| 
       | 
       | 
         
          Forepaper by
         Wendy
         MorganHETEROTOPICS:
         TOWARDS A GRAMMAR OF HYPERLINKSfor Messenger
         Morphs the Media 99
Introduction: "flickering signifiers"
         
          To the extent that hypertext blurs artificial,
         institutional boundaries, it enables a kind of writing which
         ... chokes and laughs and wriggles its ears, one which from
         moment to moment is more and less consciously theoretical,
         whimsical, practical, lyrical, parodical, and what-have
         you-that is, one in which these terms oscillate as what Kate
         Hayles (1993: 71) calls "flickering signifiers". (Joyce
         1997: 175)
         
          I'm attempting to develop a non-fictional hypertext which
         has something of these qualities. It's called "Monstrous
         Angels: A Hypertext Supplement to Troubling the Angels:
         Women Living with HIV/AIDS". A paper about it is to be
         presented at Hypertext 99. Here's the abstract:
         
          In recent years poststructuralist feminist
         researchers in the social sciences have questioned the norms
         of mainstream research epistemology, methodologies and
         writing. They have therefore sought alternative forms of
         text work to enact their concerns about the politics of
         researching and reporting on, for and with others. (A most
         radical example of this is Lather and Smithies, Troubling
         the Angels: Women Living with HIV/AIDS. ) Yet despite
         such congruneces between feminism and poststructuralism and
         between hypertext theory and poststructuralism, there have
         been no examples to date, in theory or practice, of
         convergence between post feminist research in the social
         sciences and a poststructuralist hypertextuality. This paper
         describes such a hypertextual experiment, a reinscription of
         Troubling the Angels with additional materials. The point of
         this experiment is to inquire into the conditions of such
         writing and reading, and therefore to set an agenda for a
         future poetics of a poststructuralist feminist research
         hypertextuality. The paper explores such issues as
         associative linking, intertextual and intratextual
         juxtapositions, the unfixing of textual hierarchies in a
         "rhizomatic" text, non-sequential polylogic, multigeneric
         collage, and the role of the reader as textual agent.
         
 As I've been (re)creating this hypertext, a number of
         issues have become salient for me, none more so than the
         nature of links in relation to that "poetics". We often see
         links as merely the device that shuttles us from one bit of
         information to the next. I want instead to shift focus in
         this discussion, to see "not connection as conceptual
         negative space, but connection itself being a figure against
         the ground of writing" (Guyer and Petry, 1991).
         
          In the kind of non-fictional hypertextual work I'm
         experimenting with, I've come to concur fully with Burbules
         (1997: 105), when he writes: "the use and placement of links
         is one of the vital ways in which the tacit assumptions and
         values of the designer/author are manifested in a
         hypertext-yet they are rarely considered as such."As both a
         hypertext reader and writer I want to understand how that
         tacitness can be made to speak through the links. ...
         
          In what follows, I'll first assemble some propositions I
         think have bearing on the question, and use these as the
         basis for attempting to categorise the kinds of links I've
         been using in my writing and/or encountering in my reading.
         
          Some propositions:
         
          As we know, hyperlinks:
         
          
            don't necessarily exist in the linguistic code
            
            are nevertheless necessary to reading, and create
            meaning
            
            activate the staging of a text (its performance in
            any one reading)
            
            create connections between discourse units (nodes)
            and their constituent ideas
            
            but are also a device for disjunction and breakdown
            
            as interruptions need a sense of structure to work
            against
            
            activate readers' desire to make sense, even across
            chasms
            
            yet work against predictability, despite our
            inferring a prospective significance
            
            are meaningful retrospectively, as we shuttle between
            present and prior nodes
            
            create granularity in apparently continuous prose
            
            bring a shifting positionality (a sense of "nextness"
            that is both temporal and spatial)
            
            therefore may encourage aspects of stance (i.e.
            involve readers in making aesthetic / logical appraisal)
          Two possible categories of links 
         
          I justify my use of grammatical or rhetorical terms on
         Jean Clement's contention (as quoted in Landow 1997: 215),
         that "hypertexts produce-at the level of narrative
         syntax-the same 'upheaval' as poems produce at the level of
         phrasal syntax".
         
          Systemic functional grammar (Halliday 1985) categorises
         conjunctions into five groups. It may be that by taking
         these terms we could account for links in terms of their
         cohesiveness:
         
          a) Conjunctive functionality 
         
          
            temporal
            
            "next"
            
            causal "therefore", "because" etc.
            
            category "for instance"(marking a shift from a
            statement of abstract principle to an instance of it)
            
            argumentative "on the other hand", "nevertheless"
            etc.
            
            associative "and", "also" etc....
          This category however, cannot accommodate the other
         function of hypertextual works, as "structures for breakdown
         in semantic space" (Moulthrop 1997:???). So perhaps we need
         another set of terms, drawn from rhetorical analysis, to
         account for such incoherence:
         
          b) Disjunctive dys/functionality
         
          
            anacoluthon
            
            a sentence begins one way, ends in another
            
            aposiopesis
            
            speech is broken off abruptly and the sentence
            remains unfinished
            
            catachresis
            
            a word or phrase is misapplied, especially in
            metaphor
            
            ellipsis
            
            a word or phrase is omitted to achieve a more compact
            expression
            
            hendiadys
            
            one idea is expressed through two terms ("darkness
            and gloom")
            
            parenthesis
            
            a word or phrase is put into a sentence which is
            grammatically complete without it
          So...?
         
          Thinking about these very provisional sets of link types,
         and trying to identify them in what I'm reading and writing,
         has raised a number of questions for which I don't yet have
         answers:
         
          
            Can a particular link can be assigned to a type with
            any certainty, in reading?
            
            Do these categories apply equally to fiction and
            non-fiction (as multigeneric collage)?
            
            How useful would these categories be for a
            narratological analysis of the "pivots" of hyperfiction?
            -- or for the argumentative turns of a non fictional
            hypertext of a poststructuralist kind? (That is, an
            "ergodics"-"a situation in which a chain of events (a
            path, a sequence of actions etc.) has been produced by
            the nontrivial efforts of one or more individuals or
            mechanisms": Aarseth 1997: 94.)
            
            How useful would they be for writers of such
            non-fictional hypertext, in more deliberately
            diversifying the nature of the links they set up and in
            thinking about the work such links can do?
            
            Would such a set of analytical tools help us get at
            the tacit assumptions and values that structure any
            hypertext?
            
            Is this, after all, a perverse, structuralist attempt
            to tidy into categorical boxes what of its nature evades
            such neatness?
          In this last regard, I'm mindful of what Ted Nelson's
         (1987: 31) warning: "Hierarchical and sequential structures,
         especially popular since Gutenberg, are usually forced and
         artificial. Intertwingularity is not generally
         acknowledged-people keep pretending they can make things
         hierarchical, categorisable and sequential when they
         can't...."
         
          Perhaps what I've got here is a "menagerie"-an
         illustrative array-rather than a Noah's ark?
         
          I don't expect to arrive at answers to all (or indeed
         fully to any) of these questions within the workshop. But I
         would be glad to have feedback on
         
          
            whether the categories seem to have some
            (provisional) utility for hypertext readers and writers
            
            what other types or factors need to be taken into
            account
            
            what other questions need to be asked
            
            most fruitful further directions for exploration....
          References
         
          Aarseth, E. (1997) Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic
         Literature. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press.
         
          Burbules, N. (1997) "Rhetorics of the Web: Hyperreading
         and Critical Literacy". In I. Snyder (ed.) Page to
         Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. Sydney:
         Allen and Unwin, pp. 102-22.
         
          Guyer, C., and Petry, M. (1991) "Notes for Izme Pass
         Expose". Writing at the Edge 2.2.
         
          Halliday, M. (1985) An Introduction to Functional
         Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
         
          Joyce, M. (1997) "New Stories for New Readers: Contour,
         Coherence and Constructive Hypertext". In I. Snyder (ed.)
         Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic
         Era. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp. 163-82.
         
          Landow, G. (1997) Hypertext 2.0..: The Convergence of
         Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore:
         Johns Hopkins University Press.
         
          Moulthrop, S. (1997) "Pushing Back: Living and Writing in
         Broken Space". Modern Fiction Studies 43, 3: 598-630.
         
       | 
       | 
         
            
         
         
          
      
       |