fowler - studying literature as language

7/28/2019 Fowler - Studying Literature as Language

1/10

Studying Li tera ture as Language

Roger FowlerUn ivers i ty of Ea s t A ngl ia

For the pas t twenty- f ive y ears o r so , the re has been a runn ing d i spu te be tw eenl i te ra ry c r i t i cs and l inguis t s on the ques t ion of whether i t i s appropr ia te to app lyl i ng u i s t i c m e th od s - t h a t i s t o s ay , m e tho ds de r ived from th e d i s c ip l i ne ofl i n g u i s t i c s - t o t h e s t u d y of l i t e r a t u r e . T h e r e h a s b e e n a l m o s t u n i v e r s a lconf idence am on g the lingu is t i s tha t th i s ac t iv i ty is en t i r e ly jus t i fi ed ; and a lm os tun iversa l res i s tance by the c r i t i cs , who have regarded the exerc i se wi th a lmos tm ora l ind ign a t ion . In th i s uny ie ld ing d i spu te , the c la im s and den ia l s on bo ths ides hav e been voiced wi th gre a t fo rc and pass ion . H ere i s Rom n J ako bso npu t t in g the l ing uis t ' s case , in 1958:

Poe t ics dea l s wi th p ro b iem s of ve rb a l s t r uc t u re , jus t a s the an a ly s i s of pa in t ing i s concerned wi thp ic to r ica l s t ruc tu r e . S ince l ingu is t i c s i s the g loba l sc ience o f ve rb a l s t ruc tu r e , poe t ics may bereg ard ed a s an in te gra l pa r t o f l ingu is t i c s ! 1 ].

But the cr i t ics wil l not have this . In a long, bi t ter controversy between the la te F.W. Ba teson and m yse lf in 1967 , the co un te ra rgu m en t aga in s t l inguis t ics wasbased esse n t ia l ly on an a l lega t ion of unf i tness . L ingu is t ics is a sc ience , c la im sBateson , bu t l i t e ra ture has what he ca l i s an " inerad icab le sub jec t ive core" whichis inac cess ible to sc ience. Ag ain, l ingu is t ic proce ssing is only a pr el i m ina ry tol i t e ra r y respo nse , so the l inguis t i s incapab le o f t ak in g us fa r en oug h in anacc ou nt of l i te ra ry form and expe rience . Fin al ly , he re is a dism iss ive o pposi t ionformula ted by David Lodge , which i s rea l ly say ing tha t never the twain sha l lm e e t :

One s t i l l f ee ls ob l iged to ass e r t th a t the d i sc ip l ine of l ingu is t i c s wi l l never re p la ce l i t e ra rycr i t i c i sm .or rad ica l ly chan ge the bases o f i t s c la ims to be a use fu l and m eaningfu l form of hum aninqu i ry . I t i s the essen t ia l chara c te r i s t i c of mod era l ingu is t i c s tha t i t c la im s to be a sc ience . I t i st h e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of l i t e r a t u r e t h a t i t c o n c e r n s v a l e s . A n d v a l e s a r e n o t a m e n a b l e t oscient i f ic method[2J.

Th e oppo si t ion betw een science and val es is a t the hea r t of the refusal to agre e;i t manifes ts i tse l f in dif ferent specif ic forms in many dis t inct arguments amongprotagonis ts for the two cases . What I would l ike you to note in this contr ibut ionby Lodge is the way in which the key terms, * science ' and * vales , ' are fe l t to beself-ex plan atory and conclusive. Lodge, l ike mo st of the deb ate rs on both s ides ,8 1


2/10

r e q u i r e s u s t o t a k e t h e c e n t r a l t e r m s o n t r u s t , t o a c c e p t t h e m i n t h e i rcom mo nsen se mea nin gs wi th the i r ordin ary va l es presupposed . In effec t, Lodgeis perc e iv ing the two disc ip l ines in te r m s of s te ro ty pes , ra th er th an an aly s in gcareful ly the ter m s and concepts involved in the com par ison . I do not say th atLodge is especia l ly culpab le , mere ly th a t th is s ta te m en t of h is is ch ara c te r i s t ic ofth is hab i t , in the deba te , of re ly ing on undef ined an d s tero typica l te rm s. Boths ides are g ui l ty of th is .

I real ised a long t ime ago that I must s top adding fuel to this dispute; s ince theconfronta t ion was conducted in condi t ions of qu i te inade qu ate theo r iza t ion , i tw as im poss ib le to pa r t i c pa te in i t a s a r easo ned deb a te . W i th ou t g e t t ingenvolved in the cont roversy again , 1 would l ike to mere ly ment ion some commonfa i lu res of theo r i za t io n w hich r en de r i t im p oss ib le to dea l sens ib ly w i th aque s t ion so na ive ly formu la ted as can l inguis t ics be appl ied to l i te ra t ur e? '1. A major diff iculty, on both sides, is a com pletely un cri t ica l u nd er sta nd in g ofw ha t i s m ean t by ~ l ing uist ic s . ' T he l i te rar y cr i t ics ma ke no al low anc e for the facttha t there exis t d i f ferent l inguis t ic theor ies wi th qui te d is t inc t charac ter i s t ics .W hi le i t mig ht be t ru e of linguis t ic model * A' th a t i t can or cann ot car ry o ut som epa r t ic ul ar function of c r i t ic i sm , the same m igh t not be t ru e of model ~B ' whichha s a different scope or a different m an ne r of procee ding. If th e cr i t ic s ar e no tw e ll enough in fo rm ed to d i sc r im na te be tw e en m ode l s , t he l in gu i s t s do no tacknowledge the d is t inc t ions ; a l inguis t wi l l work on l i te ra ture in te rms of thet h e o r y s /h e h a p p e n s t o u p h o l d a s t h e ' c o r r e c t ' t h e o r y . S u c h i s t h ecompeti t iveness of the schools of l inguist ics that a devotee of one theory wil l notacknowledge tha t a r iva l might have some advantages for the task in hand.2. A second pers is ten t fa l lacy abou t l inguis t ics , ag ain rep resen ted on both s ides ,conce rns the ana ly t i c m o d u s o p e r a n d i of l ingu ist ic me thod. I t wil l be clearf rom w ha t 1 have ju s t sa id tha t d if ferent models have qui te d iverse a im s, an dproc edu res towa rds those a im s. One model may have the purpose of acco unt in gfor t h e s t r u c t u r e o f p a r t i c u l a r t e x t s ; a n o t h e r m a y fo cu s o n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i cvar ia t ion; another may be concerned to increase our knowledge about l inguis t icun iv e r sa l s ; and so on .

But the re i s a common misconcept ion t ha t l inguis t ics -any l inguis t ics - is a k indof au tom at i c ana lyz i ng device wh ich, fed a text , wi ll ou tpu t a descr ip t ion wi th outhu m an in ter ven t ion . (The cr i t ics of course reg ard th is as a soul less ly de s t ruc t iveprocess , a c rue l ty to poems, but tha t i s s imply an emot ional over- reac t ion basedon a misconce pt ion) . Now w hat eve r d i fferences ther e are be twee n con tem pora ryl ingu is t ic the or ie s , I th in k they would a l l ag ree w i th Cho msk y 's ins is ten ce th a tl inguis t ics i s n o t a d i scovery p rocedure . L in gu i s t i c an a l ys i s w orks on ly inr e l a t i o h t o w h a t s p e a k e r s k n o w a l r e a d y , o r w h a t l i n g u i s t s h y p o t h e s i z e i nad va nc e. So the whole ran ge of object ions to l ingu ist ics on the grou nd s th a t i t isme re ly a m echa nica l procedu re can be d ismissed; l inguis t ic analy s is i s a f lexib le ,directed operat ion complet ly under the control of i ts users , who can direct i t tow ard s any go als which ar e wi th in the scope of the model be ing used. Com ple teh u m an contro l is possible if you careful ly theo rize the na tu re of yo ur objet ive,and the n a t ur e of the objec t you are s tudy ing.82


3/10

W hich le ads to m ent io n a second set of def ic iencies in th e w ay l in gu is t icc r i t i c i sm i s theor ized , and the n to the more pos i tive par t of my a rg um en t .Even if c r i t i c s and l inguis t s pos i t ive ly ackn ow ledg e tha t l ang ua ge i s o ff u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l i t e r a r y t e x t , t h e r e i s noguaran tee tha t they wi l l p resen t l anguage in a rea l i s t i c and i l lumina t ing way .Th e re a r e t h r ee r ep re sen t a t i ons of l anguage t h a t I r ega rd a s pa r t i cu l a r ly unhe lp -

ful, an d I will briefly in sta nc e them by refere nce to th e work of sch ola rs wh osecom m i tme n t to l anguag e is undoub ted and subs t an t i a l .1 . The f i r s t p rob lemat ic a t t i tude i s tha t which regards language in l i t e ra ture asa n o b j e c t . This pos i t ion i s impl ic i t th roughout the work of Romn Jakobson[3 ] .Jakobson ' s "poe t ic func t ion ' c la ims tha t the impor tan t th ing about l i t e ra ture i sthe way in which s t ru c tu re i s o rgan ised to fo reground th e sub s tan t ive e le m en tsof the tex t -in pa r t icu la r , phonology and syn tax . The pa t te r ns of para l le l i sm andequivalents which he f inds in his poems, a t these levis of language, bulk out theformal s t ruc ture , e . g . met r ica l and s tanza ic s t ruc ture , so tha t the tex t i s re -pr ese nte d as i f i t s m ain m ode of exis tenc e were perce pt ible physical form. Th ec o s t of t h i s i m a g i n a r y p r o c e s s i s m i n i m i z a t i o n o f w h a t w e m i g h t c a l icom m unica t i ve and in t e rpe r sona l - in a word, p r ag m a t i c - fu nc t io ns of t he t ex t .As I shal l show in a m om ent , i t i s exact ly the se prag m atic d im ens ions w hich g iveth e r ich est s ignif icance for cr i t ical s tud ies . I t i s a pi ty th at th is 'o bjec t ive ' th eo ryof lang uag e in l i t e ra t ur e should have been g iven cur renc y by such a b r i l l i an t a ndin f luen t i a l l i ng i s t a s J akobson .2. A second unhelpful a t t i tu de to lan gu ag e is th at wh ich t r ea ts i t as a m d i u mth ro ug h which l i t e ra t ur e i s t ran sm i t ted . H ere I quote David Lodge aga in : 'T h enove l i s t ' s mdium i s l anguage : wha tever he does , q u a novel is t , he does in andth rou gh l anguage ' [4 ] . P r e su ma b ly l angua ge a s a md ium i s ana logous to pa in t ,bronze or cel luloid for other ar ts . But the metaphor easi ly comes to mean ' o n l y am diu m ': the real th in g is the novel (or poem , e tc.) which is conveyed in andthr ou gh ' the m dium . Th us the subs ta nce of l i t e ra tur e is sh i f ted in to som eobs cure and def ined, sph ere of exis ten ce which is somehow beyond lan gu ag e. Bu tfor l i ngu i s t i c s , l i t e r a t u r e i s l an gu ag e , t o be t heo r i zed j u s t l i ke any o t he rd iscourse ; i t m ak es no sense to degra de the langu age to a m ere m dium , s ince them ean ings , t hem es , l a rge r s t ruc tu re s of a t ex t , ' l i t e r a r y ' or not , a r e un ique lyco nstru cted by th e tex t in i ts in t err e la t io n with socia l and other contex ts . Th isposi t ion is dif f icul t for l i terary cr i t ics to swal low, because i t appears to removethe c la imed special s ta tus (and valu) of l i tera ture , to reduce i t to the level of thel a n g u a g e of t h e m a r k e t p l a c e . B u t t h i s l e v e l l i n g i s e s s e n t i a l to l i n g u i s t i ccr i t ic ism if the whole range of ins ights about language provided by l inguis t ics isto be ma de ava i lab le . We wa nt t show that a novel or a poem is a complexlys t ru c tu red tex t ; th a t i t s s t ru c tu ra l fo rm, by soc ia l semio t ic p rocesses , cons t i tu tesa rep rese n ta t ion of a wor ld , chara c te r ized by ac t iv i t i es and s ta te s and va l es ;tha t th i s t ex t i s a communica t ive in te rac t ion be tween i t s p roducer and i t s con-s u m e r s , w i t h i n r e l e v a n t s o c ia l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t e x t s . N o w t h e s ech ara c te r i s t i cs o f the nove l o r poem are no more tha t w ha t func tiona l l inguis t icsis looking for in s tudying, say, conversat ions or le t ters or off ic ia l documents .P er ha ps th i s is a r i cher and thu s more accep tab le chara c te r iza t ion of the a im s ofl ingu is t ic an a ly s i s than l i t e ra ry c r i t i cs usua l ly expect . But fo r me a t any ra te ,

83


4/10

th i s i s wha t theor iza t ion a s l angu age involves . No ab s t ra c t l i t e ra ry prop er t ies' beyo nd ' t he m d ium need to be pos tu l a t ed , fo r t he rh e to r i ca l an d s em io t i cp r o p e r t i e s in q u e s t i o n s h o u l d a p p e a r w i t h i n a n o r d i n a r y l i n g u i s t i cch ara c te r iza t ion , un less l ingu is t ics i s conce ived in too res t r ic ted a way .3. Impl ic i t in wha t I have ju s t sa id i s my re lu c ta nc e to acce p t one fu r th erassu m pt io n abou t l ang uag e which i s widespread in s ty l i s t i cs and c r i t i c i sm. Th isis the bel ief that there is a dis t inct dif ference between poet ic or l i terary languageon the one hand and ord ina ry la ngu age on the o ther . Cr i t i cs genera l ly tak e forgran ted some vers in of th i s d i s t inc t ion ; and some l inguis t s have a t tempted todemnstra te i t : we f ind s t rong arguments to this effect in the wri t ings of , forexam ple , J ako bson and M uka rovsky . Bu t t he se a rg um en t s a r e no t emp i r i c a ll ylegi t mate , and they are a ser ious obstacle to a l inguis t ic cr i t ic ism which a t~t em p t s to a l low to l i t e r a tu r e t he eom m un ica t i v e fu l l ne s s t h a t i s a co mm onprop er ty of a l l l ang uag e .

I have g iven some reason s why the appare n t ly s imple ques t ion ~Can l inguis t icsbe appl ied to l i t e ra tu re? ' i s un l ike ly to be sa t i s fac tor i ly ans we red . Becau se Ibe l ieve tha t l inguis t ics ca n very appropr ia te ly and revea l ing ly be appl ied tol i t er a t ur e , I w an t to re-o r ient the issue, in dif ferent te rm s. Th e solut ion is , i tseems to me , to s imply theor ize l i t e ra ture a s l anguage , and to do th i s us ing ther iches t and mos t su i tab le l inguis t ic model .To be adequate to this task, a l inguis t ic model should possess the fol lowingbroad ch ara c te r i s t i c s . I t should be c o m p r e h e n s i v e in acc oun t ing for the who ie

r ang e of d imen s ions of l i ngu is t i c s t ruc tu re , pa r t i cu l a r ly p r ag m a t i c d ime ns ions .I t should be capable of providing an account of the f u n c t i o n s of given l ing uis t icc o n s t r u c t i o n s (in r e a l t e x t s ) , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e th o u g h t - s h a p i n g ( H a l l i d a y ' s" idea t iona l ' ) funct ion. I t should ackn ow ledge the s o c i a l basis of the formation ofm ea nin gs (H al l iday ' s " soc ia l semio t ic ' )(5 ] .The r equ i s i t e l i ngu i s t i c s fo r ou r pu rpose un l ike mos t o the r , a r t i f i c i a l l yres tr ic ted , forms of l ing uis t ic s , should a im to be com pre hen sive in offer ing acom ple te accou nt of l angu age s t r uc tur e and usage a t a ll l ev is : sem ant ie s , th eorg aniza t ion of m ean ing s wi th in a l ang uag e ; syn tax , the p rocesses and ord er in gswhich a r ra ng e s ign s in to the sen tenc es of a l angu age ; phonology and pho ne t ics ,respec t ive ly the c lass i f ica t ion and order ing , and the ac tua l a r t i cu la t ion , o f thes o u n d s of s p e e c h ; t e x t - g r a m m a r , t h e s e q u e n c i n g of s e n t e n c e s in c o h e r e n tex t ended d is cou r se ; and p ragm a t i c s , t he conv en t iona l r e l a t i on sh ip s be tw eenl inguis t ic cons t ruc t ions and the users and uses o f l anguage .P ra gm at ic s is a pa r t of l ingu is t ics which is s t i l l very m uch subject to de ba te a ndde ve lop m en t[6 | , bu t it i s c lear th at i t includ es roug hly the following topics : thein te rpersona l and soc ia l ac t s tha t speakers per form by speak ing and wr i t ing ;thus , the s t ructure of not only conversat ion but a lso of a l ! o ther sor ts of l inguis t icc o m m u n i c a t i o n a s i n t e r a c t i o n ; the d iverse re la t ion sh ip s be tween lang uag e useand i t s d i f fe ren t types of con tex t ; pa r t ic u la r ly t he re la t io ns h i ps w i th so c ia lcontex ts and the h i s to r ica l deve lopment ; fundamenta l ly , the sys tems of sharedk n o w l e d g e w i t h i n c o m m u n i t i e s ; a n d b e t w e e n s p e a k e r s w h i c h m a k e c o m m unic a t ion poss ib le - th i s i s wh ere pra gm at ics and sema nt ies over lap . In var iou s84


5/10

w rit in gs I hav e s t res scd the need in l inguis t ic cr i t ic is m lo men d the ne glect of thein t e r ac t i ona l f a c i s o f Mi t e r a ry ' t ex t s : t he rhe to r i ca l r e l a t i onsh ip s be tweenadd ress or and ad dres see , the dynam ics of cons t ruc t ion of f i ct iona l ch ara c te rs ,and the soc io l inguis t ic re la t ionsh ips be tween the producers and consumers o fl i t e ra t ur e [7 | . Th e second s t ran d of p ra gm at ics , concern ing l inguis t ic s t ru c tu rean d sys tem s of kno wled ge, wil l enr ich l ing uis t ic cr i t ic ism even m ore, and b r in g i tin to pos i t ive co l labora t ion w i th l i t e ra ry c r i t i c i sm.A " func t iona l" mode l of l an gu ag e w ork so .n t he p r e m ise t h a t l i ng u i s t i cs t ruc tures a re no t a rb i t ra ry , or , a s Chomsky c la ims , b road ly cons t ra ined byun iv e r sa l p rope r t i e s of Mind . Ra the r , pa r t i c u l a r langu age s t ruc tu re s a s sum edthe forms they do in response to the communicat ive uses to which they are put ,wi th in a speech com m uni ty . Mal l iday proposes th ree ca tegor ies of ~ function':idea t iona l , in te rp erso na l , and tex tu a l . The idea t iona l func tion i s a key conceptin l inguis t ic c r i ti c i sm . The exper ience of ind iv idu is , and , a round them , the i rcom m un i t ies , i s encoded in the langua ge th ey us e as se t s of ide as ; and theide at io nal wil l d if fer as the do m ina nt ideas of sp ea ke rs differ. A s imp le ex am plewould be the operat ional concepts of a sc ience, coded for the re levant speakers ina technical terminology; for these speakers , the terminology is one par t of thel inguis t ic organizat ion of their exper ience: though this is a specia l ized par t of theidea t io na l , a t echnica l t e rminology is on ly an obviou s ins tan ce of a ge ne ra lp r i n c i p i e , n a m e l y t h a t l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e , i n i t s i d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n , i scon s t i tu t ive of a speak er ' s exper ience of rea l i ty .And of a com m uni ty ' s expe r i enc e ; t h i s i s w ha t - s o c i a l s e m i o t i c ' m e a n s .Al th oug h , undou bted ly , some of the me anin gs encoded in langua ge a re na tur a lin or igin , ref lecng the kind of organism we are (e . g . basic colour , shape andd i r ec t ion t e rms ) | 8 ] , mos t me an ings a r e soci al : t he dom ina n t p r eo ccu pa t io ns ,theo r ies o r ideo log ies of a com m uni ty a r e coded in i t s l ang ua ge , so tha t th esem an t ic s t ru c tu re i s a map of the com m uni ty ' s knowledge and i ts o rgan iza t ion .A n i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t of t h i s p r i n c i p i e f o l lo w s fr om t h e f a c t t h a tco m m un i t ies a re ideolog iea liy d iverse : the ex is tence of complex and com pet ings e t s of i d e a s g i v e s r i s e t o d i v e r s e s t y l e , r e g i s t e r s o r v a r i e t i e s c a r r y i n gsemio t icay d i s t inc t vers ions of rea l i ty accord ing to the d i s t inc t v iews of in d iv idu is and of sub-c om m uni t ies . For the c r i t i cs , th i s is l inguis t ic supp or t fo rthe t rad i t ion a l ass um pt ion ( formula ted by Leo Spi tze r bu t impl ic i t much mo rewidely) that a s tyle embodies a view of the world . The advanee in I la l i iday 's andmy formu lat ion is th at the ava i lab i l i ty of a formal m ethod of l ing uis t ic an aly sisfc i l i t a tes the unpick in g of re la t ion sh ip s be tween s ty le and the repre sen ta t io n ofexpe r i ence .I want now to look at a textual example; for economy of exposit ion, a veryfam i l ia r pas sage . Th is wi ll no t ~prove the th eo ry , ' bu t i t wi l l su gg es t th ed i rec t ions in which th i s theory of l ang uag e might t ak e us . The ex t r ac t i s theo p e n i n g o f W i l l i a m F a u l k n e r ' s T h e S o u n d a n d t h e F u r y , a f am i l i a r b u ts t r iking example of the way in which language s t ructure gives form to a view ofthe wor ld :

Th rou gh the f'ence, betw een th e cur l ing f lower spa ces, I couid see the m h it t in g. They we recom mg tow ard s wh ere the f iag wat ; and I wen t a long the fence . Lus ter was hun t ing in the gra ss

85


6/10

by the flower tree. They Look the flag out, and they were hitting. Then Lhey put the flag back andthey went . to the tabl e , and he hi t and th e oth er hi t . Then they w en t on, and the y we nt a long t he(erice. Luster caine away f 'rom the flower tree and we went along the f 'ence and they stopped andwe s topped and I looked through the f 'ence while Luster was hunt ing n the grass .

' Mere, caddie ." He hi t . They w ent across the pa stu re . I held to the f 'ence and w atche d th em go in ga w a y .

Lis ten a t you , now, ' l .us te r sa id . 'A in ' t you someth ing , th i i ty - th ree years o d , go ing on tha tw a y . A l l e r 1 done went a ll the way to town to buy you th a t cake . Hu sh up th a t mo ann g . Ain ' tyou going to help me f ind that quarter so 1 can go to the show to nig ht? '

They we re hi t t in g l i t t le , acro ss the pa stu re . I we nt back along the f'ence to wh ere the f lag wa s.I t f lapped on the br ight grass and t rees .

The character Vom whose poinlof view this par of the narrave is to ld is Benjy,a 33-year-old ma n with the mind of a you ng chi ld . I t i s obvious th at F au lk ne rhas des igned th i s l anguage to sugges t the l imi ta t ions o f Benjy ' s g rasp of thewor ld a roun d h im . Bul how does the read er a r r i ve a t th i s a lm os t ins t inc t iverea l iza l io n? Th ere a re some l inguis t ic c lues , and these a re very sugges t ive , bu tby themselves they do not answer the quest ion of how we give the passage thein te rpre ta t io n I have ass igned to it .

S ta r t in g wi th the langua ge : a l tho ugh i t is dev ian t , i t i s no t d i s in tegra ted in ahapha / .a rd fash ion , bu t sys temat ica l ly pa t te rned in ce r ta in reas o f s t ruc ture .Two obse rva t ion s a re re levan t here . F i r s t , r ando m deviance or se l f -cons i s ten tdeviance were opt ions for Faulkner ; they could be considered different models ofm enta l defic iency . Second , ce r ta in types of s t ru c tu re , th ro ugh re pe t io n , a re" foregrounded ' (a p rocess well known to s ty l i s t i c ians ) : fo regro und ing im pl ie sperce p tua l sa l ience for reade rs , a po in te r to re as o fs ign i f icance .

Most s t r iking is a consis tent oddi ty in what l inguis ts cal i t rans i t iv i ty : th el inguis t ic s t ru c tu r in g of ac t ions and events . In th i s passa ge ther e a re a lmo s t not r ans i t i v o ve rbs ; i n s tead a p r eponde rance of i n t r an s i t i ve s Cco m ing , ' 'w en t , '" hun t ing ,1 etc .) and one t ransi t ive ('hit') used repeatedly without an object as if i twe re intra ns i t iv e . I t i s implied th at Benjy has l i t t le sens e of act ion s and the ireffeets on objects: a restricted notion of causation.Second, Benjy ha s no a m es for cer ta in concep ts which are c ruc ia l to hi sun de rs ta nd ing of wh at he i s wi tness ing . In ce r ta in cases the word i s supressed

ent i re ly : no tab ly , the word 'golf; in o thers he uses c i rcumlocut ions to des gna teobjects for which he lacks a term: "the curling flower spaces, ' "wherc the flagwas , ' " the f lower t re e . ' Th e imp licat ion of th is is th at he has com man d of only apa rt of his society 's classification of objects.Th i rd , he u se s pe sona l p ronouns i n an odd way - l ook a t t he s equence" them . . . t hey . . .They . . . t hey . . . t hey . . . he . . . t he o th e r . . . ' Me use s t he se p ro no un swi th out iden t i fy ing who he i s re f e r r in g to and w i th l i t t l e va r ia t io n in th epronou n forms them se lve s . I t i s sugges ted by th i s tha t Benjy does no t ap prec ia tew ha t is need ed if one wishe s to specify to an ot he r per son an object which one

know s ab ou t bu t the oth er person does not . Th is would obviously be a se ver ee o m m u n i c a t i v e h a n d i c a p .Forth , there is a problem with Benjy 's d e i c t i c terms: the words used to point toand or ie nt objects and act ions . Th ere are plenty of these deic t ics in the pas sage :

86


7/10

'Th rou gh . . .be tw een . . . com ing toward wh ere . . .went a long. . .' e tc . Bu l these wordsdo not add up to a consistent and comprehensible picture of the posi t ions andmovements of Benjy himself, his companion Luster , and the golfers whom theya r e w a t c h i n g . T r y d r a w i n g d i a g r a m s of t h e s e q u e n c e of p o s i t i o n s a n dm ov em en ts. Benjy is l iteral ly dis orien ted, with l i t t le sens e of his locat ion and ofo th e r s ' r e l a t ionsh ips w i th h im w i th in a con te x t . Th e de ic t i c inc ons i s t enc yproduces, for the reader , a sense of incoherence in the narrat ing, a feel ing ofbeing in the presence of a s torytel ler whose perceptions are disjointed.

In each of th e above four pa ra gr ap hs I hav e f irst no ted a re cu rr en t l ing uis t iccons t ruc t ion , and then added an in t e rp re t a t ive com m ent . The ques t ion a r i se s(or ou gh t to!) of w ha t is the au tho ri ty for the se com m ent s. Let us be clea r th atthe re a re no m im et i c cons ide ra t ions invo lved , and no ques t ion o f ob jec t ivecr i te r ia for d el i ty of rep rese nta t ion: w hat reader could say I recognise th is asan ac cu ra te ren de r in g of the s tory- te l l ing s ty le of a person w i th such-and-such acogni t ive d isabi l i ty '? and wouldn ' t th is response anyway miss the point tha tlan gu age cons t ruc ts f ic t ions , ra th er than models rea l i ty? Bu t i t m ight be argu ed,on the * f ic t ion-cons t ruc t ing ' premise , tha t what happens here i s prec ise ly tha tthe speci f ic language of th is text somehow crea tes Benjy ' s consc iousness a bin i t io . Th is k ind of a rg um en t , common in l i te rary cr i t ic i sm, has never seemed tome very plausible; s ince l inguist ic forms come to the wri ter already loaded withsignif icances, i t is unl ikely that words and sentences could be used to crate newm ean ing s au tonom ous ly in a pa r t i cu la r t ex t . I t i s p ro bab le , t h en , t h a t t hes igni f icances here are convent ional , but having sa id tha t i t i s necessary to def inemore prec ise ly what i s going on in the in terac t ion be tween text , reader , andcu l tu re . At th is s tage of rese arch , I cann ot be absolu te ly exact , bu t can indca tesomething of the complexity of the processes.

Fun c t iona l g r am m ar m a in ta in s tha t l i ngu i s ti c con s t ruc t ion s a r e se l ec tedaccord ing to the com m unic a t ive purposes tha t they serve . I t can be assu me d th a tthe to ta l l i ngu i s ti c r e sources ava i l ab le to a speak er have been cu m ula t iv e lyformed by the com m un icat ive prac t ices of the society into which s/he is born , andthe n by the prac t ices in which s /he par t ic ipa tes du r ing socia l iza t ion . On th istheory, an explanat ion of my phrase " loaded with s ignif icances ' above would beth a t the l inguis t ic uni t s and s t ruc tur es avai lab le to an individual s igni fy theassociated funct ions: e . g. the word 'photosynthesis , ' in addit ion to i ts dict ionarym ea ni ng of a ce rta in bota nical l ife-process has the associa t ion of a scie nt if icregister of language; "once upon a t ime' s ignif ies narrat ive for chi ldren; and soon. If i t we re as s imple as thi s , each ind ividu al would possess, in add it ion toh i s / h e r s e m a n t i c a n d s y n t a c t i c a n d p h o n o l o g i c a l c o m p e t e n c e , a k i n d o f"pragmat ic d ic t ionary ' in which the communica t ive and socia l s igni f icancies offorms were rel iab ly s tored. Th is would, of cou rse, differ from in di vi du al toindividual depending on the i r communica t ive ro les wi th in socie ty , but wi th verys u b s t a n t i a l o v e r la p .The catch with this model is that l inguist ic forms may be pragmatical ly, as wella s sem ant i ca l ly , am biguou s . Th ere is no t an inva r i an t r e l a t ionsh ip be tw eenform and funct ion. So the lingu ist ic cr i t ic , l ike the ord ina ry re ad er or hea re r ,cann o t jus t r ecogn ise the l ingu i s t i c s t ru c t u re and co nsu l t ing h i s p ra gm at i ecom petenc e , ass ign a s igni ficance to i t. A mo re re a l i s t i c v iew of l in gu is t ic

87


8/10


9/10

mo dels of dev ian t pe rson a l i t i es i s a ques t ion in h i s to r ica l soc io l inguis t ics andpr ag m at i cs w hich I am not com peten ! to ans we r wi thou t a g rea t dea l of rese arch .Bu t the res ea rch would be a kind of his to r ical cr i t ic ism of discou rse and va le s .Cr i t i cs may f ind i t comfor t ing th a t such research i s com pat ib le wi th the p res en tthe ory of lan gu ag e - thoug h of cou rse not with pre viou s formalis t c oncep t ions ofl inguis t ics s ty l i s t i cs .Le t m e add a br ief peda gogica l and method ological conclusin. T he theor y ofl i t e r a tu r e a s l anguag e a s I have a r t i cu l a t ed i t is cong ru en t w i th t he e l em en ta r yobserva t ions tha t s tudents ' c r i t i ca l pe r formance , ab i l i ty to N read ' in the sense ofrea l i s ing tex t as s ign i f ican t d i scourse , i s ve ry much dependent on how much andw ha t they hav e read . Becau se read ing and c r i t i c i sm depend on know ledge ofd iscourse , no t ab i l i ty to d i ssec t t ex t s t ruc tura l ly , i t should no t be expec ted tha ttea ch ing formal l ingu is t ic ana lys i s to beg inn in g l i t e ra tur e s tud en ts wil l in it se l fp roduce any gr ea t advan ce in c r i t i ca l ap t i tu de . How ever , l ingu is t ics of the k indind ica ted in th i s paper , wi th soc io l inguis t ics , d i scourse ana lys i s and pragmat ics ,in the con text of a l i t er a t ur e course of dec ent len gth - in our case thre e yea rs- isve ry e ff ec t ive . I n t h i s t ype o f cou r se s tu de n t s m a t u re g r ad ua l ly i n t h e i rcommand of modes of l i t e ra ry d i scourse , s imul taneous ly ga in ing a theore t ica lknow ledge of l ang uag e and i t s use , and an ana ly t ic method and te rmino logy wi thwh ich t o de sc r ibe t he r e l a t i on sh ip s be twe en l i ngu i s t i c s t ru c t u r e s and th e i rfunct ions in v l i t e ra r y ' d i scourse s . F ina l ly , s ince d i scourse knowledge is fo rmedfor the individual in s o c i a l s t ru c tu re , th i s appro ach i s bes t t aug ht and d i scussedi n s e m i n a r g r o u p s r a t h e r t h a n l e c t u r e s a n d t u t o r i a l s : t h u s e x p e r i e n c e o fd iscourse can be shared .Under ly ing th i s comments on l inguis t ic c r i t i c i sm in l i t e ra ry educa t ion a re myan sw ers to some bas ic methodolog ica l -o r meta -m ethodolog ica l - ques t ion s w hichwe re imp l ic i t in my opening d i scuss ion . These have to do wi th wh ethe r l inguis t icc r i t i c i sm i s o b j e c t i v e . The l i ngu i s t i c de sc r ip t i on of s t ru c t u r e s i n t ex t s i sce r ta in ly ob jec tive , pa r t icu la r ly a t the lev is of syn tax and phonology ( sem ant icdescr ip t ion produces less ag ree m en t am ong l inguis t s . ) But i t is c lea r tha t theas si gn m en t of funct ions or s ignif icances is not an object ive process , becau se of thenoted lack of co -va r ia t i on of fo rm and func t ion . T his does no t me an th a ti n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a pu re ly sub j ec t i ve , i nd iv id ua l p r ac t i c e (a de sp e ra t e an danarch ic pos i t ion in to which those c r i t i cs who s t ress the pr imacy of ind iv idua lexpe r ience a rg e them se lves . ) Cr i t i c i sm is an i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e prac t ice . Thesignif ican ces which an ind ividu al cr i t ic ass ign s are the product of socia l con-s t i t u t i on ; cu l t u r a l mean ings coded in t he d i s cou r se s i n wh ich t he c r i t i c i scom peten t . I t i s un de rs ta nd ab le , then , tha t c r i t ica l in te rp re ta t ion is a m at t e r ofpubl ic d i scuss ion and deba te ; l inguis t ic descr ip t ion , a l lowing c lea r descr ip t ions ofs t r uc tu re s and a theory of soc ia l sem io t ic , i s o f fu nd am en ta l im po r ta nc e inen su r in g a c lea r g ras p of the ob jec t ive and in te rsub jec t ive e l em en ts o f t ex t sunde r d i s cus s ion .

89


10/10

N O T E S

1. Rom n Ja ko bso n , "Conc lud ing S ta te m en t : L ingu is t i c s and Poe t ics , " in T . A . Sebeok , ed . , Sty le inL a n g u a g e (Ca mb r idge , M ass . : M. I .T . Pre ss , 1960) , p . 350 .2 . David Lodge , Language o f F ic t ion (Lundon: Rout ledge an d Keg an Pau l , 1966) , p . 57 .3 . See Roger Fowler , "L inguis t i c s and , and versus , Poe t ics , " J o u r n a l o f L i t e r a r y S e m a n t i e s , 8(1979) , 3 -21 ; "P re l im ina r ies to a Soc io l ingu isl i c s Theory o f L i te r a ry Discourse , " P o e t i c s , 8 (1979) ,5 3 1 - 3 5 6 .4 . L o d g e , o p . cit . , p. ix.5 . For re levan t se lec t ions f rom Hal l iday ' s wr i l ings see G. R . Kress , ed . , H a l l id a y : S y s t e m a n dK u n c t i o n i n L a n g u a g e (London: Oxford Un ivers i ty Pres s , 1976) ; M. A. K . Ha l l iday , L a n g u a g e a sS o c i a l S e m i o t i c s (London: Edw ard Arnold , 1978) .6 . For a rece in t ro duc t ion . see G. N . Leech , P r i n c i p i e s o f P r a g m a t i c s lL o n d o n : L o n g m a n , 1 9 8 3 ) .7 . See R. Fow ler , L i t e r a t u r e a s S o c i a l D i s c o u r s e (London: Batsford, 1981) .8 . See II . I I . Clark and l i . V. Clark, P s y c h o l o g y a n d L a n g u a g e ( N e w Y o r k : I l a r c o u r t , B r a c eJov ano vich , 1977) , ch . 14.9 . M. A. K . Ha l l ida y , "L ingu is t i c Func t ion and Li te ra ry S ty le : An Inqu i ry in to the La ngu age ofW i l l i a m G o l d i n g ' s T h e Inher i tors ," in S . Ch a tm an , ed ., Li terary S ty l e : A Sympos ium (London andNew York : Oxford Un ivers i ty Press , 1971) , pp . 330 -365 .10 . R. Fowler , Lingui s t i c s and the Novel (London: Methuen, 2nd. ed. , 1983) , pp. 101-103.11. B . B e m s t e i n , C l a s s , C o d e s and Contro l (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul , 1971) , 1 ,178-179.

90

fowler - studying literature as language

Documents