On the Hemisphere by Jury Lottman - Essay Example

Rhetorical Analysis: On The Semiosphere by Juri Lotman Semiotics, which is the study of signs and communication systems, had been presented with an all-new approach when Juri Lotman put forth his theory of ‘Semiosphere’. This essay is a rhetorical analysis of the path breaking work of Lotman, On the semiosphere. In his essay, Lotman has given a new dimension and a comprehensive frame work to the concept of semiosis, the communication process using different sign systems. He has attempted to prove that just like the “biosphere” concept formulated by V.I.Vernadsky, it is possible to imagine “semiosphere”, which is a “specific sphere, possessing signs, which are assigned to the enclosed space” (Lotman, 207). He has further defined the semiosphere, or the semiotic universe, as “the totality of individual texts and isolated languages as they relate to each other” (Lotman, 208). According to Lotman, this is analogous to the “living matter [as envisaged by Verdansky and which] is already considered as an organic unity-a film on the surface on the planet- […] to become a mechanism of the transformation of energy, received from the sun into the chemical physical energy of the earth,- which according to Verdansky, reveals the primacy of the biosphere relative to the individual organism” (207). Here, the primacy of the whole over the singular, is emphasized. Lotman has extended this approach to the process of communication basically to provide information and to persuade the readers into accepting his arguments. According to this perspective, a language or a sign has no independent existence apart from being embedded in the semiosphere in which it exists. A language, on its own, is a semiosphere and also is embedded in a greater all-encompassing universal semiosphere. This is explained by Lotman in a common man’s language when he says: Just as, by sticking together individual steaks, we don’t obtain a calf, but by cutting up a calf, we may obtain steaks, -in summarizing separate semiotic acts, we don’t obtain a semiotic universe. On the contrary, only the existence of such a universe-the semiosphere- makes the specific signatory act real. (208). Here, Lotman has successfully put forth an example which could make his complex arguments very clear to even a lay person, through the use of analogy. The allegory is easy to understand for the reader. The overall conclusion that this essay arrives at is that, “the levels of the semiosphere comprise an inter-connected group of semiospheres, each of them being simultaneously both participant in the dialogue (as part of the semiosphere) and the space of dialogue (the semiosphere as a whole)” (Lotman, 205). Lotman has started his essay by referring to the two major schools of thought in semiotics, one the Saussurian school which focuses on the ‘act of communication’ and the Piercean school which stresses on the ‘sign’, the basic, coded, element of communication (205). Then he moves ahead to point out that both these schools have some thing in common, which is the stress that they give either to a single communication act or a single sign, ie; a single, atomic element (Lotman, 206). By describing this background, Lotman starts a logical reasoning process by giving chronological data and putting it as a block in the very beginning of the essay. He has argued that, in this way, “the individual act of sign exchange has come to be regarded as a model of natural language […] -as universal semiotic models” (Lotman, 206). In the next step of his rhetoric, Lotman has contested this conventional thought. He has opined that, this kind of reasoning is part of the traditional and flawed scientific thinking, where one is tempted always to move “from the simple to the complex’, and whereby one gets trapped into attributing a character to the object of study, just because it provided some convenience to make an analysis (Lotman, 206). In this way, Lotman has been applying the method of logos which says that the study of communication, or the study of semiosis, should not start from a single sign or a single act of communication but rather from a holistic approach. And it is after this logical conclusion, that Lotman links his concept of semiosis with the concept of biosphere. Once, Lotman argumentatively established that a semiosphere exists just like the biosphere, he has attempted to define the characteristics of the semiosphere. Here, Lotman has observed that every semiosphere has a boundary (208). To explain this, once again, he has used a concept borrowed from common knowledge to prove his point. As basic mathematical principles are familiar to all, this technique of analogy helps him to describe his concept. He has said: Just as in Mathematics, the border represents a multiplicity of points, belonging simultaneously to both the internal and external space, the semiotic border is represented by the sum of bilingual translatable ‘filters’, passing through which the text is translated into another language (or languages), situated outside the given semiosphere. (Lotman, 208-209). Another example which he has used also has the ability to cater to the comprehension of common man. It is that, “the border points of the semiosphere may be likened to sensory receptors, which transfer external stimuli into the language of our nervous system” (Lotman, 209). Here, the method of accumulation is used by the author to give further weightage to his arguments. This is why examples from mathematics and biology are used to prove the same point. By using such examples, Lotman has given a simple presentation to his complex ideas. At this juncture of Lotman’s rhetoric, the concept of a border is aptly linked with concepts of individuality and universality (209-210). Lotman has developed this thought process by saying that the sheer existence of a border imparts individuality to what is inside it, the border proves that it is distinct from what is outside (210). He has added here that the just like the notion about the boundary of a personality is subjective (to show this, he cites the example of the Russian political tradition where a Tsar executes his enemy, the family members and servants of that person are also executed along with him. This is because, all of them are viewed by Russians as the extension of that single man’s personality). Similarly, Lotman has argued, the personality of a semiosphere is also partially defined by itself and partially attributed by those who are outside it (210). By citing the example of the Russian executions, Lotman has succeeded to appeal to the ethical and emotional sensors of the minds of the readers. This will have the effect of evoking interest, and provoking critical thought. Again, Lotman has invoked the example of a cell in the body of an organism to show that just like a cell accepts “external chemical materials” inside it only after they are transformed into the “internal biochemical structures characteristic of it”, a semiosphere can also accept outside information only when it is translated into its own language by way of the filters in the border (210). Hence, it is argued that in a given semiosphere, the maximum semiotic processes occur at the boundary (Lotman, 212). Also any ‘ordered’ semiosphere has a tendency to create a “chaotic” external sphere, which the members inside name, “savages” or “barbarians” (Lotman, 213). By the apposition of these two aspects, Lotman has used them to prove that “the crossing point of the boundary […] depends upon the position of the observer (213). From this point onwards, Lotman is challenged with the task of describing the real processes that happens inside a semiosphere (because these processes are multifaceted and multidimensional). This is why initially he has said, “Semiotic space is characterized by the presence of nuclear structures (frequently multiple) and a visibly organized more amorphous semiotic world gravitating towards the periphery, in which nuclear structures are immersed” (Lotman, 213). It can be seen that with this single statement, things are not very clear for the reader. This is why he further has put forth another simple allegory, which is: Imagine a room in a museum, where exhibits from different eras are laid out in different windows, with texts in known and unknown languages, and instructions for deciphering them, together with the explanatory texts for exhibitions created by guides who map the necessary rules and routes of behaviour for the visitors. If we place into that room still more visitors, with their own semiotic worlds, then we will begin to obtain something resembling a picture of the semiosphere. (Lotman, 213-214). Another interesting argument that Lotman has formulated in the progression of this discourse is that, semiotic systems having a defined grammer get limited by that grammer and develop only slowly inside a semiosphere (Lotman, 214). But, he has said, semiotic systems, which are flexible and which are not controlled by rigid grammer rules, grow faster (Lotman, 214). This thinking line can be adopted by the readers to understand why visual media have been dominating the social discourses in the current scenario, as compared to the print media. Thus Lotman has here, put forth an argument which is easily comprehensible for the readers of his era. It can be observed that he is well aware of his audiences. The individuality and universality of the semiosphere is established by Lotman by way of induction method in which he collects many instances and forms a generalization out of them. For example, as he has moved ahead in the text, he has observed that, “in the same way that an object, reflected in a mirror, generates hundreds of reflections in its fragments, a communication, introduced into the integral semiotic structure, is circulated at the lower levels” (Lotman, 216). And finally, Lotman has evoked the universal example of ‘left’ and ‘right’, which are being mirror images, similar to each other, but at the same time different from each other in that they cannot be superimposed to get a single image (Lotman, 221). Similarly, Lotman has argued, a dialogue or communication is possible only between, “two similar but simultaneously different partners” (221). And this is why, Lotman has concluded that, “the structural creation of semiosphere” is through “the development of right-left; that which from the genetic-molecular level to the most complex information processes, forms the basis of dialogue-the basis of all meaning-making processes” (225). Here each semiosphere is envisaged as having something in common yet being distinct. This is the real dynamics of semiosphere that Lotman has arrived at using his examples, generalizations and logical reasoning. And it is because he became very successful in convincing his readers that he acquired quite a following in the academic world for his theories. Works Cited Lotman, Juri. “On the Semiosphere.” Signs Systems Studies 33.1 (2005) : 205-227. Print. Outline The essay, On The Semiosphere by Juri Lotman is about semiotics, the study of sign systems and languages. The writer starts with providing the writer some necessary background information on semiotics. Then, by using some basic theoretical premises from previous research in biology and mathematics, he has tried to expand those theories into the realm of semiotics. He has introduced a new concept called, semiosphere in this essay. In certain ways, a semiosphere is analogous to biosphere as put forth by Vernadsky, but also differs from that in certain aspects. The major discussion in this essay focusses on the borders of a semiosphere and the two way process of communication that happens through these borders through the filters that make them possible. The communication processes within and outside the semiosphere are also described. Finally, the author has also pondered the “mirror mechanism” that exists in himan thought which is related to the left and right hemispheres of brain (left and right) and which is the basis of all dialogue. Lotman says that the processes involved in a semiosphere is also no exception to this. Read More