American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Review
Author(s): Stephen Hutchings
Review by: Stephen Hutchings
Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 245-247
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/308981
Accessed: 09-09-2015 05:54 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:54:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews

245

familiarto the specialist.The anthology,intended,accordingto Ledkovsky,as "an innerslice

of Russia's newesthistory,"offersa wide selectionof available riches,rangingin genreand
theme fromAnna Axmatova's memoriesof Blok before the Revolutionto Irina Ratu'inskaja's fictionof the 1980s.
The uninitiatedreader, unfortunately,
approachingthe many
may have some difficulty
are generallyserviceable,and shortbiographitextsincludedhere.The translations
interesting
cal notesare includedon each writerat theend of thevolume.But theworksthemselvesoften
will
requirean intimacywithRussian history,custom,and traditionthatfew non-specialists
trueof the excerptedmemoirsof Marina Cvetaeva, Evgenija
possess. This seems particularly
Ginzburg,Nadeida Mandel'tam, and Lidija tukovskaja, all of whichwould benefitgreatly
and explanatoryfootnotes.The same is trueofexcerptsfromthe
fromexpandedintroductions
fictionof Bella Axmadulina and the pseudonymousTatjana Nikolaeva and of a journalistic
piece by Marina Rachko. Short storiesby I. Grekova, Natalija Baranskaja, Ruth Zernova,
and LiudmilaSternroundout the collection.
The volume will probablybe most usefulas a companionto the earlieranthologyRossija
glazami zenscin (reviewedin SEEJ, Summer1991, 35, 2, pp. 304-5), of whichit is an exact
translation.The editorand publishershave takencare to see thattheEnglishtextmatchesthe
Russian originalpage for page, which certainlyfacilitatesits use in the classroom or in
independentstudy.Numberedlines would be an additionalcourtesy.Witha longerintroducor fifthtionand notes,thetwovolumestogethermightmake a usefulsupplementto a fourthyearclass.
MaryA. Nicholas,Lehigh University

JurijM. Lotman. Universeof theMind: A SemioticTheoryof Culture.Bloomington:Indiana

Press, 1990. 288pp., $45.00 (cloth).
University
Semiotictheoryin theSoviet Union has followeda different
pathof developmentfromthatof
its Westerncounterpart.This book provides an answer to anyone harboringillusionsthat
Soviet achievementsin this fieldtherebyfail to matchthose of the West. Soviet semiotics
offersa distinctive,
richlyproductiveapproachto literaryand culturalstudiesand Universeof
theMind representsa summationof the intellectualcareerof the manwho has done mostto
guaranteethis.
The book has been translatedcompetentlybyAnn Shukmanand theideas it propoundsare
illustratedthroughoutwithpertinentreferencesto Russian literature,medievalculture,contemporaryfilm,the historyof fashionand otherfields.Part 1 treatsproblemsof the text.
Centralto Lotman's theorieshere is the notionof meaning-generation
as theaccumulationof
new information
of textsback and forthbetweentwoor moredifferent
throughthetranslation
codes. The higherthemutualuntranslatability
(or entropy)betweenthecodes, thegreaterthe
potentialfor the generationof informationwhen translationis attempted.Several consequences flowfromthispremise: 1) Semioticsacquires a muchneeded diachronicdimension
since the creation of meaning becomes a dynamicprocess in which both text-codesand
audience-codesprogressively
restructure
themselvesas a resultoftheirinteraction
(e.g. theatricalreadingsofthetextsof real liferesultin therestructuring
ofboth'theater'and 'life'); 2) If
meaningis bound up with translationbetween codes, there can be no 'outside position'
allowingthe semioticianto unmaska text'sideologicalencoding,as in some Westernmodels;
3) Since artistictexts are the most resistantto recoding,and thus the most 'informationefficient',
theyoccupya keypositionin anyliterateculture.(Lotman is influencedbyRussian
Formalismin which'poetic language' is privilegedover 'less efficient'everydaylanguage.)

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:54:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

246

Slavic and East European Journal

Also importantis the positingof an organiclinkbetweentextualcommunicationand culture,

to serve as the basis fora typologyof entire
allowingbinaryoppositionsbetweentext-types
cultures.
Because artistictropes (metaphors,metonymiesetc.) involve the mutual translationof
normallyincompatiblesemanticfields,rhetoricbecomes the tool withwhichto analyse all
or 'creative'thinking,whetherartisticor scientific.Lotman thusresinformation-productive
art as a supplementary
cues semioticsfroman overrelianceon linguistics,introducing
model
withwhichto enrichsemioticstudy.The propensityto apply the tools of the humanitiesto
science and vice versa characterizesLotman's method. However, since poetic figuresnow
representart in its purestform,the unique abilitiesof the narrativeprose genresto engage
lineartimeand social discourseare somewhatovershadowed(a weaknessthatalso applies to
Formalism).
Part 2 deals with 'The Semiosphere'-a term Lotman coins by analogy with the word
codes withina culture'ssemioticspace.
'biosphere'to describethe multitudeof interlocking
Crucialto Lotman's argumentis thenotionthat"semioticexperienceswithinthesemiosphere
precede any given semioticact" (123), in otherwords,that models of communicationonly
become workingmodelswhentheyare providedwithhumanparticipants
alreadyimmersedin
the need for,and practice of semiosis. Lotman thus succeeds in overcomingthe abstract
schemastypicalof earlysemiotictheory.
'Culturalspace' is understoodin a literalas well as a figurative
sense. Lotman goes on to
analyse specificspatial oppositionsactive withinany semiosphere.By emphasizingspace's
fromlinguistics,
abilityto acquire semanticfeatures,he removessemioticsstillfurther
replacrather
ingverbalconventionality
by spatialiconicity(semiosisbased on relationsof similarity
than on arbitraryconventions).One of the most importantspatial conceptsis that of the
boundarybetween'own' and 'alien,' whichLotman demonstratesto be a crucialmechanism
of culturaldevelopment;culturescontinuallyreceivefromeach othertextsthattheyconsider
themin assimilatedformas 'own,' foreverredrawingthe boundaries
'alien,' thenretransmit
between'own' and 'alien.'
In his theoryof plot Lotman establishesa linkbetweenspatialperceptionand cyclic/mythic
of time. When applied to narrative,the latterare geared towardsdesignating
interpretations
repetitionsand the settingof norms.Againstthishe counterposeslinear-discrete
approaches
to timewhichare suitedforthe recordingof changeand norm-disruption.
The historyof plot
is seen as the fruitof the interactionbetweenthesetwo basic impulses.
Part2 concludeswithanalysesof individualspatial figuresin Dante and Bulgakov,and of
theimage of Petersburgin Russian culture.In thislast exampleLotman'spowersof synthesis
enable himto connectarchitecture,
everydaybehaviour,literature,
politicsand salon gossipin
a singlepersuasivetheory.
In Part 3, historyand culturalmemorybecome the centralfocus. The analysishere is
theoriesof historyin whichLotman
preceded by a carefullyargued critiqueof deterministic
stressesthatchance elementsand individualchoice play a role equal to thatof immutable,
impersonalprocesses. Drawing on probabilitytheory,Lotman maintainsthat a historical
eventis "alwaystheresultof one of manypossiblealternatives"and that"thesame conditions
do not alwaysproduce the same results;historyis an irreversible
process" (230). Among the
of the exercisesin culturalhistorythatLotman thenconductsis his comparisonof
highlights
Westernhistoryto Russian historyas that of a culturerooted in contractsinvolvingthe
conventionalsign, to a culture based on surrenderto the 'truth'of the symbol,and his
examinationof the sophisticatedpre-literateconsciousnessof the earlySouth Americanpeoples. Lotman's sensibilityto culturaldifferenceleads him to a deep respectfor,and understandingof othereras; at the same timehe remainsaware thatour veryimageof theseeras is
based on a translationintothecodes of thepresentof textsproducedaccordingto codes ofthe
on thisepistemologicalparadox. The humanbrain
past. The book concludeswitha reflection

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:54:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews

247

both contains the vast intellectualmechanismof human cultureas its simulacrumand is

thereforeable to articulateit, yet at the same time formspart of that mechanismand is
articulatedbyit. This is the paradox of the Universeof the Mind.
The only complaintsof substance to be made derive fromthe paucityof information
regardingoriginalpublicationdates of the materialincluded.Much has been publishedelsewhere in similarform.Though this is mentionedin passing in Umberto Eco's otherwise
excellentintroduction,
fulldetailsare not forthcoming.
This is morethana technicalquibble,
forsuch an omissiondeprivesthe reader of the abilityto place long-sincesupersededideas
notionsof 'deep-levelnorms'in Part1) in thecontextof thetimein
(forexample,structuralist
whichtheywere formulated.It also makes it difficult
to derive an overall contextfor,and
sense from,the seeminglyinexhaustiblearrayofbinaryoppositionson whichLotman'sanalyses are founded. Nonetheless, this book is a landmarkin culturaltheoryand will be of
compellinginterestto literaryscholars,historians,semioticians,and to thoseconcernedin any
way withthe workingsof the human mindand the natureand limitsof humanknowledge.
StephenHutchings,University
of Rochester

George Y. Shevelov. The UkrainianLanguage in theFirstHalf oftheTwentieth

Century(19001941). Its State and Status. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard Ukrainian Research
Institute,1989,242 pp. (cloth).
Shevelov's studytracesthe developmentof modernStandardUkrainianduringthe firstfour
decades of our centurywhile takinginto considerationthe historical,political,cultural,and
sociological factorswhich helped shape its presentform.The work is divided into seven
chapters:1) The StandardUkrainianLanguage in 1900: A TentativeCrosscut;2) The Years
beforeWorldWar I and Revolution(1900-1916); 3) The Years of StruggleforIndependence
(1917-1920); 4) The Soviet Ukraine before Ukrainianization;5) The Years of Ukrainianization (1925-1932); 6) Between 1933 and 1941: The Ukraine under Postylev and
Xru'ov (Khrushchev);and 7) The InterwarPeriod (1920-1939) in the WesternUkraine. It
concludeswiththe author's "RetrospectiveRemarks" (214-233), an extensivebibliography
(224-234), and an indexof personalnames, names of organizationsand titlesof works(233242).
In his Introduction,Shevelov takes pains to point out the limitationsof his study,both
extraneousand self-imposed.He notesthatit is "veryincomplete,"that,forvariousreasons,
he was unable to use all thepertinentmaterialspublished,thatitis limitedto "theproblemsof
Ukrainianin its internaldevelopment,"and that"the statusand characterof the Ukrainian
of the UkrainianSSR, both in Eastern Europe and in the
language" outside of the territory
West, i.e., in the diaspora, remain outside the scope of his research(3). And yet, even a
the author'sclaims, the workis
cursoryreadingof the work reveals that,notwithstanding
comprehensiveand yet succinct,eruditewithoutbeing too technical,and, as a result,eminentlyreadable. It is, withoutdoubt,of greatvalue notonlyto linguists,butalso to historians
and politicalscientistsas well as to the lay personinterestedin the cultureof the Slavic East.
The workoffersa wealthof peripheralyetpertinentinformation.
It featuresan analysisof
the officialmeasures proscribingUkrainian in TsaristRussia (5-9); it providesrevealing
statisticaldata on Ukrainianbook and journalproductionin the 1920's (118), and itcontainsa
concise encapsulationof the historyof the Ukrainianpress (76-85). It also deals extensively
withcensorship,withthe processof Ukrainianizationand Russificationof the language,with
the Sovietizationof Ukrainian life and letters,with the differencesamong the language
variantsspoken in the various regionsof Ukraine, withthe language of the Church(both

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:54:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions