The Prelingual Paths of Subject Formation in Kristeva’s Thought

Kristeva’stheory ofsubject in process may be assumed as a composition of the psychoanalysis and linguistic fields.The primary writings of Kristeva are based on Lacan’sanalyses ofthemirrorstageand theOedipus complex.These two phases provide necessary conditions for theformation of what she later names as ‘subject in process’. But unlike Lacan, Kristeva is always aware of social and historical aspects of subjectivity. On the other side, Kristeva has been also influenced by Saussurean linguistics. It can be implied that Kristeva’s pattern of semiotic act has been formed from the relationbetween Lacanian psychoanalysis and Saussurean semiotics. Her perception of the semiotic and symbolic functions of social and psychological life is based on a distinction between pre-Oedipal and Oedipal motives. It can be said Kristeva considers the semiotic realm as a maternal- feminine space (Chora). If a subject has placed a pre-Oedipal semiotic action; in contrast, a symbolic subject is an Oedipal system that has formed by the law of the father (nom du pére) and these two forms together the ‘speaking subject’. In this paper, we aim to deal with these semiotic contexts of forming the subject. By emphasizing on the maternal, Kristeva argues against the contemporary reduction of the subject to the symbolic realm.