We may find such a principle in the more general discipline of semiotics. Literature is in its surface a linguistic phenomenon, in that apparently its raw material is words and nothing but words. But this is a deceptive appearance. Words are tools used in a specific code, language, to create meaning. But "meaning" is not the final result of the process, at least not in such a simple, unanalysed form. Meaning can be analysed, because the linguistic code relies on and works together with many other codes and conventions which are not linguistic. For instance, in American thriller films of the seventies and eighties, the black secondary figure almost always dies -an instance of non-linguistic patterning of plots. These codes we call semiotic, and they are at the basis of any communicative process. In fact, they have other wider uses than their communicative one. Semiotic codes are the means by which we make sense of reality, and in this sense literature, language, and other semiotic activities can be related to psychology, to the theories of perception and thought. For the moment, however, we will concentrate on literature and consider it in its communicative aspect. Literature is a particular kind of discursive activity, a part of the communicative processes carried out in society.
We will analyse now the structure of communication, the basic elements which are involved in any communicative activity. This we may apply to ordinary conversation, to literature, to a classroom lecture, or to any other discursive activity. We are going to compare two alternative versions of the communicative situation. The difference between these two versions should remind us that theories do not reflect an objective, unchangeable truth. Rather, they are linguistic constructs, tools we use to understand reality and give it a manageable shape for some specific purpose. All theories need not be equally explicit or exhaustive. Theories are not "real": they are versions of reality.