Landowski is one of the most influential post-Greimasian scholars who enriched Greimas’s model through his theory of regimes of meaning. Drawing on phenomenological philosophy, he deepened the Greimasian approach by linking meaning production to sensory perception and interaction. While Greimas, in Imperfect Meaning, introduced the regimes of programming and manipulation, Landowski expanded this framework by adding adjustment and accident, emphasizing affect, perception, and interaction as central to meaning formation. According to him, meaning emerges through regimes of meaning by moving beyond action toward passion and affective engagement. Based on Landowski’s model, the present study examines the novel Al-Farashat wa al-Ghilan by Ezzeddine Jelloudji and aims to provide a systematic analysis of the narrative. The research focuses on the relationships among actants, sensory and perceptual dimensions, and concepts such as subject, object, and interactive situations within the story. The findings show that the novel begins with a tense atmosphere as Serbian forces, in an unexpected accidental event, besiege Sarajevo and massacre civilians. Muhammad, the protagonist, represents a suppressed subject whose voice conveys the suffering of children and their forgotten dreams during war. As the narrative progresses, children become central as symbols of the homeland’s future, leading to a transformation of the subject into a value-object. The wise Sheikh employs programming and manipulation to propose migration to Albania but encounters obstacles. Eventually, with the emergence of a shared sense of satisfaction and Amir’s withdrawal from programming—following humanitarian efforts by Arab countries, particularly Qatar and Kuwait—the regime of adjustment is realized. Finally, through effective actions aimed at improving refugees’ conditions, Haj Ibrahim, as the principal subject, occupies the position of object.
احمدی، ب. (1370). ساختار و تأویل متن. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر پایا.#اخوت، ا. (1371). دستور زبان فارسی. چاپ نخست. تهران: سمت.#باقری، م.، گرجی، م.، کوپا، ف. و میرزایی، ع. (1402). واکاوی تعامل نشانه های جسمانۀ عاشقانه در سرودههای فروغ فرخزاد با روی کرد نشانهمعناشناسی اجتماعی اریک لاندوفسکی. زبانشناسی اجتماعی، 7(1)، 25-43.#پاکنژاد، ک.، و معین، م.ب. (1394). تحلیل فرایندهای آفرینش معنا در نشانهشناسی با رویکرد پدیدارشناسی و نظریه پیچیدگی. نقد زبان و ادبیات خارجی، 11(15)، 159-214.#تودوروف، ت. (1382). بوطیقای ساختارگرا. ترجمۀ م. نبوی. چاپ دوم. تهران: نشر آگه.#جلاوجی، ع. (2018). الفراشات والغیلان. الجزایر: دار المنتهی للنشر والتوزیع.#حسینی معصوم، س. م. و شعیری، م. ر.، و اکبری، م. (1402). تحلیل تعاملات کنشگران روایت زال و رودابه از منظر نظامهای معنایی چهارگانۀ لاندوفسکی. نقد ادبی، 16(64)، 65-108.#دزفولیان، ک.، اکبری، م.، و جلالی، م. (1398). تحلیل الگوی کنشی و زنجیرههای روایی گریماس در روایت مرگ رستم. متنپژوهی ادبی، 23(80)، 7-32.#سجادیفر، و.، پرنیان، م. و شعیری، م. (1400). واکاوی ماهیت سوژه در قصههای عامیانۀ کوتاه ایرانی از دیدگاه نشانه - معناشناسی گفتمانی (بررسی ماهیت سوژه در 41 قصۀ عامیانۀ کوتاهِ انجوی شیرازی). پژوهشهای ادبی، 19(78)، 115-138.#سلدن، ر. (1384). راهنمای نظریۀ ادبی معاصر. ترجمۀ ع. مخبر. تهران: طرح نو.#شعیری، م. ر. (1388). از نشانهشناسی ساختگرا تا نشانهمعناشناسی گفتمانی. نقد ادبی، 2(8)، 33-51.#شعیری، م. ر. (13398). نشانهمعناشناسی ادبیات؛ نظریه و روش تحلیل گفتمان ادبی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.#گریماس، آ. ژ. (1389). نقصان معنا. ترجمه و شرح م. ر. شعیری. تهران: نشر علم.#محمدزاده، م.، و معین، م.ب. (1400). نشانه – معناشناسی گفتمانی تننگاشتههای ایران. جستارهای زبانی، 12(4)، 265- 304.#معین، م.ب. (1396). معنا بهمثابۀ تجربۀ زیسته. چاپ نخست. تهران: علمی فرهنگی.#معین، م.ب. (1398). تحلیل چهار نظام زبانی فضایی با تکیه بر نظامهای معنایی تعاملی اریک لاندوفسکی، جستارهایزبانی، 5، 49- 72.#معین، م.ب. (1400). ابعاد گمشدۀ معنا در نشانهشناسی روایی کلاسیک؛ نظام معنایی تطبیق یا رقص در تعامل. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.#هاوکس، ت. (1400). استعاره. ترجمۀ فرزانه طاهری. چاپ چهارم. تهران: نشر مرکز.#Ahmadi, B. (1991). The structure and interpretation of text. Tehran: Payā Publications. (In Persian)#Akhut, A. (1992). Persian grammar. Tehran: SAMT. (In Persian)#Babak Moein, M. (2017). Meaning as lived experience. Tehran: Elmi-Farhangi. (In Persian)#Babak Moein, M. (2019). Analysis of four spatial linguistic systems based on Eric Landowski’s interactive semantic systems. Journal of Linguistic Studies, 5, 49–72. (In Persian)#Babak Moein, M. (2021). Lost dimensions of meaning in classical narrative semiotics: The semantic system of adjustment or dance in interaction. Tehran: Elmi-Farhangi. (In Persian)#Bagheri, M., Gorji, M., Koupa, F., & Mirzaei, A. (2024). Investigating the interaction of embodied romantic signs in Forough Farrokhzad’s poetry based on Eric Landowski’s social semiotics approach. Social Linguistics, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.30473/il.2024.68681. 1610 [in Persian]#Dezfulian, K., Akbari, M., & Jalali, M. (2019). Analysis of Greimas’s actantial model and narrative chains in the story of Rostam’s death. Literary Text Research, 23(80), 7–32. (In Persian)#Greimas, A. J. (2010). Imperfect meaning (M. R. Shaeiri, Trans. & commentary). Tehran: Elm. (In Persian)#Hawkes, T. (2021). Metaphor (F. Taheri, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz. (In Persian)#Hosseini Masoum, S. M., Shaeiri, M. R., & Akbari, M. (2024). Analysis of actant interactions in the narrative of Zal and Rudabeh from the perspective of Landowski’s four semantic systems. Literary Criticism, 16(64), 65–108. (In Persian)#Jalawji, I. (2018). Al-farashat wa al-ghilan. Algeria: Dar al-Muntaha. (In Arabic)#Mohammadzadeh, M., & Babak Moein, M. (2021). Discursive socio-semiotics of Iranian body inscriptions. Linguistic Research Review, 12(4), 265–304. https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12. 4.9 [in Persian]#Paknejad, K., & Babak Moein, M. (2015). Analysis of meaning creation processes in semiotics with a phenomenological approach and complexity theory. Critique of Foreign Language and Literature, 11(15), 159–214. (In Persian)#Sajadi-Far, V., Parnian, M., & Shaeiri, M. (2021). Exploring the nature of the subject in short Iranian folktales from a discursive socio-semiotic perspective. Literary Studies, 19(78), 115–138. (In Persian)#Selden, R. (2005). A reader’s guide to contemporary literary theory (A. Mokhber, Trans.). Tehran: Tarh-e No. (In Persian)#Shaeiri, M. R. (2009). From structural semiotics to discursive socio-semiotics. Literary Criticism, 2(8), 33–51. (In Persian)#Shaeiri, M. R. (2019). Literary socio-semiotics: Theory and method of literary discourse analysis. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. (In Persian)#Todorov, T. (2003). Structuralist poetics (M. Nabavi, Trans.). Tehran: Agah. (In Persian)#
elyasi mofrad,H and rezaei,H . (2026). A Semio‑Meaning Analysis of the Novel Al‑Farāshāt wa al‑Ghīlān Based on Semantic Regimes with a Focus on Action and Interaction. Journal of Literary Criticism, 10(19), 46-1. doi: 10.22034/jlc.2025.489329.1688
MLA
elyasi mofrad,H , and rezaei,H . "A Semio‑Meaning Analysis of the Novel Al‑Farāshāt wa al‑Ghīlān Based on Semantic Regimes with a Focus on Action and Interaction", Journal of Literary Criticism, 10, 19, 2026, 46-1. doi: 10.22034/jlc.2025.489329.1688
HARVARD
elyasi mofrad H, rezaei H. (2026). 'A Semio‑Meaning Analysis of the Novel Al‑Farāshāt wa al‑Ghīlān Based on Semantic Regimes with a Focus on Action and Interaction', Journal of Literary Criticism, 10(19), pp. 46-1. doi: 10.22034/jlc.2025.489329.1688
CHICAGO
H elyasi mofrad and H rezaei, "A Semio‑Meaning Analysis of the Novel Al‑Farāshāt wa al‑Ghīlān Based on Semantic Regimes with a Focus on Action and Interaction," Journal of Literary Criticism, 10 19 (2026): 46-1, doi: 10.22034/jlc.2025.489329.1688
VANCOUVER
elyasi mofrad H, rezaei H. A Semio‑Meaning Analysis of the Novel Al‑Farāshāt wa al‑Ghīlān Based on Semantic Regimes with a Focus on Action and Interaction. Journal of Literary Criticism. 2026;10(19):46-1 (In Persian). doi: 10.22034/jlc.2025.489329.1688