K O D I K A S / C O D E 44 (2021) · No. 1 - 3 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen The prelude A semiotics journal is born. In memoriam Achim Eschbach Ernest W. B. Hess-Lüttich Under the impression of the variety of sign-theoretically inspired or semiotically motivated approaches represented at the first world congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies or Association Internationale de Sémiotique (IASS-AIS), inaugurated and opened by Umberto Eco in Milan in 1974, some of the participants who had come from Germany had the idea that such a society for semiotics should actually also exist in Germany as an expression of the academic institutionalization of a new transdisciplinary field of research. The young Germanist and linguist Roland Posner, who had just been appointed to the newly created chair of linguistics and semiotics at the Technical University of Berlin, took on the task of organizing the first Semiotic Colloquium in Germany, to which, as its host, he invited semiotically interested scholars from a wide variety of disciplines to the Technical University of Berlin in early October 1975. I had just started my first position as a research assistant for German linguistics at the Free University of Berlin, even before completing my doctorate with Hugo Moser in Bonn, and was fascinated by the openness with which the other participants discussed questions of common interest across all disciplinary boundaries. At that time, the reductionist selfrestrictions of my discipline had long since become too restrictive for my own research, for which I, therefore, found semiotics to be a theoretically and methodologically more suitable framework than the linguistics of the Germanists, which at that time focused primarily on system linguistics (phonology, morphology, lexis, syntax, semantics). Among the participants, I noticed a doctoral student of about the same age from Aachen, whose name I had already come across while working on my dissertation but whom I did not yet know personally: Achim Eschbach. He had already made a name for himself as a translator and editor of important texts by Charles W. Morris together with his fellow student Wendelin Rader. He contributed a short bibliography on the history of semiotics to the Semiotic Colloquium, which later appeared as an appendix to the keynote article on “ Semiotic Approaches in Modern Philosophy ” by the Zurich philosopher Elmar Holenstein in the conference volume published by Roland Posner (together with the musicologist Hans-Peter Reinecke) under the title Zeichenprozesse. Semiotische Forschung in Einzelwissenschaften at Athenaion. 1 In the same month after 1 Achim Eschbach & Wendelin Rader 1977: 355 - 367; Posner & Reinecke (eds.) 1977; Holenstein 1977: 331 - 354. The following remarks are based on my personal recollection. Other participants may remember differently. the colloquium, I received a letter from Achim Eschbach, which I found in my correspondence archive and which I take the liberty of quoting here in full length for biographical interest (but with silent correction of typos and insertion of some paragraphs). On October 29 th , 1975 he wrote me from Aachen: Dear Mr. Hess-Lüttich, I heard from Mr. J. Trabant at the Semiotic Colloquium that you are working on questions of theatrical semiotics. Since I am also addressing some questions of theater semiotics in my almost completed dissertation, I would be very interested in an exchange of views. First, however, I would like to introduce myself briefly: I have studied literature, linguistics, philosophy, sociology, and political science here in Aachen, but I was not particularly taken with what Aachen had to offer (the TH Aachen actually only has a philosophy faculty for the sake of completeness). I, therefore, soon withdrew from the institute and studied mainly Peirce and Morris (resulting in the two present Morris translations ‘ Zeichen, Sprache und Verhalten ’ (Signs, Language and Behavior) and ‘ Zeichen, Wert, Ästhetik ’ (Signs, Value, Aesthetics) and the work in progress with the provisional title ‘ Pragmatische Orientierung der Morris ’ schen Zeichentheorie ’ (Pragmatic Orientation of Morris ’ s Theory of Signs). In 1974 I completed the first volume of my semiotics bibliography; in the spring of 1976, the second volume should be finished. Finally, my dissertation, which so far goes under the title ‘ Pragmasemiotics and Art Analysis ’ . Very briefly I want to outline my approach there: A first, rather extensive chapter sketches a history of semiotics. The aim of this chapter is (i.) to prove the continuity of semiotic research since the Greek Philodemos; (ii.) an essential correction of the previous historiography of semiotics - namely, I have unearthed a theory of signs from 1831, which in important respects leaves later approaches ‘ behind ’ (communicative orientation; sign system concept vs. atomic sign; propositional determination vs. sign string etc.). 3. the demonstration that semiotic research leads to pragmatic, action-oriented ideas. A second shorter chapter discusses some basic features of pragmatics. This chapter has mainly a transitional function for the third chapter, where I try to arrive at a more useful sign typology from the action orientation, the development of a more adequate concept of text, and the discussion of some sign types traditionally claimed by aesthetics. This typology of signs (which, by the way, I present following T. Kowzan ’ s very readable considerations) is concretely developed as a typology of signs in the theater situation. I have related this investigation to the play by P. Weiss: Lusitanischer Popanz. The final chapter, which has yet to be written, examines the question of what interrelationships these various signs maintain. As you can see from this brief sketch, I am currently primarily concerned with the questions of what relationships exist between the various sign systems that occur in the theatrical situation. I would be very interested to know what problems you are working on. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to discuss some points, at least in writing. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, sig. A. Eschbach But since memories are known to be deceptive, I have referred exclusively to the cited publications and the correspondence I archived from the period between 1975 and 1980 in order to reconstruct how the new journal Kodikas/ Code came about. 8 Ernest W. B. Hess-Lüttich Or in its original German version: Sehr geehrter Herr Hess-Lüttich von Herrn J. Trabant hörte ich auf dem Semiotischen Colloquium, daß Sie an Fragen der Theatersemiotik arbeiten. Da ich selbst in meiner fast abgeschlossenen Diss. einige Fragen der Theatersemiotik anspreche, wäre ich sehr an einem Meinungsaustausch interessiert. Zuerst will ich mich aber kurz vorstellen: ich habe hier in Aachen Literatur, Linguistik, Philosophie Soziologie und Politologie gehört, allerdings war ich nicht sonderlich angetan von dem Aachener Angebot (die TH Aachen führt die Philosophische Fakultät eigentlich nur der Vollständigkeit halber). Ich habe mich deshalb bald aus dem Institutsbetrieb zurückgezogen und vor allem Peirce und Morris studiert (daraus resultierten die beiden vorliegenden Morris-Übersetzungen ‘ Zeichen, Sprache und Verhalten ’ und ‘ Zeichen, Wert, Ästhetik ’ und die in Arbeit befindliche Schrift mit dem vorläufigen Titel ‘ Pragmatische Orientierung der Morris ’ schen Zeichentheorie ’ ). 1974 habe ich den ersten Band meiner Semiotik-Bibliographie fertiggestellt; im Frühjahr 1976 soll der zweite Band abgeschlossen sein. Schließlich dann meine Diss., die bislang unter dem Titel ‘ Pragmasemiotik und Kunstanalyse ’ firmiert. Ganz kurz will ich mein dortiges Vorgehen skizzieren: Ein erstes, recht umfangreiches Kapitel entwirft eine Geschichte der Semiotik. Ziel dieses Kapitels ist 1. der Nachweis einer Kontinuität semiotischer Forschung seit dem Griechen Philodemos; 2. eine wesentliche Korrektur der bisherigen Historiographie der Semiotik - ich habe nämlich eine Zeichentheorie von 1831 ausgegraben, die in wichtigen Hinsichten spätere Ansätze ‘ hinter ’ sich läßt (kommunikative Orientierung; Zeichensystembegriff vs. atomares Zeichen; propositionale Bestimmung vs. Zeichenkette etc.). 3. der Nachweis, daß die semiotische Forschung in pragmatische, handlungsorientierte Vorstellungen mündet. Ein zweites kürzeres Kapitel diskutiert einige Grundzüge der Pragmatik. Dieses Kapitel hat vor allem Überleitungsfunktion für das dritte Kapitel, wo ich versuche, aus der Handlungsorientierung, Entwicklung eines adäquateren Textbegriffes und der Diskussion einiger traditionell von der Ästhetik reklamierten Zeichenarten zu einer brauchbareren Zeichentypologie zu gelangen. Diese Zeichentypologie (die ich übrigens im Anschluß an T. Kowzans sehr lesenswerte Überlegungen vorstelle) wird konkret entwickelt als Zeichentypologie der Theatersituation. Bezogen habe ich diese Untersuchung auf das Stück von P. Weiss: Lusitanischer Popanz. Das abschließende, noch zu schreibende Kapitel untersucht die Frage, welche Interrelationen diese verschiedenen Zeichen unterhalten. Wie Sie aus dieser kurzen Skizze entnehmen können, beschäftigen mich zur Zeit vor allem die Fragen, welche Beziehungen zwischen den verschiedenen, in der Theatersituation auftretenden Zeichensystemen bestehen. Es würde mich sehr interessieren zu erfahren, an welchen Problemen Sie arbeiten. Vielleicht ergibt sich die Möglichkeit, einige Punkte zumindest schriftlich zu diskutieren. Ich freue mich auf Ihre Antwort. Mit freundlichen Grüßen sig. A. Eschbach My positive reply followed promptly, and this first exchange of letters was the prelude to a lively exchange that was to last for the next four decades. The Berlin Semiotic Colloquium thus already served as a preparation for the founding of a Deutsche Gesellschaft für Semiotik (DGS German Association of Semiotic Studies); working groups were formed which were The prelude 9 later to become sections of the future society. In one of the working groups, I had carelessly made a few research programmatic suggestions, which led to the participants immediately offering me the leadership of a future section on multimedia communication. I was actually only interested in overcoming the linguistic reductionisms in the empirical analysis of faceto-face direct interaction (i. e., in the analysis of conversation) and in taking into account the complex totality of the sign processes involved. Today, under the slightly modified title of ‘ multimodal communication, ’ this has long been standard, but in 1975 it was not exactly career-enhancing within the guild. Nevertheless, I boldly held on to the insight I had gained into the necessity of a semiotically integrated approach and worked out the sketch extemporized in Berlin into a work program that was to become the basis of the future DGS section and which was confirmed at the 2 nd Semiotic Colloquium 1978 in Regensburg and also put up for discussion at the Vienna World Congress of Semiotics (IASS) 1979 (Hess- Lüttich 1978; id. 1981; id. 1983). In response to his letter quoted above, I also sent Achim Eschbach the manuscript of my then almost completed Bonn dissertation (supervised, among others, by Hugo Moser), which appeared in 1976 as a university print and which he reviewed knowledgeably a little later in the renowned Zeitschrift für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft (vol. 7, no. 27 - 28, 1977: 28) (which was not only flattering but also a little embarrassing to me, because I had undertaken to completely revise the work again for printing at the Erich Schmidt publishing house). He then returned the favor at the beginning of 1977 with a copy of his dissertation on the topic of “ Pragmasemiotics and Theater, ” which I read very carefully and from which I gained many suggestions. In his accompanying letter of January 31 th , 1977, he responded in detail and constructively to my suggestions for organizing research work in the meanwhile founded DGS, especially in the section ‘ Multimedia Communication ’ . Shortly thereafter, I visited him in Aachen, where we decided to deepen our cooperation in an intensive exchange of ideas on February 19 th , 1977, and apparently already switched to the more familiar form of address ‘ Du ’ , as his letter of February 28 th , 1977, attests, in which he reported to me on his discussions with Klaus Oehler, Roland Posner, and Thomas A. Sebeok in Hamburg, which had dealt with the founding of a journal under the working title ‘ Semiotic Reports. ’ In my answer of March 10 th , I went into this in detail and already developed concrete proposals for the possible structure of such a journal. The following letters were initially devoted to mutual comments on our dissertations, which were enriched in many ways as a result. At the same time, I was in continuous contact with Roland Posner at the TU in Berlin and a regular participant in the meetings of his ‘ Semiotische Arbeitsstelle ’ , which had been established in the meantime. Thus, the plan to bring Achim to Berlin and to strengthen our small circle of semiotically engaged philologists, to which Jürgen Trabant, as a romanist and linguist, also belonged, arose quite automatically. Unfortunately, the decision about the assistantship at the TU (not least because of strange special votes against his employment) dragged on so long that Achim, to all our regret, lost patience and accepted another offer and moved to the University of Essen as an assistant to the art pedagogue Hermann Sturm. In April 1977 Achim told me about his stay in Greece, where he had met Haris Kambouridis, who published a semiotic journal called Kodikas in Thessaloniki and invited Achim to be a co-editor. 10 Ernest W. B. Hess-Lüttich In the course of the same year, Achim (together with Wendelin Rader) initiated several projects at the same time, such as a conference in Aachen on “ The Unity of Semiotic Dimensions ” or an anthology on literary semiotics, (including contributions by Jürgen Trabant, professor of Romance languages, Karl Eimermacher, professor of Slavic languages, as well as Götz Wienold and Winfried Nöth, both professors of English), and finally a followup volume to the semiotics bibliographies published by Fink and Syndikat. Negotiations for the publication of the anthology on literary semiotics with various publishers, not least because of its size, dragged on somewhat in the following year, 1978, until the project could finally be published in two substantial volumes by Gunter Narr. In the course of the year, in connection with this project, talks also flourished with the publisher Gunter Narr about the founding of an international semiotics journal, after Roland Posner had cleverly already arranged with the Athenaion publishing house for a journal of the freshly founded Deutsche Gesellschaft für Semiotik and, from 1979, published the German Zeitschrift für Semiotik. He appointed as co-editors Annemarie Lange-Seidl, the organizer of the Regensburg Semiotics Congress in 1978 on the topic of “ Sign Constitution, ” Tasso Borbé, the organizer of the 1979 IASS World Congress in Vienna ( “ Semiotics Unfolding ” ), and Klaus Oehler, the designated organizer of the third DGS Congress in 1981 in Hamburg ( “ Signs and Reality ” ), thus securing for his journal a long-term anchoring in the politics of the association. The first issue was then compiled by Martin Krampen from Ulm, who also joined the editorial team. Achim Eschbach now urged that the Greek journal Kodikas, which he had co-edited, be restructured as an international journal and established as a multilingual semiotics journal. As early as December 6 th , 1978, he signed a corresponding contract with Gunter Narr and sought to win Jürgen Trabant and me as co-editors - after two issues had been edited together with his Greek co-editor Haris Kambouridis. Since I was in continuous contact with Roland Posner and also a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of his journal, I tried to avoid any appearance of a competing enterprise. However, together with Jürgen Trabant, who had once studied with Gunter Narr under Eugenio Coseriu, we succeeded in convincing the publisher that a European journal published in three languages (English, German, French) with an alternative concept could certainly be placed on the market alongside and complementary to the Zeitschrift für Semiotik. On December 17 th , 1979, the three of us - together with the Romanian computer scientist Mihai Nadin (who Achim brought in at short notice), who at that time held a chair in computational design at the University of Wuppertal (and who soon left the editorial board due to his career change and professional differences) - signed a contract for the edition of a journal entitled Kodikas/ Code. An International Journal of Semiotics and the Kodikas Supplement Series, a book series in which the two already completed volumes on Literatursemiotik (literary semiotics and Achim ’ s dissertation on Pragmasemiotik und Theater (pragmasemiotics and theater) appeared in quick succession, as well as, in only three years, another ten volumes (including those by Winfried Nöth and Va č eslav V. Ivanov). By 2010, more than 30 books by renowned authors and editors had been published in the series. It was not until 2014 that the publishing contract was renewed and adapted to the now completely changed technical and structural conditions of the publishing house. This was The prelude 11 accompanied by a change in the external appearance of the journal, which is now soon to be edited and published by younger hands after more than four decades of uninterrupted publication. If one calculates the volume with an average of 400 printed pages, then in these 45 years approximately 18,000 printed pages of scholarly output on semiotics have been presented to a restricted circle of readers. This was not possible without a very intensive collaboration between the three editors and the close cooperation with the publisher. This collegial cooperation, even on controversial issues, and the resulting personal friendship over decades is one of the most gratifying experiences of my professional life. Achim Eschbach died on January 20 th , 2021. His daughters Anne and Nora have selected a number of central works from his extensive oeuvre for this volume and compiled them in his memory. References Eschbach, Achim & Wendelin Rader 1977: “ Kurze Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Semiotik ” , in: Posner & Reinecke (eds.) 1977: 355 - 367 Eschbach, Achim 1977: Rez. Hess-Lüttich 1976 als Teil eines Literaturberichts in: Rul Gunzenhäuser (ed.) 1977: Semiotik = Zeitschrift für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft 7.27/ 28 (1977): 28 Eschbach, Achim 1977: Pragmasemiotik und Theater, Tübingen: Narr Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 1976: Texttheorie und Soziolinguistik - Eine pragmatische Synthese. Entwürfe zur Anwendung linguistischer Literaturanalyse, Diss. phil., Bonn: Univ.-Druck, 678 pp. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 1978: “ Semiotik der multimedialen Kommunikation ” , in: Tasso Borbé & Martin Krampen (eds.) 1978: Angewandte Semiotik, Wien: Egermann, 21 - 48 Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 1981: “ Zur Notation multimedialer Kommunikation ” , in: Annemarie Lange-Seidl (ed.) 1981: Zeichenkonstitution. Akten des 2. Semiotischen Kolloquiums Regensburg 1978, vol. II, Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 72 - 79 Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 1983: “ A propos de l ’ organisation multimedia lors d ’ un changement de locuteur ” , in: Tasso Borbé (ed.) 1983: Semiotics Unfolding (= Proceedings of the Second International Congress of the IASS Vienna 1979), Berlin/ New York/ Amsterdam: Mouton, 1655 - 1666 Holenstein; Elmar 1977: “ Semiotische Ansätze in der Philosophie der Neuzeit ” , in: Posner & Reinecke (eds.) 1977: 331 - 354 Posner, Roland & Hans-Peter Reinecke (eds.) 1977: Zeichenprozesse. Semiotische Forschung in den Einzelwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: Athenaion 12 Ernest W. B. Hess-Lüttich