1. The ‘Greimas’ or Semiotic Square
The semiotic square is a way of extending the analysis of meanings by increasing the number of analytical classes around some initial focus – the assumption is Saussure’s: that meaning will, in fact, exist as part of a semantic field articulated through difference. It is usual to begin with the identification of contrary meaning. For example, starting with the familiar contraries of life and death, the square makes explicit the possibility of such curiosities as life and death (the living dead?), and neither life nor death (ghosts?). With its full expansion the semiotic square offers us 10 analytic classes.

2. The ten classes with terminology:-
5=(1+2) complex term
2 term B
1 term A
7=(1+3) positive deixis
8=(2+4) negative deixis
9=(1+4) and 10=(2+3)
contradictories
4 term NOT-A
3 term NOT-B
6=(3+4) neutral term
The + sign indicates the location of synthesis points – called metaterms. Other aspects of a typical analysis are objects (things identified at class positions), subjects (those doing the classifying), and time (the narrativised event context).

3. 6. Not-feminine+Not-masculine ‘angel’
So, the semiotic square is composed of four terms, the first two form the opposition (the contrary relation) and the other two are produced through their negation. Here’s another worked and expanded example:-
5. Masculine+Feminine
hermaphrodite.
1. Masculine ‘man’
2. Feminine ‘woman’
8. Feminine+Not-masculine
‘ultra-feminine’
7. Masculine+Not-feminine
‘ultra man’
9? and 10?
3. Not-feminine ‘mannish’
4. Not-masculine ‘effeminate’.
6. Not-feminine+Not-masculine ‘angel’

4. This structure suggests three types of question:-
1. Do the terms in each of the positions on the square correspond to objects that exist (or have existed or may come to exist)?
2. Can a given position on the square be ‘lexicalised’ - represented by standard or specialist language usage?
3. Relative to a statutory document (the dictatorship of the signifier!), are each of the positions on the square identified within the chosen text? (Opening a critique of authorial designations and omissions.)

5. The last point leads onto the ‘veridictory status’ of the square
The last point leads onto the ‘veridictory status’ of the square. Suppose a report/ narrative describes two sets of individuals, one set believing in the rightness of X, and the other viewing it as an abomination. On the face of it, there are at least two sets of ‘observing subjects’ (OS) to this state of affairs: the pro- and anti-X believers at the identified time. Now add an authorial voice – perhaps a ‘neutral’, observing subject. Confusion in analysis is resolved in this case by defining the author of the narrative or documentation as the ‘reference’ OS, all other observing subjects being defined as ‘assumptive’ (AS). Usually a text concludes by validating certain AS and denying, marginalising, or ignoring others.

6. The semiotic square offers two general approaches: a ‘semantic’ one attempting to identify a given structure of meaning existing at a particular time and place for a given set of observers; and a ‘syntactic’ one which plots changes in semantic meaning occurring over time.

7. It is helpful to get a ‘feel’ for a particular conceptual mapping by checking commonly associated substitutions, and transcribing abstract classes into concrete equivalents. In the case of Hard Times, we need to respect the Victorian context, so ‘fancy’, rather than ‘imagination’, and so on, but also the circus and Sissy’s sympathetic responses to Gradgrind’s children, etc.

8. The impact of fact and fancy on the characters in Hard Times
Sissy Jupe?
1. fact
2. fancy
7. fact and not fancy
Fact unmodified fancy = Gradgrind?
8. Fancy and not fact
Fancy unmodified by fact = Hearthouse?
9 and 10*
3. not fancy
4. not fact
6. not fancy and not fact
Bitzer, i.e., criminality – amorality? *
9. merged + not merged, and 10. emerged + not emerged.

9. Metaterms 7 & 8 indicate moments of emphasis, while 5 & 6 indicate moments of synthesis. In this generalised square, whatever you eventually make of Gradgrind, Dickens’ initial presentation seems to locate him here, while Hearthouse represents an opposite emphasis – an individual incapable of bringing any conception of prudence, etc. into his self-slavery of the passions. Sissy Jupes oppositional pairing with Bitzer is well evidenced in the narrative, but you may find it equally instructive to decide what you are going to make of Bounderby and Stephen Glasspool – or Sleary and Gradgrind’s daughter. There will come a point where fact and fancy may need to be changed for another conceptual opposition. 5 6

10. One question you need to ask yourself, in reading Hard Times, is to what extent does Dickens allow his characters to change over time, i.e., how do material consequences change their perceptions. In some cases, it seems, hardly at all. But in others there is growth. One can begin to get at this by using oppositional verbs rather than nouns, as in the last diagram. Here, (next slide) I’ve simply used the idea of emergence to signify growth, but of course other verbs could be used instead. I’ve also taken the liberty at looking elsewhere for illustrations, so I apologise if you are not familiar with the sources – I hope the diagram is still reasonably clear.

11. ‘Emergence’ of an individual adult 6. not emerged + not merged
5. merged +emerged
Pre-revolutionary Marxist intellectual, Freud’s memories of the Real – his ‘Oceanic’ feeling.
1. merged
2. emerged
7. merged + not emerged
Marx’s un-enlightened worker, Stephen Blackpool in Hard Times
8. emerged + not merged
Marx’s worker within communism, Pasternak’s daughter of Zhivago
9 and 10*
3. not emerged
4. not merged
6. not emerged + not merged
Marx’s enlightened worker within capitalism, Harroway’s cyborg, Irigaray’s woman within patriarchy, Huxley’s ‘savage’ from Brave New World, Solzhenitsyn’s Denisovitch
* 9. merged + not emerged, and 10. emerged + not emerged.

12. A further study which you might find it interesting to explore is simply this – does Dickens give us sufficient information in Hard Times to get some idea of what an ideal human society might look like. In the next slide I’ve stuck to the same verb pairing, but again I’ve resorted to other texts for illustration. So, for your own essay, apart from trying out the consequences of other verbs for the previous diagram, you might find it stimulating to conjecture about the specific verb forms that might articulate human progress – in Dickens and in other texts of the time, such as Mrs Gaskell’s North and South.

13. Emergence for adult communities.
5. merged +emerged
The Marxist intellectual within communism, Zamyatin’s D-503 from his novel, We
1. merged
2. emerged
7. merged + not emerged
The Borg’s hive mind, the goal of Zamyatin’s One-State.
8. emerged + not merged
Marx’s communist state
9 and 10*
3. not emerged
4. not merged
6. not emerged + not merged
Marx’s organised labour within capitalism,
* 9. merged + not emerged, and 10. emerged + not emerged.