Narrating Agency and a Reflective Self in Lisa Halliday’s Asymmetry

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59045/nalans.2023.31

Keywords:

narrative, agency, autopoiesis, biosemiotics, intentionality

Abstract

Advancements in modern “post-classical narratology” have undergone unprecedented growth in the last two decades, giving rise to various directions of narratological research within the cognitive and diachronic domains. One such approach is biosemiotics, which appeared at the crossroads of semiotics and cultural biology and combines a set of definitions for meaning-making and agency construction in philosophy, linguistics, culture, and all complex systems. Agency here represents any kind of subject activity (e.g., epistemic, cognitive, etc.) that can be determined by the indices and icons of subjectivity at the level of the storyline development and then compared at the level of the discourse. From the biosemiotic approach, the narrative discourse as a complex system is characterised by the meaning emergence and telic behavior of all its constituent parts striving at closure and a certain goal, i.e., having some agenda. Thus, the agency is supplementary to the acting of the self-reflecting subject in terms of intentionality, self-referentiality, and self-governing activity. Following the above definition of agency, this paper examines the possible ways of applying Peircian triadic sign theory to narrative agency construction in the contemporary novel “Asymmetry” (2018) by Lisa Halliday, operating with the notions of bodily and biosemiotic agency. Seeing subjectivity related to perspective-taking in the narrative discourse, it is important to trace the distribution of the icons and indexes of subjectivity on three levels: semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic.

Author Biography

Inna Livytska, RWTH Aachen

Inna Livytska is currently a Post-Doctoral Research Scholar at the Department of English, American and Romance Studies, ACCELS. Her research is based on discovering the (bio)semiotic nature of narrative discourse, placed at the intersection of cultural studies and linguistics, prompted by the semiotic modelling of fictional reality. She obtained her Candidate of Sciences Degree (PhD) in Philology investigating linguistic manifestations of psychologism in Ukrainian literature of the 1960-1970s. Her publishing record consists of more than 50 research articles and a monograph. 

References

Bal, M., & Lewin, J. E. (1983). The narrating and the focalizing: A theory of the agents in narrative. Style, 17(2), 234–269. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42945469

Caracciolo, M., & Kukkonen, K. (2021). With bodies: Narrative theory and embodied cognition (Theory and interpretation of narrative). Ohio University Press.

Cobley, P. (2010). The cultural implications of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 3 (2):225–244.

Feiton, Timo E. (2020). Mind after Uexküll: A foray into the worlds of ecological psychologists and enactivists. Front. Psychol., 24 March 2020. Sec. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, Volume 11 – 2020.

Hébert, L. (2011). Tools for text and image analysis: An introduction to applied semiotics. Retrieved from https://nicole-everaert-semio.be/PDF/fr/Tools-for-Texts-and-Images.pdf

Gornev, Galin Petrov (1997). The creativity question in the perspective of autopoietic systems theory. Kybernetics, 738–750. https://doi:10.1108/03684929710169933.

Tønnessen, M. (2015). The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, agency. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 125–143.

Kull, K., Deacon, T., Emmeche, C., Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2009). Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory, 4 (2), 167–173

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Livingston, I. (2006). Between science and literature: An introduction to autopoetics. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Mendoza-Collazos, J., Zlatev, J. A. (2022). Cognitive-semiotic approach to agency: assessing ideas from cognitive science and neuroscience. Biosemiotics 15, 141–170 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09473-z

Newen A, De Bruin L, Gallagher S. The oxford handbook of 4e cognition. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Peirce, C. S. (1967). Manuscripts in the Houghton library of Harvard University. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Pianzola, F., Riva, G., Kukkonen, K., Mantovani, F. Presence, flow, and narrative absorption: an interdisciplinary theoretical exploration with a new spatiotemporal integrated model based on predictive processing. Open Research Europe, 2021, 1, pp.28. doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.13193.10. Retrieved from https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/1-28/v1

Scheibmayr, W. (2004). Niklas luhmanns systemtheorie und charles s. peirces zeichentheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Sonnenhauser, B. (2008). On the linguistic expression of subjectivity: Towards a sign-centered approach. Semiotica 172, 1/4, 323-337 https://doi.org/ 10.1515/SEMI.2008.102

Waldman, K. (2018). Why “Asymmetry” has become a literary phenomenon. The New Yorker. 18 April 2018. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/why-asymmetry-has-become-a-literary-phenomenon

Downloads

Published

2023-12-30

How to Cite

Livytska, I. . (2023). Narrating Agency and a Reflective Self in Lisa Halliday’s Asymmetry. Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, 11(23), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.59045/nalans.2023.31