The Vardar River as a border of semiosphere – Paradox of Skopje regeneration

Kapusta, Armina

doi:0016-7282 (print)

- ris
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Csv

The Vardar River as a border of semiosphere – Paradox of Skopje regeneration Kapusta, Armina

Object structure

The Vardar River as a border of semiosphere – Paradox of Skopje regeneration

Geographia Polonica Vol. 92 No. 1 (2019)

Kapusta, Armina : Autor

projekt Skopje 2014 ; mosty nad rzeką Vardar ; semiosfera ; semiotyka miejska ; rujnowanie i rozbiórka ; miasto wielokulturowe

As suggested by its etymology, regeneration usually carries positive connotations while its negative aspects tend to be belittled. However, any renewal results in major morphological, physiognomic, functional or social changes, which imply changes in the meanings encoded in space. These transformations are not always welcome and they may lead to public discussions and conflicts. Skopje 2014 is a project within which such controversial transformations have been taking place. The area surrounding the Vardar River and its banks plays a major role here. On the river banks monumental buildings were erected, bridges over the river were modernised and new ones, decorated with monuments, were built for pedestrians. Bridges can be considered a valuable component of any urban infrastructure as they link different parts of a settlement unit (in the case of Skopje – left (northern) bank and the right (southern) bank; Albanian and Macedonian), improve transport, facilitate trade and cultural exchange. In this context, referring to Lotman’s semiosphere theory, they may become borders of semiotic space, which acts as a filter that facilitates the penetration of codes and cultural texts. Yet, in multicultural Skopje meanings attached to bridges seem to lead to social inequalities as they glorify what is Macedonian and degrade the Albanian element. To validate this assumption we carried out semiotic analysis of bridges over the Vardar River which were renewed or built within the Skopje 2014 project to identify their role in shaping the semiosphere of the Macedonian capital.

1. Barthes R., 1986. Semiology and the Urban [in:] M. Gottdiener, A.Ph. Lagopoulos (eds.), The city and the sign: An introduction to urban semiotics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 87-98.
2. Bourdieu P., 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press [translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson].
3. Choay F., 1986. Urbanism and semiology [in:] M. Gottdiener, A.Ph. Lagopoulos (eds.), The city and the sign: An introduction to urban semiotics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 160-175.
4. Čipan B., 1978. Makedonskite gradovi vo XIX vek i nivnata urbana perspektiva. Skopje: Manu.
5. Dojčinoski K., 1999. Skopje – paraleli. Skopje: Matica Makedonska.
6. Fauque R., 1986. For a new semiological approach to the city [in:] M. Gottdiener, A.Ph. Lagopoulos (eds.), The City and the Sign. An Introduction to Urban Semiotics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 137-159.
7. Galtung J., 1969. Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301
8. Galtung J., 1990. Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005
9. Graan A., 2013. Counterfeiting the nation?: Skopje 2014 and the politics of nation branding in Macedonia. Cultural Anthropology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2012.01179.x
10. IVANOV V., 1986. K semiotičeskomu izučeniju kul'turnoj istorii bol'šogo goroda. Trudy po znakovym sistemam, vol. 19, pp. 7-24.
11. JANEVSKI S. (ed.), 1970. Skopje. Belgrad: Mladost i Sobranie na grad Skopje.
12. JOVANOVA L., 2013. Makedonija vo rimskiot period (arheologija) [in:] P. Kuzman (ed.) Makedonija: mileniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, Skopje: Media Print, pp. 789-930.
13. Kaczmarek S., 2001. Rewitalizacja terenów poprzemysłowych: nowy wymiar w rozwoju miast. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
14. KAPUSTA A., 2015. Miejska przestrzeń wielokulturowa Suboticy – analiza geograficzno-semiotyczna. Łódź.
15. Lagopoulos A., Boklund-Lagopoulou K., 2014. Semiotics, culture and space. Sign Systems Studies, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 435-486. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2014.42.4.02
16. LOTMAN Y., 1967. K probleme tipologii kul'tury. Trudy po znakovym sistemam, vol. 3, pp. 30-38.
17. LOTMAN Y., 1984. O semiosfere. Trudy po znakovym sistemam, vol. 17, pp. 5-23.
18. LOTMAN Y., 1984. Simvolika Peterburga i problemy semiotiki goroda. Trudy po znakovym sistemam, vol. 18, pp. 30-45.
19. Lynch K., 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
20. POPIS NA NASELENIETO, 2002. Skopje: Republika Makedonija, Državen zavod za statistika, http://www.stat.gov.mk/OblastOpsto.aspx?id=31 [20 December 2018].
21. Saussure F., 1998. Course in general linguistics. New York: Open Court.
22. SKOPJE RESURGENT. THE STORY OF A UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL FUND TOWN PLANNING PROJECT, 1970. New York: United Nations.
23. TOPOROV V., 1980. Vilnius, Wilno, Vil'na: gorod i mif [in:] T.M. Sudnik (ed.), Balto-slavianskie etnojazykovye kontakty, Moskva: Izdatiel'stvo "Nauka", pp. 3-71.
24. TRUDY PO ZNAKOVYM SISTEMAM. SEMIOTIKA GORODA I GORODSKOJ KUL'TURY, 1984. vol. 18, Tartu: Tartuskij gosuniversitet.
25. TRUDY PO ZNAKOVYM SISTEMAM. SEMIOTIKA PROSTRANSTVA I PROSTRANSTVO SEMIOTIKI, 1986. vol. 19, Tartu: Tartuskij gosuniversitet.
26. Żyłko B., 2011. Kultura i znaki. Semiotyka stosowana w szkole tartusko-moskiewskiej. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
27. ttp://www.skopje.gov.mk
28. http://skopje2014.prizma.birn.eu.com