Narrative Discourse as an Emergent Phenomenon: Global Semiotic Approach

This theoretical paper continues a spectrum of research on sign character of narrative discourse on the background of modern post-classical theory of narrativity. It aims to uncover the relationships between the meaning of the narrative text and a sign signitication, assuming an intentional character of the narrative discourse governed by telic aspects (global semiotics). Global semiotic approach (Thomas Sebeok, 2001) views a narrative discourse as a self-organizing entity with purposeful (telic) character of all its constituent parts which turn a static text into a dynamic whole in the process of reading/perception/interpretation. The key notion for analysis of emergency is the term Umwelt (Jakob von Uexküll) to denote the perceptional world in which an organism (and a human) exists and acts as a subject. Therefore, Umwelt represents human’s perceptual boundary, which modifies the surrounding in accordance with the human’s subjective perspective. As Umwelt can be attributed to both biological and abiotic texts, meaning creation in the narrative discourse is compared to a semiotic study of comparative Umwelten (Cobley, 2014) where narrative is defined as a modeling device for the world creation through embodied subjectivity. It has been confirmed, that stressing on the subjective sphere of information eхchange and processing from the position of global semiotics necessitates introduction of basic principles of biosemiotics (i.e. semiotic scaffolding etc.) and teleology (i.e. cause, purpose, result) to analysis of narrative discourse and it constitutes the perspectives for further research in this domain.


Introduction
In the general sphere of semiotics influenced by the ideas of Charles S. Peirce, on the one hand, and global semiotic ideas of Thomas A. Sebeok, on the other, there is a frequent tendency to speak on the "living signs" addressing abiotic forms of sign systems (i.e. fictional texts). Quite significant evidence in favor of this statement comes from global semiotics domain, stating that any organism (a life form) is a carrier of life and thus any sign is "a necessary element of any semiotic system" (Kull, 2002). Being a part of a bigger system, signs (as a unity) are surrounded by other signs, and form "a biotext" as a semiotic whole. The process of text interpretation, therefore, is viewed as a continuous semiosis, as the interpretation of one sign through another (Krampen et al., 1987) as a certain semiosis of Umwelten limited by subjective boundaries of personal world mapping. Adhering to the global semiotic framework, this paper aims at unveiling relations between the meaning of the narrative text and a sign process, assuming an intentional character of the narrative discourse governed by telic aspects of semiotics. The following research questions have been formulated: (1) What is the nature of narrativity and its semiotic potential in world creation? (2). How does subjectivity of narrative turn it into a dynamic entity? (3). What is the role of subjectivity in narrative interpretation?
To reach these objectives the paper applies qualitative methodology of analysis of national and international body of research on semiotics to the findings of modern post-classical narratology. It starts with the definition of the object of study in global semiotics (i.e. life is semiosis) in the Semiotics Becomes Global: a Current State of Research Section. Then it moves to Poetic Nature of Narrativity Section, dealing with the basic features of narrative (i) situatedness, (ii) event sequencing, (iii) worldmaking or world disruption, and (iv) what's like, helping in understanding the dymanic character of semiotic modelling and arousal of narrativity through intentionality in Section: Intentionality and Emergence of Narrativity. The paper crowns up with the Conclusion Section, where the novelty of the global semiotic reseach on narrative is construsted to the conventional literary studies in literary narrative and avant-garde studies on multimodal narrative, suggesting promising endeavors for further research in this domain from the positions of global semiotics.

Global Semiotics: a Current State of Research
Productive attempts have been made to disclose the correspondance between semiotics and biology in understanding the concept of life as such, including the famous assumption that semiosis and life are coextensive. The problem, however, remained unsolved by the biologists and semioticians due to the ambiguity and diversity of the definitions of the concept (the problem has been widely analyzed by Barbieri (Barbieri, 2001) and more extensively by Emmeche (1998Emmeche ( , 2000 and modern representatives of Tartu semiotic school (Grishakova, Lotman, 2009). Sound implications of these studies call for non-oversimplification of the equation between the two concepts either in semiotics or in biology. At the same time, it becomes evident that two sciences can come to a more comprehensive understanding of the concepts of "life" and "semiosis" with common efforts and categories of analysis. And the minimum meaning bearing unit in biosemiotic writings is cell and in semiotic writings is a sign. Since one sign is always a part of a bigger system of other signs, called "text", semiosis, in its turn, presupposes the action of many of signs as a textual process is (Kull, 2002: 329).
Recognition of any text as a composition of signs (Kull, 2002), puts an end to the contradiction between "sign semiotics" and "text semiotics" (Lotman, 2002). Additionally, adherence to biosemiotic view provides us with the methodology for analysis of semiosis in certain parts of a text (where a new meaning emerges or is given birth to) and semiosis of the whole text (as a self-referring entity). Collaboration between multiple levels of the text, when analysed with the tools of biosemiotics, reminds of a self-referencing, characterized by "purposeful behavior" (Alexander, 2009), mediating discourse development, similar to the process of translation, described by Krampen (et.al. 1987) when "a complete set of conditions and patterns is created ("transferred") that guarantees the independent life for a new organism" (Kull, 2002: 330).
One more essential point here is the question of emergency. In self-referring systems it is viewed as the concept of exterior reference or functional differentiation as a certain precondition of semiosis. Quoting the words of Hoffmeyer (Hoffmeyer, 1999:156) "it is a stable integration of self-reference and other-reference which establishes the minimum requirement for an Umwelt and thereby sets living systems apart from all their non-living predecessors". Therefore, speaking in this way, principles and tools of holistic biology can be successfully employed for the purposes of text analysis (both finctional and non-fictional) of the emergent meaning of signs, causing discourse dynamics.
By micro-processes of discourse development one should understand here "icons" and "indices" as purely poetic tools, grounded on the principles of metonymic contiguity and metaphoric similarity, with a primary focus to be put on microprocesses of meaning emergency in a narrative text, treating it as a holistic self-organizing whole, capable of functional differentiation as a requirement for Umwelt (Hoffmeyer, 1999). In terms of linguistic approach this functional differentiation is realized through the concept of subjectivity, as an imminent embodiment of the writerreader perspective, as a central idea of narratology and an emergent phenomenon, deeply rooted in the cultural layers in the 'broadest possible way, as constituted by the practices in the whole way of life' (Cobley, 2008).

Poetic Nature of Narrativity
Answering the question what narrative fiction is and what are the features turning a narrative into a narrative discourse, it is necessary to define the basic aspects of narrative fiction in order to see the way they interact with each other. This will lead to a range of other questions, concerning the structure of the fiction text and the very nature of narration, their compatabilities and differences in relation to discourse.
Narrative fiction as a text represents a place where world-creating strategy is realized in the process of reader-text interactional dialogue (Andreeva, 2009: 65). Moreover, mainly this dialogic interaction of the reader with the text, a kind of narrative intentionality is contrasted to other textual strategies, including performativity, iterativity and discriptivity, turning the the process of reading a polydiscoursive entity. This discoursive poliphony, characterized by omnipresence of different communicative strategies, serves the ground for interdiscoursiveness, describing interrelations between different communicative strategies (Andreeva, 2009: 66). At the same time, according to the prevailing role of a certain communicative strategy, the texts, in their turn create either narrative, iterative or discriptive discourses.
One of the peculiar features of narrative texts differentiating them from other types of texts is the so-called "here and now effect" or "Origo des Jetzt-Hier-Ich-Systems" observed by Hamburger ( 1993: 29-30) and evoking the empathetic feeling as one of the central textcreating elements. A more or less common prototypical narrative model is then includes the basic elements of (i) situatedness, (ii) event sequencing, (iii) worldmaking or world disruption, and (iv) what's like, a term used by Herman and philosophers of mind to refer to a reader's experience and consciousness in-flux and qualia (Herman, 2009). That is where the important debate concerning the nature of consiousness comes forth, calling for a more careful insight into cognitive and philosopical sides of knowledge as meaning making. For convenience of analysis, we will start with the first element of narrative model mentioned abovesituatedness, moving then next to the other three in a line and crowning with some ideas concerning "alive knowledge", "consciousness in-flux" , qualia and Umwelt.
(i) Situatedness Self-evident as it might seem, general definition of narrative fiction is associated with a storytelling, embedded in the contexts of telling and grounded in certain discourse, reflecting interactions between text producers, semiotic artefacts, and the interpretants of these narrative productions working with cultural, institutional, genre-based, and textspecific protocols (Herman, 2009: 17). Manifestations of this so called sociocommunitive environment are imprinted in the narrative in the form of cues and concepts (icons) representing a well known twofold model of Saussurian signifier and signified ([1916] 1954), evoking meanings from the words. In stating that narrative representation encompasses both (a) the semiotic cues scattered in the text and (b) the characters, situations and events, which constitute the so called the storyworld (Herman, 2009: 17), realized through the cues, we have to view the theory of interpretation as a process of inferring meanings from the cues in order to reconstruct the storyworld as a specific occasion of storytelling.
Herman (2009) estimates that the specific contextual situation does not only provide for implicit meanings about certain communicative goals of the narrative, but also motivates the distribution of cues and thus rearranges the whole system of cues adjusting it according to contextual needs. If so, then the elements constituting narrative system are characterized by a sort of cause and purpose, intented to evoke a certain emotional response on the part of the reader. This causality is regarded to be an intentional phenomenon, unseparable from personal conventions and unvoluntary present in communicative grounding of narration (see Linde, 1993). In other words, this "background" information, where the narrative is grounded in, represents a cultural layer in the broadest possible sense (i.e. beliefs, expectations, symbols, etc.), which Searle calls intentionality, the central notion to his "Philosophy of Mind" represented in the capacity of mental states to be about worldly objects (Searle,2010: 48-62). Arguing that intentionality is exclusively mental power of minds to represent or symbolize over things, aboutness of properties and states of affairs in the external world (Searle, 1983), Searle defends the main thesis of his argument with Derrida: a statement can be disjoined from the original intentionality of its author, no longer connected to the original author, while still being able to produce meaning. Searle maintained that even if one was to see a written statement with no knowledge of authorship it would still be impossible to escape the question of intentionality, because "a meaningful sentence is just a standing possibility of the (intentional) speech act" (Searle, 1977: 202).
Thus, this embedded contextual intentionality of the narratives is might be nothing more than a broad sociocommunicative invironment in which they are produced. David Herman justifies this by providing the following example: "Thus, if I construct in my mind a representation of my own life story but never share it with anyone else (or perhaps mumble the story unitelligibly), I have nonetheless produced that account in the context structured by conventions for narrating the story of one's lifeconventions with which I bring myself into relation even when I seek to resist or subvert them". (Herman, 2009: 17-18) Preliminary, one can verify how crucial this sociocommunicative environment is by comparing different kinds of texts (narrative and not narrative by nature but with similar structure) by immersioning them into contrasting discourse contexts. The account of emotional retrospection of the first person narration coupled with the elements of cultural context and fictional characters brings the corresponding athmosphere and "background" in which the storyline should be interpreted. By contrast, non-narrative representation of scientific manner lacks emotional standing and is not grounded in the words of characters even being quoted by them. These altered occasions of reality representation show that it makes a difference what perspective or focus is chosen for interpretation as well as the a type of writing about the events, affecting the basic propositional context and the truth status as such. (

ii) Event sequencing
According to the structuralist definition, taken from "Narrative Fiction" (Rimmon-Kenan, 2002: 2), the term narrative fiction suggests the representation of the succession of events, which differs the latter from the rest of literary texts (e.g. expository prose and lyrical poetry). Implying by the meaning of event something that happens and can be rendered by a verb or named as an action, this definition can be extrapolated further to a philosophic view, defining event as any change of action (even not represented by words).
Taken as a point of departure, this understanding of event in fiction denotes any change the subject undergoes in the result of other events or caused by other events (Andreeva 2006, 46). That is where the term "a succession of events" comes from, meaning that a narrative structure usually consists of several events arranged in a certain order, prompted either by the inner micro processes of narrative composition or by the narrative logics of narration as such. Speaking about the narrative fiction, Roland Barthes observed, that the order of events can be motivated or non-motivated by causality links, subjecting the earlier structuralist definition to criticism, and necessitating a more rigid distinction between "text", "story" and "narration". Therefore, three-level structure of event representation suggested by Genette is based on the sound distinction between "story", "text" and "narration" correspondently (Genette, 1972: 71). Succinctly put, the "story" is the succession of events designated from their disposition in the text, and then reconstructed in the chronological order. Whereas, the "text" presents the events in the order, they are arranged by the author for the sake of aesthetic purposes and characterization through a certain focus or perspective. And finally, the "narration" is realized in the production of the text by the narrator (i.e. in fictional narrative, the communication cycle goes from a fictional narrator to a fictional narratee).
Described above two and three-level models of event presentation in the fictional text refer to the notion of "narration" as to the mode of telling (i.e. storytelling) about the situations and events in flux (Herman, 2009: 1). At the same time, the fourdimensional model of event shifts the focus of analysis from the event as a textual category to the event as a cultural phenomenon (Cobley, 2014) and the category of aesthetics. Mainly in fictional narrative, events become a part of the subjective experience of the implicit reader and through mental categorization they enter a wider self-organizing entity of meaningful relations between the objective world and the human semiosphere (Lotman, 2002), or what is called by a German biologist Jakob von Uexküll, the Umwelt (Cobley, 2014).
Furthermore, from the biosemiotic perspective, the event in the fictional narrative is considered a certain "organic state", fixed in semiotic text, produced by the "cosmological artistic agency of the author" (Eko, 1988:93). The rules and logics of events sequencing and the characters are thus governed by the "fictional reality" in which the whole narrative text is transformed into discourse in the process of abstraction from the text and cognitive modeling of the storyworld. Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan explains this human ability for abstraction by the intuitive skill of users in processing stories, i.e. being able to retell them, to recognize variants of the same story in another medium, and so on (Rimmon-Kenan, 2002:7). Other support in favor of this idea comes from renowned attempts of the narratoligists to disjoint the "autonomous layer of meaning" (Propp, 1968) in narration, drawing the distinction between an apparent and an implicit level of narration in the quotation of Greimas: " …an apparent level of narration, at which the manifestations of narration are subject to the specific exigencies of the linguistic substances through which they are expressed, and an immanent level, constituting a sort of common structural trunk, at which narrativity is situated and organized prior to its manifestations. A common semiotic level is thus distinct from the linguistic level and is logically prior to it, whatever the language chosen for manifestation" (Greimas, 1976: 23) What can be inferred from this statement it is the existence of one more implication that the story, as a sequence of events is grounded in abstraction. The style, the language and the medium of representation as it is immanently present in the human consciousness, prior to its comprehension in the story, leading the researcher to the key question of cognitive narratology on the pre-existing of narrative intelligence in children and adults, and a possibility of medical use of narratives in treating trauma and psychological disorders. Though recently some evidence has been provided justifying the use of narratives in therapeutic treatment of trauma, the "technical side" of the healing process still remains terra incognita, demanding common efforts from linguistics, psychologists and biologists in the description of the worldmaking and experiencing the narrative what's like as a storyworld-in-flux (Herman, 2009).

(iii) Worlmaking and consciousness in flux
The question of fictional worldmaking as a form of virtual reality has been long discussed in philosophy of art, language and mind, with the special emphasis on modulating different virtual artificial systems of signs in computer programmes and simulators, being proponed by computational narratology. The basis for existing a virtual reality in computor science consitutes possibility of submerge into artificially created world with the help of computer technologies. That fact represents the point where narrative intelligence meets artificial intelligence (Gervas, Lönneker-Rodman, Meister & Peinado, 2006). This perspective brings into the focus the questions of Interactive Narrative (IN) and Interactive Storytelling (IS) by considering a range of widely used narrative models (those of Aristotle, Propp, and Barthes) in their adaptation for AI story generation or Artificial Narrative Intelligence (cf. Livytska, 2019). A very good example of such interdisciplinary productive work is the Living Handbook of Narratology (https://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/) providing open access to resources in this regard. Recognition of the need for a closer collaboration between the humanities and the computer sciences has already given some productive outcomes in understanding the way a virtual reality is digitalized. It also opened a vast spectrum of opportunities for further research on story generation, especially in connection to film narrative models. But as for cooperation between the Computational Narratology and Literary Studies. Attending only to structuralist and formalist narrative representation in terms of "story", "plot" or "siuzhet" doesn't seem relevant to a state of fact in modern narratology as a study of signs in abiotic and living systems. In finding a link between semiotic processes of meaning emergence in narrative fictional texts and artificial modeling of this process by means of computer techniques, the possibility of reopening the door to the anatomy of culture as a living system seems viable. The approach suggested here comes from the emerging science of global biosemiotics, combining the methods and theory of semiotics with a sphere of biology, dealing with living systems. An important presupposition that justifies the use of biology in semiotics is the existence of meaningful communication in all living species apart from Homo sapiens (Kull, Emmeche and Hoffmeyer, 2011: 2). Adherence to this position will refer us to the thoughts about sign nature of all living systems and the ideas of von Uexküll about animal's interpretation of their world, Umwelt, mediated by purpose and causality, i.e. intentionality.

Intentionality and Emergency of Narrative
Observing the fundamental role of narrative in the human society, scholars acknowledged the exposure of a human to certain narrative practice, so called "Narrative Practice Hypothesis" (NPH) and "folk psychology"(FP) (Hutto, 2008) as a prerequisite for a human ability to construct and consume narratives. Defining narrative as a specifically human form of semiosis, present in multiple forms of culture, "narrative analysis" proved to be deeply embedded in the modes of interpersonal communication, expressing values, emotions, needs and relations of participants in the interaction (cf. Labovian experiment in New York City (Herman, 2009). Moreover, not all kinds of narratives can explicitly encourage children to understand desires and needs, mount moral values. As Hutto himself states: "If our capacity to make sense of ourselves and others is not built inif it depends on engaging in special kinds of social practicesthen this influences how we should think about a number of important topics. It matters for our understanding of certain mental dysfunctions and how we might attempt to treat them… [ …] Furthermore, if our capacity for making sense of ourselves and others is not wholly built-in, then this raise s the tantalizing possibility that, even as adults, we might be able to improve and enhance it". (Hutto, 2008) Hutto's definition of narrative nature as a socially justified practice brought the grounds for researchers to redefine narrative intentionality as preceding the human narrative capacity. As Herman pointed out, "<…> intentional systems are grounded in storytelling practices" (Herman, 2008: 240), but narrative as a cognitive frame provides the intentional coloring, modulating Folk Psychology and Theory of Mind in the prime order. This denotes the shift from inner intention to the outer domain, reopening the door to empathy, intentionality and universality of narrative as a form of human interaction. Attempts to find universal narrative qualities connected with empathetic feelings will lead to cognitive linguistics, proponing some universal scripts and scenarios embedded into the fabric of the narrative and "activated" by each individual in the course of mental simulation. Though, cognitive interpretation of empathy in respect to narrative turns it into problematic issue, one cannot but see the powerful effect of empathetic reaction when it comes to character identification. Nevertheless, as a result of empathy, some round characters can totally change their characteristics by the reader from negative into positive, demonstrating dependable nature of emotional feedback aroused by empathetic reaction. As rightly warns Keen, there is still little empirical data to state a stable link between empathetic reactions and real actions. She writes: The link between feeling with fictional characters and acting on behalf of real people, I have argued, is extremely tenuous and has yet to be substantiated either through empirical research into the effects of reading or through analysis of demonstrable causal relationships between novel reading as a cultural phenomenon and historical changes in societies in which novel reading flourishes. (Keen, 2007).
Pointing at causal relations within novel, Keen evidently underlines importance of the contextual surrounding of narrative. Since the notions of cause and purpose are the starting points in intentionality research, empathy plays the role of a mediator between the two of them, bringing the process of narrative perception into the focus. As it was stated above, the process of text reading is viewed here as a continuous semiosis, as interpretation of one sign through another (Krampen et al., 1987) as a certain semiosis of Umwelten limited by subjective boundaries. In terms of biosemiotic theory, substitution of the word 'interpretation" for notion of 'translation' will be more reasonable (Eko, 1986:183), as the "birth" of a new meaning is observed only when the reader's own self-referential system meets the requirements of functional differentiation (Hoffmeyer, 1999) of other-referencing, the narrative, fulfilling in such way a minimum requirement for Umwelt.
Jacob von Uexkull's idea about distinction between perceptual and operational categories of signs makes it possible for a compound sign to become a whole sign (cited in Kull, 2002), on condition that several perceptual categories converge into one operational category, as a sort of sensor-motor automatic reaction. This senso-motor categorisation is interpreted as a human ability to react to a certain factor of surrounding by recognition of individuality has been proposed by Gerald Edelman (Edelman and Tononi, 2000) . In a similar form it is represented in Jakob von Uexkull's notion of two signs: Merkzeichen and Wirkzeichen (cited in Kull, 2002) and can be classiefied as subjectively embedded meaning derived from cooperation of these two types of signs. Further, this dialogical communication has been put into the basis of Peircian triadic model of sign in the notion of subjectivity, i.e. "it denotes a property of being what Descartes himself called a "thinking entity" (Wu, 2015: 74).
In his definition of semiosis, Peirce underlines inherent dynamicity and dialogicity of signs, making them the agents themselves (unlike the author and the recipient, who are also the signs (Sonnenhauser, 2008: 327)). Developing his argument further, Peirce recognizes sign nature of human experince as well, saying that it seeks it realization in human's external reaction to the facts of the world in a form of habit. This habit, according to Sonnenhauser, helps to establish sign-object relation typical for linguistic signs (Sonnenhauser, 2008: 327). Peircian understanding of interpretation goes far beyond the level of the linguistic signs. According to Peirce it stretches to the whole life itself and is performed in a form of reasoning. To put it in a plain way, a human need to recognize symbols is mediated through argumentaton (a certain type of reasoning, which incorporates deduction and induction) and hypothesizing (in a form of abduction, provoking pluralistic hypotheses in the process of sign interpretation). The number of hypotheses and their actualization (e.i. proofs) is limited by the habit of experience, calling for such expectations. Peirce writes about this sign dialogicity as follows: "[W]e note as highly characteristic, that signs mostly function each between two minds or theatres of consciousness, of which the one is the agent that utters the sign, (whether acoustically, optically, or otherwise), while the other is the patient mind that interprets the sign... Before the sign was uttered, it already was virtually present to the consciousness of the utterer, in the form of a thought. [...]. Likewise, after a sign has been interpreted, it will virtually remain in the consciousness of its interpreter, where it will be a sign ... and, as a sign should in its turn have an interpreter, and so forward" (Peirce, 1967:318).
What is described here by Peirce has the following implications for narrative analysis: (1) the role of the author and the interpretant in sign process correlates with the agency of signs; (2) the agency of signs appears in the result of differention and further abductive reasoning, provoked by prognostic function of the human to interpret the signs; (3) the dwell for multiple hypotheses lies in the human experience, also represented by signs; (4) in the process of interpretation the final interpretant (the habit) sets the limits for semiosis, based on the level of probability of the inferences suggested by individual experience. (5) sign ability for self-referencing and sel-interpretation gives birth to the emergence of communicative agents, and a narrative text can be considered an autopoietic teleological system (moving from cause to purpose) (Alexander, 2009). Dymanics of the autopoietic system is stimulated, in its turn, by constant self-inference of individual experience in his attempt to comprehend the life position of the character. By doing so, the narrative keeps the reader involved into the intrigue of the text, provoking at the same time empathetic feelings (see more about empathy in the novel in Keen, 2007).
Therefore, subjectivity as outlined here connects the two aspects of sign: internal (the sign itself) and external (manifesting experience and environment), on the intersections of which the new meaning arises, prompted by personal experience of the reader/perceiver/interpreter. The inherent character of the fictional narrative in this respect is closely linked to the human perception of the world (as it was mentioned earlier, human narratological ability is embedded in our life practices (see Hutto, 2008)). Much earlier the same statement was suggested by Paul Ricoeur in his "Time and Narrative" (1998) from the positions of phenomenological hermeneutics. Saying that intrigue of the narrative serves a way of simulating a real personal experience, Recour considers it to be based on our "pre-understanding of the world" cognitive patterns (Ricoeur, 1998: 68). Putting it into the semiotic domain, the intrigue as a structural element helps to bridge a dual temporality of the narrative by connecting two aspects of the sign (internal and external). At the same time, intrigue is considered by Ricoeur to be a kind of configuration, helping to re-structure/re-construct seemingly non-motivated events into a meaningful storyline within a narrative (Ricoeur, 1998: 80-81). Paradox of time, as Ricoeur calls double temporality of the narrative, is resolved due to mainly this reader's ability of reconfiguration governed by the expectation for confirmation of his hypothesis at the end of the narrative story. Thus, this teleological and intentional phenomenon of goal setting originates from the sign interpretation and, being reproduced by the interpreter, constitutes the very essence of the emergency of the narrative, both in reality and fiction.

Conclusion
Giving credit to the findings of the structuralist narratology, this paper widens a problematic scope of research from the textual features of narrative to its hermeneutic and phenomenological interpretation in the context of global semiotic approach. The pre-condition for choosing such an approach was Roland Barthes' thesis about the ubiquitous character of narrative, Paul Ricouer's theory of narrative temporality and mimesis, which might help to solve the paradox of dual time representation in the narrative. As the classical narratology in all its branches strives to uncover the relationship between the meaning of the signs and their interpretation, the position of global semiotics shifts the focus of attention from the textual level to the subjective side, seeing it as a continuous semiosis of between biotic and abiotic species. This reference of global semiotics to biology caused a formation of a new science, biosemiotics, with a wider focus of scientific study of sign systems, might serve a fundamental basis for studying manifistations of subjectivity in living and abiotic systems like a fictional narration. As Jesper Hoffmeyer points out: "This investigation into the semiotic nature of living systems has taken a long time to emerge, since it poses a challenge to many of the prevailing ontological assumptions of both the natural and the human sciences" (Hoffmeyer, 2008: 3).
Narrative plays an important role in world modeling by an organism, as it is deeply embedded in the human experience via cognition and knowledge storing. It links the axiological and epistemological potential of narrative with the semiotic modeling in its reference to human experience (i.e. memory) on the one hand and puts the ground for considering subjectivity a central category in literary studies of narrativity, on the other. (Research Question #1). Subjectivity in its turn rests on/ arises from the interrelation between the signs, where the central role is played by the interpretant (see Peirce's triadic sign model), which is in constant dialogical relation with the object. Moving from the cause to purpose on the way to meaning making, from one sign to another, subjectivity acquires intentionality, heated by reader's reasoning (from argument, abduction to deduction), applied to narrative intrigue. Mimetic nature of narrative (Paul Ricouier) calls for active participation of the reader in the process of restructuring a seemingly linear storyline of the events and re-figuring it into a new meaningful entity (i.e. configuration) (Research Question #2). Subjectivity has been suggested in this paper as a central category of narrative analysis, which allows combining structuralist, hermeneutic, phenomenological and semiotic approaches to narrative into an interdisciplinary fashion. (Research Question #3). At the same moment, more scientific efforts are needed in order to overcome terminological ambiguity and methodological complexity of global semiotics in literary studies of fiction and nonfiction narratives, as well as of avant-garde multimodal narrative, which was intentionally avoided here due to the limited scope of the paper. All this may constitute new perspectives of our further research on narrative discourse emergent nature in the context of global semiotics, as this focus of research may lead to re-interpretation of basic problems of the aesthetics and the essence of catharsis.