Introduction to Semiotics of Cultures, 2010 Juri Lotman – Universe of the Mind Texts and Codes Vesa Matteo Piludu University of Helsinki

Yuri Lotman Strong interest in art: Russian Literature, poetry, folklore The cultural field is classic, but the interpretation is innovative Problem of actors (artist), interpretation: emergence of individuals, will, transformation Individual aren’t passive as in Lévi-Strauss structures or in Barthes’ popular culture

Universe of the Mind Preface by Lotman Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. (Translated by Ann Shukman, introduction by Umberto Eco.) London & New York

Intelligence Transmission of available information (texts / communication) Creation of new information Memory: capacity to preserve and reproduce information (texts / communication) The 3 function are present in all kind of text, but: In common texts (informative messages) the first function predominate Media, short and fast messages In artistic texts (poetry) the capacity of generate new information predominate Self-reflection, innovative thought

Culture: always complex and multi-layered The culture should be at list binary: two or more untranslatable languages-codes (music / written world) connected by intertexuality Culture is incomprehensible taking in consideration only a language (music, visual art, architecture) The culture is always produced in communication processes (dialogism): an intelligence need another intelligence, message senders need interlocutors

Double dialogism The interlocutor need another interlocutor The text-generating mechanism needs a text from the outside Binary structures or message should be considered both asymmetrical and unitary

Three aspects Semiotics is the scientific discipline adumbrated by Ferdinand de Saussure Semiotic communication: the signs are part of social life and social psychology Semiotics is a method of the humanities, relevant to various disciplines The same object could be studied by a semiotic or non-semiotic point of views Scientific mind of the researcher: the semiotician built up his consciousness, potentially everything became semioticized in his hands Mida effect

Saussure Opposition between language (langue – code for Lotman) and speech (parole – text for Lotman) Language is a grammatical system potentially present in every brain or in brains of groups of individuals sharing the same languages Language is never complete in a single individual, it exists only in collectivity Language is collective Speech is (more) individual, less essential, more casual and accidental

De Saussure Language is a social contract, individuals are powerless to create it or to modify it (this statement has been obviously criticized) Language should be studied independently from speech Even dead language could be studied

Lotman’s critics The idea that language is completely opposed to all that is accidental, unstable, extra-systematic, able to function is spite of the damage caused on them Is rejected by modern semioticians

Chapter 1: The tree function of the text Sassure focused his studies on language, not speech Code more important than texts Everything relevant in speech/text is pre-given in language/code Science of language without speech analysis Lotman: All that is based on a non-scientific ideas about the function of language The everyday receiver of information is concerned with the contents of messages the text/messages is considered valuable

Scheme Thought (content of message) (addresser) Encoding mechanism of language (addresser) Text –speech (addresser) Decoding mechanism of language (addressee) Thought (content of message) (addressee) Reaction: other speech ? (the addressee become addresser) The process of thinking and speaking are two different activities, combined for the purpose of communication In the speech the though is formulated by language that call for an interpretation

Meaning In perfect, ideal communication: the meaning of the thought remain the same in the process The content doesn’t change Problem: all the linguistic structures are imperfect, it’s practically impossible than addressee and addressee has wholly identically codes The code have multi-dimensional hierarchies Share the same language doesn’t mean share the same linguistic experiences, memory, culture, values

Structuralistim language The classic structuralistic language and communication exist only as a model, as an ideal

Creative function Classic structuralism forgot an important point: The creative function of communication Communication generate also new messages and new texts Translation: Text 1 from language 1 is translated in language 2 and create the Text 2 that is never identical to the original one Reverse translation can’t recreate Text 1 Translation of poetry: different syllabic verses/lines What about when a novel is transformed into a film?

Creation of new texts When text 1 is translated into Codes 2,3, 4 It creates Texts 2,3,4 Language is inseparable from meaning and the contents, and from texts

Art First the document is acquired, and then the language is reconstructed Archaeologists and relics of ancient art Contemporary art: the language can be unknown to the audience and has to be reconstructed and mastered by the addressees, that should be capable of self-tutoring In any individualized languages (arts), not everything is individual Inevitably there are levels that are commons to both the participants Even what is individual and new derives from some tradition, memory Artistic texts are individual and self-reflective

Informational point of view Language is a machine to transmitting invariant messages But: humans aren’t machines!

Poetic theory The creative function is a universal quality of language and poetic, creative language is regarded as the most typical manifestation of language as a such

Debate Saussure- Jakobson Saussure: informational function more important Positivism, XIX century Knowledge is good and ignorance is absolute evil Zola and Gouncourts, universal literacy Jakobson Avant-garde, Russian Futurist art … was the most consistent realization of the structure of language

Text is memory and sum of other texts Condenser of cultural memory Any culture is bombarded by isolated texts from different ages that fall like meteorites There are always remnants of other civilizations Invasions are important factors of cultural dynamics Hamlet today is not just a play by Shakespeare, but also the memory of all his interpretations