New Tartu Semiotics

Torop, Peeter 2000a. New Tartu Semiotics. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 5-221``.

The restoration of Estonia's independence coincided with the 25th jubilee of the Tartu-Moscow school. In the foreword to an overview of the contents of publications of the Department of Russian Literature, Lotman expressed his hope that

the scientific possibilities of the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school have not been exhausted yet, and it is still capable of creating ideas that would be unexpected both for the opponents of this trend, and to the supporters themselves (Lotman 1991: 92).

However, the institutionalization of semiotics at Tartu University was painful. The Department of Russian Literature split into two, and this border brought along tensions and new searches for identity. The founding meeting of the Department of Semiotics took place in 1992 at Lotman's home, and besides Lotman himself Irina Avramec, Igor Ĉernov, Michail Lotman, and Peeter Torop participated. In the same year a three-valume collection of Lotman's works appeared in Estonia in Russian, together with a bibliography of his works (Lotman 1992(. Lotman's old dream of a center for semiotics that would provide also reliable education in cultural history was about to come true. (Torop 2000a: 7-8)

Some notes on the history of our department.

I also have to say some words about myself. Lotman gave me a position in the Department of Russian Literature just after my graduation from Tartu University in 1974. Following the request of editors I had to write jubilee articles on him, and also his obituary. I have made many interviews with Lotman, both for articles and also ,due to appeals of some journals, for individual publishing. The last recorder conversation took place in September 1992, a little more than a year before his death, in expectance of death and in hope of a better future for the Department of Semiotics. Maybe fragments of this dialogue will point at dialogue between times in concrete time, and help to understand new semiotics in Tartu. Fragments of this conversation have appeared earlier in a special volume of the Estonian journal Keel ja Kirjandus (10/1994) that was dedicated to Lotman, and in Spanish in the journal Discurso (8/1993). (Torop 2000a: 8-9)

More history, and a reference to K&K that should be checked out.

When I started with the investigation of Fëdor Dostoevskij's work in 1980, Lotman's wife and my unforgettable teacher Zara Minc warned me of great authors. She said that for treating a famous and much inspected writer there has te be found a very special innovative aspect of research to avoid falling into provincialism. I feared this provincialism also in semiotics, because for example an examination of Charles S. Peirce in Tartu, where his texts did not exist in English until lately, would very much smell of provincialism. I was very much hoping that in semiotics Tartu will not become a periphery university only itroducing Western tradition. But this will not happen, if the sin in Lorenz's sense is not committed - that is, if our tradition will not be given up. (Torop 2000a: 9)

Nowadays this fear is injustifiable. The internet evens the playing field. Anyone with the basic know-how of performing a google search can find a PDF of C. S. Peirce's Collected Papers. We should not abstain from semeiotics only because it became available here only recently. Rather, we should use these "other" semiotics to complement out own, to construct a new Tartu semiotics from any given source but in the spirit of our tradition - the stereotypical saying applies here: "think globally, act locally" (or: read general/global semiotics, write particular/local semiotics).

The young break through and go on, and it has to be accepted that a lot of what they tell you is not comprehensible anymore, that you yourself are not on that level anymore. It is sad, but you know, life is a sad thing in general. Still, in this sadness there is a kind of specific attraction. (Torop 2000a: 11)

Very true words from J. Lotman.

Randviir, Anti 2000. Semiotization: What, Where, How? (The Case of the City). European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 47-69.

As a sub-discipline of semiotics, "semiotics of the city" serves as an example for the evident assumption that phenomena of the human environment (e.g. the city) can be treated as meaningful entities. The creation of semiotic entities, in turn, confronts us with topics such as: to whom thoy are signs or semiotic entities, under which circumstances, and how they have been semioticized. Furthermore, the status of the city as a semiotic entity is dependent on whether the city as such is semioticized and articulated in different, e.g. artistical, semiotic systems, or the city itself is used for the semiotization of miscellanoeus cultural phenomena. If the latter use of the city can already be treated as societal description of semiotization of several cultural phenomena, then in the case of semiotic analysis of the city the social nature of meaningful objects demands taking such material under inspection that can provide us with information on "primary semiotization" of the city on the basis of descriptions (manifestations of "secondary semiotization") of those processes. Probably representations of semiotic phenomena, ranging in the case of the city from individual oral territorial discourse to depiction of the city in maps, can grant us with such material and protect semiotic analysis from falling into subjective discoursing on a metalevel. (Randviir 2000: 47)

Similar problems confront us in terms of nonverbal communication: the semiotics of behaviour itself and the semiotics of representations, descriptions, depictions etc. of behaviour on the other.

Of course, in order to view an object as placeable under semiotics it is necessary to consider the probability of meaningfulness, but for the task of describing it as such one has to reserve the possibility of controlling what is to be ascribed to a given object on the semiotic metalevel. Therefore, it is indispensable for the semiotic metalevel to find a third level against the background of which a given object is to be described. Semiotic analysis of the city is to approach its object(s), presuming it is semiosic, and to describe it via the third level, on which the city has already been (consciously) semioticized. The formation of the city as an object of semiotics proceeds through semiotic description (i.e. semiotization) of the city semioticized on the third level of social or individual discourse. This provides semiotic description with interpretation of the creation and usage of meaningful units as created and used by the very individual or group who is using or creating them. However simplified this standpoint may seem, it is crucial and an unavoidable prerequisite for a semiotic analysis as the one to describe meaningful entities and semiotic systems the functioning of which is inevitably and essentially social. (Randviir 2000: 49)

This presumption of semioticity is an "intellectual licence" which I have, for personal convenience, labelled with the term semiophrenia.

The dynamics of textual semantics and methods of semiotization activating different semantic perspectives seem to be inherently dependent on subjective factors both on the side of the creator of the text and of its interpreter. Yet the intersubjective regularities and semiosic habits settled in cultural tradition make successful textual communication possible. Therefore we have reason to maintain that, principally, individual habits of signification and interpretation are unified in textual communication (and representative discourse), and that these habits are describable through textual structures. This provides also metaphorical usage of the text, often with high heuristic value. (Randviir 2000: 55)

In nonverbalism, these factors can be grouped into pansubjective (awkward term), intersubjective and subjective proper (e.g. biological, socio-cultural and personal).

At the same time, be it fictitious imagination or a real feature of a city, this complex-sign may switch into the composition of the mechantism that regulates the structure and behavior of the city's community. Due to this it may even start to influence the physical form of the city space (e.g. what and how to build). This interactive relation between immaterial and physical environment, or the real and the semiotically real world, shapes the developmental code system of the city's semiotic structure that can be called the modeling language of the given city. This "language" is the one allowing to appeal to certain (artistic) texts, behavioral codes, etc.: for instance, "Parisian", "New-Yorkian", "Petersburgian", referring to the circumstance that some "texts" are, for some reason or another, especially characteristic to a given city. In the same way the whole cultural tradition of a city can be called upon, e.g. "The Petersburg Text" (see Toporov 1995). (Randviir 2000: 56)

The semiotics of the city also pertains to the semiotics of behaviour.

Just as patterns of social behavior may be influenced on a generalizing level (e.g. Petersburgian "artistic behavior" in certain historical periods), sa may there exist districts in the city that induce or are associated with different behavioral patterns (e.g. gangs in slums). (Randviir 2000: 61)

While reading this article my father informed me of the legalized immigration of gypsy refugees in our hometown and the growing rate of theft. His own tractor has once been liberated of it's metal tracks right from our yard by representatives of the gypsy community, so he is naturally inclined to suspicion. Now, in his mind, there's a whole city district where absolutely nothing can be left unlocked (luckily it's on the other side of the town from our home). Still, what once used to be a district for harmless pensioners is now a dangerous neighhood. Patterns change. If I'm already spewing personal stuff, I may just as well record an occurrence which baffled me. I was bicycling to town in Tartu and right before the pedestrian bridge stopped to light a cigarette. A 40s-something gypsy woman with kids asked me for a cigarette. As I don't usually hand out cigarettes to strangers (I'm not a dispenser) I refused. Without skipping a beat the woman began searching for words to insult me but the best she could come up with was "redhead!" I'm still baffled. Not only am I not a redhead (I have a ginger beard but my hair are brown) but I cannot imagine in what sense is this insulting. Even if it were true, stating the obvious amounts to nothing in my mind. There are palpable intercultural differences at play.

Torop, Peeter 2000b. Intersemiosis and Intersemiotic Translation. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 71-100.

Proceeding from the notion of unlimited semiosis, U. Eco expresses the processuality of semiosis auto-communicatively: "Semiosis explains itself by itself; this continual circularity is the normal condition of signification" (Eco 1977: 71). Quite in the order of things U. Eco uses also the notion of semiosic encyclopedia juxtaposing encyclopedia and dictionary in his conception. J. Lotman's notion of semiosphere includes "the whole semiotic space of culture" (Lotman 1990: 125) characterized by heterogeneity:

The languages which fill up the semiotic space are various, and they relate to each other along the spectrum which runs from complete mutual translatability to just as complete mutual untranslatability. Heterogeneity is defined both by the diversity of elements and by their different functions (Lotman 1990: 125).

Such an approach inevitably leads to the individuating of other semiospheres within the semiosphere. As a result the border of the semiospheres of culture comes into view and within it the complex totality of semiospheres with interweaving borders (see Torop 1998). (Torop 2000b: 74)

Semiosis is here, via auto-communication, ascribed with almost cosmological meaning: signs interpret themselves as if sign-users were mere necessity, something one needs not to bother with when theorizing semiosis. This seems like a slippery thing to happen when textual semiotics is at play. But even more far-reaching stuff is up ahead:

Drafts are never destroyed. Ready things do not exist in poetry, plastic art and art in general [...] Thus, the preservation of drafts is the law of conversation of text energetics. To reach the aim one should accept and take into account the wind blowing in somewhat different direction (Mandel'štam 1967: 27-28).

(Torop 2000b: 75)

This originates from Slovo i kultura. Sellest omakorda pärineb vististi "luule jäävuse seadus." The statements are too categorical, though. Drafts are constantly destroyed; they are drafts, that's what they're made for - improving the draft until it is finished and can be rewritten. Even more, today drafts are seldom made. Word-processing has made draft-writing superfluous: one can correct the mistakes in the file without having to make a new file. To preserve files, on the other hand, demands some effort. I have developed a habit out of saving every text I write as a dated text file in a designated folder marked by years. I've been doing this for 6 and a half years by now. For sake of statistics, the folder contains a sum total of 2,561 text files. #sahtel

The opposition of picture and word is not especially productive since they are complementary phnomena for the psychology of thinking. So inscriptions (titles) of pictures and statues can be seen as the most elementary examples of the binarity of creative thinking (Žinkin 1964: 38). (Torop 2000b: 81-82)

And yet it is productive. Perhaps not especially, but the image-text relationship is still "unsolved" and perhaps even "unsolvable." One may at least have a go at it and arrive at new perspectives.

To speak of an authorial agent or work conception more seriously it is necessary to specify the interrelations of plot and story and the beginning and the end: any story concerns events and human movements (or states) in space and time, or more exactly in chronotope, because these notions are complementary. First we can specify the topographical chronotope that fixes the succession of events and the real world, more or less recognizable for the spectator. The reader comes into contact with real time and space. The man (the actor) whose language, behavior and costume reflect his subjective attitude to time and space is moving in this chronotope. A man (an actor) is the center of the psychological chronotope which conveys the character aspect to the spectator: self-evaluation and evaluation of other people and events. Authors have produced a film proceeding from certain aims or conceptions. Their main aim was to create a whole, to communicate the conception to the spectator in a clear and general form. This is probably by means of the metaphysical chronotope, i.e. the conceptual chronotope, the authorial interpretation of chronotope. An aspect of eternity usually exists in film thanks to the metaphysical chronotope. (Torop 2000b: 84)

These notions can actually be used (in a combining manner) for concursive purposes without any unnecessary new terms. For example: "Tom frowned [topographical] his displeasure [psychological]."

Although literature is mostly the field of literary studies and cinema the field of cinema studies, the two branches have points of contact. Literary scholars use the notion of montage and simultaneity, and cinema scholars the notions of plot and story. But this doesn't mean that film should be described in the metalanguage of literary studies, and literary work in the metalanguage of cinema studies, although it would be possible. The heterogeneity of the film structure does not create obstacles since film is a whole and the generation of its integrality is the generation of style. More exactly it's the heterogeneity of materials used in film and not the heterogeneity of filmm as a work of art. (Torop 2000b: 85-86)

In a similar manner literary studies and nonverbal communication studies have their points of contact in concursive studies.

Transmutation is defined as interpretation of verbal signs by means of nonverbal sign systems. (Torop 2000b: 87)

Concursivity is exactly the opposite: interpretation of nonverbal sign systems by means of verbal signs.

The intersemiotic dimension of culture follows from the partial concurrence of signs of languages (sign systems) of different arts: first, at the level of separate existence of these languages and texts in these languages (for example, the case of theatre and cinema); second, at the level of mental interference, or the existence of a separate text simultaneously in the form of tekts of different types (novel, film, performance, picture, etc.); third, at the level of text projection on the presuppositional textual or intertextual background... (Torop 2000b: 96)

Indeed, there is a concurrence of the same piece in different media.

Kull, Kalevi 2000. Copy versus Translate, Meme versus Sign: Development of Biological Textuality. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 101-120š.

In addition to this, it is important to admit the role of the environment. For instance, a pattern of behavior of organisms can vary as dependent on the environment in which these organisms live, which means that particular behavioral forms are connected (or limited) to a particular environment. Thus, for instance, what can be inherited via BIS [behavioral inheritance systems] may be only the behavior used in limited conditions, in the case if this enviromnet remains in its limits. Therefore, the stability of the environmental conditions is a necessary part of the inheritance systems, being itself a carrier of a part of information from generation to generation. (Kull 2000: 104)

Inheritance of behaviour. I don't believe I have much information on this yet, at least not in the biological sense. Habits and behavior patterns, of course, but no talk of inheritance that I can think of.

What makes chemical processes in a living body different from any other chemical processes, is that practically all chemical processes in organisms are - as a real surprise for a semiotician - triadic. Substances A and B cannot react with each other and make a product without some C - the third - which is usually an enzyme. (Kull 2000: 110)

The title of the paragraph is "Catalytic ↔ Autopoietic", which is an indicator of the type of discourse (autopoiesis) that should be perused to find out more.

According to Th.A. Sebeok, the key to semiosis is the microcosm in symbiosis. This is a quintessentially semiotic concept". This is because symbiosis presupposes communication. Also, J. Deely (1990: 25) has remarked, that the rise of semiotic interpretation of biology is very much consistent with the understanding that symbiosis is a crucial process determining the evolution of organisms, as it has been described by L. Margulis, and others.
J.v. Uexküll (1931: 391) says: "Wohim wir schauen, erblicken wir [...] komplementäre Einpassungen paarweise aufenander abgestimmter Umwelten". This emphasis on the reciproccity of interactions in living systems is an important aspect for understanding Uexküll's views. This concerns, for instance, his approach to the role of symbiosis: "man kann sagen daß grundsätzlich alle Lebewesen zugleich selbstdienlich und fremddienlich sind" (Uexküll 1973: 322). (Kull 2000: 112)

Similarly, (human) sociality presupposes communicatian. From now on I'll do my best to include german passages in my quotes whenever they show up. It is possible that these will be the material on which I will learn the language. It'd be a good idea to start carrying german quotes around on pieces of paper to repeat from time to time. Ergo, the tag #deutsch

The sign itself, a single sign, does not live, neither a single text. However, they are always connected to, or components of, a living system. Culture, though, is a living system. Culture, according to Lotman (1990), is also a text, but never consisting of single language; culture, as well an any living system, is a complex of texts. In a way, culture and organism are analogues (cf. Lotman 1984). This is important to consider when we try to apply semiotic analysis to biological systems. (Kull 2000: 115)

#organicism

Levčenko, Jan 2000. The Movable Author: On Several Units of Structure in V. Šklovskij's Sentimental Journey. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 181-192.

At first, Šklovskij personally is the author of a continual text of his life. His behavior was a good example of theatrical semiotics, and a term like Homo Ludents, by Johan Huizinga, wouldn't be an exaggeration. Ferther, Šklovskij is the basic hero of his essay written in the manner of "a mask which points to itself" (Barthes 1964: 107). Speaking otherwise, Šklovskij uses an auctorial type of narration which actializes an rchaic form of novel, where the consciousness of the narrator is individualized and limited (for example, in confession, travel notes, collection of letters, and so on). But the only difference is in the adoption of this narrative style on the background of the stagnant model of the 19th century nover with its "right" principles. That's why the more exact nomination of this process would be "archaizing innovation", using the term as defined in Toporov 1979. (Levčenko 2000: 185)

This is the type of discourse that I hate and admire simultaneously. On the one hand it is built on well-known or characteristic quotes which are interesting in and of themselves. On the other hand, because these are presumed to be well-known, they remain vague for the novice. I'd very much like to know what "a mask which points to itself" could be (a metaphor for?) but this quote does little to make it clear [...] and after google-searching the phrase I can say the same of every other instance when it is used.

The next problem is how the author of a "journey" appeals to the means of moving. Are they significant for the character of the text or not? In the case of Šklovskij the answer is surely "yes". A machine is a gear of the plot, it seems to be a new person, which transmits high-speed changes of textual events. The most important topics are: 1) the direction of action and its meaning; 2) the type of vehicle and its pragmasemantics. (Levčenko 2000: 186)

Similarly, for Bakhtin, tresholds like doors and gates were devices of plot-advancement. How the machine is a gear of the plot is very marked in some novels. For example, in Olev Remsu's Kurbmäng Paabelis, the lift that takes the main character from one floor to the other has significant impact of the plot because every floor is different and - for the reader - unexpected. It throws the character into new activities. Walking or locomotion is equally significant in literature, as it seemingly occurs very often that when the character is moving, he is forced to describe the environment and the people who inhabit it. Moving around it a very literal advancement of the plot - it is how the character advances from one room or space to the next.

Avramec, Irina 2000. Mythological Motifs in F. M. Dostoevskij's Story The Landlady. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 193-204.

The story is full of descriptions of the characters' actions, sensations and thoughts in so-called "borderline conditions" (or in states of altered consciousness) - sleep, delirium, hallucinations, intoxications, fits of epilepsy (Bem 1938: 47-89; Nazirov 1970: 115-120; Klejman 1984: 65-69). (Avramec 2000: 194)

Indeed it is (as the following quotes reveal). The notion of concursivity, though, enables me to make these meta-descriptions shorter. "The story is very concursive" is what I would say.

Katerina herself repeatedly refers to the connection between her subordination to Murin and his "verbal talent": "I'm his; I've sold him my soul... He has tortured me, read his books te me. [...] He keeps reading such menacing and gloomy things to me!" (193). "He's powerful" His word is great!" (294). While reporting to Ordynow Murin's speech to her, she concludes, "[a]nd that very minute all my flesh smiled at his words." (299). (Avramec 2000: 195)

I believe this is something psycholinguistics or paralinguistics should study: the as-if "magical" effects of speech. On the one extreme there is the "language band" effect - when someone tells you something you feel the compulsion to stay put and cannot leave his or her presence until he or she has finished rambling. On the other extreme is the "speech with gravity" (for a lack of better term) - when someone is talking about something that may not even be that interesting but does it in a manner that compells and entices, hypnotizes, even arouses and turns on (makes one's flesh smile).

He saw [...] how the old man's eyes twinkled maliciously, [...] and all his face was suddenly distorted by rage. He saw how the old man's [...] wandering hand searched for the gun hanging on the wall; then he saw how the muzzle of the gun flashed, being directed straight into his chest by the uncertain hand, trembling with fury (281).
[D]espair, fury and inexhaustible malice seized [...] Ordynow's spirit. Not realizing what he was doing, nearly out of his mind, he leant his hand against the wall and grasped at the old man's ancient knife that was hanging from a nail. [...] He was trembling, the knife dropped from his hands and tinkled on the floor. (310-311) (Avramec 2000: 196)

Very concursive indeed. I bolded only the so-called "topograptical" parts, leaving the "psychological" parts out. This large amounts of concursivity occurs quite often in descriptions of "extremely important" or cataclysmic events which stand out from the rest of the plot with their violence and "unthinking" characteristic. Something similar occurs in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit when the fire-chief Beatty has stricken Montag a blow and after a brief exchange of words (basically, threats), Montag sets Beatty on fire: "He twitched the safety catch on the flame-thrower. Beatty glanced instantly at Montag's fingers and his eyes widened the faintest bit. Montag saw the surprise there and himself glanced to his hands to see what new thing they had done. Thinking back later he could never decide whether the hands or Beatty's reaction to the hands gave him the final push toward murder." (Bradbury 1953: 105)

Being, like the Thunderer, connected with the fire, the Dragon has a deadly glance - Murin also has a dreadful, "fiery" look: "From under the knitted brows hanging over his eyes flashed his look: fiery, feverishly inflamed, haughty and long" (268); "like lichtening, this glimpse flashed for an instant" (305); "his eyes became red as smouldering coals"; "his eyes once grew dull, once burst into bright flames" (308); "last time he fixed his dim gaze on Ordynov, but eventually even this gaze faded, and his eyelids dropped as if leaden" (309)." (Avramec 2000: 199)

I've been thinking about taking my concursive project to the next level and compiling "a concursive dictionary" which wouldn't be so much a dictionary as a collection of possible (already realized) ways to describe behavior. It would be a heavy load of work to organize these descriptions into sensible categories, because many concursive passages are "pluri-concursive," that is, describe a whole sequence of actions and reactions. Taking these apart would only amount a sketch of behaviours, while sequences express something fundamentally more meaningful, the actual impact of behaviour. In any case, it seems that these passages can be collected from secondary sources - like these kinds of articles on literature - as well. Though it'd be better if I read the book itsely and collected all the relevant passages. This is, of course, heavy work as well.

This parallel is revealed thanks to the coincidence in the "color scheme" which is equally characteristic of the "bright spirits rustling their golden and sapphire wings" and of Katerina (cf. her light blue fur jacket, blue eyes, golden smile; the constant epiteth "bright": a bright look, the smile brighter like the sun, bright character, bright eyes, cheeks) and also to a number of repeated lexical coincidences ("rustle", "serene bright jou", "song", "kiss", "bend over") in these passages of the text which speak about the spirits and the mother on the one hand, and about Katerina on the other. (Avramec 2000: 200-201)

Here the
descriptions are less than concrete, sometimes explicitly metaphorical and otherwise difficult or even impossible to decipher. Could this be the problem of abstract and concrete reference?

Pärli, Ülle 2000. The Poem "The Bronze Horseman" by A. Puškin in Estonian Culture. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 205-XXX.

We ask an alien culture questions which it has not posited for iteslf, we seek for an answer to those questions, and an alien culture answers us, illuminating us by its new aspects, new depths of meaning. (Pärli 2000: 207)

Supplement this with: "The [...] Stranger [asks] bizarre questions which would not occur to a 'normal' person, for contesting the very distinction which for 'ordinary' people are attributes of the universe itself rather than their views of the world." (Bauman 1973: 130). Here, as representatives of "another culture" we (the researchers) are these "strangers" who ask bizarre questions which would not even occur to a representative of the target culture.

Indeed, the Russification can be understood as an attempt to implant an alien worldview into the Estonians' consciousness. This meant creating an impression of the own history through Russian history, making sense of the own culture on the basis of Russian culturas tradition, and creating and distributing the respective myhts. (Pärli 2000: 207)

Again comparing (perhaps unjustly) Russification with Americanization, there again appears a distinction in direction of influence. While Russification meant "implanting" of the Russian worldview on estonians by russians, Americanization occurd by our own free will, by implanting the "Imperialist" worldview into our own consciousness (this, of course, through quite innocent means, such as consuming Western media and entertainment). Just how far this has gone is baffling at times. Once I caught my brother watching an American reality TV show, Storage Wars, which is the penultimate low-brow entertainment, I think. I knew about the show because it was parodied by The Simpsons, so I am equally guilty.

Contradicting and complementary possibilities of interpretation have been coded into the work by the author himself. Ju. M. Lotmas has written:

The conceptual paradigm of Puškin does not form out of words, but of syncretic verbal-visual models that create the possibility of not only different but also of complementary readings (in the sense of "mevement" by M. Bohr, i.e. similarly adequately rendering and simultaneously mutually excluding). Therewith, an interpretation of a node of Puškin's structure automatically determines the concretization of a whole respective range of meanings. Hence arguments on the symbolic meaning of one or another separately viewed image of "The Broze Horseman" are senseless. (Lotman 1988: 127).

(Pärli 2000: 210)

On the basis of this quote, Lotman's monograph on Puškin sounds pretty neat. The notion of syncretic messages comes from R. Jakobson and designates exactly these "verbal-visual models" which I call concourses (convergences of the verbal and visual).

Kultuuritekst ja Traditsioonitekst

Turk, Horst 2000. Cultural Text and the Text of Tradition. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 9-36.

Not long ago what is probably the most extensive claim in this field was formulated by the Tartu semiotics school. Based on a translatorial concept of culture, to a certain extent following a combination of the approaches of Jakobson, Even-Zohar and Lotman, it was considered that translation appears as 'textual', 'metatextual' and 'in-', 'inter-' or 'extra-textual' - in any case withouh the pragmatic perspective of Peirce's semiotics, a desideratum that is imputed to the Tartu School in this essay and to New Historicism by Hayden White. (Turk 2000: 10-11)

Is an "extensive claim" the same as a "categarical statement?" I am also still bothered by the notion of 'in-text' - why is it not termed 'intratext'? A translatorial concept of culture [a title] stems from the recognition that the elementary unit of understanding is translation and the elementary unit of that is dialogue (or in some other order, but you get the idea).

Upon invoking Bourdieu's elaboration I will start out from a performative concept of culture and proceed by resorting, in respect to the positional value of literary texts and textual representations in general, to both the universalist (Lotman's) and the singularist (Geertz's) arguments, relating these rather to the species of strog, culture-determined texts than to that of weak, culture-determined texts. Thus, according to basic semiotic theory, cultures can be read as persuasion systems that both open and close behavioural and action-spaces, additionally commanding (intra- as well as inter-, trans- and extra-culturally) competing meta-semiotic institutions throught which they enter into relations with their 'objects', above all engaging 'inputs' characterized by alienity or by alterity, or re-activating 'traces' of this kind from the stock of historical contacts. The positional value of literary representations stands and falls with the circulation of such inputs, 'stakes' or 'energ[ies]' as will be examined in detail below, from a text-theoretical view, simultaneously laying out the connections to a 'metahistory', metaculturality and metatextuality of a 'poetics of culture'. (Turk 2000: 11-12)

Presumably a performative concept of culture is related to the concept of "culture as play" (as opposed to "culture as text (or a series of texts)"). behavioural or action-space sounds very much like the behavioural sphere. Colud it be?

According to Lotman, cultures would be like stories reflecting on themselves, governed by a discoverable 'invariant text', to which all manifestations of the 'given cultural type' can be retraced as its 'variants' or 'realizations' - taking the investigation into a force field of tensions between culture and text, the 'non-text' and 'text'. (Turk 2000: 13)

This is cultural organicism, the perspective which views cultures as living, breathing and - especially - thinking beings, capable of self-leflection (self-description, self-organization, self-communication).

With respect to literature, yet nevertheless likewise relating to other social phenomena, we have become used to speaking of an 'marked form of self-observation', 'self-description' or also 'self-reflection', habitually according the role of the actor, or of subject, in this process to 'the society'. Actually, the spectrum of process types could be expanded by two cases: those of 'self-enactment' (for instance, Geertz's cockfight, but also Greenblatt's 'self-fashioning' in Shakespearean Negotiations) and 'self-narrations' (in a way similar to the pattern of Anderson's Biography of Nations) - the activity of narratologically active instances, in particular, in complex societies, of historiography. (Turk 2000: 20-21)

Culture in this sense is the mind of society. The two perspectives (that of play and text) seem to accord to the dualism of body and mind. Thah is, enactment involves the body and narration involves the mind.

Searching for a technical term for the operation of implementing a text through the explication of meanings or discourse references, we would probably opt for 'enlightment', as an analogy to 'enactment' and 'emplotment'. It is a neologism, derived etymologically from the verb 'enlight', in the meaning 'to supply with intellectual light', or 'to impart knowledge or wisdom to' as, for instance, in 'to enlight the presence and to warm the last'. In terms of content, 'enlightment' does not relate to the historical Enlightenment, instead denoting the overarching connection between different distorical periods, which is what is in focus here. (Turk 2000: 22)

Always good to witness the coining of neologisms, although I'm not sure yet what the heuristic value of enlightment could be...

As for its implementability, the transgressions as well as limitations of 'habit-taking' in 'emplotment', 'enlightment' and 'enactment' are semiologically regarded to pertain to the field of behavioural patterns, complete with the underlying institutions, practices and goods of 'material culture' in general. (Turk 2000: 27)

#behavioural_sphere

As the text of tradition, whether it has been translated intersemiotically, interlingually or interculturally, the cultural text implies certain restrictions or, so to say, the 'distress of faithfulness'. The text of tradition as a cultural text is exempted from these, or this. Instead, it functions under an 'orge to freedom'. This, among other things, denotes the urge to universality in the sense of 'being translated' and the 'being-to-be-translated' - we could also say, the 'urge to self-fashioning' in the double meaning of the fashioning of one's self to carrying out the fashioning by oneself, in whichever meaning of the 'self'. Literary studies, in contrast to cultural studies and ethnography, already possess a pre-constituted 'subject matter': the literary text. (Turk 2000: 28)

Self-fashioning here seems equivalent to self-organization in Lotman. I wouldn't say that literary studies has a pre-determined subject matter. Rather, it has a pre-determined medium. It is the self-evidence and simplicity of this medium (text) which drew me to study body language in literature. In some sense it was pre-determined: the semiotics of Tartu is (Russian) literary study in disguise.

It is predominantly on the level of everyday language, ritual language or textually, intermedially and internationally that cultural systems can equally close and open behaviour, imagination and belief spaces. What is organised is the practices and singular actions in a more or less open tension with the intersemiotic, interlingual, intercultural and international coding or 'standardization', being relatively autonomous, rather than subversive or affirmative. Cultures, we can say with Stephen Greenblatt, form a "...certain network of negatiations concerning the exchange in material goods, products of imagination and - through institutions such as slavery, adoption or marriage - of people.
What appears recommendable here is a thought-out reference to the sphere af actions by way of habit-taking and the habitus as 'l'historie incarneé dans les corps', whereby also the reciprocal effect of codes and features would be accounted for. Cultural texts in the strong, culture-determining sense would define themselves through the fact that they provide us with paradigms for emplotment, scenarios for enactment, as well as discourses for enlightment. (Turk 2000: 29-30)

Behavioural sphere / the sphere of actions. Culture provides us "behavioural programs."

Torop, Peeter 2000. Kultuuri tekstuaalsus. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 37-51.

Erinevad kultuurimudelid on neid loonud distsipliinide poolt metodoloogiliselt disainitud ning metakeeleliselt formuleeritud ja seega ka kultuuri üldisemal käsitlemisel oluline kirjelduskeelte autonomsuse ning segunemise tuvastamine, samuti metakeelelise tõlkeprotsessi arvestamine. Kõrvuti kultuurimudeli eripärast tuleneva kirjelduskeele omadustega tuleb arvestada prestiižkeele olemasolu kultuuris ja mitmete uurimissuundade kalduvus end sellesse prestiižkeelde tõlkida. Seeg aei ole alati otsest vastavust kirjeldatava objekti, kirjeldava distsipliini ja kasutatava kirjelduskeele vahel. Siit koorub küsimus metakeele suhetest kirjeldatava objektiga ja teiste metakeeltega või prestiižkeelega. (Torop 2000: 37-38)

Inglise keel on praegu see prestiižkeel ja mina olengi üks neist noortest, kes "tõlgivad end prestiižkeelde." Ainult, et see ei ole nii väga tõlgitud kui et mõeldud inglise keeles. Kahjuks on eesti keelde mitteverbaalse suhtlemise kohta tõlgitud ainult rämpsu ja peale Tenjese ei ole peaaegu mitte keegi eesti keeles midagi mitteverbaalsest suhtlemisest kirjutanud. Tuurand ja Bachmann on küll akadeemikud, kuid kasutavad põhiliselt rämpsu. That's why I think and write about nonverbal communication in English. Kui sügisel saksa keelt õppima hakkan ja see meeldima hakkab, siis äkki pääsen ka saksakeelsele kehakeeleuurimisele ligi (nt mikromiimika avastasid sakslased).

Tekstuaalsuse küsimus on ühtlasi teksti ontoloogia mõistmise küsimus. Teksti ontoloogia ja sellesse suhtumine on evolutsioneerunud seoses mitmete muutustega kultuuris. Kõigepealt on vähenenud logotsentrilisus, kasvanud visuaalse ja audio-visuaalse taju osatähtsus ning järelikult tuleb kultuuri raames tõdeda muutust tajukanalite hierarhias. Varajane ja intensiivne visuaalne kogemus jätab oma jälje ka traditsioonilistele kultuurivaldkondadele, ning iga järgneva põlvkonna puhul on põhjust rääkida muutunud suhtumisest kirjandusse, teatrisse, filmi või maalikunsti. Ja vastavalt ka nende vahekordade muutumist kultuuris. Teiseks on kultuuriprotsessid nii intensiivsed ja difuussed, et tajuprotsessid on muutunud komplementaarseteks: metatekstide tarbimine võib eelneda tekstide endi tarbimisele ehk primaarsuse ja sekundaarsuse piir ei ole alati nähtav ning oluline. Samuti on tajuprotsessides oluline üksiku tajumine eritüübilistes kooslustes - intertekstuaalses, interdiskursiivses või intermeedialises ruumis. Sellega kaasneb omakorda osa ja terviku suhete teisenemine - terviku difuusne eksisteerimine tingib osade autonoomsuse, kusjuures tervikut võivad pars pro toto põhimõttel esindada täiesti erinevad osad ning nende seos tervikuga võib olla implitsiitne, vaid asjatundjale hoomatav. (Torop 2000: 38-39)

Minu arvates on logotsentrilisuse vähenemine positiivne. Ja ma ei usu, et tajukanalite hierarhiast saab üldse supraindividuaalselt rääkida. Samas olen ma ise raamatu- ja salvestusmuusikainimene kes peab filme liiga pikaks, teatrit mõttetuks ja elavat muusikat ebatäiuslikuks. Minu arvamused on vastuolulised ja väärad. Mis puudutab sekundaartekstidega tutvumist enne primaartekste, siis Toropi ja Bahtini kaudu olen saanud päris palju teada Dostojevski loomingust ja Notes from the Underground'i pole ma ikka veel avanud.

J. Tõnjanovi süsteemis saame ühelt poolt viidata kirjanduse rea seotusele teiste ridadega - olmega, kultuuri ridadega, sotsiaalse reaga. Olmega on kirjanduse rida seotud kõne kaudu ja seega on kirjandusel olme suhtes kõne funktsioon. Autori hoiakus oma teksti elementide suhtes väljendub konstruktiivne funktsioon ja sama teksti kui teose seostes kirjanduse reaga kirjanduslik funktsioon. Kirjanduse tagasimõjus olmesse leiab aga väljenduse sotsiaalne funktsioon. Kirjanduse evolutsiooni uurimine eeldab seoste uurimist eelkõige lähimate ridade ehk süsteemide vahel ning loogiline liikumissuund on konstruktiivselt funktsioonilt kirjanduslikule, kirjanduslikult kõne funktsioonile. Lähtekohaks on arusaam, et "evolutsioon on süsteemi osade vahekorra muutumine, st funktsioonide ja formaalsete elementide muutumine" (Tõnjanov 1977: 281; vt ka Torop 1995-1996). Siit tulenevalt mõtestub evolutsioon süsteemide (kord aeglase ja pideva, kord hüppelise) vaheldumisena, kusjuures formaalsed elemendid ei kao, vaid omandavad uued funktsioonid. Ja eriti oluline on seejuures mõista, et süsteem ei ole kõigi elementide vastastikune mõju - osa elemente on olulisemad (dominant) ja deformeerivad teisi ning oma kirjandusliku funktsiooni omandab teos just dominandi läbi (Tõnjanov 1977: 277). Konstruktiivse funktsiooni mõtestamine on suurel määral dominandi mõtestamine, sest teose elementide vahel toimivad seosed on kirjeldatavad vähemalt kahel viisil. Teose iga element on kõrvutatav samalaadsete elementidega teistes teostes-süsteemides, isegi teistes ridades ja seda nimetab J. Tõnjanov sünfunktsiooniks. Samas on iga element seotud oma süsteemi teiste elementidega ja seda nimetab J. Tõnjanov autofunktsiooniks (Tõnjanov 1977: 272). Seega on igal elemendil vähemalt kaks funktsionaalset parameetrit. (Torop 2000: 40-41)

Üliväärtuslik mõistestik kirjandussemiootika eksamiküsimustele vastamiseks. Nende abil saaks ka konkursiivsust täiendada, rääkida nö "käitumise ridadest." Samas paneb see teema mõtisklema, miks meile selliseid asju õpetatakse, kui õppejõud ise ka neid ei kasuta, vaid ainult edasi annavad? Kas ei võiks siis meile hoopis originaaltekste lugeda anda? Natuke ebalev on Tõnjanovi mõisteid kasutada ilma ausa viiteta.

Sama mõttesuuna tänapäevasemate ilmingute seas tuleks kõigepealt nimetada uus-historitsistlikku käsitlust, mis nimetab ajaloolist konteksti kultuurisüsteemiks ja näeb seoseid teksti ja kultuuri vahel loomuldasa intertekstuaalsetena ja see intertekstuaalsus leiab aset kahe tekstitüübi, kirjandusliku ja kultuuriteksti vahel (vt White 1989: 294). Igasugune kirjandussündmus on seega autonoomse kirjandusloo diakrooniline tekst ja kultuurisüsteemi sünkrooniline tekst (White 1989: 301). (Torop 2000: 44)

Tähendab, siin on kirjanduse ja kultuuri seos väljendatud intertekstuaalsuse mõiste kaudu. Pisut põhjalikumalt:

Teksti jälgimine kultuuris on lahutamati parameetrite otsingutest selle erinevate funktsioonide iseloomustamiseks. Igal tekstil on oma ajalugu ja samas eksisteerib ta suures ajaloos, iga tekst on korraga kaaseaegne ja ajalooline. Iga tekst on raamitud tervik ja sellisena muutumatu. Samas on iga tekst osa kultuurist (kultuurisituatsioonist ja kultuuriloost), sellisena mitmetähenduslik, paljufunktsionaalne ja muutuv. KULTUURITEKST ja KIRJANDUSTEKST (või mõnd muud kunstiliiki esindav tekst) võivad olla sama teksti erinevad eksisteerimisvormid, võivad teineteises sisalduda kui osa tervikus, võivad olla autonoomsed tervikud, ajalikud või ajatud, konkreetsed või abstraktsed, staatilised või dünaamilised, kuid kõigi binaarsuste puhul jäab kehtima piiri ebamäärasus ja ambivalentsus nende poolte vahel. Puhas diakroonia ja sünkroonia on vaid idealiseeritud kujutelmad. Seega on tihti tekstide asemel antud kontekstis õigem rääkida tekstuaalsusest, keerukatest seostest ajas ja ruumis, millede kirjeldamise jaoks on mugav kasutada operatsionaalset mõistet tekst. Tekstiks saamine ja tekstina olemine on kultuurinähtuste analüüsis nii ontoloogiasse kui epistemoloogiasse puutuvad ning aitavad mõista kultuuri kui (teksti)identiteedi hierarhiat. (Torop 2000: 44-45)

Teksti mõiste on muidugi kurikuulsalt paigalenaelutamatu ja mujal leiame, et tekst ei ole raamitud tervik ja sellisena muutumatu, vaid, et tekst võib esineda ka kui tekstidest koosnev tervik, ise mõne teise teksti osa, jne. Tekst on "operatsionaalne mõiste" - s.t. kui ta ühe teksti sees (no pun intended) toimib, siis ta toimib, hoolimata sellest kuidas teda on määratletud mõnes teises tekstis.

Tekstuaalsus kui metodoloogiline printsiip on oluline ka Tartu-Moskva semiootikakoolkonna kujunemisloos. Üks nimekamaid koolkonna liikmeid A. Pjatigorski on post factum tõdenud, et see traditsioon algas piiritlemata uurimisobjektist. Esimestes kogumikes 1960ndate aastate algul oli semiootika objektiks "ükskõik mis", kuid pärast J. Lotmani esimese semiootilise raamatu "Loengud strukturaalpoeetikast" (1964) ilmumist oli selleks juba kirjandus:

Lotmani "Loengutes" mängis tohutut osa "teksti" mõiste kasutuselevõtmine fundamentaalse mõistena semiootika jaoks ja samal ajal neutraalse mõistena oma objekti, kirjanduse suhtes. Just "tekst" andis Juri Mihhailovitšile võimaluse üle minna kirjanduselt kultuurile kui semiaatika universaalsele objektile (Pjatigorskij 1996: 54-55).

(Torop 2000: 46)

See Pjatigorskij tsitaat on originaalis venekeelne. Ajalooliselt on see oluline tähelepanek: et Lotman oli see, kes võttis teksti mõiste kasutusele ja tegi kirjandusest semiootika uurimisobjekti.

Enamasti on ka prototekst ise juba mingis suhtes metatekst, sest puhtaid esmatekste on kultuuris raske ette kujutada. (Torop 2000: 48)

See on siis äärmuslikult intertekstuaalne seisukoht: ükskõik millise tekstiga on tegu, see toetub alati rohkem või vähem juba olemasolevatele tekstidele.

Levtšenko, Jan 2000. Mõned ülestähendused teaduskeele sõnastiku poeetikast. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 52-62.

Teksti kulgemise suuna määrab täielikult lugeja. Autor asub aga spetsifilises "miinus-dimensioonis". Ta peitub varjunime "koostaja" taha ja satub vaatevälja reeglina alles siis, kui sõnastik ei täida oma funktsioone (tihti me märkamegi objekti, kui ta meid segab või teistest erineb). Autori võimalik juuresolek sõnastikus väljendub tema poolt tehtud viidetes ja materjali süsteemses korrastumises. (Levtšenko 2000: 53)

Isegi siia on sattunud see silmatorkavuse seaduspära, et kõige kergem on märgata seda mis teistest erineb.

Eriti terav vajadus sõnastiku järele tekib teaduses. Teaduse areng eeldab pidevat kogemuse omandamist ja sõnastik on siin asendamatu. Tõsi, humanitaarias on olukord mõneti teine, kuna selle piirid ei ühti täielikult teaduse piiridega. Humanitaarteadlane esitab maailma kohta samu küsimusi, mis metafüüsik. Tema peamine relv on interpretatsioon, mis väga tihti spekuleerib ühe ja sama sõna erinevate tähendustega. See võib toimuda ka autori intentsiooni vastaselt: teadusliku ranguse ja metodoloogilise läbipaistvuse taotlus sõnades väljendatuna ei ole juba ise vaba retoorikast. (Levtšenko 2000: 54)

Seostub süüdistusega, et semiootikud vaid mõne sõna erinevaid tähendusi lahkavadki. Samas tean, et niimoodi saab uusi või seniavastamata tähendusi maailma kutsuda.

1951. aastal andis Jean Marouseau välja terminoloogilise sõnastiku, mis pretendeeris universaalsusele, kuigi kajastas kitsamalt sotsioloogilise koolkonna ideid lingvistikas. Seitse aastat hiljem nägi valgust ameerika deskriptiivse lingvistika sõnastik Eric Hampi redaktsioonis. See oli põhimõtteliselt uus väljaanne, mis kujutas endas tsitaatide sõnastikku, omapärast kontseptuaalset teejuhti. Analoogne näide oleks Praha strukturalistliku keeleteaduse sõnastik, mille koostas Josef Vachek 1962. aastal. Selles sõnastikus pole terminid ja mõisted välja valitud, vaid kokku korjatud koolkonna tegevust kokkuvõtva kirjelduse eesmärgil. Ferdinand de Saussure'i "Cours de linguistique génénerale" väljaandele lisas 1968. aastal Rudolf Engler unikaalse monograafilise sõnastiku. Selliseid sõnastikke on ka kirjandusteaduse valdkonnas. (Levtšenko 2000: 56)

Sellise kontseptuaalse teejuhi koostamisele olen isegi mõelnud, kuid pisut lihtsamal kujul: blogi, kus iga sissekanne on pühendatud kindlale mõistele ja sisaldab tsitaate milles neid mõisteid üritatakse määratleda.

I. Ĉernov pakkus välja ka võimaluse koostada sõnastik mudeli järgi, mida ta oli juba kasutanud vene 20. s kirjandusteaduse silmapaistvaima koolkonna - "vormikoolkonna" kontseptuaalse sõnaraamatu puhul. Olid ju selle koolkonna ideed olnud Tartu kultuurisemiootika innustakateks. I. Ĉernovi "Teoreetilise kirjandusteaduse krestomaatia" nimetuse all ilmunud sõnastik koosnes kindlate teemade kaupa grupeeritud tsitaatidest. Selline ülesehitus tulenes raamatu põhifunktsioonist - anda üliõpilasele kokkusurutud mahus metoodiline konspekt "formalistide" põhiideest. (Levtšenko 2000: 58)

Arvestades, et Eisenstein oli kindlasti vormikoolkonna esindajate hulgas, ei ole midagi imestada: "an entire treatise can be made by composition of quotations."

Veidemann, Rein 2000. Tõlkimine kui avastamine. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 63-70.

Esimesena mainitus jõuab Lotman järeldusele, et semiosfäär ei ole fataalselt endassesulguv, vaid keeruline struktuur, mis pidevalt "mängib" struktuurivälise ruumiga, kord võttes sealt semiootiliseks töötluseks mingeid tükke, kord heites sinna tagasi semiootilise aktiivsuse minetanud "aherainet" (Lotman 1992: 45). Just need lõikumised kujutavadki endast semioosise fluktuatsiooni, plahvatuse teiseks allikaks semiosfääris on tekstide lakkamatu muundumuse, teisenemise presumptsioon: tekst ei ole püsivate omadustega stabiilne objekt, vaid pigem funktsioon, mis tähendab teksti omadust esineda kord teose, kord selle osa, kord žanri ja lõpuks kogu kirjandusena. (Veidemann 2000: 66)

Kõik termodünaamika iseärasused ei pruugi märgimaailmaga võrreldavad olla, aga "aherainena" võib äkki kujutada tekste mis hävinevad? Ja ma ei mõtle tekste mis on niivõrd vastuolulised, et neid hävitatakse vägivaldselt, sest sellistest tekstidest jääb alati mingi jälg. Pigem mõtlen "semiootilise aktiivsuse" minetanud tekstide all siin neid tekste mis ei ole enam kuidagi väärtuslikud ega kasulikud. Näiteks Nõukogudeaegne "liitlasrahvaste" ilukirjandus, millega ilma igasuguse hingepiinata ahju köetaks.

Enne konkreetsete näidete toomist keskendutagu "avastamise" mõistel endal. Eesti keeles sisaldab see deverbaal küll piisavalt dünaamikat, kuid ei tähista dramaatilist vahet mitteoleva ja oleva saava vahel. Inglise-, saksa- ja vene keeles on aga see vahetegemine üheselt selge: nii discover, enti- või aufdecken kui ka raskrõvatj või otkrõvatj sisaldavad eitust. See on kaetuse äravõtmine, nagu teki kõrvale heitmine või kae eemaldamine. Aga just selliselt tuleks ka avastamist mõista - kui millegi avalikuks, ilmsik toomist. (Veidemann 2000: 67)

Inglise keeles siis ka palju ilmsem uncovering ehk paljastamine.

1950. aastatel ei amanud Lotman kui "tekst" vähimatki tähendust eesti kultuurile. Ta asus siis väljaspool semioosist nimega "Eesti". 1960ndatel tekkisid Lotmanil kui "tekstil" eesti kultuuriga meta- ja intersemiootilised suhted: mitmed teda kuulanud eesti tulevased kirjandusteadlased, tõlkijad ja kultuuriteoreetikud (Jaak Põldmäe, Pärt Lias, Peet Lepik, Haljand Udam jt) hakkasid Lotmani ideid kasutama eesti tekstide interpreteerimisel. Jaak Põldmäe jõudis 1970. alguses isegi nii kaugele, et innustatuna vene formalistidest, Praha lingvistikast ning Lotmani strukturaalsest poeetikast, arendas välja oma algupärase, aga "Lotmani-tekstist" siiski mõjutatud eesti värsiõpetuse (Põldmäe 1978). "Lotmani teksti" seesugune tõlge pani kihama eesti "emateksti" (kui kasutada Lotmani terminoloogiat). Võiks öelda, et sel oli kahesugune väljund: ametlikul poolel suurenes vastuseis "Lotmani-tekstile" (NB! ta ei leidnud tunnustamist ENSV akadeemikuna), samal ajal aga - intersemiootiliselt - hakkas "Lotmani tekst" leidma üha enam tõlgendamiskanaleid ja vorme. Selle etapi krooniks võibki pidada 1990 ilmunud "Kultuurisemiootikat." Kuid isegi pärast seda, Lotmani sõnul "semiootika koputas oma sünnikodu uksele" (Lotman 1990: 6) jäi "Lotmani-tekst" eesti kultuuri kui teksti seisukohast ikka veel eksootiliseks ilminguks, eksootilisemaks kui postmodernismi tekstid, mis just 1990. aastate algul hakkasid massiivselt eesti kirjandusteadvust mõjutama. Lotmani surm 1993 oli aga selles mõttes tähenduslik, et selle vastukaja maailmas ja seejärel vallandunud Lotmani-buum (mälestuskonverentsid, pärandi uurimine ja publitseerimine) aktiveeris oluliselt ka Lotmani eestikeelset diskursust. "Lotmani-tekst" tõeline paisumine algabki 1990ndate keskpaigast. Ltomani "Semiosfäärist" ilmumist eesti keeles 1999 võibki pidada plahvatuseks, "Lotmani-teksti" tõlkimise avastuslikuks, kaetuse lõplikult eemaldamiseks. Alles nüüd hoomatakse, missuguse geeniuse läheduses ollakse kõik see aeg elanud. Läbi "Lotmani teksti" avastab eesti kultuur ka ennast kui teksti kogu selle mitmekihilisuses ja rikkuses. (Veidemann 2000: 68-69)

Rubriik: Lotmani enda tekstualiseerimine.

Lill, Anne 2000. Antiigitraditsioon ja barokk: 17. sajandi ladinakeelne akadeemiline ülistusluule. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 71-91.

Antiikaja žanritest oli 17. sajandi kirjanduse jaoks kõige mõjukam retoorika - seda nii kirjandusele üdse kui ka luulele eriti. Luuletaja, nagu kõnemeeski, peab olema doctus või eruditus ('õpetatud, haritud'; Meier 1999: 226-7). Siinkäsitletava luuleliigi, ülistusluule puhul on seda vajalik meeles pidada, sest need luuletused olid enamuses konkreetsetele adressaatidele pühendatud ja algasid retoorilise pöördumisega. Oma õpetatust sai nendes väljendada antiikkultuuri, eriti mütoloogia tundmise ja tsiteerimisega. (Lill 2000: 73)

Ka tänapäeval väljendub erudiitsus kõige selgemalt ajaloo tundmise ja vanade allikate tsiteerimisega.

Ladina luulele omased baroksed jooned ilmnevad juba antiikajal. Selle aluseks oli retooriline element luules, seda eriti hellenismiajal. Neid jooni üldistab ja ühtlasi annab neile ka esteetilise ja eetilise hinnangu 1. sajanddist AD pärit traktaat Ülevast (εύτυχείν εύ βουλεύεσΰαι, omistatud ekslikult 3. sajandi oraatorile ja uusplatoonlikule Longinosele). Nimetatud käsitlus on barokiga tegelemisel üldisemalt kasulik, kuna tõstatab küsimuse emotsionaalsuse ja ratsionaalsuse vahekorrast kunstis, tehnilise teostuse seostest teose sisuga.
Viidates Demosthenesele väidab Longinos, et elu saavutab suurimad hüved hea õnne ja hea kaalutlemisoskuse alusel (οίδείν), kirjanduses ja kõnes 'logos' täidab physis hea õnne rolli, techně aga õige kaalutlemisoskuse rolli. Eksimustest teose kunstilise esituse vastu toob traktaadi autor näiteid, mis hiljem tulevad esile just barokses kunstis: ülepaisutatud kujundid, eriti metafoorid, mis pole mitte ülevad, vaid ülespuhutud (seega maitsetud). Ülespuhutust kunstis (οίδείν), lainetust, tormilisust kunstis võrdleb ta paisega kehal (οϊδημα, paise, hingeerutus): paised on halvad, ükskõik kas kehal või kõnes, need on tühised ja ilma tõepärata, tekitades soovitule vastipidise efekti. Antiikajal käsitleti sellist stiili asianismina, millel on mitmeid ühisjooni baroki esteetikaga. Selle põhijooneks oli siin juba tuttav barokne kujundimaailm: dramatism, kontrastid, liialdused, pateetilisus, kõrgendatud emotsionaalsus, fantaasia, mille hulka kuulub ka pateetiline pettus, kui elutule omistatud elusolendi omadused.
Sellisele liialdusele annab Longinos nimetuse parenthyrson (παρένϋυρσον), s.o. türsoskepi vibutamine valel ajal, mis liitub bakhoseekstaasiga. Kirjanduses on see kohatu ja liialdatud emotsioon, pathos, seal, kus seda vaja ei oleks. Niisiis näeme Longinose traktaadi põhjal, millised barokielemendid sisalduvad juba antiikaegsetes luulevormides ja eriti hellenismiajastu tundeküllastes ja dramaatilistes poeemides 3.-2. saj eKr, mille autoriteks on Theokritos, Kallimachos, Apollonios Rhodoselt (Fowler 1989: 32). Sama väljendavad ka maal, mosaiik ja skulptuur. (Lill 2000: 75-76)

Tundub nagu Mihkel Kunnuse antiikne mõttekaaslane. A la kuidas teater on mõttetu, sest see põhineb rohkem emotsioonidel kui ratsionaalsusel.

Esitatakse pärimus Aristipposest, kes küsib tarkusejumalalt Minervalt õppimise tähtsuse kohta. Jumalanna vastuseks kõlab mõte, et ainult see inimene, kes tegeleb teaduse ja kunstiga, jätab endast elus järele mälestusmärgi. Vaimutööle vastandatakse kehaline töö ja väline luksus. Kirjeldatakse inimeste erinevaid elulaade ja püüdlusi: kehaline pingutus ja töö, sõdimine, väline luksus ja kehaline ilu. Minerva sõnad lähevad üle Homerose tsitaadiks, milles vastandatakse füüsilised pingutused ning sport laulule ja kunstide nautimisele (tsitaat Odüsseia 8. laulu motiividel esitatakse tõlkekatkendina faiaakide eluviisi kirjeldusest). (Lill 2000: 78)

Seda väidet on lihtne mõista, sest teadlase ja kunstniku töö on püsivam ja tulevastele põlvkondadele kasulikum kui kehaline töö ja väline luksus.

Põhiideed kannavad märksõnad, mis viitavad intellektuaalsetele ja moraalsetele väärtustele ning nende saavutamise vahenditele: ars ('kunst, teadus, oskus'), fama ('kuulsus, populaarsus'), virtus ('voorus, täiuslik loomus'), pietas ('vagadus, hardus'), ingenium ('vaimuanded') vs usus, labor ('töö, pingutus'), honor ('au, kuulsus').
Põhiteema koondub sellega seoses mõiste ars ümber, millele viitab ka juba pealkiri. Ars tähendab siin ülikoolis õpetatavaid teadusi ja seal antavaid oskusi. Siia alla kuulub kõik, mis on õpitav ja omandatav, vastandina loomulikule ja looduslikule andele (ingenium). Loodusliku ande ja tööga omandatud oskuste vastandamine (ars-ingenium) ning võrdlemine oli levinud juba antiikajal. (Lill 2000: 80)

Arvan, et neid mõisteid ja teemasid saab ka Bourdieu kapitali-kategaariatesse jagada.

Kirjeldades aga vaimutöö ülimust nimetatud tegevuste suhtes, muutub tekst kohe tunduvalt metafoorsemaks: kes küll suudaks tühiseid töid muusadega kõrvutada (Quis Musis vanos poterit conferre laboreis, 116). Räägitakse meeldivast elust varjulises Aoonias (Aomia ... sub umbra, 120), Kastaali tütarde haritud kirjatööde käeshoidmisest (Castalidum culta volvere scripta manu, 121), viibimisest varjulises muusade aias (septos .. Musarum ... in hortos, 122). Näeme, kuidas kujundirohkus teenib kõrgendatud emotsionaalsusi ja veenduvuse saavutamise eesmärki. (Lill 2000: 86-87)

Meenutab The Underground Academy't.

Pärli, Ülle 2000. Tõlkimine kui kultuurimehhanism: 19. sajandi lõpu eestindused vene kirjandusest. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 92-105.

See viisiheli sugestioon jätkus veel järelromatikutegi luule hindamisel. Mis tähendas, et Anna Haava sõnastik on nii banaalselt kulunud: palmid, tuuled ja tormid, roosid, liiliad, laulvad lained, elulaev ... See puudutas aga suure massi ühishelilist kõlapõhja (Tuglas 1964: 76-77).

(Pärli 2000: 94)

See on esimene kord kui kohtan selle luuletaja nime oma lugemistes. Pani kohe mõtlema, et kas peaks sisse vaatama ja temanimelisel tänaval toimuvale soovitama midagi tema luulest. Vaevalt päris kõik banaalne on.

Kuid venestusaja alguseks oli eesti kultuur end juba tunnetanud semiootilise subjektina, kui kasutada Lotmani terminoloogiat, ja seetõttu oli venestamine, kui nii võib öelda, lootusetult hiljaks jäänud. Saksastamise ja sellele vastuseismise kaudu olid eestlased selgelt tunnetanid oma rahvuslikku iseolemist. Üheks tunnistuseks sellest on ka meie poolt kirjeldatud kiire kirjandusliku tõlke väljakujunemine. Uue sajandi alguseks aga võib rääkida eesti kirjanduse enesekesksusest väljumisest, valmidusest integreerida enesesse "võõraid" selliselt, et see võõras ei kaotaks oma "võõrapärasust" ega ohustaks ka eesti identiteeti. (Pärli 2000: 102)

Semiootilise subjekti mõistet ei ole ma ise millegi pärast Lotmani kirjutatus täheldanud, ehk pole lihtsalt piisavalt lugenud. Tean seda mõistet ainult Merelli-Randviiru kaudu, kuid on suhteliselt lihtne ette kujutada mida see Lotmani käsituses tähendada võib (a la kultuur kui semiootiline subjekt).

Luukas, Liina 2000. Eesti-Saksa kirjanduslik opositsioonilisus 19. ja 20. sajandi vahetusel. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 106-123.

Kirjandusteoreetilisi, kirjandusajaloolisi, esteetilisi või voolukriitilisi käsitlusi ilmutavad eeskätt Tartu professor Woldemar Masing (nt "Zeitgeist und Volksgeist in der natirlistischen Dichtung", 1896 XLIIII: 323-346), Gregor von Glasenapp ("Friedrich Nietzsche, der Philosoph der Gegenwart", 1894), Eduart Eckhardt ("Typus und Individuum in der Litteratur", 1896 XLIII: 244-263), Theodor Pezold ("West-europäische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung der neueren russischen Literatur", 1898 XLV: 304-314) ja O. Kleinberg ("Das System Gesichtspunkter des leien und Dilettanten", 1902 LIII: 29-44). (Luukas 2000: 110)

Viited artiklitele ajakirjas Baltische Monatschrift.

Usthal heidab "Noor-Eestile" ette kirjanduslikku laenulisust. "Noor-Eesti" luule kummardavat võõraid jumalaid, olevat rahvakauge paberlik kirjandus, mis on küll eesti keeles kirjutatud, kuid mitte eesti keeles mõeldud (Usthal 1908/1909: 590-594). (Luukas 2000: 119)

LV: võõrmeelsus.

Kalda, Maie 2000. Redigeerimine kui steriliseerimine (F. Tuglase naitel). In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 124-132.

"Siuru" ajal sai temast [Tuglasest] viimase instantsi maitsekohtunik. 1920ndate algusaastail aga oli just Tuglase roll kirjanduselu uute institutsioonide rajamistöös avalikkusele kõige nähtavam. Need institutsioonid muutsid kirjanduselu ilme soliidsemaks, tõid juhtisikule esindusülesandeid. Tuglasest sai järgnenud poolteise aastakmümne jooksul kõigil tähtsamate kirjandusjuubelite ja kultuurisündmuste enesestmõistetav peokõneleja. Siinkohal saab osundada Juri Lotmani "Argikäitumise poeetikas" ampluaadest/tüüprollidest kirjapandut. Ampluaa "tähendas üldjuhul ühe kindla ajaloolise isiku, riigi- või kirjandustegelase, poeemi- või tragöödiakangelase väljavalimist" ja temale orienteerumist, millest sai käitumisprogramm (Lotman 1999: 279). Tuglase kolleegide poolt antud hüüdnimi kirjanduspaavst peaks olema täiesti võrreldav Lotmani toodud vene näidetega, nagu Põhjamaade Voltaire või Minerva. (Kalda 2000: 126)

Ikka hea käitumisprogrammide kohta midagi juurde saada. Lotmani jaoks on need muidugi kultuurilis-kirrjanduslikud, aga eks juhtub sedagi (tänapäevalgi), et mõni noorhärra võtab oma käitumise eeskujuks mõne filminäitleja. Eriti valmilt tehakse seda Tom Cruise'i järgi, sest just temale orienteerimust innustab Neil Straussi naistevõrgutamise teemaline romaan The Game (kui ma nüüd ei eksi).

Üks teine maksiim kuulutab, et "arvustus ei või üldse olla õiglane. Õiglus sööb arvustuse jõu ja mahla. Lohutugem sellega, et arvustuse ülekohtus võib peituda uus tõde" (Tuglas 1966: 67) (Kalda 2000: 128)

Seega eksisin kui palusin oma retsensendilt neutraalset arvustust. Taevani kiitmise ja täiesti maha tegemise vahel võiks ikkagi olla mingi neutraalne kuid jõu ja mahlaga tase.

Lotman, Mihhail and Maria-Kristiina Lotman 2000. Tekst ja mälu (värsistruktuur ja selle semantika). In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 133-XX.

Tavaliselt seostub teksti mõiste kirjaniku kultuuriga, st tekst on graafiliselt representeeritud ja selgelt piiritletud artefakt. Teksti mõiste ise tekib vaid neis kultuurides, kus domineerib kirjalik sõna. Kuid need kitsad raamid ei mahuta teksti mõiste potentsiaali ning 20. sajandil mõistetakse teksti ekstensiivselt ning tihti isegi metafooriliselt, kui räägitakse balletitekstist, käitumistekstist vms. Peab tõdema, et sellised näiliselt modernistlikud käsitlused on oma olemuselt väga arhailised ning teksti (raamatut) seostati eluga kohe selle tekkimisest alates: elu on isomorfne raamatuga, raamat eluga, vrd ühelt poolt selliseid väljendeid nagi tema eluraamatu viimane lehekülg ja teiselt poolt habent sua fata libelli jne. (Lotman & Lotman 2000: 133)

Oleks võinud seda artiklit lugeda enne oma esimese artikli kirjutamist. Oh well...

Tekst on individualismi väljendus, sellel on oma, st individuaalne autor, tekst käsitleb inimest (autorit, tegelast, lugejat) kui indiviidi. Seevastu folkloor ei tunne ei individuaalset autorit ega indiviidi kui kangelast. Peame siin silmas ennekõike rituaalseid tekste: eeposed, fairy-tales tüüpi muinasjutud (vene keeles volshebnye skazki) märgivad selles mõttes üleminekuvorme, tekkides üldjuhul hiljem. (Lotman & Lotman 2000: 134)

Sellise määratluse järgi pole meemid tekstid ja sama saab vist öelda ka paljude facebooki staatuste kohta mis kopeeritakse või kirjutatakse ümber teismeliste kohta kel endal pole midagi öelda, kuid väga tahavad teada mida neist arvatakse (a la "like kui sa arvad, et olen ilus" tüüpi sõnumid).

Ka mälu ei ole ühemõtteline ja lihtne fenomen. Tavaliselt me räägime mälust siis, kui on tegemist intentsionaalse aktiga: inimene tahab midagi meelde jätta, ta jätab selle meelde (= talletab endale mällu), ta mäletab (= vajadusel võtab mälust). Kuid selline mäletamise skeem on esiteks lihtsustatud ja teiseks ei ammenda mälu vorme. Mäluga on seotud lai fenomenide spekter, mis algab intentsionaalsetest aktidest ja seisunditest ning lõppeb puht-füüsilistega, sellistega nagu jalajälg mererannas: liiv mäletab jalga senikaua, kuni säilib selle jälg. Kui laine uhub selle maha, on see mälust kustunud.
Mälu tuleb eristada vahetust kogemusest, otsesest mõjutusest. Sündmuse ja mälu vahel peab olema mingi paus, kasvõi kõige õhem puur, pragu Paul Ricoeuri mõistes. Et tekiks jalajälg, peab jalg eralduma liivast. Vastasel korral pole liival jälg, vaid jalg ise, st mälu opereerib alati märkidega, mitte objektide enestega. (Lotman & Lotman 2000: 135)

Lihtsustatud tõesti. Näiteks J. R. Kantori (1922) skeemis on ka tahtmatud mäletamised ja meeltetulemised (viimane on eriti ilmne näiteks juhul kui mõtterong ei peatu ja meelde tulevad lõbustavad või masendavad seigad). Ka Kantor täheldab aja tähtsust: "we memorize in order to recite after some longer or shorter intervening time interval" (Kantor 1922: 626; kursiiv lisatud).

Seega on tekstil ja mälul üks oluline ühine omadus: talletatus ning näib, et teksti üks tähtsamaid funktsioone ongi olla mälu kandja. Kuid tekstil ja mälul on ka olulisi erinevusi. Neist esimene on suunatus. Tekst on alatu suunatud ning selle suund langeb kokku aja vektoriga. Mälu struktuur on aga hoopis keerulisem ning teatud mõttes on see koguni ajale vastusuunaline: mälu on suunatud minevikul. Teine erinevus on seotud eksplitsiitsusega: tekst nõib olevat puhteksplitsiitne moodustis, see, mida tekst sisaldab, on lihtsalt näha. Teine lugu on mäluga, see on mitmekihiline ja me ei tea sugugui täpselt, mida me mäletame. Osa mälust on seotud teadvusega, osa aga alateadvusega. Osa asju võime me meenutada ise, teise osa meenutamiseks on vaja hüpnotiseerija abi jne.
Nagu näitavad Tartu koolkonna kultuurisemiootilised uuringud, on need mälu omadused teatud määral iseloomulikud ka tekstile. Tekst "käitub" teatud mõttes nagu elusorganism võib meenutada unustatud asjaolusid, võib koguni meenutada asju, mida sellesse pole kunagi talletatud (selline "vale mälu" on kultuurisemiootikas võrdlemisi laialt levinud fenomen: nagu inimene oma eluloos, meenutab kultuurgi oma ajaloos sellised fakte, mida pole kunagi olemas olnud). (Lotman & Lotman 2000: 136)

Teksti organitsism. Vale mälu temaatika mängib rolli ka unenägude diskursuses ja võib olla põhjuseks miks unenägudest kirjutatud teadustöö sisaldav ainult selliseid viiteid mida päriselt pole olemas (Somatoception).

Randviir, Anti 2000. Kaart kui kultuuritekst. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 151-171.

Kultuuri, ühiskonna või muude inim- ning loodusnähtustegi vaatlemine tekstina ei kuulu kahtlemata uudsete kirjeldusvõtete hulka. Mitmes humanistikasfääris, sealhulgas eriti kultuurisemiootikas, on uurimisobjektide ülesehituse (vt nt Toporov 1995: 259-399) ja kultuurilise toimimise (nt info tootmine, salvestamine, edastamine) selgitamine tekstilisena lausa soodustatud olukorras. Need aspekhid puudutavad niisiis justkirjelduskeelt ja metatasandit. Arusaadavalt on tekst filoloogilisest valdkonnast pärit metafoorilina vahend, mis hõlbustab suuremate ja keerukamate nähtuste kirjelduslikku korrastamist. Ilmselt paljuski tänu strukturalismile ja filoloogilistest distsipliinidest välja kasvanud Euroopa semiootikatrendidele on tekst saavutanud teatud eelise teise nii-öelda kirjeldusliku makrometafoori, organismi ees. Analoogiliselt oli populaarne teadusliku kirjelduse vaatepunkt niinimetatud organitsism loodusteaduste võidukäigu ajal 19nda sajandi lõpul ja 20nda alguses (vt Philips 1970: 413-432), mil organismina kirjeldati nii loodus- kui ka mitmeid kultuurinähtusi. (Randviir 2000: 151)

Tähendab, organism ja tekst on mõlemad nö makrometafoorid.

Niisiis on näiteks maailmavaadet puudutavalt võimalik tekstuaalsust uurida mitmel erineval tasandil: võime vaadelda, kuidas mingi maailmapilt esitab endas sisalduvat tekstina ("maailm kui tekst", "elu kui raamat"), saame kirjeldada teated maailmavaadet kui tekstuaalsust, võime analüüsida maailmavaate representatsioone (rituaalud, artefaktid, kirjalikud tekstid) kui tekste. Kõik need aspektid on asjakohased läbi kogu aja, mil inimene on end ümbritsevat füüsikalist ja spirituaalset keskkonda visualiseerida püüdnud. Nõnda allub terve kartograafiline diskursus sellisele kultuurisemiootilisele kirjeldusstrateegiale, mis vaatleb nähtusi "kui tekste", kuid teiselt poolt pakuvad kaardid ise suurepärast materjali tekstuaalsuse erinevate parameetrite arenguloo kirjeldamiseks. (Randviir 2000: 155)

Eluraamatu näide esineb ka Toropil. Kultuurisemiootiline lähenemine kontseptualiseerib ka käitumisi "kui tekste."

Et teksti ja selle tunnuse põhjalikum käsitlemine poleks ilmselt heuristlikult produktiivne, ei puuduta me järgnevat teemat, mis käsitleks kaarti kui teksti, vaid vaatleme pigem kaart-teksti, ehk tekst-kaarti.
Niisiis oli ja on kaardiliselt representeeritav (ruum, linn, kultuuriruum kui tekst) käsitletav tekstina, mille sees kaart ise tegelikult asub; edaspidi näeme, et kaarti võiks interpreteerida - ja tegelikult nii peabki seda tegema - kui teksti tekstis (nt raamatus), mis omakorda asub samuti mingis tekstis (kultuuriruumis). (Randviir 2000: 159)

Minu arvates oleks päris huvitav lugeda mingit põhjalikumat käsitlust teksti mõistest kultuurisemiootikas ja mujal. Selle mõiste värvikireva kasutuse kokkutoomine annaks nii mõndagi mõtlemisainet.

Ülaltoodud kaks näidet viitavad kaardistamise teistlaadsele funktsioonile: tekstide ülesehituse terviklikkus tagatakse sedakaudu, et tekst - kirjalik või suuline, aga ka näiteks käitumuslik tekst - organiseeritakse ruumiliste struktuuride abil. Teadaolevalt on see üks tavalisemaid tekstuaalse informatsiooni organiseerimise viise, mis seostub ka näiteks retooriliste võtetega (kõne kui liikumine ruumist ruumi). (Randviir 2000: 162)

Eelnev oleks kasulik ainuüksi "käitumusliku teksti" mõiste selgitamiseks, sest mul endal nt ei ole siiani aimu kuidas seda rakendada, kuigi tahaks. Heuristilist potentsiaali nagu on.

Kotov, Kaie 2000. Intersemiootilised mehhanismid sõnas-ja-pildis. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 172-185.

Järgneva arutelu eesmärk on esiteks osutada mitmetele iseloomulikele nihetele kommunikatsioonivahendite arengus ning teiseks pakkuda teoreetilisi mudeleid selle arengu tulemusel toimunud muutuste mõtestamiseks. Üheks indikaatoriks võib seejuures pidada meid ümbritseva keskkonna kasvavat visualiseerumist, mis omakorda on hakanud kahtluse alla seadma sõna vääramatust. Ehkki järjest rohkem pööratakse tähelepanu "uuele meediale", multimeedia keskkonnale ja hüpertekstidele, avalduvad toimunud nihked ja traditsioonilisemates tekstides. (Kotov 2000: 172)

Kultuurilise keskkonna kasvav visuaalsus on tõepoolest huvitav teema, sest raamatute jaoks ei jätku tänapäeval piltide, videode ja kiirsõnumite kõrval palju aega. Igavuses noored eelistavad facebookis rumalaid 6-sekundilisi naljavideosid ja ask.fm-is totratele küsimustele omapoolsete nõmedate videodega vastamist sellisele harivale tegevusele nagu raamatute lugemine. Samas, kui juba hinnanguline olla, ei tundu lõputute vampiiritiinekate lugemine väga palju harivam olevat. Kotov sealjuures on vististi see uurija, kes oma magistritöö tegi ühest hüperlinkidega veebi-kustitööst (aasta-paar pärast selle artikli avaldamist). Tundub nagu inimene kes "laksab biiti" netisemiootika vältimatu tekkimise suhtes.

Taolisi visuaalseid ja verbaalseid elemente ühendavaid tekste iseloomustatakse sageli multimodaalsuse, ka multimediaalsuse ja meediatevahelisuse (cross-mediality) mõiste kaudu. Antud mõiste osutab sellele, et tähenduse loomel ei kasutata peaaegu mitte kunagi vaid üht semiootilist süsteemi - nõiteks loomulikku keelt. Rea erinevate semiootiliste süsteemide vahendite kasutamine loob keeruka tähenduse, mille tekkimine poleks võimalik juhul kui iga semiootilist modaalsust vaadeldakse teistest eraldi - sellest ka multimodaalsuse mõiste (vrd Kress ja van Leeuwen 1996, Goodman 1996, Walker ja Chapman 1997, Bouissac 1998, Trifonas 1998, Purchase 1999). (Kotov 2000: 177)

Cross-mediality teema võib seostuda visuaal-konkursiivsusega.

Siinses käsitluses on intersemioosis vaadeldav kui märgiprotsess, mis tekib mitmesse eri väljendusvahendite süsteemi (semiootilisse süsteemi) kuuluvate märkide koosesinemisel. Seejuures ei toimi märgid mitte paralleelselt ja üksteisest sõltumatult, vaid osalevad korraga nende vastastikuses koosmõjus tekkiva tähenduse loomes, säilitades samas oma distinktsuse märgisüsteemina. (Kotov 2000: 177)

Nt konkursiivsuses toimib verbaalne ja mitteverbaalne samaaegselt/sünkreetiliselt, aga sellegipoolest jääb üks kirjandus- või kõnekeeleks ja teine kehakeeleks.

Äsjane arutelu püüdis osutada ühele võimalikule viisile, kuidas jälgida taolist mängu - tähenduse teket visuaalsete ja verbaalsete väljendusvahendite piiril. Siiski on nii intersemioosis kui konfiguratsioon suhtelliselt uued mõisted, mis alles otsivad teooriat, mis integreeriks nad ühtseks kontseptuaalseks tervikuks, intersemiootikaks. Taolise kontseptsiooni üheks võimalikuks keskmeks võiks olla uue informatsiooni teke visuaalsete ja verbaalsete elementide seostes, mis luuakse konfiguratiivsel tasandil, kuid aktualiseeritakse teksti tarbimisega tasandil interpretatiivsete protsesside käigus. (Kotov 2000: 182)

Intersemiootikat võib tõesti ellu kutsuda. Ühest käest on "verbaalse ja mitteverbaalse suhestumine" üks suurimaid lahendamata probleeme humanitaarteadustes, teisalt on juba tekkimas isegi intesemiootikale pühendatud ajakirju (nt Versejunkies: Intersemiotic Translation Journal).

Pilv, Aare 2000. Juhatus autometateksti mõistesse: Skolastiline essee. In: Pärli, Ülle (ed.), Kultuuritekst ja traditsioonitekst: 26.-27.novembril 1999 Tartus toimunud seminari materjalid. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus., 186-196.

Metatekstid jagunevad hoiaku (stiili) järgi afirmatiivseteks ja kontroversiaalseteks, tekstiloomestrateegiast sõltuvalt eksplitsiitseteks ehk avalikeks ja implitsiitseteks ehk varjatuteks, ning oma ulatuse järgi eristatakse metatekste kas tekstielementide või tekstiterviku tasandil.
Selle jaotuse kohaselt on metateksti tüüpe terve hulk:

• tekstielementide tasandil
  • afirmatiivsed avalikud - tsitaat, moto, allusioon, cento, vahendatud lugemine (pealkiri, annotatsioon, resümee jne),
  • afirmatiivsed varjatud - reministsents, parafraas, imitatsioon,
  • kontroversiaalsed avalikud - tsenseerimine, paroodiliselt tõlgitud tsitaat,
  • kontroversiaalsed varjatud - kriitiline allusioon ilma lallikale viitamata;
• tekstiterviku tasandil
  • afirmatiivsed avalikud - tõlge, pastiš, positiivne arvustus
  • afirmatiivsed varjatud - autori formuleeritud kavatsus kirjutada tekst, plagiaat, pseudotõlge,
  • kontroversiaalsed avalikud - poleemiline tõlge, travestia, kirjanduslik pamflett, poleemiline arvustus
  • kontroversiaalsed varjatud - paroodia

Selle käsutuse järgi võib metateksti kontsept olla lähtepunktiks üldse kõigi intertekstuaalsete suhete tüüpide määratlemisel kirjandussüsteemis kui tervikus, mis koosneb Popoviči järgi suhetest a) erinevate kirjanduste vahel, b) originaaltekstide ja teiste tekstide vahel ning c) tekstide ja traditsiooni vahel (Popovič 1976: 232-234). (Pilv 2000: 187-188)

Kasulik kirjandussemiootika jaoks, seostub Toropiga.

Lectures in Theoretical Biology

Meyen, Sergei V. 1988. On the structure of theoretical biology. In: Kull, Kalevi and Toomas Tiivel (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biology. Tallinn: Valgus, 15-21.

5) semiotic aspect (terminological, nomenclatural and allied issues);
5( prakeological aspect (application of stratigraphical knowledge in any other fields of human activity, including other scientific disciplines);
6) historical-theoretical aspect (interaction of past and present theoretical views [...])
(Meyen 1988: 18)

The semiotic aspect has to do with definitions, much like semiotics is sometimes accused of dealing with. (e.g. quibbling over metalanguages).

Lotman, Juri 1988. Natural environment and information. In: Kull, Kalevi and Toomas Tiivel (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biology. Tallinn: Valgus, 45-47.

In what follows we shall call a space an environment in which individual can perceive information and, in turn, be a source of information for other individuals inhabiting the same space of the natural environment of the individual. The part of space under study is thus characterized by the processes of information exchange, including also trophic relations. The information processes of the ecosystem include: (1) information exchange with the outer space, (2) information exchange between species, (3) intraspecies information exchange, including that of between individuals and between groups of individuals. Environment is natural to the given species only if a characteristic composition of these three types of information processes is achieved. The organisational complexity of the organism determines which kind of informational exchange is most influenced by it.
The first two kinds of exchange are characterized as more deterministic, for example the reactions to signals of the seasonal change, meterology etc. or the reaction of dungbeetle to the smell of dung. A more complicated and interesting from the semiotic point of view is the information exchange within the same group or between two biologically similar groups. Here we inevitably arrive to the problem of language.
In cartesian view, man is distinguished from the beast by the linguistic competence. Language is in this view distinguished from the utterances of pain, fear or aggression and is characterized by: 1) infinite ability to generate new sentences, 2) independence from environmental stimuli. Thus in Cartesian view the essence of language is associated with the capacity for a long and autonomous conversation. This concept is also takes over by Humboldt, and more recently by Chomsky.
Let us look at the problem of animal communication from this perspective.
We distinguish between two kinds of animals:
I. 1) Whose set of possible movements is small and stereotypic, 2) whose movements are automatically caused by external stimuli, 3) whose entire scope of environmental situation because of the limited movement repertory is generalized to a small typological list (e.g. "danger").

---

[continues on page 46]
II. 1) The animals whose repertory of movements is larger, 2) whose movements are complicated and form an elaborate system, 3) whose unidirectional tie: "external situation → physiological state of the organism → movement" is replaced by a more elaborate one. The second link includes feedback now: not only does physiological state influence movements but it is also influenced by them. The first link weakens as the autonomy of the movement increases. The possibility of play is one of the indices of autonomy. Play is viewed here in the sense of "as if real" activity, that is on one level being coded as gealdirected, whereas on the other level as self-directed. In this double perspective the autonomous and elaborate nature of the movement system, which allows it to transmit rather complicated messages, reveals itself. In this case the movement system can be viewed as language.
Because the above-described complicated system is not composed of simple reflectory movements and can be viewed as opposed to them, it can be compared to the fact that the whole language system is opposed to interjections.
It can thus be inferred that in the species with elaborate movement system (among other aspects capable of play), movements can be, at least under some circumstances, viewed as gestures i.e. expressing some meanings. This is proved by the activity of accumulating various symbolism displayed by movements. Probably the specific features of movements is even a way of recognizing conspecificity, more than just appearance. This, imitating the skills of primates may have served the hunting needs of a primitive man. Imitation by opportunity of communicating with them, and maybe it even gave this opportunity. It is also characteristic of man and other mammals to despise the animals whose movements they cannot mimic (snakes, insects, cephalopods).
The very essenceof communicating by signs contains a discrepancy between the common language of communicators and different information they possess (otherwise they could not have anything to communicate). This dualism forced Descartes and many others to assume some basic meaning to signs outside the language (cf. the model by Melchuk "meaning-text"). The validity of this assumption can be questioned however.
Wherever communication by movements is taking place, it is impossible to assume some meaning lying outside the sign system because of the organic unity of the signs and body. The movement is language and it has its message (e.g., when learning "follow me" or "don't do this"). The communication appears thus to take place between the individuals who simultaneously are similar and different. The situation of this kind arises when the communication between groups of different behaviour (due to sex, age or social status) inside one group of animals or between different groups is taking place.
Ecological space is thus filled with very different and sometimes complicated information currents.

---

[my comments]
I retyped this article because it is so short (one and a half page of text plus three references (Chomsky, Meschuk and himself) and a one-sentence Estonian and Russian conclusion. The Estonian one says: "Artiklis käsitletakse organismi elukeskkonna infovoogusid, eelkõige liigisisest kommunikatsiooni liigutuste abil."
For my own purposes this short article is relevant because Lotman rarely spoke of bodily behaviour explicitly, this making the construction of "cultural semiotics of body language" kind of difficult. Yet when he does speak of behaviour explicitly then it is the behaviour of animals that is under discusson. From a "body language" perspective the human being is an animal, so some of his statements can apply to my field as well. Especially when he makes a very important distinction between movements and gestures on the basis of the latter having "meaning" and "symbolism." That is, this article is a big piece for the puzzle of "the behavioural sphere." I am, of course, mythologizing this notion to make it seem as if Lotman left us all the clues for constructing a lotmanian approach to human behaviour, and one needs merely to gather all the clues from these rare and short acticles and piece them together - I am doing this in order to console my own dissapointment at how "linguistic" (*pejoratively*) our local semiotics is. These "hidden" pieces where Lotman speaks of "communication by motion" (Russian: кинетическая ... коммуникативному поведению) are invaluable.

Lotman, Aleksei 1988. On axiomatic method in ethology. In: Kull, Kalevi and Toomas Tiivel (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biology. Tallinn: Valgus, 48-54.

But what branches of mathematics can be used in formulating axioms for ethology? There seems to be no objective criteria. Intuitively appealing are set theory and probability theory, the former because of its fundamental nature and the latter because of the principal stochastity of behaviour. Some other mathematicas theories have also been suggested, including fuzzy set theory, category theory and catastrophe theory, but I consider them less important for the purpose under discussion. Though fuzzy set theory has proved useful for describing some psychic phenomena it does not seem to be a good tool for specifying the meaning of the most fundamental terms. The usefulness of category theory and catastrophe theory is also more limited because some of their fundamental assumptions seem to be too specific for ethology. In any case, whenever some other mathematical theory would work better than set theory, the fundamental nature of the latter permits exact "translation".
Once again the importance of systems theory should be emphasized. It forms a kind of prism through which other branches of mathematics are projected on ethological matters. In what follows terminology of systems theory will not be used, but its influence on some of the ideas developed would be obvious. Behavioural research is largely interdisciplinary. It mingles with physiology, ecology, evolutionary biology and many other biological sciences. There is probably no pure ethology at all, but its "purest" part is ethocraphy, the description of behaviour, and it will be analysed a bit more extensively than other ethological problems. (A. Lotman 1988: 49-50)

Logic (and other "mathematical methods") probably cannot help a nonverbal science significantly. The term "ethography" is new for me, but at first glance it seems like a concept related to concursivity.

The earliest application of axiomatic method to the behaviour problems deat not with describing behaviour in general bit with a more general but a more narrow problem of changing behaviour through learning. This pramework is too narrow to satisfy an ethologist.
Such considerations led to the writing of two articles that dealt with some of the most fundamental aspects of behaviour description. In the first one the following sets were used as undefined terms: a set of behaviour states (e.g. a dog is sleeping), a set of behaviour events (e.g. the dog is jumping, barking or falling), a set of behaviour activities (e.g., the dog is jumping or barking). Some relations between the sets were postulated, one of these being that the set of activities is included in the set of behaviour events. The set of behaviour elements was defined as the sum of the sets of behaviour events and behaviour states. Behaviour was defined as a sequence of behaviour elements with some additional properties. Some stochastic relations were postulated between behaviour elements. Another undefined term was the set of (environmental) stimuli. Some more stochastic relations were postulated. Now it was possible to define a reaction to given stimulus from a given state. Yet another undefined term was the set of individuals. It was postulated that non-empty sets of states, events, activities and stimuli correspond to any individual. Some relations were defined in the set of individuals. A. Lotman considered time (the set of time moments) as yet another undefined term, and postulated some more stochastic relations.
These papers give an axiomatic basis for stochastic description of behaviour, but it must still be studied whether they are sufficient to deduce the existing models. Some re-examination of the axioms is also needed in order to eliminate the interdependence of the axioms. Some terms may have been used not in the best accordance with the existing tradition and probably should be changed in the further, revised versions of the system. For example, it would possibly be better to speak of "behaviour chain" or "behaviour sequence" instead of "behaviour" in the above-mentioned sense. (A. Lotman 1988: 50)

The statement "A dog is sleeping" could very well be a title for discussing the problem of state as behaviour, e.g. "sitting behaviour" and the problems of analysing postures ("kinesically"). I stronly object to postulating that "non-empty sets of states, events, activities and stimuli correspond to any individual." This is a blatant reduction of individuals to that which can be "overtly" observed, and makes no mention of individuals having any free will, consciousness, motives, personality, etc. This is how you study machines, not living beings (especially "higher" ones). And lastly, the term "behaviour chain" comes dangerously close to what the anthropologist E. T. Hall meant by "action chains" in humans. I doubt if this is a worthwhile avenue of thought. The more meticulous it gets, the more ridiculous it appears. E.g. consider what happened to C. E. Izard's theory of emotion, which became extremely rigorous - emotion, patterns of emotion, drives, affect, emotion-emotion interaction, etc. (JJA 2012A: 65) - and extremely difficult if not impossible to apply.

There are other interesting points in describing behaviour, for example classifying behaviour elements according to their tendency to appear close to one another, the hierarchical organization of behaviour, the influence of the behaviour on the environment, quantitative measures (e.g., intensity) of activities, etc. I have never seen any axiomatic interpretation of these. (A. Lotman 1988: 51)

Never mind the aximaticity, these questions are interesting from the standpoint of nonverbal behaviour as well, and the only other author who has noted even the preliminary imortance of these - as far as I know - is Bridwhistell (1970/1971).

Chebanov, Sergei V. 1988. Theoretical biology in biocentrism. In: Kull, Kalevi and Toomas Tiivel (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biology. Tallinn: Valgus, 159-168.

Attitude to the universe	physicalism	biocentrism	anthropomorphism
Class of things	inanimate	living matter	psychological-sociological matter
Objects of conception	Object	being	partner in dialogue
Its forms	body, wave	organism	sensible individuality, person
Universe	physical	umwelt	everyday life, culture
Causes	material active	reflective	formal final
Regularities	laws	tendencies	norms
Aim of the conception	invariants	types	individualities
Orientations	extensional	ariphmological	intensional

(Chebanov 1988: 160)

This is very reminiscent of Kull's comparisons of physical and semiotic realities.

Methodological reflection of expertise which enables reduction to enlogies (as centaurs of different organizations), and reinterpretation of general biology is the way to formal biology.

Biotsentrism and culture [sic]
The idea of a man who lives in culture as his umwelt [a title] (an enlogical type) and describes it variously is the last link in the biocentric picture of the Universe. The logical-epistemic approach (by constructing invariants) carries out an extensional umwelt reduction to a physical world and is orientated at mechanisms (cf. unity of construction of real numbers, Newtonian time and space, energy. money as an universal equivalent). Umwelt corresponding to such a culture is similar to the umwelt of the explerents and is reflected as a physical world which can be interpreted as a dead umwelt. The anthropomorphic approach orientated at personality and working with sense reduces the man's umwelt to his intentional aspect (the medieval umwelt is similar to the patent's umwelt). (Chebanov 1988: 165-166)

With all these foreign or unknown terms and wild poetic claims Chebanev leaves an impression of being either a rambling madman or a genius far ahead of his time.

Schreider, Julius A. 1988. On socio-humanitarian problems of biological knowledge. In: Kull, Kalevi and Toomas Tiivel (eds.), Lectures in Theoretical Biology. Tallinn: Valgus, 169-176.

Conceptual models of science appear as a result of crystallized metaphors that articulate intuitions pertaining to realities; these intuitions feed on experiences of notional thinking about some thing, and help overcome the inevitable stiffening of notional structures as well as discovering the fruitfulness of the contradictions about to be fixed in those notions.
It is only in the combination of logicalized notional thinking and intuitive comprehension that the dialectical movement of thought is possible, the movement that is to overcome stiff norms of research. (Schreider 1988: 170)

Indeed it appears that the many models pertaining to nonverbal communication, for example, are little more than somewhat "rigorous" expressions of intuitive understanding. Very technical unintuitive approaches, such as Birdwhistell's kinesics, Hall's proxemics and Goffman's dramaturgy, have but their shadows left in current research - they are simply too unintuitive and too comprehensive, perhaps even restrictive, to be takes as is and put to use nowadays.

The protest against studying anatomy on human corpses or against cruel experiments on animals is not senseless at all. Both kinds of experiments contradict certain ethical principle refuting which would be far from harmless to human society. Here we can only put the question "what for?". What are the socio-humanist problems to be solved at the price of certain concessions in the socio-humanist sphere? Of course, these concessions must be reduced to a minimum. For this, the values of natural objects must be fixed and well grounded. However, this is no longer a natural-scientific problem, but a socio-humanitarian one, it is the problem of the relations of man and living Nature. (Schreider 1988: 170)

Similar concerns rise in the yet non-existent field of "nonverbal ethics" - e.g. is it right to observe people's most intimate, detailed, lower, bodily behaviour?