Libl-If)" of Cona' n5 C.tlloaina in Publkation Data

Wdt lis Zeichen . Ena1i$h Clinics of Km;(I{ics.

(TopIQ in contemporlry Je1tIlotk,) Trlnslllion of: Die Welt lis Zeichcn. Indullts bibliotr.phiul rderences .nd In<Ic~ .

I. Semiotics. I. Krlm~n , Mlrt;n, dltt. 11. Title. Ill . x.in. P99.W3I1l 1917 ooLS I ISBN 0-J06..42321-9

This volume Is • Ir. nsl.tlon of Dk Wt/I ~fs ltkll,lI: K/~ssilr." dtr modtr"tll Stmlolllr.. edited by M.rtin Kr.mpn'l . KllUs Othltt. RoIInd POSM1 •• MI Thur. von UukOll. published In 1911 by Wolf Jomt Siedln Verll' GmbH. Btflln. Chlplns ,. 6. Ind 8 were orl,lnl lly pubUshtd In En,l1sh. Ind It Is the orl,lnll versions of Chapten ~ and 6 llId 1 revlstd vcnlon of Chlpter • th.t .re .~intcd herein. with ~rmi"ion of rhe copyri.ht hold" ...

Germ.n tdltlon Cl 1911 by Wolf Jobst Sledlcr 'o'nlll, OmbH, Btflin

1Cl 19l7 Plenum Pre,.. N .... York A Division of Plenum Publlshln, Corporltlon 233 Sp,ln, Streel. Ntw York , N.V. 10013

All ri,hls .nerved

No part of thil boolt mlY ~ ,I!"ptoouetd. stored In I rCl .!ev.lsyllml. or tnmsmitttd In Iny form or by any means •• I~ronlc. mechanlc.l. phouxopyln,. mk .ofilmln,. recordin,. or OIher ... llC, without written permi .. lon from the PubU1l1fl"

Prlnltd In the Uniltd Stltes of Amnk.

Contents

Foreword to the English language Edition

11wma£..t.~S~bwk

. . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . .. vi;

P~m . . .. .. ..... . ........... i. Ro/and PQstler

Klilus Orhltr

~tline of pejrce's Semi.no"li<", _ ___ ~_. _. _ . . _._._._._._._._. _. _. _ .. _.~--,1

I . Stages in the Foundation of Semiotics 2. The Foundations of Pei~'s Semiotics 3. The Imponance and Generality of Peircian Semiotics .......... . 4. Some Aspects of Pcircc's Consensus Theory ........ . .... . ... .

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . _ .. . .. ........ .. . . . .. .. .. .. . References ........ ... ... . . . ..................... . • .....

RQtund PQsner

2. Charles Morris and the Behavioral Foundations of Semiotics

I . Inte llectual Development and Specialization .... ... .. .. ..... . . 2. Phases of an Action ... . .. . .. ..... , ....... ... • . ' •. . • ...... 3. Types of Signs .... . .. . .. . .... . ... , ............•.. • ...... 4. Dimensions of Signification .. ... ... .. •• ...•. .•. ... . .•... .. . 5. Oimensions of Sign Use ........ .. •.. . . . .... •. ......... . .. 6. Dimensions of Value . .. .. . ...... .• .. • ...... • ...... •......

Notes . .. . .... . . ... ... . .. . .. . . . .... •. .....•............. Refe~nces ........... . ..... . •. . • . . •.. • . .. • ..• ....... ...

2 , 8

11 18 20

23

23 2. 28 33 39 42 46 53

xii!

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Mart;" Kra~"

3. Ferdinand de Saussure and the Development of Semiology S9

I . On the Biography of de Saussure . ...... .. . . . ... .... . . . .. . .. 59 2. Semiology and Linguistics in de Saussure .... .. ..... . .... ... . 6 1 3. On the Semiological Generalization of de Saussure's Basic

Concepts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 4 . De Saussure's Semiology and Problems of Stl1.J ctura lism ., . ... , . 78 5. Perspectives of SemloJogy ... .•. . , .. ... .. ....... . .. ... .. . . . 83

Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 References .......... . ......... • . . . • . . • . ..... . ..... . .... 86

Jurg~" Traballl

4. Louis Hjelmslev; Glossematics as General Semiotics . .• • . • . • • 89

I . Lll Lll"gut as the General Principle of Semiotic Structure ....... 89 2. The Double·Art iculated or Twice·Polll'led Sign . ..... .. ... .. ... 93 3. Connotation and Metasemiology ..... ... .. .... ... ... , ..... . . 100

NO(es . .. ... . ........... . ..•........ . ...... .. ... • .. . , ... 106 References 108

Um~rto fro

5. The Influence of Roman lakobson on the Development of Semiotics ..... . ... .. ..... . .. .... . . ..... . .... . ... ... . .... . 109

I . The Hislory of an Oslracism .. .. .... . .. .•.. • . ... .. •. • . .. ... 109 2. The Quesl of Semio(ics ... ,. .... . . .. .. . ... . . .... . . . .. ... . . [11 3. The Basic Assumptions .... . . ... . .. • ...•. . . ... • .. • ....... . 113 4 . The Final DeSign .... . .. , . .. ... . .. . . . . . .. . ... . .. . . . ..... . 122

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .. 123

Thoma$ A.. St~ok

6. Kad Balller .... . .... .. ... ... .. . . .. .... .• ..• ..• . .. . .. •. .... 129

I . Background . ... .. .... . . .. . .. . ... ..... . ..... . .... .. . . . ... 129 2 . Blihler and Intimations of Semiotics . . . . .. ... ...• .. • .. .• ..... 13 1 3. Open Questions .. . ..... .. ... .. . . ... .. .... .. •.. • . . .•.. .. . 142

References .. .. .... .. ... . . . .... .. ... ... • .. . • .. • ... •. .. .. 143

CONTENTS

Thurr loon Utxkull

7, The Sign Theory of Jako b von Uexkilll 147

I. Personal History and Field of Research 147 2-----Wbatis Umwc:ltJkseJlICb? 148 3. Umwelt Research and Linguistics .. .. , ...... , . , .... , .... , " 149 4. The Problem of the Sign-Receiver, the Law of "Specific

Life-Energy," and the "Elementary Self' ,. " , " ,. " ' ,' ,. ,, . , 151 5, The "Private" Nature of Signs ", .. " .... "., .. , .... .. ... .. 153 6. The Composition of Man's Ellperienlal Universe Seen as a

Composition of Sign Processes ...... . ..................... 155 7, The Subjective Universe of the Observer as the Kc)' to the

Self·World of thc..AnimaLunder.Ob&er'talion 162 8. The Functional Circle as a Special Case of the Con~

Correlation " .". , . . . ,",., . ,',. ," " "', ." .". , . . , '" 166 9. Essentials of Jakob von UexkilU's Theory of Signs .. , ", .• ,'" 169

10 , Concluding Observations: Attempt at a CompariiOn of Uedo.lI's, Peirce's, Saussure's. and Morris' 1beories of Signs ., . , .. • ..• , 172

Notes .. . , ..... , . , ... .. , , . ... , .... , , . , .. , . , ... , , , .... , ,. 175 References 178

£ugtl1 Batr

8. Thomas A. Sebeok's Doctrine of Signs 181

I. Sebeok's Career and Theoretical Poinl of Departure .. , , , , .... " 181 2. Historical Sketch of the Semiotic Tradition ..... , ... , . , ... ,',. 134 3. Anthroposemiotics and Zoosemi()(ics .. .... .............. . , .. 187 4 . Contributions 10 the Classification of Signs and Sign Systems .... 190 5. Endosemiotics and EIlosemiotics: The Semiotic Self , . , ... , ... .. 195 6. Sebeok's ''Thomism'' .. .... ..... . .... .. .......... ......... 196 7. Forms of Life and Forms of Language ............ , .... , , .... 201 8. Totem and Taboo , .. ... .... .... , .............. , .. ... .. ... 203 9. Semiotics in Transition ........................ • . , ........ 206

Notes ...... ............... . • .. . .. , •. . • . , . , ..• , ...... , .. 207 References .. " .... . " . . , ...... , ...... , ......• ,......... 207

Glossary ............•.. , ...•. • ...•..•. , ' •. . • ' , ....• ' , .. , " 211

Author Index ..... ...... .. ... ... ..... . ' . . ...... . .... .. .. .. .

Subject Index 2.'

CHAPTER 5

Th'e Influence of Roman Jakobson en the Development of Semiotics 1

UMBERTO Eeo

1. THE HISTORY OF AN OSTRACISM

The project of a science studying all possible varieties of sign and the rules gov ming their production. xchange. and interpretation i a rat r ancient one. Pre-Socratic poetry and philo ophy are frequently cone med with the nature of natural ign and divine me age. The Hippocratic tradition deals with the interpretation of ymptom while the S phists were critically con IOU of the power of language. Plato s Cratylus is a treatise on the origins of words. and the Sophist can be considered the first attempt to apply a binary method to semantic definition .

I can also cite the impact of An lotle Poetics and Rhetoric on the study of dramatic plot. metaphorical ub titution , "di course analy i " and "conver­ational rule I and the role played by the Stoic in analyzing lh fundamental

di tinction between semafnon sema;nomenon and pragma. The discu ion on ign became particularly important during the patri tic period and reached a

high level of subtlety from the Modi tae to Ockham. In brief the entire hi tory of philosophy could be re-read in a semiotic

pe pective. Let me mention only the General Grammar of P rt-R yal t seventeenth-century discu sion on the pos ibility of an ars s; norum dive ly called "semaelogia" (Wilkin ).' meiotike Wallis), "sematology '(Oalgamo , or ' emei logia" Kircher until the fundamental propo I of Locke who in the la t book of hi Essa ( 16 ) defines "semiotic • as one of the three a pect of science (along with physics and ethics) as a discipline equal to logic, th

UM8ERTO Eeo • Department 0

109

110 UMBERTO ECO

uin whereof is to consider th nature of isn rh mind make use of for the und rstandin of things, or c nv ying it knowl dg to oth •.

Even w.ithout con idering th philoophies of Hobbe , Hume Berkeley. and Leibniz as explicit contributions to modem semiotic . and even disregarding (as h n frequ ntly d ne out ide Italy) that impre ive arch logy of human languages which is La Sden a Nllo \,'Q by Giambattista Vico, the unque tionabJe tatements of Locke sh uld have been enough to make semiotics an institution­

alized -cience. Y t on rh contrary thi discipline has be n ostracized as uch by th ientific milieu. over th f, tJowing centurie .

o one has uffici.ently valuated th work of J an Henri Lam n. S mioli/C oder Lehre on del' Be eichnuII d,. Gedanken und Dine ( 1764. nor ha anyone remar ed that 'Semioti U j th title of on of the chapte of BoJzano' Wis­se.n chaftslehre (1831 , Husserlin 1890 wrote an ay ntill d lur Lo ik del' Ze; hen (Sem;olik) but thi text r main d unpubJi hed until 1970. The la « and most paradigmatic example i the academic misfortune of C. S. Peirce, which made it possibl for a substantial pan of hi work 10 have remain d undiscovered until no more than four decades ago. Even after this date the "father of semiotics" ha continued to be better known as a metaphysician, a logician. o.r a philosopher of pragmatici m. withoul con id ration being giv n to the fact that his th ught cann t. be really understood unl it is interpreted from a mioti.c point of VIeW,"

A far as the present century is concerned. four authors have sy lematically outlined IheprincipJe of miotic theory: Sau sure, M rri Hjelm lev. and Buy . ens. But Saussure, Hje.lmslev, and Buyssens have always been considered as linguist , and Moni has been considered as aphilo opher.

Moni 's proposal have been partly accepted by logical positivi IS and logicians (more the distinctjon between yntactic. semantic and pragmatic than his skillful classification of various types of signs). A long series of thinkers has connected tho e problems to the ideas of Frege and to the que tions raised by exten ionat mantics viaWitt enslein Tracratus. and Wittgenstein· Phil­osophical .In . estigations (which c ntains a number of important insights on the problems of iconic and ostensive igns. context .. sensitivity. and so on) ha pro­duced many inquiries into the logic of natural languages. But it wou.ld be daring to a en that these problems ha e be n compar d on the on hand ith those rai ed by tructurallingui tic and on (h oth r ith investigation into n nve_ al language (De )orio KJeinpaul. MaJlery. and Efron , to cite only pioneers) as well as with the analyses of poetry folklore. painting movies, and th at r made b the Ru sian FonnaJi ts and their congeners.

Linguists have continued to recognize that foHowing aussure. language should have been inserted into 3. m re general framework , But Saussure only fore w the droit d r existence of hi semiologie withoutgoingfunher, and limited himself to listing somepossibJe applications." Therefore lingui t con­I'inued for years to pay th ir tributtolhe myth of la simiologie and to study

ROMAN JAK08S0N A 0 TH DEV OPME T OF SEMIOTICS 111

with tructuraJ method the nature of verbal language only. Buy n who In 1943 tried to extend linguistic principle t other communicativ havi r. met with a polit fin de non rece\ oir.

The only author who could ha e ucceeded in propo ing a general theo­retical framework for a semiotic theory was Hjelm lev. but hi theory was too abstract his examples concerning other emiotic system very limited and rather parenthetical and hi glo sematic jarg n impenetrable. Hjelm lev as a mlotl­cian has been highly influential in the la t two decade but in order to arrive t

thi tale of the artomething had to happen: an interdi ciplinary earthquake methodological di semination. a udd n t i ting of ientific curio ity. reve al of the trend, a new feeling. aort of newphilo ophical Kunstwoll~n capable of producing culture th t w fund mentally isn-oriented.

Today. semiotic exi t a a discipline (be it unified science or a unifyin point of view methodologically focusing on 8i en 'object' common to different sciences . It is considered an academic discipline in many universitie and in

me countrie is even p po d as a powerful pedagogical t I in primary and high ch I. There is an InternationaJ A ociation for Semiotic Studi many revi ws international meetings. and national ietie . This "re olution· has d vel ped nly during th la t two decade and on may w nder why such a disciplinary c ale cence has taken place ju t now.

There is an anthropological and hi t rical answ r. no d ubt· thfl ugh the pre sure and the technological d velopm nt of ma s media the problem of communication has proved to be th central on of our civilization and it i understandable why many di cipline have c nver d t tudy th eneral law of human and natural ignification. But thi is not enough: for yea the di turbing pr ence of ma m dia had nly u c dedin pr ucing a I t f i logical th ories and a qualitatively irrel vant quantity f mpirical research.

M reover emiotics ev n if it ha d voted om nergy to the study of ma s m dja ha had it al effect by going d per and outHnin tho uprimitiv • syst ms of ignificant interacti n upon which ma media I 0 rely c mpre­hending animal and natural proces such a genetic infonnati n or machine­to-machin interaction. Therefore th anthropologi ai-hi torical explanati n is n t fully ati factory: when peakin f an academi "di min ti n" we mu t al con ider the cataJyzing influen e of given choot and individual w rk .

The aim of the pre ent paper is to demon trate that the major 'cataly tt in the c nt mporary ,. mi ti r cti n' w R man Jak b on .!\

2. THE QUEST OF SEMIOTICS

Ran acking Jakobson' s immene bibJiography to ee out an item explicitly devoted to emiotics may be di appointing. The only bibliogra hical item clearly labeled in thi way is th introductory peech to the First Con r ss of th lASS

112 UMB RTO CO

June 1974, 'Coup d'C%il ur le d~veloppement de la emiotique." Going back­wards from J 974, one realizes that Jakob on aJso wrot two fundamental essays which utline a semiotic land cape but they appear a( first glance to be a generous and comprehen ive picture of the state of "lingui tic' ci nce . M rover th e two essays are quite late: "Language in Relation to Other Communicati n Sys­tem ' (1968) and Lingui tic" 1970) (n w in Main Trends in the S iellce of Language, 1974). This 1 t e say actual1y i a Uttle treati on semiotic und r a misleading title. When reading the other items of lakobson's bibliography, one realizes that despite hi frequent use of the word "semiotic t" ome of the page which have most inftuenced the development of this discipline fail to mention it.

Let me assume that the reason Jakobson never wrole a book onemiotics is that hi entire scientific existence was a living example of a Quest for S miotics. Hi well-known coat of arms (linguista slim: linguist; ; nihil a me alienum puto) should be rephrased a linguista sum: nihil a me ali~num puto. Aiming at under­standing the phenomenon of language in aJl it manifestations , Jakob on dem­onstrates that it i impossible to isolate it from the re t of human behavior. the whole of thi behavior being always SIGNIFICANT. For instance. Jakobson doe not start from verbal language to arrive apres coup at discovering certain analogies between language and folklore. lakobson me ts Petr Bogatyrev 'le premier jour des me ~tud universitaire... et au silot nous avons di cute I besoin d'un cere le de jeunes pour chercher a ~n~tTer le repli du langage et de Ja ~ ie ~crite et rale. 06 Thi was in 1915. In 1929 Ja obson and Bogatyrev wrote "Oi Folklore als eine besondere Form de Schaffen .. 7 in which ome fundamental principle are vig rou Iy tre ed: (a any lingui tic innovation can work only when accepted and integrated by social con n us, and th ame happens with the other communicative system; (b) any semiotic y tem is ub­mined to general semiotic laws and functions as a code; but such code are al linked to specific communities from village to ethnic unit in the am way in which a language produces its ubcodes linked to given profe i ns or activities; (c) the study of a code i concerned with both its ynchronic laws and with their diachronic formadon and transfonnation . Notice that the e ay does not ay that the creations of folklore are products of the language; it ay that folklore is Ihe product of the code of folklore , an independent ystem whose laws are of the same nature as those of language. Obviou Iy a folkloric poem j al mad of word and therefore follows erbal rul • but the lingui tic "competence" i u d in order to "perform" another ··competence.·

According to the famous text written in 1928 by Jakobson and Tynyanov ("Problemy izu~enija lit ratury i jazykan

) it is impo sible to understand the literary series without comparing it to the immanent laws of the other erie. just a it i impo sible to understand the law of v rbal language without con-sidering their interaction with the laws of the other emiolic tern. 9

ROMAN IAKOS N AN TH VE OPM NT OF S MIOTICS 1

A uperficial ob rv r mi ht say that Jakob on ha arrived at linguitie after tudying av nt-garde poetry 1 painting, 11 or folkl re' th truth i that J ob-

n wa al ay studying emiotic when analyzing cubi t and futuri t painting or the tructure of ontemporary and an i nt ve e just he was tudying painting, poetry or cinema wh n peaking of the law of language. J b n wa miotically bi ed fr m his e rly ear: he could not focus n the I w of 'nguag with ut c n idering the wh le of their behavioral b k undo Lan­gua e and the whole culture are mutually implicated and it i difficult to i olate lingui ta fi m cultural anthr pology . 12

It i probable that Ja ob · n beeam d finitely e nvineed of lh po ibility f gen ral mi ie when having di overed the binary lruetu of ph -

ological sy tern h encount red th result f infonnation the ry. F m Ihi point on hi reference to the whole semiotic field becam more and more frequent and Jakob on's influenc on anthr pologi t Uvi-Strau or p "1-choanalyst Lacan) became more and more inten e. Thi int rdi ciplinary con-cience reach i peak between the fi rtie and the e rl fiftie. After th' th

fundam ntal ontributi n foil w: th I in tatem nts to th Confe ne f Anthropologi I and Lingui t at Bloomington Fundam~ntals if Languo I

(with i enlightening compari on between aph ic disturbance. lingui tic • rhet-ric, magic. nd th li activity and the paper "Lingui tic nd Communi-

cation The ry. ,'I' Th semiotic de ign i quite complete. It i n t by hance that preci Iy in rh early ixtie there appeared th fi t y tematic outlin of a semiological theory: 1964 i the year of the fir t draft f Element of Semiolo by Roland Banh and of the publicati n of Communi lion 4. From th t m ment on. emi%8ie r" emiotic" came a conversati n-piece. But the ea of uch a di cu ion which many highbr w critic have mistaken for m fa hi n and charged with impudence belied . mething more lid in it ba kg und: t 0

thou and years of continuou appeal and the catalyzing activity of Roman Jakob n who work. 0 t peak. at last entitled other sch Jars 't try mi t-ic ." By rh arlyixtie ml tiC wa no long r an im ible dream: it wa the re ult of a ucce sfut que t.

3. THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Let me try to li tight a umption n which c ntem rary em. IIC

r arch i ba ically founded. It is easy to ee how the wor of Jak b n ha been of invaluable importance in ma ing each of them widely accepted by the

ientific mili u. Since I hav umed that contemporary ml ue earch arrived at it definitiv tat at the inning of the ixtie, I h 11 take into ace unt th e text Jakob n r le ~ re thi . Referenc t m re nt pape

I

'" UM8ERTO ECO

will be given only as eltlmples of more systcmatic formulation of those early mas.

(I) There is a sign every lime there is a "rl larion d~ r,.m'Oi, ~ a "~ndin8 -back"

relation . in OIher words, when aliquid sral pro aliqllo.

The structure of sign-phenomena as a dialectics between signans and signa/urn was not invented by Jakobson , but the whole work of Jakobson is centcred on this "dramatic" relationship; " le rappon du signe • r objel signifie . el en par­ticulier le rapport de la representation au lipresenle. !cur idenlile elieurdifft!rencc simuhante, son rune des antinomies les plus dramaliquc du , ignc ."') To sum­marize the profound sense o(this basic definition. there is the formula proposed in 1974: ' "Tout ,igne est un r,.",'O; (suivant la fameuse formula aliquid Slot pro ofiquo)," J think there is no other way 10 define semiotics than as the discipline which studies all phenomena (even though they constitute the object of another discipline) which are based upon a relation of refening back ("sending back") to something else. It is a very simple idea. indeed. but it represents the core of the semiOlic enterprise. and it represenu at the same time the core of all linguistic. aesthetic. and scientific curiositles of Jakobson .

(2) Signification is a phenomenon encompassing the entire cullUral universe . There are signs everywhere outside verbal language.

As has been previously said. in Jakobson 's work every diSCUssion on verbal language is always connected with OIher communicative phenomena. Jakobson very early analyzes . along with poetic expression. painting. ,. folklore. 17 music . ,. film and theatre. I . ostensive signs.'" the mutual inftuence between various ans during a given historical period ." the symbolism of sculp(Ure. >l the grammar of traffic signals. Zl and the essentials of culinary an. U He has been the fi~t among the linguists to point to Peirce' s trichotomy (Symbol . IndeK. and Icon) as a basic tool for comprehension of the differences and identities among various types of signs. ll A more comprehensive list of all systems of possible signs came later.'" and the first investigation of gestura] signs seems to be the study on head positions in "yes" and " no."" BUI the early writings as well as the investigations of phonetic behavior, child language, and aphas i.a~ are full of minor observations on the various systems of signification . Approaches to anthropology are e1{plicil in "Franz Boas' Approach to Language.":O and stimulating ideas about the corn· municative nature o f anthropological and sociological systems (fully developed in "Language in Relalion 10 ()(her Communication Systems" and " linguistics .. · .. ') appear in "Results of a Joint Conference of Anlhropologists and linguists" (1952). But il is not by chance Ihat in 1945 Claude Uvi·Strauss, outlining his communicative approach to anthropological phenomena. quoles Jakobson as one of his main sources of inspiration :"

•

ROMAN JAkOBSON AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEM tOTlCS '" As for the communicative aspects of natural life and mechanical appratuses-

01' the analogies between human languages and "languages" in biology and mathematics-i t is sufficient to mention the first of Jalcobson's approaches 10 communication theory" just three years afler the publication of Tht MOIhtmotjcol Thtory o[Communicoljon by Shannon and Weaver, as well as the rttent attention to the genetic code,»

(3) Since there are many types of signs, each embodying a rllolion d~ rtnl'Oi , semiotics must operate with an interdisciplinary transference of laws in order to isolate conSlant or universal mechanisms of signification,

1'he whole bibliography of Jakobwn is a livillg instance of such a procedure, This principle is solemnly stated in 1952 when Jakobson, recalling Saussure and Peirce , points out the necessity for a comparative study of all semiotic systems: the mathematical theory of communication should back linguistics and anthro­pology ill a task to be realized without fearing ei ther new and sOphisticated terminologies or those "analogies" which can prove their fecundity. As. Jiving example of th is interdisciplinary energy, let me cite silt lessons given in 1942'" where Jakobsan analyzes at the same time Poc's poem Tht RaI,tn, its commenllry (The Philosophy of Composition"), and the case of two persons speaking of the perfonnance of the poem itself. given by an actor and broadcast by radio, Jakobson indicates in a masterly way in this multiple interaction of messages. son of model of a complex network of communicative acts: " l 'Ufet deC'isif du [!] Cor~ou vient de son audace l mettre en oeuvre les probl~mes les plus complex.es de la communication."

In this line Jakobson has realized the most daring interdisciplinary trans­ference5, Let me list some of these methodological "transplants," which con­stitute veritable milestooes in our discipl ine:

(a) 1'he linguistic criterion of PERTINENCE applied to music, cinema, folk· lort, and so on,

(b) lbc psychological notion of FR USTRATED EXP£CTATION" applied to metrics and to poetic devices in general.-'" COIl5CqUCTltly the opposition infonnatJonl redundancy viewed as essent ial to the poetic principle ("I' inconnu surgit et frappe seulement sur le fond du CORnU"): ' reformulated as the double order of norm and devial ion,:lI and definit ively organized in 1958:"

(c) The AJNCTIONS OF LA.N'OUAGE (inspired by Bilhler), forecast in 192 1 in NOI't'jJajo russkaja plN:ijo. splendidly repropos.cd in the essay on poetry,'" developed in an interdisciplinary contex.t in "Results of a loint Conference of Anthropologists and linguists," and more systematically stated in "Concluding Statement: linguistics and Poetics," This system of fUnctions, bringing together psychology, information theory : the logical nocion of metalanguage, and the

•

116 UMB RTO CO

a thetic definition f the self .. focu ing quality f w rks of art. has pr ~ undly inftuenc d t d vel pment of miotic tudi all ver rh world.

d) The exten ion of so-calJed BI ARISM from phonol gy (which wa encountering the re uh of mathematicaJ inquirie on lh nature of informati n) to a number of 01 r y tern. h c uld be aid that .in thie Jakob on ha had too much influence beyond his own wishe becau e emioticians have frequently uperimposed binary networks upon phenomena trenuou" Iy re is.ant to them. In any case among the m st famous application f thi principl rank that of Uvi .. Strau (tructureof kin h.ip and the cuJinary triangle and that f

can. wh -re the notion of binary oppoition join the emblematic Freudian alternative "Fort-Oa!'·

(e) The concept (01 n CnvEFEAT RE closely connected with the pre­ceding one. m rer le s extended to a number of other sign.ificant phen mena. Jak on himself ha promoted the exten ion of .hi principl t grammar. 41 and I think Ihat even having allowed many semantiei t to reformulate th ir analy s. chi propo al ha not yet been taken into full account by generative manti s and d ervefunh r aUenlion .

(f) The extension of the pair ODE/MESSAGE from the the ry f (' mmu~ nieation to the entire realm of · mi tics. Thi point ill be dealt with in .4 .

g) The ex.ten i n of the pairs SELECTIO I 0 BINAT10N and ETAPHORJ

M ON MY to magic, cinema, vi ual arts, literature, and apha ic disturbance . .a

Barthe and la an have ingeniou Iy tran tated (hi notion int other fi Id • from f< hion and adv rti. ing to p yeh analy i . Many rh r ha e applied th am pairs to archil cture, object. cultural behavior. and so on. 11 mu t be Ire ed however. that th first compari on betw . n rhetoric and magic ap in 19 7 in. thanalysi of the myth of the statue in Pu hkin .

h Th extension of the principle of Prague POETIC to different .~ rm of an thu establishing the bases of a emiotically ori nted aesthetics. Panic­ular.ly imponant fromlhi point ofi w are rh principle of the ambiguit and

ff·(ocu ing quality of a thetie me ages.4• The ft lIowing qu tati n can itness

to the work d ne by Jakob n in thi fi Id and i a program f, r many of the future inv tigation mad · by many semiotic anal,Y. t f art and literature:

ut r Jlyher hit rie lit. n handlin the urre ti ic metaph r. e could h rdl) P pietu or Lui BUiluer film. Ih Andol" ion 00 nd Th~ Go[d~/t AR' , In man tic feature bel ng not nl '0 the ience r I nguage ut t ihe le

ROM N )AKOB N A 0 H V l PM N EMIOTI S

I d no(

m y pan mi it

117

Many oth r Iran plant c uld be cited . In th mo t 11 ay, f n nn u im rtan i th t ng fr. rt to link hum n . mi ti the bioi gical tran -mi si on of infonnation mainly to th phenomena of geneti coding and oding. and th ref< re the exploitation of the Peircian n tion of index for all ca in which th r i neither intenti n I ender n r intenti nal eiver. Thi referenc t P irce i extrem Iy important t thipoint in ur review tine ne of J

n at hist rical merit h be n pf i · Iy that mi it c n be n i"""'~ today an 'adult" di iplin be u e h impo the conver enc between Hn­gui tic tructurali m and Peirce. It h been also d m n trat y H I n t in­that Jakob on perhap le ten ibl . merg d tructura) lingui tic with Hu .. erlian ph n men J gy; but the h rt-cir uit Peirc PTa u ha n m th n

a merging: it h n a re cu re titution a hi torical ci ntific nt wh po ibiliti have till I finitely xpl ited .

4) All semi tic y terns can be d ribed fr m a unified point of vi w if rh Y ar con ider day ~ m of rul allo iog the neration of mes age .

It wa Saus ure wh ke f "cod d la langue. ~ but it h un ubt dly been Jak n who extrapolated t categ ri from informati n theory and ext nded them to lingui tic and emi lie at lar e. Any funher commentary or d m n-crati n would be prepo ter u . There i , however one point which d rv

me attention. At fir t glan Jakob n eem to be re pon ibJe fi r a c nfu ing gen ralization by whi h the t rm'c • indi at th a ynta tic y t m f pur Iy diffl ntial unit d v id of any meaning for in (ance phonol icat c cf. Fundamentals of Lan ua and c rrelation of tw ri of I m nt y­tematically arranged term to t rm or trin to tring. lh item of th fi t tanding for the item of the second. As a matter of fact. in the act f ping the acceptan of thi n ti n Jakob n appeared clearly on i u f lhi dift; r-enc : (h re i a cod only wh n there i anen mbl of f reca t d ibilitie ba ed upon the c rrelalion f a given ignifier to a gi en ignified. But • the ex eptionally rich 1'1 pen ire f definitely coded m aningful unit m rph m and word i made po i.ble through th diaphanou sy t m of their merely differential components d v id of pr . per m anin (di tincti e ~ ture. ph -nemes and the rule of their combinability) . The component are semi tic ntat, lli ener;s . Th ignatum f th ntUt i th me ,namely a

pre uma Iy mantic difference betw n the meaningful unit to which it pertain and tho e which c , ri paribLl do not contain th ame nlity.' , It would then

118 UMBERTO ECO

be more fruitful to caB tho e systems sui generis simply' systems.' reserving the name code' for the correlations between the element f two different y tem .. • But frequently lakob n peaks of cod in th ca e . 49 Th r a on

is, I think, rooted in th b le concrete attitud that lakobson (faithful to his phenomenologieaJ in piration) ha alway howed. The n ti n of a purely dis­tinctive and differential y tern is a rather ab tract on and could be c nsider d an isolation only from the standpoint of an "algebraic view" such as that of Hjelm lev (see Jakob on and Halle. Fundamentals of Language. The main object of all of Jakobson s research is on the contrary "Ianguage in action. • Th /angue is a theoretical too) u ful for explaining why and h w lan ua e works. Therefore Jakobson cannot think of a phonological system (or of any semiotic analogon of it) as anything other than omething de igned for ignifi­cation. People do not invent phon in order to utter them without any intention of ignifying nor in ord r to contemplate the sy tem without using it : a phon­ological y tem talc it form in order to ompo word (end wed with mean­ing • and therefore ruled by a code in the full en e of the term. hA l'origine du langage phonique ne se trouvent pas de associations d'elemenl depourvu de en qui presentent par la suite un sens ou ont charge de sens. A I'origine se trouvent bien au contraire de association de on qui re~oivent leur forme specifiquement linguistique precisement en vue d'une fonction de significati n et qui ne peuvent etre definies sans recours a cette fonction de ignification . . . Un phoneme e t defini par sa fonction de igne."$O

Thu , playing on this doubJe ense of code. Jakobson ha given up trying to emphasize a sharp methodological distinction in order to preserve the unity of language in action. In many author who have be n inspired by Jak b n this sense of concreteness has been 10 I, and there has remained only a ort of imprecise 0 ciliation between two lingui tic usages of the word • code" see also 3.6 .

lakobson has made many contributions to th best comp h nsion of rh notion of code. Without discussing hi well-known analyses in lingui lic . I I

me recall at least three points: the introduction of the notion of' ubcode ": the important distinction between "coded words' and ·coded matrices of sen­tences, .j' which enlarg s the notion of code to the one of generative grammar and to the many problem of textuaHty which will be di cussed in 3.8: and the decision to study the specific functioning of different types of cod s, a will be shown in 3.5

S) Since there are many types of signs and of codes, behind their homogeneity t diversities should be isolated and described in their mode of production, in their way of' sending-back ,. in their mode of perc ption and memorization

lakobson has always been attentive to this problem. carefully distinguishing lhe mode of being of different signs e pecially when oth r scholars were insi ting

ROMA IAK08S0 AND THE D VElOPMENT OF SEMIOTICS 119

more than nece ary on the ab lute identity between all emiotic phenomena , ~ r in lane ,th outline f the difference bet een vi ual and audit ry

ign . " The pas ion ate propo al of Peirce' central trichotomy tees e exactly thi unitas varietatis uL' inde e t un renvoi du signifiant au signifie en vertu d'une c ntiguite effective, J ic ne e t un renv i du ~ignifiant au ignifie en v nu d'une imilarite f~ ctive' le ymbol e t un renvoi du significant au ignifi~ n vertu dune contiguite a ig • imputed' conventionnelle, habituelle.' In thi con i ' f, nnula th traditionaJ concept of Peirce are rephra d to tre two typical Jak b nian po iti ns: a) if th re i signification there i a

cod and ode are not ph nomena limit d to verbal I nguag or intention ign ; b the pre n of a c doe not n cessarily ent it a tota] arbitTarin

n t even in verbal language. Theref, re iconi m and indexicaJity are pre ent al in verbal language. but coded rules are at work aloin ic nic and indexic I ignificati n: 'Learned c nventi nal c nnection are co-pre nt aloin ind xe n ic n . Th full app hen i n of pi tu and diagram require a) aming

proces . No painting i d void of ideo raphic, ymbolic elements. Th p ~cti n of the three dim nsion onto a ingle plan throu h any kind of pi trial per-pecti e i an imputed quality . . . Any attempt to treat v mal ign oily

conventional , arbitrary ymbol prove to be a mi leading ove implificati n. Iconicity play a va t and nece ary th ugh evidently ubordinate part in dift nt level of Iingui tic tructure.'·" In this same perspecti ev n mou h h has alway advocated th preemin nee of language am ng other sy t m of sign • Jak b n in hi mo I recent e a ha more and more sajd that the mechani m of ther ign cann l be reduced t that f language. In "Lingui tic U he till tre se that U ince, however "the mo t gen raj matrix of ymbolic y t m . . .

is language " lingut tic actually appears to offer the mo t helpful model for uch an analy i ." but in Coup d' ail sur le dlve[oppement de la imiotiqu he make cl ar th t U c ux qui c n id rent I y ·t~m dine d la langue comme le ul ens mble Jigne d'etr~ robjet d la cience des ignes commettent une p!tition d principe. L'egocentri me des lingui tes qui tiennent a xclure de la sph re ~mi tique I ignes organi de a~ n diff~rente qui ne le nt c ux la

langue reduit n fait le emi lique a un simple ynonim de la lingui tique." Studying th ph nomen n of film in his toundingly pione ring paper

"Upadek filmuT he ay Ihat, provid d that the matter of every art i the ign. cinema and theatre are characterized by the fact that they u e as ign real thin , therefi re implicitly elaborating the notion of oSlensi e s; n in the arne paper he point ut the pecific nature of pictoriaJ sign as a mixture of imilarity and e nventi n). In Let film only seems to dLplay re lhing_. since it producc_ ign by in rting th thing wit~in th semiotic correlation of montage. Qu -

ing Kuletov. Jakobson say that "a filmic plane works as a sign, as a letter." The "real thing' i not, however. umed as such by film but i modified a ign" and nly in thi way c m uitable material for cinema. To how only a part f a human body to ignif the entire human being is an e ampJe of

120 UMBERTO ECO

arh toriea) device (pars pro 1010); working by resemblance and connection . film realizes both the principles of metaphor and metonymy. Maquillag inter­acting with light effects is an thee instance of a emiotic device. Every ph -nom non of the external: world i tran fonned into a sign n th screen. Here ilence.as oppo d t mu ic. acquires semi. tic purport . There is a shifting in

semiotic law (at ah level of disc urse-or. a it is said today. at th le\ el ude la grand yntagmatique du film ) in the pa sage from ilenl screen to sound film (the fir t fonowing the laws of vaude\';lIe- vi uaf ketche with written intenni. i ne " cond f; 11 wing tho e of oper .--3n unin. nupted equenc·e of visual. verbal, and mu ieal textures) . Montage realize rules of temporal and ·causal significarion' in sound film it follows the roles of the ancient epic poetry. In theatre--<>n the contrary--human behavior rather than real things is to be semioticized.

Even though in this short say Jakobson i considering the opinion of many film tbeorist of his time, his paper is the fj,rst attempt torganize the paraphernalia of early film theory into a real. code. What is even more amazing is that this paper contains virtually all the elements of the emiotic theories of film born in the early sixties. At the same time this paper so.lemnly states that there are codes other than verbal on and that each of them follow pecific rules: Dan I"artt cc rut le role du cinema qui revela clairemenc et neUemenl .. . que Jalangue ntest qU'un des syste.mes semantiques po sibJe , c mme I a tronomie ~vela autrefoi que la terre n clair qu une plan le panni beaucoup d autres et permit aussi une revolution compl~te de notf vi ion du monde. t ·

(6) A semiotic [he~ry must naturally be concerned with the syntactic StructUIi of th sign·vehicles of the different systems' but it also must take into account the fact that thoo systems even though appearing a purely syn­tactic allow th semantic interpretations of their combinatory possibilities.

In 1919t peaki.ng of futuri rn, cubi m, and non-repre entational painting.~ Jakob on ub tantiaJJy anticipate (without making recourse to mi tic termi­nology) what is better defined in Coup d' «if ur It dlveJoppement de la sl mio· lique 1974) that i , lhe functi n of intemal and mutua) renvoi perfoml d by all the I nt f a purely yntactic . u nce: 'La signitiance d m u u -jacente A toutes le manife tation de I artifice ." In 19 2;\ peaking of mu. le logy and Ungui tic . Jaknassigns rh mu i.c I ound to t kin dom of ign by a on of Hu [Jian d finition: the el ments of mu it are not imp) und ( nic ub t nc ) but count inofar a~ they are. th g al of an int nt;onal act. S und in mu ic work eJ m nr of a yrem and acquire a value according t pe ilk criteria of pertinence: a primitive who makeiimbre pertinent in lead of pit h th am m -lody what a ur pean ~ Is a tw dif~renl

locli pt y . on two difflrent in trument . Inthi e ay the phonological concept f oPPO iti n i pre nled a a capital rool for the tudy f mu i al

ROMAN JAkOBSON AND THE O£V£lOPM[NT Of SEMIOTICS '" systems. 11 is from this es$f.~, as well," fmm the investigations of the phoIIo::mic entities." that I quaner of century latcr thcn: springs the first significant internts in • lingui$tic BPI"'>""h to music (see mainly Springer, Ruwet , Uvi-Stnuss, Scllacffer, and Nauiez)."

For this n:a.."., Jakobwn. even though ..;imining that then: aK pun:ly syntactic ~ystems sIKh" ChCH (what Hjclmslev called 6)'mbolk Iyllcms, as opposed to the semiotic ones). iml'rlediately tries to fioo within them the pos. sibil ity of an internal significatioo: "Le n:nvoi d'un fait ~miotique }, un rait ~uivalent ll'intemur du mtl'rle oontute. . . Le n:nV(li musical qui noIIS OOflduit du tOO pn!sent au ton attendu ou gard.! dan.la mtmoin: se tTOll"" n:mplar;t dins I, pcintun: abstl1lile par un n:nvoi ~iproque ok5 far; teurs en jeu.· .... When then: is. IS in music. "un langage qui se signifie soi-mtl'rle:' Hdivendy built and ranked I"'",neli.m. of 5truCIIln: enable the: inlcrpn:tcr of lII1y ;mrnedia1Cly per­ccived musical signaM to infer and anticip.1C a further con-esponding oomtituertt (c.g., sen.:s) aoo the ~n:nt ensemblc of these OOfISlituents ... "The code of rroognized C"quivalcllCCs between pans and their con-elation with the wholc is to. gn:at degn:c a learned. imputcd ..,t of 1"'",lIclisms which aK IoCCCped IS such in the r",l'rIewor\l; of a given epoch. CUI1Un:. or musical school.''''

(7) A semiOlic theory is 1101 on ly concerned with the structun: of sign-vehicles but abo with the lInKtun: of the univclX of ""hicullted contcnts . Tben: cannot be. semiOlics without incOipoilting a semlntics. Th is semantics is DOl only an extensional one (as is the study of the correspondence between signs aoo things or statcs of the world) but also and especiall y an intensional one, Ihal i •. the study of lhe way in which the: universe of sense is culturally organized.

JaI;obson has always n:fused to e~cllI!Ie the study of l'rIeaning from linguistics. ~ording also to hi. Husserli an inspil1llion and to the cxplicitluumption of the Prague Circle principles .... hich he elaborated joinlly with hi s Czech and Russian friends. "' ·Thcn:fon: he repeatedly states that la) then: is . substantial difference betwcen scnse or meaning or signified aoo men: del1Olata'" 100 (b) the natun: of the signified canDO( be e~pl.ined but by makinS n:ootllX to Peitu's DO(iOD of "interpretan"':" aglin5lthe naive confusion between "inlc!prt:lantH aoo " intcr· preter" Jakobson demonstrates that to interpret a semiOlic i1Cm l'rIeans to '1TInS­laic" it into another itcm (maybe an cntin: di!lCOUnc) and that Ihi . t",nslation is always creltiVC'ly cnnching the fi~t itcm .... this OOfItinuOlls cn:ltivity being the main n:sult of Peircc's "unlimited semi05is.'- lt is "'ther astouooing to fioo I first 5IIggcstioo of the rompos;tionaJ analysis of ~b1tChelor" in I text"' when: semantic markers an: \'iewed as Pein::ian interpretants. while the identity hetween intcrpn:tanl as pun: synonymy is denied. Aoo in 19'2'" Jakob!iO!\ stn:ssed that a stnKlUIlII analysis of 1'rIe1nins consist~ in an in""stiJ!!ation of sclTtll"ltic invariants just as a structuIlII analysis of sisniliers in I .ngu.~ oonsisu in I structural

UMBUTO {CO

analysis of phonololkal invarianlS. Mo«: recently, after ~a" of semiotic Olym­pic .. me< on unmarried men , seals, and youn, h i,hts, it it st ill Jakobson who has isolated in the I'I'IOSt concis.e way lhe invariant urxkrlyin, .n the s.enses of "bachelor," that is. "q~lqu ' un dont I. cat'fi!~ est inachevk: .... Finally the tnl on Pushkin of 1937 ~pres.enlS one of the R"te~.mples of the anatysis ofs.emantic Slructu~S at work wilhin • tut: re51 .nd movement, death and life, livinll and sti ll maller. Viewed IS Ibstract roles Il$sumed by the image of the stacue in Pushkin's poetry. this work is a Slt i sfactory~ven thoullh not yel formalized­instance of IlIIOlyse Q" fmrdtllt recalling Uvi·Strauss·s organizat ion of mythic conttnt. Lotman', analyses of cultural Iypologiu, and Greimas' structural semantia.

(Ij In every si.,. cxchanle Ihtre arc not only isolated items: semiotics must. as does contemporary linguiSlics, shift from • theory of sinlle tcnns and "phrases" to I ro-tut and context theory. Thi. l lso means that semiocies should incOf1lOl1lte not on ly syntactics and semant ics but also pralmatics.

A $Chain who hll$ a1way. been concerned with language in action cannot but have continLlO\lsly offered suggestions lbout the problem of contex t sensitivity and uUerance-in;;ircllmstance. It is ellO\llh 10 qUQle. Il$ a1inlluistic and semiOlic introduction 10 pralmalics. lhe rese~h on the shiners"" where Jakobson sub­sumes within the framework. of linl Uistic research sUll8estions coming from Husserl . Russell. and Camap. In any case, rhe earliest studies on the Russian vcrb" seem to lIIkc into full account the problems that are today discussed by many di$Ciplincs under the heading of the pragmatics of natural langllages. presupposition, and semantic entailment. All these interests arc: revisited in a more systematic and propulsive way in "!.anluage in Relation to Other Com­munication Systems" (the problem of context-sensitivity and of the difference between idiomorphic si.,.. Ind signs clpable of building propositions) and "Lin­,uiSlies~ (hi,her units of discourse Il$ "reldy made" and roded tuu. discursive competence, or rompetcllCt' in dialolK rules).

4_ THE fiNAL DESIGN

In 1933. commenting on the activity of the Prague Circle. Jakobson underlined the fact that thlt lrouP had worked in • struCtllQI and phcnomcnological per­sp«ti~ in order to make available I rich material for I general theory of signs or semiolo,y." In 1970 he se, up I sort of Icneral deRnition of semiOlies that ever)' student could today take as a suitable characterization of his discipline Ind as I program for funher enquiries:

Th< .ubjttt maIIt, of ..",:..tio i. ,he oommunio .. ion of any",.. .. ,... _ ... . • . h«< .. ,he field of tin,.i .. "" is .,."mr>e<! to """' ..... io .. ion of ,'trbol ",.. ..... .

ROMA JAKOBSON A D THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEMIOTICS

Hence. of these two iences or man the latter narrower ope. yet. on the other hand, any human communicar' non·verbal me ge presuppo I circuit of ve I me . ut re e implic li . If the cycle of mi ic di 'pline is the neare.st one to en m lingui tie . the next. wider ncentric circle i the t lhy of communic ti di ipline .. . . It Lt j. 8 ve the cl t deline li f lhi u I matter and ~ he I unched the mo I uempt .. interpriter I i~t~ d n n ensem le en fonctin d'une c mmuni· C lion." He trive I ward an inleg led ienee of communi lion hi h Id embrace i I anthropol • economic'S. and Hngui tics. or let u re pI .he I lter

neepc by wider noli n of mi ic .... In ny event semi tic occup' I cen I positi n ithin the total ienc of mmunicati nd underli all other pro inee of thi science. while semi ic. in turn. compri lingui tic a its central which inftuenc It her miocic provinces. Three inle led tencc e m e h other and present three raduaJly increasin degrees f nerality:

I. Study in c mmuni ati n of verb I me age - lingui tic : 2. Study in communicati n f any me age - semi ic c mmunic ti n

message implied ' 3. Study in c mmunicali n sod 1 anthropol 8 jointl ilh rni rn-

mun ti n of me g impl cd .

123

I wonder if even the third level hould not fall under the h adin of . . rnl

at least as far as relation of renvoi can be found here. But th th ught of Jakobson is an intimately diaJectic one and the wing f the inner radiu in thi c ncentric diagram d n t exclude the po ibility that from a narrow r circl~ the widest ones can be focused.

In any ca if one accept this proposal of a miotic design as a d finition of the tate of the art and a a promi ' for the future one hould y that from 1914'" until n w- buy-two y in all-R man Jak b h coh renlly w~·--­to make both thi pr posaJ and thi promise uitable.

NOTES

2.

tmar Hole ein. Jalc

. u lanliaJ re pp i.1 of Pcirce e in J • "Re ult f a J int on erence (Anth pologi I nd Lingui I .. (19 2. tltC'tttl Wr;tinR 11 (The Ha \le. 1971 . pp. 554-67: • eluding Statement: Lingui lie and Poeti .. 19 8 • S,ylt in ton ungt. cd. Th m . Scbe

ew yortt. 19(0). pp. 35 77: " la he he de l' sence du I ng e." ;0 n. 1 1965

UMBERTO ECO

and Problbnt'1 dll lunlugt' (Paris. 19(6). pp. 22-38 IKC . Iso "Quest for the Essence of Lan·

gu •• " Diugint's.:5 1 (Monllal . 19(6).21-37. and St'futNl Writings 11. pp. 34~:591; " Lan· guage in Relation 10 Othtr Communic"ion Systems." UngllQggi nt'/lu sOC"it'IQ t' nt'/lu It'''nim.

ConvegllO pomosso d.Ua Ing. C. O livelli and Co .. S .p .A . pel il ccnlenario dell. nascill d i

e.mino Olivelli (Milan. 1970). pp. 3-16; " Unguiuics." MQin Trt'nds o[RtJt'Qrrh in tht' Svr'iQ/ Qnd HllmQn S<itlft:u I; and C""p aa-it sur It d/l·t'lvpfH""nt rh la s/",imiqut.

4 . "La contribulion a~ par Ferdinand de Slussure au progrh des t ludts 5tmiotiqucs est

tvidemlMnl plus modesle el plus reslreinte .. . Conlrairemtnt iI Peirce ell Husserl, IOUS k:s

deUK ronlCiems d ' lvoir jelt le. fondemtnts de 11 ~miotiquc, Saussure ne park: de I. ~miol08ic

qu ' au futur ." (Ja .... obson. C""P aa'iI fUr It' db-t' /"PfIt'flUn' dt' lu s/rnimiqut'l . :5 . Sharing a precilllC theory of human hislOf)' as • collectivc product. I believc tl1ll the developmclll

of the historical novel would hive been nearly the »mt even without the uislencc of Wllter

So:on Coni), logicians would have changed !heir ICKarnpIes apcopos of the.ulhot of W, ... ,r/t'.' ·)' But

Ihcrt is some diffelmCC bttW«n a cult of personality and !he ~ «cordc1.1a matler of fact , 6 . " De 11 ~ie ilia linguislique:' L 'Are, 60 (l97:51.

7, DOiIWfI /IIU/o/kill'" ScllrijNn fNijmeren-Utruhl . 1929). pp. 900- 13; also in R . Jakobson , St'/«INl Wrilings IV (The Hlgue: Mouton. 19(6). pp. 1- 1:5.

I . NOI-yi Ltf. 12 (1928). 36-37, and R,t:ldi"gs ill Runiu" PiNlirs, cd. L. Mltcjka (A nn Atbor. 1962). pp , 99- 102.

9 . Cf. the way in " 'lIich the poems of Pudl .... in are un(\et$tood in the li,l1t of a reference 10 sculpture

/Jakobson . ~SocI1. v symbolice Pu!kinovt." 510\'0 Q sIO\'wlOs, 111119371. 2-24; KC also"La

SUllue dans la symbolique de Poucllkine," QII'lllo", d, Po/,Iq"' [Paris: Edilions du Seui l ,

19731, pp. 1:52-39. and PIlWII aM His SrlllP'lUaf Mylh IThe H.gue: Mouton , 197:511: literary

signs speak o f visu.l si,ns. both referring back 10. strMntic s)'stem ofmtlaph ysical oppositions,

such H Ufe and De.tl1.

10. /IIo"rjJQja nmlcQja poi: /ja I Pnilgue. 192 1): see also " Fragments de ' La Nouvel1e pot~ie ouse' ," QutJtWnI d" PoIliqu,. pp. 11- 24 .

11. "Futurizm ." Islcuuo"O. 7 (August 2. 1919) •• Iso in QlltJ/ions dt' PoIliq"', pp. 2~30 .

12 . " Rffilhs of a Joi nt Conrere~ or Anll1ropologislS and Ling"ists,~ " Again and Igain one may

qlllXe Sapir's Itill opportune IICminder Ihll 'every cul lural pallem.nd evel)' single act of social

bell.viol' i n ~oh'es communication ineilher InIC~plicil or implic it ~nse'" C'Lan,u',e in Relation 10 Other Communicalion Systems:' LingllOul IIt'lIu wcitul, ntllu tt"flku [Milan , 1970]1.

13. Wrinen jointly with M. Hark: . nd published a~ Janua Lin,uarum. strie5 minor. I (The Hague:

MOUIOll , 19:561.

14. Sir/IN"" of LAfIlllOg, and lIS Muth'mQli('ol AsfWCIJ. i'd. R. Jl kobson [ - Procudi"gs of SY"'fIOsit:l in AppliNl Mmh,tnOliC's. XII) (American Mathemalical Sociely. 1961 ). 24~:52 .

1:5. "Soclll ~ symboli« Pu' .... ino~·~ .~ " Pourqooi faul·i l soolilner que k: signe ne se: confond JY~

" .« l'objed1 PaI"Cc qu" cOlt de la conscience immedilte de ridenl ill' entre le si,ne et rohjet lA eSI A) , I. conscience immediate de 1·.b5ence de ceUe idcntil~ (A n'"1 pn A) eSI ntcessairc : cenc anlinomie esl ilJl!vitable. Cll" SIns contradiction. il n'y a pas de jeu de concepts, il n 'y I

pas de jeu des signes. le rappon cnlllC le concept et le signe devienl aUlomatique. k: COIIIS des t\'elltments ,'arrele. la conscience de I. n!alill' se mcUft~ ("Co je poesieT Vo/,,/ s"'/' y. 30

IPngue. 1934J . pp. 229-39; ' 'Ou 'tst-cc que ,. potsie?" Q,"sfiOflJ dt PoIliqut'. pp. 11J-261.

16, " Futurizm." l sA:uSJt .. o 7 (AuluS! 2. 19 19).

17. Wilh p , BoglI)'lICv . " Djc Folklore 1I1~ eine be.ondcrc Form des ScharfenJ~ (19291.

Ig ... Musik .... isscnschaft und Linguistik:' Pro~" P"SJt'. December 7. 1932: SC"C .Iso " Musicolo,:ie et linguist ique. ~ QlltJ,iOl/s dt' PoIlIq", . pp. 102....(}4.

19. MUpadck IilmuT Lilt)" pro "!fI/"'/ U kri,iku I fPnilgue . 19331, 4H9; KC also "Dkadcnce du

cinema?" Q",sliorrs dt' PoIllq",. pp. IO~12 .

20. Ibid. •

ROMAN 'AKOSSON AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEMIOTICS

21 . ' ''fhr; Domirl.1nt~ (193.5) . R~DdrIlIJ III RIlJJ;all P~lkJ: F (WmtJliJI aNi SI",C'lllraIiJI Vi~"" . ~ .

L, Malejka and K. Porno;,nka (Ann Arbor . 1971). pp. 82- 81 . 22. "Sot'ha v lymbolice Pu~kinovt . "

23 . ' 'Concluding Stllement: Lingui'llics Ind Poetics~ (1958). 24. "Sz<:l.upak po polsku. ·· P,uc~ Pa/OIliJtyfin~ . 20 (1965), 132-41 1IIIIiln trlnslJlion: Pr~1MJS~

di s/Or;a Itfltra,ia (Milano: SaBliat~. 197511 . 25. "Relll lt~ of I Joint C()f1rere~ or Anthropoloai'll§ Ind Linguists" ( 1952); '"On Visual and

Auditory Signs." Phontliro. 11 11964), 216-ZQ. and StftC'lnJ Wrllin" 11 . 334-37; ' 'Quest ror the Eu ence of un,ulge" (19661; Ind "About the Relation between Villlll and Auditory Signs. ~ Modtls/oT Iltt PuC'tptimt ofS",,,,hand ViSllal Form . ~ . W. Wluen· Dun ICambridse. Mas, ., 19(7). pp. 1- 7. and MlmnJ Wrilill"II . pp. )]&-44 .

26. "'Llnsuasc in Relation 10 Other Communication Systems"' ( 1968); "LinguiSlin,4 Main T"nds of RtJ~arcll in Iht Social alld HllmtJn Scitl'lC'u I (1970); and COI4P cl <ri/ Jllr It dl\·,iopfWl'ltn, d~ la slntra/iqllt (1974).

27. "0. i neI v mimike," Ja:}'1t j t tIO\"tt . N . V. A. Zvesinctv (Moscow. 1970). pp. 284-89. Ind S~I","d WrilinRI 11 . 360-65: see Ilsa "' MOIor SilnS for ' Yes' and ·No·.

R

LanRIIOR~ in Socitf)·. 1 11971J.

28. K;ndtrspracltt . ApllaJit Ilnd al/gtmt ,nt Lall1ltftl:t (Uppsal • . 1941). and St/mtd Wrl/in,' 1 (2nd cd: The Hague: Mouton . 197 1). 32&-401; set I lso Child Lan,lla,t, Aphasia. alld Pllorwi06ical Un ;l·t rw/s 1- Janua Unguarum. series minor, 721 (The Hague: Mouton . 1972).

29. Inltrnol;orral }QIlrna/ of Amtriran Unll/Islia. 10 (1944), 188-95: PONrailS of Unlll/m 11, ed. T. A. Stbeolc (Bl00mington: Indianl Uni~rsity Press, 19(6). 121-39; Ind St/mtd Wri,· in~s . 11 . 477- 96.

30. Cf. lIOfe 26. 31 . C . Uv;·StrlUu. "L' l nalyse stnIClurale en linguiSliquc: et en Inlhropolo,ie ." Word , 1. 2(1945).

By eUmininllhc foolnotes of many books Ind papen one rather frequentl y discovt11 thlt l lot of provoeative ideu hive come from I "personal communicl'ion" by RonUIn Jlltobson. [!] This Jenerosity in g;vinl frnh lIIlIe5lions . whether to old collealutS 01' to younl 5tllCknl5. is one of the main featurn of Jakobson ' s pcfSOllllity.

32. "Results of a Joint Conference of Anthmpologi'lls and Unsui'lls" (19521. 33. "Un8uistics .~ Main Tm.ds of Rtstorclt ill lit, Sociol and Hllman 5citM'tl I. 34 . Later published as "Langulle in Opention." MllanltJ Alt;fondr~ Ka,·rll (PlriS. 1964), 2tr9-

81 . J5. "Concludinl Statemcnt:'Un8u;stks and Poetics" (1958). 36. 0 I tIsItom Slift prtimIlUn"·tnflO I ' JopDJrarltnil J r"Jlkiml - Sborni lti po ltorl / pM,ilntalo

jo:.I'la V] (Beriin·M05I:ow. 1923); "Coodudinl SlIlemelll: U ngui)1ic$ Ind Poetics" (1958); "' Unguislin and Communication The()r)'~ ( J961 ).

31 . NOI,tjlaja rllfJkajo pcH= ijo {$CC lIOfe 10]. 38 . "Randbcmerkungen zur Prosa des Dichters Ptostemak:' S/QI'iJC"ht RlllldJrholl VII ( 1935). 357-

74 . ] 9 . "Concluding Slalemenl: Lingui"ic$ and Poctks." 40. "Co ~ poesie'!' (1934) [Kt noIe 151. 41 . "Zur StrukuI des ru» ischcn Verbumi ," CltarlJ/~ria vl'iltlma Ma/huia (Pnglle , 1932), pp. 14-

84 . and Stltc'td WrilinRJU . 3-15; " 8ei111l8 zur I lIgcme;nen Kuus lchrt ." Tral'alU dll C~rrft Linl"iJ' iqlt d~ Pra~llt. 6 11936). Z40-88 . and S~I"'/~d Wrilin~J 11 . 23-71 ; and "Sou' Vie"" of Grammatical Meaning" ( 1959) .

• 2. F'l/Idamtn lrJl, <Jf LangllO~' 11956). 4] . ' 'Coodudins Statement: Unguistks and Poetics" (1958). 44 . ''Concluding Statement: Linguistics and Poctics, ~ Sryl~ i ll lAn~IlQ~~ pp. )50-51 . Apropos of

one of the poetic devices mosl brilliantly pointed OUI by Jakobson. panllelism. It should be

1 .. ~

126 UMBERTO Eeo

remarked Ulat he his devoted ronsiderable erfOl'1tQ clucid.tinlthe 5Cmiolk role of the VllrlouS

types of symmetry rene<:ted in the diverse uses of panllIelism . Cf, "GDmmllk.r Parallcli~m and lIS Russian Facets:' LDn&lIO&t. 4Z (1966). 399-429. and -rhe Modular Desiln of Chinese Regulated Verse, ~ t~lwn~ts tl CommunicaliOlfs: M~lon&ts oJItNS d Claude U I'i.s"ouSJ (The

Hague: Mouton, 1971)). pp, 597-605. where he stresses the striking simi larity bet" 'cen the types of symmetry In Chinese dlnical velW and the approach 10 these problems in the lheories of Chinese physic iMS.

45. "langUAge in Relalion 10 OI:her Communicalion Systems" ( 195g): "LinguisticsH (1 970). 46. "Lingu istics and Communication Thcary~ (196 11, 47. "Langu.ge in Relation to OI:her Communicalion SyMemsH (1968). 48, Sce my proposals W. Eoo. A Theory of Semiolics [Bl00mington: Indi.na Univcni ty PreSl.

1976)1 for distinluishing between s-codes (Of codes as systems) and codes UN I COllN .

49. For instance in "LanlUlle in Rclal ion to Other Communication Sys.tems .H Un&IW8&i ntlla socitld t ntlla lu nica (Milan, 1970). 1.4: "This «Jde ilK'ludes all the diSlilK'tive feltures to be manipulated, aUthe admisible combinations into bundles of toooccurrent features tel'lTlCd phOlttmts, and all the rules of conealenating phonemes into sequclK'es-brieny. all the dis­tinctive vehic les sel"ling primarily 10 diffenntiate ~mes and whole words."

.so. HoIenstein. Jokobson . pp. 96. 202. 5 1. "LinSUi5tics. - Main TmlliJ of RtsMrch in Ihe Social ami Human Sciences I ( 1970), 52. '"On Visual and A.uditory Si,ns" (1964) and ,oAboutthe Relation between Visual and Auditory

Silns" (]969) [sce note 251. 53, Coup tf(til Jur It dil"tlopptmenl dt la J~miOliqut ( 1974) . .54. ·"l . .anguagc in Relation to OI:her Communication Systems" ( 1968). 55. Main TrtMS of Rtseard, in Iht Sodal OM Human ScitnctJ I ( 1970) . .56. "Futurizm." lskusSIl'Q 7. 57. ~Musikwiucnschaft und Linguistik- (1 932). 58, Sct!. fOf inSlllK'e. '"On lhe (denlitkalion of PhoMmic Entities:' Tra"""'l d" C trt:lt linl(uilliqut

dt COfWnM8ue. 5 (1949), 2OS- 1J (.Iso in Stltcltd WrilinRs I. 41 8--25): and FUMomtn/(lIJ of LDngua8e.

59. For an introductory bibliOlDphy, sec Musiqllt tn Jeu, 5 (1971). 60 . Coup rfrril sur It db'tlopptmtnl dt la sl,"iOfiqut ( 1974). 61 . "Lang l.llle in Relation to Other Communical ion Systems~ (1968) . 62. 1llHis 8 in '7htses prtsen~$ 11.1 Premier Conglts des phi lolOj!ucs stlveS:' Tra>'aILt du Ctrclt

L;nRuislique de Pra~ut 1 ( 1929), .5-29: I lso in A Pralfut School Rtadtr in LinguiJlics. ed. Joscph Vachek (Bloomington: Indian. UniYenily Press. 19(4), p. 55 ,

63. "La phCnomenolosic modcmc dl!masquc sy1(~mltiqucment Ics fict ions lin!uistiqucs et montre avcc lucidit~ I. d;"~rence fondlmentalc qui Sl'pare le signe de r objcl si,nifi~ . la ,ignification d'un mol et le C<I/Itenu que vise cette signification," "Co jc poesic7' ( 1934).

64. "ResullS of a Joint Conference of Anthropolclists I nd Linguists" , (952). 6.5 , "On Linguistic Aspects of Transl.tion" (1959) (sec note 661. 66. Sce specifica lly '"On Linguistic AspectS of Translllion," On Tronslalion (Camboole, Mass ,:

Hal"lard Univenity Press. I nd New yort: OKford Univenity Press , 1966), pp, 232- 39. with the list of various types of intel'l'fC'tation: intra-linguistic trans lation or rewordinl . interlinguistic tnnsl.tion, intelWmiOlic transmutation . A.propos of the possibil ities of intersemiOlic trans­mutation ttn nsposition from verbal to visual and soon). sec the rem.rts in Essais dt linguisliqut Rln/ralt (PUl$. Minuit . 19(3) (on aphasic impairTMnts in chi ldren). On the creativity of e very interpretation, sec in "R.ndbemcrkungen zur Prosa des Dichten PlSlemak" a provOC'lIivc definition of metaphorical and metonymical substitut ions in poetry as " intCTpfClllions" (Pe ireian tenninolo, y is s.till abse nt , but here one witllelS an enllflCment of the notion 0( intcrpft"tant to poelic procedures).

•