“Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler was first published in 1981 as part of the Cornell University Press collection. This groundbreaking work significantly impacted the fields of literature and literary theory by introducing a systematic approach to understanding how readers construct meaning from texts. Culler’s exploration of semiotics, the study of signs and symbols, revolutionized literary analysis by shifting focus from authorial intent to the reader’s active role in creating interpretations.
Summary of “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler
The Pursuit of Knowledge in Literary Criticism: Jonathan Culler posits that the enduring engagement with literary criticism suggests an underlying belief that the discipline is fundamentally about the pursuit of knowledge. Despite the frequent failures to meet this expectation, the persistence of this belief indicates that literary criticism is seen as a discipline aiming to uncover meaningful insights. Culler writes, “We see literary criticism as a discipline that aims at knowledge,” even if this goal is more aspirational than often realized (Culler, 1981, p. 47).
Interpretative Challenges in Literary Studies: The shift from a focus on erudition to interpretation in literary studies brings into question whether the discipline is moving towards a clearer understanding of literary works. Culler acknowledges that acts of interpretation do not necessarily bring us closer to a definitive understanding, especially when considering the vast array of interpretations that exist. He observes, “Acts of interpretation do not necessarily seem to bring us closer to a goal such as a more accurate understanding of all the major works of European literature” (Culler, 1981, p. 47).
The Issue of Interpretative Proliferation: The proliferation of interpretations poses a significant challenge to the notion of achieving a singular, correct understanding of any literary work. Culler argues that the very existence of multiple competing theories only serves to exacerbate this proliferation, making it impossible to impose a uniform standard or single goal in literary studies. He notes, “The very existence of competing theories of the meaning of works encourages and reproduces the proliferation each theory was designed to cure” (Culler, 1981, p. 48).
Semiotics as a Method for Analyzing Literary Meaning: Semiotics offers a methodologically clear approach to understanding how literary works generate meaning by examining the conventions and processes involved in interpretation. Culler emphasizes that semiotics seeks to identify the operations through which literature, as a signifying practice, produces its observable effects of meaning. He explains, “Semiotics seeks to identify the conventions and operations by which any signifying practice (such as literature) produces its observable effects of meaning” (Culler, 1981, p. 49).
Challenges to Semiotic Assumptions: Culler addresses the objections to semiotics, particularly the difficulty in separating a literary work from its interpretations and the challenge of capturing the effects of signification on readers accurately. Critics argue that interpretations are influenced by external factors and may not reliably reflect the work itself. Culler acknowledges these concerns, noting, “Objections to the first assumption insist on the importance of attempting to separate the work itself from interpretations of it” (Culler, 1981, p. 50).
Reconceptualizing Semiotics as a Theory of Reading: Culler suggests that semiotics should focus less on determining a text’s intrinsic meaning and more on the processes through which readers make sense of texts. This shift from meaning to “making sense” emphasizes the interpretive operations that render texts intelligible, highlighting the dynamic interaction between readers and texts. Culler proposes that, “The semiotic program may be better expressed by the concepts of ‘sense’ and ‘making sense’ than by the concept of ‘meaning'” (Culler, 1981, p. 51).
Norms of Interpretation and Literary Competence: The concept of “literary competence” implies that interpretation is governed by certain norms, even though these norms may vary between different interpretive communities. Culler argues that the process of interpretation is inherently linked to these norms, which, while often implicit, are crucial for understanding how interpretations are formed. He asserts that, “‘Competence’ does indicate that one is dealing with an ability involving norms” (Culler, 1981, p. 52).
Analyzing Divergence in Interpretations: Culler finds the divergence of interpretations to be a vital area of study within literary criticism. He argues that these variations in understanding are not only inevitable but also crucial for a deeper comprehension of literary texts. Culler points out that, “Divergence of readings is more interesting than convergence,” suggesting that these differences reveal important aspects of how literature is understood and interpreted (Culler, 1981, p. 51).
Focus on Interpretive Practices in Semiotics: Instead of seeking to resolve interpretive disagreements, Culler believes that semiotics should analyze the practices that produce these disagreements, as they are central to the literary activity within a culture. By focusing on how readers make sense of texts, semiotics can provide insights into the cultural significance of these interpretive practices. He proposes that, “One might attempt to analyze the interpretive operations that produce these disagreements” (Culler, 1981, p. 49).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler
The study of signs and symbols, and how meaning is created through their use.
Interpretation
The process of assigning meaning to a text.
Literary Competence
The ability to understand and interpret literary works based on shared norms and conventions.
Signification
The process of creating meaning through signs and symbols.
Conventions
Established rules or practices in a particular field, such as literature.
Interpretive Operations
The mental processes involved in understanding a text.
Intelligibility
The quality of being understandable or comprehensible.
Contribution of “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
Introduction of Semiotics as a Methodological Framework:
Culler introduced semiotics as a clear methodological approach in literary studies, emphasizing the need to identify and analyze the conventions and operations that produce meaning in literature.
“Semiotics seeks to identify the conventions and operations by which any signifying practice (such as literature) produces its observable effects of meaning.” (Culler, 1981, p. 49)
Shift from Meaning to “Making Sense”:
He advocated for a shift from the traditional focus on intrinsic meaning to understanding how readers make sense of texts through interpretive operations.
“The semiotic program may be better expressed by the concepts of ‘sense’ and ‘making sense’ than by the concept of ‘meaning’.” (Culler, 1981, p. 51)
Emphasis on the Role of Interpretive Practices:
Culler highlighted the importance of studying the interpretive practices that produce divergent readings, viewing these as central to the literary activity rather than as obstacles to knowledge.
“One might attempt to analyze the interpretive operations that produce these disagreements.” (Culler, 1981, p. 49)
Questioning of Normative Interpretations:
He questioned the assumption of a single normative interpretation, arguing that semiotics allows for the study of a range of interpretations, thereby acknowledging the diversity of reader responses.
“It is crucial to insist that a semiotics of reading leaves entirely open the question of how much readers agree or disagree in their interpretations of literature.” (Culler, 1981, p. 51)
Integration of Literary Competence and Norms:
Culler introduced the concept of “literary competence,” which links interpretation to implicit norms that guide the process, recognizing the role of these norms in making sense of texts.
“‘Competence’ does indicate that one is dealing with an ability involving norms.” (Culler, 1981, p. 52)
Examples of Critiques Through “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler
Literary Work
Critique through Semiotics
Key Semiotic Concepts
William Shakespeare’s “King Lear”
A semiotic analysis would explore how the tragic impact of King Lear is constructed through its language, symbols, and character interactions. The “sense” made by audiences might vary, reflecting cultural and interpretive contexts.
Signifying Practices: Analyzing how tragedy is signified through language and narrative structures.
John Milton’s “Paradise Lost”
Semiotics would examine the ways in which Paradise Lost communicates theological and moral meanings, focusing on how readers interpret its complex narrative and allegory. Interpretation may vary based on readers’ cultural and religious backgrounds.
Interpretive Operations: Understanding how readers make sense of allegorical content.
William Wordsworth’s “A Slumber Did My Spirit Seal”
A semiotic approach would study the wide range of interpretations surrounding this poem, from its elegiac tone to its reflections on nature and mortality. The divergence in readings highlights the poem’s open-ended signification.
Divergence of Interpretations: Exploring the variety of meanings readers attribute to the poem.
Andrew Marvell’s “Horatian Ode”
Through semiotics, one could analyze how this poem’s ambiguous stance on Cromwell is constructed, looking at how linguistic choices and historical context contribute to differing readings (celebration vs. critique).
Cultural Signification: Investigating how historical and cultural contexts shape the interpretation.
Criticism Against “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler
Overemphasis on Reader Response: Culler’s theory is often criticized for excessively focusing on the reader’s role in constructing meaning, potentially neglecting the intrinsic qualities and formal elements of the text itself.
Neglect of Authorial Intent: Critics argue that Culler’s emphasis on the reader diminishes the importance of authorial intention in shaping the text’s meaning.
Limited Scope of Application: Some contend that Culler’s semiotic approach might not be applicable to all literary genres or periods, particularly those that prioritize authorial voice or historical context.
Oversimplification of Complex Texts: Critics suggest that Culler’s model may oversimplify the complexities of literary works, reducing them to mere sign systems.
Ignoring Intertextuality: While Culler acknowledges intertextuality, some critics argue that his theory does not fully explore the complex interplay of texts and their influence on interpretation.
Suggested Readings: “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Cornell University Press, 1982.
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, 1976.
Lentricchia, Frank, and Thomas McLaughlin, editors. Critical Terms for Literary Study. 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry. Indiana University Press, 1978.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, translated by Wade Baskin, Philosophical Library, 1959.
Representative Quotations from “Semiotics As A Theory Of Reading” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
Quotation
Explanation
“We see literary criticism as a discipline that aims at knowledge.” (Culler, 1981, p. 47)
This quotation reflects Culler’s view that literary criticism is fundamentally about seeking knowledge, even if this goal is not always achieved or clearly defined.
“Acts of interpretation do not necessarily seem to bring us closer to a goal such as a more accurate understanding of all the major works of European literature.” (Culler, 1981, p. 47)
Culler highlights the challenge of interpretation in literary studies, suggesting that multiple interpretations do not always lead to a definitive or more accurate understanding.
“The very existence of competing theories of the meaning of works encourages and reproduces the proliferation each theory was designed to cure.” (Culler, 1981, p. 48)
This quotation points to the paradox that the more theories there are about the meaning of a work, the more interpretations proliferate, complicating the pursuit of a single meaning.
“Semiotics seeks to identify the conventions and operations by which any signifying practice (such as literature) produces its observable effects of meaning.” (Culler, 1981, p. 49)
Culler describes semiotics as a methodological tool that examines how literature and other signifying practices create meaning through identifiable conventions and operations.
“The semiotic program may be better expressed by the concepts of ‘sense’ and ‘making sense’ than by the concept of ‘meaning’.” (Culler, 1981, p. 51)
Here, Culler suggests a shift from focusing on the inherent meaning of texts to understanding how readers actively make sense of texts through interpretation.
“Divergence of readings is more interesting than convergence.” (Culler, 1981, p. 51)
Culler argues that the differences in how readers interpret a text are more insightful than areas of agreement, as they reveal the diverse ways literature can be understood.
