, Kristeva was more interested in the symptoms of unconscious contents in the articu-
lated text, be it literary texts or other forms of expression. Three years later, in 1969, Kristeva
introduces the term for which she is better known, namely la sémanalyse. In “L’engendrement de
la formule” (Kristeva 1969) she describes semanalysis as the signifying theory that investigates
from within the origin and development of texts.2 Within the sign system, semanalysis opens
another, hidden “scene” that is the genesis of the system. Incidentally, “hidden” is used here in
a completely different sense than De Saussure used it. “L’engendrement de la formule”, which
might be considered key to her thinking, introduces not only the concept of semanalysis, but
also the concepts of phenotext and genotext. The phenotext is an imprinted text, but an articula-
tion that can only be read, heard or seen by going back, vertically she says, to its origin, therefore
through its engenderment (Kristeva [1969] 1978: 218). This origin might be translated as the
genotext.3 Clearly her understanding of a hidden text in this article is directly related to what
she wrote previously about paragrams and through this she adopts a critical position regarding
the history of modern semiotics. The phenotext is considered a formula, a reduction and a sac-
rifice compared to the genotext, which is described as a gift and a jouissance.4 It is no surprise
that Kristeva, who valuates the hidden text in such a way, is critical not only of semiotics, but of
linguistics in general, especially of established scholars such as Noam Chomsky. To establish her
theory more profoundly, she decided to re-read not only Freud’s Traumdeutung but also Lacan,
and how he re-reads Freud and De Saussure. This was not an obvious choice for someone who at
that time just had left a communist country. The component of “analysis” in semanalysis is often
understood as a reference to psychoanalysis, though she defines it herself in “L’engendrement”
as the theory that investigates from within the genesis of texts; the word “text”, of course, used
in a broader sense. She calls the process of this genesis or genealogy of the signifying system le
procès de la signifiance, translated by me and others as signifying process. Every practice con-
tains such a process, though the degree to which it is expressed differs. She makes a distinction
between a stronger and a weaker expression. The first, more powerful category is also known by
a concept that she again derives from the Russian formalists, namely poetic language. In this, the
material aspect, both the phonetic and the graphic signifiers, are emphatically present. It is clear
that in her criticism of semiotics, Kristeva found support in psychoanalytic theory. But in order
1
According to Starobinski in his Les mots sous les mots. Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de Saussure the studies about the
anagrams were written between 1906 and 1909.
2
“L’engendrement de la formule” was published in Semiotikè. Recherches pour une sémanalyse, in 1969. She gave Benven-
iste this volume a couple of weeks before his stroke.
3
Before Kristeva, the Russian linguists S.K. Saumjan [Shaumyan] and P.A. Sobolevau used these concepts of genotext and
phenotext. See Coquet 1972: 345 and Kristeva 1969: 223.
4
Mauss, Lévi-Strauss nor Bataille are mentioned in this text but without doubt this notion of gift should be read in an anthro-
pological sense and context. Jouissance is not yet the central notion it will be in her writings a couple of years later. Inter-
preted as j’ouïs sens it fits well with her idea that within the visible text a non-intentional meaning resonates.
Susan Petrilli, Augusto Ponzio 1475
to make this move, she needed the support of someone who took this step before. Undoubtedly,
that person was Émile Benveniste.
2. Wahlverwant: Julia Kristeva and Émile Benveniste
Julia Kristeva accompanied Benveniste to an international semiotic conference in Warsaw,
in 1968, the third important international meeting of semioticians in Eastern Europe, which
paved the way for the AIS/IASS. Benveniste was raised in Syria, Aleppo, while Kristeva was born
in Bulgaria. Both came from a polyglot environment, though Benveniste much more so than
Kristeva.5 When Kristeva met Benveniste for the first time, she was very young and shy, so she
says in the preface of Dernières leçons (Benveniste 2012). She had just arrived in France to study
there and was eager to nestle in the heart of the French intelligentsia, as Benveniste did before.
And of course the rest is history: both became prestigious lecturers at the French colleges and
international universities.
In her enumeration of the facts of his personal life in the preface of the collection of his
lectures, we notice a few other things they had in common, such as their left-wing political
orientation. In the case of Benveniste, his sympathies, at least, towards rebellious young com-
munists in the interbellum and his devotion to art and artists, especially the surrealists, and half
a century later, the Tel Quel group. Kristeva had close contact with this group that founded its
magazine in 1960. During their first conversations, they appeared to share an interest in Michael
Bakhtin and his notion of dialogue as well. But still, from the record of their growing friendship,
I draw the conclusion that besides their mutual intellectual interests, the fact that they both were
“strangers”, to quote Roland Barthes (Barthes 1970), was the deeper ground of their Wahlver-
wantschaft. When “Paragram’s” was published, Benveniste was cited only once in a footnote, but
when the article “L’engendrement” appeared three years later, he already plays a larger role. Six
years later, a year before his death, Kristeva writes her first article dedicated to Benveniste, called
“La function predicative et le sujet parlant” (Kristeva 1975), reprinted in Polylogue (1977). She
talks about the revolution that his work brought forward in linguistics, though (at that time) still
not visible enough.6
3. Under the banner of Benveniste’s concepts
In both her 2012 tribute, and that of 1975, Kristeva likes to underscore what distinguishes
Benveniste from other linguists, also within semiotics. Even when those linguists and semioti-
cians tried to connect language or semiotic systems to social practices, this was not done in a
way that satisfied Benveniste, as she states in one of her better-known earlier articles, “The Sys-
tem and the Speaking Subject”, published in Times Literary Supplement (Kristeva [1973] 1975).
In this article, she argues that the analysis of artistic practices ought to be the measure and cri-
terion for semiotics and linguistics. And though she probably didn’t take this from Benveniste,
she did recognize this mutual idea in his work. He at least gave her a better understanding of the
heterogeneity of language itself. It is clear that she criticizes semiotics when it follows the lin-
guistic model, placing it blindly at the service of the demand for social communication. Though
signifying practices are supportive to social communication, the specific meaning of artistic
practices is that they reject a utilitarian interpretation of social communication. In Kristeva’s
5
Benveniste’s mother taught Russian, Hebrew and French in Samokov, Bulgaria. Kristeva was unaware of this in the first
years after she met him.
6
Around 1975, I was studying philosophy of language (besides my major in Art History). My professor was an adept of the
Anglo-Saxon generative semantics and not very predisposed to French linguistics, with the exception of Benveniste, who
I was allowed to choose for my reading list and who I indeed selected. At that time I already noticed that Benveniste was a
generally respected linguist.
1476 SEMANALYSIS AND LINGUISTICS IN JULIA KRISTEVA. LITERARY WRITING...
opinion, artistic practices are basically practices of transgression and, again, jouissance. She is
informed in this conviction by her own experience with these practices, literature and poetry, as
well as the visual arts.7
It is surprising that the influence of Benveniste on Kristeva’s intellectual history has hardly
been researched.8 Nonetheless it is important to consider this relation and the legacy of Ben-
veniste in Kristeva’s work for more than one reason. First, to follow the path from Benveniste’s
position to her own semanalysis. Second, to get a clue, in a more traditional sense, of what his
influence entailed. We will continue with this point. Third, to gain a better understanding of
how Kristeva interpreted Benveniste. And lastly, to gain deeper insight into the difference be-
tween semiotics and semanalysis. Let us first concentrate on a few concepts.
3.1. Signifiance
It is clear that Benveniste supported Kristeva in a certain direction through his writings and
their conversations in the late eighties. Not forgetting their affinity on a deeper level, as men-
tioned already. But there are a few concrete facts that concerns concepts, which should not be
omitted, because they reveal more clearly Kristeva’s indebtedness to Benveniste. In an interview
that Jean Claude Coquet (Coquet 1972) had with her in 1972, she explained that the concept of
signifiance that she already used at that time, had its origins in the writings of Benveniste. We
know how central it would become to her own writings in general. He introduces this concept
of signifiance in one of his better known articles: “Sémiologie de la langue” (Benveniste [1969]
1974). Here he compares the semiology of De Saussure with the semiotics of Peirce, who ac-
cording to Benveniste was not interested in how the “langue” operates.9 Though the status of the
“langue” was the most important status to De Saussure, indeed when compared to other sign
systems, Benveniste argues that it was never clearly defined by De Saussure. Benveniste em-
phasizes that this is necessary, but instead of giving his argument, he starts discussing concrete
practices, like music and the visual arts. His main question is: “what is the value of the sign in-
between those practices?” The reason why he is not able to give a satisfactory answer, so he says,
is that the notions of the sign and langue appear to be an obstacle. His conclusion is that it is bet-
ter to start from the individuality and particularity of these practices than from a general theory,
and subsequently to investigate their relations and correspondences. It is not within the scope of
this article to explain his argument in more detail, but his conclusion is interesting, mainly be-
cause it is interpreted in different ways. It seems contrary to what he said earlier when he returns
halfway to the langue as the only possible system that in its structure and its functioning is truly
semiotic. And therefore is needed as an interpreting system. Some semioticians stopped here
and saw this as a confirmation of former positions. However, these were not his lasts words and
it is Kristeva who listens especially to what he says next. When he distinguishes a semiotic and
a semantic signifiance, she sees this as a way to delete the concept of sign altogether, because it
blocked the access to all that exceeds the “langue”. In Coquet’s interview she makes an important
remark when she states that her concept of semanalysis is identical to and encompassing what
Benveniste calls “une sémantique ét une translinguistique” (Coquet 1972: 345).
7
Kristeva wrote two articles in the early seventies that were published in the visual art journal Peinture, cahiers théoriques,
edited by four painters. The first one was about Giotto, called “L’espace de Giotto”, later reprinted under a different title,
“La joie de Giotto” (Polylogue 1977) and the second was about Giovanni Bellini (“Maternité selon Giovanni Bellini”), also
reprinted in Polylogue.
8
In my book Vorm en Betekening (1993), a title that could be translated as Form and Signifying process, the relation between
Benveniste and Kristeva plays a crucial role, though this relation was rarely discussed in secondary sources, neither at the
time of publication, nor later on; at least that is the outcome of my recent research.
9
His criticism of De Saussure and Peirce is one of the most remarkable things in his final lectures, but of course we can also
find it in his earlier writings.
Susan Petrilli, Augusto Ponzio 1477
3.2. Discours, énonciation and énoncé
In the first volume of the Problèmes de linguistique générale we find a reprint of a controver-
sial article by Benveniste, published in 1956 in La Psychanalyse under the unpretentious title
“Remarques sur la function du langage dans la découverte freudienne” (Benveniste 1966). This
article, however, did not remain unmarked. More than the elaboration of his thoughts, it con-
cerns, as the title says, only remarks. But his engagement to the Freudian discovery becomes
clearly apparent. Kristeva discusses, in relation to this text of the mid-fifties, two concepts for
which Benveniste is probably best known, namely discours and énonciation. Not all interpreters
of Benveniste follow her in this direction, though they will agree that with his concept of énun-
ciation he draws the attention to the speaking subject. The subject that speaks and makes of the
langue his own langue while giving indices of his specific position. The act is called énonciation
and expresses the relation to the articulated text (the énoncé). Obviously Benveniste wants to
create bridges, between the langue, the énonciation and the énoncé, but also between, on the one
hand, a social conception of the langue and on the other, the individual character of the parole
or what he calls the discours. So Benveniste tries to reveal the dialogue between the two and
consequently their continuous exchange. These dynamics are not possible without an énoncia-
teur, i.e. an intermediary instance that, in the case of Benveniste, is maybe still understood in a
more traditional semiotic manner, more so than with Kristeva. She brings his theory back into
its Freudian context and more strongly confirms Benveniste’s idea of the continuous interven-
tion of psychoanalytical processes in trans-linguistic messages. It is the acceptance of Freud’s
theory of the unconscious and the splitting of the subject that should definitely lead to another
approach to conscious communication.
3.3. Pronouns and the deictic pronomina
Two years after “Remarques sur la function du langage dans la découverte freudienne” (Ben-
veniste 1966 [1956]), Benveniste published another article in a psychology magazine, Journal de
Psychologie, in which he takes a next step by talking about the subjectivity of language in relation
to personal pronouns. The title of the article is “De la subjectivité dans le langage” (Benveniste
1966 [1958]). Here he deals with the pronouns “I” and “you” which are signifiers that only make
sense in concrete discursive situations. He continues by arguing that the same can be said about
the deictic pronomina, such as “here” and “there”: “Ils ont en commun ce trait de se définir seu-
lement par rapport à l’instance de discours où ils sont produits, c’est-à-dire sous la dépendance
du je qui s’y énonce” (Benveniste 1966 : 262). There are a few other interesting examples, like
how in utterances, in particular, the meaning of the verb changes considerably when only the
personal pronoun has been altered. Let’s compare: “I assume that he left” and “you assume that
he left”. The second sentence implies and confirms the utterance of an imagined former speaker;
the first sentence does not. Another example is the difference between “je jure” and “il jure”.
With Austen we could say that the first utterance is a performative one that has consequences
for a real situation, socially and juridical. To use Benveniste’s word, it is an engagement, while
“il jure” is nothing but a description. Kristeva sees these pronouns with an indexical status as
traces in the Freudian sense. One could call them indices as well, referring to real persons and
live communication. So the subject of enunciation leaves traces of the linguistic deed in the
articulated text (the énoncé), a text that also has a history and that is part of a heterogeneous,
semi-unconscious process.
4. Going her own way
After we have looked at the path that leads from Benveniste to Kristeva and the influence
he had on her semanalysis, it’s time to raise the question where she went her own way. I think
1478 SEMANALYSIS AND LINGUISTICS IN JULIA KRISTEVA. LITERARY WRITING...
it is quite clear that she already concentrated in her earlier texts on the “hidden scenes” and on
the heterogeneity of signifying processes, much more than Benveniste ever did. On the other
hand, she was convinced that with her concept of semanalysis she was taking Benveniste’s aim to
bridge the distance between semantics and the trans-linguistique a step further. For that reason
she proposed just one single concept, semanalysis, for the two, in order to show that it concerns
only one process. “Nous appelons sémanalyse ce qu’il [Benveniste MvM] désigne comme une
sémantique et une translinguistique” (Coquet 1972 : 345). She comes with yet another pro-
posal to solve the confusion about what Benveniste understands by signifiance. Benveniste uses
it both as what we might consider to be an umbrella notion, and as connected to a certain sys-
tem. Therefore, a better and more unambiguous definition is needed, according to Kristeva, and
hence she defines signifiance as the total of phenotext and genotext.
4.1. A psycho-semiotic approach of histoire
There are two other concepts of Benveniste to be mentioned, both are central to his enuncia-
tion theory, namely discours and histoire. The first is already mentioned. The second concept,
histoire, describes a story that tells itself without a narrator. Both have been quite important, not
only to Kristeva but to Greimasian semiotics as well. If we compare her interpretation to those of
Greimasian semioticians, we see hardly any difference in the way they designate the central no-
tions of this theory.10 However, the way they look at the function of these concepts in relation to
the history and development of semiotics is quite the opposite. While in Greimasian semiotics
they are instrumental for bridging the gap between De Saussure’s concepts of parole and langue,
in order to create an escape from the chaotic and individual idea of the parole, Kristeva, follow-
ing Benveniste, rather accepts these characteristics of any given language. She is confirming this
more and more so in her writings after 1975. We recognize these differences in the use of the no-
tion of trace. With Kristeva it brings us to the domain of the unconscious, to slips of the tongue,
ambiguities and metaphors. They tell us something about the speaker, the speaking subject, and
their impact on the effects of the utterance. In Kristeva’s view, based on Freud’s theory of dream
interpretation, it makes no sense to distinguish between discourse and histoire. When someone
tells about his dream, it does not matter how it is told. From a psycho-semiotic perspective, more
important is how the supposed dream thoughts can be brought in connection with the mani-
fest dream content. It is interesting to see that though she is focused on operations that exceed
the normal formation of sentences, Kristeva is eager to show how heterogeneity functions on a
micro level as well. Here again we see Benveniste’s influence. As, for example, on the level of the
predicative function. While the subject of a sentence has an individual character, the predicate
is more general and not so much connected to the immediate perception. The subject represents
a state of being and the finite; the predicate, on the other hand, changes endlessly. So when first
we speak about a “predication altérante”, in the end we must speak about a “predication infiniti-
sante”, so she concludes (Kristeva 1975: 56).
5. Conclusion: semanalysis as the road “that never says, nor hides, but signifies”
Though other theorists, like Melanie Klein, became more important to Kristeva after 1975,
her indebtedness to Benveniste remains to this day; this becomes abundantly clear in the preface
to the collection of Benveniste’s lectures. Her semanalysis is a “science critique” and a “critique
de la science”, but, following Benveniste, also an expression of the ideal to reform, to renew and
10
I have the interpretations of Emil Poppe and Eric de Kuyper in mind. See my Vorm en Betekening. Kunstgeschiedenis, se-
miotiek, semanalse (1993: 192-194), in which Felix Thürlemann is discussed more extensively as well (Mechelen 1993:142-
185).
Susan Petrilli, Augusto Ponzio 1479
transform. Therefore, in her preface she emphasises and praises his ability to encompass the
long tradition of linguistics, philology and semiotics, not only of the nineteenth and twentieth
century, but also of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in particular Lancelot and Arnauld’s
Grammaire générale et raisonnée, dated 1660, which, as she mentions, brought the notion of the
sign to the fore for the very first time. A sign, as it were, of the inclusion of the Cartesian subject
into the syntax of the “langue”. All later rifts – she mentions quite a few, are less important than
the value of the legacies themselves. This attitude against histories is what they apparently have
in common.
There was still another personal trait she shared with him that qualifies both their positions
in linguistics and semiotics. Kristeva calls it Benveniste’s style of thought, which is explained as
an attempt to re-join morpho-syntactic details with the overarching linguistic and philosophi-
cal categories. He was able to signify, to “tell”, to investigate in detail, hiding nothing behind
aesthetic screens, while at the same time ensuring that messages never became closed messages
or messages that obey just one system of thought or a single current in linguistics or semiotics.
They both accept the inherent chaos of the twentieth-century developments in thinking, which
left its marks on language itself. The experience of the living language, of speech, is what should
ultimately determine the scientific approach. It’s what makes us human beings, one could say.
An act that never has a fixed meaning, but is always in a definitely unfinished state of becoming.
Speaking about Benveniste’s approach, 43 years later, Kristeva feels the need to clarify why
this approach was so extraordinary at that time. Contrary to linguists such as Bloomfield and
Harris, for Benveniste linguistics meant to be engaged not only with the non-subjective formal
elements of language, but also with the power of language that far surpasses the ability “to name”.
As Kristeva says: they were the days when semiology became synonymous with freedom of ex-
pression and thought. Hence it was understood internationally, not only in the West, but also in
the East. Semiology was the alliance between both worlds; a prefiguration of the situation after
1989. Benveniste referred to the capacity of language to generate other systems of signs too, yet
still as the only system capable of interpretation. And here I think Roland Barthes speaks to us
again.
Anno 2014, Kristeva has left semiotics far behind, so she said when she was invited to attend
the IASS congres in Sofia, and yes, her current topics are of a different nature, though I think
she still examines them with the intention and eye of a semiotician. Despite the fact that she
was – thanks to Benveniste I would say – devoted to the AIS organization for many years, as a
member of the board, the editorial committee of Mouton, we should also consider and accept
her as a critic of semiotics.
References
BARTHES, Roland. 1970 (May 1–15). L’étrangère. La Quinzaine littéraire. 19–20.
BENVENISTE, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, tome 1. Paris : Gallimard.
BENVENISTE, Émile. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale, tome 2. Paris : Gallimard.
BENVENISTE, Émile. 2012. Dernières leçons. Collège de France (1968-1969). Paris: EHESS
Gallimard, Seuil.
COQUET, Jean. Sémanalyse: Conditions d’une sémiotique. Semiotica, V (4) 1972. 345–350.
KRISTEVA, Julia. 1966. Pour une sémiologie des paragrammes. 1966. In Julia Kristeva. Sé-
meiotiké. Recherches pour une sémanalyse. 1969. Paris : Seuil.
KRISTEVA, Julia. L’Engendrement de la formule. 1969. In Julia Kristeva. Sémeiotiké. Re-
cherches pour une sémanalyse. 1969. Paris: Seuil. 217–310.
KRISTEVA, Julia. The system and the speaking subject. 1973, October 12. Times Literary Sup-
1480 SEMANALYSIS AND LINGUISTICS IN JULIA KRISTEVA. LITERARY WRITING...
plement. Reprinted in Thomas A. Sebeok. The tell-tale sign. A survey of semiotics. 1975. Lisse :
The Peter de Ridder Press. 47–55.
KRISTEVA, Julia. La fonction prédicative et le sujet parlant. [1975] 1977. In Julia Kristeva.
Polylogue. Paris : Seuil. 323–356.
KRISTEVA, Julia, Jean-Claude Milner & Nicolas Ruwet (eds.). 1975. Langue, discours, société
: pour Émile Benveniste. Paris : Seuil.
KRISTEVA, Julia. 2012. Émile Benveniste, un linguiste qui ne dit ni ne cache, mais signifie.
In Émile Benveniste. 2012. Dernières leçons. Collège de France (1968-1969). Paris : EHESS, Gal-
limard, Seuil.
MECHELEN, Marga van. 1993. Vorm en Betekening. Kunstgeschiedenis. Semiotiek. Semanaly-
sis [Form and Signifying Process. Art History, Semiotics, Semanalyse] Nijmegen: SUN.
MECHELEN, Marga van. 2005. Julia Kristeva. In Hans Achterhuis, Jan Sperna Weiland &
Sytske Teppema. Denkers van nu [Today’s Thinkers]. Diemen: Veen Magazines. 337–350.
SEBEOK, Thomas. 1981. Foreword. Semiotica [supp ; special issue on Émile Benveniste].v–
vii.
STAROBINSKI, Jean. 1971. Les mots sous les mots. Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de Saussure.
Paris : Gallimard.
