17:51 Dec 11, 2011 

Albeit very attractive a solution, in this context it may be confusing. The matter is that in conventional lingo of social sciences – particularly, thanks to Freud, in everything pertaining to thought/psyche – "superstructure" pertains to the so-called conscious mind/self awareness, etc., while the infrastructural realm is "subcosciousness" "non-articulated mind" and the like. Since Lotman (who, a proposito, is blatantly lifting from Chomski, and, as the latter, is as preposterousas he is wrong... not that it matters here: mi sono sfogato un po', sorry) talks about somthng built atop consciousness, using "superstructural" we'll be risking an implicit tautology: superstructural elements of a superstructure. A non-specialist wouldn't notice, but a specialist would be most likely to wince... as did I. So much more pity, because, I repeat, the term is very attractive here.