The functions language performs in literature, and the influence of linguistics in literature has been one of the most widely discussed issues in literary criticism in recent times. This is as a result of major developments in both literary practice and in the study of language. It is obvious that since the emergence of the symbolist movement of France, literature has been characterised by linguistic innovations which were hitherto unknown in the earlier periods. At present, language used in literature is said to be typically different, difficult and challenging; it has the capabilities to make considerable demands on the reader and even greater demands on the critic (Jefferson and Robey, 1988). These arguments have made it increasingly difficult for contemporary literary critics to ignore the form and functions of language in literary discourses, especially now that linguistic studies have evolved in a direction that has increased, enormously, its explanatory potentials in literary studies.
The reason why the language used in literature, in particular, has assumed such an important role in literary criticism is not because of a change of direction that has taken place in linguistic studies, but is due largely to the special character of the theory of
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
language which, more than any other reason, is said to be responsible for this development. Such notable contributions are said to have been made by Ferdinand de Saussure in his studies about grammar. The implications of Saussure’s works on contemporary linguistic theories are so powerful that their influence on contemporary literary world is not limited to problems of literary language alone, but have aided the evolution of theories about the nature and organisation of literary discourses as a whole, and as aspects of social and cultural life. For instance, Saussure’s concept of ‘The Linguistic Sign’, is said to have created the basis for structuralism both in linguistics, and as a more broadly based movement of thought in which all forms of social and cultural life are seen to be governed by systems of signs which are either linguistic or analogous to those of language.
Another contribution that has brought the use of linguistic insights in literary studies to prominence was a movement that came into existence in the 1920s, called the Linguistic Circle of Prague, which was founded by Vile’m Mathesius (Bolinger, 1968 and Vachek, 1966). The Linguistic circle of Prague was concerned with the phoneme, concentrated on the exploration of meaningful word order and other dynamic aspects of the sentence (Bolinger, 1968). The Prague School unified the Saussurean theory by reformulating a new literary theory within the framework of linguistics which possessed most of the Saussurean and formalist features. These explorations gave birth to the synchronic study of language, a shift in attention to analysis of the simultaneous relationship existing between the units that constitute meaningful structures in language.
Before now, the concentration was on how language develops, which had been the concern of previous studies conducted in language. Saussure was, however, concerned with both diachronic and synchronic analysis of language. His analysis of language suggested that, the diachronic study of language should not be ignored but rather be mixed with the synchronic surveys for a true and thorough understanding of the concept of language. With these developments, linguists and literary critics became more interested in trying to unravel the mechanism of language, and the implications of these on the social and cultural life.
Furthermore, the emergence of formalism, a literary movement in the 1920s, contributed immensely to the debates about the existence of literary language. This movement, which was spearheaded by unorthodox philologists and students of literature such as Roman Jakobson (a member of Linguistic circle of Prague, whose theory of
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
distinctive features of language became popular in linguistics studies at that period), B.
Eichenbaum, Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Thomashevsky, and T. Tynyanov, emphasise a total refit of language of literature as a unique form of discourse, that is characterised by the prominence placed on the medium or perceptibility of the mode of expression. Thus, for the formalist, there exists a language of literature which is not simply a vehicle of communication but a unique form of expression. It is regarded as such in the sense that, the language of literature possesses a distinctive expressive quality that separates it from ordinary everyday language. The formalists observe that, manner in which language functions in literature is such that what may seem as a mere proxy for an object in ordinary language acquires a different linguistic quality and interpretation in the literary environment. Apparently, linguistic elements in literary discourses are, therefore, considered to be autonomous of ordinary everyday language use, and the lexical items, in this respect, are considered as multiple devices at the writer’s disposal to craft a texture for his discourse. The formalists consider language used in literary discourses as been more or less arbitrary assemblage of linguistic devices, and that, the literary language works neither as a vehicle for ideas, a reflection of social reality nor the incarnation of some transcendental truth, but as a mechanism whose functioning could be analysed rather as one could examine a machine (Eagleton, 1983).
These efforts by the formalists were aimed at justifying the independence of literary studies and the transformation of students of literature into something more than second rate ethnographers, historians or philosophers. This was not a simple task; it was not just a matter of accepting one approach in preference to another, but defining the nature of the object to be studied. These attempts provided inspirations that led to identification and differentiation of the language used in literature from other discourses.
These studies have made it clear that out of the many complex sounds that are uttered or written and interpreted by human beings, a large estimate of these communicative elements are said to encode linguistic qualities with lexico-grammatical and semantic properties that align their consideration as literary discourses. These peculiar linguistic elements laced with literary features are then differentiated from the enormous casual communicative events by some literary filtering devices or set rules developed as techniques to filter literary discourses from ordinary communicative events. These sieved literary utterances are then considered as permanent linguistic stock preserved for use in the linguistic networks of texts; apparently becoming linguistic elements in the literary
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
tradition of the genre with which such features are associated. These lexico-grammatical elements used in literature are accorded peculiar functions as literary convention of a particular genre of literature which differentiates it from the linguistic system of other literary traditions. What the above argument postulates is the fact that, each genre of literature uses peculiar linguistic system that distinguishes it from the language of other genres.
In their contribution to arguments in support of the existence and the character possessed by literary language, Jefferson and Robey (1988) are of the opinion that, just like in an ordinary communicative situation in which a speaker transmits a message to a recipient, so does an author send a literary text to the reader. Consequently, the content of each literary message, or text, is about something, which is usually about recreation of a social reality communicated through a medium with explicit linguistic features of such a literary tradition in question. Apparently, the language of literature, therefore, is an especially motivated form that, either written or performed, has a unique way to recreate social realities. Literature therefore uses a unique variety of linguistic elements to construct the text (message), and it is as a result of the nature and quality of the language literature uses that distinguishes linguistic structures in literary discourses from other forms of communicative events. The interest in attempts to sieve literary language from other forms of language use became a primary concern in literary studies with expansions in analysis of language used in various contexts. This awareness was nurtured not just for the sake of delineation, or certification of the status and quality of language in literature, but were considered genuine efforts to unearth the exact character of this brand of language with varied and atypical forms of significations of reality in the sense of its construction of meanings rather than as a mere linguistic items that refers to objects which are taken to be mere proximate social realities.
With these developments it became evident that language, in literary milieus, comes to us in much more varied forms than it does in ordinary everyday speech. The literary discourse uses language in ‘special ways’ to achieve desired literary effects which are absent or not given prominence in other forms of language use. These ‘special ways’
underline the demeanour literary discourses exert on the language it uses. Thus, literary language, as pointed out by Jakobson (1965), is an organised violence committed on the formal structures of ‘ordinary’ language. This implies therefore that, a literary discourse transforms, intensifies and foregrounds known linguistic elements used in ordinary
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
linguistic environment, and systematically deviate these elements as they are known and used in everyday ordinary language settings. It is obvious that, creative writers assemble arbitrary linguistic devices such as sounds, imagery, syntax, meter and rhyme, and immerses these in diverse semantic properties and styles, with other forms of language resources which they appropriate for literary purposes of signifying social realities.
Moreover creative writers’ uses of these devices rather create estrangement and or defamiliarization of language in literary genres (Eagleton, 1983). Thus, a creative writer though using known linguistic elements however makes these to assume distant and unfamiliar linguistic properties in the eyes of his reader who has to read more than once and even apply some other deductive means, in order to understand the writer’s intended message. In effect, the estranging and defamiliarised effects which writers give known linguistic elements are said to be the major features that distinguish language in literature from its use in other forms of the discourse. With literary demands and pressures, ordinary language in literary textures is often condensed, intensified, twisted, telescoped, drawn out, and turned upside down making familiar ordinary situations, objects, and persons to appear strange, extra-ordinary, and laced with unfamiliar semantic features (Gajir, 2008). What literature does with known lexical and grammatical elements is to give them an estranged and intricate linguistic value either in terms of syntactic structure, lexical character, or even their semantic undertones thereby compelling a fresh linguistic appeal and a revitalised response to all the features of such lexical and grammatical items. This situation renders the perception of literary-recreated social facets in a more perceptible and at a different angle of linguistic consciousness. The brand of language used in literature therefore does not only renew, but ushers a different perception of linguistic items and the quality of their functions and mode of operations in literary communicative situations. This is the reason why the language used in literature is said to estrange known lexical and grammatical items from their pure linguistic associations; and in doing so, ironically, bring readers into a fuller and more intimate possession and experience of world view.
In the same way, contemporary studies about language of literature (Fairclough, 1998; Locke, 2004; Bloor and Bloor, 2004; Dada, 2004; Osundare, 2008) have exhaustively analysed the various propositions about the existence of language of literature. With these current attempts, language in literature is now considered as not just mere defamiliar linguistic signals but as distinctive structural systems and networks of
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
sequential relations as it explicates socio-cultural practices. Fairclough (1998) argues further that the language of literature connects with the socio-cultural practice by illuminating a linguistic network that ferments in its system concerns for ideology;
through being both a site of, and stake in the struggle for power. Apparently, language used in literary discourses is therefore considered as forms of social indices that focus on the re-enactment of various aspects of social life such as political domination, inequality, gender and social solidarity, which are reproduced in the texture of texts (Fairclough, 1992; Locke, 2004). This suggestion is further strengthened by the fact that, in addition to making us see reality in exceptional linguistic shapes and sizes, the various lexical and grammatical elements used by literary language are said to have an astounding structure and with the most powerful discursive properties of making us take sides or change our perception of these events as it pleases us (Bolinger, 1968). This situation is made possible due largely to the fact that literature uses diverse linguistic networks to code various spheres of our socio-cultural realities.
Another dimension to the above argument that supports the existence of the language of literature as an instance that uniquely reconstructs socio-cultural practices is offered by Paltridge (2006). He is of the opinion that the meaning of a literary text would become clearer by first accepting the fact that language is contextually determined.
Accordingly, the context of situation in which a linguistic event emanates is very crucial in understanding the interpretation of the meaning given to such a lexico-grammatical item in literary texts. Paltridge (2006) identifies the physical, social, and mental worlds and the various roles of the people involved in the communicative events as part of the backgrounds that constitute a milieu for a linguistic context. This argument seems to confirm not only the existence of literary language but the determinant feature, especially the fact that the meanings arising from the use of the various lexical and grammatical elements in linguistic networks are determined by contextual variables. Thomas (1995) substantiates further that, meaning is not something that is inherent in the words alone, nor is produced by the speaker or the hearer alone; but rather a blend of these features with the context of situation acting as a background that warrants and shapes these utterances. This argument implies that meaning of literary discourses is a dynamic process, involving a negotiation between the speaker and the hearer, on the one hand, and the context of the utterance (physical, social and linguistic), and the meaning potential of the utterance, on the other hand.
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
In support of the above argument, Paltridge (2006), Thomas (1995), and Jaworski and Coupland (1999) insist that, meaning is produced as a result of the interaction of so many variables, and it is instigated by both the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader and then by contextual variables. What is of interest in the above arguments is not just its concern about the meaning of an utterance per se, but its projection of the fact that, there exists a context in which language flourishes; and the language of literature survives and hydrates within a given context.
Critical Discourse Analysts, like Fairclough (1995), consider literary discourses as texts which are written in a language instigated by context of situation. Apparently, in spite of the contemporary multi-semiotic nature of literary discourses, the literary texts whose primary semiotic form is language increasingly combine these known language elements with other semiotic forms in the context of situation to produce a linguistic code with unique features, and which is best understood as a literary means. The perspective about literary language, in this regard, extends to include not only the defamiliarization of the lexical and grammatical elements in literary texts but the enclosure of contextual variables in the estrangement and sometimes even the addition of further semantic trappings of such elements in the textual networks of literary discourses. This implies that a combination of lexico-grammatical and paralinguistic’s elements, which are influenced by contextual variables, thematic preoccupations and the writer’s style, shapes the texture of literary genres.
The above arguments project the fact that in literary discourses known linguistic elements, formal grammatical structures and paralinguistic constituents are laced with contextual factors, and then abstracted and ascribed as lexical and grammatical items used in the literary domain. With these estrangements of language in literary genres, the uses of such lexical and grammatical elements in literary discourses for the reconstruction of social realities facilitate linguistic associations that distanced these elements from other instances of their use in communicative acts. Consequently, given the nexus in the relationship between literary discourses and contexts in which they flourished the emerging lexical and grammatical items are inflamed by multifarious contextual variables.
Apparently, the language of literature comes to us in diverse forms depending not only on the genre in question, but also as a result of the personality and linguistic repertoire of the constructor of such a literary text, and then the situational context in
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
which the literary text is produced. It is worthy to note that, personal idiosyncrasies and linguistic repertoire which constitute the style of writing are again often determined by contextual variables. However, from whatever stature these arguments might take, the fact still remains that the language of literature is also influenced by context. Moreover as a contextual dependent variable, it is substantially prone to the personality of the writer whose views about the world shape the various discourse strategies which he deploy language to do in literary discourses. Therefore, the writer’s personality, his thematic preoccupation and the context in which he operates ignite a peculiar use of language which propels a discursive character that pilots the conception of the various styles with which he uses to re-create the socio-realities; these prevalence’s are very important parameters that influence the textual qualities of literary texts.