Presignifying Semiotic
> the "overcoding" marking the
privileged status of language operates diffusely
> 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
> segmentarizing functions
> analogical transformations
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
> signifiance and interpreting functions
> symbolic transformations
Countersignifying Semiotic
> 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
> numerating functions
> polemical or
strategic transformations
Postsignifying
Semiotic
> overcoding is assured by the redundancy
of consciousness
> a subjectification of enunciation occours on a passional line that makes
the organization of power (pouvoir) immanent
> deterritorialization is raised
to the absolute, although in a way that is still negative
> subjectifying functions
> consciousness-related or mimetic transformation
We call any specific formalization of expression a regime of signs, at least when the expression is linguistic. A regime of signs constitutes a semiotic system. [TP: 111]
[A regime of signs is a] form of expression [that] is reducible not to words but to a set of statements arising in the social field considered as a stratum . . . . The form of content is reducible not to a thing but to a complex state of things as a formation of power . . . . [TP: 66]
Every semiotic is mixed and only functions as such; each one necessarily captures fragments of one or more other semiotics (surplus value of code). [TP: 136]
Regimes of signs are not based on language, and language alone does not constitute an abstract machine, whether structural or generative. The opposite is the case. It is language that is based on regimes of signs, and regimes of signs on abstract machines, diagrammatic functions, and machinic assemblages that go beyond any system of semiology, linguistics, or logic. Behind statements and semioticizations there are only machines, assemblages, and movements of deterritorialization that cut across the stratification of the various systems and elude both the coordinates of language and of existence. That is why pragmatics is not a complement to logic, syntax, or semantics; on the contrary, it is the fundamental element upon which all the rest depend. [TP: 148]