“The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman: Summary and Critique  

Introduction: “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman

“The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” by Yury M. Lotman was first published in 1976 in PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature. This seminal article marked a pivotal moment in literary theory, as Lotman delved into the fundamental question of what constitutes literature. Challenging traditional definitions, he proposed a dynamic and culturally situated understanding of the literary text. By examining the interplay between form and content, Lotman laid the groundwork for a semiotic approach to literature, emphasizing the importance of context and interpretation in shaping literary meaning. His insights continue to be influential in shaping contemporary literary studies.

Summary of “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman

1. Literature as Part of Culture: Lotman emphasizes that literature is a subset of the broader cultural system, existing alongside non-literary texts. He states, “The existence of literary texts implies both the simultaneous presence of non-literary texts and the ability…to distinguish between them.” This highlights that literature is defined in relation to other cultural texts.
2. Function-Based Differentiation: Literature can be differentiated from other texts based on its ability to fulfill an aesthetic function. Lotman explains, “Any verbal text which is capable…of fulfilling an aesthetic function can be counted as literature.” This differentiation allows texts not originally intended as literature to be reclassified as such based on their aesthetic reception over time.
3. Literary Texts and Aesthetic Function: The formalist perspective, which Lotman discusses, posits that literary texts focus on the “how” rather than the “what,” thereby imbuing them with “a kind of immanent sphere, which acquires independent cultural value.” However, he critiques this view, arguing that literary texts are “overloaded with meanings” rather than “purged” of them, making them richer and more complex than non-literary texts.
4. Double Coding in Literature: Literary texts are distinguished by their “double coding”—first through natural language and second through a literary code that adds layers of meaning. Lotman describes how “the recipient of information knows that this text is encoded in some other way as well,” which compels readers to seek deeper meanings in every element of the text, including seemingly trivial details.
5. Internal Organization of Literary Texts: For a text to function as literature, it must be “constructed in a specific way,” with multiple layers of encoding. Lotman notes that even if a text is not originally intended as literature, “the recipient attributes to it a literary function,” recognizing signals within the text that indicate its literary nature.
6. Correlation Between Function and Structure: Lotman points out that the relationship between a text’s function and its structure is not fixed but varies across cultures and historical periods. He observes, “The emergence of any system of culture entails the formation of a definite structure of functions,” which influences how texts are organized and interpreted.
7. Cultural Dynamics and Literature: Literature evolves in tandem with cultural and ideological shifts. Lotman illustrates this by discussing how periods of cultural stagnation can lead to “literary ossification,” where existing literary forms become rigid, prompting a “new system of ideological-artistic codifications” to emerge. This dynamic allows literature to continuously renew itself by interacting with non-literary texts and broader cultural forces.
8. Interplay Between Art and Non-Art: Lotman argues that art, including literature, requires non-art for its development, stating, “Art, being a part of culture, needs non-art for its development.” This exchange between the “external and the internal spheres” of culture is essential for the growth and transformation of literature.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman

Concept/Device	Definition
Semiotic Approach	The study of signs and their meaning in culture.
Double Encoding	The idea that a literary text has two layers of meaning: one conveyed through natural language and another through literary codes.
Aesthetic Function	The purpose of a text to evoke an emotional or sensory response.
Immanent Sphere	A self-contained world within the text where form and content are intertwined.
Semantic Weighting	The richness and complexity of meaning in a text.
Supplementary Codes	Additional layers of meaning created by factors such as genre, style, and historical context.
Transcoding	The process of reinterpreting a text within the framework of literary perception.

Contribution of “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman to Literary Theory/Theories

• Structuralism: Lotman’s essay is fundamentally grounded in structuralist thought, focusing on how literature functions as a system within a broader cultural framework. He argues that “the existence of literary texts implies…the ability…to distinguish between them,” which aligns with the structuralist idea that meaning arises from the relationships between elements within a system. Lotman’s exploration of “double coding” in literature further contributes to structuralism by emphasizing the layered meanings within texts, a core concept in structuralist analysis.
• Formalism: The essay engages with Formalist ideas, particularly in its discussion of the aesthetic function of literature. Lotman references the Formalist belief that “aesthetic function is realized when the text is closed in upon itself,” which resonates with the Formalist focus on the form and structure of literary works. However, Lotman critiques and extends Formalist thought by arguing that literary texts are “overloaded with meanings” rather than simply focused on form. This contribution nuances Formalist theory by suggesting that literary meaning is richer and more complex than previously thought.
• Semiotics: Lotman’s work is deeply embedded in semiotic theory, particularly in his analysis of how literary texts function as systems of signs. He discusses how “the recipient of information knows that this text is encoded in some other way as well,” emphasizing the semiotic principle that texts communicate through multiple layers of meaning. His concept of “double coding” is a significant contribution to semiotics, as it highlights the intricate interplay between different codes within a text, underscoring the complexity of meaning-making in literature.
• Reader-Response Theory: Lotman’s essay contributes to Reader-Response Theory by focusing on the role of the reader in interpreting literary texts. He argues that “the recipient attributes to it a literary function,” suggesting that the reader’s recognition of a text as literature is crucial to its interpretation. This aligns with Reader-Response Theory’s emphasis on the reader’s role in constructing meaning, highlighting how the reader’s knowledge and expectations shape their engagement with a text.
• Historical and Cultural Materialism: The essay also touches on ideas relevant to Historical and Cultural Materialism, particularly in its discussion of how literature evolves in response to broader cultural and ideological shifts. Lotman observes that “the emergence of any system of culture entails the formation of a definite structure of functions,” which reflects the Marxist idea that cultural products are shaped by and reflect the material conditions of their time. His analysis of how literature interacts with non-literary texts and cultural forces contributes to understanding literature as part of a dynamic cultural process.
• Post-Structuralism: While Lotman’s work is more closely aligned with structuralism, it also prefigures some post-structuralist ideas, particularly in its recognition of the instability of meaning. His discussion of “the indeterminancy of the correlation between the links in the chain” in the evolution of literature hints at the post-structuralist idea that meaning is never fully fixed and is always subject to change. This contribution suggests that literature, like language, is an open system, constantly evolving in response to new interpretations and cultural contexts.
  • Genre Theory: Lotman’s essay contributes to Genre Theory by discussing how texts are classified and how these classifications affect their interpretation. He points out that “a text which…does not come into the sphere of art can…belong to it,” highlighting the fluidity of genre boundaries. His exploration of how literature is defined in relation to non-literary texts provides valuable insights into how genres are constructed and how they function within the broader literary system.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman

Literary Work	Lotman’s Concept Applied	Example of Critique
Ulysses by James Joyce	Double Coding & Overloaded Meaning	According to Lotman, literary texts are “overloaded with meanings” and involve “double coding.” Ulysses exemplifies this with its intricate use of multiple narrative styles and layers of symbolism, requiring readers to decode not just the literal text but the underlying cultural, historical, and linguistic references.
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman	Differentiation in Terms of Function	Lotman’s idea that literature functions by fulfilling an aesthetic purpose applies to Leaves of Grass, where Whitman’s poetic celebration of individuality and nature elevates everyday language into a higher aesthetic form, demonstrating the text’s capacity to function as literature through its rhythmic and expressive qualities.
The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot	Internal Organization & Cultural Structure	Lotman’s concept of internal organization and its correlation with cultural systems can be applied to The Waste Land. The poem’s fragmented structure reflects the chaotic cultural landscape of post-World War I Europe, requiring readers to navigate through historical, literary, and religious references to grasp its deeper meanings.
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez	Interplay Between Art and Non-Art	Lotman’s idea that literature evolves through interaction with non-literary texts is evident in One Hundred Years of Solitude. The novel blends historical events with magical realism, transcoding real-life Latin American experiences into a literary form that challenges the boundaries between history and fiction.

Criticism Against “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman

Suggested Readings: “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman

1. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
2. Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Indiana University Press, 1979.
3. Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. University of California Press, 1977.
4. Jakobson, Roman. Language in Literature. Edited by Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987.
5. Lotman, Yuri M. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Translated by Ann Shukman, I.B. Tauris, 1990.
6. Shukman, Ann. Literature and Semiotics: A Study of the Writings of Yu. M. Lotman. North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.
7. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Translated by Richard Howard, Cornell University Press, 1977.

Representative Quotations from “The Content And Structure Of The Concept Of ‘Literature'” By Yury M. Lotman with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The existence of literary texts implies both the simultaneous presence of non-literary texts and the ability…to distinguish between them.”	Lotman highlights the interdependent relationship between literary and non-literary texts. Literature is defined not in isolation but through its differentiation from other forms of communication within the cultural system, emphasizing the importance of context in defining literature.
“Any verbal text which is capable…of fulfilling an aesthetic function can be counted as literature.”	This quotation underscores the idea that literature is defined by its aesthetic function. A text’s literary status is determined by its ability to engage readers aesthetically, which may vary depending on historical and cultural contexts.
“Literary functioning does not produce a text which is ‘purged’ of meanings, but, on the contrary, a text which is to a maximum degree overloaded with meanings.”	Lotman critiques the Formalist view by arguing that literary texts are not merely focused on form but are rich in meaning. This “overloading” of meanings differentiates literary texts from non-literary ones, making them complex and layered.
“The recipient of information knows that this text is encoded in some other way as well.”	Here, Lotman introduces the concept of “double coding,” where literary texts contain additional layers of meaning beyond the basic linguistic code. This double coding requires readers to engage more deeply with the text, searching for underlying meanings.
“The emergence of any system of culture entails the formation of a definite structure of functions.”	Lotman suggests that the structure of literature is shaped by the broader cultural system in which it exists. The functions of literary texts are influenced by the cultural, social, and ideological frameworks of the time, reflecting the dynamic relationship between culture and literature.
“Art, being a part of culture, needs non-art for its development, just as culture…needs the dynamic process of correlation with the sphere of non-culture exterior to it.”	This quotation emphasizes the interdependence between art (including literature) and non-art. Lotman argues that literature evolves by interacting with non-literary texts and cultural forces, making the development of literature a dynamic process.