Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

The Nature and the Locus of Literariness

It is said that Roman Jakobson is the linguist to bear the responsibility for
popularizing the idea of literariness (literaturnost as the legitimate sub!ect of
literary scholarship"
#
$nd it is asserted that the bulk of Russian %ormalist theoretical
pronouncements deal directly or indirectly &ith the problem' What is the nature and
the locus of literariness?
(
)ut after all the strenuous dealings of Jakobson and
other fello&s of his linguistic circle &ith the problem' do &e ha*e a much clearer
understanding of &hat and &here literariness is+ The ans&er is no' of course"
Today &e may agree that to study literature is to kno& literariness" )ut &hat
e,actly is this sine qua non ingredient in any literary &ork+ $nd &here e,actly are
&e to find it+ -e seem not to ha*e o*ercome the moot .uestions yet" /ence my
!ustification for follo&ing up the issues here"
$s &e kno&' the Russian %ormalists do ha*e their definite idea of literariness"
In their effort to reduce art to mere de*ice' they ha*e chosen to promote the idea of
defamiliarization (ostranenie as the all sufficient feature of any literary
composition" %or them' especially for such earlier propounders of their theories as
0iktor 1hklo*sky and )oris Tomashe*sky' art is !ust the laying bare of one2s
techni.ue3 literature is !ust a special use of language &hich achie*es its distinctness
by de*iating from and distorting practical language"
4
Thus' their probing into the
nature of literariness leads them to a rigorous (and *igorous attempt to clarify' as
linguists supposedly need to do' the differences bet&een literary or poetic language
and nonliterary or ordinary (or practical' standard' utilitarian' prosaic' scientific'
e*eryday' communicati*e' referential' etc" language" 1uch an attempt' ho&e*er' has
not succeeded" Jan 5ukaro*sky' for instance' has not really clarified the typological
boundary bet&een standard language and poetic language' although his essay de*oted
to such a study can be regarded as a sensible attempt of its kind"
In his 1tandard Language and 6oetic Language' 5ukaro*sky postulates the
idea of foregrounding' &hich' as the opposite of automatization' is related to the
idea of defamiliarization (to estrange something is to foreground it" The function
of poetic language' he says' consists in the ma,imum of foregrounding of the
utterance" Then he e,plains7
In poetic language foregrounding achie*es ma,imum intensity to the
e,tent of pushing communication into the background as the ob!ect of
e,pression and of being used for its o&n sake3 it is not used in the
ser*ices of communication' but in order to place in the foreground the act
of e,pression' the act of speech itself"
8
/ere lies a common misconception that all %ormalists ha*e"
9
They delude themsel*es
&ith the belief that there is such a language as not used in the ser*ices of
communication but used for its o&n sake" In point of fact' unless &e can deny that
poetic lines like 1hakespeare2s 1hall I compare thee to a summer2s day':Thou art
more lo*ely and more temperate do not con*ey any feeling or thought or attitude to
anyone' or unless &e can deny that such lines are poetic lines' I really cannot see &hy
anyone can a*er that poetic language can be used not in the ser*ices of
communication" To say a language is used for its o&n sake is' in effect' to deny the
basic fact that any use of language is to communicate' to con*ey the user2s ideas to his
intended ob!ect" Language for language sake may sound magnificent' !ust like the
slogan art for art sake" ;et' it only rings &ith a bogus truth"
-e can understand' of course' that 5ukaro*sky is primarily asserting here that
the reception of message' in poetry or literature' is assured by stylistic de*ices &hose
function it is to compel attention"
<
$nd indeed the foregrounding of utterance is a
display of artfulness' a &ay of creating *erbal pleasure" $nd literature' as an art' is
surely to arouse the e,citement of emotion for the purpose of immediate pleasure'
through the medium of beauty (=oleridge 4<9" Ne*ertheless' &e still cannot *erify
that there is any speech spoken by a real person or by an imaginary character that
pro*ides pleasure alone' like pure music' &ithout deli*ering any message" $lgernon
=harles 1&inburne2s sumptuously melodious lines' for instance' still communicate the
poet2s import' though their inherent orchestral music tends to carry the reader a&ay
from their embedded sense" In most literary cases' in fact' to place the act of
e,pression in the foreground is to e,press the content more effecti*ely than other&ise'
or (to .uote 6ope to make us realize &hat oft &as thought' but ne2er so &ell
e,pressed'
>efamiliarization or foregrounding is indeed not a necessary de*ice of poetry'
nor is it a pertinent idea for distinguishing literary language from nonliterary
language" -hy+ )ecause' for one thing' &e do find ackno&ledged poetic lines
sounding as familiar and unforegrounded as ordinary utterances" -ords&orth2s
Lyrical Ballads, for e,ample' are rich in lines &hich can demonstrate his assertion that
a large portion of the language of e*ery good poem can in no respect differ from that
of good prose ((94" Therefore' for -ords&orth the poet is only a man speaking to
man((99" In fact' 5ukaro*sky himself admits that the &riter' say a no*elist' may
either not distort the linguistic components of his &ork at all ? or he may distort it'
but subordinate the linguistic distortion to the sub!ect matter(98"
If to foreground a linguistic component by defamiliarizing it is a sufficient
de*ice of creating poetry or literature' then it &ould be rather easy to become a man
of letters" %or it is rather easy to in*ent a radically ne& te,t by making strange the
*erbal structure contained in it &ithout ha*ing to care about its aesthetic effect" That
is &hy one &ill find it much easier to compose a surrealist poem than a traditional
sonnet"
-hen &e consider the source of the pleasure &hich the reader e,periences in
reading a literary &ork' &e &ill find that it lies as much in the familiarity as in the
unfamiliarity of the &ork2s linguistic components to the reader" $ lo*er of chi*alric
romance' for instance' may find pleasure in any con*entional diction and de*ices
pertaining to that genre' !ust as a 6eking@opera fan &ill en!oy seeing each detail of the
opera performed on the stage according to e,pected modes although' &e must grant'
an occasionally original (and thus defamiliarized touch in a &ork or performance
may be pleasing' too"
It follo&s then that the defamiliarization or the foregrounding of certain
linguistic components is indeed not e.ual to literariness" $ literary &ork' &e must
understand' is more than its linguistic style' be it normal or abnormal" To *ie& it
properly in the light of language' &e must understand that a literary &ork is also a
speech act or speech e*ent like a con*ersation or a natural narrati*e3 it therefore
in*ol*es' like any *erbal message' a message@sender' a message@recei*er' the medium
through &hich the message is sent and recei*ed' and the &orld in &hich message'
sender' recei*er' and medium e,ist" Thus' to seek literariness in a &ork is to
e,plore all the factors of that &ork7 its author' reader' uni*erse' etc"' as &ell as its
language"
In his Semiotics and Interpretation' Robert 1choles accepts Jakobson2s idea of
literariness" /e agrees that literariness is found in all sorts of utterances3 a literary
&ork is simply one in &hich literariness is dominant (#A" )ut unlike other formalist@
semioticians' he does not locate literariness merely in the formal structure of a &ork2s
message" /e thinks all the si, factors of a communicati*e act as pointed out in
Jakobson2s schema (i"e"' sender' recei*er' contact' message' code' and conte,t are to
be considered in any search for literariness" $nd he belie*es that &e sense
literariness in an utterance &hen any one of the si, features of communication loses
its simplicity and becomes multiple or duplicitous((#" %or him literariness is found
&here a communicati*e act encourages us to sense a difference bet&een maker and
speaker (e"g"' &hen the author uses a persona to tell his story' &here the &ords of
an utterance seem to be aimed not directly at us but at someone else (e"g"' &hen a lyric
is' as John 1tuart 5ill has suggested' o*erheard rather than heard' &here spoken
&ords are presented to us not in speaking but in another form of contact (e"g"' all
literature transmitted through &riting or print' &here the form of the message
becomes more complicated than usual (e"g"' the sound effects and syntactic patterning
of *erse' &here the doubling of conte,ts is seen (e"g"' &hen' reading a no*el' &e are
led into a fictional &orld other than the &orld surrounding us immediately' and
&here the code of the message points to other communicati*e acts (e"g"' in .uoting
from' alluding to' or parodying a pre*ious te,t" To tidy things up' 1choles gi*es us
the follo&ing list as a finder of literariness7
#" >uplicity of senderBrole@playing' acting
(" >uplicity of recei*erBea*esdropping' *oyeurism
4" >uplicity of messageBopacity' ambiguity
8" >uplicity of conte,tBallusion' fiction
9" >uplicity of contactBtranslation' fiction
<" >uplicity of codein*ol*ed in all the abo*e (4#
1choles is right here to remind us that literariness may occur any&here in the
entire process of *erbal communication from the encoding to the decoding of
message" )ut his idea of duplicity still lea*es us room to .uestion" I suspect that his
duplicity is also a form of defamiliarization' not !ust an opposing term to simplicity"
It seems to him that anything indicating a de*iation from the normal speech situation
is a mark of literariness" Therefore' he says' The more an essay alludes or
fictionalizes' the more the author adopts a role or suggests one for the reader' the more
the language becomes sonorous or figured' the more literary the essay (or the letter'
the prayer' the speech' etc" becomes(48"
>uplicity' as a term' also suggests a .uantitati*e idea" I cannot deny that
literature has numerical matters in itself" )ut I must deny that anything literary must
be more than simple" %or me an artful element can be either simple or complicated'
depending on the conte,t in &hich it occurs" If literariness is an artful .uality' it
need not al&ays in*ol*e duplicity" To put it clearly' a literary message can be *ery
simple and normal in regard to its sender' recei*er' conte,t' etc" %or me' for instance'
the most mo*ing (and thus most artful lines in King Lear are the t&o simple lines7
" " " ;ou think I2ll &eep3:No' I2ll not &eep (' ' (CD@#" The t&o lines are spoken
by Eing Lear to his t&o elder daughters &hen they ha*e depri*ed him of all his
pri*ileges and ill@treated him *ery unnaturally" The t&o lines contain only a *ery
natural (and therefore sincere and truthful reply out of a heart@broken father2s
mouth" Their naturalness' in fact' forms a natural contrast to his t&o daughters2
unnatural (and therefore false and unfilial speech and manners" $nd &e kno& the
theme of natural *s" unnatural is a dominant theme of the play"
F
/ere &e must clarify a point" That is' to bring about duplicity as &ell as to
defamiliarize or to foreground a linguistic component is at best a mere de*ice of
creating literariness' not the .uality of literariness itself" If &e &ant to define
literariness as a sine qua non .uality of literature' &e must consider not only the
means but also the end of producing that .uality" %or me the end of literariness is
e.ui*alent to the end of literature' &hich is to delight and to instruct (to delight
instructi*ely or to instruct delightfully through the proper (or artful use of language"
C
To defamiliarize' to foreground' and to make duplicity are but three means to the same
literary end"
In actuality' if &e &ant to postulate an idea that can best co*er all literary
de*ices &hich ser*e to make up the .uality of literariness' the idea' I think' is
*erbal artfulness" Literature is indeed a *erbal art" Literariness therefore lies in the
artful use of language" The term artful is better than the term special" -hen the
%ormalists hold that literature is !ust a special use of language' they are right in
pointing out the *erbal nature of all literature' but the term special has limited their
*ie&s to such ideas as defamiliarization and foregrounding" In fact' any artist2s
special de*ice or skill or techni.ue or anything one may choose to call it is
special in that it aims to achie*e his intended artistic purpose" The &ord artful
thus can point more directly to the true nature of literature than special"
%or me' art is fore*er a matter of proper choice and good arrangement" Jonathan
1&ift says' 6roper &ords in proper places' make the true definition of a style"
A
1" T"
=oleridge defines prose as &ords in their best order' and poetry as the best &ords
in the best order"
#D
I hold' in accordance &ith their *ie&s' that literature is !ust the
artful (i"e"' proper and best selection and combination of all linguistic components
(phonological' morphological' syntactical' semantic' pragmatic' etc" for an aesthetic
end (i"e"' beauty &ith truth and goodness"
In their Linguistics for Students of Literature' Glizabeth =loss Traugott and
5ary Louise 6ratt discuss the concept of style as de*iance in contrast &ith the
concept of style as choice' and they make this comment7 In the end' the idea of style
as de*iance al&ays leads back to the broader *ie& that style is choice' &here choice
includes selecting or not selecting de*iant structures" 1tyle as choice subsumes style
as de*iance' for de*iance is only one aspect of the language of literature(44" The
points they are making here are .uite right" $nd I think these statements are still true
if &e substitute the &ord literariness for the &ord style" $nd if &e can make the
&ord choice co*er the idea of arrangement or combination (i"e"' choice as including
choosing to arrange or combine this &ay or that &ay' then I think literariness is really
!ust a matter of choice"
The most famous statement in Jakobson2s =losing 1tatement7 Linguistics and
6oetics is 7 The poetic function pro!ects the principle of e.ui*alence from the a,is
of selection into the a,is of combination"
##
This often@.uoted statement is often
taken to e,plain the literary phenomenon of cohesion" -hat he means by this is that'
in poetry' structures &hich are roughly e.ui*alent in sound' or sentence structure' or
grammatical category' or some other aspect tend to be combined in a linear order or
se.uence(Traugott ((" =ohesion' in fact' is more than the combination of roughly
e.ui*alent elements" $ more inclusi*e e,planation of the same statement is Glmar
/olenstein2s7 $ poetic se.uence is characterized on all le*els of language by the
reiteration of the same and similar elements (alliteration' rhythm' homonymy'
synonymy and by their contrasti*e *ariations (rhythm' antonymy' negati*e
parallelism" In the case of contrast' the antecedent link of the combination is
repeated in an implicit (i"e"' negati*e manner(#89"
#(
The selection of similar or contrasti*e elements is of course a choice' and so is
the &ay' indeed' of combining selected elements" 1o' broadly interpreted' Jakobson2s
famous statement does define literariness (for the %ormalists' literariness and
poeticalness are synonymous as a matter of choice" /is idea' ho&e*er' is restricted
to a %ormalist concern" Like other %ormalists' he focuses his attention e,clusi*ely on
the form' that is' on the intrinsic patterning of the &ork under e,amination' ignoring'
mean&hile' the origin and the destination of the &ork (that is' ignoring the author and
the reader" -e kno& this %ormalist propensity has gi*en rise to the $merican Ne&
=riticism' &hich in attacking the intentional fallacy and the affecti*e fallacy has
narro&ed its *ie& of literature to a mere idea of unity or organic form seen in the
perspecti*e of tension or parado, or irony or ambiguity"
In his The irror and the Lamp' 5" /" $brams points out four co@ordinates of
art criticism7 namely' uni*erse' artist' audience' and &ork" %or him' thus' four
theoretical groups are possible7 those *ie&ing &ork in relation to uni*erse (e"g"'
mimetic theories' those *ie&ing &ork in relation to artist (e,pressi*e theories' those
*ie&ing &ork in relation to audience (pragmatic theories' and those *ie&ing &ork
per se (ob!ecti*e theories" %or me' the essential co@ordinates of art are fi*e7 uni*erse'
artist' audience' &ork' and medium" -ithin the domain of literature' the fi*e co@
ordinates are in fact &ork' author' reader 'uni*erse' and language" $nd for me all
theories are but partial truths" =onse.uently' there is no theory but has its limitation
or its fallacy' if you like" If the Ne& =ritics do not commit the author@oriented
intentional fallacy nor the reader@oriented affecti*e fallacy' they ha*e instead
committed the ob!ecti*e fallacy' so to speak' by isolating the &ork from the
uni*erse in &hich it e,ists" )y the same token the %ormalist 1chool' &e might say'
ha*e committed the linguistic fallacy by concentrating on the medium (i"e"'
language alone in their consideration of literariness"
Roman Jokobson' as &e kno&' is the first to point out the si, elements in*ol*ed
in any communicati*e act7 sender' recei*er' contact' message' code' and conte,t" $nd
he assigns si, corresponding functions to them7 emoti*e' conati*e' phatic' poetic'
metalingual' and referential" -ithin that schema' ho&e*er' most %ormalists ha*e
unfortunately confined their idea of literariness to the formal features of encoded
message (the selection and combination of formally *isible linguistic components'
forgetting that literariness is ne*er a mere ob!ecti*e .uality inherent in a literary
&ork"
Literariness' to be sure' can be an ob!ecti*e .uality in the sense that it can be
obser*ed or felt by more than a single indi*idual" )ut that agreed@upon ob!ecti*e
.uality must first get into the author2s mind consciously or unconsciously &hen he
creates his &ork' and it ought to be able to emerge again in the reader2s mind
consciously or unconsciously &hen he reads it" In other &ords' literariness as an
ob!ecti*e .uality lies in effect in the sub!ecti*e psyche of the man in contact &ith its
formal embodiment (i"e"' the &ork through the medium of language"
In a literary man2s (i"e"' author2s or reader2s sub!ecti*e psyche' ne*ertheless'
literariness is still a matter of proper choice and good arrangement" It may manifest
itself in the proper choice and good arrangement of such ob*iously linguistic
components as rhyme' rhythm' diction' sentence structure' and paragraph
organization' or of such seemingly e,tra@linguistic components as images' motifs' and
plot details"
#4
In actuality' all that a literary &ork contains can be reduced to three
things7 sound' shape' and sense" That is' e*ery literary &ork has three aspects7 the
audial' the *isual' and the mental" The audial and the *isual aspects are &hat make up
the form of the &ork' &hile the mental aspect is &hat makes up the content of the
&ork" -hen a &ork is heard (as in a recitation' the audial aspect alone &ill assume
the form" -hen the &ork is seen in its &ritten or printed form' the *isual aspect &ill
then be added to it" )ut all the three aspects are &orking together &hen one is
reading' for reading is an act of the eyes' the ears and the brain" In any aspect'
ho&e*er' &hat the author or the reader imagines in mind is a structured te,t' &hich is
no other than the meaningful detail of selection and combination"
-ith this understanding' &e can then conclude that literariness is indeed
*erbal artfulness' &hich is in turn nothing but proper choice and good arrangement
of all linguistic components (phonological' morphological' syntactical' semantic' and
pragmatic" )ut since the !udgments of propriety or goodness rests &ith the author
&ho creates the &ork and &ith the reader &ho responds to it' the .uality of
literariness is realized only in a person2s mind3 the true locus of literariness is not
the &ork' but the author and the reader" $nd since both author and reader are sub!ect
to e,ternal influences from the e*er@changing uni*erse in &hich they li*e'
literariness is ne*er a stable .uality that can be fi,ed once for all" It is rather a
changeable .uality that can *ary &ith times' places' persons' and generic types of the
&ork" That is &hy e*en the theoreticians of defamiliarization and foregrounding
must' ultimately' also talk of the dynamic principle of literariness"
#8
-hen I talk of literariness as *erbal artfulness' I also suggest that it is an
indeterminate .uality" %or different people in different times and places can indeed
see artfulness in different things" $n eighteenth@century neo@classicist like 6ope' for
instance' &ould see artfulness in &itty phrasings &hile a nineteenth@century realist
like /enry James &ould see artfulness in all instances of faithful character portrayal"
In fact' all literary theorists and practitioners ha*e their o&n standards of *erbal
artfulness" The Russian %ormalists' as &e ha*e discussed so far' are those &ho take
such formal features as similarity and parallelism for *erbal artfulness' thus
pri*ileging only those kinds of &riting most e,plicable to their critical method"
#9

Today a postmodernist' &e might presume' &ould claim that *erbal artfulness is !ust
anything that comes by chance' something that depends on aleation' not on any
artistic order' formal or psychologicala definition diametrically opposed to our
normal or traditional idea of art" /ence literariness or literature can be anything
one likes it to be"
)ut does an indi*idual really ha*e a full right to decide his o&n idea of
literariness+ I say yes if he is to li*e entirely secluded from his fello& men or if
he is determined not to care a fig about others2 opinions" ;et' if he cannot do so' if he
has to lead a social life and' thus' if he must rely someho& on cooperati*e
principles for his happy e,istence in this all too human a &orld' I belie*e he can
ne*er really let the nature and the locus of literariness fall entirely on his o&n
&him" In other &ords' one must see literariness as something determined
collecti*ely by the entire speech community to &hich one belongs" %or' as one critic
said recently' 1o long as the concept of the ob!ect of study remains inade.uately
historicized in terms of specific reader communities at specific times ? so long &ill
searchers for literariness miss the point(=olomb 4#4" Literariness' or *erbal
artfulness' must e*entually be a functional *ariable in the public mind"
Notes
#" In his !o"e#sa#a russ$a#a poe%i#a, "i$tor &le'ni$o" (6rague' #A(#' p" ##'
Jakobson claims that The sub!ect of literary scholarship is not literature in its
totality' but literariness' i"e"' that &hich makes a gi*en &ork a &ork of literature"
(" 1ee 0ictor Grlich' (ussian )ormalism* +istory,-octrine' 4
rd
Gdition (Ne&
/a*en H London7 ;ale Ini*" 6ress' #A<9' p" #F("
4" 1ee Raman 1elden' . (eader/s 0uide to 1ontemporary Literary Theory
()righton' Gngland7 The /ar*ester 6ress' #AC9' p" C"
8" 1ee >onald =" %reeman' ed"' Linguistics and Literary Style (Ne& ;ork7 /olt'
Rinehart H -inston' Inc"' #AFD' pp" 84@88" This is reprinted from . 2rague
School (eader on 3sthetics, Literary Structure, and Style' selected and translated
by 6aul L" Jar*in' (Jeorgeto&n Ini*" 6ress' #A<8"
9" =ompare the statement in the 6rague Linguistic =ircle2s Theses7 In its social
role' language must be specified according to its relation to e,tralinguistic
reality" It has either a communicati*e function' that is' it is directed to&ard the
signified' or a poetic function' that is' it is directed to&ard the sign itself"
(Translated and .uoted by 5ary Louise 6ratt in her To4ard a Speech .ct Theory
of Literary -iscourse' p" C" =ompare also )oris Tomase*ski!2s statement7 The
chief trait of poetry is that it no longer presents an e,pression merely as a means
or the action of an automatic mechanism' but as an element &hich has gained an
original aesthetic *alue and has become an end in itself of the discourse"
(Translated and .uoted in 6ratt' p" #(" This same idea is seen of course in
Jakobson2s assigning poetic function to that &hich has its linguistic message
oriented to&ard the message as such"
<" 5ichael Riffaterre has the same idea in his =riteria for 1tyle $nalysis' in
3ssays on the Language of Literature" )ut 1tanley %ish takes it for a strong form
of 6ope2s -hat often &as thought' but ne2er so &ell e,pressed" 1ee %ish2s Is
There a Te5t in This 1lass? (/ar*ard Ini*" 6ress' #ACD" pp" #D4@8"
F" The &ord nature and its cognates (natural' unnatural' disnatured' etc"
recur throughout the play' producing ambiguity of the term and comple,ity of the
play2s theme"
C" In his $rt of 6oetry' /orace asserts that the aim of the poet is either to benefit'
or to amuse' or to make his &ords at once please and gi*e lessons of life" I think
that to delight and to instruct are often inseparable" -hate*er pleases &ill also
teach' directly or indirectly3 &hate*er teaches &ill like&ise please" $nd I think
that all other functions of literature one can think of (e"g"' to mo*e' to console' to
e,press oneself' to reflect truth' to react to reality' etc" can be incorporated into
these t&o aims"
A" 1ee his Letter to a ;oung =lergyman' January A' #F(D"
#D" 1ee his Table Talk' July #(' #C(F"
##" This statement is reprinted in Thomas $ 1ebeok' ed"' Style in Language
(=ambridge7 5IT 6ress' #A<D' p" 49C"
#(" 5ichael 1hapiro' in his .symmetry* .n Inquiry into the Linguistic Structure of
2oetry' argues that poetry is based on contrast rather than on similarity and
parallelism" )ut Glizabeth =loss Traugott H 5ary Louise 6ratt hold that either
parallelism or contrast can be considered an e,ample of cohesi*eness" 1ee their
Linguistics for Students of Literature' p" 4A' Note (4"
#4" These seemingly e,tralinguistic components are after all linguistic components
since such things as images' motifs' and plot details must needs appear as *isible
or in*isible linguistic entities (&ords in print or &ords in mind"
#8" The dynamic principle is seen in the late %ormalist concept of the dominant"
Jacobson and others' in their later phase' began to see poetic forms as something
changing and de*eloping not at random but as a result of the shifting
dominant" This idea finally cooperates &ith the 5ar,ist idea of dialectical
materialism to gi*e rise to the )ahktin 1chool of criticism"
#9" In his =losing 1tatement7 Linguistics and 6oetics in Retrospect' >erek $ttridge
says that Jakobson2s method pri*ileges poetry o*er prose' the short poem o*er
the long poem' the lyric o*er the narrati*e' the formally patterned o*er the freely
*arying' etc" $nd he cites Jakobson2s comments on 6ushkin' ;eats' e" e"
cummings' etc"' for e,amples" 1ee Nigel %abb' et al"' eds"' The Linguistics of
Writing* .rguments 'et4een Language and Literature (Ne& ;ork7 5ethuen Inc"'
#ACF' pp" (8@(9"
Works Consulted
$brams' 5" /" The irror and the Lamp6 Ne& ;ork7 Norton' #A9C"
$ttridge' >erek" =losing 1tatement7 Linguistics and 6oetics in Retrospect" The
Linguistics of Writing* .rguments 'et4een Language and Literature6 Gd" Nigel
%abb' et al" Ne& ;ork7 5ethuen Inc"' #ACF"
=oleridge 1" T" Kn the 6rinciples of Jenial =riticism =oncerning the %ine $rts"
1riticism* The a#or Te5t" Gd" -alter Jackson )ate" Ne& ;ork7 /arcourt' #AFD"
=olomb' Jregory" The 1emiotic 1tudy of Literary -orks" Tracing Literary
Theory6 Gd" Joseph Natoli" =hicago7 I of Illinois 6' #ACF"
Grlich' 0ictor" (ussian )ormalism* +istory,-octrine6 4
rd
Gdition" Ne& /a*en H
London7 ;ale I6' #A<9"
%ish' 1tanley" Is There a Te5t in This 1lass? =ambridge' 517 /ar*ard I6' #ACD"
Jar*in' 6aul L" . 2rague School (eader on 3sthetics, Literary Structure, and Style'
-ashington' >=7 Jeorgeto&n I6' #A<8"
/olenstein' Glmar" (oman 7ac$o'osn/s .pproach to Language6 Translated by
=atherine 1helbert H Tarcisius 1helbert" )loomington H London7 Indiana I6'
#AF<"
/orace" $rt of 6oetry" 1riticism* The a#or Te5t" Gd" -alter Jackson )ate" Ne&
;ork7 /arcourt' #AFD"
Jakobson' Roman" =losing 1tatement7 Linguistics and 6oetics" Style in Language6
Gd" Thomas $ 1ebeok" =ambridge'517 5IT 6ress' #A<D"
5ukaro*sky' Jan" 1tandard Language and 6oetic Language" Linguistics and
Literary Style6 Gd" >onald =" %reeman" Ne& ;ork7 /olt' Rinehart H -inston'
Inc"' #AFD"
6ratt' 5ary Louise" To4ard a Speech .ct Theory of Literary -iscourse6
)loomington7 Indiana I6' #AFF"
Riffaterre' 5ichael" =riteria for 1tyle $nalysis" 3ssays on the Language of
Literature" )oston7 /oughton 5ifflin =o"' #A<F"
1choles' Robert" Semiotics and Interpretation" Ne& /a*en7 ;ale I6' #A4("
1elden' Raman" . (eader/s 0uide to 1ontemporary Literary Theory" )righton'
Gngland7 The /ar*ester 6ress' #AC9"
Traugott' Glizabeth =loss H 5ary Louise 6ratt" Linguistics for Students of
Literature6 Ne& ;ork7 /arcourt )race Jo*ano*ich' Inc"' #ACD"
-ords&orth' -illiam" 6reface to Lyrical Ballads" Gd" R" L" )rett and $" R" Jones"
London7 5ethuen H =o"' #AF#"