SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Litera / 2026 / Cilt: 36 Sayı: 1

Analysing Discursive Manipulation in Tartuffe Through Eric Landowski’s Regimes of Meaning

L’analyse de la manipulation discursive dans Tartuffe à travers les régimes de sens d’Éric Landowski

Gülden Uçar(BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1627-8889
Journal
Litera
Pages
77–94
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that manipulation in the play goes beyond purely logical or verbal persuasion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While classical structuralist semiotics tends to explain meaning primarily through subject–object relations, contemporary semiotic approaches adopt a more dynamic orientation, focusing on intersubjective interactions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study examines how the regime of manipulation is established, how it is sustained through discursive strategies, and where it begins to break down.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that manipulation in the play goes beyond purely logical or verbal persuasion.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Régime de manipulation · régimes de sens · analyse sémiotique

Abstract

While classical structuralist semiotics tends to explain meaning primarily through subject–object relations, contemporary semiotic approaches adopt a more dynamic orientation, focusing on intersubjective interactions. This study draws on the model of regimes of meaning developed by Éric Landowski, one of the leading theorists of this contemporary perspective, to analyse how manipulation is constructed discursively in Tartuffe or the Impostor, the renowned play by French author Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin). In this context, Tartuffe serves as a particularly rich example for an analysis centred on the theme of manipulation, due to the use of persuasive and deceptive techniques throughout the play. The aim of this research is to show how discursive manipulation is structured in Tartuffe and what meaning processes it triggers within the relationships between characters. The methodology is based on a semiotic analysis focused on the text and key scenes of the play. The study examines how the regime of manipulation is established, how it is sustained through discursive strategies, and where it begins to break down. The findings reveal that manipulation in the play goes beyond purely logical or verbal persuasion. It also involves the construction of a moral ethos, the performance of victimhood and self-sacrifice, and Tartuffe’s progressive control over the emotional domain. In doing so, Tartuffe manages to reshape his interlocutors’ evaluative criteria through a complex system of influence combining discourse, emotion, and performance.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uçar, G., *, G. U. (2026). Analysing Discursive Manipulation in Tartuffe Through Eric Landowski’s Regimes of Meaning. Litera, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 1, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.26650/LITERA2026-1829019

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Avcı, C., & Kartal, E. (2022). Türkiye’deki akademik çalışmalarda Molière: Bir meta-sentez çalışması. Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, (15), 240–270. https://doi.org/10.46250/kulturder.1197189 google scholar
  2. Aydın, A. (2017). Molière’in Tartuffe’ünde satirik öğeler. The Journal of International Social Research, 10(50), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1634 google scholar
  3. Cairncross, J. (1972). “Tartuffe”, ou Molière hypocrite. Revue d’Histoire Littéraire de la France, 72(5/6), 890–901. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40525019 google scholar
  4. Cheraghi, H., & Modaresi Pour, Z. (2025). Analyse sémiotique de l’espace selon les régimes du sens d’Éric Landowski (le cas de La Montagne du Dieu vivant de Le Clézio). Language Related Research, 16(1), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.48311/LRR.16.1.357 google scholar
  5. Chill, E. S. (1963). Tartuffe, religion, and courtly culture. French Historical Studies, 3(2), 151–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/286028 google scholar
  6. Couton, G. (1969). Réflexions sur “Tartuffe” et le péché d’hypocrisie, “cas réservé.” Revue d’Histoire Littéraire de la France, 69(3/4), 404–413. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40523535 google scholar
  7. Dandrey, P. (2017). D’un Tartuffe à l’autre: Molière s’est-il renié? Revue d’Histoire Littéraire de la France, 117(1), 149–158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26368776 google scholar
  8. Erbek, İ. S. (2024). Molière’i yeniden düşünmek: Tiyatrotem’in Tartüf Bey’i. In Ö. N. Köseoğlu & R. Keskin (Eds.), Molière’den Molyer’e: Osmanlı-Türkiye sahnesinde karşılaşmalar (pp. 151–162). İBB Kütüphane ve Müzeler Müdürlüğü. google scholar
  9. Eustis, A. (1973). The nature of Molière’s satire. Romance Notes, 15, 5–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43801249 google scholar
  10. Gossman, L. (1970). Molière and Tartuffe: Law and order in the seventeenth century. The French Review, 43(6), 901–912. http://www.jstor.org/stable/386525 google scholar
  11. Greimas, A. J. (1976). Sémiotique et sciences sociales. Seuil. google scholar
  12. Greimas, A. J., & Fontanille, J. (1991). Sémiotique des passions. Des états de choses aux états d’âme. Paris: Seuil. google scholar
  13. Hemiş, Ö. (2024). Çağdaşımız Tartuffe. In Ö. N. Köseoğlu & R. Keskin (Eds.), Molière’den Molyer’e: Osmanlı-Türkiye sahnesinde karşılaşmalar (pp. 141–150). İBB Kütüphane ve Müzeler Müdürlüğü. google scholar
  14. Landowski, E. (1997). Présences de l’autre. PUF. google scholar
  15. Landowski, E. (2004). Passions sans nom. PUF. google scholar
  16. Landowski, E. (2005). Les interactions risquées. PUF. google scholar
  17. Molière. (1968). Le Tartuffe ou l’Imposteur (R. Bernex, Éd.). Les Petits Classiques Bordas. Bordas. google scholar
  18. Moore, W. G. (1948). “Tartuffe” and the comic principle in Molière. The Modern Language Review, 43(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3717969 google scholar
  19. Perusset, A. (2024). Régimes de sens, sens dessus dessous. Revista Acta Semiotica, 4(8), 182–207. https://doi.org/10.23925/2763-700X.2024n8.70098 google scholar
  20. Pessoa de Barros, D. L. (2017). Les régimes de sens et d’interaction dans la conversation. Actes Sémiotiques, 120. https://doi.org/10.25965/as.5713 google scholar
  21. Petitimbert, J.-P. (2017). Régimes de sens et logique des sciences: Interactions socio-sémiotiques et avancées scientifiques. Actes Sémiotiques, 120. https://doi.org/10.25965/as.5914 google scholar
  22. Phillips, H. (1989). Molière and Tartuffe: Recrimination and reconciliation. The French Review, 62(5), 749–763. http://www.jstor.org/stable/395031 google scholar
  23. Simonds, P. M. (1977). Molière’s satiric use of the “deus ex machina” in Tartuffe. Educational Theatre Journal, 29(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3206505 google scholar
  24. Uluğtekin, G. (2009). Le Tartuffe’ten Tartüf’e: Ahmet Vefik Paşa’dan bir çeviri-uyarlama. Tiyatro Araştırmaları Dergisi, 30, 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1501/TAD_0000000255 google scholar