Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Intertextuality and the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics Author(s): Leonard Orr Reviewed work(s): Source: College English,

Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1986), pp. 811-823 Published by: National Council of Teachers of English Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/376732 . Accessed: 13/02/2013 04:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College English.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LeonardOrr
and Intertextuality
Recent

the Cultural Semiotics

Text

in

In Robert Scholes' popularbut reductive Structuralismin Literatureand Semiotics and Interpretation,the readeris given a dated and strictly French semiotics based on work publishedby GerardGenette, Tzvetan Todorov, and Roland Barthes in the 1960s. Using this early arcanematerial,Scholes writes (Semiotics 90): Hereis a version the storyof "Eveline": of 1 2 4 5 3 XA + XB- X - C + YaX + (X= A+X -B XC)predX 6 7 8 9
(XbY)predX+ XA! -- XnotbY-- (XB + X - C)! imp

In whatever sense this may be said to be a version of Joyce's "Eveline," it is not a version most critics would find adequate. When this formulais interpreted using Scholes' key, it yields little more than a partialplot summaryof the threepage story, togetherwith a few generalcharacterdescriptors.Yet plot is rarely a the majorproblemin understanding stories in Dubliners. This treatmentignores all of the stylistic elements, the interrelationsbetween this story and the other works in Dubliners, social and historicalelements, allusions, and much else. To present this formulaas one of the achievements of semiotics in an introduction for literarycritics is clearly to do no great service for semiotics. Scholes and critics who have followed his example make semiotics seem useful for generating"readings" such as this and little else. They make it seem to represent a new aestheticism, dealing with literary texts as autonomous objects. John Hall, for example, in The Sociology of Literature,believes that Julia Kristeva's notion of intertextuality"argues simply that literatureis best read as a comment on other texts, rather than on society" (16). Scholes believes that Juri Lotman and Michael Riffaterre"share with the New Critics a sense of the poetic text as largely self-referentialratherthan [as] oriented to a worldly context" (Semiotics 12) and that the word workin semiotics "implies a closed and self-sufficiententity" (149). Such misreading semiotics by one of its defenders of and popularizerscan charitablybe attributedto a sort of nostalgiafor Formalism
the editor of De-Structing the Novel: Essays in Applied Postmodern Hermeneutics; his Semiotic and Structuralist Analyses of Fiction will be published this year.

LeonardOrrteachescriticalmethodsandthe historyof criticism the Universityof NotreDame. He is at

College English, Volume 48, Number8, December 1986 811

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

812

College English

by a lapsed New Critic-a way of quickly assimilatingcontemporarycriticaljargon and domesticatingContinentalmethodsby showinghow similarit is to traditional Anglo-Americancriticism. But this readingignores the bulk of work published by Soviet, Italian,and Israeli semioticiansover the past fifteen years. These critics follow a definition of semiotics based on Charles Peirce and Benjamin Whorf rather than on Saussure. For example, Ju. K. Lekomcev deinformationinside some sofines semiotics as "the science of signs transmitting cial group; it is the science of communicativesign systems" (39). Culturalsemioticians have worked with many different semiotic systems, includingtourism, architecture, film, and etiquette; these offer different but simultaneous frames and codes, and grantno particularsign and terms to analyze sign communication system, including language and literature, a privileged place (see MacCannell 289, Eco 3-31). Cultural semiotics has broadened the meanings of the terms "text," "language," and "reading" to include almost everything perceived as understood in terms of intersubjectivecommupartakingof a sign-relationship nication. Boris Uspenskij has noted that, from the point of view of culturalsemiotics, some "language, understoodin a broad semiotic sense rather than a narrow linguistic sense, determinesperceptionof both real and possible facts in the context" (107). correspondinghistorical-cultural The important difference between the sort of semiotics described by Uspenskij and the sort practiced by Scholes is that to Uspenskij the object of study is not an individualand perhapseccentric response to signs in the culture (such as literary texts), but is instead the response of specific cultural groups within a specific historical-cultural setting. In the culturalsystem language "provides the collective with a presumption of communicability" (Lotman and Uspensky 229). While culturalsemioticians agree with Saussure's notion of the of arbitrariness the sign, a sign is only meaningfulwithin a culturalsystem. Lotman argues that "all the material for the history of culture can be considered from two points of view: as determinate,meaningfulinformation,and as a system of social codes that allow people to express this informationwith determinate signs so as to make it part of the patrimonyof a human collectivity" ("Different Cultures" 1215).The transmissionof this information,loss and change of meaning, change in textual status, and the historical basis for such changes, is the majorinterest of culturalsemiotics. Accordingto Nomi Tamir-Ghezand other Israeli semioticians, semiotic interpretation(and semanticprocessinggenerally)always involves three levels: 1) the senses or designationsof words and the sentences they compose based upon our knowledge of the language;2) a field of reference, based upon our knowledge of the world (that is, all of the significance of the words beyond the lexicon and syntax, such as culturalsignificationsand the discourse's internalfield of reference); 3) regulating principles which represent the attitudes of the speaker. "What distinguishesthe literarytext from other texts is ... that it creates an Internal F[ield of] R[eference] (IFR) (we cannot go beyond the text to verify whether the charactersreally exist, whether they really loved each other and so on)." But the literarytext also refers to external fields of reference such as historical events. "Hence literary statements are true statements referringto an

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Intertextualityand the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics

813

IFR" (Tamir-Ghez242). SimilarlyJuri Lotman considers poetry and art to be a "binding of culturaland linguistic possibilities. The artistic text is typified ... by the intensity, the number, and the system of connections that materialize among its elements" (Qtd. in Rewar, "Cybernetics"289). Cultureis made of a web of semiosis, a thick tapestry of interwoven sign systems. This web is not perfectly smooth and continuous, however, and cultural semiotics finds its way into the sign system of a culture through the discontinuous, the breaks and gaps, the unexpected, the ambivalent. Following Lotman, culturalsemioticiansfind at least three differentforms of ambivalenttexts: havefunctioned in (a) texts whichhavesurvived manyliterary periods, differently read eachperiod; texts, which, each, andwereconsequently differently (b) during theirstatusin the polysystem,thatis, fromthe historical pointof view changed were pushedfromthe periphery centerandvice versa, or fromadultto chilto be dren'sliterature, etc.; (c) texts whichcanpotentially realizedin two different at 76) waysby the samereader, the sametime.(Shavit This way of defining culture seems to go back to Levi-Strauss' essay "Social Structure," first published in 1952, in which he states that what is called a "'culture' is a fragment of humanity which . . . presents significant discontinuities in relation to the rest of humanity"(295). Thus the culturaltext is one read against the backdropof its immediateconsumersand producersand within a historical context. It draws the semiotician'sattentionbecause it stands apart from a given cultural episteme, to borrow a term from Michel Foucault. "The episteme can ... be definedas a metasemioticsof culture,that is, as the attitude adopted by a socio-culturalcommunitywith respect to its own signs" (Qtd. in Greimas and Courtes 105). The episteme is not the culture itself, but the interpretation of a given culture by the social group that produces it; the episteme stands in relationto the cultureas Peirce's interpretant stands in relationto sign. The culture itself, in orderto be definableas a culture, must stand apartfrom all that is non-culture and must be fairly homogeneous in its selfprojection. Lotmanand Uspenskijnote that "to fulfillits social function, culture has to appearas a structuresubjectto unifiedconstructiveprinciples. . . . There comes a momentwhen it becomes conscious of itself, when it creates a model of itself. This model defines the unified, the artificiallyschematized image that is raised to the level of a structuralunity." In the moment of self-consciousness (and note, this is not exactly the same as "self-awareness"),a social groupwithin the culture builds an image of itself; this image is then turnedback onto the culture to subdue and regularizeit. "When imposed onto the reality of this or that culture, it exerts a powerfulregulatinginfluence,preordaining constructhe tion of culture, introducingorder, and eliminatingcontradiction"(227). The culturaltext thus formed stands in furtherinterpretiverelationshipto the episteme, makingthe chain of perceptionand interpretation somethinglike Real World-Cultural Episteme-Cultural Text. According to Itamar Even-Zohar, "the more established the culture, the more codified its various repertoriesand the more ready-madeand detached from the real world its models." The text, then, may not be relatedto the "real world" at all, but the real world is instead replaced by "possible worlds, i.e., prefabricatedselections from the repertory

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

814

College English

available to the culture" ("Constraints"66). This is true for any culturaltexts, whether documents, historical narratives, diaries, artworks, or literary texts. What is often taken by historiansor students of literatureas the real world of a past culture is actually the representationof a conventionalmodel that forms a society's projectionof itself and is accepted as "real" by the society. No literarytext is written in a vacuum. Besides the general culture surrounding the text and the author's own horizon (i.e., his experiences, prejudices, use of the language system, "worldview," and so on), there are, perhaps more importantly, other texts, especially literarytexts. "Every text, being itself the intertext of another text," writes Roland Barthes, "belongs to the intertextual, which must not be confused with a text's origins:the search for the 'sources of' and 'influenceupon' a work is to satisfy the myth of filiation"(77). Source or analogue studies have long been a mainstayof literaryscholarship,the most grandiose example in English literaturebeing perhapsJohn Livingston Lowe's 1927 study of Coleridge's sources, The Road to Xanadu. In semiotics, however, critics are not interested in pointing out for its own sake that, for example, the image of the alligatorin a certain notebook entry by Coleridgewas derived from Bartram's Travels. They are interested in cases where textual boundaries or frames are broken or made to overlap, and where textual information is resemanticizedor nontextualinformationis "textualized." KatherineYoung points out that boundaries"are positional;they enclose, or in the case of narrative,open and close, an alternaterealm of experience" (279). In cultural semiotics, everything that can be conceived or described is part of some "text" understood within the terms of cultural text already described. Thus Susan Stewart is correct in noting that "the concept of intertextualitycan be employed without ascribingany intrinsic 'reality' to any of its dimensions" (48). Intertextualityis a confrontationbetween discourse from differentframes, the confrontationeffectively transformsthe bordersbetween the conflictingdiscursive universes. Unlike traditionalsource study, the author'sreadingdoes not enter into the analysis in culturalsemiotics since all that matters is "the transposition of one or more systems of signs into another,accompaniedby a new articulation of the enunciativeand denotative position" (Roudiez qtd. in Kristeva Desire 15). In other words, the focus is on readers, ratherthan authors, especially successive and definable specific groups or types of readers within a certain culturalcontext. Such profoundlyhidden sources as those of Coleridge's poetry are not effectively intertextualsince the transpositionof a different sign system is not made for readers, even if there is a transpositionof signs known to the author. The most common sort of intertextuality is allusion. Traditional source study deals with latent or passive allusionsunknownto readerswhile culturalsemiotics deals with textual allusionsactivatedby differentgroups of readers. Cultural semioticiansare interested in the way intertextualcrossings may create an atmosphereor alter the way we read texts even where there is no specific allusion made (or where an allusionis assumed althoughin the originaltext the allusion could not have been made, as when Kafka's The Trial,writtenin 1910-11,is assumed by later readers to allude to the Gestapo). Accordingto Kristeva's notion of intertextuality,the "dual orientationof the text" is first toward the language system of a certain society or group and then "toward the social process

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Intertextualityand the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics

815

in which, as discourse, it participates. The text is constantly becoming the ground upon which the epistemological, social, and political reworkings of an entire era are put into play" (Feral273). Almost all of the major systematizers of cultural semiotics, such as Peirce, Eco, and Barthes, foresaw the possibility of unlimited semiosis. The text, Barthes writes, is "completely woven with quotations, references, and echoes. These are culturallanguages . . . past or present, that traversethe text from one end to the other in a vast stereophony"(77). And Lucien Dallenbachhas related intertextualityto the device of mise-en-abyme,the placing into the abyss of an object, text, or authorreflectingan endless series of reflections. Susan Stewart also notes that "[t]he ongoingness of tradition-of social process-makes a 'finite' province of meaning impossible, for the boundaries of universes of discourse are constantly merginginto one another and reemergingas transformed fields of meaning" (48). Intertextualityis seen as a sort of dialogue with the totality of previous or synchronic texts (Kristeva, Le Texte 67-69;La Revolution 59-60). These notions have certain dangersfor the interpreter,at least for the practical critic or the teacher of literature,for there is a certainendlessness to the interplay of numeroussign systems changingthroughtime, with differentcultures' varying responses, all seen in juxtaposition. This may be overwhelmingor, one hopes, it may make almost any text much richerfor class and critic. Novelistic utterances carry over into the fiction world the cultural assumptions (or confront culturalassumptions)that are extra-novelistic. According to Kristeva, this confrontationor assumptionof attitudes reveals the ideologeme, i.e., the culture's unifyingfunctionalset of assumptionsor ideologies. Thus "the functions defined accordingto the extra-novelistictextual set . . . take on value within the novelistic textual set" (Desire 37). Verbal art, argue Soviet semioticians, displays an "alternationof standardizedunits and elements that do not enter into the alphabetof the code." Onthe one hand,documentary are sequences usedin feature films,a devicecarried overintothe artistic proseof Dos Passos,whileconcrete objectsfinda similar apin and On plication current painting sculpture. the otherhand,writerslike Joyce and Eliot use standardized those in different and citations,including languages and in tradition otherformsof artoffersanalogous chronologies, a long cultural variations standard on themes.(Zaliznjak, al. 52) et Similarly, Israeli semiotic polysystem theory takes as a given that any literary polysystem is non-isolatablein history and it is necessary to describe and analyze the inevitable interliterary contacts. Among Even-Zohar's principles of such contacts, we find that "a Source-Literature (the one whose norms are apthe TargetLiterature)is selected by prestige and dominance" and propriatedby that "when selecting an item to be appropriated, target literaturemay filter the out some of its components, and it does not necessarily keep its originalfunction" (Tamir-Ghez 244). Sources of a literarytext, allusions, quotations, references, epigraph,and so on, result in a retextualizing,the creation of an essentially new text out of the old since the old text is resemanticizedor changedin function throughits placement in the new text, the text that surroundsit, and because of the differencein

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

816

College English

the reading community coming upon the text in a new context. Lotman and Piatigorskynote that the "function of a text is defined as its social role, its capacity to serve certain demandsof the communitywhich creates the text. Thus, function is the mutualrelationshipamongthe system, its realization,and the addressee of the text" (233). The use of intertextuality,especially when we are examiningintertextualcontacts from different cultural texts, is extremely complicated. Levi-Strauss has written that "culture does not consist exclusively of forms of communicationof its own, like language, but also (and perhaps mostly) of rules stating how the 'games of communication'should be played on both naturaland culturallevels" (296). These rules for the games of communicationchange throughtime; the cultural semiotician may examine a culture by takinga synchronic cross-section or by examiningone particularculturalfeature diachronically, just as we use these terms in linguistics (Uspenskij 107). It is necessary to establish a meta-semiotic system, called "culture," that describes the semanticuniverse, axiologies, signifying practices, and ideologies of the specific social-semioticcommunity. This is such a large and complex project that "researchis usually limited to those constructions . . . which constitute the descriptionof epistemes. In such cases epistemes are viewed either as hierarchies of semiotic systems or as connotative meta-semiotic systems" (Greimas and Courtes 66). From this understanding Lotman and Uspensky define culture as the "non-hereditary memory of the community,a memory expressing itself in a system of constraintsand prescriptions" (213; see also Godzich 392). While it is complex enough to consider the epistemes of a given culture either diachronicallyor synchronically, the complexity is increased in literaryworks because althoughthe fictionaltext partakes of the epistemes and "real-world" items that "may be 'there' in the outside world, in terms of reference to them in verbal utterancethey constitute items of cultural repertory, the repertory of realia or, in short . . . realemes" (EvenZohar "Constraints"67). The more establishedrealemes are, the more predictable they become and the more devoid they are of real-worldinformation,even while they are increasingly informative about the culture's epistemes (EvenZohar 70). At the same time, among the realemes we have a graduallybuilt up fictional world the charactersand events of which support each other's reality. Eventually, the change in time and place make the fictional presentationof the realemes more "real" to us than the historical reality. Madame Bovary has greaterreality for us than the alleged "real life source," Delphine Couturier,or, France. Leopold and Molperhaps, any other woman in mid-nineteenth-century Bloom have more "reality" than the couple that actually lived at 7 Eccles ly Street in 1904. If we go beyond Kristeva's suggestions of intertextuality,we may find with almost any standardwork of the "canon" elaborate intertextual enchainment that works diachronicallyand synchronicallyand includes realemes and fiction. For example, we may start with Shakespeare's Hamlet and go to his sources, then we have Shakespeare's perhaps Kyd, Belleforest, and Saxo Grammaticus; Hamlet as a play in successive periods and countries; Shakespearethe real person; Shakespeareas a biographicalsubject; Shakespeare'sson Hamnet; Shakespeare as a characterin Joyce's Ulysses; Shakespeareand Hamlet allusions and

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Intertextualityand the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics

817

the Hamlet-Hamnet theory of Stephen Dedalus; Hamlet allusions in Eliot's "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,"Millhauser'sEdwinMullhouse, and Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49; Eliot's essay "Hamlet and His Problems"; readingsof Hamlet by Freud, Ernest Jones, Jacques Lacan; Hamlet as basis of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and GuildensternAre Dead; Joyce as a real person; Joyce as a biographicalsubject;Joyce as characterin Stoppard'sTravestiesand Flann O'Brien's The Dalkey Archive; Joyce's Ulysses as Source-Text for O'Brien's At Swim-Two-Birds;all of Joyce's works as sources for Raymond Queneau's We Always Treat WomenToo Well; Freud as real person; Freud as biographical subject; Freud as character in D. M. Thomas' The White Hotel, Nabokov's Speak, Memory,Anthony Burgess' TheEnd of the WorldNews, and so on. Each of these intertextualcontacts resemanticizesthe elements all along the chain, and the order in which an individualreaderenchainsthe items carriesthe semantic burden. That is, if one first reads Freud, Ernest Jones, and Lacan on Hamlet and then reads the Hamlet-Hamnet theory of Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses, Stephen's "Oedipalconflict" will be made apparent,and then the tendency would be to carry this over to Joyce himself as a biographicalsubject or author of the Letters. If one first reads about Freud as a character in Thomas' The WhiteHotel, one would probablyfind Freud's and Jones' readingof Hamlet to be obviously wrong, as self-projections rather than accurate presentations of Shakespeare. If someone reads the Hamlet-based Courier's Tragedy in Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 and then reads Hamlet for the first time, Hamlet might seem a farce or poor melodramaratherthan a tragedy, and then RosenAre Dead would seem to be ratherin keeping with the crantz and Guildenstern raised by the farcical Hamlet and not terribly original. (In The expectations Courier's TragedyAngelo, the "evil Duke of Squamuglia,has perhapsten years before the play's opening murderedthe good Duke of adjoiningFaggio, by poisoning the feet on an image of Saint Narcissus ... which feet the Duke was in the habit of kissing every Sunday at Mass." The kingdomhas been usurped by the evil, illegitimateson Pasqualewho plans to murderthe hero and rightfulheir to the throne, Niccolo, by tricking him into crawling into a cannon during a game of hide-and-seek[Pynchon45]. David Cowarthas found that The Courier's Tragedy is intertextually related to works by Webster, Kyd, Tourneur, and Ford, as well as other works by Shakespeare[102-03].) In any intertextualchain, such as the Hamlet chain described above, and at each level in the chain, a textual distortion takes place, often actual changes, other times perceptualchanges caused by the intertextualreference taken out of its original context and juxtaposed against the contemporary text. In Act 1, scene 1 of Hamlet, Horatiosays of the Ghost: So frown'd once,when,in anangry he parle, He smotethe sledded Polacks theice. on Stephen Dedalus says of Shakespeare,"Not for nothingwas he a butcher's son wielding the sledded poleaxe and spitting in his palm" (Joyce 187). Hamlet's "To be or not to be" is used intertextuallyby the two-year-oldtitle characterof Millhauser'sEdwin Mullhouse who notes, "A bee a noppity: assa question!"

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

818

College English

This same two-year old, who has been listening to his English professor father read aloud, also declares that "It wuzza besta time, it wuzza wussa time, it wuzza age a whiz, it wuzza age a foo!" and "Wannaopril wishes sure as soda!" (Millhauser47). The intertextualHamlet is both a literaryartifact,like the work containingthe reference, and a sign with shared and conventional cultural associations. The culturalsemioticiancan study the changes for this sign system from one generation to anotheras it appearsin differentrepresentations(not merely literary, but in pictures, styles of acting, films, as a metaphorfor behavior, and so on). The distortionof the intertext is what is of greatest interest because it indicates gaps or borders of culture. It is a sign of culturaldiscontinuity,for example, that in Melville's 1852novel Pierre there is parody of and intertextualreference to such then-popularnovelists as Mrs. E. D. E. N. Southworth.Today only scholars of this period of Americanliteratureknow any of Mrs. Southworth'snovels, but in 1852her book The Curse of Cliftonwas a bestseller (interestinglyenough, one of Mrs. Southworth'smany bestselling novels was entitled Ishmael [Hart 96-97]). Southworth's novels have lost their intertextualvalue since we do not see the reference and therefore do not resemanticize a previously read text. On the other hand, we still find intertextualvalue in the references to Hamlet and other works still in the canon, such as Dante's Inferno. All of Book IX of Pierre concerns the powerful effect exerted on Pierre by Dante and Hamlet, and the omniscient narratoroffers an interpretation of Hamlet that captures at least one of understanding that text: mid-nineteenth-century which signifiof If amongthe deepersignificances its pervading indefiniteness, cancesare widelyhiddenfromall but the rarestadepts,the pregnant tragedyof moral all fittedto the ordinary of man,it at uses Hamletconveyanyone particular that is unlessit prompt action; it is notfor to is this:-that all meditation worthless, imamidthe conflictinginvasionsof surrounding manto standshilly-shallying the of instant conviction, rousedmanmuststrike,and,if pulses;thatin the earliest and withthe precision theforceof thelightning-bolt. possible, Examples such as this, in which literaryworks are read by charactersin fictional works, might be called functionalintertexts since these works change or explain the characters'beliefs and actions (again, Hamlet is used in this way by Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses). But this combines different semiotic systems and assimilates them, the systems of the Hamlet-world and the systems of the Pierre-world or Ulysses-world. Lotman and Uspensky's work of the 1970s focused in this area of "historic semiotic" studies of culture;these studies "consider such questions as the interrelationof different semiotic systems (different arts) in a given culturalperiod, the interrelationof literatureand behavior patterns, [and] the interrelationof types of consciousness (codes) in a given historical period" (Shukman202). WalterRewar, among others, notes that Lotman's cultural text model is not complex or dynamic enough. According to Rewar, "Morphostasisand morphogenesiscan provide models that are particularlyrelevant. Morphostasisanswers to complex interactionsbetween a text and its environment that maintain and preserve a given organization. Morphogenesis is the more radicalconcept: it sets in motion processes that elaborate new forms"

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Intertextualityand the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics

819

("Cybernetics" 289). In the case of Melville, the widely-readand praisedworks, such as Typee, Omoo, and The Piazza Tales (including,surprisingly,"Bartleby the Scrivener") seem to have succeeded because they are morphostatictexts, microtexts not in semiotic cultural conflict with the socio-cultural macrotext. Works that failed to win the culture's approval, such as Mardi, Moby-Dick, and Pierre, are morphogenetictexts. The cultural consensus now places a higher regardon Moby-Dickthan on Typee and Omoo because of a recent compatibility of sign systems of various sorts with the sign systems of Moby-Dick.As Lotmanargues, An important of textsis theirsemantic the quality cultural mobility: sametext may information its various to 'users.'. . . [T]heentirehierarchy codes of give different whichconstitute or thattype of culture be deciphered the helpof an this can with identical structure code,or of the structure codesof another of of kind,intersecting with of exonly partially the one usedby the creators the text, or else completely traneous it. Thus,themodern to reader a medieval of text its religious deciphers semantic using,obviously, codesdifferent fromthoseusedby the creators the of by text. Furthermore, changes typeof text. ("Different he the Cultures" 1216) Scholes' semiotics has little in common with the cultural semiotics of Lotman and Uspensky or the polysystem of Even-Zohar.To him, intertextualcontact is a means of examiningthe culturalextratext. "The extratext," Shukmanwrites, "may be the literarytraditionin which the authoris writing(or againstwhich he is reacting),his real historicalsituation,his ideology; it may also be the expectations, situationand foreknowledgeof the reader" (196). Such a semiotic theory has connections with, or can draw from, receptions-aesthetics,Gadamerian hermeneutics, and other schools of criticism. Literarycritics will privilege the literary text as a microtextwithin a specific culturalmacrotext. This approach has great implications for the classroom study of literature. Texts are immediatelyshown to be more profoundlyintegratedinto their originating society, and the study of the types of changes in reception of texts, of genres used and their place in a hierarchy,of culturalcodes, and so on, demonstrates the importanceof literary study. Culturalsemiotics is necessarily broad and interdisciplinary, it includes, but moves far beyond, simply formalistapand proaches, that may seem trivialto students. The class is constantly led to extratextual concerns and points of discussion through analysis of specific literary texts. RecommendedReading There are two excellent recent anthologiesin paperback;the Innis is more oriented towards philosophy and linguistics, while the Blonsky is extremely lively and interdisciplinary: Innis, Robert, ed. Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology. Bloomington:Indiana UP, 1985. Blonsky, Marshall,ed. On Signs. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UP, 1985. Two older, traditionaltextbooks that touch on many aspects of this essay are:

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

820

College English

Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature.Ithaca:CornellUP, 1975.Especially chps. 7 & 9. Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: U of California P, 1977. More advanced, but clear and persuasive, is: Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatreand Drama. London: Methuen, 1980. A standard,but dense, explanationof the key terms and concepts of semiotics is: Eco, Umberto.A Theoryof Semiotics. Bloomington:IndianaUP, 1976. A more approachabletext by Eco is: Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorationsin the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington:IndianaUP, 1979. Reader-responsecriticism is obviously close to the concerns of this essay; two are: convenient anthologies, with annotatedbibliographies, Suleiman, Susan R., and Inge Crosman,eds. The Reader in the Text:Essays on Audience and Interpretation.Princeton:PrincetonUP, 1980. Tompkins, Jane P., ed. Reader-Response Criticism:From Formalism to PostStructuralism.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. Also useful is: Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory:A CriticalIntroduction.London: Methuen, 1984. A majortext specificallyemployingculturalsemiotics is: Nakhimovsky, Alexander D., and Alice Stone Nakhimovsky, eds. The Semiotics of Russian CulturalHistory. Ithaca:CornellUP, 1985. On the topic of intertextuality,see the "Works Cited" to this essay and American Journal of Semiotics, 3, 4(1985). Semiotica and Poetics Today have frequently publishedessays dealingwith culturalsemiotics and intertextuality. Works Cited Bailey, R. W., et al., eds. The Sign: Semiotics Around the World,rev. ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Slavic, 1980. Barthes, Roland. "From Work to Text." Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ed. Josu6 V. Harari. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 73-81. Bertalanffy,Ludwigvon. "Culturesas Systems: Towarda Critiqueof Historical Reason." Phenomenology, Structuralism,Semiology. Ed. Harry R. Garvin. Lewisburg,PA: Bucknell UP, 1976. 151-61. Cowart, David. ThomasPynchon: TheArt of Allusion. Carbondale:SouthernIllinois UP, 1980.

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Intertextualityand the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics Dallenbach,Lucien. "Intertexteet autotexte." Poetique 27 (1976):282-96. Eco, Umberto.A Theoryof Semiotics. Bloomington:IndianaUP, 1976.

821

Even-Zohar,Itamar. "Polysystem Theory." Poetics Today 1 (1979):287-310. . "Constraintsof Realeme Insertabilityin Narrative." Poetics Today, 1 (1980):65-74. Feral, J. "KristevianSemiotics:Towardsa Semanalysis." Bailey 271-79. Godzich, Wlad. "The Constructionof Meaning."New LiteraryHistory 9 (1978): 389-97. Greimas,A. J., and J. Courtes. Semiotics and Language:An AnalyticalDictionary. Trans. LarryCrist, et al. Bloomington:IndianaUP, 1982. Grossberg, Lawrence. "Experience, Signification,and Reality: The Boundaries of CulturalSemiotics." Semiotica 41 (1982):73-106. Hall, John. The Sociology of Language. London: Longman, 1979. Hart, James D. The Popular Book: A History of America's Literary Taste. Berkeley: U of CaliforniaP, 1963. Joyce, James. Ulysses. New York: Random, 1961. Kristeva, Julia. Semeotike:Recherchespour une semanalyse. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969. "- . Le Texte du roman.The Hague: Mouton, 1970. - . La Revolutionde langage podtique. Paris:Editions du Seuil, 1974. "- . Desire in Language:A SemioticApproach to Literatureand Art. Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine,and Leon S. Roudiez. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: ColumbiaUP, 1980. Lekomcev, Ju. K. "Foundationsof General Semiotics." Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Trans. and ed. Daniel P. Lucid. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. Levi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Trans. Calire Jacobson and Brooke GrundfestSchoepf. New York: Basic, 1963. Lotman, Juri M. "DifferentCultures,DifferentCodes." TimesLiterarySupplement 12 Oct. 1973:1213-15. . "Problemsin the Typology of Culture"Soviet Semiotics:An Anthology. Trans. and ed. Daniel P. Lucid. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. 213-21. . "Problemsin the Typology of Texts." Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Trans. and ed. Daniel P. Lucid. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. 119-24.

Lotman, Juri M., and A. M. Piatigorsky. "Text and Function." Trans. Ann Shukman.New LiteraryHistory 9 (1978):233-44.

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

822

College English

Lotman, Juri M. and Boris Uspensky. "On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture." Trans. George Mihaychik. New Literary History 9 (1978): 211-32. MacCannell, Juliet Flower. "The Semiotic of Modern Culture." Semiotica 35 (1981):287-301. Millhauser,Steven. EdwinMullhouse:TheLife and Death of an American WritNY: Bard/Avon, 1972. er 1943-1954by Jeffrey Cartwright. Boris. "The Semiotic Approach to Human Culture." Image and Oguibenine, Code. Ed. Wendy Steiner. Ann Arbor: Michigan Studies in the Humanities, 1981. 85-95. Perrone-Moises,Leyla. "L'intertextualit6 critique." Poetique 27 (1976): 372-84. Pynchon, Thomas. The Cryingof Lot 49. New York: Bantam, 1967. Rewar, Walter. "Notes for a Typology of Culture."Semiotica 18 (1976):361-78. - . "Cyberneticsand Poetics: The Semiotic Informationof Poetry." Semiotica 25 (1979):273-301. Scholes, Robert. Structuralism in Literature: An Introduction. New Haven: Yale UP, 1974. -- . Semiotics and Interpretation.New Haven: Yale UP, 1982. Shavit, Zohar. "The AmbivalentStatus of Texts: The Case of Children'sLiterature." Poetics Today 1 (1980):75-86. Shukman,Ann. "Lotman:The Dialectic of a Semiotician." Bailey 194-206. in Stewart, Susan. Nonsense: Aspects of Intertextuality Folklore and Literature. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UP, 1979. Tamir-Ghez,Nomi. "Topics in IsraeliPoetics and Semiotics." Bailey 238-47. Uspenskij, Boris. "Historia sub specie semioticae." Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Trans. and ed. Daniel P. Lucid. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. 107-15. Van der Eng, Jan, and MajmirGrygar,eds. Structuresof Texts and Semiotics of Culture.The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Winner, Irene Portis. "Ethnicity, Modernity, and Theory of Culture Texts." Semiotica 27 (1979): 103-47. -- . "CulturalSemiotics and Anthropology."Bailey 335-63. Semiotics of Culture: The State of the Art. Toronto: Victoria Univ./ --. Toronto Semiotic Circle, 1982. Winner, Irene Portis, and Thomas G. Winner. "The Semiotics of Cultural Texts." Semiotica 18 (1976): 101-56. Young, Katherine. "Edgework:Frame and Boundaryin the Phenomenologyof NarrativeCommunication."Semiotica 41 (1982):277-315.

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Intertextualityand the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics

823

Zaliznjak, A. A., W. W. Ivanov, and V. N. Toporov. "Structural-Typological Study of Semiotic Modeling Systems." Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Trans. and ed. Daniel P. Lucid. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UP, 1977.47-58.

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:39:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions